but what is not left is not drained out? (1) — There is a controversy of two Tannaim as to R. Ishmael's opinion. Rami b. Hama said: The following Tanna holds that [the pouring out of] the residue is indispensable. For it was taught: [This is the law of the sin-offering...] the priest that offereth it for sin [shall eat it]: (2) [this teaches,] only that [sin-offering] whose blood was sprinkled above [the red line], (3) but not that whose blood was applied below. (4) Say: whence did you come [to this]? (5) From the implication of what is said, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out [. . . and thou shalt eat the flesh], (6) we learn that if [the blood of] those [sacrifices] which need four applications was presented with one application [only], it has made atonement; (7) you might therefore think that also if the blood which should be sprinkled above [the red line] was sprinkled below, it makes atonement. And it is [indeed] logical: Blood is prescribed above, (8) and blood is prescribed below: (9) as the blood which is prescribed below does not atone if it is sprinkled above, (10) so also the blood which is prescribed above does not atone if it is sprinkled below. No: if you say [thus] in the case of the blood which should be sprinkled below, that is because it will not eventually [be applied] above; (11) will you say the same of the blood which should be sprinkled above, seeing that it will eventually [find its way] below? (12) Let the inner blood (13) prove it, which will eventually come without, (14) and yet if he applied it in the first place without, he did not make atonement. No: if you speak of the inner blood, that is because the inner altar does not complete it. (15) Will you say thus of the upper [blood], where the horns complete it? (16) [and] since the horns complete it, if he sprinkled it below, it is fit. (17) Therefore it says, ‘[The priest that offereth] it [for a sinoffering]’: that whose blood was sprinkled above, but not that whose blood was sprinkled below. Now, what is the meaning of ‘because the inner altar does not complete it’? Surely it must refer to the residue [of the blood]! (18) Said Raba to him: If so, you could infer it a minori: if the blood of the inner sacrifices, (19) of which eventually the residue is obligatory without, (20) yet if presented without in the first place, he does not make atonement; then the blood which is to be sprinkled above, and is not eventually obligatory below, (21) is it not logical that if he applied it at the outset below he does not make atonement? (22) — Rather [the meaning is this]: Not the altar alone completes it, but also the veil23. Our Rabbis taught: ‘And he shall make an end of atoning’: if he atoned, he made an end, while if he did not atone, he did not make an end: this is R. Akiba's view. Said R. Judah to him: why should we not interpret: If he made an end, he atoned, while if he did not make an end, he did not atone, which thus intimates that if he omitted one of the sprinklings his service is ineffective? (24) Wherein do they differ? — R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi [disagree]. One maintains: They differ on the mode of interpretation. (25) The other maintains: They differ as to whether the [pouring out of the] residue is indispensable. (26) It may be proved that it was R. Joshua b. Levi who maintained that [the pouring out of] the residue is indispensable. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: On the view that the residue is indispensable he brings another bullock and commences within. (27) But does R. Johanan not hold this view? (28) Surely R. Johanan said: R. Nehemiah taught in accordance with the view that the residue is indispensable? (29) But you must say ‘In accordance with the view’, but not that of these Tannaim. (30) Then here too, (31) ‘on the view’ does not refer to that of these Tannaim. MISHNAH. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SINOFFERINGS (THESE ARE THE PUBLIC SINOFFERINGS: (32) THE HE-GOATS OF NEW MOONS AND FESTIVALS) ARE SLAUGHTERED IN THE NORTH, AND THEIR BLOOD IS RECEIVED IN A SERVICE VESSEL IN THE NORTH, AND THEIR BLOOD REQUIRES FOUR APPLICATIONS ON THE FOUR HORNS. HOW WAS IT DONE?

---

(1). ↑ I.e., all the blood may be used in sprinkling so that nothing is left for draining. Hence draining cannot be essential and indispensable.
(2). ↑ Lev. VI, 18, 19. ‘Offereth it for sin,’ Heb. hamehatte, is understood to mean, who correctly performs all the rites (sprinkling) appertaining to a sin-offering; only then may he eat it.
(3). ↑ As is necessary for a sin-offering, V. p. 48, n. 1.
(4). ↑ The flesh may not be eaten.
(5). ↑ Why would you think that the flesh may be eaten even if the blood was not properly sprinkled, that you need a text to show that it may not?
(6). ↑ Deut. XII, 27.
(7). ↑ Because ‘shall be poured out’ implies a single act.
(8). ↑ Viz., that of an animal sin-offering.
(9). ↑ That of a bird sin-offering; v. infra 64b.
(10). ↑ V. infra 66a.
(11). ↑ Hence when he sprinkles it above he is definitely performing it incorrectly.
(12). ↑ I.e. the residue. Hence when he sprinkles it below the line, he is only applying it where it would eventually come, and so he may make atonement. — Emended text (Sh. M).
(13). ↑ I.e., the blood of the inner sacrifices.
(14). ↑ The residue is poured out at the base of the outer altar. — Emended text.
(15). ↑ After the blood has been sprinkled on the inner altar there still remains an indispensable service to be performed.
(16). ↑ No indispensable rite remains to be performed after the blood was sprinkled on the horns of the altar.
(17). ↑ So we might argue.
(18). ↑ Viz., that its pouring out at the base of the altar is indispensable. This proves Rami b. Hama's assertion.
(19). ↑ I.e., the residue of the blood which is sprinkled on the inner altar.
(20). ↑ On the present hypothesis, and indispensable. The text is emended on the basis of Rashi.
(21). ↑ Though the blood will be poured out below, this is not essential for the efficacy of the sacrifice.
(22). ↑ The sacrifice is invalid, and the flesh may not be eaten. Why then is a Scriptural text necessary? Hence the premise of this argument, that the pouring out of the residue is essential, must be false!
(23). ↑ The blood must be sprinkled on the veil too.
(24). ↑ Lit., ‘he has done nothing’. — For notes v. supra 40a.
(25). ↑ But not in law. Both hold that all the four applications are indispensable, and that the pouring out of the residue is not indispensable. R. Akiba holds that the conclusion (atoning) illumines the beginning (make an end), whence we learn that the completion depends on atonement, i.e., on the four applications. R. Judah however maintains that ‘atoning’ might merely mean a single application, therefore (to avoid this conclusion) the interpretation must be reversed, and the beginning made to illumine the end: only when he quite makes an end, having completed the four applications, does he atone.
(26). ↑ R. Akiba holds that it is not indispensable, and he interprets it thus: if he made atonement, i.e., performed all the rites for atonement as prescribed in that passage, he made an end. Thus the pouring out of the residue, which is not mentioned there, is not essential. R. Judah however interprets: Only when he made an end of all the rites, including those prescribed elsewhere (viz., the pouring out of the residue), did he make atonement.
(27). ↑ If the residue of the blood was spilt after the four applications, another bullock must be slaughtered, and its blood first sprinkled within, and then the residue poured out at the base of the outer altar. But he cannot simply pour out all the blood at the base, for then it is not a residue, whereas a residue is indispensable. — Thus R. Joshua b. Levi holds that there is a view that the pouring out of the residue is indispensable.
(28). ↑ That there is a teacher who maintains that it is indispensable.
(29). ↑ V. supra 42b.
(30). ↑ Viz., R. Akiba and R. Judah.
(31). ↑ In the case of R. Joshua b. Levi.
(32). ↑ Which need special mention here, for several have already been taught in the preceding Mishnah (supra 47a).