Zevachim 51 – Pouring Out the Remnants of the Blood

All inner sin-offerings have the remnants of their blood poured out on the western base of the Outer Altar. These include the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, the communal-error bull, and the communal-idolatry goat.

What is the reason the Kohen would pour this blood in that particular place, and what is the Torah source for this? The verse states, “And all the remnant of the blood of the bull he shall pour onto the base of the burnt-offering Altar, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” The burnt-offering Altar is the “Outer Altar”, positioned in Temple Courtyard. The “Tent of the Meeting” was designated the inner Hall of the Tabernacle while it traveled in the desert, and then this term was transfered to the Temple Hall.

Which part of the Altar does the Kohen encounter first when he exits the Temple Hall? The western part. Since the rule is that one may not pass up the opportunity to do a mitzva, even in order to do another one, he pours out the blood right there.

Art: Thomas Sidney Cooper - A Bull And Cow, Two Sheep And A Goat

Zevachim 50 – Chains of Rules of Torah Learning?

Of the thirteen rules of learning the Torah, we want to take four, and find out whether they can be combined. The rules are “same aspect,” “same word,” a fortiori logic, and a general rule. There are thus 4 rules and 16 possible combinations of them, and the Talmud considers all 16 to see if they can combine.

Let's look at the “same aspect” rule. If the Torah compared two situations and said, “just as...so is” - then this is the “same aspect” rule, and we can learn the laws of one from the other. However, the “same aspect” derivations cannot be chained. If something is learned by comparison of its aspect to another, it cannot turn around and teach us other laws. Why not? We see this from the following situation: the Torah compared sin offering to burnt offering; it also compared a guilt offering to a sin offering. One would expect that we can make this chain deduction: sin offering is similar to burnt offering, guilt offering is similar to a sin offering, therefore guilt offering is similar to burnt offering. However, Torah explicitly taught the comparison of guilt offering to burnt offering, to teach us that the “same aspect” rules are not transitive.

Art; Pieter the Elder Bruegel - Two Chained Monkeys

Zevachim 49 - Before and After

We already know that the burnt offering should be slaughtered in the North of the Courtyard. But if the Kohen went ahead and slaughtered it in the South, is it valid? In other words, is this requirement "before" or even "after?"

Can we say this: since the sin-offering must be slaughtered in the North, and its laws are learnt from the laws of the burnt offering, then of course the burnt offering must be in the North - for we never find that a derived law is stronger than the basic one!

No, we can't really say it. Take, for example, the second tithe, which may be redeemed for money, but after it was redeemed once, it cannot be redeemed again - which is stronger! - Wrong! The sanctity of second redemption is weaker, not stronger, and that's why it cannot be redeemed.

Another attempt: take the Passover offering, which does not require libations, but if it is brought after Passover, it does require them! So the second time around it is stronger! - Wrong! It simply becomes a peace offering which requires libations.

We have deflected all attacks, but anyway we have a better proof, "in the place of the burnt offering" tells us that the burnt offering should stay in its place.

Art: Pieter the Elder Bruegel - The Slaughter Of The Innocents 1565-66

Zevachim 48 - Why Do Most Holy Sacrifices Require North?

Following most holy sacrifices require slaughter in the northern side of the Courtyard: the bull and he-goat of Yom Kippur; the communal offerings of bull and goat that are completely burnt; the communal and the private sin-offerings; the burnt offering; and the communal peace- and guilt-offerings.

The Torah mentioned the north requirement in connection with the burnt offering. Why did the teacher not list this first? Because this requirement for the sin-offering was derived using the rules of Torah exposition, and as such, it was more beloved to him. The teacher used it to sharpen the minds of his students.

What is this derivation? "In the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered shall the sin-offering be slaughtered."

Art: Jan Steen - The Severe Teacher

Zevachim 47 – Proper Intentions and Proper Places for Sacrifices

A sacrifice should be slaughtered with six intentions in mind: (1) for its own sake – a burnt offering should be intended as a burnt offering and not, for example, a peace offering; (2) that it should bring atonement to the owner of the sacrifice, and not someone else; (3) for the sake of God; (4) that it should be completely burnt on the fire of the Altar; (5) that it should give off the aroma while on the Altar, and not broiled before; (6) for the sake of pleasing God, Who has commanded and it was done. Even if the Kohen did not have any of these intentions in mind, it is still valid, and therefore the Court decreed that the Kohanim should say nothing at all, because they have the power to ruin things.

Now we begin to study the proper places for sacrificial services. All most holy offerings are slaughtered to the north of the Altar. The first ones on this list are the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur service – their slaughter is to the north of the Altar, and their blood should be received in the service vessel to the north of the Altar.

Art: Rudolph Ernst - The Perfume Maker

Zevachim 46 – Exceptions to the Exceptions for the Laws of Rejection

We have learned that the law of rejection is not applicable to some substances. For example, the blood of the sacrifice itself (the "permitter") does not becomes rejected even if the kohen had the wrong, “beyond allotted time,” intent. However, these substances may carry other penalties.

The blood is forbidden to be consumed in any case. Furthermore, one is liable if he eats the substances as “leftovers” or if he eats them while being ritually impure, and for that he still gets the penalty of being cut off from the people. “Leftovers” designate any sacrifice that is eaten beyond its allotted time. Consuming blood is also forbidden under the penalty of being cut off, but one does not get an additional penalty if he eats it as “leftovers” or while being impure.

What is the practical difference? One is “cut off” from Heaven, thus, being “cut off” more than once is left to Heaven to decide. However, if one, for example, eats blood inadvertently, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, and there may be more than one sin-offering, if he commits a transgression bearing multiple penalties.

Art: Henri Matisse - Dinner Table

Zevachim 45 – Non-Jewish Sacrifices in the Temple

Non-Jews too can bring sacrifices in the Temple. More specifically, they can consecrate voluntary offerings or offerings in fulfillment of a personal vow, and bring them to the Temple for sacrifice. This is the derived from the verse “Any man (even an idolater) who will bring his offering for any of their vows, or their voluntary offerings to God for a burn offering...” It is a matter of dispute (which will be discussed 148 days from now) whether they can consecrate only a burnt offering are any voluntary offering, such as peace- or thanksgiving-offering.

However, because most of the offerings laws of sacrifices include the term “sons of Israel”, the non-Jewish are excluded from some stringencies. Thus, if a Kohen, while slaughtering the sacrifice, intends that its meat will be eaten beyond the allotted time, then, even though the sacrifice becomes invalid, eating its meat does not carry the usual penalty of being cut off from the people. The same applies to the leftover meat which was left beyond its time, and to eating it in the state of ritual impurity. These are the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yose, however, holds a person liable to the usually penalty for all these actions.

Art: Jacob Jordaens - Eating Man