[the residue of] the inner [offerings] on the outer [altar], and [that of] the outer [offerings] on the inner [altar]; (1) surely the inner altar had no base! (2) ‘Yet perhaps that is not so; rather [it intimates]: let there be a base to the altar of burnt-offering! But is it written, ‘at the base of the burnt-offering’? surely it is written, ‘at the base of the altar of burnt-offering!’ (3) — If ‘at the base of the burnt-offering’ were written, I would say [that it means] on the vertical [wall] of the base; (4) now that it is written, at the base of the altar of burnt-offering, it denotes on the roof [top] of the base. (5) [Thereupon] R. Ishmael said: For the roof of the base, why do I need a text? [this would follow] a fortiori: if the residue [of the blood of the sin-offering], which does not make atonement, requires the roof; then the sprinkling itself of [the blood of] the burntoffering, which makes atonement, is it not logical that it requires the roof [of the base]? Said R. Akiba: If the residue [of the blood of the sin-offering], which does not make atonement and does not come for atonement, requires the roof of the base, is it not logical that the sprinkling itself of [the blood of] the burnt-offering, which makes atonement and comes for atonement, requires the roof of the altar? If so, why does Scripture state, ‘at the base of the altar of burnt-offering’? To teach: apply [the laws of] the base to the altar of burnt-offering. Wherein do they differ? (6) — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: They disagree as to whether [the pouring out of] the residue is indispensable. One master holds: It is indispensable, while the other master holds: It is not indispensable. (7) R. Papa said: All agree that the residue is not indispensable, but here they disagree as to whether the draining out of [the blood of] the bird sinoffering is indispensable or not: (8) one master holds that it is indispensable, while the other master holds that it is not indispensable. It was taught in accordance with R. Papa: And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out at the base of the altar: (9) Why is ‘the bullock’ stated? (10) It teaches that the Day of Atonement bullock must have its blood poured out at the base: (11) that is the view of R. Akiba. (12) Said R. Ishmael: [This is inferred] a fortiori: if that whose blood does not enter within as a statutory obligation (13) needs the base, that whose blood enters within as a statutory obligation, (14) is it not logical that it needs the base? Said R. Akiba: If that whose blood does not enter the innermost sanctuary (15) either as a statutory obligation or as a regulation needs the base, that whose blood enters the innermost sanctuary as a statutory obligation, is it not logical that it needs the base? You might think that it is indispensable for it: (16) therefore it states, And he shall make an end of atoning, (17) which teaches, All the atoning services are [now] complete: (18) these are the words of R. Ishmael. Now an a fortiori argument can be made in respect of the anointed priest's bullock: If that whose blood does not enter within either as a statutory obligation or, as a regulation, (19) needs the base; that whose blood enters within both as a statutory obligation and as a regulation, (20) is it not logical that it needs the base? (21) You might think that it is indispensable for it; therefore Scripture says, ‘And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out’: the Writ transmutes it into the remainder of a precept (22) to teach you that [the pouring out of] the residue is not indispensable. (23) Now, does R. Ishmael hold that the draining of [the blood of] the bird sin-offering is indispensable? Surely the school of R. Ishmael taught: ‘And the rest of the blood shall be drained out’: that which is left must be drained out,

---

(1). ↑ I.e., the residue of the blood of the inner sinofferings is to be poured out at the base of the outer altar, and vice versa.
(2). ↑ Hence it must be interpreted as stated.
(3). ↑ If it intimated that the sprinkling itself must be performed on that part of the altar which has a base (v. p. 259, n. 4). It could not refer to sinofferings, whose blood was sprinkled on all the horns of the altar, including the south-east. Hence it would have to refer to the burnt-offering alone; but in that case Scripture should write, at the base of the burnt-offering, which would intimate that the blood of the burnt-offering must be sprinkled over against the base. The word ‘altar’ then becomes redundant.
(4). ↑ The base was a cubit high, the altar then being recessed one cubit; thus the base had a vertical wall of a cubit, and a top surface (roof) of a cubit.
(5). ↑ Which is hard by the altar itself.
(6). ↑ R. Ishmael and R. Akiba.
(7). ↑ R. Akiba holds the latter view; hence he emphasizes that it does not come for atonement.
(8). ↑ V. Lev. V, 9: and the rest of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar.
(9). ↑ Lev. IV, 7. The text refers to the anointed priest's sin-offering.
(10). ↑ It is apparently superfluous, since the whole passage deals with it.
(11). ↑ ‘The bullock’, being superfluous, extends this law to another bullock.
(12). ↑ Emended text. Cur. edd. Rabbi.
(13). ↑ Sc. the anointed priest's bullock of sinoffering. Its blood is sprinkled on the inner altar, where it is sacrificed, but there is no statutory obligation for the offering at all, as he need not have sinned.
(14). ↑ The Day of Atonement bullock is a statutory offering, whether the High Priest had sinned or not.
(15). ↑ The Holy of Holies.
(16). ↑ Sc. the pouring out of the blood of the Day of Atonement bullock at the base.
(17). ↑ Lev. XVI, 20.
(18). ↑ I.e., all the services indispensable to atonement have by now been enumerated, and the pouring out of the blood at the base is not one of them.
(19). ↑ E.g., the blood of the ruler's he-goat or of a common layman's sin-offering: both were slaughtered at the outer altar, and their blood was poured out there.
(20). ↑ Viz., the blood of the anointed priest's bullock. Rashi proposes the deletion of ‘a statutory obligation’, since it has just been stated that it is not one. If it is retained, we must explain that it is called a statutory obligation only by comparison with the blood of other sin-offerings, which does not enter within at all.
(21). ↑ Since it can be inferred thus, the explicit Scriptural law to that effect is apparently superfluous and so might be interpreted as teaching that it is indispensable. Therefore he proceeds to show that it is not indispensable.
(22). ↑ Scripture changed the form of expression here: for the other services (sc. the carrying and sprinkling) are ordered thus: and he shall take... and he shall sprinkle, etc. The different grammatical form in this case shows that this pouring out is, as it were, not an integral part of the rite, but the remaining portion of it, which should be done, yet is not indispensable.
(23). ↑ And since this is given as R. Ishmael's view, it supports R. Papa's thesis supra.