1) THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POURING AND SPRINKLING
QUESTION: The Gemara (36b) derives from the verse, "v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" (Devarim 12:27), that if the blood of a Korban which is normally brought on the outer Mizbe'ach is sprinkled only once (even though it is supposed to be sprinkled more), it is valid b'Di'eved.
The Gemara later here derives another law from the same verse. If the blood of a Korban which is supposed to be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach instead is spilled (poured) onto the Mizbe'ach, it is valid b'Di'eved.
The Gemara asks, how can the same verse be used to teach two laws?
The Gemara's question is difficult to understand. RASHI (36b, DH Yishafech) explains that the verse's implication that one sprinkling suffices b'Di'eved is understood from the absence of the word "Saviv" (which normally implies the requirement to perform "two sprinklings which are four") in the verse. Accordingly, the derivation is not from "Yishafech" but from the absence of "Saviv." Why, then, does the Gemara ask (in more than one place here) how can two laws be derived from one verse ("Yishafech")? Two laws are not being derived from one verse!
ANSWERS:
(a) The TAHARAS HA'KODESH answers that the Gemara's question is as follows. The absence of the word "Saviv" and the word "Yishafech" together imply that only one pouring (and not sprinkling) is valid. However, one still might think that if a single sprinkling is done, the Korban is invalid (unlike the first teaching of the Gemara). Therefore, the Gemara asks that if the word "Yishafech" (together with the absence of "Saviv") is used already for this second derivation, then what is the source for the first derivation, that one sprinkling alone suffices for a Korban that requires sprinkling?
The Taharas ha'Kodesh explains that the Gemara at this point understands that it is logical to derive that one pouring is valid, while one sprinkling should not be valid. This is supported by the example of the Korban Pesach, for which pouring is preferable to sprinkling (see TOSFOS YOM TOV to Pesachim 10:9).
Another reason for why one pouring should be valid while one sprinkling should not be valid may be based on the words of the CHIDUSHEI HA'GRIZ AL HA'RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 2:1-2). The Chidushei ha'Griz understands from the words of the Rambam that all Korbanos that must have sprinkling are valid only b'Di'eved when their blood is poured onto the Mizbe'ach.
However, if "Zerikah bi'Chlal Shefichah" -- "pouring is included in sprinkling," as the Gemara here says, then what is wrong with pouring the blood even l'Chatchilah? Indeed, the requirement of sprinkling the blood of the Korban Pesach is derived from the laws of the Bechor, and yet the Rambam (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 5:17) rules that one may pour the blood of the Korban Pesach even l'Chatchilah. What is the difference between other Korbanos and the Korban Pesach?
The Chidushei ha'Griz answers in the name of RAV CHAIM SOLOVEITCHIK that an act of pouring cannot be divided into various pourings on the different corners of the Mizbe'ach. There can be only one act of pouring done for a Korban. In contrast, sprinkling can be divided into multiple acts of sprinkling.
The Rambam maintains that pouring is b'Di'eved when the Torah prescribes more than one sprinkling, since the multiple sprinklings cannot be done through pouring. The Korban Pesach, which needs only one sprinkling, is valid through pouring even l'Chatchilah, since one pouring is like one sprinkling. According to this logic, it is obvious that when the verse teaches that a Korban is valid when one pouring is done, there is no reason to assume that the Korban is valid when one sprinkling is done. (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. MONTROSE)
37b----------------------------------------37b
2) THE NEED FOR A VERSE TO TEACH THAT KORBANOS ARE VALID WITH ONLY ONE SPRINKLING
QUESTION: The Gemara says that according to Beis Hillel, the verse of "v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" (Devarim 12:27) is not needed to teach that Korbanos that require multiple sprinklings are valid when only one is done. Since Beis Hillel maintains that a Korban Chatas is valid b'Di'eved when only one sprinkling is done, all other Korbanos are derived from Korban Chatas.
TOSFOS (36b, DH Minayin) asks that if this is correct, the discussion of the Gemara earlier (36b-37a), which assumes that a verse is necessary to teach that a Korban is valid when only one sprinkling is done, follows only the opinion of Beis Shamai. Moreover, the Beraisa -- which asks for the source for this law and does not answer that it is derived from the Korban Chatas -- follow the view of Beis Shamai. This is problematic, because the Gemara usually does not get involved in discussions about the view of Beis Shamai, unless the Halachah follows his view. Does the Gemara and Beraisa indeed follow the view of Beis Shamai?
ANSWERS:
(a) TOSFOS answers that the Gemara must follow the view of Beis Hillel. He explains that the word "Saviv" might mean that the multiple sprinklings required are considered components of a single Zerikah, and thus if only one sprinkling is done, it is considered as though only half of a Zerikah was done. Therefore, the acceptability of such a Korban cannot be derived from the Korban Chatas, where it is considered as though an entire sprinkling was done.
(b) Alternatively, Tosfos answers that one might have thought that the Torah mentions the word "Saviv" (which implies two sprinklings that are four) many times in order to teach that "Saviv" must be done or the Korban is invalid. Accordingly, the law cannot be derived from the Korban Chatas, and a special verse ("v'Dam Zevachecha") is needed to teach that the Korban is valid b'Di'eved.
(c) Tosfos has difficulties these two approaches, and therefore he suggests that the Beraisa indeed follows the view of Beis Shamai, because, according to . The question of the Beraisa is how we know that one sprinkling is enough. It would seem that we should derive from Chatas that two sprinklings are required!
(d) The KEREN ORAH answers based on an extensive analysis of the Gemara's discussion of the position of Beis Hillel. He asks that according to Rav Huna (37b), who says that Beis Hillel's reasoning is that the verses of "Keranos" indicate four sprinklings and teach that three are l'Chatchilah and only one is absolutely required, how does Beis Hillel know to interpret the verses in this way? Perhaps all four sprinklings are required! It must be that the source that one sprinkling is valid b'Di'eved for a Chatas (as well as for other Korbanos) in fact is the verse, "v'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech." (Mordechai Zvi Dicker, Y. MONTROSE)