Although Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai agree much more than they disagree, the Talmud is prone to highlighting their disputes, as it did yesterday and also today in the following beraita:
Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Beit Shammai say that two placements in the case of a sin offering, and one placement in the case of other offerings, render the offering permitted. And similarly, if performed with improper intent, they render the offering piggul.
Beit Hillel say: One placement in the case of a sin offering, and one placement in the case of all the other offerings, if done with proper intent, renders the offering permitted for eating and, if done with improper intent, renders the offering piggul.
This beraita contains two separate, but related disagreements. The first involved the sprinkling of blood on the corners of the altar. Ideally, blood is supposed to be placed on all four corners of the altar. If, however, it was spilled on only one corner, after the fact Beit Hillel say the offering is still permitted for consumption. Beit Shammai agree, except when the offering is a sin offering. In that case, they hold that the meat is permitted only if the blood has been applied to at least two corners. Characteristically, Beit Shammai is stricter.
With your help, My Jewish Learning can provide endless opportunities for learning, connection and discovery.
The second dispute concerns the improper intention of a priest to place the blood on the altar after the time for doing so has passed. Here too, Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai agree in almost all cases that the intent to place blood on even one corner of the altar at an improper time is enough to render the sacrifice piggul (i.e., forbidden from consumption due to the improper intention to perform the ritual beyond its prescribed time). The exception again is the sin offering for which Beit Shammai holds that the sacrifice does not become piggul until the improper intention exists for two of the placements. Uncharacteristically, Beit Shammai is more lenient.
Rav Oshaya notices this uncharacteristic leniency from Beit Shammai. Rav Oshaya also knows that, because it is such a rare occurrence, there is in fact an official list of disputes in which Beit Shammai is more lenient than Beit Hillel. That list appears in the fourth chapter of Mishnah Eduyot (a tractate for which there is no Gemara, so we will not encounter it as part of the Daf Yomi cycle). Rabbi Oshaya also knows that the dispute from our page is not included on that list, which leads him to challenge the beraita. Maybe it has been reported incorrectly.
Rava jumps in to respond. He explains that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s teaching in the beraita was made in response to the question about whether the priests could eat from the meat of the sacrifice if blood had been sprinkled on only one corner of the altar. For this matter, with regard to the sin offering, the schools follow suit — Beit Hillel are more lenient than Beit Shammai. Given that this was the context in which these matters arose, the dispute is not included on the list in Eduyot, even though the discussion that follows yields an additional dispute that could have been on the list.
The Gemara could have argued that the list in Eduyot is a good one, but that it is not all inclusive. This would allow for the discovery of additional cases where Beit Shammai adopts a more lenient position. Instead, the Gemara chooses to read the list in Eduyot to be comprehensive. In doing so, it places the burden of justifying why any exceptions that we might discover are not found on the list.
Read all of Zevachim 38 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on October 22, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
