Zevachim 11aזבחים י״א א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save 'Zevachim 11a'
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
11aי״א א

עולה שהיא כליל נכנס דמה לפנים כשרה אשם שאינו כליל לא כ"ש

with regard to a burnt offering, which is totally consumed by the fire on the altar, nevertheless, even if its blood enters into the Sanctuary it is fit, with regard to a guilt offering, which is not entirely consumed on the altar, all the more so is it not clear that even if its blood enters the Sanctuary it remains fit?

מה לעולה שכן אינה מכפרת

The Gemara refutes this inference: What is notable about a burnt offering? It is notable in that it does not atone for a sin. Perhaps this is why its blood is not disqualified if it enters the sanctuary.

מנחת חוטא תוכיח

The Gemara responds: The meal offering of a sinner can prove the point, as it is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary, even though it atones for a sin.

ולימא חטאת העוף תוכיח חטאת העוף בעיא דרבי אבין היא

The Gemara interjects: But let us say that a bird sin offering can prove the point, as it too atones for a sin but is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary. This case is more similar to that of a guilt offering, as a bird has blood, unlike a meal offering. The Gemara answers: It is not certain that a bird sin offering is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary; this is a dilemma raised by Rabbi Avin.

ולפרוך מה למנחת חוטא שכן אינה מין זבח

The Gemara asks: But let us refute the above response as follows: What is notable about a sinner’s meal offering? It is notable in that it is not a type of slaughtered offering.

עולה תוכיח וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שהן קדשי קדשים ונכנס (דמן) לפנים כשרין אף אני אביא אשם שהוא קודש קדשים ונכנס דמו לפנים כשר

The Gemara answers: If so, a burnt offering can prove the point, since it is a slaughtered offering, and still if its blood enters the Sanctuary, it is not disqualified. And the inference has reverted to its starting point. The halakha is derived from the halakhot of a burnt offering and a sinner’s meal offering: The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case. Their common element is that they are offerings of the most sacred order, and if they enter into the Sanctuary they are still fit. So too, I shall include a guilt offering and infer that since it is also an offering of the most sacred order, if its blood enters into the Sanctuary it is still fit.

אמר ליה רבא מברניש לרב אשי ולפרוך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן אין להן קצבה תאמר באשם שיש לו קצבה

Rava of Barnish said to Rav Ashi: But let us refute this inference: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that neither a burnt offering nor a sinner’s meal offering has a fixed value. Should you say the same halakhot apply to a guilt offering, which has a fixed value?

אלא היינו טעמייהו דרבנן דאמר קרא דמה דמה של זו ולא דמה של אחר

Rather, this is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis: As the verse states: “And any sin offering, any of whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23). The term “whose blood” teaches that the blood of this offering, i.e., a sin offering, and not the blood of another offering, is disqualified in this manner.

ואידך דמה ולא בשרה

And how does the other tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, interpret this term? He derives from it that only its blood is disqualified by entering the Sanctuary, but not its flesh.

ואידך דם דמה

And from where do the other Rabbis derive that the flesh of a sin offering is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary? They maintain that both halakhot are derived from this term, as the verse could have simply stated: Blood, but stated: “Whose blood.” The redundancy excludes not only the flesh, but also other offerings.

ואידך דם דמה לא דריש

And the other tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, does not interpret the redundancy indicated by the change from: Blood, to: “Whose blood,” to be significant. Once the word blood is mentioned, it is grammatically necessary for the verse to state “whose blood.”

בשלמא לרבנן דאמרי אשם ששחטו שלא לשמו כשר היינו דאיתקש מנחה לחטאת מנחה לאשם

§ The Gemara resumes its discussion of the dispute in the mishna between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. Granted, according to the Rabbis, who say that a guilt offering that one slaughtered not for its sake is fit, that is why a meal offering is juxtaposed with a sin offering, and a meal offering is also juxtaposed with a guilt offering.

דתניא רבי שמעון אומר (ויקרא ו, י) קדש קדשים היא כחטאת וכאשם מנחת חוטא הרי היא כחטאת לפיכך קמצה שלא לשמה פסולה מנחת נדבה הרי היא כאשם לפיכך קמצה שלא לשמה כשרה

This is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: The verse states with regard to a meal offering: “It is most sacred, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offering” (Leviticus 6:10), teaching that a meal offering of a sinner is like a sin offering. Therefore, if one removed its handful not for its sake, it is disqualified. And the verse also teaches that a voluntary meal offering is like a guilt offering. Therefore, if one removed its handful not for its sake, it is still fit. This accords with the opinion of the Rabbis, that a guilt offering slaughtered not for its sake is fit.

אלא לרבי אליעזר למאי הלכתא איתקש מנחה לחטאת ומנחה לאשם

But according to Rabbi Eliezer, for what halakha is a meal offering juxtaposed with a sin offering, and a meal offering juxtaposed with a guilt offering?

לכי אידך דרבי שמעון דתנן שלא בכלי שרת פסולה ורבי שמעון מכשיר

The Gemara answers: They are juxtaposed to teach the other halakha derived by Rabbi Shimon from this verse; as we learned in a mishna (Menaḥot 26a): If the handful of a meal offering is conveyed to the altar not in a service vessel, the offering is unfit. And Rabbi Shimon deems it fit.

ואמר רב יהודה בריה דרבי חייא מ"ט דר"ש אמר קרא קדש קדשים היא כחטאת וכאשם בא לעובדה ביד עובדה בימין כחטאת בכלי עובדה בשמאל כאשם

And Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states with regard to a meal offering: “It is most sacred, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offering,” teaching that if a priest comes to perform its sacrificial rites by hand, he must perform them with his right hand, like one performs the rites of a sin offering. And if he performs them with a vessel, he may perform them with his left hand, like one performs the rites of a guilt offering, since Rabbi Shimon maintains this is permitted in the case of a guilt offering.

ור"ש האי קרא מפיק ליה להכי ומפיק ליה להכי

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Shimon himself, does he expound this verse for this purpose, concerning one who if one removes its handful not for its sake, and expound it for that purpose, concerning conveying the handful with one’s hand?

עיקר קרא לכדרב יהודה בריה דרבי חייא הוא דאתא ומנחת חוטא דפסולה שלא לשמה [טעמא אחרינא הוא] חטאת טעמא מאי דכתיב בה היא מנחת חוטא נמי כתיב בה היא

The Gemara answers: The verse comes mainly to teach that which Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, explained. And the halakha that a meal offering of a sinner whose handful was removed not for its sake is unfit is due to another reason: What is the reason a sin offering sacrificed not for its sake is disqualified? The reason is that the word “it” is written with regard to it in the verse: “It is a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:24). Since the word “it” is also written with regard to the meal offering of a sinner, in the verse: “For it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11), the same applies in that case.

ולרבנן למאי הלכתא איתקש אשם לחטאת לומר לך מה חטאת טעונה סמיכה אף אשם טעון סמיכה:

In the mishna, Rabbi Eliezer cites the verse: “As is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:7), as a source for his opinion. The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, for what halakha is a guilt offering juxtaposed with a sin offering? The Gemara answers: They are juxtaposed to tell you that just as a sin offering requires placing hands on the head of the offering, so too, a guilt offering requires placing hands on the head of the offering.

יוסף בן חוני אומר הנשחטין כו': א"ר יוחנן יוסף בן חוני ורבי אליעזר אמרו דבר אחד

§ The mishna teaches: Yosef ben Ḥoni says: Other offerings that are slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal offering or a sin offering are unfit. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Yosef ben Ḥoni and Rabbi Eliezer said the same thing, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer agrees with Yosef ben Ḥoni.

רבה אמר באחרים לשם חטאת פליגי

Rabba says: Although they agree that other offerings slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal offering are unfit, they disagree with regard to other offerings slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering. Whereas Yosef ben Ḥoni holds that they are unfit, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that they are fit.

דתניא הפסח שעברה שנתו ושחטו בזמנו לשמו וכן השוחט אחרים לשם פסח בזמנו רבי אליעזר פוסל ורבי יהושע מכשיר

This is as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a Paschal offering whose first year has passed, and it must therefore be sacrificed as a peace offering, and one slaughtered it at its designated time on Passover eve for its own sake as a Paschal offering, and likewise, if one slaughtered other offerings for the sake of a Paschal offering at its designated time, the tanna’im disagree as to the status of the offering. Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, and Rabbi Yehoshua deems it fit.

א"ר יהושע אם בשאר ימות השנה שאינו כשר לשמו אחרים כשרים לשמו בזמנו שהוא כשר לשמו אינו דין שיכשרו אחרים לשמו

Rabbi Yehoshua said: If, during the rest of the days of the year, when a Paschal offering is not fit if it is slaughtered for its own sake, nevertheless, other offerings that are slaughtered for its sake are fit, then at its designated time, when a Paschal offering is fit if it is slaughtered for its own sake, isn’t it logical that other offerings slaughtered for its sake should be fit?

אמר לו רבי אליעזר או חילוף הדברים ומה אם בשאר ימות השנה שאינו כשר לשמו כשר הוא לשם אחרים בזמנו שהוא כשר לשמו אינו דין שיוכשר לשם אחרים ויוכשר פסח בארבעה עשר שלא לשמו

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Or conversely, just as during the rest of the days of the year, when a Paschal offering is not fit if it is slaughtered for its own sake, it is fit if slaughtered for the sake of other offerings, so too, at its designated time, when it is fit if slaughtered for its own sake, isn’t it logical that it should be fit if slaughtered for the sake of other offerings? And accordingly, a Paschal offering slaughtered not for its own sake on the fourteenth of Nisan should be deemed fit, which contradicts the halakha. Clearly, this line of reasoning leads to incorrect conclusions.

וכך אתה אומר מה לי הוכשרו אחרים בשאר ימות השנה לשמו שכן הוא כשר לשם אחרים ויוכשרו אחרים בזמנו לשמו שכן הוא פסול לשם אחרים

Furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer refuted Rabbi Yehoshua’s logic as follows: And do you say this derivation? What does it matter to me that other offerings slaughtered during the rest of the days of the year for the sake of a Paschal offering are deemed fit? After all, a Paschal offering slaughtered for the sake of other offerings is also fit. But must you say that other offerings slaughtered at its designated time for its sake should be deemed fit? After all, at its designated time, a Paschal offering slaughtered for the sake of other offerings is unfit.

אמר לו רבי יהושע אם כן הורעתה כח פסח ונתת כח בשלמים

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: If, as you maintain, other offerings slaughtered on Passover eve for the sake of a Paschal offering are disqualified, you have diminished the force of the requirement that a Paschal offering be sacrificed for its own sake, and you have given more force to the requirement that a peace offering be sacrificed for its own sake. A Paschal offering sacrificed at the proper time, i.e., during the rest of the year, for the sake of a peace offering, is fit, whereas a peace offering sacrificed on Passover eve for the sake of a Paschal offering is unfit.

חזר רבי אליעזר ודנו דין אחר מצינו מותר פסח בא שלמים ואין מותר שלמים בא פסח

The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer then presented a different logical inference: We find that a leftover Paschal offering, an animal consecrated as a Paschal offering but ultimately not sacrificed on Passover eve, is brought as a peace offering; but a leftover peace offering, one bought with money left over from funds dedicated toward the acquisition of a peace offering, is not brought as a Paschal offering. A Paschal offering is a potential peace offering, but a peace offering is not a potential Paschal offering.

ומה פסח שמותרו בא שלמים שחטו בזמנו לשום שלמים פסול שלמים שאין מותרן בא פסח אם שחטם לשם פסח בזמנו אינו דין שיהו פסולין

And if so, one may infer a fortiori: Just as with regard to a Paschal offering, whose leftover offering is brought as a peace offering, and nevertheless, if one slaughtered it at its designated time for the sake of a peace offering it is unfit, so too, with regard to a peace offering, whose leftover offering is not brought as a Paschal offering, if one slaughtered it for the sake of a Paschal offering at its designated time, isn’t it logical that it should be unfit?