Zevachim 8aזבחים ח׳ א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Zevachim 8a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
8aח׳ א

(ויקרא ד, כה) ולקח הכהן מדם החטאת שתהא קבלה לשם חטאת

“And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering” (Leviticus 4:25), teaching that the collection of the blood must be performed for the sake of a sin offering.

ואשכחן שחיטה וקבלה זריקה מנלן דאמר קרא (ויקרא ד, כו) וכפר עליו הכהן מחטאתו שתהא כפרה לשם חטאת

The Gemara asks: And we found a source for the halakha that the slaughter and collection must be performed for the sake of a sin offering. From where do we derive this halakha with regard to the sprinkling of the blood? The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “And the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin” (Leviticus 4:26), teaching that the atonement must be effected for the sake of a sin offering, as atonement is effected by the sprinkling of the blood.

אשכחן שנוי קדש שנוי בעלים מנלן אמר קרא עליו עליו ולא על חבירו

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the prohibition against deviation from the type of offering. From where do we derive the prohibition against deviation with regard to the owner? The Gemara answers: The aforementioned verse states: “And the priest shall make atonement for him,” indicating that the intent must be for him, and not for another.

אשכחן למצוה לעכב מנלן כדאמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע חטאת חטאתו הכא נמי חטאת חטאתו

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the mitzva to sprinkle the blood for the sake of the owner ab initio. From where do we derive that this is indispensable and disqualifies the offering if not fulfilled? The Gemara answers: It is as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says with regard to the sin offering of a nazirite: Since the verse could have simply stated: Sin offering, but instead stated: “His sin offering” (Numbers 6:16), it is inferred that the offering must be sacrificed for his, the owner’s, sake. Here too, since the verse could have simply stated “sin,” but states “his sin,” one infers that if the blood of the sin offering is not sprinkled for the sake of its owner, it is disqualified.

אשכחן מצוה בשנוי קדש וזריקה בשנוי בעלים בין למצוה בין לעכב לעכב בכל עבודות בשנוי קדש ובשאר עבודות בשנוי בעלים בין למצוה בין לעכב מנלן

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the mitzva of sacrificing a sin offering without deviation from the type of offering ab initio, and with regard to sprinkling its blood without deviation with regard to the owner concerning both its mitzva ab initio and its indispensability. From where do we derive that performing all sacrificial rites without deviation from the type of offering is an indispensable requirement, and that performing all other rites, besides sprinkling the blood, without deviation with regard to the owner is both a mitzva ab initio and indispensable?

אמר ר' יונה אתיא מחטאת נזיר דכתיב (במדבר ו, טז) והקריב הכהן לפני ה' ועשה את חטאתו ואת עולתו שיהו כל עשיותיו לשם חטאת

Rabbi Yona says: It is derived from the halakha concerning the sin offering of a nazirite; as it is written concerning a nazirite: “And the priest shall bring them before the Lord, and shall offer [ve’asa] his sin offering, and his burnt offering” (Numbers 6:16). The verse teaches that all of its sacrificial actions [asiyyotav] must be performed for the sake of a sin offering.

אשכחן שנוי קדש שנוי בעלים מנלן (אם אינו ענין לשנוי קדש תניהו ענין לשנוי בעלים אשכחן למצוה לעכב מנלן)

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the halakha that a sin offering must be sacrificed without deviation from the type of offering, and that this requirement is indispensable. From where do we derive that sacrificing it without deviation with regard to the owner is also indispensable, even in rites other than the sprinkling of the blood?

אמר רב הונא [בריה דר"י] חטאת חטאתו

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: Since the verse concerning a nazirite could have simply stated: Sin offering, but instead states: “His sin offering,” one infers that the offering must be sacrificed for the owner’s sake.

מתקיף לה רבינא אלא מעתה עולת עולתו מאי דרשת ביה

Ravina objects to this: If that is so, what do you interpret from the fact that the same verse could have stated: Burnt offering, but instead states: “His burnt offering”?

ולרבינא מנחת מנחתו נסך נסכו מאי דרשת בהו

The Gemara asks: And according to Ravina, what do you interpret from the subsequent verse: “The priest shall offer also his meal offering and his libation” (Numbers 6:17)? Why does Ravina not mention that this verse could have stated: Meal offering, but instead states: “His meal offering,” and that it could have stated: Libation, but instead states: “His libation”?

ההוא מבעי ליה מנחתם ונסכיהם בלילה מנחתם ונסכיהם אפי' למחר אלא עולת עולתו מאי דרשת בהו

The Gemara answers: That language is necessary; it is just like the phrase: “Their meal offering and their libations,” which is mentioned many times in the portion of the Festival offerings (e.g., Numbers 29:37). It teaches that the meal offerings and libations that are brought with the additional animal offerings of the Festivals can be sacrificed even at night after the offering is brought. The phrase: “Their meal offering and their libations,” also teaches that they may be brought even on the following day. Likewise here, when stated with regard to a nazirite, the phrase teaches that they may be brought at night or the day after the offering is sacrificed. But there remains a difficulty: What do you interpret from the fact that the verse could have stated: Burnt offering, but instead states: “His burnt offering”?

ותו מי גמרי מהדדי חטאת חלב מחטאת נזיר לא גמרה שכן יש עמה דמים אחרים חטאת נזיר מחטאת חלב לא גמרה שכן כרת

The Gemara raises an additional objection to the derivation from a nazirite’s sin offering: And furthermore, can the halakhot of a standard sin offering and of a nazirite’s sin offering be derived from one another? The halakhot of a sin offering brought for a transgression, e.g., eating forbidden fat, cannot be derived from the halakhot of a nazirite’s sin offering, due to the unique element of stringency of the latter, since there is other blood, i.e., other offerings are brought, with it. Likewise, the halakhot of a nazirite’s sin offering cannot be derived from the halakhot of a sin offer-ing brought for eating forbidden fat, due to the unique element of stringency of the latter, since it atones for a transgression punishable by excision from the World-to-Come [karet].

אלא אמר רבא אתיא מחטאת מצורע דכתיב (ויקרא יד, יט) ועשה הכהן את החטאת שיהו כל עשיותיו לשם חטאת

Rather, Rava says: These halakhot are derived from the halakha of the sin offering of a leper; as it is written: “And the priest shall offer [ve’asa] the sin offering” (Leviticus 14:19), teaching that all sacrificial actions of [asiyyotav] a sin offering must be performed for the sake of a sin offering.

ואשכחן שנוי קדש שנוי בעלים מנליה אמר קרא (ויקרא יד, יט) וכפר על המטהר וגו' על המטהר זה ולא על המטהר חבירו

And we found a source for the halakha that a sin offering must be sacrificed without deviation from the type of offering, and that this is indispensable. From where do we derive that sacrificing a sin offering without deviation with regard to the owner is also indispensable? The verse states: “And make atonement for the one that is to be purified of his impurity” (Leviticus 14:19), indicating that the sin offering must be sacrificed for the sake of this person who is being purified, and not for another person who is to be purified.

ואכתי מי ילפא מהדדי חטאת חלב מחטאת מצורע לא ילפא שכן יש עמה דמים אחרים חטאת מצורע מחטאת חלב לא גמרה שכן כרת

The Gemara asks: But still, can the halakhot of a standard sin offering and a leper’s sin offering be derived from one another? This comparison is also problematic. The halakhot of a sin offering brought for eating forbidden fat cannot be derived from the halakhot of a leper’s sin offering, since there is other blood that is brought with the latter, i.e., a burnt offering and a guilt offering; and the halakhot of a leper’s sin offering cannot be derived from the halakhot of a sin offering brought for eating forbidden fat, since the latter atones for a transgression punishable by karet.

מחדא לא אתיא תיתי חדא מתרתי

The Gemara answers: Indeed, the halakhot of a sin offering cannot be derived from the halakhot of one other type of sin offering alone. But one can derive the halakhot of one type of sin offering from the halakhot of the other two. The verses concerning a standard sin offering, that of a leper, and that of a nazirite all contain elements that indicate that the offering must be sacrificed for its own sake. Two of them together are sufficient to teach that this halakha applies to the third case. The third case is therefore apparently extraneous, and it is understood to teach that proper intent in this regard is indispensable for all the offering’s rites.

בהי לא לכתוב [לא לכתוב] רחמנא בחטאת חלב ותיתי מהנך מה להנך שכן יש עמהם דמים אחרים

The Gemara asks: With regard to which type of sin offering should the Torah not have written this halakha, i.e., which of the three cases should be regarded as the extraneous case? If you say: Let the Merciful One not write it with regard to a sin offering brought for eating forbidden fat, and one can derive it from these other sin offerings, i.e., those of a nazirite and a leper, this can be refuted: What is notable about these other sin offerings? They are notable in that there is other blood brought with them. Therefore, the halakha should apply only to similar sin offerings.

לא לכתוב רחמנא בחטאת נזיר ותיתי מהנך מה להנך שכן אין להן שאלה

If you say: Let the Merciful One not write it with regard to a nazirite’s sin offering, and one can derive it from these other sin offerings, those of a leper and a sinner, this can also be refuted: What is notable about these other sin offerings? They are notable in that one does not have the option of obtaining an exemption through a request to a halakhic authority. A nazirite, by contrast, can request of a halakhic authority to dissolve his vow of naziriteship, thereby nullifying his obligation.

לא לכתוב רחמנא בחטאת מצורע ותיתי מהנך מה להנך שכן אין באין בדלות

If you say: Let the Merciful One not write it with regard to a leper’s sin offering, and one can derive it from these other sin offerings, those of a nazirite and a sinner, this can also be refuted: What is notable about these other sin offerings? They are notable in that they cannot be brought from doves instead of sheep if the owner is poor, unlike a leper’s sin offering (see Leviticus 14:21). Therefore, the halakhot of these different sin offerings cannot be derived from one another.

אלא אמר קרא (ויקרא ז, לז) זאת התורה לעולה ולמנחה וגו' הקישו הכתוב לשלמים מה שלמים בין שנוי קדש בין שנוי בעלים בעינן לשמן למצוה אף חטאת בין שנוי קדש בין שנוי בעלים בעינן לשמן למצוה

Rather, the halakha is derived from that which the verse states: “This is the law of the burnt offering, and of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the consecration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:37). The verse juxtaposes a sin offering with a peace offering, indicating that just as for a peace offering we require intent for its sake, as a mitzva ab initio, both concerning the deviation from the type of offering and concerning deviation with regard to the owner, so too, for a sin offering we require intent for its sake as a mitzva, both concerning deviation from the type of offering and concerning deviation with regard to the owner.

הילכך מצוה משלמים והנך קראי לעכב

Therefore, the mitzva ab initio is derived from the halakha of a peace offering; and those verses mentioned earlier, from which this requirement is derived with regard to each type of sin offering separately, repeat the halakha to teach that it is indispensable.

ואשכחן חטאת חלב דכתיב בה לחטאת

The Gemara asks: And we found a source for these halakhot with regard to a sin offering brought for eating forbidden fat, as it is written with regard to it: “And slaughter it for a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:33), indicating that it must be slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering. Likewise, sources for this halakha with regard to the sin offerings of a nazirite and a leper have also been cited.