Zevachim 98aזבחים צ״ח א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Save "Zevachim 98a"
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
98aצ״ח א

איכא דנפקא ליה מהכא ואיכא דנפקא ליה מהכא

There is one tanna who derives it, the halakha that only males of priestly families may eat of the communal peace offering, from here, i.e., the precedent mentioned explicitly with regard to the meal offering; and there is one tanna who derives it from there, i.e., the amplification of the verse stated with regard to meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings.

חטאת מה חטאת מתקדשת בבלוע אף כל מתקדשת בבלוע

The Gemara continues expounding the verse: “This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the inauguration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings.” “Sin offering” teaches: Just as with regard to a sin offering, whatever it touches is sanctified through the substance that becomes absorbed, so too for all offerings mentioned in this verse, whatever they touch is sanctified through the absorbed portions.

אשם מה אשם אין שפיר ושליא קדוש בו אף כל אין שפיר ושליא קדוש בו קסבר וולדות קדשים בהווייתן הן קדושים ודנין אפשר משאי אפשר

“Guilt offering” teaches: Just as with regard to a guilt offering, a fetal sac and a placenta are not sacred within it, because a guilt offering is always male and as such never holds a fetal sac or a placenta, so too for any of the offerings mentioned in the verse, a fetal sac and a placenta are not sacred if found within it. The Gemara notes: Evidently, this tanna holds that with regard to the offspring of sacrificial animals, they are sanctified only as they are from the moments of their births, but not in utero. And he also holds that one derives the possible from the impossible, so that the halakha of a fetal sac and of a placenta concerning female animals may be derived from the halakha of a male animal.

מלואים מה מלואים מותריהן בשריפה ואין בעלי חיים במותריהן אף כל מותריהן בשריפה ואין בעלי חיים במותריהן

“Inauguration offering” teaches: Just as with regard to the inauguration offering, the rams and the bread of that offering, which were brought during the seven days of inauguration of the Tabernacle and which the priests ate, their leftovers were disposed of by incineration, as is stated: “And if any of the flesh of the inauguration offering, or of the bread, remain until the morning, then you shall burn the remainder with fire” (Exodus 29:34), and no living animals were among their leftovers designated for incineration; so too for all offerings mentioned, their leftovers are disposed of by incineration, and there are no living animals counted among their leftovers to be incinerated. Accordingly, if one sanctifies two animals so that either one may be brought if the other is lost, when one animal is sacrificed, the surviving animal is not killed and incinerated.

שלמים מה שלמים מפגלין ומתפגלין אף כל מפגלין ומתפגלין

“Peace offering” teaches: Just as with regard to the peace offer-ing, its components can render an animal disqualified as an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time [piggul] and can be rendered piggul; so too with regard to all offerings mentioned in this verse, their components render an animal disqualified as piggul and can be rendered piggul.

במתניתא תנא משמיה דר"ע מנחה מה מנחה מתקדשת בבלוע אף כל מתקדשת בבלוע

§ With regard to the verse at the center of the prior exchange (Leviticus 7:37), the Gemara states: It was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Akiva: From the term “meal offering,” it is derived: Just as with regard to a meal offering, whatever it touches is sanctified through the substance that becomes absorbed, as it is stated: “Whatever shall touch them shall be sacred” (Leviticus 6:11); so too for all offerings mentioned in this verse, whatever they touch is sanctified through the absorbed portions.

ואיצטריך למכתב מנחה ואיצטריך למכתב חטאת דאי אשמעינן מנחה דאיידי דרכיכא מיבלעא אבל חטאת אימא לא ואי אשמעינן חטאת משום דקריר אבל מנחה אימא לא צריכא

The Gemara notes: And it was necessary to write the halakha of absorption with regard to a meal offering, and it was necessary to write the halakha of absorption with regard to a sin offering. As, had the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to a meal offering, I would say that since it is soft, it is absorbed and, therefore it sanctifies what it touches. But with regard to the meat of a sin offering, I would say that it does not sanctify what it touches. And had it had taught us this halakha only with regard to a sin offering, I would say that because, on account of its fattiness, it oozes into whatever it touches, it sanctifies it. But with regard to a meal offering, I would say that it does not sanctify what it touches. Therefore, it is necessary for the Torah to write both.

חטאת מה חטאת אינה באה אלא מן החולין וביום ובידו הימנית אף כל אינה באה אלא מן החולין וביום ובידו הימנית וחטאת מנלן אמר רב חסדא אמר קרא (ויקרא טז, ו) והקריב אהרן את פר החטאת אשר לו משלו ולא משל ציבור ולא משל מעשר

The cited baraita continues: “Sin offering” teaches: Just as a sin offering is brought only from non-sacred animals and is sacrificed specifically in the daytime, and its service must be performed with the priest’s right hand; so too all offerings mentioned are brought only from non-sacred animals, and are sacrificed specifically in the daytime, and each one’s service must be performed with the priest’s right hand. And with regard to a sin offering, from where do we derive that it is brought only from non-sacred animals? Rav Ḥisda said: The verse states: “And Aaron shall present the bull of the sin offering, which is his” (Leviticus 16:11). This teaches that the animal must come from his cattle, and not from communal property, and not from money upon which the second tithe has been redeemed.

ביום (ויקרא ז, לח) מביום צוותו נפקא כדי נסבה

The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to derive from the halakha of a sin offering that an offering is sacrificed in the daytime? Is this principle not derived from the conspicuous expression: “On the day of His commanding” (Leviticus 7:38), which is understood to be referring to all offerings? The Gemara answers: Indeed, the baraita cited the principle from the model of a sin offering for no reason [kedi], and it was mentioned here on account of the other principles.

בידו הימנית מדרבה בר בר חנה נפקא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר ר"ל כל מקום שנאמר אצבע וכהונה אינו אלא ימין כדי נסבה

The Gemara asks: Why must the baraita teach that halakha of the sin offering teaches that the rites of an offering must be performed with the priest’s right hand? Is this not derived from the statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana? As Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Reish Lakish says: In any place in the Torah that it is stated that an action is performed with a finger, or that it is performed by priesthood, the halakha is that the rite is performed only with the right hand. This is derived from the Torah’s statement with regard to the leper: “And the priest shall dip his right finger” (Leviticus 14:16). The Gemara answers: The baraita cited the principle from the model of a sin offering for no reason, since it is actually derived from Rabba bar bar Ḥana’s statement.

ואיבעית אימא סבר לה כר"ש דאמר אצבע לא בעיא כהונה כהונה בעיא אצבע

The Gemara suggest: And if you wish, say that the tanna of the baraita holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Where the verse mentions a finger, it is not necessary for the verse to mention priesthood; but where it mentions priesthood, it is necessary for the verse to mention a finger, in order to teach that the rite must be performed with the right hand, which is not self-evident. With regard to the assorted offerings itemized in the verse (Leviticus 7:37), the Torah does not mention a finger; therefore, they must be derived from the halakha of a sin offering.

אשם מה אשם עצמותיו מותרין אף כל עצמותיו מותרין

The cited baraita continues: “Guilt offering” teaches: Just as with regard to a guilt offering, its bones have no sanctity and are permitted for any use, so too with regard to any mentioned offering, its bones are permitted.

אמר רבא פשיטא לי

§ Rava said: It is obvious to me that