Commentary for Zevachim 16:17

א"ר אבין

Then [say:] as the particularization is explicitly something which can come as a vow or a freewill-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both are votive offerings. A vow is technically where one vows to bring a sacrifice, without specifying the animal at the time; a freewill-offering is a vow to bring a particular animal for an offering.');">¹³</span> so everything which can come as a vow or as a freewill-offering [is included]; [hence, if he slaughters the Passover-offering out of its season as] a burnt-offering or as a peace-offering it is [valid], [but if he slaughters it then as] a sin-offering or a guilt-offering, it is not [valid]! - Rather, 'For a sacrifice' is an extension.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: it is not interpreted under the rule of generalization etc., but as an extension, in which case even cases not similar to itself are included. The rule of generalization etc., is applied only where the natural sense of the passage yields a generalization and a particularization, without anything in the text being superfluous. Here, however, 'for a sacrifice of peace-offerings' is regarded as altogether superfluous, and therefore it is held to be an extension.');">¹⁴</span> Then say, for whatever it is slaughtered, let it be such!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As above,');">¹⁵</span> - Said Rabin:

Explore commentary for Zevachim 16:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.