Commentary for Zevachim 183:12

ומה ראית מסתברא דחטאת [בהמה] פנימיות ה"ל לרבויי שכן בהמה שחיטת צפון וקבלת כלי

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>IF THE BLOOD OF A SIN-OFFERING SPURTED etc. If there is one law for all sin-offerings, even a bird sin-offering too [should be included]. Why then was it taught: You might think that the blood of a bird sin-offering requires washing; therefore it states, This is [the law of the sin-offering]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'This is' is a limitation, implying, only what is enumerated in the section.');">¹³</span> - Said Resh Lakish on Bar Kappara's authority. Scripture saith, shall [the sin-offering] be slaughtered:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">¹⁴</span> thus the Writ speaks [only] of those which are slaughtered.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., with shechitah, whereas a bird requires melikah.');">¹⁵</span> Yet say rather that the Writ speaks [only] of those which are eaten, as it is written, 'in a holy place shall it be eaten', but not inner [sin-offerings]? - The Divine Law included [them by writing] 'the law of'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One law for all.');">¹⁶</span> If so, even a bird sin-offering too [is included]? - The Divine Law expressed a limitation in 'this is'. And why do you prefer it thus?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why apply the extension to inner sin-offerings and the limitation to birds, and not the reverse?');">¹⁷</span> - It is logical to include animal inner sin-offerings, because: it is an animal; it is slaughtered in the north;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi reads, and Bah emends accordingly: it is slaughtered; it requires the north.');">¹⁸</span> [its blood is] received in a vessel;

Explore commentary for Zevachim 183:12. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.