Commentary for Zevachim 20:34

- Said Abaye: You cannot say that the blood of a guilt-offering is [sprinkled] above, [as the reverse may be inferred] from a burnt-offering, a fortiori: if the blood of a burnt-offering, which is completely burnt, is [sprinkled] below, how much the more [is this true of] a guilt-offering, which is not completely burnt. As for a burnt-offering, the reason is becaus it does not make atonement! Let the bird sin-offering prove it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Its blood is sprinkled below, though it does make atonement.');">¹⁹</span> As for a bird sin-offering, the reason is because it is not a species that is slaughtered!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bird-offering was not slaughtered, its neck being wrung (Lev. I, 15) .');">²⁰</span> Then let a burnt-offering prove it. Thus the peculiarity of the one is not the peculiarity of the other, and that of the other is not the same as the peculiarity of the first: feature common to both is that they are sacrifices of the higher sanctity,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Supra ');">²¹</span> and their blood is [sprinkled] below: so will I adduce a guilt-offering too, that [since] it is of the higher sanctity, its blood is [sprinkled below. Raba of Parzakia<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Farausag, in the vicinity of Be Dura, one of the four districts in the middle of which Baghdad was built; v. Obermeyer, Landschaft, pp. 268-9.');">²²</span> said to R'Ashi: But let him refute [it thus]: The feature common to both is that [their value] is unfixed; will you then say [the same of] a guilt-offering, which has a fixed [value]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. V, 15 seq.');">²³</span> Rather this is R'Eliezer's reason,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For holding that the blood of a guilt-offering is sprinkled below. tyjnv');">²⁴</span> viz. , because Scripture saith, The priest that offereth it for a sin-offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 19. The Heb. is understood to mean he who sprinkles its blood in accordance with its law as a sin-offering, viz., above the scarlet line.');">²⁵</span> ['it' requires] its blood [to be sprinkled] above, but the blood of no other [sacrifice] is [sprinkled] above. If so, us say with respect to [the slaughtering of] the sin-offering too, [only] it is valid [when slaughtered] in its own name but invalid when not [slaughtered] in its own name, whereas other sacrifices are valid whether in their own name or not in their own name?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the unfitness of a sin-offering when not killed for its own sake is deduced from, And he shall kill it for a sin-offering (Lev. IV, 33) . Then R. Eliezer should regard the ' it' here too as a limitation and not apply the same law to the guilt-offering.');">²⁶</span> - That 'it' is not meant particularly, since it disregards the Passover-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To which the same law applies, as was shewn supra 7b.');">²⁷</span> Then here too it is not meant particularly, since it disregards the bird burnt-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whose blood too is sprinkled above; infra 65a.');">²⁸</span> - At all events nothing which is slaughtered is omitted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The limitation of 'it' applies to all slaughtered sacrifices,');">²⁹</span> Alternatively, this agrees with R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon, who maintained: [The blood of] the one is [sprinkled] in a separate place, and [that of] the other is [sprinkled] in a separate place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the blood of both the sin-offering and the bird burnt-offering is sprinkled above the scarlet line, yet each has a different place. Therefore the limitation of 'it' in respect to the sprinkling of the blood has no exception at all.');">³⁰</span> For it was taught: The lower blood is applied below the scarlet line, while the upper [blood is applied] above the scarlet line,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' At any point above it. - 'Lower' and 'upper' mean that which is applied below and that which is applied above respectively.');">³¹</span> Said R'Simeon B'Eleazar: This holds good only of the bird burnt-offering; but in the case of the animal sin-offering its [blood] is applied essentially on the very horn [of the altar].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not merely anywhere above the line.');">³²</span> We learnt elsewhere:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 81b.');">³³</span> For R'Akiba maintained: All blood which entered the Hekal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The hall containing the golden altar etc., contrad. to the Holy of Holies (Jast.) .');">³⁴</span> to make atonement is unfit; but the Sages rule: The sin-offering alone [is unfit].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When Moses rebuked Aaron for not eating the flesh of the sin-offering on the day of his consecration, he said to him: Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within; ye should certainly have eaten it (Lev. X, 18; v. also ib. VI, 23) . This proves that if it had been brought 'within' Aaron would have been right, for the sacrifice would have thereby become unfit. Now the passage actually refers to a sin-offering: R. Akiba holds that its implication extends to all other sacrifices too, while the Rabbis confine it to the sin-offering.');">³⁵</span> R'Eliezer said: The guilt-offering too [is thus], for it says, As is the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 7.');">³⁶</span> As for R'Eliezer, i is well, his reason being as stated. But what is the reason of the Rabbis? - Said Raba: [They argue that] you cannot say that if the blood of the guilt-offering enters within it is unfit, [for the reverse follows] from the burnt-offering, afortiori. If

Explore commentary for Zevachim 20:34. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.