Commentary for Zevachim 213:20

תיתי מזריקה מה לזריקה שכן זר חייב עליה מיתה

Therefore it states.' This is the thing [etc.]'. And R'Akiba? - He can answer you: that is required for a gezerah shawah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ned. 78a; B. B. 120b.');">²⁹</span> Now, as to what we learnt: He who takes the fistful,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a meal-offering, without, and does not burn it.');">³⁰</span> and he who receives the blood [of a sacrifice slaughtered without] is not liable: how do we know it? But whence would you infer that he is culpable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That you seek a text to shew that he is not.');">³¹</span> - From shechitah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By analogy: as shechitah is a sacrificial rite and involves culpability if performed without, so it is the same with every sacrificial rite.');">³²</span> As for shechitah, the reason may be because it invalidates a Passover-offering [when it is done] on behalf of such who cannot eat it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 4a. But that obviously cannot apply to taking the fistful, or to receiving.');">³³</span> - Then infer it from sprinkling: as for sprinkling. the reason may be because a lay-Israelite is liable to death on its account!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For performing it. But he is not liable for the other rites.');">³⁴</span>

Explore commentary for Zevachim 213:20. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.