Commentary for Zevachim 57:14

ובן עזאי אותו בלא ירצה ואין מאחר נדרו בלא ירצה מהכא נפקא מדאחרים נפקא דתניא אחרים אומרים יכול יהא בכור שעיברה שנתו

Now, how does Ben 'Azzai know that Scripture speaks of the sacrifice and not of the priest?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that he utilises 'it' for a different purpose.');">¹⁴</span> - I can say that he deduces it from [the exegesis of] the 'Others'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since according to them 'it shall not be imputed' is necessary to teach that there is no unfitness through the sacrifice being eaten on the third day. Scripture obviously does not refer to the unfitness of the priest, for if it did, how could I think that he is unfit? Not he has done wrong but the eater.');">¹⁵</span> Alternatively, I can say [that he knows this] because i is written, [it] shall not be accepted, and '[it] shall not be accepted' can only apply to the sacrifice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Hebrew is not applicable to a priest.');">¹⁶</span> Now Ben 'Azzai [deduces]: 'it' is subject to 'it shall not be accepted'. but he who delays [the payment of] his vow is not subject to 'it shall not be accepted': [but] is this deduced from the present text? Surely it is deduced from [the text cited by] 'Others'? For it was taught: Others say: You might think that a firstling which passed its [first] year<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The firstling must be sacrificed within its first year. If it is not, its owner transgresses the injunction, Thou shalt not delay.');">¹⁷</span> is

Explore commentary for Zevachim 57:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.