Commentary for Zevachim 7:27

וישנו לאחר מיתה וישנו בציבור כביחיד

Now, Scripture expresses this by a term denoting carrying<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same Heb. word, hikrib here explained to mean the receiving of the blood, is interpreted as carrying (the limbs) in the other verse.');">¹⁶</span> in order to teach that carrying cannot be excluded from the scope of receiving,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., receiving includes carrying, and the law of one applies to the other.');">¹⁷</span> Now we have thus found [it] of change [of intention] in respect of sanctity;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that a particular sacrifice must not be offered in the name of a different sacrifice.');">¹⁸</span> whence do we know it of change [of intention] in respect of owner? - Said R'Phinehas the son of R'Ammi: Scripture says, And the flesh of the slaughtering of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving etc. ,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VII, 15.');">¹⁹</span> [which teaches] that the slaughtering must be in the name of a thanksoffering; now since this is superfluous for change in respect of sanctity, for that is deduced from the other text, transfer its teaching to change in respect of owners.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a principle of Talmudic exegesis: where a verse is superfluous in respect of the subject upon which it directly bears, its teaching is to be transferred to another, analagous subject.');">²⁰</span> But is that the purpose of this verse? Surely it is required for what was taught. [Viz. ,] 'And the flesh of the zebah [slaughtering] of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving': Abba Hanin said on R'Eliezer's authority: This comes to teach that if a thanksoffering is slaughtered in the name of a peace-offering, it is valid; if a peace-offeri is slaughtered in the name of a thanksoffering,it is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Valid' and 'invalid' mean that the bringer has discharged or not discharged his obligations respectively.');">²¹</span> What is the difference between these two cases? - A thanksoffering is designated a peace-offering, but a peace-offering is not designated a thanksoffering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Peace-offering' is a wider term, which includes but is not included in the term 'thanksoffering'. - Thus the verse is required for a different purpose.');">²²</span> - We state [our deduction] from the word 'slaughtering'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the other teaching is deduced from the phrase 'his peace-offerings for thanksgiving'.');">²³</span> Yet it is still needed [thus]: How do we know [it of] a sin-offering and a guilt-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That their flesh too may be eaten only on the day when they are sacrificed and the following night, as that text is interpreted is respect of thanksgiving.');">²⁴</span> From the word 'slaughtering'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which term includes other sacrifices.');">²⁵</span> - If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If that is the only teaching of that verse.');">²⁶</span> let Scripture write, And the flesh of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving slaughtering [shall be eaten etc.]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus 'zebah' would be written immediately in connection with eating.');">²⁷</span> why state, the slaughtering [of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bringing 'slaughtering' into connection with the sacrifice rather than with the eating.');">²⁸</span> So that both laws may be inferred from it. We have thus found [it of] slaughtering; whence do we know [it of] other services?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that they must not be performed in the name of any but their true owner.');">²⁹</span> And if you say, Let us learn [them] from slaughtering, [then it may be objected]: as for slaughtering, the reason is because it disqualifies in the case of a Passover-offering, [when it is done] for the sake of those who cannot eat it! - 'Slaughtering' is stated in reference to change [of intention] in respect of sanctity, and 'slaughtering' is sta in reference to change [of intention] in respect of owner; as in the case of the slaughtering stated in referenc to change in respect of sanctity, you do not differentiate between slaughtering and other services, so also in the case of the slaughtering which stated in reference to change of owners, you must not differentiate between slaughtering and other rites. This can be refuted: as for change in respect of sanctity, [that is] because its disqualification is intrinsic,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on illegitimate intention is expressed in respect to the sacrifice itself.');">³⁰</span> and it is [operative] in respect of the four services,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An Illegitimate intention in respect of any service disqualifies it (according to the terms of the Mishnah) . But change in respect of owner is a disqualification only for sprinkling, which constitutes the principal rite of atonement, either at that rite itself, or by expressing an intention at the slaughtering or any other service that the sprinkling shall be for a different owner.');">³¹</span> and it is [operative] after death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the owner dies, his son must bring it, and if he slaughters it for a different purpose it is invalid.');">³²</span> and it is [operative] in the case of the community as In the case of an individual.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A public sacrifice, just like a private sacrifice, is disqualified if offered for another purpose.');">³³</span>

Explore commentary for Zevachim 7:27. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.