Commentary for Zevachim 8:28

ואיצטריך מוצא שפתיך ואיצטריך זאת התורה דאי כתב רחמנא מוצא (הוה אמינא)

R'Aha of Difti said to Rabina: But the first generalization is dissimilar fr the last generalization, for the first includes [sacrificial] acts but nothing more, whereas the last one implie everything that is 'unto the Lord', even the pouring out of the residue [of the blood] and the burning of the emurim?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas only the four services under discussion are sacrificial acts.');">¹⁸</span> Behold the Tanna of the School of R'Ishmael<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who formulated thirteen rules of exegesis, including this one.');">¹⁹</span> [even] in the case of a general proposition and particularization of this nature applies the rule that in a general proposition followed by a particularization and followed again by a general proposition you must be guided by the particularization: just as that is explicitly a [sacrificial] service,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. slaughtering.');">²⁰</span> and we require rightful intention, so in the case of every [sacrificial] serv we require rightful intention. If so, [you may argue:] just as the particularization is explicitly a service whi involves culpability [if it is performed] without [its legitimate boundaries], so is every service [included] which involves culpability [if performed] without; hence slaughtering and sprinkling are indeed included, but not receiving and carrying? or [you may argue]: as the particularization is explicitly something that must be done at the north [side of the altar] and is operative in the case of the inner sin-offerings, so all [servic which must be done at the north and are operative in the case of the inner sin-offerings [are included]; hence slaughtering and receiving are indeed included, but not sprinkling? - You can argue in this way or in that way; they are equally balanced, and so both [arguments] are admissible.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since one approach includes slaughtering and sprinkling, and the other includes slaughtering and receiving, you must admit both, since neither is stronger than the other. Carrying too is then included, for it is really 'a part of the act of receiving.');">²¹</span> Alternatively, I can say, sprinkling follows from R'Ashi's deduction.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra, from the verse 'and it shall be accepted for him etc.; hence the present deduction must be in respect of receiving.');">²²</span> We have thus found [it true of] the nazirite's ram; how do we know [it of] the other peace-offerings? And if you say, Let us learn them from the nazirite's ram, [it can be argued:] As for the nazirite's ram, the reason is because other sacrifices<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'blood',');">²³</span> accompany it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it is natural that one cannot be sacrificed in the name of one person and a second in the name of another, when all are for the same person. The other sacrifices are the sin-offering and the burnt-offering.');">²⁴</span> - If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the deduction of the verse were intended to be confined to this particular sacrifice.');">²⁵</span> Scripture should write, [And he shall offer the ram for.'] his peace-offerings;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. marginal gloss.');">²⁶</span> why state, [for] peace-offerings? - In order to include all peace-offerings. We have thus found [it true of] peace-offerings; how do we know [it of] other sacrifices? And if you say, Let us learn them from peace-offerings, [it can be argued:] As for peace-offerings, the reason is because they require laying [of hands], libations, and the waving of the breast and shoulder!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But no other sacrifices require all these, and consequently they may be offered under another designation either in respect of sanctity or of ownership.');">²⁷</span> Rather, Scripture says, This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and the consecration-offering, and of the sacrifice of peace-offerings;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 37.');">²⁸</span> thus Scripture assimilates them to peace-offerings. Just as we require peace-offerings [to be offered] for their own sake, [thus forbidding] both change in respect of sanctity and change in respect of owner, so do we require all [sacrifices to be offered] fo their own sake, [thus forbidding] both change in respect of sanctity and change in respect of owner. Let us say that if one slaughtered them in a different name they are invalid? - Scripture says, That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt observe and do,' as thou has vowed a nedabah [freewill-offering] etc. :<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XXIII, 24.');">²⁹</span> is this a freewill-offering - surely it is a vow? The meaning however is this: if you acted in accordance with your vow, let it be [the fulfilment of your] vow; but if not, let it count as a freewill-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra. Since it counts as a freewill-offering, it is obviously valid.');">³⁰</span> Now [both texts viz.] 'that which is gone out of thy lips' and 'this is the law' etc. , are required.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One might argue that the text, 'that which . . lips' etc., itself proves that a sacrifice must in the first place at least be offered for its own sake. Hence the Talmud proceeds to shew that that is not so.');">³¹</span> For if the Divine Law wrote, 'that which is gone out of thy lips' [only], I would say,

Explore commentary for Zevachim 8:28. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.