Commentary for Zevachim 9:17

תודה תוכיח

And thus the argument revolves: the characteristic of the former is not that of the latter and the characteristic of the latter is not that of the former. The factor common to both is that they are holy [sacrifi ' and if slaughtered not in their own names they are valid, yet not 'accepted', so also do I adduce the guilt-offering which is holy, hence if one slaughters it not in its name it is valid and not accepted. [No: ] Th factor common to both [it may be argued] is that they are [also] brought as public offerings!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The daily burnt-offering and the lambs of peace-offerings offered on Pentecost were public offerings. But no guilt-offering was ever a public offering.');">²⁷</span> - Then let the thanksgiving-offering prove it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was likewise never a public offering, yet conformed to the same law as the others,');">²⁸</span>

Explore commentary for Zevachim 9:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.