Commentary for Zevachim 96:28

אמר ליה מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא ולא

For it was taught, R'Ahia said: And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward': why is this stated? Because we find that the receiving priest must stand in the north and receive [the blood] in the north, while if he stood in the south and received [the blood] in the north it is invalid. You might think that this [slaughtering] is likewise. Therefore Scripture states, '[And he shall kill] it', [intimating that] 'it' must be in the north, but the slaughterer need not be in the north! - Rather [ teaches this]: 'It' [must be killed] in the north, but a bird does not need the north.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When its neck is wrung.');">¹⁶</span> For it was taught: You might think that a bird-offering needs the north, and this is indeed logical: If [Scripture] prescribed north fo a lamb, though it did not prescribe a priest for it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It may be slaughtered by a zar.');">¹⁷</span> is it not logical that it should prescribe north for a bir seeing that it did prescribe a priest for it? Therefore 'it' is stated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a limitation.');">¹⁸</span> [No:] as for a lamb, the reason is because [Scripture] prescribed a utensil for it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It must be slaughtered with a knife, whereas a bird merely has its neck wrung. Hence again there is no reason for thinking that a bird requires north, and therefore no need for a limitation.');">¹⁹</span> - Rather, [it teaches this]: 'It' [must be killed] in the north, but t Passover-offering [need] not [be slaughtered] in the north. For it was taught, R'Eliezer B'Jacob said: You might think that a Passover-offering needs the north, and this is indeed logical: if [Scripture] prescribed the north for a burnt-offering, though it did not prescribe a fixed season for its slaughtering; is it not logical t it should prescribe the north for a Passover-offering, seeing that it did prescribe a fixed season for its slaughtering? Therefore 'it' is stated. [No:] as for a burnt-offering, the reason is because it is altogether bu [Then learn it] from a sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not altogether burnt, yet requires the north.');">²⁰</span> As for a sin-offering, the reason is because it makes atonement for those who are liable to kareth! [Then learn it] from a guilt-offering. [No:] as for a guilt-offering, the reason is because it is a most sacred sacrifice! [And you] cannot [learn it] from all these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the burnt-offering, guilt-offering and sin-offering.');">²¹</span> likewise, because they are most sacred sacrifices! - After all, it is as we said originally: 'It' [must be] in the north, but the slaughter need not be in the north, and as to your difficulty, 'That is deduced from R'Ahia's exegesis', [the answer is that] it does not [really] exclude the slaughterer from the north,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For that is arrived at by R. Ahia's exegesis.');">²²</span> but [is meant thus]: The slaughterer need not be in the north, [whence it follows that] the receiver must be in the north, 'The receiver'? Surely that is deduced from 'and he shall take,' [which we interpret] let him [be]take himself [to the north]? - He does not interpret 'and he shall take' as meaning 'let him [be]take himself,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Text as emended by Sh. M.');">²³</span> We have thus found a recommendation that slaughtering a burnt-offering must be in the north, and a [similar] recommendation about receiving; how do we know that [the north] is indispensable in the case of slaughtering and receiving?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense that the sacrifice is otherwise invalid.');">²⁴</span> - Said R'Adda B'Ahabah, - others state, Rabbah B'Shila: [It is deduced] afortiori: If it is indispensable in the case of a sin-offering, which is [only] learnt from a burnt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which comes from the strength of a burnt-offering'.');">²⁵</span> surely it is logical that it is indispensable in the case of a burnt-offering, from which a sin-offering is lear [No:] As for a sin-offering, the reason is because it makes atonement for those who are liable to kareth! Said Rabina: This is R'Adda's difficulty:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In spite of the refutation, he employs this afortiori argument on account of the following difficulty.');">²⁶</span> Do we ever find the secondary more stringent than the primary?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although a sin-offering makes atonement for those liable to kareth, here it is only secondary to a burnt-offering, since 'north' is written primarily in connection with the latter.');">²⁷</span> Said Mar Zutra son of R'Mari to Rabina: Do we not?

Explore commentary for Zevachim 96:28. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.