Commentary for Zevachim 98:1

אבל כללו גמר מיניה (לצפון) שפיר אלא אי סבירא לן דלא הוא גמר מכללו ולא כללו גמר מיניה האי לגופיה איצטריך

but its general law can be learnt from it: then it is correct.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The general law is that stated in VII, 1-10, while a leper's guilt-offering is singled out for a new law not in harmony with the general law, for whereas the blood of an ordinary guilt-offering is sprinkled on the altar, the blood of this is applied to the right thumb, right ear, and the great toe of the right foot. Now, if it were not stated in the general regulations on the guilt-offerings that it must be slaughtered in the north, but were stated here, this would come not under the preceding but under the following rule: if anything is included in a general proposition and is then singled out to teach a special regulation, this applies not only to the case where it is stated, but to the whole. Thus a leper's guilt-offering is included in the general guilt-offerings dealt with in VII, 1-10; when it is singled out here for slaughtering in the north, that applies to all guilt-offerings, and not only to itself. (The other rule with which we are now dealing holds good only when the new law is not in harmony with the general one, as explained at the beginning of the note.) Hence on this view it need not be stated in VII, 1-10 that it is killed in the north, as this would follow from XIV, 14 seq.; its repetition teaches that the north is indispensable.');">¹</span> But if we hold that neither can it be learnt from th general proposition, nor can the general proposition be learnt from it, then this [law]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In VII, 1-10, that it is killed in the north.');">²</span>

Explore commentary for Zevachim 98:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.