Mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 97:17

הניחא אי סבירא לן יצא לידון בדבר החדש איהו הוא דלא גמר מכללו

Now, does that come for the present purpose? Surely it is required for what was taught: If anything was included in a general proposition, and was then singled out for a new law, you cannot restore it to [the terms of] its general proposition, unless the Writ explicitly restores it to [the terms of] its general proposition. How so? [Scripture saith,] And he shall kill the he-lamb in the place where they kill the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, in the place of the sanctuary; for as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offe it is the priest's; it is most holy. Now, 'as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering' need not be said.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if it is to teach that it is slaughtered in the north, that follows from the first half of the verse. While if it teaches that the sprinkling of it blood and its consumption are the same as those of the sin-offering, that too is superfluous, since it is already covered by the general regulations prescribed for all guilt-offerings in Lev. VII, 1-10.');">¹⁵</span> Why then is 'as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering' said? Because a leper's guilt-offering was singled out an made subject to a new law, viz. , that in respect of the thumb of the hand, the big toe of the foot, and the righ ear,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ibid. XIV, 14 seq. These rites are absent in the case of other guilt-offerings.');">¹⁶</span> you might think that it does not require the presentation of [its] blood and emurim at the altar; therefore Scripture says, 'as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering': as the sin-offering requires the presentation of [its] blood and emurim at the altar, so does a leper's guilt-offering require the presentation o blood and emurim at the 'altar?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the example: since a leper's guilt-offering was singled out for special treatment, the general laws of guilt-offerings could not apply to it without a text specifically intimating that they do. - Thus the text is utilised for this purpose, and not to teach that the north is indispensable.');">¹⁷</span> - If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That that is its only purpose.');">¹⁸</span> let it be written in the latter [passage]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the passage on leprosy.');">¹⁹</span> and not in the former. Now, that is well if we hold that when anything is made the subject of a new law, it cannot be learnt from its general law,

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 97:17. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.