Mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 6:19

חד תוכו של זה ולא תוכו של אחר אידך תוכו ולא תוך תוכו ואפילו כלי שטף מציל:

Did then Rab say: If one slaughters a sin-offering [for one offence] as a sin-offering [for another offence],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Its owner had incurred the liability on account of a particular offence, whereas in slaughtering it he (or the priest) intended it as a sin-offering for some other offence.');">¹⁵</span> it is fit; as a burnt-offering, it is un This then proves that another kind destroys it, whereas its own kind does not destroy it. Yet surely Rab said: If a sin-offering is slaughtered on behalf of one who is liable to a sin-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But who is not the owner of this particular sacrifice.');">¹⁶</span> it is unfit; on behalf of one who is liable to a burnt-offering, it is fit. This proves that a person of the same category as the offender destroys it, whereas one of a different category does not destroy it? And he answered: In the former case, the Divine Law states, And he shall kill it for a sin-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 33.');">¹⁷</span> and lo, a sin-offering has been slaughtered as a sin-offering. But in the latter case it is written, and the priest shall make atonement for him,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 26, 31, 35.');">¹⁸</span> [which intimates,] 'for him', but not for his fellow, and 'his fellow' implies one like himself, who stands in need of atonement just as he does.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For otherwise he cannot be called 'his fellow' in this respect. Hence the exclusion of his fellow applies only to such a case.');">¹⁹</span> R'Habibi shewed a contradiction between the law of change [of intention] in respect of owners and that of the inside of the inside, and then answered it. Did then Rab say: If a sin-offering is slaughtered on behalf of one who is liable to a sin-offering, it is unfit; on behalf of one who is liable to a burnt-offering, it is fit? then proves that its own kind destroys it, whereas a different kind does not destroy it. Yet surely it was taught: 'Its inside', but not the inside of it inside, and even a non-earthen vessel protects it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra a p. 7. n. 1.');">²⁰</span> And he answered: 'Its inside' is written four times, 'the inside [tok]','its inside [toko]; 'the inside' [tok], 'its in [toko]';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XI, 33, where toko (lit, 'its inside') is repeated twice, though in each case tok ('inside') would suffice. Each tok (which could have been written) is interpreted; further, each addition, 'toko', is likewise interpreted, which gives four in all.');">²¹</span> one is required for its essential law;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., that any food or drink within it is defiled through the reptile (sherez) entering its air-space.');">²²</span> another for a gezerah shawah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Teaching that the dead reptile defiles the utensil too, through entering its air-space, even without touching it; v. Hul. 24b.');">²³</span> a third [intimates] the inside of this, but not the inside of another;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only an earthen vessel thus becomes unclean through its air-space without actual contact, but not a non-earthen vessel.');">²⁴</span> and finally [to teach]: Its inside, but not the inside of its inside, a even a non-earthen vessel protects.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence this is a specially decreed law and stands by itself; therefore its principle cannot be applied to sacrifices.');">²⁵</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 6:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.