Zevachim 113

ועולה גופה מנלן דכתיב (ויקרא ד, ז) אל יסוד מזבח העולה למד על עולת חובה שטעונה יסוד

And how do we know it of a burnt-offering itself? - Because it is written, At the base of the altar of the burnt-offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 7.');">¹</span> this proves that the statutory burnt-offering requires [sprinkling at] the base.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For in fact the altar was not used for the burnt-offering exclusively, the very sentence quoted treating of a sin-offering. Hence the verse must mean, at the base of the altar, as is done with a burnt-offering.');">²</span>

אי מה להלן שתי מתנות שהן ארבע אף כאן שתי מתנות שהן ארבע

If so, just as there two applications which constitute four [are required], so here too, two applications which constitute four [are required]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the Mishnah says otherwise.');">³</span> - Said Abaye: Why must 'round about' be written in connection with both a burnt-offering and a sin-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Burnt-offering, Lev. I, 5: And he shall dash the blood round about against the altar; sin-offering, VIII, 15: And when it was slain, Moses took the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about with his finger. 'Round about' implies on all four sides. Now, this could be said with reference to a burnt-offering only, and the other would be deduced from it.');">⁴</span>

אמר אביי למה לי למכתב (ויקרא א, ה) סביב בעולה סביב בחטאת הוו שני כתובין הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין

That there might be two verses with the same teaching, and two verses with the same teaching do not illumine [other cases].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the number of applications required by a firstling etc. cannot be deduced from a burnt-offering.');">⁵</span> That is well on the view that they do not illumine; but on the view that they do illumine, what can be said? - The guilt-offering is a third,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where 'round about' is said, Lev. VII, 2.');">⁶</span>

הניחא למ"ד אין מלמדין אלא למ"ד מלמדין מאי איכא למימר הוי אשם שלשה ושלשה ודאי אין מלמדין:

and three certainly do not illumine. THE FIRSTLING IS EATEN BY PRIESTS.

הבכור נאכל לכהנים: ת"ר מנין לבכור שנאכל לשני ימים ולילה שנאמר (במדבר יח, יח) ובשרם יהיה לך כחזה התנופה וכשוק הימין הקישו הכתוב לחזה ושוק של שלמים מה שלמים נאכלין לשני ימים ולילה אחד אף בכור נאכל לשני ימים ולילה אחד

Our Rabbis taught, How do we know that a firstling is eaten during two days and one night? Because it is said, And the flesh of them shall be thine, as the wave-breast and as the right thigh:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 18. The text refers to firstlings.');">⁷</span>

וזו שאלה נשאלה לפני חכמים בכרם ביבנה בכור לכמה נאכל נענה ר"ט ואמר לשני ימים ולילה אחד

the Writ assimilated it to the breast and the thigh of a peace-offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was the breast and the thigh of a peace-offering which belonged to the priest.');">⁸</span> as a peace-offering might be eaten during two days and one night, so may the firstling be eaten during two days and one night.

היה שם תלמיד אחד שבא לבית המדרש לפני חכמים תחלה ור' יוסי הגלילי שמו אמר לו רבי מנין לך אמר לו בני שלמים קדשים קלים ובכור קדשים קלים מה שלמים נאכלין לשני ימים ולילה אחד אף בכור נאכל לשני ימים ולילה אחד

And this question was asked of the Sages in the vineyard of Yabneh:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The famous town to the north-west of Jerusalem, seat of R. Johanan b. Zakkai's academy and Sanhedrin after the destruction of the Temple.');">⁹</span> For how long may a firstling be eaten?

אמר לו רבי בכור מתנה לכהן וחטאת ואשם מתנה לכהן מה חטאת ואשם ליום ולילה אף בכור ליום ולילה

Whereupon R'Tarfon replied: During two days and one night. Now a certain disciple was present, who had come to the Beth Hamidrash for the first time, by the name of R'Jose the Galilean.

אמר לו נדון דבר מ (תוך) דבר ונלמד דבר מ (תוך) דבר מה שלמים אין באין על חטא אף בכור אינו בא על חטא מה שלמים נאכלים לשני ימים ולילה אחד אף בכור נאכל לשני ימים ולילה אחד

Master, said he to him, whence do you know this? My son, replied he, a peace-offering is a sacrifice of lesser sanctity, and a firstling is a sacrifice of lesser sanctity: as a peace-offering is eaten during two days and on night, so a firstling is eaten during two days and one night.

אמר לו רבי נדון דבר מדבר ילמד דבר מדבר חטאת ואשם מתנה לכהן ובכור מתנה לכהן מה חטאת ואשם אין באין בנדר ונדבה אף בכור אינו בנדר ונדבה מה חטאת ואשם נאכלין ליום אחד אף בכור נאכל ליום אחד

Master, he objected, a firstling is the priest's d and a sin-offering and a guilt-offering are the priest's dues;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas a peace-offering belongs to its owner.');">¹⁰</span> [then let us argue,] as a sin-offering and a guilt-offering [may be eaten] during one day and one night, so a firstling [may be eaten] one day and one night?

קפץ ר"ע ונסתלק ר"ט אמר לו הרי הוא אומר ובשרם יהיה לך הקישן הכתוב לחזה ושוק של שלמים מה שלמים נאכלין לשני ימים ולילה אחד אף בכור נאכל לשני ימים ולילה אחד

Said he to him: Let us compare the two objects, and then deduce one from the other:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., let us first see to which the firstling is similar, and then learn from it.');">¹¹</span> as a peace-offering does not come on account of sin, so a firstling does not come on account of sin; [hence,] as a peace-offering is eaten two days and one night, so is a firstling eaten two days and one night.

אמר לו היקשתו לחזה ושוק של שלמים ואני מקישו לחזה ושוק של תודה מה תודה נאכלת ליום ולילה אף בכור נאכל ליום ולילה

Master, he objected, Let us compare the two objects, and then deduce one from the other: a<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The words: 'a sin-offering . . as' are best omitted with Ms. M.');">¹²</span> sin-offering and a guilt-offering are priestly dues, and a firstling is a priestly due; as<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The words: 'a sin-offering . . as' are best omitted with Ms. M.');">¹²</span>

אמר לו הרי הוא אומר ובשרם יהיה לך שאין ת"ל לך יהיה ומה ת"ל לך יהיה הוסיף הכתוב הויה אחרת בבכור

a sin-offering and a guilt-offering cannot be brought as a vow or a freewill-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 2a, p. 2, n. 6. These sacrifices can be brought only when one has incurred them.');">¹³</span> so a firstling cannot be a vow or a freewill-offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It must actually be a firstling.');">¹⁴</span>

וכשנאמרו דברים לפני ר' ישמעאל אמר להן צאו ואמרו לו לר"ע טעיתה תודה מהיכן למדה משלמים [וכי] דבר הלמד בהיקש חוזר ומלמד בהיקש הא אין עליך לידון בלשון אחרון אלא בלשון ראשון

[hence,] as a sin-offering and a guilt-offering are eaten one day and one night, so may a firstling be eaten one day and one night? R'Akiba then leaped [into the debate], and R'Tarfon withdrew.

ור' ישמעאל האי לך יהיה מאי עביד לי' לימד על בכור בעל מום שהוא מתנה לכהן שלא מצינו בכל התורה

Said he [R'Akiba] to him, Behold, it says, 'And the flesh of them shall be thine [etc.]': the Writ assimilated them to the breast and thigh of a peace-offering: as a peace-offering is eaten two days and one night, so a firstling is eaten two days and one night. Said he to him: You have likened it to the breast and thigh of a peace-offering, but I might liken it to the breast and thigh of a thanks-offering: as a thanks-offering is eaten one day and one night, so a firstling is eaten one day and one night.

ור"ע יליף ליה מבשרם חד תם וחד בעל מום ור' ישמעאל מבשרם דהנך בכורות קאמר

Lo, he replied, it says, it shall be thine.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 18. This reiterates the first half of the verse.');">¹⁵</span> Now, 'it shall be thine' need not be stated; why then is it said?

במאי קמיפלגי מ"ס הימנו ודבר אחר הוי היקש ומ"ס לא הוי היקש

The Writ thereby prolonged the existence of a firstling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is correct to liken it to a thanksoffering rather than to a peace-offering, since we cannot permit a longer time for its consumption than the minimum of which we are certain. But the reiteration, 'it is thine', implies that it is thine for a longer time than you might otherwise think, and so it is permitted for two days, like a peace-offering.');">¹⁶</span> When this discussion was reported to R'Ishmael, he said to them [those who reported it]: Go forth and say to Akiba, You have erred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By likening it to the thanks-offering in the first place.');">¹⁷</span>

בשלמא למ"ד לא הוי היקש היינו דכתיב (ויקרא טז, טז) וכן יעשה לאהל מועד

Whence do we learn this of the thanksoffering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That its breast and thigh belong to the priest. This is not stated explicitly.');">¹⁸</span> From a peace-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By means of a hekkesh.');">¹⁹</span>

כשם שמזה לפני ולפנים אחת למעלה ושבע למטה מדם הפר כך מזה בהיכל

Can then that which is learnt through a hekkesh teach in turn by a hekkesh?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not (v. supra 49b) . Hence the thanksoffering in this case cannot throw light on the firstling.');">²⁰</span> Hence you must determine it not by the second version but by the first version.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' You must compare it in the first instance to a peace-offering, not to a thanksoffering.');">²¹</span>

וכשם שלפני ולפנים אחת למעלה ושבע למטה מדם השעיר כך מזה בהיכל

Now, how does R'Ishmael employ this phrase, 'it shall be thine'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why is it repeated?');">²²</span> - It teaches that a blemished firstling is given to the priest, for which teaching we do not find [any other text] in the whole Torah.

אלא למ"ד הוי היקש מאי איכא למימר מקומות הוא דגמרי מהדדי

And R'Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whence does he know this?');">²³</span> - He learns it from 'their flesh', [which intimates,] whether it whole or blemished. And R'Ishmael?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he explain the plural 'their'? V. supra 37a, b for notes.');">²⁴</span> - It means, the flesh of these firstlings. Wherein do they differ?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a definite rule that what is learnt through a hekkesh does not teach through a hekkesh. Why then does R. Akiba adopt this exegesis here?');">²⁵</span> - One master holds: [That which is inferred] from the subject itself and another does constitute a hekkesh; while the other master holds: It does not constitute a hekkesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, that a thanksoffering is eaten one day and one night is not inferred by a hekkesh but stated explicitly, Lev. VII, 15, while that its breast and thigh belong to the priest is inferred by a hekkesh. R. Ishmael holds that the fact that the priest may eat the breast and the thigh during one day and one night only must be regarded as an inference by a hekkesh, and therefore it cannot become the basis for another hekkesh (viz., as to the time permitted for the consumption of a firstling) . R. Akiba however maintains that since the time permitted for the thanksoffering is explicitly stated, we do not regard the time allowed for the breast and thigh as the result of a hekkesh; hence it can become the basis for another hekkesh.');">²⁶</span> On the view that it does not constitute a hekkesh, it is well: hence it is written, And so shall he do for the tent of meeting,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVI, 16.');">²⁷</span> which [intimates]: As he sprinkles the blood of the bullock in the Holy of Holies once upward and seven times downward, so must he sprinkle in the hekal; and as he sprinkles the blood of the he-goat in the Holy of Holies once upward and seven times downward, so must he sprinkle in the Hekal. But on the view that it does constitute a hekkesh, what can be said?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The passage treats of the ritual of the Day of Atonement. Scripture writes, And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle with his finger upon the ark-cover on the east; and before the ark-cover shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times (ibid. 14) . 'Upon' and 'before' are understood to mean upward and downward respectively: thus, while it is explicitly stated that it is sprinkled seven times downwards, the number of upward sprinklings is not stated, and this is learnt by analogy (hekkesh) from the he-goat, where it says, And sprinkle it (otho) upon the ark-cover, and before the ark-cover (v. 15) . There 'it' (otho) is held to indicate one sprinkling, while the number of downward sprinklings is not stated. The present text, and do with his (sc. the he-goat's) blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, teaches that both are sprinkled once upward and seven times downward, since an analogy is drawn between them. Now, each is written partly explicitly and partly inferred by a hekkesh, and then the same is applied to the hekal by means of a hekkesh. Now, if what is inferred partly from the subject itself and partly from another subject does not constitute a hekkesh, then the sprinklings in the hekal can rightly be inferred by a hekkesh from those in the Holy of Holies. But if it does, such inference is disallowed, since what is learnt by a hekkesh cannot teach by a hekkesh.');">²⁸</span> - The localities only are deduced from one another.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is not a case of what is learnt by a hekkesh teaching through a hekkesh, since the first refers to the animals, whereas the second refers to the localities.');">²⁹</span>