Zevachim 21

Chapter 21

א עולה שהיא כליל נכנס דמה לפנים כשרה אשם שאינו כליל לא כ"ש
1 the burnt-offering is fit when its blood enters within, though it is entirely burnt, how much the more is the guilt-offering [fit], seeing that it is not entirely burnt.
ב מה לעולה שכן אינה מכפרת
2 [But it may be asked:] As for the burnt-offering, [t reason is] because it does not make atonement? - Let a sinner's meal-offering prove it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This makes atonement, yet if it enters within it remains fit, for the disqualification is stated in reference to the entering of blood only.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ג מנחת חוטא תוכיח
3 <sup>2</sup>
ד ולימא חטאת העוף תוכיח חטאת העוף בעיא דרבי אבין היא
4 The sin-offering of a bird is the subject of a question by R Abin"&gt;.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether it is unfit when its blood enters within (infra 92b) . The objection and answer are parenthetical, and now the Talmud returns to its discussion.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ה ולפרוך מה למנחת חוטא שכן אינה מין זבח
5 As for a sinner's meal-offering '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text (Bah) ; omitting, 'and let him refute', of cur. edd.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ו עולה תוכיח וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שהן קדשי קדשים ונכנס (דמן) לפנים כשרין אף אני אביא אשם שהוא קודש קדשים ונכנס דמו לפנים כשר
6 [the reason is] because it is not of the species that is slaughtered?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not a blood-sacrifice.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז אמר ליה רבא מברניש לרב אשי ולפרוך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן אין להן קצבה תאמר באשם שיש לו קצבה
7 Let the burnt-offering prove it.
ח אלא היינו טעמייהו דרבנן דאמר קרא דמה דמה של זו ולא דמה של אחר
8 And thus the argument revolves, the peculiarity of the one not being that of the other, while the peculiarity of the latter is not that of the former: the feature common to both is that the are sacrifices of the higher sanctity, and when their blood enters within they are fit; so too will I adduce the guilt-offering which is a sacrifice of the higher sanctity, and if its blood enters within it is fit.
ט ואידך דמה ולא בשרה
9 Raba of Barnesh<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A town in the vicinity of Matha Mehasia, a suburb of Sura (Obermeyer, op. cit. pp. 296-7) .');"><sup>6</sup></span>
י ואידך דם דמה
10 said to R'Ashi: Yet let him refute [it thus]: The feature common to both is that they have no fixed [value]; will you say [the same of] the guilt-offering, which has a fixed [value]?
יא ואידך דם דמה לא דריש
11 Rather this is the Rabbis' reason, viz. , because Scripture saith, [And no sin-offering whereof any of] its blood [is brought into the tent of meeting.
יב בשלמא לרבנן דאמרי אשם ששחטו שלא לשמו כשר היינו דאיתקש מנחה לחטאת מנחה לאשם
12 shall be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 23.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
יג דתניא רבי שמעון אומר (ויקרא ו, י) קדש קדשים היא כחטאת וכאשם מנחת חוטא הרי היא כחטאת לפיכך קמצה שלא לשמה פסולה מנחת נדבה הרי היא כאשם לפיכך קמצה שלא לשמה כשרה
13 [this intimates] the blood of this [sacrifice], but n the blood of another [sacrifice].
יד אלא לרבי אליעזר למאי הלכתא איתקש מנחה לחטאת ומנחה לאשם
14 And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer: how does he explain 'its blood'?');"><sup>8</sup></span>
טו לכי אידך דרבי שמעון דתנן שלא בכלי שרת פסולה ורבי שמעון מכשיר
15 - 'Its blood' [implies,] but not its flesh.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It its flesh is taken 'into the tent of meeting', into the inner sanctuary, it is not disqualified.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
טז ואמר רב יהודה בריה דרבי חייא מ"ט דר"ש אמר קרא קדש קדשים היא כחטאת וכאשם בא לעובדה ביד עובדה בימין כחטאת בכלי עובדה בשמאל כאשם
16 And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbis: how do they know this?');"><sup>10</sup></span>
יז ור"ש האי קרא מפיק ליה להכי ומפיק ליה להכי
17 - [Scripture writes,] 'its blood' [where] 'blood' [would suffice].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence 'its' excludes that of other sacrifices, while 'blood' excludes the flesh of the same sacrifice.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
יח עיקר קרא לכדרב יהודה בריה דרבי חייא הוא דאתא ומנחת חוטא דפסולה שלא לשמה [טעמא אחרינא הוא] חטאת טעמא מאי דכתיב בה היא מנחת חוטא נמי כתיב בה היא
18 And the other? - He does not interpret 'blood', 'its blood' [as having a particular significance].
יט ולרבנן למאי הלכתא איתקש אשם לחטאת לומר לך מה חטאת טעונה סמיכה אף אשם טעון סמיכה:
19 It is well according to the Rabbis who maintain that if one slaughters a guilt-offering under a different designation it is valid: for that reason a meal-offering is likened to a sin-offering and to a guilt-offering.
כ יוסף בן חוני אומר הנשחטין כו': א"ר יוחנן יוסף בן חוני ורבי אליעזר אמרו דבר אחד
20 F it was taught, R'Simeon said: [It is written,] It is most holy, as the sin-offering, and as the guilt-offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev, VI, 10. This refers to the meal-offering, and since it is likened to two other sacrifices, R. Simeon deduces that one kind of meal-offering is like a sin-offering, while another is like a guilt-offering, as explained in the text,');"><sup>12</sup></span>
כא רבה אמר באחרים לשם חטאת פליגי
21 a sinner's meal-offering is like a sin-offering, therefore if its fistful [of flour] is taken under a different designation,it is invalid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The taking of the fistful of the meal-offering and its burning on the altar are the equivalent of the sprinkling of the blood of an animal sacrifice.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
כב דתניא הפסח שעברה שנתו ושחטו בזמנו לשמו וכן השוחט אחרים לשם פסח בזמנו רבי אליעזר פוסל ורבי יהושע מכשיר
22 a votive meal-offering is like a guilt-offering, therefore if he [the priest] takes fistful under a different designation, it is valid.
כג א"ר יהושע אם בשאר ימות השנה שאינו כשר לשמו אחרים כשרים לשמו בזמנו שהוא כשר לשמו אינו דין שיכשרו אחרים לשמו
23 But according to R'Eliezer, in respect of which law is a meal-offering likened to a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? - In respect of the other [ruling] of R'Simeon, For it was taught: [If the fistful was carried to the altar] not in a service-vessel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A service-vessel is one that has been sanctified for use in the Temple in connection with the sacrificial service.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
כד אמר לו רבי אליעזר או חילוף הדברים ומה אם בשאר ימות השנה שאינו כשר לשמו כשר הוא לשם אחרים בזמנו שהוא כשר לשמו אינו דין שיוכשר לשם אחרים ויוכשר פסח בארבעה עשר שלא לשמו
24 it is invalid; but R'Simeon declares it valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the priest carried it in his hand to the altar,');"><sup>15</sup></span>
כה וכך אתה אומר מה לי הוכשרו אחרים בשאר ימות השנה לשמו שכן הוא כשר לשם אחרים ויוכשרו אחרים בזמנו לשמו שכן הוא פסול לשם אחרים
25 Now Rab Judah son of R'Hiyya said, What is R'Simeon's reason? - Scripture saith, 'It is most holy, as the sin-offering, and as the guilt-offering': [this teaches:] If he [the priest] comes to perform service with his hand, he does so with his right hand, as in the case of the sin-offering; [if he comes] to perform the service with a vessel, he may do so with his left hand, as in the case of the guilt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This being R. Simeon's view, others hold that the service of all sacrifices must be done with the right hand (infra 24b) .');"><sup>16</sup></span>
כו אמר לו רבי יהושע אם כן הורעתה כח פסח ונתת כח בשלמים
26 Now R'Simeon utilises this verse for both purposes?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He had made two distinct deductions from the same verse,');"><sup>17</sup></span>
כז חזר רבי אליעזר ודנו דין אחר מצינו מותר פסח בא שלמים ואין מותר שלמים בא פסח
27 - The essential purpose of the text is to teach the dictum of Rab Judah the son of R'Hiyya, while that a sinner's meal-offering is invalid when [the priest does] not [take its fistful] for its own sake is [based] on a different reason.
כח ומה פסח שמותרו בא שלמים שחטו בזמנו לשום שלמים פסול שלמים שאין מותרן בא פסח אם שחטם לשם פסח בזמנו אינו דין שיהו פסולין
28 [Thus:] what is the reason of a sin-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That it is invalid when not slaughtered for its own sake.');"><sup>18</sup></span> Because 'it is' is written in connection therewith; then In connection with a sinner's meal-offering too 'it is' written. Now according to the Rabbis, in respect of which law is a guilt-offering likened to a sin-offering? - To teach you: as a sin-offering requires laying on [of hands], so does a guilt-offering require laying on [of hands]. JOSEPH B'HONI SAID: SACRIFICES SLAUGHTERED [IN THE NAME OF A PASSOVER-OFFERING OR A SIN-OFFERING ARE INVALID]. R'Johanan said: Joseph B'Honi and R'Eliezer said the same thing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Eliezer too holds that other sacrifices slaughtered as a Passover-offering in its time or as a sin-offering at any time are invalid. R. Johanan deduces this anon.');"><sup>19</sup></span> Rabbah said: They disagree in respect of others slaughtered in the name of a sin-offering. For it was taught: A paschal lamb which has passed its year,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It became a year old on the first of Nisan, and was then set aside for the Passover sacrifice. Since a year is the extreme limit for such (V. Ex. XII, 5: a male of the first year) , it automatically stands to be a peace-offering, being unfit for its original purpose.');"><sup>20</sup></span> and he [its owner] slaughtered it in its season,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e. , on the eve of Passover.');"><sup>21</sup></span> for its own purpose;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. as a Passover-offering. Thus he slaughtered a peace-offering as a Passover sacrifice.');"><sup>22</sup></span> and similarly, when a man slaughters other [sacrifices] as a Passover-offering in its season, - R'Eliezer disqualifies them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He infers this a minori: If an animal set aside for the Passover-offering is disqualified when slaughtered in its season (on the eve of Passover) as a peace-offering, though if left until after Passover it must be offered as such; then how much the more is a peace-offering disqualified if slaughtered on the eve of Passover as a Passover-offering, seeing that if left over and not brought as a peace-offering at the time appointed for same it cannot be brought as a Passover-offering on Passover eve.');"><sup>23</sup></span> while R, Joshua declares them valid. Said R'Joshua: If during the rest of the year, when it is not valid [if slaughtered] in its own name, yet others [slaughtered] in its name are valid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For all sacrifices except the Passover-offering and the sin-offering are valid when slaughtered for a different purpose (supra 2a) .');"><sup>24</sup></span> then is it not logical that in its season, when it is valid [if slaughtered] in its own name, others [slaughtere in its name are valid? Said R'Eliezer to him: Yet perhaps the argument is to be reversed? If it is valid [when slaughtered] during the rest of the year in the name of another sacrifice,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. a peace-offering.');"><sup>25</sup></span> though it is not valid [if slaughtered then] in its own name; is it not logical that it should be valid [when slaughtered] in its season in the name of another sacrifice, seeing that it is valid [if slaughtered,then] in its own name; and thus a Passover-offering [slaughtered] on the fourteenth [of Nisan] under a different designation should be valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which however is obviously wrong. Hence by a reductio ad absurdum the deduction a minori is shewn to be inadmissible.');"><sup>26</sup></span> Now, would you say thus? [But in point of fact your a minori argument can be refuted thus:] As for others being valid during the rest of the year [when slaughtered] in its [sc. the Passover-offering's] name, that is because it is valid [when slaughtered then] in the name of other [sacrifices]; should then others [slaughtered] in its season<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the eve of Passover,');"><sup>27</sup></span> in its name be valid, seeing that it [the Passover-offering] is invalid [if slaughtered then] in name of others?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not. From this R. Johanan deduces that just as R. Eliezer declares others unfit when slaughtered in the name of the Passover-offering, so are they unfit when slaughtered in the name of a sin-offering. For R. Eliezer's reason, as seen here, is because it (the Passover-offering) is unfit when slaughtered in the name of a different sacrifice, and this same holds good of the sin-offering too.');"><sup>28</sup></span> Said R'Joshua to him: If so, you lessen the strength of the Passover-offering and increase the strength of the peace-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For at the proper season for peace-offerings (i.e., during the rest of the year) the Passover-offering if slaughtered as a peace-offering is fit; whereas at the season of the Passover-offering (on Passover eve) a peace-offering slaughtered in the name of a Passover-offering is unfit! Yet in fact while Scripture insists that the Passover-offering must be killed in its own name (V. supra 7b) , there is no such insistence with respect to the peace-offering. - 'Weaken' and 'strengthen' mean to weaken and strengthen the necessity for (or, the insistence on) slaughtering these sacrifices for nought but their own sake.');"><sup>29</sup></span> Subsequently R'Eliezer proposed a different argument: We find that a Passover remainder<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If an animal was dedicated for a Passover-offering, lost and refound after Passover.');"><sup>30</sup></span> comes as a peace-offering, whereas a peace-offering remainder does not come as a Passover-offering. Now if the Passover-offering, whose remainder comes as a peace-offering, is [nevertheless] unfit if one slaughters it in its season as a peace-offering; is it not logical that the peace-offering is unfit if slaughtered in the name of a Passover-offering in its season, seeing that its remainder does not come as a Passover-offering?