Zevachim 22

Chapter 22

א אמר לו רבי יהושע מצינו מותר חטאת בא עולה ואין מותר עולה בא חטאת
1 Said R'Joshua to him: We find that a sin-offering remainder comes as a burnt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tem. 23b.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב ומה חטאת שמותרה בא עולה שחטה לשם עולה פסולה עולה שאין מותרה בא חטאת שחטה לשם חטאת אינו דין שתהא פסולה
2 but a burntoffering remainder does not come as a sin-offering.
ג אמר לו רבי אליעזר לא אם אמרת בחטאת שכן כשרה לשמה כל השנה כולה תאמר בפסח שאינו כשר לשמו אלא בזמנו הואיל והוא פסול לשמו דין הוא שיפסלו אחרים לשמו:
3 Now if the sin-offering is unfit when slaughtered as a burnt-offering, though its remainder comes as a burnt-offering; is it not logical that a burnt-offering slaughtered as a sin-offering is unfit, seeing that its remainder does not come as a sin-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yet in fact it is not unfit, which shews that an ad majus argument from the law of a remainder is inadmissible. As R. Eliezer does not answer that in his view it is indeed unfit, Rabbah deduces that he admits that other sacrifices slaughtered as sin-offerings are fit.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ד שמעון אחי עזריה אומר כו':
4 Not so, replied R'Eliezer to him.
ה רב אשי מתני משמיה דרבי יוחנן ורב אחא בריה דרבא מתני משמיה דרבי ינאי מאי טעמא דשמעון אחי עזריה דאמר קרא (ויקרא כב, טו) ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל את אשר ירימו לה' במורם מהן אין מתחללין בנמוך מהם מתחללין
5 If you speak of a sin-offering, the reason [that a burnt-offering slaughtered in its name is fit] is because it [the sin-offering] is fit [when slaughtered] in its own name throughout the year.
ו והאי להכי הוא דאתא והא מיבעי ליה לכדשמואל דאמר שמואל מנין לאוכל את הטבל שהוא במיתה שנאמר ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל את אשר ירימו לה' בעתידים לתרום הכתוב מדבר
6 Wil you say the same of a Passover-offering which is fit [when slaughtered] in its own name only in its season?
ז אם כן לכתוב קרא אשר הורמו מאי אשר ירימו שמע מיניה תרתי:
7 Since then that itself is unfit [when slaughtered] in its own name [during the rest of the year], it is logical others slaughtered in its name [during the rest of the year] are unfit.
ח בעי רבי זירא כשרין ואין מרצין וכי פליג בחדא פליג או דלמא כשרין ומרצין ובתרתי פליגי
8 SIMEON THE BROTHER OF AZARIAH SAID etc. R'Ashi recited the following in R'Johanan s name, and R'Aha son of Raba recited it in R'Jannai's name: What is the reason of Simeon the brother of Azariah?
ט אמר אביי ואיתימא רבי זריקא תא שמע הבכור והמעשר ששחטן לשם שלמים כשרים שלמים ששחטן לשם בכור או לשם מעשר פסולין
9 Because Scripture saith, And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they shall exalt unto the Lord:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 15.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
י ואי ס"ד כשרין ומרצין בכור בר ריצויי הוא אלא כשרין ואין מרצין ומדסיפא כשרין ואין מרצין רישא נמי כשרין ואין מרצין
10 [this teaches that] they are not profaned [rendered unfit] through what is superior [higher] than themselves, but they are profaned through what is inferior to themselves.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rendering: they shall not profane the holy things (sc. the sacrifices) when they exalt them, i.e, when they offer them as a sacrifice whose sanctity is higher than their own.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
יא מידי איריא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא
11 But does this text come for this purpose?
יב אלא מאי קמ"ל גבוה ונמוך קמ"ל תנינא כיצד קדשי קדשים ששחטן לשם קדשים קלים כו'
12 Surely it is required for Samuel's dictum! For Samuel said: Whence do we know that he who eats tebel<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos, unhrh');"><sup>5</sup></span>
יג מהו דתימא קדשי קדשים וקדשים קלים הוא דאיכא גבוה ונמוך אבל קלים וקלים לא
13 is liable to death?
יד הא נמי תנינא שלמים קודמים את הבכור מפני שהן טעונין מתן ארבע וסמיכה ונסכים ותנופת חזה ושוק
14 From the verse, And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they shall exalt unto the Lord: the Writ refers to that which is yet to be exalted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., offered. The verb ' ' is imperfect (which they shall exalt) and hence refers to 'holy things', which includes terumah (q.v. Glos.) , which are yet to be separated from the produce, so that it is all tebel. - For the liability to death (at the hands of Heaven) v. Sanh. 83a.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
טו הא עיקר ההיא אגררא נסבה:
15 - If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the text teaches the former dictum of Simeon the brother of Azariah only.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
טז <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הפסח ששחטו שחרית בארבעה עשר שלא לשמו רבי יהושע מכשיר כאילו נשחט בשלשה עשר בן בתירא פוסל כאילו נשחט בין הערבים
16 Scripture should write, 'which were exalted [offered]': why state, 'which they shall exalt'?
יז אמר שמעון בן עזאי מקובל אני מפי שבעים ושנים זקן ביום שהושיבו את רבי אליעזר בישיבה שכל הזבחים הנאכלין שנזבחו שלא לשמן כשרין אלא שלא עלו לבעלים משום חובה חוץ מן הפסח ומן החטאת ולא הוסיף בן עזאי אלא העולה ולא הודו לו חכמים:
17 Hence infer both from this.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The root word 'exalt' teaches the former, and the future tense teaches the latter.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
יח <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רבי אלעזר אמר רבי אושעיא מכשיר היה בן בתירא בפסח ששחטו שחרית בארבעה עשר לשמו דכוליה יומא זימניה הוא
18 R'Zera asked: Are they valid yet do not propitiate, and so he disagrees in one only; or are they valid and propitiate, and he disagrees in both?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does Simeon the brother of Azariah mean that when slaughtered in the name of a higher sacrifice they are fit, yet do not propitiate, i.e., they do not acquit their owner of their obligation; but if slaughtered in the name of a lower sacrifice they are completely unfit? In that case he agrees with the first Tanna as far as the former instance is concerned, and disagrees only in respect of the latter. Or does he mean in the former instance that they also propitiate? If so, he disagrees with the first Tanna in respect of the former too, the first Tanna holding that they do not propitiate.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
יט ומאי כאילו
19 - Said Abaye - others maintain, R'Zerika,-Come and hear: IF ONE SLAUGHTERED A FIRSTLING OR TITHE IN THE NAME OF A PEACE-OFFERING, IT IS VALID; IF ONE SLAUGHTERED A PEACE-OFFERING AS A FIRSTLING OR TITHE, IT IS INVALID.
כ איידי דאמר רבי יהושע כאילו אמר איהו נמי כאילו
20 Now if you think that [he means that] they are valid and propitiate, is propitiation applicable to a firstling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not!');"><sup>10</sup></span>
כא אי הכי אדמיפלגי בשלא לשמו ליפלגו בלשמו
21 Hence they are valid and do not propitiate, and since the second clause [means that] they are valid and do not propitiate, [in] the first clause too they are valid and do not propitiate.
כב אי איפלגו בלשמו הוה אמינא אבל בשלא לשמו מודי רבי יהושע לבן בתירא הואיל ומקצתו ראוי קא משמע לן
22 But what argument is this?
כג והכתיב (שמות יב, ו) בין הערבים
23 The one is according to its nature, and the other is according to its nature.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where there is no question of propitiation it means that they are valid but do not propitiate. But where propitiation does apply (sc. in the first clause) they may propitiate too.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
כד אמר עולא בריה דרב עילאי בין שני ערבים
24 Then what does he inform us?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the second clause,');"><sup>12</sup></span>
כה תמיד דכתיב ביה (שמות כט, לט) בין הערבים הכי נמי דכולי יומא כשר
25 [The principle governing] a higher and lower sanctity!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Is that the only purpose of this second clause dealing with the firstling etc.?');"><sup>13</sup></span>
כו התם מדכתיב (שמות כט, לט) את הכבש אחד תעשה בבקר מכלל דבין הערבים בין הערבים ממש
26 Surely we learnt it: HOW SO?
כז אימא חד בבקר אידך כוליה יומא
27 IF ONE SLAUGHTERED MOST SACRED SACRIFICES UNDER THE DESIGNATION OF LESSER SACRIFICES etc. - You might say, Only in the most sacred sacrifices and the lesser sacrifices is there higher and lower, but not where both are lesser sacrifices.
כח אחד בבקר ולא שנים בבקר
28 [Hence we are informed that it is not so.] But we learnt this too: The peace-offering takes precedence over the firstling, because the former requires four [blood-] sprinklings, laying on [of hands], drink-offerings, and the waving of the breast and the shoulder?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Infra 89a. It takes precedence because its sanctity is higher.');"><sup>14</sup></span>
כט נרות דכתיב (שמות כט, לט) בין הערבים הכי נמי דכולי יומא כשר
29 - The present passage<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. our MISHNAH:');"><sup>15</sup></span>
ל שאני התם דכתיב מערב ועד בקר ותניא (שמות כז, כא) מערב ועד בקר תן לה מדתה שתהא דולקת והולכת מערב ועד בקר דבר אחר אין לך עבודה כשרה מערב ועד בקר אלא זו בלבד
30 is the main source, while in the other it is taught incidentally.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As part of the order of precedence observed in all sacrifices. Yet the main source of the ruling that the peace-offering enjoys a higher sanctity than the firstling is our own MISHNAH:');"><sup>16</sup></span>
לא קטורת דכתיב בה (שמות ל, ח) בין הערבים הכי נמי דכולי יומא כשר
31 <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE SLAUGHTERS THE PASSOVER-OFFERING ON THE MORNING OF THE FOURTEENTH [OF NISAN] UNDER A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION, R'JOSHUA DECLARES IT VALID, JUST AS IF IT HAD BEEN SLAUGHTERED ON THE THIRTEENTH; BEN BATHYRA DECLARES IT INVALID, AS IF IT HAD BEEN SLAUGHTERED IN THE AFTERNOON.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mishnah 2a.');"><sup>17</sup></span>
לב שאני קטרת
32 SAID SIMEON B. AZZAI: I HAVE A TRADITION FROM THE MOUTH OF SEVENTY-TWO ELDER[S]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Gemara discusses infra why the text uses the singular.');"><sup>18</sup></span> ON THE DAY THAT R'ELEAZAR [SON OF AZARIAH]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text.');"><sup>19</sup></span> WAS APPOINTED TO THE ACADEMY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As its head. V. Ber. 27b.');"><sup>20</sup></span> THAT ALL SACRIFICES WHICH ARE EATEN,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This excludes the burnt-offering.');"><sup>21</sup></span> THOUGH SLAUGHTERED UNDER A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION ARE VALID, SAVE THAT THEIR OWNERS HAVE NOT DISCHARGED THEIR OBLIGATION, EXCEPT THE PASSOVER-OFFERING AND THE SIN-OFFERING. THUS THE SON OF 'AZZAI ADDED<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As being unfit.');"><sup>22</sup></span> ONLY THE BURNT-OFFERING, BUT THE SAGES DID NOT AGREE WITH HIM. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Eleazar said in R'Oshaia's name: Ben Bathyra declared fit a Passover-offering which one slaughtered in its own name on the morning of the fourteenth, because [he holds that] the whole day is its season.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not the afternoon only. For that very reason he declares it invalid when not slaughtered for its own sake.');"><sup>23</sup></span> Then what does AS IF [etc.] mean?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that if the whole day is the season, there is no point in saying AS IF IT HAD BEEN SLAUGHTERED IN THE AFTERNOON.');"><sup>24</sup></span> Because R'Joshua states AS IF,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On his view it is pertinent, since he holds that only the afternoon is its season.');"><sup>25</sup></span> he too says, AS IF. If so, instead of disputing where it is [slaughtered] under a different designation, let them dispute where it is [slaughtered] in its own name?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Ben Bathyra it is valid, while in R. Joshua's view it is invalid.');"><sup>26</sup></span> - If they differed where it is [slaughtered] in its own name, I would say that R'Joshua agrees with Ben Bathyra [that it is invalid] when [slaughtered] under a different designation, since part of it [the day] is fit [eligible]. Hence he informs us [that it is not so]. But surely it is written, dusk?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 6. How then can R. Oshaia maintain that the whole day is the proper time? ohcrgv ihc');"><sup>27</sup></span> - Said 'Ulla the son of R'Ila'i: [That means,] Between two evenings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This being the literal meaning of the Hebrew . I.e., between the evening of the fourteenth (which he counts as until dawn) and the evening of the fifteenth, hence the whole day of the fourteenth.');"><sup>28</sup></span> Then [will you say] that the whole day is fit for the daily offering too, seeing that at dusk<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXIX, 39.');"><sup>29</sup></span> is written in connection therewith? - There, since it is written, 'The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning', it follows that 'at dusk' is meant literall Yet say, One [must be offered] in the morning, while the other [may be offered] the whole day? - [Scripture prescribes] one for the morning and not two for the morning. Again, will you say that the whole day is fit for [the lighting of] the lamps, since 'at dusk' is written in connection therewith?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid, XXX, 8.');"><sup>30</sup></span> - There it is different, because it is written, [to burn] from evening to morning,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid, XXVII, 21.');"><sup>31</sup></span> and it was taught: 'From evening to morning': Furnish it with its [requisite] measure, so that it may burn from evening to morning. Another interpretation: You have no other [service] valid from evening to morning save this alone. Now [will you say] in the case of incense too, where 'at dusk' is written,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XXX, 8, - the same text as that quoted for the lamps.');"><sup>32</sup></span> that the whole day is fit [for th burning thereof]? -incense is different,