Zevachim 23

Chapter 23

א דאיתקש לנרות

1 because it is likened to lamps.1

ב התם נמי כתיב (דברים טז, ו) שם תזבח את הפסח בערב

2 But there too it is written, There thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering even [ba-'ereb]?2

ג ההוא ליאוחר דבר הוא דאתא דתניא יאוחר דבר שנאמר בו בערב ובין הערבים לדבר שלא נאמר בו אלא בין הערבים בלבד

3 - That comes to teach deferment.

ד ומי איכא מידי דאילו שחיט ליה מצפרא אמרת זימניה הוא וכי מטי בין הערבים אמרת יאוחר דבר

4 For it was taught: Let that in connection with which ba-'ereb [at even] and ben ha-'arbayim [between the evenings]3

ה אין דהא"ר יוחנן הלכה מתפלל של מנחה ואח"כ מתפלל של מוספין

5 are said be deferred after that in connection with which ben ha-'arbayim alone is said.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In connection with the Passover-offering both expressions are used (Ex. XII, 6; Deut. XVI, 6) , while in connection with the daily-offering one only is stated (Num. XXVIII, 4) . Hence the former is sacrificed after the latter.');">4

ו ובין הערבים דכתיב גבי קטרת ונרות למה לי

6 Now can there be a case where if he slaughtered it in the morning you say that it is its proper time, yet when afternoon arrives you say that it should be deferred?5

ז ועוד השיב רבי תחת בן בתירא לדברי רבי יהושע לא אם אמרת בשלשה עשר שאין מקצתו ראוי תאמר בארבעה עשר שמקצתו ראוי

7 - Yes, for surely R'Johanan said: The halachah is that one must recite the minhah [afternoon] service and then recite the additional service.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Sabbath, festivals and New Moon there are three services, the morning service, the additional service and the afternoon service in that order (beside the evening service, which is recited the previous evening) . The additional service must commence before the time of the afternoon service, which is from half an hour after noon until dusk. If one had not recited it by then, he must give precedence to the afternoon service. This is exactly analogous to our own case.');">6

ח ואם איתא כולו ראוי הוא

8 Now, what is the purpose of 'ben ha-'arbayim' [at dusk] written in connection with incense and lamps?7

ט אלא א"ר יוחנן פוסל היה בן בתירא בפסח ששחטו בארבעה עשר שחרית בין לשמו בין שלא לשמו הואיל ומקצתו ראוי

9 Furthermore, [it was taught:]8

י מגדף בה רבי אבהו א"כ פסח כשר לבן בתירא היכי משכחת לה אי דאפרשיה האידנא דחוי מעיקרו הוא ואי דאפרשינהו מאתמול נראה ונדחה הוא

10 Rabbi rebutted the words of R'Joshua on Ben Bathyra's view: That is not so,9

יא אלא אמר רבי אבהו תהא לאחר חצות

11 If you speak of the thirteenth, where no part of it is fit, will you speak [thus] of the fourteenth ,where part it is fit?

יב אביי אמר אפילו תימא מצפרא אין מחוסר זמן לבו ביום

12 Now if this is correct,10

יג רב פפא אמר אפילו תימא מאורתא לילה אין מחוסר זמן דתני דבי ר' ישמעאל ליל שמיני נכנס לדיר להתעשר

13 then the whole of it is fit!11

יד וכדרבי אפטוריקי דרבי אפטוריקי רמי כתיב (ויקרא כב, כז) והיה שבעת ימים תחת אמו הא לילה חזי וכתיב (ויקרא כב, כז) ומיום השמיני והלאה ירצה הא לילה לא חזי

14 - Rather said R'Johanan: Ben Bathyra declared unfit a Passover-offering which one slaughtered in the morning of the fourteenth, whether in its own or in a different name, since part of it is fit [for the slaughtering].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If slaughtered in its own name, it is invalid because the proper time is the afternoon. If not in its own name, it is invalid because part of that day is the proper time for it, and hence the law on ');">12

טו הא כיצד לילה לקדושה ויום להרצאה

15 R'Abbahu sneered at this view: If so, how is it possible on Ben Bathyra's ruling for a Passover-offering to be fit?13

טז א"ל רבי זירא לרבי אבהו לימא קסבר רבי יוחנן בעלי חיים נדחין

16 If one separates it now, it is rejected a initio; while if one separated it yesterday, it was eligible and rejected!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one separates the animal for a Passover-offering on the morning of the fourteenth, it is fit for nothing at all then, neither for a Passover-offering nor for a peace-offering. Thus from the very beginning it is ineligible (technically 'rejected') , and R. Johanan holds infra that in such circumstances it can never be eligible again, even if conditions subsequently alter. Again, if one separated it the previous day, it was then eligible for a peace-offering, but on the following morning it was 'rejected' (became ineligible) , and in the view of all Rabbis it then remains permanently rejected.');">14

יז אמר ליה אין דא"ר יוחנן בהמה של שני שותפין הקדיש חציה וחזר ולקח חציה והקדישה קדושה ואינה קריבה

17 - Rather said R'Abbahu: It must be [that he separated it] after midday.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When it is actually eligible. - The answer is obvious, and R. Abbahu's objection is probably only rhetorical, as a means of expressing the opinion that according to Ben Bathyra as interpreted by R. Johanan the animal cannot be separated for the Passover-offering until the afternoon,');">15

יח ועושה תמורה ותמורתה כיוצא בה

18 Abaye said: You may even say [that one separates it] in the morning, [because the disqualification of] prematureness does not apply to the same day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where an animal becomes eligible for a particular purpose during the day, the earlier part of the same day is not regarded as premature, in the sense discussed here.');">16

יט ושמע מינה תלת שמע מינה בעלי חיים נדחין וש"מ דחוי מעיקרא הוה דחוי וש"מ

19 R'Papa said: You may even say [that one separates it] the [previous] evening:17 prematureness does not apply to the night. For R'Ishmael taught: On the night of the eighth day it enters the fold to be tithed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An animal cannot he sacrificed before it is eight days old, and for the same reason when animals are to be tithed it does not enter the fold for the purpose. Yet if the tithing is taking place on the night of the eight day (it will be eight days old the next day) it does enter. This proves that prematureness does not apply to the night.');">18 And [this is] in accordance with R'Aftoriki. For R'Aftoriki pointed out a contradiction, It is written, Then it shall be seven days under its dam;19 hence on the [following] night it is eligible. Yet it is written, But from the eighth da and thenceforth it may be accepted [for an offering],19 whence it follows that it was not eligible the [previous] evening. How is this [to be reconciled]? The night for sanctification and the day for acceptance.20 R'Zera asked R'Abbahu: Must we say that R'Johanan holds that live animals can be [permanently] rejected?21 - Even so, replied he. For R'Johanan said: [With regard to] an animal belonging to two partners; if one [of them] dedicates half, and then purchases [the other] half and dedicates it, it is holy, yet cannot be offered up;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was not fit for offering originally, as the half belonging to the other partner was as yet secular. Hence it must now be sold, and an animal purchased with the money and sacrificed,');">22 and it establishes [the sanctity of] a substitute,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is to Lev. XXVII, 33: neither shall he change it (a consecrated animal) : and if he change it, then both it and the change thereof shall be holy. Thus here, if one substitutes another animal for this one, the substitute too is holy.');">23 and the substitute is as itself.24 This proves three things: that live animals may be rendered [permanently] rejected;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As here: the animal having been tendered ineligible when dedicated, since half remained secular, it remains so even when the other half too is dedicated. There is an opposing view that only a dead animal can become permanently ineligible, V. Yoma 64a.');">25 that which is rejected ab initio is rejected;26 and

Previous Chapter Next Chapter