Zevachim 7
אשכחן זביחה שאר עבודות מנלן
But perhaps that is their name?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Perhaps the Heb. zebah simply means 'sacrifice', as E.V the name of the offering being the sacrifice of peace-offerings, and thus it has no bearing on the question of slaughtering.');"><sup>2</sup></span>
אשכחן שחיטה וקבלה זריקה מנלן
We have thus learned [it of] slaughtering, how do we know [it of] the other [sacrificial] services?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Receiving the blood, carrying it to the part of the altar where it is to be sprinkled, and the actual sprinkling, count as separate services.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
וכי תימא לילף מהני מה להני שכן טעונות צפון וישנן בחטאות הפנימיות
And if you say, let us learn then, from slaughtering [by analogy], then it may be objected, as for slaughtering, the reason is because it disqualifies in the case of a Passover-sacrifice [if done] on behalf of those who cannot ea it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g on behalf of aged and infirm, who cannot eat. But if the blood is sprinkled on their behalf, the offering is not unfit; and similarly in the case of any other of the services performed on their behalf.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
אשכחן כולהו הולכה מנלן
As for the reception [of the blood], the reason is because it is unfit [if done] by a lay-Israelite or a woman.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It must be done by a priest. The slaughtering however may be done by a lay-Israelite too, and therefore, but for the text which teaches otherwise, I might think that it need not be done specifically in the name of that particular sacrifice.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
אלא אמר קרא (ויקרא א, ה) והקריב את הכל המזבחה ואמר מר זו הולכת אברים לכבש ותניא (ויקרא א, ה) והקריבו זו קבלת הדם ואפיק רחמנא בלשון הולכה למימרא דהולכה לא תפקה מכלל קבלה'
And if you answer, let us learn it from the former [by analogy, then it may be argued]: As for the former, the reason is because they require the north,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They must both be done at the north side of the altar.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ואשכחן שנוי קודש שנוי בעלים מנלן
and are practised in the case of the inner sin-offerings - Rather, Scripture says, 'He that dasheth the blood of the peace-offerings!' [which teaches] that the sprinkling [dashing] must be in the name of peace-offerings.
והאי להכי הוא דאתא הא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ובשר זבח תודת שלמיו אבא חנין אומר משום רבי אליעזר בא ללמד תודה ששחטה לשם שלמים כשרה שלמים ששחטן לשם תודה פסולה מה הפרש בין זה לזה תודה קרויה שלמים ואין שלמים קרויה תודה
[That is impossible] because [the analogy] can be refuted: as for sprinkling, that is because a lay-Israelite is liable to death on its account.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he performs it. But the slaughtering may be done by a non priest; while the receiving and carrying, though forbidden to a non priest, do not involve death. By 'death' is meant death at the hands of heaven, not capital punishment.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ואכתי מיבעי ליה חטאת ואשם מנין תלמוד לומר זבח
And if you say, let us learn it from all the others, [then it may be argued]: As for all the others,that is because they are rites which cannot be dispensed with; will you say the same of carrying, which can be dispensed with?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the animal is killed at the very spot where the blood is to be sprinkled.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
נאמרה זביחה בשינוי קודש ונאמרה זביחה בשינוי בעלים מה זביחה האמורה בשינוי קודש לא חלקת בין זביחה לשאר עבודות אף זביחה האמורה בשינוי בעלים לא תחלק בהן בין זביחה לשאר עבודות
and a Master said: This refers to the carrying of the limbs to the [altar] ascent; while it was also taught, [And Aaron's sons.] shall present [t blood]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 5.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
וישנו לאחר מיתה וישנו בציבור כביחיד
Now, Scripture expresses this by a term denoting carrying<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The same Heb. word, hikrib here explained to mean the receiving of the blood, is interpreted as carrying (the limbs) in the other verse.');"><sup>16</sup></span> in order to teach that carrying cannot be excluded from the scope of receiving,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., receiving includes carrying, and the law of one applies to the other.');"><sup>17</sup></span> Now we have thus found [it] of change [of intention] in respect of sanctity;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., that a particular sacrifice must not be offered in the name of a different sacrifice.');"><sup>18</sup></span> whence do we know it of change [of intention] in respect of owner? - Said R'Phinehas the son of R'Ammi: Scripture says, And the flesh of the slaughtering of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving etc. ,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VII, 15.');"><sup>19</sup></span> [which teaches] that the slaughtering must be in the name of a thanksoffering; now since this is superfluous for change in respect of sanctity, for that is deduced from the other text, transfer its teaching to change in respect of owners.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a principle of Talmudic exegesis: where a verse is superfluous in respect of the subject upon which it directly bears, its teaching is to be transferred to another, analagous subject.');"><sup>20</sup></span> But is that the purpose of this verse? Surely it is required for what was taught. [Viz. ,] 'And the flesh of the zebah [slaughtering] of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving': Abba Hanin said on R'Eliezer's authority: This comes to teach that if a thanksoffering is slaughtered in the name of a peace-offering, it is valid; if a peace-offeri is slaughtered in the name of a thanksoffering,it is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Valid' and 'invalid' mean that the bringer has discharged or not discharged his obligations respectively.');"><sup>21</sup></span> What is the difference between these two cases? - A thanksoffering is designated a peace-offering, but a peace-offering is not designated a thanksoffering!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Peace-offering' is a wider term, which includes but is not included in the term 'thanksoffering'. - Thus the verse is required for a different purpose.');"><sup>22</sup></span> - We state [our deduction] from the word 'slaughtering'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas the other teaching is deduced from the phrase 'his peace-offerings for thanksgiving'.');"><sup>23</sup></span> Yet it is still needed [thus]: How do we know [it of] a sin-offering and a guilt-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That their flesh too may be eaten only on the day when they are sacrificed and the following night, as that text is interpreted is respect of thanksgiving.');"><sup>24</sup></span> From the word 'slaughtering'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which term includes other sacrifices.');"><sup>25</sup></span> - If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If that is the only teaching of that verse.');"><sup>26</sup></span> let Scripture write, And the flesh of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving slaughtering [shall be eaten etc.]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus 'zebah' would be written immediately in connection with eating.');"><sup>27</sup></span> why state, the slaughtering [of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bringing 'slaughtering' into connection with the sacrifice rather than with the eating.');"><sup>28</sup></span> So that both laws may be inferred from it. We have thus found [it of] slaughtering; whence do we know [it of] other services?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that they must not be performed in the name of any but their true owner.');"><sup>29</sup></span> And if you say, Let us learn [them] from slaughtering, [then it may be objected]: as for slaughtering, the reason is because it disqualifies in the case of a Passover-offering, [when it is done] for the sake of those who cannot eat it! - 'Slaughtering' is stated in reference to change [of intention] in respect of sanctity, and 'slaughtering' is sta in reference to change [of intention] in respect of owner; as in the case of the slaughtering stated in referenc to change in respect of sanctity, you do not differentiate between slaughtering and other services, so also in the case of the slaughtering which stated in reference to change of owners, you must not differentiate between slaughtering and other rites. This can be refuted: as for change in respect of sanctity, [that is] because its disqualification is intrinsic,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., on illegitimate intention is expressed in respect to the sacrifice itself.');"><sup>30</sup></span> and it is [operative] in respect of the four services,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An Illegitimate intention in respect of any service disqualifies it (according to the terms of the Mishnah) . But change in respect of owner is a disqualification only for sprinkling, which constitutes the principal rite of atonement, either at that rite itself, or by expressing an intention at the slaughtering or any other service that the sprinkling shall be for a different owner.');"><sup>31</sup></span> and it is [operative] after death,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the owner dies, his son must bring it, and if he slaughters it for a different purpose it is invalid.');"><sup>32</sup></span> and it is [operative] in the case of the community as In the case of an individual.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A public sacrifice, just like a private sacrifice, is disqualified if offered for another purpose.');"><sup>33</sup></span>