Zevachim 95

פר ושעיר של יום הכיפורים כו': מכדי צפון בעולה כתיב ניתני עולה ברישא

AS FOR THE BULLOCK AND THE HE-GOAT OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT etc. Consider: the north [side of the altar] is written in connection with the burnt-offering, then let him teach [about] the burnt-offering first?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 53b.');">¹</span>

חטאת איידי דאתי מדרשא חביבא ליה

- Because this is deduced about the sin-offering by exegesis, he cherishes it more.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Tanna is more desirous of teaching the results of exegesis than what Scripture states explicitly, and therefore he gives them preference.');">²</span>

וניתני חטאות החיצונות איידי דנכנס דמן לפני ולפנים חביבא ליה

Then let him teach the outer sin-offerings [first]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 52b.');">³</span>

וצפונה בעולה היכא כתיבא (ויקרא א, יא) ושחט אותו על ירך המזבח צפונה

- Because the blood of these [which he does enumerate] enters the inner sanctuary, he cherishes it more.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is more important in his eyes, and hence he teaches it first.');">⁴</span>

אשכחן צאן בן בקר מנא לן אמר קרא ואם מן הצאן וי"ו מוסיף על ענין ראשון וילמד עליון מתחתון

Now, where is the north written in connection with the burnt-offering? - And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 11.');">⁵</span>

הניחא למ"ד מלמדין אלא למ"ד אין מלמדין מאי איכא למימר

We have thus found [it of] the flocks;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To which the text refers.');">⁶</span>

דתניא (ויקרא ה, יז) ואם נפש וגו' לחייב על ספק מעילות אשם תלוי דברי רבי עקיבא וחכמים פוטרין מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי מר סבר למידין ומר סבר אין למידין

how do we know [it of] the herd? - Scripture saith, And [we] if his offering be of the flock:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 10; and is expressed by the letter waw in Heb., punctuated we.');">⁷</span>

אמר רב פפא דכולי עלמא למידין והיינו טעמא דרבנן נאמר כאן מצות ונאמר בחטאת חלב מצות

the waw [and] continues<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'adds to'.');">⁸</span>

מה להלן דבר שחייבין על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת אף כאן שחייבין על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת

the preceding section, so that the [subject] above may be deduced from [that] below.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a passage commences with 'and', this conjunction links it with the previous portion, and a law stated in one applies to the other too. Here the subject above is the burnt-offering of the herd, and the subject below is that of the flock.');">⁹</span>

ורבי עקיבא מה להלן בקבועה אף כאן בקבועה לאפוקי חטאת דטומאת מקדש וקדשיו דעולה ויורד הוא

That is well on the view that you can learn<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By means of a conjunction waw.');">¹⁰</span>

ורבנן אין גזירה שוה למחצה ור"ע נמי אין גזירה שוה למחצה

[the subject above from that below]; but on the view that you cannot learn [it thus], what can be said?

אין הכי נמי והכא בהא קמיפלגי ר"ע סבר ואם נפש כתיב וי"ו מוסיף על ענין ראשון

For it was taught: And if any one sin etc. ;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 17.');">¹¹</span>

ורבנן נמי הכתיב ואם נפש לימא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר היקש עדיף ומר סבר גזירה שוה עדיף

this teaches that one is liable to a guilt-offering of suspense on account of doubtfu trespass:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Mishnah infra 54b. Now, the subject immediately preceding deals with the guilt-offering for putting sacred things to secular use (vv. 14-16) , when the offender learns that he has definitely sinned. If one is in doubt whether he has offended, this text teaches that he must bring a guilt-offering of suspense (i.e., doubt) . The doubt arises thus: Two things lie before a man, one of which he puts to secular use. Subsequently he learns that one of these was sacred, and he does not know which.');">¹²</span>

לא דכ"ע דהיקש עדיף ואמרי לך רבנן תחתון הוא דגמר מעליון

that is R'Akiba's ruling.

לאשם בכסף שקלים שלא תאמר לא יהא ספיקו חמור מודאו מה ודאו חטאת בת דנקא אף ספיקו אשם בר דנקא

But the Sages exempt [him].

ורבי עקיבא הא סברא מנא ליה נפקא ליה (ויקרא ז, א) מזאת תורת האשם תורה אחת לכל האשמות

Surely then they disagree in this: one master holds that we learn [the subject above from that below],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if any one sin introduces the law of the guilt-offering of suspense for doubtful sin. By learning the subject above from it, it follows that this is entailed by doubtful trespass too.');">¹³</span>

תינח מאן דאית ליה תורת מאן דלית ליה תורת מהיכא גמר גמר (ויקרא ה, טו) בערכך בערכך

while the other master holds that we do not learn it? - Said R'Papa: All agree that we do learn [thus], but this is the Rabbis' reason:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For not doing so here.');">¹⁴</span>

תינח היכא דכתיב בערכך אשם שפחה חרופה דלא כתיב ביה בערכך מאי איכא למימר

mizwoth<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit. 'commandments': and if any one sin, and do any of the mizwoth (E.V. things) which the Lord hath commanded not to be done etc.');">¹⁵</span>

גמר באיל באיל:

is employed here, and mizwoth is employed in connection with the sin-offering of forbidden fat:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 27. Forbidden fat is not mentioned there, but 'a sin-offering of forbidden fat' is the usual designation in the Talmud for an ordinary sin-offering. The reason is because Ye shall eat neither fat nor blood (Lev. III, 17) is followed by Ch. IV, which deals with sin-offerings (Rashi in Sot. 15a) . Asheri (in Ned. 4a) explains the reason because the most usual form of sinning thus is eating forbidden fat through having it in the house.');">¹⁶</span>

חטאת מנא לן דבעיא צפון דכתיב (ויקרא ד, כט) ושחט את החטאת במקום העולה

as there it means a law whose deliberate infringement entails kareth and its unwitting infringement entails a sin-offering, so here too<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the guilt-offering of suspense.');">¹⁷</span>

אשכחן שחיטה קבלה מנא לן דכתיב (ויקרא ד, כה) ולקח הכהן מדם החטאת

[it is entailed only by] that whose deliberate infringement entails kareth, while its unwitting infringement involves a sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., a guilt-offering of suspense is brought only when one is in doubt whether he has committed an offence, which, if certainly committed, entails kareth or a sin-offering. But the secular misuse of sacred property does not involve a sin-offering, consequently one is not liable to a guilt-offering for doubtful trespass.');">¹⁸</span>

מקבל עצמו מנא לן אמר קרא ולקח לו יקח

And R'Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he interpret this gezerah shawah?');">¹⁹</span>

אשכחן למצוה לעכב מנין קרא אחרינא כתיב (ויקרא ד, כד) ושחט אותו במקום אשר ישחט את העולה ותניא היכן עולה נשחטה בצפון אף זה בצפון

- As there it is fixed, so here it is fixed, thus excluding the sin-offering for the defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects [sacrifices], which is variable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'ascends (in value) and descends'. - The ordinary sin-offering is fixed and the same for rich and poor alike. This gezerah shawah then teaches that a guilt-offering of suspense is incurred only for the doubtful violation of a law which, if definitely violated, involves a fixed sin-offering. But if one is doubtful whether he entered the Temple whilst unclean, he does not bring a guilt-offering of suspense, because if he were certain he would only be liable to a variable sacrifice (v. Lev. V, 1-10) .');">²⁰</span> And the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What is their view on this?');">²¹</span> - There is no semi gezerah shawah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A gezerah shawah shews similarity in all respects, not in some only.');">²²</span> But R'Akiba too [surely admits that] there is no semi gezerah shawah? - That indeed is so; here, however, they differ in this: R'Akiba holds: 'And if a soul' is written, and the waw indicates conjunction with the preceding subject.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As above.');">²³</span> But [according to] the Rabbis too, surely it is written, And if a soul?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it was stated above that all agree that the subject above is learnt from that below.');">²⁴</span> Shall we say that they differ in this: one master holds tha a hekkesh is stronger; while the other master holds that a gezerah shawah is stronger?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The hekkesh or analogy arises from the waw, which couples both subjects. Thus apparently the Rabbis give preference to the gezerah shawah, while R. Akiba gives preference to the hekkesh (only one can be employed here, since they yield apparently contradictory results) .');">²⁵</span> - No: all agree that the gezerah shawah is stronger, but the Rabbis can answer you: the subject below is learnt from that above, that the guilt-offering must be [two] silver shekels in value,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The earlier passage reads: then he shall bring . . according to thy valuations in silver by shekels . . a guilt-offering (v. 15) , which the Rabbis interpret as meaning not less than two shekels. The analogy therefore teaches that the guilt-offering of suspense in v. 18 must also have that value.');">²⁶</span> so that you should not say: Surely the doubt cannot be more stringent than the certainty: as the certainty [of sin] requires a sin-offering [even] a sixth [o zuz in value], so [for] the doubt a guilt-offering of a sixth [of a zuz] is sufficient.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the hekkesh teaches otherwise.');">²⁷</span> Now, how does R'Akiba know this? - He deduces it from [the text,] And this is the law of the guilt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 1. lfrgc');">²⁸</span> [which intimates that] there is one law for all guilt-offerings. That is well on the view that 'law' can be [so] interpreted; but on th view that 'law' cannot be so interpreted, whence does he derive [it]? - He derives [it] from the repetition of 'according to thy valuation.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. It is repeated in Lev. V, 15 and Lev. V, 18, and this furnishes a gezerah shawah, which teaches that they must be of equal value in both cases.');">²⁹</span> [But] what can be said of the guilt-offering of a maidservant promised in marriage,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. XIX, 20-22.');">³⁰</span> where according to thy valuation' is not written? - He derives [it from] the repetition of 'with the ram.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. V, 16 and XIX, 22.');">³¹</span> How do we know that a sin-offering requires the north? - Because it is written, And he shall kill the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. IV, 24.');">³²</span> We have found [it of] slaughtering: how do we know [it of] receiving? Because it is written, And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid 25. This is connected with the immediately preceding words, 'in the place where they kill the burnt-offering.' - ' Take' means to receive the blood.');">³³</span> How do we know that the receiver himself [must stand in the north]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And not in the south and stretch out his hand to the north. (A line - imaginary - demarcated the north and the south, and so it would be possible to stand on one side of the line - south - and receive the blood on the other - the north.)');">³⁴</span> The text says, 'And he shall take', [which intimates,] he shall [be]take himself [to the place where the blood is received].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the north.');">³⁵</span> We have thus found [it as] a regulation; how do we know that it is indispensable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the sacrifice is invalid otherwise.');">³⁶</span> - Another text is written, And he shall kill it for a sin-offering the place where they kill the burnt-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 33. This treats of a lamb brought by a prince (ruler) as a sin-offering.');">³⁷</span> and it was taught: Where is the burnt-offering slaughtered? in the north: so this too<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the sin-offering.');">³⁸</span> is [slaughtered] in the north.