Zevachim 96
אתה אומר לכך יצא או אינו אלא שזה טעון צפון ואין אחר טעון צפון תלמוד לומר ושחט את החטאת במקום העולה זה בנה אב לכל חטאות שיהו טעונות צפון
Is it not already stated, In the place where the burnt-offering is killed shall the sin-offering be killed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 18. This applies to all sin-offerings.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
מיבעי ליה לכדתניא אותו בצפון ואין שעיר נחשון בצפון
You say it has been singled out for this purpose, yet perhaps it is not so, but rather [to teach] that this one [alone] requires the north,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. that mentioned in Lev. IV, 33.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
מתקיף לה רבינא הניחא לר' יהודה לר"ש מאי איכא למימר
We have thus found [it true of] a prince's sin-offering, that it is both a recommendation and indispensable; we have also found it as a recommendation in the case of other sin-offerings; how do we know that it is indispensable [for other sin-offerings]?
שוחט מדרבי אחיא נפקא דתניא ר' אחיא אומר (ויקרא א, יא) ושחט אותו על ירך המזבח צפונה מה תלמוד לומר
- That is required for what was taught: 'It' [is slaughtered] on the north, but Nahshon's goat was not [slaughtered] in the north.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the sin-offerings brought at the consecration of the altar, which were not on account of sin at all; v. Num. VII, 12 seq.');"><sup>8</sup></span>
לפי שמצינו עומד בצפון ומקבל בצפון ואם עמד בדרום וקיבל בצפון פסול יכול אף זה כן ת"ל אותו אותו בצפון ואין השוחט בצפון
And it was taught: And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 24. This refers to the prince's goat: instead of 'head of the goat', Scripture could say, 'its head'; the longer form is regarded as an extension.');"><sup>9</sup></span>
מה לעולה שכן כליל
To this Rabina demurred: That is well on R'Judah's view; but what can be said on R'Simeon's?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He does not include it in respect of laying hands: then a text is not required to shew that north does not apply to it.');"><sup>10</sup></span>
מאשם מה לאשם שכן קדשי קדשים מכולן נמי שכן קדשי קדשים
[surely], where it is included, it is included, and where it is not included, it is not included?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' No text is necessary for this.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
לעולם כדאמרן מעיקרא אותו בצפון ואין שוחט בצפון ודקשיא לך מדרבי אחיא נפקא לן לאו למעוטי שוחט בצפון אלא אין שוחט בצפון אבל מקבל בצפון
And should you say, Had Scripture not excluded it, [its inclusion] would be inferred by analogy: if so, let laying [hands] itself be inferred by analogy?
מקבל מלקח ולקח נפקא לקח ולקח לא משמע ליה
But [you must answer that] a temporary [sacrifice] can not be inferred from a permanent one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit, (text as emended by Sh. M.) 'you do not learn the hour from generations' - You could not learn that Nahshon's goat required laying hands, by analogy with an ordinary sin-offering, because the former was a special ad hoc offering, whereas the ordinary sin-offering was for all time.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
אמר רב אדא בר אהבה ואיתימא רבה בר שילא ק"ו ומה חטאת הבאה מכח עולה מעכבת עולה שבאה חטאת מכחה אינו דין שמעכבת
a temporary [sacrifice] cannot be inferred from a permanent one?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that in any case there is no reason for thinking that Nahshon's sin-offering required the north; why then is a text needed to exclude it?');"><sup>14</sup></span>
מה לחטאת שכן מכפרת על חייבי כריתות
- Rather [it teaches this]: 'It [is slaughtered in the north], but the slaughterer need not be in the north.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He can stand in the south near the boundary line, stretch out his hand, and slaughter it in the north.');"><sup>15</sup></span>
אמר ליה מר זוטרא בריה דרב מרי לרבינא ולא
For it was taught, R'Ahia said: And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward': why is this stated? Because we find that the receiving priest must stand in the north and receive [the blood] in the north, while if he stood in the south and received [the blood] in the north it is invalid. You might think that this [slaughtering] is likewise. Therefore Scripture states, '[And he shall kill] it', [intimating that] 'it' must be in the north, but the slaughterer need not be in the north! - Rather [ teaches this]: 'It' [must be killed] in the north, but a bird does not need the north.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When its neck is wrung.');"><sup>16</sup></span> For it was taught: You might think that a bird-offering needs the north, and this is indeed logical: If [Scripture] prescribed north fo a lamb, though it did not prescribe a priest for it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It may be slaughtered by a zar.');"><sup>17</sup></span> is it not logical that it should prescribe north for a bir seeing that it did prescribe a priest for it? Therefore 'it' is stated.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As a limitation.');"><sup>18</sup></span> [No:] as for a lamb, the reason is because [Scripture] prescribed a utensil for it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It must be slaughtered with a knife, whereas a bird merely has its neck wrung. Hence again there is no reason for thinking that a bird requires north, and therefore no need for a limitation.');"><sup>19</sup></span> - Rather, [it teaches this]: 'It' [must be killed] in the north, but t Passover-offering [need] not [be slaughtered] in the north. For it was taught, R'Eliezer B'Jacob said: You might think that a Passover-offering needs the north, and this is indeed logical: if [Scripture] prescribed the north for a burnt-offering, though it did not prescribe a fixed season for its slaughtering; is it not logical t it should prescribe the north for a Passover-offering, seeing that it did prescribe a fixed season for its slaughtering? Therefore 'it' is stated. [No:] as for a burnt-offering, the reason is because it is altogether bu [Then learn it] from a sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is not altogether burnt, yet requires the north.');"><sup>20</sup></span> As for a sin-offering, the reason is because it makes atonement for those who are liable to kareth! [Then learn it] from a guilt-offering. [No:] as for a guilt-offering, the reason is because it is a most sacred sacrifice! [And you] cannot [learn it] from all these<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the burnt-offering, guilt-offering and sin-offering.');"><sup>21</sup></span> likewise, because they are most sacred sacrifices! - After all, it is as we said originally: 'It' [must be] in the north, but the slaughter need not be in the north, and as to your difficulty, 'That is deduced from R'Ahia's exegesis', [the answer is that] it does not [really] exclude the slaughterer from the north,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For that is arrived at by R. Ahia's exegesis.');"><sup>22</sup></span> but [is meant thus]: The slaughterer need not be in the north, [whence it follows that] the receiver must be in the north, 'The receiver'? Surely that is deduced from 'and he shall take,' [which we interpret] let him [be]take himself [to the north]? - He does not interpret 'and he shall take' as meaning 'let him [be]take himself,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Text as emended by Sh. M.');"><sup>23</sup></span> We have thus found a recommendation that slaughtering a burnt-offering must be in the north, and a [similar] recommendation about receiving; how do we know that [the north] is indispensable in the case of slaughtering and receiving?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the sense that the sacrifice is otherwise invalid.');"><sup>24</sup></span> - Said R'Adda B'Ahabah, - others state, Rabbah B'Shila: [It is deduced] afortiori: If it is indispensable in the case of a sin-offering, which is [only] learnt from a burnt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which comes from the strength of a burnt-offering'.');"><sup>25</sup></span> surely it is logical that it is indispensable in the case of a burnt-offering, from which a sin-offering is lear [No:] As for a sin-offering, the reason is because it makes atonement for those who are liable to kareth! Said Rabina: This is R'Adda's difficulty:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In spite of the refutation, he employs this afortiori argument on account of the following difficulty.');"><sup>26</sup></span> Do we ever find the secondary more stringent than the primary?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although a sin-offering makes atonement for those liable to kareth, here it is only secondary to a burnt-offering, since 'north' is written primarily in connection with the latter.');"><sup>27</sup></span> Said Mar Zutra son of R'Mari to Rabina: Do we not?