Parallel
זבחים 11
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
the burnt-offering is fit when its blood enters within, though it is entirely burnt, how much the more is the guilt-offering [fit], seeing that it is not entirely burnt. [But it may be asked:] As for the burnt-offering, [the reason is] because it does not make atonement? — Let a sinner's meal-offering prove it. (Yet he should rather say: Let the sin-offering of a bird prove it? The sin-offering of a bird is the subject of a question by R. Abin.) As for a sinner's meal-offering ‘ [the reason is] because it is not of the species that is slaughtered? Let the burnt-offering prove it. And thus the argument revolves, the peculiarity of the one not being that of the other, while the peculiarity of the latter is not that of the former: the feature common to both is that they are sacrifices of the higher sanctity, and when their blood enters within they are fit; so too will I adduce the guilt-offering which is a sacrifice of the higher sanctity, and if its blood enters within it is fit. Raba of Barnesh said to R. Ashi: Yet let him refute [it thus]: The feature common to both is that they have no fixed [value]; will you say [the same of] the guilt-offering, which has a fixed [value]? Rather this is the Rabbis’ reason, viz., because Scripture saith, [And no sin-offering whereof any of] its blood [is brought into the tent of meeting . . . shall be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire]: [this intimates] the blood of this [sacrifice], but not the blood of another [sacrifice]. And the other? — ‘Its blood’ [implies,] but not its flesh. And the other? — [Scripture writes,] ‘its blood’ [where] ‘blood’ [would suffice]. And the other? — He does not interpret ‘blood’, ‘its blood’ [as having a particular significance]. It is well according to the Rabbis who maintain that if one slaughters a guilt-offering under a different designation it is valid: for that reason a meal-offering is likened to a sin-offering and to a guilt-offering. For it was taught, R. Simeon said: [It is written,] It is most holy, as the sin-offering, and as the guilt-offering: a sinner's meal-offering is like a sin-offering, therefore if its fistful [of flour] is taken under a different designation,it is invalid; a votive meal-offering is like a guilt-offering, therefore if he [the priest] takes its fistful under a different designation, it is valid. But according to R. Eliezer, in respect of which law is a meal-offering likened to a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? — In respect of the other [ruling] of R. Simeon. For it was taught: [If the fistful was carried to the altar] not in a service-vessel, it is invalid; but R. Simeon declares it valid. Now Rab Judah son of R. Hiyya said, What is R. Simeon's reason? — Scripture saith, ‘It is most holy, as the sin-offering, and as the guilt-offering’: [this teaches:] If he [the priest] comes to perform its service with his hand, he does so with his right hand, as in the case of the sin-offering; [if he comes] to perform the service with a vessel, he may do so with his left hand, as in the case of the guilt-offering. Now R. Simeon utilises this verse for both purposes? — The essential purpose of the text is to teach the dictum of Rab Judah the son of R. Hiyya, while that a sinner's meal-offering is invalid when [the priest does] not [take its fistful] for its own sake is [based] on a different reason. [Thus:] what is the reason of a sin-offering? Because ‘it is’ is written in connection therewith; then In connection with a sinner's meal-offering too ‘it is’ is written. Now according to the Rabbis, in respect of which law is a guilt-offering likened to a sin-offering? — To teach you: as a sin-offering requires laying on [of hands], so does a guilt-offering require laying on [of hands]. JOSEPH b. HONI SAID: SACRIFICES SLAUGHTERED [IN THE NAME OF A PASSOVER-OFFERING OR A SIN-OFFERING ARE INVALID]. R. Johanan said: Joseph b. Honi and R. Eliezer said the same thing. Rabbah said: They disagree in respect of others slaughtered in the name of a sin-offering. For it was taught: A paschal lamb which has passed its year, and he [its owner] slaughtered it in its season, for its own purpose; and similarly, when a man slaughters other [sacrifices] as a Passover-offering in its season, — R. Eliezer disqualifies them; while R, Joshua declares them valid. Said R. Joshua: If during the rest of the year, when it is not valid [if slaughtered] in its own name, yet others [slaughtered] in its name are valid; then is it not logical that in its season, when it is valid [if slaughtered] in its own name, others [slaughtered] in its name are valid? Said R. Eliezer to him: Yet perhaps the argument is to be reversed? If it is valid [when slaughtered] during the rest of the year in the name of another sacrifice, though it is not valid [if slaughtered then] in its own name; is it not logical that it should be valid [when slaughtered] in its season in the name of another sacrifice, seeing that it is valid [if slaughtered,then] in its own name; and thus a Passover-offering [slaughtered] on the fourteenth [of Nisan] under a different designation should be valid. Now, would you say thus? [But in point of fact your a minori argument can be refuted thus:] As for others being valid during the rest of the year [when slaughtered] in its [sc. the Passover-offering's] name, that is because it is valid [when slaughtered then] in the name of other [sacrifices]; should then others [slaughtered] in its season in its name be valid, seeing that it [the Passover-offering] is invalid [if slaughtered then] in the name of others? Said R. Joshua to him: If so, you lessen the strength of the Passover-offering and increase the strength of the peace-offering? Subsequently R. Eliezer proposed a different argument: We find that a Passover remainder comes as a peace-offering, whereas a peace-offering remainder does not come as a Passover-offering. Now if the Passover-offering, whose remainder comes as a peace-offering, is [nevertheless] unfit if one slaughters it in its season as a peace-offering; is it not logical that the peace-offering is unfit if slaughtered in the name of a Passover-offering in its season, seeing that its remainder does not come as a Passover-offering?
—
Said R. Joshua to him: We find that a sin-offering remainder comes as a burnt-offering, but a burntoffering remainder does not come as a sin-offering. 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? Not so, replied R. Eliezer to him. 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. Will you say the same of a Passover-offering which is fit [when slaughtered] in its own name only in its season? Since then that itself is unfit [when slaughtered] in its own name [during the rest of the year], it is logical that others slaughtered in its name [during the rest of the year] are unfit. 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? Because Scripture saith, And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they shall exalt unto the Lord: [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. But does this text come for this purpose? Surely it is required for Samuel's dictum! For Samuel said: Whence do we know that he who eats tebel is liable to death? 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. — If so, Scripture should write, ‘which were exalted [offered]’: why state, ‘which they shall exalt’? Hence infer both from this. 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? — 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. Now if you think that [he means that] they are valid and propitiate, is propitiation applicable to a firstling? 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. But what argument is this? The one is according to its nature, and the other is according to its nature. Then what does he inform us? [The principle governing] a higher and lower sanctity! Surely we learnt it: HOW SO? 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. [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? — The present passage is the main source, while in the other it is taught incidentally. MISHNAH. 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. SAID SIMEON B. AZZAI: I HAVE A TRADITION FROM THE MOUTH OF SEVENTY-TWO ELDER[S] ON THE DAY THAT R. ELEAZAR [SON OF AZARIAH] WAS APPOINTED TO THE ACADEMY, THAT ALL SACRIFICES WHICH ARE EATEN, 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 ONLY THE BURNT-OFFERING, BUT THE SAGES DID NOT AGREE WITH HIM. GEMARA. 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. Then what does AS IF [etc.] mean? Because R. Joshua states AS IF, 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? — 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, At dusk? — Said ‘Ulla the son of R. Ila'i: [That means,] Between two evenings. Then [will you say] that the whole day is fit for the daily offering too, seeing that at dusk 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 literally. 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? — There it is different, because it is written, [to burn] from evening to morning, 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, that the whole day is fit [for the burning thereof]?-incense is different,
—