Parallel
זבחים 4:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
How do we know that the slaughtering must be in its own name? Because Scripture says, And if his offering be a zebah slaughtering of peace-offerings: [this teaches] that its slaughtering must be in the name of a peace-offering. But perhaps that is their name? — Since it is written, He that offereth the blood of the peace-offerings and [he] that dasheth the blood of the peace-offerings [against the altar], and zebah’ is not written, whereas here ‘zebah’ is written, you may infer from it that the slaughtering must be in the name of a peace-offering. We have thus learned [it of] slaughtering, how do we know [it of] the other [sacrificial] services? 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 eat it. — Rather Scripture says, He that offereth the blood of the peace-offerings which teaches that the reception [of its blood] must be in the name of peace-offerings. Then let the Divine Law state it of the reception [of the blood], whence the slaughtering [too] could be derived? — [That is not done] because [the analogy] can be refuted. As for the reception [of the blood], the reason is because it is unfit [if done] by a lay-Israelite or a woman. We have thus learned [it of] slaughtering and receiving; how do we know [it of] sprinkling? 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, 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. Then let the Divine Law write it in respect to sprinkling, whence the others could be derived? [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. We have thus found it of all [rites]; whence do we know [it] of carrying? 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? — Rather, Scripture says, And the priest shall bring near the whole . . . to the altar, 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 [the blood]: this refers to the receiving of the blood. Now, Scripture expresses this by a term denoting carrying in order to teach that carrying cannot be excluded from the scope of receiving, Now we have thus found [it] of change [of intention] in respect of sanctity; 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., [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. 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-offering is slaughtered in the name of a thanksoffering,it is invalid. What is the difference between these two cases? — A thanksoffering is designated a peace-offering, but a peace-offering is not designated a thanksoffering! — We state [our deduction] from the word ‘slaughtering’. Yet it is still needed [thus]: How do we know [it of] a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? From the word ‘slaughtering’. — If so, let Scripture write, And the flesh of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving slaughtering [shall be eaten etc.] why state, the slaughtering [of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving]? So that both laws may be inferred from it. We have thus found [it of] slaughtering; whence do we know [it of] other services? 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 stated in reference to change [of intention] in respect of owner; as in the case of the slaughtering stated in reference 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, and it is [operative] in respect of the four services, and it is [operative] after death, and it is [operative] in the case of the community as In the case of an individual.33
—