Zevachim

Raba said, It is as R. Jonah[‘s exegesis]. For R. Jonah said: ‘There’ is inferred from ‘there’:1 as in the one case, [Scripture] did not prescribe a penalty without formally prohibiting, so in the other case [Scripture] did not punish without formally prohibiting.2 We have [now] found the case of those which should be burnt within, which were offered up without;3 how do we know the case of those which should be burnt without,4 which were offered up without?5 — Said R. Kahana: Scripture saith, And thou shalt say unto them6 [which means,] thou shalt say concerning those just mentioned.7 To this Raba8 demurred: Is it then written, ‘concerning them’: Surely ‘unto them’ is written?9 Rather, it is as the School of R. Ishmael taught: ‘And thou shalt say unto them’ combines the sections.10 R. Johanan said: ‘Bringing’ is inferred from ‘bringing’:11 as there it refers to those [sacrifices] which must be burnt without, so here too it refers to those which must be burnt without. To this R. Bibi demurred: When we learnt, There are thirty-six offences in the Torah which entail kareth: surely there are thirty seven, for there are offering up [a sacrifice which should be burnt within] and offering up [a sacrifice which should be burnt without]?12 That is indeed a difficulty. Now, when we learnt: He who sprinkles some of the blood without, is culpable:13 how do we know it?14 — It is inferred from what was taught: Blood shall be imputed [unto that man]:15 that is to include one who sprinkles [without]: these are the words of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba said: Or sacrifice16 includes sprinkling. And how does R. Ishmael employ this [phrase] ‘or sacrifice’? — To divide.17 And whence does R. Akiba know to divide? — He infers it from, and bringeth it not [unto the door of the tent of meeting].18 And R. Ishmael?19 — He requires that [‘it’] [for teaching:] One is culpable for [offering up] the whole [animal], but not for [offering up] an incomplete one.20 And R. Akiba?21 — He infers it from [the phrase] ‘to sacrifice it’. And R. Ishmael? — One [‘it’] is in respect of those [sacrifices] which which should be burnt within, which were made incomplete and offered up without; the other is in respect of those which should be burnt without, which one made incomplete and offered up without.22 And it was taught even so: R. Ishmael said: You might think that if one made incomplete and offered up without what should be burnt within, he is culpable; therefore it says, ‘to sacrifice it’: one is culpable for [offering up] a whole [animal], but not for [offering up] an incomplete one. And R. Akiba?23 — He holds that if one made incomplete and offered up without what should be burnt within, he is culpable. And R. Akiba: How does he employ this [phrase], ‘blood shall be imputed’? — It includes the shechitah of a bird.24 And R. Ishmael? — He deduces it from, or that killeth.25 And R. Akiba? — He can answer you: He requires that [to teach]: One is culpable for slaughtering [shechitah], but not for nipping [melikah].26 And R. Ishmael? — He infers it from, This is the thing [which the Lord hath commanded].27 For it was taught: [What man soever . . .] that killeth [an ox etc.]: I know it only of slaughtering an animal; how do I know [that] if one slaughters a bird [he is culpable]? Because it says, or that killeth.28 You might think that I also include one who performs melikah, and that is indeed logical: if one is culpable for shechitah [of a bird], though this is not its correct rite within; is it not logical that one is culpable for melikah [without], seeing that that is its correct rite within? Therefore it states. ‘This is the thing [etc.]’. And R. Akiba? — He can answer you: that is required for a gezerah shawah.29 Now, as to what we learnt: He who takes the fistful,30 and he who receives the blood [of a sacrifice slaughtered without] is not liable: how do we know it? But whence would you infer that he is culpable?31 — From shechitah.32 As for shechitah, the reason may be because it invalidates a Passover-offering [when it is done] on behalf of such who cannot eat it!33 — Then infer it from sprinkling: as for sprinkling. the reason may be because a lay-Israelite is liable to death on its account!34 refers to all rites (including slaughtering) in connection with sacrifices. does not mean haktarah, but the burning of unfit sacrifices. burnt within in any case. offering up without, and they commence with, ‘And thou shalt say unto them’ which implies, thou shalt say about them just mentioned, sc. those who slaughter without, that they are also culpable for offering up without. mentioned in the former (viz., those who slaughter without). — Though this exegesis too infers the law from the same phrase, the method of interpretation is different and retains the correct rendering of ‘alehem, unto them. without, so it does in the latter too. enumerated, why is the number stated? The Talmud says that it teaches that if one committed all of them in a single state of ignorance (not knowing that they are forbidden), he is liable to thirty-six sin-offerings. If, however, culpability for offering up without sacrifices which should be burnt without, is inferred by a gezerah shawah from those which should be burnt within, they constitute two separate offences and involve separate sin-offerings. But in that case they should be enumerated separately there too, and the number given is thirty-seven. would assume that liability is incurred only for offering up both. But as for those which should be burnt within, he is culpable even if he offers up only part, for when a single limb springs off the altar during the burning (haktarah), it must be replaced, which shews that haktarah applies even to part. (The general principle is that the performance of a rite without involves liability when it would count as a proper rite within.) involves liability. the more melikah, since that is the correct way of sacrificing a bird. Hence the second teaches that only shechitah involves liability. stated. every sacrificial rite.