Zevachim

I am moving in a circle.1 R. Eliezer then drew another analogy. In the case of a sin-offering it says, It is [a sin-offering],2 [which intimates that if it is slaughtered] for its own sake it is valid, and if it [is] not [slaughtered] for its own sake it is invalid;3 [Again] in the case of a Passover-offering it says, It is [the sacrifice of the Lord's Passover],4 [which likewise intimates,] for its own sake it is valid, and if not for its own sake, it is invalid; [then] in the case of a guilt-offering too it says, It is [a guilt-offering],5 [hence this too intimates,] for its own sake it is valid, while if not for its own sake, it is invalid. Said R. Joshua to him: ‘It is’ is stated of the sin-offering in connection with the slaughtering, [and so] ‘it is’ [intimates], for its own sake it is valid, and if not for its own sake, it is invalid. [Again] ‘it is’ is stated of the Passover-offering in connection with the sacrificing,6 [and here too] ‘it is’ [intimates,] for its own sake it is valid, while if it is not for its own sake, it is invalid. But as for the guilt-offering. ‘it is’ is stated of it only after the burning of the emurim [is prescribed], and yet if the emurim were not burnt at all it is valid.7 Said R. Eliezer to him: Lo, it says. As is the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering:8 [hence] as the sin-offering is invalid if not [slaughtered] for its own sake, so is the guilt-offering invalid if not [slaughtered] for its own sake. The Master said: ‘R. Joshua said to him: l am moving in a circle.’ Yet let the argument revolve and the inference be made from the feature common to both.9 — [That argument is not employed] because it can be refuted: the feature common to both is that there is an aspect of kareth in them. 10 The Master said:11 ‘R. Joshua said to him: That is not so. If you say [thus] of the sin-offering, [the reason is] because its blood [is sprinkled] above [the scarlet line].’ Yet let him [rather] say to him: That is not so. If you say [thus] of the sin-offering, [the reason is] because its blood enters the innermost shrine?12 — We are discussing the outer sin-offerings.13 [Yet let him say: The reason is] because if its blood enters the innermost shrine it is invalid? — R. Eliezer holds that the guilt-offering too [is invalid in that case]. [Let him say to him: The reason is] because it makes atonement for those who are liable to kareth? — [R. Eliezer draws his analogy] from the sin-offering incurred through hearing a voice.14 [Let him say to him: The reason is] because it [the blood] requires four applications? — [R. Eliezer holds] as R. Ishmael, who maintains: All blood15 requires four applications. [Yet let him say: The reason is because the blood requires four applications] on the four horns [of the altar]?16 — Now according to your reasoning, surely there are [the distinctions of] the finger, the horn, and the point?17 Rather [the fact is that] he [R. Joshua] mentions [but] one of two or three reasons [distinctions]. The Master said: ‘Said R. Joshua to him: That is not so. If you say’ etc. Let R. Eliezer answer him: The blood of a guilt-offering too is [sprinkled] above [the scarlet line]?18 — Said Abaye: You cannot say that the blood of a guilt-offering is [sprinkled] above, [as the reverse may be inferred] from a burnt-offering, a fortiori: if the blood of a burnt-offering, which is completely burnt, is [sprinkled] below, how much the more [is this true of] a guilt-offering, which is not completely burnt. As for a burnt-offering, the reason is because it does not make atonement! Let the bird sin-offering prove it.19 As for a bird sin-offering, the reason is because it is not a species that is slaughtered!20 Then let a burnt-offering prove it. Thus the peculiarity of the one is not the peculiarity of the other, and that of the other is not the same as the peculiarity of the first: the feature common to both is that they are sacrifices of the higher sanctity,21 and their blood is [sprinkled] below: so will I adduce a guilt-offering too, that [since] it is of the higher sanctity, its blood is [sprinkled] below. Raba of Parzakia22 said to R. Ashi: But let him refute [it thus]: The feature common to both is that [their value] is unfixed; will you then say [the same of] a guilt-offering, which has a fixed [value]?23 Rather this is R. Eliezer's reason,24 viz., because Scripture saith, The priest that offereth it for a sin-offering:25 [‘it’ requires] its blood [to be sprinkled] above, but the blood of no other [sacrifice] is [sprinkled] above. If so, let us say with respect to [the slaughtering of] the sin-offering too, [only] it is valid [when slaughtered] in its own name but invalid when not [slaughtered] in its own name, whereas other sacrifices are valid whether in their own name or not in their own name?26 — That ‘it’ is not meant particularly, since it disregards the Passover-offering.27 Then here too it is not meant particularly, since it disregards the bird burnt-offering?28 — At all events nothing which is slaughtered is omitted.29 Alternatively, this agrees with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, who maintained: [The blood of] the one is [sprinkled] in a separate place, and [that of] the other is [sprinkled] in a separate place.30 For it was taught: The lower blood is applied below the scarlet line, while the upper [blood is applied] above the scarlet line,31 Said R. Simeon b. Eleazar: This holds good only of the bird burnt-offering; but in the case of the animal sin-offering its [blood] is applied essentially on the very horn [of the altar].32 We learnt elsewhere:33 For R. Akiba maintained: All blood which entered the Hekal34 to make atonement is unfit; but the Sages rule: The sin-offering alone [is unfit].35 R. Eliezer said: The guilt-offering too [is thus], for it says, As is the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering.36 As for R. Eliezer, it is well, his reason being as stated. But what is the reason of the Rabbis? — Said Raba: [They argue that] you cannot say that if the blood of the guilt-offering enters within it is unfit, [for the reverse follows] from the burnt-offering, afortiori. If sin-offering and the Passover-offering is that they may be eaten one night only. The guilt-offering shares this feature, and therefore it also, like the other two, should be invalid if slaughtered for a different purpose. to bring the Passover-offering by one who is not unclean or on a distant journey is likewise punishable by kareth (Num. IX, 13). two. blood of other sacrifices is not applied actually on the top. — The point is: If one is seeking distinctions, there are many other than that drawn by R. Joshua. Obermeyer, Landschaft, pp. 268-9. sin-offering, viz., above the scarlet line. sin-offering (Lev. IV, 33). Then R. Eliezer should regard the ‘ it’ here too as a limitation and not apply the same law to the guilt-offering. has a different place. Therefore the limitation of ‘it’ in respect to the sprinkling of the blood has no exception at all. respectively. him: Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within; ye should certainly have eaten it (Lev. X, 18; v. also ib. VI, 23). This proves that if it had been brought ‘within’ Aaron would have been right, for the sacrifice would have thereby become unfit. Now the passage actually refers to a sin-offering: R. Akiba holds that its implication extends to all other sacrifices too, while the Rabbis confine it to the sin-offering.