Zevachim

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.1 (Yet he should rather say: Let the sin-offering of a bird prove it?2 The sin-offering of a bird is the subject of a question by R. Abin.)3 As for a sinner's meal-offering ‘4 [the reason is] because it is not of the species that is slaughtered?5 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 Barnesh6 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]:7 [this intimates] the blood of this [sacrifice], but not the blood of another [sacrifice]. And the other?8 — ‘Its blood’ [implies,] but not its flesh.9 And the other?10 — [Scripture writes,] ‘its blood’ [where] ‘blood’ [would suffice].11 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:12 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;13 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,14 it is invalid; but R. Simeon declares it valid.15 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.16 Now R. Simeon utilises this verse for both purposes?17 — 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?18 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.19 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,20 and he [its owner] slaughtered it in its season,21 for its own purpose;22 and similarly, when a man slaughters other [sacrifices] as a Passover-offering in its season, — R. Eliezer disqualifies them;23 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;24 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,25 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.26 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 season27 in its name be valid, seeing that it [the Passover-offering] is invalid [if slaughtered then] in the name of others?28 Said R. Joshua to him: If so, you lessen the strength of the Passover-offering and increase the strength of the peace-offering?29 Subsequently R. Eliezer proposed a different argument: We find that a Passover remainder30 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? entering of blood only. Talmud returns to its discussion. one kind of meal-offering is like a sin-offering, while another is like a guilt-offering, as explained in the text, blood of an animal sacrifice. 24b). time are invalid. R. Johanan deduces this anon. extreme limit for such (V. Ex. XII, 5: a male of the first year), it automatically stands to be a peace-offering, being unfit for its original purpose. (on the eve of Passover) as a peace-offering, though if left until after Passover it must be offered as such; then how much the more is a peace-offering disqualified if slaughtered on the eve of Passover as a Passover-offering, seeing that if left over and not brought as a peace-offering at the time appointed for same it cannot be brought as a Passover-offering on Passover eve. purpose (supra 2a). inadmissible. of the Passover-offering, so are they unfit when slaughtered in the name of a sin-offering. For R. Eliezer's reason, as seen here, is because it (the Passover-offering) is unfit when slaughtered in the name of a different sacrifice, and this same holds good of the sin-offering too. a peace-offering is fit; whereas at the season of the Passover-offering (on Passover eve) a peace-offering slaughtered in the name of a Passover-offering is unfit! Yet in fact while Scripture insists that the Passover-offering must be killed in its own name (V. supra 7b), there is no such insistence with respect to the peace-offering. — ‘Weaken’ and ‘strengthen’ mean to weaken and strengthen the necessity for (or, the insistence on) slaughtering these sacrifices for nought but their own sake.