Zevachim

Do you then learn it from this verse? Is it not already stated, In the place where the burnt-offering is killed shall the sin-offering be killed?1 why then has this2 been singled out? To fix the place for it, so that if one did not slaughter it in the north, it is invalid.3 You say it has been singled out for this purpose, yet perhaps it is not so, but rather [to teach] that this one [alone] requires the north,4 but no other requires the north? Therefore it states, ‘And he shall kill the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering,’ thus constituting a general law in respect of all sin-offerings that they require the north. We have thus found [it true of] a prince's sin-offering, that it is both a recommendation and indispensable; we have also found it as a recommendation in the case of other sin-offerings; how do we know that it is indispensable [for other sin-offerings]? Because it is written in reference to both the lamb5 and the she-goat.6 Then what is the purpose of ‘it’?7 — That is required for what was taught: ‘It’ [is slaughtered] on the north, but Nahshon's goat was not [slaughtered] in the north.8 And it was taught: And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat9 includes Nahshon's goat, in respect of laying [hands]: that is R. Judah's view. R. Simeon said: It includes the goats brought on account of idolatry, in respect of laying [hands]. You might argue, Since they are included in respect of laying [hands], they are included in respect of the north. Hence we are informed [otherwise]. To this Rabina demurred: That is well on R. Judah's view; but what can be said on R. Simeon's?10 — Said Mar Zutra son of R. Mari to Rabina: And is it well on R. Judah's view? [surely], where it is included, it is included, and where it is not included, it is not included?11 And should you say, Had Scripture not excluded it, [its inclusion] would be inferred by analogy: if so, let laying [hands] itself be inferred by analogy? But [you must answer that] a temporary [sacrifice] can not be inferred from a permanent one,12 so here too,13 a temporary [sacrifice] cannot be inferred from a permanent one?14 — Rather [it teaches this]: ‘It’ [is slaughtered in the north], but the slaughterer need not be in the north.15 But [the law concerning] the slaughterer is deduced by R. Ahia's [exegesis]? For it was taught, R. Ahia said: And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward’: why is this stated? Because we find that the receiving priest must stand in the north and receive [the blood] in the north, while if he stood in the south and received [the blood] in the north it is invalid. You might think that this [slaughtering] is likewise. Therefore Scripture states, ‘[And he shall kill] it’, [intimating that] ‘it’ must be in the north, but the slaughterer need not be in the north! — Rather [it teaches this]: ‘It’ [must be killed] in the north, but a bird does not need the north.16 For it was taught: You might think that a bird-offering needs the north, and this is indeed logical: If [Scripture] prescribed north for a lamb, though it did not prescribe a priest for it,17 is it not logical that it should prescribe north for a bird, seeing that it did prescribe a priest for it? Therefore ‘it’ is stated.18 [No:] as for a lamb, the reason is because [Scripture] prescribed a utensil for it!19 — Rather, [it teaches this]: ‘It’ [must be killed] in the north, but the Passover-offering [need] not [be slaughtered] in the north. For it was taught, R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: You might think that a Passover-offering needs the north, and this is indeed logical: if [Scripture] prescribed the north for a burnt-offering, though it did not prescribe a fixed season for its slaughtering; is it not logical that it should prescribe the north for a Passover-offering, seeing that it did prescribe a fixed season for its slaughtering? Therefore ‘it’ is stated. [No:] as for a burnt-offering, the reason is because it is altogether burnt. [Then learn it] from a sin-offering.20 As for a sin-offering, the reason is because it makes atonement for those who are liable to kareth! [Then learn it] from a guilt-offering. [No:] as for a guilt-offering, the reason is because it is a most sacred sacrifice! [And you] cannot [learn it] from all these21 likewise, because they are most sacred sacrifices! — After all, it is as we said originally: ‘It’ [must be] in the north, but the slaughterer need not be in the north, and as to your difficulty, ‘That is deduced from R. Ahia's exegesis’, [the answer is that] it does not [really] exclude the slaughterer from the north,22 but [is meant thus]: The slaughterer need not be in the north, [whence it follows that] the receiver must be in the north, ‘The receiver’? Surely that is deduced from ‘and he shall take,’ [which we interpret] let him [be]take himself [to the north]? — He does not interpret ‘and he shall take’ as meaning ‘let him [be]take himself,’23 We have thus found a recommendation that slaughtering a burnt-offering must be in the north, and a [similar] recommendation about receiving; how do we know that [the north] is indispensable in the case of slaughtering and receiving?24 — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah, — others state, Rabbah b. Shila: [It is deduced] afortiori: If it is indispensable in the case of a sin-offering, which is [only] learnt from a burnt-offering,25 surely it is logical that it is indispensable in the case of a burnt-offering, from which a sin-offering is learnt. [No:] As for a sin-offering, the reason is because it makes atonement for those who are liable to kareth! Said Rabina: This is R. Adda's difficulty:26 Do we ever find the secondary more stringent than the primary?27 Said Mar Zutra son of R. Mari to Rabina: Do we not? seq. form is regarded as an extension. Nahshon's goat required laying hands, by analogy with an ordinary sin-offering, because the former was a special ad hoc offering, whereas the ordinary sin-offering was for all time. needed to exclude it? thinking that a bird requires north, and therefore no need for a limitation. since ‘north’ is written primarily in connection with the latter.