זבחים 9 — Soncino English Talmud

¹We transfer sacrifices which are eaten to sacrifices which are eaten, but do not transfer sacrifices which are eaten to sacrifices which are not eaten. Are then a sin-offering and a guilt-offering not eaten? — [Say] rather, we transfer sacrifices which are eaten by all to sacrifices which are eaten by all, but do not transfer sacrifices which are eaten by all to sacrifices which are not eaten by all. R. Jose son of R. Abin said: We transfer sacrifices of lesser sanctity to sacrifices of lesser sanctity, but do not transfer sacrifices of lesser sanctity to sacrifices of higher sanctity. To this R. Isaac son of R. Sabarin demurred: Then say that if one slaughtered it as tithe, let it be tithe; and in respect of what law would that be? That it should not require a drink-offering; and that the penalty of flagellation should be incurred by one who violates the injunction, It shall not be redeemed? — Scripture saith, The tenth shall be holy, [which implies,] this one [the tenth] can be tithe, but no other can be tithe. [Again,] say that if one slaughtered it as a firstling, let it be as a firstling: in respect of which law? That it should not require a drink-offering; or that it should be given to the priests? — As for a firstling too, similarity of law with tithe is deduced from the fact that ‘passing’ is written in both cases. Say that if one slaughtered it as a substitute, let it be a substitute: in respect of which law? To be flagellated on its account; or alternatively, that in respect thereof we should be guilty of, ‘it shall not be redeemed’? — Said Mar Zutra the son of R. Nahman: Scripture saith, Then both it and that for which it is changed shall be [holy], [which implies;] This is a substitute but no other is a substitute. And say that if one slaughters is as a thanksoffering, let it be a thanksoffering: in respect of what law? That it may require [the addition of] loaves. — Can there be a case where the Passover-offering itself does not require loaves, yet its remainder does require loaves! If so, then now too [you may argue:] Can there be a case where the Passover-offering itself does not require a drink-offering [to accompany it], yet its remainder requires a drink-offering? — This is our argument: Can there be a case where the remainder of the thanksoffering itself requires no loaves, yet the remainder of that which was converted into a thanksoffering shall require loaves! To this R. Yemar the son of R. Hillel demurred: And whence [does it follow] that it is written in reference to the remainder of a Passover-offering: perhaps it is written of the remainder of a guilt-offering? — Said Raba, Scripture saith: ‘And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace-offerings be of the flock’, [which implies that it refers to] that for which the whole flock is equally fit. To this R. Abin b. Hiyya-others say, R. Abin b. Kahana-demurred: Everywhere else you say that ‘of’ is a limitation, yet here ‘of’ is an extension? — Said R. Mani: Here too ‘of’ is a limitation, [teaching] that it cannot be two years old nor a female. R. Hana of Baghdad demurred: Can you say that this text is written in reference to the Passover-remainder; surely since it states, If [he bring] a lamb [for his offering] . . . And if [his offering be] a goat, it follows that it does not refer to a Passover remainder? — That is required for what was taught: ‘[If he bring] a lamb’: this is to include the Passover-offering, in respect of its fat tail. When it is stated, ‘If [he bring] a lamb’, it is to include a Passover-offering more than a year old, and a peace-offering which comes in virtue of a Passover-offering in respect of all the regulations of peace-offerings, [viz.,] that they require laying on [of the hands], drink-offerings, and the waving of the breast and shoulder. [Again,] when it states, ‘and if [his offering be] a goat’, it breaks across the subject [and] teaches that a goat does not require [the burning of the] fat tail [on the altar]. But is that deduced from this? Surely it is deduced from [the verse quoted by] Samuel's father? For Samuel's father said: And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace-offerings unto the Lord be of the flock [teaches that] whatever comes of the flock must be for a sacrifice of peace-offerings. — But still, this is deduced from [the verse quoted by] R. Nahman in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuhah. For R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: How do we know that a Passover remainder is brought as a peace-offering? Because it says, And thou shalt sacrifice the Passover-offering unto the Lord thy God, of the flock and of the herd. Yet surely the Passover-offering comes only from lambs or from goats? From this [we learn] that the Passover-remainder must be [utilised] for something which comes from the flock and from the herd; and what is it? A peace-offering. In fact, however, three texts are written:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ

^ᵃnote:The animal dedicated for a Passover-offering was in the first place consecrated as a sacrifice which is eaten. Now that it cannot be offered for what it was originally intended, it is transferred to a peace-offering, which is eaten, and not to a burnt-offering, which cannot be eaten.
^ᵇnote:The Passover-offering and peace-offering are eaten by all, whereas the sin-offering and the guilt-offering are eaten by male priests only.
^ᶜnote:These are fully discussed in Ch. V.
^ᵈnote:For that too is a sacrifice of lesser sanctity.
^ᵉnote:Lev. XXVII, 33 . The Talmud (Bek. 32b) interprets this to mean that it may not be sold; hence if one does sell it, he is liable to flagellation, which is the penalty for the violation of a negative command.
^ᶠnote:Ibid. 32.
^ᵍnote:Tithe: Whatsoever passeth under the rod (ibid); Firstling: All that openeth the womb thou shalt cause to pass (E.V. Set apart-the same root is used in both texts) to the Lord (Ex. XIII, 12). The employment of the same word in both cases teaches that they are similar in law. Therefore since this Passover-offering cannot be transferred to tithe, it cannot be transferred to a firstling either.
^ʰnote:Lev. XXVII, 33: Neither shall he change it; and if he change it at all, then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy; it shall not be redeemed. From this it is learnt that if one consecrates an animal to substitute another consecrated animal, both are holy, the second having the same sanctity as the first,
^ⁱnote:For having violated the injunction, Neither shall he change it.
^ʲnote:Sh. M. deletes.
^ᵏnote:I.e., only if one consecrates a non-sacred animal (hullin, v. Glos) as a substitute does the law apply, but not when one consecrates as a substitute an animal which had already been consecrated earlier, as is the case of this lost Passover-offering.
^ˡnote:V. Lev. VII, 12 seq.
^ᵐnote:Lit., ‘the remainder of that which comes thereto (sc. the thanksoffering) from the world.’ — Thus here we are treating of the remainder of a Passover-offering which it is proposed shall rank as a thanksoffering if slaughtered as such.
^ⁿnote:Sc. the interpretation of the verse Lev. III, 6 quoted supra 8b, q.v.
^ᵒnote:Since a guilt-offering too was a ram without blemish from the flock, and might not come from the herd.
^ᵖnote:Lev. III, 6.
^ᵠnote:I.e., sheep and goats too, whereas the guilt-offering must be a ram.
^ʳnote:If you interpret of the flock as intimating that all animals included in the term ‘flock’ are meant,
^ˢnote:By relating the verse to a Passover-offering remainder you exclude a two years old animal and a female. (V. Ex. XII, 5).
^ᵗnote:Lev. III, 7, 12.
^ᵘnote:This verse must simply refer to an ordinary peace-offering; for if it referred to a Passover remainder, it is obviously a lamb or a goat (V. Ex. XII, 5), and it need not be stated.
^ᵛnote:The fat tail of all other sacrifices is explicitly counted in the emurim (q.v. Glos) which are burnt on the altar (V. Lev. III, 9, VII, 3). The burning of the emurim is not mentioned at all in connection with the Passover, however, but deduced from elsewhere; consequently a verse is required to teach that the fat tail too is included.
^ʷnote:I.e., dedicated as a Passover-offering, and consequently unfit for its purpose (V. Ex. XII, 5).
^ˣnote:E.g., the substitute of a Passover-offering; or where the owner of a Passover-offering registered for a different animal, so that the first is a Passover remainder: both are sacrificed as peace-offerings.
^ʸnote:V. Lev. III, 2.
^ᶻnote:Ibid, 12.
^ᵃᵃnote:‘And if’ is regarded as a disjunctive, teaching that the provisions that apply to a lamb do not apply to a goat, unless expressly stated. The fat tail is mentioned in connection with the former (V. 9) but not the latter,
^ᵃᵇnote:Sc. that a Passover-offering more than a year old, which is therefore a Passover remainder, is sacrificed as a peace-offering.
^ᵃᶜnote:Lev. Ill, 6.
^ᵃᵈnote:Supra 8b, q.v.
^ᵃᵉnote:Deut. XVI, 2.
^ᵃᶠnote:Supra 7b. Hence if you object that the law under discussion is deducted in accordance with the teaching of Samuel's father, it can be counter-objected that it follows from the verse last quoted.

²One refers to [an animal] whose time [for slaughtering] is overpassed and whose year has passed; another [is required] for [an animal] whose time [for slaughtering] is overpassed but whose year is not passed; and the third is required for an animal neither whose time [for slaughtering] nor whose year is passed. Now [all three texts] are necessary. For if the Divine Law wrote one text [only], I would say that it applies only [to an animal] whose year is passed and also its time [for slaughtering], since it is completely disqualified from a Passover-offering. But if its time [for slaughtering] is passed but not its year, I would say that it is not [valid, if slaughtered as a peace-offering], since it is eligible for the second Passover. While if the Divine Law stated these two, [I would argue that they are valid if slaughtered as a peace-offering] because they have been disqualified from their own purpose. But if neither its time [for slaughtering] nor its year has passed, so that it is eligible for the [first] Passover, I would say that it is not so. Hence [all three texts] are necessary. Rab said in Mabog's name: If one slaughtered a sin-offering as the sin-offering of Nahshon it is valid, for Scripture saith, This is the law of the sin-offering, [which teaches that] there is one law for all sin-offerings, Raba sat and reported this discussion, whereupon R. Mesharshia raised an objection to Raba: R. Simeon said: All meal-offerings whose fistfuls were taken under a different designation are valid and acquit their owners of their obligation, because meal-offerings are dissimilar from [blood] sacrifices. For when one takes a fistful of a griddle [meal-offering] in the name of a stewing-pan [meal-offering], its preparation proves that it is a griddle [meal-offering]. [If one takes a fistful of] a dry meal-offering in the name of [a meal-offering] mingled [with oil], its preparation proves that it is a dry [meal-offering]. But in the case of [animal] sacrifices it is not so, for there is the same slaughtering for all, the same receiving for all, [and] the same sprinkling for all. Thus it is only because its preparation proves its nature; hence if its preparation did not prove its nature, this would not be so. Yet why? let us say [that] This is the law of the meal-offering [intimates that] there is one law for all meal-offerings? — Rather if stated, it was thus stated: Rab said in Mabog's name: If one slaughtered a sin-offering in order that Nahshon might be forgiven through it, it is valid, [for] no atonement [is required] for the dead. Then, let him speak of any dead person? — He informs us this: The reason [that it is valid] is that he [Nahshon] is dead. Hence [if one slaughtered it] for a living person similar to Nahshon, it is invalid. And who are meant? [Those who are liable to] a nazirite's sin-offering or a leper's sin-offering. But these are [as] burnt-offerings? — Rather if stated, it was thus stated: Rab said in Mabog's name: If one slaughters a sin-offering for a [wrong] person who is liable to a sin-offering such as Nahshon's, it is valid, [for] Nahshon's sin-offering was [as] a burnt-offering. Others state that Rab said in Mabog's name: If one slaughters a sin-offering in the name of Nahshon's sin-offering, it is invalid, for Nahshon's sin-offering is [as] a burnt-offering. Now let him state a nazirite's sin-offering or a leper's sin-offering? — He mentions the original sin-offering [of that nature]. Raba said: If one slaughters a sin-offering of forbidden fat in the name of a sin-offering of blood [or] in the name of a sin-offering for idolatry, it is valid. [If one slaughters it] in the name of a nazirite's sin-offering or a leper's sin-offering, it is invalid, [for] these are [in fact] burnt-offerings. Raba asked: If one slaughters a sin-offering of forbidden fat in the name of a sin-offering on account of the defilement of the Sanctuary and its sacred flesh, what is the law? Do we say, [the latter entails] kareth, just as the former; or perhaps the latter is not fixed like itself? R. Aha son of Raba recited all these cases as invalid. What is the reason? — And he shall kill it for a sin-offering [intimates that it must be killed] for the sake of that sin-offering. Said R. Ashi to R. Aha the son of Raba: How then do you recite Raba's question? — We recite it in reference to change in respect of owner, he answered him, and we recite it thus: Raba said: If one slaughters a sin-offering of forbidden fat on behalf of a [wrong] person who is liable to a sin-offering for blood or a sin-offering for idolatry, it is invalid; [but if he slaughters it] on behalf of a person who is liable to a nazirite's sin-offering or a leper's sin-offering, it is valid. And as for the question, this is what Raba asked: If one slaughters a sin-offering of forbidden fat on behalf of a person who is liable to a sin-offering on account of the defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred flesh, what is the law? Do we say, [the latter entails] kareth like itself; or perhaps the latter is not fixed like itself? The question stands over. It was stated: If one slaughtered it for its own sake with the intention of sprinkling its blood for the sake of something else, R. Johanan said: It is invalid; while Resh Lakish said: It is valid. R. Johanan said [that] it is invalid [because] an [effective] intention can be expressed at one service in respect to another service, and we learn [by analogy] from the intention of piggul. While Resh Lakish said [that] it is valid, [because] an [effective] intention cannot be expressed at one service in respect to another, and we do not learn from the intention of piggul. Now they are consistent with their views. For it was stated:^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ^ᵇᵈ^ᵇᵉ^ᵇᶠ^ᵇᵍ^ᵇʰ^ᵇⁱ^ᵇʲ^ᵇᵏ

^ᵃᵍnote:I.e., it was lost until it was too late for slaughtering as a Passover-offering, and is also more than a year old.
^ᵃʰnote:I.e., if it is slaughtered before Passover as a peace-offering it is valid, though it was eligible for a Passover-offering.
^ᵃⁱnote:V. Num. IX, 9 seq.
^ᵃʲnote:Which was to be slaughtered at the first Passover.
^ᵃᵏnote:Which Nahshon, the prince of the tribe of Judah, brought at the dedication of the altar; V. Num. VII, 12 seq.
^ᵃˡnote:Lev. VI, 18.
^ᵃᵐnote:They all stand in the same category. Hence although Nahshon's sin-offering was not on account of sin at all, yet by slaughtering an ordinary sin-offering as such one is not deemed to have changed its purpose, and therefore it is valid.
^ᵃⁿnote:V. Lev. II, 2. The priest, in taking the fistful, declared that he took it for the sake of a different type of meal-offering.
^ᵃᵒnote:His declaration is manifestly untrue and of no account, since one can see what meal-offering it is. — For the various types of meal-offerings mentioned here V. Lev. II, 4 seq.
^ᵃᵖnote:Which is brought on account of sin, v. Lev. V, 11f.
^ᵃᵠnote:Which was not brought on account of sin, v. Lev. II, 1 seq.
^ᵃʳnote:In these acts there is nothing to indicate the nature of the sacrifice. Consequently a false declaration is effective to invalidate them.
^ᵃˢnote:Lev. VI, 7.
^ᵃᵗnote:A sin-offering slaughtered for a wrong person is invalid, provided that he is likewise liable to a sin-offering. This condition is obviously unfulfilled here: hence the sacrifice is valid.
^ᵃᵘnote:Which are not brought on account of sin at all, just as Nahshon's sin-offering was not on account of sin.
^ᵃᵛnote:Rashi: A nazirite's sin-offering is the same as a burnt-offering, since it is not brought on account of sin, and it is stated supra 7a that if one slaughters a sin-offering in the name of a different person who is liable to a burnt-offering, it is valid. Sh. M. cites a reverse interpretation: These are as burnt-offerings; hence his action is tantamount to slaughtering a sin-offering as a burnt-offering, which is obviously invalid. What then does Rab inform us?
^ᵃʷnote:Since that is in fact what he means to imply by ‘Nahshon's sin-offering’.
^ᵃˣnote:Nahshon was the first to bring a sin-offering which was not for sin. Hence his is mentioned as an example of all sin-offerings of that nature (Sh. M.).
^ᵃʸnote:So amended in margin and Sh. M.; cur, edd. Rab.
^ᵃᶻnote:As above. But in the first clause the others too are on account of sin.
^ᵇᵃnote:V. Glos.
^ᵇᵇnote:Hence it is valid.
^ᵇᶜnote:For if the transgressor is too poor he can bring two birds instead of an animal, which is not permitted in the case of the former.
^ᵇᵈnote:Lev. IV, 33.
^ᵇᵉnote:Not in the name of any other.
^ᵇᶠnote:When is Raba in doubt?
^ᵇᵍnote:Hence it is invalid.
^ᵇʰnote:Hence it is valid,
^ᵇⁱnote:Declaring this intention at the time of slaughtering.
^ᵇʲnote:It is effective to render the animal unfit.
^ᵇᵏnote:V. Glos. There this is certainly the case; v. infra 27b.