Zevachim

We transfer sacrifices which are eaten to sacrifices which are eaten, but do not transfer sacrifices which are eaten to sacrifices which are not eaten.1 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.2 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.3 To this R. Isaac son of R. Sabarin demurred: Then say that if one slaughtered it as tithe, let it be tithe;4 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?5 — Scripture saith, The tenth shall be holy,6 [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.7 Say that if one slaughtered it as a substitute,8 let it be a substitute: in respect of which law? To be flagellated on its account;9 or alternatively, that in respect thereof we should be guilty of, ‘it shall not be redeemed’?10 — 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.11 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.12 — 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 thanksoffering13 shall require loaves! To this14 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?15 — Said Raba, Scripture saith: ‘And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace-offerings be of the flock’,16 [which implies that it refers to] that for which the whole flock is equally fit.17 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?18 — Said R. Mani: Here too ‘of’ is a limitation, [teaching] that it cannot be two years old nor a female.19 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,20 it follows that it does not refer to a Passover remainder?21 — 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.22 When it is stated, ‘If [he bring] a lamb’, it is to include a Passover-offering more than a year old,23 and a peace-offering which comes in virtue of a Passover-offering24 in respect of all the regulations of peace-offerings, [viz.,] that they require laying on [of the hands],25 drink-offerings, and the waving of the breast and shoulder. [Again,] when it states, ‘and if [his offering be] a goat’,26 it breaks across the subject [and] teaches that a goat does not require [the burning of the] fat tail [on the altar].27 But is that28 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 flock29 [teaches that] whatever comes of the flock must be for a sacrifice of peace-offerings.30 — 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.31 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.32 In fact, however, three texts are written: 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. by male priests only. is liable to flagellation, which is the penalty for the violation of a negative command. 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. 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, one consecrates as a substitute an animal which had already been consecrated earlier, as is the case of this lost Passover-offering. treating of the remainder of a Passover-offering which it is proposed shall rank as a thanksoffering if slaughtered as such. XII, 5). a lamb or a goat (V. Ex. XII, 5), and it need not be stated. 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. animal, so that the first is a Passover remainder: both are sacrificed as peace-offerings. expressly stated. The fat tail is mentioned in connection with the former (V. 9) but not the latter, peace-offering. father, it can be counter-objected that it follows from the verse last quoted.