Zevachim 11

עולה שהיא כליל נכנס דמה לפנים כשרה אשם שאינו כליל לא כל שכן

with regard to a burnt offering, which is totally consumed by the fire on the altar, nevertheless, even if its blood enters into the Sanctuary it is fit, with regard to a guilt offering, which is not entirely consumed on the altar, all the more so is it not clear that even if its blood enters the Sanctuary it remains fit?

מה לעולה שכן אינה מכפרת

The Gemara refutes this inference: What is notable about a burnt offering? It is notable in that it does not atone for a sin. Perhaps this is why its blood is not disqualified if it enters the sanctuary.

מנחת חוטא תוכיח

The Gemara responds: The meal offering of a sinner can prove the point, as it is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary, even though it atones for a sin.

ולימא חטאת העוף תוכיח חטאת העוף בעיא דרבי אבין היא

The Gemara interjects: But let us say that a bird sin offering can prove the point, as it too atones for a sin but is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary. This case is more similar to that of a guilt offering, as a bird has blood, unlike a meal offering. The Gemara answers: It is not certain that a bird sin offering is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary; this is a dilemma raised by Rabbi Avin.

ולפרוך מה למנחת חוטא שכן אינה מין זבח

The Gemara asks: But let us refute the above response as follows: What is notable about a sinner’s meal offering? It is notable in that it is not a type of slaughtered offering.

עולה תוכיח וחזר הדין לא ראי זה כראי זה ולא ראי זה כראי זה הצד השוה שבהן שהן קדשי קדשים ונכנס (דמן) לפנים כשרין אף אני אביא אשם שהוא קודש קדשים ונכנס דמו לפנים כשר

The Gemara answers: If so, a burnt offering can prove the point, since it is a slaughtered offering, and still if its blood enters the Sanctuary, it is not disqualified. And the inference has reverted to its starting point. The halakha is derived from the halakhot of a burnt offering and a sinner’s meal offering: The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case. Their common element is that they are offerings of the most sacred order, and if they enter into the Sanctuary they are still fit. So too, I shall include a guilt offering and infer that since it is also an offering of the most sacred order, if its blood enters into the Sanctuary it is still fit.

אמר ליה רבא מברניש לרב אשי ולפרוך מה להצד השוה שבהן שכן אין להן קצבה תאמר באשם שיש לו קצבה

Rava of Barnish said to Rav Ashi: But let us refute this inference: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that neither a burnt offering nor a sinner’s meal offering has a fixed value. Should you say the same halakhot apply to a guilt offering, which has a fixed value?

אלא היינו טעמייהו דרבנן דאמר קרא דמה דמה של זו ולא דמה של אחר

Rather, this is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis: As the verse states: “And any sin offering, any of whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23). The term “whose blood” teaches that the blood of this offering, i.e., a sin offering, and not the blood of another offering, is disqualified in this manner.

ואידך דמה ולא בשרה

And how does the other tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, interpret this term? He derives from it that only its blood is disqualified by entering the Sanctuary, but not its flesh.

ואידך דם דמה

And from where do the other Rabbis derive that the flesh of a sin offering is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary? They maintain that both halakhot are derived from this term, as the verse could have simply stated: Blood, but stated: “Whose blood.” The redundancy excludes not only the flesh, but also other offerings.

ואידך דם דמה לא דריש

And the other tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, does not interpret the redundancy indicated by the change from: Blood, to: “Whose blood,” to be significant. Once the word blood is mentioned, it is grammatically necessary for the verse to state “whose blood.”

בשלמא לרבנן דאמרי אשם ששחטו שלא לשמו כשר היינו דאיתקש מנחה לחטאת מנחה לאשם

§ The Gemara resumes its discussion of the dispute in the mishna between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. Granted, according to the Rabbis, who say that a guilt offering that one slaughtered not for its sake is fit, that is why a meal offering is juxtaposed with a sin offering, and a meal offering is also juxtaposed with a guilt offering.

דתניא רבי שמעון אומר קדש קדשים הוא כחטאת וכאשם מנחת חוטא הרי היא כחטאת לפיכך קמצה שלא לשמה פסולה מנחת נדבה הרי היא כאשם לפיכך קמצה שלא לשמה כשרה

This is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: The verse states with regard to a meal offering: “It is most sacred, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offering” (Leviticus 6:10), teaching that a meal offering of a sinner is like a sin offering. Therefore, if one removed its handful not for its sake, it is disqualified. And the verse also teaches that a voluntary meal offering is like a guilt offering. Therefore, if one removed its handful not for its sake, it is still fit. This accords with the opinion of the Rabbis, that a guilt offering slaughtered not for its sake is fit.

אלא לרבי אליעזר למאי הלכתא איתקש מנחה לחטאת ומנחה לאשם

But according to Rabbi Eliezer, for what halakha is a meal offering juxtaposed with a sin offering, and a meal offering juxtaposed with a guilt offering?

לכי אידך דרבי שמעון דתנן שלא בכלי שרת פסולה ורבי שמעון מכשיר

The Gemara answers: They are juxtaposed to teach the other halakha derived by Rabbi Shimon from this verse; as we learned in a mishna (Menaḥot 26a): If the handful of a meal offering is conveyed to the altar not in a service vessel, the offering is unfit. And Rabbi Shimon deems it fit.

ואמר רב יהודה בריה דרבי חייא מאי טעמא דרבי שמעון אמר קרא קדש קדשים הוא כחטאת וכאשם בא לעובדה ביד עובדה בימין כחטאת בכלי עובדה בשמאל כאשם

And Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states with regard to a meal offering: “It is most sacred, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offering,” teaching that if a priest comes to perform its sacrificial rites by hand, he must perform them with his right hand, like one performs the rites of a sin offering. And if he performs them with a vessel, he may perform them with his left hand, like one performs the rites of a guilt offering, since Rabbi Shimon maintains this is permitted in the case of a guilt offering.

ורבי שמעון האי קרא מפיק ליה להכי ומפיק ליה להכי

The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Shimon himself, does he expound this verse for this purpose, concerning one who if one removes its handful not for its sake, and expound it for that purpose, concerning conveying the handful with one’s hand?

עיקר קרא לכדרב יהודה בריה דרבי חייא הוא דאתא ומנחת חוטא דפסולה שלא לשמה [טעמא אחרינא הוא] חטאת טעמא מאי דכתיב בה היא מנחת חוטא נמי כתיב בה היא

The Gemara answers: The verse comes mainly to teach that which Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, explained. And the halakha that a meal offering of a sinner whose handful was removed not for its sake is unfit is due to another reason: What is the reason a sin offering sacrificed not for its sake is disqualified? The reason is that the word “it” is written with regard to it in the verse: “It is a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:24). Since the word “it” is also written with regard to the meal offering of a sinner, in the verse: “For it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11), the same applies in that case.

ולרבנן למאי הלכתא איתקש אשם לחטאת לומר לך מה חטאת טעונה סמיכה אף אשם טעון סמיכה

In the mishna, Rabbi Eliezer cites the verse: “As is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:7), as a source for his opinion. The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, for what halakha is a guilt offering juxtaposed with a sin offering? The Gemara answers: They are juxtaposed to tell you that just as a sin offering requires placing hands on the head of the offering, so too, a guilt offering requires placing hands on the head of the offering.

יוסף בן חוני אומר הנשחטין כו׳ אמר רבי יוחנן יוסף בן חוני ורבי אליעזר אמרו דבר אחד

§ The mishna teaches: Yosef ben Ḥoni says: Other offerings that are slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal offering or a sin offering are unfit. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Yosef ben Ḥoni and Rabbi Eliezer said the same thing, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer agrees with Yosef ben Ḥoni.

רבה אמר באחרים לשם חטאת פליגי

Rabba says: Although they agree that other offerings slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal offering are unfit, they disagree with regard to other offerings slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering. Whereas Yosef ben Ḥoni holds that they are unfit, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that they are fit.

דתניא הפסח שעברה שנתו ושחטו בזמנו לשמו וכן השוחט אחרים לשם פסח בזמנו רבי אליעזר פוסל ורבי יהושע מכשיר

This is as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a Paschal offering whose first year has passed, and it must therefore be sacrificed as a peace offering, and one slaughtered it at its designated time on Passover eve for its own sake as a Paschal offering, and likewise, if one slaughtered other offerings for the sake of a Paschal offering at its designated time, the tanna’im disagree as to the status of the offering. Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, and Rabbi Yehoshua deems it fit.

אמר רבי יהושע אם בשאר ימות השנה שאינו כשר לשמו אחרים כשרים לשמו בזמנו שהוא כשר לשמו אינו דין שיכשרו אחרים לשמו

Rabbi Yehoshua said: If, during the rest of the days of the year, when a Paschal offering is not fit if it is slaughtered for its own sake, nevertheless, other offerings that are slaughtered for its sake are fit, then at its designated time, when a Paschal offering is fit if it is slaughtered for its own sake, isn’t it logical that other offerings slaughtered for its sake should be fit?

אמר לו רבי אליעזר או חילוף הדברים ומה אם בשאר ימות השנה שאינו כשר לשמו כשר הוא לשם אחרים בזמנו שהוא כשר לשמו אינו דין שיוכשר לשם אחרים ויוכשר פסח בארבעה עשר שלא לשמו

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Or conversely, just as during the rest of the days of the year, when a Paschal offering is not fit if it is slaughtered for its own sake, it is fit if slaughtered for the sake of other offerings, so too, at its designated time, when it is fit if slaughtered for its own sake, isn’t it logical that it should be fit if slaughtered for the sake of other offerings? And accordingly, a Paschal offering slaughtered not for its own sake on the fourteenth of Nisan should be deemed fit, which contradicts the halakha. Clearly, this line of reasoning leads to incorrect conclusions.

וכך אתה אומר מה לי הוכשרו אחרים בשאר ימות השנה לשמו שכן הוא כשר לשם אחרים ויוכשרו אחרים בזמנו לשמו שכן הוא פסול לשם אחרים

Furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer refuted Rabbi Yehoshua’s logic as follows: And do you say this derivation? What does it matter to me that other offerings slaughtered during the rest of the days of the year for the sake of a Paschal offering are deemed fit? After all, a Paschal offering slaughtered for the sake of other offerings is also fit. But must you say that other offerings slaughtered at its designated time for its sake should be deemed fit? After all, at its designated time, a Paschal offering slaughtered for the sake of other offerings is unfit.

אמר לו רבי יהושע אם כן הורעתה כח פסח ונתת כח בשלמים

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: If, as you maintain, other offerings slaughtered on Passover eve for the sake of a Paschal offering are disqualified, you have diminished the force of the requirement that a Paschal offering be sacrificed for its own sake, and you have given more force to the requirement that a peace offering be sacrificed for its own sake. A Paschal offering sacrificed at the proper time, i.e., during the rest of the year, for the sake of a peace offering, is fit, whereas a peace offering sacrificed on Passover eve for the sake of a Paschal offering is unfit.

חזר רבי אליעזר ודנו דין אחר מצינו מותר פסח בא שלמים ואין מותר שלמים בא פסח

The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer then presented a different logical inference: We find that a leftover Paschal offering, an animal consecrated as a Paschal offering but ultimately not sacrificed on Passover eve, is brought as a peace offering; but a leftover peace offering, one bought with money left over from funds dedicated toward the acquisition of a peace offering, is not brought as a Paschal offering. A Paschal offering is a potential peace offering, but a peace offering is not a potential Paschal offering.

ומה פסח שמותרו בא שלמים שחטו בזמנו לשום שלמים פסול שלמים שאין מותרן בא פסח אם שחטם לשם פסח בזמנו אינו דין שיהו פסולין

And if so, one may infer a fortiori: Just as with regard to a Paschal offering, whose leftover offering is brought as a peace offering, and nevertheless, if one slaughtered it at its designated time for the sake of a peace offering it is unfit, so too, with regard to a peace offering, whose leftover offering is not brought as a Paschal offering, if one slaughtered it for the sake of a Paschal offering at its designated time, isn’t it logical that it should be unfit?

אמר לו רבי יהושע מצינו מותר חטאת בא עולה ואין מותר עולה בא חטאת

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: This inference is not valid, as we find that a leftover sin offering, e.g., one bought with money left over from funds dedicated to the acquisition of a sin offering, is brought as a burnt offering, whereas a leftover burnt offering is not brought as a sin offering.

ומה חטאת שמותרה בא עולה שחטה לשם עולה פסולה עולה שאין מותרה בא חטאת שחטה לשם חטאת אינו דין שתהא פסולה

And according to Rabbi Eliezer’s logic, one should derive a fortiori: Just as with regard to a sin offering, whose leftover is brought as a burnt offering, nevertheless, if one slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt offering it is unfit, so too, with regard to a burnt offering, whose leftover is not brought as a sin offering, if one slaughtered it for the sake of a sin offering, isn’t it logical that it should be unfit? Yet, the halakha is that a burnt offering slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering is fit.

אמר לו רבי אליעזר לא אם אמרת בחטאת שכן כשרה לשמה כל השנה כולה תאמר בפסח שאינו כשר לשמו אלא בזמנו הואיל והוא פסול לשמו דין הוא שיפסלו אחרים לשמו

Rabbi Eliezer said to him: No, if you said that this is the halakha with regard to a sin offering, that another offering sacrificed for its sake is fit, this is only because a sin offering is fit when sacrificed for its sake all year long. Shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to a Paschal offering, which is fit when sacrificed for its sake only at its designated time? Since a Paschal offering is unfit when sacrificed for its sake during the rest of the year, it is logical that other offerings should be disqualified when sacrificed for its sake at its designated time.

שמעון אחי עזריה אומר כו׳

§ The mishna teaches: Shimon, brother of Azarya, says that this is the distinction: With regard to all offerings, if one slaughtered them for the sake of an offering whose sanctity is greater than theirs, they are fit; if one slaughtered them for the sake of an offering whose sanctity is less than theirs, they are unfit.

רב אשי מתני משמיה דרבי יוחנן ורב אחא בריה דרבא מתני משמיה דרבי ינאי מאי טעמא דשמעון אחי עזריה דאמר קרא ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל את אשר ירימו לה׳ במורם מהן אין מתחללין בנמוך מהם מתחללין

Rav Ashi teaches in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, teaches the same statement in the name of Rabbi Yannai: What is the reason for the opinion of Shimon, brother of Azarya? It is derived from that which the verse states: “And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they will set apart [yarimu] unto the Lord” (Leviticus 22:15). The verse is interpreted not as a prohibition but as a halakhic axiom, teaching that offerings are not profaned, i.e., disqualified, by sacrifice for the sake of offerings whose sanctity is more elevated [muram] than theirs; they are profaned only by sacrifice for the sake of offerings whose sanctity is less than theirs.

והאי להכי הוא דאתא והא מיבעי ליה לכדשמואל דאמר שמואל מנין לאוכל את הטבל שהוא במיתה שנאמר ולא יחללו את קדשי בני ישראל את אשר ירימו לה׳ בעתידים לתרום הכתוב מדבר

The Gemara asks: And does that verse come to teach this halakha? But isn’t it necessary for Shmuel’s derivation? As Shmuel says: From where is it derived that one who eats untithed produce is liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven? As it is stated: “And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they will set apart unto the Lord.” The term: “Will set apart,” indicates that the verse is speaking of holy items that are to be set apart in the future, i.e., untithed produce, which includes the portion designated for the priest [teruma].

אם כן לכתוב קרא אשר הורמו מאי אשר ירימו שמע מיניה תרתי

The Gemara answers: If so, if the verse taught only one halakha, the halakha of Shimon, brother of Azarya, it should have written: Which they have set apart. What is the reason the verse states: “Which they will set apart,” in the future tense? Conclude from it that the verse teaches two halakhot: An offering sacrificed for the sake of an offering of greater sanctity is fit, and consumption of untithed produce is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven.

בעי רבי זירא כשרין ואין מרצין וכי פליג בחדא פליג או דלמא כשרין ומרצין ובתרתי פליגי

Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: According to Shimon, brother of Azaria, who says that less sacred offerings sacrificed for the sake of more sacred offerings are fit, perhaps they are fit but do not propitiate God, i.e., they do not fulfill the owner’s obligation, as the Rabbis hold. If so, when Shimon, brother of Azaria, disagrees with the first tanna in the mishna, he disagrees only with regard to one matter, i.e., that more sacred offerings sacrificed for the sake of less sacred ones are disqualified altogether. Alternatively, perhaps Shimon, brother of Azaria, holds that if less sacred offerings are sacrificed for the sake of more sacred offerings they are both fit and propitiate God, and they disagree with the Rabbis about two matters.

אמר אביי ואיתימא רבי זריקא תא שמע הבכור והמעשר ששחטן לשם שלמים כשרים שלמים ששחטן לשם בכור או לשם מעשר פסולין

Abaye, and some say Rabbi Zerika, said: Come and hear proof that they do not satisfy the owners’ obligation: Shimon, brother of Azarya, elaborated on his opinion in the mishna: A firstborn animal and the animal tithe that one slaughtered for the sake of peace offerings are fit, as the sanctity of peace offerings is greater. Peace offerings that one slaughtered for the sake of a firstborn animal or for the sake of the animal tithe are unfit.

ואי סלקא דעתך כשרין ומרצין בכור בר ריצויי הוא אלא כשרין ואין מרצין ומדסיפא כשרין ואין מרצין רישא נמי כשרין ואין מרצין

And if it enters your mind that offerings sacrificed for the sake of offerings of greater sanctity are both fit and propitiate God, is a firstborn an offering that propitiates? Sacrificing a firstborn does not serve to propitiate God; rather, conclude that such offerings are fit but do not propitiate. And one can infer that since in the latter clause they are fit but do not propitiate, in the former clause as well, concerning all offerings of lesser sanctity slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order, they are fit but do not propitiate.

מידי איריא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא

The Gemara responds: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. Perhaps Shimon, brother of Azarya, holds that offerings of lesser sanctity slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order propitiate God, but a firstborn animal and animal tithe slaughtered for the sake of peace offerings do not propitiate God.

אלא מאי קא משמע לן גבוה ונמוך קא משמע לן תנינא כיצד קדשי קדשים ששחטן לשם קדשים קלים כו׳

The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the latter clause concerning a firstborn and animal tithe teaching us, if not that no offerings of lesser sanctity propitiate God when sacrificed for the sake of offerings of greater sanctity? How is the clause not redundant? Does it teach us an example of offerings of higher sanctity and offerings of lower sanctity? We already learn such an example in the former clause, which teaches: How so? Offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity are unfit; offerings of lesser sanctity slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order are fit.

מהו דתימא קדשי קדשים וקדשים קלים הוא דאיכא גבוה ונמוך אבל קלים וקלים לא

The Gemara answers: It is stated lest you say that the halakha of offerings of higher sanctity and offerings of lower sanctity applies only when the difference is between offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity, but with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity and other offerings of lesser sanctity this halakha does not apply, as they are all considered to possess the same level of sanctity. Therefore the mishna adds the example of a firstborn animal and animal tithe slaughtered for the sake of peace offerings, to clarify that one can distinguish between different offerings of lesser sanctity as well.

הא נמי תנינא שלמים קודמים את הבכור מפני שהן טעונין מתן ארבע וסמיכה ונסכים ותנופת חזה ושוק

The Gemara raises an objection to this answer: We already learn this as well, in another mishna (89a): The peace offering precedes sacrifice of the firstborn because the peace offering requires placement of its blood twice so as to be visible on four sides of the altar, placing hands on the head of the offering, libations, and waving of the breast and thigh by the priest and the owner, none of which is required for the firstborn.

הא עיקר ההיא אגררא נסבה

The Gemara answers: The primary mention of the distinction is in this mishna; that mishna cites it incidentally, in discussing the order of precedence of offerings.

מתני׳ הפסח ששחטו שחרית בארבעה עשר שלא לשמו רבי יהושע מכשיר כאילו נשחט בשלשה עשר בן בתירא פוסל כאילו נשחט בין הערבים

MISHNA: With regard to the Paschal offering that one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan, the day when the Paschal offering should be slaughtered in the afternoon, if he did so not for its sake, Rabbi Yehoshua deems it fit as though it were slaughtered on the thirteenth of Nisan. An animal consecrated as a Paschal offering that was slaughtered not at its designated time for the sake of a different offering is fit for sacrifice as a peace offering. Ben Beteira deems it unfit as though it were slaughtered in the afternoon of the fourteenth.

אמר שמעון בן עזאי מקובל אני מפי שבעים ושנים זקן ביום שהושיבו את רבי אליעזר בישיבה שכל הזבחים הנאכלין שנזבחו שלא לשמן כשרין אלא שלא עלו לבעלים משום חובה חוץ מן הפסח ומן החטאת ולא הוסיף בן עזאי אלא העולה ולא הודו לו חכמים

Shimon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from seventy-two elders, as the Sanhedrin deliberated and decided on the day that they installed Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya at the head of the yeshiva and ruled that all the slaughtered offerings that are eaten that were slaughtered not for their sake are fit, but these offerings did not satisfy the obligation of the owner, except for the Paschal offering and the sin offering. Based on that version, ben Azzai added to the halakha cited in the first mishna only the burnt offering, which is not eaten, and the Rabbis disagreed and did not concede to him.

גמ׳ אמר רבי אלעזר אמר רבי אושעיא מכשיר היה בן בתירא בפסח ששחטו שחרית בארבעה עשר לשמו דכוליה יומא זימניה הוא

GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: With regard to a Paschal offering that one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan for its sake, ben Beteira would deem it fit, as he held that the entire day, not only the afternoon, is its designated time.

ומאי כאילו

The Gemara asks: And what is the reason the mishna states that according to ben Beteira, a Paschal offering slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth is considered as though it were slaughtered in the afternoon? This language seems to indicate that it does not have the same status as a Paschal offering actually slaughtered in the afternoon.

איידי דאמר רבי יהושע כאילו אמר איהו נמי כאילו

The Gemara responds: Since Rabbi Yehoshua says the term: As though it were slaughtered on the thirteenth, ben Beteira also says the term: As though it were slaughtered in the afternoon. But in fact he maintains that there is no difference between a Paschal offering slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth and one slaughtered in the afternoon.

אי הכי אדמיפלגי בשלא לשמו ליפלגו בלשמו

The Gemara asks: If so, rather than disagreeing in the mishna with regard to a Paschal offering that was slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth not for its sake, let them disagree with regard to one slaughtered for its sake; ben Beteira holds that it is fit, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that it is unfit.

אי איפלגו בלשמו הוה אמינא אבל בשלא לשמו מודי רבי יהושע לבן בתירא הואיל ומקצתו ראוי קא משמע לן

The Gemara answers: If the mishna were to write only that they disagree with regard to a Paschal offering slaughtered for its sake, I would say: But in a case where it was slaughtered not for its sake, Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to ben Beteira that it is disqualified, even though it was slaughtered in the morning, since at least part of the day, the afternoon, is fit for its sacrifice as a Paschal offering. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that they disagree with regard to this case as well.

והכתיב בין הערבים

The Gemara asks: How can ben Beteira claim that a Paschal offering may be slaughtered in the morning? But isn’t it written: “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon [bein ha’arbayim]” (Exodus 12:6)?

אמר עולא בריה דרב עילאי בין שני ערבים

Ulla, son of Rav Ilai, says: Ben Beteira interprets the phrase bein ha’arbayim literally: Between two evenings, i.e., between the eve of the fourteenth and the night after the fourteenth. Accordingly, the Paschal offering may be sacrificed all day long.

תמיד דכתיב ביה בין הערבים הכי נמי דכולי יומא כשר

The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the daily offering, concerning which it is written: “The one lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer bein ha’arbayim” (Numbers 28:4), is the entire day fit for sacrifice also?

התם מדכתיב את הכבש אחד תעשה בבקר מכלל דבין הערבים בין הערבים ממש

The Gemara answers: There, since it is written: “The one lamb you shall offer in the morning,” by inference, the term bein ha’arbayim is referring to the actual afternoon.

אימא חד בבקר אידך כוליה יומא

The Gemara counters: Say that one of the lambs should be sacrificed in the morning, and the other one can be sacrificed all day. Why is it evident from the requirement that one be sacrificed in the morning that the other must sacrificed in the afternoon?

אחד בבקר ולא שנים בבקר

The Gemara answers: The clause “One lamb you shall offer in the morning” indicates that two lambs are not sacrificed in the morning; the other must perforce be sacrificed in the afternoon.

נרות דכתיב בין הערבים הכי נמי דכולי יומא כשר

The Gemara asks: With regard to the lamps of the Candelabrum, one should say the same, as it is written: “And when Aaron lights the lamps bein ha’arbayim” (Exodus 30:8). Is the entire day fit for lighting also, according to the opinion of ben Beteira?

שאני התם דכתיב מערב ועד בקר ותניא מערב ועד בקר תן לה מדתה שתהא דולקת והולכת מערב ועד בקר דבר אחר אין לך עבודה כשרה מערב ועד בקר אלא זו בלבד

The Gemara answers: There it is different, as it is written: “To burn from evening to morning” (Exodus 27:21). And it is taught in a baraita: The phrase “from evening to morning” indicates that you must allocate the Candelabrum its measure of oil so that it will burn from evening until morning. Alternatively, the same verse can be interpreted as follows: Only this rite is valid from evening until morning, since all other rites must be performed during the day. Therefore, the Candelabrum is lit only at the end of the day.

קטורת דכתיב בה בין הערבים הכי נמי דכולי יומא כשר

The Gemara asks: With regard to the incense, one should say likewise, as it is written with regard to it: “Bein ha’arbayim he shall burn it” (Exodus 30:8). Is the entire day also fit for burning the incense according to the opinion of ben Beteira?

שאני קטרת

The Gemara answers: The incense is different,