Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 31, 2018 | 讬状讝 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Zevachim 48

From where聽do we derive that the sin offering needs to be slaughtered and the blood collected in the north and if not, the sacrifice is disqualified.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

驻专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讻讜壮 诪讻讚讬 爪驻讜谉 讘注讜诇讛 讻转讬讘 谞讬转谞讬 注讜诇讛 讘专讬砖讗

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, their slaughter is in the north and the collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north. The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna list these sin offerings first? After all, while the halakha that slaughter must be in the north of the Temple courtyard is written in the Torah with regard to a burnt offering (Leviticus 1:11), the Torah does not explicitly state that the other offerings must be slaughtered in the north. Therefore, let the tanna of the mishna teach the halakha of a burnt offering first.

讞讟讗转 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗转讬 诪讚专砖讗 讞讘讬讘讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: Since the location for slaughtering the sin offering is derived through interpretation, it is dear to the tanna, and he therefore he gives it precedence. The verse states: 鈥淪peak to Aaron and to his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered shall the sin offering be slaughtered before the Lord; it is most holy鈥 (Leviticus 6:18). The Gemara (55a) derives from this verse that the sin offering must be slaughtered in the same place as the burnt offering, i.e., in the north of the Temple courtyard.

讜谞讬转谞讬 讞讟讗讜转 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 讗讬讬讚讬 讚谞讻谞住 讚诪谉 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讞讘讬讘讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: But let the tanna of the mishna teach first the halakha of the external sin offerings, since those are the offerings to which the verse is referring. The Gemara explains: Since the blood of the Yom Kippur sin offerings enters the innermost sanctum, these offerings are dear to the tanna, and he taught them first.

讜爪驻讜谞讛 讘注讜诇讛 讛讬讻讗 讻转讬讘讗 讜砖讞讟 讗转讜 注诇 讬专讱 讛诪讝讘讞 爪驻谞讛

The Gemara asks: And where is it written that a burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers that with regard to a sheep that is brought as a burnt offering the Torah states: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord; and Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests, shall dash its blood against the altar round about鈥 (Leviticus 1:11).

讗砖讻讞谉 讘谉 爪讗谉 讘谉 讘拽专 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜讬诇诪讚 注诇讬讜谉 诪转讞转讜谉

The Gemara clarifies: We have found that this verse provides a source that a young sheep burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north. From where do we derive that a young bull burnt offering must also be slaughtered in the north? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if his offering be of the flock, whether of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt offering, he shall offer it a male without blemish鈥 (Leviticus 1:10). The conjunctive 鈥渁nd鈥 represented by the letter vav adds to the previous matter. The previous passage addresses cattle offerings. And let the upper passage, the place of the slaughter of a bull, be learned from the lower passage, the place of slaughtering a sheep.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who says that we learn halakhot in this manner. But according to the one who says that we do not learn halakhot in this manner, what is there to say?

讚转谞讬讗 讜讗诐 谞驻砖 讜讙讜壮 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 住驻拽 诪注讬诇讜转 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诇诪讬讚讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 诇诪讬讚讬谉

As it is taught in a baraita: Immediately following the passage in the Torah addressing a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, the Torah discusses the halakhot of a provisional guilt offering, brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering. The verse states: 鈥淎nd if anyone sin, and does any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done, though he did not know it, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 5:17). This serves to render him liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis deem him exempt in such a case. The Gemara suggests: What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that we learn halakhot of the upper passage from the lower passage, and the other Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that we do not learn halakhot in this manner?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇诪讬讚讬谉 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 诪爪讜转 讜谞讗诪专 讘讞讟讗转 讞诇讘 诪爪讜转

Rav Pappa said: This is not correct, as everyone holds that we learn halakhot of the upper passage from the lower passage. And this is the reason that the Rabbis exempt from bringing an offering one who is uncertain whether he misused consecrated property: They learn a verbal analogy. It is stated here: 鈥淎nd if anyone sin, and does any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done鈥 (Leviticus 5:17). And it is stated with regard to the sin offering for eating forbidden fat: 鈥淎nd if any one of the common people sin through error, in doing any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and be guilty鈥 (Leviticus 4:27).

诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讚讘专 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转

The verbal analogy teaches that just as there, the sin offering is brought only for an act that for its intentional violation one is liable to be punished with karet, and for its unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin offering, so too here, one brings a provisional guilt offering only for an act that for its intentional violation one is liable to be punished with karet, and for its unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin offering, which is not the case concerning misuse of consecrated property.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘拽讘讜注讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘拽讘讜注讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讞讟讗转 讚讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讚注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Akiva derive from this verbal analogy? He learns that just as there the verse obligates one to bring a fixed sin offering, so too here, with regard to the provisional guilt offering, one brings it for a case of uncertain transgression of a prohibition for which one would be liable to bring a fixed sin offering, to exclude a sin offering brought for uncertain transgression of the defiling of the Temple or sacrificial foods, as the sin offering for that transgression is not fixed, but is a sliding-scale offering. If the sinner is poor he brings a meal offering or a bird offering; if he is rich he brings an animal offering. In a case of uncertainty one does not bring a provisional guilt offering.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪讞爪讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪讞爪讛

And as for the Rabbis, who derived a different halakha from the verbal analogy, they hold that there is no verbal analogy for half of a matter. Once a provisional guilt offering is compared to a sin offering, it must be completely similar, and both matters are derived from the verbal analogy. The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Akiva also must hold that there is no verbal analogy for half of a matter, so why does he not agree with the derivation of the Rabbis?

讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讜讗诐 谞驻砖 讻转讬讘 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉

The Gemara reconsiders: Yes, this is indeed so. And here they disagree with regard to this: Rabbi Akiva holds that it is written with regard to the provisional guilt offering: 鈥淎nd if anyone sin, and does any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done, though he did not know it, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 5:17). The word 鈥渁nd鈥 represented by the letter vav adds to the previous matter. When a phrase begins with the conjunction vav, it is a continuation of the previous matter, and the halakhot of the previous passage can be learned from the subsequent passage. Therefore one brings a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property.

讜专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 谞驻砖 诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讛讬拽砖 注讚讬祝 讜诪专 住讘专 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 注讚讬祝

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of the Rabbis also, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd if anyone sin鈥? Let us say that they disagree about this: As one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that a derivation from a juxtaposition is preferable, and derives from the juxtaposition of the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property to the halakhot of a provisional guilt offering that one is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering if he is not certain whether he misused consecrated property. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that a derivation from a verbal analogy is preferable, and therefore derive from a verbal analogy between the passage of misuse of consecrated property and the passage of a sin offering for eating forbidden fat that one is not liable to bring a provisional guilt offering if he is not certain whether he misused consecrated property.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讚讛讬拽砖 注讚讬祝 讜讗诪专讬 诇讱 专讘谞谉 转讞转讜谉 讛讜讗 讚讙诪专 诪注诇讬讜谉

The Gemara rejects this: No, it may be that everyone agrees that a derivation from a juxtaposition is preferable. And the Rabbis would say to you that the reason one is exempt from bringing a provisional guilt offering in a case of uncertain mis-use of consecrated property is that the juxtaposition should be understood in the opposite manner. It is the lower passage that is derived from the upper passage.

诇讗砖诐 讘讻住祝 砖拽诇讬诐 砖诇讗 转讗诪专 诇讗 讬讛讗 住驻讬拽讜 讞诪讜专 诪讜讚讗讜 诪讛 讜讚讗讜 讞讟讗转 讘转 讚谞拽讗 讗祝 住驻讬拽讜 讗砖诐 讘专 讚谞拽讗

The juxtaposition teaches that a provisional guilt offering must be a ram worth a minimum of two silver shekels, as is the halakha with regard to the offering brought for misuse of consecrated property. This derivation is needed so that you should not say that a provisional guilt offering, brought for his uncertain transgression, should not be more stringent than the offering one brings in a case of his definite transgression. According to that claim, one would say that just as for his definite transgression one may bring a sin offering worth only one-sixth [danka] of a dinar, so too, for his uncertain transgression one may bring a provisional guilt offering worth only one-sixth of a dinar.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗 住讘专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讗砖诐 转讜专讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇 讛讗砖诪讜转

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Akiva derive this conclusion? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse that states: 鈥淎nd this is the law of the guilt offering鈥 (Leviticus 7:1), which teaches that there is one law for all of the guilt offerings and they must all be worth at least two shekels, provisional guilt offerings included.

转讬谞讞 诪讗谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转讜专转 诪讗谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 转讜专转 诪讛讬讻讗 讙诪专 讙诪专 讘注专讻讱 讘注专讻讱

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to one who holds that there is a derivation from the word 鈥渓aw,鈥 but according to the one who does not hold that there is a derivation from the word 鈥渓aw,鈥 from where does he learn that all guilt offerings must have the same minimum value? The Gemara answers: He learns it from a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渁ccording to your valuation鈥 stated with regard to a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property (Leviticus 5:15) and the term 鈥渁ccording to your valuation鈥 stated with regard to a provisional guilt offering (Leviticus 5:18) and a guilt offering for robbery (Leviticus 5:25).

转讬谞讞 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘注专讻讱 讗砖诐 砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘注专讻讱 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well concerning guilt offerings where it is written 鈥渁ccording to your valuation,鈥 but with regard to a guilt offering brought for engaging in sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant, concerning which it is not written in the Torah 鈥渁ccording to your valuation,鈥 what is there to say? How does one derive that the guilt offering brought for engaging in sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant must be worth a minimum of two silver shekels?

讙诪专 讘讗讬诇 讘讗讬诇

The Gemara answers that it is derived from a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渨ith the ram鈥 stated with regard to a guilt offering for mis-use of consecrated property (Leviticus 5:16) and the term 鈥渨ith the ram鈥 stated with regard to the guilt offering for engaging in sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant (Leviticus 19:22).

讞讟讗转 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚讘注讬讗 爪驻讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讞讟 讗转 讛讞讟讗转 讘诪拽讜诐 讛注讜诇讛

搂 The Gemara returns to discuss the mishna. From where do we derive that a sin offering requires slaughter in the north of the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers: As it is written with regard to an individual sin offering: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:29). Just as a burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, so too, a sin offering must also be slaughtered in the north.

讗砖讻讞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 拽讘诇讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞 讛讻讛谉 诪讚诐 讛讞讟讗转

The Gemara asks: We have found from this verse that the slaughter must be in the north. From where do we derive that collection of the blood must also be in the north? The Gemara answers: As it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and place it upon the corners of the altar of burnt offering, and all its remaining blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 4:34). As this verse immediately follows the verse discussing the slaughter of a sin offering, evidently the taking of the blood is performed in the same place as the slaughter.

诪拽讘诇 注爪诪讜 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇拽讞 诇讜 讬拽讞

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the one collecting the blood must himself stand in the north of the Temple courtyard? Perhaps he may stand near the north and extend his arm to collect the blood. The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take [velaka岣]鈥 (Leviticus 4:34), which can be read, as: He will take himself [lo yikka岣].

讗砖讻讞谉 诇诪爪讜讛 诇注讻讘 诪谞讬谉 拽专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻转讬讘 讜砖讞讟 讗讜转讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 讬砖讞讟 讗转 讛注讜诇讛 讜转谞讬讗 讛讬讻谉 注讜诇讛 谞砖讞讟讛 讘爪驻讜谉 讗祝 讝讛 讘爪驻讜谉

The Gemara asks: We have found that the offering must be slaughtered in the north and the blood collected in the north to perform the mitzva in the optimal manner. From where is it derived that if one slaughters the offering or collects the blood anywhere else the offering is disqualified? The Gemara answers: It is written in another verse which speaks of a goat sin offering brought by a king who sins: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the goat and slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering before the Lord; it is a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:24). And it is taught in a baraita: Where is the burnt offering slaughtered? In the north. This sin offering of a king must also be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard.

讜讻讬 诪讻讗谉 讗转讛 诇诪讚 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 转砖讞讟 讛注讜诇讛 转砖讞讟 讛讞讟讗转 讛讗 诇诪讛 讬爪讗 诇拽讘讜注 诇讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诐 诇讗 砖讞讟讛 讘爪驻讜谉 驻住讜诇

The Gemara asks: And do you learn this halakha from here? But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淪peak to Aaron and to his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered shall the sin offering be slaughtered before the Lord; it is most holy鈥 (Leviticus 6:18)? If so, to what purpose was this singled out? Why did the Torah state explicitly that the sin offering of the king requires slaughter in the north? The Gemara answers: To fix a place for it, that this is the only place where a sin offering may be slaughtered, teaching that if it was not slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, the offering is disqualified even after the fact.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讻讱 讬爪讗 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讝讛 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖讞讟 讗转 讛讞讟讗转 讘诪拽讜诐 讛注讜诇讛 讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 诇讻诇 讞讟讗讜转 砖讬讛讜 讟注讜谞讜转 爪驻讜谉

The Gemara asks: Do you say that it is singled out for this purpose, to teach that even after the fact a sin offering slaughtered anywhere other than in the north is disqualified? Or perhaps it is only to teach that this goat sin offering requires slaughter in the north but no other goat sin offering requires slaughter in the north. The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:29). This established a paradigm for all sin offerings, teaching that they require slaughter in the north.

讗砖讻讞谉 砖注讬专 谞砖讬讗 讘讬谉 诇诪爪讜讛 讘讬谉 诇注讻讘 砖讗专 讞讟讗讜转 谞诪讬 讗砖讻讞谉 诇诪爪讜讛 诇注讻讘 诪谞讗 诇谉

The Gemara continues its explanation: We have found that the Torah writes with regard to the goat sin offering of a king that it requires slaughter in the north both to perform the mitzva in the optimal manner and to disqualify the offering even after the fact. We have also found with regard to the other sin offerings that the Torah states that to perform the mitzva in the optimal manner they must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard. From where do we derive the halakha to disqualify other sin offerings if they were not slaughtered in the north?

讚讻转讬讘 讘讻砖讘讛 讜讻转讬讘 讘砖注讬专讛

The Gemara explains: As it is written with regard to a lamb sin offering that it must be slaughtered in the north: 鈥淎nd slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:33) and it is also written with regard to a she-goat sin offering: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slaughter it for a sin offering in the place of the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:29). This repetition teaches that a sin offering is disqualified if it is not slaughtered in the north.

讗诇讗 讗转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬

搂 Having derived from these verses that all sin offerings are disqualified if they are slaughtered not in the north, the Gemara questions its earlier explanation. Rather, why do I need the term 鈥渋t鈥 stated with regard to the sin offering of a king in the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the goat, and slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering before the Lord; it is a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:24)?

诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讜转讜 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 砖注讬专 谞讞砖讜谉 讘爪驻讜谉

The Gemara answers: It is required for that which is taught in a baraita: It, the goat sin offering of a king, is slaughtered in the north of the Tabernacle, but the goat offered by Nahshon and the other princes was not slaughtered in the north. Nahshon was the prince of the tribe of Judah. He, along with all the other princes of the tribes, brought offerings to inaugurate the altar and the Tabernacle, as recorded in the Torah (Numbers, chapter 7). Although the offerings were classified as sin offerings because they shared some characteristics of sin offerings, they were not brought to atone for any particular sin. Therefore, the term 鈥渋t鈥 teaches that the offerings of the princes did not require slaughter in the north.

讜转谞讬讗 讜住诪讱 讬讚讜 注诇 专讗砖 讛砖注讬专 诇专讘讜转 砖注讬专 谞讞砖讜谉 诇住诪讬讻讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇专讘讜转 砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇住诪讬讻讛

And the reason that it is necessary for the Torah to exclude Nahshon鈥檚 sin offering from the requirement of slaughter in the north is because it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the sin offering of a king: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the goat, and slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering before the Lord; it is a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:24). The verse could have stated: Upon its head. The reason it adds 鈥渙f the goat鈥 is to include the goat brought as a sin offering by Nahshon in the requirement of placing hands on the head of an offering. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: The term 鈥渙f the goat鈥 serves to include the goats brought as sin offerings for communal idol worship in the requirement of placing hands on the head of an offering.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转专讘讜 诇住诪讬讻讛 讗讬转专讘讜 谞诪讬 诇爪驻讜谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that since the sin offerings of the princes are included in the requirement of placing hands, they are also included in the requirement of being slaughtered in the north. Therefore, the term 鈥渋t鈥 teaches us that for the goat brought as a sin offering by Nahshon and the other princes there was no requirement of slaughter in the north.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Ravina objects to this interpretation: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the offering of Nahshon required him to place his hands on the head of the animal. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, what is there to say? Why should the Torah write the term 鈥渋t,鈥 since there is no reason to assume that it would require slaughter in the north?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讟讘讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬 谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗讬 讚讗讬转专讘讬 讗讬转专讘讬 讜诪讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讬转专讘讬 诇讗 讗讬转专讘讬

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Tavi, said to Ravina: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, does it work out well? Why is it necessary for the Torah to specifically exclude the offerings of the princes from the requirement of slaughter in the north? Why not say that for that for which it was included, i.e., placing hands on the head of an animal, it was included, and for that which it was not included, i.e., slaughter in the north, it was not included.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 诇讗 诪注讟讬讛 拽专讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 转讬转讬 讘讘谞讬谉 讗讘 讗诐 讻谉 住诪讬讻讛 讙讜驻讛 转讬转讬 诪讘谞讬谉 讗讘 讗诇讗 诪讚讜专讜转 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讚讜专讜转 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉

And if you would say that if the verse had not excluded the offerings of the princes I would say that one could derive the requirement for slaughter in the north via a paradigm from all other sin offerings, if so, one could also derive the requirement for placing hands on the head of an animal itself via the same paradigm. Rather, the reason that the requirement of placing hands cannot be derived via a paradigm is that we do not learn the requirements of the sin offering of Nahshon, which was only for the time of the inauguration of the Tabernacle alone, from the requirement of sin offerings applicable to all generations. So too, the requirement of slaughter in the north cannot be derived via a paradigm because we do not learn the requirements of the sin offering of Nahshon from the requirement of sin offerings applicable to all generations.

讜讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟 讘爪驻讜谉

Rather, the term 鈥渋t鈥 stated with regard to the sin offering of a king serves to teach that it must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, but the one who slaughters it does not need to stand in the north when he slaughters it.

砖讜讞讟 诪讚专讘讬 讗讞讬讗 谞驻拽讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讞讬讗 讗讜诪专 讜砖讞讟 讗转讜 注诇 讬专讱 讛诪讝讘讞 爪驻讜谞讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

The Gemara challenges this: The halakha of the one who slaughters the offering has already been derived from the statement of Rabbi A岣yya, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi A岣yya says: The verse states with regard to the burnt offering: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 1:11). Why must the verse state the exclusionary term 鈥渋t鈥?

诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 注讜诪讚 讘爪驻讜谉 讜诪拽讘诇 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讗诐 注诪讚 讘讚专讜诐 讜拽讬讘诇 讘爪驻讜谉 驻住讜诇 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讝讛 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讜 讗讜转讜 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讘爪驻讜谉

He explains: Since we have found that the priest stands in the north and collects the blood from the neck of the animal in the north, and if he stood in the south and collected the blood in the north the offering is disqualified, one might have thought that this is so also with regard to this one who slaughters the offering. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it,鈥 to teach that it, the animal, must be in the north, but the one who slaughters it is not required to be standing in the north of the Temple courtyard when he slaughters the animal. Therefore, the question must be addressed: What is derived from the exclusionary term 鈥渋t鈥 stated with regard to the sin offering of a king?

讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 讘谉 注讜祝 讘爪驻讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讘谉 注讜祝 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讘谉 爪讗谉 砖诇讗 拽讘注 诇讜 讻讛谉 拽讘注 诇讜 爪驻讜谉 讘谉 注讜祝 砖拽讘注 诇讜 讻讛谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬拽讘注 诇讜 爪驻讜谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讜

The Gemara explains: Rather, the term 鈥渋t鈥 stated with regard to the sin offering of a king serves to teach that it, a goat brought as a sin offering, must be slaughtered in the north, but a young bird brought as an offering does not need to be killed in the north. This is as it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that a male bird requires pinching of the nape in the north of the Temple courtyard. And this can be derived through a logical inference: Just as a young sheep brought as a burnt offering is an offering for which the Torah did not fix that its slaughter must be performed by a priest but nevertheless fixed that its slaughter must be in the north, with regard to a young bird brought as an offering, for which the Torah did fix that its killing must be performed by a priest, is it not logical that the Torah should also fix its slaughter in the north? Therefore, the verse states 鈥渋t,鈥 to exclude a male bird from the requirement of being killed in the north.

诪讛 诇讘谉 爪讗谉 砖讻谉 拽讘注 诇讜 讻诇讬

The Gemara questions the logical inference. One cannot derive the halakha of a bird offering from the halakha of a sheep offering, as what is notable about a young sheep offering? It is notable in that the Torah fixed the requirement that it be slaughtered with a utensil, i.e., a knife. A bird, by contrast, is killed by the priest using his fingernail. Therefore, the term 鈥渋t鈥 cannot serve to counter this derivation.

讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 驻住讞 讘爪驻讜谉

The Gemara explains: Rather, the term 鈥渋t鈥 stated with regard to the sin offering of a king serves to teach that it, the goat of the king, is slaughtered in the north, but the Paschal offering is not slaughtered in the north.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 驻住讞 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 注讜诇讛 砖讻谉 诇讗 拽讘注 诇讜 讝诪谉 诇砖讞讬讟转讜 拽讘注 诇讜 爪驻讜谉 驻住讞 砖拽讘注 诇讜 讝诪谉 诇砖讞讬讟转讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬拽讘注 诇讜 爪驻讜谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讜

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: One might have thought that a Paschal offering requires slaughter in the north. And this can be derived through a logical inference: Just as a burnt offering is an offering for which the Torah did not fix a time for its slaughter but fixed that it requires slaughter in the north, with regard to a Paschal offering, for which the Torah fixed a time for its slaughter, as it must be slaughtered in the afternoon of the fourteenth day of Nisan, is it not logical that the Torah would fix that it must be slaughtered in the north? Therefore, the verse states 鈥渋t,鈥 to exclude the Paschal offering from the requirement of slaughter in the north.

诪讛 诇注讜诇讛 砖讻谉 讻诇讬诇

The Gemara questions the logical inference. One cannot derive the halakha of a Paschal offering from the halakha of a burnt offering, as what is notable about a burnt offering? It is notable in that the Torah teaches that it is entirely burned on the altar. This is not so with regard to a Paschal offering.

诪讞讟讗转 诪讛 诇讞讟讗转 砖讻谉 诪讻驻专转 注诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转

The Gemara continues: If you would suggest a logical inference from the halakha of a sin offering, which is not entirely burned upon the altar but is slaughtered only in the north, this too can be refuted. As what is notable about a sin offering? It is notable in that it atones for those sins that render one liable for punishment by karet, which is not so with regard to a Paschal offering.

诪讗砖诐 诪讛 诇讗砖诐 砖讻谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诪讻讜诇谉 谞诪讬 砖讻谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara continues: If you would suggest a logical inference from the halakha of a guilt offering, which is not entirely burned, which does not atone for those sins punishable by karet, and which is slaughtered only in the north, this too can be refuted. As what is notable about a guilt offering? It is notable in that it has the status of an offering of the most sacred order, which is not so with regard to a Paschal offering. The Gemara adds: Having noted this distinction between a guilt offering and a Paschal offering, one can say that for all of the three offerings as well, the halakha of a Paschal offering cannot be derived from them, since they all have the status of offerings of the most sacred order.

诇注讜诇诐 讻讚讗诪专谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讜转讜 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讚拽砖讬讗 诇讱 诪讚专讘讬 讗讞讬讗 谞驻拽讗 诇谉 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讜讞讟 讘爪驻讜谉 讗诇讗 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟 讘爪驻讜谉 讗讘诇 诪拽讘诇 讘爪驻讜谉

The Gemara returns to the earlier inference: Actually, the term 鈥渋t鈥 teaches as we said initially: It, i.e., the animal, must be standing in the north, but the one who slaughters the animal does not have to stand in the north. And that which is difficult for you, that we derive this halakha from the statement of Rabbi A岣yya, is in fact not difficult. The derivation from the term 鈥渋t鈥 is not to exclude one who slaughters from the requirement to slaughter in the north, since that halakha is known already from the statement of Rabbi A岣yya. Rather, the derivation is that it is only one who slaughters the animal who does not have to stand in the north, but by inference, the one who collects the blood from the neck of the animal must stand in the north.

诪拽讘诇 诪诇拽讞 讜诇拽讞 谞驻拽讗 诇拽讞 讜诇拽讞 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讬讛

The Gemara questions this inference: The halakha that the one who collects the blood from the neck of the animal must stand in the north is derived from the fact that the Torah could have written: The priest shall take, and instead writes: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take鈥 [velaka岣] (Leviticus 4:34), which may be read as: He will take himself [lo yika岣], as explained on the previous amud. The Gemara explains: This tanna does not learn anything from this distinction between: The priest shall take, and: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take.鈥 He does not agree with this derivation, and therefore he must derive the requirement to collect the blood while standing in the north from a different verse.

讗砖讻讞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讘注讜诇讛 诇诪爪讜讛 拽讘诇讛 谞诪讬 诇诪爪讜讛 讗砖讻讞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讜拽讘诇讛 诇注讻讘 诪谞诇谉

搂 The Gemara asks: We found a source for the requirement of slaughter in the north with regard to a burnt offering in order to perform the mitzva in the optimal manner. We also found a source for the requirement of collecting the blood while standing in the north in order to perform the mitzva in the optimal manner. From where do we derive that slaughter and collection of the blood are disqualified if they are not performed in the north?

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讞讟讗转 讛讘讗讛 诪讻讞 注讜诇讛 诪注讻讘转 注讜诇讛 砖讘讗讛 讞讟讗转 诪讻讞讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪注讻讘转

Rav Adda bar Ahava says, and some say it was Rabba bar Sheila who says: It is derived via an a fortiori inference: Just as the halakha that the slaughter and blood collection of a sin offering be performed in the north comes by virtue of a comparison to the halakha of a burnt offering, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:29), yet if the animal was not slaughtered or its blood was not collected in the north it disqualifies the offering, with regard to the burnt offering itself, as the halakha that the slaughter and blood collection of a sin offering be in the north comes by virtue of it, is it not logical that if it was not slaughtered or its blood was not collected in the north, this should disqualify the offering?

诪讛 诇讞讟讗转 砖讻谉 诪讻驻专转 注诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转

The Gemara rejects this logical inference: What is notable about a sin offering? It is notable in that it atones for those sins that render one liable for punishment by karet, which is not so with regard to a burnt offering.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讻诇讜诐 诪爪讬谞讜 讟驻诇 讞诪讜专 诪谉 讛注讬拽专

Ravina said: This is what is difficult for Rav Adda bar Ahava. In other words, regardless of the notable characteristic of a sin offering, he still is of the opinion that his logical inference stands. Have we ever found that a secondary prohibition is more stringent than a primary prohibition? Since the halakha of a sin offering is derived via a comparison to the halakha of a burnt offering, the former cannot have stringencies that the latter lacks.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜诇讗

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: But have we not found a secondary prohibition that is more stringent than the primary one?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 48

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 48

驻专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讻讜壮 诪讻讚讬 爪驻讜谉 讘注讜诇讛 讻转讬讘 谞讬转谞讬 注讜诇讛 讘专讬砖讗

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, their slaughter is in the north and the collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north. The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna list these sin offerings first? After all, while the halakha that slaughter must be in the north of the Temple courtyard is written in the Torah with regard to a burnt offering (Leviticus 1:11), the Torah does not explicitly state that the other offerings must be slaughtered in the north. Therefore, let the tanna of the mishna teach the halakha of a burnt offering first.

讞讟讗转 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗转讬 诪讚专砖讗 讞讘讬讘讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: Since the location for slaughtering the sin offering is derived through interpretation, it is dear to the tanna, and he therefore he gives it precedence. The verse states: 鈥淪peak to Aaron and to his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered shall the sin offering be slaughtered before the Lord; it is most holy鈥 (Leviticus 6:18). The Gemara (55a) derives from this verse that the sin offering must be slaughtered in the same place as the burnt offering, i.e., in the north of the Temple courtyard.

讜谞讬转谞讬 讞讟讗讜转 讛讞讬爪讜谞讜转 讗讬讬讚讬 讚谞讻谞住 讚诪谉 诇驻谞讬 讜诇驻谞讬诐 讞讘讬讘讗 诇讬讛

The Gemara challenges: But let the tanna of the mishna teach first the halakha of the external sin offerings, since those are the offerings to which the verse is referring. The Gemara explains: Since the blood of the Yom Kippur sin offerings enters the innermost sanctum, these offerings are dear to the tanna, and he taught them first.

讜爪驻讜谞讛 讘注讜诇讛 讛讬讻讗 讻转讬讘讗 讜砖讞讟 讗转讜 注诇 讬专讱 讛诪讝讘讞 爪驻谞讛

The Gemara asks: And where is it written that a burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers that with regard to a sheep that is brought as a burnt offering the Torah states: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord; and Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests, shall dash its blood against the altar round about鈥 (Leviticus 1:11).

讗砖讻讞谉 讘谉 爪讗谉 讘谉 讘拽专 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 诪谉 讛爪讗谉 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉 讜讬诇诪讚 注诇讬讜谉 诪转讞转讜谉

The Gemara clarifies: We have found that this verse provides a source that a young sheep burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north. From where do we derive that a young bull burnt offering must also be slaughtered in the north? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if his offering be of the flock, whether of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt offering, he shall offer it a male without blemish鈥 (Leviticus 1:10). The conjunctive 鈥渁nd鈥 represented by the letter vav adds to the previous matter. The previous passage addresses cattle offerings. And let the upper passage, the place of the slaughter of a bull, be learned from the lower passage, the place of slaughtering a sheep.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who says that we learn halakhot in this manner. But according to the one who says that we do not learn halakhot in this manner, what is there to say?

讚转谞讬讗 讜讗诐 谞驻砖 讜讙讜壮 诇讞讬讬讘 注诇 住驻拽 诪注讬诇讜转 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讞讻诪讬诐 驻讜讟专讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 诇诪讬讚讬谉 讜诪专 住讘专 讗讬谉 诇诪讬讚讬谉

As it is taught in a baraita: Immediately following the passage in the Torah addressing a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, the Torah discusses the halakhot of a provisional guilt offering, brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering. The verse states: 鈥淎nd if anyone sin, and does any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done, though he did not know it, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 5:17). This serves to render him liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis deem him exempt in such a case. The Gemara suggests: What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that we learn halakhot of the upper passage from the lower passage, and the other Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that we do not learn halakhot in this manner?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇诪讬讚讬谉 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 诪爪讜转 讜谞讗诪专 讘讞讟讗转 讞诇讘 诪爪讜转

Rav Pappa said: This is not correct, as everyone holds that we learn halakhot of the upper passage from the lower passage. And this is the reason that the Rabbis exempt from bringing an offering one who is uncertain whether he misused consecrated property: They learn a verbal analogy. It is stated here: 鈥淎nd if anyone sin, and does any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done鈥 (Leviticus 5:17). And it is stated with regard to the sin offering for eating forbidden fat: 鈥淎nd if any one of the common people sin through error, in doing any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and be guilty鈥 (Leviticus 4:27).

诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讚讘专 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讝讚讜谞讜 讻专转 讜注诇 砖讙讙转讜 讞讟讗转

The verbal analogy teaches that just as there, the sin offering is brought only for an act that for its intentional violation one is liable to be punished with karet, and for its unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin offering, so too here, one brings a provisional guilt offering only for an act that for its intentional violation one is liable to be punished with karet, and for its unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin offering, which is not the case concerning misuse of consecrated property.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘拽讘讜注讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘拽讘讜注讛 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讞讟讗转 讚讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讚注讜诇讛 讜讬讜专讚 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Akiva derive from this verbal analogy? He learns that just as there the verse obligates one to bring a fixed sin offering, so too here, with regard to the provisional guilt offering, one brings it for a case of uncertain transgression of a prohibition for which one would be liable to bring a fixed sin offering, to exclude a sin offering brought for uncertain transgression of the defiling of the Temple or sacrificial foods, as the sin offering for that transgression is not fixed, but is a sliding-scale offering. If the sinner is poor he brings a meal offering or a bird offering; if he is rich he brings an animal offering. In a case of uncertainty one does not bring a provisional guilt offering.

讜专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪讞爪讛 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 谞诪讬 讗讬谉 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 诇诪讞爪讛

And as for the Rabbis, who derived a different halakha from the verbal analogy, they hold that there is no verbal analogy for half of a matter. Once a provisional guilt offering is compared to a sin offering, it must be completely similar, and both matters are derived from the verbal analogy. The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Akiva also must hold that there is no verbal analogy for half of a matter, so why does he not agree with the derivation of the Rabbis?

讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 住讘专 讜讗诐 谞驻砖 讻转讬讘 讜讬讜 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 注谞讬谉 专讗砖讜谉

The Gemara reconsiders: Yes, this is indeed so. And here they disagree with regard to this: Rabbi Akiva holds that it is written with regard to the provisional guilt offering: 鈥淎nd if anyone sin, and does any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done, though he did not know it, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 5:17). The word 鈥渁nd鈥 represented by the letter vav adds to the previous matter. When a phrase begins with the conjunction vav, it is a continuation of the previous matter, and the halakhot of the previous passage can be learned from the subsequent passage. Therefore one brings a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property.

讜专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 谞驻砖 诇讬诪讗 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚诪专 住讘专 讛讬拽砖 注讚讬祝 讜诪专 住讘专 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛 注讚讬祝

The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of the Rabbis also, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd if anyone sin鈥? Let us say that they disagree about this: As one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that a derivation from a juxtaposition is preferable, and derives from the juxtaposition of the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property to the halakhot of a provisional guilt offering that one is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering if he is not certain whether he misused consecrated property. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that a derivation from a verbal analogy is preferable, and therefore derive from a verbal analogy between the passage of misuse of consecrated property and the passage of a sin offering for eating forbidden fat that one is not liable to bring a provisional guilt offering if he is not certain whether he misused consecrated property.

诇讗 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讚讛讬拽砖 注讚讬祝 讜讗诪专讬 诇讱 专讘谞谉 转讞转讜谉 讛讜讗 讚讙诪专 诪注诇讬讜谉

The Gemara rejects this: No, it may be that everyone agrees that a derivation from a juxtaposition is preferable. And the Rabbis would say to you that the reason one is exempt from bringing a provisional guilt offering in a case of uncertain mis-use of consecrated property is that the juxtaposition should be understood in the opposite manner. It is the lower passage that is derived from the upper passage.

诇讗砖诐 讘讻住祝 砖拽诇讬诐 砖诇讗 转讗诪专 诇讗 讬讛讗 住驻讬拽讜 讞诪讜专 诪讜讚讗讜 诪讛 讜讚讗讜 讞讟讗转 讘转 讚谞拽讗 讗祝 住驻讬拽讜 讗砖诐 讘专 讚谞拽讗

The juxtaposition teaches that a provisional guilt offering must be a ram worth a minimum of two silver shekels, as is the halakha with regard to the offering brought for misuse of consecrated property. This derivation is needed so that you should not say that a provisional guilt offering, brought for his uncertain transgression, should not be more stringent than the offering one brings in a case of his definite transgression. According to that claim, one would say that just as for his definite transgression one may bring a sin offering worth only one-sixth [danka] of a dinar, so too, for his uncertain transgression one may bring a provisional guilt offering worth only one-sixth of a dinar.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讗 住讘专讗 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讝讗转 转讜专转 讛讗砖诐 转讜专讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇 讛讗砖诪讜转

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Akiva derive this conclusion? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse that states: 鈥淎nd this is the law of the guilt offering鈥 (Leviticus 7:1), which teaches that there is one law for all of the guilt offerings and they must all be worth at least two shekels, provisional guilt offerings included.

转讬谞讞 诪讗谉 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 转讜专转 诪讗谉 讚诇讬转 诇讬讛 转讜专转 诪讛讬讻讗 讙诪专 讙诪专 讘注专讻讱 讘注专讻讱

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to one who holds that there is a derivation from the word 鈥渓aw,鈥 but according to the one who does not hold that there is a derivation from the word 鈥渓aw,鈥 from where does he learn that all guilt offerings must have the same minimum value? The Gemara answers: He learns it from a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渁ccording to your valuation鈥 stated with regard to a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property (Leviticus 5:15) and the term 鈥渁ccording to your valuation鈥 stated with regard to a provisional guilt offering (Leviticus 5:18) and a guilt offering for robbery (Leviticus 5:25).

转讬谞讞 讛讬讻讗 讚讻转讬讘 讘注专讻讱 讗砖诐 砖驻讞讛 讞专讜驻讛 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘注专讻讱 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara asks: This works out well concerning guilt offerings where it is written 鈥渁ccording to your valuation,鈥 but with regard to a guilt offering brought for engaging in sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant, concerning which it is not written in the Torah 鈥渁ccording to your valuation,鈥 what is there to say? How does one derive that the guilt offering brought for engaging in sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant must be worth a minimum of two silver shekels?

讙诪专 讘讗讬诇 讘讗讬诇

The Gemara answers that it is derived from a verbal analogy between the term 鈥渨ith the ram鈥 stated with regard to a guilt offering for mis-use of consecrated property (Leviticus 5:16) and the term 鈥渨ith the ram鈥 stated with regard to the guilt offering for engaging in sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant (Leviticus 19:22).

讞讟讗转 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚讘注讬讗 爪驻讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖讞讟 讗转 讛讞讟讗转 讘诪拽讜诐 讛注讜诇讛

搂 The Gemara returns to discuss the mishna. From where do we derive that a sin offering requires slaughter in the north of the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers: As it is written with regard to an individual sin offering: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:29). Just as a burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, so too, a sin offering must also be slaughtered in the north.

讗砖讻讞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 拽讘诇讛 诪谞讗 诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇拽讞 讛讻讛谉 诪讚诐 讛讞讟讗转

The Gemara asks: We have found from this verse that the slaughter must be in the north. From where do we derive that collection of the blood must also be in the north? The Gemara answers: As it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and place it upon the corners of the altar of burnt offering, and all its remaining blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar鈥 (Leviticus 4:34). As this verse immediately follows the verse discussing the slaughter of a sin offering, evidently the taking of the blood is performed in the same place as the slaughter.

诪拽讘诇 注爪诪讜 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诇拽讞 诇讜 讬拽讞

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the one collecting the blood must himself stand in the north of the Temple courtyard? Perhaps he may stand near the north and extend his arm to collect the blood. The Gemara answers that the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take [velaka岣]鈥 (Leviticus 4:34), which can be read, as: He will take himself [lo yikka岣].

讗砖讻讞谉 诇诪爪讜讛 诇注讻讘 诪谞讬谉 拽专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻转讬讘 讜砖讞讟 讗讜转讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 讬砖讞讟 讗转 讛注讜诇讛 讜转谞讬讗 讛讬讻谉 注讜诇讛 谞砖讞讟讛 讘爪驻讜谉 讗祝 讝讛 讘爪驻讜谉

The Gemara asks: We have found that the offering must be slaughtered in the north and the blood collected in the north to perform the mitzva in the optimal manner. From where is it derived that if one slaughters the offering or collects the blood anywhere else the offering is disqualified? The Gemara answers: It is written in another verse which speaks of a goat sin offering brought by a king who sins: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the goat and slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering before the Lord; it is a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:24). And it is taught in a baraita: Where is the burnt offering slaughtered? In the north. This sin offering of a king must also be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard.

讜讻讬 诪讻讗谉 讗转讛 诇诪讚 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 转砖讞讟 讛注讜诇讛 转砖讞讟 讛讞讟讗转 讛讗 诇诪讛 讬爪讗 诇拽讘讜注 诇讜 诪拽讜诐 砖讗诐 诇讗 砖讞讟讛 讘爪驻讜谉 驻住讜诇

The Gemara asks: And do you learn this halakha from here? But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淪peak to Aaron and to his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered shall the sin offering be slaughtered before the Lord; it is most holy鈥 (Leviticus 6:18)? If so, to what purpose was this singled out? Why did the Torah state explicitly that the sin offering of the king requires slaughter in the north? The Gemara answers: To fix a place for it, that this is the only place where a sin offering may be slaughtered, teaching that if it was not slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, the offering is disqualified even after the fact.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讻讱 讬爪讗 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讝讛 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖讞讟 讗转 讛讞讟讗转 讘诪拽讜诐 讛注讜诇讛 讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 诇讻诇 讞讟讗讜转 砖讬讛讜 讟注讜谞讜转 爪驻讜谉

The Gemara asks: Do you say that it is singled out for this purpose, to teach that even after the fact a sin offering slaughtered anywhere other than in the north is disqualified? Or perhaps it is only to teach that this goat sin offering requires slaughter in the north but no other goat sin offering requires slaughter in the north. The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:29). This established a paradigm for all sin offerings, teaching that they require slaughter in the north.

讗砖讻讞谉 砖注讬专 谞砖讬讗 讘讬谉 诇诪爪讜讛 讘讬谉 诇注讻讘 砖讗专 讞讟讗讜转 谞诪讬 讗砖讻讞谉 诇诪爪讜讛 诇注讻讘 诪谞讗 诇谉

The Gemara continues its explanation: We have found that the Torah writes with regard to the goat sin offering of a king that it requires slaughter in the north both to perform the mitzva in the optimal manner and to disqualify the offering even after the fact. We have also found with regard to the other sin offerings that the Torah states that to perform the mitzva in the optimal manner they must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard. From where do we derive the halakha to disqualify other sin offerings if they were not slaughtered in the north?

讚讻转讬讘 讘讻砖讘讛 讜讻转讬讘 讘砖注讬专讛

The Gemara explains: As it is written with regard to a lamb sin offering that it must be slaughtered in the north: 鈥淎nd slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:33) and it is also written with regard to a she-goat sin offering: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slaughter it for a sin offering in the place of the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:29). This repetition teaches that a sin offering is disqualified if it is not slaughtered in the north.

讗诇讗 讗转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬

搂 Having derived from these verses that all sin offerings are disqualified if they are slaughtered not in the north, the Gemara questions its earlier explanation. Rather, why do I need the term 鈥渋t鈥 stated with regard to the sin offering of a king in the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the goat, and slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering before the Lord; it is a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:24)?

诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 讗讜转讜 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 砖注讬专 谞讞砖讜谉 讘爪驻讜谉

The Gemara answers: It is required for that which is taught in a baraita: It, the goat sin offering of a king, is slaughtered in the north of the Tabernacle, but the goat offered by Nahshon and the other princes was not slaughtered in the north. Nahshon was the prince of the tribe of Judah. He, along with all the other princes of the tribes, brought offerings to inaugurate the altar and the Tabernacle, as recorded in the Torah (Numbers, chapter 7). Although the offerings were classified as sin offerings because they shared some characteristics of sin offerings, they were not brought to atone for any particular sin. Therefore, the term 鈥渋t鈥 teaches that the offerings of the princes did not require slaughter in the north.

讜转谞讬讗 讜住诪讱 讬讚讜 注诇 专讗砖 讛砖注讬专 诇专讘讜转 砖注讬专 谞讞砖讜谉 诇住诪讬讻讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇专讘讜转 砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诇住诪讬讻讛

And the reason that it is necessary for the Torah to exclude Nahshon鈥檚 sin offering from the requirement of slaughter in the north is because it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the sin offering of a king: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the goat, and slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering before the Lord; it is a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:24). The verse could have stated: Upon its head. The reason it adds 鈥渙f the goat鈥 is to include the goat brought as a sin offering by Nahshon in the requirement of placing hands on the head of an offering. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: The term 鈥渙f the goat鈥 serves to include the goats brought as sin offerings for communal idol worship in the requirement of placing hands on the head of an offering.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转专讘讜 诇住诪讬讻讛 讗讬转专讘讜 谞诪讬 诇爪驻讜谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that since the sin offerings of the princes are included in the requirement of placing hands, they are also included in the requirement of being slaughtered in the north. Therefore, the term 鈥渋t鈥 teaches us that for the goat brought as a sin offering by Nahshon and the other princes there was no requirement of slaughter in the north.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

Ravina objects to this interpretation: This works out well according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that the offering of Nahshon required him to place his hands on the head of the animal. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, what is there to say? Why should the Torah write the term 鈥渋t,鈥 since there is no reason to assume that it would require slaughter in the north?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讟讘讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬 谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗讬 讚讗讬转专讘讬 讗讬转专讘讬 讜诪讗讬 讚诇讗 讗讬转专讘讬 诇讗 讗讬转专讘讬

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Tavi, said to Ravina: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, does it work out well? Why is it necessary for the Torah to specifically exclude the offerings of the princes from the requirement of slaughter in the north? Why not say that for that for which it was included, i.e., placing hands on the head of an animal, it was included, and for that which it was not included, i.e., slaughter in the north, it was not included.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讬 诇讗 诪注讟讬讛 拽专讗 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 转讬转讬 讘讘谞讬谉 讗讘 讗诐 讻谉 住诪讬讻讛 讙讜驻讛 转讬转讬 诪讘谞讬谉 讗讘 讗诇讗 诪讚讜专讜转 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪讚讜专讜转 诇讗 讙诪专讬谞谉

And if you would say that if the verse had not excluded the offerings of the princes I would say that one could derive the requirement for slaughter in the north via a paradigm from all other sin offerings, if so, one could also derive the requirement for placing hands on the head of an animal itself via the same paradigm. Rather, the reason that the requirement of placing hands cannot be derived via a paradigm is that we do not learn the requirements of the sin offering of Nahshon, which was only for the time of the inauguration of the Tabernacle alone, from the requirement of sin offerings applicable to all generations. So too, the requirement of slaughter in the north cannot be derived via a paradigm because we do not learn the requirements of the sin offering of Nahshon from the requirement of sin offerings applicable to all generations.

讜讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟 讘爪驻讜谉

Rather, the term 鈥渋t鈥 stated with regard to the sin offering of a king serves to teach that it must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, but the one who slaughters it does not need to stand in the north when he slaughters it.

砖讜讞讟 诪讚专讘讬 讗讞讬讗 谞驻拽讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗讞讬讗 讗讜诪专 讜砖讞讟 讗转讜 注诇 讬专讱 讛诪讝讘讞 爪驻讜谞讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专

The Gemara challenges this: The halakha of the one who slaughters the offering has already been derived from the statement of Rabbi A岣yya, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi A岣yya says: The verse states with regard to the burnt offering: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 1:11). Why must the verse state the exclusionary term 鈥渋t鈥?

诇驻讬 砖诪爪讬谞讜 注讜诪讚 讘爪驻讜谉 讜诪拽讘诇 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讗诐 注诪讚 讘讚专讜诐 讜拽讬讘诇 讘爪驻讜谉 驻住讜诇 讬讻讜诇 讗祝 讝讛 讻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讜 讗讜转讜 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讘爪驻讜谉

He explains: Since we have found that the priest stands in the north and collects the blood from the neck of the animal in the north, and if he stood in the south and collected the blood in the north the offering is disqualified, one might have thought that this is so also with regard to this one who slaughters the offering. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it,鈥 to teach that it, the animal, must be in the north, but the one who slaughters it is not required to be standing in the north of the Temple courtyard when he slaughters the animal. Therefore, the question must be addressed: What is derived from the exclusionary term 鈥渋t鈥 stated with regard to the sin offering of a king?

讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 讘谉 注讜祝 讘爪驻讜谉 讚转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 讘谉 注讜祝 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讘谉 爪讗谉 砖诇讗 拽讘注 诇讜 讻讛谉 拽讘注 诇讜 爪驻讜谉 讘谉 注讜祝 砖拽讘注 诇讜 讻讛谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬拽讘注 诇讜 爪驻讜谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讜

The Gemara explains: Rather, the term 鈥渋t鈥 stated with regard to the sin offering of a king serves to teach that it, a goat brought as a sin offering, must be slaughtered in the north, but a young bird brought as an offering does not need to be killed in the north. This is as it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that a male bird requires pinching of the nape in the north of the Temple courtyard. And this can be derived through a logical inference: Just as a young sheep brought as a burnt offering is an offering for which the Torah did not fix that its slaughter must be performed by a priest but nevertheless fixed that its slaughter must be in the north, with regard to a young bird brought as an offering, for which the Torah did fix that its killing must be performed by a priest, is it not logical that the Torah should also fix its slaughter in the north? Therefore, the verse states 鈥渋t,鈥 to exclude a male bird from the requirement of being killed in the north.

诪讛 诇讘谉 爪讗谉 砖讻谉 拽讘注 诇讜 讻诇讬

The Gemara questions the logical inference. One cannot derive the halakha of a bird offering from the halakha of a sheep offering, as what is notable about a young sheep offering? It is notable in that the Torah fixed the requirement that it be slaughtered with a utensil, i.e., a knife. A bird, by contrast, is killed by the priest using his fingernail. Therefore, the term 鈥渋t鈥 cannot serve to counter this derivation.

讗诇讗 讗讜转讜 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 驻住讞 讘爪驻讜谉

The Gemara explains: Rather, the term 鈥渋t鈥 stated with regard to the sin offering of a king serves to teach that it, the goat of the king, is slaughtered in the north, but the Paschal offering is not slaughtered in the north.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讬讻讜诇 讬讛讗 驻住讞 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 注讜诇讛 砖讻谉 诇讗 拽讘注 诇讜 讝诪谉 诇砖讞讬讟转讜 拽讘注 诇讜 爪驻讜谉 驻住讞 砖拽讘注 诇讜 讝诪谉 诇砖讞讬讟转讜 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讬拽讘注 诇讜 爪驻讜谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转讜

As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: One might have thought that a Paschal offering requires slaughter in the north. And this can be derived through a logical inference: Just as a burnt offering is an offering for which the Torah did not fix a time for its slaughter but fixed that it requires slaughter in the north, with regard to a Paschal offering, for which the Torah fixed a time for its slaughter, as it must be slaughtered in the afternoon of the fourteenth day of Nisan, is it not logical that the Torah would fix that it must be slaughtered in the north? Therefore, the verse states 鈥渋t,鈥 to exclude the Paschal offering from the requirement of slaughter in the north.

诪讛 诇注讜诇讛 砖讻谉 讻诇讬诇

The Gemara questions the logical inference. One cannot derive the halakha of a Paschal offering from the halakha of a burnt offering, as what is notable about a burnt offering? It is notable in that the Torah teaches that it is entirely burned on the altar. This is not so with regard to a Paschal offering.

诪讞讟讗转 诪讛 诇讞讟讗转 砖讻谉 诪讻驻专转 注诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转

The Gemara continues: If you would suggest a logical inference from the halakha of a sin offering, which is not entirely burned upon the altar but is slaughtered only in the north, this too can be refuted. As what is notable about a sin offering? It is notable in that it atones for those sins that render one liable for punishment by karet, which is not so with regard to a Paschal offering.

诪讗砖诐 诪讛 诇讗砖诐 砖讻谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诪讻讜诇谉 谞诪讬 砖讻谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara continues: If you would suggest a logical inference from the halakha of a guilt offering, which is not entirely burned, which does not atone for those sins punishable by karet, and which is slaughtered only in the north, this too can be refuted. As what is notable about a guilt offering? It is notable in that it has the status of an offering of the most sacred order, which is not so with regard to a Paschal offering. The Gemara adds: Having noted this distinction between a guilt offering and a Paschal offering, one can say that for all of the three offerings as well, the halakha of a Paschal offering cannot be derived from them, since they all have the status of offerings of the most sacred order.

诇注讜诇诐 讻讚讗诪专谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讜转讜 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讚拽砖讬讗 诇讱 诪讚专讘讬 讗讞讬讗 谞驻拽讗 诇谉 诇讗讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 砖讜讞讟 讘爪驻讜谉 讗诇讗 讗讬谉 砖讜讞讟 讘爪驻讜谉 讗讘诇 诪拽讘诇 讘爪驻讜谉

The Gemara returns to the earlier inference: Actually, the term 鈥渋t鈥 teaches as we said initially: It, i.e., the animal, must be standing in the north, but the one who slaughters the animal does not have to stand in the north. And that which is difficult for you, that we derive this halakha from the statement of Rabbi A岣yya, is in fact not difficult. The derivation from the term 鈥渋t鈥 is not to exclude one who slaughters from the requirement to slaughter in the north, since that halakha is known already from the statement of Rabbi A岣yya. Rather, the derivation is that it is only one who slaughters the animal who does not have to stand in the north, but by inference, the one who collects the blood from the neck of the animal must stand in the north.

诪拽讘诇 诪诇拽讞 讜诇拽讞 谞驻拽讗 诇拽讞 讜诇拽讞 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讬讛

The Gemara questions this inference: The halakha that the one who collects the blood from the neck of the animal must stand in the north is derived from the fact that the Torah could have written: The priest shall take, and instead writes: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take鈥 [velaka岣] (Leviticus 4:34), which may be read as: He will take himself [lo yika岣], as explained on the previous amud. The Gemara explains: This tanna does not learn anything from this distinction between: The priest shall take, and: 鈥淎nd the priest shall take.鈥 He does not agree with this derivation, and therefore he must derive the requirement to collect the blood while standing in the north from a different verse.

讗砖讻讞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讘注讜诇讛 诇诪爪讜讛 拽讘诇讛 谞诪讬 诇诪爪讜讛 讗砖讻讞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讜拽讘诇讛 诇注讻讘 诪谞诇谉

搂 The Gemara asks: We found a source for the requirement of slaughter in the north with regard to a burnt offering in order to perform the mitzva in the optimal manner. We also found a source for the requirement of collecting the blood while standing in the north in order to perform the mitzva in the optimal manner. From where do we derive that slaughter and collection of the blood are disqualified if they are not performed in the north?

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讛 讘专 砖讬诇讗 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讞讟讗转 讛讘讗讛 诪讻讞 注讜诇讛 诪注讻讘转 注讜诇讛 砖讘讗讛 讞讟讗转 诪讻讞讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪注讻讘转

Rav Adda bar Ahava says, and some say it was Rabba bar Sheila who says: It is derived via an a fortiori inference: Just as the halakha that the slaughter and blood collection of a sin offering be performed in the north comes by virtue of a comparison to the halakha of a burnt offering, as the verse states: 鈥淎nd slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:29), yet if the animal was not slaughtered or its blood was not collected in the north it disqualifies the offering, with regard to the burnt offering itself, as the halakha that the slaughter and blood collection of a sin offering be in the north comes by virtue of it, is it not logical that if it was not slaughtered or its blood was not collected in the north, this should disqualify the offering?

诪讛 诇讞讟讗转 砖讻谉 诪讻驻专转 注诇 讞讬讬讘讬 讻专讬转讜转

The Gemara rejects this logical inference: What is notable about a sin offering? It is notable in that it atones for those sins that render one liable for punishment by karet, which is not so with regard to a burnt offering.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 讛讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讻诇讜诐 诪爪讬谞讜 讟驻诇 讞诪讜专 诪谉 讛注讬拽专

Ravina said: This is what is difficult for Rav Adda bar Ahava. In other words, regardless of the notable characteristic of a sin offering, he still is of the opinion that his logical inference stands. Have we ever found that a secondary prohibition is more stringent than a primary prohibition? Since the halakha of a sin offering is derived via a comparison to the halakha of a burnt offering, the former cannot have stringencies that the latter lacks.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 诪专讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讜诇讗

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: But have we not found a secondary prohibition that is more stringent than the primary one?

Scroll To Top