זבחים יב

זבחים יב

דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ לְנֵרוֹת.

as it is juxtaposed with the lighting of the lamps (see Exodus 30:8). Evidently, it is burned in the afternoon as well.

הָתָם נָמֵי, כְּתִיב: ״שָׁם תִּזְבַּח אֶת הַפֶּסַח בָּעָרֶב״!

The Gemara asks: Just as it is written explicitly that the Candelabrum must be lit in the evening, there too, with regard to a Paschal offering, it is written: “There you shall sacrifice the Passover offering at evening” (Deuteronomy 16:6). How can ben Beteira claim that it may be sacrificed all day long?

הָהוּא לִ״יאוּחַר דָּבָר״ הוּא דַּאֲתָא, דְּתַנְיָא: יְאוּחַר דָּבָר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״בָּעָרֶב״ וּ״בֵין הָעַרְבָּיִם״, לְדָבָר שֶׁלֹּא נֶאֱמַר בּוֹ אֶלָּא ״בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם״ בִּלְבַד.

The Gemara answers: That verse comes to teach a different halakha, that a certain item should be sacrificed after another item. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the order of precedence between the Paschal offering and the daily afternoon offering: An item, i.e., the Paschal offering, with regard to which both the expressions: “In the evening,” and: “Bein ha’arbayim,” are stated, should be sacrificed after an item, the daily afternoon offering, with regard to which only “bein ha’arbayim” is stated.

וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּאִילּוּ שָׁחֵיט לֵיהּ מִצַּפְרָא – אָמְרַתְּ זִימְנֵיהּ הוּא, וְכִי מָטֵי בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם – אָמְרַתְּ ״יְאוּחַר דָּבָר״?

The Gemara asks: But is there anything comparable to ben Beteira’s suggestion, that if one slaughters it in the morning, you say that it is its designated time and it is fit; but when afternoon comes, you say that the item should be sacrificed only after the daily afternoon offering?

אִין; דְּהָאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה – מִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁל מִנְחָה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ מִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁל מוּסָפִין.

The Gemara answers: Yes, there is a precedent; as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one did not recite the additional prayers of Shabbat, the New Moon, or a Festival, which should be recited in the morning, until it is time for the afternoon prayer, the halakha is that he should first recite the afternoon prayer, and recite the additional prayers thereafter.

וּ״בֵין הָעַרְבַּיִם״ דִּכְתִיב גַּבֵּי קְטֹרֶת וְנֵרוֹת, לְמָה לִי?

The Gemara asks: But if the term “bein ha’arbayim” is referring to the entire day, as ben Beteira maintains, why do I need those instances of the expression that are written with regard to burning incense and lighting the lamps, which are not performed all day?

וְעוֹד הֵשִׁיב רַבִּי – תַּחַת בֶּן בְּתִירָא – לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר – שֶׁאֵין מִקְצָתוֹ רָאוּי, תֹּאמַר בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר – שֶׁמִּקְצָתוֹ רָאוּי?!

Furthermore, this interpretation of the opinion of ben Beteira is difficult, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi responded on behalf of ben Beteira to the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua that a Paschal offering slaughtered not for its sake on the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan is fit, as though it were slaughtered on the thirteenth: No, if you said that this is the halakha with regard to the thirteenth, as no part of the day is fit for sacrificing the Paschal offering, shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to the fourteenth, part of which is fit for sacrificing the Paschal offering? Since it can be sacrificed in the afternoon of the fourteenth, if it is slaughtered in the morning not for its sake, it is disqualified.

וְאִם אִיתָא, כּוּלּוֹ רָאוּי הוּא!

The Gemara concludes: And if it is so that a Paschal offering can be sacrificed throughout the day of the fourteenth, all of it is fit, not only part of it.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: פּוֹסֵל הָיָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא בְּפֶסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שַׁחֲרִית, בֵּין לִשְׁמוֹ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, הוֹאִיל וּמִקְצָתוֹ רָאוּי.

Rather, Rabbi Oshaya’s interpretation of ben Beteira’s opinion is rejected. Instead, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to a Paschal offering that one slaughtered on the fourteenth in the morning, ben Beteira would deem it unfit, whether it was slaughtered for its sake or not for its sake. It is unfit even if it was slaughtered not for its sake, since part of the day is fit for its sacrifice as a Paschal offering.

מְגַדֵּף בַּהּ רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: אִם כֵּן, פֶּסַח כָּשֵׁר לְבֶן בְּתִירָא – הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? אִי דְּאַפְרְשֵׁיהּ הָאִידָּנָא – דָּחוּי מֵעִיקָּרוֹ הוּא, וְאִי דְּאַפְרְשִׁינְהוּ מֵאֶתְמוֹל – נִרְאֶה וְנִדְחֶה הוּא!

Rabbi Abbahu ridiculed [megaddef ] this interpretation: If so, how can you find a fit Paschal offering according to ben Beteira? If its owner designated an animal now, on the morning of the fourteenth, as a Paschal offering, it is disqualified from the outset, as it cannot be sacrificed at all, either for its sake or not for its sake. And even if its owner designated it the previous day, when it was fit to be sacrificed not for its sake, it was fit and then disqualified the next morning, when it was no longer fit to be sacrificed until the afternoon. Once an offering is disqualified, it can no longer become fit.

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: תְּהֵא לְאַחַר חֲצוֹת.

Rather, Rabbi Abbahu says: Let the Paschal offering be fit when it is designated on the fourteenth after noon, when it may already be sacrificed as a Paschal offering.

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא מִצַּפְרָא – אֵין מְחוּסַּר זְמַן לְבוֹ בַּיּוֹם.

Abaye says: You may even say that it is fit if designated in the morning, as an offering is not disqualified due to the fact that it is an offering whose time has not yet arrived if its time will arrive on that same day.

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא מֵאוּרְתָּא – לַיְלָה אֵין מְחוּסָּר זְמַן; דְּתָנֵי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: לֵיל שְׁמִינִי נִכְנָס לַדִּיר לְהִתְעַשֵּׂר.

Rav Pappa says: You may even say that it is fit if designated from the previous night, as an offering that was designated at night and may be sacrificed the following day is not considered an offering whose time has not yet arrived, as it is taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Although an animal is unfit for sacrifice until its eighth day, on the night before its eighth day it may already enter the den to be tithed.

וְכִדְרַבִּי אַפְטוֹרִיקִי, דְּרַבִּי אַפְטוֹרִיקִי רָמֵי: כְּתִיב ״וְהָיָה שִׁבְעַת יָמִים תַּחַת אִמּוֹ״ – הָא לַיְלָה חֲזֵי; וּכְתִיב ״וּמִיּוֹם הַשְּׁמִינִי וָהָלְאָה יֵרָצֶה״ – הָא לַיְלָה לָא חֲזֵי!

And this is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Appetoriki, as Rabbi Appetoriki raises a contradiction: It is written: “When a bull or a sheep or a goat is born, then it shall be seven days with its mother” (Leviticus 22:27); consequently, on the following night, i.e., the night before the eighth day, it is fit for sacrifice. And it is written subsequently in that verse: “But from the eighth day and on it may be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord”; consequently, on the previous night, i.e., the night before the eighth day, it is not yet fit.

הָא כֵּיצַד? לַיְלָה לִקְדוּשָּׁה, וְיוֹם לְהַרְצָאָה.

How can these texts be reconciled? At night it is fit for consecration, and the following day it is fit for effecting acceptance, i.e., for sacrifice. Apparently, an offering that may be sacrificed the following day can be consecrated the previous night, even though it may not be sacrificed at night, and it is not considered an offering whose time has not yet arrived.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא לְרַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לֵימָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִין?!

§ Rabbi Abbahu presumes that an animal consecrated before it may be sacrificed is disqualified. With regard to this, Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu: Shall we say that Rabbi Yoḥanan holds that consecrated animals that cannot be sacrificed at any given moment are disqualified from ever being sacrificed?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִין; דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּהֵמָה שֶׁל שְׁנֵי שׁוּתָּפִין – הִקְדִּישׁ חֶצְיָהּ, וְחָזַר וְלָקַח חֶצְיָהּ וְהִקְדִּישָׁהּ – קְדוֹשָׁה, וְאֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה.

Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Yes, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to an animal belonging to two partners, if one of them consecrated the half of it that belongs to him, and then purchased the other half of it from his partner and consecrated it, it is consecrated, despite the fact that it was consecrated piecemeal. But it may not be sacrificed, since when he first consecrated it, the consecration did not extend to his partner’s half. Since the animal was not fit to be sacrificed then, it is disqualified permanently.

וְעוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה, וּתְמוּרָתָהּ כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהּ.

But as it is consecrated now, it can render consecrated as a substitute a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it. If the owner substitutes a non-sacred animal for this one, the second animal becomes consecrated as well. And yet its substitute is like it; it too is consecrated but cannot be sacrificed.

וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ תְּלָת: שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִין, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ דָּחוּי מֵעִיקָּרָא הָוֵה דָּחוּי, וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ

And one can conclude three points from this statement: Conclude from it that animals that cannot be sacrificed are permanently disqualified; and conclude from it that disqualification from the outset, i.e., from the time the offering is consecrated, is permanent disqualification; and conclude from it that

יֵשׁ דִּחוּי בְּדָמִים.

there is permanent disqualification even in a case where the animal possesses sanctity that inheres in its monetary value, rather than inherent sanctity.

אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָכַל חֵלֶב וְהִפְרִישׁ קׇרְבָּן, וְנִשְׁתַּמֵּד, וְחָזַר בּוֹ – הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחָה, יִדָּחֶה.

§ Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one ate forbidden fat and designated an offering to atone for the transgression, and then apostatized, thereby disqualifying himself from bringing an offering, and later recanted his apostasy, since the offering was already disqualified, it shall be disqualified permanently.

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָכַל חֵלֶב וְהִפְרִישׁ קׇרְבָּן, וְנִשְׁתַּטָּה, וְחָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה – הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחָה, יִדָּחֶה.

It was also stated that Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one ate forbidden fat and designated an offering to atone for his transgression, and then became an imbecile, who is unfit to bring an offering, and then again became halakhically competent, since the offering was already disqualified, it shall be disqualified permanently.

וּצְרִיכִי; דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן קַמַּיְיתָא – מִשּׁוּם דְּהוּא דָּחֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ בְּיָדַיִם; אֲבָל הָכָא דְּמִמֵּילָא אִידְּחִי – כְּיָשֵׁן דָּמֵי.

The Gemara notes: And both statements are necessary. As, if Rabbi Yoḥanan had taught us only the first statement, concerning an apostate, one might have reasoned that the offering is permanently disqualified because he disqualified himself by his own action, but here, in the case of one who became an imbecile, where he was disqualified through a process that occurs by itself, when he becomes competent again he may bring his sacrifice, as it is considered as though he were asleep. If one designated an offering and fell asleep, this certainly does not disqualify it.

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָכָא – מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לַחֲזוֹר; אֲבָל הָכָא דְּיֵשׁ בְּיָדוֹ לַחֲזוֹר – אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכָא.

And if Rabbi Yoḥanan had taught us only the statement here, with regard to one who became an imbecile, one might have reasoned that the offering is permanently disqualified because it is not in his power to return to competence, but here, in the case of an apostate, since it is in his power to recant his apostasy, I would say that the offering is not permanently disqualified. Therefore, both statements are necessary.

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אָכַל חֵלֶב וְהִפְרִישׁ קׇרְבָּן, וְהוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁחֵלֶב מוּתָּר, וְחָזְרוּ בָּהֶן, מַהוּ? מִי הָוֵי דָּחוּי, אוֹ לָא הָוֵי דָּחוּי?

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one ate forbidden fat and designated an offering for the transgression, and then the court ruled that the type of fat he ate is permitted, thereby rendering the offering unnecessary, and the court subsequently retracted its ruling, in this case, what is the halakha? Is the offering permanently disqualified, or is it not permanently disqualified?

אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא סָבָא: כִּי פָּתַח רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּדְחוּיִין – מֵהָא פָּתַח. מַאי טַעְמָא? הָתָם – גַּבְרָא אִידְּחִי, קׇרְבָּן לָא אִידְּחִי; הָכָא – קׇרְבָּן נָמֵי אִידְּחִי.

A certain elder [hahu sava] said to Rabbi Yirmeya: When Rabbi Yoḥanan introduced the topic of permanently disqualified offerings, he introduced it with this case. What is the reason? There, in the case of one who apostatized or became an imbecile, although the person was disqualified, the offering itself was not disqualified. Consequently, it is less evident that the offering will be disqualified permanently. But here, in a case where the court ruled that the fat is permitted, the offering itself was also disqualified, as it was rendered unnecessary. Therefore, this is a more obvious example.

אָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי: מְקוּבְּלַנִי מִפִּי שִׁבְעִים וּשְׁנַיִם זָקֵן כּוּ׳. לְמָה לִי לְמִתְנָא ״שִׁבְעִים וּשְׁנַיִם זָקֵן״? דְּכוּלְּהוּ בַּחֲדָא שִׁיטְתָא הֲווֹ קָיְימִי.

§ The mishna teaches: Shimon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from seventy-two elders [zaken] that all slaughtered offerings that are eaten, if slaughtered not for their sake, are fit. The Gemara asks: Why do I need to teach the phrase seventy-two elders using the singular form: Zaken, rather than the plural form: Zekenim? The Gemara answers: Because they all maintained one opinion, i.e., they all agreed with this halakha.

לֹא הוֹסִיף בֶּן עַזַּאי אֶלָּא הָעוֹלָה.

The mishna continues: Ben Azzai added only the burnt offering to the sin offering and the Paschal offering, which are mentioned in the first mishna as disqualified when sacrificed not for their sake.

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּבֶן עַזַּאי? ״עוֹלָה הוּא אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַה׳״ – הִיא לִשְׁמָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ פְּסוּלָה.

Rav Huna said: What is the reason for the opinion of ben Azzai? The verse states: “It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma unto the Lord” (Leviticus 1:13). The word “it” teaches that if it is sacrificed for its sake, it is fit; if sacrificed not for its sake, it is unfit.

אָשָׁם נָמֵי כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״הוּא״!

The Gemara asks: Isn’t the word “it” written with regard to a guilt offering as well, in the verse: “It is a guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:5)? Nevertheless, a guilt offering sacrificed not for its sake is not disqualified.

הָהוּא לְאַחַר הַקְטָרַת אֵימוּרִים הוּא דִּכְתִיב.

The Gemara answers: That verse is written after the burning of the sacrificial portions on the altar. Since the offering is fit even if these portions are not burned at all, it is certainly fit if they are burned not for the sake of a guilt offering.

הַאי נָמֵי לְאַחַר הַקְטָרַת אֵימוּרִים הוּא דִּכְתִיב!

The Gemara asks: Isn’t this mention of the word “it” with regard to a burnt offering also written after the burning of the sacrificial portions on the altar?

תְּרֵי ״הוּא״ כְּתִיבִי.

The Gemara answers: The word “it” is written with regard to a burnt offering in two places, both in Leviticus 1:13 and in Exodus 29:18. Although both are written after the burning of the portions consumed on the altar, one of them is superfluous, and is therefore interpreted in reference to the main sacrificial rites, performed before the burning of the portions. The verse therefore teaches that the offering is fit only if these rites are performed for its sake.

גַּבֵּי אָשָׁם נָמֵי תְּרֵי ״הוּא״ כְּתִיבִי!

The Gemara asks: With regard to a guilt offering as well, isn’t the word “it” written in two places, Leviticus 5:9 and Leviticus 7:5?

אֶלָּא בֶּן עַזַּאי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מַיְיתֵי לַהּ: וּמָה חַטָּאת שֶׁאֵינָהּ כָּלִיל, שְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ – פְּסוּלָה, עוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא כָּלִיל – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

Rather, ben Azzai derives his halakha not from a verse, but by an a fortiori inference: Just as with regard to a sin offering, which is not totally consumed on the altar but partially eaten by priests, if one slaughtered it not for its sake it is disqualified, so too, with regard to a burnt offering, which is treated more strictly in that it is totally consumed on the altar, all the more so is it not clear that if it is slaughtered not for its sake it is disqualified?

מָה לְחַטָּאת, שֶׁכֵּן מְכַפֶּרֶת!

The Gemara rejects this inference: What is notable about a sin offering? It is notable in that it atones for sin, in contrast to a burnt offering, which is not brought for atonement. Therefore, only a sin offering is disqualified when sacrificed not for its sake.

פֶּסַח יוֹכִיחַ.

The Gemara suggests: A Paschal offering can prove the point, as it is not brought for atonement, yet it is disqualified if sacrificed not for its sake.

מָה לְפֶסַח, שֶׁכֵּן זְמַנּוֹ קָבוּעַ!

The Gemara rejects this as well: What is notable about a Paschal offering? It is notable in that its time is set at Passover eve, in contrast to a burnt offering, which does not have a designated time.

חַטָּאת תּוֹכִיחַ. וְחָזַר הַדִּין; לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה; הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁהֵן קֳדָשִׁים, וּשְׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן פָּסוּל; אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא עוֹלָה – שֶׁהִיא קָדָשִׁים, וּשְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ פְּסוּלָה.

The Gemara suggests: If so, a sin offering can prove the point, since it has no set time. And the inference has reverted to its starting point. The halakha is derived from the common element of the two sources: 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, and if one slaughtered them not for their sake, they are disqualified. So too, I shall include a burnt offering in this halakha, as it is an offering, and therefore if one slaughtered it not for its sake, it is disqualified.

מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן צַד כָּרֵת!

The Gemara rejects this as well: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that they both have an element of karet. A sin offering is brought for a transgression punishable by karet when committed intentionally, and one who refrains intentionally from bringing a Paschal offering is liable to be punished with karet. A burnt offering does not have an element of karet.

בֶּן עַזַּאי,

The Gemara answers: Ben Azzai