Rav Acha Sava

Sixth Generation Amoraim. R' Acha Sava was the son of Rav Mari bar Rachel bat Shmuel, and his father was Issur Giora. His brother was Mar Zutra. He engaged in discussions with Rav Ashi.

Division of Inheritance

A incident occurred involving Mar Zutra the son of Rav Mari and Rav Acha Sava, sons of Rav Mari son of Issur Giora, who divided an inheritance of properties among themselves.

They came to ask Rav Ashi: It is written: "By the mouth of two witnesses shall a matter be established" [דברים יט, טו].

Does what the Torah said regarding monetary laws: "By the mouth of two witnesses shall a matter be established," mean: the matter is established only in the presence of two witnesses, and this is not because monetary laws require 'witnesses for establishment' but rather because if there are no witnesses present, one of them might retract, and there would be no one to testify concerning the matter.

If so, we do not need witnesses, because we are not concerned that one of us will retract?

Or perhaps the Torah's intention is to say: that there is no validity to any monetary transaction except in the presence of two witnesses for the establishment of the matter. If so, even our division is invalid without two witnesses?

Rav Ashi answered them: Witnesses were only created for liars, and your division is valid even without two witnesses for establishment [קידושין סה:].

His Sayings

A question was posed to the Sages regarding what is 'regular' (tadir) and what is 'non-regular': If both were standing to offer sacrifices, and one preceded and slaughtered the 'non-regular' sacrifice, what is the law?

Rav Acha, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina: Come and hear from what we have learned: If one slaughtered the Paschal sacrifice before midday on the fourteenth of Nisan, the sacrifice is invalid, because it is stated concerning it "between the evenings" (bein ha'arbayim).

But if one slaughtered the Paschal sacrifice after midday, but before the daily burnt offering (tamid) of 'between the evenings,' the sacrifice is valid. Only, one must mix its blood with the blood of the daily offering until he sprinkles the blood of the tamid, because initially, it is a mitzvah to offer the tamid before the Paschal sacrifice.

From this, we see that if one preceded to slaughter the later offering, which is the Paschal sacrifice, one delays the sprinkling of its blood until the one that should be prior, which is the tamid sacrifice, is slaughtered and its blood sprinkled. We have thus solved the problem, 'regular' (tadir) takes precedence.

They refuted this proof: Because here it is speaking of a case where the Paschal sacrifice was slaughtered, and afterwards the tamid sacrifice, and both are already slaughtered, therefore one sprinkles the blood of the tamid first. But if the tamid sacrifice has not yet been slaughtered, one could say that one should sprinkle the blood of the Paschal sacrifice even though its law dictates it should be after the tamid! And the same law would apply to 'regular' and 'non-regular' sacrifices.

Rav Acha Sava said to Rav Ashi: From the Mishnah's precise wording, it is clear that it refers to a case where the tamid has already been slaughtered. For we have learned: "until he sprinkles the blood of the tamid" implies that it has already been slaughtered, and therefore the blood of the tamid takes precedence!

And we did not learn, "until he slaughters and sprinkles the blood of the tamid," which would imply that one must slaughter and sprinkle first, and only then slaughter the Paschal offering. The conclusion is indeed that this is how we learn from it [זבחים צא.].