Zevachim 11a

עוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא כָּלִיל, נִכְנַס דָּמָהּ לִפְנִים כְּשֵׁרָה; אָשָׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּלִיל, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

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?

מָה לְעוֹלָה, שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ מְכַפֶּרֶת!

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.

מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא תּוֹכִיחַ.

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.

וְלֵימָא: חַטַּאת הָעוֹף תּוֹכִיחַ! חַטַּאת הָעוֹף – בַּעְיָא דְּרַבִּי אָבִין הִיא.

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.

וְלִפְרוֹךְ: מָה לְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ מִין זֶבַח!

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.

עוֹלָה תּוֹכִיחַ. וְחָזַר הַדִּין; לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה; הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן: שֶׁהֵן קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וְנִכְנַס (דָּמָן) לִפְנִים – כְּשֵׁרִין; אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אָשָׁם – שֶׁהוּא קוֹדֶשׁ קֳדָשִׁים, וְנִכְנַס דָּמוֹ לִפְנִים – כָּשֵׁר.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא מִבַּרְנִישׁ לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְלִפְרוֹךְ, מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁכֵּן אֵין לָהֶן קִצְבָה; תֹּאמַר בְּאָשָׁם – שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קִצְבָה?!

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?

אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״דָּמָהּ״ – דָּמָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ, וְלָא דָּמָהּ שֶׁל אַחֵר.

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.

וְאִידַּךְ – ״דָּמָהּ״ וְלֹא בְּשָׂרָהּ.

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.

וְאִידָּךְ – ״דָּם״–״דָּמָהּ״.

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.

וְאִידַּךְ – ״דָּם״–״דָּמָהּ״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ.

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.”

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: אָשָׁם שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ – כָּשֵׁר; הַיְינוּ דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ מִנְחָה לְחַטָּאת, מִנְחָה לְאָשָׁם.

§ 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.

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הִוא כַּחַטָּאת וְכָאָשָׁם״ – מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא הֲרֵי הִיא כְּחַטָּאת, לְפִיכָךְ קְמָצָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, פְּסוּלָה; מִנְחַת נְדָבָה הֲרֵי הִיא כְּאָשָׁם, לְפִיכָךְ קְמָצָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, כְּשֵׁרָה.

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.

אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא אִיתַּקַּשׁ מִנְחָה לְחַטָּאת וּמִנְחָה לְאָשָׁם?

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?

לְכִי אִידַּךְ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דִּתְנַן: שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת – פְּסוּלָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר.

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.

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״קֹדֶשׁ קֳדָשִׁים הִוא כַּחַטָּאת וּכְאָשָׁם״ – בָּא לְעוֹבְדָהּ בַּיָּד, עוֹבְדָהּ בַּיָּמִין כַּחַטָּאת; בִּכְלִי, עוֹבְדָהּ בִּשְׂמֹאל כָּאָשָׁם.

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.

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – הַאי קְרָא מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְהָכִי וּמַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְהָכִי?!

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?

עִיקָּר קְרָא – לְכִדְרַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא הוּא דַּאֲתָא; וּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא דִּפְסוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ [– טַעְמָא אַחֲרִינָא הוּא]: חַטָּאת טַעְמָא מַאי – דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ ״הִיא״; מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא נָמֵי כְּתִיב בַּהּ ״הִיא״.

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.

וּלְרַבָּנַן, לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא אִיתַּקַּשׁ אָשָׁם לְחַטָּאת? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה חַטָּאת טְעוּנָה סְמִיכָה, אַף אָשָׁם טָעוּן סְמִיכָה.

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.

יוֹסֵף בֶּן חוֹנִי אוֹמֵר: הַנִּשְׁחָטִין כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יוֹסֵף בֶּן חוֹנִי וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד.

§ 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.

רַבָּה אָמַר: בַּאֲחֵרִים לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת פְּלִיגִי.

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.

דְּתַנְיָא: הַפֶּסַח שֶׁעִבְּרָה שְׁנָתוֹ, וּשְׁחָטוֹ בִּזְמַנּוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ; וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֲחֵרִים לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַכְשִׁיר.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אִם בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ – אֲחֵרִים כְּשֵׁרִים לִשְׁמוֹ; בִּזְמַנּוֹ שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּכְשְׁרוּ אֲחֵרִים לִשְׁמוֹ?!

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?

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אוֹ חִילּוּף הַדְּבָרִים: וּמָה אִם בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ – כָּשֵׁר הוּא לְשֵׁם אֲחֵרִים; בִּזְמַנּוֹ, שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיּוּכְשַׁר לְשֵׁם אֲחֵרִים?! וְיוּכְשַׁר פֶּסַח בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ!

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.

וְכָךְ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר?! מָה לִי הוּכְשְׁרוּ אֲחֵרִים בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה לִשְׁמוֹ – שֶׁכֵּן הוּא כָּשֵׁר לְשֵׁם אֲחֵרִים; וְיוּכְשְׁרוּ אֲחֵרִים בִּזְמַנּוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ – שֶׁכֵּן הוּא פָּסוּל לְשֵׁם אֲחֵרִים?!

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.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אִם כֵּן, הוֹרַעְתָּה כֹּחַ פֶּסַח, וְנָתַתָּ כֹּחַ בִּשְׁלָמִים.

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.

חָזַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְדָנוֹ דִּין אַחֵר: מָצִינוּ מוֹתַר פֶּסַח בָּא שְׁלָמִים, וְאֵין מוֹתַר שְׁלָמִים בָּא פֶּסַח.

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.

וּמָה פֶּסַח, שֶׁמּוֹתָרוֹ בָּא שְׁלָמִים – שְׁחָטוֹ בִּזְמַנּוֹ לְשׁוּם שְׁלָמִים, פָּסוּל; שְׁלָמִים, שֶׁאֵין מוֹתָרָן בָּא פֶּסַח – אִם שְׁחָטָם לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּהוּ פְּסוּלִין?!

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?