זבחים דף נז

ועולה גופה מנלן? דכתיב: ״אל יסוד מזבח העולה״ – למד על עולת חובה שטעונה יסוד.

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive the halakha that a burnt offering itself has its blood presented on the altar in a place where there is a base? The Gemara answers: We derive it from a verse, as it is written: “And he shall pour all the blood of the bull at the base of the altar of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 4:7). This teaches that the blood of an obligatory burnt offering requires presentation at the base of the altar, as the verse specifically describes the base of the altar as connected to the burnt offering.

אי – מה להלן שתי מתנות שהן ארבע, אף כאן שתי מתנות שהן ארבע?!

The Gemara asks: If it is derived from a burnt offering via a verbal analogy, one might think that just as there, a burnt offering requires two placements that are four, so too here, a firstborn offering, an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering should also require two placements that are four, and not just a single placement.

אמר אביי: למה לי למכתב ״סביב״ בעולה, ״סביב״ בחטאת? הוו שני כתובין הבאין כאחד, וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין.

Abaye says: Why do I need the Torah to write: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall present the blood, and sprinkle the blood around against the altar” (Leviticus 1:5), with regard to a burnt offering, to teach that the blood must be placed on all four sides of the altar, in addition to writing: “And Moses took the blood, and put it upon the corners of the altar around with his finger” (Leviticus 8:15), with regard to a sin offering? They are two verses that come as one, i.e., they teach the same matter; and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases. Therefore, a firstborn offering, an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering do not require two placements that are four.

הניחא למאן דאמר אין מלמדין, אלא למאן דאמר מלמדין מאי איכא למימר? הוי אשם שלשה, ושלשה ודאי אין מלמדין.

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect with regard to other cases. But according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach their common aspect with regard to other cases, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Together with the verse stated with regard to a guilt offering, there are three verses, as it is written: “And its blood shall be sprinkled around the altar” (Leviticus 7:2), and three verses which come as one certainly do not teach their common aspect with regard to other cases.

הבכור נאכל לכהנים. תנו רבנן: מנין לבכור שנאכל לשני ימים ולילה? שנאמר: ״ובשרם יהיה לך כחזה התנופה וכשוק הימין״ – הקישו הכתוב לחזה ושוק של שלמים;

§ The mishna teaches: The firstborn offering is eaten by the priests, throughout the city of Jerusalem, prepared in any manner of food preparation, for two days and one night. The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to a firstborn offering that it is eaten for two days and the intervening night? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated with regard to a firstborn offering: “And their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh” (Numbers 18:18). The verse juxtaposes the firstborn offering with the breast and thigh of peace offerings. Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too, a firstborn offering is eaten for two days and one night.

מה שלמים נאכלין לשני ימים ולילה אחד, אף בכור נאכל לשני ימים ולילה אחד.

וזו שאלה נשאלה לפני חכמים בכרם ביבנה: בכור לכמה נאכל? נענה רבי טרפון ואמר: לשני ימים ולילה אחד.

The baraita relates: And this question was asked before the Sages in the vineyard, i.e., the academy, in Yavne: For how many days and nights is a firstborn offering eaten? Rabbi Tarfon responded and said: For two days and one night.

היה שם תלמיד אחד שבא לבית המדרש לפני חכמים תחלה, ורבי יוסי הגלילי שמו, אמר לו: רבי, מנין לך? אמר לו: בני, שלמים קדשים קלים,

There was one student there who came to the study hall before the Sages for the first time, and his name was Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. He said to Rabbi Tarfon: My teacher, from where do you derive this? Rabbi Tarfon said to him: My son, peace offerings are offerings of lesser sanctity, and a firstborn offering is an offering of lesser sanctity. Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too, a firstborn offering is eaten for two days and one night.

ובכור קדשים קלים; מה שלמים נאכלין לשני ימים ולילה אחד, אף בכור נאכל לשני ימים ולילה אחד.

אמר לו: רבי, בכור מתנה לכהן, וחטאת ואשם מתנה לכהן; מה חטאת ואשם ליום ולילה, אף בכור ליום ולילה!

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: My teacher, there is a different comparison that can be made: A firstborn offering is given as a gift to the priest, and a sin offering and a guilt offering are each given as a gift to the priest. Just as a sin offering and a guilt offering are eaten for one day and one night, so too, a firstborn offering should be eaten for one day and one night.

אמר לו: נדון דבר מתוך דבר, ונלמד דבר מתוך דבר; מה שלמים אין באין על חטא – אף בכור אינו בא על חטא,

Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Let us judge a matter from a matter to which it is most similar, i.e., a firstborn offering is an offering of lesser sanctity, as are peace offerings, and learn a matter from a matter, i.e., there is another comparison to be made: Just as peace offerings do not come as atonement for a sin, so too, a firstborn offering does not come as atonement for a sin. Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too, a firstborn offering is eaten for two days and one night.

מה שלמים נאכלים לשני ימים ולילה אחד – אף בכור נאכל לשני ימים ולילה אחד.

אמר לו: רבי, נדון דבר מדבר, ילמד דבר מדבר; חטאת ואשם מתנה לכהן, ובכור מתנה לכהן; מה חטאת ואשם אין

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: My teacher, I can answer you in a similar way. Let us judge a matter from a matter to which it is most similar, i.e., a firstborn offering is more similar to a sin offering and a guilt offering, and learn a matter from a matter, i.e., there is another comparison to be made: A sin offering and a guilt offering are each given as a gift to the priest, and a firstborn offering is given as a gift to the priest. Just as a sin offering and a guilt offering do not come as a vow offering or as a gift offering, i.e., they are brought only by one obligated to bring them, so too, a firstborn offering does not come as a vow offering or as a gift offering. Just as a sin offering and a guilt offering are eaten for one day and one night, so too, a firstborn offering should be eaten for one day and one night.

באין בנדר ונדבה – אף בכור אינו בנדר ונדבה, מה חטאת ואשם נאכלין ליום אחד – אף בכור נאכל ליום אחד!

קפץ רבי עקיבא, ונסתלק רבי טרפון. אמר לו: הרי הוא אומר ״ובשרם יהיה לך״ – הקישן הכתוב לחזה ושוק של שלמים; מה שלמים נאכלין לשני ימים ולילה אחד,

Rabbi Akiva jumped into the discussion, and Rabbi Tarfon left. Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: But the verse states: “And their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh” (Numbers 18:18). The verse juxtaposes firstborn offerings with a breast and thigh of peace offerings. Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too, a firstborn offering is eaten for two days and one night.

אף בכור נאכל לשני ימים ולילה אחד.

אמר לו: היקשתו לחזה ושוק של שלמים, ואני מקישו לחזה ושוק של תודה – מה תודה נאכלת ליום ולילה, אף בכור נאכל ליום ולילה!

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to Rabbi Akiva: You juxtaposed it with a breast and thigh of peace offerings. But since the Torah does not specify with which offering the firstborn is juxtaposed, I juxtapose it with a breast and thigh of a thanks offering, which are also given to a priest. Just as a thanks offering is eaten for one day and one night, so too, a firstborn offering should be eaten for one day and one night.

אמר לו: הרי הוא אומר: ״ובשרם יהיה לך״ – שאין תלמוד לומר ״לך יהיה״, ומה תלמוד לומר ״לך יהיה״? הוסיף הכתוב הויה אחרת בבכור.

Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: I concede that it is possible to juxtapose a firstborn offering with a thanks offering, but the verse states: “And their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh, it shall be yours” (Numbers 18:18). Since there is no need for the verse to state a second time: “It shall be yours,” what is the meaning when the verse states a second time: “It shall be yours”? The verse adds another day on which it is permitted for a firstborn offering to be eaten, i.e., a second day.

וכשנאמרו דברים לפני רבי ישמעאל, אמר להן: צאו ואמרו לו לרבי עקיבא: טעיתה. תודה מהיכן למדה – משלמים; [וכי] דבר הלמד בהיקש חוזר ומלמד בהיקש?!

The Gemara relates: And when these matters were said before Rabbi Yishmael, he said to his students: Go out and tell Rabbi Akiva: You were mistaken when you conceded to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili that the allotted time for eating a firstborn offering could have been derived from the allotted time for eating a thanks offering. Why? From where is it derived that the breast and thigh of a thanks offering are eaten by priests? It is derived from a juxtaposition with a peace offering. Nowhere is it stated explicitly that the breast and thigh of a thanks offering are eaten only by priests. And in the realm of consecrated matters, can a matter derived via a juxtaposition then teach its halakha via a juxtaposition? The Gemara (49b) demonstrated that it cannot. Consequently, you should not infer from the latter formulation of the verse, from the words “It shall be yours,” but rather, from the first formulation of the verse, as you claimed that the Torah juxtaposes a firstborn offering with the breast and thigh of a peace offering.

הא אין עליך לידון בלשון אחרון, אלא בלשון ראשון.

ורבי ישמעאל, האי ״לך יהיה״ מאי עביד ליה? לימד על בכור בעל מום שהוא מתנה לכהן – שלא מצינו בכל התורה.

The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yishmael do with this extra phrase: “It shall be yours”? This teaches about a blemished firstborn offering, that it is also given as a gift to the priest, as we have not found it written explicitly anywhere in the entire Torah what should be done with a blemished firstborn.

ורבי עקיבא יליף ליה מ״בשרם״ – חד תם וחד בעל מום. ורבי ישמעאל, מ״בשרם״ דהנך בכורות קאמר.

The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Akiva derive that a blemished firstborn offering is also given as a gift to the priest? He derives it from the term “their flesh,” which is written in the plural. This teaches that both an unblemished firstborn offering and a blemished firstborn offering are given as gifts to the priest. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yishmael understand the plural term? The Gemara answers that he understands it to be saying that the priest receives gifts from the flesh of all these firstborn offerings mentioned in the verse, i.e., the firstborn of cattle, sheep, and goats.

במאי קמיפלגי? מר סבר: הימנו ודבר אחר – הוי היקש; ומר סבר: לא הוי היקש.

The Gemara asks: Since Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael both agree that a matter derived via a juxtaposition cannot then teach its halakha via a juxtaposition, with regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, Rabbi Yishmael, holds that a halakha derived both from that juxtaposition and from another principle is considered a juxtaposition. In this case, the specific detail that the breast and thigh of a thanks offering are given to a priest is derived from a juxtaposition with peace offerings. The length of time in which it may be eaten, one day and one night, is written explicitly. Since it is nevertheless considered a juxtaposition, it cannot be used to teach the halakha with regard to a firstborn offering. And one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that such a case is not considered to be a juxtaposition, and therefore it can be used to teach another halakha via a juxtaposition.

בשלמא למאן דאמר לא הוי היקש, היינו דכתיב: ״וכן יעשה לאהל מועד״ –

The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the one who says that a matter derived via a juxtaposition and another principle is not considered a juxtaposition, this is the reason that it is written with regard to the rites performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur: “And so shall he do for the Tent of Meeting that dwells with them in the midst of their impurity” (Leviticus 16:16).

כשם שמזה לפני ולפנים אחת למעלה ושבע למטה מדם הפר, כך מזה בהיכל.

The High Priest sprinkles the blood of two offerings, the bull and the goat. He sprinkles their blood between the staves of the Ark and on the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies. In each location he sprinkles their blood once above and seven times below. The verse does not write all of the details of these sprinklings with regard to each offering, and the details of each are derived from what is written explicitly in the other, as follows: Just as the High Priest sprinkles in the innermost sanctum, between the staves of the Ark, once above and seven times below, with the blood of the bull, so he sprinkles on the Curtain in the Sanctuary.

וכשם שלפני ולפנים אחת למעלה ושבע למטה מדם השעיר, כך מזה בהיכל.

And just as in the innermost sanctum he sprinkles once above and seven times below, with the blood of the goat, so he sprinkles on the Curtain in the Sanctuary. This is an instance of a halakha derived both from a juxtaposition and from another principle, and the stringency that a matter derived via a juxtaposition cannot also teach its halakha via a juxtaposition is not applied in this case.

אלא למאן דאמר הוי היקש, מאי איכא למימר? מקומות הוא דגמרי מהדדי.

But according to the one who says that this too is considered a juxtaposition, what can be said? How can these halakhot be derived? The Gemara answers: It is the locations where the blood is sprinkled that are derived from one another in the second juxtaposition. The first juxtaposition teaches one halakha, namely, that the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat are to be compared to one another. The second juxtaposition does not teach a halakha with regard to the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat per se; rather it teaches a comparison between the sprinkling performed in the Holy of Holies and the sprinkling performed in the Sanctuary. These are two unconnected juxtapositions.

ואיבעית אימא: חוץ מפנים בחד זימנא גמיר.

The Gemara suggests: And if you wish, say there is a different resolution: The sprinkling outside is derived from the sprinkling inside, all at once. There are not two comparisons here, one derived from the other, but rather a single, complex juxtaposition, from which all of the relevant halakhot are derived.

בשלמא למאן דאמר [לא] הוי היקש, היינו דכתיב: ״ממושבתיכם תביאו לחם תנופה״ –

The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the one who says that a matter derived via a juxtaposition and another principle is not a juxtaposition, this is the reason that it is written with regard to the offering brought on Shavuot: “You shall bring out of your dwellings two wave loaves of two-tenths of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour” (Leviticus 23:17).

שאין תלמוד לומר ״תביאו״, מה תלמוד לומר ״תביאו״? כל שאתה מביא ממקום (למקום) אחר הרי הוא כזה; מה להלן עשרון לחלה, אף כאן עשרון לחלה.

Since apparently there is no need for the verse to state: “You shall bring,” as it already states: “And you shall present a new meal offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 23:16), why must the verse state: “You shall bring”? It states this to teach that anything that you bring from another place that is similar to this offering, i.e., the leavened bread that accompanies a thanks offering, shall be prepared like this. Just as there, with regard to the two loaves, they must be prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour for each loaf, so too here, each of the ten loaves of leavened bread that accompany a thanks offering must be prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour for each loaf.

אי – מה להלן שני עשרונים, אף כאן שני עשרונים?! תלמוד לומר: ״תהיינה״.

If they are compared, why not say that just as there, with regard to the two loaves, the total amount of flour is two-tenths of an ephah, so too here, with regard to the ten loaves that accompany a thanks offering, the total amount of flour for all ten should be two-tenths of an ephah? To counter this comparison, the verse states: “They shall be,” to serve as a restriction and teach that only these two loaves amount to a total of two-tenths of an ephah, but the bread accompanying the thanks offering does not amount to two-tenths of an ephah.

ולמדנו עשרה לחמץ; עשרה למצה מנין? תלמוד לומר ״על חלת לחם חמץ״ – נגד חמץ הבא מצה.

The Gemara continues: The ten loaves accompanying a thanks offering must each be a tenth of an ephah, and this has been derived from two sources: A juxtaposition with the offering of Shavuot and another principle, which is that which the verse states concerning the thanks offering, that there must be ten leavened loaves. And we have learned that ten-tenths of an ephah is required for the ten loaves of leavened bread. From where is it derived that ten-tenths of an ephah are required for the matza which also accompanies a thanks offering? After stating that thirty matzot accompany a thanks offering, the verse states: “With cakes of leavened bread” (Leviticus 7:13), to juxtapose the matza with the leavened bread. This teaches that one must bring matza of an amount corresponding to the leavened bread. In any event, this derivation can be employed according to the one who says that a matter derived via a juxtaposition and another principle is not a juxtaposition.

אלא למאן דאמר (לא) הוי היקש, מאי איכא למימר? ״תביאו״ – יתירא היא.

But according to the one who says that a matter derived via a juxtaposition and another principle is a juxtaposition, and therefore it cannot then teach its halakha via another juxtaposition, what is there to say? How can the measure of flour for the matza be derived from the measure of flour for the leavened bread? The Gemara answers: The first halakha, connecting the two loaves of Shavuot to the bread accompanying a thanks offering, is not derived via a juxtaposition, but rather via a superfluous word. The term “You shall bring,” written with regard to the two loaves, is extra, and is therefore considered as if it were written explicitly with regard to the leavened bread accompanying the thanks offering. Therefore, it is possible to derive the halakha concerning matza from the halakha concerning leavened bread via a juxtaposition.

הפסח אינו נאכל. מאן תנא? אמר רב יוסף: רבי אלעזר בן עזריה היא. דתניא, רבי אלעזר [בן עזריה] אומר: נאמר כאן ״בלילה [הזה]״, ונאמר להלן:

§ The mishna teaches: The Paschal offering is eaten only at night and it is eaten only until midnight. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this mishna? Rav Yosef said that it is Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And they shall eat of the flesh on that night” (Exodus 12:8). Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: It is stated here: “On that night,” without stating when the night ends. And it is stated there, with regard to the plague that afflicted the firstborn Egyptians: “And I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night and I will strike every firstborn in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 12:12). With regard to the death of the firstborns the Torah states: “So said the Lord: At about midnight, I will go out into the midst of Egypt and every firstborn in Egypt shall die” (Exodus 11:4–5).

״ועברתי בארץ מצרים בלילה הזה״;

מה להלן עד חצות, אף כאן עד חצות.

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya continues: Just as in the verse there, the death of the firstborns occurred until midnight, as stated explicitly in the verse, so too, in the verse here, the mitzva to eat the Paschal offering continues until midnight but not beyond.

אמר לו רבי עקיבא, והלא כבר נאמר: ״ואכלתם אותו בחפזון״ – עד שעת חפזון!

Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: But isn’t it already stated: “And so you shall eat it, with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, your staffs in your hands, and you will eat it in haste, for it is the Paschal offering for the Lord” (Exodus 12:11)? This verse indicates that the Paschal offering may be eaten until the time of haste, i.e., until dawn, as the Jewish people left Egypt hastily the next morning.

אם כן, מה תלמוד לומר ״בלילה הזה״? שיכול יהא ככל הקדשים הנאכלים ביום; תלמוד לומר ״בלילה״ – בלילה יהא נאכל, ואינו נאכל ביום.

The Gemara asks: If so, why must the verse state: “On that night,” with regard to eating the Paschal offering? The Gemara explains: This phrase is necessary, as one might have thought that the Paschal offering is like all the other offerings in that it should be eaten during the day, on the day it is sacrificed. To counter this reasoning, the verse states: “On that night,” to emphasize that this particular offering shall be eaten at night, but it shall not be eaten during the day.

אמר ליה אביי: וממאי דרבי אלעזר בן עזריה, ודאורייתא? דלמא דרבנן, ולהרחיק מן העבירה! אם כן, מאי ״אלא עד חצות״? אלא כי התם – מה התם דאורייתא,

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And from where do you know that the mishna represents the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and is stating that the Paschal offering must be eaten by midnight by Torah law? Perhaps the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and is stating that the Paschal offering must be eaten by midnight by rabbinic law, and the reason for the rabbinic decree was to distance one from a sin. Rav Yosef replied: If so, what does the mishna mean when it says: It is eaten only until midnight? With regard to the other offerings the mishna teaches: Until midnight, without specifying: Only. Rather, one must say that it is like there, with regard to the other halakhot of the Paschal offering stated in the mishna. Just as there, the requirements are by Torah law, so too here, with regard to the final time for eating the meat, the requirement is also by Torah law.

אף כאן נמי דאורייתא.

הדרן עלך איזהו מקומן