זבחים דף ח

״ולקח הכהן מדם החטאת״ – שתהא קבלה לשם חטאת.

“And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering” (Leviticus 4:25), teaching that the collection of the blood must be performed for the sake of a sin offering.

ואשכחן שחיטה וקבלה, זריקה מנלן? דאמר קרא: ״וכפר עליו הכהן מחטאתו״ – שתהא כפרה לשם חטאת.

The Gemara asks: And we found a source for the halakha that the slaughter and collection must be performed for the sake of a sin offering. From where do we derive this halakha with regard to the sprinkling of the blood? The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states: “And the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin” (Leviticus 4:26), teaching that the atonement must be effected for the sake of a sin offering, as atonement is effected by the sprinkling of the blood.

אשכחן שנוי קדש, שנוי בעלים מנלן? אמר קרא: ״עליו״ – עליו ולא על חבירו.

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the prohibition against deviation from the type of offering. From where do we derive the prohibition against deviation with regard to the owner? The Gemara answers: The aforementioned verse states: “And the priest shall make atonement for him,” indicating that the intent must be for him, and not for another.

אשכחן למצוה, לעכב מנלן? כדאמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע: ״חטאת״–״חטאתו״; הכא נמי: ״חטאת״–״חטאתו״.

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the mitzva to sprinkle the blood for the sake of the owner ab initio. From where do we derive that this is indispensable and disqualifies the offering if not fulfilled? The Gemara answers: It is as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says with regard to the sin offering of a nazirite: Since the verse could have simply stated: Sin offering, but instead stated: “His sin offering” (Numbers 6:16), it is inferred that the offering must be sacrificed for his, the owner’s, sake. Here too, since the verse could have simply stated “sin,” but states “his sin,” one infers that if the blood of the sin offering is not sprinkled for the sake of its owner, it is disqualified.

אשכחן מצוה – בשנוי קדש, וזריקה בשנוי בעלים – בין למצוה בין לעכב. לעכב – בכל עבודות בשנוי קדש,

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the mitzva of sacrificing a sin offering without deviation from the type of offering ab initio, and with regard to sprinkling its blood without deviation with regard to the owner concerning both its mitzva ab initio and its indispensability. From where do we derive that performing all sacrificial rites without deviation from the type of offering is an indispensable requirement, and that performing all other rites, besides sprinkling the blood, without deviation with regard to the owner is both a mitzva ab initio and indispensable?

ובשאר עבודות בשנוי בעלים – בין למצוה בין לעכב, מנלן?

אמר רבי יונה: אתיא מחטאת נזיר, דכתיב: ״והקריב הכהן לפני ה׳ ועשה את חטאתו ואת עלתו״ – שיהו כל עשיותיו לשם חטאת.

Rabbi Yona says: It is derived from the halakha concerning the sin offering of a nazirite; as it is written concerning a nazirite: “And the priest shall bring them before the Lord, and shall offer [ve’asa] his sin offering, and his burnt offering” (Numbers 6:16). The verse teaches that all of its sacrificial actions [asiyyotav] must be performed for the sake of a sin offering.

אשכחן שנוי קדש, שנוי בעלים מנלן? (אם אינו ענין לשנוי קדש, תניהו ענין לשנוי בעלים. אשכחן למצוה, לעכב מנלן?)

The Gemara asks: We found a source for the halakha that a sin offering must be sacrificed without deviation from the type of offering, and that this requirement is indispensable. From where do we derive that sacrificing it without deviation with regard to the owner is also indispensable, even in rites other than the sprinkling of the blood?

אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע: ״חטאת״–״חטאתו״.

Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says: Since the verse concerning a nazirite could have simply stated: Sin offering, but instead states: “His sin offering,” one infers that the offering must be sacrificed for the owner’s sake.

מתקיף לה רבינא: אלא מעתה, ״עולת״–״עולתו״ מאי דרשת ביה?

Ravina objects to this: If that is so, what do you interpret from the fact that the same verse could have stated: Burnt offering, but instead states: “His burnt offering”?

ולרבינא, ״מנחת״–״מנחתו״, ״נסך״–״נסכו״, מאי דרשת בהו?

The Gemara asks: And according to Ravina, what do you interpret from the subsequent verse: “The priest shall offer also his meal offering and his libation” (Numbers 6:17)? Why does Ravina not mention that this verse could have stated: Meal offering, but instead states: “His meal offering,” and that it could have stated: Libation, but instead states: “His libation”?

ההוא מבעי ליה: ״מנחתם ונסכיהם״ – בלילה, ״מנחתם ונסכיהם״ – אפילו למחר. אלא ״עולת״–״עולתו״, מאי דרשת בהו?

The Gemara answers: That language is necessary; it is just like the phrase: “Their meal offering and their libations,” which is mentioned many times in the portion of the Festival offerings (e.g., Numbers 29:37). It teaches that the meal offerings and libations that are brought with the additional animal offerings of the Festivals can be sacrificed even at night after the offering is brought. The phrase: “Their meal offering and their libations,” also teaches that they may be brought even on the following day. Likewise here, when stated with regard to a nazirite, the phrase teaches that they may be brought at night or the day after the offering is sacrificed. But there remains a difficulty: What do you interpret from the fact that the verse could have stated: Burnt offering, but instead states: “His burnt offering”?

ותו, מי גמרי מהדדי?! חטאת חלב מחטאת נזיר לא גמרה – שכן יש עמה דמים אחרים; חטאת נזיר מחטאת חלב לא גמרה – שכן כרת!

The Gemara raises an additional objection to the derivation from a nazirite’s sin offering: And furthermore, can the halakhot of a standard sin offering and of a nazirite’s sin offering be derived from one another? The halakhot of a sin offering brought for a transgression, e.g., eating forbidden fat, cannot be derived from the halakhot of a nazirite’s sin offering, due to the unique element of stringency of the latter, since there is other blood, i.e., other offerings are brought, with it. Likewise, the halakhot of a nazirite’s sin offering cannot be derived from the halakhot of a sin offering brought for eating forbidden fat, due to the unique element of stringency of the latter, since it atones for a transgression punishable by excision from the World-to-Come [karet].

אלא אמר רבא: אתיא מחטאת מצורע, דכתיב: ״ועשה הכהן את החטאת״ – שיהו כל עשיותיו לשם חטאת.

Rather, Rava says: These halakhot are derived from the halakha of the sin offering of a leper; as it is written: “And the priest shall offer [ve’asa] the sin offering” (Leviticus 14:19), teaching that all sacrificial actions of [asiyyotav] a sin offering must be performed for the sake of a sin offering.

ואשכחן שנוי קדש, שנוי בעלים מנליה? אמר קרא: ״וכפר על המטהר וגו׳״ – על המטהר זה, ולא על המטהר חבירו.

And we found a source for the halakha that a sin offering must be sacrificed without deviation from the type of offering, and that this is indispensable. From where do we derive that sacrificing a sin offering without deviation with regard to the owner is also indispensable? The verse states: “And make atonement for the one that is to be purified of his impurity” (Leviticus 14:19), indicating that the sin offering must be sacrificed for the sake of this person who is being purified, and not for another person who is to be purified.

ואכתי, מי ילפא מהדדי?! חטאת חלב מחטאת מצורע לא ילפא – שכן יש עמה דמים אחרים; חטאת מצורע מחטאת חלב לא גמרה – שכן כרת!

The Gemara asks: But still, can the halakhot of a standard sin offering and a leper’s sin offering be derived from one another? This comparison is also problematic. The halakhot of a sin offering brought for eating forbidden fat cannot be derived from the halakhot of a leper’s sin offering, since there is other blood that is brought with the latter, i.e., a burnt offering and a guilt offering; and the halakhot of a leper’s sin offering cannot be derived from the halakhot of a sin offering brought for eating forbidden fat, since the latter atones for a transgression punishable by karet.

מחדא לא אתיא, תיתי חדא מתרתי.

The Gemara answers: Indeed, the halakhot of a sin offering cannot be derived from the halakhot of one other type of sin offering alone. But one can derive the halakhot of one type of sin offering from the halakhot of the other two. The verses concerning a standard sin offering, that of a leper, and that of a nazirite all contain elements that indicate that the offering must be sacrificed for its own sake. Two of them together are sufficient to teach that this halakha applies to the third case. The third case is therefore apparently extraneous, and it is understood to teach that proper intent in this regard is indispensable for all the offering’s rites.

בהי לא לכתוב? [לא לכתוב] רחמנא בחטאת חלב, ותיתי מהנך?! מה להנך, שכן יש עמהם דמים אחרים!

The Gemara asks: With regard to which type of sin offering should the Torah not have written this halakha, i.e., which of the three cases should be regarded as the extraneous case? If you say: Let the Merciful One not write it with regard to a sin offering brought for eating forbidden fat, and one can derive it from these other sin offerings, i.e., those of a nazirite and a leper, this can be refuted: What is notable about these other sin offerings? They are notable in that there is other blood brought with them. Therefore, the halakha should apply only to similar sin offerings.

לא לכתוב רחמנא בחטאת נזיר, ותיתי מהנך?! מה להנך, שכן אין להן שאלה!

If you say: Let the Merciful One not write it with regard to a nazirite’s sin offering, and one can derive it from these other sin offerings, those of a leper and a sinner, this can also be refuted: What is notable about these other sin offerings? They are notable in that one does not have the option of obtaining an exemption through a request to a halakhic authority. A nazirite, by contrast, can request of a halakhic authority to dissolve his vow of naziriteship, thereby nullifying his obligation.

לא לכתוב רחמנא בחטאת מצורע, ותיתי מהנך?! מה להנך, שכן אין באין בדלות!

If you say: Let the Merciful One not write it with regard to a leper’s sin offering, and one can derive it from these other sin offerings, those of a nazirite and a sinner, this can also be refuted: What is notable about these other sin offerings? They are notable in that they cannot be brought from doves instead of sheep if the owner is poor, unlike a leper’s sin offering (see Leviticus 14:21). Therefore, the halakhot of these different sin offerings cannot be derived from one another.

אלא אמר קרא: ״זאת התורה לעלה ולמנחה וגו׳״ – הקישו הכתוב לשלמים; מה שלמים – בין שנוי קדש בין שנוי בעלים, בעינן לשמן למצוה; אף חטאת – בין

Rather, the halakha is derived from that which the verse states: “This is the law of the burnt offering, and of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the consecration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:37). The verse juxtaposes a sin offering with a peace offering, indicating that just as for a peace offering we require intent for its sake, as a mitzva ab initio, both concerning the deviation from the type of offering and concerning deviation with regard to the owner, so too, for a sin offering we require intent for its sake as a mitzva, both concerning deviation from the type of offering and concerning deviation with regard to the owner.

שנוי קדש בין שנוי בעלים, בעינן לשמן למצוה.

הילכך, מצוה – משלמים, והנך קראי – לעכב.

Therefore, the mitzva ab initio is derived from the halakha of a peace offering; and those verses mentioned earlier, from which this requirement is derived with regard to each type of sin offering separately, repeat the halakha to teach that it is indispensable.

ואשכחן חטאת חלב, דכתיב בה ״לחטאת״;

The Gemara asks: And we found a source for these halakhot with regard to a sin offering brought for eating forbidden fat, as it is written with regard to it: “And slaughter it for a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:33), indicating that it must be slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering. Likewise, sources for this halakha with regard to the sin offerings of a nazirite and a leper have also been cited.

חטאת דעבודה זרה, דשמיעת הקול, ובטוי שפתים, וטומאת מקדש וקדשיו – דלא כתיב בהו; מנלן?

From where do we derive these halakhot with regard to a sin offering brought for idol worship, which has unique halakhot, as detailed in Numbers 15:27–31, and with regard to which the term: For a sin offering, is not written? Likewise, from where do we derive them with regard to the sin offerings that are brought for the hearing of the voice, and for an utterance of the lips, and for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, which also have unique halakhot (Leviticus 5:1–13), and with regard to which the term: For a sin offering, is not written either?

חטאת דעבודה זרה – אתיא מחטאת חלב, שכן כרת כמותה; והנך כולהי – אתיין במה הצד.

The Gemara answers: With regard to a sin offering brought for idol worship, these halakhot are derived from the halakhot of a sin offering brought for eating forbidden fat, as idol worship is also punishable by karet, similar to consumption of forbidden fat. And with regard to all these other sin offerings, which are brought for transgressions not punishable by karet, these halakhot are derived by analogy from the common element of the aforementioned three sources, namely, a standard sin offering, the sin offering of a nazirite, and the sin offering of a leper.

תנו רבנן: פסח בזמנו – לשמו כשר, שלא לשמו פסול; ובשאר ימות השנה – לשמו פסול, שלא לשמו כשר.

§ The Sages taught: When a Paschal offering is sacrificed at its appointed time, on Passover eve after noon, if it is sacrificed for its sake, it is fit; if it is sacrificed not for its sake, it is unfit, as stated in the mishna. And when an offering consecrated as a Paschal offering is sacrificed during the rest of the days of the year, if it is sacrificed for its sake, it is unfit; if it is sacrificed not for its sake, it is fit.

(של״ו קבאיצ״ן ממה״ר בצ״א ב״א סימן)

The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the names of the amora’im mentioned in this discussion: Shin, lamed, vav; kuf, beit, alef, yod, tzadi, nun; mem, mem, heh, reish; beit, tzadi, alef; beit, alef.

מנא הני מילי? אמר אבוה דשמואל, אמר קרא: ״ואם מן הצאן קרבנו לזבח שלמים לה׳״ – דבר הבא מן הצאן יהא לזבח שלמים.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, i.e., that if a Paschal offering is sacrificed during the rest of the year it is fit if sacrificed not for its sake? Shmuel’s father says: The verse states: “And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord is of the flock” (Leviticus 3:6), indicating that an offering that is brought only from the flock will be a sacrifice of peace offerings. The Paschal offering fulfills this criterion.

אימא שלמים אין, מידי אחרינא לא! אמר רבי אילא אמר רבי יוחנן: ״לזבח״ – לרבות כל זבח.

The Gemara challenges: Say that if it is sacrificed for the sake of a peace offering, yes, it is fit, but if it is sacrificed for the sake of some other offering, it is not fit. Rabbi Ila says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The redundant expression “for a sacrifice” in Leviticus 3:6 is stated to include any type of sacrifice.

אימא כל דשחיט – להוי כמותה!

The Gemara asks: If so, say that a Paschal offering should be rendered as any offering for which one slaughters it; for example, if it is slaughtered for the sake of a burnt offering, it should be rendered a burnt offering.

אי הוה כתיב ״לשלמים וזבח״ – כדקאמרת; השתא דכתיב ״לזבח שלמים״ – לכל דשחיט ליה, שלמים להוי.

The Gemara answers: If the phrase: For peace offerings and a sacrifice, was written in the verse, it would be as you say. Now that it is written: “For a sacrifice of peace offerings,” it indicates that for whatever type of offering one slaughters it, it will be a peace offering.

אימא: ״לזבח״ – כלל, ״שלמים״ – פרט; כלל ופרט – אין בכלל אלא מה שבפרט; שלמים אין, מידי אחרינא לא!

The Gemara challenges: Say that: “For a sacrifice,” is a generalization and: “Of peace offerings,” is a detail, and according to the principles of biblical hermeneutics, wherever there is a generalization and a detail, the generalization includes only that which is specified in the detail. Accordingly, if the offering is sacrificed for the sake of a peace offering, yes, it is fit; but if it is sacrificed for the sake of another offering, it is not fit.

״לה׳״ – הדר וכלל.

The Gemara answers: With the term: “Unto the Lord,” the verse then generalized again. Therefore, the verse is formulated as a generalization, a detail, and a generalization, as the Gemara will explain.

מתקיף לה רב יעקב מנהר פקוד: הא לא דמי כללא בתרא לכללא קמא; כללא קמא – מרבי זבחים ותו לא; כללא בתרא – ״לה׳״ כל דלה׳,

Rav Ya’akov of Nehar Pekod objects to this suggestion: But the latter generalization is dissimilar to the former generalization. The former generalization: “For a sacrifice,” includes only slaughtered offerings and nothing more, whereas the latter generalization: “Unto the Lord,” includes any offering unto the Lord. And accordingly, even if the Paschal offering was sacrificed for the sake of bird offerings, or even for the sake of meal offerings, it should be fit, as these are brought “unto the Lord.”

ואפילו לעופות ואפילו למנחות!

הא תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל, בכללי ופרטי דריש כי האי גוונא:

The Gemara responds to this objection: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught generalizations and details even in examples like this case.

כלל ופרט וכלל – אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט; מה הפרט מפורש – שהוא שלא לשמו, וכשר; אף כל – שהוא שלא לשמו, וכשר.

The Gemara explains: Since “unto the Lord” is a second generalization, the verse is formulated as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a case where a Paschal offering was sacrificed not for its own sake, and nevertheless it is fit, so too, in any case where it was sacrificed not for its sake but for the sake of another offering, it is fit.

אי – מה הפרט מפורש, דבר הבא בנדר ובנדבה; אף כל הבא בנדר ובנדבה – עולה ושלמים אין, חטאת ואשם לא!

The Gemara asks: If the verse is referring only to actions similar to the detail, then just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a peace offering, which is a matter that is brought as a vow offering or as a gift offering, so too, a Paschal offering should be fit only if it was sacrificed for the sake of any offering that is brought as a vow offering or as a gift offering. Accordingly, if it was sacrificed for the sake of a burnt offering or a peace offering, yes, it is fit, as these are brought as a vow offering or as a gift offering; but if it was sacrificed for the sake of a sin offering or a guilt offering, it is not fit, as these are not brought as a vow offering or as a gift offering.

אלא ״לזבח״ – רבויא הוא.

The Gemara therefore rejects the exegetical method of generalizations and details in favor of that of amplifications and restrictions: Rather, the term: “For a sacrifice,” is not a generalization, but an amplification, which includes any type of offering. Therefore, if a Paschal offering is sacrificed for the sake of any type of offering during the rest of the year, it is fit.

אימא לכל דשחיט ליה – להוי כוותיה!

The Gemara challenges: If so, say that it adds that a Paschal offering should be rendered as any offering for which one slaughters it. Why does Shmuel’s father interpret that it is rendered a peace offering specifically?

אמר רבי אבין:

Rabbi Avin says: