Zevachim 106b — the Talmud in English

of Meeting—and he shall be cut off.”

here, as it says:

“And he did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting

—and he shall be cut off.”

From where is the warning derived? For it is written "

Take heed for yourself lest you bring up your burnt offerings

in every place that you see. Rather, in the place that the Lord will choose.'"

And until this point, the verse is not speaking of sacrifices that were consecrated before the establishment of the Tabernacle, at the time when private altars were permitted.

But if only this verse had been stated, it would emerge that these sacrifices, which were fit to be offered outside at the time of their consecration, would remain fit to be offered outside even once the Tabernacle was established and private altars were forbidden.

From here onward,

from the verse, "In order that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices that they sacrifice upon the face of the field—and bring them to the Lord, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,"

it is speaking of sacrifices that one consecrated at the time when private altars were permitted, and offered them at the time when private altars were forbidden.

For it is said, "In order that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices that they sacrifice,"

and it implies that even those

sacrifices that I had already permitted to you

at the time of their consecration to slaughter on a private altar, because private altars had not yet been forbidden at the time of their consecration—if he offers them on a private altar at the time when private altars are forbidden, their slaughtering and offering will be considered as though he were doing this

"upon the face of the field," to tell you: one who slaughters

on a private altar outside

at the time when private altars are forbidden, the verse regards him as though he had offered upon the face of the field

not for the sake of Heaven!

And the beraita continues to explain the continuation of the passage:

"And bring them to the Lord"—

this is a positive commandment

to offer them in the Tabernacle!

The negative commandment

regarding those that were consecrated during the time when private altars were permitted—

from where [is it derived]?

The verse states: "And they shall no longer slaughter!"

to say that only from now on are they forbidden, but until now they were permitted.

Could he be punished with karet

for those sacred animals that were consecrated at the time when private altars were permitted and offered at the time when private altars became forbidden?

The verse states: "This shall be an eternal statute for them throughout their generations."

And this is the explanation of the verse:

"This"

alone—the punishment of the positive and negative commandments explained in the passage—will be

"for them,"

for those who offer sacred animals that were consecrated at the time when private altars were permitted and offered them at the time when private altars were forbidden.

"And not"

a punishment

"other"

than that of karet will be

"for them!"

And since the verse "And they shall no longer slaughter" is needed to forbid sacred animals that they consecrated at the time when private altars were permitted and offered at the time when private altars were forbidden, from where do we have a warning concerning slaughtering outside?

And we answer:

Rather, said Abaye:

a warning concerning slaughtering outside is learned by

a kal va-chomer: Just as where he did not punish

with karet—regarding sacred animals that they consecrated at the time when private altars were permitted and offered at the time when private altars were forbidden—

the verse warned,

"And they shall no longer slaughter";

where he punished

with karet—regarding sacred animals that were consecrated at the time when private altars were forbidden—

is it not logical that he warned

concerning them?

Ravina said to Abaye:

According to you, that it is possible to derive a warning by a kal va-chomer,

if so, the verse should not say

the

negative commandment regarding forbidden fat, and let there come

a warning concerning forbidden fat by

a kal va-chomer from

the warning concerning the eating of

an animal carcass: Just as an animal carcass, for which the verse did not punish

the eating of it with karet, nevertheless

it warned

concerning it with a negative commandment;

forbidden fat,

regarding which we find that

it punished

the eating of it with karet,

is it not logical that it warned

concerning it!? And this derivation by kal va-chomer would be considered as though a warning of a negative commandment had been stated explicitly regarding forbidden fat. If so, why do I need the "negative commandment" that the verse stated regarding forbidden fat?

Ravina came

to

before Rava. He said to him:

Rava said to Ravina: It is not a difficulty, because

the warning concerning forbidden fat cannot be derived from an animal carcass

by a kal va-chomer, because

there is a basis for refuting it: What is true of an animal carcass, which renders impure,

for the carcass renders one who touches it impure—can you say this regarding forbidden fat, which does not render one who touches it impure?

And likewise, if you wish to derive a warning concerning forbidden fat

from impure creeping creatures,

it would be possible to refute it:

What is true of impure creeping creatures, which render impure

one who touches them

with any amount,

can you say this regarding forbidden fat, which does not render impure?

And likewise, if you derive a warning concerning forbidden fat

from pure creeping creatures,

it can be refuted:

What is true of pure creeping creatures is that their prohibition

in eating is

with any amount [the size of a lentil]; can you say this regarding forbidden fat, whose prohibition is with an olive-size portion?

can you say the same about forbidden fat, whose prohibition is triggered only by an olive-bulk?

And it is also impossible to derive a warning concerning forbidden fat

from orla and mixed species of the vineyard,

because we will refute it:

What is true of orla and mixed species of the vineyard,

that they are stringent,

for they are forbidden in benefit!

And likewise

from the Sabbatical year

it is not possible to derive by a kal va-chomer [a warning] concerning forbidden fat, because

what is true of the Sabbatical year,

which has a stringency,

for it seizes their monetary value,

for the monetary value of Sabbatical-year produce is governed by the stringency of the laws of the Sabbatical year as though it were Sabbatical-year produce.

And likewise

from teruma

we will not know the prohibition of forbidden fat by a kal va-chomer, since teruma has a stringency that forbidden fat does not have, for it can be refuted:

What is true of teruma is that it was not permitted in any of its applications,

and it is forbidden in every circumstance. Whereas the prohibition of forbidden fat was permitted in one of its applications, for the fat of a wild animal is permitted for eating.

And this last refutation—that it is impossible to derive by a kal va-chomer a warning concerning forbidden fat from teruma because forbidden fat has an aspect of leniency, having been permitted in one of its applications—is also a refutation of all the forms of kal va-chomer derived above. Therefore,

from all of them

above

also

he cannot derive by a kal va-chomer a warning concerning forbidden fat,

for

all those prohibitions above

were not permitted in any of their applications,

and through this they are more stringent than the prohibition of forbidden fat, whose prohibition was permitted in one of its applications, regarding the fat of a wild animal. Therefore, the verse needed to state a negative-commandment warning concerning forbidden fat, and Ravina’s difficulty is resolved.

Rava said: If there is a difficulty for me

regarding deriving the warning concerning slaughtering outside by a kal va-chomer,

this is the difficulty for me:

That which we learned

at the beginning of Tractate Keritot: The punishment of karet stated regarding one who nullifies the commandment to offer the Passover sacrifice

and

who nullifies the commandment of

circumcision,

for failure to fulfill

a positive commandment

comes. Therefore, one is not liable for them to bring a sin-offering, for liability to bring a sin-offering exists only where there is a negative-commandment warning together with liability for karet.

And seemingly, according to Abaye, just as we learned a warning of a negative commandment by a kal va-chomer,

let there come

a warning of a negative commandment regarding the Passover sacrifice and circumcision

by a kal va-chomer from the leftover [sacred meat]

of the sacrificial meat until morning, and let it be said as follows:

Just as leftover, for which He did not punish

with karet if one transgressed and left it over,

the verse warned

concerning it with a negative-commandment warning not to leave it over; if so,

the Passover sacrifice and circumcision, regarding which He punished

with the punishment of karet for nullifying them,

is it not logical that the verse warned

not to nullify them, and that one should be liable for nullifying them unwittingly to bring a sin-offering?

Rav Ashi said: I stated the teaching,

Rava’s difficulty concerning Abaye’s words,

before Rav Kahana, and he said to me:

The warning concerning forbidden fat

cannot be derived from leftover

by a kal va-chomer, since

there is a basis for refuting it: What is true of leftover is that it has no remedy

once one has left it over,

can you say this regarding the Passover sacrifice, which has a remedy,

through offering the second Passover sacrifice! And the Gemara returns and raises a difficulty concerning Abaye’s derivation itself, that he derived a negative-commandment warning by a kal va-chomer:

And do they warn on the basis of an inference?

But

even according to the one who says that punishments are imposed on the basis of an inference,

he agrees that

warnings are not issued on the basis of an inference 20 .

And we answer:

Rather,

we learned the warning concerning slaughtering outside by a gezerah shavah, according to

Rabbi Yohanan.

For Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It is derived

for the warning against slaughtering outside through a gzera shava

“bringing

bringing”

from offering up outside.

Just as there

in offering up outside,

the Scripture did not punish

the person

unless he warned him, so too here,

in slaughtering outside,

it did not punish unless he warned him.

For a gzera shava directed for the purpose of this teaching is considered as though the matter were written explicitly, and this is not a derivation “from the law"】【。