Zevachim 106b (קו:) — the Talmud in English

for their punishment is stated

here, as it is said: “

And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting

he did not bring it—and he shall be cut off.”

From where is the warning derived? As it is written: "

Take care for yourself, lest you offer your burnt offerings

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

Thus far, the verse is not speaking of offerings that were consecrated before the Tabernacle was erected, when private altars were permitted.

Had only this verse been stated, it would emerge that these offerings, which were fit to be offered outside at the time of their consecration, would remain fit to be offered outside even after the Tabernacle was erected and private altars were prohibited.

From this point onward,

from the verse: “So that the Children of Israel may bring their sacrifices that they slaughter in the open field—and bring them to the Lord, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,”

it is speaking of offerings that one consecrated while private altars were permitted, but offered while private altars were prohibited.

For it is stated: “So that the Children of Israel may bring their sacrifices that they slaughter,”

and this indicates that even those

offerings that I had previously permitted you

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

“in the open field,” meaning to tell you: One who slaughters

on an outside private altar

at a time when private altars are prohibited, the verse regards him as though he had offered it in the open field

rather than for the sake of Heaven!

The beraita continues to interpret the continuation of the passage: “And bring them to the Lord”

—

this is a positive commandment

to offer them in the Tabernacle!

As for the negative commandment

with regard to those consecrated while private altars were permitted,

from where is it derived?

The verse states: “And they shall no longer slaughter!”

meaning that only from now onward are they prohibited, whereas until now they had been permitted.

Could one be punished with karet

for those offerings that were consecrated while private altars were permitted and offered while private altars had become prohibited?

The verse states: “This shall be an everlasting statute for them throughout their generations.”

And this is the explanation of the verse:

“This”

alone—the punishment of the positive and negative commandments stated in the passage—shall be

“for them,”

for those who offer offerings consecrated while private altars were permitted and offer them while private altars are prohibited.

But

a punishment

other

than this, namely karet, shall not be

for them!

Since the verse “And they shall no longer slaughter” is necessary to prohibit offerings consecrated while private altars were permitted and offered while private altars were prohibited, from where do we derive a warning against slaughtering outside?

And we answer:

Rather, Abaye said:

The warning against slaughtering outside is derived through a

kal va-chomer: Just as where the Torah did not punish

with karet—in the case of offerings consecrated while private altars were permitted and offered while private altars were prohibited—

it warned

with the verse, “And they shall no longer slaughter,”

where it punished

with karet—in the case of offerings consecrated while private altars were prohibited—

is it not logically so that it warned

regarding them?

Ravina said to Abaye:

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

if so, the verse should not state

the

negative commandment concerning forbidden fat, and the warning

against eating forbidden fat should be derived through a

kal va-chomer from

the warning against eating

an unslaughtered animal: Just as in the case of an unslaughtered animal, for which the Torah did not punish

one who eats it with karet, nevertheless it

warned

against it with a negative commandment,

forbidden fat,

with regard to which we find that the Torah

punished

one who eats it with karet,

is it not logically so that it warned

against it!? This derivation through a kal va-chomer would be considered as though an explicit warning of a negative commandment had been stated with regard to forbidden fat. If so, the negative commandment that the verse stated concerning forbidden fat would be unnecessary.

Ravina came

to

Rava. He said to him:

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

the warning concerning forbidden fat cannot be derived

from an unslaughtered animal through a kal va-chomer, because

there is a basis for refuting it: What is distinctive about an unslaughtered animal? It imparts ritual impurity

to one who touches it. Can you say the same with regard to forbidden fat, which does not impart ritual impurity to one who touches it?

And if you wish to derive the warning concerning forbidden fat through a kal va-chomer

from impure creeping animals,

it could be refuted:

What is distinctive about impure creeping animals? They impart impurity

to one who touches them

through any amount;

can you say the same with regard to forbidden fat, which does not impart impurity?

And if you derive the warning concerning forbidden fat through a kal va-chomer

from pure creeping animals,

it can be refuted:

What is distinctive about pure creeping animals? Their prohibition

against eating is

through any amount [the size of a lentil]. Can you say the same with regard to forbidden fat, whose prohibited measure is an olive-bulk?

And it is likewise impossible to derive the warning concerning forbidden fat through a kal va-chomer

from

orla and mixed species of the vineyard,

because we can refute it:

What is distinctive about orla and mixed species of the vineyard?

They are stringent,

as they are prohibited to derive benefit from!

Likewise,

from the Sabbatical year

one cannot derive through a kal va-chomer a warning concerning forbidden fat, because

what is distinctive about the Sabbatical year?

It has an additional stringency,

as it takes hold of the money exchanged for its produce:

the money of Sabbatical-year produce is subject to the stringency of the laws of the Sabbatical year, as though it were itself Sabbatical-year produce.

Likewise,

from teruma

we would not know the prohibition against forbidden fat through a kal va-chomer, because teruma has a stringency that forbidden fat does not have. We can refute it:

What is distinctive about teruma? It was not permitted in any respect,

and it is prohibited in every circumstance. By contrast, the prohibition of forbidden fat was permitted in some respect, for the fat of a wild animal is permitted to eat.

This final refutation—that the warning concerning forbidden fat cannot be derived through a kal va-chomer from teruma because forbidden fat has the leniency that its prohibition was permitted in some respect—also refutes all the forms of kal va-chomer mentioned above. Therefore,

from all of them

above,

as well

it is impossible to derive a warning concerning forbidden fat through a kal va-chomer,

since

all those prohibitions mentioned above

were not permitted in any respect,

and in this they are more stringent than the prohibition of forbidden fat, whose prohibition was permitted in some respect with regard to the fat of a wild animal. Therefore, the verse had to state an explicit negative-commandment warning concerning forbidden fat, and Ravina’s difficulty is resolved.

Rava said: If there is a difficulty for me

concerning deriving the warning for slaughtering outside through 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 with regard to one who neglects the commandment to offer the

Paschal offering and

the commandment of

circumcision

comes for failing to fulfill a

positive commandment.

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

Seemingly, according to Abaye, just as we derived a negative-commandment warning through a kal va-chomer,

let the warning

against violating the Paschal offering and circumcision

be derived through a kal va-chomer from notar:

from the sacrificial meat that must be eaten by morning, and let us say as follows:

Just as with regard to notar, for which the Torah did not punish

one with karet if he left it over,

it warned

against it through a negative commandment not to leave it over, so

with regard to the Paschal offering and circumcision, for which the Torah punished

with karet for neglecting them,

is it not logically so that it warned

against neglecting them, and one should be liable to bring a sin-offering for neglecting them unwittingly?

Rav Ashi said: I stated this 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 notar

through a kal va-chomer, since

there is a basis for refuting it: What is distinctive about notar? It has no remedy

once one has left it over.

Can you say the same with regard to the Paschal offering, which has a remedy,

through offering a second Paschal offering! The Gemara returns to challenge the very derivation by which Abaye learned a negative-commandment warning through a kal va-chomer:

And do they issue a warning on the basis of a logical inference?

But

even according to the one who says that punishment can be derived through a logical inference,

he concedes that

a warning cannot be derived through a logical inference.

And we answer:

Rather,

we derive the warning against slaughtering outside through a gzera shava, in accordance with the opinion

of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

As Rabbi Yohanan said: It is derived

for the warning against slaughtering outside through a gezeirah shavah

“bringing -

bringing”

from raising outside.

Just as there,

with regard to raising outside,

the verse did not punish

the person

unless it warned; so too here,

with regard to slaughtering outside,

it did not punish unless it warned.

For a gezeirah shavah directed toward this teaching is considered as though the matter had been written explicitly, and this is not a derivation “from the law.”