Zevachim 115a (קטו.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer: Is it true that

we have not

found such a case?!

But

the offering

of a Paschal offering during the rest of the year, which is unfit

if it was sacrificed

with its designation,

since the entire year is not its proper time,

is fit

if it was sacrificed

not with its designation 96 .

96 .

And we reject this:

a Paschal offering during the rest of the year

if it was slaughtered not with its designation,

is a peace offering!

That is its law: through the intention that it is not being offered with its designation, it becomes a peace offering. Consequently, this Paschal offering that was slaughtered as a peace offering is not considered a Paschal offering slaughtered “not with its designation”; rather, it is considered a peace offering slaughtered with its designation. Therefore, it cannot serve as proof that an offering can be rendered fit when sacrificed not with its designation even where it would be unfit if sacrificed with its designation.

Come and hear a support

for Rav Helkiah: As it was taught in a beraita: It is stated: “To the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it,” and from this all animals that are unfit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting were excluded from liability for slaughtering offerings outside.

One might think that I exclude

and exempt

even

if he sacrificed

an olah

that is

premature with regard to its owners,

as the time when its owners are obligated to bring it has not yet arrived,

and a nazirite’s asham and a leper’s asham

that have some disqualification [and below the Gemara explains which disqualification], and one might say that he should not be liable for them if he slaughtered them outside?

The verse states

in the passage concerning slaughtering offerings outside: “When one slaughters an ox or a sheep or a goat outside the camp.” And we expound: Since it would have been sufficient to write “when one slaughters outside the camp,” and we would have known that the reference is to an ox, a sheep, and a goat, these apparently superfluous words necessarily come to teach that one is liable for

“an ox,” in any case!

“a sheep,” in any case!

“a goat,” in any case!”

These disqualified offerings are included in liability for slaughtering offerings outside.

The Gemara infers:

But a sin offering, it left out

of the beraita, and it was not included as subject to liability.

With what are we dealing?

In what circumstance were a nazirite’s asham and a leper’s asham included as subject to liability for slaughtering them outside?

If you say

that he slaughtered them outside

at their proper time,

when the time had arrived at which their owners were obligated to bring them,

why specifically an asham,

for

even a sin offering as well

would entail liability? It is fit to be sacrificed inside [and an asham likewise requires no verse to include it].

Rather,

necessarily, the case is one in which he slaughtered them

not at their proper time.

And with what

are we dealing?

If you say

that he slaughtered them

with its designation, why is there liability for an asham?

It is not fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, since its proper time has not yet arrived.

Rather, is it not

a case in which he slaughtered the asham

not with its designation,

and the verse teaches that he is liable if he slaughtered it outside, since it is now fit to be sacrificed inside if he slaughters it with the intention that it is not being offered with its designation. This proves the opinion of Rav Helkiah.

And we reject this:

Actually,

the case is one in which he slaughtered it

at its proper time,

when the time had already arrived at which its owners were obligated to bring it, and he slaughtered it with the intention

not with its designation.

According to our view there is indeed no novelty here, because an asham is not disqualified when sacrificed “not with its designation.” But the beraita follows the opinion of

Rabbi Elazar, who says: We compare an asham to a sin offering

to disqualify an asham sacrificed not with its designation inside, like a sin offering. Therefore, the verse had to include this asham as subject to liability outside, because an asham sacrificed not with its designation is disqualified [if it were sacrificed inside], and one might have thought that even outside one is exempt for it, since its status as an asham has been removed and it is not accepted inside. The verse therefore teaches that one is liable for it: at the time he slaughtered it outside, its status as an asham had not yet been removed, and it was fit to be sacrificed inside with its designation.

And

the beraita could indeed have taught us this novelty with regard to a sin offering—that if one slaughtered it outside not with its designation, he is liable. However,

it taught the secondary case,

an asham, which is secondary because it is learned from a sin offering with regard to disqualification when sacrificed not with its designation;

and the same law applies to the primary case,

namely, a sin offering.

Come and hear

in support of Rabbi Helkiah: As it was taught:

One might think that I include

among those subject to liability for slaughtering offerings outside even one who slaughtered

an olah premature with regard to its body,

as the offering had not remained seven days under its mother,

and a sin offering

that is premature

either with regard to its body or with regard to its owners,

such as in the case of a nazirite or a leper whose days had not yet been completed for bringing their offerings?

The verse states: “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting

he did not bring it,” which indicates:

Anyone that is unfit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting is not subject to liability for them.

All of these are unfit to be sacrificed before their proper time.

The Gemara infers:

But an asham

that is premature

it left out

of the beraita, and it was not included as exempt.

With what are we dealing,

in what circumstance is the beraita speaking?

If you say

that he slaughtered the sin offering outside

with its designation, should an asham also not be exempt?

For it is not fit to be sacrificed inside, since it is still premature.

Rather, is it not

a case in which he slaughtered it

not with its designation,

and therefore the exemption applies only to a sin offering but not to an asham? For one is liable for an asham slaughtered outside even before its proper time, because although it is not fit when sacrificed with its designation, it is nevertheless fit to be sacrificed inside with the intention that it is not being offered with its designation, like all offerings that are fit when sacrificed not with their designation, although they do not fulfill the owners’ obligation. This is not so with a sin offering, which is disqualified when sacrificed not with its designation. Therefore, one is exempt for slaughtering it outside, since it is unfit to be sacrificed inside while premature, whether with its designation or not with its designation.

We have therefore learned from the beraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Helkiah, that one is liable for an asham that is premature when slaughtered outside not with its designation.

And we reject this:

Actually,

the beraita is discussing a case in which he slaughtered it

not with its designation,

but it does not mean to exempt specifically a sin offering and not an asham. Rather, the same law applies to an asham, because

who is the author of this? It is Rabbi Elazar, who compares an asham to a sin offering,

so that both are disqualified when sacrificed not with their designation. Accordingly, one is exempt for slaughtering either of them outside while they are premature, since they are unfit inside even when sacrificed not with their designation.

And it taught the primary case,

a sin offering,

and all the more so the secondary case,

an asham, which is learned from a sin offering as disqualified when sacrificed “not with its designation.” And an asham is learned from a sin offering to exempt one who slaughters it outside while it is premature, since the reason for both is the same: they are unfit whether sacrificed with their designation or not with their designation.

Come and hear: For when Rav Dimi came, he said: The school of Bar Livai taught: One might think that I exclude even an olah premature with regard to its owners and a nazirite’s asham and a leper’s asham?

And Rav Dimi concluded:

And the teaching attached a scriptural derivation to it;

the beraita included these disqualified offerings

as subject to liability, but I do not know what the scriptural derivation is,

from which verse they were included.

Ravina said

to Rav Dimi: Why did you not know which verse it is? For they expounded:

“‘An ox,’ in any case; ‘a sheep,’ in any case; ‘a goat,’ in any case!”

The Gemara’s intention is to prove as above: this beraita was cited [in the initial assumption] as support for Rabbi Helkiah and against Rav Huna.

And we raise a difficulty:

What difficulty is there

from this beraita for Rav Huna?

Perhaps it is as you said

above: ultimately, the proof for Rabbi Helkiah was rejected, and the intention of the beraita is to include a case in which it was slaughtered at its proper time. Consequently, there is no difficulty here for Rav Huna.

And we explain that there is indeed a difficulty from the beraita of Bar Livai for Rav Huna:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:

Rav Dimi did not establish the beraita of Bar Livai as the Gemara established it above—as referring to a case in which it was slaughtered before its proper time—

because Rav Dimi had difficulty

with the beraita

that the school of Bar Livai taught,

a

beraita taught by Levi.

Levi taught: A nazirite’s asham and a leper’s asham, if he slaughtered them not with their designation, are fit, but they do not fulfill the owners’ obligation. If he slaughtered them

inside

while they were premature with regard to their owners, or if they were two years old, and he slaughtered them, they are disqualified,

because the law of a nazirite’s asham and a leper’s asham is that they be sacrificed as a lamb that is one year old.

Rav Dimi raised a difficulty from the beraita, which states that an asham that is premature is disqualified inside, against the statement in the beraita of Bar Livai that one is liable for slaughtering an asham that is premature outside. After all, such offerings are unfit inside.

It is not difficult. Here,

where Levi taught that an asham that is premature is disqualified, it is when it was slaughtered

with its designation. Here,

where Bar Livai said that one is liable for an asham that is premature outside, it is when it was slaughtered

not with its designation,

since it is fit inside when offered with the intention that it is not being offered with its designation, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Helkiah.

Since Rav Dimi raised a difficulty against the beraita of Bar Livai and did not resolve it with the rejection of the Gemara above—that this beraita is speaking of an offering slaughtered at its proper time—it necessarily follows that Rav Dimi held that this beraita discusses an offering that is premature and not one slaughtered at its proper time. If so, it can be reconciled only by saying that it was slaughtered not with its designation, and the proof for Rabbi Helkiah remains, as the Gemara demonstrated above in its initial assumption. Therefore, he raised this difficulty against Rav Huna, his disputant.

Rav Ashi raised

an apparent contradiction from the

Mishna

in which we learned that one who sacrifices outside an asham of a man or woman who experienced a discharge, when it is premature, is exempt,

to the beraita

in which we learned above: “One might think that I exclude,” which included a nazirite’s asham and a leper’s asham as subject to liability outside [and it necessarily refers to one slaughtered before its proper time, as we inferred above in the initial assumption].

And he answers: Here,

in the Mishna, where we learned that he is exempt, it is when he sacrifices it

with its designation,

since it is not fit inside before its proper time.

And here,

in the beraita, it is when he sacrifices it

not with its designation,

and it is fit inside; therefore, he is liable for it outside, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Helkiah.

And we consider the matter:

Shall we say that this constitutes a refutation of Rav Huna

from the beraita of Bar Livai, from which we proved above that it is not in accordance with Rav Huna?

And we answer:

Rav Huna could say to you:

The reason that we find in this beraita that one is liable for an asham that is premature when slaughtered outside is not that the asham is fit to be sacrificed inside with the intention that it is not being offered with its designation, since there is no offering that is unfit when sacrificed with its designation yet fit when sacrificed not with its designation. Rather,

what are we dealing with here? For example, he designated two ashams as security,

so that if one of them is lost, he will achieve atonement through the other; and in such a case, if he slaughtered one of them outside before its proper time with the designation of an olah, he is liable for it, because

one of them is an olah,

as it will ultimately be sacrificed as an olah, for this is the law of these ashams: one is sacrificed as an asham, while the other grazes until it develops a blemish, is redeemed, and with its proceeds an offering is sacrificed for the maintenance of the altar, which is an olah. Therefore, even if the asham itself is sacrificed inside before its proper time with the designation of an olah, it is fit to be an olah.