Zevachim 12a — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

The evening incense

of evening

was linked

its burning

to the lamps, for it is written: “And when Aaron raises up the lamps between the evenings, he shall burn it.” And since we have proved that “between the evenings” stated concerning the lamps means in the evening, the same applies to the burning of the incense of “between the evenings”: it must likewise be performed only in the evening.

And we object: How could Ben Beteira say that the slaughter of the Paschal offering is even in the morning, when

there too

also

in the case of the Paschal offering

it is stated: “

There you shall slaughter the Paschal offering in the evening”?!

And we answer:

That “in the evening” did not come to teach us that the time of slaughtering the Paschal offering is after midday, but

it came

to “

delay a matter”

it came

, that if he delayed slaughtering the Paschal offering until the time for slaughtering the afternoon regular offering arrived, he must wait with slaughtering the Paschal offering until after slaughtering the regular offering.

For it was taught: It shall be delayed the Paschal offering, which is a matter concerning which both

“

in the evening”

and

“

between the evenings” are stated,

and

it shall be slaughtered later,

than the regular offering, which is

a matter concerning which only

“

between the evenings”

alone is stated .

And we object: Is there such a matter, that if he slaughtered it from the morning, you say its time has arrived and if when the time of between the evenings arrives, you say “ a matter shall be delayed,” and one must wait until the slaughtering of the regular offering, whereas the time of the Paschal offering is already from the morning, before the time of the regular offering of between the evenings has arrived? And we answer: Yes, for Rabbi Yohanan said

“between the evenings”

alone .

that one who delayed and did not pray the additional prayer until the time of the afternoon prayer arrived,

the halakha is:

he prays the afternoon prayer and afterward prays the additional prayer.

Even though the time of the additional prayer begins before the afternoon prayer!

And we object: According to Rabbi Oshaya, who said that “between the evenings” means between two evenings, except where it is explicitly stated that it is after midday toward evening, if so, the phrase

“

between the evenings”

which is written concerning the incense and concerning the lamps—

why do I need it, since from this we would not know that their time is toward evening?

And further it will be difficult according to Rabbi Oshaya. For it was taught

in the Tosefta:

Rabbi replied instead of

Ben Beteira, an answer

to the words of Rabbi Joshua [who validates a Paschal offering slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth not for its sake, as though it had been slaughtered on the thirteenth]:

No, do not compare the morning of the fourteenth to the thirteenth day, because if you say concerning the thirteenth

that one slaughtered it not for its sake and it is valid, this is only because

no part of it

of the thirteenth day

is fit

for offering the Paschal offering; can you say concerning the fourteenth morning that part of it

is fit

for offering the Paschal offering? Therefore, if he slaughters in the morning not for its sake, the offering is disqualified.

And the Gemara infers:

And if it is so

with regard to Rabbi Oshaya’s statement that Ben Beteira validates slaughtering the Paschal offering for its sake even in the morning, why did Rabbi [in place of Ben Beteira] say that the fourteenth day is “partly fit”? According to Ben Beteira, in accordance with Rabbi Oshaya, the day

is entirely fit, is it not?

Rather, Rabbi Yohanan said: Ben Beteira would disqualify a Paschal offering slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth, whether

it was slaughtered

for its sake—for Ben Beteira did not disagree with the Sages concerning this, and held like them that the time of the Paschal offering is only after midday, and therefore if it was slaughtered in the morning for its sake, it is like one who slaughters it for its sake on the other days of the year and it is disqualified—

whether

it was slaughtered

not for its sake. In this Ben Beteira disagreed with the Sages, and held that a Paschal offering slaughtered not for its sake on the morning of the fourteenth is disqualified, and it is not similar to a Paschal offering slaughtered not for its sake on the other days of the year, which is valid, because this is not the time of its offering.

Since part of it of the fourteenth day [after midday]

is fit for offering the Paschal offering, therefore the entire day is its time, and one who thinks of it at the time of bringing it not for its sake disqualifies it .

of the thirteenth day

is fit

for bringing the Paschal offering.

Can you say with regard to the fourteenth

morning

Rabbi Abahu reviled this [Rabbi Abahu argued against these words of Rabbi Yohanan]:

If so, that one who slaughters the Paschal offering on the morning of the fourteenth is disqualified whether he slaughtered it for its sake or not for its sake,

where could one find a Paschal offering valid according to Ben Beteira?

For

if

the matter concerns one who designated it

for the Paschal offering

now, on the morning of the fourteenth, then it is unfit whether he slaughters it for its sake or whether he slaughters it not for its sake—

it is rejected from the outset!

At the time of designation it was unfit for offering and became disqualified forever.

And if

the matter concerns one who designated it

yesterday—

it was fit and became rejected!

For although at the time of its designation it was fit to be offered with the thought of not for its sake, once the morning of the fourteenth arrived it was unfit for offering in every respect, and therefore it became rejected. Through this rejection it is rejected forever?!

Rather, Rabbi Abahu said: According to Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that Ben Beteira disqualifies it on the morning of the fourteenth in every respect, we find a valid Paschal offering only when

its

designation for the offering

will be on the fourteenth day

after midday, when it is fit to be offered for its sake .

Rabbi Abahu challenged this

[he argued against Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement]:

If so,

if one who slaughters the Paschal offering on the morning of the fourteenth disqualifies it whether he slaughtered it for its designated purpose or not for its designated purpose,

how can a valid Paschal offering according to ben Beteira ever be found?

For

if

the case is one in which he

designated it

as a Paschal offering

today

on the morning of the fourteenth, when it is unfit whether he slaughters it for its designated purpose or whether he slaughters it not for its designated purpose, then

it was rejected from the outset!

At the time he designated it, it was unfit to be offered, and it is disqualified forever.

And if

the case is one in which

he designated it yesterday—

it was fit and then rejected!

Although at the time of its designation it was fit to be offered with an improper designation, once the morning of the fourteenth arrived and it was unfit to be offered in every circumstance, it was rejected. Because of this rejection, it remains rejected forever?!

Rather, Rabbi Abahu said:

According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who holds that ben Beteira disqualifies it on the morning of the fourteenth in every circumstance, a valid Paschal offering is found only when

its designation

as an offering takes place on the fourteenth day

after midday,

when it is fit to be offered for its designated purpose.

Abaye said: You can even say

that they separated it

in the morning

—it is not rejected, even though at that time it is not fit for sacrifice, because since after midday it will be fit for sacrifice,

there is no

disqualification of

“lacking time”

for that very day. And the court in the morning is not considered “rejected from the outset,” and therefore it is not rejected. But if he consecrates it earlier, it is disqualified according to Rabbi Yohanan, because it was rejected on the morning of the fourteenth, when it is fit neither for the Passover-offering nor for peace-offerings; and only with regard to lacking time is the entire day considered one period of time, so that if it is fit at the end of the day, he may separate it from the morning.

Rav Pappa said: You can even say

that they separated it

in the evening

of the eve of the fourteenth; it is not rejected. For

night,

even though it is not fit for sacrifice at that time,

has no

disqualification of

lacking time,

if that night is the eve of a day on which that offering is fit for sacrifice. For the night is one period of time with the day. But if he consecrates it earlier, it is disqualified according to Rabbi Yohanan, because it will be rejected on the morning of the fourteenth.

And the proof that the offering is not rejected through separation at night, even though at that time it is disqualified for sacrifice,

is that the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught

The offspring of a pure animal, when seven days have passed over it and

the night of the eighth

day from its birth has arrived, it

enters the pen

to join animals over which eight days have already passed, in order

to be tithed

with the animal-tithe. It no longer has the disqualification of “lacking time,” which prevents it from being tithed, even though the morning of the eighth day has not yet arrived, when it becomes fit to be sacrificed as an offering. For once the night of the eighth day has arrived, the entire deficiency with regard to sacrifice is that the morning of that day has not yet arrived, and there is no “lacking time for that very day.”

And in accordance with Rabbi Aptoriki—

for Rabbi Aptoriki raised a contradiction: It is written, “

And it shall be seven days under its mother” ,

for during those seven days it is disqualified as an offering because it is “lacking time”;

but

when the seven days have passed and

the night

of the eighth day has arrived, it is

fit

for sacrifice, because although in practice it is impossible to sacrifice at night, it is not considered “lacking time” on that account. On the other hand,

it is written, “

And from the eighth day onward it shall be accepted”;

this means that the night

preceding the eighth

is not fit

for sacrifice, for it is still lacking time.

How, then,

can these two verses be fulfilled?

Say from this:

night

is fit

for consecration

—it is already possible to separate it and consecrate it as an offering without its being subject to rejection because of lacking time, since there is no lacking time for that very day. In this way the verse “Seven days it shall be under its mother” is fulfilled, whose meaning is that on the eve of the eighth day it is already fit for an offering.

And a day for acceptance,

with regard to its sacrifice, it is fit only from the eighth day, since the services that effect acceptance for an offering are not performed at night. In this way the verse “and from the eighth day onward it shall be accepted” is fulfilled. It follows that he may separate it at night, even though he may sacrifice it only during the day.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu:

From your words—that Rabbi Yohanan validates the Passover-offering according to Ben Beteira only when it was separated after midday on the fourteenth, because if it was separated before midday it was rejected from the outset, whereas if it was separated on the previous day it was fit and then rejected, and would no longer be fit for sacrifice—

shall we say that Rabbi Yohanan holds that living animals are subject to rejection,

and does not hold that rejection applies specifically to slaughtered animals?

He said to him,

Rabbi Abbahu:

Yes!

And the proof of this is what

Rabbi Yohanan said:

A cow belonging to two partners,

when one of the partners

consecrated

his

half

of the animal belonging to him, that half acquires sanctity of the body for its value. The animal itself cannot be sacrificed, since it is impossible to sacrifice an animal one half of which is an offering and the other half of which is unconsecrated. Rather, it acquires sanctity for the purpose that he must sell his half of the animal and bring an offering with the proceeds of the sale.

This sanctity is not considered merely “sanctity of value” for the maintenance of the Temple, but sanctity of the body for its value: he must purchase an offering with its value and sacrifice it.

And if, after he consecrated

his half and then returned and acquired

from his partner

his half

of the animal,

and consecrated it,

consecrating the second half also with the sanctity of an offering, then the entire animal is now

sacred

with sanctity of the body for its value. Therefore it must graze until a defect occurs in it; he sells it and brings an offering with its value.

But it itself

is not offered

even though now all of it possesses kedushat ha-guf, since once it was initially rejected—when he consecrated only half of it—it was rejected permanently.

And although it itself is not offered, since its sanctity is kedushat ha-guf for its value, it

effects temura

like every offering concerning which an unconsecrated animal was exchanged, whereby the unconsecrated animal becomes sanctified and becomes an offering—temura .

And its temura

of this animal, its law is

like it,

that it is not offered upon the altar, but grazes until a blemish befalls it, and he sells it and brings an offering with its value.

And learn from it

from these words of Rabbi Yohanan

three things:

V Kehilot Yaakov [11] napisal, chto Rambam ne obyasnyaet nashu sugiu podobno Rashi, kotoryy vidit noviznu v tom, chto otverzhenie deystvuet dazhe pri legkoy svyatosti, takoy kak kedushat damim, a podobno Rabenu Ḥananelu: novizna v tom, chto otverzhenie otmenyaet dazhe stoimost zhertvy. Soglasno etomu, mozhet byt, pri kedushat damim, voznikayushchey v samom zhertvennom zhivotnom, bolee logichno schitat, chto otverzhenie deystvuet. A pochemu Rambam dolzhen byl skazat, chto pri kedushat damim otverzhenie ne deystvuet potomu, chto zhivye sushchestva ne otvergayutsya, vmesto togo chtoby emu bylo dostatochno skazat, chto otverzhenie ne deystvuet v otnoshenii kedushat ha-guf, tak kak pervonachalnoe otverzhenie ne schitaetsya otverzheniem? Eto potomu, chto on postanavlivaet po mneniyu Rabi Yoḥanana: pervonachalnoe otverzhenie schitaetsya otverzheniem; tolko v sluchae poroka, ne otnosyashchegosya k samomu zhertvennomu zhivotnomu, on postanovil, chto eto ne otverzhenie. Rech idet tolko o poroke, voznikshem v polovine zhivotnogo iz-za togo, chto v ego vtoroy polovine byla proizvedena obychnaya, nezakonnaya shḥita; no porok, voznikshiy iz-za togo, chto byla posvyashchena tolko polovina zhivotnogo, yavlyaetsya nedostatkom v samom zhivotnom i schitaetsya pervonachalnym otverzheniem. Poetomu zdes neobkhodim prichina, chto zhivye sushchestva ne otvergayutsya. Eta prichina deystvuet dazhe dlya togo, chtoby otverzhenie ne voznikalo pri legkoy svyatosti, takoy kak kedushat damim.

Learn from it

that even

living creatures

that were rejected from offering are

rejected

forever, despite their having again become fit for offering; and he does not hold that a rule was established concerning rejection that it applies specifically to offerings that were slaughtered and rejected after slaughter.

And

so

learn from it

that the law of “rejection forever” was not stated specifically with regard to an offering that had already been sanctified and had been fit for offering, and afterwards was rejected, but also with regard to an offering that was

rejected from the outset,

which at the beginning of its consecration was not fit:

there was rejection;

it is rejected forever !