Zevachim 12a (יב.) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

The evening incense

of the evening

as it is juxtaposed

its burning

to the lamps, as it is written: “And when Aaron raises the lamps between the evenings—he shall burn it.” And once we have proved that “between the evenings” stated with regard to the lamps means in the afternoon, the same applies to the burning of the incense of “between the evenings”: It must likewise be performed only in the afternoon.

And we challenge: How could ben Beteira say that the slaughter of the Paschal offering is permitted even in the morning? But

there,

there

[with regard to the Paschal offering]

also

it is stated: “

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

And we answer:

That

“in the evening” does not come to teach us that the time for slaughtering the Paschal offering is after midday; rather,

to “

defer the matter”

is what it comes, meaning: If one delayed slaughtering the Paschal offering until the time for slaughtering the afternoon tamid arrived, he must wait with slaughtering the Paschal offering until after slaughtering the tamid.

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

As it was taught in a baraita: “It shall be deferred”

the Paschal offering, which is

a matter concerning which

both

“in the evening”

and

both

“between the evenings”

are stated, and it shall be slaughtered later

than

the tamid, which is

a matter concerning which only

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 is stated .

And we challenge:

Is there such a thing—that if he slaughtered it in the morning, you say that its time has arrived,

but

if

when

the time

of between the evenings arrives, you say “‘

The matter shall be deferred,’”

and one must wait until the slaughtering of the tamid, even though the time of the Paschal offering is already from the morning, before the time of the afternoon tamid has arrived?

And we answer:

Yes, for Rabbi Yoḥanan said

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 then prays the additional prayer,

even though the time of the additional prayer begins before that of the afternoon prayer! And we challenge: 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, the following difficulty arises:

“Between the evenings”

which is written with regard to the incense and with regard to the lamps—

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

We would not know from it that their time is toward evening.

Furthermore,

a difficulty arises according to Rabbi Oshaya. Is it not

taught

in the Tosefta:

Rabbi responded

in place of

ben Beteira

with an answer

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

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—

No,

the morning of the fourteenth cannot be compared to the thirteenth, because

if you say with regard to the thirteenth

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

no part

of the thirteenth

is fit

for offering the Paschal offering;

can you say with regard to the fourteenth

morning

that part

of this day

is fit for offering the Paschal offering? Therefore, if one slaughters it in the morning not for its sake, the offering is invalid.

And the Gemara infers:

And it analyzes:

But if it is so,

according to Rabbi Oshaya’s statement that ben Beteira deems the slaughter of the Paschal offering for its sake valid even in the morning, why did Rabbi [in place of ben Beteira] say that the fourteenth day is “partially fit”? According to ben Beteira, in Rabbi Oshaya’s understanding, the day

is entirely fit?

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Ben Beteira would deem invalid a Paschal offering slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth, whether

it was slaughtered

for its sake—

because ben Beteira did not disagree with the Sages in this regard, and agreed with them that the time of the Paschal offering is only after midday, so that 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 is invalid—

whether

it was slaughtered

not for its sake.

In this, ben Beteira disagreed with the Sages and maintained that a Paschal offering slaughtered not for its sake on the morning of the fourteenth is invalid. It is not comparable to a Paschal offering slaughtered not for its sake on the other days of the year, which is valid, because those are not the time of its offering;

since part

of the fourteenth day [after midday]

is fit

for offering the Paschal offering, the entire day is its time, and one who has an intention concerning it at the time of its offering not for its sake invalidates it .

Rabbi Abbahu ridiculed this [Rabbi Abbahu argued against these words of Rabbi Yoḥanan]:

[he argued against Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement]:

If so,

if one who slaughters the Paschal offering on the morning of the fourteenth renders it invalid whether he slaughtered it for its sake or not for its sake,

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

For

if

the case is

where he designated it

for the Paschal offering

today,

on the morning of the fourteenth, at which point it is unfit whether he slaughters it for its sake or whether he slaughters it not for its sake—

it was initially rejected!

At the time of its designation it was unfit for offering, and it is permanently invalidated.

And if

the case is one

where he designated it yesterday—

it was initially fit and then rejected!

For although at the time of its designation it was fit to be offered with an intention not for its sake, once the morning of the fourteenth arrived it became unfit for offering in every circumstance, and it was rejected. As a result of this rejection, it is rejected forever?!

Rather, Rabbi Abbahu said:

According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says that ben Beteira invalidates it in every circumstance on the morning of the fourteenth, a valid Paschal offering can be found only when

its designation shall be

for the offering on the fourteenth day

after midday,

when it is fit to be offered for its sake .

Abaye said: You can even say

that he separated it

in the morning

and it is not rejected, even though at that time it is not fit for sacrifice, since once midday arrives it will be fit for sacrifice.

There is no

disqualification of

being lacking time

for that same day. And the morning of the fourteenth is not considered “rejected from the outset,” and therefore it is not rejected. But if he consecrates it before then, it becomes disqualified according to Rabbi Yohanan, because it was rejected on the morning of the fourteenth, when it was fit neither for the Paschal offering nor for a peace-offering. Only with regard to being lacking time is the entire day considered one time-period; if it will be fit at the end of the day, he may separate it in the morning.

Rav Pappa said: You can even say

that he separated it

in the evening

of the night preceding the fourteenth, and it is not rejected. For

the night,

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

does not have

the disqualification of

being lacking time

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

The proof that the offering is not rejected when separated at night, even though it is disqualified for sacrifice at that time, is

from that which was taught in the school of Rabbi Ishmael

An offspring of a kosher animal that has completed seven days and has reached

the night of the eighth

day after its birth

enters the pen

to join animals that have already completed eight days, in order

to be tithed

with the animal tithe. It no longer has the disqualification of “being lacking time,” which prevents an animal 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 regarding sacrifice is only that the morning of that day has not yet arrived; there is no “being lacking time for that same day.”

And in accordance with Rabbi Aptoriki—

for Rabbi Aptoriki raises a contradiction: It is written,

“And it shall be seven days under its mother” ,

during those seven days it is disqualified as an offering, being “lacking time.”

But

when the seven days have passed and

the night

of the eighth day has arrived, it is

fit

for sacrifice. Although in practice it is impossible to sacrifice it at night, this does not cause it to be considered “lacking time.” Conversely,

it is written,

“And from the eighth day onward it shall be accepted,”

so the night

preceding the eighth

is not fit

for sacrifice, since it is still lacking time.

How

are these two verses to be reconciled?

It may now be stated:

the night

is fit

for consecration,

so that it is already possible to separate it and consecrate it as an offering without its being rejected because it is lacking time, since there is no lacking time for that same day. In this way the verse “Seven days it shall be under its mother” is fulfilled, meaning that on the night preceding the eighth day it is already fit as an offering.

And the day is for the offering’s acceptance,

for purposes of its sacrifice it is fit only from the eighth day, since the sacrificial services that effect atonement are not performed at night. Thus the verse “And from the eighth day onward it shall be accepted” is fulfilled. It follows that he may separate it at night, although he may sacrifice it only during the day.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abahu:

From your words—that Rabbi Yohanan validates the Paschal offering according to ben Betera 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 the previous day it appeared fit and was then rejected, and would no longer be fit for sacrifice—

let us say that Rabbi Yohanan holds that living animals are subject to rejection,

and does not hold that rejection takes effect only with slaughtered animals.

He said to him,

Rabbi Abahu:

Yes!

The proof is from

what Rabbi Yohanan said:

In the case of an animal belonging to two partners,

one of the partners

consecrated

the

half

of the animal belonging to him, that half acquires the sanctity of the body for its monetary value. The animal itself cannot be sacrificed, since it is impossible to sacrifice an animal that is half an offering and half non-sacred. Rather, it is consecrated in the sense that he must sell his half of the animal and bring an offering with the proceeds of the sale.

This sanctity is not merely “sanctity of monetary value” for the maintenance of the Temple; it is sanctity of the body for its monetary value, meaning that he must purchase an offering with its value and sacrifice it.

And if, after he consecrated half of it, he

went back and acquired

from his partner

the half

that belonged to the other partner , and

consecrated it,

the second half as well with the sanctity of an offering, then the entire animal is now

consecrated

with sanctity of the body for its monetary value. Therefore, it must graze until it develops a blemish, after which he sells it and brings an offering with its value.

no sama ona

ne prinositsya

nesmotrya na to chto teper vsey ee tselikom obladaet kedushat ha-guf, poskolku, buduchi otvergnutoy vnachale — kogda on posvyatil tolko ee polovinu, — ona byla otvergnuta navsegda.

I hotya ona sama ne prinositsya, poskolku ee svyatost yavlyaetsya kedushat ha-guf v otnoshenii ee stoimosti, ona

porozhdaet temurah

tochno tak zhe, kak lyubaya zhertva, v kotoroy obychnuyu zhivotnuyu skotinu obmenyali na zhertvennuyu: obychnaya zhivotnaya skotina osv yashchaetsya i stanovitsya zhertvoy — temurah .

A ee temurah

etogo zhivotnogo, po zakonu

takaya zhe, kak ono samo: ona ne prinositsya na mizbeah, a dolzhna pas tis do poyavleniya poroka; zatem ee prodayut i na ee stoimost prinosyat druguyu zhertvu.

it may not be brought on the altar. Rather, it must graze until it develops a blemish; then he sells it and brings an offering with the money received for it.

I sleduet iz etogo

iz etih slov Rabi Yoḥanana

tri veshchi:

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.

Sleduet iz etogo

chto takzhe

zhivye sushchestva,

otvergnutye ot prineseniya

otvergayutsya navsegda, nesmotrya na to, chto vnov stali godnymi dlya prineseniya; on ne schitaet, chto zakon otverzheniya otnositsya imenno k zhertvam, kotorye byli zakoloty i posle shḥita otvergnuty.

forever, even if they later become fit to be brought as offerings. He does not maintain that the principle of rejection applies specifically to offerings that were slaughtered and rejected after slaughter.

And

I

sleduet iz etogo

chto zakon «otverzheniya navsegda» skazan ne tolko o zhertve, kotoraya uzhe byla osv yashchena i godilas dlya prineseniya, a zatem byla otvergnuta, no i o zhertve, kotoraya byla

pervonachalno otvergnuta,

ne godilas v nachale ee osv yashcheniya, —

to bylo otverzheniem,

i ona otvergayetsya navsegda !