Zevachim 37b (לז:) — the Talmud in English

It taught

that through this

the verse taught

that he

is given to the koen

like an unblemished firstborn,

a case for which we do not find anywhere in the entire Torah

another verse from which to learn this matter. However, it is impossible to expound the phrase “their blood and their fat” mentioned in the verse in this manner, since an animal with a permanent blemish is not sacrificed on the altar.

And we ask:

But Rabbi Yishmael,

who interprets the verse “and their flesh shall be yours” as including the flesh of an ox, sheep, and goat, from where does he derive this law that a firstborn with a permanent blemish is given to a koen?

And we answer:

He derives

this law

from

“and the right thigh

shall be yours,” which is the conclusion

of the passage stated there.

And we ask:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who interprets it

the verse “their blood and their fat”

also as referring to the second tithe and the Paschal offering,

this is

as it is written

at the beginning of this verse: “But the firstborn of an ox, etc.,

you shall not redeem,

because

they are sacred,”

as the verse comes to exclude and say that specifically

they are sacrificed, but their substitutes are not sacrificed.

And since the Paschal offering and the second tithe are also included in this exclusion, we can derive from here the rationale of these Mishnayot:

As we learned: The substitute of a firstborn and of the second tithe, and their offspring, and the offspring of their offspring, until the end of the world, are like a firstborn and the second tithe,

in that even when they have permanent blemishes, they are not redeemed in order to transfer their sanctity to money. However, as long as no blemish has been imposed upon them, they are not sacrificed as the firstborn and the second tithe themselves are; rather, they graze until a blemish occurs in them,

and are eaten by their owners with their blemishes.

And we learned: Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard

from my teachers

that the substitute of a Paschal offering is sacrificed

after Passover as a peace-offering.

And

I also heard that there is a

substitute of a Paschal offering

that

is not sacrificed,

but grazes until it develops a permanent blemish and is sold, and with its proceeds one brings a peace-offering.

And I cannot explain

which substitute of the Paschal offering I heard was to be sacrificed and which I heard was to graze. Rabbi Akiva explained this: If the substitution was made before Passover, it is not sacrificed, since it is a rejected Paschal offering. If the substitution was made after Passover, it is sacrificed, since it has the status of a substitute of a peace-offering.

Accordingly, according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the rationale of these Mishnayot is clear: The substitute of the Paschal offering and the substitute of the second tithe are not sacrificed, since they were excluded by the verse above.

But according to Rabbi Yishmael, who interprets it

the verse “their fat and their blood”

entirely as referring to a firstborn,

if so,

the second tithe and the Paschal offering, whose substitutes are not sacrificed—where does he derive this?

And we answer: The substitute of

the second tithe,

which is not sacrificed,

is derived

by a

gzera shava, “passes, passes,” from the firstborn.

Concerning the firstborn it is stated: “And you shall transfer every first issue of the womb to the Lord,” and concerning the second tithe it is stated: “Everything that passes under the rod.” Just as the substitute of a firstborn is not sacrificed, having been excluded by “they are sacred,” so too the substitute of the second tithe is not sacrificed.

As for the substitute of

the Paschal offering, it is explicitly written concerning it

that its inclusion as a sacrifice is limited. For it is stated in the passage concerning peace-offerings: “If it is a sheep, he shall bring it” [Leviticus 3]. Since it is stated

“sheep,” what does the verse teach by stating “if it is a sheep”?

This comes

to include the substitute of the Paschal offering made after Passover, so that it is sacrificed as a peace-offering.

One might have thought that even

the substitute of the Paschal offering

before Passover

has

this status. The verse therefore states

“It is the sacrifice of Passover”

—

the verse teaches that only the Paschal offering itself is sacrificed, but its substitute is not sacrificed.

And we ask:

And all those tannaim

above

who interpret this

verse, “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out,” for another exposition—how do they derive

this

law of the Mishna,

that with regard to all those blood applications performed on the outer altar, if one applied the blood once, he achieved atonement?

And we answer:

They hold

that these tannaim

follow the view of Beit Hillel

in the Mishna,

who say that even a sin-offering whose blood was applied once achieves atonement. And we derive all

the offerings

from a sin-offering.

We learned in the Mishna concerning the view of Beit Shammai:

And a sin-offering requires two applications:

Rav Huna said: What is the reason of Beit Shammai,

who hold that in the case of a sin-offering, two applications are indispensable?

Three passages are stated concerning external sin-offerings [Leviticus 4], and in all of them the law of applying the blood to the “horns” is stated in the plural. Concerning the sin-offering of a ruler, it states: “And he shall put it on the

horns

of the altar”; concerning the sin-offering of an individual female goat, it states: “And he shall put it on the

horns

of the altar of burnt-offering”; and concerning the sin-offering of an individual female sheep, it states: “And he shall put it on the

horns

of the altar of burnt-offering.”

And since the minimum of a plural expression is two,

there are six

horns here. Since the altar has only four horns,

four

of them were stated

as a mitzva, and two

the verse repeated in order

to make them indispensable.

And although in two of these instances the word “horns” is written defectively, without a vav, Beit Shammai maintain that “the reading is the determining factor”; that is, they expound the verse according to its pronunciation, rather than according to its spelling.

But Beit Hillel

hold that “the written form is the determining factor,” and the verse is expounded according to its spelling. Since two of them are written defectively, without a vav, it follows that

“horn, horn”

appears twice in the singular, while once it appears as

“horns”

in the plural.

There are therefore four

horns here.

Three are for the mitzva, and one is indispensable.

And we ask:

Perhaps

the mitzva of applying the blood to

all

four horns

was stated only as a mitzva

—that ideally one should apply it to the horns, but after the fact the offering achieves atonement even if one applied nothing at all, since the verse did not repeat the matter a second time to teach that this mitzva is indispensable?!

And we answer:

Atonement for nothing,

without charge, with no application of blood at all,

we do not find

and it is therefore necessary that one of the applications be indispensable.

Alternatively,

there is another reason:

This is the reason of Beit Hillel: They hold that

who hold that

the reading is effective

in order to expound according to the pronunciation,

and the written form is effective

in order to expound according to the spelling.

That is,

the reading is effective

in that it indicates six horns,

to add one. And the written form is effective

in that it indicates four horns,

to subtract one.

That is, since both the reading and the written form are taken into account, we must add one to the number indicated by the written form and subtract one from the number indicated by the reading. There are consequently five horns: four for the mitzva and one that is indispensable.

The Gemara challenges this reason, according to which both the reading and the written form are effective:

But if that is so,

with regard to what is stated concerning the compartments of the phylacteries,

“totafot”

[Deuteronomy 6],

“totafot”

[ibid. 11], written defectively twice, and also

“totafot”

[Exodus 13], written fully, and we expounded this

as indicating four,

why should it not be said here as well:

the reading is effective and the written form is effective,

and if so,

five

compartments

of phylacteries

would have to be made,

rather than four?!

And we answer:

Beit Hillel held

that

in accordance with Rabbi Akiva,

who derives the law of four passages in four compartments from only one occurrence of the expression “totafot” in the verse,

who says

that the verse is to be understood as follows:

“Tat” in the

language of the

Kafri

means

two.

And

“fot” in the

language of

Africa

means

two.

Thus the verse states four.

The Gemara asks further:

But if that is so,

with regard to what is stated concerning the sukka [Leviticus 23]:

“In booths,” “in booths,”

written defectively twice, and once more

“in sukkot,”

written fully, and we expounded this to teach the number of walls required for a sukka, why should it not be said

the reading is effective and the written form is effective,

and if so,

five walls would have to be made

for the sukka?!!?