Zevachim 37b — the Talmud in English

It taught

through this

the verse

that it is

given to a priest

according to the law of an unblemished firstborn,

for we have not found for it anywhere in the entire Torah

another verse from which to learn this matter. However, it is not possible to expound the “blood and fat” mentioned in the verse in this manner, for a blemished animal is not offered upon the altar.

And we raise an objection:

But Rabbi Yishmael,

who learned the verse “and their flesh shall be yours” to include the flesh of an ox, sheep, and goat, from where does he derive this law that a blemished firstborn is given to a priest?

And we answer:

He derives

this law

from

“and like the right thigh

shall be yours,” for this is at the end

of the matter stated there.

And we raise an objection:

Granted, according to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, who establishes it

the verse “their blood and their fat”

also with regard to the second tithe and the Paschal offering,

this is

as it is written

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

you shall not redeem

because

they are holy”,

where the verse comes to exclude and say: specifically,

they are offered, but their substitutes are not offered.

And since the Paschal offering and the tithe are also included in this exclusion, we can learn from here the reason for these Mishnayot:

As we learned: The substitute of a firstborn and of the tithe—whether they themselves, their offspring, or the offspring of their offspring, until the end of the entire world—are like a firstborn and the tithe,

for even when they are blemished, they are not redeemed in order to transfer their sanctity to money. But as long as no blemish has been imposed upon them, they are not offered according to the law of the firstborn and the tithe themselves; rather, they graze until a blemish occurs in them,

and they are eaten by their owners with their blemish.

And we learned: Rabbi Yehoshua said, I heard

from my teachers

that the substitute of the Paschal offering is offered

after Passover as a peace offering.

And

I also heard that there is a

substitute of the Paschal offering

that

is not offered,

but grazes until it becomes blemished and is sold, and with its value he brings a peace offering.

And I have no way to explain

—I forgot with regard to which substitute of the Paschal offering I heard that it is offered, and with regard to which I heard that it grazes. Rabbi Akiva explained this: If they exchanged it before Passover, it is not offered, since it is a rejected Paschal offering. And if they exchanged it after Passover, it is offered, for it has the law of a substitute of a peace offering.

And now, according to Rabbi Yose the Galilean, the reason for these Mishnayot is well explained: the substitute of the Paschal offering and of the tithe are not offered, since they were excluded by the verse above.

But according to Rabbi Yishmael, who establishes it

the verse “their fat and their blood”

entirely with regard to a firstborn,

if so,

with regard to the second tithe and the Paschal offering, whose substitutes are not offered, from where does he derive it?

And we answer: The substitute of the

second tithe,

which is not offered,

is derived

by a gezera shava,

“passing, passing,” from a firstborn.

It is stated with regard to a firstborn: “And you shall cause every first issue of the womb to pass to the Lord”; and it is stated with regard to the tithe: “Whatever passes under the rod.” And just as the substitute of a firstborn is not offered, having been excluded by “they are holy,” so too the substitute of the tithe.

But with regard to the substitute of the

Paschal offering, it is explicitly written concerning it

to include that its substitute is not offered. For it is stated in the section of peace offerings: “If it is a sheep, he shall offer it” [Leviticus 3]. And since it is stated

“a sheep,” what does “if it is a sheep” come to teach?

This comes

to include the substitute of the Paschal offering after Passover, that it is offered as a peace offering.

One might have thought that even

the substitute of the Paschal offering

before Passover

has this

law. The verse therefore says

“It is a Passover

sacrifice,”

teaching that only the Paschal offering itself is offered, but its substitute is not offered.

And we raise an objection:

And all those tannaim

above

who derive for it

the verse “And the blood of your sacrifices

shall be poured out” for another exposition, this

law of the Mishna,

that all those placed upon the outer altar, if one placed one application, it effects atonement—for where do they derive it?

And we answer:

They hold—

these tannaim—

in accordance with Beit Hillel

in the Mishna,

who say that even a sin offering for which one made one application effects atonement. And we derive all

the offerings

from a sin offering.

We learned in the Mishna according to the view of Beit Shammai:

And the sin offering, two applications:

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

who hold that in a sin offering two applications are indispensable?

Three sections were stated concerning external sin offerings [Leviticus 4], and in all of them the law of application upon “horns” is stated in the plural. With regard to the sin offering of a ruler it is stated: “And he shall place it upon the

horns

of the altar”; with regard to the sin-offering goat of an individual it is stated: “And he shall place it upon the

horns

of the altar of burnt offering”; and with regard to the female sheep of an individual it is stated: “And he shall place it upon the

horns

of the altar of burnt offering.”

And since the minimum of a plural is two,

there are here six

horns. And since the altar has only four horns, it follows that

four

were stated

as a mitzva. And two

the verse repeated in order

to make indispensable.

And although in two of them “horns” is written defectively, without a vav, Beit Shammai hold: “There is a mother for the reading,” meaning that they expound the verse according to its reading and not according to its writing.

And Beit Hillel

hold: “There is a mother for the tradition,” and the verse is to be expounded according to its writing. And since two of them were written defectively, without the letter vav, it turns out that

“horn, horn”

was stated twice in the singular, and once it was stated

“horns”

in the plural;

there are here four

horns.

Three are for the mitzva, and one is to make indispensable.

And we raise an objection:

But say that the mitzva of placing the blood upon

the mitzva of presenting the blood on

all of them,

the four horns,

was stated as a mitzva

to be performed initially—that initially one must place it upon the horns—but after the fact it effects atonement even if he did not place anything at all, for the verse did not repeat it a second time to say that this mitzva is indispensable!?

And we answer:

Atonement for nothing,

gratuitously, without any giving of blood at all,

we have not found,

and necessarily one of them is indispensable.

And if you wish, say

another reason:

this is the reason of Beit Hillel,

who hold that

the reading is useful

for expounding according to the reading,

and the tradition is useful

for expounding according to the writing.

That is,

the reading is useful

in that its meaning is six horns,

to add one. And the tradition is useful

in that its meaning is four horns,

to subtract one.

That is, since there are both the reading and the tradition, we must add one to the tradition and subtract one from the reading, and five horns result: four for the mitzva and one to make indispensable.

And we raise an objection to this reason, that both the reading was effective and the tradition was effective:

But from now,

concerning what is stated in the compartments of the phylacteries,

“totafot” [Deuteronomy 6],

Deuteronomy 6],

“totafot” [ibid. 11], twice defectively, and also

ibid. 11], both written defectively, and also

“totafot” [Exodus 13], written fully,

and we expounded this

there are here four,

why is it not said here as well,

the verse is useful and the tradition is useful,

and if so,

five

compartments

of phylacteries

must be made,

and not four!?

And we answer:

They hold it

Beit Hillel

in accordance with Rabbi Akiva,

who learns the law of four sections in four compartments from only one occurrence of the wording “totafot” in the verse,

who says:

This is how one must learn from the verse:

“Tot” in the language of the

Caphtei

language

means

two.

And

“fot” in the

language of

Africa

means

two.

Thus the verse said four.

And we raise another objection:

But from now,

concerning what is stated regarding a sukka [Leviticus 23]:

“In a sukka,” “in a sukka”

twice defectively, and once more

“in sukkot”

written fully, and we expounded this to teach the number of walls of the sukka, why is it not said

the verse is useful and the tradition is useful,

and if so,

five walls must be made

for the sukka!?