Zevachim 48a — the Talmud in English

We learned in the Mishna:

The bull and goat of Yom Kippur

their slaughter is in the north.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

Granted,

the law of slaughter being

in the north is written concerning the burnt-offering

at the beginning of the portion of Leviticus: “And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward,” and if so,

let him teach the burnt-offering first,

and why does he teach it concerning the sin-offering first in the Mishna?

And we answer:

Since the sin-offering, its slaughter comes

in the north

from a derivation,

from the juxtaposition of the sin-offering to the burnt-offering, as it is written: “In the place where they slaughter the burnt-offering, they shall slaughter the sin-offering,”

it is beloved to him

the tannai, and therefore he taught the slaughter of the sin-offering in the north first.

And furthermore, we raised a difficulty concerning it: Why did the tannai teach the law of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, and the law of the bulls and goats that are burned, which are inner sin-offerings, first,

and let him teach

the law of

the outer sin-offerings first!?

And we answer:

Since he taught, “their blood enters

of the inner sin-offerings

inside and inside

to be sprinkled in the Sanctuary opposite the curtain and on the golden altar,”

it is beloved to him,

and he taught it first.

And now the Gemara explains: From where did we learn that all offerings that are kodshei kodashim have their slaughter in the north?

And “northward” concerning the burnt-offering—

where is it written? “

And if his offering is from the flock,

he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward.”

And the beginning of the verse is written concerning the burnt-offering.

We find [this] for one from the flock,

about which the verse is speaking;

from where do we know [this] for one from cattle,

that its slaughter also is in the north?

The verse says: “And if [his offering] is from the flock

his offering.” The letter

vav

which adds in the verse “And if [his offering] is from the flock,” is

adding to the first matter,

which is one from cattle, as it is written before it.

And it teaches

the one from cattle, which is

above,

written above,

from

the one from the flock

below,

written below.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

This works well according to the one who says that we teach

by means of the letter vav, which adds to the first matter, and we learn

the above from the below,

we properly learn for the one from cattle, whose slaughter is in the north, from the one from the flock, which is written after it.

But according to the one who says that we do not learn

the above from the below,

what is there to say?

And the Gemara explains where the tannaim disagreed as to whether or not we learn the above from the below: The Torah stated the portion concerning one who misappropriates consecrated property, who is obligated to bring a guilt-offering for misuse for his sin. After it, the Torah wrote the portion of a provisional guilt-offering, so that anyone who is uncertain whether he sinned inadvertently in a matter for which one is liable to karet when intentional and to a sin-offering when inadvertent is obligated to bring a provisional guilt-offering. And the tannaim disagreed concerning one who is uncertain whether he misused consecrated property or not, whether he is obligated to bring a provisional guilt-offering, even though if he were certain that he had sinned, he would be obligated not in a sin-offering but in a guilt-offering for misuse. Their dispute is whether it is possible to learn the law of one who misuses consecrated property, which is above, from the law of a provisional guilt-offering, which is below.

As it was taught:

It is stated concerning a provisional guilt-offering: “

And if a person

shall sin.” To teach

that one is liable for uncertain misuses [to bring] a provisional guilt-offering; these are the words of Rabbi Akiva. And the Sages exempt

one who is uncertain whether he misused [consecrated property] from a provisional guilt-offering.

Is it not that they disagree in this matter,

Rabbi Akiva and the Sages:

that one says,

Rabbi Akiva

holds that we learn

the above from the below by means of the additive letter vav, and therefore we learn the above, which is uncertain misuse, from the below, for which one brings a provisional guilt-offering?

And [the other] says,

the Sages

hold: We do not learn

the above from the below.

And according to the Sages, it is difficult: From where do we know that the slaughter of the one from cattle also must be performed in the north? For according to their words, we do not learn the above from the below!?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said:

Rabbi Akiva and the Sages did not disagree as to whether we learn the above from the below. Rather,

everyone

holds

that we learn

the above from the below.

And this is the reason of the Sages

who exempt uncertain misuse from a provisional guilt-offering: They derive it by a gzera shava from the sin-offering.

It is stated here,

concerning a provisional guilt-offering: “And he has done one of all

the mitzvot

of the Lord that may not be done,”

and it is stated concerning a sin-offering for forbidden fat “when he has done one of

this is the designation of an ordinary sin-offering, because inadvertent consumption of forbidden fat is more common than the other inadvertent transgressions]: “When he did one of the

the mitzvot

of the Lord that may not be done.” Therefore, we learn by a gzera shava:

Just as there,

concerning the sin-offering, behold, it is a

matter for which one is liable for its intentional violation to karet, and for its inadvertent violation

one is liable

a sin-offering; so here,

concerning a provisional guilt-offering, it comes only for a matter

for which one is liable for its intentional violation to karet and for its inadvertent violation to a sin-offering,

excluding misuse, for which one is not liable to karet for its intentional violation, and one is not liable to a sin-offering for its inadvertent violation.

And Rabbi Akiva,

who obligates a provisional guilt-offering for uncertain misuse, holds that this gzera shava came for this purpose, to say:

Just as there,

concerning the sin-offering, Scripture spoke

of

a sin-offering

fixed,

in which poor and rich are equal,

so here,

concerning a provisional guilt-offering, one is liable when he is uncertain whether he sinned only for a matter for which, if he certainly performed it, one is liable to bring a

fixed

sin-offering for his sin,

excluding

one who, when certainly liable for his sin, brings the sin-offering of impurity of the Temple and its holy things, whose sin-offering brought by one who entered the Temple while impure or ate sacred flesh is the offering

“ascending and descending.”

as the wealthy bring a female sheep or goat, the poor bring two turtledoves or two young pigeons, and the poorest bring a meal-offering].

And since this gzera shava is needed to exempt uncertain impurity of the Temple and its holy things from a provisional guilt-offering, it is again possible to learn the obligation of a provisional guilt-offering for uncertain misuse by learning the above from the below, and the gzera shava will not interfere, since, as stated, it is required for another matter.

And the Sages

hold

there is no partial gzera shava,

and therefore we must learn from the gzera shava of a provisional guilt-offering to a sin-offering that one brings a provisional guilt-offering only for a matter for which one is liable to karet for its intentional violation, and not for misuse, for its intentional violation does not entail liability to karet.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

And Rabbi Akiva also,

what does he hold? For

there is no partial gzera shava!

And we answer:

Indeed so,

there is no partial gzera shava,

and here, they disagree concerning this:

Rabbi Akiva holds that “And if a person” is written at the beginning of the portion of the provisional guilt-offering, and the juxtaposition of

“the vav adds to the first matter”

reveals to us that with regard to uncertain misuse, one should not learn the gzera shava from a sin-offering to a provisional guilt-offering in order to exempt uncertain misuse from a provisional guilt-offering; rather, one should juxtapose misuse to a provisional guilt-offering and obligate him. And the gzera shava of a provisional guilt-offering and a sin-offering is to be learned with regard to impurity of the Temple and its holy things, for one is liable for a provisional guilt-offering only for a matter whose inadvertent violation entails a fixed offering.

And furthermore, we raised a difficulty concerning it:

And the Sages also, is it not written

the juxtaposition of

“And if a person”?

Let us say that they disagree concerning this: that one says,

Rabbi Akiva,

holds that a juxtaposition is preferable

to the derivation of a gzera shava.

And [the other] says,

the Sages

hold that a gzera shava is preferable!?

And we reject this:

No. Everyone

holds

that a juxtaposition is preferable,

and therefore we must say that the learning from the gzera shava is only partial, so that the learning of the juxtaposition will not be nullified.

Rather,

the Sages will say to you:

This juxtaposition of “the vav adds to the first matter” did not come to obligate uncertain misuse in a provisional guilt-offering; rather, it came to teach that the other side,

the lower one

—the provisional guilt-offering—

is learned from the upper one

to tell you that one must purchase it,

the guilt-offering

whose monetary value will be

in

two

shekels,

just as one must purchase the guilt-offering for misuse at a price not less than two shekels, as it is explicitly written concerning it: “according to your valuation, silver shekels.”

And it was necessary to learn this from this juxtaposition, and it was not possible to learn the law of a provisional guilt-offering from the guilt-offering for misuse by what we find, because logically we might have said that one may bring a provisional guilt-offering of any value whatsoever.

Lest you say: The uncertainty

of the sin

should not be more severe than its certainty; just as its certainty

of the sin obligates one to bring for it

a sin-offering worth a danka

—at the value of a danka, which is a low value, of a silver ma'a, which is one-sixth of a dinar. And not specifically at the value of a danka, but at any value whatsoever; rather, he mentioned a danka as an example of a low value—

so its uncertainty

will obligate him only

to a guilt-offering worth a danka,

therefore the juxtaposition comes to teach the lower from the upper, that a provisional guilt-offering is more severe than a definite sin-offering, and one is obligated to purchase it at the value of two silver shekels.

And Rabbi Akiva,

who learns the above from the below,

this reasoning

that one must purchase a provisional guilt-offering with silver shekels,

from where does he derive it?

He derives it from “This is the law of the guilt-offering”—

one law for all guilt-offerings.

Just as the law of the guilt-offering for misuse is with silver shekels, so too all guilt-offerings.

[And according to Rabbi Akiva, the juxtaposition of “the vav adds to the first matter” necessarily comes to teach the above from the below; therefore he derives that one is liable for a provisional guilt-offering in a case of uncertain misuse, and the gzera shava of a provisional guilt-offering to a sin-offering will necessarily be partial, teaching only concerning uncertain impurity of the Temple and its holy things, for which one is not liable to a provisional guilt-offering because its offering is ascending and descending.]

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

This works well according to the one who has

the exposition

of “law.”

But

the one who does not have

the exposition

of “law,” from where does he derive it?

And we answer:

He derives

a gzera shava

“according to your valuation” “according to your valuation.”

“According to your valuation” is written concerning the guilt-offering for robbery and the provisional guilt-offering, and likewise concerning the guilt-offering for misuse.

And we challenge this:

This works well where “according to your valuation” is written.

But

the guilt-offering for a betrothed maidservant, concerning which

“according to your valuation” is not written,

what is there to say?

From where will we know concerning it the law of “with silver shekels”?

And we answer:

He derives

the guilt-offering for a betrothed maidservant from the guilt-offering for misuse by a gzera shava,

“with a ram” “with a ram,”

for in both of them it is stated: “with the ram of the guilt-offering.” [With regard to silver shekels in the guilt-offering of a nazirite and the guilt-offering of one afflicted with scale disease, see Rashi and the Tosafot.]

We learned in our chapter that the sin-offering’s slaughter is in the north.

And we raised a difficulty concerning it:

The sin-offering—

from where do we know that it requires the north?

And we answer:

For it is written: “And he shall slaughter the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering.”

And concerning the burnt-offering, north is explicitly written.

And furthermore, we raised a difficulty concerning it:

We find [this] for slaughter,

that it is in the north;

receiving

which must be performed in the north,

from where do we know [this]?

And we answer:

For it is written

after the verse “And he shall slaughter”:

“And the koen shall take from the blood of the sin-offering.”

And it implies that the taking also will be in the place of the burnt-offering, and this taking means receiving.

And furthermore, we raised a difficulty concerning it:

From where do we know concerning the receiver himself

that he must stand in the north, and if he stood in the south of the Courtyard, near its middle, and extended his hand to the north and received there, from where [do we know] that he is disqualified?

And we answer:

The verse says: “And he shall take”;

invert it and expound the letters vav and lamed as though it were written

“for him he shall take,”

that is, he shall take himself to the place of receiving the blood.

And we still raised a difficulty concerning it:

We find [this] for a mitzva; from where [do we know it] to invalidate?

That if he did not perform [the service] in the north, it is disqualified?

And we answer:

Another verse is written

to indicate invalidation. It is stated concerning the sin-offering of the ruler’s goat:

“And he shall slaughter it in the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered.”

And it was taught: Where is the burnt-offering slaughtered? In the north.

Just as the burnt-offering is in the north,

so too this is in the north.