Zevachim 48b — the Talmud in English

And from here do you learn this?

Was it not already stated in the section of Tzav, a verse that includes all the sin-offerings,

“In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, the sin-offering shall be slaughtered,”

and why is it necessary to teach separately regarding the sin-offering goat of the ruler?

Why, then, did it go out

the verse concerning the ruler’s goat? —

To establish a place for it,

for Scripture repeated it concerning it in order to make it indispensable,

so that if he did not slaughter it

as the ruler’s sin-offering

in the north —

it is invalid .

You say that it went out for this purpose, or perhaps it did not

come to make it indispensable,

but

for this reason it was written: in order to exclude from the word “it” written concerning it, and to say to you

that

the

this

goat of the ruler alone

requires the north, and no

goat

other requires the north.

For all the sin-offerings that come as a goat, such as the goats of Yom Kippur, those of the Festivals, and those of the community that sinned through idolatry, are not slaughtered in the north; only sin-offerings that are a female sheep or a she-goat are slaughtered in the north!?

Scripture therefore says

with regard to the individual’s sin-offering

“And he shall slaughter the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering.”

And since it did not write, “And he shall slaughter it,” we expound from the redundancy of “the sin-offering”:

This establishes a principle for all sin-offerings, that they require the north.

And if so, since we have no basis for excluding a goat, necessarily the verse concerning the ruler’s goat comes to make it indispensable.

We find that the ruler’s goat

requires the north

both as a mitzva and as indispensable.

With regard to the other sin-offerings as well, we find that it is a mitzva

from “In the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered, the sin-offering shall be slaughtered,” which was stated concerning all sin-offerings.

But

as indispensable

with regard to the other sin-offerings —

from where do we know it?

For it is written with regard to the female sheep, and it is written with regard to the she-goat.

In both of them a separate explicit verse was written, that they are slaughtered in the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered. The one concerning the female sheep is not needed for the mitzva, since it can be learned from the she-goat; rather, it comes to teach concerning all sin-offerings that it is indispensable.

And we raised an objection concerning this: Since we have established that all sin-offerings require the north,

but “it”

of the ruler’s goat

why do I need it?

What does it come to exclude!?

And we answer:

It is needed for that which was taught:

“It” in the north, but the goat of Nahshon is not in the north.

For the goats of the rulers that they offered at the inauguration of the altar as a sin-offering, but which did not come for a sin, were not slaughtered in the north.

And we explain: From where would it enter one’s mind that the goat of Nahshon should require the north, so that the verse “it” is needed to exclude them?

For it was taught:

It was stated concerning the ruler’s goat

“And he shall place his hand upon the head of the goat,”

whereas it should have written, “upon its head.” And we expound from “the goat”

to include the goat of Nahshon for semikha

even though it did not come to atone,

the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says:

To include the goats of idolatry for semikha.

Accordingly,

it might enter your mind to say: Since the goat of Nahshon was included

for semikha,

it was also included for the north. It teaches us

the exclusion of “it.”

Ravina objected to this: This works well according to Rabbi Yehuda,

but

according to Rabbi Shimon,

who does not include the goat of Nahshon for semikha,

what is there to say?

Why do we need to exclude it from the north?

And furthermore, we raised an objection:

Mar Zutra, son of Rav Tavi, said to Ravina: And according to Rabbi Yehuda, is it satisfactory

that we would say: Since it was included for semikha, it was also included for slaughtering? And why should we not say,

“For whatever it was included, it was included; and for whatever it was not included, it was not included”!?

And if you would say: If Scripture had not excluded it

the goat of Nahshon through “it,”

we would have said that it comes through a principle derived from another case

from all the sin-offerings that require the north — this cannot be said. For

if so, semikha itself should come

with regard to the goat of Nahshon

through a principle derived from another case,

and why did Rabbi Yehuda need to include it through a special verse for semikha?

Rather,

necessarily Rabbi Yehuda’s reason is that the goat of Nahshon is a consecrated offering of a temporary occasion, and consecrated offerings

of a temporary occasion from

consecrated offerings

of generations we do not learn

through a principle derived from another case concerning the law of semikha, without the inclusion. And if so,

so too

with regard to the north, let us say: consecrated offerings

of a temporary occasion from

consecrated offerings

of generations we do not learn.

But “it”—why do I need it?

What would enter our mind that the goat of Nahshon should require the north, so that “it” would be needed to exclude it?

And the Gemara retracts this and answers with another answer:

For that which was taught:

“It,”

you slaughter the goat

in the north, but the slaughterer does not stand

standing

in the north.

For the slaughterer may stand in the south and extend his hand to the north and slaughter there.

And we object: Is it from “it” of the ruler’s goat that it follows that the

slaughterer

does not require the north? Surely

it follows from Rabbi Aḥya.

For it was taught: Rabbi Aḥya says:

It was stated concerning the slaughtering of a sheep or goat

“And he shall slaughter it on the northern side of the altar.”

“It”

what does it come to teach? Since we find

with regard to receiving the blood, that the receiver

stands in the north

as we learn above from “and he shall take”—he shall take himself—that the receiver himself must stand in the north,

and receives

the blood

in the north. And if he stood in the south

and extended his hand

and received in the north, it is invalid.

If so,

one might also say that this one

the slaughterer who stood in the south, extended his hand, and slaughtered in the north

likewise

would be invalid.

Scripture therefore says “it”,

to say to you:

“It,”

that is, the offering, is the one that must stand at the time of slaughtering,

but the slaughterer

does not need to stand

in the north.

And if so, since we learn from “And he shall slaughter it on the northern side of the altar,” stated concerning the slaughtering of a sheep or goat, that the slaughterer does not need to stand in the north, why do I need “it” concerning the ruler’s goat?

And we answer:

Rather,

this is what it comes for:

“It” in the north,

but

the pinching of

a bird-offering is not in the north.

And the Gemara explains: From where would it enter our mind that pinching should require the north, so that a special verse is needed to exclude it from this law?

For it was taught: Could it be that a bird-offering should require the north? And it is a logical inference,

for there would be room to learn this by a

kal va-chomer:

From a sheep or goat, which did not have a koen designated for its slaughtering, since a non-koen is valid for slaughtering it,

the north was designated for it

for slaughtering.

A bird-offering, for which a koen was designated,

since pinching is valid only by kohanim,

is it not logical that the north should be designated for it

for pinching!? Therefore

Scripture says

“it”

in the ruler’s goat, to exclude pinching from the north.

But the Gemara rejects this:

What can be said concerning a sheep or goat,

which requires the north,

for it has a utensil designated for it

since its slaughtering is with a knife and its receiving is with a basin? This is not so with a bird, whose pinching is done with a fingernail and which has no receiving in a utensil; therefore it is logical that it should not require the north, and why do I need the exclusion of “it”?

And we return and answer another answer:

Rather, “it” comes to teach:

“It” is slaughtered,

“it”

they slaughter

in the north, but

the slaughtering of the

Paschal offering is not in the north.

And now we explain what would enter our mind concerning the Paschal offering being in the north:

For it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: Could it be that the Paschal offering should require the north

for its slaughtering, by a

kal va-chomer:

And it is logical:

What of the burnt-offering, which did not have a fixed time for its slaughtering,

nevertheless

the north was designated for it. The Paschal offering, for which a time was designated for its slaughtering,

for its time is on the fourteenth of Nisan in the afternoon,

is it not logical that the north should be designated for it?!

Therefore

Scripture says “it,”

to exclude the Paschal offering from the north.

And we refute the

kal va-chomer:

What can be said concerning the burnt-offering, which requires the north,

for

it is a burnt-offering

entirely

for the altar? This is not so with the Paschal offering, whose flesh is eaten.

And we answer: It would enter our mind to learn the law of the north for the Paschal offering by a

sin-offering,

which is not entirely [burned], has no fixed time, and requires the north.

And we still refute:

What can be said concerning the sin-offering, which atones for those liable for karet,

which is not so with the Paschal offering.

And we answer: It would enter our mind to learn

from a guilt-offering,

which does not atone for those liable for karet.

And we reject this:

What can be said concerning a guilt-offering, which is an offering of the most sacred order,

which is not so with the Paschal offering.

And if we come to learn concerning the Paschal offering

from all of them,

from all the offerings that require the north through a derivation of “the aspect of both,” we can also refute it:

also

What can be said concerning all of them,

that they are offerings of the most sacred order,

and there is no possibility of learning the Paschal offering from them? If so, the question arises: What was the premise that the Paschal offering requires the north, so that it was necessary to exclude it? And the question concerning “it” of the ruler’s goat returns: why do I need it?

And we answer:

Actually, it is as we said initially: “It” in the north, but the slaughterer is not in the north. And as for what is difficult for you,

why is it necessary to exclude the slaughterer from the north, since

it follows from Rabbi Aḥya?

Answer: “It” concerning the ruler’s goat

did not come to exclude the slaughterer from the north

since it certainly follows from Rabbi Aḥya. Rather, it comes to include the receiver of the blood, who must stand in the north. And this is how it is expounded: “It” in the north, but the slaughterer is not in the north; and it is not needed for its own matter, but for the inference from it, namely, that specifically

the slaughterer does not

need to stand

in the north, but the receiver

needs to stand

in the north.

And we wonder: But the

receiver

in the north

follows for us from “taking and taking,”

as we expounded above, “he shall take himself,” that he must take himself to the north!?

And we answer: This exposition of

“taking and taking” is not meaningful to him.

And now the Gemara returns to explain the laws of the north with regard to the burnt-offering.

And we raised an objection:

We find slaughtering

that requires the north

with regard to the burnt-offering, as a mitzva.

Receiving as well

in the north

we find as a mitzva,

as we expounded: “The slaughterer is not in the north, but the receiver is in the north” [see Tosafot, beginning “Receiving,” and Shita Mekubetzet, letter 12]. But

slaughtering and receiving

in the north

as indispensable—from where do we know it?

And we answer:

Rav Adda bar Ahava said, and some say Rabba bar Sheila:

From

a kal va-chomer

we learn:

And what

of the northward slaughtering of a

sin-offering, which comes by virtue of a burnt-offering,

[for it was not explicitly stated concerning a sin-offering that it requires the north; rather, it was written concerning it that it should be slaughtered “in the place of the burnt-offering”], slaughtering in the north

is indispensable

for it.

A burnt-offering, which comes

the northward slaughtering of a

sin-offering by its power, is it not logical that it should be indispensable

for it, the northward slaughtering!?

But there is a difficulty with the

kal va-chomer:

What can be said concerning the sin-offering, for which northward slaughtering is indispensable,

since it atones for those liable for karet.

This is not so with a burnt-offering, and therefore it is logical that it should not be indispensable.

Ravina said: This is what was difficult to Rav Adda bar Ahava,

that is, this is how he expounds the

kal va-chomer:

Have we ever found that the subordinate is more stringent than the principal?!

For the sin-offering is subordinate to the burnt-offering, since it was learned from it, and it is impossible that the law of the north should be indispensable only with the sin-offering, which is the one learned, and not with the burnt-offering, which is the teacher. In the novellae of Rabbi Aryeh Leib [vol. 2, section 78], he investigates the foundation of the law of the north: Is it an individual and specific law for each offering separately, or is it a general law concerning offerings of the most sacred order? He wishes to prove from the fact that the burnt-offering is called the principal and the sin-offering the subordinate that it is necessarily an individual law stated specifically with regard to the burnt-offering, from which we learned it concerning the sin-offering. For if it were a general law concerning all offerings of the most sacred order, there would be no principal and subordinate here, since it was stated equally concerning all of them. He also wishes to prove from the fact that we wanted to say above that the Paschal offering requires the north that it is necessarily not a law stated concerning offerings of the most sacred order. However, he wrote that it is possible that this itself is the refutation of the Gemara, “What can be said concerning all of them, that they are offerings of the most sacred order”: this is not merely a stringency that we find in them, but a refutation of the very possibility of the derivation, which cannot be, since the law of the north was stated concerning offerings of the most sacred order. On the other hand, he wrote that one should learn from the fact that the Mishna included, “The slaughtering of offerings of the most sacred order is in the north,” that the law was stated generally concerning offerings of the most sacred order. He therefore innovated that there are two laws in this matter; see there. And the Gemara wonders: Is it true that

we have not

found that the subordinate is more stringent than the principal!?