Zevachim 48b (מח:) — the Talmud in English

And do you learn this from here?

But it has already been stated in the passage in Parashat Tzav, in another verse that includes all sin-offerings: “

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

why, then, is it necessary to teach this separately with regard to the sin-offering goat of the ruler?

Why, then, was the verse stated

with regard to the ruler’s goat? —

To establish a place for it,

as the verse repeated this requirement concerning it in order to make it indispensable:

if he did not slaughter it

the ruler’s sin-offering

in the north —

it is invalid See Tosafot, s.v. kabbala, concerning how we know that receiving the blood in the north is indispensable].

Do you say that it was stated for this purpose, or perhaps it did not

come to make the requirement indispensable,

but

was written for this purpose: to exclude from the word “that” written in it, and to tell you

that the

goat

this

of the ruler alone

requires the north, whereas no

other goat

requires the north.

For all the sin-offerings that are goats, such as the goats of Yom Kippur, the festival goats, and the communal goats brought when the community sinned through idolatry, are not slaughtered in the north; only sin-offerings that are ewes or female goats are slaughtered in the north!?

The verse therefore states

with regard to the individual’s sin-offering: “

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

Since it does not say, “And he shall slaughter it,” we expound the superfluous word “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, it necessarily follows that the verse concerning the ruler’s goat comes to make the requirement indispensable.

We have found with regard to the ruler’s goat

that it requires the north

both as a mitzva and as an indispensable requirement.

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

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

But

as an indispensable requirement

with regard to the other sin-offerings —

from where do we know this?

As it is written with regard to the ewe, and it is written with regard to the female goat

—in both cases, an explicit verse was written separately stating that they are slaughtered in the place where the burnt-offering is slaughtered. The verse concerning the ewe is not needed to teach this as a mitzva, since it could be learned from the verse concerning the female goat; rather, it comes to teach that this requirement is indispensable for all sin-offerings.

And we raised the following question: Since we have established that all sin-offerings require the north,

why do I need “that”

with regard to the ruler’s goat

?

What does it come to exclude!?

And we answer:

It is needed for that which was taught in a beraita:

“That” is in the north, but the goat of Nakhshon is not in the north.

The goats of the rulers that they offered at the inauguration of the altar as sin-offerings, although they were not brought for a sin, were not slaughtered in the north.

And the Gemara explains: From where would it occur to us that the goat of Nakhshon should require the north, so that the verse “that” would be necessary to exclude it?

As it was taught:

It is stated with regard to the ruler’s goat: “

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

whereas it should have written, “upon its head.” We therefore expound the word “the goat”

to include the goat of Nakhshon in the requirement of laying on hands,

even though it was not brought to atone.

These are the words of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says:

It comes to include the goats brought for idolatry in the requirement of laying on hands.

Therefore,

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

in the requirement of laying on hands,

it was also included in the requirement of the north. The verse therefore teaches us

the exclusion indicated by the word “that.”

Ravina raised an objection to this: This works according to Rabbi Yehuda,

but

according to Rabbi Shimon,

who does not include the goat of Nakhshon in the requirement of laying on hands,

what can be said?

Why would it be necessary to exclude it from the north?

We raised a further question:

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

Could we have said, since it was included for laying on hands, it was also included for slaughtering? Why should we not say:

Whatever it was included for, it was included for; and whatever it was not included for, it was not included for!?

And if you would say that if the verse did not exclude it

—the goat of Nakhshon—from the word “that”—

we would have said that it is derived by a binyan av

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

if so, the requirement of laying on hands itself should be derived

with regard to the goat of Nakhshon

by a binyan av,

so why did Rabbi Yehuda need to include it through a special verse for the requirement of laying on hands?

Rather,

it necessarily follows that Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning is that the goat of Nakhshon is kodshei sha'a, and

from

kodshei

dorot we do not derive

by a binyan av with regard to the law of laying on hands without an explicit inclusion. If so,

so too

with regard to the north, let us say: From kodshei

sha'a

we do not derive from kodshei

dorot.

But why do I need “that”?

What could enter our minds that the goat of Nakhshon should require the north, so that “that” would be necessary to exclude it?

The Gemara retracts this explanation and offers another answer:

For that which was taught: “

That,”

you slaughter the goat

in the north, but the slaughterer does not stand

standing

in the north.

The slaughterer may stand in the south, extend his hand into the north, and slaughter there.

And we challenge this: Is it from the word

“slaughterer,”

which does not require the north, as derived from “that” concerning the ruler’s goat? Surely

it is derived from Rabbi Aḥya.

As it was taught: Rabbi Aḥya says:

It is stated with regard to the slaughtering of a sheep or goat: “

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

What does the word “it”

come to teach? Since we find

with regard to receiving the blood that the one who receives it

stands in the north,

as we learn above from “and he shall take,” which is expounded as “let him take himself,” meaning that the one who receives must stand in the north,

and receives

the blood

in the north. If he stood in the south

and extended his hand

and received it in the north, it is invalid.

If so,

one might also think that this one

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

is likewise invalid].

The verse therefore states “it,”

to tell you:

“It,”

that is, the offering, is the one that must be positioned in the north at the time of slaughter,

but the slaughterer

does not need to stand

in the north.

If so, since we learn from “And he shall slaughter it on the northern side of the altar,” stated with regard to the slaughtering of a sheep or goat, that the slaughterer need not 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” is in the north,

but

the pinching of

a bird offering is not in the north.

The Gemara explains from where one might have thought that pinching should require the north, so that a special verse would be needed to exclude it from this law.

As it was taught: One might have thought that a bird offering should require the north. And it follows by logical inference:

there would be grounds to derive this by a kal va-chomer:

Just as a sheep or goat, for which a koen was not designated

for its slaughter, since a non-koen is fit to slaughter it,

was designated the north

for its slaughter,

so, with regard to a bird offering, for which a koen was designated,

since its pinching is valid only when performed by kohanim,

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

for its pinching!?

The verse therefore states

“it”

in the passage concerning the ruler’s goat, to exclude pinching from the requirement of the north.

But the Gemara rejects this:

What can be said concerning a sheep or goat,

which requires the north

because a utensil was designated for it,

since its slaughter is performed with a knife and its blood is received in a vessel? This is not so with regard to a bird, whose pinching is performed with the fingernail and which has no receiving of the blood in a vessel. It is therefore logical that it should not require the north, so why do I need the exclusion of “it”?

We return and offer another answer:

Rather, “it” comes to teach:

“It” is slaughtered

“it”

is slaughtered

in the north, but

the slaughtering of the

Paschal offering is not in the north.

We now explain what could have entered our minds that the Paschal offering should require the north:

As it was taught: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says: One might have thought that the Paschal offering should require the north

for its slaughter, by means of a kal va-chomer:

And it follows logically: Just as

the

burnt-offering, for which no time was designated for its slaughter,

nevertheless

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

whose time is the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan,

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

Therefore

the verse states “it,”

to exclude the Paschal offering from the north.

And we challenge the kal va-chomer:

What can be said concerning the burnt-offering,

which requires the north

because

it is a burnt-offering,

entirely

offered on the altar, unlike the Paschal offering, whose flesh is eaten.

And we answer: One might have thought to derive the requirement of the north for the Paschal offering by a kal va-chomer

from the sin-offering,

which is not entirely offered, has no fixed time, and nevertheless requires the north.

We still challenge this:

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

unlike the Paschal offering?

And we answer: One might have thought to derive it

from the guilt-offering,

which does not atone for those liable for karet.

And we reject this:

What can be said concerning the guilt-offering, which is kodshei kodashim,

unlike the Paschal offering?

And if we should come to derive the law of the Paschal offering

from all of them,

from all offerings that require the north, through a bameh ha-tzad derivation, we can likewise challenge it:

also:

What can be said concerning all of them,

that they are kodshei kodashim,

whereas the Paschal offering cannot be learned from them? If so, what could have entered our minds that the Paschal offering should require the north, such that it would be necessary to exclude it—and the question concerning “it” in the passage of the ruler’s goat returns: Why do I need it?

And we answer:

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

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

we derive it from Rabbi Aḥya

—answer as follows: “It” concerning the ruler’s goat

does not come to exclude the slaughterer from the north;

that is certainly derived from Rabbi Aḥya. Rather, it comes to include the one who receives the blood, who must stand in the north. This is how it is expounded: “It” is in the north, but the slaughterer is not in the north. This is not needed for its own subject; rather, it is needed for the inference from it: specifically,

the slaughterer does not

need to stand

in the north, but the one who receives

must stand

in the north.

And we object: But the

one who receives

the blood in the north

is derived for us from “he shall take,” “he shall take,”

as we learned above, that “let him take” means that he must take himself to the north!?

And we answer: This exposition of

“he shall take,” “he shall take,” is not accepted by him.

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

We raise the following question:

We have found that slaughtering

requires the north

as a mitzva

with regard to the burnt-offering. Receiving

the blood in the north

as a mitzva we have also found,

as we expounded: “The slaughterer is not in the north, but the one who receives is in the north” [see Tosafot, s.v. kabbala, and Shיטה Mekubetzet, letter 12]. But

slaughtering and receiving

in the north

as indispensable requirements—from where do we know this?

And we answer:

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

By

a kal va-chomer

we derive this:

Just as

the north requirement for the slaughtering of a

sin-offering, which comes by virtue of a burnt-offering, for the sin-offering is not explicitly stated to require the north; rather, it is written concerning it that it is to be slaughtered “in the place of the burnt-offering”] makes slaughtering in the north

indispensable

for it,

so a burnt-offering, which comes

by virtue of the north requirement for the slaughtering of a

sin-offering, is it not logical that slaughtering in the north should be indispensable

for it as well!?

But there is a difficulty with the kal va-chomer:

What can be said concerning the sin-offering,

for which slaughtering in the north is indispensable,

because it atones for those liable for karet.

This is not so with regard to the burnt-offering, and therefore it is logical that the north requirement should not be indispensable for it.

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?

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 for the sin-offering, which is the one learned, and not for the burnt-offering, which is the source from which it was learned.

And the Gemara is astonished: Is it true that

we have not

found that the subordinate can be more stringent than the principal!?