Zevachim 49a — the Talmud in English

But there is the second tithe

that became impure,

for it

itself

is redeemed

even in Jerusalem, since it is not fit for eating after it became impure.

Whereas

an item

purchased with the money of the second tithe

that became impure, which is ancillary to the second tithe,

is not redeemed.

For we learned: An item purchased with the money of the second tithe that became impure —

he shall redeem it. Rabbi Judah says: He shall bury it

(and he raises the objection from Rabbi Judah).

And we answer:

There,

the fact that it is not redeemed is not a stringency; on the contrary, it is because

its sanctity is not powerful

for the sanctity of the item purchased with the money of the second tithe

to seize its redemption,

to cause sanctity to take effect upon its redemption; for that reason it is not redeemed.

We raise another objection:

But there is

the sanctity of

a substitute offering,

which is secondary to the sanctity of an offering, and nevertheless we find that it is more stringent than it.

For whereas consecrated animals do not have the sanctity

of the body

take effect upon

an animal that is

permanently blemished,

but only sanctity of value takes effect, and it exits to non-sacred status through redemption and is permitted for shearing and labor after redemption,

whereas it,

the sanctity of a substitute offering, which is secondary to the offering,

does take effect.

For if he exchanged an offering for a permanently blemished animal, the sanctity of the body takes effect upon the blemished animal, and it is forbidden even after redemption for shearing and labor, like the other disqualified consecrated animals!?

And we answer: The reason this

substitute offering is more stringent is

because it

comes by virtue of consecrated animals.

The sanctity that preceded it takes effect upon it, and its stringency is because of the principal; whereas

consecrated animals,

which

come by virtue of non-sacred property,

were initially non-sacred, and only when they were consecrated did sanctity take effect, whereas a substitute offering takes effect by virtue of the sanctity of the first offering.

But it still must be asked:

For there is the Paschal offering, for it

itself

does not require laying of hands, libations, or the waving of the breast and thigh, whereas its remainder,

which was not offered at its proper time and is ancillary to the Paschal offering, is more stringent than it, and it

requires laying of hands, libations, and the waving of the breast and thigh.

And we answer:

A Paschal offering during the rest of the days of the year

does not have the designation “Paschal offering” upon it, so that it would be considered ancillary to it; rather

it is a peace offering.

And if you wish, say: The requirement of the north in an elevation offering is learned from here:

the verse says

for the verse says, “

In the place where

the elevation offering shall be slaughtered,”

and Scripture repeated “the place of the elevation offering” in the passage of the sin offering in order to teach:

In its place shall it be,

to make it indispensable.

We learned above: An asham—its slaughter is in the north.

And the Gemara discusses:

An asham —

from where do we know that it requires the north?

And it explains:

For it is written

in the passage of the law of the asham:

“In the place where they slaughter the elevation offering, they shall slaughter the asham.”

And we inquire about it:

We find slaughter

of the asham, which requires the north; but

receiving—from where do we know

that it requires the north? And we answer: It is said further in the verse, “

And its blood he shall sprinkle.”

It follows that

the receiving of its blood also,

that its blood too shall be received in the place of its slaughter,

in the north.

And we inquire further:

The receiver himself

must stand in the north;

from where do we know this?

And we answer: From the fact that it does not say, “

Its blood he shall sprinkle,” but it is written, “

shall be sprinkled,” but rather it is written,

And its blood,”

and the word “and” is superfluous and comes to include the receiver. And we inquire further:

We find it for

a mitzva,

but

to make it indispensable, from where

do we know?

And we answer:

Another verse is written

regarding the asham of a leper: “

And he shall slaughter the lamb

in the place where he shall slaughter the sin offering.” For Scripture repeated it in order to make it indispensable [and regarding receiving, as indispensable, see Tosafot, s.v. “to make it indispensable”].

And we object:

And this

verse, “And he shall slaughter the lamb,”

is it for this that it came,

to teach us that it is indispensable if it was not slaughtered in the north? But

this

verse

is needed for that which is taught in a beraita: An item that was included in a general category and went out to be judged by a new matter—you may not return it to its general category

and equate it with the general category

until Scripture returns it explicitly to its general category.

How so?

It is said regarding the asham of a leper: “

And he shall slaughter the lamb in the place where he shall slaughter the sin offering, and the elevation offering, in the holy place, for like the sin offering, the asham is his. There is no need for the phrase ‘like the sin offering, the asham is his,’”

for it has already been said that he shall slaughter the lamb in the place of the sin offering.

What does the phrase ‘like the sin offering, the asham is his’ teach?

Since the asham of a leper went out

from the general category of ashams

to be judged by a new matter,

for its blood is placed

on the right thumb, the right big toe, and the right ear. It might be thought that the asham of a leper would not require

the asham of a leper

the placing of blood and sacrificial portions upon the altar

like the other ashams? —

The verse says, ‘Like the sin offering, the asham is his,’

the verse returned it to its general category by comparing it to the sin offering:

Just as a sin offering requires the placing of blood and sacrificial portions upon the altar, so too the asham of a leper requires the placing of blood and sacrificial portions upon the altar.

And we see from here that Scripture needs to return it to the placing of blood and sacrificial portions; if so, it is difficult: How did we learn above that the verse “And he shall slaughter the lamb” comes to say that it is indispensable when it was not slaughtered in the north? For it is needed in order to return it to its general category also with regard to the law that the slaughter of the asham of a leper is in the north, like the other ashams; and from where do we know that it is indispensable?

And we answer:

If so,

as you wished to say, that it is not indispensable,

let us write

the slaughter in the north

in this one,

in the asham of a leper,

and not write it in this one

in the other ashams, and learn them all from the asham of a leper regarding slaughter in the north [according to the law that an item that went out from the general category did not go out to teach about itself, but went out to teach about the entire general category].

Rather, certainly the verse “In the place where they shall slaughter,” which is said regarding the other ashams, was repeated in order to make it indispensable.

But the Gemara still objects:

This works out if we hold

that an item that

went out to be judged by a new matter—it itself is what does not learn from its general category,