Zevachim 51a (נא.) — the Talmud in English

What do we find with regard to slaughter, which renders it fit for consumption

in non-sacred animals,

that it purifies its tereifa from its impurity, so too pinching

with regard to sacrificial animals,

which renders it fit for consumption, should purify its tereifa from its impurity.

Rabbi Yosei says: It is sufficient

for the carcass of a kosher bird that it should be

like the carcass of a kosher animal, whose slaughter purifies it, but whose pinching does not.

[And there are three disputes concerning this matter: According to Rabbi Meir, the slaughter and pinching of a kosher bird that is a tereifa purify it from the impurity of the carcass of a kosher bird. According to Rabbi Yehuda, neither the slaughter nor the pinching of a kosher bird that is a tereifa purifies it from the impurity of a carcass. And according to Rabbi Yosei, slaughter purifies it, but pinching does not purify it.]

And from the statement of Rabbi Meir we learned that a matter derived by means of a kal va-chomer—the slaughter of a kosher bird that is a tereifa, which is derived by means of a kal va-chomer from the slaughter of a tereifa animal to purify it—is then used to derive by means of a binyan av with regard to the pinching of a tereifa sacrificial bird.

And we reject this:

That is not so!

You cannot learn from there,

because Rabbi Meir did not need a binyan av in order to derive this, but rather

there

his essential reasoning is that a bird is juxtaposed to an animal in the verse: “This is the law of the animal and the bird.” Therefore, you cannot derive from here that a matter learned by means of a kal va-chomer can then be used to teach by means of a binyan av.

And even according to the version of “what do we find,” which Rabbi Meir cites in the Mishna, implying that he derives it by means of a binyan av, even if

it is

the case that Rabbi Meir derived it by means of a binyan av, it is still impossible to resolve the issue here from there, since the pinching of sacrificial animals

comes from the slaughter of non-sacred animals, whereas our question concerns a case in which the source that teaches is sacred, asking whether it can then teach by means of “what do we find,” and not a case in which the first source that teaches is non-sacred.

And now we have exhausted every aspect of the kal va-chomer, and we have come to discuss the principles of the measure of binyan av:

A matter learned by means of a binyan av—can it teach

by means of a juxtaposition, by means of a gzera shava, by means of a kal va-chomer, and by means of a binyan av?

Resolve

a

single

of these questions from a

beraita: Disqualified sacrificial offerings that ascended upon the altar may not subsequently be removed, because the altar has taken hold of them. This excludes three disqualified offerings that are removed from the altar even if they ascended: one that was slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled, and one that went outside the curtains. And the beraita explains the difference between the other disqualified offerings, which, if they ascended, are not removed, and these three disqualified offerings, which are removed even if they ascended.

a.

For what reason did they say

that

“that remained overnight” in the blood is fit?

That is, why is blood that became disqualified through remaining overnight, and that ascended upon the altar, not removed from it? —

For “that remained overnight” in the sacrificial portions is fit

[that is, we derive the law of blood from sacrificial portions that became disqualified through remaining overnight: If they ascended upon the altar, they are not removed].

b.

For what reason did they say that sacrificial portions that remained overnight are fit? Because flesh that remained overnight is fit.

And we derived the law from it by means of a binyan av with regard to sacrificial portions [and when we find that flesh that remained overnight is fit, this refers to the flesh of peace-offerings, which may be eaten for two days and one night; consequently, the overnight period is fit for it].

c.

“That went outside”

with regard to sacrificial portions—why, if it ascended, is it not removed?

Since

we find with regard to

“that went outside”

that it is

fit on a private altar,

since when offerings are brought on a private altar, every place is its proper place.

The limbs of an olah offering

that became impure

—why, if they ascended, are they not removed?

Since the law of impurity was permitted

in the case of

the communal service.

d. The sacrificial portions of an offering that became piggul through the intention of

outside its appointed time—if they ascended, why are they not removed?

Since it renders

the blood’s sprinkling

effective for its piggul status,

for despite the intention of piggul that disqualified the offering, the efficacy of its blood establishes it as piggul, as though the sprinkling had been valid [for piggul is not established as piggul until its permitting elements are offered validly; we derive the efficacy of piggul from the efficacy of a valid offering]. Therefore, the sacrificial portions of a piggul offering are considered like valid sacrificial portions, which, if they ascended, are not removed.

e. Likewise, the sacrificial portions of an offering disqualified through the intention of

outside its place

are considered such that if they ascended they are not removed,

since outside its place was juxtaposed

to

outside its appointed time.

f. And when we say that the blood and sacrificial portions of offerings

that disqualified persons received

the blood and thereby disqualified the offering, and likewise when offerings became disqualified because

disqualified persons sprinkled

their blood,

if they ascended they are not removed, this refers

to those disqualified persons who are fit for the communal service

even in a state of disqualification, such as an impure priest. But other disqualified persons who disqualified the offering through their service: If the blood or sacrificial portions ascended upon the altar, they are removed from it.

And we resolve from this beraita that a matter learned by means of a binyan av can then teach by means of a binyan av.

For the law that blood disqualified through remaining overnight, if it ascended upon the altar, is not removed from it, was learned from sacrificial portions disqualified through remaining overnight, which, if they ascended, are not removed. And the law of the sacrificial portions was learned by means of a binyan av from the flesh of peace-offerings, which is fit for two days and one night and does not become disqualified through remaining overnight on that night.

And we challenge this: How did you derive the law of sacrificial portions that ascended upon the altar from peace-offerings, which do not become disqualified at night because they are fit to be eaten then?

Do we derive

the law of sacrificial portions that remained overnight, which are

an item that is not in its proper state of fitness,

as they became disqualified through remaining overnight,

from

peace-offerings, which are

an item that is in its proper state of fitness!?

After all, the flesh of peace-offerings is different at night, since it is fit to be eaten then, as that is its mitzva?!

And we answer: We did not learn the law of sacrificial portions that remained overnight—that if they ascended upon the altar they are not removed—by means of a binyan av. Rather,

the tanna

derived it from “This is the law of the olah,”

for

the verse included

“one law for all that ascend,” both valid and disqualified offerings, teaching that if they ascended they are not removed, as it is written: “On its firewood all night,” whose meaning is that the altar takes hold of them, so that they are no longer removed from it.

All these derivations in the beraita are not fundamental; rather, they came to explain how all the disqualified offerings differ from those three disqualified offerings that the altar does not take hold of.

And it relies on this

the tanna of the beraita relies on the inclusion derived from the verse, but he also relies on these derivations merely as an asmakhta.

And the conclusion of this discussion concerning whether a matter that was learned can then teach:

a.

A matter learned by means of a juxtaposition

by means of a juxtaposition—it does not then teach; by means of a gzera shava—it does not then teach; by means of a kal va-chomer—it does then teach; by means of a binyan av—it is uncertain whether it then teaches.

b.

A matter learned by means of a gzera shava

by means of a juxtaposition—it is a dispute whether it certainly then teaches or whether it is uncertain; by means of a gzera shava—it does then teach; by means of a kal va-chomer—it does then teach; by means of a binyan av—it is uncertain whether it then teaches.

c.

A matter learned by means of a kal va-chomer

by means of a juxtaposition—it is a dispute whether it certainly then teaches or whether it is uncertain; by means of a gzera shava—it does then teach; by means of a kal va-chomer—it does then teach; by means of a binyan av—it is uncertain whether it then teaches.

d.

A matter learned by means of a binyan av

by means of a juxtaposition—it is uncertain whether it then teaches; by means of a gzera shava—it is uncertain whether it then teaches; by means of a kal va-chomer—it is uncertain whether it then teaches; by means of a binyan av—it does then teach [as is explained by the Tosafot].

We learned in the Mishna:

The remnants of the blood

of the inner sin-offerings were poured upon the western base of the outer altar.

And we raise a question concerning this:

What is the reason

that it is necessary to pour it upon the western base? After all, the verse does not specify upon which base he should pour it.

And we answer:

The verse says:

“And all the blood of the bull he shall pour

upon the base of the altar of the olah, which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,”

and this implies: upon

the base opposite the entrance

of the Sanctuary, which is on the western side of the altar.

The Sages taught:

It is stated with regard to the bull of the anointed priest,

“

upon the base of the altar of the olah,”

to teach that he should pour the remnants upon the base of the outer altar, which is called “the altar of the olah,”

and not

upon

the base of the inner altar,

lest you say that he should pour the remnants in the place where its blood is given, namely, upon the inner altar.

And it is stated further with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal decision:

“

upon the base of the altar of the olah,”

but this is superfluous, since the bull for an unwitting communal decision was juxtaposed to the bull of the anointed priest. Therefore, we derive from it:

It has no base

at all upon the

inner altar itself. This is its meaning: There shall be a base for the altar of the olah, but not for the inner altar.

It is stated further with regard to the goat of a ruler [which is performed outside and not inside]: “And its blood he shall pour

upon the base of the altar of the olah.”

This verse is not necessary for its own purpose—to state that he should place it upon the outer base and not the inner one—for we have already learned that the inner altar has no base, and it is obvious that he should place it upon the outer altar. Rather, it comes to teach:

Give

the law of the

base,

that is, the pouring of the remnants,

to the altar of the olah.

All offerings whose blood is given upon the altar of the olah require the pouring of the remnants upon the base, since the law of the remnants is not explicitly stated in the verse with regard to any other offerings besides the sin-offering.

Or perhaps it does not

come to teach about the pouring of the remnants,

but rather

about the initial placement of the blood

upon the altar of the olah,

that it

should be toward the base,

so that offerings whose blood is given upon the horns of the outer altar should have their blood sprinkled upon those horns that are opposite the base, excluding the southeastern horn, where there was no base?!

Rabbi Yishmael said:

There is no need for a verse for this, as it follows by means of a

kal va-chomer:

:

If the remnants

of a sin-offering,

which do not effect atonement, require a base, then the beginning

of the blood placement of an

olah, which effects atonement, does it not follow that it requires a base,

that is, opposite the base?

Rabbi Akiva said:

This is how you should expound the kal va-chomer:

If the remnants, which do not effect atonement and do not come to effect atonement, require a base, then the beginning

of the placement of the blood of an

olah, which effects atonement and comes to effect atonement, does it not follow that it requires a base [and below we explain the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva]?!

If so, what is the meaning of

the verse stated with regard to the ruler’s goat, that its remaining blood “shall be poured

upon the base of the altar of the olah”? —

Give the base to the altar of the olah!

As we said, from here we learn that all blood remaining from the placements upon the outer altar requires pouring upon its base.

The Master said:

The remnants of the blood of the inner sin-offerings, such as the remnants of the blood of the bull for an unwitting communal decision and of the bull of the anointed priest, whose blood was given inside, are poured upon the base of the outer altar. This is as we derive from the verse written with regard to the bull of the anointed priest: “And all the blood of the bull he shall pour

upon the base of the altar of the olah

which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” and we expound:

and not

upon

the base of the inner altar.

And we raise a question: How can you expound it in this manner?

But it is needed

to expound

it for its own purpose,

to teach that it is possible to pour the remnants of the blood of the inner sin-offerings even upon the base of the outer altar. Perhaps it is all the more so possible to pour them upon the inner altar, which is the place where their blood is given. If so, from where do we know that the verse comes to exclude this and requires that the remnants of the blood of the inner sin-offerings be placed specifically upon the base of the outer altar? And we answer: If the verse came only to render the pouring of the blood upon the base of the outer altar fit, it would not have needed to write “the altar of the olah,” since

from

the phrase “the altar

which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”

itself is derived that it is fit for pouring. What is the meaning of the additional designation “the altar of the olah” that the verse added? Rather, inevitably, “upon the base of the altar of the olah” comes to teach you that he pours its blood only upon the outer altar, and not upon the inner one.

We learned further in the beraita that we derive from what is written with regard to the ruler’s goat [which is performed only outside], “

upon the base of the altar of the olah.”