Zevachim 51a — the Talmud in English

What do we find with slaughter, whose slaughter renders it fit for eating ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location") in non-sacred animals,

purifies its torn condition from its impurity, so too pinching

in sacrificial animals,

whose pinching renders it fit for eating, should purify its torn condition from its impurity.

Rabbi Yose says: It is sufficient

for the carcass of a pure bird that it be

like the carcass of a pure animal, whose slaughter purifies it, but not its pinching.

And there are three disputes regarding this matter: According to Rabbi Meir, slaughter and pinching of a pure bird that is torn purify it from the impurity of the carcass of a pure bird. According to Rabbi Yehuda, both slaughter and pinching of a torn pure bird do not purify it from the impurity of a carcass. And according to Rabbi Yose, slaughter purifies, but pinching does not purify.

And from the words of Rabbi Meir we learned that a matter learned through a kal va-chomer [the slaughter of a pure bird that is torn, which is learned through a kal va-chomer from the slaughter of a torn animal, to purify it] returns and teaches through a binyan av concerning the pinching of a torn sacrificial bird.

And we reject this:

It is not so!

You cannot learn from there,

because Rabbi Meir did not need to learn it through a binyan av, but rather

there

his essential reason is that a bird was equated with an animal through “This is the law of the animal and the bird.” Therefore, you cannot learn from here that a matter learned through a kal va-chomer returns and teaches through a binyan av.

And even according to the wording of “What do we find,” which Rabbi Meir uses in the Mishna, implying that he learns it through a binyan av, even if

it be

that Rabbi Meir learned it through a binyan av, it is still impossible to resolve the question here from there, for the pinching of sacrifices

comes from the slaughter of non-sacred animals,

whereas when the teaching is sacred it is asked of us whether it returns and teaches through “what do we find,” and not when the first teaching is non-sacred.

And now we have raised all the aspects of the kal va-chomer. And we have come to discuss the principles of the measure of binyan av:

A matter learned through a binyan av, what is the rule for it to teach—

through an equating, through a gzera shava, through a kal va-chomer, and through a binyan av?

Resolve it from this

beraita

one

of these questions:

For it was taught: Invalid sacrifices that ascended upon the altar do not descend again, because the altar has seized them, except for three invalid ones which, even if they ascended upon the altar, descend from it; and they are: one slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled, and one that went outside the curtains. And the beraita explains what the difference is between the other invalid ones, which, if they ascended, do not descend, and these three invalid ones, which, even if they ascended, descend.

a.

For what reason did they say

that

“one that stayed overnight” in the blood is fit?

That is, why does blood invalidated through remaining overnight, which ascended upon the altar, not descend from it?—

For “one that stayed overnight” in the sacrificial parts is fit

[and that is, we learn blood from sacrificial parts that were invalidated through remaining overnight, that if they ascended upon the altar, they do not descend].

b.

For what reason did they say that one that stayed overnight in the sacrificial parts is fit? For one that stayed overnight in the flesh is fit.

And we learned from it through a binyan av concerning the sacrificial parts [and that which we find that one that stayed overnight in the flesh is fit means the flesh of peace-offerings, which are eaten for two days and one night; it follows that the overnight remaining is fit in it].

c.

“That went outside”

in the sacrificial parts—why, if it ascended, does it not descend?

Since

we find concerning

“that went outside”

that it is

fit on a private altar,

for when one offers on a private altar, every place is its place.

The limbs of an elevation-offering

impure,

why, if they ascended, do they not descend?

Since the law of impurity was permitted

in the service of

the communal offering.

d. The sacrificial parts of an offering that became piggul through the thought of

outside its time,

if they ascended, why do they not descend?

Since the blood-sprinkling makes it effective

the blood’s sprinkling

for its piggul,

for despite the thought of piggul that invalidated the offering, the thought of the effectiveness of its blood establishes it as piggul, as though there had been a fit sprinkling [for piggul is not established as piggul until its permitting elements have been offered in fitness; we learn the effectiveness of piggul from the effectiveness of what is fit]. Therefore, the sacrificial parts of piggul are considered like fit sacrificial parts, which, if they ascended, do not descend.

e. And likewise, the sacrificial parts of an offering invalidated through the thought of

outside its place

are considered such that, if they ascended, they do not descend,

since outside its place was equated

with

outside its time.

f. And that which we say concerning the blood and sacrificial parts of offerings

that invalid persons received

the blood and thereby invalidated the offering, and likewise if the offerings were invalidated because

invalid persons sprinkled

their blood,

their blood,

if they ascended, they do not descend, refers

to those invalid persons who are fit for communal service

even while invalid, such as an impure priest; but other invalid persons who invalidated the offering through their service—if the blood or sacrificial parts ascended upon the altar, they descend from it.

And we resolve from this beraita that a matter learned through a binyan av returns and teaches through a binyan av.

For the law that if blood invalidated through remaining overnight ascended upon the altar it does not descend from it, we learned from sacrificial parts invalidated through remaining overnight, which, if they ascended, did not descend. Whereas the law of the sacrificial parts we learned through a binyan av from the flesh of peace-offerings, which is fit for two days and one night and is not invalidated by remaining overnight on that night.

And we challenge: How did you learn concerning sacrificial parts that remained overnight, which ascended above the altar, from peace-offerings that are not invalidated at night, when they are fit for eating then?

And do we derive

sacrificial parts that remained overnight, which are

a matter not in its fitness,

for they were invalidated through remaining overnight,

from

peace-offerings, which are

a matter in its fitness!?

For the flesh of peace-offerings is different at night, when it is fit for eating, for that is its mitzva?!

And we answer: The law of sacrificial parts that remained overnight, that if they ascended upon the altar they do not descend, we did not learn through a binyan av, but rather

the tanna

learned it from “This is the law of the elevation-offering,”

and learned this because

the verse included

“one law for all that ascend,” both fit and invalid, that if they ascended they do not descend, as it is written, “upon its fire-place all night,” and the meaning of the verse is that the altar seized them, so that they will not descend from it again.

And all these teachings in the beraita are not the principal matter, but came to explain in what way all the invalid ones differ from those three invalid ones that the altar does not seize;

and the tanna relied on it

the tanna of the beraita relied on the inclusion, but also relied upon them merely as an asmachta.

And the conclusion of our discussion in the topic of whether a matter learned returns and teaches:

a.

A matter learned through an equating

through an equating—it does not return and teach; through a gzera shava—it does not return and teach; through a kal va-chomer—it returns and teaches; through a binyan av—it is uncertain whether it returns and teaches.

b.

A matter learned through a gzera shava

through an equating—there is a dispute whether it certainly returns and teaches or whether it is uncertain; through a gzera shava—it returns and teaches; through a kal va-chomer—it returns and teaches; through a binyan av—it is uncertain whether it returns and teaches.

c.

A matter learned through a kal va-chomer

through an equating—there is a dispute whether it certainly returns and teaches or whether it is uncertain; through a gzera shava—it returns and teaches; through a kal va-chomer—it returns and teaches; through a binyan av—it is uncertain whether it returns and teaches.

d.

A matter learned through a binyan av

through an equating—it is uncertain whether it returns and teaches; through a gzera shava—it is uncertain whether it returns and teaches; through a kal va-chomer—it is uncertain whether it returns and teaches; through a binyan av—it returns and teaches [so is explained in 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 raised the question:

What is the reason

that it must be poured upon the western base, when it was not specified in the verse upon which base he should pour?

And we answer:

The verse says,

“and all the blood of the bull he shall pour

upon the base of the altar of the elevation-offering,”

and it implies: upon

the base opposite the entrance

of the Sanctuary, which is on the west of the altar.

The Sages taught:

It is stated concerning the bull of an anointed priest,

“upon the base of the altar of the elevation-offering”

to teach that he should pour the remnants upon the base of the outer altar called “the altar of the elevation-offering,”

and not

upon

the base of the inner altar,

lest you say that in the place of the giving of its blood, which is the inner altar, there he should pour its remnants.

And it is further stated concerning the bull of the communal error,

“upon the base of the altar of the elevation-offering,”

and it is superfluous, for the bull of the communal error was equated with the bull of an anointed priest; therefore we derive from it:

It has no base

at all for the

inner altar itself.

For this is what it implies: There shall be a base for the altar of the elevation-offering, but not for the inner one.

It is further stated concerning 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 elevation-offering,”

and for its own matter it is not needed to say that he should place it upon the outer base and not the inner one, for we have already learned that the inner one has no base, and it is obvious that he should place it upon the outer one. Rather, it is to expound:

Give

the law of

a base,

that is, the pouring of remnants,

to the altar of the elevation-offering.

All offerings whose blood is placed upon the altar of the elevation-offering require the pouring of remnants upon the base, for the law of remnants was not specified in the verse for the other offerings apart from the sin-offering.

Or is it not

coming to teach about the pouring of remnants,

but

about the beginning of the giving of blood

to the altar of the elevation-offering, so that

it

should be at the base,

meaning that offerings whose blood is given upon the horns of the outer altar should be 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, for it is a

kal va-chomer

:

What of the remnants

of the sin-offering,

which do not effect atonement, require a base. The beginning

of the giving of the blood of an

elevation-offering, which effects atonement, should it not logically require a base,

that is, opposite the base.

Rabbi Akiva said:

This is how he expounded it as a kal va-chomer:

What of the remnants, which do not effect atonement and do not come for atonement, require a base. The beginning

of the giving of the blood of an

elevation-offering, which effects atonement and comes for atonement, should it not logically require a base

[and below we explain the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva]?!

If so, what is the meaning of

the statement concerning the goat of a ruler that the remainder of its blood “he shall pour

upon the base of the altar of the elevation-offering?”—

Give a base to the altar of the elevation-offering!

As we say, that from here we learn that all blood remaining from the gifts 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 of the communal error and of the bull of an anointed priest, whose blood was given inside, are poured upon the base of the outer altar, as we learn from what is written concerning the bull of an anointed priest: “and all the blood of the bull he shall pour

upon the base of the altar of the elevation-offering

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

and not

upon

the base of the inner altar.

And we raised the question: How can you expound it in this way,

when it is needed to expound it

for a teaching

concerning its own matter,

to say that it is possible to pour the remnants of the blood of the inner sin-offerings even upon the base of the outer altar, but perhaps it is all the more so possible to pour them upon the inner altar, which is the place of the giving of their blood? If so, from where do we know that the verse came to exclude and say that the remnants of the blood of the inner sin-offerings must specifically be placed upon the base of the outer altar? And we answer: If the verse came only to render fit the pouring of the blood even upon the base of the outer altar, it would not have needed to write in it “the altar of the elevation-offering,” for from

“the

altar

which is at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” it follows

that it is fit for pouring. What is this that the verse added by calling it “the altar of the elevation-offering”? Rather, necessarily, “upon the base of the altar of the elevation-offering” comes to teach you that only upon the outer altar shall he pour its blood, and not upon the inner one.

We further learned in the beraita that we derive from that which is written concerning the goat of a ruler [which is performed outside only],

“upon the base of the altar of the elevation-offering.”