Zevachim 56b (נו:) — the Talmud in English

And we raised an objection:

this

verse

is needed

for its own subject matter—

to teach that the time for eating shelamim is on the day of slaughter and the following day!? And we answer:

If so,

if this is the sole purpose for which the verse was written,

let the verse say: “It shall be eaten on the day of its slaughter”; why do I need it to write “when it is offered”?

Rather, conclude from it:

On the day when you slaughter, you may offer it; on a day when you may not slaughter, you may not offer it!

We nevertheless raise an objection:

Perhaps

the reason “when it is offered” was written is that

this is what the Merciful One is saying:

Its eating time does not depend on the day of its slaughter; rather, it depends on the day of the sprinkling of its blood.

For if the blood is offered today, the meat may be eaten today and tomorrow; if the blood is offered tomorrow

(and it is possible to offer it tomorrow!),

may the meat be eaten tomorrow and the following day?

And we answer:

If so, let the verse say: “It shall be eaten on the day when it is offered”; why do I need “its slaughter”?

Rather,

conclude from it:

On the day when you slaughter, you may offer it; on a day when you may not slaughter, you may not offer it!

It was stated: One who,

when slaughtering a shelamim offering, intends to eat some of the meat

on the night of the third day,

when the time for eating it is two days and the intervening night, and he intended to eat it on the night following the second day [that is, the night leading into the third day]—

Hezekiah said:

It is valid, for this is not pigul, since he intended “outside its designated time.”

Rabbi Yohanan said:

It is disqualified because of pigul.

And we explain their reasoning:

Hezekiah said it is valid, for

it has not yet been transferred

entirely from its designated time

to burning,

since the time for burning has not yet arrived, as it is not until morning. Therefore, it is not considered “outside its designated time” with regard to pigul.

Rabbi Yohanan said it is disqualified: for it has been rejected from eating,

since the time for eating has already passed.

They further disputed:

One who eats

a shelamim offering in which no intention of pigul had been entertained

on the night of the third day—

Hezekiah said:

He is exempt from karet for eating notar,

for it has not been transferred to burning,

since it becomes subject to burning only on the morning of the third day, and it is still not considered notar, even though it is already forbidden to eat.

Rabbi Yohanan said: He is liable, for it has been rejected from eating,

and from the moment it is rejected from eating, it is considered notar.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yohanan: Sacrificial offerings that are eaten for one day

are subject to a disqualifying intention with regard to their blood from sunset!

If one slaughtered during the day with the intention of sprinkling their blood after sunset, it is pigul.

But with regard to their meat and their sacrificial portions,

it becomes pigul only if he intended to eat the meat or burn the sacrificial portions

from dawn!

Sacrificial offerings that are eaten for two days and one night are subject to a disqualifying intention with regard to their blood from sunset, and with regard to their sacrificial portions from dawn!

With regard to blood and sacrificial portions, kodshei kodashim and kodashim kalim are the same, since blood and sacrificial portions are always kodshei kodashim.

And with regard to their meat

a disqualifying intention applies

from the sunset of the two days!

That is, on the night of the third day, in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan.

The Sages taught: One might

think that shelamim

may be eaten on the night of the third day. And this may be derived by logical inference:

They should be eaten, for we find

offerings that are eaten for one day and offerings that are eaten for two days. Just as offerings that are eaten for one day

are eaten also on

the night following them,

as it is written with regard to the thanksgiving offering, “He shall not leave any of it until morning,” indicating that it may be eaten throughout the entire night,

so too, offerings that are eaten for two days

may be eaten on

the night following them.

The verse states: “It shall be eaten on the day of your slaughter and on the following day,

and the remainder until the day”

of the third day

“shall be burned in fire.” And we derive from “until the day”:

During the day it may be eaten, but it may not be eaten on the night of the third day!

One might

think that it should be burned immediately, on the night of the third day.

And this may be derived by logical inference:

It should be burned, for there are

offerings eaten for one day

and there are

offerings eaten for two days. Just as offerings eaten for one day, immediately after eating,

that is, immediately after their designated time, which is in the morning, are subject

to burning, so too, offerings eaten for two days, immediately after eating

[immediately after the second day, on the night of the third day], are subject to

burning—

The verse states: “On the third day it shall be burned in fire,” and we derive:

During the day you burn it, but you may not burn it at night!

on the day you burn it, but you may not burn it at night!

Mishna:

The firstborn, the animal tithe

offering,

and the Paschal offering—

are kodashim kalim.

and not offerings of the highest sanctity.

Their slaughter may be performed anywhere in the Temple courtyard, and their blood requires one placement

on the wall of the altar,

provided that he places it opposite the yesod,

on those sides beneath which there is a yesod, excluding the eastern and southern sides.

The verse distinguished

in the matter of

their consumption

from these offerings, even though it equated them with regard to the placement of the blood:

The firstborn is eaten by priests. The animal tithe is eaten by everyone. They may be eaten throughout the entire city, with any food. For two days and one night.

The Paschal offering may be eaten only at night,

the first night of Passover.

And it may be eaten only until midnight.

And it may be eaten only by those registered for it,

those who were registered with the money used to purchase it.

And it may be eaten

only

roasted

[See Rashash as to why the statement that the Paschal offering may be eaten throughout the entire city was omitted.]

Gemara:

And we raised an objection:

Which

that is, who is the

tanna

of the Mishna who maintains that the blood of the animal tithe and the Paschal offering is treated by sprinkling and not by pouring? For the Mishna equated them with the firstborn with regard to the placement of the blood, and concerning the firstborn it is stated: “And you shall sprinkle their blood.” There are tannaim who maintain that the blood of the animal tithe and the blood of the Paschal offering are treated by pouring and not by sprinkling. The difference between pouring and sprinkling is that sprinkling is performed from a distance: the koen throws the blood from a distance, from the vessel onto the altar. Pouring is performed from nearby and gently: the koen stands on the yesod, brings the vessel close to the wall of the altar, and pours.

Rav Hisda said: It is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says:

With regard to the firstborn it is stated: “You shall sprinkle their blood … and you shall burn their fat portions,” and we infer:

It does not say “its fat portion,” but rather “their fat portions.” It does not say “its blood,” but rather “their blood.”

Why is it written in the plural? Rather,

it teaches with regard to the firstborn, the animal tithe, and the Paschal offering that they require placement of their blood and sacrificial portions on the altar!

The laws of placement of the blood and burning of the sacrificial portions were not explicitly stated with regard to the animal tithe and the Paschal offering. Since their laws are derived from the firstborn, their blood is treated by sprinkling, like that of the firstborn [whereas the tannaim who maintain that the animal tithe and the Paschal offering are treated by pouring derive their law of placement of the blood from another verse].

We further raised an objection: The placement of the blood

opposite the yesod,

as stated in our Mishna with regard to the firstborn, the animal tithe, and the Paschal offering,

from where do we derive it?

And we answer:

Rabbi Elazar said: It is derived

by a gezeira shava,

“sprinkling” from the burnt offering.