Zevachim 56b — the Talmud in English

And we raised it:

this

verse

is needed for itself!

exact page location")

for itself,

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

if so,

that for this alone the verse came,

let the verse say, “On the day of his slaughter it shall be eaten”; why do I need “he offered it”

to write? Rather, learn from it:

On the day on which you slaughter, you offer; on the day on which you do not slaughter, you do not offer!

And still we raised it:

and perhaps

for this reason “he offered it” was written,

the Merciful One says this:

its time of eating does not depend on the day of its slaughter, but rather on the day of its sprinkling,

for if the blood was offered today, the meat may be eaten today and tomorrow; if the blood was offered tomorrow

and it is possible to offer it tomorrow!

may the meat be eaten tomorrow and on another day?

And we answer:

If so, let the verse say, “On the day he offers it, it shall be eaten”; why do I need “his slaughter”?

Rather,

learn from it:

on the day on which you slaughter, you offer it; on the day on which you do not slaughter, you do not offer it!

It was stated: One who thinks

at the slaughter of shelamim, intending to eat from the meat

on the night of the third day,

for their time of eating is two days and the intervening night, and he intended to eat on the night following the second day [whose following day is the third] —

Hezekiah said:

it is valid, for it does not become pigul, as one who thought “outside its time.”

Rabbi Yohanan said:

it is invalid because of pigul.

And we explain their reasons:

Hezekiah said: It is valid, for

it has not been transferred

entirely from its time

to burning,

for the time of burning has still not arrived until morning, and therefore it is not “outside its time” with regard to pigul.

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

for the time of eating has already passed.

They further disputed:

One who eats

from shelamim in which no pigul was made

on the night of the third day —

Hezekiah said:

he is exempt from karet for notar,

for it has not been transferred to burning,

since they are obligated to burn it only on the morning of the third day, and it is still not “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 time it was rejected from eating it is notar.

It was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan: Offerings eaten for one day

one makes a disqualifying thought concerning their blood from sunset!

For if he slaughtered during the day intending to sprinkle their blood after sunset, it is pigul.

But concerning their meat and their emurim

it is not pigul unless he intended to eat the meat or burn the emurim

from when dawn rises!

Offerings eaten for two days and one night: one makes a disqualifying thought concerning their blood from sunset, and concerning their emurim from when dawn rises!

For concerning blood and emurim, offerings of the highest sanctity and offerings of lesser sanctity are equal, since blood and emurim are always offerings of the highest sanctity,

but concerning their meat

one makes a disqualifying thought

from the sunset of the two days!

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

The Sages taught: One might have thought

that shelamim

are eaten on the night of the third day. And it is a logical inference

that they should be eaten, for we find

sacrifices eaten for one day and sacrifices eaten for two days. Just as sacrifices eaten for one day

are eaten also on the

night following them,

as it is written concerning the thanksgiving-offering, “He shall not leave any of it until morning,” implying that it is eaten throughout the entire night,

so too sacrifices eaten for two days

shall be eaten on the

night following them.

The verse says “

On the day of your slaughter it shall be eaten, and on the following day

and what remains until the day

of the third day shall be burned in fire,” and we expound from “until the day”:

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

One might have thought it should be burned immediately

on the night of the third day?

And it is a logical inference

that it should be burned, for there are

sacrifices eaten for one day

and there are

sacrifices eaten for two days. Just as sacrifices eaten for one day, immediately following eating,

immediately after their time, which is in the morning, their law is

burning, so too sacrifices eaten for two days, immediately following eating [מיד אחר יום השני, לאור שלישי]immediately after the second day, on the night of the third day,

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

burning —

The verse says “

On the third day it shall be burned in fire,” and we expound:

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

Mishna:

The firstborn, and the animal tithe,

of animals,

and the Pesach —

are offerings of lesser sanctity

they.

Their slaughter is anywhere in the Temple courtyard, and their blood requires one placement

on the wall of the altar,

provided that he places it opposite the base,

on those sides beneath which there is a base, excluding the east and the south.

The verse changed

the wording

concerning their eating

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

The firstborn is eaten by the priests. And the tithe by every person. And they are eaten throughout the entire city, with every food. For two days and one night.

The Pesach is eaten only at night

the first night of Pesach.

And it is eaten only until midnight.

And it is eaten only by those registered for it,

by those who were registered with the money for its purchase.

And it is eaten

only

roasted [ראה רש"ש למה נשמט שהפסח נאכל בכל העיר][see Rashash, why it was omitted that the Pesach is eaten throughout the entire city].

[see the commentary of the Rashash as to why the statement that the Paschal offering is eaten throughout the entire city was omitted].

Gemara:

And we raised it:

who is

who

the tannai

of the Mishna, who holds that the tithe and the Pesach are by sprinkling and not by pouring, for it equated them with the firstborn with regard to the placement of blood, and concerning the firstborn it is stated, “And you shall sprinkle their blood”? There are tannaim who hold that the blood of the tithe and the blood of the Pesach have the status of pouring and not sprinkling. The difference between pouring and sprinkling is that sprinkling is performed from a distance: the priest throws from a distance, from the vessel to the altar. Pouring is close by and gently: the priest stands on the base, brings the vessel close to the wall of the altar, and pours.

Rav Hisda said: It is Rabbi Yose the Galilean. For it was taught: Rabbi Yose the Galilean says:

It is stated concerning the firstborn, “You shall sprinkle their blood … and you shall burn their fat,” and we infer: “

Its fat” was not stated, but rather “their fat”; “its blood” was not stated, but rather “their blood.”

And why did it write in the plural? Rather,

it taught concerning the firstborn, the tithe, and the Pesach, that they require placement of blood and [the offering of] the emurim upon the altar!

For the law of placing the blood and burning the emurim was not specified concerning the tithe and the Pesach. And since he derives them from the firstborn, their law is sprinkling, like the firstborn [while the tannaim who hold that the tithe and the Pesach are by pouring learn their law of placing the blood from another verse].

We further raised it: the placement of blood

opposite the base

stated in our Mishna concerning the firstborn, the tithe, and the Pesach,

from where do we know it?

And we answer:

Rabbi Elazar said: It is derived

by a gezera shava

“sprinkling, sprinkling” from the burnt-offering.