Zevachim 57a (נז.) — the Talmud in English

And as for the burnt offering itself, from where do we derive this

that its blood is applied opposite the יסוד?

As it is written: “to the יסוד of the altar of the burnt offering,”

and this is superfluous [see above 51a]

to teach that a burnt offering requires a יסוד!

And we raised a question concerning this: Since it is derived from the burnt offering,

perhaps just as there

in the burnt offering,

there are two applications that are four, so too here,

with regard to the firstborn, the animal tithe, and the Paschal offering,

there should be two applications that are four,

and why did they say in the Mishna that they require only one application?

And we answer:

Abaye said: Why do I need the verse to write “around” with regard to the burnt offering,

and also

“around” with regard to the sin offering?

[see Tosafot which of them is superfluous],

They are two verses that come as one, and whenever there are two verses that come as one, they do not teach!

[And this is so even with regard to a gzera shava.]

And we still raised a question concerning this:

That works according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do not teach. But according to the one who says that they do teach, what is there to say?

And we answer:

Let

the two verses concerning the burnt offering and the sin offering, together with

the guilt offering,

in which it is also written “around,” be

three

verses.

And three

verses that come as one

certainly do not teach!

We learned in the Mishna:

The firstborn is eaten by priests,

whereas the animal tithe is eaten by anyone, and they are eaten for two days and one night.

The Sages taught:

From where is it derived that the firstborn is eaten for two days and one night? As it is stated with regard to the firstborn:

“And their flesh shall be yours, like the breast of waving and the right thigh.” The verse juxtaposed it with the breast and thigh of peace offerings: Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too the firstborn is eaten for two days and one night!

And this question was posed before the Sages in the vineyard at Yavne

[so called because the Torah scholars sat in rows like a vineyard]:

The firstborn—for how many

days

is it eaten?

Rabbi Tarfon responded and said:

For two days and one night!

There was a certain student who came to the house of study before the Sages

in Yavne

for the first time

[as that was the beginning of his coming there],

and his name was Rabbi Yosei the Galilean. He said to

Rabbi Tarfon:

Rabbi!

From where do you derive this?

He said to him,

Rabbi Tarfon:

My son!

Peace offerings are offerings of lesser sanctity,

and the firstborn

is also

an offering of lesser sanctity. Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too

the firstborn

is eaten for two days and one night.

[Not by means of a juxtaposition, but by means of a bammah matzinu.]

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean said to him:

Rabbi Tarfon:

Rabbi!

This is not a proof, as it is possible to reason as follows:

The firstborn is a gift to a priest,

it

and a sin offering and a guilt offering

are also

a gift to a priest

[whereas peace offerings belong to their owners].

Just as a sin offering and a guilt offering

are eaten

for one day and one night, so too the firstborn is eaten for one day and one night!

Rabbi Tarfon said to him,

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean:

One should reason from one matter to another matter, and derive one matter from another matter.

That is, from what resembles it. The firstborn resembles peace offerings, since

just as peace offerings do not come for a sin, so too the firstborn does not come for a sin,

and therefore it should be derived from them:

Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too the firstborn is eaten for two days and one night!

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean said to him:

Rabbi Tarfon: I too say:

One should reason from one matter to another matter, and derive one matter from another matter.

For the firstborn resembles a sin offering and a guilt offering, since

the flesh of a sin offering and a guilt offering

is given as

a gift to a priest, and the firstborn

is also given as

a gift to a priest.

And it also resembles them, since

just as a sin offering and a guilt offering do not come through a vow or a freewill offering, so too the firstborn does not

come

through a vow or a freewill offering,

unlike peace offerings, which do come through a vow or a freewill offering. And if so, it is logical that the firstborn should be derived from them:

Just as a sin offering and a guilt offering are eaten for one day, so too the firstborn is eaten for one day!

Rabbi Akiva sprang forward

to answer him,

and

Rabbi Tarfon

fell silent. He said to

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean:

Behold, it says

with regard to the firstborn:

“And their flesh shall be yours,

like the breast of waving,”

the verse juxtaposed

the firstborn

with the breast and thigh of peace offerings: Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too the firstborn is eaten for two days and one night.

And one may not refute a juxtaposition!

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean said

to Rabbi Akiva: There is still room to refute this:

You juxtaposed it with the breast and thigh of peace offerings, whereas I juxtapose it with the breast and thigh of a thanksgiving offering,

as the verse does not state which breast and thigh it is referring to, and one may say: “You have grasped the lesser; you have grasped.”

Just as a thanksgiving offering is eaten for one day and one night, so too the firstborn is eaten for one day and one night

only!

Rabbi Akiva said

to Rabbi Yosei the Galilean: I concede your point that it should be juxtaposed with the breast and thigh of a thanksgiving offering; nevertheless, it is logical that it should be eaten for two days,

as it says: “And their flesh shall be yours,

like the breast of waving and the right thigh; yours it shall be.”

For there is no need for the verse to say, “yours it shall be,”

since it has already said at the beginning of the verse, “it shall be yours,”

so what does

it teach by saying again

“yours it shall be”? The verse added another state of being for the firstborn,

like the one derived by juxtaposition from the thanksgiving offering—that is, an additional day for eating; consequently, it is eaten for two days [see the Rashash, who raised the objection that an additional day and night should have been added, resulting in its being eaten for two days and two nights].

And when these words were brought before Rabbi Yishmael, he said to them: Go and tell Rabbi Akiva: You have erred

by retracting your derivation by juxtaposition of the firstborn from peace offerings and juxtaposing it to a thanksgiving offering. For you are compelled not to juxtapose it to a thanksgiving offering. For

the thanksgiving offering—from where did it learn

that its breast and thigh are given to priests?

From peace offerings,

by juxtaposition, since this is not written explicitly with regard to it. And how can it be said that the firstborn should learn by juxtaposition from the breast and thigh of a thanksgiving offering with regard to the time during which it may be eaten?

Can something learned by juxtaposition return and teach by juxtaposition?

Rather, you have no option but to reason according to the final wording

by which you reasoned to juxtapose it with the breast and thigh of a thanksgiving offering,

but according to the initial wording!

According to which the firstborn was juxtaposed to peace offerings, in this verse that says “like the breast of waving.”

And we raise a question concerning this:

And Rabbi Yishmael—what does he do with this phrase, “yours it shall be”?

For he does not need it to teach that the firstborn is eaten for two days, since it was already juxtaposed to peace offerings!?

And we answer:

It teaches with regard to a firstborn animal with a permanent blemish that it is a gift to a priest, a matter for which we find no source in the entire Torah

other than the superfluous phrase “yours it shall be.”

And we raise a question concerning this:

And Rabbi Akiva,

who does not have the phrase “yours it shall be” as a superfluous expression, from where does he learn that a firstborn animal with a permanent blemish is given to a priest?

And we answer:

He derives it from the phrase “their flesh”

“shall be yours,” which is written in the plural:

one refers to an unblemished animal and one to an animal with a permanent blemish.

And we raise a question concerning this:

And Rabbi Yishmael,

what does he do with the plural wording that is written?

And we answer:

“Their flesh” refers to those firstborn animals

that are written in the passage: “the firstborn of an ox, the firstborn of a sheep, and the firstborn of a goat,”

is what the verse is saying.

And the Gemara returns to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, that one cannot juxtapose the firstborn to a thanksgiving offering because the thanksgiving offering itself was learned by juxtaposition from peace offerings.

And we raise a question concerning this:

With regard to what do

Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael disagree, and what is the rationale of Rabbi Akiva, who juxtaposes the firstborn to a thanksgiving offering? After all, something learned by juxtaposition does not return and teach by juxtaposition.

And we answer:

One master,

Rabbi Yishmael,

holds: “Partly derived from it and partly from another source.”

That is, a matter part of whose teaching to others is written within it, while part is learned from another place—for example, the eating of the breast and thigh of a thanksgiving offering for one day and one night: The eating for one day and one night is written with regard to the thanksgiving offering itself, whereas the law of its breast and thigh is learned by juxtaposition from peace offerings. Rabbi Yishmael holds that “partly derived from it and partly from another source” is considered as though it

is

a matter learned by

juxtaposition,

which cannot return and teach by juxtaposition. Therefore, the eating of the breast and thigh of a thanksgiving offering for one day is considered a matter learned by juxtaposition that cannot return and teach by juxtaposition.

And one master,

Rabbi Akiva,

holds:

Since one day and one night are written with regard to the thanksgiving offering itself, even though its breast and thigh are learned by juxtaposition from peace offerings,

it is not

a matter learned by

juxtaposition,

and therefore it can return and teach with regard to the firstborn by juxtaposition.

And we seek to prove from elsewhere, from a dispute concerning whether “partly derived from it and partly from another source” is considered a matter learned by juxtaposition, which cannot return and teach by juxtaposition.

And we raise a question concerning this:

Granted, according to the one who says, “It is not juxtaposition,” this is why it is written

with regard to the sprinklings of the bull and the goat on Yom Kippur:

“And so shall he do for the Tent of Meeting,”

and we derive:

Just as when he sprinkles in the innermost sanctum

between the staves

he sprinkles once upward and seven times downward from the blood of the bull, so too he sprinkles in the Sanctuary

on the curtain from the blood of the bull!

And just as when he sprinkles in the innermost sanctum once upward and seven times downward from the blood of the goat, so too he sprinkles in the Sanctuary

from the blood of the goat!

But according to the one who says, “It is juxtaposition,” what is there to say?

For the full number of sprinklings is not stated with regard to both of them: With regard to the bull, seven downward is stated, while with regard to the goat, once upward is stated. They learn from one another by this juxtaposition. It follows that each one is partly “derived from it and partly from another source,” with part written in it and part learned from elsewhere; so how can it return and teach with regard to the sprinkling in the Sanctuary by juxtaposition?

And we answer: Here, it is not a matter learned by juxtaposition that returns and teaches by juxtaposition; rather, there are two parallel juxtapositions. The first juxtaposition concerns the number of sprinklings: The bull and the goat were juxtaposed to teach us that in both cases one sprinkles once upward and seven times downward.

And with regard to the second juxtaposition,

it is the locations that are derived from one another,

as the Sanctuary was juxtaposed to the innermost sanctum, teaching that one sprinkles in the Sanctuary just as one sprinkles in the innermost sanctum. It follows that in the first juxtaposition the animals were juxtaposed to one another, while in the second juxtaposition the locations were juxtaposed to one another. This is unlike the breast and thigh of a thanksgiving offering, where the law of the breast and thigh itself is learned from peace offerings by juxtaposition, and then itself returns and teaches by juxtaposition with regard to the time during which it may be eaten.