Zevachim 57a — the Talmud in English

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

that the placing of its blood is opposite the base?

For it is written: “to the base of the altar of the burnt-offering,”

and it is superfluous [see above, 51a]

to teach concerning the burnt-offering that it requires a base!

And we raised a difficulty concerning it: Since it is derived from the burnt-offering,

if so, just as there

in the burnt-offering,

are two placements that are four, so too here

in the firstborn, tithe, and Paschal-offering,

there should be two placements that are four;

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

And we answer:

Abbaye said: Why do I need “around” to be written concerning the burnt-offering,

and also

“around” concerning 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!

[even by means of a gzera shava].

And we still raised a difficulty concerning it:

This works according to the one who says that they do not teach. But according to the one who says that they do teach, what is there to say?

And we resolve:

Let

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

the guilt-offering,

in which “around” is also written, 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,

and the tithe by every person, and they are eaten for two days and one night.

The Sages taught:

From where [do we derive] that the firstborn is eaten for two days and one night? For it is stated concerning the firstborn:

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

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

[so called because Torah scholars would sit 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 one student there who came to the beit-midrash before the Sages

in Yavne

for the first time

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

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

to Rabbi Tarfon:

Rabbi!

From where do you know 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

the firstborn

is eaten for two days and one night.

[Not from a comparison, but by what we find.]

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean said to him

Rabbi Tarfon:

Rabbi!

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

The firstborn is

a

gift to a priest,

and sin-offering and guilt-offering

are also

[whereas peace-offerings belong to their owners].

Just as sin-offering and guilt-offering

are eaten

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

Rabbi Tarfon said to him

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean:

We reason one matter from another matter, and we learn one matter from another matter.

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

just as peace-offerings do not come on account of a sin, so the firstborn does not come on account of a sin,

and therefore it should be learned from it:

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

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean said to him

Rabbi Tarfon: I too say:

We reason one matter from another matter, and we learn one matter from another matter.

For the firstborn resembles sin-offering and guilt-offering, for

sin-offering and guilt-offering

their flesh 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, for

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

come

through a vow or a voluntary offering,

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

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

Rabbi Akiva sprang forward

to answer him,

and

Rabbi Tarfon fell silent.

He said to him

Rabbi Akiva to Rabbi Yosei the Galilean:

Behold, it says

concerning the firstborn:

“And their flesh shall be yours

like the breast of waving,”

the verse compared it,

the firstborn,

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

And one does not refute a comparison!

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean said to him

Rabbi Akiva: There is still a way to refute it:

You compared it to the breast and thigh of peace-offerings, whereas I compare it to the breast and thigh of a thanksgiving-offering,

for it was not stated in the verse which breast and thigh are being discussed, and one may say, “You have grasped the smaller, you have grasped.”

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

only!

Rabbi Akiva said to him

Rabbi Yosei the Galilean: I concede your words, that it should be compared to the breast and thigh of a thanksgiving-offering, but nevertheless it is logical that it should be eaten for two days,

for it says: “And their flesh shall be yours

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

For “yours it shall be” need not be stated,

since it was already stated at the beginning of the verse, “shall be yours,”

and what does it teach

by stating a second time

“yours it shall be”? The verse added another duration for the firstborn,

like the one that follows by comparison from the thanksgiving-offering—that is, an additional day for eating; and therefore it is eaten for two days [see the Rashash, who asked that an additional day and night should have been added, and it would then be eaten for two days and two nights].

And when these matters were stated before Rabbi Yishmael, he said to them: Go and say to Rabbi Akiva: You have erred

in retracting your comparison of the firstborn to peace-offerings and comparing it to a thanksgiving-offering. For you are compelled not to compare 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 comparison, for it is not written in its own passage. And how can one say that the firstborn should learn by comparison from the breast and thigh of the thanksgiving-offering with regard to the time of eating?

Can a matter learned by comparison return and teach by comparison?

Rather, you have no way to reason according to the latter wording

with which you reasoned to compare it to the breast and thigh of a thanksgiving-offering,

but according to the first wording!

For it is the firstborn that was compared to peace-offerings, in this verse of “like the breast of waving.”

And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

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

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

And we answer:

It teaches concerning a blemished firstborn that it is a gift to a priest, something for which we do not find anywhere in the entire Torah

from where to learn it except from the superfluous verse, “yours it shall be.”

And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

And Rabbi Akiva,

for “yours it shall be” is not superfluous for him, from where does he learn that a blemished firstborn is given to a priest?

And we answer:

He derives it from “their flesh”

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

one is an unblemished one and one is a blemished one.

And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

And Rabbi Yishmael,

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

And we answer:

“Their flesh” refers to those firstborn

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

he is saying.

And the Gemara returns to Rabbi Yishmael’s words, that one may not compare it to a thanksgiving-offering because the thanksgiving-offering itself was learned by comparison from peace-offerings.

And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

In what do

Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael

differ, and what is the reason of Rabbi Akiva, who compares it to a thanksgiving-offering, when a matter learned by comparison does not return and teach by comparison?

And we answer:

One master,

Rabbi Yishmael, holds: “from it and another matter.”

That is, a matter some of what it teaches to others is written in it and some of it is learned from another place—for example, the eating of the breast and thigh of the thanksgiving-offering for one day and one night: the eating for one day and one night is written in the thanksgiving-offering itself, whereas the law of its breast and thigh is learned by comparison from peace-offerings. Rabbi Yishmael holds that “from it and another matter” is considered as though it

is

a matter learned by

comparison,

which does not return and teach by comparison. Therefore, the eating of the breast and thigh of the thanksgiving-offering, which are eaten for one day, is considered a matter learned by comparison that does not return and teach by comparison.

And the other master,

Rabbi Akiva,

holds,

since one day and one night are written in the thanksgiving-offering itself, even though its breast and thigh are learned by comparison from peace-offerings,

it is not

a matter learned by

comparison;

therefore it returns and teaches the firstborn by comparison.

And we respond by proving from elsewhere concerning the dispute over whether “from it and another matter” is considered a matter learned by comparison, which does not return and teach by comparison.

And we raise a difficulty concerning it:

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

concerning the sprinklings of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur:

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

and we expound:

Just as he sprinkles in the innermost place

between the staves

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

on the curtain from the blood of the bull!

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

from the blood of the goat!

But according to the one who says, “it is a comparison,” what is there to say?

For the entire number of sprinklings was not stated in both of them; rather, concerning the bull it says seven downward, and concerning the goat it says once upward. And they learn them from one another by this comparison. It follows that each one is “from it and another matter,” for part is written in it and part is learned from another place; so how does it return and teach concerning the sprinkling in the Sanctuary by comparison?

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

And in the second comparison,

it is the places that are learned from one another,

for the Sanctuary was compared to the innermost place, so that one sprinkles in the Sanctuary as one sprinkles in the innermost place. It follows that in the first comparison the animals were compared to one another, and in the second comparison the places were compared to one another. This is unlike the breast and thigh of the thanksgiving-offering, where the law of the breast and thigh itself is learned from peace-offerings by comparison, and it itself returns and teaches by comparison concerning the time of its eating.