Zevachim 57b — the Talmud in English

And if you wish, say:

the sprinklings there are different, for

“outside from inside” was learned in a single derivation,

for in one instance we learn the Sanctuary from the inside for all its laws; and since the hekesh was given to expound the sprinklings explicitly stated in each one—for example, below in the bull and above in the goat—it is likewise expounded together with it for the sprinklings that are not explicitly stated in it. And similarly with the thanksgiving offering: if the firstborn had been compared to the thanksgiving offering itself, both with regard to the waving of the breast and thigh and with regard to the eating-time, we would have said: since the thanksgiving offering teaches the eating-time that is written in it, it also teaches the waving of the breast and thigh, which is learned in it by a hekesh from the peace-offerings. But now that the firstborn was compared to the breast and thigh of the thanksgiving offering [in order to learn the eating-time from it], and the breast and thigh itself is not written in it, but is learned by a hekesh, it does not return and teach by a hekesh to the firstborn.

We further considered this:

Granted, according to the one who says, “It is not a hekesh,” this is what is written

concerning the two loaves of Shavuot:

“From your settlements you shall bring a bread of waving.” For there would be no need for the verse to say, “you shall bring,”

since previously it is written, “And you shall present a new grain-offering,” and it could have written, “From your settlements, a bread of waving,”

what does “you shall bring” teach?

And we expound:

Everything that you bring from another place

and which resembles it—for example, the loaves of the thanksgiving offering, which are leavened and come with the offering, like the two loaves—

is like this: just as there,

with the two loaves,

a tenth for each loaf

for it is written, “two, two tenths,”

so here,

with the loaves of the thanksgiving offering,

a tenth for each loaf.

And the loaves of the thanksgiving offering come as ten loaves of the leavened kind; thus there are ten tenths for all the leavened loaves.

Could it be that just as there,

with the two loaves,

two tenths,

and no more,

so here, two tenths

for all ten loaves?

The verse therefore says

concerning the two loaves:

“They shall be”

with two yods, and one of the letters is superfluous, to teach ten tenths for the thanksgiving offering. It cannot refer to the two loaves, since “two tenths” is written concerning them.

We have learned

here

ten

tenths for the loaves of

the leavened kind

of the thanksgiving offering.

Ten

tenths

for the unleavened kind,

for all three kinds together that come with the thanksgiving offering and are unleavened.

From where

do we know that together they are ten tenths?

The verse therefore says,

after the verse enumerated the kinds of the unleavened offering:

“Alongside the loaf of leavened bread,”

and we expound it by a hekesh:

corresponding to the leavened kind that comes with the unleavened kind,

so that the quantity of flour in the unleavened kinds shall be like that in the leavened kind—ten tenths!

But the ten tenths in the leavened loaves are “from it and from another matter”: the number of loaves, which is ten, is written in its own verse [that is, in the gezera shava, which is like its being written explicitly], while the measure for each loaf, which is a tenth, is learned by the hekesh of “you shall bring” from the two loaves; and through both of them we learn ten tenths in the leavened kind. And according to the one who says, “It is not a hekesh,” this is satisfactory.

But according to the one who says, “It is a hekesh,” what can be said?

How does the leavened kind return and teach by a hekesh to the unleavened kind?

And we answer:

“You shall bring” is superfluous;

it is an amplification for the leavened kind of the thanksgiving offering, that there should be a tenth for each loaf. For with the two loaves it is superfluous, and it is as though it were written concerning the thanksgiving offering itself. Thus it is not learned by a hekesh and then returns and teaches to the unleavened kind.

We learned in the Mishna:

The Pesach is not eaten

except until midnight.

And we considered this:

Who

is the

tannay

of our Mishna who holds that it is eaten only until midnight?

Rav Yosef said: It is Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. For it was taught: Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: It is stated here

with regard to the eating of the Pesach offering,

“And they shall eat the flesh on this night,” and it is stated elsewhere

with regard to the plague of the firstborn [Exodus 12],

“And I shall pass through the land of Egypt on this night.” Just as there, until midnight,

for the plague of the firstborn occurred at midnight,

so here,

the eating of the Pesach offering is

until midnight!

Rabbi Akiva said to him:

But it has already been stated:

“And you shall eat it in haste,”

which implies

until the time of haste,

the time when they hastened to go and depart from Egypt—which was at daybreak, since it is written, “But none of you shall go outside the entrance of his house until morning.”

If so, what does “on this night” teach?

One might have thought that the

Pesach

would be like all the consecrated offerings that are eaten during the day,

and the Pesach offering could be eaten before night if he wished.

The verse therefore says: “At night,”

to tell you: only

at night is it eaten, and it is not eaten during the day!

And we considered this:

Abaye said to

Rav Yosef:

And from where

is it that the Mishna is

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya

and

from the Torah

that it is not eaten after midnight?

Perhaps

the prohibition against eating it after midnight

is rabbinic

and

to distance

a person

from transgression,

so that he will not come to eat it after dawn and become liable on account of notar, like all the consecrated offerings concerning which we learned in our chapter that they are eaten until midnight? And we resolve:

If so,

if we say that it is rabbinic,

what

is this that the Mishna teaches,

“except until midnight,”

and does not teach, “and it is eaten until midnight,” as it teaches concerning all the consecrated offerings?

Rather,

necessarily, it tells you:

just as there,

the tannay changed the wording to “except,” as he changed it with regard to the laws of “night,” “its registered members,” and “roasted.”

Just as there

the law

is from the Torah,

so here,

the law

is from the Torah

as well!

We shall return to you, chapter “Which Is Their Place.”