Zevachim 57b (נז:) — the Talmud in English

And if you prefer,

the sprinklings there are different, since

“from outside to inside” is learned in a single derivation,

for in one step we learn the Sanctuary from the innermost area with regard to all its laws. And once the analogy was given to expound the sprinklings explicitly stated in each case—for example, below in the case of the bull and above in the case of the goat—it is likewise expounded together with it with regard to the sprinklings that are not explicitly stated in it. Similarly, with regard to the todah: Had the firstborn offering been compared directly to the todah itself, both with regard to the waving of the breast and thigh and with regard to the time of eating, we would have said: Since the todah teaches the time of eating, which is written with regard to it, it also teaches the waving of the breast and thigh, which is learned for it by analogy from the shelamim. But now that the firstborn offering was compared to the breast and thigh of the todah [in order to learn from it the time of eating], and the breast and thigh themselves are not written with regard to it, but are learned by analogy, they cannot in turn teach the firstborn offering by analogy.

We then raise this difficulty:

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

with regard to the two loaves of Shavuot,

“From your settlements you shall bring a loaf of waving.” There is no need for the verse to say “you shall bring,”

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

what does “you shall bring” teach?

And we expound it:

Anything that you bring from elsewhere

and that resembles it—for example, the loaves of the todah, which are leavened and are brought together with the offering like the two loaves—

is like this: Just as there,

with regard to the two loaves,

there is one tenth for each loaf

as it is written, “two; two tenths,”

so here,

with regard to the loaves of the todah,

there is one tenth for each loaf.

The loaves of the todah consist of ten loaves of leavened bread, so there are ten tenths for all the leavened loaves.

Could it be that just as there,

with regard to the two loaves,

there are two tenths

and no more,

so here, too, there are two tenths

for all ten loaves?

The verse therefore says

with regard to the two loaves,

“They shall be,”

with two yods; one of the letters is superfluous, to teach that the todah has ten tenths. It cannot be referring to the two loaves themselves, since “two tenths” is already written with regard to them.

We have learned

here

ten

tenths for the loaves of

leavened bread

of the todah.

Ten

tenths

for unleavened bread,

for all three types brought together with the todah, which are unleavened bread;

from where

do we know that together they contain ten tenths?

The verse therefore says,

after the verse enumerates the types of unleavened bread,

“alongside a loaf of leavened bread,”

and we expound this by analogy:

corresponding to the leavened bread that is brought together with the unleavened bread,

the quantity of flour in the unleavened bread must be the same as in the leavened bread—ten tenths.

But the ten tenths in the leavened loaves are a case of “from it and another matter”: the number of loaves, ten, is written explicitly in its own context [that is, by a gzera shava, which is like being written explicitly], while the measure for each loaf, one tenth, is learned by analogy from the two loaves through the word “bring”; through both of them we learn that the leavened bread contains ten tenths. And according to the one who says, “It is not considered an analogy,” this is satisfactory.

But according to the one who says, “It is considered an analogy,” what can be said?

How can the leavened bread then teach the unleavened bread by analogy?

We answer:

“You shall bring” is superfluous;

it is an amplification with regard to the leavened bread of the todah, teaching that there is one tenth for each loaf. For with regard to the two loaves it is superfluous, and it is as though it had been written with regard to the todah itself. Thus, it is not learned by analogy and then used to teach the unleavened bread in turn.

We learned in the Mishna:

The Pesach offering may not be eaten

except until midnight.

And we raise a question about this:

Who

is the

tannai

of our Mishna, who holds that it may be eaten only until midnight?

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

with regard to eating 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, it was until midnight,

as the plague of the firstborn occurred at midnight,

so here, too,

the eating of the Pesach offering is

until midnight!

Rabbi Akiva said to him:

But it has already been stated:

“You shall eat it in haste,”

which indicates

until the time of haste,

the time when they hastened to leave and depart from Egypt, namely, at daybreak, for it is written, “You shall not go out, any of you, from the entrance of his house until morning.”

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

One might have thought that the

Pesach offering is

like all consecrated offerings that are eaten during the day,

and that the Pesach offering could be eaten before nightfall if one wished.

The verse therefore says: “At night,”

to tell you: only

at night may it be eaten, and it may not be eaten during the day!

And we raise a question about this:

Abaye said to

Rav Yosef:

And from where

do you know that our Mishna is

Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya’s

opinion,

and that it is a Torah law

that it may not be eaten after midnight?

Perhaps

the prohibition against eating it after midnight

is rabbinic,

and it was instituted

to distance

a person

from transgression,

so that he would not come to eat it after daybreak and become liable for notar, just as we learned with regard to all consecrated offerings in our chapter, that they are eaten until midnight? And we answer:

If so,

if we say that it is rabbinic,

what

is the reason that the Mishna teaches

“except until midnight,”

rather than teaching, “It is eaten until midnight,” as it teaches with regard to all consecrated offerings?

Rather,

it necessarily comes to tell you:

Just as there,

the tannai used the expression “except,” as he did with regard to the laws of “night,” “those registered for it,” and “roasted.”

Just as there

the law

is by Torah law,

so here, too,

the law

is by Torah law!

as well!

We have completed [the study of] you, chapter “Which Are Their Place.”