Zevachim 8a — the Talmud in English

as it is written ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location") "

And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering,"

“take” is an expression of receiving, and the verse teaches

that the receiving shall be for the sake of the sin-offering!

And we have found

that the slaughtering and the receiving must be performed for its sake —

from where do we derive the sprinkling?

For the verse says "

And the priest shall make atonement for him

the priest

for his sin-offering" —

that the atonement [

performed at the time of the sprinkling ]

shall be for the sake of the sin-offering!

And likewise the conveyance must be performed for the sake of the sin-offering, but it was not necessary to derive it from a verse, since it is included within receiving, as above [4a].

We have found a change of sacred designation; from where do we derive a change of owners?

The verse says: "

And he shall make atonement

for him" —

for him, and not for another.

We have found it regarding the mitzva; regarding invalidation —

from where do we derive it?

As

[below]

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehuda

said: It is stated, “And the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin-offering,” and apparently it should have said

“for the sin-offering,”

but the verse was precise in saying

“his sin-offering,”

to teach from the superfluous letter vav that one must have in mind the owners’ designation.

Here too

we learn from the fact that the verse repeated

“sin-offering” —

“his sin-offering” —

that a change of owners during sprinkling invalidates.

We have found

a verse teaching that all the services of the sin-offering are

a mitzva

to perform them for their sake, and not to perform them

with a change of sacred designation.

And

likewise we find a verse teaching that also

the sprinkling

of the blood of the sin-offering must be performed by sprinkling the blood for the sake of the owner of the offering, and not by sprinkling it

with a change of owners; and from this verse we learn

both for the mitzva

and for invalidation,

ab initio

and for invalidation,

that if one sprinkled the blood of the sin-offering with a change of owners, the sin-offering was invalidated, for the verse repeated the sprinkling with a change of owners for invalidation.

And we still need to know from where we derive

invalidation in all the services

that were performed

with a change of sacred designation,

for until now we have learned only regarding the mitzva.

And

likewise regarding

the other services

of the sin-offering [apart from sprinkling, concerning which it was already explained that if it was performed with a change of owners, it invalidates], which we learned are not to be performed

with a change of owners, both for the mitzva and for invalidation —

from where do we derive it?

Rabbi Yona said: It is derived from the sin-offering of a nazirite, as it is written

concerning it, "

And the priest shall offer before the Lord

and shall perform his sin-offering and his burnt-offering."

And we expound: What does “and shall perform his sin-offering and his burnt-offering” come to teach, after it was already stated, “And the priest shall offer before the Lord”? It teaches you

that all its performances

in the sin-offering of the nazirite

shall be for the sake of the sin-offering.

And since regarding the mitzva we already expound from “and he shall slaughter it for a sin-offering” that he must perform it “for its sake” and not with a change of sacred designation, it necessarily follows that the verse concerning the sin-offering of a nazirite was repeated in order to teach invalidation: that all the performances of the sin-offering must be performed without a change of sacred designation.

We have found a change of sacred designation

to invalidate in all the services of the sin-offering;

a change of owners, from where

is it learned that it invalidates in all the services of the sin-offering, as does sprinkling?

Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua

said: A change of owners is learned from the superfluous letter vav, for it should have said concerning the sin-offering of a nazirite, “And he shall perform

the sin-offering,” but it was written

“his sin-offering,”

and the verse teaches that one must perform the sin-offering for the sake of its owner and not with a change of owners.

And since we derived from the verse that every performance of the sin-offering must be performed for the sake of the owners as a mitzva, it follows that we learn from the comparison of the sin-offering to peace-offerings: Just as regarding peace-offerings you did not distinguish between sprinkling and the other services concerning a change of owners for the mitzva, so too regarding the sin-offering you shall not distinguish between sprinkling [which we learned above invalidates in the sin-offering] and the other services, so that they too invalidate with a change of owners.

Once we have derived from the verse that all the rites of a sin-offering must ideally be performed for its owner, it follows that we learn through the analogy between a sin-offering and peace-offerings as follows: Just as with peace-offerings no distinction is made between sprinkling and the other rites with regard to a change in the owner’s identity as an ideal requirement, so too, with a sin-offering no distinction is made between sprinkling [which we learned above invalidates a sin-offering] and the other rites; they too invalidate the offering when performed with a change in the owner’s identity.

Ravina challenged him

to Rav Huna:

But if that is so,

since the source for a change of owners in the sin-offering is derived from the superfluous vav in “sin-offering—his sin-offering,” then in this verse “his burnt-offering” is also stated, and there too there is a superfluous vav; if so, the difficulty is:

“burnt-offering” —

“his burnt-offering,”

what have you expounded from it?

And we raise a difficulty:

And according to Ravina,

why did he raise the difficulty only concerning “burnt-offering—his burnt-offering”? For we find additional superfluous vavs in the sin-offering of a nazirite:

“meal-offering” —

“his meal-offering,”

and likewise

“libation” —

“his libation”;

why did he not raise the difficulty concerning all of them,

“what have you expounded from them?”

And we answer:

That

was not difficult to Ravina, for

he needs it

to teach that a nazirite may bring the meal-offering and libations even after the time for offering the sacrifice has passed, just as they expounded concerning the offerings of the festival from the verse “for all their meal-offerings and their libations,” that one may offer

their meal-offerings and their libations

of the festival offerings even at

night [

whereas the offerings themselves must be offered by day], and likewise they expounded that one may offer

their meal-offerings and their libations even on the next day,

and there is no obligation to offer the meal-offering and the libations together with the offering itself; and likewise we shall expound from “and he shall perform his meal-offering and his libation,” stated concerning the sin-offering of a nazirite, that he may bring them separately from the offerings of the nazirite.

Therefore Ravina did not raise a difficulty to Rav Huna concerning the superfluous vav in “his meal-offering and his libation,”

but only from

“his burnt-offering”

“burnt-offering—his burnt-offering”

he raised the difficulty to Rav Huna:

what have you expounded from it? And furthermore,

Ravina raised a difficulty to Rav Huna: How is it possible to learn that the verse repeated the laws of a change of sacred designation and a change of owners in the sin-offering of a nazirite in order to teach that they invalidate? For it can be refuted:

Do they derive from one another?

The sin-offering for a sin [and all sin-offerings brought for sin are included under the name “sin-offering for a sin,” since it is the common one among sin-offerings] from the sin-offering of a nazirite?

For

the sin-offering for a sin did not derive from the sin-offering of a nazirite, since it has with it

with the sin-offering of the nazirite, also

blood

of

other

offerings — for the sin-offering of a nazirite never comes by itself, but only together with the other offerings of the nazirite, and if so it is impossible to learn from it concerning the sin-offering for a sin, which comes by itself.

And likewise,

the sin-offering of a nazirite did not derive from the sin-offering for a sin, since

the sin-offering for a sin atones for sins whose intentional violation carries

karet,

which is not so with the sin-offering of a nazirite.

And since the sin-offering for a sin is not learned from the sin-offering of a nazirite, it is therefore necessary to write concerning both of them that they must not be performed with a change of sacred designation or of owners, for the mitzva. And from where do we derive that a change of sacred designation and a change of owners invalidate?

Rather, Rava said: It is derived

for invalidation

from the sin-offering of a leper, in which the verse repeated and wrote again that it must be performed for its sake. For it is stated concerning the sin-offering of a leper:

"

And the priest shall perform the sin-offering,"

and we expound:

that all its performances shall be for the sake of the sin-offering!

And we have found a change of sacred designation; from where does he derive a change of owners

that it invalidates? —

The verse says "

and he shall make atonement for the one who is purified"

and so forth,

and we are precise: And he shall make atonement

for this one who is purified, and not for another who is purified!

And since we have already learned a change of sacred designation and a change of owners in the other sin-offerings for the mitzva, the fact that the verse repeated them in the sin-offering of a leper comes to teach that they invalidate.

And we raise a difficulty:

And still, do

the sin-offering for a sin and the sin-offering of a leper

derive from one another,

so that you can say that the superfluity of the verse comes to teach invalidation? For both verses were necessary, because

the sin-offering for a sin did not derive from the sin-offering of a leper, since it has with it other blood,

and likewise

the sin-offering of a leper did not derive from the sin-offering for a sin, since

the sin-offering for a sin atones for an unwitting violation carrying

karet.

And we answer: Indeed,

one cannot be derived from one,

but

one can be derived from two,

for the laws of a change of sacred designation and of owners were repeated in three places: in the sin-offering for a sin, in the sin-offering of a nazirite, and in the sin-offering of a leper; and since in one of the places it can be learned from the other two, the third verse remains superfluous to teach that the change invalidates.

And we inquire about this:

In which

sin-offering

need we not

the law of performing for its sake

write,

and we could learn it from the others, and expound what is stated in it as “repeated to invalidate”?

Let the Merciful One not write it concerning the sin-offering for a sin, and let it come from these,

but it can be refuted:

What is special about these,

the sin-offerings of a nazirite and a leper, which are more stringent than the sin-offering for a sin,

since they have with them other blood,

which bring additional offerings together with the sin-offering; can you say so concerning the sin-offering for a sin, which comes by itself?

Let the Merciful One not write it concerning the sin-offering of a nazirite, and let it come from these,

but here too it can be refuted:

What is special about these, that they have no question,

whereas concerning a nazirite, he can ask about his nazirite status and thereby be exempt from the offering.

Let the Merciful One not write it concerning the sin-offering of a leper, and let it come from these,

but it can be refuted:

What is special about these, that

their offerings

do not come in poverty,

for the Torah did not ease the law for the sinner or for the nazirite to bring a bird sin-offering if he is poor; can you say so concerning the sin-offering of a leper, who, if he cannot afford to purchase an animal, may bring a bird for his sin-offering?

And necessarily there is no source for invalidation from the superfluity of the verse in one of the sin-offerings.

Rather,

from here we learn:

The verse says "

This is the law of the burnt-offering and of the meal-offering

and of the sin-offering ... and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings."

The verse compared

the sin-offering

to peace-offerings,

and from this comparison we learn:

Just as regarding peace-offerings, whether a change of sacred designation or a change of owners, we require it to be for its sake, for the mitzva,

so too regarding the sin-offering, whether a change of sacred designation or a change of owners, we require it to be for their sake, for the mitzva.

Therefore,

the source that there is

a mitzva

to perform the sin-offering for its sake is learned

from peace-offerings.

And these verses

that were stated concerning the sin-offering for a sin, the sin-offering of a leper, and the sin-offering of a nazirite, came to teach

invalidation

through a change of sacred designation and a change of owners.

And we have found the sin-offering for a sin, as it is written in it "

and he shall slaughter it

for a sin-offering,"

and we expound that it was written to teach invalidation,