Zevachim 8b — the Talmud in English

But

the sin-offering for idolatry,

which was written in a separate passage and is not included in the sin-offering for forbidden fat—whence do we know that a change of sacred designation or a change of owners disqualifies it?

And likewise we need this regarding the three sin-offerings that were written in the passage of the offering brought according to means, and were not stated in the passage of the sin-offering for forbidden fat:

The sin-offering

of witnesses [who were made to swear the oath of testimony to come and testify, but falsely denied knowledge of the testimony and did not testify], who are obligated to bring an offering brought according to means, for

hearing the voice

of an oath.

And likewise the sin-offering that comes to atone for a false oath called

“utterance of the lips.”

And likewise the sin-offering that comes to atone for

the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things—whence do we know

that if they do not perform them for their sake, they are disqualified?

And we resolve it:

The sin-offering for idolatry comes

through a derivation of “what do we find”

from the sin-offering for forbidden fat,

for it is equal to it,

as

it comes for an obligation of

karet, like it,

the sin-offering for forbidden fat, which comes for an inadvertent sin whose intentional violation is punishable by karet.

And all of these [

sin-offerings for hearing the voice, utterance of the lips, and impurity of the Temple and its sacred things, which

come

through a derivation of

the common aspect

from the three sin-offerings—forbidden fat, one with scale disease, and a nazirite].

[The sin-offering for the impurity of the Temple and its sacred things, despite the fact that its intentional violation involves karet, cannot be derived through “what do we find” from the sin-offering for forbidden fat, since Scripture was lenient regarding it in that a poor person brings a bird sin-offering.]

The Sages taught:

An offering of

the Passover-offering

that they offered

at its proper time,

on the eve of Passover, if he made it

for its sake, it is

it is

valid.

But if he made it

not for its sake, it is

it is

disqualified.

And

if he offered it

during the rest of the days of the year, when it is offered under the designation of a peace-offering and not under the designation of a Passover-offering, its law is found to be the reverse: if he made it

when it is offered according to the law of a peace-offering and not according to the law of a Paschal offering, its law is the reverse: if he performed it

for its sake,

for the sake of a Passover-offering, it is

disqualified, since this is not the time of a Passover-offering; but if he removed from it the designation “Passover-offering” by making it

as this is not the time for a Paschal offering. But if he removed from it the designation “Paschal offering” by performing it

not for its sake, it is

it is

valid, and it is offered as a peace-offering.

and it is offered as a peace-offering.

(Shal

o Kabaitz

an from Ma

r Ratz

a b

a, section)

These are mnemonic signs for the names of the amoraim who will be mentioned in this discussion.

And the Gemara discusses:

From where are these words

that a Passover-offering made during the rest of the year not for its sake is valid?

Avuh of Shmuel said: The verse says,

“And if his offering is from the flock”—

“for a sacrifice of peace-offerings to the Lord.”

And we derive:

A thing that comes

only

from the flock,

namely, a Passover-offering, which comes only from the flock,

shall be for a sacrifice of peace-offerings. Since if he were to offer it on the eve of Passover for the sake of peace-offerings it would be disqualified, necessarily the verse comes to teach us that if he comes to offer a Passover-offering during the rest of the year, he must offer it for the sake of peace-offerings, for this is what makes it fit to be offered not at its proper time.

Since if one were to sacrifice it on the eve of Passover for the purpose of a peace-offering it would be invalid, the verse must be informing us that if one seeks to sacrifice a Paschal offering during the rest of the year, he must sacrifice it for the purpose of a peace-offering, because that is what makes it fit to be offered when it is not its proper time.

But the Gemara raises a difficulty: If the source for validating it during the rest of the year specifically in a case in which it is offered not for its sake is learned from this verse,

say:

Only if he offers it for the sake of

peace-offerings—

yes [indeed, then it is made fit]; but if he offers it for the sake of

—indeed, then it becomes valid—but if one offers it for

something else,

such as for the sake of an elevation-offering, it is

not

made fit. And it is impossible to say so, for the language of the baraitha is: “If he slaughtered it during the rest of the year not for its sake, it is valid”—its meaning is that even if he slaughtered the Passover-offering for the sake of an elevation-offering or a sin-offering, it is valid as a peace-offering!?

And it answers:

Rabbi Ila said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

In this verse it is said

“for a sacrifice,”

and it is a superfluous word, for it could have said, “and if for peace-offerings.” It was written in order

to include every offering,

so that if the Passover-offering is slaughtered during the rest of the year for the sake of any offering, it is valid.

And we inquire concerning it: If it is said that a Passover-offering is valid throughout the year when it is offered “for the sake of any offering,”

say

that the Torah means to say that

for every

offering

that he slaughters

the Passover-offering during the rest of the year for its sake,

it shall be like it! And if he slaughters the Passover-offering during the rest of the year for the sake of an elevation-offering, it should be considered an elevation-offering!?

And if one slaughters the Paschal offering during the rest of the year for the purpose of a burnt-offering, it should be considered a burnt-offering!?

And we reject this:

If it had been written

as an addition to the verse,

“for peace-offerings and for a sacrifice,”

it would have been possible to explain the Torah’s intention

as you say, that it should be considered like every offering for which he slaughtered it, for this is how the meaning of the verse would be understood: either for peace-offerings or for any other offering.

But

But

now, since it is written,

“for a sacrifice of peace-offerings,”

the meaning of the verse is found to be:

for every

offering

that he slaughters it for,

even an elevation-offering—

it shall be a peace-offering!

We still inquire: From where do you derive that the superfluous word “for a sacrifice” is to be expounded as validating a Passover-offering slaughtered for the sake of every offering?

Say:

“For a sacrifice” is a

generalization,

“peace-offerings” is a

specification,

and according to the thirteen hermeneutical principles by which the Torah is expounded we say:

A generalization followed by a specification—

the generalization contains only what is in the specification. Therefore, only if he slaughtered the Passover-offering for the sake of

If so, only if one slaughtered the Paschal offering for the purpose of

peace-offerings, yes [indeed, it is valid]; but if he slaughtered it for the sake of

—indeed, it is valid—but if one slaughtered it for

something else, no,

its designation as a Passover-offering was not removed, and it is like a Passover-offering slaughtered not at its proper time without removal of its designation, which is disqualified!? And we answer: Even if you reach the conclusion that “for a sacrifice” is a generalization and “peace-offerings” is a specification, “to the Lord” is stated after them, and through this it

“to the Lord,”

and through this it

returns and generalizes; the verse again generalizes everything that is similar to the specification [for this is the manner of expounding the principle of generalization, specification, and generalization]. Other offerings are included in this, so that if he slaughtered a Passover-offering for their sake, it is valid.

There is no practical difference whether we validate it for the sake of every offering from the superfluous word “for a sacrifice,” or from the derivation of generalization, specification, and generalization.

Rabbi Yaakov of Nehar Pekod challenges this: Is it possible to say that “to the Lord” returns and generalizes, and to expound generalization, specification, and generalization?

[and when the first and last generalizations are not similar, this principle is not applied].

But the latter generalization is not similar to the first generalization [and when the first and last generalizations are not similar, this principle of generalization, specification, and generalization is not expounded through them]. For

first generalization,

the first generalization,

namely, “a sacrifice,”

includes

the Passover-offering that he slaughtered for the sake of

animal offerings, [

sacrificial offerings—an animal],

and no more; whereas from

namely,

the latter generalization,

namely,

“to the Lord,” it is possible to learn that it is valid if he slaughtered it for the sake of

offering

every

offering

that is offered

if it is slaughtered

to the Lord,

even if he slaughtered it

and even if he performs it

for the sake of

meal-offerings!?

birds,

and even if he made it

for the sake of

who interprets verses through generalizations and specifications even in a case such as this, where the last generalization is not similar to the first generalization. Accordingly, here too it is possible to interpret it as follows: A generalization, a specification, and a generalization: you may derive only matters similar to the specification— just as the specification, [peace-offerings] explicitly consists of an offering not performed for its designated purpose, of the Paschal offering, thereby removing its designation as a Paschal offering, and it is valid to offer it during the rest of the year as a peace-offering, so too, anything that is not performed for its designated purpose, for example, if it was offered for the purpose of a burnt-offering, removes the Paschal designation

meal-offerings!?

And we answer:

This is the tan

nay—he is the tan

nay of the house of Rabbi Ishmael,

who expounds through generalizations and specifications

even

in such a case

where the latter generalization is not similar to the first generalization. If so, here too it is possible to expound in this way:

A generalization, specification, and generalization—you may derive only what is similar to the specification—

just as the specification [

peace-offerings]

is explicitly not for its sake

of the Passover-offering, and removes it from being a Passover-offering,

and is valid

to offer it during the rest of the year as a peace-offering,

so too, anything that is not for its sake,

such as when he offered it for the sake of an elevation-offering, removes from it the designation of Passover-offering

and is valid

as a peace-offering!

And we ask: If the verse is expounded through generalization, specification, and generalization, we can learn this from it as well:

If the specification [

peace-offerings]

is explicit

as

a thing that comes through a vow and a freewill offering, so too every

offering

that comes through a vow and a freewill offering,

and it follows that only if he made it for the sake of

an elevation-offering and peace-offerings

that come through a vow and a freewill offering—

yes [indeed, it is made fit]; but if he made it for the sake of

a sin-offering or guilt-offering—

no,

the designation of Passover-offering was not removed from it, and it is disqualified, and does not count even as a peace-offering!?

Rather,

there is certainly no learning from this verse by means of a generalization, specification, and generalization, for the expression “for a peace-offering” is not used as a generalization, because “peace-offering” is one expression, and it is impossible to divide it into a generalization and a specification and say that “offering” is a generalization and “peace” is a specification. Rather, the entire source for declaring a Passover-offering slaughtered not for its own sake fit during the rest of the year is learned from the superfluity of the verse, for it would have been possible to write merely “peace-offerings,” yet it wrote “for a peace-offering,” and we expound:

“for an offering”

is an amplification,

and the verse amplified to include all the offerings, so that if he slaughtered a Passover-offering for their sake, the designation “Passover-offering” is uprooted from it, and during the rest of the year it is fit.

And again we ask as above: if “for an offering” is an amplification,

say—

for whatever he slaughters it, let it be like it,

and if he slaughters it for the sake of an elevation-offering, let it be an elevation-offering, and if he slaughters it for the sake of a sin-offering, let it be a sin-offering?

And we answer:

Rabbi Avin said:

This Passover-offering was initially consecrated for an offering that is eaten, and therefore, when it is slaughtered during the rest of the year not for its own sake and its designation is uprooted from it, the law of its being eaten is not uprooted.