בעולה כתיב – גבי עולת צאן בויקרא ושחט אותו על ירך המזבח צפונה.
(1) 
פַּר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים כּוּ׳.: מִכְּדֵי צָפוֹן בְּעוֹלָה כְּתִיב נִיתְנֵי עוֹלָה בְּרֵישָׁא.
פַּר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים כּוּ׳.§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, their slaughter is in the north and the collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north. The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna list these sin offerings first? After all, while the halakha that slaughter must be in the north of the Temple courtyard is written in the Torah with regard to a burnt offering (Leviticus 1:11), the Torah does not explicitly state that the other offerings must be slaughtered in the north. Therefore, let the tanna of the mishna teach the halakha of a burnt offering first.
א שנינו במשנה: קדשי קדשים שחיטתן בצפון, ובפירוט הדברים שנינו תחילה: פר ושעיר של יום הכיפורים שחיטתן בצפון כו׳. ושואלים: מכדי [הרי] דין שחיטה בצפון בעולה כתיב [נאמר], ואינו מפורש באחרים, ואם כן, ניתני [שישנה] עולה ברישא [בראש]!
§ The mishna teaches: With regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, their slaughter is in the north and the collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north. The Gemara asks: Why does the mishna list these sin offerings first? After all, while the halakha that slaughter must be in the north of the Temple courtyard is written in the Torah with regard to a burnt offering (Leviticus 1:11), the Torah does not explicitly state that the other offerings must be slaughtered in the north. Therefore, let the tanna of the mishna teach the halakha of a burnt offering first.
הכל
(2) חַטָּאת אַיְּידֵי דְּאָתֵי מִדְּרָשָׁא חַבִּיבָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: Since the location for slaughtering the sin offering is derived through interpretation, it is dear to the tanna, and he therefore he gives it precedence. The verse states: “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered shall the sin offering be slaughtered before the Lord; it is most holy” (Leviticus 6:18). The Gemara (55a) derives from this verse that the sin offering must be slaughtered in the same place as the burnt offering, i.e., in the north of the Temple courtyard.
The Gemara answers: Since the location for slaughtering the sin offering is derived through interpretation, it is dear to the tanna, and he therefore he gives it precedence. The verse states: “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered shall the sin offering be slaughtered before the Lord; it is most holy” (Leviticus 6:18). The Gemara (55a) derives from this verse that the sin offering must be slaughtered in the same place as the burnt offering, i.e., in the north of the Temple courtyard.
איידי [דאתי מדרשא] חביבא ליה – ואם תאמר אם כן ליתני עולה לבסוף כדפריך בשמעתא קמייתא דיבמות (דף ג.) גבי אחות אשה ויש לומר איידי דאתיא עולה בציבור תניא בהדי חטאות דבאות בציבור והדר תניא אשם דאינו אלא ביחיד.
ומשיבים: דין צפון בחטאת, איידי דאתי [מתוך שהוא בא נלמד] מדרשא מן ההיקש לעולה, ואין הדבר מפורש בה, חביבא ליה [חביב לו] לתנא, והקדימו.
The Gemara answers: Since the location for slaughtering the sin offering is derived through interpretation, it is dear to the tanna, and he therefore he gives it precedence. The verse states: “Speak to Aaron and to his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered shall the sin offering be slaughtered before the Lord; it is most holy” (Leviticus 6:18). The Gemara (55a) derives from this verse that the sin offering must be slaughtered in the same place as the burnt offering, i.e., in the north of the Temple courtyard.
הכל
(3) וְנִיתְנֵי חַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת אַיְּידֵי דְּנִכְנַס דָּמָן לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים חַבִּיבָא לֵיהּ.
The Gemara challenges: But let the tanna of the mishna teach first the halakha of the external sin offerings, since those are the offerings to which the verse is referring. The Gemara explains: Since the blood of the Yom Kippur sin offerings enters the innermost sanctum, these offerings are dear to the tanna, and he taught them first.
The Gemara challenges: But let the tanna of the mishna teach first the halakha of the external sin offerings, since those are the offerings to which the verse is referring. The Gemara explains: Since the blood of the Yom Kippur sin offerings enters the innermost sanctum, these offerings are dear to the tanna, and he taught them first.
ושואלים: וניתני [ושישנה] תחילה חטאות החיצונות, שהרי בהן נזכרת ההשוואה לעולה! ומשיבים: חטאות הפנימיות, איידי [מתוך] שנכנס דמן לפני ולפנים חביבא ליה [חביבות עליו] והקדימן.
The Gemara challenges: But let the tanna of the mishna teach first the halakha of the external sin offerings, since those are the offerings to which the verse is referring. The Gemara explains: Since the blood of the Yom Kippur sin offerings enters the innermost sanctum, these offerings are dear to the tanna, and he taught them first.
הכל
(4) וְצָפוֹנָה בְּעוֹלָה הֵיכָא כְּתִיבָא {ויקרא א׳:י״א} וְשָׁחַט אוֹתוֹ עַל יֶרֶךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ צָפוֹנָה.
The Gemara asks: And where is it written that a burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers that with regard to a sheep that is brought as a burnt offering the Torah states: “And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall dash its blood against the altar round about” (Leviticus 1:11).
The Gemara asks: And where is it written that a burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers that with regard to a sheep that is brought as a burnt offering the Torah states: “And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall dash its blood against the altar round about” (Leviticus 1:11).
ושואלים: וצפונה בעולה היכא כתיבא [היכן היא כתובה]? ומשיבים, שנאמר בעולה הבאה מן הצאן: ״ושחט אתו על ירך המזבח צפנה״ (ויקרא א, יא).
The Gemara asks: And where is it written that a burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers that with regard to a sheep that is brought as a burnt offering the Torah states: “And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall dash its blood against the altar round about” (Leviticus 1:11).
הכל
(5) אַשְׁכְּחַן בֶּן צֹאן בֶּן בָּקָר מְנָא לַן אָמַר קְרָא {ויקרא א׳:י׳} וְאִם מִן הַצֹּאן וי״ו וָיו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן וְיִלְמַד עֶלְיוֹן מִתַּחְתּוֹן.
The Gemara clarifies: We have found that this verse provides a source that a young sheep burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north. From where do we derive that a young bull burnt offering must also be slaughtered in the north? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “And if his offering be of the flock, whether of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt offering, he shall offer it a male without blemish” (Leviticus 1:10). The conjunctive “and” represented by the letter vav adds to the previous matter. The previous passage addresses cattle offerings. And let the upper passage, the place of the slaughter of a bull, be learned from the lower passage, the place of slaughtering a sheep.
The Gemara clarifies: We have found that this verse provides a source that a young sheep burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north. From where do we derive that a young bull burnt offering must also be slaughtered in the north? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “And if his offering be of the flock, whether of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt offering, he shall offer it a male without blemish” (Leviticus 1:10). The conjunctive “and” represented by the letter vav adds to the previous matter. The previous passage addresses cattle offerings. And let the upper passage, the place of the slaughter of a bull, be learned from the lower passage, the place of slaughtering a sheep.
אשכחן בן צאן בן בקר מנלן – תימה דלעיל פרק כל הפסולין (זבחים לב:) דרשינן בן הבקר לפני ה׳ ואין השוחט לפני ה׳ ולא אמרינן בן צאן מנין ולכמה דרשות לא מצרכינן תרי קראי לבן בקר ולבן צאן ושמא אהך דרשא הוי״ו מוסף סמיך אי נמי משום דבבן צאן כתיב אותו למעוטי איצטריך הכא לרבויי מיהו בההיא דבן הבקר לפני ה׳ וסמיכה והפשט ניחא דלא קאמר בן צאן מנין דפשיטא דילפינן תחתון מעליון אבל עליון מתחתון ס״ד דלא יליף.
ושואלים: אשכחן [מצאנו דין זה] בשחיטת בן צאן, בן בקר מנא לן [מנין לנו]? ומשיבים: אמר קרא [המקרא] בתחילת פרשיה זו: ״ואם מן הצאן״ (ויקרא א, י), וי״ו של ״ואם״ מוסיף את האמור בפרשה זו על ענין ראשון על הפרשיה הקודמת, בענין עולה מן הבקר, ובדרך זו ילמד עליון בן בקר מתחתון בן צאן.
The Gemara clarifies: We have found that this verse provides a source that a young sheep burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north. From where do we derive that a young bull burnt offering must also be slaughtered in the north? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “And if his offering be of the flock, whether of the sheep, or of the goats, for a burnt offering, he shall offer it a male without blemish” (Leviticus 1:10). The conjunctive “and” represented by the letter vav adds to the previous matter. The previous passage addresses cattle offerings. And let the upper passage, the place of the slaughter of a bull, be learned from the lower passage, the place of slaughtering a sheep.
הכל
(6) הָנִיחָא למ״ד לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְלַמְּדִין אֶלָּא למ״ד לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מְלַמְּדִין מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר.
The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who says that we learn halakhot in this manner. But according to the one who says that we do not learn halakhot in this manner, what is there to say?
The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who says that we learn halakhot in this manner. But according to the one who says that we do not learn halakhot in this manner, what is there to say?
ושואלים: הניחא למאן דאמר [זה נוח לדעת מי שאומר] שבאופן זה מלמדין מתחתון לעליון, אלא למאן דאמר [לדעת מי שאומר] אין מלמדין, מאי איכא למימר [מה יש לומר]?
The Gemara comments: This works out well according to the one who says that we learn halakhot in this manner. But according to the one who says that we do not learn halakhot in this manner, what is there to say?
הכל
(7) דְּתַנְיָא {ויקרא ה׳:י״ז} וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ וְגוֹ׳ לְחַיֵּיב עַל סְפֵק מְעִילוֹת אָשָׁם תָּלוּי דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וַחֲכָמִים אפּוֹטְרִין מַאי לָאו בְּהָא קָא מִיפַּלְגִי מָר סָבַר לְמֵידִין וּמַר סָבַר אֵין לְמֵידִין.
As it is taught in a baraita: Immediately following the passage in the Torah addressing a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, the Torah discusses the halakhot of a provisional guilt offering, brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering. The verse states: “And if anyone sin, and does any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done, though he did not know it, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:17). This serves to render him liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis deem him exempt in such a case. The Gemara suggests: What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that we learn halakhot of the upper passage from the lower passage, and the other Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that we do not learn halakhot in this manner?
As it is taught in a baraita: Immediately following the passage in the Torah addressing a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, the Torah discusses the halakhot of a provisional guilt offering, brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering. The verse states: “And if anyone sin, and does any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done, though he did not know it, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:17). This serves to render him liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis deem him exempt in such a case. The Gemara suggests: What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that we learn halakhot of the upper passage from the lower passage, and the other Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that we do not learn halakhot in this manner?
ואם נפש – גבי אשם תלוי כתיב בויקרא ואם נפש כי תחטא וגו׳ ולמעלה הימנה פרשת מעילה ודאית שידע לאחר זמן שנהנה מן ההקדש בשוגג וחייבין עליה אשם ודאי.
על ספק מעילות – הקדש וחולין לפניו ונהנה מאחד מהם כסבור שניהם חולין ועכשיו אינו יודע מאיזה מהן נהנה מביא אשם תלוי להגן מן היסורין עד שיודע לו שודאי מעל ומביא אשם ודאי וגם הוא איל בכסף שקלים.
למדין – עליון מתחתון פרשת הקדש מפרשת אשם תלוי שתחתיה למימרא דהנהנה מן ההקדש נמי מייתי אשם תלוי על ספיקו.
דתניא [שכך שנויה ברייתא]: מיד לאחר פרשת אשם מעילות (שמביא אדם שמעל בהקדש בשגגה), נאמר בראש פרשת אשם תלוי (שמביא אדם שספק חטאת בידו): ״ואם נפש״ (ויקרא ה, יז) — הרי זה בא לחייב על ספק מעילות אשם תלוי, אלו דברי ר׳ עקיבא, וחכמים פוטרין. מאי לאו בהא קא מיפלגי [האם לא בדבר זה הם חלוקים], מר סבר [חכם זה, ר׳ עקיבא, סבור]: למידין עליון (פרשת אשם מעילות) מתחתון (אשם תלוי), שגם לגביה קיים דין זה, ומר סבר [וחכם זה, חכמים, סבור]: אין למידין?
As it is taught in a baraita: Immediately following the passage in the Torah addressing a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, the Torah discusses the halakhot of a provisional guilt offering, brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering. The verse states: “And if anyone sin, and does any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done, though he did not know it, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:17). This serves to render him liable to bring a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. And the Rabbis deem him exempt in such a case. The Gemara suggests: What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this: One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that we learn halakhot of the upper passage from the lower passage, and the other Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that we do not learn halakhot in this manner?
הכל
(8) אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לְמֵידִין וְהַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן נֶאֱמַר כָּאן מִצְוֹת וְנֶאֱמַר בְּחַטַּאת חֵלֶב מִצְוֹת.
Rav Pappa said: This is not correct, as everyone holds that we learn halakhot of the upper passage from the lower passage. And this is the reason that the Rabbis exempt from bringing an offering one who is uncertain whether he misused consecrated property: They learn a verbal analogy. It is stated here: “And if anyone sin, and does any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done” (Leviticus 5:17). And it is stated with regard to the sin offering for eating forbidden fat: “And if any one of the common people sin through error, in doing any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and be guilty” (Leviticus 4:27).
Rav Pappa said: This is not correct, as everyone holds that we learn halakhot of the upper passage from the lower passage. And this is the reason that the Rabbis exempt from bringing an offering one who is uncertain whether he misused consecrated property: They learn a verbal analogy. It is stated here: “And if anyone sin, and does any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done” (Leviticus 5:17). And it is stated with regard to the sin offering for eating forbidden fat: “And if any one of the common people sin through error, in doing any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and be guilty” (Leviticus 4:27).
דכולי עלמא היקשא עדיפא – וא״ת והאמרינן פ׳ השולח (גיטין דף מא:) דכ״ע גזירה שוה עדיפא וי״ל הא דקאמר דכ״ע היקש עדיף היינו לענין דטוב לנו לעשות הגז״ש למחצה ממה שנבטל ההיקש לגמרי אבל התם דמקיש או חופשה דהיינו שטר להפדה לא נפדתה דהיינו כסף לומר משחרר חצי עבדו בשטר מועיל כמו בכסף וקאמר גזירה שוה דלה לה מאשה עדיפא מה אשה חציה לא מועיל והתם לא נתבטל ההיקש דשמא צריך למילי אוחרי ועוד י״ל דשטר בשפחה כנענית לא קמ״ל אלא בגזירה שוה דלה לה מאשה לכך קאמר דגזירה שוה עדיפא דטוב לעשות גזירה שוה דתהוי שטר בשפחה כמו גט דאשה שלא להועיל חציה מלעשותו כמו כסף שסמוך לו והפדה דהא מגט אשה נפקא שטר שחרור ועיקר. ברוך.
אמר רב פפא: דכולי עלמא [לדעת הכל] למידין, והיינו טעמא דרבנן [וזהו הטעם של חכמים], שפוטרים ספק מעילה מאשם תלוי, לדעתם יש גזירה שווה הסותרת דין זה: נאמר כאן באשם תלוי ״מצות״ (״ועשתה אחת מכל מצוות ה׳ אשר לא תעשינה״ ויקרא ה, יז) ונאמר בחטאת חלב כלומר, בחטאת רגילה שאדם מביא על שגגתו ״מצות״ (״בעשותה אחת ממצוות ה׳ אשר לא תעשינה״ ויקרא ד, כז),
Rav Pappa said: This is not correct, as everyone holds that we learn halakhot of the upper passage from the lower passage. And this is the reason that the Rabbis exempt from bringing an offering one who is uncertain whether he misused consecrated property: They learn a verbal analogy. It is stated here: “And if anyone sin, and does any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done” (Leviticus 5:17). And it is stated with regard to the sin offering for eating forbidden fat: “And if any one of the common people sin through error, in doing any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done, and be guilty” (Leviticus 4:27).
הכל
(9) מָה לְהַלָּן דָּבָר שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת אַף כָּאן שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עַל זְדוֹנוֹ כָּרֵת וְעַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ חַטָּאת.
The verbal analogy teaches that just as there, the sin offering is brought only for an act that for its intentional violation one is liable to be punished with karet, and for its unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin offering, so too here, one brings a provisional guilt offering only for an act that for its intentional violation one is liable to be punished with karet, and for its unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin offering, which is not the case concerning misuse of consecrated property.
The verbal analogy teaches that just as there, the sin offering is brought only for an act that for its intentional violation one is liable to be punished with karet, and for its unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin offering, so too here, one brings a provisional guilt offering only for an act that for its intentional violation one is liable to be punished with karet, and for its unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin offering, which is not the case concerning misuse of consecrated property.
מה חטאת – באה על שגגת זדון כרת כדילפינן בהוריות (דף ח.) אף אשם תלוי על ספק דבר שזדונו כרת ושגגתו חטאת.
מה להלן דבר שחייבין על זדונו כרת – ואם תאמר היכי יליף מגזירה שוה מצות מצות הא חטאת חלב גופה בהיקישא ילפא כדאמר הוקשה כל התורה לעבודת כוכבים וי״ל דכי האי גוונא לא חשיב למד בהיקש אינו חוזר ומלמד בהיקש כיון דאי לאו היקשא הוה מוקמינא ליה בכל דבר ולא אתא היקשא אלא למימר דלא איירי אלא בדבר שיש בו כרת.
מה להלן בחטאת, מביא קרבן רק על דבר שחייבין על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת, אף כאן אשם תלוי, מביא על דבר שחייבין על זדונו כרת ועל שגגתו חטאת, ומעילה אינה בכלל זה.
The verbal analogy teaches that just as there, the sin offering is brought only for an act that for its intentional violation one is liable to be punished with karet, and for its unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin offering, so too here, one brings a provisional guilt offering only for an act that for its intentional violation one is liable to be punished with karet, and for its unwitting violation one is liable to bring a sin offering, which is not the case concerning misuse of consecrated property.
הכל
(10) וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מָה לְהַלָּן בִּקְבוּעָה אַף כָּאן בִּקְבוּעָה לְאַפּוֹקֵי חַטָּאת דְּטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו דְּעוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד הוּא.
The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Akiva derive from this verbal analogy? He learns that just as there the verse obligates one to bring a fixed sin offering, so too here, with regard to the provisional guilt offering, one brings it for a case of uncertain transgression of a prohibition for which one would be liable to bring a fixed sin offering, to exclude a sin offering brought for uncertain transgression of the defiling of the Temple or sacrificial foods, as the sin offering for that transgression is not fixed, but is a sliding-scale offering. If the sinner is poor he brings a meal offering or a bird offering; if he is rich he brings an animal offering. In a case of uncertainty one does not bring a provisional guilt offering.
The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Akiva derive from this verbal analogy? He learns that just as there the verse obligates one to bring a fixed sin offering, so too here, with regard to the provisional guilt offering, one brings it for a case of uncertain transgression of a prohibition for which one would be liable to bring a fixed sin offering, to exclude a sin offering brought for uncertain transgression of the defiling of the Temple or sacrificial foods, as the sin offering for that transgression is not fixed, but is a sliding-scale offering. If the sinner is poor he brings a meal offering or a bird offering; if he is rich he brings an animal offering. In a case of uncertainty one does not bring a provisional guilt offering.
ורבי עקיבא – גמר לה להך גזירה שוה הכי מה חטאת קרבן קבוע לעני כעשיר אף אשם תלוי אינו בא אלא על ספק חטאת קבוע.
לאפוקי – ספק נכנס טמא למקדש ספק לא נכנס הואיל וודאי בעולה ויורד אין מביא על ספיקו אשם תלוי.
ושואלים: ור׳ עקיבא מה הוא למד מגזירה שווה זו? ומסבירים: מה להלן כשנאמר ״מצות״ מדובר בחטאת קבועה, אף כאן לענין אשם תלוי, מדובר בספק של חטאת קבועה, לאפוקי [להוציא] חטאת של טומאת מקדש וקדשיו, שקרבן עולה ויורד הוא לפי עושרו של החוטא, שאם דל הוא מביא קרבן עוף או מנחה, ובזה אינו מביא אשם תלוי על הספק. אבל אין מדובר דווקא על עבירה שעונשה כרת.
The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Akiva derive from this verbal analogy? He learns that just as there the verse obligates one to bring a fixed sin offering, so too here, with regard to the provisional guilt offering, one brings it for a case of uncertain transgression of a prohibition for which one would be liable to bring a fixed sin offering, to exclude a sin offering brought for uncertain transgression of the defiling of the Temple or sacrificial foods, as the sin offering for that transgression is not fixed, but is a sliding-scale offering. If the sinner is poor he brings a meal offering or a bird offering; if he is rich he brings an animal offering. In a case of uncertainty one does not bring a provisional guilt offering.
הכל
(11) וְרַבָּנַן אֵין גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה לְמֶחֱצָה ור״ע וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא נָמֵי אֵין גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה לְמֶחֱצָה.
And as for the Rabbis, who derived a different halakha from the verbal analogy, they hold that there is no verbal analogy for half of a matter. Once a provisional guilt offering is compared to a sin offering, it must be completely similar, and both matters are derived from the verbal analogy. The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Akiva also must hold that there is no verbal analogy for half of a matter, so why does he not agree with the derivation of the Rabbis?
And as for the Rabbis, who derived a different halakha from the verbal analogy, they hold that there is no verbal analogy for half of a matter. Once a provisional guilt offering is compared to a sin offering, it must be completely similar, and both matters are derived from the verbal analogy. The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Akiva also must hold that there is no verbal analogy for half of a matter, so why does he not agree with the derivation of the Rabbis?
ורבנן [וחכמים] אומרים: אין גזירה שוה למחצה, ואם הושווה אשם תלוי לחטאת — הושווה לכל דבר, ואף להגדרת העבירה עליה הוא בא, שהיא בכרת. ושואלים: ור׳ עקיבא נמי [גם כן], מה הוא טוען? הרי אין גזירה שוה למחצה!
And as for the Rabbis, who derived a different halakha from the verbal analogy, they hold that there is no verbal analogy for half of a matter. Once a provisional guilt offering is compared to a sin offering, it must be completely similar, and both matters are derived from the verbal analogy. The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Akiva also must hold that there is no verbal analogy for half of a matter, so why does he not agree with the derivation of the Rabbis?
הכל
(12) אִין הָכִי נָמֵי וְהָכָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי ר״ע רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ כְּתִיב וי״ו וָיו מוֹסִיף עַל עִנְיָן רִאשׁוֹן.
The Gemara reconsiders: Yes, this is indeed so. And here they disagree with regard to this: Rabbi Akiva holds that it is written with regard to the provisional guilt offering: “And if anyone sin, and does any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done, though he did not know it, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:17). The word “and” represented by the letter vav adds to the previous matter. When a phrase begins with the conjunction vav, it is a continuation of the previous matter, and the halakhot of the previous passage can be learned from the subsequent passage. Therefore one brings a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property.
The Gemara reconsiders: Yes, this is indeed so. And here they disagree with regard to this: Rabbi Akiva holds that it is written with regard to the provisional guilt offering: “And if anyone sin, and does any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done, though he did not know it, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:17). The word “and” represented by the letter vav adds to the previous matter. When a phrase begins with the conjunction vav, it is a continuation of the previous matter, and the halakhot of the previous passage can be learned from the subsequent passage. Therefore one brings a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property.
ומשיבים: אין הכי נמי [כן כך הוא גם כן] לדעתו, והכא בהא קמיפלגי [וכאן בזה הם חלוקים], ר׳ עקיבא סבר [סבור]: ״ואם נפש״ (ויקרא ה, יז) כתיב [נאמר] באשם תלוי, וי״ו מוסיף על ענין ראשון וילמד עליון מתחתון, ולכן גם על ספק מעילה מביא אשם תלוי.
The Gemara reconsiders: Yes, this is indeed so. And here they disagree with regard to this: Rabbi Akiva holds that it is written with regard to the provisional guilt offering: “And if anyone sin, and does any of the commandments which the Lord has commanded not to be done, though he did not know it, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:17). The word “and” represented by the letter vav adds to the previous matter. When a phrase begins with the conjunction vav, it is a continuation of the previous matter, and the halakhot of the previous passage can be learned from the subsequent passage. Therefore one brings a provisional guilt offering for uncertain misuse of consecrated property.
הכל
(13) וְרַבָּנַן נָמֵי הָכְתִיב וְאִם נֶפֶשׁ לֵימָא בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי דְּמָר סָבַר הֶיקֵּשׁ עֲדִיף וּמָר סָבַר גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה עֲדִיף.
The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of the Rabbis also, isn’t it written: “And if anyone sin”? Let us say that they disagree about this: As one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that a derivation from a juxtaposition is preferable, and derives from the juxtaposition of the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property to the halakhot of a provisional guilt offering that one is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering if he is not certain whether he misused consecrated property. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that a derivation from a verbal analogy is preferable, and therefore derive from a verbal analogy between the passage of misuse of consecrated property and the passage of a sin offering for eating forbidden fat that one is not liable to bring a provisional guilt offering if he is not certain whether he misused consecrated property.
The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of the Rabbis also, isn’t it written: “And if anyone sin”? Let us say that they disagree about this: As one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that a derivation from a juxtaposition is preferable, and derives from the juxtaposition of the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property to the halakhot of a provisional guilt offering that one is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering if he is not certain whether he misused consecrated property. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that a derivation from a verbal analogy is preferable, and therefore derive from a verbal analogy between the passage of misuse of consecrated property and the passage of a sin offering for eating forbidden fat that one is not liable to bring a provisional guilt offering if he is not certain whether he misused consecrated property.
ושואלים: ורבנן נמי [וחכמים גם כן], הכתיב [הרי נאמר]: ״ואם נפש״! לימא בהא קמיפלגי [האם לומר שבנושא זה הם חלוקים], דמר סבר [שחכם זה, ר׳ עקיבא, סבור]: היקש (סמיכות הכתובים) עדיף על הגזירה שווה, ולכן מביאים גם על ספק מעילה אשם תלוי, ומר סבר [וחכם זה סבור]: גזירה שוה עדיף ולכן אשם תלוי בא רק על עבירה שעונשה כרת?
The Gemara asks: But according to the opinion of the Rabbis also, isn’t it written: “And if anyone sin”? Let us say that they disagree about this: As one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that a derivation from a juxtaposition is preferable, and derives from the juxtaposition of the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property to the halakhot of a provisional guilt offering that one is liable to bring a provisional guilt offering if he is not certain whether he misused consecrated property. And one Sage, i.e., the Rabbis, holds that a derivation from a verbal analogy is preferable, and therefore derive from a verbal analogy between the passage of misuse of consecrated property and the passage of a sin offering for eating forbidden fat that one is not liable to bring a provisional guilt offering if he is not certain whether he misused consecrated property.
הכל
(14) לָא דכ״ע דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא דְּהֶיקֵּשׁ עֲדִיף וְאָמְרִי לָךְ רַבָּנַן תַּחְתּוֹן הוּא דְּגָמַר מֵעֶלְיוֹן.
The Gemara rejects this: No, it may be that everyone agrees that a derivation from a juxtaposition is preferable. And the Rabbis would say to you that the reason one is exempt from bringing a provisional guilt offering in a case of uncertain mis-use of consecrated property is that the juxtaposition should be understood in the opposite manner. It is the lower passage that is derived from the upper passage.
The Gemara rejects this: No, it may be that everyone agrees that a derivation from a juxtaposition is preferable. And the Rabbis would say to you that the reason one is exempt from bringing a provisional guilt offering in a case of uncertain mis-use of consecrated property is that the juxtaposition should be understood in the opposite manner. It is the lower passage that is derived from the upper passage.
ואמרי לך רבנן – היקש להכי אתא תחתון הוא דגמר מעליון לקנות אשם בשתי סלעים דגבי אשם מעילות כתיב בערכך כסף שקלים וגמר אשם תלוי מיניה שלא תאמר לא יהא ספיקו של כרת חמור מוודאו.
ומשיבים: לא, דכולי עלמא [לדעת הכל] היקש עדיף, ומדוע לדעת חכמים אין מביאים אשם תלוי על ספק מעילה? על כך אמרי [אומרים] לך רבנן [חכמים]: אמנם הולכים אנו כאן אחר היקש, אבל לא העליון נלמד מן התחתון, אלא תחתון (אשם תלוי) הוא דגמר [שלומד] מעליון (אשם מעילות),
The Gemara rejects this: No, it may be that everyone agrees that a derivation from a juxtaposition is preferable. And the Rabbis would say to you that the reason one is exempt from bringing a provisional guilt offering in a case of uncertain mis-use of consecrated property is that the juxtaposition should be understood in the opposite manner. It is the lower passage that is derived from the upper passage.
הכל
(15) לְאָשָׁם בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאמַר לֹא יְהֵא סְפֵיקוֹ חָמוּר מִוַּדָּאוֹ מָה וַדָּאוֹ חַטָּאת בַּת דַּנְקָא אַף סְפֵיקוֹ אָשָׁם בַּר דַּנְקָא.
The juxtaposition teaches that a provisional guilt offering must be a ram worth a minimum of two silver shekels, as is the halakha with regard to the offering brought for misuse of consecrated property. This derivation is needed so that you should not say that a provisional guilt offering, brought for his uncertain transgression, should not be more stringent than the offering one brings in a case of his definite transgression. According to that claim, one would say that just as for his definite transgression one may bring a sin offering worth only one-sixth [danka] of a dinar, so too, for his uncertain transgression one may bring a provisional guilt offering worth only one-sixth of a dinar.
The juxtaposition teaches that a provisional guilt offering must be a ram worth a minimum of two silver shekels, as is the halakha with regard to the offering brought for misuse of consecrated property. This derivation is needed so that you should not say that a provisional guilt offering, brought for his uncertain transgression, should not be more stringent than the offering one brings in a case of his definite transgression. According to that claim, one would say that just as for his definite transgression one may bring a sin offering worth only one-sixth [danka] of a dinar, so too, for his uncertain transgression one may bring a provisional guilt offering worth only one-sixth of a dinar.
וחטאת בת דנקא – פי׳ בקונטרס לאו דווקא אלא דמים קלים שלא ניתן קצבה והדין עמו דבהדיא איתא בפ׳ בתרא דכריתות (כריתות כז.) גבי מפני מה לא נתנה תורה שיעור במחוסרי כפרה ופריך אלא מעתה חטאת חלב תהא לה קצבה וא״ת הא בפ׳ מחוסרי כפרה (כריתות דף י:) משמע דהוי בסלע גבי האומר הרי עלי בסלע למזבח יביא כבש שאין לך דבר שקרב בסלע אלא כבש והאי סלע היינו בלא נסכים דקאמר דחס רחמנא עליה למיהוי [חד] משיתסר בעשירות וי״ל דהתם למצוה מן המובחר.
לענין זה שאשם תלוי דינו באיל שערכו כסף שקלים (לפחות שני שקלים). שלא תאמר: לא יהא ספיקו אשם תלוי שמביא על ספק עבירה שיש בה חטאת, חמור מודאו מחטאת שמביא על עבירה שעבר עליה בוודאות, מה ודאו מביא עליו חטאת אפילו בת דנקא [שישית הדינר], אף ספיקו לא יביא אלא אשם בר דנקא [בן שישית הדינר].
The juxtaposition teaches that a provisional guilt offering must be a ram worth a minimum of two silver shekels, as is the halakha with regard to the offering brought for misuse of consecrated property. This derivation is needed so that you should not say that a provisional guilt offering, brought for his uncertain transgression, should not be more stringent than the offering one brings in a case of his definite transgression. According to that claim, one would say that just as for his definite transgression one may bring a sin offering worth only one-sixth [danka] of a dinar, so too, for his uncertain transgression one may bring a provisional guilt offering worth only one-sixth of a dinar.
הכל
(16) וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הָא סְבָרָא מְנָא לֵיהּ נָפְקָא לֵיהּ {ויקרא ז׳:א׳} מִזֹּאת תּוֹרַת הָאָשָׁם תּוֹרָה אַחַת לְכׇל הָאֲשָׁמוֹת.
The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Akiva derive this conclusion? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse that states: “And this is the law of the guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:1), which teaches that there is one law for all of the guilt offerings and they must all be worth at least two shekels, provisional guilt offerings included.
The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Akiva derive this conclusion? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse that states: “And this is the law of the guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:1), which teaches that there is one law for all of the guilt offerings and they must all be worth at least two shekels, provisional guilt offerings included.
ושואלים: ור׳ עקיבא הא סברא מנא ליה [סברה זו מנין לו] מנין הוא יודע שאשם תלוי הוא בכסף שקלים? ומשיבים: נפקא ליה [יוצאת לו, נלמדת] ממה שנאמר ״זאת תורת האשם״ (ויקרא ז, א), לומר: תורה אחת לכל האשמות, וכולם באים בכסף שקלים.
The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Akiva derive this conclusion? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the verse that states: “And this is the law of the guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:1), which teaches that there is one law for all of the guilt offerings and they must all be worth at least two shekels, provisional guilt offerings included.
הכל
(17) תִּינַח מַאן דְּאִית לֵיהּ תּוֹרַת מַאן דְּלֵית לֵיהּ תּוֹרַת מֵהֵיכָא גָּמַר גָּמַר {ויקרא ה׳:ט״ו} {ויקרא ה׳:י״ח} {ויקרא ה׳:כ״ה} בְּעֶרְכְּךָ בְּעֶרְכְּךָ.
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to one who holds that there is a derivation from the word “law,” but according to the one who does not hold that there is a derivation from the word “law,” from where does he learn that all guilt offerings must have the same minimum value? The Gemara answers: He learns it from a verbal analogy between the term “according to your valuation” stated with regard to a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property (Leviticus 5:15) and the term “according to your valuation” stated with regard to a provisional guilt offering (Leviticus 5:18) and a guilt offering for robbery (Leviticus 5:25).
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to one who holds that there is a derivation from the word “law,” but according to the one who does not hold that there is a derivation from the word “law,” from where does he learn that all guilt offerings must have the same minimum value? The Gemara answers: He learns it from a verbal analogy between the term “according to your valuation” stated with regard to a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property (Leviticus 5:15) and the term “according to your valuation” stated with regard to a provisional guilt offering (Leviticus 5:18) and a guilt offering for robbery (Leviticus 5:25).
תינח מאן דאית ליה תורת – בשמעתא קמייתא דמנחות (דף ג:).
בערכך בערכך – באשם תלוי ובאשם גזילות כתיב בערכך לאשם וגמרינן מערכך דאשם מעילות דכתיב ביה בערכך כסף שקלים.
תינח למאן דאית ליה זאת תורת – פלוגתא בשמעתא קמייתא במנחות (דף ג:) והכי נמי הוה מצי למיבעי לרבנן מנא להו אשם בכסף שקלים בכל אשמות כיון דלית להו זאת תורת.
גמר בערכך בערכך – וא״ת רבנן אי אית להו גזירה שוה דבערכך בערכך א״כ [ואם] נפש למה לי ואי לית להו א״כ אשם גזילות בכסף שקלים מנא להו ואומר ר״ת דאע״ג דאית להו איצטריך ואם נפש שלא יהא ספיקו חמור מודאו דכי האי גוונא אמר פ׳ דם שחיטה (כריתות כב:) ורבנן אע״ג דכתיב זאת תורת איצטריך ואם נפש כו׳ דאי מתורה אחת הני מילי לשאר אשמות אבל אשם תלוי לא יהא חמור ספיקו מודאו וא״ת לרבנן מגזירה שוה דבערכך נמי נילף אשם תלוי בספק מעילות וי״ל דבערכך לא משמע להקיש אלא לענין כסף שקלים ומהאי טעמא נמי איצטריך לר״ע ואם נפש לספק מעילות.
ושואלים: תינח מאן דאית ליה [זה נוח למי שיש לו, מקבל] לימוד זה של ״תורת״, מאן דלית ליה [מי שאין לו, שאינו מקבל] לימוד זה של ״תורת״ מהיכא גמר [מהיכן הוא למד] לשאר אשמות? ומשיבים: גמר [למד הוא] מגזירה שווה של ״בערכך כסף שקלים״ (ויקרא ה, טו) ל״בערכך״ האמור באשמות אחרים (ויקרא ה, יח. ויקרא ה, כה).
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to one who holds that there is a derivation from the word “law,” but according to the one who does not hold that there is a derivation from the word “law,” from where does he learn that all guilt offerings must have the same minimum value? The Gemara answers: He learns it from a verbal analogy between the term “according to your valuation” stated with regard to a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property (Leviticus 5:15) and the term “according to your valuation” stated with regard to a provisional guilt offering (Leviticus 5:18) and a guilt offering for robbery (Leviticus 5:25).
הכל
(18) תִּינַח הֵיכָא דִּכְתִיב בְּעֶרְכְּךָ אֲשַׁם שִׁפְחָה חֲרוּפָה דְּלָא כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ בְּעֶרְכְּךָ מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר.
The Gemara asks: This works out well concerning guilt offerings where it is written “according to your valuation,” but with regard to a guilt offering brought for engaging in sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant, concerning which it is not written in the Torah “according to your valuation,” what is there to say? How does one derive that the guilt offering brought for engaging in sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant must be worth a minimum of two silver shekels?
The Gemara asks: This works out well concerning guilt offerings where it is written “according to your valuation,” but with regard to a guilt offering brought for engaging in sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant, concerning which it is not written in the Torah “according to your valuation,” what is there to say? How does one derive that the guilt offering brought for engaging in sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant must be worth a minimum of two silver shekels?
ושואלים: תינח היכא דכתיב [נניח במקום שנאמר] במפורש ״בערכך״, והוא באשם תלוי ואשם גזילות, אשם שפחה חרופה שלא כתיב ביה [נאמר בו] ״בערכך״, מאי איכא למימר [מה יש לומר]?
The Gemara asks: This works out well concerning guilt offerings where it is written “according to your valuation,” but with regard to a guilt offering brought for engaging in sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant, concerning which it is not written in the Torah “according to your valuation,” what is there to say? How does one derive that the guilt offering brought for engaging in sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant must be worth a minimum of two silver shekels?
הכל
(19) גָּמַר בְּאֵיל בְּאֵיל.:
The Gemara answers that it is derived from a verbal analogy between the term “with the ram” stated with regard to a guilt offering for mis-use of consecrated property (Leviticus 5:16) and the term “with the ram” stated with regard to the guilt offering for engaging in sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant (Leviticus 19:22).
The Gemara answers that it is derived from a verbal analogy between the term “with the ram” stated with regard to a guilt offering for mis-use of consecrated property (Leviticus 5:16) and the term “with the ram” stated with regard to the guilt offering for engaging in sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant (Leviticus 19:22).
גמר באיל באיל – כתיב ביה באיל האשם ובחד מהנך נמי כתיב באיל האשם ואשם נזיר ואשם מצורע נמי לא מרבינן משום דכתיב כבש בן שנה ומדאיל שהוא בן שתי שנים בא בשתי סלעים כבש בן שנה בא בסלע כולה שמעתין בכריתות (דף כב:).
אשם שפחה חרופה באיל איל – ובתורת כהנים יליף אשם שפחה לכסף שקלים מגזירה שוה אשם אשם יכול אף אשם נזיר ומצורע כו׳ ת״ל הוא והיינו טעמא דממעט אשם נזיר ומצורע טפי משאר אשמות משום דבאין כבש שהוא בן שנה כדפירש רש״י.
ומשיבים: גמר [למד] בגזירה שווה מ״באיל האשם״ (ויקרא ה, טז) האמור באשם מעילות, שנאמר בו כסף שקלים, ו״באיל האשם״ (ויקרא יט, יב) האמור בדין שפחה חרופה.
The Gemara answers that it is derived from a verbal analogy between the term “with the ram” stated with regard to a guilt offering for mis-use of consecrated property (Leviticus 5:16) and the term “with the ram” stated with regard to the guilt offering for engaging in sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant (Leviticus 19:22).
הכל
(20) חַטָּאת מְנָא לַן דְּבָעֲיָא צָפוֹן דִּכְתִיב {ויקרא ד׳:כ״ט} וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַחַטָּאת בִּמְקוֹם הָעוֹלָה.
§ The Gemara returns to discuss the mishna. From where do we derive that a sin offering requires slaughter in the north of the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers: As it is written with regard to an individual sin offering: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 4:29). Just as a burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, so too, a sin offering must also be slaughtered in the north.
§ The Gemara returns to discuss the mishna. From where do we derive that a sin offering requires slaughter in the north of the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers: As it is written with regard to an individual sin offering: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 4:29). Just as a burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, so too, a sin offering must also be slaughtered in the north.
את החטאת – יתירא הוא דהא בחטאת קאי והוה ליה למכתב ושחט אותה למה לי את החטאת בנין אב לכל ששמו חטאת שטעון צפון דלא תימא דווקא שעירת יחיד דכתיב גביה.
ב ושבים לעיקרו של הדיון, ושואלים: חטאת מנא לן דבעיא [מנין לנו שצריכה] צפון? ומשיבים: דכתיב [שנאמר] בחטאת היחיד: ״ושחט את החטאת במקום העולה״ (ויקרא ד, כט), וכשם שהעולה בצפון, כפי שנתבאר לעיל, כך חטאת בצפון.
§ The Gemara returns to discuss the mishna. From where do we derive that a sin offering requires slaughter in the north of the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers: As it is written with regard to an individual sin offering: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 4:29). Just as a burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, so too, a sin offering must also be slaughtered in the north.
הכל
(21) אַשְׁכְּחַן שְׁחִיטָה קַבָּלָה מְנָא לַן דִּכְתִיב {ויקרא ד׳:כ״ה,ל״ד} וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִדַּם הַחַטָּאת.
The Gemara asks: We have found from this verse that the slaughter must be in the north. From where do we derive that collection of the blood must also be in the north? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and place it upon the corners of the altar of burnt offering, and all its remaining blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar” (Leviticus 4:34). As this verse immediately follows the verse discussing the slaughter of a sin offering, evidently the taking of the blood is performed in the same place as the slaughter.
The Gemara asks: We have found from this verse that the slaughter must be in the north. From where do we derive that collection of the blood must also be in the north? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and place it upon the corners of the altar of burnt offering, and all its remaining blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar” (Leviticus 4:34). As this verse immediately follows the verse discussing the slaughter of a sin offering, evidently the taking of the blood is performed in the same place as the slaughter.
ולקח הכהן – בתר ושחט כתיב בחטאת יחיד ומשמע במקום העולה נמי ילקח והך לקיחה קבלה דגמר בג״ש בת״כ נאמר כאן לקיחה ונאמר להלן לקיחה ויקח משה חצי הדם וישם באגנות (שמות כד).
ושואלים: אשכחן [מצאנו] דין זה לגבי שחיטה, קבלה של הדם מנא לן [מנין לנו] שתהא בצפון? ומשיבים: דכתיב [שנאמר] מיד אחר כך: ״ולקח הכהן מדם החטאת״ (ויקרא ד, לד), והוא בהכרח במקום השחיטה, שהרי צריך לקבל את הדם מצואר הבהמה.
The Gemara asks: We have found from this verse that the slaughter must be in the north. From where do we derive that collection of the blood must also be in the north? The Gemara answers: As it is written: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger and place it upon the corners of the altar of burnt offering, and all its remaining blood he shall pour out at the base of the altar” (Leviticus 4:34). As this verse immediately follows the verse discussing the slaughter of a sin offering, evidently the taking of the blood is performed in the same place as the slaughter.
הכל
(22) מְקַבֵּל עַצְמוֹ מְנָא לַן אָמַר קְרָא וְלָקַח לוֹ יִקַּח.
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the one collecting the blood must himself stand in the north of the Temple courtyard? Perhaps he may stand near the north and extend his arm to collect the blood. The Gemara answers that the verse states: “And the priest shall take [velakaḥ]” (Leviticus 4:34), which can be read, as: He will take himself [lo yikkaḥ].
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the one collecting the blood must himself stand in the north of the Temple courtyard? Perhaps he may stand near the north and extend his arm to collect the blood. The Gemara answers that the verse states: “And the priest shall take [velakaḥ]” (Leviticus 4:34), which can be read, as: He will take himself [lo yikkaḥ].
מקבל עצמו – שצריך לעמוד בצפון ולא יעמוד בדרום ויושיט ידו בצפון סמוך לו אצל אמצע עזרה שהדרום והצפון נחלקו שם וקיבל מנלן דהא אמר לקמן אם עמד בדרום וקיבל בצפון פסול.
ולקח לו יקח – סרסיהו למפרע ודרשהו את עצמו יקח למקום הדם.
ושואלים: מקבל עצמו מנא לן [מנין לנו] שהוא צריך להיות בצפון? ומשיבים: אמר קרא [המקרא]: ״ולקח״ — ״לו יקח״, שמשנים את סדר האותיות במלה ״ולקח״ כאילו כתוב שיקח את עצמו.
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the one collecting the blood must himself stand in the north of the Temple courtyard? Perhaps he may stand near the north and extend his arm to collect the blood. The Gemara answers that the verse states: “And the priest shall take [velakaḥ]” (Leviticus 4:34), which can be read, as: He will take himself [lo yikkaḥ].
הכל
(23) אַשְׁכְּחַן לְמִצְוָה לְעַכֵּב מִנַּיִן קְרָא אַחְרִינָא כְּתִיב {ויקרא ד׳:כ״ד} וְשָׁחַט אוֹתוֹ בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט אֶת הָעוֹלָה וְתַנְיָא הֵיכָן עוֹלָה נִשְׁחֲטָה בַּצָּפוֹן אַף זֶה בַּצָּפוֹן
The Gemara asks: We have found that the offering must be slaughtered in the north and the blood collected in the north to perform the mitzva in the optimal manner. From where is it derived that if one slaughters the offering or collects the blood anywhere else the offering is disqualified? The Gemara answers: It is written in another verse which speaks of a goat sin offering brought by a king who sins: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the goat and slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering before the Lord; it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:24). And it is taught in a baraita: Where is the burnt offering slaughtered? In the north. This sin offering of a king must also be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard.
The Gemara asks: We have found that the offering must be slaughtered in the north and the blood collected in the north to perform the mitzva in the optimal manner. From where is it derived that if one slaughters the offering or collects the blood anywhere else the offering is disqualified? The Gemara answers: It is written in another verse which speaks of a goat sin offering brought by a king who sins: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the goat and slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering before the Lord; it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:24). And it is taught in a baraita: Where is the burnt offering slaughtered? In the north. This sin offering of a king must also be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard.
קרא אחרינא כתיב – דדריש ליה תנא לעיכובא כדתניא ושחט אותו וגו׳ בשעיר נשיא כתיב.
אף זה בצפון – האי קרא מגמר עליה.
ושואלים: אשכחן [מצאנו] דין שחיטה בצפון למצוה, לעכב מנין? ומשיבים: קרא אחרינא כתיב [מקרא אחר כתוב] בשעיר נשיא, שאף הוא חטאת: ״ושחט אותו במקום אשר ישחט את העולה״ (ויקרא ד, כד), ותניא [ושנויה ברייתא] על כתוב זה: היכן עולה נשחטה? בצפון, אף זה החטאת בצפון.
The Gemara asks: We have found that the offering must be slaughtered in the north and the blood collected in the north to perform the mitzva in the optimal manner. From where is it derived that if one slaughters the offering or collects the blood anywhere else the offering is disqualified? The Gemara answers: It is written in another verse which speaks of a goat sin offering brought by a king who sins: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the goat and slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering before the Lord; it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:24). And it is taught in a baraita: Where is the burnt offering slaughtered? In the north. This sin offering of a king must also be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard.
הכל
© כל הזכויות שמורות. העתקת קטעים מן הטקסטים מותרת לשימוש אישי בלבד, ובתנאי שסך ההעתקות אינו עולה על 5% של החיבור השלם.List of Editions
© All rights reserved. Copying of paragraphs is permitted for personal use only, and on condition that total copying does not exceed 5% of the full work.
זבחים מח. – מהדורת על־התורה (כל הזכויות שמורות)
כולל ניקוד ופיסוק בפרקים מובחרים באדיבות הרב דן בארי, וניקוד בשאר מסכתות באדיבות דיקטה - המרכז הישראלי לניתוח טקסטים (CC BY-NC), עין משפט נר מצוה זבחים מח. – מהדורת על־התורה בסיועו של הרב דב גולדשטיין ות"ת כנגד כולם (tora.co.il, נייד: +972-52-2424305) (כל הזכויות שמורות, ואין להעתיק מן הטקסט לצרכים מסחריים), רש"י זבחים מח., תוספות זבחים מח., פירוש הרב שטיינזלץ זבחים מח.
Zevachim 48a – William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0), Ein Mishpat Ner Mitzvah Zevachim 48a, Rashi Zevachim 48a, Tosafot Zevachim 48a, Steinsaltz Commentary Zevachim 48a