## Zevachim Daf 106b

###### Zevachim 106b:1
[Zevachim 106b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/106b:1)

שֶׁהֲרֵי עוֹנְשָׁן אָמוּר: ״וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״, אַזְהָרָה – דִּכְתִיב: ״הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן תַּעֲלֶה עֹלֹתֶיךָ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is apparent, **as the punishment for** sacrificing **them is stated** in this verse: **“And** he did not bring it **to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,** to sacrifice an offering to the Lord, before the Tabernacle of the Lord…that man shall be cut off from among his people.” The **prohibition** is also explicit, **as it is written: “Take heed to yourself lest you offer up your burnt offerings** in every place that you see” (Deuteronomy 12:13).


###### Zevachim 106b:2
[Zevachim 106b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/106b:2)

מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – בִּזְבָחִים שֶׁהִקְדִּישָׁן בִּשְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר הַבָּמוֹת וְהִקְרִיבָן בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**From that** point **onward,** the verse is speaking **about sacrificial** animals **that one consecrated during a period when** there was **permission** to sacrifice offerings on private **altars,** i.e., before the Tabernacle was erected, **and** then **he sacrificed them** outside the Tabernacle **during a period when the prohibition against** sacrificing on private **altars** was in effect.


###### Zevachim 106b:3
[Zevachim 106b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/106b:3)

שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר יָבִיאוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת זִבְחֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר הֵם זֹבְחִים״ – זְבָחִים שֶׁהִתַּרְתִּי לְךָ כְּבָר. ״עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה״ – לוֹמַר לָךְ: הַזּוֹבֵחַ בִּשְׁעַת אִיסּוּר הַבָּמוֹת, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ הִקְרִיב עַל פְּנֵי הַשָּׂדֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is apparent, **as it is stated: “In order that the children of Israel shall bring their sacrifices, which they slaughter** upon the open field, that they shall bring them to the Lord, to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:5). The phrase “their sacrifices, which they slaughter” is interpreted as referring to **offerings that I have previously permitted for you** to slaughter on private altars. This verse teaches that those offerings may now be sacrificed only inside the Tabernacle. The phrase **“upon the open field” tells you** that in the case of **one who slaughters** an offering on a private altar **during a period when the prohibition against** sacrificing on private **altars** is in effect, even if he sacrifices the offering to God, **the verse ascribes him** blame **as if he sacrificed** it **upon the open field** in idolatrous worship.


###### Zevachim 106b:4
[Zevachim 106b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/106b:4)

״וֶהֱבִיאֻם לַה׳״ – זוֹ מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה. לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְלֹא יִזְבְּחוּ עוֹד״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The verse continues: **“That they shall bring them to the Lord.” This** is **a positive mitzva** to sacrifice in the Tabernacle even offerings that were consecrated before the Tabernacle was erected. **From where** is it derived that there is **a prohibition** against sacrificing them outside the Tabernacle? **The verse states: “And they shall not slaughter anymore** their offerings to the *se’irim* after whom they go astray; this shall be to them an eternal statute, throughout their generations” (Leviticus 17:7).


###### Zevachim 106b:5
[Zevachim 106b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/106b:5)

יָכוֹל יְהֵא עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״חֻקַּת עוֹלָם תִּהְיֶה זֹּאת לָהֶם לְדֹרֹתָם״ – זֹאת לָהֶם וְלֹא אַחֶרֶת לָהֶם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One **might** have thought that sacrificing these offerings outside the Tabernacle **would be punishable** by ***karet*,** as is the *halakha* with regard to offerings consecrated after the Tabernacle was erected. Therefore, **the verse states: “This shall be to them an eternal statute, throughout their generations”** (Leviticus 17:7). One can infer from this verse that **this,** the punishment for transgressing a positive mitzva and a prohibition, applies **to them, but no other** punishment applies **to them.** It is clear from this *baraita* that the verse “And they shall not slaughter anymore” is used to teach about the prohibition against sacrificing outside the Tabernacle those offerings that were consecrated while there was permission to sacrifice on private altars, and not those offerings that were consecrated while it was prohibited to sacrifice on private altars.


###### Zevachim 106b:6
[Zevachim 106b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/106b:6)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין: קַל וָחוֹמֶר; וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא עָנַשׁ – הִזְהִיר, מְקוֹם שֶׁעָנַשׁ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁהִזְהִיר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rabbi Avin says:** The prohibition against slaughtering an offering outside the Temple is derived through **an *a fortiori*** inference: **Just as in a case** in **which** the Torah **did not prescribe punishment** for a certain action, it nevertheless **prohibited** it, as is the case with regard to sacrificing outside the Temple an offering consecrated while there was permission to sacrifice on private altars, so too, in **a case** in **which** the Torah **did prescribe punishment** for a certain action, as is the case with regard to slaughtering outside the Temple an offering consecrated while it was prohibited to sacrifice on private altars, **is it not logical that** the Torah **prohibited** the action?


###### Zevachim 106b:7
[Zevachim 106b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/106b:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אִם כֵּן, לֹא יֵאָמֵר לָאו בְּחֵלֶב – וְתֵיתֵי קַל וָחוֹמֶר מִנְּבֵילָה: מָה נְבֵילָה שֶׁלֹּא עָנַשׁ – הִזְהִיר, חֵלֶב שֶׁעָנַשׁ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁהִזְהִיר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: If so,** that whenever the Torah states a punishment for a certain action, there is no need for it to state the prohibition, then **let** the Torah **not state a prohibition with regard to** eating forbidden **fat** of a kosher animal, **and** then **derive** the fact that it is prohibited through **an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the prohibition against eating **an unslaughtered animal carcass: Just as** with regard to **a carcass,** even though the Torah **did not prescribe punishment** for consuming it, it nevertheless **prohibited** consuming it, so too, with regard to animal **fat,** for **which** the Torah **did prescribe punishment, is it not logical that** the Torah **prohibited** its consumption?


###### Zevachim 106b:8
[Zevachim 106b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/106b:8)

אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרָבָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִנְּבֵלָה נָמֵי לָא אָתְיָא, דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לִנְבֵלָה שֶׁכֵּן מְטַמֵּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi **came before Rava** and **said to him:** The prohibition against eating animal fat **can also not be derived from** the prohibition of **a carcass, as** the *a fortiori* inference **can be refuted** as follows: **What** is notable **about a carcass?** It is notable **in that** it **renders** other items **ritually impure** through contact with it. Forbidden fat does not share this stringency. The existence of a unique stringency undermines the possibility of using an *a fortiori* inference.


###### Zevachim 106b:9
[Zevachim 106b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/106b:9)

מִשְּׁרָצִים טְמֵאִין. מָה לִשְׁרָצִים טְמֵאִין – שֶׁמְּטַמְּאִין בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi raises the possibility of deriving the prohibition against eating forbidden fat through an *a fortiori* inference from various other prohibitions that, like forbidden fat, do not carry the stringency of being punishable by *karet*, and Rava rejects each one. Can one derive the prohibition against eating forbidden fat **from** the prohibition against eating carcasses of **ritually impure creeping animals** (see Leviticus 11:41)? One cannot, as **what** is notable **about ritually impure creeping animals?** They are notable in **that they render** other items **ritually impure though** contact with **any amount** of them. Forbidden fat does not share this stringency.


###### Zevachim 106b:10
[Zevachim 106b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/106b:10)

מִשְּׁרָצִים טְהוֹרִים. מָה לִשְׁרָצִים טְהוֹרִים – שֶׁאִיסּוּרָן בְּמַשֶּׁהוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Can one derive it **from** the prohibition against eating the carcasses of **ritually pure creeping animals** (see Leviticus 11:41), which do not have the capacity to render other items ritually impure? One cannot, as **what** is notable **about ritually pure creeping animals?** They are notable in **that** with regard to **their prohibition** there is liability **for** consuming **any amount** of them. Forbidden fat does not share this stringency, as one is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk of it.


###### Zevachim 106b:11
[Zevachim 106b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/106b:11)

מֵעׇרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם. מָה לְעׇרְלָה וְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם – שֶׁכֵּן אֲסוּרִין בַּהֲנָאָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Can one derive it **from** the prohibition against eating **the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [*orla*] or** from the prohibition against eating **diverse kinds in a vineyard,** for which one is liable only if he eats an olive-bulk of them, just like with regard to animal fat? One cannot, as **what** is notable **about *orla* and diverse kinds in a vineyard?** They are notable **in that they are items from which** deriving **benefit is prohibited.** Forbidden fat does not share this stringency.


###### Zevachim 106b:12
[Zevachim 106b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/106b:12)

מִשְּׁבִיעִית. מָה לִשְׁבִיעִית, שֶׁכֵּן תּוֹפֶסֶת דָּמֶיהָ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Can one derive it **from** the prohibition against eating **Sabbatical** Year produce, from which benefit is permitted just like with regard to animal fat? One cannot, as **what** is notable **about Sabbatical** Year produce? It is notable **in that it transfers** its sanctity to the **money** with which **it** is purchased. Forbidden fat does not share this stringency.


###### Zevachim 106b:13
[Zevachim 106b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/106b:13)

מִתְּרוּמָה – שֶׁכֵּן לֹא הוּתַּר מִכְּלָלָהּ! מִכּוּלְּהוּ נָמֵי – שֶׁכֵּן לֹא הוּתְּרוּ מִכְּלָלָן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Can one derive it **from** the prohibition of a non-priest partaking of **the portion of the produce that is designated for the priest [*teruma*]?** One cannot, **as** in the case of *teruma* there are **no** circumstances in which **its general prohibition was permitted.** The prohibition concerning *teruma* applies broadly, unlike in the case of forbidden fat, where the prohibition applies only to the fat of domesticated animals but not to the fat of undomesticated animals. Rava notes that the possibility of deriving the prohibition against eating forbidden fat **from all of those** prohibitions can **also** be refuted based on this claim, **as** in those cases, too, there are **no** circumstances in which **their general prohibition was permitted.**


###### Zevachim 106b:14
[Zevachim 106b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/106b:14)

אָמַר רָבָא: אִי קַשְׁיָא לִי הָא קַשְׁיָא לִי – הָא דִּתְנַן: פֶּסַח וּמִילָה מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: If** there is **a difficulty for me** in accepting Rabbi Avin’s claim that the prohibition against slaughtering an offering outside the Temple can be derived via an *a fortiori* inference, **this** is **difficult for me: That which we learned** in a mishna (*Karetot* 2a), which enumerates the thirty-six cases for which one is liable to receive *karet*. The end of that mishna lists: One who neglects sacrificing the **Paschal offering and** one who does not undergo **circumcision,** which are **positive mitzvot,** unlike the other cases enumerated in the mishna, which are all prohibitions.


###### Zevachim 106b:15
[Zevachim 106b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/106b:15)

תֵּיתֵי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מִמּוֹתִיר: מָה מוֹתִיר שֶׁלֹּא עָנַשׁ – הִזְהִיר, פֶּסַח וּמִילָה שֶׁעָנַשׁ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁהִזְהִיר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava explains his difficulty: If Rabbi Avin is correct, **derive** that there is a prohibition against neglecting the sacrifice of the Paschal offering and not undergoing circumcision **via an *a fortiori*** inference **from** the case of **one who leaves over** sacrificial meat beyond the allotted period for its consumption (see Leviticus 22:30): **Just as** in the case of **one who leaves over** sacrificial meat, **where** the Torah **did not prescribe punishment** but nevertheless **prohibited** this act, so too, with regard to neglecting the sacrifice of the Paschal offering and not undergoing circumcision, for **which** the Torah **did prescribe punishment, is it not logical that** the Torah actually **prohibited** neglecting them as well?


###### Zevachim 106b:16
[Zevachim 106b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/106b:16)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַמְרִיתַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב כָּהֲנָא, וְאָמַר לִי: מִמּוֹתִיר לָא אָתְיָא, דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְמוֹתִיר – שֶׁכֵּן אֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה, תֹּאמַר פֶּסַח – יֵשׁ לוֹ תַּקָּנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: I stated this** very **discussion before Rav Kahana, and he said to me: One cannot derive** a prohibition against neglecting the sacrifice of the Paschal offering **from** the case of **one who leaves over** sacrificial meat via an *a fortiori* inference, **as it can be refuted: What** is notable **about one who leaves over** sacrificial meat? He is notable **in that there is no remedy** once the prohibition has been violated. **Shall you say** the same about the neglect of the **Paschal offering,** for which **there is a remedy?** One who fails to bring it on the first *Pesaḥ* must bring it on the second *Pesaḥ*.


###### Zevachim 106b:17
[Zevachim 106b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/106b:17)

וְכִי מַזְהִירִין מִן הַדִּין?! אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר עוֹנְשִׁין מִן הַדִּין, אֵין מַזְהִירִין מִן הַדִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges the very premise of Rabbi Avin’s claim: **But can one** derive that the Torah **prohibits** an action **via** an *a fortiori* **inference? Even the one who says** that the court **administers punishment** based **on** an *a fortiori* **inference** concedes that **one does not** derive **a prohibition from** an *a fortiori* **inference.** Therefore, Rabbi Avin’s claim is refuted.


###### Zevachim 106b:18
[Zevachim 106b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/106b:18)

אֶלָּא כִּדְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר: אָתְיָא הֲבָאָה–הֲבָאָה;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the prohibition against slaughtering an offering outside the Temple courtyard can be derived **in accordance with** the statement **of Rabbi Yoḥanan, who says:** It is **derived** from the prohibition against offering up outside the Temple through a verbal analogy between the reference to **bringing** stated with regard to slaughtering outside the Temple, and the reference to **bringing** stated with regard to offering up outside the Temple.


###### Zevachim 106b:19
[Zevachim 106b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/106b:19)

מָה לְהַלָּן לֹא עָנַשׁ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר, אַף כָּאן לֹא עָנַשׁ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן הִזְהִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to slaughtering, it is stated: “Or that slaughters it outside the camp, and he did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:3–4), and with regard to offering up, it is stated: “That offers up a burnt offering or sacrifice, and he will not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:8–9). The verbal analogy teaches that **just as there,** with regard to offering up, the Torah **did not prescribe punishment** for an action **unless** it also explicitly **prohibited** the action, **so too here,** with regard to slaughtering, the Torah **did not prescribe punishment unless it** also **prohibited** it. Therefore, even though the Torah does not explicitly state the prohibition, it is evident that it is prohibited.