## Zevachim Daf 11a

###### Zevachim 11a:1
[Zevachim 11a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:1)

עוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא כָּלִיל, נִכְנַס דָּמָהּ לִפְנִים כְּשֵׁרָה; אָשָׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּלִיל, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
with regard to **a burnt offering, which is** totally **consumed** by the fire on the altar, nevertheless, even if **its blood enters into** the Sanctuary it is **fit,** with regard to **a guilt offering, which is not** entirely **consumed** on the altar, **all the more so** is it **not** clear that even if its blood enters the Sanctuary it remains fit?


###### Zevachim 11a:2
[Zevachim 11a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:2)

מָה לְעוֹלָה, שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ מְכַפֶּרֶת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this inference: **What** is notable **about a burnt offering?** It is notable **in that it does not atone** for a sin. Perhaps this is why its blood is not disqualified if it enters the sanctuary.


###### Zevachim 11a:3
[Zevachim 11a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:3)

מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא תּוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **The meal offering of a sinner can prove** the point, as it is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary, even though it atones for a sin.


###### Zevachim 11a:4
[Zevachim 11a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:4)

וְלֵימָא: חַטַּאת הָעוֹף תּוֹכִיחַ! חַטַּאת הָעוֹף – בַּעְיָא דְּרַבִּי אָבִין הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara interjects: **But let us say** that **a bird sin offering can prove** the point, as it too atones for a sin but is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary. This case is more similar to that of a guilt offering, as a bird has blood, unlike a meal offering. The Gemara answers: It is not certain that **a bird sin offering** is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary; this **is a dilemma** raised **by Rabbi Avin.**


###### Zevachim 11a:5
[Zevachim 11a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:5)

וְלִפְרוֹךְ: מָה לְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ מִין זֶבַח!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let us refute** the above response as follows: **What** is notable **about a sinner’s meal offering?** It is notable **in that it is not a type of slaughtered offering.**


###### Zevachim 11a:6
[Zevachim 11a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:6)

עוֹלָה תּוֹכִיחַ. וְחָזַר הַדִּין; לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה; הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן: שֶׁהֵן קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וְנִכְנַס (דָּמָן) לִפְנִים – כְּשֵׁרִין; אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אָשָׁם – שֶׁהוּא קוֹדֶשׁ קֳדָשִׁים, וְנִכְנַס דָּמוֹ לִפְנִים – כָּשֵׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: If so, **a burnt offering can prove** the point, since it is a slaughtered offering, and still if its blood enters the Sanctuary, it is not disqualified. **And the inference has reverted** to its starting point. The *halakha* is derived from the *halakhot* of a burnt offering and a sinner’s meal offering: **The aspect of this** case **is not like the aspect of that** case **and the aspect of that** case **is not like the aspect of this** case. **Their common element is that they are offerings of the most sacred order, and** if they **enter into** the Sanctuary **they are** still **fit. So too, I shall include a guilt offering** and infer that **since it is** also **an offering of the most sacred order,** if **its blood enters into** the Sanctuary it is still **fit.**


###### Zevachim 11a:7
[Zevachim 11a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא מִבַּרְנִישׁ לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְלִפְרוֹךְ, מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁכֵּן אֵין לָהֶן קִצְבָה; תֹּאמַר בְּאָשָׁם – שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קִצְבָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava of Barnish said to Rav Ashi: But let us refute** this inference: **What** is notable **about their common element?** It is notable **in that neither** a burnt offering nor a sinner’s meal offering **has a fixed** value. **Should you say** the same *halakhot* apply **to a guilt offering, which has a fixed** value?


###### Zevachim 11a:8
[Zevachim 11a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:8)

אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״דָּמָהּ״ – דָּמָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ, וְלָא דָּמָהּ שֶׁל אַחֵר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, this is the reason** for the opinion **of the Rabbis: As the verse states:** “And any sin offering, any of **whose blood** is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23). The term “whose blood” teaches that **the blood of this** offering, i.e., a sin offering, **and not the blood of another** offering, is disqualified in this manner.


###### Zevachim 11a:9
[Zevachim 11a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:9)

וְאִידַּךְ – ״דָּמָהּ״ וְלֹא בְּשָׂרָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** how does **the other** *tanna*, Rabbi Eliezer, interpret this term? He derives from it that only **its blood** is disqualified by entering the Sanctuary, **but not its flesh.**


###### Zevachim 11a:10
[Zevachim 11a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:10)

וְאִידָּךְ – ״דָּם״–״דָּמָהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** from where do **the other** Rabbis derive that the flesh of a sin offering is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary? They maintain that both *halakhot* are derived from this term, as the verse could have simply stated: **Blood,** but stated: **“Whose blood.”** The redundancy excludes not only the flesh, but also other offerings.


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

וְאִידַּךְ – ״דָּם״–״דָּמָהּ״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the other** *tanna*, Rabbi Eliezer, **does not interpret** the redundancy indicated by the change from: **Blood,** to: **“Whose blood,”** to be significant. Once the word blood is mentioned, it is grammatically necessary for the verse to state “whose blood.”


###### Zevachim 11a:12
[Zevachim 11a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:12)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: אָשָׁם שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ – כָּשֵׁר; הַיְינוּ דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ מִנְחָה לְחַטָּאת, מִנְחָה לְאָשָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara resumes its discussion of the dispute in the mishna between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. **Granted, according to the Rabbis, who say** that **a guilt offering that one slaughtered not for its sake** is **fit, that is why a meal offering is juxtaposed with a sin offering,** and **a meal offering** is also juxtaposed **with a guilt offering.**


###### Zevachim 11a:13
[Zevachim 11a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:13)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הִוא כַּחַטָּאת וְכָאָשָׁם״ – מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא הֲרֵי הִיא כְּחַטָּאת, לְפִיכָךְ קְמָצָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, פְּסוּלָה; מִנְחַת נְדָבָה הֲרֵי הִיא כְּאָשָׁם, לְפִיכָךְ קְמָצָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, כְּשֵׁרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Shimon says:** The verse states with regard to a meal offering: **“It is most sacred, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offering”** (Leviticus 6:10), teaching that **a meal offering of a sinner is like a sin offering. Therefore,** if one **removed its handful not for its sake,** it is **disqualified.** And the verse also teaches that **a voluntary meal offering is like a guilt offering. Therefore,** if one **removed its handful not for its sake,** it is still **fit.** This accords with the opinion of the Rabbis, that a guilt offering slaughtered not for its sake is fit.


###### Zevachim 11a:14
[Zevachim 11a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:14)

אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא אִיתַּקַּשׁ מִנְחָה לְחַטָּאת וּמִנְחָה לְאָשָׁם?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But according to Rabbi Eliezer, for what *halakha* is a meal offering juxtaposed with a sin offering, and a meal offering** juxtaposed **with a guilt offering?**


###### Zevachim 11a:15
[Zevachim 11a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:15)

לְכִי אִידַּךְ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דִּתְנַן: שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת – פְּסוּלָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: They are juxtaposed **to** teach **the other** *halakha* derived **by Rabbi Shimon** from this verse; **as we learned** in a mishna (*Menaḥot* 26a): If the handful of a meal offering is conveyed to the altar **not in a service vessel,** the offering is **unfit. And Rabbi Shimon deems** it **fit.**


###### Zevachim 11a:16
[Zevachim 11a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:16)

וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״קֹדֶשׁ קֳדָשִׁים הִוא כַּחַטָּאת וּכְאָשָׁם״ – בָּא לְעוֹבְדָהּ בַּיָּד, עוֹבְדָהּ בַּיָּמִין כַּחַטָּאת; בִּכְלִי, עוֹבְדָהּ בִּשְׂמֹאל כָּאָשָׁם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states** with regard to a meal offering: **“It is most sacred, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offering,”** teaching that if a priest **comes to perform** its sacrificial rites **by hand, he must perform** them **with** his **right** hand, **like** one performs the rites of **a sin offering.** And if he performs them **with a vessel, he may perform** them **with** his **left** hand, **like** one performs the rites of **a guilt offering,** since Rabbi Shimon maintains this is permitted in the case of a guilt offering.


###### Zevachim 11a:17
[Zevachim 11a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:17)

וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – הַאי קְרָא מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְהָכִי וּמַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְהָכִי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** as for **Rabbi Shimon** himself, **does he expound this verse for this** purpose, concerning one who if one removes its handful not for its sake, **and expound it for that** purpose, concerning conveying the handful with one’s hand?


###### Zevachim 11a:18
[Zevachim 11a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:18)

עִיקָּר קְרָא – לְכִדְרַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא הוּא דַּאֲתָא; וּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא דִּפְסוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ [– טַעְמָא אַחֲרִינָא הוּא]: חַטָּאת טַעְמָא מַאי – דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ ״הִיא״; מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא נָמֵי כְּתִיב בַּהּ ״הִיא״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **The verse comes mainly to** teach **that which Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya,** explained. **And** the *halakha* **that a meal offering of a sinner** whose handful was removed **not for its sake** is **unfit is** due to **another reason: What is the reason a sin offering** sacrificed not for its sake is disqualified? The reason is **that** the word **“it” is written with regard to it** in the verse: “It is a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:24). Since the word **“it” is also written with regard to the meal offering of a sinner,** in the verse: “For it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11), the same applies in that case.


###### Zevachim 11a:19
[Zevachim 11a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:19)

וּלְרַבָּנַן, לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא אִיתַּקַּשׁ אָשָׁם לְחַטָּאת? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה חַטָּאת טְעוּנָה סְמִיכָה, אַף אָשָׁם טָעוּן סְמִיכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In the mishna, Rabbi Eliezer cites the verse: “As is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:7), as a source for his opinion. The Gemara asks: **And according to the Rabbis, for what *halakha* is a guilt offering juxtaposed with a sin offering?** The Gemara answers: They are juxtaposed **to tell you** that **just as a sin offering requires placing hands** on the head of the offering, **so too, a guilt offering requires placing hands** on the head of the offering.


###### Zevachim 11a:20
[Zevachim 11a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:20)

יוֹסֵף בֶּן חוֹנִי אוֹמֵר: הַנִּשְׁחָטִין כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יוֹסֵף בֶּן חוֹנִי וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Yosef ben Ḥoni says:** Other offerings **that are slaughtered** for the sake of a Paschal offering or a sin offering are unfit. **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Yosef ben Ḥoni and Rabbi Eliezer said the same thing,** i.e., Rabbi Eliezer agrees with Yosef ben Ḥoni.


###### Zevachim 11a:21
[Zevachim 11a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:21)

רַבָּה אָמַר: בַּאֲחֵרִים לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת פְּלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba says:** Although they agree that other offerings slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal offering are unfit, **they disagree with regard to other** offerings slaughtered **for the sake of a sin offering.** Whereas Yosef ben Ḥoni holds that they are unfit, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that they are fit.


###### Zevachim 11a:22
[Zevachim 11a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:22)

דְּתַנְיָא: הַפֶּסַח שֶׁעִבְּרָה שְׁנָתוֹ, וּשְׁחָטוֹ בִּזְמַנּוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ; וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֲחֵרִים לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַכְשִׁיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: In the case of **a Paschal offering whose** first **year has passed,** and it must therefore be sacrificed as a peace offering, **and one slaughtered it at its** designated **time** on Passover eve **for its own sake** as a Paschal offering, **and likewise,** if **one slaughtered other** offerings **for the sake of a Paschal offering at its** designated **time,** the *tanna’im* disagree as to the status of the offering. **Rabbi Eliezer deems** it **unfit, and Rabbi Yehoshua deems** it **fit.**


###### Zevachim 11a:23
[Zevachim 11a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:23)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אִם בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ – אֲחֵרִים כְּשֵׁרִים לִשְׁמוֹ; בִּזְמַנּוֹ שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּכְשְׁרוּ אֲחֵרִים לִשְׁמוֹ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua said: If, during the rest of the days of the year, when** a Paschal offering **is not fit** if it is slaughtered **for its own sake,** nevertheless, **other** offerings that are slaughtered **for its sake are fit,** then **at its** designated **time, when** a Paschal offering **is fit** if it is slaughtered **for its own sake, isn’t it logical that other** offerings slaughtered **for its sake should be fit?**


###### Zevachim 11a:24
[Zevachim 11a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:24)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אוֹ חִילּוּף הַדְּבָרִים: וּמָה אִם בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ – כָּשֵׁר הוּא לְשֵׁם אֲחֵרִים; בִּזְמַנּוֹ, שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיּוּכְשַׁר לְשֵׁם אֲחֵרִים?! וְיוּכְשַׁר פֶּסַח בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Or conversely, just as during the rest of the days of the year, when** a Paschal offering **is not fit** if it is slaughtered **for its own sake, it is fit** if slaughtered **for the sake of other** offerings, so too, **at its** designated **time, when it is fit** if slaughtered **for its own sake, isn’t it logical that it should be fit** if slaughtered **for the sake of other** offerings? **And** accordingly, **a Paschal offering** slaughtered **not for its own sake on** the **fourteenth** of Nisan **should be deemed fit,** which contradicts the *halakha*. Clearly, this line of reasoning leads to incorrect conclusions.


###### Zevachim 11a:25
[Zevachim 11a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:25)

וְכָךְ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר?! מָה לִי הוּכְשְׁרוּ אֲחֵרִים בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה לִשְׁמוֹ – שֶׁכֵּן הוּא כָּשֵׁר לְשֵׁם אֲחֵרִים; וְיוּכְשְׁרוּ אֲחֵרִים בִּזְמַנּוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ – שֶׁכֵּן הוּא פָּסוּל לְשֵׁם אֲחֵרִים?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer refuted Rabbi Yehoshua’s logic as follows: **And do you say this** derivation? **What** does it matter **to me** that **other** offerings slaughtered **during the rest of the days of the year for the sake of** a Paschal offering **are deemed fit? After all,** a Paschal offering slaughtered **for the sake of other** offerings **is** also **fit. But** must you say that **other** offerings slaughtered **at its** designated **time for its sake should be deemed fit? After all,** at its designated time, a Paschal offering slaughtered **for the sake of other** offerings **is unfit.**


###### Zevachim 11a:26
[Zevachim 11a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:26)

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אִם כֵּן, הוֹרַעְתָּה כֹּחַ פֶּסַח, וְנָתַתָּ כֹּחַ בִּשְׁלָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: If,** as you maintain, other offerings slaughtered on Passover eve for the sake of a Paschal offering are disqualified, **you have diminished the force** of the requirement that **a Paschal offering** be sacrificed for its own sake, **and you have given** more **force to** the requirement that **a peace offering** be sacrificed for its own sake. A Paschal offering sacrificed at the proper time, i.e., during the rest of the year, for the sake of a peace offering, is fit, whereas a peace offering sacrificed on Passover eve for the sake of a Paschal offering is unfit.


###### Zevachim 11a:27
[Zevachim 11a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:27)

חָזַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְדָנוֹ דִּין אַחֵר: מָצִינוּ מוֹתַר פֶּסַח בָּא שְׁלָמִים, וְאֵין מוֹתַר שְׁלָמִים בָּא פֶּסַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Eliezer then presented a different logical inference: We find** that **a leftover Paschal offering,** an animal consecrated as a Paschal offering but ultimately not sacrificed on Passover eve, is **brought** as **a peace offering; but a leftover peace offering,** one bought with money left over from funds dedicated toward the acquisition of a peace offering, is **not brought** as **a Paschal offering.** A Paschal offering is a potential peace offering, but a peace offering is not a potential Paschal offering.


###### Zevachim 11a:28
[Zevachim 11a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11a:28)

וּמָה פֶּסַח, שֶׁמּוֹתָרוֹ בָּא שְׁלָמִים – שְׁחָטוֹ בִּזְמַנּוֹ לְשׁוּם שְׁלָמִים, פָּסוּל; שְׁלָמִים, שֶׁאֵין מוֹתָרָן בָּא פֶּסַח – אִם שְׁחָטָם לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּהוּ פְּסוּלִין?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** if so, one may infer *a fortiori*: **Just as** with regard to **a Paschal offering, whose leftover** offering **is brought** as **a peace offering,** and nevertheless, if one **slaughtered it at its** designated **time for the sake of a peace offering** it is **unfit,** so too, with regard to **a peace offering, whose leftover** offering **is not brought** as **a Paschal offering, if** one **slaughtered** it **for the sake of a Paschal offering at its** designated **time, isn’t it logical that** it **should be unfit?**