## Zevachim Daf 11b

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

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מָצִינוּ מוֹתַר חַטָּאת בָּא עוֹלָה, וְאֵין מוֹתַר עוֹלָה בָּא חַטָּאת;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua said to him:** This inference is not valid, as **we find** that **a leftover sin offering,** e.g., one bought with money left over from funds dedicated to the acquisition of a sin offering, **is brought** as **a burnt offering,** whereas **a leftover burnt offering is not brought** as **a sin offering.**


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

וּמָה חַטָּאת, שֶׁמּוֹתָרָהּ בָּא עוֹלָה – שְׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, פְּסוּלָה; עוֹלָה, שֶׁאֵין מוֹתָרָהּ בָּא חַטָּאת – שְׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא פְּסוּלָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** according to Rabbi Eliezer’s logic, one should derive *a fortiori*: **Just as** with regard to **a sin offering, whose leftover is brought** as **a burnt offering,** nevertheless, if one **slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt offering** it is **unfit,** so too, with regard to **a burnt offering, whose leftover is not brought** as **a sin offering,** if one **slaughtered it for the sake of a sin offering, isn’t it logical that it should be unfit?** Yet, the *halakha* is that a burnt offering slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering is fit.


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

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּחַטָּאת – שֶׁכֵּן כְּשֵׁרָה לִשְׁמָהּ כׇּל הַשָּׁנָה כּוּלָּהּ, תֹּאמַר בַּפֶּסַח – שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנּוֹ?! הוֹאִיל וְהוּא פָּסוּל לִשְׁמוֹ, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיִּפָּסְלוּ אֲחֵרִים לִשְׁמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Eliezer said to him: No, if you said** that this is the *halakha* **with regard to a sin offering,** that another offering sacrificed for its sake is fit, this is only **because** a sin offering **is fit** when sacrificed **for its sake all year long. Shall you** also **say** that this is the *halakha* **with regard to a Paschal offering, which is fit** when sacrificed **for its sake only at its** designated **time? Since** a Paschal offering **is unfit** when sacrificed **for its sake** during the rest of the year, **it is logical that other** offerings **should be disqualified** when sacrificed **for its sake** at its designated time.


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

שִׁמְעוֹן אֲחִי עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Shimon, brother of Azarya, says** that this is the distinction: With regard to all offerings, if one slaughtered them for the sake of an offering whose sanctity is greater than theirs, they are fit; if one slaughtered them for the sake of an offering whose sanctity is less than theirs, they are unfit.


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

רַב אָשֵׁי מַתְנֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מַתְנֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּשִׁמְעוֹן אֲחִי עֲזַרְיָה? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קׇדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַה׳״ – בְּמוּרָם מֵהֶן אֵין מִתְחַלְּלִין, בְּנָמוּךְ מֵהֶם מִתְחַלְּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi teaches in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, teaches** the same statement **in the name of Rabbi Yannai: What is the reason** for the opinion **of Shimon, brother of Azarya?** It is derived from that **which the verse states: “And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they will set apart [*yarimu*] unto the Lord”** (Leviticus 22:15). The verse is interpreted not as a prohibition but as a halakhic axiom, teaching that offerings **are not profaned,** i.e., disqualified, **by** sacrifice for the sake of offerings whose sanctity is **more elevated [*muram*] than theirs; they are profaned** only **by** sacrifice for the sake of offerings whose sanctity is **less than theirs.**


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

וְהַאי לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?! וְהָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִכְדִשְׁמוּאֵל – דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מִנַּיִן לָאוֹכֵל אֶת הַטֶּבֶל שֶׁהוּא בְּמִיתָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קׇדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַה׳״ – בַּעֲתִידִים לִתְרוֹם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And does that** verse **come to** teach **this** *halakha*? **But isn’t it necessary for Shmuel’s** derivation? **As Shmuel says: From where** is it derived **that one who eats untithed produce is** liable **to** be punished with **death** at the hand of Heaven? **As it is stated: “And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they will set apart unto the Lord.”** The term: “Will set apart,” indicates that **the verse is speaking of** holy items **that are to be set apart in the future,** i.e., untithed produce, which includes the portion designated for the priest [*teruma*].


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

אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״אֲשֶׁר הוּרְמוּ״; מַאי ״אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּיהּ תַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If so,** if **the verse** taught only one *halakha*, the *halakha* of Shimon, brother of Azarya, it **should have written: Which they have set apart. What** is the reason the verse states: **“Which they will set apart,”** in the future tense? **Conclude from it** that the verse teaches **two** *halakhot*: An offering sacrificed for the sake of an offering of greater sanctity is fit, and consumption of untithed produce is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven.


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

בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: כְּשֵׁרִין וְאֵין מְרַצִּין – וְכִי פְּלִיג בַּחֲדָא פְּלִיג, אוֹ דִלְמָא כְּשֵׁרִין וּמְרַצִּין – וּבְתַרְתֵּי פְּלִיגִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma:** According to Shimon, brother of Azaria, who says that less sacred offerings sacrificed for the sake of more sacred offerings are fit, perhaps they **are fit but do not propitiate** God, i.e., they do not fulfill the owner’s obligation, as the Rabbis hold. If so, **when** Shimon, brother of Azaria, **disagrees** with the first *tanna* in the mishna, **he disagrees** only **with regard to one** matter, i.e., that more sacred offerings sacrificed for the sake of less sacred ones are disqualified altogether. **Alternatively, perhaps** Shimon, brother of Azaria, holds that if less sacred offerings are sacrificed for the sake of more sacred offerings they are both **fit and propitiate** God, **and they disagree** with the Rabbis **about two** matters.


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי זְרִיקָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: הַבְּכוֹר וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים – כְּשֵׁרִים. שְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לְשֵׁם בְּכוֹר אוֹ לְשֵׁם מַעֲשֵׂר – פְּסוּלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye, and some say Rabbi Zerika, said: Come** and **hear** proof that they do not satisfy the owners’ obligation: Shimon, brother of Azarya, elaborated on his opinion in the mishna: **A firstborn** animal **and the** animal **tithe that one slaughtered for the sake of peace offerings are fit,** as the sanctity of peace offerings is greater. **Peace offerings that one slaughtered for the sake of a firstborn** animal **or for the sake of** the animal **tithe are unfit.**


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

וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כְּשֵׁרִין וּמְרַצִּין, בְּכוֹר בַּר רַיצּוֹיֵי הוּא?! אֶלָּא כְּשֵׁרִין וְאֵין מְרַצִּין! וּמִדְּסֵיפָא כְּשֵׁרִין וְאֵין מְרַצִּין, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי כְּשֵׁרִין וְאֵין מְרַצִּין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if it enters your mind** that offerings sacrificed for the sake of offerings of greater sanctity are both **fit and propitiate** God, **is a firstborn** an offering that **propitiates?** Sacrificing a firstborn does not serve to propitiate God; **rather,** conclude that such offerings **are fit but do not propitiate. And** one can infer that **since** in **the latter clause they are fit but do not propitiate,** in **the former clause as well,** concerning all offerings of lesser sanctity slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order, **they are fit but do not propitiate.**


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

מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Are the cases comparable? This** case is **as it is, and that** case is **as it is.** Perhaps Shimon, brother of Azarya, holds that offerings of lesser sanctity slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order propitiate God, but a firstborn animal and animal tithe slaughtered for the sake of peace offerings do not propitiate God.


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

אֶלָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? גָּבוֹהַּ וְנָמוּךְ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן?! תְּנֵינָא: כֵּיצַד? קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לְשֵׁם קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים כּוּ׳!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Rather, what is** the latter clause concerning a firstborn and animal tithe **teaching us,** if not that no offerings of lesser sanctity propitiate God when sacrificed for the sake of offerings of greater sanctity? How is the clause not redundant? **Does it teach us** an example of offerings of **higher** sanctity **and** offerings of **lower** sanctity? **We** already **learn** such an example in the former clause, which teaches: **How so? Offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity** are unfit; offerings of lesser sanctity slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order are fit.


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

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים הוּא דְּאִיכָּא גָּבוֹהַּ וְנָמוּךְ, אֲבָל קַלִּים וְקַלִּים – לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: It is stated **lest you say that** the *halakha* of offerings of **higher** sanctity **and** offerings of **lower** sanctity **applies only** when the difference is between **offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity, but** with regard to offerings of **lesser** sanctity **and** other offerings of **lesser** sanctity this *halakha* does **not** apply, as they are all considered to possess the same level of sanctity. Therefore the mishna adds the example of a firstborn animal and animal tithe slaughtered for the sake of peace offerings, to clarify that one can distinguish between different offerings of lesser sanctity as well.


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

הָא נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: שְׁלָמִים קוֹדְמִים אֶת הַבְּכוֹר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן טְעוּנִין מַתַּן אַרְבַּע, וּסְמִיכָה, וּנְסָכִים, וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an objection to this answer: **We** already **learn this as well,** in another mishna (89a): The **peace offering precedes** sacrifice of **the firstborn because** the peace offering **requires placement** of its blood twice so as to be visible on **four** sides of the altar, **placing hands** on the head of the offering, **libations, and waving of** the **breast and thigh** by the priest and the owner, none of which is required for the firstborn.


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

הָא עִיקָּר, הָהִיא אַגְּרָרָא נַסְבַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The **primary** mention of the distinction is in **this** mishna; **that** mishna **cites it incidentally,** in discussing the order of precedence of offerings.


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

**מַתְנִי׳** הַפֶּסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שַׁחֲרִית בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ – רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַכְשִׁיר, כְּאִילּוּ נִשְׁחַט בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר. בֶּן בְּתִירָא פּוֹסֵל, כְּאִילּוּ נִשְׁחַט בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** With regard to **the Paschal offering that one slaughtered** on the **morning of** the **fourteenth** of Nisan, the day when the Paschal offering should be slaughtered in the afternoon, if he did so **not for its sake, Rabbi Yehoshua deems it fit as though it were slaughtered on the thirteenth** of Nisan. An animal consecrated as a Paschal offering that was slaughtered not at its designated time for the sake of a different offering is fit for sacrifice as a peace offering. **Ben Beteira deems it unfit as though it were slaughtered** in the **afternoon** of the fourteenth.


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

אָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי: מְקוּבָּל אֲנִי מִפִּי שִׁבְעִים וּשְׁנַיִם זָקֵן בַּיּוֹם שֶׁהוֹשִׁיבוּ אֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בִּישִׁיבָה, שֶׁכׇּל הַזְּבָחִים הַנֶּאֱכָלִין שֶׁנִּזְבְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – כְּשֵׁרִין, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים מִשּׁוּם חוֹבָה; חוּץ מִן הַפֶּסַח וּמִן הַחַטָּאת. וְלֹא הוֹסִיף בֶּן עַזַּאי אֶלָּא הָעוֹלָה, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shimon ben Azzai said: I received** a tradition **from seventy-two elders,** as the Sanhedrin deliberated and decided **on the day that they installed Rabbi Elazar** ben Azarya **at** the head of **the yeshiva** and ruled **that all the slaughtered offerings that are eaten that were slaughtered not for their sake are fit, but** these offerings **did not satisfy the obligation of the owner, except for the Paschal offering and the sin offering.** Based on that version, **ben Azzai added** to the *halakha* cited in the first mishna **only the burnt offering,** which is not eaten, **and the Rabbis** disagreed and **did not concede to him.**


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

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: מַכְשִׁיר הָיָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא בְּפֶסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שַׁחֲרִית בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לִשְׁמוֹ, דְּכוּלֵּיהּ יוֹמָא זִימְנֵיהּ הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rabbi Elazar says** that **Rabbi Oshaya says: With regard to a Paschal offering that one slaughtered** on the **morning of** the **fourteenth** of Nisan **for its sake, ben Beteira would deem** it **fit, as** he held that **the entire day,** not only the afternoon, **is its** designated **time.**


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

וּמַאי ״כְּאִילּוּ״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And what** is the reason the mishna states that according to ben Beteira, a Paschal offering slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth is considered **as though** it were slaughtered in the afternoon? This language seems to indicate that it does not have the same status as a Paschal offering actually slaughtered in the afternoon.


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

אַיְּידֵי דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ ״כְּאִילּוּ״, אָמַר אִיהוּ נָמֵי ״כְּאִילּוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **Since Rabbi Yehoshua says** the term: **As though** it were slaughtered on the thirteenth, ben Beteira **also says** the term: **As though** it were slaughtered in the afternoon. But in fact he maintains that there is no difference between a Paschal offering slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth and one slaughtered in the afternoon.


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

אִי הָכִי, אַדְּמִיפַּלְגִי בְּשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ – לִיפַּלְגוּ בְּלִשְׁמוֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If so, rather than disagreeing** in the mishna **with regard to** a Paschal offering that was slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth **not for its sake, let them disagree with regard to** one slaughtered **for its sake;** ben Beteira holds that it is fit, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that it is unfit.


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

אִי אִיפְּלִגוּ בְּלִשְׁמוֹ, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אֲבָל בְּשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ – מוֹדֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְבֶן בְּתִירָא, הוֹאִיל וּמִקְצָתוֹ רָאוּי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If** the mishna were to write only that **they disagree with regard to** a Paschal offering slaughtered **for its sake, I would say: But in** a case where it was slaughtered **not for its sake, Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to ben Beteira** that it is disqualified, even though it was slaughtered in the morning, **since** at least **part of** the day, the afternoon, is **fit** for its sacrifice as a Paschal offering. Therefore, the mishna **teaches us** that they disagree with regard to this case as well.


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

וְהָכְתִיב: ״בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: How can ben Beteira claim that a Paschal offering may be slaughtered in the morning? **But isn’t it written:** “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it **in the afternoon [*bein ha’arbayim*]”** (Exodus 12:6)?


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

אָמַר עוּלָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב עִילַּאי: בֵּין שְׁנֵי עֲרָבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ulla, son of Rav Ilai, says:** Ben Beteira interprets the phrase *bein ha’arbayim* literally: **Between two evenings,** i.e., between the eve of the fourteenth and the night after the fourteenth. Accordingly, the Paschal offering may be sacrificed all day long.


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

תָּמִיד, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם״ – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּכוּלֵּי יוֹמָא כָּשֵׁר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the **daily offering, concerning which it is written:** “The one lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer ***bein ha’arbayim*”** (Numbers 28:4), is **the entire day fit** for sacrifice **also?**


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

הָתָם, מִדִּכְתִיב: ״אֶת הַכֶּבֶשׂ אֶחָד תַּעֲשֶׂה בַבֹּקֶר״, מִכְּלָל דְּ״בֵין הָעַרְבָּיִם״ – בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם מַמָּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There, since it is written: “The one lamb you shall offer in the morning,” by inference,** the term ***bein ha’arbayim*** is referring to the **actual afternoon.**


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

אֵימָא חַד בַּבֹּקֶר, אִידַּךְ כּוּלֵּיהּ יוֹמָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara counters: **Say** that **one** of the lambs should be sacrificed **in the morning,** and **the other** one can be sacrificed **all day.** Why is it evident from the requirement that one be sacrificed in the morning that the other must sacrificed in the afternoon?


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

״אֶחָד... בַּבֹּקֶר״ – וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם בַּבֹּקֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The clause **“One** lamb you shall offer **in the morning”** indicates that **two** lambs are **not** sacrificed **in the morning;** the other must perforce be sacrificed in the afternoon.


###### Zevachim 11b:29
[Zevachim 11b:29](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11b:29)

נֵרוֹת, דִּכְתִיב ״בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם״ – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּכוּלֵּי יוֹמָא כָּשֵׁר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: With regard to the **lamps** of the Candelabrum, one should say the same, **as it is written:** “And when Aaron lights the lamps ***bein ha’arbayim*”** (Exodus 30:8). Is **the entire day fit** for lighting **also,** according to the opinion of ben Beteira?


###### Zevachim 11b:30
[Zevachim 11b:30](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11b:30)

שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּכְתִיב: ״מֵעֶרֶב וְעַד בֹּקֶר״, וְתַנְיָא: ״מֵעֶרֶב וְעַד בֹּקֶר״ – תֵּן לָהּ מִדָּתָהּ שֶׁתְּהֵא דּוֹלֶקֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת מֵעֶרֶב וְעַד בֹּקֶר. דָּבָר אַחֵר: אֵין לְךָ עֲבוֹדָה כְּשֵׁרָה מֵעֶרֶב וְעַד בֹּקֶר, אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There it is different, as it is written:** “To burn **from evening to morning”** (Exodus 27:21). **And it is taught** in a *baraita*: The phrase **“from evening to morning”** indicates that you must **allocate** the Candelabrum **its measure** of oil so **that it will burn from evening until morning. Alternatively,** the same verse can be interpreted as follows: **Only this rite is valid from evening until morning,** since all other rites must be performed during the day. Therefore, the Candelabrum is lit only at the end of the day.


###### Zevachim 11b:31
[Zevachim 11b:31](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11b:31)

קְטוֹרֶת, דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ: ״בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם״ – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּכוּלֵּי יוֹמָא כָּשֵׁר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: With regard to the **incense,** one should say likewise, **as it is written with regard to it: “*Bein ha’arbayim*** he shall burn it” (Exodus 30:8). Is **the entire day also fit** for burning the incense according to the opinion of ben Beteira?


###### Zevachim 11b:32
[Zevachim 11b:32](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/11b:32)

שָׁאנֵי קְטֹרֶת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The **incense is different,**