## Zevachim Daf 12b

###### Zevachim 12b:1
[Zevachim 12b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:1)

יֵשׁ דִּחוּי בְּדָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**there is** permanent **disqualification** even **in** a case where the animal possesses sanctity that inheres in its **monetary** value, rather than inherent sanctity.


###### Zevachim 12b:2
[Zevachim 12b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:2)

אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָכַל חֵלֶב וְהִפְרִישׁ קׇרְבָּן, וְנִשְׁתַּמֵּד, וְחָזַר בּוֹ – הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחָה, יִדָּחֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Ulla says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** If one **ate** forbidden **fat and designated an offering** to atone for the transgression, **and** then **apostatized,** thereby disqualifying himself from bringing an offering, **and** later **recanted** his apostasy, **since** the offering was already **disqualified, it shall be disqualified** permanently.


###### Zevachim 12b:3
[Zevachim 12b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:3)

אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אָכַל חֵלֶב וְהִפְרִישׁ קׇרְבָּן, וְנִשְׁתַּטָּה, וְחָזַר וְנִשְׁתַּפָּה – הוֹאִיל וְנִדְחָה, יִדָּחֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was also stated** that **Rabbi Yirmeya says** that **Rabbi Abbahu says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** If one **ate** forbidden **fat and designated an offering** to atone for his transgression, **and** then **became an imbecile,** who is unfit to bring an offering, **and** then **again became** halakhically **competent, since** the offering was already **disqualified, it shall be disqualified** permanently.


###### Zevachim 12b:4
[Zevachim 12b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:4)

וּצְרִיכִי; דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן קַמַּיְיתָא – מִשּׁוּם דְּהוּא דָּחֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ בְּיָדַיִם; אֲבָל הָכָא דְּמִמֵּילָא אִידְּחִי – כְּיָשֵׁן דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And** both statements **are necessary. As, if** Rabbi Yoḥanan **had taught us** only **the first** statement, concerning an apostate, one might have reasoned that the offering is permanently disqualified **because he disqualified himself by** his own **action, but here,** in the case of one who became an imbecile, **where he was disqualified** through a process that occurs **by itself,** when he becomes competent again he may bring his sacrifice, as it is **considered as** though he were **asleep.** If one designated an offering and fell asleep, this certainly does not disqualify it.


###### Zevachim 12b:5
[Zevachim 12b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:5)

וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן הָכָא – מִשּׁוּם דְּאֵין בְּיָדוֹ לַחֲזוֹר; אֲבָל הָכָא דְּיֵשׁ בְּיָדוֹ לַחֲזוֹר – אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if** Rabbi Yoḥanan **had taught us** only the statement **here,** with regard to one who became an imbecile, one might have reasoned that the offering is permanently disqualified **because it is not in his power to return** to competence, **but here,** in the case of an apostate, **since it is in his power to recant** his apostasy, **I would say** that the offering is **not** permanently disqualified. Therefore, both statements are **necessary.**


###### Zevachim 12b:6
[Zevachim 12b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:6)

בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: אָכַל חֵלֶב וְהִפְרִישׁ קׇרְבָּן, וְהוֹרוּ בֵּית דִּין שֶׁחֵלֶב מוּתָּר, וְחָזְרוּ בָּהֶן, מַהוּ? מִי הָוֵי דָּחוּי, אוֹ לָא הָוֵי דָּחוּי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma:** If one **ate** forbidden **fat and designated an offering** for the transgression, **and** then the **court ruled that** the type of **fat** he ate is **permitted,** thereby rendering the offering unnecessary, **and** the court subsequently **retracted** its ruling, in this case, **what is** the *halakha*? **Is** the offering permanently **disqualified, or is it not** permanently **disqualified?**


###### Zevachim 12b:7
[Zevachim 12b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא סָבָא: כִּי פָּתַח רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בִּדְחוּיִין – מֵהָא פָּתַח. מַאי טַעְמָא? הָתָם – גַּבְרָא אִידְּחִי, קׇרְבָּן לָא אִידְּחִי; הָכָא – קׇרְבָּן נָמֵי אִידְּחִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**A certain elder [*hahu sava*] said to** Rabbi Yirmeya: **When Rabbi Yoḥanan introduced** the topic of permanently **disqualified** offerings, **he introduced** it **with this** case. **What is the reason? There,** in the case of one who apostatized or became an imbecile, although **the person was disqualified,** the **offering** itself **was not disqualified.** Consequently, it is less evident that the offering will be disqualified permanently. But **here,** in a case where the court ruled that the fat is permitted, the **offering** itself **was also disqualified,** as it was rendered unnecessary. Therefore, this is a more obvious example.


###### Zevachim 12b:8
[Zevachim 12b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:8)

אָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי: מְקוּבְּלַנִי מִפִּי שִׁבְעִים וּשְׁנַיִם זָקֵן כּוּ׳. לְמָה לִי לְמִתְנָא ״שִׁבְעִים וּשְׁנַיִם זָקֵן״? דְּכוּלְּהוּ בַּחֲדָא שִׁיטְתָא הֲווֹ קָיְימִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Shimon ben Azzai said: I received** a tradition **from seventy-two elders [*zaken*]** that all slaughtered offerings that are eaten, if slaughtered not for their sake, are fit. The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need to **teach** the phrase **seventy-two** elders using the singular form: ***Zaken*,** rather than the plural form: *Zekenim*? The Gemara answers: **Because they all maintained one opinion,** i.e., they all agreed with this *halakha*.


###### Zevachim 12b:9
[Zevachim 12b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:9)

לֹא הוֹסִיף בֶּן עַזַּאי אֶלָּא הָעוֹלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **Ben Azzai added only the burnt offering** to the sin offering and the Paschal offering, which are mentioned in the first mishna as disqualified when sacrificed not for their sake.


###### Zevachim 12b:10
[Zevachim 12b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:10)

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּבֶן עַזַּאי? ״עוֹלָה הוּא אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַה׳״ – הִיא לִשְׁמָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna said: What is the reason** for the opinion **of ben Azzai?** The verse states: **“It is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma unto the Lord”** (Leviticus 1:13). The word **“it”** teaches that if it is sacrificed **for its sake,** it is **fit;** if sacrificed **not for its sake,** it is **unfit.**


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

אָשָׁם נָמֵי כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ ״הוּא״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Isn’t the word **“it” written with regard to a guilt offering as well,** in the verse: “It is a guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:5)? Nevertheless, a guilt offering sacrificed not for its sake is not disqualified.


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

הָהוּא לְאַחַר הַקְטָרַת אֵימוּרִים הוּא דִּכְתִיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That** verse **is written after the burning of** the **sacrificial portions** on the altar. Since the offering is fit even if these portions are not burned at all, it is certainly fit if they are burned not for the sake of a guilt offering.


###### Zevachim 12b:13
[Zevachim 12b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:13)

הַאי נָמֵי לְאַחַר הַקְטָרַת אֵימוּרִים הוּא דִּכְתִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Isn’t **this** mention of the word “it” with regard to a burnt offering **also written after the burning of** the **sacrificial portions** on the altar?


###### Zevachim 12b:14
[Zevachim 12b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:14)

תְּרֵי ״הוּא״ כְּתִיבִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The word **“it” is written** with regard to a burnt offering in **two** places, both in Leviticus 1:13 and in Exodus 29:18. Although both are written after the burning of the portions consumed on the altar, one of them is superfluous, and is therefore interpreted in reference to the main sacrificial rites, performed before the burning of the portions. The verse therefore teaches that the offering is fit only if these rites are performed for its sake.


###### Zevachim 12b:15
[Zevachim 12b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:15)

גַּבֵּי אָשָׁם נָמֵי תְּרֵי ״הוּא״ כְּתִיבִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to a guilt offering as well,** isn’t the word **“it” written** in **two** places, Leviticus 5:9 and Leviticus 7:5?


###### Zevachim 12b:16
[Zevachim 12b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:16)

אֶלָּא בֶּן עַזַּאי בְּקַל וָחוֹמֶר מַיְיתֵי לַהּ: וּמָה חַטָּאת שֶׁאֵינָהּ כָּלִיל, שְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ – פְּסוּלָה, עוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא כָּלִיל – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, ben Azzai derives** his *halakha* not from a verse, but **by an *a fortiori*** inference: **Just as** with regard to **a sin offering, which is not** totally **consumed** on the altar but partially eaten by priests, if **one slaughtered it not for its sake** it is **disqualified,** so too, with regard to **a burnt offering, which is** treated more strictly in that it is totally **consumed** on the altar, **all the more so** is it **not** clear that if it is slaughtered not for its sake it is disqualified?


###### Zevachim 12b:17
[Zevachim 12b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:17)

מָה לְחַטָּאת, שֶׁכֵּן מְכַפֶּרֶת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this inference: **What** is notable **about a sin offering?** It is notable **in that it atones** for sin, in contrast to a burnt offering, which is not brought for atonement. Therefore, only a sin offering is disqualified when sacrificed not for its sake.


###### Zevachim 12b:18
[Zevachim 12b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:18)

פֶּסַח יוֹכִיחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **A Paschal offering can prove** the point, as it is not brought for atonement, yet it is disqualified if sacrificed not for its sake.


###### Zevachim 12b:19
[Zevachim 12b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:19)

מָה לְפֶסַח, שֶׁכֵּן זְמַנּוֹ קָבוּעַ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this as well: **What** is notable **about a Paschal offering?** It is notable **in that its time is set** at Passover eve, in contrast to a burnt offering, which does not have a designated time.


###### Zevachim 12b:20
[Zevachim 12b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:20)

חַטָּאת תּוֹכִיחַ. וְחָזַר הַדִּין; לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה; הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁהֵן קֳדָשִׁים, וּשְׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן פָּסוּל; אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא עוֹלָה – שֶׁהִיא קָדָשִׁים, וּשְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ פְּסוּלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: If so, **a sin offering can prove** the point, since it has no set time. **And the inference has reverted** to its starting point. The *halakha* is derived from the common element of the two sources: **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, and** if one **slaughtered them not for their sake,** they are **disqualified. So too, I shall include a burnt offering** in this *halakha*, **as it is an offering, and** therefore if one **slaughtered it not for its sake,** it is **disqualified.**


###### Zevachim 12b:21
[Zevachim 12b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:21)

מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן צַד כָּרֵת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this as well: **What** is notable **about their common element?** It is notable in **that they** both **have an element of *karet*.** A sin offering is brought for a transgression punishable by *karet* when committed intentionally, and one who refrains intentionally from bringing a Paschal offering is liable to be punished with *karet*. A burnt offering does not have an element of *karet*.


###### Zevachim 12b:22
[Zevachim 12b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/12b:22)

בֶּן עַזַּאי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Ben Azzai**