## Zevachim Daf 48b

###### Zevachim 48b:1
[Zevachim 48b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:1)

וְכִי מִכָּאן אַתָּה לָמֵד?! וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר תִּשָּׁחֵט הָעוֹלָה תִּשָּׁחֵט הַחַטָּאת״! הָא לְמָה יָצָא – לִקְבּוֹעַ לוֹ מָקוֹם, שֶׁאִם לֹא שְׁחָטָהּ בַּצָּפוֹן פָּסוּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And do you learn** this *halakha* **from here? But isn’t it already stated:** “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)? If so, **to what** purpose **was this singled out?** Why did the Torah state explicitly that the sin offering of the king requires slaughter in the north? The Gemara answers: **To fix a place for it,** that this is the only place where a sin offering may be slaughtered, teaching **that if it was not slaughtered in the north** of the Temple courtyard, the offering is **disqualified** even after the fact.


###### Zevachim 48b:2
[Zevachim 48b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:2)

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לְכָךְ יָצָא; אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא שֶׁזֶּה טָעוּן צָפוֹן, וְאֵין אַחֵר טָעוּן צָפוֹן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַחַטָּאת בִּמְקוֹם הָעוֹלָה״ – זֶה בָּנָה אָב לְכׇל חַטָּאוֹת, שֶׁיְּהוּ טְעוּנוֹת צָפוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Do **you say** that it is **singled out for this** purpose, to teach that even after the fact a sin offering slaughtered anywhere other than in the north is disqualified? **Or** perhaps **it is only** to teach **that this** goat sin offering **requires** slaughter in the **north but no other** goat sin offering **requires** slaughter in the **north.** The Gemara answers: **The verse states:** “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). **This established a paradigm for all sin offerings,** teaching **that they require** slaughter in the **north.**


###### Zevachim 48b:3
[Zevachim 48b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:3)

אַשְׁכְּחַן שְׂעִיר נָשִׂיא – בֵּין לְמִצְוָה בֵּין לְעַכֵּב; שְׁאָר חַטָּאוֹת נָמֵי – אַשְׁכְּחַן לְמִצְוָה; לְעַכֵּב מְנָא לַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues its explanation: **We have found** that the Torah writes with regard to the **goat** sin offering **of a king** that it requires slaughter in the north **both to** perform the **mitzva** in the optimal manner and **to disqualify** the offering even after the fact. **We have also found** with regard to the **other sin offerings** that the Torah states that **to** perform the **mitzva** in the optimal manner they must be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard. **From where do we** derive the *halakha* **to disqualify** other sin offerings if they were not slaughtered in the north?


###### Zevachim 48b:4
[Zevachim 48b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:4)

דִּכְתִיב בְּכִשְׂבָּה וּכְתִיב בִּשְׂעִירָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **As it is written with regard to a lamb** sin offering that it must be slaughtered in the north: “And slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 4:33) **and** it is also **written with regard to a she-goat** sin offering: “And he shall place his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slaughter it for a sin offering in the place of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 4:29). This repetition teaches that a sin offering is disqualified if it is not slaughtered in the north.


###### Zevachim 48b:5
[Zevachim 48b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:5)

אֶלָּא ״אוֹתוֹ״ לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Having derived from these verses that all sin offerings are disqualified if they are slaughtered not in the north, the Gemara questions its earlier explanation. **Rather, why do I** need the term **“it”** stated with regard to the sin offering of a king in the verse: “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)?


###### Zevachim 48b:6
[Zevachim 48b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:6)

מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״אוֹתוֹ בַּצָּפוֹן״ – וְאֵין שְׂעִיר נַחְשׁוֹן בַּצָּפוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **It is required for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: **It,** the goat sin offering of a king, is slaughtered **in the north** of the Tabernacle, **but** the **goat** offered by **Nahshon** and the other princes was **not** slaughtered **in the north.** Nahshon was the prince of the tribe of Judah. He, along with all the other princes of the tribes, brought offerings to inaugurate the altar and the Tabernacle, as recorded in the Torah (Numbers, chapter 7). Although the offerings were classified as sin offerings because they shared some characteristics of sin offerings, they were not brought to atone for any particular sin. Therefore, the term “it” teaches that the offerings of the princes did not require slaughter in the north.


###### Zevachim 48b:7
[Zevachim 48b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:7)

וְתַנְיָא: ״וְסָמַךְ יָדוֹ עַל רֹאשׁ הַשָּׂעִיר״ – לְרַבּוֹת שָׂעִיר נַחְשׁוֹן לִסְמִיכָה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לְרַבּוֹת שְׂעִירֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה לִסְמִיכָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the reason that it is necessary for the Torah to exclude Nahshon’s sin offering from the requirement of slaughter in the north is because **it is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states with regard to the sin offering of a king: **“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). The verse could have stated: Upon its head. The reason it adds “of the goat” is **to include** the **goat** brought as a sin offering by **Nahshon in** the requirement of **placing hands** on the head of an offering. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says:** The term “of the goat” serves **to include** the **goats** brought as sin offerings for communal **idol worship in** the requirement of **placing hands** on the head of an offering.


###### Zevachim 48b:8
[Zevachim 48b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:8)

סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְאִיתְרַבּוֹ לִסְמִיכָה – אִיתְרַבּוֹ נָמֵי לְצָפוֹן; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: It might **enter your mind to say** that **since** the sin offerings of the princes **are included in** the requirement of **placing hands, they are also included in** the requirement of being slaughtered in the **north.** Therefore, the term “it” **teaches us** that for the goat brought as a sin offering by Nahshon and the other princes there was no requirement of slaughter in the north.


###### Zevachim 48b:9
[Zevachim 48b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:9)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: הָנִיחָא לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה; לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina objects to this** interpretation: **This works out well according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who says that the offering of Nahshon required him to place his hands on the head of the animal. But **according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, what is there to say?** Why should the Torah write the term “it,” since there is no reason to assume that it would require slaughter in the north?


###### Zevachim 48b:10
[Zevachim 48b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב טָבִי לְרָבִינָא: וּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מִי נִיחָא?! לְמַאי דְּאִיתְרַבִּי אִיתְרַבִּי, וּמַאי דְּלָא אִיתְרַבִּי לָא אִיתְרַבִּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra, son of Rav Tavi, said to Ravina: And according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda, does it work out well?** Why is it necessary for the Torah to specifically exclude the offerings of the princes from the requirement of slaughter in the north? Why not say that **for that** for **which it was included,** i.e., placing hands on the head of an animal, **it was included, and** for **that which it was not included,** i.e., slaughter in the north, **it was not included.**


###### Zevachim 48b:11
[Zevachim 48b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:11)

וְכִי תֵּימָא, אִי לָא מַעֲטֵיהּ קְרָא – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא תֵּיתֵי בְּבִנְיַן אָב; אִם כֵּן, סְמִיכָה גּוּפַהּ תֵּיתֵי מִבִּנְיַן אָב! אֶלָּא מִדּוֹרוֹת לָא גָּמְרִינַן; הָכָא נָמֵי מִדּוֹרוֹת לָא גָּמְרִינַן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that **if the verse had not excluded** the offerings of the princes **I would say** that one could **derive** the requirement for slaughter in the north **via a paradigm** from all other sin offerings, **if so,** one could also **derive** the requirement for **placing hands** on the head of an animal **itself via** the same **paradigm. Rather,** the reason that the requirement of placing hands cannot be derived via a paradigm is that **we do not learn** the requirements of the sin offering of Nahshon, which was only for the time of the inauguration of the Tabernacle alone, **from** the requirement of sin offerings applicable to all **generations. So too,** the requirement of slaughter in the north cannot be derived via a paradigm because **we do not learn** the requirements of the sin offering of Nahshon **from** the requirement of sin offerings applicable to all **generations.**


###### Zevachim 48b:12
[Zevachim 48b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:12)

וְאֶלָּא ״אוֹתוֹ בַּצָּפוֹן״ – וְאֵין שׁוֹחֵט בַּצָּפוֹן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the term “it” stated with regard to the sin offering of a king serves to teach that **it** must be slaughtered **in the north** of the Temple courtyard, **but the one who slaughters** it does **not** need to stand **in the north** when he slaughters it.


###### Zevachim 48b:13
[Zevachim 48b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:13)

שׁוֹחֵט – מִדְּרַבִּי אַחִיָּא נָפְקָא! דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אַחִיָּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְשָׁחַט אֹתוֹ עַל יֶרֶךְ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ צָפוֹנָה״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges this: The *halakha* of the one who **slaughters** the offering has already been **derived from** the statement **of Rabbi Aḥiyya, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Aḥiyya says:** The verse states with regard to the burnt offering: **“And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward** before the Lord” (Leviticus 1:11). **Why** must **the verse state** the exclusionary term “it”?


###### Zevachim 48b:14
[Zevachim 48b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:14)

לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ עוֹמֵד בַּצָּפוֹן וּמְקַבֵּל בַּצָּפוֹן, וְאִם עָמַד בַּדָּרוֹם וְקִיבֵּל בַּצָּפוֹן פָּסוּל; יָכוֹל אַף זֶה כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אֹתוֹ״ – אוֹתוֹ בַּצָּפוֹן, וְאֵין הַשּׁוֹחֵט בַּצָּפוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
He explains: **Since we have found** that the priest **stands in the north and collects** the blood from the neck of the animal **in the north, and if he stood in the south and collected** the blood **in the north** the offering is **disqualified,** one **might** have thought that this is **so also** with regard to **this** one who slaughters the offering. Therefore, **the verse states:** “And he shall slaughter **it,”** to teach that **it,** the animal, must be **in the north, but the one who slaughters** it is **not** required to be standing **in the north** of the Temple courtyard when he slaughters the animal. Therefore, the question must be addressed: What is derived from the exclusionary term “it” stated with regard to the sin offering of a king?


###### Zevachim 48b:15
[Zevachim 48b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:15)

אֶלָּא ״אוֹתוֹ בַּצָּפוֹן״ – וְאֵין בֶּן עוֹף בַּצָּפוֹן. דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל יְהֵא בֶּן עוֹף טָעוּן צָפוֹן? וְדִין הוּא; וּמָה בֶּן צֹאן, שֶׁלֹּא קָבַע לוֹ כֹּהֵן – קָבַע לוֹ צָפוֹן; בֶּן עוֹף, שֶׁקָּבַע לוֹ כֹּהֵן – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּקְבַּע לוֹ צָפוֹן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֹתוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rather,** the term “it” stated with regard to the sin offering of a king serves to teach that **it,** a goat brought as a sin offering, must be slaughtered **in the north, but a young bird** brought as an offering does **not** need to be killed **in the north.** This is **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: One **might** have thought that **a male bird requires** pinching of the nape in the **north** of the Temple courtyard. **And this** can be derived through **a logical inference: Just as a young sheep** brought as a burnt offering is an offering for **which** the Torah **did not fix** that **its** slaughter must be performed by **a priest** but nevertheless **fixed** that **its** slaughter must be in the **north,** with regard to **a young bird** brought as an offering, for **which** the Torah **did fix** that **its** killing must be performed by **a priest, is it not logical that** the Torah **should** also **fix its** slaughter in the **north?** Therefore, **the verse states “it,”** to exclude a male bird from the requirement of being killed in the north.


###### Zevachim 48b:16
[Zevachim 48b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:16)

מָה לְבֶן צֹאן, שֶׁכֵּן קָבַע לוֹ כְּלִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the logical inference. One cannot derive the *halakha* of a bird offering from the *halakha* of a sheep offering, as **what** is notable **about a young** sheep offering? It is notable **in that** the Torah **fixed** the requirement that **it** be slaughtered with **a utensil,** i.e., a knife. A bird, by contrast, is killed by the priest using his fingernail. Therefore, the term “it” cannot serve to counter this derivation.


###### Zevachim 48b:17
[Zevachim 48b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:17)

אֶלָּא, ״אוֹתוֹ בַּצָּפוֹן״ – וְאֵין פֶּסַח בַּצָּפוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rather,** the term “it” stated with regard to the sin offering of a king serves to teach that **it,** the goat of the king, is slaughtered **in the north, but** the **Paschal offering** is **not** slaughtered **in the north.**


###### Zevachim 48b:18
[Zevachim 48b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:18)

דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יְהֵא פֶּסַח טָעוּן צָפוֹן? וְדִין הוּא; וּמָה עוֹלָה, שֶׁכֵּן לָא קָבַע לוֹ זְמַן לִשְׁחִיטָתוֹ – קָבַע לוֹ צָפוֹן; פֶּסַח, שֶׁקָּבַע לוֹ זְמַן לִשְׁחִיטָתוֹ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּקְבַּע לוֹ צָפוֹן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֹתוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:** One **might** have thought that **a Paschal offering requires** slaughter in the **north. And this** can be derived through **a logical inference: Just as a burnt offering** is an offering for **which** the Torah **did not fix a time for its slaughter** but **fixed** that **it** requires slaughter in the **north,** with regard to **a Paschal offering,** for **which** the Torah **fixed a time for its slaughter,** as it must be slaughtered in the afternoon of the fourteenth day of Nisan, **is it not logical that** the Torah **would fix** that **it** must be slaughtered in the **north?** Therefore, **the verse states “it,”** to exclude the Paschal offering from the requirement of slaughter in the north.


###### Zevachim 48b:19
[Zevachim 48b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:19)

מָה לְעוֹלָה, שֶׁכֵּן כָּלִיל!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the logical inference. One cannot derive the *halakha* of a Paschal offering from the *halakha* of a burnt offering, as **what** is notable **about a burnt offering?** It is notable **in that** the Torah teaches that **it is entirely** burned on the altar. This is not so with regard to a Paschal offering.


###### Zevachim 48b:20
[Zevachim 48b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:20)

מֵחַטָּאת – מָה לְחַטָּאת, שֶׁכֵּן מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: If you would suggest a logical inference **from** the *halakha* of **a sin offering,** which is not entirely burned upon the altar but is slaughtered only in the north, this too can be refuted. As **what** is notable **about a sin offering?** It is notable **in that it atones for** those sins that render one **liable for** punishment by ***karet*,** which is not so with regard to a Paschal offering.


###### Zevachim 48b:21
[Zevachim 48b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:21)

מֵאָשָׁם – מָה לְאָשָׁם, שֶׁכֵּן קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים! מִכּוּלָּן נָמֵי – שֶׁכֵּן קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: If you would suggest a logical inference **from** the *halakha* of **a guilt offering,** which is not entirely burned, which does not atone for those sins punishable by *karet*, and which is slaughtered only in the north, this too can be refuted. As **what** is notable **about a guilt offering?** It is notable **in that** it has the status of **an offering of the most sacred order,** which is not so with regard to a Paschal offering. The Gemara adds: Having noted this distinction between a guilt offering and a Paschal offering, one can say that for **all of** the three offerings **as well,** the *halakha* of a Paschal offering cannot be derived **from them, since** they all have the status of **offerings of the most sacred order.**


###### Zevachim 48b:22
[Zevachim 48b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:22)

לְעוֹלָם כְּדַאֲמַרַן מֵעִיקָּרָא: ״אוֹתוֹ בַּצָּפוֹן״ – וְאֵין שׁוֹחֵט בַּצָּפוֹן. וּדְקַשְׁיָא לָךְ מִדְּרַבִּי אַחִיָּא נָפְקָא לַן – לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי שׁוֹחֵט בַּצָּפוֹן; אֶלָּא אֵין שׁוֹחֵט בַּצָּפוֹן, אֲבָל מְקַבֵּל בַּצָּפוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to the earlier inference: **Actually,** the term “it” teaches **as we said initially: It,** i.e., the animal, must be standing **in the north, but** the **one who slaughters** the animal does **not** have to stand **in the north. And that** which is **difficult for you,** that **we derive** this *halakha* **from** the statement **of Rabbi Aḥiyya,** is in fact not difficult. The derivation from the term “it” is **not to exclude** one who **slaughters** from the requirement to slaughter **in the north,** since that *halakha* is known already from the statement of Rabbi Aḥiyya. **Rather,** the derivation is that it is only one who **slaughters** the animal who does **not** have to stand **in the north, but** by inference, the one who **collects** the blood from the neck of the animal must stand **in the north.**


###### Zevachim 48b:23
[Zevachim 48b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:23)

מְקַבֵּל מִ״לָּקַח״–״וְלָקַח״ נָפְקָא! ״לָקַח״–״וְלָקַח״ לָא מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this inference: The *halakha* that the one who **collects** the blood from the neck of the animal must stand in the north is derived **from** the fact that the Torah could have written: The priest **shall take,** and instead writes: **“And** the priest **shall take” [*velakaḥ*]** (Leviticus 4:34), which may be read as: He will take himself [*lo yikaḥ*], as explained on the previous *amud*. The Gemara explains: This *tanna* **does not learn** anything from this distinction between: The priest **shall take,** and: **“And** the priest **shall take.”** He does not agree with this derivation, and therefore he must derive the requirement to collect the blood while standing in the north from a different verse.


###### Zevachim 48b:24
[Zevachim 48b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:24)

אַשְׁכְּחַן שְׁחִיטָה בְּעוֹלָה – לְמִצְוָה, קַבָּלָה נָמֵי – לְמִצְוָה אַשְׁכְּחַן; שְׁחִיטָה וְקַבָּלָה לְעַכֵּב מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **We found** a source for the requirement of **slaughter** in the north **with regard to a burnt offering** in order **to** perform the **mitzva** in the optimal manner. **We also found** a source for the requirement of **collecting** the blood while standing in the north in order **to** perform the **mitzva** in the optimal manner. **From where do we** derive that **slaughter and collection** of the blood are **disqualified** if they are not performed in the north?


###### Zevachim 48b:25
[Zevachim 48b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:25)

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבָּה בַּר שֵׁילָא: קַל וָחוֹמֶר; וּמָה חַטָּאת, הַבָּאָה מִכֹּחַ עוֹלָה – מְעַכֶּבֶת; עוֹלָה, שֶׁבָּאָה חַטָּאת מִכֹּחָהּ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמְּעַכֶּבֶת?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Adda bar Ahava says, and some say** it was **Rabba bar Sheila** who says: It is derived via **an *a fortiori*** inference: **Just as** the *halakha* that the slaughter and blood collection of **a sin offering** be performed in the north **comes by virtue of** a comparison to the *halakha* of **a burnt offering,** as the verse states: “And slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 4:29), yet if the animal was not slaughtered or its blood was not collected in the north it **disqualifies** the offering, with regard to the **burnt offering** itself, **as** the *halakha* that the slaughter and blood collection of **a sin offering** be in the north **comes by virtue of it, is it not logical that** if it was not slaughtered or its blood was not collected in the north, this should **disqualify** the offering?


###### Zevachim 48b:26
[Zevachim 48b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:26)

מָה לְחַטָּאת, שֶׁכֵּן מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this logical inference: **What** is notable **about a sin offering?** It is notable **in that it atones for** those sins that render one **liable for** punishment by ***karet*,** which is not so with regard to a burnt offering.


###### Zevachim 48b:27
[Zevachim 48b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:27)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: הָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ לְרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה – כְּלוּם מָצִינוּ טָפֵל חָמוּר מִן הָעִיקָּר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: This** is what is **difficult for Rav Adda bar Ahava.** In other words, regardless of the notable characteristic of a sin offering, he still is of the opinion that his logical inference stands. **Have we ever found** that **a secondary** prohibition is more **stringent than a primary** prohibition? Since the *halakha* of a sin offering is derived via a comparison to the *halakha* of a burnt offering, the former cannot have stringencies that the latter lacks.


###### Zevachim 48b:28
[Zevachim 48b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/48b:28)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מָרִי לְרָבִינָא: וְלָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina: But** have we **not** found a secondary prohibition that is more stringent than the primary one?