## Zevachim Daf 49a

###### Zevachim 49a:1
[Zevachim 49a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49a:1)

וַהֲרֵי מַעֲשֵׂר – דְּהוּא נִפְדֶּה, וְאִילּוּ לָקוּחַ בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר אֵינוֹ נִפְדֶּה – דִּתְנַן: הַלָּקוּחַ בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁנִּטְמָא – יִפָּדֶה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יִקָּבֵר. נִטְמָא אִין, לֹא נִטְמָא לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But there is** the case of the second **tithe, which** may be **redeemed, whereas** food that is **purchased with** second-**tithe** redemption **money** may **not** be **redeemed. As we learned** in a mishna (*Ma’aser Sheni* 10:10): With regard to food **that was purchased with** second-**tithe money** and **that** then **became ritually impure,** this ritually impure food **must be redeemed** with money, with which one must purchase other food. **Rabbi Yehuda says:** The food **must be buried.** The Gemara infers from the mishna: If the food purchased with the second-tithe money **became impure, yes,** it may be redeemed, but if it **did not become impure,** it may **not** be redeemed. If so, according to Rabbi Yehuda, the *halakha* that food purchased with second-tithe money must be buried if it becomes impure is more stringent than the *halakha* for second-tithe produce itself, which may be redeemed if it becomes impure.


###### Zevachim 49a:2
[Zevachim 49a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49a:2)

הָתָם לָא אַלִּימָא קְדוּשָּׁתֵיהּ לְמִיתְפַּס פִּדְיוֹנֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There,** the reason one may not redeem food that was purchased with second-tithe money and that then became ritually impure is not that the *halakha* is more stringent. Rather, there is a different reason. Since this food was merely purchased with second-tithe money, its **sanctity is not** as **strong** as the tithe itself and is unable **to grasp its redemption** money. Its status as second tithe is weak, and cannot be transferred to a third item. Consequently, if it becomes impure, according to Rabbi Yehuda it cannot be redeemed for money but must be buried, as an item that one is prohibited to derive benefit from.


###### Zevachim 49a:3
[Zevachim 49a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49a:3)

וַהֲרֵי תְּמוּרָה – דְּאִילּוּ קֳדָשִׁים לָא חָיְילִי עַל בַּעַל מוּם קָבוּעַ, וְאִילּוּ אִיהִי חָיְילָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Mar Zutra asks: **But there is** the case of **a substitution, as** the status of **an offering does not take effect with regard to a permanently blemished** animal, **while** consecration performed via substitution does **take effect** with regard to an animal with a permanent blemish. Although the animal cannot be sacrificed as an offering and must be redeemed, even after its redemption it may not be used for labor and its wool may not be used.


###### Zevachim 49a:4
[Zevachim 49a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49a:4)

תְּמוּרָה מִכֹּחַ קָדָשִׁים קָא אָתְיָא, וְקָדָשִׁים מִכֹּחַ חוּלִּין (קָאָתֵי) [קָאָתוּ].

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The sanctity of **a substitution comes by virtue of a consecrated** animal; therefore it has a stronger sanctity. **But** the sanctity of **a consecrated** animal itself **comes by virtue of a non-sacred** animal, as there was no consecrated animal by which the owner extended the sanctity to this animal.


###### Zevachim 49a:5
[Zevachim 49a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49a:5)

הֲרֵי פֶּסַח – דְּהוּא אֵינוֹ טָעוּן סְמִיכָה וּנְסָכִים וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק, וְאִילּוּ מוֹתָר דִּידֵיהּ טָעוּן סְמִיכָה וּנְסָכִים וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Mar Zutra asks: But **there is** the case of **a Paschal offering, as it does not require** the **placing** of **hands** on its head, **or** wine **libations** to accompany the offering, **or waving of** the **breast and thigh. While its remainder,** an animal that was designated as a Paschal offering but was not sacrificed at the right time, which is then sacrificed as a peace offering, has more stringent *halakhot*, because it **requires** the **placing** of **hands** on its head, **and** wine **libations** to accompany the offering, **and waving of** the **breast and thigh.**


###### Zevachim 49a:6
[Zevachim 49a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49a:6)

פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה – שְׁלָמִים הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **A Paschal offering on the rest of the days of the year is** the same as **a peace offering,** and the animal is no longer considered to be a Paschal offering. Since it is a peace offering, all the *halakhot* of a peace offering apply to it, and the fact that it was once designated as a Paschal offering is irrelevant. The conclusion of the Gemara is that there are no cases where a secondary status is more stringent than the corresponding primary status. Therefore, the derivation from the *halakha* of a sin offering to the *halakha* of a burnt offering, that the latter should be disqualified if it was not slaughtered in the north or if its blood was not collected in the north, remains.


###### Zevachim 49a:7
[Zevachim 49a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49a:7)

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״הָעוֹלָה״ – בִּמְקוֹמָהּ תְּהֵא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you wish, say** there is a different proof that even after the fact a burnt offering that was not slaughtered in the north is disqualified. **The verse states:** “And slaughter the sin offering in the place of **the burnt offering”** (Leviticus 4:29). Since the earlier verse (Leviticus 4:24) already stated: “In the place of the burnt offering,” the repetition in this verse stresses that **it shall be in its place,** meaning that the offering is disqualified if it is slaughtered anywhere else.


###### Zevachim 49a:8
[Zevachim 49a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49a:8)

אָשָׁם מְנָלַן דְּבָעֵי צָפוֹן? דִּכְתִיב: ״בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחֲטוּ אֶת הָעֹלָה יִשְׁחֲטוּ אֶת הָאָשָׁם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive **that a guilt offering,** which is an offering of the most sacred order, **requires** slaughter in the **north?** The Gemara answers: **As it is written: “In the place where they slaughter the burnt offering they shall slaughter the guilt offering,** and its blood shall be sprinkled around the altar” (Leviticus 7:2). Since the burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north, the guilt offering must also be slaughtered in the north.


###### Zevachim 49a:9
[Zevachim 49a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49a:9)

אַשְׁכְּחַן שְׁחִיטָה, קַבָּלָה מְנָא לַן? ״וְאֶת דָּמוֹ יִזְרוֹק״ – קִבּוּל דָּמוֹ נָמֵי בַּצָּפוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We have found** a source that the **slaughter** must be in the north. **From where do we** derive that the **collection** of the blood must also be in the north? The Gemara answers that the second half of the verse states: **“And its blood shall be sprinkled** around the altar.” Since the blood must be collected immediately after the slaughter and before the sprinkling, just as the slaughter must be in the north, so the **collection of its blood** must **also** be **in the north.**


###### Zevachim 49a:10
[Zevachim 49a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49a:10)

מְקַבֵּל עַצְמוֹ מְנָא לַן? ״דָּמוֹ״–״וְאֶת דָּמוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive that the one who **collects** the blood must **himself** stand in the north? The Gemara answers: It is derived from the fact that the verse does not only state: **“Its blood** shall be sprinkled,” but states: **“And its blood** shall be sprinkled” (Leviticus 7:2). The conjunction “and [*ve’et*]” serves to include the one who collects the blood.


###### Zevachim 49a:11
[Zevachim 49a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49a:11)

אַשְׁכְּחַן לְמִצְוָה, לְעַכֵּב מְנָא לַן? קְרָא אַחֲרִינָא כְּתִיב: ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַכֶּבֶשׂ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We have found** a verse teaching that in order **to** perform the **mitzva** in the optimal manner, the slaughtering of the guilt offering is in the north. **From where do we** derive **to disqualify** after the fact an offering slaughtered elsewhere, not in the north? The Gemara answers: **Another verse is written,** referring to a guilt offering, which states: **“And he shall slaughter the sheep** in the place where they slaughter the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the place of the Sanctuary; for as the sin offering, so is the guilt offering; to the priest, it is most holy” (Leviticus 14:13). This teaches that all guilt offerings are disqualified if they are not slaughtered in the north.


###### Zevachim 49a:12
[Zevachim 49a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49a:12)

וְהַאי לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?! הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: דָּבָר שֶׁהָיָה בַּכְּלָל וְיָצָא לִידּוֹן בְּדָבָר הֶחָדָשׁ, אִי אַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לְהַחְזִירוֹ לִכְלָלוֹ עַד שֶׁיַּחְזִירֶנּוּ הַכָּתוּב לִכְלָלוֹ בְּפֵירוּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But does this** verse **come to** teach **this** *halakha*? **This** verse is **necessary for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to **a matter that was included in a general** category **but left to discuss a new matter,** i.e., if a novel aspect or special ruling is taught with regard to a specific case within a broader general category, **you may not return it to its general** category even for other matters, and this case is understood to have been entirely removed from the general category, **until the verse explicitly returns it to its general** category.


###### Zevachim 49a:13
[Zevachim 49a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49a:13)

כֵּיצַד? ״וְשָׁחַט אֶת הַכֶּבֶשׂ בִּמְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט אֶת הַחַטָּאת וְאֶת הָעוֹלָה בִּמְקוֹם הַקֹּדֶשׁ, כִּי כַּחַטָּאת הָאָשָׁם הוּא וְגוֹ׳״ – שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כַּחַטָּאת הָאָשָׁם״; מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כַּחַטָּאת הָאָשָׁם״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **How so?** The verse states: **“And he shall slaughter the sheep in the place where they slaughter the sin offering and the burnt offering, in the place of the Sanctuary; for as the sin offering, so is the guilt offering;** to the priest, it is most holy” (Leviticus 14:13). **As** there is **no** need for **the verse to state: “As the sin offering, so is the guilt offering,”** since the verse had already equated the guilt offering with the sin offering, **why** does the **verse state: “As the sin offering, so is the guilt offering”?** What does it serve to teach?


###### Zevachim 49a:14
[Zevachim 49a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49a:14)

לְפִי שֶׁיָּצָא אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע לִידּוֹן בְּדָבָר הֶחָדָשׁ – בְּבוֹהֶן יָד וּבוֹהֶן רֶגֶל וְאֹזֶן יְמָנִית; יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא טָעוּן מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Since the guilt offering of a leper left** the general category of guilt offerings **to teach a new matter,** as there is a *halakha* unique to the guilt offering of a leper in that blood of the offering is placed **on** the right **thumb of the hand and** the right **big toe of the foot and** the **right ear** of the leper, one **might** have thought that this guilt offering **does not require placement of blood or** the burning of **sacrificial portions on the altar,** as the *halakhot* of this guilt offering are unique.


###### Zevachim 49a:15
[Zevachim 49a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49a:15)

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כַּחַטָּאת הָאָשָׁם הוּא״ – מָה חַטָּאת טְעוּנָה מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, אַף אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע טָעוּן מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
To counter this reasoning, **the verse states: “As the sin offering, so is the guilt offering.” Just as the sin offering requires the placement of the blood and** the burning of **sacrificial portions on the altar, so too, the guilt offering of a leper requires placement of the blood and** the burning of **sacrificial portions on** the **altar.** Similarly, just as the verse had to teach these two *halakhot*, so too, the verse had to state: “And he shall slaughter the sheep in the place where they slaughter the sin offering and the burnt offering,” to teach that it requires slaughter in the north. It cannot serve as a source for the general *halakha* that a guilt offering slaughtered in a place other than in the north is disqualified.


###### Zevachim 49a:16
[Zevachim 49a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49a:16)

אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב בְּהַאי וְלָא נִכְתּוֹב בְּהַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **If so,** that the optimal manner to perform the mitzva is to slaughter a guilt offering in the north but failure to do so does not disqualify the offering, **let** the Torah **write** the requirement to slaughter in the north **in this** context, i.e., in the context of the guilt offering of a leper, **and not write it in that** context, i.e., that of the standard guilt offering. The requirement for slaughter in the north for all other guilt offerings could be derived from the guilt offering of the leper. The repetition of the requirement to slaughter in the north serves to disqualify a guilt offering whose slaughter is not in the north.


###### Zevachim 49a:17
[Zevachim 49a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/49a:17)

הָנִיחָא אִי סְבִירָא לַן יָצָא לִידּוֹן בְּדָבָר הֶחָדָשׁ – אִיהוּ הוּא דְּלָא גָּמַר מִכְּלָלוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **This works out well if we hold** that with regard to a matter that **left** its category **to teach a new matter,** the following principle applies: That matter itself **does not learn** *halakhot* **from its general** category until the Torah explicitly returns it to that category,