## Zevachim Daf 4b

###### Zevachim 4b:1
[Zevachim 4b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:1)

וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּתַרְתֵּי לָאו דַּוְקָא, תַּרְתֵּי מִיהָא דַּוְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And although two** of these distinctions **are not precise,** the other **two are in any event precise** distinctions, based upon which a distinction can be drawn.


###### Zevachim 4b:2
[Zevachim 4b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:2)

מַאי שְׁנָא שִׁינּוּי בְעָלִים דְּלָא הָוֵי פְּסוּלוֹ בְּגוּפוֹ – מַחְשָׁבָה בְּעָלְמָא; שִׁינּוּי קוֹדֶשׁ נָמֵי מַחְשָׁבָה בְּעָלְמָא הוּא! אֶלָּא כֵּיוָן דְּאַחְשְׁבַהּ – פַּסְלַהּ; הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּאַחְשְׁבַהּ – פַּסְלַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains why two of the distinctions are not precise: **What is different** about **deviation** with regard to the **owner,** such **that its disqualification does not concern** the offering **itself?** It is that this **merely** constitutes a change of **thought. Deviation** from the type of **offering is also merely** a change of **thought;** the offering is not physically affected. **Rather,** this distinction between deviation with regard to the owner and deviation from the type of offering is false; one should claim that if deviation from the type of offering **disqualifies it once** the one who slaughtered it **had** that **intent, here too, once** the one who slaughtered it **had intent** to deviate from its owner, **he disqualified it.**


###### Zevachim 4b:3
[Zevachim 4b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:3)

וּלְרַב פִּנְחָס בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מָרִי, דְּאָמַר יֵשׁ שִׁינּוּי בְעָלִים לְאַחַר מִיתָה – תַּרְתֵּי מִיהָא אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the difficulty with the second distinction, the case where the owner died: **And according to Rav Pineḥas, son of Rav Mari, who says** that disqualification by **deviation** with regard to the **owner applies** even **after** the owner’s **death,** there is no distinction in this regard between deviation from the type of offering and deviation with regard to the owner. **In any event, there are two** remaining distinctions based on which the comparison between a deviation from the type of offering and a deviation with regard to the owner **can be refuted.**


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

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנִרְצָה לוֹ לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו״ – וְלֹא עַל חֲבֵירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Ashi says** that the *halakha* that it is prohibited to sprinkle the blood for the sake of one other than the owner is derived from a verse. **The verse states: “And it shall be accepted for him to atone for him”** (Leviticus 1:4), teaching that the sacrificial rite that atones for the owner, namely, the sprinkling of the blood, must be performed specifically for him, **and not for another.**


###### Zevachim 4b:5
[Zevachim 4b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:5)

וְהַאי לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?! הַאי מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: ״וְנִרְצָה לוֹ לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו״ – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֶת שֶׁעָלָיו – חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ, וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ עָלָיו – אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But does this** verse **come to** teach **this** *halakha*? Isn’t **it necessary for that which is taught** in a *baraita*: With regard to the verse: **“And it shall be accepted for him to atone for him [*alav*],” Rabbi Shimon says:** This indicates that in a case where one consecrated an animal as an offering and it died or was lost, if it was initially incumbent **upon him [*alav*]** to bring an offering, i.e., if he had accepted upon himself a personal obligation to bring an offering, **he bears responsibility for it,** i.e., he is obligated to bring another offering in its stead. **But** if it was **not** incumbent **upon him [*alav*]** to bring an offering, i.e., if he consecrated a specific animal without accepting upon himself any personal obligation, **he does not bear responsibility for it** if it dies or is lost.


###### Zevachim 4b:6
[Zevachim 4b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:6)

וְאָמַר רַב יִצְחָק בַּר אַבְדִּימִי: מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״עָלַי״ – כְּמַאן דְּטָעוּן לֵיהּ אַכַּתְפֵּיהּ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi says: What is the reasoning** behind this distinction? **Once** a person **said:** It is incumbent **upon me** to bring an offering, it is considered **as though** the offering is **loaded upon his shoulders.** He does not discharge his obligation until he brings some offering.


###### Zevachim 4b:7
[Zevachim 4b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:7)

רַב אָשֵׁי מִ״וְּנִרְצָה לוֹ לְכַפֵּר״ קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rav Ashi says** that the *halakha* that it is prohibited to sprinkle the blood for the sake of one other than the owner is derived **from** the phrase **“And it shall be accepted for him,”** not from the term “for him,” on which the *baraita* is based.


###### Zevachim 4b:8
[Zevachim 4b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:8)

אַשְׁכְּחַן זְבִיחָה וּזְרִיקָה, קַבָּלָה מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source for the *halakha* that **slaughter and** the **sprinkling** of the blood must be performed for the sake of the owner. **From where do we** derive that the **collection** of the blood must also be performed for the sake of the owner?


###### Zevachim 4b:9
[Zevachim 4b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:9)

וְכִי תֵּימָא לֵילַף מִזְּבִיחָה וּזְרִיקָה – מָה לִזְבִיחָה וּזְרִיקָה שֶׁכֵּן עֲבוֹדָה שֶׁחַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ בַּחוּץ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say: Let us derive from slaughter and sprinkling** that collection must also be performed for the sake of the owner, this derivation can be refuted: **What** is unique **about slaughter and sprinkling?** They are unique **in that** each is **a rite for which one is liable** to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven if he performs it **outside** the Temple.


###### Zevachim 4b:10
[Zevachim 4b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:10)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: אַתְיָא מֵאֵיל נָזִיר; דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת הָאַיִל יַעֲשֶׂה זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא עֲשִׂיָּיתוֹ לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים; וְאִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְשִׁינּוּי קוֹדֶשׁ – דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵהָתָם, תְּנֵהוּ עִנְיָן לְשִׁינּוּי בְעָלִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rav Ashi says** that the *halakha* that the collection of the blood must also be performed for the sake of the owner **is derived from** the case of **a nazirite’s ram. As it is written: “And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice [*zevaḥ*] of peace offerings** unto the Lord” (Numbers 6:17), indicating **that its offering should be** performed **for the sake of a peace offering. And if** the verse **is not** necessary for the **matter of deviation** from the type of **offering, as we derived that from there,** i.e., the verses cited earlier (4a), **apply it** to the **matter of deviation** with regard to the **owner.** It is thereby derived that its sacrificial rites must be performed for the sake of its owner.


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

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בַּר אַבָּא לְרָבָא, אֵימָא: ״יַעֲשֶׂה״ – כָּלַל, ״זֶבַח״ – פָּרַט; כְּלָל וּפְרָט – אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט; זְבִיחָה אִין, מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥa bar Abba said to Rava,** in objection to this derivation: **Say** that the term: **“Shall offer,” is a generalization** and: **“A sacrifice [*zevaḥ*],” is a detail.** According to the principles of biblical hermeneutics, where there is **a generalization and a detail, the generalization includes only that which is** specified **in the detail.** Accordingly, **slaughter [*zeviḥa*], yes,** must be performed for the sake of its owner; but **no other** rite must be performed for the sake of its owner in order for the offering to be fit.


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

אִי כְּתִיב ״יַעֲשֶׂה שְׁלָמִים זֶבַח״ – כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ; הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״יַעֲשֶׂה זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים״ – הָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּלָל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָלֵא, וְכׇל כְּלָל שֶׁאֵינוֹ מָלֵא – אֵין דָּנִין אוֹתוֹ בִּכְלָל וּפְרָט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If** it had been **written: Shall offer** the ram **for peace offerings as a sacrifice [*zevaḥ*],** it would be **as you say.** The clause: Shall offer the ram for peace offerings, would be considered a generalization, and: Sacrifice [*zevaḥ*], would be a detail. **Now that it is written: “Shall offer** the ram **for a sacrifice [*zevaḥ*] of peace offerings,”** the term “shall offer” is **an incomplete generalization,** as the term “for a sacrifice” interrupts between “shall offer” and “peace offerings.” **And one cannot derive** a *halakha* from **any incomplete generalization by** employing the principle of **a generalization and a detail.**


###### Zevachim 4b:13
[Zevachim 4b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:13)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם דָּנִין, וְ״לַה׳״ חָזַר וְכָלַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina says** there is a different answer: **Actually, one can derive** a *halakha* from verses with incomplete generalizations using the principle of a generalization and a detail. **And** the reason this *halakha* applies to other rites besides slaughter is that by adding the term **“unto the Lord,”** it **then makes a generalization.**


###### Zevachim 4b:14
[Zevachim 4b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: וְהָא לָא דָּמֵי כְּלָלָא קַמָּא לִכְלָלָא בָּתְרָא; כְּלָלָא קַמָּא – מְרַבֵּה עֲשִׂיּוֹת וְתוּ לָא, כְּלָלָא בָּתְרָא – כׇּל ״לַה׳״ וַאֲפִילּוּ שְׁפִיכַת שִׁירַיִים וְהַקְטָרַת אֵימוּרִין! הָא תַּנָּא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בִּכְלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי דָּרֵישׁ כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Before Ravina concluded his interpretation, **Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: But the former generalization is dissimilar to the latter generalization. The former generalization includes** only the essential sacrificial **actions and nothing more,** whereas **the latter generalization** includes **any** sacrificial duty **unto the Lord, and even pouring** the **remains** of the blood on the base of the altar **and burning** the **sacrificial portions** of the offering on the altar. Ravina responded: **The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught generalizations and details in cases like this.**


###### Zevachim 4b:15
[Zevachim 4b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:15)

כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל – אִי אַתָּה דָן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט; מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – עֲבוֹדָה וּבָעֵינַן לִשְׁמָן, אַף כׇּל עֲבוֹדָה וּבָעֵינַן לִשְׁמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravina concludes his explanation: Since the term: “Unto the Lord,” is another generalization, the verse is formulated as **a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization,** and **you may deduce** that the verse is referring **only** to items **similar to the detail. Just as the** mentioned **detail,** slaughter, is **defined** as an essential **rite and we require** that it be performed **for the sake of** the owner, **so too, we require** that **every** essential **rite** be performed **for the sake of** the owner.


###### Zevachim 4b:16
[Zevachim 4b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:16)

אִי מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – עֲבוֹדָה וְחַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ בַּחוּץ, אַף כׇּל עֲבוֹדָה וְחַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ בַּחוּץ; שְׁחִיטָה וּזְרִיקָה – אִין, קַבָּלָה וְהוֹלָכָה – לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** the verse is referring only to actions similar to the detail, not all of the essential rites are necessarily included. Perhaps it should be derived that **just as the** mentioned **detail,** slaughter, is **defined** as an essential **rite, and one is liable** to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven **for** performing **it outside** the Temple, **so too, any** essential **rite** for which **one is liable** to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven **for** performing **it outside** the Temple is included in the verse. Accordingly, **slaughter and sprinkling** the blood **are** included, but **collection** of the blood **and conveying** it are **not.**


###### Zevachim 4b:17
[Zevachim 4b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:17)

אִי נָמֵי, מָה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ – דָּבָר הַטָּעוּן צָפוֹן וְיֶשְׁנוֹ בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת, אַף כֹּל הַטָּעוּן צָפוֹן וְיֶשְׁנוֹ בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת; שְׁחִיטָה וְקַבָּלָה – אִין, זְרִיקָה – לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Alternatively,** it could be derived that **just as the** item mentioned in the **detail** is clearly **defined** as **an action that requires** performance in the **north** of the Temple courtyard **and is** performed **in the** sacrifice of **inner sin offerings, so too, any** rite **that requires** performance in the **north and is** performed **in the** sacrifice of **inner sin offerings** is included in the *halakha*. Accordingly, **slaughter and collection are** included; **sprinkling** the blood is **not.**


###### Zevachim 4b:18
[Zevachim 4b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:18)

אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי וְאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר הָכִי, שְׁקוּלִין הֵן וְיָבֹאוּ שְׁנֵיהֶן. לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא: וַחֲדָא חֲדָא תֵּיקוּ בְּמִילְּתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Both possibilities are equally valid; **this** derivation **can be said and that** derivation **can be said.** Either collection or sprinkling might be included in the *halakha*. Consequently, **they are equal, and** therefore **both are included.** Or according to **another version** of the Gemara’s answer, they are equal, **and** therefore **each one,** i.e., both collection and sprinkling, **shall stand in** its **status.**


###### Zevachim 4b:19
[Zevachim 4b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:19)

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: זְרִיקָה – מִדְּרַב אָשֵׁי נָפְקָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara provides an alternative answer: **If you wish, say** instead that **sprinkling is derived from** the verse **that Rav Ashi** cited: “And it shall be accepted for him to atone for him.” Therefore, when the verse states: “And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord,” indicating the inclusion of rites similar to slaughter, it is apparently referring not to sprinkling but to collection.


###### Zevachim 4b:20
[Zevachim 4b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:20)

אַשְׁכְּחַן אֵיל נְזִיר, שְׁאָר שְׁלָמִים מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source for the *halakha* that **a nazirite’s ram** must be sacrificed for the sake of its owner. **From where do we** derive that this *halakha* applies with regard to **other peace offerings** as well?


###### Zevachim 4b:21
[Zevachim 4b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:21)

וְכִי תֵּימָא נֵילַף מֵאֵיל נָזִיר – מָה לְאֵיל נָזִיר, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ עִמָּהֶן דָּמִים אֲחֵרִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say: Let us derive from a nazirite’s ram** that all peace offerings must be sacrificed for the sake of their owners, this derivation can be refuted: **What** is unique **about a nazirite’s ram?** It is unique **in that there is other blood,** i.e., there are other offerings, a sin offering and a burnt offering, that must be brought by a nazirite together **with** his ram.


###### Zevachim 4b:22
[Zevachim 4b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:22)

אִם כֵּן, נִכְתּוֹב ״שְׁלָמָיו״; מַאי ״שְׁלָמִים״ – לְרַבּוֹת כׇּל שְׁלָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **If that is so,** if this *halakha* is unique to a nazirite’s ram, **let** the verse **write: His peace offerings [*shelamav*]. What** is indicated by writing **“peace offerings [*shelamim*]”?** It is written **to include all** types of **peace offerings.**


###### Zevachim 4b:23
[Zevachim 4b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:23)

אַשְׁכְּחַן שְׁלָמִים, שְׁאָר כׇּל קֳדָשִׁים מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source for the *halakha* that **a peace offering** must be sacrificed for its own sake and for the sake of its owner. **From where do we** derive that this *halakha* applies with regard to **all other offerings?**


###### Zevachim 4b:24
[Zevachim 4b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:24)

וְכִי תֵּימָא נֵילַף מִשְּׁלָמִים, מָה לִשְׁלָמִים שֶׁכֵּן טְעוּנִין סְמִיכָה וּנְסָכִים וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say: Let us derive from a peace offering** that all offerings must be sacrificed with these intentions, this derivation can be refuted: **What** is unique **about a peace offering?** It is unique **in that it requires placing hands** on the head of the offering, **and** it is accompanied by **libations, and** it requires the **waving of** the **breast and** the right **hind leg** by the priest and owner together. No other offering possesses all three of these requirements.


###### Zevachim 4b:25
[Zevachim 4b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:25)

אֶלָּא אָמַר קְרָא: ״זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה לָעֹלָה וְלַמִּנְחָה וְלַחַטָּאת וְלָאָשָׁם וְלַמִּלּוּאִים וּלְזֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים״ – הַקִּישָׁן הַכָּתוּב לִשְׁלָמִים; מָה שְׁלָמִים – בֵּין שִׁינּוּי קוֹדֶשׁ בֵּין שִׁינּוּי בְעָלִים, בָּעֵינַן לִשְׁמָהּ; אַף כׇּל בֵּין שִׁינּוּי קוֹדֶשׁ בֵּין שִׁינּוּי בְעָלִים, בָּעֵינַן לִשְׁמָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rather, the verse states: “This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the consecration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings”** (Leviticus 7:37). **The verse juxtaposes** all types of offerings **with peace offerings,** indicating that **just as we require** the sacrifice of **a peace offering** to be performed **for its sake, both** concerning **deviation** from the type of **offering and** concerning **deviation** with regard to the **owner, so too, we require** the sacrifice of **every** type of offering to be performed **for its sake, both** concerning **deviation** from the type of **offering and** concerning **deviation** with regard to the **owner.**


###### Zevachim 4b:26
[Zevachim 4b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:26)

אֵימָא הֵיכָא דְּשָׁחֵיט לְהוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ – לִיפַּסְלוּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Having established the source for the requirement to sacrifice offerings with the rightful owner and the specific type of offering in mind, the Gemara inquires: Why not **say** that in a case **where** one **slaughtered them not for their sake, they are disqualified?** Why, according to the mishna, do they remain fit?


###### Zevachim 4b:27
[Zevachim 4b:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:27)

אָמַר קְרָא: ״מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיךָ תִּשְׁמֹר וְעָשִׂיתָ כַּאֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתָּ וְגוֹ׳״ – הַאי נְדָבָה?! נֶדֶר הוּא! [אֶלָּא] אִם כְּמָה שֶׁנָּדַרְתָּ עָשִׂיתָ – יְהֵא נֶדֶר, וְאִם לָאו – יְהֵא נְדָבָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **The verse states: “That which has gone out of your lips you shall observe and do; according to what you have vowed [*nadarta*]** freely [*nedava*] to the Lord your God, that which you have promised with your mouth” (Deuteronomy 23:24). The Gemara interprets the words *nadarta* and *nedava* exegetically: How can the offering mentioned in **this** verse be **a gift** offering **[*nedava*]? It is** already referred to as **a vow** offering **[*neder*]. Rather,** the verse indicates that **if you did what you had vowed** to do, i.e., sacrificed your vow offering properly, **it shall be** a satisfactory **vow** offering; **but if** you did **not** sacrifice it properly, **it shall be** rendered a voluntary **gift** offering. Although it does not satisfy the obligation of your vow, it remains a valid offering.


###### Zevachim 4b:28
[Zevachim 4b:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/4b:28)

וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ ״מוֹצָא שְׂפָתֶיךָ״, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ ״זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה״; דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מוֹצָא״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it was necessary** for the Torah to include the verse: **“That which has gone out of your lips,” and it was necessary** to include the verse: **“This is the law.” As, had the Merciful One written** in the Torah only the verse: **“That which has gone out** of your lips,” **I would say**