## Zevachim Daf 50a

###### Zevachim 50a:1
[Zevachim 50a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/50a:1)

מִדְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
is apparent **from that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught,** discussed in the previous chapter (41a).


###### Zevachim 50a:2
[Zevachim 50a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/50a:2)

דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ, מַהוּ שֶׁיְּלַמֵּד בְּבִנְיַן אָב? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לָא לִכְתּוֹב צָפוֹנָה בְּאָשָׁם, וְתֵיתֵי מִבִּנְיַן אָב מֵחַטָּאת; לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא כַּתְבֵיהּ? לָאו לְמֵימְרָא דְּדָבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ אֵין חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּבִנְיַן אָב?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the *halakha* as to whether **a matter derived via a juxtaposition** can **teach** its *halakha* in another context **via a paradigm? Rabbi Yirmeya says:** It must be that it cannot, as, if it could, **let** the Torah **not write** the requirement to slaughter an offering in the **north** of the Temple courtyard **with regard to a guilt offering** (see Leviticus 14:13), **and** one can **derive** it **via a paradigm from** the *halakha* of **a sin offering,** since they are both offerings of the most sacred order. **For what *halakha* did** the verse **write it** with regard to a guilt offering as well? Is this **not to say that a matter derived via a juxtaposition cannot then teach** its *halakha* in another context **via a paradigm?**


###### Zevachim 50a:3
[Zevachim 50a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/50a:3)

וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, תֵּיתֵי מִבִּנְיַן אָב מֵעוֹלָה! מַאי טַעְמָא לָא אָתֵי – מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְעוֹלָה שֶׁכֵּן כָּלִיל; חַטָּאת נָמֵי אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְחַטָּאת שֶׁכֵּן מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions this proof: **But according to your reasoning,** why not **derive** the *halakha* that a guilt offering must be slaughtered in the north **from** the *halakha* of **a burnt offering, via a paradigm? What is the reason** that this *halakha* **is not derived** from there? It must be **because it can be refuted** with the following claim: **What** is notable **about a burnt offering?** It is notable **in that** the Torah teaches that **it is entirely** burned on the altar, which is not so with regard to a guilt offering. The Gemara now states its objection: In that case, the derivation from **a sin offering** via a paradigm **can also be refuted: What** is notable **about a sin offering?** It is notable **in that it atones for** those sins **liable for** punishment by ***karet*,** which is not so with regard to a guilt offering. If so, there is no proof from here.


###### Zevachim 50a:4
[Zevachim 50a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/50a:4)

חֲדָא מֵחֲדָא – לָא אָתְיָא; תֵּיתֵי חֲדָא מִתַּרְתֵּי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests an alternative paradigm: Although the requirement to slaughter **one** of these three offerings, i.e., a burnt offering, sin offering, or guilt offering, in the north **cannot be derived from** any **one** of the others, one can **derive** the *halakha* concerning **one** of them **from** the other **two.**


###### Zevachim 50a:5
[Zevachim 50a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/50a:5)

מֵהֵי תֵּיתֵי? לָא נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא עוֹלָה, וְתֵיתֵי מֵחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם? מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן מְכַפְּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **From which** two could one **derive** the third? **Let the Merciful One not write** the requirement to slaughter the offering in the north with regard to **a burnt offering, and derive** this *halakha* **from** the *halakhot* of **a sin offering and a guilt offering.** The Gemara refutes this derivation: **What** is notable **about these** two offerings? They are notable **in that they atone** for transgressions, whereas a burnt offering does not atone for any sin.


###### Zevachim 50a:6
[Zevachim 50a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/50a:6)

לָא נִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בְּחַטָּאת, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ? מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן זְכָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let the Merciful One not write** the requirement to slaughter an offering in the north **with regard to a sin offering, and derive** this *halakha* **from** the *halakhot* of **these** others, the burnt offering and the guilt offering. The Gemara refutes this derivation: **What** is notable **about these** two offerings? They are notable **in that** they are brought only from **male** animals, whereas an individual’s sin offering is a female animal.


###### Zevachim 50a:7
[Zevachim 50a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/50a:7)

לָא נִכְתּוֹב בְּאָשָׁם, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ? מָה לְהָנָךְ שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנָן בְּצִיבּוּר כִּבְיָחִיד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let the Merciful One not write** the requirement to slaughter an offering in the north **with regard to a guilt offering, and derive** this *halakha* **from** the *halakhot* of **these** other two. The Gemara refutes this derivation: **What** is notable **about these** two offerings? They are notable **in that they are** brought **by a community just as** they are brought **by an individual,** whereas a guilt offering can be brought only by an individual.


###### Zevachim 50a:8
[Zevachim 50a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/50a:8)

דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בִּגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה, מַהוּ שֶׁיְּלַמֵּד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: ״וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים [וְגוֹ׳] אִם עַל תּוֹדָה״ – לָמַדְנוּ לְתוֹדָה שֶׁבָּא מִן הַמַּעֲשֵׂר, מִדְּאַשְׁכְּחַן שְׁלָמִים דְּאָתוּ מִמַּעֲשֵׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to its discussion of hermeneutical principles. **What is** the *halakha* as to whether **a matter derived via a verbal analogy** can **teach** its *halakha* to another matter **via a juxtaposition? Rav Pappa says:** The verse states: **“And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings,** which one may offer to the Lord. **If** he sacrifices it **for a thanks offering,** then he shall offer with the thanks offering unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes mingled with oil, of fine flour soaked” (Leviticus 7:11–12). From this juxtaposition **we have learned that** the money to purchase **a thanks offering** can **come from** money used to redeem **the** second **tithe, since we find that** the money to purchase **a peace offering** can **come from** money used to redeem the second **tithe.**


###### Zevachim 50a:9
[Zevachim 50a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/50a:9)

שְׁלָמִים גּוּפַיְיהוּ מְנָא לַן? דִּכְתִיב ״שָׁם״–״שָׁם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where do we** derive that the money to purchase **peace offerings themselves** can come from money used to redeem the second tithe? **As it is written** with regard to peace offerings: “And you shall sacrifice peace offerings and shall eat **there”** (Deuteronomy 27:7). And it is written with regard to second tithe: “And you shall eat before the Lord your God, in the place which He shall choose to cause His name to dwell **there”** (Deuteronomy 14:23). The usage of the term “there” in both passages serves as a verbal analogy, and demonstrates that a *halakha* derived via a verbal analogy, that of a peace offering, can then teach a *halakha* via its juxtaposition to a thanks offering.


###### Zevachim 50a:10
[Zevachim 50a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/50a:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָר זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב מָרִי לְרָבִינָא: מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן חוּלִּין בְּעָלְמָא הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Mar Zutra, son of Rav Mari, said to Ravina:** This is not a proof, because the **tithe of grain,** including the second tithe, **is merely non-sacred.** Therefore, it cannot be used to prove that in the realm of consecrated matters a *halakha* derived via a verbal analogy can teach a *halakha* via a juxtaposition.


###### Zevachim 50a:11
[Zevachim 50a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/50a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, אָמַר אָמְרַהּ: לָמֵד קֹדֶשׁ וּמְלַמֵּד קֹדֶשׁ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Ravina **said to him:** Does the one who **said** that in the realm of consecrated matters a *halakha* derived via one of the hermeneutical principles cannot teach via another of those principles **say this** only when the *halakha* that is **derived** is in the realm of **consecrated** matters **and** the *halakha* that **teaches** is in the realm of **consecrated** matters as well? He holds that even if that which is derived is in the realm of consecrated matters it cannot teach its *halakha* via one of the hermeneutical principles. Therefore, since peace offerings are in the realm of consecrated matters, the *halakha* derived from the juxtaposition of thanks offerings to peace offerings serves as a source that a matter derived via a verbal analogy can teach its *halakha* to another matter via a juxtaposition.


###### Zevachim 50a:12
[Zevachim 50a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/50a:12)

דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בִּגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה, מַהוּ שֶׁיְּלַמֵּד בִּגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה? אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא, תַּנְיָא: ״סֹלֶת מֻרְבֶּכֶת״ – לָמַדְנוּ לִרְבוּכָה שֶׁבָּאָה סוֹלֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara asks: **What is** the *halakha* as to whether **a matter derived via a verbal analogy** can **teach** its *halakha* to another matter **via** another **verbal analogy? Rami bar Ḥama says: It is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the types of bread that accompany a thanks offering: “If he sacrifices it for a thanks offering, then he shall sacrifice with the thanks offering unleavened loaves mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and loaves mingled with oil, of **fine flour cooked** with oil” (Leviticus 7:12). **We have derived** from here **that** the **poached** breads accompanying the thanks offering **come from fine flour.**


###### Zevachim 50a:13
[Zevachim 50a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/50a:13)

חַלּוֹת מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״חַלּוֹת״–״חַלּוֹת״. רְקִיקִין מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מַצּוֹת״–״מַצּוֹת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **From where** is it derived that the **loaves** accompanying a thanks offering are also prepared with fine flour? **The verse states: “Loaves** mingled with oil, of fine flour cooked with oil” (Leviticus 7:12), and it also states in the same verse: “Unleavened **loaves** mingled with oil.” **From where** is it derived that the unleavened **wafers** accompanying a thanks offering are also prepared with fine flour? **The verse states: “Unleavened** cakes mingled with oil” (Leviticus 7:12), and the verse also states: **“Unleavened** wafers spread with oil.” The *baraita* derives via a verbal analogy that the unleavened loaves mingled with oil are prepared with fine flour, and then teaches the *halakha* concerning unleavened wafers using a verbal analogy from the *halakha* of unleavened loaves.


###### Zevachim 50a:14
[Zevachim 50a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/50a:14)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא: מִמַּאי דְּ״מַצּוֹת״–״מַצּוֹת״ מֵחַלּוֹת גָּמַר? דִּלְמָא מִמַּאֲפֵה תַנּוּר גָּמַר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to** Rami bar Ḥama: **From where** do you know **that** the *tanna* of the *baraita* **learns** the verbal analogy of **“unleavened”** and **“unleavened” from loaves** of the thanks offering? **Perhaps** the *tanna* **learns** the verbal analogy **from** the word “unleavened” stated with regard to meal offerings **baked in an oven,** about which the verse states explicitly that they are prepared with fine flour: “And when you bring a meal offering baked in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers spread with oil” (Leviticus 2:4). If so, there is no source that a *halakha* derived via a verbal analogy can teach a *halakha* via a verbal analogy.


###### Zevachim 50a:15
[Zevachim 50a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/50a:15)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא, תַּנְיָא: ״וְקִרְבּוֹ וּפִרְשׁוֹ וְהוֹצִיא״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמּוֹצִיאוֹ שָׁלֵם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava says** that the source is from a different *baraita*, as **it is taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the bull offering of a High Priest: “And the skin of the bull and all its flesh, with its head and with its legs, **and its innards, and its dung,** the whole bull **shall he carry out** of the camp to a pure place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn it on wood with fire” (Leviticus 4:11–12). This **teaches that he brings** the offering **out whole.**


###### Zevachim 50a:16
[Zevachim 50a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/50a:16)

יָכוֹל יִשְׂרְפֶנּוּ שָׁלֵם? נֶאֱמַר כָּאן: ״רֹאשׁוֹ וּכְרָעָיו״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן: ״רֹאשׁוֹ וּכְרָעָיו״; מָה לְהַלָּן עַל יְדֵי נִיתּוּחַ, אַף כָּאן עַל יְדֵי נִיתּוּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: One **might** have thought **that he should burn it whole** as well. **It is stated here: “Its head and its legs,” and it is stated there,** with regard to a burnt offering: “And he shall cut it into its pieces; and the priest shall lay them, with **its head** and its fats, in order on the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar. But the innards **and the legs** shall he wash with water” (Leviticus 1:12–13). **Just as there,** the burnt offering is burned **by means of cutting** the offering into pieces, as explicitly stated in the verse, **so too here,** it is burned **by means of cutting** the offering into pieces.


###### Zevachim 50a:17
[Zevachim 50a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/50a:17)

אִי – מָה לְהַלָּן בְּהֶפְשֵׁט, אַף כָּאן נָמֵי בְּהֶפְשֵׁט?! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְקִרְבּוֹ וּפִרְשׁוֹ״. מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁפִּרְשׁוֹ בְּקִרְבּוֹ, כָּךְ בְּשָׂרוֹ בְּעוֹרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **If** these are compared, one could say that **just as there,** the burnt offering is prepared for being burned **by** first **flaying** it, **so too here,** the bull offering of a High Priest should **also** be prepared for being burned **by** first **flaying** it. To counter this reasoning, **the verse states: “And its innards and its dung”** (Leviticus 4:11). The Gemara asks: **What is the** biblical **derivation?** How do these words teach that there is no requirement to flay the animal? **Rav Pappa says: Just as the dung** remains **inside** the animal when the animal is burned, **so** the animal’s **flesh** remains **inside its skin.** In any event, the *halakha* that the bull offering of a High Priest is cut into pieces before it is burned is derived via a verbal analogy.


###### Zevachim 50a:18
[Zevachim 50a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/50a:18)

וְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן עוֹר וּבָשָׂר [וָפֶרֶשׁ],

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava continues: **And it is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** It **is stated here,** with regard to the bull and goat offered by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, the terms **skin, flesh, and dung,** in the verse: “And the bull of the sin offering, and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the Sanctuary, shall be carried out of the camp; and they shall burn in the fire their skin, and their flesh, and their dung” (Leviticus 16:27).