## Zevachim Daf 8a

###### Zevachim 8a:1
[Zevachim 8a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/8a:1)

״וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִדַּם הַחַטָּאת״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא קַבָּלָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**“And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering”** (Leviticus 4:25), teaching **that** the **collection** of the blood **must be** performed **for the sake of a sin offering.**


###### Zevachim 8a:2
[Zevachim 8a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/8a:2)

וְאַשְׁכְּחַן שְׁחִיטָה וְקַבָּלָה, זְרִיקָה מְנָלַן? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן מֵחַטָּאתוֹ״ – שֶׁתְּהֵא כַּפָּרָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And we found** a source for the *halakha* that the **slaughter and collection** must be performed for the sake of a sin offering. **From where do we** derive this *halakha* with regard to the **sprinkling** of the blood? The Gemara answers: It is derived from a verse, **as the verse states: “And the priest shall make atonement for him concerning his sin”** (Leviticus 4:26), teaching **that** the **atonement must be** effected **for the sake of a sin offering,** as atonement is effected by the sprinkling of the blood.


###### Zevachim 8a:3
[Zevachim 8a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/8a:3)

אַשְׁכְּחַן שִׁנּוּי קֹדֶשׁ, שִׁנּוּי בְּעָלִים מְנָלַן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״עָלָיו״ – עָלָיו וְלֹא עַל חֲבֵירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source for the prohibition against **deviation** from the type of **offering. From where do we** derive the prohibition against **deviation** with regard to the **owner?** The Gemara answers: The aforementioned **verse states:** “And the priest shall make atonement **for him,”** indicating that the intent must be **for him, and not for another.**


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

אַשְׁכְּחַן לְמִצְוָה, לְעַכֵּב מְנָלַן? כִּדְאָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: ״חַטָּאת״–״חַטָּאתוֹ״; הָכָא נָמֵי: ״חַטָּאת״–״חַטָּאתוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source **for** the **mitzva** to sprinkle the blood for the sake of the owner *ab initio*. **From where do we** derive that this is **indispensable** and disqualifies the offering if not fulfilled? The Gemara answers: It is **as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says** with regard to the sin offering of a nazirite: Since the verse could have simply stated: **Sin offering,** but instead stated: **“His sin offering”** (Numbers 6:16), it is inferred that the offering must be sacrificed for his, the owner’s, sake. **Here too,** since the verse could have simply stated **“sin,”** but states **“his sin,”** one infers that if the blood of the sin offering is not sprinkled for the sake of its owner, it is disqualified.


###### Zevachim 8a:5
[Zevachim 8a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/8a:5)

אַשְׁכְּחַן מִצְוָה – בְּשִׁנּוּי קֹדֶשׁ, וּזְרִיקָה בְּשִׁנּוּי בְּעָלִים – בֵּין לְמִצְוָה בֵּין לְעַכֵּב. לְעַכֵּב – בְּכׇל עֲבוֹדוֹת בְּשִׁנּוּי קֹדֶשׁ, וּבִשְׁאָר עֲבוֹדוֹת בְּשִׁנּוּי בְּעָלִים – בֵּין לְמִצְוָה בֵּין לְעַכֵּב, מְנָלַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source for the **mitzva of** sacrificing a sin offering without **deviation** from the type of **offering** *ab initio*, **and** with regard to **sprinkling** its blood without **deviation** with regard to the **owner** concerning **both** its **mitzva** *ab initio* **and** its **indispensability. From where do we** derive that performing **all** sacrificial **rites** without **deviation** from the type of **offering is an indispensable** requirement, **and** that performing **all other rites,** besides sprinkling the blood, without **deviation** with regard to the **owner is both a mitzva** *ab initio* **and indispensable?**


###### Zevachim 8a:6
[Zevachim 8a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/8a:6)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָה: אָתְיָא מֵחַטַּאת נָזִיר, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהִקְרִיב הַכֹּהֵן לִפְנֵי ה׳ וְעָשָׂה אֶת חַטָּאתוֹ וְאֶת עֹלָתוֹ״ – שֶׁיְּהוּ כׇּל עֲשִׂיּוֹתָיו לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yona says: It is derived from** the *halakha* concerning **the sin offering of a nazirite; as it is written** concerning a nazirite: **“And the priest shall bring them before the Lord, and shall offer [*ve’asa*] his sin offering, and his burnt offering”** (Numbers 6:16). The verse teaches **that all of its** sacrificial **actions [*asiyyotav*] must be** performed **for the sake of a sin offering.**


###### Zevachim 8a:7
[Zevachim 8a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/8a:7)

אַשְׁכְּחַן שִׁנּוּי קֹדֶשׁ, שִׁנּוּי בְּעָלִים מְנָלַן? (אִם אֵינוֹ עִנְיָן לְשִׁנּוּי קֹדֶשׁ, תְּנֵיהוּ עִנְיָן לְשִׁנּוּי בְּעָלִים. אַשְׁכְּחַן לְמִצְוָה, לְעַכֵּב מְנָלַן?)

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **We found** a source for the *halakha* that a sin offering must be sacrificed without **deviation** from the type of **offering,** and that this requirement is indispensable. **From where do we** derive that sacrificing it without **deviation** with regard to the **owner** is also indispensable, even in rites other than the sprinkling of the blood?


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

אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: ״חַטָּאת״–״חַטָּאתוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, says:** Since the verse concerning a nazirite could have simply stated: **Sin offering,** but instead states: **“His sin offering,”** one infers that the offering must be sacrificed for the owner’s sake.


###### Zevachim 8a:9
[Zevachim 8a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/8a:9)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״עוֹלַת״–״עוֹלָתוֹ״ מַאי דָּרְשַׁתְּ בֵּיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina objects to this: If that is so, what do you interpret** from the fact that the same verse could have stated: **Burnt offering,** but instead states: **“His burnt offering”?**


###### Zevachim 8a:10
[Zevachim 8a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/8a:10)

וּלְרָבִינָא, ״מִנְחָת״–״מִנְחָתוֹ״, ״נֶסֶךְ״–״נִסְכּוֹ״, מַאי דָּרְשַׁתְּ בְּהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Ravina, what do you interpret** from the subsequent verse: “The priest shall offer also his meal offering and his libation” (Numbers 6:17)? Why does Ravina not mention that this verse could have stated: **Meal offering,** but instead states: **“His meal offering,”** and that it could have stated: **Libation,** but instead states: **“His libation”?**


###### Zevachim 8a:11
[Zevachim 8a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/8a:11)

הָהוּא מִבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: ״מִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״ – בַּלַּיְלָה, ״מִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״ – אֲפִילּוּ לְמָחָר. אֶלָּא ״עוֹלַת״–״עוֹלָתוֹ״, מַאי דָּרְשַׁתְּ בְּהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That** language **is necessary;** it is just like the phrase: **“Their meal offering and their libations,”** which is mentioned many times in the portion of the Festival offerings (e.g., Numbers 29:37). It teaches that the meal offerings and libations that are brought with the additional animal offerings of the Festivals can be sacrificed even **at night** after the offering is brought. The phrase: **“Their meal offering and their libations,”** also teaches that they may be brought **even on the following day.** Likewise here, when stated with regard to a nazirite, the phrase teaches that they may be brought at night or the day after the offering is sacrificed. **But** there remains a difficulty: **What do you interpret** from the fact that the verse could have stated: **Burnt offering,** but instead states: **“His burnt offering”?**


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

וְתוּ, מִי גָּמְרִי מֵהֲדָדֵי?! חַטַּאת חֵלֶב מֵחַטַּאת נָזִיר לָא גָּמְרָה – שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ עִמָּהּ דָּמִים אֲחֵרִים; חַטַּאת נָזִיר מֵחַטַּאת חֵלֶב לָא גָּמְרָה – שֶׁכֵּן כָּרֵת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises an additional objection to the derivation from a nazirite’s sin offering: **And furthermore, can** the *halakhot* of a standard sin offering and of a nazirite’s sin offering **be derived from one another?** The *halakhot* of **a sin offering** brought for a transgression, e.g., eating forbidden **fat, cannot be derived from** the *halakhot* of **a nazirite’s sin offering,** due to the unique element of stringency of the latter, **since there is other blood,** i.e., other offerings are brought, **with it.** Likewise, the *halakhot* of **a nazirite’s sin offering cannot be derived from** the *halakhot* of **a sin offering** brought for eating forbidden **fat,** due to the unique element of stringency of the latter, **since** it atones for a transgression punishable by **excision from the World-to-Come [*karet*].**


###### Zevachim 8a:13
[Zevachim 8a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/8a:13)

אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: אָתְיָא מֵחַטַּאת מְצוֹרָע, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְעָשָׂה הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַחַטָּאת״ – שֶׁיְּהוּ כׇּל עֲשִׂיּוֹתָיו לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava says:** These *halakhot* are **derived from** the *halakha* of **the sin offering of a leper; as it is written: “And the priest shall offer [*ve’asa*] the sin offering”** (Leviticus 14:19), teaching **that all** sacrificial **actions of [*asiyyotav*]** a sin offering **must be** performed **for the sake of a sin offering.**


###### Zevachim 8a:14
[Zevachim 8a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/8a:14)

וְאַשְׁכְּחַן שִׁנּוּי קֹדֶשׁ, שִׁנּוּי בְּעָלִים מְנָלֵיהּ? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְכִפֶּר עַל הַמִּטַּהֵר וְגוֹ׳״ – עַל הַמִּטַּהֵר זֶה, וְלֹא עַל הַמִּטַּהֵר חֲבֵירוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we found** a source for the *halakha* that a sin offering must be sacrificed without **deviation** from the type of **offering,** and that this is indispensable. **From where do we** derive that sacrificing a sin offering without **deviation** with regard to the **owner** is also indispensable? **The verse states: “And make atonement for the one that is to be purified** of his impurity” (Leviticus 14:19), indicating that the sin offering must be sacrificed **for** the sake of **this** person **who is being purified, and not for another** person **who is to be purified.**


###### Zevachim 8a:15
[Zevachim 8a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/8a:15)

וְאַכַּתִּי, מִי יָלְפָא מֵהֲדָדֵי?! חַטַּאת חֵלֶב מֵחַטַּאת מְצוֹרָע לָא יָלְפָא – שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ עִמָּהּ דָּמִים אֲחֵרִים; חַטָּאת מְצוֹרָע מֵחַטַּאת חֵלֶב לָא גָּמְרָה – שֶׁכֵּן כָּרֵת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But still, can** the *halakhot* of a standard sin offering and a leper’s sin offering **be derived from one another?** This comparison is also problematic. The *halakhot* of **a sin offering** brought for eating forbidden **fat cannot be derived from** the *halakhot* of **a leper’s sin offering, since there is other blood** that is brought **with** the latter, i.e., a burnt offering and a guilt offering; and the *halakhot* of **a leper’s sin offering cannot be derived from** the *halakhot* of **a sin offering** brought for eating forbidden **fat, since** the latter atones for a transgression punishable by ***karet*.**


###### Zevachim 8a:16
[Zevachim 8a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/8a:16)

מֵחֲדָא לָא אָתְיָא, תֵּיתֵי חֲדָא מִתַּרְתֵּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Indeed, the *halakhot* of a sin offering **cannot be derived from** the *halakhot* of **one** other type of sin offering alone. But one can **derive** the *halakhot* of **one** type of sin offering **from** the *halakhot* of the other **two.** The verses concerning a standard sin offering, that of a leper, and that of a nazirite all contain elements that indicate that the offering must be sacrificed for its own sake. Two of them together are sufficient to teach that this *halakha* applies to the third case. The third case is therefore apparently extraneous, and it is understood to teach that proper intent in this regard is indispensable for all the offering’s rites.


###### Zevachim 8a:17
[Zevachim 8a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/8a:17)

בְּהֵי לָא לִכְתּוֹב? [לָא לִכְתּוֹב] רַחֲמָנָא בְּחַטַּאת חֵלֶב, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ?! מָה לְהָנָךְ, שֶׁכֵּן יֵשׁ עִמָּהֶם דָּמִים אֲחֵרִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to which** type of sin offering **should** the Torah **not have written** this *halakha*, i.e., which of the three cases should be regarded as the extraneous case? If you say: **Let the Merciful One not write** it **with regard to a sin offering** brought for eating forbidden **fat, and** one can **derive** it **from these** other sin offerings, i.e., those of a nazirite and a leper, this can be refuted: **What** is notable **about these** other sin offerings? They are notable **in that there is other blood** brought **with them.** Therefore, the *halakha* should apply only to similar sin offerings.


###### Zevachim 8a:18
[Zevachim 8a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/8a:18)

לָא לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בְּחַטַּאת נָזִיר, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ?! מָה לְהָנָךְ, שֶׁכֵּן אֵין לָהֶן שְׁאֵלָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If you say: **Let the Merciful One not write** it **with regard to a nazirite’s sin offering, and** one can **derive** it **from these** other sin offerings, those of a leper and a sinner, this can also be refuted: **What** is notable **about these** other sin offerings? They are notable **in that** one **does not have** the option of obtaining an exemption through **a request** to a halakhic authority. A nazirite, by contrast, can request of a halakhic authority to dissolve his vow of naziriteship, thereby nullifying his obligation.


###### Zevachim 8a:19
[Zevachim 8a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/8a:19)

לָא לִכְתּוֹב רַחֲמָנָא בְּחַטַּאת מְצוֹרָע, וְתֵיתֵי מֵהָנָךְ?! מָה לְהָנָךְ, שֶׁכֵּן אֵין בָּאִין בְּדַלּוּת!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If you say: **Let the Merciful One not write** it **with regard to a leper’s sin offering, and** one can **derive** it **from these** other sin offerings, those of a nazirite and a sinner, this can also be refuted: **What** is notable **about these** other sin offerings? They are notable **in that they cannot be brought** from doves instead of sheep if the owner is **poor,** unlike a leper’s sin offering (see Leviticus 14:21). Therefore, the *halakhot* of these different sin offerings cannot be derived from one another.


###### Zevachim 8a:20
[Zevachim 8a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/8a:20)

אֶלָּא אָמַר קְרָא: ״זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה לָעֹלָה וְלַמִּנְחָה וְגוֹ׳״ – הִקִּישׁוֹ הַכָּתוּב לִשְׁלָמִים; מָה שְׁלָמִים – בֵּין שִׁנּוּי קֹדֶשׁ בֵּין שִׁנּוּי בְּעָלִים, בָּעֵינַן לִשְׁמָן לְמִצְוָה; אַף חַטָּאת – בֵּין שִׁנּוּי קֹדֶשׁ בֵּין שִׁנּוּי בְּעָלִים, בָּעֵינַן לִשְׁמָן לְמִצְוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the *halakha* is derived from that which **the verse states: “This is the law of the burnt offering, and 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** a sin offering **with a peace offering,** indicating that **just as** for **a peace offering we require** intent **for its sake, as a mitzva** *ab initio*, **both** concerning the **deviation** from the type of **offering and** concerning **deviation** with regard to the **owner, so too,** for **a sin offering we require** intent **for its sake as a mitzva, both** concerning **deviation** from the type of **offering and** concerning **deviation** with regard to the **owner.**


###### Zevachim 8a:21
[Zevachim 8a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/8a:21)

הִילְכָּךְ, מִצְוָה – מִשְּׁלָמִים, וְהָנָךְ קְרָאֵי – לְעַכֵּב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Therefore,** the **mitzva** *ab initio* is derived **from** the *halakha* of **a peace offering; and those verses** mentioned earlier, from which this requirement is derived with regard to each type of sin offering separately, repeat the *halakha* **to** teach that it is **indispensable.**


###### Zevachim 8a:22
[Zevachim 8a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/8a:22)

וְאַשְׁכְּחַן חַטַּאת חֵלֶב, דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ ״לַחַטָּאת״;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And we found** a source for these *halakhot* with regard to **a sin offering** brought for eating forbidden **fat, as it is written with regard to it:** “And slaughter it **for a sin offering”** (Leviticus 4:33), indicating that it must be slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering. Likewise, sources for this *halakha* with regard to the sin offerings of a nazirite and a leper have also been cited.