Gemara Clarity

Zevachim 115a

זבחים קט״ו ע״א

Learn Zevachim 115a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Zevachim 115a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Whether one is liable for slaughtering outside an early אשם slaughtered שלא לשמו: proofs for רבי חלקיה against רב הונא

Overview

This amud continues a discussion about an offering that is not yet ready to be brought (מחוסר זמן) and is slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard. The question is whether a person is liable for it. רבי חלקיה holds that one is liable for an early אשם slaughtered שלא לשמו, while רב הונא holds that one is exempt. The גמרא first sets aside the example of a year-round פסח, since that animal simply counts as a שלמים. It then tries two ברייתות as proof for רבי חלקיה. Each time it deflects the proof by saying the ברייתא may follow רבי אליעזר, who compares אשם to חטאת. A third ברייתא, reported by רב דימי from the school of רבי ליואי, is harder to push aside. רב דימי himself contrasts it with לוי's ברייתא and splits them into לשמו and שלא לשמו, and רב אשי does the same with the משנה. Finally, רב הונא escapes the refutation by limiting the ברייתא to a case of two אשמות set aside as a backup, where one of them is really an עולה from the start.

Opening lines

פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה –

A Paschal offering during the rest of the days of the year,

דְּאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ,

which is not fit for its own sake,

וְכָשֵׁר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ!

but is fit not for its own sake!

פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה –

A Paschal offering during the rest of the days of the year

The steps (28)

  1. ChallengeThe Paschal offering as a counter-example
  2. ResolutionA year-round Paschal offering is really a peace offering
  3. ProofA ברייתא that might support רבי חלקיה
  4. ProofThe verse includes every case
  5. ProofThe ברייתא leaves out the sin offering
  6. QuestionWhich case is the ברייתא talking about?
  7. ResponseIt must be before its proper time
  8. QuestionWith what intention was the offering slaughtered?
  9. ProofSo the case must be not for its own sake
  10. RejectionActually, it is on time and not for its own sake, following רבי אליעזר
  11. ResolutionThe ברייתא named the secondary case, but the main case is the same
  12. ProofA new ברייתא about early עולה and חטאת
  13. ProofThe verse limits liability, and the אשם is left out
  14. QuestionWhat kind of slaughter is the ברייתא talking about?
  15. ProofThe case must be שלא לשמו, which supports רבי חלקיה
  16. RejectionThe ברייתא may follow רבי אליעזר
  17. ResolutionThe ברייתא lists only the main case
  18. Proofרב דימי's ברייתא: liability for offerings early because of the owner
  19. QuestionWhich verse teaches this?
  20. ResponseOx, lamb, goat: in any case
  21. RejectionWhy is this a contradiction at all?
  22. Resolutionרב נחמן: רב דימי set two ברייתות against each other
  23. Challengeלוי: an early אשם is disqualified
  24. Resolutionרב דימי: לשמו versus שלא לשמו
  25. Challengeרב אשי sets the משנה against the ברייתא
  26. ResolutionFor its sake versus not for its sake
  27. ChallengeIs this a refutation of רב הונא?
  28. Resolutionרב הונא: the case of two guilt offerings set aside as a backup