Said R. Joshua to him: We find that a sinoffering remainder comes as a burntoffering, (1) but a burnt-offering remainder does not come as a sin-offering. Now if the sin-offering is unfit when slaughtered as a burnt-offering, though its remainder comes as a burnt-offering; is it not logical that a burnt-offering slaughtered as a sin-offering is unfit, seeing that its remainder does not come as a sin-offering? (2) Not so, replied R. Eliezer to him. If you speak of a sin-offering, the reason [that a burnt-offering slaughtered in its name is fit] is because it [the sin-offering] is fit [when slaughtered] in its own name throughout the year. Will you say the same of a Passover-offering which is fit [when slaughtered] in its own name only in its season? Since then that itself is unfit [when slaughtered] in its own name [during the rest of the year], it is logical that others slaughtered in its name [during the rest of the year] are unfit. SIMEON THE BROTHER OF AZARIAH SAID, etc. R. Ashi recited the following in R. Johanans name, and R. Aha son of Raba recited it in R. Jannai's name: What is the reason of Simeon the brother of Azariah? Because Scripture saith, And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they shall exalt unto the Lord: (3) [this teaches that] they are not profaned [rendered unfit] through what is superior [higher] than themselves, but they are profaned through what is inferior to themselves. (4) But does this text come for this purpose? Surely it is required for Samuel's dictum! For Samuel said: Whence do we know that he who eats tebel (5) is liable to death? From the verse, And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they shall exalt unto the Lord: the Writ refers to that which is yet to be exalted. (6) — If so, (7) Scripture should write, ‘which were exalted [offered]’: why state, ‘which they shall exalt’? Hence infer both from this. (8) R. Zera asked: Are they valid yet do not propitiate, and so he disagrees in one only; or are they valid and propitiate, and he disagrees in both? (9) — Said Abaye — others maintain, R. ZerikaCome and hear: IF ONE SLAUGHTERED A FIRSTLING OR TITHE IN THE NAME OF A PEACE-OFFERING, IT IS VALID; IF ONE SLAUGHTERED A PEACEOFFERING AS A FIRSTLING OR TITHE, IT IS INVALID. Now if you think that [he means that] they are valid and propitiate, is propitiation applicable to a firstling? (10) Hence they are valid and do not propitiate, and since the second clause [means that] they are valid and do not propitiate, [in] the first clause too they are valid and do not propitiate. But what argument is this? The one is according to its nature, and the other is according to its nature.11 Then what does he inform us? (12) [The principle governing] a higher and lower sanctity! (13) Surely we learnt it: HOW SO? IF ONE SLAUGHTERED MOST SACRED SACRIFICES UNDER THE DESIGNATION OF LESSER SACRIFICES, etc. — You might say, Only in the most sacred sacrifices and the lesser sacrifices is there higher and lower, but not where both are lesser sacrifices. [Hence we are informed that it is not so.] But we learnt this too: The peaceoffering takes precedence over the firstling, because the former requires four [blood-] sprinklings, laying on [of hands], drinkofferings, and the waving of the breast and the shoulder? (14) — The present passage (15) is the main source, while in the other it is taught incidentally. (16) MISHNAH. IF ONE SLAUGHTERS THE PASSOVER-OFFERING ON THE MORNING OF THE FOURTEENTH [OF NISAN] UNDER A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION, R. JOSHUA DECLARES IT VALID, JUST AS IF IT HAD BEEN SLAUGHTERED ON THE THIRTEENTH; BEN BATHYRA DECLARES IT INVALID, AS IF IT HAD BEEN SLAUGHTERED IN THE AFTERNOON. (17) SAID SIMEON B. AZZAI: I HAVE A TRADITION FROM THE MOUTH OF SEVENTY-TWO ELDER[S] (18) ON THE DAY THAT R. ELEAZAR [SON OF AZARIAH] (19) WAS APPOINTED TO THE ACADEMY, (20) THAT ALL SACRIFICES WHICH ARE EATEN, (21) THOUGH SLAUGHTERED UNDER A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION ARE VALID, SAVE THAT THEIR OWNERS HAVE NOT DISCHARGED THEIR OBLIGATION, EXCEPT THE PASSOVER-OFFERING AND THE SINOFFERING. THUS THE SON OF ‘AZZAI ADDED (22) ONLY THE BURNT-OFFERING, BUT THE SAGES DID NOT AGREE WITH HIM. GEMARA. R. Eleazar said in R. Oshaia's name: Ben Bathyra declared fit a Passoveroffering which one slaughtered in its own name on the morning of the fourteenth, because [he holds that] the whole day is its season. (23) Then what does AS IF [etc.] mean? (24) Because R. Joshua states AS IF, (25) he too says, AS IF. If so, instead of disputing where it is [slaughtered] under a different designation, let them dispute where it is [slaughtered] in its own name? (26) — If they differed where it is [slaughtered] in its own name, I would say that R. Joshua agrees with Ben Bathyra [that it is invalid] when [slaughtered] under a different designation, since part of it [the day] is fit [eligible]. Hence he informs us [that it is not so]. But surely it is written, At dusk? (27) — Said ‘Ulla the son of R. Ila'i: [That means,] Between two evenings. (28) Then [will you say] that the whole day is fit for the daily offering too, seeing that at dusk (29) is written in connection therewith? — There, since it is written, ‘The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning’, it follows that ‘at dusk’ is meant literally. Yet say, One [must be offered] in the morning, while the other [may be offered] the whole day?- [Scripture prescribes] one for the morning and not two for the morning. Again, will you say that the whole day is fit for [the lighting of] the lamps, since ‘at dusk’ is written in connection therewith? (30) — There it is different, because it is written, [to burn] from evening to morning, (31) and it was taught: ‘From evening to morning’: Furnish it with its [requisite] measure, so that it may burn from evening to morning. Another interpretation: You have no other [service] valid from evening to morning save this alone. Now [will you say] in the case of incense too, where ‘at dusk’ is written, (32) that the whole day is fit [for the burning thereof]?-incense is different,

---

(1). ↑ Tem. 23b.
(2). ↑ Yet in fact it is not unfit, which shows that an ad majus argument from the law of a remainder is inadmissible. As R. Eliezer does not answer that in his view it is indeed unfit, Rabbah deduces that he admits that other sacrifices slaughtered as sinofferings are fit.
(3). ↑ Lev. XXII, 15.
(4). ↑ Rendering: they shall not profane the holy things (sc. the sacrifices) when they exalt them, i.e., when they offer them as a sacrifice whose sanctity is higher than their own.
(5). ↑ V. Glos,
(6). ↑ I.e., offered. The verb ירימו is imperfect (which they shall exalt) and hence refers to ‘holy things’, which includes terumah (q.v. Glos.), which are yet to be separated from the produce, so that it is all tebel. — For the liability to death (at the hands of Heaven) v. Sanh. 83a.
(7). ↑ That the text teaches the former dictum of Simeon the brother of Azariah only.
(8). ↑ The root word ‘exalt’ teaches the former, and the future tense teaches the latter.
(9). ↑ Does Simeon the brother of Azariah mean that when slaughtered in the name of a higher sacrifice they are fit, yet do not propitiate, i.e., they do not acquit their owner of their obligation; but if slaughtered in the name of a lower sacrifice they are completely unfit? In that case he agrees with the first Tanna as far as the former instance is concerned, and disagrees only in respect of the latter. Or does he mean in the former instance that they also propitiate? If so, he disagrees with the first Tanna in respect of the former too, the first Tanna holding that they do not propitiate.
(10). ↑ Surely not!
(11). ↑ Where there is no question of propitiation it means that they are valid but do not propitiate. But where propitiation does apply (sc. in the first clause) they may propitiate too.
(12). ↑ By the second clause.
(13). ↑ Is that the only purpose of this second clause dealing with the firstling, etc.?
(14). ↑ V. Infra 89a. It takes precedence because its sanctity is higher.
(15). ↑ Sc. our Mishnah.
(16). ↑ As part of the order of precedence observed in all sacrifices. Yet the main source of the ruling that the peace-offering enjoys a higher sanctity than the firstling is our own Mishnah.
(17). ↑ V. Mishnah 2a.
(18). ↑ The Gemara discusses infra why the text uses the singular.
(19). ↑ Emended text.
(20). ↑ As its head. V. Ber. 27b.
(21). ↑ This excludes the burnt-offering.
(22). ↑ As being unfit.
(23). ↑ And not the afternoon only. For that very reason he declares it invalid when not slaughtered for its own sake.
(24). ↑ Seeing that if the whole day is the season, there is no point in saying AS IF IT HAD BEEN SLAUGHTERED IN THE AFTERNOON.
(25). ↑ On his view it is pertinent, since he holds that only the afternoon is its season.
(26). ↑ According to Ben Bathyra it is valid, while in R. Joshua's view it is invalid.
(27). ↑ Ex. XII, 6. How then can R. Oshaia maintain that the whole day is the proper time?
(28). ↑ This being the literal meaning of the Hebrew הערבים בין I.e., between the evening of the fourteenth (which he counts as until dawn) and the evening of the fifteenth, hence the whole day of the fourteenth.
(29). ↑ Ibid. XXIX, 39.
(30). ↑ Ibid, XXX, 8.
(31). ↑ Ibid, XXVII, 21.
(32). ↑ Ibid. XXX, 8, — the same text as that quoted for the lamps.