How do we know that the slaughtering must be in its own name? Because Scripture says, And if his offering be a zebah slaughtering of peace-offerings: (1) [this teaches] that its slaughtering must be in the name of a peaceoffering. But perhaps that is their name? (2) — Since it is written, He that offereth the blood of the peace-offerings (3) and [he] that dasheth the blood of the peace-offerings [against the altar], (4) and zebah’ is not written, (5) whereas here ‘zebah’ is written, you may infer from it that the slaughtering must be in the name of a peace-offering. We have thus learned [it of] slaughtering, how do we know [it of] the other [sacrificial] services? (6) And if you say, let us learn then, from slaughtering [by analogy], then it may be objected, as for slaughtering, the reason is because it disqualifies in the case of a Passover-sacrifice [if done] on behalf of those who cannot eat it. (7) — Rather Scripture says, He that offereth the blood of the peace-offerings (8) which teaches that the reception [of its blood] must be in the name of peace-offerings. Then let the Divine Law state it of the reception [of the blood], whence the slaughtering [too] could be derived? — [That is not done] because [the analogy] can be refuted. As for the reception [of the blood], the reason is because it is unfit [if done] by a lay-Israelite or a woman. (9) We have thus learned [it of] slaughtering and receiving; how do we know [it of] sprinkling? And if you answer, let us learn it from the former [by analogy, then it may be argued]: As for the former, the reason is because they require the north, (10) and are practiced in the case of the inner sin-offerings! — Rather, Scripture says, ‘He that dasheth the blood of the peace-offerings!’ [which teaches] that the sprinkling [dashing] must be in the name of peace-offerings. Then let the Divine Law write it in respect to sprinkling, whence the others could be derived? [That is impossible] because [the analogy] can be refuted: as for sprinkling, that is because a lay-Israelite is liable to death on its account. (11) We have thus found it of all [rites]; whence do we know [it] of carrying? And if you say, let us learn it from all the others, [then it may be argued]: As for all the others, that is because they are rites which cannot be dispensed with; will you say the same of carrying, which can be dispensed with? (12) — Rather, Scripture says, And the priest shall bring near (13) the whole... to the altar, (14) and a Master said: This refers to the carrying of the limbs to the [altar] ascent; while it was also taught, [And Aaron's sons...] shall present [the blood]: (15) this refers to the receiving of the blood. Now, Scripture expresses this by a term denoting carrying (16) in order to teach that carrying cannot be excluded from the scope of receiving, (17) Now we have thus found [it] of change [of intention] in respect of sanctity; (18) whence do we know it of change [of intention] in respect of owner? — Said R. Phinehas the son of R. Ammi: Scripture says, And the flesh of the slaughtering of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving, etc., (19) [which teaches] that the slaughtering must be in the name of a thanksoffering; now since this is superfluous for change in respect of sanctity, for that is deduced from the other text, transfer its teaching to change in respect of owners. (20) But is that the purpose of this verse? Surely it is required for what was taught. [Viz.,] ‘And the flesh of the zebah [slaughtering] of his peaceofferings for thanksgiving’: Abba Hanin said on R. Eliezer's authority: This comes to teach that if a thanks-offering is slaughtered in the name of a peace-offering, it is valid; if a peace-offering is slaughtered in the name of a thanks-offering, it is invalid. (21) What is the difference between these two cases? — A thanks-offering is designated a peaceoffering, but a peace-offering is not designated a thanksoffering! (22) — We state [our deduction] from the word ‘slaughtering’. (23) Yet it is still needed [thus]: How do we know [it of] a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? (24) From the word ‘slaughtering’. (25) — If so, (26) let Scripture write, And the flesh of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving slaughtering [shall be eaten, etc.] (27) why state, the slaughtering [of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving]? (28) So that both laws may be inferred from it. We have thus found [it of] slaughtering; whence do we know [it of] other services? (29) And if you say, Let us learn [them] from slaughtering, [then it may be objected]: as for slaughtering, the reason is because it disqualifies in the case of a Passover-offering, [when it is done] for the sake of those who cannot eat it! — ‘Slaughtering’ is stated in reference to change [of intention] in respect of sanctity, and ‘slaughtering’ is stated in reference to change [of intention] in respect of owner; as in the case of the slaughtering stated in reference to change in respect of sanctity, you do not differentiate between slaughtering and other services, so also in the case of the slaughtering which stated in reference to change of owners, you must not differentiate between slaughtering and other rites. This can be refuted: as for change in respect of sanctity, [that is] because its disqualification is intrinsic, (30) and it is [operative] in respect of the four services, (31) and it is [operative] after death, (32) and it is [operative] in the case of the community as In the case of an individual. (33)

---

(1). ↑ Lev. III, 1. So literally. E.V. ‘sacrifice of peaceofferings’.
(2). ↑ Perhaps the Heb. zebah simply means ‘sacrifice’, as E.V the name of the offering being the sacrifice of peace-offerings, and thus it has no bearing on the question of slaughtering.
(3). ↑ Lev. VII, 33.
(4). ↑ Ibid. 14.
(5). ↑ It does not say, ‘He that offereth the blood of the ‘zebah’ of the peace-offerings.’
(6). ↑ Receiving the blood, carrying it to the part of the altar where it is to be sprinkled, and the actual sprinkling, count as separate services.
(7). ↑ E.g. on behalf of aged and infirm, who cannot eat. But if the blood is sprinkled on their behalf, the offering is not unfit; and similarly in the case of any other of the services performed on their behalf.
(8). ↑ The Rabbis refer this to the receiving of the blood,
(9). ↑ It must be done by a priest. The slaughtering however may be done by a lay-Israelite too, and therefore, but for the text which teaches otherwise, I might think that it need not be done specifically in the name of that particular sacrifice.
(10). ↑ They must both be done at the north side of the altar.
(11). ↑ If he performs it. But the slaughtering may be done by a non priest; while the receiving and carrying, though forbidden to a non priest, do not involve death. By ‘death’ is meant death at the hands of heaven, not capital punishment.
(12). ↑ If the animal is killed at the very spot where the blood is to be sprinkled.
(13). ↑ We-hikrib; E.V. ‘offer’.
(14). ↑ Lev. 1,13.
(15). ↑ Ibid. 5.
(16). ↑ The same Heb. word, hikrib here explained to mean the receiving of the blood, is interpreted as carrying (the limbs) in the other verse.
(17). ↑ I.e., receiving includes carrying, and the law of one applies to the other.
(18). ↑ I.e., that a particular sacrifice must not be offered in the name of a different sacrifice.
(19). ↑ Ibid. VII, 15.
(20). ↑ This is a principle of Talmudic exegesis: where a verse is superfluous in respect of the subject upon which it directly bears, its teaching is to be transferred to another, analogous subject.
(21). ↑ ‘Valid’ and ‘invalid’ mean that the bringer has discharged or not discharged his obligations respectively.
(22). ↑ ‘Peace-offering’ is a wider term, which includes but is not included in the term ‘thanksoffering’. — Thus the verse is required for a different purpose.
(23). ↑ Whereas the other teaching is deduced from the phrase ‘his peace-offerings for thanksgiving’.
(24). ↑ That their flesh too may be eaten only on the day when they are sacrificed and the following night, as that text is interpreted is respect of thanksgiving.
(25). ↑ Which term includes other sacrifices.
(26). ↑ If that is the only teaching of that verse.
(27). ↑ Thus ‘zebah’ would be written immediately in connection with eating.
(28). ↑ Bringing ‘slaughtering’ into connection with the sacrifice rather than with the eating.
(29). ↑ Sc. that they must not be performed in the name of any but their true owner.
(30). ↑ I.e., on illegitimate intention is expressed in respect to the sacrifice itself.
(31). ↑ An Illegitimate intention in respect of any service disqualifies it (according to the terms of the Mishnah). But change in respect of owner is a disqualification only for sprinkling, which constitutes the principal rite of atonement, either at that rite itself, or by expressing an intention at the slaughtering or any other service that the sprinkling shall be for a different owner.
(32). ↑ If the owner dies, his son must bring it, and if he slaughters it for a different purpose it is invalid.
(33). ↑ A public sacrifice, just like a private sacrifice, is disqualified if offered for another purpose.