חַטָּאת דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דִּשְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל וּבִטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם, וְטוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, דְּלָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ, מְנָלַן?

From where do we derive these halakhot with regard to a sin offering brought for idol worship, which has unique halakhot , as detailed in Numbers 15:27–31, and with regard to which the term: For a sin offering, is not written? Likewise, from where do we derive them with regard to the sin offerings that are brought for the hearing of the voice, and for an utterance of the lips, and for the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods, which also have unique halakhot (Leviticus 5:1–13), and with regard to which the term: For a sin offering, is not written either?

חַטָּאת דַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אָתְיָא מֵחַטַּאת חֵלֶב, שֶׁכֵּן כָּרֵת כְּמוֹתָהּ. וְהָנָךְ כּוּלְּהִי אָתְיָין בְּמַה הַצַּד.

The Gemara answers: With regard to a sin offering brought for idol worship, these halakhot are derived from the halakhot of a sin offering brought for eating forbidden fat, as idol worship is also punishable by karet , similar to consumption of forbidden fat. And with regard to all these other sin offerings, which are brought for transgressions not punishable by karet , these halakhot are derived by analogy from the common element of the aforementioned three sources, namely, a standard sin offering, the sin offering of a nazirite, and the sin offering of a leper.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פֶּסַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ, לִשְׁמוֹ – כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ – פָּסוּל; וּבִשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, לִשְׁמוֹ – פָּסוּל, שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ – כָּשֵׁר.

§ The Sages taught: When a Paschal offering is sacrificed at its appointed time, on Passover eve after noon, if it is sacrificed for its sake, it is fit; if it is sacrificed not for its sake, it is unfit, as stated in the mishna. And when an offering consecrated as a Paschal offering is sacrificed during the rest of the days of the year, if it is sacrificed for its sake, it is unfit; if it is sacrificed not for its sake, it is fit.

(של״ו קבאיצ״ן ממה״ר בצ״א ב״א, סִימָן)

The Gemara presents a mnemonic for the names of the amora’im mentioned in this discussion: Shin , lamed , vav ; kuf , beit , alef , yod , tzadi , nun ; mem , mem , heh , reish ; beit , tzadi , alef ; beit , alef .

מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: אָמַר קְרָא ״וְאִם מִן הַצֹּאן קָרְבָּנוֹ לְזֶבַח שְׁלָמִים לַה׳״, דָּבָר הַבָּא מִן הַצֹּאן – יְהֵא לְזֶבַח שְׁלָמִים.

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, i.e., that if a Paschal offering is sacrificed during the rest of the year it is fit if sacrificed not for its sake? Shmuel’s father says: The verse states: “And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the Lord is of the flock” (Leviticus 3:6), indicating that an offering that is brought only from the flock will be a sacrifice of peace offerings. The Paschal offering fulfills this criterion.

אֵימָא: שְׁלָמִים – אִין, מִידֵי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא! אָמַר רַבִּי אִילָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״לְזֶבַח״ – לְרַבּוֹת כָּל זֶבַח.

The Gemara challenges: Say that if it is sacrificed for the sake of a peace offering, yes, it is fit, but if it is sacrificed for the sake of some other offering, it is not fit. Rabbi Ila says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The redundant expression “for a sacrifice” in Leviticus 3:6 is stated to include any type of sacrifice.

אֵימָא: כָּל דְּשָׁחֵיט לֶהֱוֵי כְּמוֹתָהּ!

The Gemara asks: If so, say that a Paschal offering should be rendered as any offering for which one slaughters it; for example, if it is slaughtered for the sake of a burnt offering, it should be rendered a burnt offering.

אִי הֲוָה כְּתִיב ״לִשְׁלָמִים וְזֶבַח״ – כִּדְקָאָמְרַתְּ, הָשְׁתָּא דִּכְתִיב ״לְזֶבַח שְׁלָמִים״ – לְכָל דְּשָׁחֵיט לֵיהּ שְׁלָמִים לֶהֱוֵי.

The Gemara answers: If the phrase: For peace offerings and a sacrifice, was written in the verse, it would be as you say. Now that it is written: “For a sacrifice of peace offerings,” it indicates that for whatever type of offering one slaughters it, it will be a peace offering.

אֵימָא: ״לְזֶבַח״ – כְּלָל, ״שְׁלָמִים״ – פְּרָט, כְּלָל וּפְרָט – אֵין בַּכְּלָל אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבַּפְּרָט: שְׁלָמִים – אִין, מִידֵי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא!

The Gemara challenges: Say that: “For a sacrifice,” is a generalization and: “Of peace offerings,” is a detail, and according to the principles of biblical hermeneutics, wherever there is a generalization and a detail, the generalization includes only that which is specified in the detail. Accordingly, if the offering is sacrificed for the sake of a peace offering, yes, it is fit; but if it is sacrificed for the sake of another offering, it is not fit.

״לַה׳״ הֲדַר וְכָלַל.

The Gemara answers: With the term: “Unto the Lord,” the verse then generalized again. Therefore, the verse is formulated as a generalization, a detail, and a generalization, as the Gemara will explain.

מַתְקִיף לָהּ רַב יַעֲקֹב מִנְּהַר פְּקוֹד: הָא לָא דָּמֵי כְּלָלָא בַּתְרָא לִכְלָלָא קַמָּא, כְּלָלָא קַמָּא מְרַבֵּי זְבָחִים וְתוּ לָא, כְּלָלָא בַּתְרָא ״לַה׳״ – כָּל דְּלַה׳, וַאֲפִילּוּ לְעוֹפוֹת וַאֲפִילּוּ לִמְנָחוֹת!

Rav Ya’akov of Nehar Pekod objects to this suggestion: But the latter generalization is dissimilar to the former generalization. The former generalization: “For a sacrifice,” includes only slaughtered offerings and nothing more, whereas the latter generalization: “Unto the Lord,” includes any offering unto the Lord. And accordingly, even if the Paschal offering was sacrificed for the sake of bird offerings, or even for the sake of meal offerings, it should be fit, as these are brought “unto the Lord.”

הָא תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בִּכְלָלֵי וּפְרָטֵי דָּרֵישׁ כִּי הַאי גַּוְונָא.

The Gemara responds to this objection: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught generalizations and details even in examples like this case.

כְּלָל וּפְרָט וּכְלָל – אִי אַתָּה דָּן אֶלָּא כְּעֵין הַפְּרָט, מַה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ וְכָשֵׁר – אַף כָּל שֶׁהוּא שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ וְכָשֵׁר.

The Gemara explains: Since “unto the Lord” is a second generalization, the verse is formulated as a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, and you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a case where a Paschal offering was sacrificed not for its own sake, and nevertheless it is fit, so too, in any case where it was sacrificed not for its sake but for the sake of another offering, it is fit.

אִי מַה הַפְּרָט מְפוֹרָשׁ, דָּבָר הַבָּא בְּנֵדֶר וּבִנְדָבָה – אַף כָּל הַבָּא בְּנֵדֶר וּבִנְדָבָה; עוֹלָה וּשְׁלָמִים – אִין, חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם – לָא!

The Gemara asks: If the verse is referring only to actions similar to the detail, then just as the items mentioned in the detail are clearly defined as a peace offering, which is a matter that is brought as a vow offering or as a gift offering, so too, a Paschal offering should be fit only if it was sacrificed for the sake of any offering that is brought as a vow offering or as a gift offering. Accordingly, if it was sacrificed for the sake of a burnt offering or a peace offering, yes, it is fit, as these are brought as a vow offering or as a gift offering; but if it was sacrificed for the sake of a sin offering or a guilt offering, it is not fit, as these are not brought as a vow offering or as a gift offering.

אֶלָּא: ״לְזֶבַח״ רִבּוּיָא הוּא.

The Gemara therefore rejects the exegetical method of generalizations and details in favor of that of amplifications and restrictions: Rather, the term: “For a sacrifice,” is not a generalization, but an amplification, which includes any type of offering. Therefore, if a Paschal offering is sacrificed for the sake of any type of offering during the rest of the year, it is fit.

אֵימָא: לְכָל דְּשָׁחֵיט לֵיהּ לֶהֱוֵי כְּוָותֵיהּ!

The Gemara challenges: If so, say that it adds that a Paschal offering should be rendered as any offering for which one slaughters it. Why does Shmuel’s father interpret that it is rendered a peace offering specifically?

אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין:

Rabbi Avin says: