Talmud su Levitico 4:33

From where for purification offerings? He shall slaughter it as purification offering⁵³Lev. 4:33.. From where the remainder of its actions? [He]shall make⁴⁹Deut. 16:1. The unspecific עשה always is interpreted to include all necessary actions. one as purification offering⁵⁴There is no verse exactly as quoted in the text. The reference seems to be to Lev.16:30, the Cohen shall bring one as purification offering.. But then also the burning of its parts⁵⁰Greek αἱ μοῖραι [τοῦ θεοῦ], the fat which is forbidden for human consumption.? The verse says, he shall slaughter. Since slaughter is particular in that it invalidates expiation, this excludes the burning of its parts which does not invalidate expiation.

From where that a Pesaḥ must be in the name of its owner? Is it not a logical argument⁵⁷דִּין usually introduces an informal argument de minore ad majus.? Since a purification sacrifice, where intent for the uncircumcised or impure⁵⁸Sacrifices of the uncircumcised (e. g., a hemophiliac who may not be circumcised) or an impure person (e. g., a resident outside the Land) sent through third persons are accepted in the Temple. But any uncircumcised is excluded from the Pesaḥ(Ex.12:48) and the person who will not be pure by nightfall is excluded by the requirement that the Pesaḥ be slaughtered for the group of subscribers (Ex. 12:3–4); adding the name of a person prohibited from eating sacred food will invalidate the slaughter. This argument is somewhat circular; since the argument is rejected for other reasons, this does not have to be pointed out. does not invalidate it, needs to be in the name of the owner, Pesaḥ, where intent for the uncircumcised or impure does invalidate it, is it not logical that it needs to be in the name of its owner? No. If you are saying about purification sacrifice which is most holy⁵⁹It may be eaten only by male Cohanim in the Temple precinct., would you say that about Pesaḥ which is a simple sanctum⁶⁰It may be eaten by every pure person within the walls of the city of the Temple.? Rebbi Yose said, did you not argue about intent? The Torah insisted about intent for Pesaḥ more than for purification sacrifice. Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana: Do we infer this from the purification sacrifice of the sufferer from skin disease? But is not the purification sacrifice of the sufferer from skin disease separate for something new⁶¹As stated in Mishnah Menaḥot 9:6, no purification offering other than that of the sufferer from skin disease needs accompanying offerings of flour and wine. The offering of flour is explicit in Lev. 14:10; that of wine is inferred in Sifra Mesoraˋ Pereq 2(10).? And one cannot infer from anything which is separate for something new⁶²This is R. Ismael’s 12th hermeneutical principle: Anything which was in a group, but is taken from the group to be under a separate rule, cannot be returned to its original group unless the verse returns it explicitly. An example is the reparation sacrifice of the sufferer from skin disease, whose blood is not for the altar but for the right thumb and right great toe of the owner, but which Lev. 14:13 declares to follow the rules of reparation sacrifices in all respects. Such a note is missing for the purification sacrifice. The Babli, Zevaḥim 8a, accepts the argument as valid.. He told him, from where do you infer that it be invalid if not for its purpose? Not from the following verse, he shall slaughter it as purification sacrifice⁶³Lev. 4:33. Sifra Wayyiqra II (Ḥovah)
Pereq 11(3)., and it is written: this is the doctrine of the purification sacrifice⁶⁴Lev. 6:18. Babli Zevaḥim 9a. Interpreted differently in Sifra Ṣaw Parašah 3(1).. There is one doctrine for all purification sacrifices. But from the place where it is being inferred, there it permits inferences⁶⁵Since the flour offering does not accompany the purification offering of the sufferer from skin disease but his elevation offering (14:20), the attribution of the wine offering to the purification offering is an inference of the oral tradition which cannot override Lev. 6:18..