The Babylonian Talmud
Zevachim

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 21a
Now in the case of the [red] heifer we defile him, for we learnt: They used to defile the priest who was to burn the heifer and then make him immerse, in order to combat the opinion of the Sadducees,1 who maintained: It[s service] was performed [only] by [priests] who had experienced sunset!2 This proves that uncleanness does not invalidate it.3 - The [red] heifer is different, since a tebul yom is not unfit for it. If so, why must he sanctify himself [at all]? - Because we want it similar to the [usual sacrificial] service.
It was asked: Can [the priest] sanctify his hands and feet in the laver?4 [Do we argue,] the Divine Law states, [And Aaron and his sons shall wash . . .] thereat,5 but not in it; or perhaps it means even in it? - Said R. Nahman son of Isaac, Come and hear: Or if he immersed in the water of a pit and officiates, his service is invalid. Hence [if he used] the water of the laver in a similar way to the water of a pit6 and officiated, his service is valid? - No: it is particularly necessary for him [the Tanna] to teach about the water of a pit. lest you say: If he can bathe his whole body therein,7 how much the more his hands and feet.8
R. Hiyya son of Joseph said: The water of the laver becomes unfit for the mattirin, as the mattirin [themselves], and for the [burning of the] limbs, as the limbs [themselves]. R. Hisda maintained: Even for the mattirin they become unfit only at dawn, as the limbs.9 While R. Johanan maintained: Once the laver is sunk,10 it may not be drawn up again.11 Does this mean that it is not even fit for a night service?12 Surely R. Assi said, reporting R. Johanan in Ilfa's name: If the laver was not sunk [into the pit] before evening, [the priest] may sanctify [himself] thereat for a night service, but he may not sanctify [himself] thereat on the morrow? - What is meant by 'it may not be drawn up'? for a day service; but it is indeed fit for a night service. If so, this is identical with R. Hiyya b. Joseph ['s view]?
____________________
(1) V. Sanh. (Sonc.ed.) p. 353. n. 2.
(2) l.e., by priests upon whom the sun had set after their immersion, as in the case of the sacrificial service in general. The Rabbis however held that immediately after immersion (when he is called a tebul yom v. Glos) a priest was fit for the burning of the red heifer. V. Parah III, 7.
(3) Sc. the sanctification.
(4) By actually putting his hands and feet into it.
(5) Ex. XXX, 19. The Heb. means literally, from it.
(6) I.e., putting his hands and feet in the laver.
(7) If unclean, and such bathing constitutes valid immersion and makes him clean.
(8) But it is still possible that if he used the water of the laver in the same way. putting his hands and feet into it, his sanctification is invalid.
(9) The mattirin (q.v. Glos) are the sprinkling of the blood of animal sacrifices, and the burning of the fistful of meal of the meal-offerings; they are so called because they enable the sacrifices to be eaten or make them fit for the altar, and they must be done before sunset of the day on which the sacrifices are brought. Now the laver was sunk every day in a pit (v. supra 20a); if this laver was not sunk into it before sunset, its water is unfit on the morrow for 'sanctification' where the priest wishes to perform a mattir, just as the blood and the fistful of meal themselves become unfit for their purpose at sunset. Again, the limbs of the sacrifice must be burned before dawn of the day following its offering; if the laver is not sunk into the pit before dawn, its water is unfit for 'sanctification' on the following day for the service of burning the limbs. That is R. Hiyya b. Joseph's view. R. Hisda maintains that for the sprinkling of the blood too the water is unfit only if the laver was not sunk in the pit by dawn.
(10) Into the pit at sunset.
(11) Until dawn. It is now assumed that he means that even if a priest wishes to burn limbs during the night the laver cannot be drawn up, as this would render its water unfit.
(12) Viz., burning the limbs.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 21b
- They disagree as to a preventive measure in respect of sinking [the laver].1 But surely R.Johanan said: If [the priest] sanctified his hands for the removal of the ashes, he need not sanctify [them again] on the morrow, because he has already sanctified [them] at the beginning of the service.2 According to Raba who explains that this agrees with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, it is well: this [the present ruling] agrees with Rabbi.3 But according to Abaye who explains that it agrees with Rabbi, Rabbi is self-contradictory, [for] why must he lower it there,4 whereas here he must not lower it? - It means that he raises it5 and then lowers it again.6 If so, 'on the morrow he does not sanctify' - why so?7 [The meaning is] that he need not sanctify,8 which is to say that [the previous sanctification] is indeed fit for the mattirin. Then it is the same as R. Hisda['s ruling]?9 - They disagree in respect of the regulation of lowering.10
An objection is raised: They neither saw him nor heard him until they heard the sound of the wood of the machine which Ben Kattin made for the laver, and then they exclaimed. 'It is time to sanctify hands and feet at the laver' .11 Surely it means that he raised it,12 and which proves that it was sunk [earlier]? - No: it means that he lowered it [now].13 If he lowered it, would the sound be heard?14 - He lowered it by the wheel.15 Another version: He lowered it by means of its stone,16 in order that the sound of it should be heard, so that they [the priests] might hear it and come. But there was Gebini the crier?17 - They made two alarms; some heard the one and came, whilst others heard the other and came.
The [above] text [stated]: 'R. Jose son of R. Hanina said: You may not wash in a laver which does not contain sufficient [water] for the sanctification of four priests. for it says. That Moses and Aaron and his sons wash their hands and their feet thereat'.18 An objection is raised: All vessels sanctify.19 whether they contain a rebi'ith20
____________________
(1) When R. Johanan rules that the laver must not be brought up for a service the following day, it is not because its water is unfit if it is not in the pit during any part of the night, but as a preventive measure, lest it is not lowered again before dawn, which would disqualify it. Hence R. Johanan does not say that the water is unfit, but merely that the laver must not be brought up.
(2) V. supra 20a. Thus the laver is drawn up before dawn, and R. Johanan does not add that it must be lowered again immediately before dawn.
(3) Who maintains that the passing of the night nullifies the previous sanctification, and all the more will it disqualify the water of the laver itself.
(4) I.e., why does he fear there that if he brings it up he will not lower it again.
(5) In the morning for the removal of the ashes.
(6) Although R. Johanan does not mention it, that is merely because he is discussing the sanctification of hands and not the regulations of the laver.
(7) Now that you explain that according to R. Johanan the night does not disqualify, why cannot he sanctify his hands on the morrow?
(8) Because he has already sanctified his hands for the night service. Thus he informs us that the passing of the night does not nullify the sanctification, this being in agreement with R. Eleazar.
(9) Now that you say that he does not bring it up because dawn is a disqualification, but that the night itself does not disqualify. R. Johanan's view is identical with R. Hisda's.
(10) In R. Johanan's opinion it must be done in the evening, so that when the priest comes to clean the ashes in the morning he will find it so, and thus remember to lower it again immediately before dawn. But R. Hisda holds that this is unnecessary, and it is sufficient to lower it just before dawn.
(11) When the priest who was to remove the ashes entered the Temple court to sanctify his hands and feet, he did not carry a light with him, but walked by the light of the altar fire. His fellow-priests in the adjoining chamber therefore neither saw nor heard him, until they heard the sound of the machine drawing up the laver from the pit, and then they knew that they themselves must prepare for the next service.
(12) From the pit. Hence until then it was in the pit, which contradicts R. Hisda's view that it was not lowered until dawn.
(13) They heard the sound of it being lowered.
(14) The wheel was unnecessary for this, as one could simply unfasten the rope by which it was held up, whereupon it would fall automatically.
(15) Though it was unnecessary, precisely in order that he might be heard.
(16) A stone used as a wheel or pulley.
(17) Who apprised the priests and others every morning when it was time for them to get up; v. Yoma 19b.
(18) V. supra 19b.
(19) The water placed in them, so that this water can be used by the priests for sanctifying their hands and feet.
(20) V. Glos.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 22a
or they do not contain a rebi'ith,1 provided they are service vessels? - Said R. Adda b. Aha:2 This means where one bales out from it.3 But the Divine Law saith, 'Thereat'?4 - They should wash5 is to include any service vessel.6 If so, then a profane vessel too [should be fit]? - Said Abaye: You cannot say [that] a profane vessel [is fit], this being deduced from its base, a fortiori: If its base, which was anointed together with it [the laver], does not sanctify [the water poured into it].7 is it not logical that a profane vessel, which was not anointed with it, does not sanctify?
And how do we know [that] its base [does not sanctify]? Because it was taught: R. Judah said: You might think that the base sanctifies, just as the laver sanctifies; therefore it says. Thou shalt also make a laver of brass, and the base thereof of brass.8 I have made it alike in respect of brass , but not in respect of anything else. Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari said to Rabina: As for its base, [it does not sanctify] because it is not made for its inside [to be used]; will you say [the same of] a profane vessel, which is made for its inside?9 Rather, 'thereat' excludes a profane vessel. If so, [it excludes] a service vessel too? - Surely the Divine Law included [it by writing] 'they should wash'. And what [reason] do you see [for this choice]?10 - The one [a service vessel] needs anointing like itself [the laver], while the other does not need anointing like itself.
Resh Lakish said: Whatever can make up [the prescribed quantity of] the water of a mikweh,11 makes up the water of the laver;12 but it does not make up to a rebi'ith.13 What does this exclude? Shall we say, it excludes miry [liquid] clay?14 then how is it meant? If a cow would bend and drink thereof,15 it is [fit] even for a rebi'ith too;16 while if a cow would not bend and drink thereof, it cannot make up even [the quantity of] a mikweh too! Again, if it is to exclude red insects,17 [these are permitted] even in the mass,18 for surely it was taught: R. Simeon b. Gamaliel said: You may perform immersion in whatever originates in the water; while R. Isaac b. Abdimi said: You may perform immersion in the eye of a fish!19 - Said R. Papa : It excludes the case where one added a se'ah and took out a se'ah. For we learnt: If a mikweh had exactly forty se'ah and one added a se'ah and took out a se'ah, it is fit. And Rab Judah b. Shila said in R. Assi's name in R. Johanan's name: Up to the greater part thereof.20 R. Papa said: If one cut out a rebi'ith therein, one may bathe needles and hooks,21 since it is derived from a valid mikweh.22
R. Jeremiah said in the name of Resh Lakish: The water of a mikweh is fit for the water of the laver.23 Are we to say that it [the water of the laver] need not be 'living' water? Surely it was taught: [But its inwards and its legs shall he wash] with water,24 but not with wine; 'with water,' but not with a mixture;25 'with water' includes any water,26 and all the more [does it include] the water of the laver. Now what does 'and all the more the water of the laver' imply? Surely that it is 'living' water?27 - No: it means, which is holy.28 Is then its holiness an advantage? Surely the school of Samuel taught: [Only] water which has no special name [is fit],29
____________________
(1) In that case it is certainly insufficient for four priests.
(2) Sh. M. emends: Ahabah.
(3) Tosaf. : the priest takes up water from the laver with a small vessel. This need not contain a rebi'ith, but the laver must contain the larger quantity. Rashi translates and explains differently.
(4) Rashi: which implies that one must wash from the laver only. Tosaf. : which implies that any other vessel used must be of the same size as the laver.
(5) Ex. XL, 32.
(6) 'They should wash' is superfluous, and is therefore regarded as an extension.
(7) To be used for this purpose. - This implies that the base itself could hold water.
(8) Ibid. XXX, 18.
(9) Surely not.
(10) For excluding the one and including the other; why not reverse it?
(11) V. Glos. A mikweh must contain not less than forty se'ahs water. Yet if it is short of this quantity, it can be made up with other liquids, as enumerated in Mik. VII, 1 q.v.
(12) If it contains insufficient for the lustrations of four priests.
(13) Which is required for the ordinary washing of the hands before eating food.
(14) Reading narok, as in Suk. 19b et passim. Edd. have here nadok, which Rashi translates, thin clay, such that can be poured from one vessel into another.
(15) If it is so loose that its presence in water would not deter a cow from drinking it.
(16) If the rebi'ith is partly made up of such miry clay, it is sufficient and valid for the ritual washing of the hands.
(17) Which originate in the water.
(18) Even if the whole mikweh consists of these, it is fit, whereas Resh Lakish permits them only to make up the prescribed quantity.
(19) A huge fish whose eye had dissolved in its socket.
(20) Any liquid other than water can sometimes make up the quantity and sometimes not. Thus: if the mikweh contains thirty nine se'ahs and another is added of a different liquid, it is not valid. But if it contains forty, and then a different liquid is added and a se'ah of water is removed, it remains fit. For it was fit without the added se'ah, and this se'ah becomes null (loses its identity) in the rest, and so the mikweh remains fit. Rab Judah says that it remains fit even if in this way one removes up to (but not including)the greater part of the water. But if one has a rebi'ith of water, adds a little of another liquid, and then removes the same quantity, it is not fit, because a rebi'ith is too little for the other liquid to lose its identity in it.
(21) If one cuts out a little hollow in the side of a full-sized mikweh and the water flows into it, you may purify these small objects in it, even though it is not freely joined to the larger mikweh.
(22) Lit., 'Since it comes from the fitness of a mikweh'.
(23) Though the former is not 'living' (i.e. running) water, it may be drawn into the laver.
(24) Lev. I, 9.
(25) Two parts water and one part wine.
(26) Even non-running.
(27) For that is apparently its only superiority, and so the passage does not refer to the actual water of the laver, but means any living water.
(28) I.e all the more is the water of the laver (actual) fit, seeing that it is holy.
(29) For the washing of the sacrificial parts.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 22b
which excludes the water of the laver, which has a special name.1 Hence it surely means such as is fit for the water of the laver,2 which proves that it must be 'living' water? - It is a controversy of Tannaim. For R. Johanan said: As for the laver, - R. Ishmael said: It is the water of a spring;3 While the Sages maintain: It may be ordinary water.
AN UNCIRCUMCISED [PRIEST]. Whence do we know it? - Said R. Hisda: We did not learn this from the Torah of Moses our Teacher, but from the words of Ezekiel the son of Buzi: No alien, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into My sanctuary.4 And how do we know that they profane the service?5 - Because it is written , In that ye have brought in aliens, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in My sanctuary, to profane it, even My house, [when ye offer My bread, the fat and the blood].6
Our Rabbis taught: [It says.] Alien: you might think that this means literally an alien; therefore Scripture teaches, uncircumcised in heart. If so, why does Scripture call him 'alien'? Because his actions are alien to his Father in Heaven.7 Now, I know only [that] the 'uncircumcised in heart'8 [invalidates the sacrifice]; how do I know that the uncircumcised in flesh [does likewise]? Because the text states, 'and uncircumcised in flesh.' And they are both necessary. For if the Divine Law wrote [that] one uncircumcised in flesh [is disqualified]. I would say that the reason is because he is repulsive; but an uncircumcised in heart' is not repulsive, and so he is not disqualified. And if we were informed about an 'uncircumcised in heart', I would say that the reason is that his heart is not toward Heaven, but [as for] an 'uncircumcised in flesh', whose heart is toward Heaven,9 he is not [disqualified]. Thus both are necessary.
AN UNCLEAN [PRIEST] . . . IS DISQUALIFIED. The Elders of the South said: They learnt this only of [a priest] unclean through a reptile, but [as for] one unclean through a corpse, since [the headplate] propitiates in the case of a public sacrifice, it propitiates in the case of a private sacrifice.10 If so, let it be deduced from one unclean through a corpse, a fortiori. [that] one unclean through a reptile too [does not invalidate the sacrifice]: if [the headplate] propitiates [in the case of] one unclean through a corpse, who must be besprinkled on the third and on the seventh [days of his defilement],11 surely [it] propitiates [in the case of] one unclean through a reptile, who need not be besprinkled on the third and on the seventh [days]? - The Elders of the South hold that those who make atonement [the priests] are like those for whom atonement is made [the people]: as in the case of those for whom atonement is made, if they are unclean through a corpse [the headplate] does [propitiate], but if they are unclean through a reptile [it does] not,12 so are those who make atonement: one unclean through a corpse is [included in the propitiatory effect of the headplate]. whereas one unclean through a reptile is not [included]. What do they [these Elders] hold? If they hold, you may not slaughter [the Passover] and sprinkle [its blood] on behalf of one who is unclean through a reptile,13 why may the community not sacrifice in uncleanness: surely [it is a principle that] wherever an individual is relegated [to the second Passover], the community celebrates it in uncleanness? Rather, they hold that you do slaughter and sprinkle on behalf of him who is unclean through a reptile.
'Ulla said: Resh Lakish14 criticised the southern scholars: Now, whose power is greater, the power of those who make atonement, or the power of those for whom atonement is made? Surely the power of those for whom atonement is made.15 Then if a priest who was unclean through a reptile cannot propitiate [officiate], though where the owners were defiled by a reptile they can send their sacrifices [to the Temple]; is it not logical that a priest who was defiled by a corpse should not be able to propitiate, seeing that if the owners were defiled by a corpse they cannot send their sacrifices?16 - The Elders of the south hold: One who is unclean through a corpse can also send his sacrifices.17 But it is written, If any man of you . . . shall be unclean [by reason of a dead body] . . . yet he shall keep the Passover [unto the Lord] in the second month [on the fourteenth day at dusk they shall keep it]?18 - That is a recommendation.19 But it is written, According to every man's
____________________
(1) It is not called simply water, but the water of the laver.
(2) But not the actual water of the laver.
(3) I.e., running water.
(4) Ezek. XLIV, 9.
(5) I.e., make the sacrifice unfit.
(6) Ibid. 6.
(7) They estrange him from God.
(8) An apostate.
(9) For this is understood to refer to one whose brothers died through circumcision, so that he fears the operation, but would otherwise have it performed.
(10) V. Ex. XXVIII, 36-38: And thou shalt make a pale of pure gold . . . and it shall be upon Aaron's forehead, and Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the holy things . . . and it shall always be upon his forehead, that they may be accepted before the Lord. According to the Rabbis, this means that in virtue of the headplate a public sacrifice is 'accepted', i.e., valid, even if the whole congregation or all the officiating priests are unclean, and indeed must be offered at the very outset in such conditions, as the public sacrifice may not be postponed. This is technically called propitiating (making acceptable). The matter is further explained in the text.
(11) V. Num. XIX, 19.
(12) I.e., only when the whole or the majority of the nation is unclean through a corpse must the public sacrifice be brought.
(13) If an individual is unclean through a reptile and has not performed tebillah (q.v. Glos.), though he can do so and be clean in the evening, nevertheless the Passover may not be slaughtered on his behalf, and he must postpone his sacrifice for the second Passover. There is an opposing view in Pes. 90b.
(14) The original is ר״ל and it is not clear what it stands for. Bah. suggests. Resh Galutha, the Head of the Exile.
(15) As the text proceeds to shew: the owner of a sacrifice can send it to the Temple even when he is unclean through a reptile, whereas a priest cannot officiate in like circumstances.
(16) Because they will be unfit to partake of it in the evening. - Though sacrifices in general are mentioned, much of the present discussion refers more particularly to the Passover.
(17) E.g.. he was registered for a particular Passover-offering (this could be sacrificed only on behalf of people specially registered for it) and became unclean through a corpse: if he sent the sacrifice and had it slaughtered, he does not celebrate the second Passover a month later, though he cannot partake of the first.
(18) Num. IX, 10f. Thus he is relegated to the second month.
(19) Scripture orders him to be relegated. Yet if he does have it slaughtered at the first, he has fulfilled his obligation.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 23a
eating?1 - That [too] is [only] a recommendation. Yet is it not indispensable?2 Surely it was taught: [Then shall he and his neighbor next unto him take one] according to the number of [be-miksath] the souls:3 this teaches that the Paschal lamb is not slaughtered save for those who are registered [numbered] for it. You might think that if he slaughtered it for those who were not registered for it, he should be as one who violates the precept, yet it is fit. Therefore it is stated, Ye shall make your count [takosu]:3 it is reiterated 'to teach that it is indispensable; and eaters are assimilated to registered [persons]!4 - The Elders of the south do not assimilate [them].5 Yet even if they do not assimilate [them], there is still the same refutation: If a priest who was defiled by a reptile cannot propitiate, though if the owners were defiled by a reptile they can send their sacrifices at the very outset; is it not logical that a priest who was defiled through a corpse should not be able to propitiate, seeing that if the owners were defiled through a corpse they cannot send their sacrifices at the very outset?6
An objection is raised: [If the blood of a Passover-offering is sprinkled, and then it became known that it was unclean, the headplate propitiates; if the person became unclean, the headplate does not propitiate;] because they [the Sages] ruled: [In the case of] a nazirite one who sacrifices the Passover-offering, the headplate propitiates for the uncleanness of the blood, but the headplate does not propitiate for the uncleanness of the person. With what [was the person defiled]? Shall we say, With the uncleanness of a reptile? surely you maintain [that] you may slaughter [the Passover-offering] and sprinkle [its blood] on behalf of one who is unclean through a reptile! Hence it must refer to defilement by a corpse, yet it teaches, 'The headplate does not propitiate', which proves that if the owners were defiled, they cannot send their sacrifices!7 - No: if the owners were defiled through a corpse, that would indeed be so.8 But the meaning here is that the priest was defiled by a reptile. If so, consider the last clause: If he was defiled with the 'uncleanness of the deep',9 the headplate propitiates.10 But surely R. Hiyya taught: They [the Sages] spoke of the 'uncleanness of the deep' in respect of a corpse alone. What does this exclude? Surely it excludes the 'uncleanness of the deep' caused by a reptile? - No: it excludes the 'uncleanness of the deep' of gonorrhoea.11
Again, as to what Rami b. Hama asked: As to the priest who propitiates with their sacrifices, is the 'uncleanness of the deep permitted to him, or is the 'uncleanness of the deep' not permitted to him?12 You may solve that the 'uncleanness of the deep' is permitted to him, for here we are treating of the priest?13 - Rami b. Hama certainly disagrees [with the Elders of the south].14
Come and hear:15 And Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the holy things:16 now, what iniquity does he bear?
____________________
(1) Ex. XII, 4. This implies that he must be fit to partake thereof.
(2) In the sense that the sacrifice offered in contravention of this law does not count at all, and the man must bring the second Passover.
(3) Ibid. 4.
(4) Just as the sacrifice is unfit if slaughtered for those who are not registered for it, so is it unfit if slaughtered on behalf of men who cannot partake of it, for the eaters are coupled with the registered persons in the same verse.
(5) Since only 'number' is repeated, but not 'eating'.
(6) For the Elders of the south merely maintain that if they sent their sacrifices and had them slaughtered, they do not bring a second Passover. But they must of course admit that they must not send them in the first place. - The objection remains unanswered.
(7) In the sense that even if they do, they must still bring the second Passover.
(8) The headplate would propitiate.
(9) This is a technical term denoting the hidden uncleanness of a corpse which is now discovered for the first time. E.g., if he was in a house and it is subsequently learned that a corpse had been there; v. Pesahim 80b.
(10) And he is not liable to a second offering. This is a traditional law.
(11) A zab (gonorrhoeist) is unclean seven days, and the Passover-offering may not be offered on his behalf. Now, if the eve of Passover marks the seventh day of his uncleanness, he is in a state of doubt: if he does not discharge on that day, he will be clean in the evening; if he does discharge, he becomes unclean for a further seven days. Thus he too is unclean with the 'uncleanness of the deep', and R. Hiyya teaches that the headplate does not propitiate in his case.
(12) If the priest who offers the Passover sacrifice or the sacrifices of a nazirite on behalf of their owners was defiled with the 'uncleanness of the deep', does the headplate propitiate, so that the sacrifices are valid, or not?
(13) On the interpretation of the Elders of the south.
(14) He must interpret the Mishnah as referring to the uncleanness of the owners.
(15) This is a refutation of Rami b. Hama.
(16) Ex. XXVIII, 38. 'Shall bear' means shall make atonement for, i.e., shall make a sacrifice valid in spite of certain irregularities.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 23b
If the iniquity of piggul,1 surely it is already said, it shall not be accepted?2 If the iniquity of nothar,3 surely it is already said, neither shall it be imputed [unto him that offereth it]?4 Hence he bears nought but the iniquity of defilement, which is inoperative,5 in opposition to its general rule, in the case of a community.6 Now which uncleanness [is meant]? if we say, the uncleanness of a reptile, where has that been waived?7 Hence it must mean uncleanness through a corpse, which proves that if the owners become unclean through a corpse they send their sacrifices. And of whom [is this said]? If of a nazirite, the Divine Law saith, And if any man die very suddenly beside him, etc!8 Hence it can only refer to one who is offering the Paschal lamb! - In truth it refers to [the uncleanness of] a reptile, yet uncleanness elsewhere [was waived].9 Others make this deduction:10 [The headplate makes atonement] only for the iniquity of the holy things, but not for the iniquity of those who hallow them.11 Which uncleanness [is meant]? If we say, the uncleanness of a reptile? is then that inoperative in the case of a community? Hence it must surely be the uncleanness of a corpse, and yet only the iniquity of the holy things [is atoned for], but not the iniquity of those who hallow them? - No: in truth it means uncleanness through a reptile, yet uncleanness elsewhere [is waived].
[A PRIEST] SITTING. Whence do we know it? - Said Raba in R. Nahman's name: Scripture saith, [For the Lord thy God hath chosen him - the priest - out of all thy tribes,] to stand to minister [in the name of the Lord]:12 I have chosen him to stand, but not to sit. Our Rabbis taught: 'To stand to minister' is a recommendation;13 when it says [further], who stand [there before the Lord].14 the Writ has repeated it, to make [standing] indispensable. Raba said to R. Nahman: Consider: one sitting is as a zar,15 and profanes the service; then let us say: just as a zar is liable to death,16 so is one who sits liable to death. Why then was it taught: But an uncircumcised [priest], an onen, and one sitting are not liable to death but are merely under an injunction [not to officiate]? - Because [a priest] lacking the [priestly] vestments and one whose hands and feet are not washed are two laws which come as one,17
____________________
(1) V. Glos.
(2) Lev. XIX, 7.
(3) V. Glos.
(4) Ib. VII, 18. Text as emended by Rashi on the basis of Torath Kohanim. The edd. reverse the proof-texts, and Tosaf. defends their reading.
(5) Lit., 'permitted'.
(6) If the whole community or the majority thereof is unclean, they sacrifice the Passover-offering in the first month, as usual, and are not relegated to the second month as an individual would be.
(7) In favour of a community - Scripture speaks only of uncleanness through a corpse.
(8) Num. VI, 9. Scripture proceeds to say that he must then bring certain sacrifices and re-commence his period of naziriteship, at the conclusion of which he brings the prescribed sacrifices on the shaving of his head. Thus whilst unclean he cannot bring the latter.
(9) Though the Scriptural permission to a community applies only to uncleanness through a corpse, yet since we find that same form of uncleanness is inoperative, it is logical to say that the propitiating powers of the headplate hold good in the case of uncleanness through a reptile.
(10) Which supports Rami b. Hama and refutes the Elders of the south.
(11) I.e., only when the sacrifice itself is defiled, but not when its owners or the priests - 'those who hallow them' - are unclean. This is deduced direct from Scripture, which speaks only of the 'holy things'.
(12) Deut. XVIII, 5.
(13) I.e., this text alone would merely indicate that it is preferable that the priest shall stand.
(14) Ibid. XVIII, 7.
(15) For since he has not been chosen 'to sit', he is then like a zar (a lay-Israelite) who has not been chosen.
(16) For officiating.
(17) I.e., to teach the same thing. They too profane the service, and it is stated in Sanh. 83a that they are liable to death, and the same analogy might be drawn from each, viz., that those who profane the service are liable to death.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 24a
and two laws that come as one do not illumine [other cases].1 And on the view that they do illumine [other cases], one who has drunk wine is a third case, and [when] three [laws come as one] all agree that they do not illumine [other cases].
ONE STANDING ON UTENSILS OR ON AN ANIMAL OR ON HIS FELLOW'S FEET, [THE SACRIFICES] ARE INVALID. Whence do we know it? - For the school of R. Ishmael taught: Since the pavement sanctifies2 and the service vessels sanctify;3 just as with the service vessels nothing may interpose between him [the priest] and the service vessels;4 so with the pavement nothing must interpose between him and the pavement.
Now they are all necessary.5 For if we were informed about vessels, I would argue that [standing on them disqualifies] because they are not flesh, but in the case of an animal, which is flesh, [standing on it does] not [disqualify]. And if we were informed about an animal, [the reason is] because it is not human, but as for his fellow, who is human, I would say [that standing on his feet does] not [disqualify]. Hence [they are all] necessary.
It was taught: R. Eliezer said: If one foot is on the utensil and the other on the pavement, one foot on the stone and the other on the pavement, we consider: wherever if the stone or the utensil be removed, he can stand on the other foot, his service is valid; if not, his service is invalid. R. Ammi asked: What if a [paving] stone become loosened and he stood on it?6 If it is not his intention to fit it [in the pavement] there is no question, for it certainly interposes;7 the question arises where it is his intention to fit it in: what then? Since it is his intention to fit it in, it is as though [already] fitted; or perhaps [we say], Now at all events it is separate? Rabbah Zuti8 stated the question thus: R. Ammi asked: What if the stone became uprooted,9 and he stood in its place? What is the question? [This:] When David sanctified [it], did he sanctify the upper pavement [only], or perhaps he sanctified [it] right to the nethermost soil?10 Then let him ask about the whole of the Temple court?11 - In truth, he is certain that he sanctified it to the nethermost soil, but this is his question: Is this a natural way of service,12 or is it not a natural way of service? The question stands.
IF [THE PRIEST] RECEIVED [THE BLOOD] IN HIS LEFT HAND, IT IS DISQUALIFIED; R. SIMEON DECLARES IT FIT. Our Rabbis taught: [And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger, and put it upon the horns of the altar]:13 'with his finger he shall take': this teaches that receiving must be done with the right hand; 'with his finger he shall put': this teaches that applying [the blood on the altar] must be done with the right hand.14 Said R. Simeon: is then 'hand' stated in connection with receiving? Rather, [interpret it thus:] 'with his finger he shall put' teaches that the application must be with the right; [and] since 'hand' is not stated in connection with receiving, if he received [it] with his left [hand], it is fit.15 Now as for R. Simeon, what will you? if he admits the gezerah shawah,16 what does it matter if 'hand' is not written in connection with receiving?17 While if he does not admit the gezerah shawah, what if 'hand' were written In connection with receiving? - Said Rab Judah: in truth, he does not admit the gezerah shawah, and this is what he means: Is then 'right hand' stated in connection with receiving? Since then 'right hand' is not stated in connection with receiving, if he received [it] with the left hand, [the service] is fit. Said Rabbah to him: If so, [the same applies] even to the application [of the blood on the altar] too?18 Moreover, does not R. Simeon accept the gezerah shawah? Surely it was taught. R. Simeon said: Wherever 'hand' is stated, it refers to the right only; [wherever] 'finger' [is stated], it refers to the right only? - Rather said Raba: In truth he admits the gezerah shawah, and this is what he says: is then 'hand' stated in connection with receiving? Since not 'hand' but 'finger' is written, and [the blood] cannot be received with the finger,19 therefore if he received it with the left [hand], it is fit. Said R. Sama the son of R. Ashi to Rabina: But it is possible to make a handle at the edge of the bowl20 and receive [the blood]?21 - Rather said Abaye:
____________________
(1) For otherwise only one should be mentioned, and by analogy the other as well as all analogous cases, would be included.
(2) The priest, in that he may sacrifice there only, and not elsewhere. But v. next note.
(3) The blood that is caught in them. This is the reading of cur. edd. Sh. M. offers an alternative reading, which is preferable: since the pavement is sanctified, and the service vessels are sanctified.
(4) When he takes one for receiving the blood, nothing must be on his hands, e.g., gloves.
(5) The enumeration of vessels, an animal, and his fellow's feet.
(6) So that it moves about.
(7) It is not accounted part of the pavement.
(8) Lit., 'the small.'
(9) Entirely leaving the earth beneath it exposed.
(10) Lit., 'the soil of the deep'.
(11) What if the pavement is removed and the priests stand on the earth beneath?
(12) To stand on the earth beneath the paving stone.
(13) Lev. IV, 25.
(14) 'Finger' stands between 'take' and 'put' in the text, and so the Rabbis apply it to both; and it is stated below that 'finger' always means that of the right hand.
(15) It is now assumed that R. Simeon agrees that 'hand' means the right, but not 'finger'.
(16) Whereby it is deduced that 'hand' in connection with sacrifices means the right. The gezerah shawah is from a leper, where both 'hand' and 'finger' are written.
(17) 'Finger' is however written both here and in connection with a leper; and there it is definitely the right.
(18) Since right hand is not stated there either.
(19) The receiving vessel cannot be held by a finger only. Hence 'finger', which denotes the right one, must refer to the applying of the blood, but not to the receiving.
(20) In which the blood is caught.
(21) Holding it with the finger only.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 24b
They disagree [on the question] whether a text is to be interpreted with what precedes and with what follows it.1
Abaye said: The following [teaching] of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon disagrees with his father's and with the Rabbis'. For it was taught, R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: Wherever 'finger' Is stated in connection with receiving,2 if [the priest] varied the reception [of the blood],3 it is unfit; if the application, it is fit. And wherever 'finger' is stated in connection with the application, if he varied the application, it is unfit; if the reception, it is fit. And where is 'finger' stated in connection with the application? - For it is written, And thou shalt take of the blood of the bullock, and put it upon the horns of the altar with thy finger;4 and he holds: A text is interpreted with its precedent, but not with its ante-precedent, nor with what follows it. Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name:5 Wherever 'finger' and 'priesthood' are stated. they refer to the right only. It was assumed that we require both, as it is written. And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering with his finger;6 and it is learnt from a leper, where it is written, And the priest shall dip his right finger.7 But surely 'priesthood' alone is written in connection with the taking of the fistful [of flour] yet we learnt: If [the priest] took the handful with his left [hand], is it unfit? - Said Raba: [He meant] either 'finger' or 'priesthood'. Said Abaye to him: Yet 'priesthood' is written in connection with the carrying of the limbs to the [altar] ascent, as it is written, And the priest shall offer the whole, and make it smoke on the altar,8 and a master said: This refers to the carrying of the limbs to the ascent; yet we learnt: [The priest carries] the right foot [of the sacrifice] in his left hand with the inside of the skin outward? - When do we say [that] either 'finger' or priesthood' [implies the right], only in respect of [a service] which is indispensable to atonement, as in the case of a leper.9 But priesthood is written in connection with receiving, which is indispensable to atonement, yet we learnt: IF HE RECEIVED [THE BLOOD] WITH HIS LEFT HAND, IT IS UNFIT; BUT R. SIMEON DECLARES IT FIT? - R. Simeon requires both.10 Does then R. Simeon require both? Surely it was taught. R. Simeon said: Wherever 'hand' is stated, it refers to the right only; [wherever] 'finger' [is stated], it refers to the right only? - [Where] 'finger' [is stated] he does not require 'priesthood', [but] where 'priesthood' [is stated], he does require 'finger'. Then what is the purpose of 'priesthood'?11 [To teach that they must be] in their priestly state.12
But 'priesthood' alone is written in connection with sprinkling, yet we learnt: IF HE SPRINKLED WITH HIS LEFT HAND, IT IS UNFIT, and R. Simeon does not disagree? - Said Abaye: He does disagree in a Baraitha, for it was taught: If [the priest] received with his left hand, it is unfit; but R. Simeon declares it fit. If he sprinkled with his left hand, it is unfit; but R. Simeon declares it fit.
Then as to what Raba said.[We draw an analogy of] hand' 'hand' in respect of taking the fistful; 'foot', 'foot', in respect of halizah; ear' 'ear' in respect of boring [the ear].13 - Why is this necessary [in respect of the fistful], seeing that it can be deduced from Rabbah b. Bar Hanah's [exegesis]? - One [is required] for the taking of the fistful, and the other for the sanctification of the fistful.14
____________________
(1) Simultaneously. R. Simeon holds that a text can be interpreted only with what follows; hence 'finger' refers to 'and he shall put', but not to 'and he shall take', which precedes. While the Rabbis hold that it goes with both.
(2) As in the present case. He holds that 'finger' here refers to the preceding 'and he shall take', as its literal meaning does imply.
(3) Receiving it with the left hand.
(4) Ex. XXIX, 12.
(5) Sh. M. reads: in the name of Resh Lakish.
(6) Lev. IV, 25.
(7) Ibid. XIV, 16.
(8) Ibid. I, 13.
(9) Whereas even if the limbs are not burnt at all, the efficacy of the sacrifice is unaffected.
(10) 'Finger' and 'priesthood'.
(11) In connection with receiving, seeing that it is already written that this must be done by the sons of Aaron.
(12) In their priestly vestments.
(13) V. Men. 9b and 10a. Raba refers to Lev. XIV, 14, which deals with a leper's purification: And the priest shall take of the blood of the guilt-offering, and the priest shall put it upon the tip of the right ear of him that is to be cleansed, and upon the thumb of his right hand, and upon the great toe of his right foot. Raba teaches that the 'right' is mentioned in these cases in order to teach that when 'hand', 'foot' and 'ear' are written in connection with the taking of the fistful, the ceremony of halizah (q.v. Glos; v. also Deut. XXV, 9) and the boring of the ear of a slave who refuses to accept his freedom (v. Ex XXI, 5f) respectively, the right is meant in each case.
(14) The fistful was sanctified by being placed in a service vessel. We now learn that while this is done the vessel must be held in the right hand.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 25a
But according to R. Simeon, who does not require the sanctification of the fistful [at all], or on the view that R. Simeon does indeed require the sanctification of the fistful, yet he certainly holds that it is fit if done with the left,1 what is the purpose of Raba's [analogy of] 'hand', 'hand'? If in respect of the actual taking of the fistful, that is deduced from Rab Judah the son of R. Hiyya's [teaching]. For Rab Judah the son of R. Hiyya said, What is R. Simeon's reason? Scripture saith. It is most holy, as the sin-offering, and as the guilt-offering:2 [this teaches:] If [the priest] comes to perform its service with his hand, he does so with the right hand, as in the case of a sin-offering; [if he comes] to perform the service with a vessel, he may do so with the left hand, as in the case of the guilt-offering?3 - It is necessary only in respect of [a priest] who takes the fistful of a sinner's meal-offering: You might think, since R. Simeon said, [The reason is] that his sacrifice should not be adorned,4 let it be fit too even if [the priest] takes the fistful with his left hand. Therefore [the text] informs us [that it is not so].
MISHNAH. IF THE BLOOD WAS POURED OUT ON TO THE PAVEMENT5 AND [THE PRIEST] COLLECTED IT, IT IS FIT.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: And the anointed priest shall take of the blood of the bullock:6 [this means,] of the life blood, but not of the blood of the skin or of the draining blood;7 'of the blood of the bullock' [implies,] he is to receive the blood [direct] from the bullock.8 For if you think that 'of the blood of the bullock' [is meant literally] as it is written, [viz.,] of the blood [indicating] even a portion of the blood [only], Surely Rab said: He who slaughters [the sacrifice] must receive all the blood of the bullock, for it says, And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out.9 Hence 'from the blood of the bullock' means, he is to receive the blood [direct] from the bullock; for [the author of this exegesis] holds: You subtract, add, and interpret.10
The [above] text [stated]: Rab said: He who slaughters [the sacrifice] must receive all the blood of the bullock, for it says, 'And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out'. But surely this is written of the remainder [of the blood]?11 - Since it is inapplicable to the remainder, for all the blood is not available [at the time],12 apply it to receiving.
Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: He who slaughters must raise the knife upwards.13 for it is said, 'And he shall take of the blood of the bullock,' but not of the blood of the bullock plus something else. And with what does he wipe the knife? - Said Abaye: With the edge of the bowl,14 as it is written, Wipers [cleaners] of gold.15
R. Hisda said in the name of R. Jeremiah b. Abba: He who slaughters must let
____________________
(1) For it is no worse than sprinkling, and in fact corresponds to it.
(2) Lev. VI, 10.
(3) V. supra 11a.
(4) A sinner's meal-offering has no oil or incense, and R. Simeon states the reason because it is unfitting that a sinner's offering should be given the same adornment as another sacrifice.
(5) Straight from the animal's neck.
(6) Lev. IV, 5.
(7) The life blood is the first blood that gushes out; the draining blood is that which follows.
(8) And not permit it to pour on to the pavement first; if he does, it is unfit.
(9) Ibid. 7.
(10) You may subtract a letter from one word and add it to another, where the context warrants it, and then interpret the text in accordance with this alteration. Thus here the partitive מ ('of' or 'from') is removed from מדם blood, and added to הפר the bullock, so that it reads: and he shall take the (not, of the) blood from the bullock.
(11) It refers to the pouring out of the remainder, and not to receiving at all.
(12) As some of it has already been sprinkled on the horns of the altar.
(13) So that none of the blood on the knife runs into the bowl.
(14) Taking care that the blood does not flow into it.
(15) Ezra 1, 10; E.V. bowls of gold. Abaye connects the Heb. kefore with kapper, to wipe away (whence its general meaning of to atone or forgive).
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 25b
[the blood of] the jugular veins1 run [straight] into the vessel. It was stated likewise: R. Assi said in R. Johanan's name: The jugular veins must see the air-space of the vessel.2 R. Assi asked R. Johanan: What if one was receiving, and the bottom of the bowl split before the blood reached the air-space? is [an object in] the air, where it will not eventually come to rest, regarded as at rest, or not?3 - Said he to him, We have learnt it: If a barrel lies beneath a spout, the water inside it and outside it is unfit; if one joined its mouth to the spout, the water inside it is fit, and the water outside it is unfit.4 How now! He asked him about [an object in] the air, where it will not eventually come to rest, and he answered him about [an object in] the air where it will eventually come to rest?5 - He asked him two [questions]: should you say that [an object in] the air where it will not eventually come to rest is not regarded as at rest, how about [an object in] the air where it will eventually come to rest?6 That is how R. Joseph recited it. R. Kahana recited it that he asked him about a barrel,7 and he answered him about a barrel. Rabbah recited it that he asked him about a barrel, and he solved [it] for him [from the case of] a bowl; [arguing thus,] do you not agree that in the case of the bowl, sprinkling [of blood] is unavoidable?8
We learnt elsewhere: If one places [there] one's hand or foot or vegetables leaves, in order that the water should flow into the barrel, it [the water] is unfit.9 [If one placed there] leaves of canes or leaves of nuts, it is fit. This is the general rule: [If the water is conducted into the barrel by means of] anything which can become unclean, it is unfit; [by means of] anything which cannot become unclean, it is fit.10 How do we know it? - Because R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Jose b. Abba: Scripture saith, Nevertheless a fountain or a cistern wherein is a gathering of water shall be clean:11 its existence must be [effected] through purity.12 R. Hiyya said in R. Johanan's name: This proves that the air-space of a vessel is as the vessel [itself].13 Said R. Zera to R. Hiyya b. Abba: But perhaps It refers to a direct run [into the barrel]? - Fool! replied he: we learnt, 'So that the water shall flow into the barrel.'14 R. Hiyya b. Abba also said in R. Johanan's name: This Mishnah was taught on the testimony of R. Zadok. For we learnt: R. Zadok testified15 that running water which is assembled by means of nut leaves is fit. There was such a case in Ahaliyya,16 which was referred to the Sages in the Chamber of Hewn Stone,17 and they declared it fit.
R. Zera said in the name of Rab:18 If [the priest] slits the [sacrificial] bullock's ear and then receives its blood,19 it is unfit, for it is said: And [the anointed priest] shall take of the blood of the bullock:20 [this implies:] the bullock as it was before.21 We have thus found [this law true of] sacrifices of higher sanctity;22 how do we know [it of] sacrifices of lower sanctity? - Said Raba, it was taught: Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year:23 [this teaches] that it must be without a blemish and a year old when it is slaughtered. How do we know [that it must be likewise] at the receiving [of the blood], the carrying, and the sprinkling? Because it says, 'it shall be', [teaching that] at all its stages [as a sacrifice] it must be without blemish and a year old.
Abaye raised an objection to him: R. Joshua said: [In the case of] all sacrifices prescribed in the Torah whereof as much as an olive of flesh or fat remained,24 [the priest] sprinkles the blood? - Relate this to [the provision that it must be] a year old.25 Yet is it possible for it to be a year old at the slaughtering, yet two years old26 at the carrying and sprinkling? - Said Raba: This proves that [even] hours disqualify in the case of sacrifices.27
R. Ammi said in R. Eleazar's name: [In the case of the animal] being within [the Temple court] while its legs were without, if he cut off its legs and then slaughtered it, it is fit;28
____________________
(1) Lit. 'must place the jugular veins'.
(2) I.e., they must be directly over the receiving vessel, so that the blood pours straight into it.
(3) Here the blood is over the air-space of the receiving vessel. Yet it will not remain in the vessel when it falls into it. Do we nevertheless regard that blood as though it had actually been caught in the vessel and then spilled, in which case it can be collected and is fit, or as though it had poured from the animal's throat on to the ground, so that it is unfit?
(4) This treats of the water which was mixed with the ashes of the red heifer for lustration:this had to be 'living' (i.e., running) water, v. Num. XIX, 17: And for the unclean they shall take of the ashes of the burning of the purification from sin, and running (lit., 'living') water shall be put thereto in a vessel. In the present case water is running down a spout or channel, and below that spout, and at some distance from it, lies a barrel, which was not placed there in order to receive the water. If one now takes a vessel and holds it within the air-space of the barrel, or above the mouth of the barrel ('outside') and catches that water, it is unfit. Because had it been permitted to come to rest in the barrel it would have ceased to be running water; and so now too it lacks that status. Again, if the mouth of the barrel is flush with the spout, and one holds the vessel inside its air-space, the water thus gathered is unfit. If however one holds the vessel immediately beneath the spout, the water thus collected is fit, because it never entered the air-space within the barrel. (In general, in order for the water to be fit it must be collected directly as it runs in a service vessel specially placed there for that purpose.) - From this passage we see that once an object enters the air-space it is regarded as at rest.
(5) The water would normally enter the barrel and remain there.
(6) And he solved for him the latter question.
(7) Viz., this very law that has just been stated, of which he was ignorant.
(8) Some of the blood must spout through the air into the bowl. Now if an object in the air is not regarded as already at rest, then the blood has entered the bowl and not directly from the animal's throat but from the air, and should be unfit.
(9) Water was running down from a hillside, and one placed his hand etc. in order to direct it into a barrel, which had been placed there for the purpose of collecting the water. The water so collected is unfit for lustration; v. Parah VI, 4.
(10) A person's hand can become unclean; similarly vegetable leaves, if they are edible.
(11) Lev. XI, 36.
(12) Water must be collected for ritual cleansing purposes through an object which is itself clean, i.e., which cannot become unclean.
(13) When the water flows over the hand, it does not fall directly into the barrel but first spreads out over the air-space above it. If that airspace were not as the barrel itself, the water would be regarded as falling from the air into the barrel, not from the hand, and so would be fit.
(14) The Hebrew' does not imply to fall directly into it.
(15) V. 'Ed. Sonc. ed. pp. IX and XI.
(16) Horowitz, Palestine, p. 22, identifies it with Bait Ilu, near Jerusalem.
(17) In the inner court of the Temple, where the great Sanhedrim sat. V. also J.E. XII, 576.
(18) So Bek. 39b. Cur. edd. Rabbi.
(19) From the throat, in the usual way. He slit the ear immediately after slaughtering it, so that between the slaughtering and the reception of the blood it was a blemished animal.
(20) Lev. IV, 5.
(21) It must be in the same state when the priest receives the blood as it was before, viz unblemished.
(22) Such as the sin-offering, to which this text refers.
(23) Ex. XII, 5. This refers to the Passover-offering, which was a sacrifice of lower sanctity.
(24) By the time of sprinkling, the rest having been lost or defiled. There can be no greater blemish than this.
(25) At all its stages as a sacrifice it must be a year old, but it need not be without a blemish at all its stages.
(26) I.e., more than a year old.
(27) The age of a sacrifice is calculated exactly from the moment of birth, and even the least excess ('hours' means any short period, even minutes) disqualifies the animal. Thus it may reach the age limit at the moment of slaughtering and exceed it a moment afterwards.
(28) If the blood of a sacrifice passes without the Temple court before it is sprinkled, it is unfit. In this case, if one cut off the legs first, the blood that passed out (sc. that contained in the legs) did not mingle with that which remained within.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 26a
if he slaughtered and then cut off [the legs], it is unfit.1 'If he cut off [the legs] and then slaughtered [it], it is fit'? Surely he offers a blemished animal! - Say rather: if he cut off [the legs] and then received [the blood], it is fit; if he received [the blood] and then cut off [the legs] it is unfit. 'If he cut off [the legs] and then received [the blood] it is fit'? Surely R. Zera said: if one slits the ear of a firstling2 and then receives its blood, it is unfit, because it says. 'And he shall take of the blood of the bullock', [implying,] the bullock as it was originally! - Said R. Hisda in Abimi's name: He cuts the limb as far as the bone.3 'If he received [the blood] and then cut, it is unfit': from this you may infer that the blood which is absorbed in the limbs is blood?4 - [No:] perhaps [the unfitness is] on account of the fattiness.5 Then you may infer from this that if the flesh of sacrifices of lower sanctity passes out [from the Temple court] before the sprinkling of the blood, it is unfit?6 - [No:] perhaps [R. Ammi in R. Eleazar's name] referred to sacrifices of higher sanctity.
Our Rabbis taught: Sacrifices of higher sanctity are slaughtered on the north [side of the Temple court], and their blood is received on the north in service vessels. If he stood in the south, stretched out his hand to the north and slaughtered, his slaughtering is valid; if he [thus] received [the blood], his reception is invalid. If he projected his head and the greater part of his body [into the north side].7 it is as though he had entered [the north] entirely. If [the animal] struggled and passed over into the south8 and then returned, it is fit.9 Sacrifices of lower sanctity are slaughtered [anywhere] within [the Temple court], and their blood is received in a service vessel within. If he stood without and stretched his hand within and slaughtered, his slaughtering is valid; if he received [the blood thus], his reception is invalid. If he projected his head and the greater part of his body within, he is not regarded as having entered. If it struggled8 and went without and returned, it is unfit. This proves that sacrifices of lower sanctity whose flesh went without before the sprinkling of the blood are unfit! - [No:] perhaps this refers to the fat-tail, the lobe above the liver, and the two kidneys.10
Samuel's father asked Samuel: What if it [the animal] is within, while its feet are without?11 - It is written, Even that they may bring them unto the Lord,12 he replied, [which intimates] that the whole of it must be within. What if one suspended13 [the animal] and slaughtered it? It is valid, he replied. You have erred, he observed, for the slaughtering must be 'on the side' [of the altar],14 which provision is unfulfilled.15 What if [the slaughterer] was suspended and slaughtered [thus]?16 - It is invalid, he replied.17 You have erred, said he; the slaughtering must be 'on the side' but the slaughterer need not be 'on the side'. What if he suspended himself and received [the blood]? It is valid, he replied.18 You have erred, observed he, for such is not the way of service.19 What if he suspended [the sacrifice]20 and received [the blood]? - It is invalid, he answered. You have erred, he retorted: slaughtering must be 'on the side', but receiving need not be 'on the side'.
Abaye said: In the case of sacrifices of higher sanctity21 they are all invalid, except where he suspended himself and slaughtered.22 In the case of sacrifices of lower sanctity, they are all valid, except where he suspended himself and received [the blood].23 Said Raba: Why do you say that if he suspended [the animal] and received the blood it is valid in the case of sacrifices of lower sanctity? [Presumably] because the air-space of within is as within! Then in the case of sacrifices of higher sanctity too, the air-space of the north is as the north? - Rather said Raba: In the case of sacrifices of both higher and lower sanctity they are [all] valid, except in the case of sacrifices of higher sanctity, where he suspended [the animal] and slaughtered it,24 and in the cases of sacrifices of both higher and lower sanctity, where he suspended himself and received [the blood].
R. Jeremiah asked R. Zera: What if he [the priest] is within and his locks [of hair] are without? - Said he to him, Have you not said that 'even that they may bring them unto the Lord' intimates that the whole of it [the animal] must come within? So here too, when they go in unto the tent of meeting25 intimates, that the whole of him must enter the tent of meeting.
MISHNAH. IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED IT [THE BLOOD] ON THE ASCENT,26 [OR ON THE ALTAR, BUT] NOT OVER AGAINST ITS BASE;27 IF HE APPLIED [THE BLOOD] WHICH SHOULD BE APPLIED BELOW [THE SCARLET LINE] ABOVE [IT]. OR THAT WHICH SHOULD BE APPLIED ABOVE, BELOW;28 OR THAT WHICH SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHIN [HE APPLIED] WITHOUT, OR WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHOUT [HE APPLIED] WITHIN,29 IT IS UNFIT, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.30
____________________
(1) Because immediately it is slaughtered the blood of the legs is unfit (v. preceding note). and this is naturally mingled with the rest of the blood.
(2) Which was offered as a sacrifice. On 25b the text has 'bullock' instead of 'firstling'.
(3) This does not constitute a blemish, and at the same time the cut prevents the blood below it, which is without the Temple court, from ascending and mingling with the blood above, which is within.
(4) So that kareth (q.v. Glos.) is incurred for its consumption. For if it did not rank as blood whilst absorbed in the limb (cf. Hul. 113a), it could not disqualify the other blood which is received and sprinkled.
(5) Which is absorbed in the blood. This fattiness counts as flesh, and it ascends and mingles with the blood which pours out from the neck and thus disqualifies it.
(6) Though it would certainly be carried out after the sprinkling, since it may be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem.
(7) He was standing almost in the middle of the court, on its south side, but so near to the line dividing north and south that he could easily stretch over to the other side.
(8) After being slaughtered.
(9) Because the disqualification of going out applies only to going out of the Temple.
(10) These were burnt on the altar, and therefore although part of sacrifices of lower sanctity they ranked as sacrifices of higher sanctity.
(11) May it be slaughtered thus at the outset?
(12) Lev. XVII, 5.
(13) In the air-space of the Temple court.
(14) Ibid. I, 11.
(15) 'On the side' implies on the ground.
(16) The animal being on the ground.
(17) Thinking that the two were analogous.
(18) Again thinking it analogous to the former.
(19) But slaughtering is not really part of the (priestly) service, since it may be performed by a zar.
(20) After having slaughtered it.
(21) In connection with which 'on the side' is stated.
(22) Because 'on the side' is written of the animal, but not of the slaughterer. Again, the blood must be received in the north, and he holds that the air-space of the north is not the north itself. Hence if he suspended himself and received the blood it is invalid.
(23) Here neither 'north' nor 'on the side' is mentioned. Therefore only the exception is invalid, because that is not the way of service.
(24) For the reason stated above.
(25) Ex. XXVIII, 43.
(26) Leading to the altar, instead of on the altar.
(27) The blood was to be sprinkled over against the base of the altar, which means on a side provided with a foundation. This excludes the south-east corner, which had no base (infra 53a).
(28) A scarlet line ran round the sides of the altar: some blood was to be applied above, and some below.
(29) 'Within' means on the inner altar; 'without', on the outer altar.
(30) For the eating of its flesh.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 26b
GEMARA. Samuel said: It is the flesh that is unfit, but its owners are forgiven.1 What is the reason? - Because Scripture saith, And I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement:2 once the blood has reached the altar, the owners are forgiven. If so, the flesh too [should be fit]? - Scripture saith, 'to make atonement': I have given it for atonement, but not for any other purpose.3
Now this proves that he holds that [when blood is] not [applied] In its [proper] place, it is as [though applied] in its [proper] place.4 Now we learned in another chapter: If [the priest] applied it [the blood] on the ascent, [or on the altar, but] not over against its base; if he applied [the blood] which should be applied below [the scarlet line] above [it], or that which should be applied above, below; or that which should be applied within [he applied] without, or what should be applied without [he applied] within: then if lifeblood5 is still available, a fit [priest] must receive [it] a second time.6 Now if you maintain that [when blood is] not [applied] in its [proper place], it is as though [applied] in its [proper] place, why must a fit [priest] receive [it] again? And should you answer, In order to permit the flesh for consumption; is there a sprinkling which makes no atonement yet permits the consumption of the flesh?7 - Had a fit [priest] applied it [in the first place], that would indeed be so;8 the circumstances here are that an unfit [priest] applied it [in the first place].9 But let it constitute [complete] rejection.10 For we learnt: But if any of these11 received [the blood, intending to consume the flesh] after time or without bounds, and the life blood is [still] available, a fit [priest] must receive [it] a second time.12 Thus, only if they received [the blood with that intention], but not if they sprinkled [it thus];13 what is the reason? is it not because this effects [complete] rejection? - No: the reason is because it became unfit through an [illegitimate] intention. If so [the same should apply to] receiving? Moreover, does an [illegitimate] intention14 disqualify it? Surely Raba said: An [illegitimate] intention is without effect save [when purposed] by one who is fit for the service and in connection with that which is fit for the service,15 and in a place fit for the service!16 - Do not say, but not if they sprinkled it [thus]; 'say rather, but not if they slaughtered it [thus]?17 What does he inform us? that an [illegitimate] intention disqualifies? But we have learnt it: Therefore they18 invalidate [the sacrifice] by an [illegitimate] intention [purposed at slaughtering]?19 - This is what we are informed,20 viz., that from receiving and onwards intention [on the part of an unfit priest] does not invalidate. What is the reason? As [that stated] by Raba.
An objection is raised: If [the priest] intends applying [the blood] which should be applied above [the line] below [it], [or what should be applied] below, above, immediately.21 it is valid.22 If he subsequently intended
____________________
(1) They have fulfilled their obligation, and do not bring another offering.
(2) Lev. XVII, 11.
(3) Only in respect of atonement does Scripture intimate that the application of the blood on any part of the altar (since 'altar' is not further localised) is efficacious. But the fitness of the flesh is governed by its own peculiar laws.
(4) As far as the fitness of the flesh for consumption is concerned.
(5) The first blood which gushes out as the animal is slaughtered.
(6) For re-sprinkling. v. infra 32a.
(7) For this second sprinkling does not make atonement, since that was already effected by the first.
(8) No further application would be necessary.
(9) Hence the second application is needed even for making atonement.
(10) Since blood not applied in its proper place is as though applied in its proper place, then if an unfit priest does this it is as though he applied it in the proper place, which it is now assumed definitely invalidates the sacrifice, and it cannot be repaired.
(11) Sc. all who are unfit for any reason.
(12) Infra 32a.
(13) In which case there would be no remedy.
(14) On the part of an unfit priest.
(15) E.g., a meal-offering of wheat. This excludes the meal-offering of barley brought in connection with the 'omer (q.v. Glos.), since barley was unfit for other meal-offerings.
(16) This excludes the case where the altar itself was mutilated.
(17) Because since even unfit priests are fit to slaughter (as are lay-Israelites too), their illegitimate intention disqualifies.
(18) Persons unfit to slaughter.
(19) Infra 31b.
(20) By stating 'if any of these received the blood etc.'
(21) He intended applying it thus in the wrong place on the day of slaughtering, which is the proper time.
(22) If he eventually sprinkled the blood in the right place, for this illegitimate intention does not disqualify, v. Mishnah infra 36a.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 27a
[to consume it] without bounds, it is invalid, but does not involve kareth;1 [if he intended consuming it] after time, it is invalid, and entails kareth. [If he intended sprinkling the blood in the wrong place] on the morrow, it is invalid; if he subsequently intended [to consume it] without bounds or after time, it is invalid, and does not involve kareth.2 Now if you say that [blood] not [applied] in its [proper] place [on the altar] is as [though applied] in its [proper] place, is this [merely] invalid? Surely it is piggul!3 - Said Mar Zutra: Sprinkling which permits the consumption of the flesh can render [it] piggul; sprinkling which does not permit the consumption of the flesh4 does not render [it] piggul.5 R. Ashi said to Mar Zutra: Whence do you know this? [Assuredly] because it is written, And if any of the flesh of his peace-offerings be at all eaten on the third day . . . it shall be piggul [an abhorred thing, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity:]6 [thus kareth is incurred] only where piggul causes [the prohibition of the flesh], which excludes this case,7 where not piggul causes it but a different interdict is the cause. If so,8 it should not be disqualified either? - Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: It is analogous to the intention of leaving [the blood] until the morrow, this being in accordance with R. Judah.9
Resh Lakish said: In truth, [the Mishnah means] UNFIT literally.10 and [blood] not [applied] in its [proper] place is as [though applied in] its [proper] place,11 yet there is no difficulty:12 in one case he applied it in silence; in the other he applied it with an expressed intention.13 We learnt: If he intended applying above [the line] what should be applied below [it], or below what should be applied above [etc.] as far as 'It is analogous to the intention of leaving [the blood] until the morrow, this being in accordance with R.Judah.'14
R. Johanan said: Both cases15 are where he sprinkles it in silence, and the wrong place is not as the right place; but the one is where life-blood is [still] available, while the other is where life-blood is not available.
We learnt: IT IS UNFIT, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. As for Resh Lakish, it is well: he rightly teaches. IT IS UNFIT, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.16 But according to R. Johanan, why teach that it DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH?17 This is a difficulty. And according to Samuel, what is meant by IT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH?18 - This is what [the Tanna] means: If he sprinkled [it thus] with an [illegitimate] intention, IT IS UNFIT, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.
Now as for R. Johanan, if the wrong place [on the altar] is not as the right place,19 let it be as though [the blood] had been spilt from the [service] vessel on to the pavement, and so let him collect it?20 - He agrees with the view that it must not be gathered. For R. Isaac b. Joseph said in R. Johanan's name: All agree, if [the priest] sprinkled the blood above which should be sprinkled above, or below which should be sprinkled below, but not in accordance with the regulations.21 that he must not re-gather it.22 They disagree only where he sprinkled below what should be sprinkled above, or above what should be sprinkled below: there R. Jose holds, He must not re-gather it; while R. Simeon maintains, He must re-gather it;
____________________
(1) For eating it.
(2) Since it was already invalid through the first, a second illegitimate intention does not render it piggul.
(3) How can you say that if he intended applying it in the wrong place on the morrow it is only invalid? On the present hypothesis it is the same as though he had intended applying it in the right place on the morrow, and that should render it piggul. For the sprinkling of the blood on the altar constitutes, as it were, the altar's consumption, and just as an intention to consume the flesh after time makes it piggul, so should a similar intention to sprinkle the blood make it piggul!
(4) Where the blood is not sprinkled in its proper place.
(5) And, as Samuel stated, if the blood is not sprinkled on the proper place on the altar the flesh may not be eaten, though the sacrifice has made atonement.
(6) Lev. VII, 18; 'shall bear his iniquity' implies kareth.
(7) Sc. where the blood is not sprinkled in the proper place.
(8) That it does not constitute sprinkling in respect of an illegitimate intention.
(9) Who holds that the sacrifice then becomes invalid (infra 36a). In intending to sprinkle the blood in the wrong place on the morrow, he has also tacitly expressed his intention of leaving the blood until the morrow.
(10) Not only is the flesh unfit, but the whole sacrifice is invalid. He thus disagrees with Samuel.
(11) In this he agrees with Samuel.
(12) Caused by the text quoted by Samuel.
(13) The text adduced by Samuel, which intimates that the owners are forgiven, holds good where the priest sprinkled the blood in the wrong place, with no unlawful intention attending the sprinkling. While the Mishnah which states UNFIT, implying that the owners are not forgiven either, holds good where in addition to sprinkling it in the wrong place he intended consuming the flesh after time; and the Mishnah thus teaches that in such a case the sacrifice is unfit, but not piggul, since the sprinkling which was not in its proper place did not permit the consumption of the flesh.
(14) All the objections raised against Samuel are raised against Resh Lakish, since he too holds that the wrong place is as the right place.
(15) Our Mishnah which simply states that it is unfit, and the Mishnah in the next chapter, quoted supra 26b, which teaches that the blood must be re-sprinkled.
(16) He explains the Mishnah as referring to one who expressed an illegitimate intention. Therefore the Tanna must teach that kareth is not incurred in spite of this illegitimate intention.
(17) It is obvious that he does not incur kareth simply for sprinkling the blood in a wrong place.
(18) For he too explains the Mishnah as referring to where the priest is silent.
(19) So that it does not count as sprinkling at all.
(20) And re-sprinkle.
(21) E.g., with his left hand or with an illegitimate intention.
(22) For re-sprinkling. For since it was sprinkled in the proper place, there can be no further sprinkling
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 27b
and our Mishnah agrees with the view that he must not re-gather it: But R. Hisda said in Abimi's name: All agree, if he sprinkled below what should be sprinkled above, that he does not re-gather it, and all the more if he sprinkled above what should be sprinkled below, since the blood above runs down below.1 They disagree only where he sprinkled without what should be sprinkled within, or within what should be sprinkled without.2 R. Jose holds, He must not re-gather it, and R. Simeon rules: He must re-gather it.
R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We have also learnt to the same effect. R. Judah said: [This is the law of the burnt-offering:] it is that which goeth up [on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning]:3 here you have three limitations: It excludes [an animal] slaughtered at night; it excludes [an animal] whose blood was spilt; and it excludes [an animal] whose blood was carried out beyond the hangings: if any one [of these] ascended [the altar], it descends.4 R. Simeon said: 'Burnt-offering': I only know [this] of a fit burnt-offering;5 whence do I know to include one which was slaughtered at night, or whose blood was spilt, or whose blood passed without the hangings, or who[se flesh] spent the night [away from the altar], or who[se flesh] went out, or the unclean, or which was slaughtered [with the intention of burning its flesh] after time or without bounds, or whose blood was received and sprinkled by unfit [priests]; or whose blood was applied below [the scarlet line] when it should have been applied above, or above when it should have been applied below, or without when it should have been applied within, or within when it should have been applied without; or a Passover-offering or a sin-offering which one slaughtered for a different purpose,6 - whence do we know [to include all these]? From the phrase, 'the law of the burnt-offering,' which intimates one law for all burnt-offerings, [viz.,:] that if they ascended, they do not descend. You might think that I include also a roba' and a nirba', '7 one set aside [for an idolatrous sacrifice] or worshipped; a [harlot's] hire or the price [of a dog].8 or a hybrid, or a trefah, or an animal calved through the cesarean section? The text however states 'it is that'.9 And why do you include the former and exclude the latter? I include the former, because their disqualification arose in the sanctuary, while I exclude the latter whose disqualification did not arise In the sanctuary. At all events, he teaches [the cases where] one sprinkled below what should be sprinkled above, or above what should be sprinkled below, and R. Judah does not disagree. What is the reason? Is it not because the altar has received it?10 which proves that one cannot re-gather it.
R. Eleazar said: The inner altar sanctifies the unfit.11 What does he inform us: We have learnt it: 'that which should be applied within' etc.? - If [I drew my information] from there [only], I would say that it applies only to blood, which is eligible for it;12 but [if one threw] the fistful [of flour on the inner altar], which is not eligible for it at all,13 I would say that it is not so. Hence he informs us [otherwise].14
An objection is raised: If strange incense15 ascended the altar, it must descend, because only the outer altar sanctifies the unfit, in the case of such as are [otherwise] eligible for it.16 Thus, only the outer one, but not the inner one? - Answer it thus: If strange incense ascended the altar, it must descend, for the outer altar does not sanctify the unfit save in the case of what is [otherwise] eligible for it; but the inner [altar sanctifies] both what is eligible and what is not eligible for it. What is the reason? One [the outer altar] is [but as the] pavement,17 while the other [the inner altar] is a service vessel.18
MISHNAH. IF ONE SLAUGHTERS THE SACRIFICE [INTENDING] TO SPRINKLE ITS BLOOD WITHOUT. OR PART OF ITS BLOOD WITHOUT; TO BURN ITS EMURIM19 OR PART OF ITS EMURIM WITHOUT; TO EAT ITS FLESH OR AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF ITS FLESH WITHOUT, OR TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF THE SKIN OF THE FAT-TAIL20 WITHOUT. IT IS UNFIT, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.21 [IF HE SLAUGHTERS IT, INTENDING] TO SPRINKLE ITS BLOOD OR PART OF ITS BLOOD ON THE MORROW, TO BURN ITS EMURIM OR PART OF ITS EMURIM ON THE MORROW, TO EAT ITS FLESH OR AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF ITS FLESH ON THE MORROW, OR TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF THE SKIN OF ITS FAT-TAIL ON THE MORROW, IT IS PIGGUL, AND INVOLVES KARETH.22
GEMARA. Now it was thought that the skin of the fat-tail
____________________
(1) In any case; hence it is almost as though he sprinkled it below.
(2) 'Within' and 'without' means on the inner and the outer altars respectively.
(3) Lev. VI, 2.
(4) From the passage, 'which goeth up on its firewood upon the altar all night' the Rabbis deduce that once it ascends the altar it must not be taken down all night. But the three words in Hebrew which are rendered 'it is that which goeth up' are really superfluous, and therefore are interpreted as excluding three cases, as enumerated in the text, from the operation of this law.
(5) That if it goes up, it does not descend.
(6) Sc. as burnt-offerings.
(7) A male animal and a female animal respectively used for bestiality.
(8) Referring to Deut. XXIII, 19: Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow.
(9) Heb. zoth, a limitation excluding these.
(10) And thus sanctified it, in the sense that it cannot be collected for re-sprinkling.
(11) That if they ascend, they do not descend, though the Scriptural text refers only to the outer altar.
(12) For some blood, though that particular blood should not have been applied there.
(13) Flour is never burnt on the inner altar.
(14) That flour is not removed.
(15) The incense of a private and votive meal-offering. Scripture permits incense only at public sacrifices.
(16) V. infra 83b.
(17) It is an immovable unanointed erection of stone.
(18) It was moveable, and consecrated by anointing, like all other service vessels. Therefore its sanctity and sanctifying powers are greater.
(19) V. Glos.
(20) V. Gemara.
(21) Even if one actually eats it without.
(22) Even if one eats it in the proper time.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 28a
is as the fat-tail:1 [then the difficulty arises:] surely he intends for man what is for the altar's consumption?2 - Said Samuel, The author of this is R. Eliezer, who maintains that you can intend [with effect] for human consumption what is meant for the altar's consumption, and for the altar's consumption what is meant for human consumption.3 For we learnt: If one slaughters a sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten,4 or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burnt, it is fit;5 but R. Eliezer invalidates [the sacrifice].6 How have you explained it? as agreeing with R. Eliezer? Then consider the sequel:7 This is the general rule: Whoever slaughters, receives, carries, and sprinkles [intending] to eat what is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] what is normally burnt [after time etc.] . . . thus, only what is normally eaten, but not what is not normally eaten, which agrees with the Rabbis. Thus the first clause agrees with R. Eliezer and the final clause with the Rabbis? - Even so, he answered him.
R. Huna said: The skin of the fat-tail is not as the fat-tail.8 Rabbah observed. What is R. Huna's reason? - The fat thereof [is] the fat-tail [entire],9 but not the skin of the fat-tail.
R. Hisda said: In truth, the skin of the fat-tail is as the fat-tail, but we treat here [in the Mishnah] of the fat-tail of a goat.10
Now, all these [scholars] did not say as Samuel, [because] they would not make the first clause agree with R. Eliezer and the second clause with the Rabbis. They did not say as R. Huna, because they hold that the skin of the fat-tail is as the fat-tail. [But] why do they not say as R. Hisda? - Because what does [the Tanna of the Mishnah] inform us [on this view]? [Presumably] that the skin of the fat-tail is as the fat-tail!11 Surely we have learnt it: The skin of the following is as their flesh: the skin under the fat-tail?12 And R. Hisda?13 - It is necessary: You might think that only in respect of uncleanness does it combine, because it is soft;14 but as for here, I would say [Scripture writes] [Even all the hallowed things of the children of Israel unto thee have I given them] for a consecrated portion,15 which means, as a symbol of greatness,[so that they must be eaten] just as kings eat; and kings do not eat thus.16 [Hence] I would say [that it is] not [as the flesh]; therefore he informs us [that it is].
An objection is raised: if one slaughters a burnt-offering [intending] to burn17 as much as an olive of the skin under the fat-tail out of bounds, it is invalid, but does not involve kareth; after time, it is piggul, and involves kareth. Eleazar b. Judah of Avlas said on the authority of R. Jacob, and thus also did R. Simeon b. Judah of Kefar 'Iccum say on the authority of R. Simeon: The skin of the legs of small cattle, the skin of the head of a young calf, and the skin under the fat-tail, and all cases which the Sages enumerated of the skin being the same as the flesh, which includes the skin of the Pudenda: [if he intended eating or burning these] out of bounds [the sacrifice] is invalid, and does not involve kareth; after time, it is piggul, and involves kareth.18 Thus [this is taught] only [of] the burnt-offering.19 but not [of] a sacrifice.20 As for R. Huna, it is well; it is right that he specifies a burnt-offering.21 But according to R. Hisda,22 why does he particularly teach 'burnt-offering': let him teach 'sacrifice'? - R. Hisda can answer you: I can explain this as referring to the fat-tail of a goat;23 alternatively I can answer: Read 'sacrifice'.24
IT IS UNFIT, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH etc. Whence do we know it? - Said Samuel: Two texts are written. What are they? - Said Rabbah: [And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be at all eaten] on the third day: this refers to [an intention of eating the flesh] after time; it shall be piggul [an abhorred thing] refers to [an intention of eating the flesh] out of bounds; and the soul that eateth of it [shall bear his iniquity:]25 [only] one [involves kareth], but not two,26 viz., after time, and excluding out of bounds. Yet say that 'and the soul that eateth of it' refers to out of bounds, and excludes after time? - It is logical that after time is graver, since [Scripture] commences with it. On the contrary, out of bounds is more likely [to be meant] since it is near it?27 - Rather said Abaye: When R. Isaac b. Abdimi came,28 he said: Rabbah29 relies on what a Tanna taught. [Viz.;] When Scripture mentions the 'third [day]' in the pericope 'Ye shall be holy',30 which need not be stated, since it has already been said, And if any of the flesh of his sacrifices be at all eaten on the third day etc.;
____________________
(1) Even in respect of burning on the altar, so that in the case of lamb peace-offerings, the skin of the fat-tail, just as the fat-tail itself, is burnt on the altar 'entire' (v. Lev. III, 9).
(2) Which intention should not count at all.
(3) I.e., the intention counts.
(4) E.g., the emurim, which are burnt on the altar. He intended eating these after time or out of bounds.
(5) Because such an illegitimate intention concerning time or place does not count, seeing that the things could not be eaten or burnt at all.
(6) Infra 35a.
(7) The end of the present Mishnah, infra 29b.
(8) It is eaten, and not burnt on the altar. The difficulty therefore does not arise.
(9) Lev. III, 9.
(10) Which was not burnt on the altar; v. supra 9a.
(11) If the Mishnah treats of the fat-tail of a lamb, then on Samuel's interpretation we are informed that you can intend for human consumption what is meant for the altar's consumption; while on R. Huna's interpretation the Tanna informs us that the skin of the fat-tail is not as the fat-tail. But if it treats of the fat-tail of a goat, then the only thing that the Tanna can inform us is that its skin is regarded as itself in the sense that it is edible, because it is soft, and therefore counts as ordinary flesh.
(12) There must be at least as much as an olive of flesh before it can be defiled, and at least as much as the size of an egg before it can defile as nebelah (carrion. v. Lev. XI, 39f). If there is less than these standards, it can be made up by the skin under the fat-tail (Hul. 122a). Thus this teaches that this skin is as the fat-tail itself, and so the present teaching on R. Hisda's interpretation is superfluous.
(13) How does he answer this?
(14) And edible.
(15) Num. XVIII, 8.
(16) Though the skin is edible, yet kings would not eat it.
(17) Heb. להקטיר which generally refers to the burning of these parts (the emurim) which are always burnt on the altar, even in the case of peace-offerings.
(18) V. Hul. (Sonc. ed.) 132a, q.v. notes.
(19) Only there does an illegitimate intention in respect of the skin of the fat-tail disqualify the sacrifice, since the whole sacrifice is burnt.
(20) Unspecified, which would include peace-offerings.
(21) According to R. Huna, Scripture definitely teaches that the skin of the fat-tail is not counted as emurim. But there is no such teaching in respect of a burnt-offering: hence the present ruling can apply to a burnt-offering but not to other sacrifices.
(22) Who maintains that the skin of the fat-tail of all sacrifices is burnt along with it as emurim.
(23) In which case the reference is to an intention of eating it out of bounds or after time, not to burning it on the altar.
(24) Instead of burnt-offering.
(25) Lev. VII, 18; 'shall bear his iniquity' means that he incurs kareth.
(26) This follows from the sing. 'it'.
(27) The word mimennu, ('of it'), is in immediate proximity to the word piggul, which on the present exegesis extends the law to eating out of bounds.
(28) From Palestine to Babylon.
(29) Emended text. Printed edd: Rab.
(30) This is the name of the pericope or weekly reading commencing with Lev. XIX, 1. The verse alluded to is: And if it (the flesh of a sacrifice) be eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul (a vile thing); it shall not be accepted.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 28b
- if it is superfluous in respect of after time, apply it to out of bounds.1 and the Divine Law expresses a limitation in connection with nothar:2 But every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, which excludes [eating or intending to eat] out of bounds. Yet say that 'but every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity' refers to out of bounds, and thus excludes nothar from kareth? - It is logical that nothar must be made to involve kareth, so that the meaning of 'iniquity', where it refers to [the intention of] eating after time, may be learned by analogy, since it is similar thereto in respect of Zab.3 On the contrary, [eating] without bounds should be made to involve kareth, so that the meaning of 'iniquity', where it refers to [the intention of] eating after time, may be learned by analogy, since it is similar thereto in respect of Mikdash?4 Rather said R. Johanan, Zabdi b. Levi taught: Kodesh is learned from kodesh. Here is written, Because he hath profaned the kodesh [holy thing] of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from the people;5 and it is written elsewhere, [And if ought of the flesh of the consecration, or of the bread, remain unto the morning,] then thou shalt burn the nothar [remainder] with fire,' it shall not be eaten, because it is kodesh [holy]:6 just as there, [kodesh is connected with] nothar, so here too [it is connected with] nothar, and the Divine Law expresses a limitation in connection with nothar: But every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, which excludes without bounds from kareth. And why do you interpret the long text7 as referring to after time, and 'third' in the pericope 'Ye shall be holy' as referring to without bounds; perhaps I may reverse it?8 - It is logical that the long text refers to after time, since the meaning of 'iniquity' is learned by analogy from nothar, and [after time] is similar thereto in respect of Zab. On the contrary, [say that ] the long text refers to without bounds, and 'third' in 'Ye shall be holy' refers to after time: because it is similar thereto [Scripture] places it close by and excludes it?9 - Rather said Raba: The whole is deduced from the long text. For it is written, '[But if any of the flesh be] at all eaten':10 Scripture refers to two eatings, viz., eating by man and eating by the altar.11 'Of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings': as [parts of] the peace-offerings render piggul, and parts are rendered piggul, so [in sacrifices where there are parts which] render piggul and [parts which] are made piggul [the law of piggul applies].12 'Third' means after time. 'It shall not be accepted': as the acceptance of the valid [sacrifice], so is the acceptance of the invalid. And as the acceptance of the valid necessitates that all its mattirin be offered, so does the acceptance of the invalid necessitate that all its mattirin be offered.13 'Him that offereth': it becomes unfit in offering, but does not become unfit through [being eaten on] the third [day].14 'It': Scripture speaks of the sacrifice, and not of the priest.15 'It shall not be imputed':
____________________
(1) While piggul mentioned in Lev. VII, 18 will definitely refer to the intention of eating after time, to which the whole verse is now understood to refer.
(2) V. Glos.
(3) Zab is a mnemonic, standing for zeman, (time) and bamah, (high place). - In both texts, viz., Lev. VII, 18 and Lev. XIX, 8 Scripture states that he who eats it 'shall bear his iniquity'; the meaning of 'iniquity is further clarified in the latter text by the addition, 'and that soul shall be cut off from his people', i.e., kareth. Now, on the present exegesis this latter verse may refer either to nothar or to eating without bounds, while the former text (Lev. VII, 18) definitely refers to the eating of the flesh before it is actually nothar and within bounds, after the illegitimate intention of eating it after time. Now, if the punishment of kareth in Lev. XIX, 8 is made to refer to nothar (owing to the word 'it' it can only refer to one), then we can argue that 'iniquity' in VII, 18 too means kareth, by analogy with 'iniquity' in Lev. XIX, 8. And the reason for drawing this analogy is that the two are alike in two respects: (i) Both are defects arising through time, nothar being the case where he actually eats the flesh after time, and Lev. VII, 18 refers to the illegitimate intention of eating after time. (ii) Both were forbidden not only in the Temple, but also in the High Places used before the Temple was built. For but for this similarity, the meaning of 'iniquity' in VII, 18 might be deduced from Ex. XXVIII, 38: And Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the holy things. There 'iniquity' refers to sacrificing in a state of uncleanness, which is forbidden by a negative injunction, but does not involve kareth, and so if an analogy were drawn with this verse, one would say that in Lev. VII, 18 too there is no kareth. But if Lev. XIX, 8 is made to refer to eating without bounds, this second analogy might indeed be drawn, since it lacks the two points of similarity, (a private sacrifice offered at a high place might be eaten anywhere) and accordingly nothing will indicate that 'iniquity' means kareth. So Rashi. Tosaf. explains that there was already a tradition that the meaning of 'iniquity' must be deduced by drawing an analogy between Lev. VII, 18 and XIX, 8. and not with Ex. XXVIII, 38. But for that very reason it is logical to make Lev. XIX, 8 refer to nothar, so as to justify the analogy through the two points of similarity.
(4) M = Mahshabah (intention); K = Kezath (a part or portion); D = Dam (blood). and SH = SHelishi (third). (i) Both after time and without bounds invalidate the sacrifice by mere intention. (ii) In both cases the illegitimate intention even in respect of a portion of the flesh only disqualifies. (iii) Both disqualify only if expressed during the service in connection with the blood (sprinkling) but not after. And finally (iv) the 'third' day is mentioned in connection with both. Uncleanness is dissimilar in respect of all these: (i) The flesh does not become unclean merely through the intention of defiling it. (ii) If a portion of the flesh is defiled, the rest remains clean. (iii) The flesh can be defiled after the sprinkling of the blood. And finally (iv) 'third' is not stated in connection with it as a superfluous word. But it is mentioned redundantly in connection with the others, as shewn above, so that an analogy (gezerah shawah) might be drawn.
(5) Lev. XIX, 8.
(6) Ex. XXIX, 34.
(7) Sc. Lev. VII, 18.
(8) And 'third' in Lev. XIX, 7 refers to after time, and it is that which is excluded from kareth.
(9) Because the intention to eat after time is similar to eating nothar, Scripture couples them, and expresses a limitation to shew that no kareth is involved, as otherwise we would think that kareth is involved in the former because it is similar to nothar.
(10) Lev. VII, 18.
(11) V. supra 13b. - The exegesis of the whole verse is irrelevant here, but as Raba quotes it he interprets the whole (Sh. M.).
(12) The blood of the peace-offerings is the vehicle through which piggul is effected, viz., if an illegitimate intention is expressed during one of the services connected with the blood, the flesh and the emurim are thereby rendered piggul. Just as this is so in the case of the peace-offerings, so does the law of piggul operate in the case of all sacrifices of which the same can be said. This excludes the meal-offerings of priests and of the anointed priest and of the drink-offerings. He treats the word 'sacrifice' in the text as alluding to other sacrifices too, which are thus assimilated to peace-offerings, since they are coupled with them.
(13) He understands 'it shall not be accepted', to refer to the sprinkling of the blood, which is the last of the mattirin, i.e., the services which make the sacrifice 'accepted', - valid. Thus he renders: this sprinkling shall not be accepted (valid), which implies that the sacrifice does not become piggul until the sprinkling, and if e.g., the blood is spilt and not sprinkled, the sacrifice is not piggul. The acceptance of the invalid means the stamping of the sacrifice as piggul, and this does not take place unless the mattirin are offered, as explained.
(14) Here he deduces that the sacrifice becomes piggul through an illegitimate intention, thus: the sacrifice becomes unfit only when he is actually offering it, viz., by then intending to eat thereof on the third day. But if he had no illegitimate intention at the actual offering, yet ate thereof on the third day, it does not become piggul retrospectively.
(15) Var. lec. the sacrificer. - Scripture does not mean that the priest is henceforth unfit to officiate, but that the sacrifice is unfit. Without this 'it' the text might mean: he that offereth (viz., the priest) shall not be accepted, i.e., shall henceforth be disqualified to officiate.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 29a
other intentions must not be mingled therein.1 'An abhorred thing [piggul]': this refers to [the intention of eating it] without bounds.2 'It shall be': this teaches that they combine with each other.3 'And the soul that eateth of it': one, but not two; and which is it? [the intention of eating it] after time, for the meaning of 'iniquity' is learnt from nothar, since it is similar to it in Zab.4
R. Papa said to Raba: According to you. how do you interpret 'third' in the pericope. 'Ye shall be holy'?5 - That is needed to teach [that the illegitimate intention must concern] a place which has a threefold function, viz., in respect of the blood, the flesh, and the emurim.6 But I may deduce that from the earlier text, viz., 'And if [it] be at all eaten', since the Divine Law expresses it by the word 'third'?7 - Said R. Ashi: I reported this discussion before R. Mattenah, whereupon he answered me: If [I deduced it] from there, I would say: 'Third' is a particularization, and 'piggul' is a generalisation,8 and so the generalisation becomes an addition to the particularization, and therefore other places are included too. Hence [the text in 'Ye shall be holy'] informs us [that it is not so].
Our Rabbis taught: 'And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be at all eaten [on the third day]': R. Eliezer said: Incline your ear to hear: Scripture speaks of one who intends eating of his sacrifice on the third day. Yet perhaps that is not so, but rather [Scripture speaks] of one who eats of his sacrifice on the third day? You can answer: After it has become fit, shall it then become unfit?9 Said R. Akiba to him: Behold, we find that a zab and a zabah and a woman 'who watches from day to day' are presumed to be clean, yet since they have a discharge they undo [their cleanness];10 hence you too need not wonder at this, that after [the sacrifice] has become fit it then becomes unfit. Said he to him: Lo, it says, '[unto him] that offereth', [intimating that] it becomes unfit at the offering, but it does not become unfit on the third [day]. Yet perhaps that is not so, but it says, 'him that offereth', meaning the priest who offers it?11 When it says 'it', [Scripture] speaks of the sacrifice, and does not speak of the priest. Ben 'Azzai said: Why is 'it' stated? Because it is said, [When thou shalt vow a vow unto the Lord thy God,] thou shalt not delay to pay it:12 You might think that also he who delays [the fulfilment of] his vow incurs [the sentence] 'it shall not be accepted': therefore it says, 'it': 'it' [piggul] is subject to 'it shall not be accepted', but he who delays his vow is not subject to 'it shall not be accepted'. Others13 say: 'it shall not be imputed' [teaches that] it becomes unfit through imputation [illegal intention], but does not become unfit through [being eaten on] the third [day]. Now, how does Ben 'Azzai know that Scripture speaks of the sacrifice and not of the priest?14 - I can say that he deduces it from [the exegesis of] the 'Others'.15 Alternatively, I can say [that he knows this] because it is written, [it] shall not be accepted, and '[it] shall not be accepted' can only apply to the sacrifice.16
Now Ben 'Azzai [deduces]: 'it' is subject to 'it shall not be accepted'. but he who delays [the payment of] his vow is not subject to 'it shall not be accepted': [but] is this deduced from the present text? Surely it is deduced from [the text cited by] 'Others'? For it was taught: Others say: You might think that a firstling which passed its [first] year17 is
____________________
(1) The animal is piggul only if this, sc. to eat it after time, was his only intention. But if he also expressed another which would disqualify the sacrifice without rendering it piggul, this intention negatives the other; cf. Mishnah on 27b and infra b.
(2) Since the intention of eating it after time has already been dealt with.
(3) He understands 'it shall be' to intimate that both these illegitimate intentions rank as one and combine. Thus, if he intended eating half as much as an olive after time and half as much as an olive without bounds (the standard of disqualification is an olive) the intentions combine to invalidate the sacrifice.
(4) V. notes supra 28b.
(5) For it is unnecessary in respect of after time, as stated supra 28a and b, while on Raba's present exegesis it is also irrelevant in respect of without bounds.
(6) It is disqualified only if he intends to eat it in a place where the blood is sprinkled, the flesh is eaten, and the emurim (q.v. Glos.) are burnt, e.g., without the Temple court. This excludes an intention to partake thereof in the hekal, since the flesh is not eaten, nor are the emurim burnt there. So Rashi. Tosaf. gives several other explanations.
(7) 'Third' intimates after time, and in the same verse without bounds is hinted at too, as already explained. Hence 'third' here can have that same significance as is now attributed to it in the pericope 'Ye shall be holy'.
(8) I.e., 'third' indicates a place with that threefold function, while piggul is a general term denoting all places.
(9) Surely not. If it was sacrificed with the proper intention, and so was fit, surely it cannot become retrospectively unfit because he eats it on the third day.
(10) When a zab or a zabah (q.v. Glos.) cease to discharge, they must count seven consecutive clean days without any discharge. During this period they are presumed to be clean, yet a discharge within the seven days undoes the days which have already passed and they become retrospectively unclean for that time too, and they must count seven days anew. Similarly, according to Biblical law a niddah (q.v. Glos.) can cleanse herself seven days after her menstrual flow commenced. During the following eleven days, which are called the eleven days between the menses, she cannot become a niddah again, it being axiomatic that a discharge of blood in that period is not a sign of niddah, but may be symptomatic of gonorrhoea. A discharge on one or two days within the eleven renders her unclean for that period only, and if she has a ritual bath (tebillah) the following morning she is clean. Yet if she has another discharge on the same day after the ritual bath, she is retrospectively unclean for the whole day, and retrospectively defiles any human beings or utensils with which she came into contact. Should she experience three discharges on three consecutive days within that period she becomes unclean as a zabah; hence on the first and the second days she is called 'one who watches from day to day', to see whether she will be unclean for those days only, or as a zabah.
(11) He is henceforth unfit to officiate.
(12) Deut. XXIII, 22.
(13) 'Others' often refers to R. Meir, Hor. 13b.
(14) Seeing that he utilises 'it' for a different purpose.
(15) Since according to them 'it shall not be imputed' is necessary to teach that there is no unfitness through the sacrifice being eaten on the third day. Scripture obviously does not refer to the unfitness of the priest, for if it did, how could I think that he is unfit? Not he has done wrong but the eater.
(16) The Hebrew is not applicable to a priest.
(17) The firstling must be sacrificed within its first year. If it is not, its owner transgresses the injunction, Thou shalt not delay.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 29b
as dedicated animals rendered unfit,1 and so unfit; therefore it says. And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God . . . the tithe of thy corn . . . and the firstlings of thy herd and of thy flock;2 the firstling is assimilated to tithe: as tithe does not become unfit through [being kept] from one year until the following, so the firstling does not become unfit through [being kept] from one year until the next? - It is necessary: You might think that this holds good only of a firstling, which is not subject to acceptance.3 but [other] sacrifices which are subject to acceptance, I would say that they are not 'accepted'.4 Hence ['it'] informs us [that it is not so].
Yet still it is deduced from elsewhere [viz.,] [Thou shalt not delay to pay it . . .] and it will be sin in thee, [which teaches,] but it will not be sin in thy offering?5 - But we have interpreted this according to Ben 'Azzai6 [as teaching 'and it will be sin in thee', but it will not be sin in thy wife. For you might think that I can argue. Since R. Eleazar - others state, R. Johanan - said: A man's wife does not die save when money is demanded from him and he lacks it,7 for it says. If thou hast not wherewith to pay, why should he take away thy bed from under thee?8 she also dies on account of this sin of [violating the injunction] 'Thou shalt not delay'; [hence Scripture] informs us [that it is not so].
'Others say, "It shall not be imputed" [teaches that] it becomes invalid through imputation [intention], but it does not become invalid through [being eaten on] the third day.' Now, how does R. Eliezer utilise this [text], 'it shall not be imputed'? - He needs it for the teaching of R. Jannai. For R. Jannai said: How do we know that [illegal] intentions negative each other? Because it says, 'it shall not be imputed', [which means,] other [illegal] intentions shall not be mingled therewith.9 R. Mari recited it [thus]: R. Jannai said: How do we know that he who purposes an [illegitimate] intention in respect of sacrifices is flagellated?10 Because it says. Lo yehasheb.11 Said R. Ashi to R. Mari: But it is a negative injunction not involving an action,12 and one is not flagellated on account of a negative injunction which does not involve action? - This is according to R. Judah, he replied, who maintained: One is flagellated on account of a negative injunction which does not involve action.
MISHNAH. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: HE WHO SLAUGHTERS OR RECEIVES [THE BLOOD], OR CARRIES [IT] OR SPRINKLES [IT]. [INTENDING] TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF THAT WHICH IS NORMALLY EATEN OR TO BURN [ON THE ALTAR] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF THAT WHICH IS NORMALLY BURNT WITHOUT BOUNDS, [THE SACRIFICE] IS INVALID, BUT IT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH; [INTENDING TO EAT OR BURN] AFTER TIME, IT IS PIGGUL AND INVOLVES KARETH, PROVIDED THAT THE MATTIR13 IS OFFERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW.14 HOW IS THE MATTIR OFFERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW [APART FROM THAT]? IF ONE SLAUGHTERED IN SILENCE, AND RECEIVED, OR SPRINKLED, [INTENDING TO EAT THE FLESH] AFTER TIME; OR IF ONE SLAUGHTERED [INTENDING TO EAT] AFTER TIME, AND RECEIVED, WENT AND SPRINKLED IN SILENCE; OR IF ONE SLAUGHTERED, AND RECEIVED, WENT, AND SPRINKLED [INTENDING TO EAT] AFTER TIME; THAT IS OFFERING THE MATTIR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. HOW IS THE MATTIR NOT OFFERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW? IF ONE SLAUGHTERED [INTENDING TO EAT] WITHOUT BOUNDS, [AND] RECEIVED, WENT, AND SPRINKLED [WITH THE INTENTION OF EATING] AFTER TIME; OR IF ONE SLAUGHTERED [INTENDING TO EAT] AFTER TIME, [AND] RECEIVED, WENT, AND SPRINKLED [INTENDING TO EAT] WITHOUT BOUNDS; OR IF ONE SLAUGHTERED, RECEIVED, WENT, AND SPRINKLED [INTENDING TO EAT] WITHOUT BOUNDS; IF ONE SLAUGHTERED THE PASSOVER-OFFERING OR THE SIN-OFFERING FOR THE SAKE OF SOMETHING ELSE,15 AND RECEIVED, WENT, AND SPRINKLED [INTENDING TO EAT THEM] AFTER TIME; OR IF ONE SLAUGHTERED [THEM, INTENDING TO EAT THEM] AFTER TIME, [AND] RECEIVED, WENT, AND SPRINKLED FOR THE SAKE OF SOMETHING ELSE; OR IF ONE SLAUGHTERED, RECEIVED, WENT, AND SPRINKLED FOR THE SAKE OF SOMETHING ELSE; IN THESE CASES THE MATTIR WAS NOT OFFERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW.16 [IF ONE INTENDED] TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS [AND] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW, [OR] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW [AND] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS;17 HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS [AND] HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW; HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW [AND] HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS, [THE SACRIFICE] IS UNFIT, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.18 SAID R. JUDAH, THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHERE THE INTENTION OF TIME PRECEDES THE INTENTION OF PLACE, [THE SACRIFICE] IS PIGGUL, AND INVOLVES KARETH; BUT IF THE INTENTION OF PLACE PRECEDES THE INTENTION OF TIME, IT IS UNFIT AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.19 BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: IN BOTH CASES20 [THE SACRIFICE] IS UNFIT AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. [IF ONE INTENDS] TO EAT HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [WITHOUT BOUNDS OR AFTER TIME] [AND] TO BURN HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [SIMILARLY]. IT IS FIT, FOR EATING AND BURNING DO NOT COMBINE.21
GEMARA. Ilfa said: The controversy is in respect of two services, but in the case of one service all agree that it constitutes a mingling of intentions.22 But R. Johanan maintained: The controversy is in respect of a single service too. As for Ilfa, it is well: since the first clause treats of two services,23 the second clause too24 treats of two services. But according to R. Johanan, the first clause treats of two services and the second clause of one service?
____________________
(1) Through a blemish.
(2) Deut. XIV, 23.
(3) The firstling does not come to make atonement, and therefore is not subject to 'acceptance'.
(4) If delayed. i.e., that the vower has not duly fulfilled his vow and must bring another sacrifice.
(5) I.e., the offering does not become invalid.
(6) Emended text.
(7) The money which he robbed.
(8) Prov. XXII, 27; 'thy bed' is understood to mean 'thy wife'.
(9) V. supra a top.
(10) As are all who violate a negative injunction.
(11) It shall not be imputed. But with a different vowelling this reads lo yahshob, he (the priest) shall not intend (to eat it after time), and thus this becomes a negative injunction.
(12) Talking is not considered an action.
(13) The enabler, i.e., the blood, through the sprinkling of which the sacrifice may be eaten.
(14) I.e., that no other illegitimate intention is expressed.
(15) As different sacrifices, whereby they are invalid, supra 2a.
(16) In all these cases there was an illegitimate intention which invalidated the sacrifice in addition to that which would render it piggul. Hence it is not piggul but only invalid, as already stated.
(17) The intentions being in that order.
(18) For the same reason as before.
(19) R. Judah holds that an invalidating intention does not negative a piggul intention if the latter is expressed first.
(20) Whatever the order.
(21) In intention.
(22) Even R. Judah agrees that where both intentions are expressed at the same service, the sacrifice is not piggul but merely unfit, even if the piggul intention preceded.
(23) As it is explicitly taught: IF ONE SLAUGHTERED [INTENDING TO EAT] AFTER TIME AND RECEIVED THE BLOOD ETC. WITHOUT BOUNDS.
(24) Sc. IF ONE SLAUGHTERED INTENDING TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW AND AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 30a
- Even so: the first clause treats of two services, while the second clause can refer to either one service or two services.
We learnt: SAID R. JUDAH: THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: IF THE INTENTION OF TIME PRECEDED THE INTENTION OF PLACE, IT IS PIGGUL, AND INVOLVES KARETH. As for R. Johanan. it is well: hence he teaches, THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE.1 But according to Ilfa, what is the implication of THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE? - That is indeed a difficulty.
We learnt elsewhere: [If one declares.] 'This [animal] be a substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute for a peace-offerings,' it is a substitute for a burnt-offering [only]: this is R. Meir's view. Said R. Jose: If such was his original intention,2 since it is impossible to pronounce both designations simultaneously, his declarations are valid.3 But if, having declared, 'This [animal] be a substitute for a burnt-offering,' he declared as an afterthought, 'This be a substitute for a peace-offerings,' it is a burnt-offering. It was asked: What if [one declares,] 'This [animal] be a substitute for a burnt-offering and a peace-offerings,' [or] '[This animal be a substitute for] half [a burnt-offering] and half [a peace-offering]'? Said Abaye: Here R. Meir certainly agrees [with R. Jose]. Raba said: There is still the controversy. Raba said to Abaye: According to you who maintain that here R. Meir certainly agrees, Yet lo! slaughtering is analogous to half and half, yet they disagree?4 - Said he to him: Do you think that shechitah counts only at the end? [No:] Shechitah counts from the beginning until the end , and our Mishnah means that he declared [that he cut] one organ [intending to eat the flesh] after time and the second organ [intending to eat it] without bounds.5
Yet surely kemizah6 is analogous to halves, yet they disagree?7 - There too it means that he burnt a fistful of the meal-offering [with the intention of eating] after time and a fistful of the frankincense [intending to eat] without bounds. Yet they disagree in respect of the fistful of a sinner's meal-offering, where there is no frankincense? - They do not disagree there. R. Ashi said: If you should say that they do disagree, they disagree in the steps.8
R. Shimi b. Ashi recited [the passage] as Abaye; R. Huna b. Nathan recited [it] as Raba. When R. Dimi came,9 he said: R. Meir stated [his ruling] in accordance with the thesis of R. Judah, who maintained: Regard the first expression. For we learnt: R. JUDAH SAID, THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: IF THE INTENTION OF TIME PRECEDED THE INTENTION OF PLACE, IT IS PIGGUL, AND INVOLVES KARETH.
____________________
(1) This phrase is always regarded as including something not explicitly stated; according to R. Johanan then it includes the case of both intentions being expressed at one service.
(2) To declare it a substitute for both.
(3) V. Lev. XXVII, 33: He shall not inquire whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it; and if he change it at all, then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy. This is interpreted as meaning that if an animal is dedicated for a particular sacrifice, e.g., a peace-offerings, and then a second is substituted for it, both are holy, the second having exactly the same holiness as the first. Now R. Meir rules that if he declares it a substitute for two consecrated animals in succession, only the first declaration is valid, and the second is disregarded. But R. Jose maintains that if the second statement was not added as an afterthought but was part of the original intention, the whole is valid. Consequently, the animal is put out to graze until it receives a blemish, when it must be sold, and the money expended half for a burnt-offering and half for a peace-offering.
(4) When one slaughters the sacrifice with the intention of eating as much as an olive without bounds and as much as an olive after time, the second intention is not an afterthought cancelling the first, since both are possible; yet R. Judah regards the first statement only. This is analogous to making an animal a substitute for half a burnt-offering and half a peace-offerings, for here too both are possible. Now R. Meir who regards the first statement only in substitution agrees with R. Judah in our Mishnah, and therefore in the declaration in question too he should regard the first statement only.
(5) Shechitah consists of cutting across the two organs of the throat, viz., the windpipe and the gullet. Here R. Judah disagrees, because he regards them as two separate statements; but in a statement of 'halves' R. Judah (and R. Meir) would agree that the whole counts as one statement and that both parts are regarded. V. also Pes. (Sonc. ed.) p. 315, n. 3.
(6) V. Glos.
(7) If the priest takes the fistful of the meal-offering for burning on the altar while expressing the intention of eating as much as an olive after time and as much as an olive without bounds. There is the same controversy in Men. 12a between R. Judah and the Sages as here.
(8) As the priest took one step while carrying the fistful to the altar he declared his intention of partaking of the offering without bounds, and as he took another step, his intention of partaking thereof after time. Hence here also we have two separate statements.
(9) From Palestine to Babylon.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 30b
Said Abaye to him: Yet surely Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: When you bring R. Meir and R. Jose together, [you find that] they do not disagree.1 But do they not disagree? Surely they do disagree? - They disagree in what they disagree, he answered him, and they do not disagree in what they do not disagree.2 For R. Isaac b. Joseph said in R. Johanan's name: All agree that if he declared 'Let this [sanctity] fall upon the animal and after that let that [sanctity] fall upon it,' [the latter] does not fall upon it.3 'Let this [sanctity] not fall upon it unless the other falls upon it [too],' all agree that [the latter] does not fall upon it.4 They disagree only where he declares, '[Let this animal be] a substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute for a peace-offering.' R. Meir holds: Since he should have said, 'A substitute for a burnt-offering and a peace-offering.'5 but said [instead], 'A substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute for a peace-offering,' you may infer that he has indeed retracted.6 And R. Jose?7 - Had he declared, 'A substitute for a burnt-offering and a peace-offering,' I might have interpreted it, Half as a substitute for a burnt-offering and half as a substitute for a peace-offering;8 therefore he declared, 'A substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute for a peace-offerings,' to intimate that the whole should be a burnt-offering and the whole should be a peace-offerings!9 - Said he [R. Dimi] to him [Abaye]: He [Rabbah b. Bar Hanah] said that they do not disagree, but I maintain that they do disagree.10
'Ulla-others state, R. Oshaia - said: Perhaps our Babylonian colleagues know whether we learnt, 'As much as an olive . . . as much as an olive'; or did we learn, 'As much as an olive . . . and as much as an olive'?11 [The point of the question is this:] Did we learn, 'As much as an olive . . . as much as an olive,'12 but [if he declared,] '. . . As much as an olive . . . and as much as an olive,' all agree that it constitutes a mingling of intentions.13 Or perhaps we learnt'. . . as much as an olive . . . and as much as an olive,' and this, in R. Judah's opinion, constitutes a detailed enumeration,14 and all the more [if he declared]'. . . as much as an olive . . . as much as an olive?' - Come and hear, for Levi asked Rabbi: What if he intended eating as much as an olive on the morrow [after time] without bounds? Said he to him: That is indeed a question: it constitutes a mingling of intentions.15 Thereupon R. Simeon b. Rabbi observed, is this not [taught in] our Mishnah: [IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT, AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW; [OR] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW, AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT;' [OR] HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT, HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW; [OR] HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW. HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT: IT IS INVALID, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. Hence it follows that the other case16 constitutes a mingling of intentions.17 Nevertheless he asked me a profound question, he replied, though you say that it is [implied in] our Mishnah. Since I taught you both [cases], you find no difficulty.18 But him I taught only one,19 while he heard that the Rabbis read both versions [in the Mishnah]. Hence his doubt: was my teaching exact,20 whereas their [additional case] constitutes a mingling of intentions;21 or perhaps their [version] is exact,22 whilst I had simply omitted [one case when I taught him], and just as I had omitted this instance, so had they omitted the other instance.23 Now, which [case] did he teach him? If we say [that] he taught him: '. . . as much as an olive . . . and as much as an olive,' [surely] that is not an omission!24 Hence he taught him, 'As much as an olive . . . as much as an olive.'25 Then let him ask about 'as much as an olive . . . and as much as an olive'?26 - He reasoned: I will ask him one case from which I may infer both. For if I ask about 'as much as an olive . . . and as much as an olive,' it is well if he answers me that it is a comprehensive statement,27 then all the more is it so [in the case of] 'as much as an olive on the morrow without'; but if he answers me that it is a detailed enumeration, then I will still have the question about 'as much as an olive on the morrow without'. If so,[the same objection can be urged] now too: it is well if he answered him that 'as much as an olive on the morrow without' constitutes a detailed enumeration, then all the more is it so in the case of 'as much as an olive and as much as an olive'. But if he answered him that it is a comprehensive statement, he would still have the question: [what about] 'as much as an olive and as much as an olive' ? - If so, he [Rabbi] would have shewn asperity:
____________________
(1) For, as shewn anon, both reject the view that only the first statement is regarded. That being so R. Meir's ruling on substitution does not agree with R. Judah in our Mishnah.
(2) They disagree only in the case cited, where their controversy is explicitly stated. But they do not disagree on the general question whether a man's first statement only is to be regarded, for they both hold that a man's complete intention must be taken into account, the point at issue being what is his intention.
(3) If he declared, 'Let the sanctity of this animal, dedicated for a burnt-offering, fall upon this one as its substitute, and then let the sanctity of the other dedicated for a peace-offerings fall upon it', it is not seized with the sanctity of the second, for sanctity cannot fall upon an animal which already possesses it.
(4) Since he obviously intended the animal to assume both sanctities simultaneously.
(5) If he intended both.
(6) Having declared it a substitute for the one, he retracted and made it a substitute for the other. But retraction is not permitted, and therefore it retains the first sanctity only.
(7) Does he not allow this argument?
(8) In which case it could not be sacrificed at all.
(9) Erroneously thinking that then the animal itself could be offered (presumably, as whichever sacrifice he desired, when he actually came to sacrifice it). - Thus on the present interpretation R. Meir too does not disagree with R. Jose that you cannot regard only a man's first statement, which contradicts R. Dimi.
(10) Precisely on the point whether a man's first statement only is to be regarded.
(11) In the Mishnah, did the man state, 'I declare my intention to eat as much as an olive without bounds, as much as an olive after time', or, . . . and as much as an olive after time'?
(12) R. Judah regards this as two distinct (and to some extent self-contradictory) intentions, since they are not joined by 'and'.
(13) Hence it is not piggul.
(14) Each is a separate statement, and there is no mingling of intentions. Hence R. Judah regards the first only.
(15) Even in R. Judah's opinion.
(16) Viz., where he declares both intentions in respect of the same piece.
(17) Why praise it then as a question worthy of asking?
(18) I taught you both versions, viz., that he declares, 'as much as an olive . . . as much as an olive'; or 'as much . . . and as much', etc., and the controversy of R. Judah and the Rabbis applies to both. Hence, since the Mishnah teaches these, and not a twofold declaration in respect of the same piece, you rightly deduce that there obviously even R. Judah admits that we have a mingling of intentions.
(19) Which one is explained anon.
(20) Viz., that the controversy applies to one case only.
(21) In my opinion, so that they read this into the Mishnah incorrectly. If so, a twofold declaration in respect of the same piece certainly constitutes a mingling of intentions.
(22) The controversy applies to both.
(23) Viz., two declarations in respect of the same piece. Hence he was right to raise the question.
(24) For the case of 'as much as an olive . . . as much as an olive' follows a fortiori. If R. Judah holds that we have a detailed enumeration and no mingling of intentions even when the priest uses the copulative, how much more so when his statements are disjoined. Hence he would have understood that this too is included, but only this and no other, so that a twofold declaration in respect if the same piece would certainly be a mingling of intentions, and there would be no room for his question.
(25) Only on this assumption is there room for his question. This proves that the reading in the Mishnah is 'as much as an olive . . . as much' etc.
(26) According to the explanation above he was in doubt about that too.
(27) Sc. it is a mingling of intentions.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 31a
seeing that 'as much as an olive and as much as an olive' is a comprehensive statement, is there a question about 'as much as an olive on the morrow without'!1
It was stated: [If one declares, 'I will eat] half [as much as] in olive after time, half an olive without bounds and half as much as an olive after time,' - Said Raba: 'Then the piggul awaked as one asleep'.2 But R. Hamnuna maintained: This constitutes a mingling of intentions.3 Raba said: Whence do I say it? Because we learnt: if one combines as much as an egg of an edible of first degree with as much as an egg of an edible of second degree, [the combination] ranks as first degree. If one separates them, each ranks as second degree.4 But if one re-combined them, [the mixture] ranks as first degree. Whence [does this follow]? - Because the second clause teaches: If each falls separately on a loaf of terumah, they render it unfit; if they both fall [on it] simultaneously, they render it second degree.5 But R. Hamnuna argues: There you had the requisite standard;6 but here the standard is absent.7
R. Hamnuna said: Whence do I say it? - Because we learnt: An edible which was defiled by a principal degree of uncleanness, and [one] which was defiled by a derivative of uncleanness8 combine with each other to defile according to the lesser of the two.9 Surely that means even if [the standard quantity] is subsequently made up?10 - [No:] perhaps [this holds good only] when one does not make up [the standard].
When R. Dimi came, he said: [When one declares his intention of eating] half an olive without bounds and half an olive after time and [another] half an olive after time, - Bar Kappara taught: It is piggul, [because the declaration in respect of] half an olive is of no effect as against [that in respect of] an olive.11 When Rabin came, he said: [If one declares his intention of eating] half as much as an olive after time and [another] half an olive after time and half an olive without bounds, - Bar Kappara taught: It is piggul, [because the declaration in respect of] half an olive is of no effect as against [that of] an olive.12 R. Ashi recited it thus: [If one declares his intention to eat] half an olive after time, and an olive, half without bounds and half after time,13 - Bar Kappara taught: It is piggul, [because the declaration in respect of] half an olive is of no effect as against [that of] an olive.14
R. Jannai said: If one intended dogs to eat it on the morrow, it is piggul, because it is written, And the dogs shall eat Jezebel in the portion of Jezreel.15 To this R. Ammi demurred: If so, if he intended fire to eat it on the morrow, is that too piggul, since it is written, A fire not blown by man shall eat [consume] him?16 And should you say, That indeed is so, - surely we learnt, [IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [ILLEGITIMATELY] AND TO BURN HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [ILLEGITIMATELY], IT IS FIT, BECAUSE EATING AND BURNING DO NOT COMBINE? - If he expressed [his intention] in terms of eating, that indeed would be so;17 here [in the Mishnah] however he expressed it in terms of burning: [hence they do not combine,] because the term eating is one thing and the term burning is another.
R. Assi18 asked: What if he intended as much as an olive to be eaten [illegitimately] by two men? Do we go by his intention, and there is the standard [of disqualification]; or do we go by the eaters, and there is not the standard? - Said Abaye, Come and hear: [IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE AND TO BURN HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [ILLEGITIMATELY]. IT IS FIT, BECAUSE EATING AND BURNING DO NOT COMBINE.
____________________
(1) I.e., Rabbi would have replied with asperity, 'Why, even the former case is a mingling of intentions; how much more so that which you ask'.
(2) Cf. Ps. LXXVIII, 65. - The first half, on finding as it were the last half, awakes from its slumber and combines with it. Thus he intends to eat as much as an olive after time; this renders it piggul and cannot be undone by the intention if eating half as much as an olive without bounds.
(3) Hence it is not piggul.
(4) A man who becomes unclean through contact with a corpse, and a sherez ('creeping thing') rank as principal (ab, lit., 'father') degree of uncleanness, and if a foodstuff comes into contact with them, it becomes unclean in the first degree; if that in turn comes into contact with another foodstuff, the latter is unclean in the second degree. The minimum standard of foodstuffs to defile is as much as an egg. Now, the first combination contains the standard quantity for defilement, and that in the first degree; hence the whole ranks as such. But if one divides the whole, each part contains less than the standard in the first degree; hence each part is second degree
(5) In hullin (non-sacred food) there is nothing below second degree, so that if second degree food touches hullin, the latter remains clean. In terumah (q.v. Glos.) there is a third degree, but it goes no further, and the terumah is then called unfit, but not unclean, since it cannot defile other terumah. Now, if each of these separated masses falls on terumah consecutively, the terumah is disqualified only, since neither mass contains as much of first degree to render it second. But if they both fall on it together, as much as an egg of first degree has touched it at the same moment, and therefore the terumah becomes unclean in the second degree, so that it can render other terumah unfit. This proves that the firsts in each combine, and the same is true here.
(6) In the first place there was one mass of the requisite standard; therefore the two masses recombine.
(7) There was never the complete standard by itself to render it piggul.
(8) 'Derivative' is another name for first degree.
(9) If each contains only half the standard. Thus the combination disqualifies terumah (rendering it third), but does not defile it (i.e., it does not render it second).
(10) Even if one adds a first degree edible to make up to the size of an egg, yet since the combination is only a second, that portion thereof which is first does not re-awake to combine with the addition.
(11) Since the two piggul intentions (viz., to eat after time) were consecutive.
(12) But only in this case. In the former case, however, when he declares his intention to eat half an olive without bounds and half an olive after time, these two intentions immediately combine, and his subsequent declaration that he will eat half an olive after time cannot upset the previous combination; hence it is not piggul. Thus we have a controversy between R. Dimi and Rabin as to Bar Kappara's teaching.
(13) Thus combining the latter two in his declaration.
(14) This goes further than R. Dimi's view. For here he actually combined the latter two intentions, and yet they are separated and the two intentions concerning after time recombined.
(15) II Kings IX, 10. This proves that eating by dogs is designated eating.
(16) Job XX, 26.
(17) They would combine.
(18) Emended text. Cur. edd: Ashi.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 31b
Hence if he intended to eat [half as much as an olive] and to eat [half as much as an olive] in a way similar to [the intention of] eating and burning, - and how is that possible? [that the two half olives] should be eaten by two men, - they would combine. This proves it.
Raba asked: What if he intended to eat as much as an olive within more than the time required for eating half [a loaf]?1 Do we compare this to the eating of the All-High,2 or do we liken it to human eating? - Said Abaye, Come and hear: [IF HE INTENDED] EATING HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE AND BURNING HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE, IT IS FIT, BECAUSE EATING AND BURNING DO NOT COMBINE. Thus only eating and burning; but eating and eating in a way similar to eating and burning combine, though burning requires more than the time for eating half [a loaf]!3 - [No:] perhaps it means in a big fire.4
[IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE AND TO BURN HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE IT IS FIT. Thus only to eat and to burn; but [if he intended] to eat [what is fit for eating] and to eat what is not fit for eating5 they combine. Yet surely the first clause teaches: [IF HE INTENDS] TO EAT WHAT IS NORMALLY EATEN [IT IS UNFIT]. Hence, only what is normally eaten, but not what is not normally eaten? - Said R. Jeremiah. This6 is in accordance with R. Eliezer, who maintained [that] you can intend [with effect] for the altar's consumption what is meant for human consumption and for human consumption what is meant for the altar's consumption. For we learnt: If one slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burnt, it is fit; but R. Eliezer invalidates [it].7 Abaye said: You may even say that it is according to the Rabbis; but do not deduce: But [if he intends] to eat [what is fit for eating] and to eat what is not normally eaten [it is fit]; deduce rather: But [if he intends] to eat [what is normally eaten] and to eat what is normally eaten8 [it is invalid]. [Then] what does [the Tanna] inform us? if he informs us [the law concerning] what is normally eaten,9 you can infer this from the first clause: [IF HE INTENDS TO EAT] HALF AS MUlch AS AN Olive WITHOUT, HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW, [HIS INTENTIONS] COMBINE. If [he informs us about intending] to eat and to burn,10 you can infer this by deduction from the first clause, [viz.,] only [if he intends] to eat what is normally eaten, but not [if he intends to eat] what is not normally eaten. Then seeing that [intentions] to eat [what is normally eaten] and to eat what is not normally eaten do not combine, is it necessary [to teach about intentions] to eat and to burn [that they do not combine]?11 - He needs [to teach about intending] to eat and to burn. For you might argue, Only there12 [do they not combine], because his intention is not normal; but here, where [his intentions in respect of] each are normal,13 I would say that they combine. Hence he informs us [otherwise].
CHAPTER 3
MISHNAH. ALL UNFIT PERSONS14 WHO SLAUGHTERED, THEIR SLAUGHTERING IS VALID, FOR SLAUGHTERING IS VALID [EVEN WHEN PERFORMED] BY LAY-ISRAELITES [ZARIM], AND BY WOMEN, AND BY SLAVES, AND BY UNCLEAN, EVEN IN THE CASE OF SACRIFICES OF HIGHER SANCTITY, PROVIDED THAT UNCLEAN [PERSONS] DO NOT TOUCH THE FLESH; THEREFORE THEY15 INVALIDATE [THE SACRIFICE] BY AN [ILLEGITIMATE] INTENTION.
____________________
(1) A loaf is the size of eight (according to Maim. six) eggs, and half a loaf constitutes the average meal. The eating of forbidden food in general is punishable only if as much as an olive thereof, which is the standard for punishment, is eaten in the time of an average meal.
(2) Sc. the consumption of the emurim on the altar. Naturally, this sometimes requires more time than the human standard, and therefore if this comparison is made his intention counts.
(3) Emended text (Rashi). 'Eating and eating' means an intention to eat half as much as an olive and another intention to eat half as much as an olive.
(4) Where it will be quickly consumed.
(5) For what he would burn (the emurim) is not fit for eating.
(6) The final clause.
(7) V. supra 28a for notes. In view of R. Eliezer's opinion it is necessary to state here that intentions in respect of eating and burning (human consumption and the altar's consumption) do not combine.
(8) I.e., two intentions in respect of two half standards.
(9) Viz., that they combine.
(10) That they do not combine. I.e., if the law is taught for its own sake, and not for the sake of a deduction.
(11) Surely not.
(12) When he intends to eat what is normally eaten and to eat what is not normally eaten.
(13) He intends to eat what is eaten, and to burn what is burnt, though not in the right time or place.
(14) As enumerated in the Mishnah supra 15b.
(15) These unfit persons.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 32a
BUT IF ANY OF THESE RECEIVED THE BLOOD [INTENDING TO EAT THE FLESH OR BURN THE EMURIM] AFTER TIME OR WITHOUT BOUNDS AND LIFE-BLOOD IS [STILL] AVAILABLE, A FIT [PRIEST] MUST RECEIVE [IT] A SECOND TIME. IF A FIT PERSON RECEIVED [THE BLOOD] AND GAVE [IT] TO AN UNFIT ONE, HE MUST RETURN IT TO THE FIT ONE. IF HE RECEIVED [THE BLOOD] IN HIS RIGHT HAND AND TRANSFERRED [IT] TO HIS LEFT, HE MUST RE-TRANSFER IT TO HIS RIGHT. IF HE RECEIVED [IT] IN A SACRED VESSEL AND POURED IT [THENCE] INTO A SECULAR [NON-SACRED] VESSEL, HE MUST RETURN IT TO THE SACRED VESSEL. IF IT SPILT FROM THE VESSEL ON TO THE PAVEMENT AND ONE COLLECTED IT, IT IS FIT. IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED IT ON THE ASCENT [OR ON THE ALTAR], [BUT] NOT OVER AGAINST ITS BASE; [OR] IF HE APPLIED WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED BELOW [THE SCARLET LINE] ABOVE [IT], OR WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED ABOVE, BELOW; OR WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHIN [HE APPLIED] WITHOUT, OR WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHOUT, WITHIN1 AND LIFE-BLOOD IS [STILL] AVAILABLE, A FIT [PRIEST] MUST RECEIVE [BLOOD] ANEW.
GEMARA. 'WHO SLAUGHTERED' [implies] only if done, but not at the very outset.2 But the following contradicts it: And he shall slaughter:3 [this teaches that] slaughtering by a zar is valid,4 for slaughtering by zarim, women, slaves, and unclean persons is valid, even in the case of most sacred sacrifices. Yet perhaps that is not so, but rather [it must be done] by priests? You can answer: Whence do you come [to propose this]? From the fact that it is said, And thou and thy sons with thee shall keep the priesthood in everything that pertaineth to the altar,5 you might think that this applies to shechitah too. Therefore Scripture states, And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord; and Aaron's sons, the priests, shall present the blood:6 from receiving onwards priesthood is prescribed, which teaches that shechitah by any person is valid!7 - The truth is that it [may be performed] even at the very outset too, but because [the Tanna] wishes to include unclean, who may not [slaughter] in the first place lest they touch the flesh,8 he states, WHO SLAUGHTERED.
Is then [the slaughtering by] an unclean person well if it was done? The following, however, contradicts it: And he shall lay [his hands upon the head of the burnt-offering . . . ] and he shall kill the bullock [before the Lord]:9 as 'laying' must be [done] by clean [persons only], so must shechitah [be done] by clean [persons only]? - That is [only] a Rabbinical law.10 Why does 'laying' differ? because it is written, before the Lord?11 Yet surely 'before the Lord' is written of shechitah too? - It is possible to make a long knife and slaughter.12 But in the case of 'laying' too, he can project his hands [into the Temple court] and lay?13 - He holds that partial entry is designated entry.14
R. Hisda recited it reversely: And he shall lay . . . and he shall kill: as shechitah requires clean persons, so 'laying' requires clean persons. Why does shechitah differ? because it is written, 'before the Lord'?
____________________
(1) V. supra 26a for notes.
(2) I.e., if they slaughtered, it is valid; but we do not permit them to slaughter in the first place.
(3) Lev. I, 5.
(4) Since Scripture does not specify a priest.
(5) Num. XVIII, 7.
(6) Lev. I, 5.
(7) This implies at the very outset.
(8) And defile it.
(9) Ibid. I, 4f.
(10) By Scriptural law, however, shechitah may be done in the first place by unclean persons; hence their shechitah is valid, if performed, even by Rabbinical law. The exegesis is therefore to be understood as a mere support to the law, and not as its source.
(11) In the text just quoted. Since shechitah must be 'before the Lord' i.e., in the Temple court, 'laying' too must be done there, as shechitah immediately follows it. Hence unclean are excluded, since they may not enter the Temple court.
(12) The sacrifice, which is within, while he stands without.
(13) While his body is without.
(14) Even if his hands only enter the Temple court, it is as though he entered it entirely.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 32b
but 'before the Lord' is written in connection with 'laying' too? - He can project his hands within and lay [them on the bullock]. Then in the case of shechitah too, he can make a long knife and slaughter? - This agrees with Simeon the Temanite. For it was taught: And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord: the bullock [must be] before the Lord, but the slaughterer need not be before the Lord. Simeon the Temanite said: Whence do we know that the slaughterer's hands must be on the inner side of the slaughtered? From the text, And he shall slaughter the bullock before the Lord: he that slaughters the bullock [must be] before the Lord.1
'Ulla said in the name of Resh Lakish: If an unclean person projects his hands within, he is flagellated, because it says, She shall touch no hallowed things, nor come into the sanctuary:2 entry is assimilated to contact. As partial contact ranks as contact,3 so partial entry is designated entry. R. Hoshaia raised an objection to 'Ulla: If a leper whose eighth day fell on the eve of Passover4 and who had a nocturnal discharge on that day,5 and performed immersion,6 - the Sages said: Though any other tebul yom7 may not enter [the Levitical camp], this one does enter:8 it is preferable that an affirmative precept which involves kareth9 should come and override an affirmative precept which does not involve kareth.10 Now R. Johanan said: By the law of the Torah11 there is not even an affirmative precept in connection therewith, for it is said, And Jehoshaphat stood in the congregation of Judah and Jerusalem, in the house of the Lord, before the new court.12 What does 'the new court' mean? That they introduced a new law there and ruled: A tebul yom must not enter the Levitical camp.13 Now if you say that partial entry is called entry, how can he insert his hands for [the sprinkling of his] thumbs; in both cases there is an affirmative precept involving kareth?14 - from your very refutation15 [I can answer you], he replied: A leper is different. Since he was permitted in respect of his leprosy,16 he was permitted in respect of his nocturnal discharge. R. Joseph observed: 'Ulla holds [that] if the majority were zabin and they became unclean through the dead, since they are permitted in respect of their defilement, they are permitted in respect of their zibah.17 Said Abaye to him, How can you compare? Uncleanness was permitted, but zibah was not permitted!18 Perhaps this is what you meant: If the majority are unclean through the dead and they become zabin, since they are permitted in respect of their uncleanness they are permitted in respect of their zibah? - Yes, he replied. Said he to him: Yet they are still not alike. [In the case of] a leper it is permitted,19 [and] since it is permitted [in respect of leprosy], it is permitted [in respect of his nocturnal discharge]. But defilement is [merely] superseded: in respect of one20 it was superseded, [while] in respect of the other [zibah] it was not superseded? - Said Raba to him: On the contrary, the logic is the reverse: [In the case of] a leper it is permitted: then it is permitted in respect of the one and not permitted in respect of the other. But uncleanness is superseded: What does it matter then whether it is superseded in one instance or whether it is superseded in two instances?
____________________
(1) Reading we-shohet, and the slaughterer, for we-shahat, and he shall slaughter. Thus he holds that the slaughterer must be inside too.
(2) Lev. XII, 4.
(3) Since normally a man does not touch a thing with his whole body.
(4) When a leper was healed from his leprosy he waited seven days, performing immersion on the seventh, and brought his sacrifices on the eighth (v. Lev. XIV, 9f). When he brought these he was still not permitted to enter the Temple court ('the camp of the Shechinah' - divine Presence) but stood at the east gate ('the gate of Nicanor'), whose sanctity was lower (it was regarded as 'the Levitical camp'), while the priest, standing inside the Temple court, applied the blood and the oil to the thumb and the great toe of the leper (ibid. 14f).
(5) Before he had offered his sacrifices. One who suffered such a discharge might not enter even the Levitical camp.
(6) Again. Though be had performed immersion the previous day, that was on account of his leprosy, whereas now he performs it on account of his discharge.
(7) V. Glos.
(8) For his purification rites.
(9) Sc. the Passover-offering. He went through his purification rites so that he might eat of the Passover-offering in the evening, the eating of which is enjoined by an affirmative precept.
(10) Sc. that a tebul yom must not enter the Levitical camp. That is derived in Naz. 45a from, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him (Num. XIX, 13); since this is an affirmative statement, the injunction likewise counts as an affirmative precept. Its violation does not involve kareth.
(11) The Pentateuch.
(12) II Chron. XX, 5.
(13) Since this was an innovation, it is only Rabbinical, and as seen supra it was waived for the sake of the Passover-offering.
(14) An unclean person may not enter the Temple court on pain of kareth.
(15) Lit., 'burden'.
(16) This is obvious, as Scripture ordains it, and it cannot be done in any other way but by inserting his hands (or thumbs) into the Temple court.
(17) For zab (pl. zabim, zabin), zibah v. Glos. If the majority of the community are unclean on the eve of Passover through the dead, they are permitted to offer the Passover-offering, as this uncleanness is inoperative (or superseded) in such circumstances. But if they are unclean as zabin, they may not offer. Now, if they were thus unclean, and then became unclean through the dead too, since they are permitted in respect of the latter, they are also permitted in respect of the former. This follows from 'Ulla's answer.
(18) Though the uncleanness through the dead is permitted, yet since it came after zibah it cannot render that permitted too, for if it did it would create the absurd position that whereas zibah alone is not permitted, yet when defilement through the dead is added to it, it is permitted.
(19) To project his hands into the Temple court.
(20) Sc. defilement through the dead.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 33a
This proves that both1 hold that uncleanness is [merely] superseded in the case of a community.2
Shall we say that the following supports him:3 In all cases of laying [hands] I apply [the norm], shechitah must immediately follow laying, except this one,4 which took place at the Nicanor Gate, because the leper might not enter therein5 until the blood of his sin-offering and his guilt-offering was sprinkled on his account.6 Now, if you say that partial entry is not designated entry, let him project his hands [into the Temple court] and lay [them on the sacrifice]?7 - Said R. Joseph: This is in accordance with R. Jose son of R. Judah, who maintained: The north is at a distance [from the entrance].8 Then let a small gate be made?9 - Abaye and Raba both quoted [in reply]: All this [do I give thee] in writing, as the Lord hath made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern.10 Others state [that] R. Joseph said: When one lays [hands], he must project his head and the greater part [of his body into the Temple court].11 What is the reason? - We require [him to lay hands with] all his strength; therefore it cannot be done [otherwise].
What does [the Tanna] hold?12 If he holds that the laying [hands on] the guilt-offering of a leper is a Scriptural requirement, and that [the law that] shechitah must immediately follow laying is Scriptural, then let him [the leper] enter [the Temple court] and lay [hands], since the Divine Law ordained it? - Said R. Adda b. Mattenah: It is a preventive measure, lest he prolong his route.13 Others state [that] R. Adda b. Mattenah said: Laying of [hands on] the guilt-offering of a leper is Scriptural, but [that] shechitah must immediately follow laying is not Scriptural.14
An objection is raised: And he shall lay [his hands . . . ] and he shall kill:15 As 'laying' must be [done] by clean [persons only], so must shechitah be [done] by clean [persons only]. If, however, you say that it is not Scriptural, then it can be [done] by unclean persons too?16 - Rather, reverse it: Laying of [hands on] the guilt-offering of a leper is not Scriptural, while [the law that] shechitah must immediately follow laying is Scriptural. [
____________________
(1) Abaye and Raba.
(2) V. supra p. 163, n. 11, and Yoma 6b.
(3) 'Ulla, that partial entry is designated entry.
(4) Laying of hands on the leper's guilt-offering.
(5) Into the Temple court.
(6) Hence the animal was brought to the Nicanor Gate, which had intentionally been left unsanctified to enable the leper to stand there, and he laid hands upon it; then it was led to the Temple court and slaughtered, and so these two actions had to be separated by a short interval.
(7) So here too shechitah could immediately follow laying.
(8) Sc. of the Temple court. V. supra 20a. The sacrifices of the leper had to be slaughtered at the north side of the altar, which was more than 22 cubits from the main entrance of the Temple court. Hence he could not possibly reach it from outside.
(9) On the north wall of the Temple court facing the altar, whereby the animal could be slaughtered immediately after his laying on of hands.
(10) I Chron. XXVIII, 19. Thus the Temple was designed by divine guidance, and nothing might be added to it.
(11) So that it would not be partial entry but complete entry, which is forbidden to the leper.
(12) When he rules that shechitah must always immediately follow laying save in the case of a leper.
(13) Lit., 'take many steps' - into the Temple court - more than is necessary for laying hands. This would not be covered by the Scriptural dispensation.
(14) Hence we cannot permit him to enter the Temple court.
(15) Lev. I, 4.
(16) Viz., by laying hands outside the Temple court, and then the sacrifice is led in and slaughtered.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 33b
Rabina said: It was stated1 [only] in respect of flagellation.2 When Rabin came, he said in the name of R. Abbahu: It was stated in respect of an unclean person who touched sacred flesh.3 For it was stated: If an unclean person touches sacred flesh, Resh Lakish maintains: He is flagellated; R. Johanan said: He is not flagellated. Resh Lakish maintained [that] he is flagellated, [because it is written] She shall touch no hallowed thing.4 But R. Johanan maintains that he is not flagellated, [for] that [text] is written in reference to terumah.5 Now [does] Resh Lakish [maintain that] this text comes for this purpose? [surely] it is required as a forewarning against eating sacred flesh?6 For it was stated: Whence do we derive a forewarning against eating sacred flesh? Resh Lakish says: [From the text,] 'She shall touch no hallowed thing'. R. Johanan said, Bardela taught: It is derived from the expression 'his uncleanness' occurring here and in reference to [an unclean person's] entry into the sanctuary:7 as there [Scripture] prescribes the penalty and gives a forewarning,8 so here too [Scripture] prescribes the penalty and implies a forewarning!9 - [That] an unclean person who touched sacred flesh [is flagellated follows] from the fact that the Divine Law expressed this in terms of touching;10 while a forewarning to one who eats [sacred flesh while unclean follows] from the assimilation of sacred flesh to the sanctuary.11
It was taught in accordance with Resh Lakish: 'She shall touch no hallowed thing': [this is] a forewarning in respect of eating. You say [that it is] a forewarning in respect of eating; yet perhaps it is not so, but rather in respect of touching? Therefore the text states, 'She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary': the 'hallowed thing' [sacred flesh] is assimilated to the sanctuary. As [the offence in connection with] the sanctuary is one which involves
____________________
(1) That partial entry is designated entry.
(2) As 'Ulla explicitly states. But it was not stated in respect of kareth, and therefore you cannot raise an objection from the law of a leper, who had a nocturnal issue where the penalty involved is kareth.
(3) And not in respect of partial entry at all - contra 'Ulla.
(4) Lev. XII, 4. 'She' is a woman in childbirth, who is unclean, and she is forbidden to touch it by a negative command, which is punishable by flagellation.
(5) But not to sacrifices. And although sacrifices are more sacred than terumah, for contact with which flagellation is incurred, we do not deduce a fortiori that the same punishment is incurred for touching sacred flesh, as flagellation is not imposed as a result of an a fortiori deduction.
(6) In a state of bodily uncleanness.
(7) Eating sacred flesh whilst unclean (Lev. VII, 20): But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that pertain unto the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people (i.e., kareth). Entering the sanctuary whilst unclean (Num. XIX, 13): Whosoever toucheth the dead, even the body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself - he hath defiled the tabernacle of the Lord - that soul shall be cut off from Israel; because the water of sprinkling was not dashed against him, he shall be unclean; his uncleanness is yet upon him.
(8) The forewarning is in Num. V, 3: That they (the unclean) defile not their camp.
(9) Thus Resh Lakish utilises the text for a different purpose.
(10) Since Scripture actually writes, She shall touch no hallowed thing.
(11) Scripture writes, She shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary. Thus the two, being brought together in this way, are assimilated to each other. Hence this deduction is made: as the forewarning in respect of the sanctuary involves kareth, so the forewarning in respect of the 'hallowed thing' i.e., sacred flesh, is in respect of an action which involves kareth, viz., eating sacred flesh whilst unclean, for we do not find that an unclean person who touches sacred flesh incurs kareth. Nevertheless, since Scripture does use the expression 'touch', a forewarning in respect of touching too must be understood from this text.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 34a
the death penalty,1 so the offence in connection with the hallowed thing is one which involves the death penalty. Now, if this treats of touching, is then the death penalty involved?2 Hence it must treat of eating.
Yet it is still required in respect of an unclean person who ate the sacred flesh before the sprinkling [of the blood]? For it was stated: If an unclean person ate the sacred flesh before the sprinkling of the blood, Resh Lakish maintained that he is flagellated; while R. Johanan ruled that he is not flagellated. Resh Lakish maintained [that] he is flagellated, [for it is written,] 'She shall touch no hallowed thing', no distinction being drawn whether it is before sprinkling or after sprinkling. While R. Johanan ruled [that] he is not flagellated, as Bardela taught: 'It is derived from the recurring expression, 'his uncleanness', and that is written after the sprinkling'!3 - If so,4 let Scripture say, '[She shall not touch] a hallowed thing'; why state no hallowed thing?5 Hence two things may be inferred from it.
The [above] text [stated]: 'If an unclean person ate sacred flesh before sprinkling, Resh Lakish maintained: He is flagellated: while R. Johanan ruled: He is not flagellated.' Abaye said: This controversy applies only to bodily uncleanness; but where the flesh is unclean, all rule that he is flagellated, because a Master said:6 And the flesh [that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten]7 is to include wood and frankincense; though these are not edible, yet Scripture includes them.8 Raba said: The controversy is in respect of bodily uncleanness, but where the flesh is unclean9 all agree that he is not flagellated. What is the reason? - Since we cannot apply to him the text, Having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off,10 you cannot apply to him the text, And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten. But a Master said, And the flesh includes the wood and the frankincense? - That is where they were sanctified in a vessel,11 so that they become as though all their mattirin12 had been performed. For we learnt: All which have mattirin [involve a penalty through defilement] once their mattirin have been offered;13 whatever has no mattirin [involves a penalty through defilement] when it has been sanctified in a [service] vessel.14
It was stated: If one brings up the limbs of an unclean animal15 on the altar, Resh Lakish maintained: He is flagellated; R. Johanan said: He is not flagellated. 'Resh Lakish maintained [that] he is flagellated', [for Scripture implies,] Only a clean animal [may be offered], but not an unclean one,16 and one is flagellated on account of a negative injunction which is inferred from an affirmative precept. 'R. Johanan said, He is not flagellated', because one is not flagellated on account of a negative injunction which is inferred from an affirmative precept.
R. Jeremiah raised an objection: That may ye eat,17 but not an unclean animal; and a negative injunction which is inferred from an affirmative precept ranks as an affirmative precept ?18 - Said R. Jacob to R. Jeremiah b. Tahlifa: I will explain it to you: There is no disagreement at all about the limbs of an unclean [domesticated] animal; they disagree about a beast [of chase],19 and it was thus stated: 'R. Johanan said: He transgresses an affirmative precept. While Resh Lakish said: He does not transgress anything.' 'R. Johanan said, He transgresses an affirmative precept', [for Scripture says,] [Ye shall bring your offering] of the cattle [behemah]: [this implies] only of the cattle, but not of the beast [of chase]; while Resh Lakish said, He does not transgress anything, [for] that [text] intimates that it is meritorious.20
Raba raised an objection: If it were said, '[When any man of you bringeth] an offering to the Lord,' cattle [behemah], I would agree that hayyah [beast of chase] is included in behemah, as in the verse, These are the animals [behemah] which ye may eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat, the hart and the gazelle and the roebuck etc.21 Therefore the text states, 'even of the herd or of the flock': of the herd or of the flock have I prescribed unto thee, but not a beast of chase [hayyah]. You might think [that] one must not bring [a hayyah], yet if one did bring [it] it is valid: for to what is this like? To a disciple whom his master bade, 'Bring me wheat' and he brought him wheat and barley, where he is not regarded as having flouted his orders, but as having added thereto22 - and it is valid; therefore the text states, 'even of the herd or of the flock': of the herd and of the flock have I prescribed unto thee, but not a beast. To what is this like? To a disciple whom his master bade, 'Bring me naught but wheat' and he brought him wheat and barley. He is not regarded as having added to his words, but as having flouted them,
____________________
(1) I.e., kareth.
(2) Surely not!
(3) For the forewarning is learned from the penalty, and the penalty of kareth is only incurred after the sprinkling, v. Men. 25b. - Returning to our subject, we see that Resh Lakish utilises the text for a different purpose.
(4) That the text is required for this purpose only.
(5) Expressed in Heb. by the addition of be-kol, ('all' or 'every'); the emphasis implies an additional teaching.
(6) Emended text (Bah).
(7) Lev. VII, 19.
(8) The exegesis is to shew that these can become unclean like an edible (though usually only an edible or a utensil can be defiled), and then the same law applies to them as to food. Now, flesh before sprinkling cannot be worse than these; if these involve flagellation, surely flesh before sprinkling does likewise.
(9) Var. lec.: The controversy is in respect of the uncleanness of the flesh, but in the case of bodily uncleanness etc. (Sh. M.).
(10) Ibid. 20. The text refers to bodily uncleanness, which supports the var. lec. - Kareth is not incurred before the sprinkling of the blood (p. 167, n. 5).
(11) The wood was removed from the altar in a service vessel, and the frankincense was sanctified in a censer. These, as the Talmud explains, are then in the same position as though all their ritual had been performed, and therefore are analogous to flesh after sprinkling.
(12) V. Glos.
(13) E.g., flesh, whose mattirin is the blood which by being sprinkled on the altar permits the flesh to be eaten.
(14) V. Me'il. 10a.
(15) E.g., of horses or camels.
(16) In the verse, Ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd or of the flock (Lev. I, 2.). Thus Scripture specifies clean animals.
(17) Lev. XI, 3.
(18) And but for the special negative injunction which follows in the Scriptural text it would involve no flagellation.
(19) Animals are technically divided into behemah (domesticated animal) and hayyah (wild beast, lit., 'living thing'). The former includes dogs, horses and camels; the latter includes the hart, deer and roebuck.
(20) To offer sacrifices of the cattle, whereas offering a beast of chase is voluntary and permissive. Nevertheless, though we have no affirmative precept forbidding it, anything unclean of either species may certainly not be offered, v. Men. 6a.
(21) Deut. XIV, 4f. The last three belong to the class of hayyah.
(22) And here too, since one need not offer a sacrifice at all, when one offers a hayyah he is as though adding to God's words.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 34b
- and it [the sacrifice] is invalid. This refutation of Resh Lakish is indeed a refutation.
AND IF ANY OF THESE RECEIVED etc. Resh Lakish asked R. Johanan: Does an unfit person render [the blood in the throat] a residue?1 - Said he to him: There is no case of sprinkling rendering [the remaining blood] a residue,2 save [where it is done with the illegal intention of] after time or without bounds, since it counts3 in respect of piggul.4 R. Zebid recited it thus: Resh Lakish asked R. Johanan: Does an unfit goblet [of blood] render [the remainder] a residue?5 - Said he to him: What is your opinion about an unfit person himself? If an unfit person renders [the blood] a residue, then an unfit goblet too renders [the blood] a residue; if an unfit person does not render a residue, an unfit goblet too does not render a residue. R. Jeremiah of Difti recited it thus: Abaye asked Rabbah: Does one goblet render another rejected or a residue?6 - Said he to him: It is the subject of a controversy between R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon and the Rabbis. For it was taught: Above it is stated, And the [remaining] blood thereof shall he pour out [at the base of the altar]; while below it is stated, And all the [remaining] blood thereof shall he pour out [at the base of the altar]:7 How do we know that, if [the priest] received the blood of the sin-offering in four goblets and made one application [of blood] from each,8 all [the rest] are poured out at the base [of the altar]? From the text, And all the [remaining] blood thereof shall he pour out [at the base of the altar]. You might think that, if he made the four applications from one goblet, all [the rest] are to be poured out at the base: therefore the text states, And the [remaining] blood thereof [etc].9 How is this to be understood? [The remaining blood of] that [goblet] is poured out at the base,10 but they [the other goblets] are poured out into the duct.11 R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: Whence do we know that, if [the priest] received the blood of the sin-offering in four goblets and made the four applications from one goblet, all are poured out at the base? From the text, And all the [remaining] blood thereof shall he pour out [at the base of the altar]. Yet surely it is written, 'And the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out etc.'? - Said R. Ashi: That is to exclude the residue [of the blood left] in the throat of the animal.
IF THE FIT PERSON RECEIVED [THE BLOOD] AND GAVE [IT] TO AN UNFIT ONE etc. Now, all these are necessary:12 For if we were informed about an unfit person, I would say, what is an unfit person? An unclean [priest] who is eligible for public service;13 but the left [hand] is not so.14 And if we were informed about the left hand, that is because it is fit on the Day of Atonement,15 but a secular [non-sacred] vessel is not so. While if we were informed about secular vessels, that is because they are eligible for sanctification; but as for the others, I would say that it is not so. Thus they are all necessary.
Now, let it be regarded as rejection?16 - Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Thus said R. Jeremiah of Difti in Raba's name: This is in accordance with Hanan the Egyptian, who does not accept the law of rejection.17 For it was taught: Hanan the Egyptian said: Even if the blood is in the cup he brings its companion and pairs it.18 R. Ashi answered: When it lies in one's power [to rectify] the matter, it does not constitute rejection.19 R. Shaya observed: Reason supports R. Ashi. [For] whom do you know to accept the law of rejection? R. Judah, as we learnt: Even more did R. Judah say: If the blood [of the he-goat to be sacrificed] was spilt, the [he-goat] which was to be sent away must perish;20 if the [he-goat] which was to be sent away perished, the blood [of the other] must be poured out.21 Yet we know him to rule that where it lies in one's power [to rectify the matter] there is no rejection. For it was taught, R. Judah said: He [the priest] used to fill a goblet with the mingled blood22 and sprinkled it once against the base [of the altar].23 This proves that where it lies in one's own hands, there is no rejection. This proves it.
[To turn to] the main text: 'It was taught, R. Judah said: He [the priest] used to fill a goblet with the mingled blood, so that should the blood of one of them be spilt, the result is that this renders it valid. Said they to R. Judah: But surely it [the mingled blood] had not been received in a vessel?' How do they know?24 - Rather [they said to him]: perhaps it was not caught in a vessel?25 I too, he answered them,
____________________
(1) If he sprinkles the blood, can a fit person make the sacrifice valid by catching more blood from the animal's throat and sprinkling it? Or do we say, Once the unfit person has sprinkled the blood, what still remains in the throat is regarded as the residue of the blood, which cannot be used for sprinkling, and therefore the sacrifice is invalid? (The Mishnah speaks only of receiving the blood, not of sprinkling.)
(2) Emended text (Bah).
(3) Lit., 'propitiates'.
(4) Since such sprinkling counts as sprinkling to render the sacrifice piggul, it also counts to render the rest of the blood a residue. But no other illegal sprinkling renders the remainder of the blood a residue.
(5) If the goblet containing the blood to be sprinkled was taken outside the Temple court, whereby it becomes unfit, and it was then sprinkled, does it render the remainder in the throat a residue?
(6) E.g., if the blood of a sin-offering was received in two goblets, and all the sprinklings were performed out of one, is the blood in the other regarded as the residue, which must be poured out at the foot of the altar (cf. Lev. IV, 7: and all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out at the base of the altar)? Or do we say that by not using it he intentionally, as it were, rejected it, and therefore it is simply poured out into the duct or sewer in the Temple court which discharged its contents into the stream of Kidron?
(7) Lev. IV, 25. 30.
(8) Four applications of blood were made on the horns of the altar.
(9) But not all, which apparently contradicts the other text.
(10) Since it is the residue of what was actually sprinkled.
(11) Because one goblet renders another rejected.
(12) V. Mishnah.
(13) When the whole community is unclean, including the priests, they sacrifice the Passover-offering in that state.
(14) Therefore, if the priest transferred the blood into his left hand, it should be permanently invalid.
(15) The High Priest took the censer in his right hand and the spoon in his left.
(16) The blood was fit in the first place, but by taking it in the wrong hand or in a secular vessel it was rejected, and therefore should no more be fit.
(17) Viz., that once rejected it remains permanently so.
(18) Two he-goats were taken on the day of Atonement, one of which was sacrificed as a sin-offering, and the other was sent away-into the wilderness (the 'scapegoat'), the function of each being decided by lot. The blood of the former was received in a cup or basin and sprinkled on the altar. Now, if the scapegoat died before the blood of the other was sprinkled, Hanan rules that we do not say that the blood is thereby rejected, and two other goats must be brought, but only one more is brought and paired up with the one already slaughtered. For other views that the blood is thereby rejected permanently (the two goats being interdependent) v. Mishnah Yoma 62a.
(19) Here it lies in his power to rectify the matter by transferring the blood.
(20) But not sent to Azazel, because the two are interdependent, and since a new animal must be brought for the first, as its blood was spilt before sprinkling, a new pair must be brought.
(21) And likewise two fresh animals brought. Thus in each case one is rejected because of the other, and remains so permanently.
(22) Of many Passover-offerings. Lit., 'the blood of those which were mixed'.
(23) In case the blood of one of them would be spilt, this would make it valid.
(24) This is an interjection: how do the Rabbis, who raise this objection, know that it was not caught in a vessel?
(25) But poured straight from the animal's throat on to the ground. Rashi (in Pes. 65a): in that case sprinkling is of no avail. Tosaf.: sprinkling, if already performed, is efficacious, but such blood must not be taken up to the altar in the first place.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 35a
spoke only of that which was received in a vessel. And how does he himself know that? - The priests are careful; but as they work quickly [the blood] may be spilt.
But the draining-blood1 is mixed with it?2 - R. Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintained: The draining-blood is called blood.3 For it was taught: The draining-blood is subject to a 'warning;'4 R. Judah said: It is subject to kareth.5 But surely R. Eleazar said: R. Judah agrees in respect to atonement, that it does not make atonement, because it is said, For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life:6 blood wherewith life departs is called blood;7 blood wherewith life does not depart is not called blood? - Rather [reply]:8 R. Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintained: Blood cannot nullify [other] blood.9
R. Judah said to them [the Sages]: On your view,10 why did they stop up [the holes in] the Temple court?11 - Said they to him: It is praiseworthy for the sons of Aaron [the priests] to walk in blood up to their ankles. But blood constitutes an interposition?12 - It was moist, and did not constitute an interposition. For it was taught: Blood, ink, honey, and milk, if dry, interpose; if moist, they do not interpose.13 But their garments become [blood-] stained, whereas it was taught: If his garments were soiled and he performed the service, his service is unfit? And should you answer that they raised their garments,14 surely it was taught: [And the priest shall put on] his linen measure:15 [that means] that it must not be [too] short nor too long?16 - [They raised them] at the carrying of the limbs to the [altar] ascent, which was not a service.17 Was it not? Surely it was taught: And the priest shall offer the whole, and burn it on the altar:18 this refers to the carrying of the limbs to the ascent? - Rather, [they raised them] at the carrying of the wood to the [altar] pile, which was not a service. Nevertheless, how could they walk at the service?19 - They walked on balconies.20
MISHNAH. IF ONE SLAUGHTERS THE SACRIFICE [INTENDING] TO EAT WHAT IS NOT NORMALLY EATEN, OR TO BURN [ON THE ALTAR] WHAT IS NOT NORMALLY BURNT, IT IS VALID; BUT R. ELIEZER INVALIDATES [THE SACRIFICE].21 [IF HE SLAUGHTERS IT INTENDING] TO EAT WHAT IS NORMALLY EATEN AND TO BURN WHAT IS NORMALLY BURNT, [BUT] LESS THAN THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE, IT IS VALID. TO EAT HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE AND TO BURN HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE, IT IS VALID, BECAUSE [INTENTIONS CONCERNING] EATING AND BURNING DO NOT COMBINE.22 IF ONE SLAUGHTERS THE SACRIFICE [INTENDING] TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF THE SKIN, OR OF THE JUICE, OR OF THE JELLY,23 OR OF THE OFFAL, OR OF THE BONES, OR OF THE TENDONS, OR OF THE HORNS, OR OF THE HOOFS, EITHER AFTER TIME OR OUT OF BOUNDS, IT IS VALID, AND ONE IS NOT CULPABLE ON THEIR ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF PIGGUL, NOTHAR, OR UNCLEANNESS.24 IF ONE SLAUGHTERS SACRED ANIMALS25 [INTENDING] TO EAT THE FETUS OR THE AFTERBIRTH WITHOUT, HE DOES NOT RENDER PIGGUL. IF ONE WRINGS [THE NECKS OF] DOVES, [INTENDING] TO EAT THEIR EGGS WITHOUT, HE DOES NOT RENDER [THEM] PIGGUL. ONE IS NOT CULPABLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE MILK OF SACRED ANIMALS OR THE EGGS OF DOVES IN RESPECT OF PIGGUL, NOTHAR, OR UNCLEANNESS.
GEMARA. R. Eleazar said: If [the priest] expressed a piggul intention in respect of the sacrifice, the fetus [too] becomes piggul;26 [if he expresses a piggul intention] in connection with the fetus, the sacrifice does not become piggul.27 If he expresses a piggul intention in respect of the offal, the crop becomes piggul; in respect of the crop, the offal does not become piggul.28 If he expresses a piggul intention in respect of emurim,29 the bullocks become piggul; in respect of the bullocks,30 the emurim do not become piggul.31 Shall we say that the following supports him:32 And both agree that if he expressed an intention [of piggul] in connection with the eating of the bullocks and their burning, he has done nothing?33 Surely then, if however he expressed an intention concerning the emurim, the bullocks become piggul? - No:
____________________
(1) Tamzith denotes the last blood which slowly drains off the animal, contrad. to the life-blood, which gushes forth in a stream.
(2) Whereas 'lifeblood' is required for sprinkling.
(3) For the purposes of sprinkling.
(4) This is a technical designation for a negative injunction whose violation is punished by lashes. But it involves no kareth, as does the consuming of the life-blood (v. Lev. XVII, 10f).
(5) Just like life-blood. Hence it is also the same in respect to sprinkling.
(6) Lev. XVII, 11.
(7) And makes atonement.
(8) To the objection, 'But the draining-blood is mixed with it'.
(9) And there is certainly at least a little of the life-blood in this goblet of mixed blood, and that is sufficient for atonement.
(10) That they did not fill a goblet of mixed blood.
(11) On the eve of Passover they stopped up the holes through which the blood of the sacrifices passed out to the stream of Kidron.
(12) Between the pavement and their feet, whereas they had to stand actually on the pavement itself, supra 15b.
(13) When a person takes a ritual bath (tebillah), nothing must interpose between the water and his skin; if something does interpose, it invalidates the bath.
(14) I.e., they were short and did not reach down to the blood.
(15) E.V. garment, Lev. VI, 3.
(16) But reach exactly to the ground.
(17) And only then was it praiseworthy for the priests to walk up to their ankles in blood.
(18) Lev. I, 13.
(19) Sc. of the sprinkling of the blood.
(20) Projecting boards alongside the walls.
(21) V. supra 28a.
(22) The whole Mishnah refers to intentions of eating and/or burning after time or out of bounds.
(23) The sediments of boiled meat coagulated.
(24) If the sacrifice became piggul, nothar, or unclean, and a priest ate of the skin etc., he is not liable, since we do not designate his action eating, as these are not eaten.
(25) I.e., sacrifices. The Heb. (mukdashin) always refers to females.
(26) And he who eats the fetus incurs kareth, as for eating piggul.
(27) He holds that the fetus is an integral part of the sacrifice, being regarded, as it were, as a limb of its mother. Nevertheless, this intention does not render the sacrifice piggul, because it is not usually eaten. The fetus itself too does not become piggul, in accordance with the Mishnah.
(28) The offal is edible, but not the crop. Therefore an intention in respect of the latter is not efficacious; but an intention in respect of the former makes the whole piggul, including the crop.
(29) If he slaughtered the bullocks which are burnt intending to burn the emurim on the altar after time.
(30) Intending to eat of their flesh after time.
(31) Because it is the intention to eat what is not usually eaten. The bullocks themselves do certainly not become piggul.
(32) In his view that a thing can become piggul through something else, e.g., the fetus, the crop, and the flesh of the bullocks, though it cannot be the vehicle of rendering the sacrifice piggul.
(33) 'Both' refers to R. Simeon and the Rabbis, v. infra 43a. The present reference is to the bullocks which were to be burnt without, and they agree that if the priest expressed an intention during one of the blood services to eat of the bullocks on the morrow or to burn them as required in the ash-house on the morrow, his intention is of no effect, because his intention to eat does not count, since this is not normally eaten and his intention with regard to the burning does not count either, for only an intention that the altar should consume (expressing it so, but not 'burn') counts.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 35b
[deduce thus:] but if he expressed an intention concerning the emurim, the emurim themselves become piggul.1
Come and hear: The bullocks which are to be burnt and the he-goats which are to be burnt are subject to [the law of] sacrilege from the time they are consecrated.2 Having been slaughtered, they are ready to become unfit through [the touch of] a tebul yom and one who lacks atonement,3 and through being kept overnight [linah]. Surely that means, through the flesh being kept overnight; and you may infer from this [that] since being kept overnight renders it unfit, an [illegitimate] intention renders it unfit!4 - No: it refers to keeping the emurim overnight.5 But since the second clause teaches: You trespass in the case of all when they are in the ash-house6 until the flesh is dissolved, it follows that the first clause treats of keeping the flesh overnight? - What reason have you for supposing this: each refers to its particular case; the first clause treats of emurim, and the second of the flesh.
Rabbah objected: The following neither render nor are rendered piggul:7 the wool on the head of lambs, and the hair of he-goats' beards, and the skin, the juice, the jelly, the offal, the crop, the bones, the tendons, the horns, the hoofs, the fetus, the after-birth, the milk of consecrated animals, and the eggs of doves; all of these neither render nor are rendered piggul, and one is not liable on their account in respect of piggul, nothar and uncleanness, and one who carries them up without is not liable. Does this not mean: They do not render the sacrifice piggul, and they are not rendered piggul through the sacrifice? - No: They do not render the sacrifice piggul, and they are not rendered piggul through themselves.8 If so, when the sequel teaches, They neither render nor are rendered piggul, why this repetition?9 - Yet [even] on your view, [when he teaches,] One is not liable on their account for piggul, why this repetition?10 But [you must answer that] because he wishes to teach [about] nothar and defilement, he also teaches about piggul. So now too11 [you can answer], Because he wishes to teach [about] one who carries them without, he also teaches: And all these neither render nor are rendered piggul.
Raba said: We too learnt thus:12 IF ONE SLAUGHTERS SACRED ANIMALS [INTENDING] TO EAT THE FETUS OR THE AFTERBIRTH WITHOUT, HE DOES NOT RENDER PIGGUL. IF ONE WRINGS THE NECKS OF DOVES, [INTENDING] TO EAT THEIR EGGS WITHOUT, HE DOES NOT RENDER PIGGUL. Yet then he learns: ONE IS NOT CULPABLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE MILK OF SACRED ANIMALS OR THE EGGS OF DOVES IN RESPECT OF PIGGUL, NOTHAR, OR UNCLEANNESS. Hence [it follows that] one is culpable on account of the fetus and the after-birth?13 Hence you must surely infer from this that in the one case it means through the sacrifice;14 in the other, through themselves. This proves it.
We learnt elsewhere: And blemished animals;15 R. Akiba declares blemished animals fit.16 R. Hiyya b. Abba declared in R. Johanan's name: R. Akiba declares [them] fit only in the case of cataracts in the eye, since such are fit in the case of birds,17 and provided that their consecration [for a sacrifice] preceded their blemish; and R. Akiba admits that a female burnt-offering must be [taken down], because that is tantamount to the blemish preceding its consecration.18
R. Zera objected: 'One who offers them up without is not liable;'19 but [if one offers up the flesh] of the mother, one is liable; and how is that possible? In the case of a female burnt-offering.20 Now,it is well if you say that R. Akiba holds that if a female burnt-offering goes up, it does not come down: then this is in accordance with R. Akiba.21 But if you say that [even] if it went up, it goes down, in accordance with whom is this? - Say: He who offers up [the flesh] of them without is exempt, hence [he who offers up] of the emurim of the mother, is liable. But he teaches, 'of them', and the mother is analogous to them?22 - Rather say: He who offers up of their emurim without is exempt; hence [he who offers up] of their mother's emurim is liable.
MISHNAH. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT WITH THE INTENTION23 OF LEAVING ITS BLOOD OR ITS EMURIM FOR THE MORROW, OR OF CARRYING THEM WITHOUT, R. JUDAH DISQUALIFIES [IT], BUT THE SAGES DECLARE IT FIT. [IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT] WITH THE INTENTION OF SPRINKLING [THE BLOOD] ON THE ASCENT, [OR ON THE ALTAR] BUT NOT OVER AGAINST ITS BASE; OR OF APPLYING BELOW [THE LINE24 ] WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED ABOVE, OR ABOVE WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED BELOW, OR WITHOUT WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHIN,
____________________
(1) But not the flesh.
(2) One must not misappropriate a consecrated animal (or anything set apart for sacred purposes, e.g., money consecrated to Temple use) for secular use, and if one does, he becomes liable to a trespass-offering (me'ilah).
(3) These defile its flesh, but do not make it unclean to enable it to communicate uncleanness to others, but only unfit. On lacking atonement v. p. 80, n. 2; on unfitness and uncleanness v. p. 155, nn. 3 and 4.
(4) Now, that cannot mean an illegitimate intention to eat the flesh on the morrow (which is tantamount to an intention to keep it overnight), for it has already been stated that this is of no account. Hence it must mean that an illegitimate intention to burn the emurim on the morrow renders the flesh piggul, which supports R. Eleazar.
(5) And you may infer that an intention to keep the emurim overnight renders the emurim piggul, but not the flesh.
(6) Where the flesh is burnt.
(7) An illegitimate intention in respect of them does not render the sacrifice piggul, nor do they become piggul themselves, as the Talmud proceeds to explain.
(8) A piggul intention in respect of themselves does not make them piggul.
(9) The same is taught at the beginning.
(10) Obviously, if they cannot become piggul, there can be no liability for same. Thus this is certainly a repetition, on any interpretation.
(11) On my interpretation.
(12) That the fetus and the placenta are rendered but do not render piggul.
(13) Which apparently contradicts the first clause.
(14) They can be rendered piggul through the rest of the sacrifice.
(15) If a blemished animal is taken up on to the altar, it must be taken down again; v. infra 84a.
(16) If taken up on to the altar, they are not taken down again.
(17) This blemish does not disqualify a bird at all, which is unfit only when it lacks a limb.
(18) An animal burnt-offering must be a male (Lev. I, 3). If a female is offered, it must be taken down, although a bird burnt-offering may be of any gender, because there can be no greater blemish than the forbidden sex.
(19) V. Baraitha supra; 'them' includes the fetus.
(20) For one who offers up the flesh of a peace-offering without is not liable (v. infra 112b). - A female must be meant since the fetus is discussed.
(21) Since it does not come down within, it involves liability without, the two being interdependent (v. infra 112a).
(22) 'Of them' means of course of their flesh, and so the deduction in respect of the mother must also refer to the mother's flesh.
(23) Lit., 'on condition'.
(24) Running along the middle of the altar.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 36a
OR WITHIN WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHOUT; [OR WITH THE INTENTION] THAT UNCLEAN [PERSONS] SHOULD CONSUME IT, [OR] THAT UNCLEAN [PRIESTS] SHOULD OFFER IT;1 [OR] THAT UNCIRCUMCISED [PERSONS] SHOULD EAT IT, [OR] THAT UNCIRCUMCISED PERSONS SHOULD OFFER IT; [OR WITH THE INTENTION] OF BREAKING THE BONES OF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING, OR EATING THEREOF HALF-ROAST;2 OR OF MINGLING THE BLOOD WITH THE BLOOD OF INVALID [SACRIFICES] IT IS VALID, BECAUSE AN [ILLEGITIMATE] INTENTION DOES NOT DISQUALIFY [A SACRIFICE] SAVE WHERE IT REFERS TO AFTER TIME OR WITHOUT BOUNDS, AND [IN THE CASE OF] A PASSOVER-OFFERING AND A SIN-OFFERING, [THE INTENTION TO SLAUGHTER THEM] FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE.
GEMARA. What is R. Judah's reason? - Said R. Eleazar, Two texts are written in reference to nothar. One text says, And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning,3 and another text says, He shall not leave any of it until the morning.4 Since one is superfluous in respect of [actual] leaving, apply it to the intention of leaving it.5
Now [does] R. Judah [hold] that this text comes for this purpose? Surely it is required for what was taught: 'And the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings for thanksgiving [shall be eaten on the day of his offering: he shall not leave any of it until the morning]': we have thus learnt that the thanks-offering is eaten a day and a night. How do we know [the same of] an exchange, an offspring, or a substitute?6 - From the text, 'And the flesh'.7 How do we know [the same of] a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? - Because it says, '[And the flesh of] the sacrifice [etc]'.8 And whence do we know to include a nazirite's peace-offering9 and the peace-offerings of the Passover-offering?10 From the text, 'his peace-offerings'. Whence do we know [the same of] the loaves of the thanks-offering and a nazirite's loaves and the wafers?11 Because 'his offering' is written; [and] to all of these I apply [the injunction], 'he shall not leave any of it until the morning'!12 - If so,13 let Scripture write, 'lo tothiru';14 why [write] 'lo yaniah'? [To teach that] since it is superfluous in respect of actual leaving, apply it to the intention of leaving.
Granted that this [reason] is satisfactory in respect of [the intention] to leave [the blood or the emurim], what can you say about [the intention] to carry [them] out? Moreover R. Judah's reason is based on logic.15 For it was taught: R. Judah said to them [the Sages]: Do you not admit that if he left it [the blood or the emurim] for the morrow, [the sacrifice] is invalid? So also if he intended to leave it for the morrow, it is invalid! (And do you not admit that if he carried them without, it is invalid? So also if he intended to carry them without, it is invalid.)16 - Rather, R. Judah's reason is based on logic.
Now, let R. Judah disagree in the other cases too?17 - In which case should he disagree? In the case of [intending] to break the bones of a Passover-offering and eating thereof half-roast! does then the sacrifice itself become invalid?18 [In the case of] the intention that unclean [persons] should eat it or that unclean [persons] should offer it! does then the sacrifice itself become invalid? [In the case of] the intention that uncircumcised persons should eat it or uncircumcised persons should offer it! is then the sacrifice itself invalidated?
Another version:19 Does it entirely depend on him?20 [As for the intention] to mingle its blood with the blood of invalid [sacrifices], R. Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintains that blood does not nullify [other] blood.21 [As for the intention] to apply below what should be applied above, and above [what should be applied] below, - R. Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintains: Even what is not its place is also called its place.22 Then let him disagree where he applied without what should be applied within, or within, what should be applied without? - R. Judah holds: We require a place which has a threefold function, [Viz.,] in respect of the blood, the flesh, and the emurim.23
Does then R. Judah accept that view? Surely it was taught: R. Judah said: [Scripture states, Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Lord thy God an ox, or a sheep, wherein is a blemish, even any] evil thing:24 here [Scripture] extends the law to a sin-offering which one slaughtered on the south [side of the Temple court], or a sin-offering whose blood entered within [the inner sanctum], [teaching that] it is invalid?25 - But does then R. Judah not accept [this interpretation of] 'third'?23 Surely we learnt: R. Judah said: If one carried [the blood] within in ignorance, it is valid;26 hence if [one did this] deliberately, it is invalid, and we have explained this as meaning where he made atonement.27 Now if in that case, where he has actually carried it within, if he made atonement [therewith] it does [invalidate the sacrifice], but if he did not make atonement, it does not: how much the more so here, where he has merely intended?28 - There is a controversy of two Tannaim as to R. Judah's view.
Now, does R. Judah hold that when one slaughters a sin-offering in the south
____________________
(1) I.e., the blood or the emurim.
(2) Both of which are forbidden, Ex. XII, 9, 46.
(3) Ex. XII, 10.
(4) Lev. VII, 15. The first refers to the Passover-offering, the second to the thanks-offering. Both were peace-offerings, and therefore it need be stated for one only, and the other would follow.
(5) Thus Scripture forbids the intention, and therefore the intention disqualifies.
(6) The text has the plural. - If the animal originally set aside for the offering is lost, and another consecrated in its stead, and then the first is found, the second is called the exchange. 'Offspring': if the consecrated animal lambed or calved before it was sacrificed. For 'substitute' v. p. 22, n. 8. All three are sacrificed as thanks-offerings.
(7) 'And' is an extension.
(8) 'The sacrifice' is superfluous, for Scripture could say, And the flesh of his peace-offerings. Hence it is understood to include these other sacrifices.
(9) V. Num. VI, 14f. This, like an ordinary thanks-offering, was accompanied by loaves of bread.
(10) Rashi: the festival sacrifices (hagigah) which accompanied the Passover-offering on the eve of Passover. Tosaf. (supra 9a): a Passover remainder, i.e., an animal consecrated as a Passover-offering but not sacrificed as such.
(11) The Heb. denotes two different kinds of loaves.
(12) Thus R. Judah utilises the verse for a different purpose!
(13) If this is the only purpose of the text.
(14) 'Ye shall not let any remain'. Tothiru (fr. hothir) is the verb used in Ex. XII, 10, and we would expect the same here.
(15) Not a Scriptural exegesis.
(16) Bracketed addition a var. lec.
(17) Enumerated in the Mishnah.
(18) Even if he actually breaks the bones or eats of it half-roast. Surely not, and so the intention does not invalidate it either.
(19) Other reasons why R. Judah does not dispute the other cases of the Mishnah.
(20) When he intends that unclean or uncircumcised should partake thereof or offer it up, he may not find such to carry out his intention. Hence his intention does not count.
(21) Supra 35a. Hence even if he did it, it would not invalidate the sacrifice.
(22) V. supra 27a.
(23) V. supra 29a.
(24) Deut. XVII, 1.
(25) Though this carrying without bounds is not in respect of a place that has that threefold function.
(26) V. infra 82a.
(27) The mere carrying of the blood into the inner sanctum, even deliberately, does not invalidate the sacrifice, but only its actual sprinkling (called 'making atonement') on the inner altar.
(28) The intention alone certainly does not disqualify it, and the reason must be because R. Judah accepts the interpretation of 'third' given supra 29a.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 36b
he is liable?1 Surely it was taught, R. Judah said: You might think that if one slaughters a sin-offering in the south he is liable; therefore Scripture states, 'Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Lord thy God an ox, or a sheep wherein is a blemish, even any evil thing': You can declare him liable for any evil thing,2 but you cannot make him liable for slaughtering a sin-offering in the south? - There is a controversy of two Tannaim as to R. Judah's view.
R. Abba3 said: Yet R. Judah admits that he [the priest] can subsequently render it piggul.4 Said Raba: This is the proof, viz.: [a] piggul [intention made] before the sprinkling is nothing, yet the sprinkling comes and brands it as piggul.5 Yet that is not so: there there was only one intention:6 here there are two intentions.7
R. Huna raised an objection to R. Abba: [If the priest intended] applying [the blood] which should be applied above [the line] below [it], [or what should be applied] below, above, immediately, it is valid. If he subsequently intended [to consume it] without bounds, it is invalid, but does not involve kareth: [if he intended consuming it] after time, it is unfit, and one is liable to kareth on its account. [If he intended sprinkling the blood in the wrong place] on the morrow, it is unfit; if he subsequently intended [to consume it] without bounds or after time, it is unfit, and does not involve kareth.8 This refutation of R. Abba is indeed a refutation.
R. Hisda said in the name of Rabina b. Sila: If he intended that unclean [persons] should eat it on the morrow,9 he is liable.10 Said Raba: This is the proof, viz., before sprinkling the flesh is not fit [for eating], and yet when he declares a [piggul] intention it becomes unfit.11 Yet it is not so: there he will sprinkle [the blood] and [the flesh] will be fit; here [the unclean] are not fit at all.
R. Hisda said: R. Dimi b. Hinena was wont to say: One is liable for uncleanness in respect of unroast flesh of a Passover-offering and loaves of a thanks-offering of which no separation [for the priest] was made.12 Raba said, This is the proof, viz.: It was taught, [But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace - offerings,] that pertain unto the Lord [having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people]:13 this includes the emurim of lesser sacrifices in respect of uncleanness.14 This proves that though they are not fit for eating at all, one is liable for uncleanness on their account. So here too, though they are not fit for eating, one is liable for uncleanness on their account. Yet it is not so: there the emurim of lesser sacrifices are fit for the Most-High;15 which excludes unroasted flesh of the Passover-offering and the loaves of the thanks-offering of which no separation was made, which are fit neither for the Most-High nor for man. (Another version: Now the emurim are not fit! - Yet it is not so: these emurim are fit for their purpose, whereas these are not fit at all.)16
CHAPTER 4
MISHNAH. BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: WITH REGARD TO ANY [BLOOD] WHICH IS TO BE SPRINKLED ON THE OUTER ALTAR, IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED [IT] WITH ONE SPRINKLING, HE HAS MADE ATONEMENT.17 BUT IN THE CASE OF A SIN-OFFERING TWO APPLICATIONS [ARE INDISPENSABLE]; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: IN THE CASE OF THE SIN-OFFERING TOO, IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED IT WITH A SINGLE APPLICATION, HE HAS MADE ATONEMENT. THEREFORE IF HE MADE THE FIRST APPLICATION IN THE PROPER MANNER AND THE SECOND [WITH THE INTENTION TO EAT THE FLESH] AFTER TIME, HE HAS ATONED.18 AND IF HE MADE THE FIRST APPLICATION [WITH THE INTENTION TO EAT THE FLESH] AFTER TIME AND THE SECOND WITHOUT BOUNDS, IT IS PIGGUL AND INVOLVES KARETH.19 WITH REGARD TO ANY [BLOOD] WHICH IS SPRINKLED ON THE INNER ALTAR, IF [THE PRIEST] OMITTED ONE OF THE APPLICATIONS, HE HAS NOT ATONED; THEREFORE IF HE APPLIED ALL IN THE PROPER MANNER BUT ONE IN AN IMPROPER MANNER,20 IT [THE SACRIFICE] IS INVALID, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.21
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: How do we know that if [the priest] made one application in the case of those [bloods] which are to be sprinkled on the outer altar, he has made atonement? From the text, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out.22 Now, is this text required for that purpose? Surely it is needed for what was taught:
____________________
(1) To flagellation, the usual punishment for violating a negative command. This follows since R. Judah includes slaughtering a sin-offering in the south in the Scriptural injunction quoted above.
(2) In Bek. 37a this is held to mean a patent blemish.
(3) Sh. M. emends: Raba.
(4) Where he intended leaving the blood for the morrow or carrying it without. Although R. Judah holds that he thereby disqualifies the sacrifice, yet if he intended at a subsequent service to eat the flesh after time, he renders it piggul. This is so in spite of the fact that generally speaking a piggul intention is operative only when there is no other disqualification, such as intending to eat it without bounds.
(5) Raba proves that the intention to leave the blood until the morrow is not the same as the intention to eat the flesh without bounds, which makes piggul impossible. For if, before sprinkling, the priest declares his intention of sprinkling the blood on the morrow, it does not render the sacrifice piggul, it being axiomatic that a sacrifice is not rendered piggul unless the mattirin (q.v.Glos.) have been properly offered. Nevertheless, if he subsequently sprinkles the blood properly, his previously declared intention is retrospectively valid and renders the sacrifice valid. Now, this intention was in effect an intention to leave the blood until the morrow, which in R. Judah's view disqualifies the sacrifice (though not rendering it piggul). This proves that we do not say, Since it did not become piggul at the outset it is disqualified through the intention of leaving the blood, and it cannot subsequently become piggul.
(6) Viz., to sprinkle the blood on the morrow, which is a piggul intention.
(7) Viz., first to leave the blood until the morrow, which disqualifies but does not render piggul, and then to eat the flesh after time.
(8) V. supra 26b for notes. The last clause definitely contradicts R. Abba.
(9) Which is after time.
(10) On account of piggul. We do not say that this is not an efficacious intention in respect of piggul since the unclean may not eat of it at any time.
(11) As piggul. This case is analogous.
(12) A thanks-offering was accompanied by forty loaves, four of which were taken off for the priest. Before that was done, the loaves might not be eaten; similarly, a Passover-offering might be eaten roast only. Nevertheless, an unclean person who partakes of them is liable on account of his defilement, though they could not be eaten even by a clean person.
(13) Lev. VII, 20.
(14) Though the lesser sacrifices were eaten by their owners, the emurim were burnt on the altar and thus 'pertained unto the Lord', and Scripture teaches that an unclean priest who eats these emurim incurs kareth.
(15) Viz., to be burnt on the altar.
(16) The bracketed addition is omitted in some MSS.
(17) The sacrifice is valid, though in the first place two applications are required.
(18) Since the first alone sufficed. - According to Beth Shammai this holds good of all sacrifices except a sin-offering, and according to Beth Hillel that too is not excepted.
(19) The second intention does not neutralise the first.
(20) I.e., with wrongful intention.
(21) Since one application is insufficient to make the sacrifice fit; - he holds that a sacrifice cannot be made piggul through a service which is incomplete in itself to make the sacrifice fit.
(22) Deut. XII, 27. - This implies a single pouring out.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 37a
Whence do we know that all blood must be poured out at the base [of the altar]?1 From the text, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out against the altar! - He2 deduces that from Rabbi's [inference]. For it was taught: Rabbi said: [Scripture writes,] And the rest of the blood shall be drained out [at the base of the altar].3 Now, 'of the blood' need not be stated;4 why then is it stated? Because we have learnt only that that blood which requires four applications must be poured out at the base;5 whence do we know it of other blood? From the text, 'And the rest of the blood shall be drained out [at the base of the altar]'.6
Yet still, does it come for this purpose? It is required for what was taught: How do we know that if [the priest] poured out [the blood] which should be sprinkled,7 he has fulfilled [his obligation]?8 From the text, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out.9 He holds as R. Akiba who maintained: pouring is not included in sprinkling, nor is sprinkling included in pouring.10 For we learnt: If he recited the blessing for the Passover-offering, he thereby exempts the [festival] sacrifice; but if he recited the blessing for the sacrifice, he does not exempt the Passover-offering. This is the view of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba said: The former does not exempt the latter, nor does the latter exempt the former.11
Yet still, is it required for this purpose? [Surely] it is needed for what was taught, [viz.]: R. Ishmael said: From the text, But the firstling of an ox, or the firstling of a sheep, or the firstling of a goat [thou shalt not redeem; they are holy: thou shalt dash their blood against the altar, and shalt make their fat smoke for an offering made by fire],12 we learn that a firstling must have its blood and its emurim presented at the altar. Whence do we know [it of] the tithe and the Passover-offering? Because it says, 'And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out'? - He agrees with R. Jose the Galilean. For it was taught: R. Jose the Galilean said: [Thou shalt dash their blood against the altar, and shalt make their fat smoke]:13 not 'its blood' is said, but 'their blood'; not 'its fat' is said, but 'their fat'.14 This teaches concerning the firstling, the tithe [of animals], and the Passover-offering, that their blood and emurim must be presented at the altar.15
Now, does R. Ishmael utilise this text for both purposes?16 - There is a controversy of two Tannaim as to R. Ishmael's view.17
As for R. Ishmael, who makes the whole verse refer to a firstling, it is well: hence it is written, And the flesh of them shall be thine.18 But according to R. Jose the Galilean, who makes it refer to the tithe and the Passover-offering too, [surely] the tithe and the Passover-offering are eaten by their owners; what then is the meaning of 'And the flesh of them shall be thine'? - [The plural intimates,] whether it be whole or blemished,
____________________
(1) If any blood is left over after the regulation sprinkling. - This is stated explicitly of the sin-offering only (Lev. IV, 18), and the Talmud now wishes to extend it to other sacrifices too.
(2) The author of the first deduction.
(3) Lev. V, 9.
(4) It is understood from the general context.
(5) Viz., the sin-offering.
(6) The two lines that follow in the original are a mere repetition, and are deleted by Sh. M.
(7) Some blood requires sprinkling (zerikah), i.e., from the distance: other requires pouring out (shefikah), i.e., the priest must stand at the side of the altar and pour the blood out.
(8) The sacrifice is valid.
(9) The plural indicates all sacrifices, even those for which zerikah is prescribed.
(10) Therefore where Scripture prescribes sprinkling, the sacrifice is not valid if the blood is merely poured out at the base. Hence he rejects the above interpretation, and so utilises the text for the purpose originally stated.
(11) In Pes. 121a it is explained that in R. Ishmael's opinion sprinkling (zerikah) is included in pouring (shefikah), but pouring is not included in sprinkling; whereas R. Akiba holds that neither is included in the other. Thus (as explained by Rashbam a.l.): Both R. Ishmael and R. Akiba hold that the blood of the Passover-offering must be poured out, i.e., the priest must stand quite close to the altar and gently pour the blood on to its base. But the blood of the festival-offering (hagigah) requires sprinkling, i.e., from a distance and with some force. Now R. Ishmael holds that if the latter is poured out instead of sprinkled, the obligation of sprinkling has nevertheless been discharged. Consequently, the blessing for the Passover-offering includes that of the festival-offering, since in both the blood may be poured on to the base of the altar. But if the blood of the Passover-offering is sprinkled, the obligation has not been discharged: consequently the blessing for the festival-offering, whose blood is normally sprinkled, does not exempt the Passover-offering. By the same reasoning we infer that in R. Akiba's view neither includes the other.
(12) Num. XVIII, 17.
(13) Ibid.
(14) Though the passage treats of the firstling only. The plural possessive suffix indicates that other sacrifices too are included in this law.
(15) These are the only sacrifices in connection with which it is not mentioned elsewhere, hence the plural is applied to them.
(16) Lit., 'for this purpose and for that purpose'. Surely not! The reference is to 'and the blood of thy sacrifices thou shalt pour out', from which he learns that if the priest pours out blood which really should be sprinkled, he discharges his obligation. The author of that cannot be R. Akiba, for if it is, why does the blessing for the Passover-offering not exempt that of the festival sacrifice, since, as shewn supra, one is dependent on the other? Hence the author must be R. Ishmael; but he also interprets the same verse as intimating that the blood of the Passover-offering is to be poured, not sprinkled.
(17) Rashi: He who learns from this text that the blood of the Passover-offering is poured out, rejects the ruling that the benediction for the Passover-offering exempts that for the festival-offering, and holds that R. Ishmael does not disagree with R. Akiba on this matter, for now we cannot learn from the text that what should be sprinkled is also valid if poured out. He however who maintains that they do disagree, holds that the blood of the Passover must be sprinkled, not poured out, like a peace-offering. Nevertheless, the Passover-offering is the principal one, while the festival-offering is only subsidiary to it; therefore the benediction for the former exempts that of the latter, but not vice versa. Tosaf. strongly criticises this explanation, and offers others, none of which, however, are quite free from objections.
(18) Num. XVIII, 18. - 'Thine' means the priest's, to whom the firstling belongs. The Plural 'them' is then understood to mean the ox, sheep, and goat, enumerated in the preceding verse.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 37b
thus intimating that a blemished firstling is given to a priest, for which [teaching] we do not find [any other text] in the whole Torah.1 And R. Ishmael?2 - He deduces it from 'it shall be thine', [written] at the end [of the verse].3
It is well according to R. Jose the Galilean, who makes it refer to the tithe and the Passover-offering too: hence it is written, Thou shalt not redeem; they are holy,4 [which intimates] 'they' are offered, but their substitutes are not offered.5 And we learnt [even so]. The substitutes of a firstling or tithe - they themselves, their young, and the young of their young ad infinitum are as the firstling or tithe [respectively], and are eaten, when blemished, by their owners.6 And we [also] learnt: R. Joshua said: I have heard [from my teachers] that the substitute of a Passover-offering is offered,7 and that the substitute of a Passover-offering is not offered,8 and I cannot explain it.9 But according to R. Ishmael who makes the whole of it refer to a firstling, whence does he know that the substitute of tithe and the Passover-offering are not offered? - As for tithe, he learns similarity of law with a firstling from the fact that 'passing' is written in both cases.10 As for the Passover-offering, [consider:] 'lamb' is explicitly written in connection with it; why then does Scripture write, If he bring a lamb for his offering?11 To include the substitute of a Passover-offering after Passover, [intimating] that it is sacrificed as a peace-offering. You might think that it is likewise so before Passover, therefore Scripture writes, It [is the sacrifice of the Lord's Passover].12
Now, all these Tannaim who utilise this [text], 'the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out', for a different exegesis, how do they know this [law of the Mishnah that] WITH REGARD TO ANY [BLOOD] WHICH IS SPRINKLED ON THE OUTER ALTAR, IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED [IT] WITH ONE SPRINKLING, HE HAS MADE ATONEMENT? - They hold as Beth Hillel who maintained: WITH REGARD TO THE SIN-OFFERING TOO, IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED IT WITH A SINGLE APPLICATION, HE HAS MADE ATONEMENT; and we learn all the others from the sin-offering.13
BUT IN THE CASE OF A SIN-OFFERING TWO APPLICATIONS [ARE INDISPENSABLE]. R. Huna said, What is Beth Shammai's reason? - The plural form karnoth [horns] is written three times, denoting six [applications], [thus intimating that] four are prescribed while two [at least] are essential. But Beth Hillel [argue]: [The written forms are] karnath [singular] twice, and karnoth [plural] once,14 which denotes four, implying that three [applications] are prescribed, while [only] one is essential. Yet say, that all are [only] prescribed?15 We find no atonement without rite. Alternatively, this is Beth Hillel's reason: Both mikra [the version as read] and masoreth [the version as traditionally written] are effective: the mikra is effective in adding one [application], while the masoreth is effective in subtracting one.16
If so, [when Scripture writes] letotafath, letotafath, letotafoth1,7 which denotes four [compartments], [you can likewise argue that] both the mikra and the masoreth are effective: then five compartments should be necessary? - He18 holds as R. Akiba, who said: Tot means two in Katpi,19 and foth means two in Afriki.20
[Again] if so [when Scripture writes], ba-sukkath, ba-sukkath, ba-sukkoth,21 [you may argue that] both the mikra and the masoreth are effective: then one should have five walls [for the tabernacle booth]?
____________________
(1) The point of the question and answer is this: 'Them' obviously cannot mean the tithe and the Passover-offering, as R. Jose explains the plural in v. 17, since these belong to the owner. Nor can the plural here refer, in his view, to the ox, sheep, and goat, for in that case he could explain 'their blood' and 'their fat' similarly. Hence the difficulty, why is the plural used? The answer is, to intimate two categories of firstlings, whole and blemished.
(2) Whence does he know this?
(3) This repetition is to include the blemished firstling.
(4) Ibid.
(5) If one declares another animal a substitute for them, they are not offered, contrary to the general rule that the substitute is offered (together with the original) in exactly the same way as the original.
(6) But not sacrificed while they are whole.
(7) As a peace-offering, after Passover. - This is where the original is available for Passover.
(8) As a peace-offering, but must graze until it is blemished, when it is redeemed.
(9) For the explanation v. Pes. 96b.
(10) V. supra 9a.
(11) Lev. III, 7. - Scripture prescribes a lamb for a Passover-offering (Ex. XII, 5) which was in the nature of a peace-offering. Why then must Scripture also inform us that a lamb might be brought for a peace-offering? (The Talmud does not quote the exact wording, as keseb is not written in connection with the Passover-offering, but a lamb is prescribed, though a slightly different word (kebes) is used.)
(12) Ex. XII, 27. - 'It' (Heb. hu) is emphatic, and teaches that only the original animal dedicated for a Passover-offering is to be sacrificed, but not its substitute which is kept until after Passover. An animal would be proposed as a substitute if the first one was lost, and is subject to the laws stated here if the first one is refound in time to be sacrificed for its original purpose. If the first is not found until after the second has been offered, it becomes a Passover remainder', and is sacrificed as a peace-offering after the festival.
(13) The case of the sin-offering itself is learnt infra.
(14) The reference is to Lev. IV, 25, 30, 34 q. v. The traditional reading in all cases is karnoth horns, but it is actually written karnath (קרנת singular) twice. Beth Shammai make the reading decisive, while Beth Hillel follow the written forms.
(15) In the first place, but are not essential, since Scripture does not repeat any of them to intimate that they are indispensable.
(16) Since the mikra implies six while the masoreth implies four, the implication of both is five; but as there are only four horns on the altar, the fifth must be regarded as a reiteration of one application, and hence it (i.e., one application) becomes indispensable; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 4b. q.v. notes.
(17) Frontlets. V. Ex. XIII, 16; Deut. VI, 8, XI, 18: - and it shall be . . . for frontlets between thine eyes. This is the law of tefillin (v. Glos.); the word is written twice defectively and once plene (in our version it is written only once defectively), but read plene in every case. From the two defective and one plene forms the Rabbis learnt that the tefillin of the head must consist of four compartments.
(18) The author of this interpretation of karnoth.
(19) Perhaps the Coptic language.
(20) The language of N. Africa or Phrygia in Asia Minor. Hence the word totafoth itself implies four, without recourse to its repetition.
(21) 'In booths': Ye shall dwell in booths seven days etc. (Lev. XXIII, 42-43). Here too it is written twice defectively and once plene, and the Rabbis learn that the number of walls required by a booth is four, in the same way that they learn that the tefillin must have four compartments.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 38a
- There, subtract one text1 for the command itself,2 and one for the covering,3 so three are left. Then the [Mosaic] halachah4 comes and diminishes the third [wall], fixing it at a hand-breadth.5
If so, [when Scripture states] Then she shall be unclean two weeks [shebu'ayim],6 shib'im [seventy] [is actually written],7 then [argue,] the mikra and the masoreth are both effective, and so she should have to spend forty-two days [in uncleanness]?8 - There it is different, because it is written, as in her menstrual state.9
Now the Tanna [of the following Baraitha] adduces it [Beth Hillel's ruling] as follows: We-kipper [and he shall make atonement] is stated three times,10 on account of the analogy [which might otherwise be drawn].11 But surely we have an analogy to this effect:12 blood is prescribed below [the red line],13 and blood is prescribed above: as with the blood which is prescribed below, if one made a single application, he effects atonement;14 so with the blood which is prescribed above, if one makes a single application, he makes atonement. Or you may reason in this direction: Blood is prescribed within,15 and blood is prescribed without: as in the case of blood prescribed within, if [the priest] omits a single application his action is ineffective;16 so in the case of the blood prescribed without, if he omits a single application his action is null. Then let us see to which it is comparable: You can draw an analogy between sacrifices offered on the outer altar,17 but you cannot draw an analogy between [sacrifices offered on] the outer altar and [those offered on] the inner altar. Or, you might argue to the contrary: You may draw an analogy between sin-offerings whose blood is sprinkled on four horns [of the altar],18 and let not the outer altar prove it,19 which is not a sin-offering nor [is its blood sprinkled on the] four horns.20 Therefore Scripture states 'we-kipper' three times, on account of the analogy [which might otherwise be drawn], [teaching]: 'and he shall make atonement' even though he sprinkled [the blood] only three times; 'and he shall make atonement' even though he sprinkled [it] only twice; 'and he shall make atonement' even though he sprinkled it but once.
But this is required for its own purpose?21 Said Raba b. Adda: Mari explained it to me: Scripture says, and he shall make atonement . . . and he shall be forgiven: atonement and forgiveness are identical.22
Yet say [that] 'and he shall make atonement' [intimates] even if he made only three applications above [the red line] and one below; and he shall make atonement' even if he made only two applications above and two below; 'and he shall make atonement even if he did not apply [the blood] above but only below?23 - Said R. Adda b. Isaac: If so, you annul the law of horns.24 But if the Divine Law has ordained [it so], let them be annulled? - Said Raba: What thing is it that requires three? Surely the horns.25 Yet say, 'and he shall make atonement' [teaches] even if he made only one application above and three below? - We do not find blood [applied] half above and half below. Do we not? Surely we learnt: He sprinkled thereof26 once above and seven below? - That was done as mazlif [one swinging a whip].27 What is a mazlif? - Rab Judah showed it by imitating the movements of a whipper. [Again, we learnt:] He28 besprinkled the surface29 of the altar seven times.
____________________
(1) I.e., one of the five implied by the text.
(2) There must be at least one to state the law of sitting in booths.
(3) The booth must have a covering, which is governed by laws of its own.
(4) A law traditionally imputed to Moses at Sinai, but not stated in the Pentateuch.
(5) There was a Mosaic tradition that however many walls the sukkah required, one of these need be no more than a handbreadth in width.
(6) Lev. XII, 5.
(7) Though vocalized shebu'ayim.
(8) This figure is arrived at by taking a point midway between fourteen (days) and seventy.
(9) Ibid. E.V. as in her impurity. The menstrual state lasts seven days, hence the word must be understood as read, two weeks, which is fairly close to the menstrual state. But forty-two days of uncleanness bear no similarity at all to the menstrual state.
(10) In connection with the sprinkling of the blood of sin-offerings. Lev. IV, 26, 31, 35.
(11) That the omission of a single application invalidates the offering.
(12) I.e. to prove that the omission of any application does not invalidate the offering. Wherefore then is there any need of a verse to intimate this law?
(13) Which encompassed the altar at the middle of its height. - The blood of burnt-, peace- and trespass-offerings was sprinkled below it, infra 53a.
(14) As deduced supra 36b, 37a.
(15) I.e., to be sprinkled on the inner altar. Viz.: the blood of sacrifices offered on the Day of Atonement, and the sacrifices brought by the High Priest and the community for having sinned through ignorance.
(16) He does not make atonement.
(17) Lit., 'you judge without from without.'
(18) Lit., 'you judge a sin-offering and four horns from a sin-offering and four horns.'
(19) I.e., the burnt-offering, whose blood was sprinkled on the outer altar.
(20) Consequently, by this analogy one might deduce that the omission of an application invalidates the sin-offering.
(21) Surely in each of the three cases referred to (supra p. 192, n. 14). Scripture must state 'and he shall make atonement' to teach that each sin is atoned for by its respective sin-offering.
(22) Hence 'and he shall make atonement' is superfluous.
(23) Whence then is it known that atonement is effected even if no application at all was made?
(24) Whereas Scripture states that the blood must be applied on the horns of the altar, which of course were above the red line.
(25) Each 'we-kipper' makes one horn less necessary. Hence the threefold repetition diminishes them by three, leaving sprinkling on one essential; for in order to render effective the application of all the four below the line four texts would be required.
(26) Of the blood of the bullock sacrificed on the Day of Atonement.
(27) He did not aim above or below, but made the movement of swinging a whip.
(28) The High Priest, during the Atonement Day Service.
(29) Lit., 'the pure' (golden front).
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 38b
Surely that means on the [upper] half of the altar, as people say, The noon-light shines, and so it is midday?1 Said Raba b. Shila, No: [it means] on the [altar's] top surface [cleared] from ashes, for it is written, and the like of the very heaven for clearness.2 But there is the remainder [of the blood]?3 - The [pouring out of] the remainder [at the altar's base] is not essential.4 But there is the remainder of inner sin-offerings,5 which, according to one view is essential?6 We mean in one and the same place.7
It was taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: Beth Shammai maintain [that] two applications in the case of the sin-offering and one in the case of all [other] sacrifices permit [them for consumption] and may render them piggul;8 Beth Hillel rule: One application [only] in the case of a sin-offering and one in the case of all [other] sacrifices permit [them for consumption] and may render them piggul. To this R. Oshaia demurred: If so, this [controversy] should be recited among the lenient rulings of Beth Shammai and the stricter rulings of Beth Hillel?9 - Said Raba to him: When the question was [first] asked, it was whether [the sacrifice] was permitted,10 so that Beth Shammai were stricter.
R. Johanan said: The three [final] applications of sin-offerings may not be made at night, and are made after [the owners'] death, while he who presents them without the Temple court is culpable.11
R. Papa said: In some respects [they are] as the first blood, while in others they are as the last:12 [In respect of sprinkling them] without [the Temple court], at night, zaruth,13 [the requirement of] a service-vessel, [sprinkling on] the horn, [with] the finger, washing,14 and residue,15 they are as the first blood. [In respect of] death, not permitting [the flesh], not rendering [it] piggul, and not entering within, they are as the last blood.16
R. Papa said: How do I know it?17 - Because we learnt: If [the blood] spurted [direct] from the [animal's] throat on to the [priest's] garment, it does not need washing; from the horn or from the base [of the altar], it does not need washing. Hence, [if some] of [the blood] which was fit for the horn [spurted on the garment], it does need washing.18 Then on your reasoning [you may argue, 'If it spurted] from the base, it does not need washing; hence if some [of the blood] which was fit for the base19 [spurted on the garment], it does need washing? [Yet surely] it is written, And if aught of the blood which is to be sprinkled [spurt] upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in a holy place,20 which excludes this [residue], as the [blood] has already been sprinkled? [Hence you must say that] this is in accordance with R. Nehemiah, for we learnt: R. Nehemiah said: If one presented the residue of the blood without [the Temple court], he is liable.21 But granted that you know R. Nehemiah [to rule thus] in respect of presenting [the blood without the Temple court], by analogy with the limbs and the fat pieces,22 do you [however] know him [to rule thus] in respect of washing? - Yes,
____________________
(1) This is to shew that the root tahor (pure) denotes half, as it is used for midday (actually, because then the sun shines in all its clarity and purity). And in this case it was hardly possible to avoid some of the blood falling below the line.
(2) Ex. XXIV, 10 - Heb. lo-tohar. This gives the word its usual meaning, and here it is interpreted, the cleared surface (on top).
(3) Which is poured out at the base of the altar. Thus part of the blood is applied above, and part is applied below.
(4) But we find no case of the essential sprinkling being partly above and partly below.
(5) I.e., the remainder which is poured out on the base of the outer altar, v. infra 47a.
(6) V. infra 52a. Thus the blood itself is applied on the upper part of the inner altar, while another portion of it, the remainder, is poured out at the base of the outer altar.
(7) There is no instance of the blood being poured partly above and partly below on the same altar.
(8) Only if a piggul intention is expressed during both applications does the sin-offering become piggul. For since both are essential, each sprinkling is only half a mattir (q.v. Glos.), through which one cannot render a sacrifice piggul.
(9) In the numerous controversies between these two schools Beth Shammai generally holds the stricter, Beth Hillel the more lenient view; the exceptions are enumerated in the Tractate 'Eduyyoth, and the present controversy is not included. But in fact here too Beth Hillel are more severe, in that they rule that a piggul intention expressed during one application only renders the sin-offering piggul.
(10) If one application only was made.
(11) Though the first application is sufficient, the other three are not essential, and so might not be regarded as real sprinklings at all; nevertheless, they must not be done at night, in accordance with the general law that the blood must not be kept until the night. Again, if the owner of the sacrifice dies before its blood is sprinkled, the blood cannot be sprinkled and the sacrifice is burnt. But if the owner dies after the first application, which in itself rendered the sacrifice valid, the other three applications are made. And similarly since the sprinkling of these is deemed a valid sacrificial service, to sprinkle them without is to incur guilt.
(12) Lit., 'some of them are as the beginning, and some of them are as the end.' - The three final applications are governed in some respects by the laws appertaining to the first application; while in others they are regarded simply as the pouring out of the remainder of the blood.
(13) The ineligibility of a lay-Israelite (a non-priest, Heb. zar) to perform the sprinkling.
(14) If blood spurts on the priest's vestment after the first application, it must be washed in a holy place, just as if it had spurted before the first application. But if it spurts on to it after the four applications before the pouring out of the residue, it need not be so washed, as is shewn infra.
(15) If the blood of the sin-offering was received in four cups, and one application is made from each, the remaining blood in each counts as the residue, which is to be poured out at the base.
(16) (i) The three applications are made even after the owner's death, just as the residue would be poured out after all the applications. (ii) They do not permit the flesh, since this was permitted by the first application. (iii) If the first application was made in silence, and these with a piggul intention, they do not render the sacrifice piggul. Finally, (iv) if the first application was properly made, on the outer altar, and the blood for these applications was taken within, into the hekal (q.v. Glos.), the sacrifice does not become invalid, as it would be if the blood for the first application were so treated. For Scripture says, And no sin-offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting (i.e. the inner sanctum, corresponding to the hekal) to make atonement in the holy place, shall be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire (Lev. VI, 23). With the first application, however, atonement is made, and so this blood is not brought 'to make atonement'. - In all these respects the blood for the three applications is regarded as the residue, just as that which remains after all the applications.
(17) Referring to the requirement of washing in n. 3.
(18) The blood which is fit for the horn is that which is to be sprinkled upon it, even in the last three applications.
(19) I.e., the residue.
(20) Lev., VI, 20. E.V. and when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment etc.
(21) Even in the case of the sin-offerings of the outer altar. Thus R. Nehemiah regards this as blood, and therefore it bears that status in respect to washing too. Hence this does not support R. Papa, as it is an individual view. The others, however, who rule that there is no liability, will also hold that no washing is required.
(22) Liability is incurred for presenting these outside the Temple court; though they are not blood. Hence the same may hold good of the residue, even if it should not bear the status of blood.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 39a
and [so] it was taught: The bloods which require the base1 necessitate washing, and an [illegitimate] intention in connection with same is effective, and one who presents thereof without [the Temple court] is liable. The blood, however, which is poured out into the duct2 does not necessitate washing, and an [illegitimate] intention in connection with same is not effective, and one who presents thereof without is exempt [from punishment]. Now, whom do you know to rule that one who presents thereof without is liable? R. Nehemiah: and he [also] rules [that] it necessitates washing and [that] an [illegitimate] intention in connection with the same is effective. But it was taught: [The pouring out of] the residue and the burning of the limbs [on the altar], which are not indispensable for atonement, are excepted, in that an [illegitimate] intention in connection with same is of no effect?3 - That4 was taught in reference to the [last] three applications of a sin-offering. If so, [why does it say] 'which requires the base?' [Surely] it is sprinkled on the horn [of the altar]? - Say, which is required for the base.5 But then, what of 'And an [illegitimate] intention in connection with same is effective'? Surely you said, 'It does not permit [the flesh], it does not render [it] piggul, and does not enter within, as the last blood'? - Rather that [Baraitha] was taught in respect of the blood of the inner [sacrifices].6 But in the case of the blood of outer [sacrifices] what [will you say]? he is exempt?7 Then instead of teaching [about] the blood which is poured out into the duct, let [the Tanna] teach a distinction in that very case. [Thus:] This is said only of the blood of inner [sacrifices], but in the case of the outer sacrifices, he is exempt? - This is in accordance with R. Nehemiah, who maintained [that] one who presents the residue of the blood8 without is liable, and so he [the Tanna] could not enumerate three instances of exemption corresponding to three instances of liability.9
Rabina said, 'From the horn' is meant literally, but 'from the base' means, from that which is fit for the base.10 Said R. Tahlifa b. Gaza to Rabina: perhaps both mean [the blood] that is fit [etc.]?11 - How is that possible: Seeing that you say that [even the blood] fit for the horn [does] not [necessitate washing], need one speak about the blood fit for the base? Hence 'from the horn' is meant literally, while 'from the base' means from that which is fit for the base.
ALL [BLOOD] WHICH IS SPRINKLED ON THE INNER ALTAR etc. Our Rabbis taught: Thus shall he do [with the bullock]; as he did [with the bullock of the sin-offering, so shall he do with this]:12 Why is this stated? As a repetition of the [law of sprinkling], to teach that if [the priest] omitted one of the applications, he has done nothing.13 I know this only of the seven applications,14 which are indispensable in all cases; whence do we know [it] of the four applications? From the text, 'So shall he do with this'.15 'With the bullock' means the bullock of the Day of Atonement16
____________________
(1) I.e., the residue which must be poured out at the base.
(2) Blood which had become unfit was poured into a duct in the Temple court, whence it flowed out into the stream of Kidron.
(3) Cf. supra 13a bottom.
(4) Sc. the ruling that an illegitimate intention is effective.
(5) The ultimate residue is poured out at the base.
(6) It refers indeed, as hitherto assumed, to the residue, not to the three applications, but to the residue of sin-offerings presented at the inner altar, and in accordance with the view that that is indispensable (infra 52a); consequently it can render the sacrifice piggul.
(7) For presenting it without the Temple court.
(8) Even of the outer sin-offerings.
(9) The Baraitha enumerates three instances of liability and three of exemption (i.e., three instances where the residue bears the full status of blood, and three where it does not). But if the Tanna drew a distinction between the residue of inner sacrifices and that of outer sacrifices respectively, he could not maintain that parallelism.
(10) He refers to the Mishnah quoted supra 38b. For if it is meant literally, it is superfluous: seeing that the blood which spurts from the horn does not necessitate washing, it is surely obvious that that which spurts from the base does not necessitate washing. - Thus he answers the objection 'then on your reasoning' etc., which was raised against R. Papa's proof.
(11) Which interpretation, implying that there is blood fit for the horn, i.e., the three last applications, and yet it does not necessitate washing, would refute R. Papa!
(12) Lev. IV, 20. This treats of the sin-offering brought when the whole congregation sins, which was offered on the inner altar. The verse itself is apparently superfluous, since all its rites are described in detail.
(13) The sacrifice is invalid.
(14) Before the veil of the ark.
(15) This is yet another repetition. Since its implication of indispensability is not required in respect of the seven applications, it is transferred to the four applications on the altar.
(16) Teaching that its laws are the same as those which govern that bullock brought for the whole congregation's sin.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 39b
'As he did with the bullock' refers to the bullock of the anointed priest;1 'the sin-offering' refers to the goats of idolatry.2 You might think that I include the festival goats and new-moon goats.3 Therefore Scripture states, '[So shall he do] with this'.4 And what [reason] do you see for including the former and excluding the latter? Since the Writ intimates extension and intimates limitation, I include the former, which make atonement for the known transgression of a precept: while I exclude the latter, which do not make atonement for the known transgression of a precept.5 And [the priest] shall make atonement6 - even though he had not laid hands [on the bullock]: and it shall be forgiven to them7 - even though he had not poured out the residue.8 And what [reason] do you see for invalidating [the sacrifice] in the case of sprinklings and validating [it] in the case of laying on [of hands] and the residue?9 You can answer: I invalidate in the case of sprinklings, as they are indispensable elsewhere:10 while I validate in the case of laying on [of hands] and the residue, which are not indispensable in all [other] cases.
____________________
(1) Which is treated of in the previous section (Lev. IV, 3 seq.). This thus becomes a repetition, with the same implication that there too all the blood applications are essential.
(2) I.e., which were brought to atone for idolatry; v. Num. XV, 27 seq. which is applied to this case. The details of their rites are not explained there; by making the present text refer to them, we learn that their rites are the same as those prescribed here.
(3) To teach that their rites too are the same.
(4) But not with other sacrifices.
(5) The festival and new-moon sin-offerings made atonement for the inadvertent defiling of the Temple, of which the offender would not know at all (v. Shebu. 2a).
(6) Num. XV, 28.
(7) Ibid.
(8) Of the blood, on the outer altar.
(9) Why interpret the verse so that an omission of one of the sprinklings invalidates the sacrifice, while the omission of laying hands or pouring out the residue at the base of the outer altar, leaves it valid? Perhaps you should reverse it.
(10) Lit., 'in all places.' - The allusion is explained anon.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 40a
The Master said: 'I know [it] only of the seven applications which are indispensable elsewhere.' Where? - Said R. Papa: In the case of the [red] heifer and leprosy.1
'How do we know [it] of the four applications? Because it is written, so shall he do'. Why do the seven applications differ? [presumably] because they are prescribed and reiterated? Then the four applications too are prescribed and reiterated?2 - Said R. Jeremiah: This is necessary only according to R. Simeon. For it was taught: In the upper section 'horns' is written, [where] horn [would suffice] [which implies] two, and in the lower section 'horns' is written [instead of] horn, which implies four: this is R. Simeon's view.3 R. Judah said: It is unnecessary, [for] surely it says, [which] is in the tent of meeting,4 [intimating,] upon all which is mentioned in the tent of meeting.5 Now, how does R. Judah employ [the text], so shall he do?6 He requires it for what was taught: As we have not learnt about laying on [of hands] and the residue of the blood in the case of the bullock of the Day of Atonement,7 whence [then] do we know it? From the text, So shall he do.8 But have we not learnt [it] of the bullock of the Day of Atonement? Surely you said, '"with the bullock" refers to the bullock of Atonement Day.'9 - It is necessary: You might think that it applies only to a service which is indispensable for atonement;10 but as for a service which is not indispensable for atonement, I would agree that it is not so.11 Hence he informs us [otherwise].
Now, how does R. Simeon employ this [phrase] 'in the tent of meeting'? - He utilises it [as teaching] that if the ceiling of the hekal was broken, [the priest] did not sprinkle.12 And the other?13 - [He deduces it] from 'which is'.14 And the other?15 - He does not interpret 'which is' [as having a particular significance].
Abaye said: According to R. Judah too [the text] is required. You might think that it is analogous to laying [hands] and [pouring out] the residue of the blood, which are not indispensable in spite of being prescribed and reiterated; so you might argue that the four applications too are indispensable. Hence [the text] informs us [that it is not so].
[The Master said:] '"With the bullock" refers to the bullock of the Day of Atonement.' In respect of which law? if [to intimate] that [the four applications] are essential, it is obvious, [since] 'statute' is written in connection with it?16 - Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: This is necessary only on R. Judah's view, for he maintained: 'Statute' is written only in reference to the rites performed in the white vestments, within [the inner Sanctuary], [and it teaches] that if one rite was [wrongly] performed before another, [the High Priest] has done nothing;17 but as for the rites performed in the white vestments without,if not performed in correct order,18 what he has done is done.19 Then I might argue, since their [prescribed] order is not indispensable, the sprinklings too are not indispensable. Hence [the text] informs us [otherwise].
To this R. Papa demurred: Can you say so?20 Surely it was taught: And he shall make an end of atoning for the holy place, [and the tent of meeting, and the altar]:21 if he atoned,22 he made an end;23 while if he did not atone, he did not make an end: this is R. Akiba's view. Said R. Judah to him: Why should we not interpret: If he made an end, he atoned, while if he did not make an end, he did not atone?24 Rather said R. Papa: It25 is required only in respect of [deductions from] the eth and [those relating to] the blood and the dipping.26 'Eth': R. Aha b. Jacob said: That is required only to teach that
____________________
(1) The red heifer: This is the statute (hukkath) of the law . . . And Eleazar. . . shall . . . sprinkle of her blood toward the front of the tent of meeting seven times (Num. XIX, 2-4). Leprosy: This shall be the law of the leper in the day of his cleansing . . . And the priest . . . shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord (Lev. XIV. 2, 16). It is a general principle that where a law is designated 'statute' or introduced by 'shall be', denoting emphasis, it is indispensable.
(2) Why is an additional text required to shew that all the four applications are essential? The reiteration of the seven applications (according to the present exegesis) is pari passu a reiteration of the four.
(3) The upper and the lower sections are Lev. IV, 1-12, and Lev. IV, 13-21, dealing with the bullock of the anointed priest and the bullock of the whole congregation respectively. In the upper section: And the priest shall put of the blood upon the horns of the altar (v. 7). In the lower section: And he shall put of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the Lord (v. 18). The plural implies two in each case, and then by analogy the provisions of each are transferred to the other too, which gives the four horns for each. But this transference is made only because we have the repetition, which is thus necessary in R. Simeon's view.
(4) Lev. IV, 7, 18.
(5) I.e., upon all the horns which Scripture prescribed for the altar in the tent of meeting.
(6) Why this repetition?
(7) I.e., that laying hands and pouring out the residue at the altar's base are necessary. These are not prescribed in Lev. XVI, which treats of the Day of Atonement ritual.
(8) An extension which intimates that the bullock of the Day of Atonement requires these, since 'with the bullock' has been interpreted as referring to it.
(9) Which exegesis automatically teaches that the provisions of the passage, including the two under discussion, apply to it; what need then of the further words, 'so shall he do'?
(10) Only those services are included, since Scripture adds, And the priest shall make atonement for them.
(11) Such are not included in the extension implied in the text. Laying hands and pouring out the residue at the altar's base are not essential for atonement.
(12) Because it is no longer the 'tent' (of meeting).
(13) R. Judah; whence does he know this?
(14) Which he regards as superfluous.
(15) R. Simeon: how does he interpret 'which is'?
(16) Lev. XVI, 29: And it shall be a statute for ever unto you - which implies that all the prescribed rites are essential!
(17) His service is invalid.
(18) Lit., 'one before the other.'
(19) It is valid; v. Yoma 60a.
(20) That R. Judah learns the indispensable character of the four sprinklings from the present text.
(21) Lev. XVI, 20.
(22) I.e., if he performed the rites which are essential for atonement in other cases, e.g., the four sprinklings on the altar and the seven sprinklings before the veil.
(23) He could end his service there, even if he did not pour out the residue of the blood at the base of the outer altar.
(24) I.e., the service is valid and atonement is made only if he made an end, having performed all the prescribed rites (v. Yoma 60b). Thus it is from this text that R. Judah deduces the indispensability of the prescribed rites, including the four applications.
(25) The text 'with the bullock'.
(26) In connection with the anointed priest's bullock it is written: And the priest shall dip (eth) his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood seven times before the Lord (Lev. IV, 6). 'Eth', which is the sign of the accusative, which is treated as an extension, as well as the phrases 'he shall dip' and 'in the blood' teach the number of additional laws about the sprinkling and dipping as anon. Through the present exegesis, that 'with the bullock' applies to the Atonement Day bullock, Scripture assimilates it to the bullock of the anointed priest, and so teaches that what is deduced from the 'eth' applies to this too.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 40b
if there is a wart on the finger it is fit.1 'In the blood' [teaches] that there must be sufficient blood for dipping at the outset.2 'And he shall dip' [teaches] but not sponge up.3 Now it is necessary to write both 'and he shall dip' and 'in the blood'.4 For if the Divine Law wrote, 'and he shall dip' [only], I would say, even where there is insufficient for dipping in the first place; therefore the Divine Law wrote, 'in the blood'. And if the Divine Law wrote 'in the blood' [only], I would say [that] he may even sponge it up; therefore the Divine Law wrote, 'and he shall dip'.
What is the purpose of the altar of sweet incense?5 - [To teach] that if the altar had not been consecrated by sweet incense, [the priest] did not sprinkle.6
It was taught in accordance with R. Papa: 'Thus shall he do...as he did': why does Scripture say, 'with the bullock'? - To include the bullock of the Day of Atonement in respect of all that is prescribed in this passage: that is Rabbi's view.7 Said R. Ishmael: It follows a fortiori:8 if rites [of diverse sacrifices] were assimilated to each other even where the sacrifices are not the same,9 Surely rites are assimilated to each other where the sacrifices are the same.10 What then does Scripture intimate by [the phrase] 'with the bullock'? This refers to the bullock brought for the community's unwitting transgression; while [the other] 'with the bullock'11 refers to the bullock of the anointed priest.12
The Master said: 'If where the sacrifices are not assimilated to each other'. To what does 'the sacrifices are not assimilated to each other' allude? Shall we say, to the bullock of the Day of Atonement and the goat of the Day of Atonement?13 Then [the argument] can be refuted: as for these, [their rites are similar] because their blood enters the innermost sanctum!14 Rather, it alludes to the community's bullock for unwitting transgression and the goats [sacrificed] on account of idolatry.15 But [here too the argument] can be refuted: As for these, [their rites are the same] because they make atonement for the violation of a known precept?16 Rather, it alludes to the community's bullock for unwitting transgression and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement, and this is what he means: If where the sacrifices are not the same, since one is a bullock and the other is a goat, yet the rites are alike as far as what is prescribed in their case is concerned,17 then where the sacrifices are the same, this one being a bullock and the other being a bullock, it is surely logical
____________________
(1) That is learnt from the eth: though the blood is taken up by the wart, yet it is fit.
(2) Sufficient must be caught in one vessel at the outset; but the blood must not be received in two vessels and poured together to make enough for that purpose.
(3) By wiping round the sides of the utensil.
(4) Emended text (Sh. M.)
(5) Ibid. 7. Seeing that 'in the tent of meeting' has been interpreted as intimating everything which was in the tent of meeting, why specify 'the altar of sweet incense'?
(6) If this bullock was offered at a new altar, upon which incense had never yet been burnt, the priest did not sprinkle.
(7) Yalkut reads: that is R. Akiba's view.
(8) No text is necessary for this.
(9) Even where the sacrifices differed in certain respects.
(10) E.g., the Day of Atonement bullock and that brought for the sin of the whole community. These are similar, since they both belong to the same category.
(11) The phrase is repeated in the verse, q.v.
(12) Teaching that the same law applies to this as to the former, viz., that if one of the sprinklings is omitted, the sacrifice is invalid.
(13) These are not the same, being different animals, yet their rites of sprinkling etc. are the same.
(14) But the blood of the community's bullock did not enter the innermost sanctum.
(15) Whose rites are the same, as stated supra.
(16) V. Shebu. 2a.
(17) In the matter of sprinkling, which Scripture prescribes for both, they are alike. Both are sprinkled with the finger, on the horns of the altar, and before the veil. Thus they are alike in essence, not withstanding that the blood of one entered the inner sanctum while that of the other did not, and one requires eight sprinklings as against the other's seven.

Next

2009 JCR