The Babylonian Talmud

Zevachim

 

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 41a

that their rites shall be alike.1 Then the [rites of the] Day of Atonement bullock are learnt from [those of] the bullock of the anointed priest, [insofar as the latter are deduced] from 'eth', 'in the blood' and the mention of dipping.2 And [the rites of] the goat of the Day of Atonement are also learnt from [those of] the goats brought on account of idolatry, a fortiori.3 But can that which is learnt through a hekkesh then in turn teach a fortiori?4 - Said R. Papa: The Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael holds [that] that which is learnt through a hekkesh can in turn teach a fortiori.

'"With the bullock" refers to the community's bullock for unwitting transgression.' But that is written in the very text?5 - Said R. Papa: Because he wishes that the community's bullock for unwitting transgression shall teach that the goats for idolatry require [the burning of] the lobe [above the liver] and the two kidneys [on the altar]; yet that is not prescribed in the actual passage on the community's bullock for unwitting transgress, but is learnt through a hekkesh; therefore 'with the bullock' is needed, to make it as though it were prescribed in the actual text, and thus it should not be a case of what is learnt through a hekkesh in turn teaching through a hekkesh.6

It was taught in accordance with R. Papa: 'Thus shall he do [with the bullock] as he did': why does Scripture [further] state, with the bullock? Because it is said, And they have brought their offering, an offering made by fire unto the Lord, [and their sin-offering before the Lord, for their error].7 Now, 'their sin-offering' refers to the he-goats for idolatry, while 'their error' alludes to the community's bullock for unwitting transgression. [Hence when the text says] 'their sin-offering . . . for their error', the Torah intimates: Behold, you must treat their sin-offering as their [offering for] error.8 But whence have you learned [the law in the case of] their [offering for] error? Was it not through a hekkesh?9 Can then that which is learnt through a hekkesh in turn teach through a hekkesh? Therefore the text states, '[As he did] with the bullock', which refers to the community's bullock for transgression; while [the other] 'with the bullock' alludes to the anointed priest's bullock.

The Master said: '"Their sin-offering" refers to the he-goats for idolatry.' Deduce this10 from the earlier verse,11 for a master said, '"The sin-offering" is to include the he-goats of idolatry'?12 - Said R. Papa, It is necessary. I might argue that [the force of this extension] applies only to the sprinklings,13 which are prescribed in that very passage;

____________________
(1) Such as the sprinklings before the veil and on the golden altar.
(2) V. supra 40a.
(3) If where the sacrifices are not the same, viz., the community's bullock for unwitting transgression and the goat of the Day of Atonement, the rites prescribed for both are alike, since Scripture does not explicitly say that those which they have in common, e.g., the sprinklings in the hekal, are different; then where the sacrifices are the same, e.g. the goat of the Day of Atonement and the goats of idolatry, their rites are surely alike.
(4) As here. For the rites of the anointed priest's bullock, insofar as these are deduced from 'eth', 'in the blood' and the mention of dipping, are transferred to the goats for idolatry only by a hekkesh (q.v. Glos.); then we make them in turn teach a fortiori that the same applies to the goats of the Day of Atonement.
(5) The whole passage deals with this.
(6) It is stated infra that the lobe above the liver and the two kidneys of the goats of idolatry are burnt on the altar, and that this is learnt through a hekkesh from the community's bullock of unwitting transgression. But there too Scripture does not explicitly state the law, which is learnt through a hekkesh from the anointed priest's bullock, where it is explicitly prescribed, and in the case of sacrifices it is stated infra 49b that what is learnt through a hekkesh cannot in turn teach through a hekkesh. Now, here we have in any case a hekkesh between the community's bullock and the anointed priest's bullock, since 'as he did with the bullock' has been interpreted as referring to the anointed priest's bullock, while the whole passage in which it occurs treats of the community's bullock. Hence when Scripture further reiterates this hekkesh by saying, 'thus shall he do with the bullock', which being superfluous is made to refer to the community's bullock, the effect of this repeated hekkesh is to make it as though the burning of the lobe and the kidneys were not derived through a hekkesh but explicitly prescribed. Hence one can no longer object that what is learnt through a hekkesh cannot teach through a hekkesh.
(7) Num. XV, 25.
(8) Viz., that the lobe and the kidneys of the former, as of the latter, must be burnt on the altar. This is a hekkesh deduction.
(9) V. p. 205, n. 5.
(10) That the lobe and kidneys of these must be burnt on the altar.
(11) Sc. Lev. VII, 19 which is now being discussed.
(12) Supra 39b. By this inclusion its rites are brought into line with those of the other sacrifices alluded to in that verse, and hence include the burning of the lobe and the kidneys on the altar.
(13) Teaching that the blood of the he-goats must be sprinkled in the same way as that of the community's bullock.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 41b

but [as for the burning of] the lobe and the two kidneys, which are not prescribed in that passage, I would say [that it is] not [intimated]. Therefore the text informs us [that it is not so].

R. Huna the son of R. Nathan said to R. Papa: But surely the Tanna states, '"with the bullock" includes the bullock of the Day of Atonement in respect of everything which is prescribed in the text'?1 - It is a controversy of Tannaim. The Tanna of the Academy2 includes it in this way, while the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael includes it in that way.

The School of R. Ishmael taught: Why are the lobe and the two kidneys mentioned in connection with the anointed priest's bullock, but not in connection with the community's bullock for unwitting transgression? It may be compared to a king of flesh and blood who was angry with his friend, but spoke little of his offence, out of his love for him.3

The School of R. Ishmael also taught: Why is the 'veil of the sanctuary' mentioned in connection with the anointed priest's bullock, but not in connection with the community's bullock of unwitting transgression?4 It may be compared to a king of flesh and blood against whom a province sinned - If a minority offended, his retainers remain [with them], but if the majority offend, his retainers do not remain [with them].5

THEREFORE, IF HE APPLIED ALL CORRECTLY, AND ONE INCORRECTLY, IT [THE SACRIFICE] IS INVALID, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. We learnt elsewhere: If [the priest] made a piggul intention at the [burning of the] fistful [of flour] but not at [the burning of the] incense,6 [or] at the frankincense but not at the fistful, R. Meir says that it is piggul, and one is liable to kareth on its account;7 but the Sages maintain: It does not involve kareth unless [the priest] makes a piggul intention for the whole mattir. R. Simeon b. Lakish commented: Do not say that R. Meir's reason is because he holds that you can make a [sacrifice] piggul in half a mattir. Rather the circumstances here are that [the priest] presented the fistful [on the altar] with a [piggul] intention, and the frankincense in silence. He [R. Meir] holds [that] when one does [a thing], he does it with his first intention.8 How do you know it? - Because [the Tanna] teaches: THEREFORE IF HE APPLIED ALL CORRECTLY, AND ONE INCORRECTLY, IT [THE SACRIFICE] IS INVALID, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. Hence [if he applies] one correctly and all [the others] incorrectly, it is piggul. With whom does this agree? If with the Rabbis? Surely the Rabbis say [that] you cannot make piggul at half a mattir? Hence it must be R. Meir; now if R. Meir's reason is that you can make piggul at half a mattir, then even in the conditions which he teaches it is still piggul.9 Hence it must surely be because he holds that when one does [a thing], he does it with his first intention. Said R. Samuel b. Isaac: In truth it agrees with the Rabbis, and what is meant by CORRECTLY? In the proper manner for piggul.10 But since [the Tanna] teaches: THEREFORE, IF HE APPLIED ALL CORRECTLY, AND ONE INCORRECTLY, IT [THE SACRIFICE] IS UNFIT, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH, it follows that INCORRECTLY means [in a manner] to make it fit?11 - Said Raba: What does INCORRECTLY mean? - [With an intention of eating it] without bounds. R. Ashi said: [It means] under a different designation. Hence it12 follows that if [the priest] did not do it [with an intention of consuming it] without bounds or under a different designation, one is liable?13 - Because the first clause teaches, IT IS PIGGUL, AND ONE IS LIABLE TO KARETH ON ITS ACCOUNT, the second clause too teaches, IT IS UNFIT, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.14

An objection is raised: When is this said?15 In the case of blood that is presented on the outer altar.

____________________
(1) Which implies that even the sprinklings are indispensable, whereas you say (supra 40a bottom) that only those laws which are deduced from 'eth' etc. are learnt in this way.
(2) This is the meaning of Be Rab as used here, and it refers to the anonymous statement introduced by 'Our Rabbis taught'.
(3) In the same way God treats the community's offence more shortly, and leaves a number of details to be deduced rather than state them explicitly.
(4) Lev. IV, 6, speaking of the former, states, And the priest . . . shall sprinkle of the blood . . . in front of the veil of the sanctuary. But in IV, 17, which treats of the latter, Scripture merely mentions 'the veil' not the veil of the sanctuary.
(5) To shew his resentment he withdraws them. Thus where the whole community sins God, as it were, withdraws His holiness, and there is no sanctuary left.
(6) The burning of these two permits the meal-offering to be eaten. The two rites together therefore constitute the mattir (q.v. Glos.), and each is only half a mattir.
(7) If one eats of the offering.
(8) Hence his silence here is the equivalent of a piggul intention.
(9) Even if the first application is made in silence and the others with a piggul intention, it should be piggul.
(10) In a manner which will render it piggul. Thus: the first application with a piggul intention, and the others in silence.
(11) For silence could not be called' INCORRECTLY'.
(12) And since it is a sin-offering, it becomes invalidated (v. supra 2a) and consequently is not rendered piggul.
(13) I.e., if the second application was made in silence, it is piggul, which shews that we regard the second action as done with the same intention as the first. But that is R. Meir's view, not the Rabbis.
(14) CORRECTLY does mean in a proper manner for piggul whilst INCORRECTLY means with the intention of consuming it without bounds. Actually then even if he made the second sprinkling in silence it would not be piggul, but INCORRECTLY is taught for the sake of parallelism. For in the first clause, dealing with the outer sacrifices, he teaches IF HE APPLIED THE FIRST WITH THE INTENTION OF CONSUMING IT AFTER TIME, AND THE SECOND WITH THE INTENTION OF CONSUMING IT WITHOUT BOUNDS, IT IS PIGGUL AND INVOLVES KARETH. There, this second intention is particularly stated in order to teach that it does not nullify the first and free it from piggul, because since a single application permits it, a single application makes it piggul. For that reason he teaches in the second clause, dealing with the inner sacrifices, that here the second intention does nullify the first and free it from piggul, though this in truth need not be taught, since in any case, even if he remained silent at the second application, it would not be piggul, as the Rabbis do not hold that he makes the second application with the same intention as the first.
(15) That the sacrifice becomes piggul through one application.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 42a

But in the case of blood presented on the inner altar, e.g., the forty three [applications] of the Day of Atonement,1 the eleven of the anointed priest's bullock, and the eleven of the community's bullock of unwitting transgression,2 if he [the priest] declared a piggul intention whether at the first, the second, or the third,3 R. Meir maintains [that] it is piggul and involves kareth; while the Sages say: It does not involve kareth unless [the priest] declares a piggul intention at the whole mattir. Incidentally he teaches, 'if [the priest] declared a piggul intention whether at the first, at the second, or the third,' and yet [R. Meir] disagrees?4 - Said R. Isaac b. Abin: The circumstances here are e.g. that he declared a piggul intention at the shechitah, this being one mattir.5 If so, what is the reason of the Rabbis? - Said Raba: Who are the Sages [in this passage]? R. Eleazar.6 For we learnt: [With regard to] the fistful [of flour], the frankincense, the incense, the priest's meal-offering, the anointed priest's meal-offering, and the meal-offering of the libations, if [the priest] presented as much as an olive of one of these without [the Temple court], he is liable. But R. Eleazar6 exempts [him] unless he offers the whole [without].7 But surely Raba said: Yet R. Eleazar admits in the case of blood, for we learnt: R. Eleazar and R. Simeon maintain: From where he left off there he recommences!8 - Rather said Raba: It [the Baraitha] means e.g. where he declared a piggul intention at the first [applications], was silent at the second, and again declared a piggul intention at the third.9 Now we might argue, If you claim that he acts with his original intention, why should he repeat his piggul intention at the third [applications]? Therefore he informs us [that we do not argue so].

To this R. Ashi demurred: Does he then teach [that] he was silent? Rather said R. Ashi: The circumstances here are e.g., that he declared a piggul intention at the first, second, and third. You might argue, If you think that whatever one does, one does with the first intention, why must he repeat his piggul declaration at each one? Therefore he informs us [that we do not argue so].

____________________
(1) One application of the blood of the bullock above the red line and seven below (v. supra 38a bottom), and similarly with the blood of the he-goat, which gives sixteen. There were similar applications on the veil of the sanctuary, making thirty two. Further, four applications of the blood of both mixed together, on the four horns of the altar, and seven applications on the top of the altar, giving a total of forty-three.
(2) Seven on the veil and four on the altar.
(3) The first, second and third are the applications in the innermost sanctuary, on the veil, and on the golden altar respectively.
(4) Thus, if he declared this intention at the second application only, though not at the first, it is still piggul, though here he was certainly not continuing his first intention. Hence he must hold that one can render a sacrifice piggul at a portion of the mattir, which contradicts R. Simeon b. Lakish.
(5) Rashi: After the first blood applications the blood was accidentally spilt. A second animal is slaughtered, and the sprinkling is continued, starting with the second applications on the veil. Only here does R. Meir rule that it is piggul, since shechitah is a service complete in itself. Rashbam: At the shechitah the priest declared his intention to make the second blood applications after time. This explanation saves the introduction of a second animal.
(6) Emended text (Sh. M.); cur. edd. R. Eliezer.
(7) Thus even when he actually presents it without the Temple court, R. Eleazar holds that he is not liable, since it was done with a portion of the mattir only, which proves that it does not count as a service unless he completes the whole service. So here too, although shechitah is a service complete in itself, yet since this particular shechitah was merely to make up another shechitah (rendered necessary through the spilling of the blood), it is incomplete, and cannot render the sacrifice piggul.
(8) V. infra 110a and b. - Since he recommences from where he left off (where the blood was spilt; v. n. 2), this shews that what he did do is a complete service; hence it can become piggul thereby. This refutes Raba's explanation that the Sages in the Baraitha quoted supra are R. Eleazar.
(9) Only then does R. Meir rule it to be piggul, as he holds that the second applications in silence were made with the same intention as the first. So that 'whether at the . . . second or third' means whether he was silent at the third and declared a piggul intention at the second, or vice versa. But in both cases he had declared a piggul intention at the first.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 42b

But he teaches, 'whether . . . or'?1 That is indeed a difficulty.

The Master said: 'R. Meir said, It is piggul, and involves kareth'.2 But consider: one is not liable to kareth3 until all the mattirin are offered, for a master said: As the acceptance of the valid, so is the acceptance of the invalid. As the acceptance of the valid necessitates that all its mattirin be presented, so does the acceptance of the invalid necessitate that all its mattirin be presented.4 Now here he has [already] invalidated it [the sacrifice] by declaring an [illegitimate] intention within, so that it is as though he had not sprinkled [the blood] at all;5 when therefore he sprinkles again in the hekal, he is merely sprinkling water?6 - Said Rabbah: It is possible in the case of four bullocks and four he-goats.7 Raba said: You may even say [that R. Meir rules thus] in the case of one bullock and one he-goat: it [the sprinkling] is efficacious in respect of its piggul status.8

[Do you say that there are] forty-three [sprinklings]?9 Surely it was taught [that there are] forty-seven? The former agrees with the view that you mingle [the blood of the bullock and of the he-goat] for [sprinkling on] the horns; while the latter agrees with the view that you do not mingle [them] for [sprinkling on] the horns.10 But it was taught [that] forty-eight [are required]? - One agrees with the view that [the pouring out of] the residue [at the base of the altar] is indispensable;11 while the other agrees with the view that the residue is not indispensable.12

An objection is raised: When is this said?13 In [the case of] the taking of the fistful, the placing in the vessel, and the carriage.14 But when he comes to the burning [of the fistful and the frankincense], if he presents the fistful with a [piggul] intention and the frankincense in silence; or if he presents the fistful in silence and the frankincense with a [piggul] intention, - R. Meir declares it piggul, and it involves kareth; while the Sages rule: It does not involve kareth unless he declares a piggul intention in respect of the whole mattir. Now he teaches incidentally, [If he presents] 'the fistful in silence and the frankincense with a [piggul] intention', and yet they disagree!15 - Say 'having already presented the frankincense with a [piggul] intention'. One [objection] is that that is the first clause. Moreover, it was indeed taught,16 'and after that.'17 That is indeed a difficulty.

MISHNAH. THESE ARE THE THINGS FOR WHICH ONE IS NOT LIABLE ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL: THE FISTFUL, THE INCENSE, THE FRANKINCENSE,

____________________
(1) Implying alternatives: either at one or at the other.
(2) V. supra 42a.
(3) For eating thereof.
(4) V. supra 28b.
(5) Var. lec. omits 'then . . . at all'.
(6) This is a difficulty on the view that R. Meir's reason is that one can make a sacrifice piggul at half a mattir. Granted that this is possible in the case of the fistful and the frankincense of a meal-offering, it is surely impossible in the case of sprinkling, for the reason stated. - 'He is merely sprinkling water' means that his sprinkling of the blood is just as though he were sprinkling water, since the sacrifice is already invalid.
(7) He declared a piggul intention during all the applications of the blood between the staves; then the blood was spilt, so that another animal was slaughtered. He sprinkled its blood on the veil (he would start there, and not repeat the first sprinklings between the staves; V. supra a) and the blood was again spilt. The same happened with the applications on the horns of the altar, and the same with the sprinklings on the top. Here then all the mattirin have been presented, and each counts as a real sprinkling because it is the blood of a different animal; consequently the first is piggul, while the same would hold good if he declared his piggul intention in connection with any of the other animals.
(8) If the Priest declares a piggul intention at the slaughtering, though he thereby invalidates the sacrifice, yet the following sprinklings are counted as the presenting of its mattirin. Thus they are obviously efficacious to stamp the animal as piggul, for otherwise an animal could not become piggul at slaughtering, whereas it is deduced supra 13a that it does. In the same way then R. Meir holds that when some of the sprinklings are done with a piggul intention, the subsequent sprinklings count as the presenting of the mattirin, so as to make the sacrifice piggul.
(9) Supra a top.
(10) But each is sprinkled separately, which gives an additional four, bringing up the number to forty-seven.
(11) Hence it is regarded as another sprinkling.
(12) V. supra 40b.
(13) That a meal-offering becomes piggul at one service.
(14) Where each service consists of a single act.
(15) R. Meir maintains that it is piggul. Here his second act was not done with the same intention as the first, since he was silent at the first. Hence R. Meir's reason must be because he holds that one can make the sacrifice piggul during half a mattir.
(16) In another Baraitha.
(17) He presented the frankincense with a piggul intention.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 43a

THE PRIESTS' MEAL-OFFERING, THE ANOINTED PRIEST'S MEAL-OFFERING, THE BLOOD, AND THE DRINK-OFFERINGS THAT ARE BROUGHT SEPARATELY: THAT IS THE VIEW OF R. MEIR. THE SAGES MAINTAIN: ALSO THOSE THAT ARE BROUGHT WITH AN ANIMAL [SACRIFICE].1 A LEPER'S LOG2 OF OIL,3 R. SIMEON MAINTAINED, DOES NOT INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL;4 WHILE R. MEIR RULES: IT INVOLVES LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL, BECAUSE THE BLOOD OF THE GUILT-OFFERING MAKES IT PERMITTED.5 AND WHATEVER HAS AUGHT THAT MAKES IT PERMITTED,6 WHETHER FOR MAN OR FOR THE ALTAR, INVOLVES LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL. [THE SPRINKLING OF] THE BLOOD OF THE BURNT-OFFERING PERMITS ITS FLESH FOR [BURNING ON] THE ALTAR, AND ITS SKIN TO THE PRIESTS. THE BLOOD OF THE BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD PERMITS ITS FLESH TO THE ALTAR. THE BLOOD OF THE SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD PERMITS ITS FLESH TO THE PRIESTS. THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCKS THAT ARE BURNT AND THE GOATS THAT ARE BURNT PERMITS THEIR EMURIM TO BE OFFERED [ON THE ALTAR]. R. SIMEON SAID: WHATEVER IS NOT [SPRINKLED] ON THE OUTER ALTAR, AS THE PEACE-OFFERING,7 DOES NOT INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL.

GEMARA. 'Ulla said: If the fistful [of the meal-offering], which is piggul, is presented on the altar, its piggul status leaves it:8 seeing that it reduces others to [the state of] piggul, how much the more so itself. What does he mean?9 - This is what he means: if it is unacceptable,10 how can it reduce others to [the state of] piggul?11

What does he inform us?12 If that it does not involve liability for piggul, Surely we have learnt it: THESE ARE THE THINGS FOR WHICH ONE IS NOT LIABLE ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL: THE FISTFUL, THE INCENSE, THE FRANKINCENSE, THE PRIESTS MEAL-OFFERING, THE ANOINTED PRIEST'S MEAL-OFFERING, AND THE BLOOD? - Rather, [he informs us] that if it ascended [the altar], it does not descend.13 But we have learnt it: [Flesh] that is kept overnight, or that goes out [of its permitted boundaries], or which is unclean, or which was slaughtered [with the intention of being consumed] after time or without bounds, if it ascended [the altar], does not descend?14 - Rather, [he informs us] that if it was taken down [from the altar],15 it must be taken up [again]. But surely we have learnt:16 Just as it does not descend once it had ascended, so it does not ascend after having descended!17 - That [Ulla's teaching] is only when the fire [of the altar] has taken hold of it.18 But this too 'Ulla has already stated once? For 'Ulla said: They learnt this only where the fire had not taken hold of it; but if the fire had taken hold of it, it must go up [again]! - You might think that this holds good only of

____________________
(1) If the sacrifice is made piggul and one eats these things enumerated here, he is not liable to piggul. E.g., if the priest took off the fistful with the intention of eating the remainder on the morrow, he thereby renders the whole sacrifice piggul; nevertheless he incurs no liability for eating the fistful itself. For piggul applies only to that which is permitted through something else (e.g., the rest of the meal-offering is ordinarily permitted for consumption through the taking of the fistful), whereas the fistful is not permitted through anything else. The same applies to the incense, the frankincense, and the others enumerated in the Mishnah. - Votive meal-offerings brought by ordinary priests and the statutory bi-daily offerings of the anointed priest (v. Lev. VI, 13 seq.) were wholly burnt on the altar without the rite of taking the fistful; thus they were not permitted by anything else. Drink-offerings could be brought separately or as an accompaniment to animal sacrifices. R. Meir rules that whether they are brought entirely by themselves, nothing else having been vowed, or they are brought actually as an addition to an animal sacrifice, but on the following day, they do not involve liability for piggul, because in that case they are not permitted through something else (the sacrificing of the animal), but through themselves. If however they are brought at the same time as the animal, they are permitted through the sacrificing of same, and therefore involve kareth. The Sages however maintain that even then we do not regard them as permitted through the animal sacrifice, since they could have been presented separately on the morrow.
(2) A liquid measure = 549.391338 cu. centimeters (J.E. art. 'Weight - Measures', Vol. XII. pp. 483 2 and 490, Table).
(3) Lev. XIV, 10, 15-18. The residue of this was consumed.
(4) If the priest rendered the guilt-offering which it accompanied piggul, one is not liable to kareth for consuming the oil. Though the efficacy of the oil rite is dependent on the prior application of the blood of the guilt-offering on the leper, nor may it be consumed unless the blood of the offering was duly sprinkled; nevertheless since the oil can be brought ten days after the offering, it is not regarded as permitted for consumption through it, and therefore does not involve kareth on account of piggul even when the oil is brought on the same day.
(5) Where it is brought on the same day, to which case R. Meir refers.
(6) As explained in n. 4, p. 213.
(7) Where the law of piggul is stated.
(8) The Talmud explains this anon.
(9) This reason is apparently why it should retain its status as piggul.
(10) If it is not fit for burning on the altar because it is piggul.
(11) And so, if one burns the fistful with the intention of consuming the remainder on the morrow, how can the meal-offering become piggul if we do not regard the burning of the fistful as a valid act, seeing that a sacrifice cannot become piggul unless its mattirin are offered (supra 42b)? Hence we must say that the fistful loses its piggul status, so that by its burning on the altar the mattirin are duly offered, and for that reason the remainder becomes piggul. This is then what he means: seeing that it is acceptable (a valid service) in point of making the rest fit to be piggul, it is surely acceptable in respect of itself!
(12) In respect of what law does it lose its piggul status?
(13) It loses its piggul status insofar that once it is taken up on to the altar it remains there, and we do not remove it as piggul.
(14) And this includes an instance of piggul.
(15) After having been placed on it.
(16) Emended text (Sh. M).
(17) Though it should not have been taken down in the first place:
(18) Then, even if it is taken down, it must be taken up again. Whereas the Baraitha refers to a case where the fire had not yet taken hold of it.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 43b

a limb, which is all one; but as for the fistful, which is divisible, I would say [that it is] not [so].1 Therefore he informs us [otherwise]. R. Ahai said: Therefore, when half of the fistful, which is piggul, is lying on the ground, and half has been taken up on the wood-pile [on the altar], and the fire has taken hold of it, we must take up the whole of it, even at the very outset.

R. Isaac said in R. Johanan's name: If piggul, nothar, or unclean [flesh] is taken up to the altar, their forbidden status leaves them. Said R. Hisda: O author of this [statement]! Is then the altar a ritual bath of purification! - Said R. Zera: [This law applies] where the fire has taken hold of it.2

R. Isaac b. Bisna objected: Others3 say: [When Scripture writes, But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings . . . ] having his uncleanness upon him [that soul shall be cut off from his people],4 [it implies] one whose uncleanness can leave him, thus excluding flesh, whose uncleanness cannot leave it.5 But if this is correct,6 surely the uncleanness does leave it, through the fire? - Said Raba: We mean, through a mikweh.7 Is then a mikweh written [in the text]? - Rather said R. Papa: We are dealing with the flesh of peace-offerings, which is not eligible for presenting [on the altar].8 Rabina said: 'Having his uncleanness upon him' implies, one whose uncleanness leaves him while he is yet whole; thus flesh is excluded, because uncleanness does not leave it while it is whole, but only when it is defective.9

[To turn to] the main text: 'Having his uncleanness upon him': Scripture speaks of uncleanness of the person. You say, Scripture speaks of uncleanness of the person: yet perhaps it is not so, but rather of uncleanness of the flesh? Here 'having his uncleanness [upon him]' is said; while elsewhere it says, his uncleanness is yet upon him:10 as there Scripture speaks of uncleanness of the person, so here too Scripture speaks of uncleanness of the person. R. Jose said: Since the 'holy things' are mentioned, in the plural, whilst 'uncleanness' is stated in the singular, Scripture must refer to uncleanness of the person.11 Rabbi said: 'And eat' [shews that] Scripture speaks of uncleanness of the person.12 Others say: 'Having his uncleanness upon him' [implies] one whose uncleanness leaves him, thus excluding flesh, whose uncleanness cannot leave it.

A Master said: 'Rabbi said: "And eat" [shews that] Scripture speaks of uncleanness of the person.' How does this imply it?13 - Said Raba, Every text which R. Isaac b. Abudimi, and every Mathnitha [Baraitha] which Ze'iri did not explain, are not explained. Thus did R. Isaac b. Abudimi say: Since the Writ commences in the feminine form and ends in the feminine, while [it employs] the masculine form in the middle, the Writ must speak of uncleanness of the person.14

'A Mathnitha'?15 - For it was taught: If the lighter ones were stated, why were the more stringent ones stated; and if the more stringent ones were stated, why were the lighter ones stated?16 If the lighter ones were stated and not the more stringent ones, I would say: The lighter ones involve a negative injunction,17 and the more stringent ones involve death;18 therefore the more stringent ones are stated.19 While if the more stringent were stated and not the lighter, I would say: The stringent ones involve culpability, but the lighter ones do not involve culpability at all; therefore the lighter ones are stated.

Now, what are the lighter ones and the more stringent ones? Shall we say [that] the lighter ones are the tithe, and the more stringent ones are terumah?20 [Can you then say,] 'I would say: The more stringent ones involve death'? Surely now it too involves death!21 Moreover, if it were not stated, would I say that it involves death? Surely it is sufficient for the conclusion to be as its premise?22 Again if 'the lighter ones' mean uncleanness of a reptile, and 'the more stringent ones' uncleanness of a corpse,23 to what then [does it refer]?24 If to terumah? both involve death!25 Moreover, [can you say,] 'Therefore the more stringent ones are stated, [to teach] that they involve a negative injunction [only]?' but surely it involves death? Whilst if it refers to the eating of tithe,

____________________
(1) Only the flour which has actually been burnt through must be taken up again, but not the rest.
(2) Then it belongs, as it were, to the altar.
(3) This usually refers to R. Meir; Hor. 13b.
(4) Lev. VII, 20.
(5) The Heb. we-tumatho 'alaw might mean, having its uncleanness upon it, and thus imply that a clean person who partakes of the unclean flesh of a sacrifice incurs koreth. It is explained, however, that the phrase implies that the uncleanness is in force only now and that it can be raised; hence it must refer to the person, not to the flesh, which once unclean can never become clean again.
(6) That when unclean flesh is carried up to the altar and the fire takes hold of it, it loses its forbidden status.
(7) V. Glos.
(8) But is eaten; hence it can never become clean.
(9) I.e., when the fire has already partially destroyed it.
(10) Num. XIX, 13. Emended text.
(11) Sh. M.: Scripture writes, Whosoever . . . approacheth unto the holy things . . . having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me (Lev. XXII, 3). Now there it cannot refer to the sacrifices, for in that case the plural, having their uncleanness upon them would be required. Hence it must refer to the person, and therefore the same is assumed here.
(12) Ibid. VII, 21. The verse reads: And when any one shall touch any unclean thing... and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings. That verse obviously refers to uncleanness of the person, and thus it illumines the previous verse (v. 20), shewing that that too refers to the same.
(13) That the previous verse too refers to the same. Perhaps the previous verse treats of uncleanness of the flesh.
(14) The second verse (v. 21) writes: And when any one (Heb. nefesh, lit. 'soul', fem.) shall touch (Heb. tiga', fem.) any unclean thing . . . and eat (we-akal, masc. instead of we-aklah, fem.) of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offerings, that soul shall be cut off (we-nikrethah, fem.). The preceding verse (v. 20) runs: But the soul (fem.) that eateth (fem.) of the flesh (masc.) . . . having his (or its) uncleanness upon him (or it) masc.), that soul shall be cut off (fem.) Since the suffixes of 'uncleanness' and 'upon' are masc., it might be assumed that they refer to 'flesh' which is masc. But when we see the same change of gender in the following verse, though that obviously refers to the uncleanness of the person, it is reasonable to say the same here. For Scripture has already treated of uncleanness of the flesh earlier in the section: And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing, shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire (v. 19). It continues with, And as for the flesh, any one that is clean may eat thereof, which indicates that unclean flesh is no longer being dealt with. Hence when it proceeds, But the soul that eateth . . . having his uncleanness upon him, it is logical to assume that uncleanness of the person is referred to, in suite of the change of gender.
(15) Which mathnitha required Ze'iri's explanation?
(16) This treats of the interdict of eating sacred food while personally unclean. By 'lighter' and 'more stringent' are meant food of lighter and of more stringent sanctities respectively. The Talmud explains anon which these are.
(17) Which is punishable by flagellation.
(18) At the hands of heaven.
(19) To shew that these too involve a negative injunction only.
(20) V. Lev. XXII, 6f: The soul that toucheth any such (unclean reptiles etc.) shall be unclean until the even, and shall not eat of the holy things, unless he bathe his flesh in water. And when the sun is down, he shall be clean; and afterwards he may eat of the holy things. These two verses are apparently contradictory, for the first implies that he may eat of the 'holy things' immediately after a ritual bath, even before sunset, while the second teaches that even after the ritual bath he must wait until sunset. Therefore the Rabbis (in Yeb. 74b) made the first refer to tithe, whose sanctity is lighter, and the second to terumah, whose sanctity is more stringent. Its greater stringency lies in the fact that a zar (a lay Israelite) may not partake of terumah, whereas he may partake of tithe. Scripture then goes on to say in v. 9: They (i.e. the priests) shall therefore keep My charge, lest they bear sin for it, and die therein, if they profane it. This is understood to mean that an unclean priest eating terumah is liable to death (v. n. 4.).
(21) Scripture does in fact teach that for partaking of terumah whilst unclean one is liable to death.
(22) This is a general principle: when one thing is learnt from another, a fortiori or a minori, it cannot go further than its premise. Now, if terumah were not stated, it could be learnt from tithe, a minori. But it could not involve a greater punishment than tithe, which is subject to a negative injunction only.
(23) I.e., 'lighter' and 'more stringent' apply not to the 'holy things' (the sacred food) but to the source of the priest's defilement. Both are enumerated in that passage, viz.: And whoso toucheth any one that is unclean by the dead . . . or whosoever toucheth any swarming thing (i.e. a reptile) Lev. XXII, 4-5.
(24) To the eating of which sacred food?
(25) Whether a priest is unclean in the one way or the other, he is liable to death for eating terumah.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 44a

[can you say,] 'If the more stringent ones were not stated, I would say that the more stringent ones involve death'?1 but Surely it would be derived from the uncleanness of a reptile, and it is sufficient for the conclusion to be as the premise!2 - Said Ze'iri: The 'lighter ones are uncleanness of a reptile, while 'the more stringent ones are uncleanness through a corpse, and this is what [the Tanna] means: If uncleanness of a reptile were stated, and tithe and terumah were enumerated, but uncleanness of a corpse were not stated, I would say: The lighter [defilement] involves a negative injunction in respect of the lighter ['holy things'], and death in respect of the more stringent.3 And since the lighter [defilement] involves death in respect of the more stringent ['holy things'], the more stringent [defilement] too involves death in respect of the lighter ['holy things']. Therefore the more stringent [defilement] is stated.

WHATEVER HAS AUGHT THAT MAKES IT PERMITTED, WHETHER FOR MAN OR FOR THE ALTAR, INVOLVES LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL. Our Rabbis taught: . . . Or perhaps it includes only that which is similar to a peace-offering: as a peace-offering is distinguished in that it is eaten two days and one night, so all that may be eaten two days and one night [are included] .4 How do we know that that which is eaten a day and a night [only, is also included]? Because Scripture saith, [And if any] of the flesh [of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings etc.],5 [which includes] all whose remainder is eaten.6 How do we know [that] a burnt-offering, whose remainder is not eaten, [is included]? Because Scripture says 'the sacrifice'.7 Whence do we know to include the bird-offerings and meal-offerings, until l can include a leper's log of oil? From the text, 'which they hallow unto Me': nothar is then learned from uncleanness, because 'profanation' is written in connection with both; and piggul is learned from nothar, because iniquity is written in connection with both.8 Now, since it [Scripture] ultimately includes all things, why then are peace-offerings specified? To teach you: as a peace-offering is distinguished in that it has something which permits it both for man and for the altar, so everything which has something which permits it both for man and for the altar involves liability on account of piggul. [The sprinkling of] the blood of a burnt-offering permits its flesh for [burning on] the altar, and its skin to the priests. The blood of a bird burnt-offering permits its flesh for the altar. The blood of a bird sin-offering permits its flesh to the priests. The blood of the bullocks that are burnt and the goats that are burnt permits their emurim to be offered [on the altar]. And I exclude the fistful, the frankincense, the incense, the priests' meal-offering, the anointed priest's meal-offering, and the blood. R. Simeon said: As a peace-offering is distinguished in that it comes on the outer altar [for sprinkling], and it involves liability; so all that come on the outer altar involve liability on account of piggul; thus the bullocks which are burnt and the goats which are burnt are excluded; since they do not come on the outer altar, like the peace-offering, they do not involve liability.

The Master said: 'That which is similar to a peace-offering'. What [sacrifice] is it? The firstling, which is eaten two days and one night! But how is this learnt? If by analogy? it can be refuted: as for a peace-offering, [it is subject to the law of piggul] because it requires laying [of hands], [the accompaniment of] drink-offerings [libations], and the waving of the breast and the shoulder?9 Again if [it is learnt] from [the text], And if there be at all eaten [any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings on the third day . . . it shall be an abhorred thing] [piggul],10 these are two generalisations which immediately follow each other?11 - Said Raba: It is as they say in the West:12 Wherever you find two generalisations close to each other, insert the specific proposition between them, and interpret them as a case of a generalisation followed by a specific proposition [and followed again by a generalisation].13

'Until I include a leper's log of oil'. With whom does that agree? With R. Meir. For it was taught: A leper's log of oil involves liability on account of piggul: that is the opinion of R. Meir. Then consider the next clause: And I exclude the meal-offering of libations and the blood. This agrees with the Rabbis. For it was taught: The drink-offering which accompanies an animal [sacrifice] involves liability on account of piggul, because the blood of the sacrifice permits it to be offered [on the altar]: that is R. Meir's view. Said they to him: But a man can bring his sacrifice to-day and the drink-offering even ten days later! I too, he answered them, ruled [thus] only when they come together with the sacrifice! - Said R. Joseph: The author of this is Rabbi, who maintained [that] the applications of the leper's log of oil permit it,14 and since its sprinklings permit it, its sprinklings render it piggul. For it was taught: You commit trespass in respect of a leper's log of oil until the blood is sprinkled; once the blood is sprinkled, you may not use it, and you do not commit trespass. Rabbi said: You commit trespass until its sprinklings are made. And both agree that it may not be eaten until its seven sprinklings and the applications on the thumbs are made.15

This was reported before R. Jeremiah, [whereupon] he exclaimed, That a great man like R. Joseph should say such a thing!

____________________
(1) I.e., for eating tithe while unclean through a corpse one is liable to death.
(2) Hence as a negative injunction only is involved in eating tithe whilst unclean through a reptile, so it is likewise in eating tithe while unclean through the dead.
(3) As Scripture states.
(4) The law of piggul is stated in Scripture in reference to a peace-offering only. The present quotation, which is fragmentary, commences thus: You might think that only a peace-offering involves liability for piggul; how do we know that other sacrifices too are included in this law? Because Scripture says in reference to uncleanness: Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel, which they hallow unto Me, and that they profane not My holy name (Lev. XXII, 2). This applies to all sacrifices, since the peace-offering is not specified, and an analogy is drawn anon between defilement and piggul, and thus other sacrifices too are included in the law of piggul. The passage then proceeds as in the text: perhaps only these sacrifices which are similar to a peace-offering are included etc., but not such sacrifices e.g., a sin-offering, or a thanks-offering, which are eaten only on the day they are sacrificed and the night following.
(5) Lev. VII, 18. This treats of piggul. 'Of the flesh' is superfluous, since Scripture could say, And if any of his peace-offerings, etc.; hence it is treated as an extension.
(6) The remainder after the fats etc. are burnt on the altar.
(7) In the text just quoted. That too is superfluous, and therefore extends the law to every sacrifice.
(8) Uncleanness, as quoted p. 219, n. 7; nothar: But every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, because he hath profaned the holy thing (same root as 'hallow') of the Lord (Lev. XIX, 8). As the interdict of defilement applies to all sacrifices, so does that of nothar. Then the scope of piggul is learnt from nothar, because 'iniquity' is written in connection with both: nothar, in the text just quoted; piggul: it shall be an abhorred thing (piggul), and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity (Lev. VII, 18): as the interdict of nothar applies to all sacrifices, so does that of piggul.
(9) Whereas a firstling does not require these.
(10) Lev. VII, 18. The E.V. has been slightly departed from so as to follow the exact order of the Hebrew, which comes under discussion. The Heb. for 'be at all eaten' is heakel yeakel, i.e., the infinitive of the verb followed by the finite form, which is the usual mode of expression. The Talmud now interprets the two forms as two generalisations (anything which is eaten), while 'peace-offerings' is a specific proposition. In that case it is a rule of exegesis that the generalisation includes everything which is similar in its general features (even if not in every detail) to the specific proposition. Hence the firstling is included, as generally speaking it is similar to the peace-offering, in spite of differing from it in several details.
(11) Whereas the exegetical rule applies to two generalisations which are separated by the specific proposition.
(12) Sc. Palestine, which lay to the west of Babylon.
(13) Hence the firstling would be included, but not sacrifices which are eaten one day only, since these differ even in the general features (the difference in length of time allowed for eating is an important one). Therefore recourse must be had to the other texts.
(14) V. Lev. XIV, 16 seq. Now, Rabbi agrees with the Rabbis that since the drink-offering can be brought after the animal sacrifice which it accompanies, the blood of the sacrifice cannot render it piggul. And when the Baraitha teaches that the log of oil can be piggul, it does not mean that the blood of the guilt-offering which the leper brings renders it piggul, but the sprinklings of the oil itself do effect this: i.e., if he sprinkles the oil with the intention of consuming the remainder after time.
(15) On trespass v. p. 176, n. 10. Now, the log of oil may not be consumed until the blood is sprinkled; therefore until then it is sacred, and if one does consume it, he commits trespass. When the blood has been sprinkled, the oil is Scripturally permitted to the priests, and this Tanna holds that whatever is permitted to the priests does not involve trespass even for a zar (lay Israelite). Nevertheless, by Rabbinical law its consumption is forbidden until the seven sprinklings of the oil. Rabbi holds that it is even Scripturally forbidden until then, and therefore it still involves trespass. But they both agree that it is forbidden by Rabbinical law until all its sprinklings have been made. - From this passage we see that Rabbi holds that the oil is permitted for consumption not by the blood of the sacrifice, but by its own sprinklings.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 44b

Lo, all agree that when the log comes separately,1 its sprinklings permit it, and yet they do not render it piggul. For it was taught, A leper's log of oil involves liability on account of piggul, because the blood permits it for [sprinkling on] the thumbs: that is R. Meir's view. Said they to R. Meir: But a man can bring his guilt-offering now, and his log even ten days later! I too, he answered them, ruled [thus] only when it comes with the guilt-offering! - Rather said R. Jeremiah: In truth it agrees with R. Meir, but delete 'drink-offerings' from this passage. Abaye said: After all, you need not delete [it]. But he [first] teaches about the log which comes with the guilt-offering,2 and the same applies to the drink-offering which comes with the sacrifice. And then he teaches about the drink-offering which comes separately,3 and the same applies to the log which comes separately.

THE BLOOD OF THE BIRD SIN-OFFERING PERMITS ITS FLESH TO THE PRIESTS. Whence do we know it?4 - For Levi taught: [This shall be thine - the priest's . . . ] every offering of theirs:5 that is to include a leper's log of oil. I might think that the Divine Law wrote, reserved from the fire,6 whereas this is not reserved from the fire;7 therefore it informs us [that it is not so]. Even every meal-offering of theirs8 includes the meal-offering of the 'omer9 and the meal-offering of jealousy.10 I might think [that it is written,] And they shall eat these things wherewith atonement was made,11 [whereas] the meal-offering of the 'omer comes to permit [the new corn], while the meal-offering of jealousy comes to establish guilt; therefore [the text] informs us [that it is not so]. And every sin-offering of theirs12 includes the sin-offering of a bird. I might think that it is nebelah;13 therefore [the text] informs us [that it is not so]. And every guilt-offering of theirs12 includes a nazirite's guilt-offering and a leper's guilt-offering. I might think that these come to qualify [them];14 therefore [the text] informs us [that it is not so]. But it is explicitly written that a leper's guilt-offering [is eaten]?15 Rather it is to include a nazirite's guilt-offering [teaching that it is like] a leper's guilt-offering. Which they may render16 includes what is taken by robbery from a proselyte.17 Shall be for thee:16 it shall be thine even for betrothing a woman.18

It was taught, R. Eleazar said on the authority of R. Jose the Galilean:19 If [the priest] declared a piggul intention in respect of a rite which is performed without,20 he renders it piggul; in respect of a rite which is performed within,21 he does not render it piggul. How so? If he stood without and declared, 'Lo, I slaughter [this sacrifice intending] to sprinkle its blood to-morrow,' he does not render it piggul because it is an intention [expressed] without concerning a rite which is performed within.22 If he stood within and declared, 'Lo, I sprinkle [the blood], intending to burn the emurim and pour out the residue23 to-morrow,' he does not render it piggul, because it is an intention [expressed] within concerning a rite which is performed without. If he stood without and declared, 'Lo, I slaughter [this sacrifice intending] to pour out the residue to-morrow , or 'to burn the emurim to-morrow,' he renders it piggul, because it is an intention [expressed] without concerning a rite which is performed without. R. Joshua b. Levi said: Which text [teaches this]? As is taken from the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings.24 What then do we learn from the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings?25 [Scripture] however likens the anointed priest's bullock to the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings: as the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings [does not become piggul] unless its rites and its intentions are [done] on the outer altar,26 so the anointed priest's bullock [does not become piggul] unless its intentions and its rites are [done] in connection with the outer altar. R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name in Rab's name: The halachah is as R. Eleazar's ruling in the name of R. Jose. Said Raba:

____________________
(1) I.e., when the leper brings it some days after his guilt-offering.
(2) That the blood of the guilt-offering can render it piggul, though he could have brought the log later.
(3) That this cannot become piggul.
(4) That its flesh may be eaten.
(5) Num. XVIII, 9.
(6) Ibid.
(7) No portion of it was burnt at all.
(8) Ibid.
(9) V. Glos., and Lev. XXIII, 10-14.
(10) V. Num. V, 12-15.
(11) Ex. XXIX, 33.
(12) Num. XVIII, 9.
(13) V. Glos. The bird-offering was killed by wringing its neck (Lev. I, 14-15), whereas ordinary shechitah (ritual killing) consists of cutting the windpipe and the gullet. - Nebelah of course may not be eaten.
(14) A nazirite's guilt-offering qualifies him to recommence his naziriteship after becoming unclean, while a leper's guilt-offering qualifies him to partake of holy food (v. Num. VI, 9-12, Lev. XIV, where the whole ceremony of purification is described). Thus they do not come to make atonement.
(15) Lev. XIV, 13: for as the sin-offering is the priest's, so is the guilt-offering.
(16) Num. XVIII, 9.
(17) If a man robs a proselyte, commits perjury in denying it, and then confesses, he must return what he robbed to the proselyte, plus a fifth, and also bring a guilt-offering. But if the proselyte died in the meantime and left no heirs, the principal and the fifth belong to the Priest (v. B.K. 110a), and this is taught by the present exegesis.
(18) Which was done with money or its value. - This last refers only to the robbery of a proselyte.
(19) Sh. M. deletes 'the Galilean'.
(20) I.e., in the Temple court.
(21) In the hekal.
(22) This passage deals with the bullocks and he-goats which were burnt, about which there is a controversy in the Mishnah. Their blood was sprinkled on the inner altar in the hekal.
(23) Both were done at the outer altar.
(24) Lev. IV, 10. This refers to the anointed priest's bullock, which was burnt. After describing its rites, including the removal of the fat, Scripture proceeds, (This shall be) as (the fat which) is taken etc.
(25) The rites of removing the fat etc. are exactly described: what then does Scripture teach?
(26) I.e., unless the intention to perform its rites or to eat the flesh after time is expressed in connection with and during the performance of a rite on the outer altar-since all its rites were on the outer altar.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 45a

[Do we need] a halachah [for the days of] the Messiah?1 - Abaye answered: If so, we should not study the whole of 'The slaughtering of sacrifices'?2 Yet we say, study and receive reward;3 so in this case too, study and receive reward. [He replied] This is what I mean: Why [state] a halachah?4 Another version: He replied, I mean, [Why state the] halachah?5

MISHNAH. THE SACRIFICES OF HEATHENS6 DO NOT INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL, NOTHAR, OR DEFILEMENT, AND IF [A PRIEST] SLAUGHTERS THEM WITHOUT [THE TEMPLE], HE IS NOT LIABLE: THAT IS R. SIMEON'S VIEW. BUT R. JOSE DECLARES HIM LIABLE.

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: You may neither benefit from the sacrifices of heathens,7 nor do you commit trespass;8 and they do not involve liability on account of piggul, nothar or defilement. And they [the heathens] cannot effect substitution;9 and they cannot bring drink-offerings,10 but their [animal] sacrifices require drink-offerings [to accompany them]: that is the view of R. Simeon.11 Said R. Jose: I hold that a stringent view should be taken on all these matters,12 because it is said of them, [Any man . . . that bringeth his offering . . .] unto the Lord.13 This applies only to sacrifices of the altar;14 but in the case of objects sacred to the Temple repair,15 one does commit trespass. 'You may neither benefit nor do you commit trespass:' You may not benefit by Rabbinical law. 'Nor do you commit trespass,' because in respect of the trespass-offering identity of law is derived from the fact that 'sin' is written here and in the case of terumah:16 while in respect to terumah 'the children of Israel' is written,17 [which intimates,] but not [those of] heathens.

'And they do not involve liability on account of piggul, nothar or defilement.' What is the reason? - Because the scope of piggul is derived from nothar, since 'iniquity' is written in connection with both, and the scope of nothar is derived from defilement, because 'profanation' is written in connection with both; while in respect to defilement 'the children of Israel' is written,18 [which intimates,] but not [those of] heathens.

'And they cannot effect substitution.' What is the reason? - Because substitution is assimilated to the tithe of cattle,19 and cattle tithe is assimilated to corn tithe,20 while 'the children of Israel' is written in connection with corn tithe,21 [which intimates,] but not that of heathens. Can then that which is learnt through a hekkesh in turn teach through a hekkesh?22 - Corn tithe is hullin.23 That is well on the view that the teacher is the determining factor; but on the view that the taught is the determining factor, what can be said?24 - Rather, cattle tithe is an obligation for which there is no fixed time, and as it is an obligation for which there is no fixed time, it is brought by Israelites, but not by heathens.25

'And they cannot bring drink-offerings.' Our Rabbis taught: [Scripture saith,] [All that are] home-born [shall do these things after this manner:]26 the home-born can bring drink-offerings but a heathen cannot bring drink-offerings. You might think then that his burnt-offering does not require a drink-offering;27 therefore Scripture teaches, Thus [shall be done for each bullock etc.].28 'Said R. Jose: I hold that a stringent view should be taken on all these matters. This applies only to sacrifices of the altar etc.' What is the reason? - He holds that when [the scope of] trespass is derived from terumah, because 'sin' is written in connection with both, [it applies only to that which is] like terumah, whose holiness is intrinsic;29 but not to the sanctity of the Temple repair, which is [but] monetary sanctity.30

Our Rabbis taught: If blood was defiled, and [the priest] sprinkled it unwittingly, it [the sacrifice] is accepted;

____________________
(1) Since the Temple no longer stands there is no practical utility in this ruling, which can become effective only in the days of the Messiah, when the Temple is rebuilt.
(2) I.e., the present Tractate.
(3) Learning for its own sake is meritorious.
(4) While it is right to study the subject, the fixing of a halachah is unnecessary.
(5) Why state the accepted practice when sacrifices are obsolete? Apart from the slight verbal variants in the two versions as indicated by the square brackets, in the first version the Aramaic hilketha is used, in the second the Hebrew halachah is used.
(6) Their votive offerings to the Temple.
(7) Before the blood is sprinkled, just as is the case of all sacrifices.
(8) V. p. 176, n. 10.
(9) V. p. 22, n. 8. If the owner is a heathen, he cannot effect substitution in the sense of making the second animal holy.
(10) Unless they accompany an animal sacrifice. Whereas Israelites can do so (Men. 104b).
(11) Possibly 'that . . . R. Simeon' should be deleted.
(12) The sacrifices of heathens should be treated as stringently as those of Israelites.
(13) Lev. XXII, 18. In Hul. 13b this verse is made to include the sacrifices of heathens; thus these too are 'unto the Lord' just as those of Israelites, and therefore they must be treated with equal severity.
(14) I.e., unblemished animals, which will be sacrificed on the altar.
(15) This is the technical designation of anything which is dedicated to the Temple, whether it be a blemished animal which cannot be sacrificed or any other object; it is then used for some Temple purpose.
(16) Trespass: If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance in the holy things of the Lord (Lev. V, 15); terumah: Lest they bear sin for it (Ibid. XXII, 9).
(17) Ibid. 15: And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel.
(18) Lev. XXII, 2: Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves (when unclean) from the holy things of the children of Israel.
(19) Ibid. XXVII, 32f: And all the tithe of the herd or the flock . . . the tenth shall be holy unto the Lord. He shall not . . . change it etc. Thus substitution of sacrifices in general, to which the second verse refers, is made part of the law of substitution of tithe.
(20) Deut. XIV, 22: Thou shalt surely tithe all the increase of thy seed. The emphatic 'thou shalt surely tithe' is expressed in Heb. as usual by the repetition of the verb; this repetition is Talmudically interpreted as referring to two tithes, cattle-tithe and corn-tithe. Thus they are assimilated to each other by being included in the same text.
(21) Num. XVIII, 26: When ye take of the children of Israel the tithe which I have given you.
(22) It is only by analogy with corn-tithe that we learn that the law of cattle does not operate in respect of the cattle of heathens. Can that in turn teach that the law of substitution does not operate in respect of heathens' sacrifices?
(23) And only in the case of holy things is this exegesis not permitted.
(24) The 'teacher' is corn-tithe, which throws light on 'cattle-tithe', which is the 'taught'. Here the 'teacher' is hullin, whereas the 'taught' is holy: if the 'teacher' is the determining factor, then the 'teacher' is indeed hullin and the exegesis is permitted; but if the 'taught' is the determining factor, then the 'taught' is holy, and so that exegesis is not allowable.
(25) As they can bring only votive offerings. - They do not bring obligatory offerings for which there is a fixed time either e.g., the festival peace-offerings. Nevertheless this is not mentioned, since they can bring peaceofferings in general; but the law of cattle-tithe does not apply to them at all.
(26) Num. XV, 13. 'These things' refers to the rites enumerated in the preceding passage, which includes the bringing of drink-offerings.
(27) To accompany it, as does the burnt-offering of an Israelite.
(28) Ibid. 11. Thus Scripture makes the sacrifice, not the donor, the determining factor.
(29) Terumah itself is holy and must be treated as such, similarly the sacrifices of the altar.
(30) When an object is dedicated to the Temple repair fund, that object itself is sacred only in so far that it must be redeemed and the redemption money expended on sacred purposes. But when it is redeemed it loses its sanctity.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 45b

if deliberately, it is not accepted.1 This was said only of a private sacrifice, but a public sacrifice, whether done unwittingly or deliberately, is accepted. But a heathen ['s sacrifice], whether it is done unwittingly or deliberately, is not accepted. Now, the Rabbis stated the following in R. Papa's presence: With whom does this agree? Not with R. Jose, for if [it agrees with] R. Jose, surely he said: I hold that a stringent view should be taken on all these matters?2 Said R. Papa to them: You may even say [that it agrees with] R. Jose: there it is different, because Scripture says, [that it may be accepted] for them [before the Lord]:3 for them, but not for heathens. Said R. Huna the son of R. Nathan to R. Papa: If so, [when Scripture says,] [Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel] which they hallow unto Me,4 does that also mean: They, but not heathens?5 - Rather said R. Ashi: Scripture says, 'that it may be accepted for them', whilst heathens are not subject to 'acceptance'.

MISHNAH. THE THINGS WHICH DO NOT INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL,6 INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF NOTHAR AND DEFILEMENT EXCEPT BLOOD. R. SIMEON DECLARES ONE LIABLE IN RESPECT OF ANYTHING WHICH IS NORMALLY EATEN, BUT THE WOOD, THE FRANKINCENSE AND THE INCENSE DO NOT INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF DEFILEMENT.

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: You might think that liability on account of defilement is incurred only in respect of that which has mattirin both for man and for the altar;7 and that is logical: If liability on account of piggul is incurred only in respect of that which has mattirin both for man and for the altar, though it is fixed [invariable], and [is incurred] in one state of awareness, and was never permitted contrary to its general prohibition;8 then surely it is logical that defilement involves liability only in respect of that which has mattirin both for man and for the altar, seeing that it requires a variable burnt-offering,9 two states of awareness,10 and is [sometimes] permitted in opposition to its general prohibition. Therefore Scripture wrote, [Speak unto Aaron and to his sons, that they separate themselves from the holy things of the children of Israel,] which they hallow unto Me.11 You might think [that liability is involved] immediately;12 therefore Scripture teaches, [Whoever he be . . .] that approacheth [unto the holy things . . . having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me].13 Now R. Eleazar said: Is then one who [merely] touches [the holy things] liable?14 Why does it say 'that approacheth'?15 [To teach that] the Writ speaks of flesh which was made fit to be offered.16 How so? If it has mattirin, [culpability is incurred] only when the mattirin have been offered; if it has no mattirin, [culpability is incurred] as soon as it is sanctified in a [sacred] vessel.

We have thus found [it of] defilement. How do we know [it of] nothar?17 Identity of law with defilement is learnt from the fact that 'profanation' is written in both. Yet let us learn identity of law from piggul, because 'iniquity' is written in connection with both? - Reason asserts that we should learn it from uncleanness, because [they are alike in respect of] Gezel, [this being a] mnemonic.18 On the contrary, one should learn it from piggul, because [it resembles it in the following points:] permissibility, the headplate, cleanness, time, that which is offered; and these are more numerous?19 - Rather, it [is derived] from Levi's teaching. For Levi taught: How do we know that the Writ speaks of time disqualification too?20 Because it says, That they profane not [My holy name]:21

____________________
(1) Lit., 'made acceptable'. The language is Biblical, cf. Lev. I, 4: and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him - i.e., the sacrifice effects its purpose. By Biblical law it is accepted in both cases, but the Rabbis penalized the priests by not permitting the flesh to be eaten when it was done deliberately.
(2) Thus he regards the heathen's sacrifice the same as an Israelite's sacrifice; then here too the same law should apply to both.
(3) Ex. XXVIII, 38. The passage refers to the wearing of the headplate by the High Priest, and teaches (according to the Talmudic interpretation) that in virtue of this wearing sacrifices are accepted, i.e., valid, even when the blood is defiled.
(4) Lev. XXII, 2.
(5) I.e., that unclean priests need not separate themselves from the sacrifices of heathens. - Surely R. Jose said that he takes a stringent view in all these matters?
(6) As enumerated in the Mishnah 42b seq.
(7) V. notes on Mishnah 42b.
(8) The sin-offering for eating piggul is fixed, and is the same for rich and poor alike - a lamb or a she-goat. It is incurred in one state of awareness, i.e., to be liable it is not necessary that one should know at first that it is piggul, then forget and eat it,and then become aware of it again, as it is in the case of defilement (v. note 2, p. 230). If only one ate it unwittingly, not having known at all that it was unclean, and then become aware of it, there is culpability. Again, the prohibition of piggul is never raised, even if all the sacrifices of the whole community had been rendered piggul, whereas in the case of uncleanness, if the whole community was in a state of uncleanness, the Passover-offering is brought and is eaten in that same state too.
(9) A wealthy man offers an animal-sacrifice; a poor man two doves; and a very poor man offers the tenth of an ephah of meal.
(10) For one to be culpable he must have known at first that it was unclean, then forgotten and eaten it, and then learn of its uncleanness again (Shebu. 4a).
(11) Lev. XXII, 2. The passage refers to uncleanness, and 'which they hallow unto Me' is an extension (being superfluous in itself), and therefore includes all hallowed things.
(12) As soon as it is dedicated liability is incurred for eating it in an unclean state.
(13) Ibid. 3.
(14) Surely not, for culpability is incurred only for eating (as in v. 4.)!
(15) Which implies mere touch.
(16) 'Offered' is the same root as 'approacheth';
(17) That there is liability even where there are no mattirin.
(18) G = Guf (body); Z =Zerikah (sprinkling); and L = hillul. Nothar and defilement are both intrinsic (i.e., bodily) disqualifications in the flesh, whereas piggul is disqualification through intention. Nothar and defilement do not disqualify through the sprinkling of the blood, whereas piggul does. And finally, hillul (profanation) is written in connection with nothar and defilement, but not in connection with piggul.
(19) (i) Nothar and piggul are never permitted in opposition to the general interdict, whereas defilement is. (ii) The headplate does not propitiate for these, though it does in the case of defilement (v. supra a bottom and note a.l.). (Though we are now discussing the uncleanness of the person, whereas the headplate propitiates only if the blood of the sacrifice is unclean, nevertheless it is true to say that the headplate does propitiate in a case of uncleanness.) (iii) Nothar and piggul are both clean. (iv) Both are disqualified through the time element, nothar because it was left until after the proper time, piggul because of an illegitimate intention in respect of after time. Finally, (v) they are both disqualifications in respect of the sacrifice, which is offered; whereas defilement is a disqualification of the priest, who offers it.
(20) Such as nothar.
(21) Lev. XXII, 2.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 46a

the Writ speaks of two modes of profanation, viz., the disqualification of nothar and the disqualification of defilement.1

EXCEPT BLOOD etc. Whence do we know it? - Said 'Ulla, Scripture saith, [For the life of the flesh is in the blood,.] and I have given it to you [upon the altar to make atonement for your souls]:2 [this teaches,] it is yours.3 The school of R. Ishmael taught: 'To make atonement' [implies] but not for trespass. R. Johanan said: Scripture saith, it is [which intimates,] it is before atonement as after atonement: as there is no trespass after atonement,4 so there is no trespass before atonement. Say, it is after atonement as before atonement: as it involves trespass before atonement,5 so it involves trespass after atonement? - Nothing involves trespass once its function is performed. Does it not? But lo, there are the separated ashes?6 - That is because the separated ashes and the priestly vestments7 are [taught in] two texts which come for the same purpose,8 and wherever two texts come for the same purpose, they do not illumine [other cases].9 That is well according to the Rabbis who maintain that, [And Aaron . . . shall put off the linen garments . . . ] and shall leave them there10 teaches that they must be stored away.11 But what can be said on the view of R. Dosa, who maintained [that] they are permitted to an ordinary priest, only that he [the High Priest] does not use them on another Day of Atonement? - Because the separated ashes and the beheaded heifer12 are [taught in] two texts which come for the same purpose, and wherever two texts come for the same purpose, they do not illumine [other cases]. That is well on the view that they do not illumine; but what can be said on the view that they do illumine? - Two limitations are written:13 here is written, [over the heifer] whose neck was broken;14 while there it says, [And he shall take up the ashes . . .] and he shall put them [beside the altar].15 Now, why do I need three texts in connection with blood?16 One excludes it from trespass, another from nothar, and a third from defilement.17 But no text is required for piggul for we learnt: Whatever has mattirin, whether for man or for the altar, involves liability on account of piggul: whereas blood is itself a mattir.

R. Johanan said: For what purpose is kareth stated three times in connection with peace-offerings?18

____________________
(1) The two profanations are deduced from the fact that Scripture employs a longer form, yehallelu (profane) instead of yehallu.
(2) For it is - hu - the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life. (Lev. XVII, 11).
(3) 'Ulla said this in reference to trespass: 'it is yours' means that in respect of trespass it is treated as secular, and so involves no offering for misappropriation. The deductions by the school of R. Ishmael and R. Johanan which follow, point to the same conclusion. Thus we have three texts shewing that blood does not involve trespass; since three are unnecessary for this purpose, they are ultimately employed to teach that blood does not involve liability in respect of nothar, trespass, and defilement.
(4) After the blood has been sprinkled and atonement thereby made, there is no trespass in putting it to secular use, since it is no longer required for a sacred purpose.
(5) This would have to be assumed in default of a text to the contrary. R. Johanan of course does not deduce the contrary from the other texts.
(6) A shovelful of ashes was removed every day from the altar and placed at the east side of the altar, where they might not be used, though their function had already been performed, but left to become absorbed in their place.
(7) The four additional vestments worn by the High Priest when he entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement. On leaving it he removed them, and they might not be put to secular use. Both these cases are deduced from Scriptural texts.
(8) In both trespass is involved after their function has been fulfilled.
(9) For if they were to serve as an illustration for others, one only need be stated, and the other, together with other cases, would follow.
(10) Lev. XVI, 23.
(11) And not used. Thus there are two such instances.
(12) V. Deut. XXI, 9. The Rabbis deduce from the superfluous 'there' in the passage, and shall break the heifer's neck there in the valley (v. 4), that the heifer must be buried there and not put to any use.
(13) Sh. M. deletes 'two'.
(14) Deut. XXI v. 6; lit. 'the broken-necked'. The deduction is from the article 'the': only this animal whose function has been performed may still not be used, but no other similar sacred animal, i.e., one whose function has been performed, may not be used.
(15) Lev. VI, 3. Here too 'them' implies, only these ashes may not be used in such a case, but other sacred things may be used after their function has been performed.
(16) To shew that blood does not involve trespass. This is the completion of the answer to the question, 'How do we know that blood does not create liability for nothar' etc., as explained p. 231. n. 7.
(17) I.e., that blood does not involve culpability on account of these.
(18) V. Lev. VII, 20, 21; XXII, 3.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 46b

One to serve as a generalizations the second as a particularization,1 and the third [is required] in respect of things which are not eaten.2 And according to R. Simeon who maintained that the things which cannot be eaten do not involve liability on account of uncleanness, what does it include? - It includes the inner sin-offerings. You might think that since R. Simeon said, Whatever does not come on the outer altar, like peace-offerings, does not involve liability on account of piggul then it does not involve liability on account of uncleanness either. Hence [Scripture) informs us [that it is not so].

Said R. Simeon: That which is normally eaten etc.3 It was stated, R. Johanan and Resh Lakish, R. Eleazar and R. Jose son of R. Hanina [are the pairs concerned in the following discussion], one of the former pair and one of the latter pair: One maintained: The controversy [in the Mishnah] refers to uncleanness of the flesh;4 but in the case of personal uncleanness all agree that [the offender] is not flagellated. But the other maintained: As there is a controversy in the one case, so is there in the other. [Raba said, Logic supports the view that as there is a controversy in the one case, so is there in the other.]5 What is the reason? - Since the text, And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing6 is applicable to it, then the text having his uncleanness upon him7 is applicable to it too.8 That is how R. Tabyomi recited [this discussion]. R. Kahana recited [the views of] one of the former pair and one of the latter pair as referring to the final clause:9 One maintained: The controversy refers to personal uncleanness, but in the case of uncleanness of flesh all agree that he is flagellated. While the other maintained: As there is a controversy in the one case, so is there in the other. Raba said, Logic supports the view that as there is a controversy in the one case, so is there in the other. What is the reason? - Since the text, 'Having his uncleanness upon him', is not applicable to it,10 the text, 'And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing' is not applicable to it. But surely a master said: 'And the flesh' is to include the wood and the frankincense?11 - That is a mere disqualification.12

MISHNAH. THE SACRIFICE IS SLAUGHTERED FOR THE SAKE OF SIX THINGS: FOR THE SAKE OF THE SACRIFICE, FOR THE SAKE OF THE SACRIFICER, FOR THE SAKE OF THE [DIVINE] NAME, FOR THE SAKE OF FIRE-OFFERINGS, FOR THE SAKE OF A SAVOUR, FOR THE SAKE OF PLEASING, AND A SIN-OFFERING AND A GUILT-OFFERING FOR THE SAKE OF SIN. R. JOSE SAID: EVEN IF ONE DID NOT HAVE ANY OF THESE PURPOSES IN HIS HEART, IT IS VALID, BECAUSE IT IS A REGULATION OF THE BETH DIN, SINCE THE INTENTION IS DETERMINED ONLY BY THE CELEBRANT.13

GEMARA. Rab Judah said in Rab's name: [Scripture says, It is a burnt-offering, an offering made by fire, of pleasing savour unto the Lord].14 'A burnt-offering' [intimates that it must be slaughtered] for the sake of a burnt-offering, excluding [where it is slaughtered] for the sake of a peace-offering, in which case it does not [acquit the owner of his obligation]. 'An offering made by fire' [intimates that] it must be for the sake of an offering made by fire, excluding the charring of the meat,15 which is not [valid]. 'Savour' [intimates that] it must be for the sake of a savour: this excludes the roasting of limbs [elsewhere] and bringing them up [on the altar], which is not [valid].16 For Rab Judah said in Rab's name: If one roasted limbs and took them up on to the altar, they do not fulfil the requirements of 'savour'. 'Pleasing' [intimates that] it must be for the sake of pleasing the Lord, for the sake of Him who spoke and called the world into existence.

Rab Judah said in Rab's name: If one slaughtered a sin-offering under the designation of a burnt-offering, it is invalid; [if one slaughtered it] under the designation of hullin, it is valid. R. Eleazar17 said: What is Rab's reason? - And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel:18 'holy things' profane 'holy things', but hullin does not profane holy things.19

Rabbah raised an objection: R. JOSE SAID: EVEN IF ONE DID NOT HAVE ANY OF THESE PURPOSES IN HIS HEART, IT IS VALID, BECAUSE IT IS A REGULATION OF THE BETH DIN. Thus it is only because he had no [purpose] in his heart at all; hence, if he intended it20 for the sake of hullin, it is invalid? - Said Abaye to him: Perhaps [this deduction is to be made]: if he had no intention at all, it is valid and propitiates while if he intended it for the sake of hullin it is valid but does not propitiate.21

R. Eleazar said: If one slaughters a sin-offering for the sake of hullin,22 it is valid; [if one slaughtered it] as hullin,23 it is invalid.24 This is as the question which Samuel asked R. Huna:

____________________
(1) When anything is included in a generalization, and is then made the subject of a particularization, it throws light not only upon itself but upon everything included in the generalisation. Now Lev. XXII,3 (q.v.) is a generalization, including all 'holy things' and thus the peace-offering too. The latter is therefore singled out in Lev. VII, 20 to teach that as peace-offerings are of the 'holy things' of the altar, so does the 'holy things' in XXII,3 also mean those belonging to the altar, sc. sacrifices.
(2) E.g., the wood used on the altar and the frankincense. If one nevertheless ate these whilst unclean, he incurs kareth.
(3) As in the Mishnah, 45b, with slight variation. V. Rashi on the Mishnah.
(4) Hence of the wood and incense.
(5) Bracketed passage added by Sh. M.
(6) Lev. VII, 19.
(7) Ibid. 20.
(8) I.e., if the first text applies to wood and frankincense, then the second does too.
(9) I.e., to R. Simeon's exemption from liability.
(10) In the Rabbis' view. - Before he said, 'is applicable to it', as he referred to R. Simeon's view.
(11) Supra 34a.
(12) The law disqualifying unclean wood and frankincense is only Rabbinical, this Biblical interpretation being a mere support.
(13) The priest who performs the service, and not the owner of the sacrifice. If the former intended it for a different purpose, it counts as a sacrifice so offered, notwithstanding that the owner intended it for its rightful purpose. - V. supra 2b for notes.
(14) Lev. I, 13.
(15) I.e., the intention to make roast pieces of flesh.
(16) Since the 'savour' is then not made on the altar.
(17) Sh. M.: Elai.
(18) Lev. XXII, 15.
(19) Cf. supra 3a, 5a.
(20) Lit. 'if he had in his heart.'
(21) The owner is not acquitted of his obligation; cf. supra 2a.
(22) I.e., he knew that it was a sin-offering, and yet slaughtered it for the sake of hullin.
(23) Thinking that it was hullin.
(24) Since in his mind he was not engaged with sacrifices at all.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 47a

How do we know that when one is unaware engaged in sacrifices,1 it [the sacrifice] is invalid? Because it says, And he shall kill the bullock before the Lord,2 [which intimates] that the killing must be for the sake of the bullock.3 We know this,4 said he to him, [but] how do we know that [awareness] is indispensable?5 Ye shall slaughter it with your will,6 said he, [which teaches,] slaughter it with your knowledge.7

SINCE THE INTENTION IS DETERMINED ONLY BY THE CELEBRANT. Our Mishnah does not agree with the following Tanna. For it was taught, R. Eleazar son of R. Jose said: I have heard that the owner [of the sacrifice] renders [it] piggul!8 Raba said: What is R. Eleazar son of R. Jose's reason? Because Scripture says, Then shall he that offereth [his offering] present [unto the Lord etc.]9 Abaye said: R. Eleazar son of R. Jose, R. Eliezer and R. Simeon b. Eleazar all hold that when one expresses an intention while another performs the act,10 it is an [effective] intention. R. Eleazar son of R. Jose: this [view] that we have stated.11 R. Eliezer: as we learnt: If one slaughters for a heathen, his shechitah is fit; but R. Eliezer declares it unfit.12 R. Simeon b. Eleazar: as it was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar stated a general rule: That which is not fit to put away, and such is not [generally] put away, yet it did become fit to a certain person13 and he did put it away, and then another came and carried it out, the latter is rendered liable through the former's intention.14

Now, both of them15 agree with R. Eleazar son of R. Jose: if we say [thus] without, is there a question about within?16 R. Eleazar son of R. Jose does not agree with the other two: perhaps he ruled thus only [in reference to] within, but not [in reference to] without.17 R. Simeon b. Eleazar agrees with R. Eliezer: if we say [thus] in connection with the Sabbath, is there a question about idolatry?18 R. Eleazar does not agree with R. Simeon b. Eleazar: perhaps you rule thus only in connection with idolatry, because it is similar to 'within';19 but in the case of the Sabbath, the Torah interdicted only a considered labour.20

CHAPTER 5

MISHNAH. WHICH IS THE PLACE [FOR THE RITES] OF SACRIFICES? THE SLAUGHTERING OF SACRIFICES OF THE HIGHER SANCTITY IS AT THE NORTH [SIDE OF THE ALTAR]. THE SLAUGHTERING OF THE BULLOCK AND THE HE-GOAT OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT IS [DONE] AT THE NORTH, AND THE RECEPTION OF THEIR BLOOD IS [PERFORMED] WITH SERVICE VESSELS AT THE NORTH, AND THEIR BLOOD REQUIRES SPRINKLING BETWEEN THE STAVES [OF THE ARK], ON THE VEIL, AND ON THE GOLDEN ALTAR; [THE OMISSION OF] A SINGLE APPLICATION OF THESE INVALIDATES [THE CEREMONY]. THE RESIDUE OF THE BLOOD HE [THE PRIEST] POURED OUT ON THE WESTERN BASE OF THE OUTER ALTAR, BUT IF HE DID NOT POUR IT OUT, HE DID NOT INVALIDATE [THE SACRIFICE].

AS FOR THE BULLOCKS WHICH WERE BURNT21 AND THE HE-GOATS WHICH WERE BURNT,22 THEIR SLAUGHTERING IS [DONE] AT THE NORTH, AND THE RECEPTION OF THEIR BLOOD IS [DONE] AT THE NORTH, AND THEIR BLOOD REQUIRES SPRINKLING BETWEEN THE STAVES [OF THE ARK], ON THE VEIL, AND ON THE GOLDEN ALTAR;

____________________
(1) He slaughters a sacrifice, but without such intention.
(2) Lev. I, 5.
(3) I.e., he must intend to kill a sacred animal as a sacrifice.
(4) Lit. 'this is in our hands'.
(5) In the sense that the sacrifice is otherwise invalid. The text quoted may merely teach that intention is required, but not that the sacrifice is invalid in default thereof.
(6) Lev. XIX, 5. This is the literal translation. E.V.: Ye shall offer it that ye may be accepted.
(7) With the knowledge that it is a sacrifice. Thus this refutes the teaching of Lev. I, 5, and it shews that such awareness is indispensable.
(8) While the priest was performing its rites.
(9) Num. XV, 4. Lit. translation. Thus the owner is called 'he that offereth', and so is included in the text, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it: it shall be an abhorred thing (piggul) - Lev. VII, 18: hence he can render the sacrifice piggul.
(10) Concerning which the intention is expressed.
(11) His ruling supra.
(12) The animal belonged to a heathen, and it is assumed that a heathen tacitly intends his animal to be slaughtered in honour of his deity, which makes it unfit for food. R. Eleazar maintains that it is unfit even though the act of shechitah is performed by a Jew, while the intention is performed by the heathen.
(13) He found a use for it.
(14) The passage refers to the Sabbath. V. Shab. 75b, 76a.
(15) R. Eliezer and R. Simeon b. Eleazar.
(16) Surely not. 'Within' means in the Temple; 'without', outside the Temple. Now, R. Eliezer and R. Simeon b. Eleazar stated their views in reference to a heathen and the Sabbath respectively (cases 'without' the Temple), and though the law of intention is not written in connection with these at all, they hold that where one man performs an act, another man's intention in reference thereto is effective. Then they will certainly hold the same in reference to sacrifices, where the disqualification of an illegal intention is actually written.
(17) By the same argument as in the preceding note.
(18) Surely not. Idolatrous acts of sacrifice involve culpability only when they are of the same nature as the acts performed in true sacrifice (Sanh. 60b). Hence it is natural that in respect to intention too they are similar.
(19) As in preceding note.
(20) I.e., culpability is involved only when one performs a real labour, and which he (or people in general) consider as such. Here, however, his action would not normally be considered carrying, and another man's intention cannot make it so.
(21) Sc. the bullocks brought as sin-offerings when either the whole community or the anointed priest sinned. These were not eaten by the priests but burnt without Jerusalem (Lev. IV, 12, 21; Yoma 68a).
(22) Sc. the he-goats brought for the sin of idolatry.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 47b

[THE OMISSION OF] A SINGLE ONE OF THESE APPLICATIONS INVALIDATES [THE SACRIFICE]. THE RESIDUE OF THE BLOOD HE [THE PRIEST] POURED OUT ON THE WESTERN BASE OF THE ALTAR; BUT IF HE DID NOT POUR IT OUT, HE DID NOT INVALIDATE [THE SACRIFICE]. BOTH OF THESE1 WERE BURNT AT THE ASHPIT.2

GEMARA. Yet let him [the Tanna] also teach [in the very first clause]. And the reception of their blood is [done] in a service vessel at the north? - Since there is the leper's guilt-offering,3 whose blood is received in the hand, he omits it. Is it then not [received in a vessel]? Surely he teaches later on: As for a nazirite's guilt-offering and a leper's guilt-offering, their slaughtering is at the north, and the reception of their blood is [done] with a service vessel at the north?4 - At first he thought that the blood was received in the hand, [and so] he omitted it.5 But when he saw that it cannot be done adequately without a vessel [also being used], he re-included it. For it was taught: And the priest shall take [of the blood of the guilt-offering]:6 You might think, with a vessel; but Scripture adds, and the priest shall put it [etc.]:7 as the putting must be by the very priest himself, so the taking must be by the very priest himself. You might think that it is likewise for the altar:8 Therefore Scripture states, For as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering:9 as the sin-offering requires a vessel [for the reception of the blood], so does the guilt-offering require a vessel. Thus you must conclude that two priests received the blood of a leper's guilt-offering, one in his hand and the other in a vessel. He who received it in a vessel went to the altar, and he who received it in his hand went to the leper.

____________________
(1) The sin-offerings of the Day of Atonement and the other sin-offerings which were burnt.
(2) The place where the ashes of the outer altar were deposited.
(3) A sacrifice of higher sanctity.
(4) Infra 54b.
(5) The mention of the reception of the blood in the introductory clause.
(6) Lev. XIV, 14.
(7) Ibid.
(8) That the blood which is sprinkled on the altar too is not received in a vessel.
(9) Ibid. 13. This rendering follows the exact order of the Hebrew.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 48a

AS FOR THE BULLOCK AND THE HE-GOAT OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT etc. Consider: the north [side of the altar] is written in connection with the burnt-offering, then let him teach [about] the burnt-offering first?1 - Because this is deduced about the sin-offering by exegesis, he cherishes it more.2 Then let him teach the outer sin-offerings [first]?3 - Because the blood of these [which he does enumerate] enters the inner sanctuary, he cherishes it more.4

Now, where is the north written in connection with the burnt-offering? - And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward.5 We have thus found [it of] the flocks;6 how do we know [it of] the herd? - Scripture saith, And [we] if his offering be of the flock:7 the waw [and] continues8 the preceding section, so that the [subject] above may be deduced from [that] below.9 That is well on the view that you can learn10 [the subject above from that below]; but on the view that you cannot learn [it thus], what can be said? For it was taught: And if any one sin etc.;11 this teaches that one is liable to a guilt-offering of suspense on account of doubtful trespass:12 that is R. Akiba's ruling. But the Sages exempt [him]. Surely then they disagree in this: one master holds that we learn [the subject above from that below],13 while the other master holds that we do not learn it? - Said R. Papa: All agree that we do learn [thus], but this is the Rabbis' reason:14 mizwoth15 is employed here, and mizwoth is employed in connection with the sin-offering of forbidden fat:16 as there it means a law whose deliberate infringement entails kareth and its unwitting infringement entails a sin-offering, so here too17 [it is entailed only by] that whose deliberate infringement entails kareth, while its unwitting infringement involves a sin-offering.18 And R. Akiba?19 - As there it is fixed, so here it is fixed, thus excluding the sin-offering for the defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects [sacrifices], which is variable.20 And the Rabbis?21 - There is no semi gezerah shawah.22 But R. Akiba too [surely admits that] there is no semi gezerah shawah? - That indeed is so; here, however, they differ in this: R. Akiba holds: 'And if a soul' is written, and the waw indicates conjunction with the preceding subject.23 But [according to] the Rabbis too, surely it is written, And if a soul?24 Shall we say that they differ in this: one master holds that a hekkesh is stronger; while the other master holds that a gezerah shawah is stronger?25 - No: all agree that the gezerah shawah is stronger, but the Rabbis can answer you: the subject below is learnt from that above, that the guilt-offering must be [two] silver shekels in value,26 so that you should not say: Surely the doubt cannot be more stringent than the certainty: as the certainty [of sin] requires a sin-offering [even] a sixth [of a zuz in value], so [for] the doubt a guilt-offering of a sixth [of a zuz] is sufficient.27 Now, how does R. Akiba know this? - He deduces it from [the text,] And this is the law of the guilt-offering,28 [which intimates that] there is one law for all guilt-offerings. That is well on the view that 'law' can be [so] interpreted; but on the view that 'law' cannot be so interpreted, whence does he derive [it]? - He derives [it] from the repetition of 'according to thy valuation.'29 [But] what can be said of the guilt-offering of a maidservant promised in marriage,30 where according to thy valuation' is not written? - He derives [it from] the repetition of 'with the ram.'31

How do we know that a sin-offering requires the north? - Because it is written, And he shall kill the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering.32 We have found [it of] slaughtering: how do we know [it of] receiving? Because it is written, And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering.33 How do we know that the receiver himself [must stand in the north]?34 The text says, 'And he shall take', [which intimates,] he shall [be]take himself [to the place where the blood is received].35 We have thus found [it as] a regulation; how do we know that it is indispensable?36 - Another text is written, And he shall kill it for a sin-offering in the place where they kill the burnt-offering;37 and it was taught: Where is the burnt-offering slaughtered? in the north: so this too38 is [slaughtered] in the north.

____________________
(1) V. infra 53b.
(2) I.e., the Tanna is more desirous of teaching the results of exegesis than what Scripture states explicitly, and therefore he gives them preference.
(3) V. infra 52b.
(4) It is more important in his eyes, and hence he teaches it first.
(5) Lev. I, 11.
(6) To which the text refers.
(7) Ibid. 10; and is expressed by the letter waw in Heb., punctuated we.
(8) Lit., 'adds to'.
(9) When a passage commences with 'and', this conjunction links it with the previous portion, and a law stated in one applies to the other too. Here the subject above is the burnt-offering of the herd, and the subject below is that of the flock.
(10) By means of a conjunction waw.
(11) Lev. V, 17.
(12) V. Mishnah infra 54b. Now, the subject immediately preceding deals with the guilt-offering for putting sacred things to secular use (vv. 14-16), when the offender learns that he has definitely sinned. If one is in doubt whether he has offended, this text teaches that he must bring a guilt-offering of suspense (i.e., doubt). The doubt arises thus: Two things lie before a man, one of which he puts to secular use. Subsequently he learns that one of these was sacred, and he does not know which.
(13) And if any one sin introduces the law of the guilt-offering of suspense for doubtful sin. By learning the subject above from it, it follows that this is entailed by doubtful trespass too.
(14) For not doing so here.
(15) Lit. 'commandments': and if any one sin, and do any of the mizwoth (E.V. things) which the Lord hath commanded not to be done etc.
(16) Lev. IV, 27. Forbidden fat is not mentioned there, but 'a sin-offering of forbidden fat' is the usual designation in the Talmud for an ordinary sin-offering. The reason is because Ye shall eat neither fat nor blood (Lev. III, 17) is followed by Ch. IV, which deals with sin-offerings (Rashi in Sot. 15a). Asheri (in Ned. 4a) explains the reason because the most usual form of sinning thus is eating forbidden fat through having it in the house.
(17) Sc. the guilt-offering of suspense.
(18) I.e., a guilt-offering of suspense is brought only when one is in doubt whether he has committed an offence, which, if certainly committed, entails kareth or a sin-offering. But the secular misuse of sacred property does not involve a sin-offering, consequently one is not liable to a guilt-offering for doubtful trespass.
(19) How does he interpret this gezerah shawah?
(20) Lit., 'ascends (in value) and descends'. - The ordinary sin-offering is fixed and the same for rich and poor alike. This gezerah shawah then teaches that a guilt-offering of suspense is incurred only for the doubtful violation of a law which, if definitely violated, involves a fixed sin-offering. But if one is doubtful whether he entered the Temple whilst unclean, he does not bring a guilt-offering of suspense, because if he were certain he would only be liable to a variable sacrifice (v. Lev. V, 1-10).
(21) What is their view on this?
(22) A gezerah shawah shews similarity in all respects, not in some only.
(23) As above.
(24) And it was stated above that all agree that the subject above is learnt from that below.
(25) The hekkesh or analogy arises from the waw, which couples both subjects. Thus apparently the Rabbis give preference to the gezerah shawah, while R. Akiba gives preference to the hekkesh (only one can be employed here, since they yield apparently contradictory results).
(26) The earlier passage reads: then he shall bring . . . according to thy valuations in silver by shekels . . . a guilt-offering (v. 15), which the Rabbis interpret as meaning not less than two shekels. The analogy therefore teaches that the guilt-offering of suspense in v. 18 must also have that value.
(27) Hence the hekkesh teaches otherwise.
(28) Lev. VII, 1.
(29) Heb. בערכך. It is repeated in Lev. V, 15 and Lev. V, 18, and this furnishes a gezerah shawah, which teaches that they must be of equal value in both cases.
(30) Ibid. XIX, 20-22.
(31) Ibid. V, 16 and XIX, 22.
(32) Ibid. IV, 24.
(33) Ibid 25. This is connected with the immediately preceding words, 'in the place where they kill the burnt-offering.' - ' Take' means to receive the blood.
(34) And not in the south and stretch out his hand to the north. (A line - imaginary - demarcated the north and the south, and so it would be possible to stand on one side of the line - south - and receive the blood on the other - the north.)
(35) I.e., the north.
(36) That the sacrifice is invalid otherwise.
(37) Ibid. 33. This treats of a lamb brought by a prince (ruler) as a sin-offering.
(38) Sc. the sin-offering.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 48b

Do you then learn it from this verse? Is it not already stated, In the place where the burnt-offering is killed shall the sin-offering be killed?1 why then has this2 been singled out? To fix the place for it, so that if one did not slaughter it in the north, it is invalid.3 You say it has been singled out for this purpose, yet perhaps it is not so, but rather [to teach] that this one [alone] requires the north,4 but no other requires the north? Therefore it states, 'And he shall kill the sin-offering in the place of the burnt-offering,' thus constituting a general law in respect of all sin-offerings that they require the north. We have thus found [it true of] a prince's sin-offering, that it is both a recommendation and indispensable; we have also found it as a recommendation in the case of other sin-offerings; how do we know that it is indispensable [for other sin-offerings]? Because it is written in reference to both the lamb5 and the she-goat.6

Then what is the purpose of 'it'?7 - That is required for what was taught: 'It' [is slaughtered] on the north, but Nahshon's goat was not [slaughtered] in the north.8 And it was taught: And he shall lay his hand upon the head of the goat9 includes Nahshon's goat, in respect of laying [hands]: that is R. Judah's view. R. Simeon said: It includes the goats brought on account of idolatry, in respect of laying [hands]. You might argue, Since they are included in respect of laying [hands], they are included in respect of the north. Hence we are informed [otherwise].

To this Rabina demurred: That is well on R. Judah's view; but what can be said on R. Simeon's?10 - Said Mar Zutra son of R. Mari to Rabina: And is it well on R. Judah's view? [surely], where it is included, it is included, and where it is not included, it is not included?11 And should you say, Had Scripture not excluded it, [its inclusion] would be inferred by analogy: if so, let laying [hands] itself be inferred by analogy? But [you must answer that] a temporary [sacrifice] can not be inferred from a permanent one,12 so here too,13 a temporary [sacrifice] cannot be inferred from a permanent one?14 - Rather [it teaches this]: 'It' [is slaughtered in the north], but the slaughterer need not be in the north.15 But [the law concerning] the slaughterer is deduced by R. Ahia's [exegesis]? For it was taught, R. Ahia said: And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward': why is this stated? Because we find that the receiving priest must stand in the north and receive [the blood] in the north, while if he stood in the south and received [the blood] in the north it is invalid. You might think that this [slaughtering] is likewise. Therefore Scripture states, '[And he shall kill] it', [intimating that] 'it' must be in the north, but the slaughterer need not be in the north! - Rather [it teaches this]: 'It' [must be killed] in the north, but a bird does not need the north.16 For it was taught: You might think that a bird-offering needs the north, and this is indeed logical: If [Scripture] prescribed north for a lamb, though it did not prescribe a priest for it,17 is it not logical that it should prescribe north for a bird, seeing that it did prescribe a priest for it? Therefore 'it' is stated.18 [No:] as for a lamb, the reason is because [Scripture] prescribed a utensil for it!19 - Rather, [it teaches this]: 'It' [must be killed] in the north, but the Passover-offering [need] not [be slaughtered] in the north. For it was taught, R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: You might think that a Passover-offering needs the north, and this is indeed logical: if [Scripture] prescribed the north for a burnt-offering, though it did not prescribe a fixed season for its slaughtering; is it not logical that it should prescribe the north for a Passover-offering, seeing that it did prescribe a fixed season for its slaughtering? Therefore 'it' is stated. [No:] as for a burnt-offering, the reason is because it is altogether burnt. [Then learn it] from a sin-offering.20 As for a sin-offering, the reason is because it makes atonement for those who are liable to kareth! [Then learn it] from a guilt-offering. [No:] as for a guilt-offering, the reason is because it is a most sacred sacrifice! [And you] cannot [learn it] from all these21 likewise, because they are most sacred sacrifices! - After all, it is as we said originally: 'It' [must be] in the north, but the slaughterer need not be in the north, and as to your difficulty, 'That is deduced from R. Ahia's exegesis', [the answer is that] it does not [really] exclude the slaughterer from the north,22 but [is meant thus]: The slaughterer need not be in the north, [whence it follows that] the receiver must be in the north, 'The receiver'? Surely that is deduced from 'and he shall take,' [which we interpret] let him [be]take himself [to the north]? - He does not interpret 'and he shall take' as meaning 'let him [be]take himself,'23

We have thus found a recommendation that slaughtering a burnt-offering must be in the north, and a [similar] recommendation about receiving; how do we know that [the north] is indispensable in the case of slaughtering and receiving?24 - Said R. Adda b. Ahabah, - others state, Rabbah b. Shila: [It is deduced] afortiori: If it is indispensable in the case of a sin-offering, which is [only] learnt from a burnt-offering,25 surely it is logical that it is indispensable in the case of a burnt-offering, from which a sin-offering is learnt. [No:] As for a sin-offering, the reason is because it makes atonement for those who are liable to kareth! Said Rabina: This is R. Adda's difficulty:26 Do we ever find the secondary more stringent than the primary?27 Said Mar Zutra son of R. Mari to Rabina: Do we not?

____________________
(1) Lev. VI, 18. This applies to all sin-offerings.
(2) The sin-offering brought by a prince.
(3) The repetition teaches this.
(4) Sc. that mentioned in Lev. IV, 33.
(5) Ibid.
(6) Ibid. 29.
(7) In verse 33 quoted supra: 'it' implies limitation, whereas all sin-offerings have been included.
(8) I.e., the sin-offerings brought at the consecration of the altar, which were not on account of sin at all; v. Num. VII, 12 seq.
(9) Lev. IV, 24. This refers to the prince's goat: instead of 'head of the goat', Scripture could say, 'its head'; the longer form is regarded as an extension.
(10) He does not include it in respect of laying hands: then a text is not required to shew that north does not apply to it.
(11) No text is necessary for this.
(12) Lit, (text as emended by Sh. M.) 'you do not learn the hour from generations' - You could not learn that Nahshon's goat required laying hands, by analogy with an ordinary sin-offering, because the former was a special ad hoc offering, whereas the ordinary sin-offering was for all time.
(13) In respect of north.
(14) So that in any case there is no reason for thinking that Nahshon's sin-offering required the north; why then is a text needed to exclude it?
(15) He can stand in the south near the boundary line, stretch out his hand, and slaughter it in the north.
(16) When its neck is wrung.
(17) It may be slaughtered by a zar.
(18) As a limitation.
(19) It must be slaughtered with a knife, whereas a bird merely has its neck wrung. Hence again there is no reason for thinking that a bird requires north, and therefore no need for a limitation.
(20) Which is not altogether burnt, yet requires the north.
(21) Sc. the burnt-offering, guilt-offering and sin-offering.
(22) For that is arrived at by R. Ahia's exegesis.
(23) Text as emended by Sh. M.
(24) In the sense that the sacrifice is otherwise invalid.
(25) Lit., 'which comes from the strength of a burnt-offering'.
(26) In spite of the refutation, he employs this afortiori argument on account of the following difficulty.
(27) Although a sin-offering makes atonement for those liable to kareth, here it is only secondary to a burnt-offering, since 'north' is written primarily in connection with the latter.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 49a

Yet there is the [second] tithe, which itself can be redeemed, and yet what is purchased with the [redemption] money of tithe cannot be redeemed. For we learnt: If that which was purchased with the [redemption] money of the [second] tithe became defiled, it must be redeemed. R. Judah said: It must be buried!1 - There the sanctity is not strong enough to take hold of its redemption.2

Yet there is the case of a substitute: whereas [sacrificial] sanctity does not fall upon an animal with a permanent blemish, it [substitution] does fall upon an animal with a permanent blemish?3 - [The sanctity of] a substitute is derived from a consecrated animal, while [that of] a consecrated animal comes from hullin.4

Yet there is a Passover-offering, which itself does not require laying [of hands], drink-offerings, and the waving of the breast and the shoulder; whereas its remainder5 does require laying [of hands], drink-offerings, and the waving of the breast and the shoulder? - A Passover remainder6 during the rest of the year is a peace-offering.7

Alternatively,8 Scripture says, the burnt-offering, [which intimates,] it must be in its [appointed] place.9

How do we know that a guilt-offering requires the north? - Because it is written, in the place where they kill the burnt-offering shall they kill the guilt-offering.10 We have thus found [it of] slaughtering; how do we know [it of] receiving? - [Because it is written,] And the blood thereof shall be dashed etc.11 [which teaches that] the receiving of its blood too must be in the north.12 How do we know [that] the receiver himself [must stand in the north]? - 'And its blood' [is written where] 'its blood' [alone] would suffice.13 We have thus found it as a recommendation: how do we know that it is indispensable? - Another text is written, And he shall kill the he-lamb [in the place where they kill the sin-offering and the burnt-offering].14

Now, does that come for the present purpose? Surely it is required for what was taught: If anything was included in a general proposition, and was then singled out for a new law, you cannot restore it to [the terms of] its general proposition, unless the Writ explicitly restores it to [the terms of] its general proposition. How so? [Scripture saith,] And he shall kill the he-lamb in the place where they kill the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, in the place of the sanctuary; for as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering: it is the priest's; it is most holy. Now, 'as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering' need not be said.15 Why then is 'as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering' said? Because a leper's guilt-offering was singled out and made subject to a new law, viz., that in respect of the thumb of the hand, the big toe of the foot, and the right ear,16 you might think that it does not require the presentation of [its] blood and emurim at the altar; therefore Scripture says, 'as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering': as the sin-offering requires the presentation of [its] blood and emurim at the altar, so does a leper's guilt-offering require the presentation of blood and emurim at the 'altar?17 - If so,18 let it be written in the latter [passage]19 and not in the former. Now, that is well if we hold that when anything is made the subject of a new law, it cannot be learnt from its general law,

____________________
(1) Second tithe was a tithe of the produce which was to be taken to Jerusalem and eaten there by its owner. If it was too burdensome, he could redeem it, take the redemption money to Jerusalem, and expend it there (Deut. XIV, 22-27). - Thus according to R. Judah what was brought with the redemption money is stricter than the original tithe, for the original could be redeemed, whereas this cannot.
(2) An object must possess a certain degree of sanctity before it can be transferred to something else, whereas the sanctity of this is too light to permit such transfer. Hence R. Judah's ruling, though strict, arises out of the lesser, not the greater, sanctity of what is brought.
(3) If a man dedicates a blemished animal for a sacrifice, it merely receives monetary sanctity, and can be redeemed, whereupon it becomes hullin (q.v. Glos.) entirely, and may be put to any use, including shearing and labour. But if a man declares a blemished animal a substitute for a consecrated animal, it becomes holy, and must be redeemed, but when redeemed it may not be kept for shearing or service, but must be eaten (this is also the law where an animal without a blemish is dedicated for a sacrifice and then receives a blemish). Thus the sanctity of the substitute is greater than that of the original.
(4) A substitute receives sanctity because another animal has already been sanctified, whereas the originally consecrated animal receives it direct from hullin.
(5) V. supra 37b, p. 190, n. 7.
(6) Emended text (Sh. M.)
(7) And not a Passover-offering at all. Hence it is a different sacrifice and naturally governed by different laws.
(8) In reply to the question whence do we know that the north is indispensable in the case of a burnt-offering.
(9) The north is not only prescribed, but is also essential.
(10) Lev. VII, 1.
(11) Ibid. 2.
(12) Sh. M.: The waw ('and') joins the sentence to the preceding verse, and so the regulation concerning the place of killing applies to the receiving of the blood too. This second verse must be applied to receiving and not to sprinkling, since the blood was not sprinkled at the north.
(13) Rashi: the deduction is made from the eth (sign of the accusative) before 'its blood', which could be omitted. This is therefore regarded as extending the law to the receiver.
(14) Lev. XIV, 13. This treats of a leper's guilt-offering. The repetition of place shews that it is indispensable.
(15) For if it is to teach that it is slaughtered in the north, that follows from the first half of the verse. While if it teaches that the sprinkling of its blood and its consumption are the same as those of the sin-offering, that too is superfluous, since it is already covered by the general regulations prescribed for all guilt-offerings in Lev. VII, 1-10.
(16) V. Ibid. XIV, 14 seq. These rites are absent in the case of other guilt-offerings.
(17) This is the example: since a leper's guilt-offering was singled out for special treatment, the general laws of guilt-offerings could not apply to it without a text specifically intimating that they do. - Thus the text is utilised for this purpose, and not to teach that the north is indispensable.
(18) That that is its only purpose.
(19) In the passage on leprosy.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 49b

but its general law can be learnt from it: then it is correct.1 But if we hold that neither can it be learnt from the general proposition, nor can the general proposition be learnt from it, then this [law]2 is required for its own purpose?3 - Since [Scripture] restored it, it restored it.4

Mar Zutra son of R. Mari said to Rabina: Yet say, When Scripture restored it [to the general proposition] [it was only] in respect of the presentation of the blood and emmurim, since this requires priesthood;5 but slaughtering, which does not require priesthood, does not require the north [either]?6 - If so, let Scripture say, 'for it is as the sin-offering': why [state], 'for as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering'?7 [To teach:] Let it be like the other guilt-offerings.8

Why must it be likened to both a sin-offering and a guilt-offering? - Said Rabina, It is necessary: if it were likened to a sin-offering and were not likened to a guilt-offering I would say, Whence did we learn [that] a sin-offering [is slaughtered in the north]? from a burnt-offering: thus that which is learnt through a hekkesh in turn teaches through a hekkesh.9 Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari said to Rabina: Then let it be likened to a burnt-offering and not likened to a sin-offering? - Then I would say, [that elsewhere] that which is learnt through a hekkesh in turn teaches through a hekkesh;10 and if you object, Then let it be likened to a sin-offering,11 [I could reply:] It [Scripture] prefers to liken it to the principal rather than to the secondary.12 Therefore it likened it to a sin-offering and it likened it to a burnt-offering, thus intimating that that which is learnt through a hekkesh does not in turn teach through a hekkesh.

Raba said: [It13 is learnt] from the following, for it is written, As is taken off from the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings.14 For what purpose [is this written]? if for the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys,15 [surely] that is written in the body of the text!16 But because [Scripture] wishes to intimate that [the burning of] the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys of the he-goats [brought as sin-offerings] for idolatry shall be learnt by analogy from the community's bullock [for a sin-offering on account] of [sinning in] unawareness,17 whereas this law is not explicitly stated in the passage on the bullock of unawareness, but is learnt from the anointed priest's bullock:18 therefore 'as is taken off' is required, so that it might count as written in that very passage19 and not as something which is learnt through a hekkesh and then in turn teaches through a hekkesh.20 Said R. Papa to Raba: Then let [Scripture] write it in its own context,21 and not assimilate [it to the anointed priest's bullock]?22 - If [Scripture] wrote it in its own context, and did not teach it by assimilation, I would say, That which is learnt through a hekkesh can in turn teach through a hekkesh;23 and if you object, Then let Scripture assimilate it?24 [I could answer that Scripture] prefers to write it [explicitly] in its own context rather than to teach it through a hekkesh. Therefore [Scripture] wrote it25 and assimilated it, in order to teach that that which is learnt through a hekkesh does not in turn teach through a hekkesh.

(Mnemonic: Hekkesh and gezerah shawah; kal wa-homer.)26 [It is agreed that] that which is learnt through a hekkesh does not in turn teach through a hekkesh, [this being learnt] either by Raba's or by Rabina's [exegesis]. Can that which is learnt through a hekkesh teach through a gezerah shawah?27 - Come and hear: R. Nathan b. Abtolemos said: Whence do we know that a spreading outbreak [of leprosy] in garments [covering the whole] is clean? Karahath [baldness of the back of the head] and gabbahath [baldness of the front] are mentioned in connection with garments, and also in connection with man:28 just as in the latter, if [the plague] spread over the whole skin, he is clean;29 so in the former too, if it spread over the whole [garment], it is clean. And how do we know it there?30 Because it is written, [And if the leprosy . . . cover all the skin . . .] from his head even to his feet,31 and [thereby] his head32 is assimilated [through a hekkesh] to his feet:33 as there, when it is all turned white, having broken out all over him, he is clean; so here too, when it breaks out all over him,34 he is clean.35 Said R. Johanan:36 In the whole Torah we rule that whatever is learnt can teach, save in the case of sacrifices, where we do not rule that whatever is learnt can teach. For if it were so [that we did rule thus], let 'northward' not be said in connection with a guilt-offering, and it could be inferred from sin-offerings by the gezerah shawah of 'it is most holy'.37 Surely then its purpose is to teach that that which is learnt by a hekkesh does not in turn teach through a gezerah shawah.38 But perhaps [we do not learn it there] because one can refute it: as for a sin-offering, [it requires north] because it makes atonement for those who are liable to kareth? - A superfluous 'most holy' is written.39

That which is learnt through a hekkesh teaches in turn by a kal wa-homer.40

____________________
(1) The general law is that stated in VII, 1-10, while a leper's guilt-offering is singled out for a new law not in harmony with the general law, for whereas the blood of an ordinary guilt-offering is sprinkled on the altar, the blood of this is applied to the right thumb, right ear, and the great toe of the right foot. Now, if it were not stated in the general regulations on the guilt-offerings that it must be slaughtered in the north, but were stated here, this would come not under the preceding but under the following rule: if anything is included in a general proposition and is then singled out to teach a special regulation, this applies not only to the case where it is stated, but to the whole. Thus a leper's guilt-offering is included in the general guilt-offerings dealt with in VII, 1-10; when it is singled out here for slaughtering in the north, that applies to all guilt-offerings, and not only to itself. (The other rule with which we are now dealing holds good only when the new law is not in harmony with the general one, as explained at the beginning of the note.) Hence on this view it need not be stated in VII, 1-10 that it is killed in the north, as this would follow from XIV, 14 seq.; its repetition teaches that the north is indispensable.
(2) In VII, 1-10, that it is killed in the north.
(3) That it is killed in the north, for on the present view we could not learn all guilt-offerings from a leper's guilt-offering, even in respect of a law which is not in disharmony (sc. slaughtering in the north), since the latter is made the subject of one law which is in disharmony (sc. sprinkling on the right thumb etc.).
(4) Scripture restored a leper's guilt-offering to the general rule by saying, for as the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering, whence we know that it must be slaughtered in the north. 'And he shall kill the he-lamb in the place where they kill the sin-offering and the burnt-offering' (sc. in the north), written in the same verse, is thus mere repetition, and so teaches that the north is indispensable.
(5) It must be done by a priest. Hence the restoration to the general proposition shews that its emurim and some of the blood must be presented at the altar, in addition to its being applied to the right thumb etc.
(6) But for 'and he shall kill' etc. In that case it is not a repetition, and does not teach that it is indispensable.
(7) Why mention the guilt-offering, seeing that the whole passage deals with it?
(8) Sc. that it must be slaughtered in the north. Hence 'and he shall kill' etc. is a repetition.
(9) Therefore Scripture adds the burnt-offering, to shew that that is not so.
(10) I.e., there would be nothing in this text to shew the contrary.
(11) Which would positively prove it.
(12) The burnt-offering is the principal source of the law, since it is there that the north is specified, whereas the sin-offering is only a secondary source, since it is derived from the former.
(13) That a thing derived through a hekkesh cannot in turn teach through a hekkesh.
(14) Lev. IV, 10. This refers to the burning of the emurim of the anointed priest's bullock for a sin-offering.
(15) To intimate that these are burnt on the altar, as in the case of a peace-offering.
(16) It is explicitly stated in v. 9.
(17) As stated supra 41a.
(18) As stated supra 39b.
(19) Sc. dealing with the bullock of unawareness. It is so regarded because it is superfluous where it stands.
(20) Which therefore shews that such is inadmissible.
(21) Sc. in the section on the bullock of unawareness.
(22) Since an extra text is required in any case, let it be written explicitly in its own context.
(23) I.e., it would be possible to say so.
(24) Let Scripture teach it through a hekkesh, without writing it explicitly.
(25) In the passage dealing with the anointed priest.
(26) V. p. 31, n. 6.
(27) Thus: The law, which is stated in A, is applied to B by a hekkesh; can that then be applied to C, because there is a gezerah shawah between B and C? Similarly in the other cases that follow.
(28) Leprosy in man: Lev. XIII, 42f; in garments: ibid. 55. In connection with garments, karahath denotes leprosy on the inside (right) of the cloth; gabbahath on the front or outside thereof.
(29) Ibid. 12-13.
(30) That a karahath or gabbahath which spreads and covers the whole head is clean? For Lev. XIII, 12-13 refers to leprosy of the skin, not of the head; moreover, they differ in their symptoms. For the symptom of leprosy of the skin is that the hair turns white (ibid. v, 3, 12), whereas that of a karahath or gabbahath is that the hair turns yellow or reddish-white (ibid. 30, 42).
(31) Ibid 12.
(32) I.e., the leprosy of his head, such as a scale, or karahath or gabbahath.
(33) I.e., to the rest of the body.
(34) I.e., over his whole head or beard. - Emended text (Sh. M).
(35) Thus we first learn by a hekkesh that a karahath or gabbahath in human beings covering the whole head is clean, and then that same law is applied to garments by a gezerah shawah.
(36) In rebutting this proof.
(37) Which is stated of both the sin-offering (Lev. VI, 18) and the guilt-offering (VII, 1).
(38) For in fact the rule that what is learnt by a hekkesh cannot in turn teach by a hekkesh applies to sacrifices only, and it is now shewn that it cannot teach in turn through a gezerah shawah either. Whereas the passage quoted referred to a different subject, viz., leprosy, and there what is learnt through a hekkesh can teach in turn even through a hekkesh.
(39) In Num. XVIII, 9. Since this is superfluous, a gezerah shawah could be learnt even through the guilt-offering is dissimilar from the sin-offering. The fact that we do not do so proves that what is learnt by a hekkesh does not, in the case of sacrifices, teach in turn by a gezerah shawah.
(40) V. Glos.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 50a

[This follows] from what the school of R. Ishmael taught.1

That which is learnt through a hekkesh, can it teach through a binyan ab?2 - Said R. Jeremiah: Let 'northward' not be written in connection with a guilt-offering, and it could be inferred from a sin-offering by a binyan ab.3 For what purpose then is it written? Surely to intimate that that which is learnt through a hekkesh cannot in turn teach through a binyan ab. Yet according to your reasoning, let it be inferred from a burnt-offering by a binyan ab?4 Why then is it not so inferred? Because you can refute it: as for a burnt-offering, [it requires the north] because it is altogether burnt. So in the case of a sin-offering too, you can refute it: as for a sin-offering, [it requires the north] because it makes atonement for those who are liable to kareth!

One cannot be learnt from one; [but] let one be learnt from [the other] two?5 - From which could it be derived? [Will you say,] Let the Divine Law not write it in the case of a burnt-offering, and it could be derived from a sin-offering and a guilt-offering; [then you can argue,] as for these, [they require the north] because they make atonement. Let not the Divine Law write it in respect of a sin-offering, and let it be derived from the others; [then you can argue,] as for those, the reason is because they are males.6 Let not the Divine Law write it in connection with a guilt-offering and let it be derived from the others; [then you can argue,] the reason is because they operate in the case of a community as in the case of an individual.7

That which is learnt by a gezerah shawah, can it in turn teach through a hekkesh? - Said R. Papa, It was taught: And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings . . . if he offers it for a thanksgiving:8 [from this] we learn that a thanksgiving can be brought from tithe,9 since we find that a peace-offering can be brought from tithe.10 And how do we know [this of] a peace-offering itself? - Because 'there' is written in each case.11 Said Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari to Rabina: But corn tithe is merely hullin?12 - Said he to him: Who says13 that which is learnt must be holy, and that which teaches must be holy?14

Can that which is learnt by a gezerah shawah teach by a gezerah shawah? - Said Rami b. Hama, It was taught: Of fine flour soaked [murbeketh]:15 this teaches that the rebukah [soaked cake]16 must be of fine flour [soleth].17 How do we know [the same of] halloth?18 Because halloth is stated in both places.19 How do we know it of rekikin [thin wafers]? Because mazzoth [unleavened bread] is written in connection with each.20 Said Rabina to him: How do you know that he learns [the gezerah shawah of] mazzoth, mazzoth, from halloth; perhaps he learns it from oven-baked [cakes]?21 Rather said Raba: It was taught: And its inwards, and its dung, [even the whole bullock] shall he carry forth [without the camp]:22 this teaches that he carries it forth whole.23 You might think that he burns it whole; [but] 'its head and its legs' is stated here, and 'its head and its legs' is stated elsewhere:24 as there it means after cutting up,25 so here too it means after cutting up. If so, as there it is after the flaying [of the skin],26 so here too it means after the flaying? Therefore it says, 'and its inwards and its dung'. How does this teach [the reverse]? - Said R. Papa: Just as its dung is within it,27 so must its flesh be within its skin. And it was [further] taught, Rabbi said: Skin and flesh and dung are mentioned here,

____________________
(1) V. supra 41a.
(2) Analogy. This differs from a hekkesh, in that in a hekkesh Scripture intimates that there is a certain similarity between two subjects, whereas in a binyan ab (q.v. Glos.) the analogy is drawn from an inherent similarity between two subjects.
(3) For these are analogous, since both are brought on account of sin.
(4) For there it is explicitly stated, and the intermediate hekkesh is not required at all.
(5) Let Scripture intimate that the north is required for two of these, and the third could then be deduced from it.
(6) Whereas a sin-offering is a female.
(7) Burnt-offerings and sin-offerings might be brought on behalf of the whole community, as public sacrifices, just as by an individual. But a guilt-offering could only be brought by an individual. - This whole passage is a digression.
(8) Lev. VII, 11f.
(9) A man can vow a thanksgiving and stipulate that he will purchase it with the redemption money of second tithe (v. p. 246, n. 3).
(10) And the thanksgiving is included therein by a hekkesh.
(11) In connection with both a peace-offering and second tithe. Peace-offering: And thou shalt sacrifice peace-offerings, and shalt eat there (Deut. XXVII, 7); Tithe: And thou shalt eat before the Lord thy God, in the place which He shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, the tithe of thy corn - etc. Deut. XIV, 23. Thus the peace-offering is learnt by a gezerah shawah, and that is transferred to the thanksgiving by a hekkesh.
(12) V. Glos. Whereas the question is about cattle tithe, which is holy.
(13) The translation here is a paraphrase, and conveys the general sense.
(14) I.e., it is unnecessary for both to be holy, but only one. We wish to learn about a peace-offering, and that indeed is holy.
(15) Lev. VII, 12.
(16) I.e., a cake made of flour that is first boiled. This is the Talmudic interpretation of murbeketh.
(17) As opposed to kemah, a coarse meal.
(18) These are ordinary unleavened cakes.
(19) Rebukah: and halloth (E.V. cakes) mingled with oil, of fine flour soaked; halloth (one of the three kinds of unleavened bread brought with a thanksgiving): then he shall offer unleavened (mazzoth) cakes (halloth) mingled with oil (Ibid.) The word halloth in both places shews that both must be of fine meal.
(20) For halloth v. preceding note; rekikin: and unleavened wafers (rekike - construct form of rekikin-mazzoth). Thus we first learn by a gezerah shawah that halloth must be of fine flour, and then by a further gezerah shawah we learn from halloth that rekikin too must be of fine flour.
(21) Lev. II, 4: And when thou bringest a meal-offering baked in an oven, it shall be unleavened cakes (halloth mazzoth) of fine flour. Thus it can be learnt direct, without any intermediate gezerah shawah.
(22) Ibid. IV, 11f.
(23) For if it were cut up, how could he carry them out at once, which the text implies?
(24) Ibid. I, 8-9, 12-13.
(25) Since 'the pieces' are mentioned.
(26) This being explicitly ordered (I, 6).
(27) For it would be repulsive to take it out and burn it separately.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 50b

and skin and flesh and dung are mentioned elsewhere:1 as there [it was burnt after] being cut up, but without flaying, so here too [it is burnt after being] cut up, but without flaying.2

Can that which is learnt by a gezerah shawah teach in turn by a kal wa-homer? - [It can, and we learn this by a] kal wa-homer: If [that which is learnt by] a hekkesh, which cannot teach by a hekkesh, as follows from either Raba's or Rabina's [proof], can teach by a kal wa-homer, which follows from what the school of R. Ishmael taught; then [what is learnt through] a gezerah shawah, which can [in turn] teach by a hekkesh, as follows from R. Papa, can surely teach [in turn] by a kal wa-homer! That is well according to him who accepts R. Papa's teaching; but what can be said on the view that rejects R. Papa's teaching? - Rather [this is the] kal wa-homer: if [what is learnt by] a hekkesh, which cannot [in turn] teach by a hekkesh, as follows either from Raba or from Rabina, can teach [in turn] by a kal wa-homer, which follows from what the school of R. Ishmael taught; then a gezerah shawah, which does teach by a gezerah shawah like itself, which follows from Rami b. Hama, can surely teach through a kal wa-homer.

Can that which is learnt by a gezerah shawah subsequently teach by a binyan ab? - The question stands.

Can that which is learnt by a kal wa-homer teach in turn by a hekkesh? - [Yes, and we learn this by a] kal wa-homer: if a gezerah shawah, which cannot be learnt from a hekkesh, as follows from R. Johanan's [dictum], can nevertheless teach by a hekkesh, in accordance with R. Papa; then a kal wa-homer, which can be learnt from a hekkesh, in accordance with the school of R. Ishmael, can surely teach by a hekkesh! That is well on the view that accepts R. Papa's [dictum], but what can be said on the view that rejects R. Papa's [dictum]? Then the question stands.

Can that which is learnt by a kal wa-homer teach in turn by a gezerah shawah? - [Yes, for this follows by a] kal wa-homer: if a gezerah shawah, which cannot be learnt from a hekkesh, in accordance with R. Johanan, can teach by a gezerah shawah, in accordance with Rami b. Hama; then is it not logical that a kal wa-homer, which can be learnt by a hekkesh, in accordance with the school of R. Ishmael, can teach by a gezerah shawah?

Can that which is learnt by a kal wa-homer teach in turn by a kal wa-homer? [Yes, for this follows from a] kal wa-homer: if a gezerah shawah, which cannot be learnt by a hekkesh, in accordance with R. Johanan, can teach by a kal wa-homer, as we have [just] said; then a kal wa-homer which can be learnt from a hekkesh, in accordance with the school of R. Ishmael, is it not logical that it can teach by a kal wa-homer? And this is a kal wa-homer derived from a kal wa-homer.3 Surely this is a secondary derivation from a kal wa-homer?4 - Rather, [argue thus: Yes, and this follows from a] kal wa-homer: if a hekkesh which cannot be learnt through a hekkesh, in accordance with either Raba or Rabina, can teach by a kal wa-homer, in accordance with the school of R. Ishmael;5 then a kal wa-homer, which is learnt through a hekkesh, in accordance with the school of R. Ishmael, can surely teach through a kal wa-homer! And this is a kal wa-homer derived from a kal wa-homer.

Can that which is learnt by a kal wa-homer teach in turn through a binyan ab? - Said R. Jeremiah, Come and hear: If one wrung the neck [of a bird sacrifice] and it was found to be a terefah, R. Meir said: It does not defile in the gullet; R. Judah said: It does defile in the gullet.6 Said R. Meir: It is a kal wa-homer: if the shechitah of an animal cleanses it, even when terefah, from its uncleanness,7 yet when it is nebelah it defiles through contact or carriage; is it not logical that shechitah cleanses a bird, when terefah, from its uncleanness, seeing that when it is nebelah it does not defile through touch or carriage? Now, as we have found that shechitah which makes it [a bird of hullin] fit for eating,

____________________
(1) In reference to the anointed priest's bullock. By 'here' he means in connection with the bullock and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement.
(2) Thus the result of one gezerah shawah is transferred by another gezerah shawah.
(3) Lit., 'a kal wa-homer the son of a kal wa-homer'. Thus a kal wa-homer is based on the fact that a gezerah shawah teaches through a kal wa-homer, and that itself is learnt only through a kal wa-homer.
(4) Lit., 'the grandson of a kal wa-homer'. Thus: A, which is learnt through a kal wa-homer, teaches B by means of a kal wa-homer; that it does so is learnt from the fact C. Now, even if C were directly stated, B would still be the derivative (lit., 'son') of the first kal wa-homer. Since however C itself is known only through a kal wa-homer, B becomes the secondary derivative (lit., 'grandson'). That is so in the present case. Possibly, however, this is straining the powers of a kal wa-homer too far, and is inadmissible, in which case the problem remains unanswered.
(5) This itself is not the result of a kal wa-homer, but a tradition.
(6) A bird sin-offering was not slaughtered by the usual ritual method (shechitah), but had its neck wrung. If an ordinary bird of hullin, or any animal, is killed by any method other than shechitah, it becomes nebelah (carrion). The term terefah is applied to a bird or an animal which was ritually slaughtered, but which was found to be suffering from a disease or other physical defect which renders it forbidden as food. Now when a clean animal, i.e., one permitted for food, becomes nebelah, it defiles any person who touches it or even carries it without actually touching it. A clean bird which becomes nebelah does not defile thus, but only the person who eats it, i.e., when it enters his gullet. In the present instance the bird's neck was wrung; had it been hullin, it would have become nebelah, and defiled accordingly. When it is found to be terefah the sacrifice cannot be proceeded with, as the bird is unfit. R. Judah holds that it is the same, therefore, as hullin, and defiles as such. R. Meir, however, holds that since it was intended for a sacrifice when its neck was wrung, this was its correct method of slaughter, and so it does not defile,
(7) As is shewn in Hul. 128b - Through the shechitah it is freed from the uncleanness of nebelah.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 51a

cleanses it, when terefah, from its uncleanness; so wringing [the neck], which makes it [a bird sacrifice] fit for eating, cleanses it, when terefah, from its uncleanness.1 R. Jose said: It is sufficient that it be like the nebelah of a clean [i.e., edible] animal, which is cleansed by shechitah, but not by wringing its neck.2 Yet that is not so: even granted there that it is so, yet it is deduced from the shechitah of hullin.3

Can that which is learnt by a binyan ab teach by a hekkesh or by a gezerah shawah or by a kal wa-homer or by a binyan ab? - Solve one [of the questions] from the following: Why did they say that if the blood is kept overnight [on the altar] it is fit?4 Because if the emurim are kept overnight they are fit.5 Why are the emurim fit if kept overnight? Because the flesh is fit if kept overnight.6 [Flesh that] goes out?7 Because [flesh that] goes out is fit at the high place [bamah].8 Unclean [flesh]? Because it was permitted in public service.9 [The emurim of a burnt-offering intended to be burnt] after time? Because it propitiates in respect of its piggul status.10 [The emurim of a burnt-offering intended to be burnt] out of bounds? Because it was likened to [the intention to burn it] after time. Where unfit [persons] received [the blood] and sprinkled it - in the case of those unfit persons who are eligible for public service.11 Can you then argue from what is its proper way to that where the same is not the proper way?12 - The Tanna relies on the extension indicated by This is the law of the burnt-offering.13

THE RESIDUE OF THE BLOOD etc. What is the reason? - Scripture saith, [And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out] at the base of the altar of burnt-offering [which is at the door of the tent of meeting];14 [this intimates]: the one which you first meet.15

Our Rabbis taught: 'At the base of the altar of burnt-offering', but not at the base of the inner altar; 'at the base of the altar of burnt-offering': the inner altar itself has no base; 'at the base of the altar of burnt-offering': apply [the laws of] the base to the altar of burnt-offering.16 Yet perhaps that is not so; rather [it intimates]: let there be a base to the altar of burnt-offering?17 Said R. Ishmael [This would follow] a fortiori: if the residue [of the blood of the sin-offering], which does not make atonement, requires the base; then surely the sprinkling itself of the [blood of the] burnt-offering,18 which makes atonement, requires the base!19 Said R. Akiba [too: This would follow] a fortiori: if the residue, which does not make atonement and does not come for atonement, requires the base; is it not logical that the sprinkling itself of the [blood of the] burnt-offering, which makes atonement and comes for atonement, requires the base? If so, why does Scripture state, 'at the base of the altar of burnt-offering'? To teach: apply [the laws of] the base to the altar of burnt-offering.

The Master said: 'At the base of the altar of burnt-offering, but not at the base of the inner altar.' Surely that is required for its own purpose?20 - That is learnt from, which is at the door of the tent of meeting.21

'At the base of the altar of burnt-offering:

____________________
(1) This argument is a binyan ab. Thus what was learnt by a kal wa-homer then teaches through a binyan ab.
(2) Since the argument is alternately based on an animal, the bird sacrifice cannot be clean where the animal would not be.
(3) The Talmud rejects R. Jeremiah's proof. Firstly, because R. Meir does not really learn it by a binyan ab, as might appear here, but from hekkesh, as stated infra 69b q.v. Yet even granted that he does learn it by a binyan ab, the premise (i.e., the teacher) is hullin, and if R. Papa's view is rejected even when what is to be learnt is sacred, nothing can be proved from the present instance (Rashi. Other commentaries explain differently).
(4) I.e., if it was taken up on the altar it is not taken down.
(5) Likewise in the same sense. Similarly the other cases mentioned.
(6) As two days were allowed for the eating of peace-offerings. Thus emurim are learnt by a binyan ab from the flesh, and these in turn teach by a binyan ab in respect of the blood.
(7) Why does such flesh not descend if this is taken up on the altar?
(8) Where sacrifices were offered before the building of the Temple (v. p. 82, n. 1.).
(9) V. p. 84, n. 7.
(10) The sprinkling of the blood is effective (technically 'propitiates') in making it piggul and involving kareth, just as though all its mattirin had been offered (v. supra 28b, p. 143, n. 1.). The emurim of piggul do not descend, once they ascended.
(11) E.g., an unclean priest, who is fit when the sacrifice is brought in uncleanness. - Only then does the blood not descend, once it ascended. This is apparently the meaning of the text, but in that case the question is left unanswered. Possibly, however, the second half is the answer; thus: Why does the blood not descend when unfit persons received or sprinkled it? Because it does not descend in the case of those unfit persons who are eligible for public service, i.e., unclean priests when the community is unclean.
(12) E.g., you argue that the emurim if kept overnight do not descend because the flesh if kept overnight is fit. But the flesh may be kept overnight, whereas the emurim may not. Similarly, when the Temple stood the flesh might not be taken out; whereas there were no boundaries at all in the case of the bamah.
(13) Lev. VI, 2. The verse teaches that all the burnt-offerings (i.e., even when they have the defects mentioned in the text) have one law, and do not descend once they have ascended. The arguments given are mere supports, though strictly speaking they cannot be sustained.
(14) Lev. IV, 7.
(15) As you enter from the door. This was the western base.
(16) The Bible contains five sections dealing with the sin-offering (Lev. IV), viz.: (i) The sin-offering of the anointed priest (vv. 1-12); (ii) that of the whole congregation (13-22); (iii) that of a ruler (22-26); (iv) the female goat of a common layman (27-32); and (v) the lamb of a common layman (32-35). The first two were offered on the inner altar; the other three on the outer. Again, in reference to the first three Scripture states that the residue of the blood shall be poured out 'at the base of the altar of burnt-offering' (vv. 7, 18 and 25), whereas in connection with the remaining two the 'base of the altar' alone is mentioned. Here the Rabbis explain why Scripture specifies the altar of the burnt-offering in the first three. The first teaches that the residue is poured out at the base of the outer altar (i.e., the altar of burnt-offering), but not at the base of the inner altar, notwithstanding that the blood was sprinkled on the horns of the inner altar. The second is superfluous, since it is assimilated to the first (v. 20). Hence it teaches that only the outer altar was provided with a special base, but not the inner altar. The third too is superfluous, because firstly, if the residue of the blood of the inner sin-offerings is poured out at the base of the outer altar, obviously the blood of the outer sin-offerings will not be poured out at the base of the inner altar; and secondly, we have already learnt that the inner altar was not provided with a special base. Hence it intimates that the residue of the blood of all sacrifices whose blood is sprinkled on the altar of burnt-offering must be poured out at its base.
(17) Perhaps it does not teach anything concerning the residue of the blood, but that the two sprinklings of the blood of the burnt-offering must be made over against that part of the altar which had a special base; this would exclude the south-east horn, which had no base (v. infra 53b).
(18) Lit., 'the beginning of the burnt-offering'.
(19) I.e., it must be sprinkled on the horns provided with a base, as in the preceding note. The rendering is not quite literal. Thus a special text would not be required, if its teaching were only as suggested.
(20) Viz., that the residue is to be poured out at the base of the outer altar; nevertheless, if he wishes to pour it out at the base of the inner altar, he should certainly be permitted, since this is more sacred. Though it has been deduced that the inner altar had no special base at all, that is only on the assumption that all three are superfluous; but if the first is required for the purpose of stating the law, then the second is required for the present limitation, and the third as in the text, leaving nothing to shew that the inner altar was not provided with a base.
(21) Which shews that the outer altar is meant; hence 'of burnt-offering' is superfluous.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 51b

apply [the laws of] the base to the altar of burnt-offering.' For if you think that it is [meant literally] as written, why do I need a text in respect of the residue, seeing that [the pouring out of] the residue was performed without?1 And should you say [that but for the text, I would argue] that it is indeed reversed:

____________________
(1) On the outer altar as is expressly prescribed in connection with the two inner sacrifices 'at the entrance of the tent of meeting', verses 7 and 8. Obviously then the residue of the blood too would be poured out at the base of the same.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 52a

[the residue of] the inner [offerings] on the outer [altar], and [that of] the outer [offerings] on the inner [altar];1 surely the inner altar had no base!2

'Yet perhaps that is not so; rather [it intimates]: let there be a base to the altar of burnt-offering! But is it written, 'at the base of the burnt-offering'? surely it is written, 'at the base of the altar of burnt-offering!'3 - If 'at the base of the burnt-offering' were written, I would say [that it means] on the vertical [wall] of the base;4 now that it is written, at the base of the altar of burnt-offering, it denotes on the roof [top] of the base.5 [Thereupon] R. Ishmael said: For the roof of the base, why do I need a text? [this would follow] a fortiori: if the residue [of the blood of the sin-offering], which does not make atonement, requires the roof; then the sprinkling itself of [the blood of] the burnt-offering, which makes atonement, is it not logical that it requires the roof [of the base]? Said R. Akiba: If the residue [of the blood of the sin-offering], which does not make atonement and does not come for atonement, requires the roof of the base, is it not logical that the sprinkling itself of [the blood of] the burnt-offering, which makes atonement and comes for atonement, requires the roof of the altar? If so, why does Scripture state, 'at the base of the altar of burnt-offering'? To teach: apply [the laws of] the base to the altar of burnt-offering.

Wherein do they differ?6 - Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: They disagree as to whether [the pouring out of] the residue is indispensable. One master holds: It is indispensable, while the other master holds: It is not indispensable.7 R. Papa said: All agree that the residue is not indispensable, but here they disagree as to whether the draining out of [the blood of] the bird sin-offering is indispensable or not:8 one master holds that it is indispensable, while the other master holds that it is not indispensable.

It was taught in accordance with R. Papa: And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out at the base of the altar:9 Why is 'the bullock' stated?10 It teaches that the Day of Atonement bullock must have its blood poured out at the base:11 that is the view of R. Akiba.12 Said R. Ishmael: [This is inferred] a fortiori: if that whose blood does not enter within as a statutory obligation13 needs the base, that whose blood enters within as a statutory obligation,14 is it not logical that it needs the base? Said R. Akiba: If that whose blood does not enter the innermost sanctuary15 either as a statutory obligation or as a regulation needs the base, that whose blood enters the innermost sanctuary as a statutory obligation, is it not logical that it needs the base? You might think that it is indispensable for it:16 therefore it states, And he shall make an end of atoning,17 which teaches, All the atoning services are [now] complete:18 these are the words of R. Ishmael. Now an a fortiori argument can be made in respect of the anointed priest's bullock: If that whose blood does not enter within either as a statutory obligation or, as a regulation,19 needs the base; that whose blood enters within both as a statutory obligation and as a regulation,20 is it not logical that it needs the base?21 You might think that it is indispensable for it; therefore Scripture says, 'And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out': the Writ transmutes it into the remainder of a precept22 to teach you that [the pouring out of] the residue is not indispensable.23

Now, does R. Ishmael hold that the draining of [the blood of] the bird sin-offering is indispensable? Surely the school of R. Ishmael taught: 'And the rest of the blood shall be drained out': that which is left must be drained out,

____________________
(1) I.e., the residue of the blood of the inner sin-offerings is to be poured out at the base of the outer altar, and vice versa.
(2) Hence it must be interpreted as stated.
(3) If it intimated that the sprinkling itself must be performed on that part of the altar which has a base (v. p. 259, n. 4). it could not refer to sin-offerings, whose blood was sprinkled on all the horns of the altar, including the south-east. Hence it would have to refer to the burnt-offering alone; but in that case Scripture should write, at the base of the burnt-offering, which would intimate that the blood of the burnt-offering must be sprinkled over against the base. The word 'altar' then becomes redundant.
(4) The base was a cubit high, the altar then being recessed one cubit; thus the base had a vertical wall of a cubit, and a top surface (roof) of a cubit.
(5) Which is hard by the altar itself.
(6) R. Ishmael and R. Akiba.
(7) R. Akiba holds the latter view; hence he emphasises that it does not come for atonement.
(8) V. Lev. V, 9: and the rest of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar.
(9) Lev. IV, 7. The text refers to the anointed priest's sin-offering.
(10) It is apparently superfluous, since the whole passage deals with it.
(11) 'The bullock', being superfluous, extends this law to another bullock.
(12) Emended text. Cur. edd. Rabbi.
(13) Sc. the anointed priest's bullock of sin-offering. Its blood is sprinkled on the inner altar, where it is sacrificed, but there is no statutory obligation for the offering at all, as he need not have sinned.
(14) The Day of Atonement bullock is a statutory offering, whether the High Priest had sinned or not.
(15) The Holy of Holies.
(16) Sc. the pouring out of the blood of the Day of Atonement bullock at the base.
(17) Lev. XVI, 20.
(18) I.e., all the services indispensable to atonement have by now been enumerated, and the pouring out of the blood at the base is not one of them.
(19) E.g., the blood of the ruler's he-goat or of a common layman's sin-offering: both were slaughtered at the outer altar, and their blood was poured out there.
(20) Viz., the blood of the anointed priest's bullock. Rashi proposes the deletion of 'a statutory obligation', since it has just been stated that it is not one. If it is retained, we must explain that it is called a statutory obligation only by comparison with the blood of other sin-offerings, which does not enter within at all.
(21) Since it can be inferred thus, the explicit Scriptural law to that effect is apparently superfluous and so might be interpreted as teaching that it is indispensable. Therefore he proceeds to shew that it is not indispensable.
(22) Scripture changed the form of expression here: for the other services (sc. the carrying and sprinkling) are ordered thus: and he shall take . . . and he shall sprinkle etc. The different grammatical form in this case shews that this pouring out is, as it were, not an integral part of the rite, but the remaining portion of it, which should be done, yet is not indispensable.
(23) And since this is given as R. Ishmael's view, it supports R. Papa's thesis supra.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 52b

but what is not left is not drained out?1 - There is a controversy of two Tannaim as to R. Ishmael's opinion.

Rami b. Hama said: The following Tanna holds that [the pouring out of] the residue is indispensable. For it was taught: [This is the law of the sin-offering . . .] the priest that offereth it for sin [shall eat it]:2 [this teaches,] only that [sin-offering] whose blood was sprinkled above [the red line],3 but not that whose blood was applied below.4 Say: whence did you come [to this]?5 From the implication of what is said, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out [. . . and thou shalt eat the flesh],6 we learn that if [the blood of] those [sacrifices] which need four applications was presented with one application [only], it has made atonement;7 you might therefore think that also if the blood which should be sprinkled above [the red line] was sprinkled below, it makes atonement. And it is [indeed] logical: Blood is prescribed above,8 and blood is prescribed below:9 as the blood which is prescribed below does not atone if it is sprinkled above,10 so also the blood which is prescribed above does not atone if it is sprinkled below. No: if you say [thus] in the case of the blood which should be sprinkled below, that is because it will not eventually [be applied] above;11 will you say the same of the blood which should be sprinkled above, seeing that it will eventually [find its way] below?12 Let the inner blood13 prove it, which will eventually come without,14 and yet if he applied it in the first place without, he did not make atonement. No: if you speak of the inner blood, that is because the inner altar does not complete it.15 Will you say thus of the upper [blood], where the horns complete it?16 [and] since the horns complete it, if he sprinkled it below, it is fit.17 Therefore it says, '[The priest that offereth] it [for a sin-offering]': that whose blood was sprinkled above, but not that whose blood was sprinkled below. Now, what is the meaning of 'because the inner altar does not complete it'? Surely it must refer to the residue [of the blood]!18 Said Raba to him: If so, you could infer it a minori: if the blood of the inner sacrifices,19 of which eventually the residue is obligatory without,20 yet if presented without in the first place, he does not make atonement; then the blood which is to be sprinkled above, and is not eventually obligatory below,21 is it not logical that if he applied it at the outset below he does not make atonement?22 - Rather [the meaning is this]: Not the altar alone completes it, but also the veil23.

Our Rabbis taught: 'And he shall make an end of atoning': if he atoned, he made an end, 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, which thus intimates that if he omitted one of the sprinklings his service is ineffective?24 Wherein do they differ? - R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi [disagree]. One maintains: They differ on the mode of interpretation.25 The other maintains: They differ as to whether the [pouring out of the] residue is indispensable.26 It may be proved that it was R. Joshua b. Levi who maintained that [the pouring out of] the residue is indispensable. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: On the view that the residue is indispensable he brings another bullock and commences within.27 But does R.Johanan not hold this view?28 Surely R. Johanan said: R. Nehemiah taught in accordance with the view that the residue is indispensable?29 But you must say 'In accordance with the view', but not that of these Tannaim.30 Then here too,31 'on the view' does not refer to that of these Tannaim.

MISHNAH. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SIN-OFFERINGS (THESE ARE THE PUBLIC SIN-OFFERINGS:32 THE HE-GOATS OF NEW MOONS AND FESTIVALS) ARE SLAUGHTERED IN THE NORTH, AND THEIR BLOOD IS RECEIVED IN A SERVICE VESSEL IN THE NORTH, AND THEIR BLOOD REQUIRES FOUR APPLICATIONS ON THE FOUR HORNS. HOW WAS IT DONE?

____________________
(1) I.e., all the blood may be used in sprinkling so that nothing is left for draining. Hence draining cannot be essential and indispensable.
(2) Lev. VI, 18, 19. 'Offereth it for sin,' Heb. ha-mehatte, is understood to mean, who correctly performs all the rites (sprinkling) appertaining to a sin-offering; only then may he eat it.
(3) As is necessary for a sin-offering, V. p. 48, n. 1.
(4) The flesh may not be eaten.
(5) Why would you think that the flesh may be eaten even if the blood was not properly sprinkled, that you need a text to shew that it may not?
(6) Deut. XII, 27.
(7) Because 'shall be poured out' implies a single act.
(8) Viz., that of an animal sin-offering.
(9) That of a bird sin-offering; v. infra 64b.
(10) V. infra 66a.
(11) Hence when he sprinkles it above he is definitely performing it incorrectly.
(12) I.e. the residue. Hence when he sprinkles it below the line, he is only applying it where it would eventually come, and so he may make atonement. - Emended text (Sh. M).
(13) I.e., the blood of the inner sacrifices.
(14) The residue is poured out at the base of the outer altar. - Emended text.
(15) After the blood has been sprinkled on the inner altar there still remains an indispensable service to be performed.
(16) No indispensable rite remains to be performed after the blood was sprinkled on the horns of the altar.
(17) So we might argue.
(18) Viz., that its pouring out at the base of the altar is indispensable. This proves Rami b. Hama's assertion.
(19) I.e., the residue of the blood which is sprinkled on the inner altar.
(20) On the present hypothesis, and indispensable. The text is emended on the basis of Rashi.
(21) Though the blood will be poured out below, this is not essential for the efficacy of the sacrifice.
(22) The sacrifice is invalid, and the flesh may not be eaten. Why then is a Scriptural text necessary? Hence the premise of this argument, that the pouring out of the residue is essential, must be false!
(23) The blood must be sprinkled on the veil too.
(24) Lit., 'he has done nothing'. - For notes v. supra 40a.
(25) But not in law. Both hold that all the four applications are indispensable, and that the pouring out of the residue is not indispensable. R. Akiba holds that the conclusion (atoning) illumines the beginning (make an end), whence we learn that the completion depends on atonement, i.e., on the four applications. R. Judah however maintains that 'atoning' might merely mean a single application, therefore (to avoid this conclusion) the interpretation must be reversed, and the beginning made to illumine the end: only when he quite makes an end, having completed the four applications, does he atone.
(26) R. Akiba holds that it is not indispensable, and he interprets it thus: if he made atonement, i.e., performed all the rites for atonement as prescribed in that passage, he made an end. Thus the pouring out of the residue, which is not mentioned there, is not essential. R. Judah however interprets: Only when he made an end of all the rites, including those prescribed elsewhere (viz., the pouring out of the residue), did he make atonement.
(27) If the residue of the blood was spilt after the four applications, another bullock must be slaughtered, and its blood first sprinkled within, and then the residue poured out at the base of the outer altar. But he cannot simply pour out all the blood at the base, for then it is not a residue, whereas a residue is indispensable. - Thus R. Joshua b. Levi holds that there is a view that the pouring out of the residue is indispensable.
(28) That there is a teacher who maintains that it is indispensable.
(29) V. supra 42b.
(30) Viz., R. Akiba and R. Judah.
(31) In the case of R. Joshua b. Levi.
(32) Which need special mention here, for several have already been taught in the preceding Mishnah (supra 47a).

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 53a

HE WENT UP THE ASCENT, TURNED TO THE SURROUNDING BALCONY,1 AND PASSED ON [SUCCESSIVELY] TO THE SOUTH-EAST, THE NORTH-EAST, THE NORTH-WEST, AND THE SOUTH-WEST CORNERS. THE RESIDUE OF THE BLOOD HE POURED OUT AT THE SOUTHERN BASE. THEY WERE EATEN WITHIN THE HANGINGS,2 BY MALE PRIESTS, PREPARED IN ANY FASHION,3 THE SAME DAY AND NIGHT, UNTIL MIDNIGHT.

GEMARA. How did he do it?4 - R. Johanan and R. Eleazar [disagree]. One maintained: He applied it within a cubit in either direction.5 The other maintained: He applied it6 with a downward movement on the edge of the horn. On the view of R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon who said that its [blood] is applied essentially on the very horn [of the altar],7 there is no dispute at all.8 They differ on Rabbi's view:9 One master holds that a cubit in either direction is also against the horn; while the other master holds: Only at the edge, and no further.

An objection is raised: How was the blood of the public and the private sin-offerings applied? He went up the ascent, turned to the surrounding balcony, and passed on to the south-east horn, where he dipped his right finger - i.e., the index finger of his right hand - into the blood in the bowl, and supported it with his thumb on this side and his little finger on the other,10 and applied it with a downward movement against the edge of the horn until all the blood on his finger was gone, and thus [he did] at every horn? - This is what he means: Its regulation is [that it be applied] at the edge; yet if he applies it within a cubit in either direction, we have no objection.11

What was [this allusion to] Rabbi and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon? - As it was taught: The upper blood is applied above the scarlet line, and the lower blood is applied below the scarlet line: that is Rabbi's view. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: This holds good only of a burnt-offering of a bird; but in the case of an animal sin-offering, its [blood] is applied essentially on the very horn.12 R. Abbahu said: What is Rabbi's reason? Because it is written, And the altar shall be four cubits; and from the altar and upward there shall be four horns.13 Now, was the altar [only] four cubits?14 - Said R. Adda b. Ahaba: [It means,] And the place of the horns was four [cubits].15 Did the horns occupy four cubits?16 - Say rather: The limits of the horns were four [cubits].17

We learnt elsewhere: A scarlet line encompassed it about the middle, to distinguish between the upper and the lower bloods. Whence do we know it? - Said R. Aha b. R. Kattina, Because it said: That the net may reach halfway up the altar:18 thus the Torah prescribed a barrier to distinguish between the upper and the lower bloods.

THE RESIDUE OF THE BLOOD etc. Our Rabbis taught: At the base of the altar19 means the southern base. You say, the southern base; yet perhaps it is not so, but rather the western base, and the undefined is learnt from the defined?20 You can answer: We infer his coming down the ascent from his exit from the hekal: as his exit from the hekal was to the nearest side, so his coming down the ascent was to the nearest side.21

It was taught, R. Ishmael said: In both cases22 the western base [is meant]. R. Simeon b. Yohai said: In both cases the southern base [is meant]. As for him who maintains that both [were poured out] at the western base, it is well: he holds that the undefined is learnt from the defined.23 But what is his reason who holds that the southern base [is meant] in both cases? - Said R. Assi: This Tanna maintains that the whole altar stood in the north.24 Another version: The whole entrance stood to the south.25

____________________
(1) Sobeb, a terrace or balcony which ran round the altar. He had to stand on the balcony because he applied the blood with his finger on the horns of the altar. For other sacrifices he stood on the pavement and dashed the blood from the vessel on to the altar.
(2) In the Tabernacle. These hangings corresponded to the walls of the Temple court.
(3) Roast or boiled.
(4) The application on the horn.
(5) He stood e.g. at the south-east corner and applied the blood either in the direction of south or east, but within a cubit from the actual corner; similarly with the other corners.
(6) Lit., performed the rites of the sin-offering; cf. supra 52b p. 263, n. 4. for this expression.
(7) Infra.
(8) The edge is certainly unnecessary, since anywhere within a cubit from the angle is the horn.
(9) Who holds that the blood may be applied above the line even not against the horn, v. infra.
(10) Like a balanced load. The reading adopted is that of Sh. M. Cur. edd. read: 'with his thumb above and his little finger below' - a rather difficult procedure.
(11) As this counts as an extension of the edge.
(12) V. supra 10a.
(13) Ezek. XLIII, 15.
(14) It was much larger.
(15) I.e., the horns occupied four cubits of the altar, since each was a cubit in length and breadth.
(16) Since each was a cubit in length, actually only two cubits of the length or the breadth of the altar were occupied by the horns.
(17) A distance of four cubits below the horns, i.e., as far down as the scarlet line, still ranked as the horns. Therefore Rabbi says that the upper blood, i.e., the blood which is sprinkled on the horn, can be sprinkled anywhere above the scarlet line.
(18) Ex. XXVII, 5.
(19) Lev. IV, 30.
(20) Of the blood of the inner sin-offering it is said, at the base of the altar of burnt-offering, which is at the door of the tent of meeting (ibid., 7). Now, as one entered from the door he came first to the western base: this is therefore regarded as defined, and the question is: Why not learn v. 30, where it is undefined, from v. 7, where it is defined?
(21) When he left the hekal with the residue of the inner blood, he poured it out at the western base, this being nearest to him. So also when he came down the ascent with the residue of the outer blood, after having applied the blood on the south-west corner he poured it out at the southern base, this being nearest to him.
(22) Sc. the inner and the outer sin-offerings.
(23) As in n. 3.
(24) I.e., to the north of the door of the hekal, and no part of the altar actually stood in front of the door; then the immediate side would be the southern. It may also mean that it stood in the north of the Temple court, five cubits of it facing the door, and one of these five cubits was the southern base, which one would face as he came out of the door.
(25) Of the altar. This is the same as the preceding.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 53b

The school of R. Ishmael taught in R. Simeon b. Yohai's ruling: In both cases the western base is meant;1 and your token is:2 Men pulled a man.3

MISHNAH. THE BURNT-OFFERING IS A SACRIFICE OF HIGHER SANCTITY. IT IS SLAUGHTERED IN THE NORTH, AND ITS BLOOD IS RECEIVED IN A SERVICE VESSEL IN THE NORTH; AND ITS BLOOD REQUIRES TWO APPLICATIONS, WHICH ARE FOUR.4 IT HAD TO BE FLAYED, DISMEMBERED, AND COMPLETELY CONSUMED BY THE FIRE.

GEMARA. Why does he teach that the burnt-offering is a sacrifice of higher sanctity?5 - Because 'it is most holy' is not written in its case.6

AND ITS BLOOD REQUIRES TWO APPLICATIONS [WHICH ARE FOUR]. How did he do it? - Rab said: He applied [the blood] and applied [it] again.7 Samuel said: He made a single application in the shape of a Greek Gamma.8

This is a controversy of Tannaim: [And the priests . . . shall dash the blood round about the altar]:9 You might think that he sprinkles it with a single sprinkling; therefore Scripture states, 'round about'. If 'round about', you might think that he must encompass it [with blood] like a thread; therefore Scripture states, 'And they shall dash'.10 How then [is it done]? Its blood requires two applications in the shape of a Greek Gamma, which constitute four. R. Ishmael said: 'Round about' is said here, and 'round about' is said elsewhere:11 as there it means four separate applications,12 so here too it means four separate applications. If so, just as there [it means] four applications on the four horns, so here too it means four applications on the four horns? - You can answer: The burnt-offering needs the base,13 whereas the south-east horn had no base. What was the reason? - Said R. Eleazar: Because it was not in the portion of the 'ravener'.14 For R. Samuel son of R. Isaac said: The altar occupied a cubit in Judah's portion.15 R. Levi b. Hama said in R. Hama son of R. Hanina's name: A strip issued from Judah's portion and entered Benjamin's portion,16 whereat the righteous Benjamin grieved every day, wishing to possess it,17 as it is said

____________________
(1) Not southern, as above.
(2) To remember this.
(3) The school of R. Ishmael, representing many men, pulled the one man, R. Simeon b. Yohai, to the view of their master, R. Ishmael.
(4) The blood is sprinkled on the north-west and the southwest horns. The blood was not applied exactly on the edge, but spread further, so that all the four sides of the altar received some of it.
(5) Which he does not teach of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, though they too are likewise.
(6) As it is of the others (v. Lev. VI, 18; VII, 1). Nevertheless the Tanna informs us that it is most holy, since it is altogether burnt. For those parts even of sacrifices of lesser sanctity which were burnt on the altar ranked as most holy.
(7) He applied it twice on each horn, one on each side of it.
(8) He dashed the blood against the edge and it spread on either side, forming an angle.
(9) Lev. I, 5.
(10) Which implies, from a distance, whereas to encompass it he would have to apply the blood directly with his finger round the sides of the altar.
(11) In reference to Aaron's sin-offering of consecration, Lev. VIII, 15.
(12) Lit., 'a separation and four applications'. - The applications had to be separate, since they were made on the four horns.
(13) Its blood must be sprinkled on the horns over against the base.
(14) Sc. Benjamin; cf. Gen. XLIX, 27: Benjamin is a wolf that raveneth.
(15) I.e., the width of one cubit along the eastern and the southern sides of the altar, but not reaching right to the ends thereof. Hence the south-east horn was in Judah's portion and this was not provided with a base.
(16) And on this strip was situated part of the Temple, including a portion of the altar.
(17) To have the honour that the whole Temple and everything in it might be in his portion.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 54a

Yearning for Him all day.1 Therefore was Benjamin privileged to become a host to the Holy One, blessed be He, as it is said: And He dwelleth between his shoulders.2

An objection is raised: How was the burnt-offering of a bird sacrificed? He [the priest] pinched off its head close by its neck and divided it,3 and drained out its blood on the wall of the altar.4 Now if you say that it had no base, did he simply apply it in the air?5 - Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: Perhaps they thus stipulated that the air-space should count as Benjamin's and the soil as Judah's.6

What does 'it had no base' mean? - Rab said: In the construction.7 R. Levi said: In respect of blood.8 Now Rab interpreted [the text just quoted]:9 In his [Benjamin's] heritage shall the altar be built.10 While Levi interpreted it: In his heritage shall the sanctuary be built, which means, a place sanctified for [the reception of] blood.11

Come and hear: The base ran along the whole of the north and the west sides, and extended one cubit into the south and one cubit into the east? - By 'extended' is meant in respect of blood.12

Come and hear: The altar was thirty-two [cubits] by thirty-two?13 - This was the side length.14

Come and hear: Thus it was found that it overhung a cubit over the base and a cubit over the balcony?15 - Say: a cubit corresponding to the base area and a cubit of the balcony.16

Come and hear: For Levi taught: How did they build the altar? They brought a frame thirty-two [cubits] square and one cubit deep; and they brought round smooth stones17 of all sizes;18 then they brought plaster, molten lead and pitch, melted them down and poured them in; and this was the place of the base. Then they brought a frame thirty cubits square and five cubits deep, and they brought smooth stones etc, [and this was the place of the balcony]. Then they brought a frame twenty-eight cubits square, and three cubits deep; and they brought smooth stones etc., and this was the place of the [wood] pile.19 Then they brought a frame one cubit square, and they brought smooth round stones, of all sizes, and pitch and molten lead, melted them down, and poured them in, and this formed the horn; and similarly for each horn.20 And should you answer

____________________
(1) Deut. XXXIII, 12. E.V.: He (sc. God) covereth him (Benjamin) all day.
(2) Ibid. The significance of this is explained anon.
(3) By pinching through both organs, the windpipe and the gullet. In the case of a sin offering of a bird only one organ was pinched.
(4) And this was done on the south-east born; v. infra 64a.
(5) I.e., the blood would simply fall to the earth. Surely that was not permitted!
(6) Possibly there was a little ledge on that side, more than three hand-breadths from the ground, where it would not count as belonging to Judah, and on this ledge the blood fell and was thus sacred. Nevertheless, this ledge could not count as a base, where blood actually had to be poured out on the base.
(7) The base, which was a separate structure, did not reach under the south-eastern horn.
(8) The base did run along the whole length of the eastern side of the altar, but blood was not poured out nor applied in Judah's portion.
(9) 'And he dwelleth between his shoulders.'
(10) Hence the base, which was the understructure and foundation of the altar, was omitted from that side which belonged to Judah.
(11) There was a base under the south-east horn, but it was not sanctified for the purpose, since it was not in Benjamin's portion.
(12) The blood could be poured out there, yet there was no actual construction.
(13) This implies that it was of equal length on all sides, whereas according to Rab it was a cubit short on the east and the south.
(14) Only the north and west sides were of this length; the other two sides were each a cubit less.
(15) V. infra 62b. This refers to the ascent, which joined the altar from the south, and thus implies that there was the base on the south.
(16) I.e., the cubit which would have been occupied by the base, had there been one on the south side.
(17) The original implies fresh from the ground.
(18) Lit., 'both large and small'.
(19) I.e., the top of the altar, where the wood for the fire was placed.
(20) Thus the base consisted of a complete square, which implies the inclusion of the south and the east sides too!

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 54b

that he [subsequently] cut it away,1 [surely] 'unhewn [whole] stones' are prescribed!2 - They placed a plank there, and then removed it.3 For if you will not say thus, when R. Kahana said: The horns4 were hollow, for it is written, And they shall be filled like the basins, like the horns of the altar,5 here too [you may object that] the Divine Law prescribed 'whole stones'?6 But [you must answer] that something was [first] placed there7 and then removed; so here too, planks were [first] placed there and then removed.

Raba lectured: What is meant by the verse, [And he asked and said: 'Where are Samuel and David?'] And one said: 'Behold, they are at Naioth in Ramah':8 What connection then has Naioth with Ramah? It means, however, that they sat at Ramah and were engaged with the glory [beauty] of the world.9 Said they, It is written, Then shalt thou arise, and ascend unto the place [which the Lord thy God shall choose]:10 this teaches that the Temple was higher than the whole of Eretz Israel,11 while Eretz Israel is higher than all other countries. They did not know where that place was. Thereupon they brought the Book of Joshua.12 In the case of all [tribal territories] it is written, 'And the border went down' 'and the border went up' 'and the border passed along',13 whereas in reference to the tribe of Benjamin 'and it went up' is written, but not 'and it went down'.14 Said they: This proves that this is its site. They intended building it at the well of Etam, which is raised, but [then] they said: Let us build it slightly lower,15 as it is written, And He dwelleth between his shoulders.16 Alternatively,17 there was a tradition that the Sanhedrin18 should have its locale in Judah's portion, while the Divine Presence19 was to be in Benjamin's portion. If then we build it in the highest spot,20 [said they,] there will be a considerable distance between them. Better then that we build it slightly lower, as it is written: 'And He dwelleth between his shoulders'. And for this Doeg the Edomite envied David,21 as it is written, Because envy on account of Thy house hath eaten me up.22 And it is written, Lord, remember unto David all his affliction; how he swore unto the Lord, and vowed unto the Mighty One of Jacob: 'Surely I will not come into the tent of my house, nor go up into the bed that is spread for me; I will not give sleep to mine eyes, nor slumber to mine eyelids; until I find out a place for the Lord, a dwelling-place for the Mighty One of Jacob. Lo, we heard of it as being in Ephrath; we found it in the field of the forest.'23 'In Ephrath' means in the Book of Joshua,24 who [Joshua] was descended from Ephraim. 'In the field of the forest' alludes to [the territory of] Benjamin, as it is written, Benjamin is a wolf that raveneth.25

MISHNAH. THE PEACE-OFFERINGS OF THE CONGREGATION26 AND THE GUILT-OFFERINGS (THESE ARE THE GUILT-OFFERINGS: THE GUILT-OFFERING FOR ROBBERY;27 FOR TRESPASS;28 FOR A BETROTHED BONDMAID;29 A NAZIRITE'S GUILT-OFFERING;30 A LEPER'S GUILT-OFFERING;31 AND THE GUILT-OFFERING OF SUSPENSE)32 ARE SLAUGHTERED IN THE NORTH, AND THEIR BLOOD IS RECEIVED IN A SERVICE VESSEL IN THE NORTH, AND THEIR BLOOD REQUIRES TWO SPRINKLINGS, WHICH CONSTITUTE FOUR. AND THEY ARE EATEN WITHIN THE HANGINGS,33 BY MALE PRIESTS, PREPARED IN ANY MANNER, A DAY AND A NIGHT, UNTIL MIDNIGHT.

____________________
(1) After the base was built, a cubit was cut away on the south side.
(2) Deut. XXVII, 6. Cutting away from the base would inevitably cut into the stones, so that they would not be whole.
(3) In the first mould planks were placed on the south and the east sides, a cubit from the edge, so that when the stones etc. were poured in, these strips would be left empty; subsequently they were removed.
(4) So emended by Sh. M.
(5) Zech. IX, 15. - That implies that the horns were hollowed out to form a receptacle.
(6) Whereas if the horns were hollowed or perforated after they were made, the stones would have to be cut into.
(7) Thin laths formed the hollow or channels before the stones etc. were poured into it, and these were not filled in.
(8) I Sam. XIX, 22.
(9) Connecting Naioth with na'eh, beautiful, glorious. The reference is to the Temple-they sought to determine its exact site.
(10) Deut. XVII, 8.
(11) Since one had to 'ascend' to it from wherever he might be.
(12) To study the topography of Eretz Israel.
(13) Cf. Josh. XV-XVIII.
(14) The border of other tribes ran in a southerly direction from the well of Etam, and the north as far as the well of Etam constituted Benjamin's boundary. Now, the boundaries of other tribes as they proceeded south from the well of Etam are described as going down, whereas the boundary of Benjamin as it proceeded to the well of Etam is described as going up. Hence the well of Etam must have been the highest spot of all. Rashi identifies the well of Etam with 'the waters of Nephtoah' (ibid. XVIII, 15.) V. also J.E. art. 'Etam'.
(15) Sc. in Jerusalem.
(16) Deut. XXXIII, 12. 'Shoulders' but not 'head' implies that it should not be at the very highest point.
(17) An alternative reason why they did not build it at the well of Etam.
(18) The Supreme Court of seventy-one; v. Sanh. 2a. Its seat was in a special chamber ('Chamber of Hewn Stone') in the Temple court.
(19) The Temple.
(20) Lit., 'if we raise it'.
(21) I.e., because David had thus decided the site of the Temple.
(22) Ps. LXIX, 10. E.V., 'zeal for Thy house etc.'
(23) Ps. CXXXII, 2-6.
(24) Emended text (Aruk).
(25) Gen. XLIX, 27. Being a 'wolf', he would naturally be found in the forest
(26) The lambs offered on Pentecost, Lev. XXIII, 19.
(27) V. Lev. V, 20-25.
(28) V. p. 176, n. 10.; ibid 15f.
(29) V. ibid. XIX, 20 seq.
(30) A nazirite who became defiled through a corpse, v. Num. VI, 9 seq.
(31) At his purification, v. Lev. XIV, 12.
(32) V. p. 240, n. 8.
(33) V. supra 53a p. 266, n. 6.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 55a

GEMARA. How do we know that it requires the north? - As Raba son of R. Hanan1 recited before Raba: And ye shall offer one he-goat for a sin-offering, [and two he-lambs of the first year for a sacrifice of peace-offerings]:2 as a sin-offering requires the north, so [must] the peace-offerings of the congregation [be slaughtered] in the north. Said Raba to him: Now, whence do we learn this about a sin-offering? From a burnt-offering. Can then that which is learnt through a hekkesh teach in turn through a hekkesh?3 - Rather, [said Raba], It follows from what R. Mari the son of R. Kahana recited: [Ye shall blow with the trumpets] over your burnt-offerings, and over the sacrifices of your peace-offerings:4 as a burnt-offering was a sacrifice of higher sanctity, so were the public peace-offerings sacrifices of higher sanctity; as a burnt-offering [was slaughtered] in the north, so were the public peace-offerings [slaughtered] in the north.

Now, what is the purpose of the first hekkesh?5 - [To teach that it is] like a sin-offering: as a sin-offering is eaten by male priests only, so are public peace-offerings [eaten] by male priests [only]. Said Abaye to him [Raba]: If so, when it is written in connection with a nazirite's ram: And he shall present his offering unto the Lord, one he-lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt-offering, and one ewe-lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin-offering, and one ram without blemish for a peace-offering:6 will you say that here too the Divine Law assimilated it to a sin-offering: as a sin-offering may be eaten by male priests only, so the nazirite's ram may be eaten by male priests only? - How compare: There, since it is written, And the priest shall take the shoulder of the ram when it is sodden, [. . . . this is holy, for the priest]7 it follows that the whole of it is eaten by its owner. But at least the shoulder that is sodden should be eaten by male priests only? - That is a difficulty. Alternatively [you can answer]: It8 is called 'holy', but not 'most holy'.9 Then in respect of which law is it assimilated?10 - Said Raba: [To teach] that if he shaves himself after one [sacrifice] of the three, he fulfils his duty.11

MISHNAH. THE THANKS-OFFERING AND THE NAZIRITE'S RAM ARE SACRIFICES OF LESSER SANCTITY. THEY ARE SLAUGHTERED ANYWHERE IN THE TEMPLE COURT, AND THEIR BLOOD REQUIRES TWO SPRINKLINGS, WHICH CONSTITUTE FOUR; AND THEY ARE EATEN IN ANY PART OF THE CITY, BY ANY PERSON,12 PREPARED IN ANY MANNER, THE SAME DAY AND THE NIGHT FOLLOWING, UNTIL MIDNIGHT. THE PARTS THEREOF WHICH ARE SEPARATED13 ARE GOVERNED BY THE SAME LAW, SAVE THAT THESE ARE EATEN [ONLY] BY THE PRIESTS, THEIR WIVES, THEIR CHILDREN AND THEIR SLAVES.

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: And the breast of waving and the thigh of heaving shall ye eat in a clean place:14 Said R. Nehemiah: Did they then eat the earlier [sacrifices]15 in uncleanness? Rather, 'clean' implies that it is [partially] unclean:16 [thus it means,] clean from the defilement of a leper, but unclean with the uncleanness of a zab, and which place is that? The camp of the Israelites.17 Yet say [that it means] clean from the defilement of a zab, yet unclean with the defilement of the dead, and which [place] is that? The Levitical camp?18 - Said Abaye, Scripture saith, And ye shall eat it [the mealoffering] in a holy place:19 'it' [must be eaten] in a holy place, but another [need] not [be eaten] in a holy place, thus withdrawing it from the Camp of the Divine Presence into the Levitical Camp.20 Then 'in a clean place' is written, which withdraws it into the camp of the Israelites. Raba said: 'It' [must be eaten] in a holy place but another [need] not [be eaten] in a holy place, withdraws it altogether;21 then the Divine Law wrote 'in a clean place', [thereby] bringing it into the Israelites' camp.22 Yet say that it brought it into the Levitical camp?23 - We bring it back into one [camp], not into two. If so, [you can] also [argue in respect of] withdrawing: we withdraw it from one, but not from two?24 Moreover, it is written, Thou mayest not eat within they gates etc?25 Rather, it clearly must be explained as Abaye.

MISHNAH. THE PEACE-OFFERING IS A SACRIFICE OF LESSER SANCTITY. IT MAY BE SLAIN IN ANY PART OF THE TEMPLE COURT, AND ITS BLOOD REQUIRES TWO SPRINKLINGS, WHICH CONSTITUTE FOUR; AND IT MAY BE EATEN IN ANY PART OF THE CITY, BY ANY PERSON, PREPARED IN ANY WAY, DURING TWO DAYS AND ONE NIGHT. THE PARTS THEREOF WHICH ARE SEPARATED ARE SIMILAR, SAVE THAT THESE ARE EATEN BY PRIESTS, THEIR WIVES, THEIR SONS, AND THEIR SLAVES.

GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall kill it at the door of the tent of meeting . . . and he shall kill it before the tent of meeting . . . and he shall kill it before the tent of meeting:26 this teaches that all sides [of the Temple court] are fit in the case of sacrifices of lesser sanctity,27 and the north [side] a fortiori: if sacrifices of higher sanctity, which were not made fit [for slaughtering] on all sides, are fit on the north; is it not logical that sacrifices of lesser sanctity, which are fit on all sides, are fit in the north?28 R. Eliezer said: The Writ comes specifically to declare the north fit.29 For you might say, is not [the reverse] logical: If sacrifices of lesser sanctity, which are fit on all sides, yet their place is not fit for sacrifices of higher sanctity;30 then sacrifices of higher sanctity, which are permitted in the north only, is it not logical that their [particular] place is not permitted for sacrifices of lesser sanctity? Therefore 'the tent of meeting' is stated.31

____________________
(1) Emended text (Sh. M.)
(2) Lev. XXIII, 19.
(3) Surely not. V. supra 48a, 49b.
(4) Num. X, 10. It must mean the peace-offerings of the congregation, since private peace-offerings did not require the blowing of trumpets.
(5) Where it is assimilated to a sin-offering.
(6) Num. VI, 14.
(7) Ibid. 19, 20.
(8) The shoulder that is sodden.
(9) Therefore it cannot be like the sin-offering, which is 'most holy'.
(10) Sc. the nazirite's ram to a sin-offering.
(11) At the termination of his vow a nazirite must bring three sacrifices, viz., a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, and a peace-offering. Yet if he brings only one and shaves, the prohibitions of a nazirite, such as drinking wine, are lifted, because it is written, And after that the nazirite may drink wine (v. 20), 'after that' meaning, according to the Rabbis, after he brings his peace-offering. Then the sin-offering is assimilated to the peace-offering to shew that the same applies to the former too.
(12) I.e., even by a zar.
(13) In the case of the thanks-offering, the thigh and breast, and four loaves out of the forty by which it is accompanied. In the case of the nazirite's ram, likewise the thigh and the breast, the boiled shoulder, one unleavened loaf and one unleavened wafer.
(14) Lev. X, 14.
(15) Those enumerated earlier in this passage, which treats of Aaron's consecration.
(16) Since Scripture writes 'in a clean place instead of in a holy place,' as in the preceding verse.
(17) Three 'camps' of lessening degrees of sanctity were recognised in the wilderness: (i) The camp of the Divine Presence, - the Tabernacle; (ii) the camp of the Levites - literally the Levitical camp which immediately surrounded the Tabernacle; and (iii) the camp of the Israelites, likewise literally, each tribe within the camp of his standard, v. Num. II. To these three corresponded the Temple, the Temple Mount, and the city of Jerusalem respectively. A leper was expelled from all three, a zab was not permitted in the first two, and permitted in the third. Hence this text teaches that it might be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem.
(18) Where a corpse might be taken. So that the flesh of this sacrifice may be eaten in the Temple Mount only, but not anywhere in Jerusalem.
(19) Lev. X, 13.
(20) Emended text (Sh. M.).
(21) This would imply that it need not even be eaten in the third camp, hence even outside Jerusalem.
(22) Hence it must be eaten within the walls of Jerusalem.
(23) Teaching that it must be eaten in the Temple Mount.
(24) When Scripture implies that it is not bound to be eaten in a particular place, say that one camp (that of the Divine Presence) is excluded, but not two.
(25) Deut. XII, 17. 'Within thy gates' means in the cities outside Jerusalem.
(26) Lev. III, 2, 8, 13. The three texts refer to the different animals brought as peace-offerings.
(27) As 'before' implies on any side.
(28) Thus in the view of this Tanna no text is necessary to shew that it can be slain in the north.
(29) Otherwise we would not know it.
(30) The latter cannot be slaughtered in any part of the Temple.
(31) Implying any part of same.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 55b

Wherein do they differ? - The first Tanna holds, Three texts are written:1 one is for its own purpose, to intimate that the door of the tent of meeting is required;2 the second is to permit the sides;3 and the third is to invalidate the sides of the sides;4 while no text is necessary for the north. Whereas R. Eliezer holds: One is for its own purpose, to intimate that the door of the tent of meeting is required; the second is to permit the north; and the third is to permit the sides; but no text is required in respect of the sides of the sides.

Why is 'the door of the tent of meeting' written in one case, whereas 'before the tent of meeting' is written in the others? - We are thereby informed of Rab Judah's teaching in Samuel's name. For Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: If a peace-offering is slaughtered before the doors of the hekal are opened, it is invalid, for it is said, 'And he shall kill it at the entrance [opening] of the tent of meeting': when it is open, but not when it is shut. It was stated likewise: Mar 'Ukba b. Hama said in R. Jose son of R. Hanina's name: If one slaughtered a peace-offering before the doors of the hekal were opened, it is invalid, because it is said, 'And he shall kill it at the entrance [opening] of the tent of meeting': when it is open, and not when it is shut. In the West [Palestine] they recited it thus: R. Aha b. Jacob said in R. Ashi's name: If a peace-offering is slaughtered before the doors of the hekal are opened, it is invalid; in the Tabernacle,5 [if it is slaughtered] before the Levites set up the Tabernacle or after the Levites take down the Tabernacle, it is invalid.

It is obvious that if it is shut, it is as though it were locked.6 What if a curtain [shuts it off]? - Said R. Zera: That itself is made only for an open door.7

What of an elevation?8 - Come and hear: For it was taught, R. Jose b. R. Judah said: There were two wickets in the knives' recess and their elevation was eight cubits, in order that the whole of the Temple court might be made fit for the consumption of sacrifices of higher sanctity and the slaughtering of sacrifices of lower sanctity.9 Does this not mean that [an elevation] eight [cubits high] stood before them [these wickets]?10 - No: it means that they [themselves]11 were eight cubits high.

An objection is raised: All the gates there were twenty cubits high and ten cubits wide?12 - The wickets were different.13 But there were the sides?14 - They were built at the corners.15

What about the space behind the place of the Mercy Seat [kapporeth]?16 - Come and hear, for Rami son of Rab Judah said in Rab's name: There was a small passage way behind the place of the Mercy Seat, in order to make the whole Temple court fit for the consumption of most holy sacrifices and the slaughtering of minor sacrifices, and there were two such,17 and thus it is written, And two le-par bar.18 What does le-par bar mean? - Said Rabbah son of R. Shila: As one says, facing without [ke-lappe le-bar].

Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: Liability for uncleanness19 is incurred

____________________
(1) The 'tent of meeting' is repeated three times.
(2) I.e., as stated infra, the animal may be slain only when this door is open.
(3) One is not limited to the space directly in front of the door.
(4) I.e., chambers opening into the Temple court. These, even if sanctified, are unfit.
(5) When there was no door, but only an opening.
(6) The sacrifice then is certainly invalid.
(7) The curtain is hung there only because the door of the hekal is open and it is indecorous for the priests to look into the hekal while they are engaged on the sacrifice. Hence it counts as open, and the sacrifice is valid (Sh. Mek.).
(8) I.e., a raised construction, e.g., a beam or a board which shuts off the door while it is actually open.
(9) The ulam (v. Glos.) overlapped the hekal by 11 cubits on each side. Now, the sacrifices had to be slain in front of the hekal, corresponding to 'before the tent of meeting', and this would apparently not include the area directly in front of the overlap, in which there was a special recess for the knives. By means of wickets set in the ulam on either side the whole of the area facing the ulam, including the overlap, was thus made fit.
(10) Which proves that such leaves it technically open.
(11) The entrances to the wickets.
(12) Consequently the reference must be to the construction before the wickets.
(13) Since their purpose was only symbolic.
(14) Of the ulam, on the north and the south beyond the wickets. The area in front of these would not be made fit by the wickets.
(15) Diagonally, so that the space opposite them, viz., up to the north and the south walls of the Temple court, would still be technically 'before the door'.
(16) A space of eleven cubits between it and the western wall of the court (v. Mid. V, I); was that fit too?
(17) Emended text.
(18) E.V. 'at the precinct'. I. Chron. XXVI, 18. The M.T. reads this as one word: parbar.
(19) I.e., for entering the precincts of the Temple court in an unclean state.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 56a

only in respect of [an area] a hundred and eighty-seven cubits in length by a hundred and thirty-five in breadth. A Tanna recited before R. Nahman: The whole Temple court was a hundred and eighty-seven cubits in length by a hundred and thirty-five in breadth. Said he to him, Thus did my father say: Within such an area the priests entered, consumed the most holy and slaughtered the minor sacrifices there, and were liable for uncleanness. What does this exclude? Shall we say that it excludes the windows, doors and the thickness of the wall? Surely we learnt: The windows and the thickness of the wall are as within?1 - Rather, it is to exclude the chambers.2 But if they are built on nonsacred ground and open into sacred ground, surely we learnt: Their inside is holy? - That is by Rabbinical law [only] - And not by Scriptural law? Surely it was taught: How do we know that the priests may enter the chambers which are built on non-sacred ground and open into sacred ground, eat there the most holy sacrifices and the residue of the meal-offering?3 Because it says, In the court of the tent of meeting they shall eat it:4 Scripture permitted many courts for eating!5 - Said Raba: Eating is different.6 But are they not [holy] in respect of uncleanness? Surely it was taught: The chambers built on non-sacred ground: priests may enter therein and eat there the most holy sacrifices; you may not slaughter minor sacrifices there,7 and they involve culpability on account of uncleanness? - Did you not say, you may not slaughter?8 then learn too, and they do not involve culpability.9 [No:] as for [saying] you may not slaughter, it is well, [the reason being that] it [slaughtering] must be opposite the door, which it is not [in these chambers]. But why [should you learn] 'and they do not involve culpability'? - Yet on your view, [consider: when you say,] you may not slaughter, are we not discussing a case where the shechitah is opposite the entrance,10 for if it is not, why is it necessary [to teach it]? Hence [you must admit that] although he would slaughter opposite the entrance, yet he teaches, 'You may not slaughter', because they are not sanctified. Then learn also, They do not involve culpability.

Now, do we not require the consumption to be facing the entrance? Surely R. Jose son of R. Hanina taught: There were two wickets in the knives' recess, and their elevation was eight cubits, in order to make the Temple court fit for the eating of most sacred sacrifices and the slaughtering of minor sacrifices? - Said Rabina: Delete 'eating' from this passage. But it is written, Boil the flesh at the door of the tent of meeting, and there eat it?11 Temporary sacrifices are different.12 R. Isaac b. Abudimi said: How do we know that the blood is invalidated by sunset?13 Because it says, It shall be eaten on the day that he offereth his slaughtering:14 on the day that you slaughter, you can offer; on the day that you do not slaughter, you cannot offer.15 But this text is needed

____________________
(1) Sacred; hence these cannot be excluded.
(2) Flanking the Temple court.
(3) What is left after the fistful is separated and burnt on the altar.
(4) Lev. VI, 9.
(5) These correspond to the chambers under discussion. Since the most holy sacrifices may be eaten there, they must be sacred by Biblical law too.
(6) Eating is permitted because Scripture intimated it so.
(7) As these are the 'sides of the sides' (v. supra 53b), and not 'before the tent of meeting'.
(8) Which proves that they are not holy.
(9) The text must be so amended.
(10) I.e., that the door of this chamber faces that of the knives' recess, so that when both are open it is technically 'at the door of the test of meeting', and yet you may not slaughter there.
(11) Lev. VIII, 31.
(12) These sacrifices were not statutory ones, but specially commanded for the consecration of Aaron. They are not subject to the ordinary laws.
(13) It is unfit for sprinkling on the morrow.
(14) Ibid. VII, 16. Lit., translation. E.V.: his sacrifice.
(15) Sc. on the morrow. 'Offering' is essentially sprinkling.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 56b

for its own purpose?1 - If so, let Scripture say, 'It shall be eaten on the day of its slaughtering': what is the purpose of 'that he offereth'? Infer from it: on the day that you slaughter, you can offer; on the day that you do not slaughter, you cannot offer. Yet perhaps this is what the Divine Law means: If he [the priest] presents the blood on the same day, you may eat the flesh on the same day and on the next; while if he presents the blood on the morrow, you may eat the flesh on the morrow and on the day after? - If so, let Scripture write, 'It shall be eaten on the day that he offereth'; what is the purpose of 'his slaughtering'? Infer from it: On the day that you slaughter, you can offer: on the day that you do not slaughter, you cannot offer.

It was stated: If one intends [eating the flesh] on the evening of the third day,2 Hezekiah said: It [the sacrifice] is fit; R. Johanan said: It is unfit. Hezekiah said: It is fit, seeing that it was not yet relegated to the fire.3 R. Johanan said: It is unfit, seeing that it is rejected from eating.4

If one eats [the flesh] on the evening of the third day, Hezekiah maintained: He is exempt,5 seeing that it was not yet relegated to the fire; R. Johanan maintained, He is culpable, seeing that it was rejected from eating. It was taught in accordance with R. Johanan: With regard to sacrifices which are eaten on the same day [only], an intention is effective in respect of their blood from sunset, and in respect of their flesh and their emurim, from dawn.6 But as to sacrifices which are eaten two days and one night, an intention is effective in respect of their blood from sunset; in respect of their emurim, from dawn; and in respect of their flesh, from sunset on the second day.7

Our Rabbis taught: You might think that they [peace-offerings] may be eaten on the evening of the third day, and this is indeed logical. Some sacrifices are eaten on the same day, and others are eaten during two days; as those sacrifices which are eaten on the same day [only], the night follows them;8 so also the sacrifices which are eaten during two days, the night follows them. Therefore it says, And if aught remain until the third day:9 while it is yet day it may be eaten, but it may not be eaten on the evening of the third day. You might think that it is burnt immediately,10 and this is logical: some sacrifices are eaten on the same day, and others are eaten during two days: as the sacrifices which are eaten on the same day, burning immediately follows eating;11 so the sacrifices which are eaten during two days, burning immediately follows eating. Therefore it says, 'On the third day it shall be burnt with fire': you must burn it by day, but you must not burn it at night.

MISHNAH. THE FIRSTLING, TITHE12 AND PASSOVER-OFFERING ARE SACRIFICES OF LESSER SANCTITY. THEY ARE SLAUGHTERED IN ANY PART OF THE TEMPLE COURT, AND THEIR BLOOD REQUIRES ONE SPRINKLING, PROVIDED THAT IT IS APPLIED OVER AGAINST THE BASE.13 THEY DIFFERED IN THEIR CONSUMPTION [AS FOLLOWS]: THE FIRSTLING WAS EATEN BY PRIESTS [ONLY], WHILE THE TITHE MIGHT BE EATEN BY ANY MAN. AND THEY WERE EATEN IN ANY PART OF THE CITY, PREPARED IN ANY MANNER, DURING TWO DAYS AND ONE NIGHT. THE PASSOVER-OFFERING MIGHT BE EATEN ONLY AT NIGHT, ONLY UNTIL MIDNIGHT, AND IT MIGHT BE EATEN ONLY BY THOSE REGISTERED FOR IT,14 AND IT MIGHT BE EATEN ONLY ROASTED.

GEMARA. Which Tanna [rules thus]?15 - Said R. Hisda, It is R. Jose the Galilean. For it was taught, R. Jose the Galilean said: Not 'its blood' is said, but 'their blood'; not 'its fat' is said, but 'their fat': this teaches concerning the firstling, tithe, and the Passover-offering, that their blood and emurim must be presented at the altar.16

How do we know [that it must be sprinkled] over against the base? - Said R. Eleazar: The meaning of 'sprinkling'17 is learned from a burnt-offering.

____________________
(1) To teach that a peace-offering is eaten on the day it is slaughtered and on the next day.
(2) The evening preceding the third day, i.e., after the two days permitted for its eating.
(3) If it remains until the evening of the third day it does not become nothar, to require burning, but only if it remains until the morning (v.v. 17). Hence the intention to eat it then, expressed at the sacrificing, does not invalidate it.
(4) It may not be eaten after the two days.
(5) From the penalty for eating nothar.
(6) If he intended sprinkling their blood after sunset, or eating their flesh or burning their emurim after the dawn of the morrow, his intention makes the sacrifice unfit.
(7) I.e., the evening of the third day.
(8) I.e., they are eaten on the night following.
(9) Lev. XIX, 6.
(10) At the end of the second day, after sunset.
(11) From the moment that it may no longer be eaten, it is to be burnt.
(12) Sc. of cattle; v. Lev. XXVII, 32.
(13) On a part of the altar which has a base under it. This excludes the east and south (v. supra 53b).
(14) By people who had previously registered themselves for that particular animal.
(15) The Mishnah enumerates the differences in their mode of consumption only. Whence it follows that they are alike in respect of sprinkling and presentation of emurim. Whose view is this?
(16) V. supra 37a for notes.
(17) Written in connection with the firstling and tithe.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 57a

And how do we know it of a burnt-offering itself? - Because it is written, At the base of the altar of the burnt-offering:1 this proves that the statutory burnt-offering requires [sprinkling at] the base.2 If so, just as there two applications which constitute four [are required], so here too, two applications which constitute four [are required]?3 - Said Abaye: Why must 'round about' be written in connection with both a burnt-offering and a sin-offering?4 That there might be two verses with the same teaching, and two verses with the same teaching do not illumine [other cases].5 That is well on the view that they do not illumine; but on the view that they do illumine, what can be said? - The guilt-offering is a third,6 and three certainly do not illumine.

THE FIRSTLING IS EATEN BY PRIESTS. Our Rabbis taught, How do we know that a firstling is eaten during two days and one night? Because it is said, And the flesh of them shall be thine, as the wave-breast and as the right thigh:7 the Writ assimilated it to the breast and the thigh of a peace-offering:8 as a peace-offering might be eaten during two days and one night, so may the firstling be eaten during two days and one night. And this question was asked of the Sages in the vineyard of Yabneh:9 For how long may a firstling be eaten? Whereupon R. Tarfon replied: During two days and one night. Now a certain disciple was present, who had come to the Beth Hamidrash for the first time, by the name of R. Jose the Galilean. Master, said he to him, whence do you know this? My son, replied he, a peace-offering is a sacrifice of lesser sanctity, and a firstling is a sacrifice of lesser sanctity: as a peace-offering is eaten during two days and one night, so a firstling is eaten during two days and one night. Master, he objected, a firstling is the priest's due, and a sin-offering and a guilt-offering are the priest's dues;10 [then let us argue,] as a sin-offering and a guilt-offering [may be eaten] during one day and one night, so a firstling [may be eaten] one day and one night? Said he to him: Let us compare the two objects, and then deduce one from the other:11 as a peace-offering does not come on account of sin, so a firstling does not come on account of sin; [hence,] as a peace-offering is eaten two days and one night, so is a firstling eaten two days and one night. Master, he objected, Let us compare the two objects, and then deduce one from the other: a12 sin-offering and a guilt-offering are priestly dues, and a firstling is a priestly due; as12 a sin-offering and a guilt-offering cannot be brought as a vow or a freewill-offering,13 so a firstling cannot be a vow or a freewill-offering:14 [hence,] as a sin-offering and a guilt-offering are eaten one day and one night, so may a firstling be eaten one day and one night? R. Akiba then leaped [into the debate], and R. Tarfon withdrew. Said he [R. Akiba] to him, Behold, it says, 'And the flesh of them shall be thine [etc.]': the Writ assimilated them to the breast and thigh of a peace-offering: as a peace-offering is eaten two days and one night, so a firstling is eaten two days and one night. Said he to him: You have likened it to the breast and thigh of a peace-offering, but I might liken it to the breast and thigh of a thanks-offering: as a thanks-offering is eaten one day and one night, so a firstling is eaten one day and one night. Lo, he replied, it says, it shall be thine.15 Now, 'it shall be thine' need not be stated; why then is it said? The Writ thereby prolonged the existence of a firstling.16 When this discussion was reported to R. Ishmael, he said to them [those who reported it]: Go forth and say to Akiba, You have erred.17 Whence do we learn this of the thanksoffering?18 From a peace-offering.19 Can then that which is learnt through a hekkesh teach in turn by a hekkesh?20 Hence you must determine it not by the second version but by the first version.21 Now, how does R. Ishmael employ this phrase, 'it shall be thine'?22 - It teaches that a blemished firstling is given to the priest, for which teaching we do not find [any other text] in the whole Torah. And R. Akiba?23 - He learns it from 'their flesh', [which intimates,] whether it whole or blemished. And R. Ishmael?24 - It means, the flesh of these firstlings.

Wherein do they differ?25 - One master holds: [That which is inferred] from the subject itself and another does constitute a hekkesh; while the other master holds: It does not constitute a hekkesh.26 On the view that it does not constitute a hekkesh, it is well: hence it is written, And so shall he do for the tent of meeting,27 which [intimates]: As he sprinkles the blood of the bullock in the Holy of Holies once upward and seven times downward, so must he sprinkle in the hekal; and as he sprinkles the blood of the he-goat in the Holy of Holies once upward and seven times downward, so must he sprinkle in the Hekal. But on the view that it does constitute a hekkesh, what can be said?28 - The localities only are deduced from one another.29

____________________
(1) Lev. IV, 7.
(2) For in fact the altar was not used for the burnt-offering exclusively, the very sentence quoted treating of a sin-offering. Hence the verse must mean, at the base of the altar, as is done with a burnt-offering.
(3) Whereas the Mishnah says otherwise.
(4) Burnt-offering, Lev. I, 5: And he shall dash the blood round about against the altar; sin-offering, VIII, 15: And when it was slain, Moses took the blood, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about with his finger. 'Round about' implies on all four sides. Now, this could be said with reference to a burnt-offering only, and the other would be deduced from it.
(5) Hence the number of applications required by a firstling etc. cannot be deduced from a burnt-offering.
(6) Where 'round about' is said, Lev. VII, 2.
(7) Num. XVIII, 18. The text refers to firstlings.
(8) Since it was the breast and the thigh of a peace-offering which belonged to the priest.
(9) The famous town to the north-west of Jerusalem, seat of R. Johanan b. Zakkai's academy and Sanhedrin after the destruction of the Temple.
(10) Whereas a peace-offering belongs to its owner.
(11) I.e., let us first see to which the firstling is similar, and then learn from it.
(12) The words: 'a sin-offering . . . as' are best omitted with Ms. M.
(13) V. supra 2a, p. 2, n. 6. These sacrifices can be brought only when one has incurred them.
(14) It must actually be a firstling.
(15) Num. XVIII, 18. This reiterates the first half of the verse.
(16) It is correct to liken it to a thanksoffering rather than to a peace-offering, since we cannot permit a longer time for its consumption than the minimum of which we are certain. But the reiteration, 'it is thine', implies that it is thine for a longer time than you might otherwise think, and so it is permitted for two days, like a peace-offering.
(17) By likening it to the thanks-offering in the first place.
(18) That its breast and thigh belong to the priest. This is not stated explicitly.
(19) By means of a hekkesh.
(20) Surely not (v. supra 49b). Hence the thanksoffering in this case cannot throw light on the firstling.
(21) You must compare it in the first instance to a peace-offering, not to a thanksoffering.
(22) Why is it repeated?
(23) Whence does he know this?
(24) How does he explain the plural 'their'? V. supra 37a, b for notes.
(25) It is a definite rule that what is learnt through a hekkesh does not teach through a hekkesh. Why then does R. Akiba adopt this exegesis here?
(26) Now, that a thanksoffering is eaten one day and one night is not inferred by a hekkesh but stated explicitly, Lev. VII, 15, while that its breast and thigh belong to the priest is inferred by a hekkesh. R. Ishmael holds that the fact that the priest may eat the breast and the thigh during one day and one night only must be regarded as an inference by a hekkesh, and therefore it cannot become the basis for another hekkesh (viz., as to the time permitted for the consumption of a firstling). R. Akiba however maintains that since the time permitted for the thanksoffering is explicitly stated, we do not regard the time allowed for the breast and thigh as the result of a hekkesh; hence it can become the basis for another hekkesh.
(27) Lev. XVI, 16.
(28) The passage treats of the ritual of the Day of Atonement. Scripture writes, And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle with his finger upon the ark-cover on the east; and before the ark-cover shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times (ibid. 14). 'Upon' and 'before' are understood to mean upward and downward respectively: thus, while it is explicitly stated that it is sprinkled seven times downwards, the number of upward sprinklings is not stated, and this is learnt by analogy (hekkesh) from the he-goat, where it says, And sprinkle it (otho) upon the ark-cover, and before the ark-cover (v. 15). There 'it' (otho) is held to indicate one sprinkling, while the number of downward sprinklings is not stated. The present text, and do with his (sc. the he-goat's) blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, teaches that both are sprinkled once upward and seven times downward, since an analogy is drawn between them. Now, each is written partly explicitly and partly inferred by a hekkesh, and then the same is applied to the hekal by means of a hekkesh. Now, if what is inferred partly from the subject itself and partly from another subject does not constitute a hekkesh, then the sprinklings in the hekal can rightly be inferred by a hekkesh from those in the Holy of Holies. But if it does, such inference is disallowed, since what is learnt by a hekkesh cannot teach by a hekkesh.
(29) This is not a case of what is learnt by a hekkesh teaching through a hekkesh, since the first refers to the animals, whereas the second refers to the localities.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 57b

Alternatively, [the sprinklings] without [in the Hekal] are directly inferred from [those ] within [the Holy of Holies].1

On the view that it does not2 constitute a hekkesh, it is well: hence it is written, Ye shall bring out of your dwellings [two] wave-loaves [of two tenth parts of an ephah etc]:3 Now, 'ye shall bring' need not be said;4 what then does 'ye shall bring' teach? Whatever you bring on another occasion5 must be like this: as here a tenth [of an ephah] is used for hallah, so there6 too a tenth is required for hallah. If so, as here two tenths are required, so there too two tenths are required? Therefore Scripture states, they shall be [of fine flour].7 We have thus learnt ten [tenths] for leavened [loaves]. Whence do we know ten [tenths] for unleavened loaves? Because it says, With cakes of leavened bread [he shall present his offering with the sacrifice of his peace-offering for thanksgiving]8 [which intimates,] Bring an equal quantity of unleavened as of leavened.9 But on the view that it constitutes a hekkesh, what can be said?10 - 'Ye shall bring' is superfluous.11

THE PASSOVER-OFFERING IS EATEN ONLY [etc]. Which Tanna [rules thus]? - Said R. Joseph, It is R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah. For it was taught, R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah said, [And they shall eat the flesh] in the night12 is stated here, whilst elsewhere it is stated, For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night:13 just as there it means by midnight, so here too it means by midnight. Said R. Akiba to him: Yet surely it is already stated, [and ye shall eat it] in haste,14 [implying] until the time of haste?15 If so, what is taught by 'in that night'? You might think that it is like all [other] sacrifices, which are eaten by day: therefore it is stated 'in [that] night': it is eaten by night, but it may not be eaten by day. Said Abaye to him [R. Joseph]: How do you know that [the author of our Mishnah is] R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah, while [the law is] Biblical. Perhaps the law is Rabbinical only, [the reason being] to prevent transgression?16 - If so, why state, ONLY UNTIL MIDNIGHT?17 But it means, It is as the other laws;18 as those are Biblical, so is this Biblical.19 [

____________________
(1) And not via the animals at all.
(2) Emended text (Bah, Sh. M.).
(3) Lev. XXIII, 17.
(4) The text could read: And ye shall present a new offering unto the Lord (v. 16) out of your dwellings etc.
(5) Lit., 'from another place'.
(6) Lit., 'as there . . . so here.' The hallah (unleavened loaf) brought on another occasion (v. n. 4) is referred to as 'here', as that is the actual subject being discussed.
(7) Ibid. For the interpretation of this v. Men. 78a top.
(8) Lev. VII, 13.
(9) The preceding verses read: Then he shall offer . . . unleavened cakes mingled with oil, and unleavened wafers spread with oil, and cakes mingled with oil. When this is followed by ' With cakes of leavened bread' etc., it yields a hekkesh, whence we learn that the weight of the former must be the same as that of the latter.
(10) The wave-loaves brought on Pentecost were made of a tenth of an ephah of flour, and they were leavened. Now, the thanksoffering was accompanied by four kinds of loaves; v. Lev. VII, 12-14. These included a set of leavened loaves (the other three kinds were unleavened), but neither the actual number of each kind nor their weight is stated. By means of a gezerah shawah the Talmud deduces that there were the loaves of each kind, and from the superfluous 'ye shall bring' it infers that the leavened loaves were each to be made of a tenth of an ephah (these are those brought 'on another occasion'), just like the two wave-loaves, so that ten tenths were required for all. Thus the number is not deduced by a hekkesh but by a gezerah shawah, which is regarded as being explicitly stated in the subject itself, while the weight is learned by a hekkesh (the superfluous 'ye shall bring'). Then the Talmud infers by another hekkesh that the weight of the unleavened loaves is the same (v. preceding note). The difficulty then is the same as the preceding on the number of sprinklings (v. p. 287, n. 3).
(11) Hence the fact that the loaves of the thanks-offering require a tenth of an ephah each is not regarded as an inference by a hekkesh, but as though it were explicitly stated.
(12) Ex. XII, 8.
(13) Ibid. 12.
(14) Ibid, 11.
(15) I.e., when they had to make haste to leave Egypt, which was in the morning.
(16) Possibly this Tanna holds that by Scriptural law it may be eaten until morning, yet he gives the limit of midnight so as to make sure that one will not transgress by eating it in the morning.
(17) He should state, And it is eaten until midnight.
(18) Lit., 'as there'. Sc. that it may only be eaten roast and by registered persons.
(19) Hence its author must be R. Eleazar b. 'Azariah.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 58a

CHAPTER 6

MISHNAH. IF SACRIFICES OF HIGHER SANCTITY ARE SLAUGHTERED ON THE TOP OF THE ALTAR, R. JOSE SAID: [THEY ARE] AS THOUGH THEY WERE SLAUGHTERED IN THE NORTH;1 R. JOSE SON OF R. JUDAH SAID: FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE ALTAR SOUTHWARD IS AS SOUTH, FROM THE MIDDLE OF THE ALTAR NORTHWARD IS AS THE NORTH.

GEMARA. R. Assi said in R. Johanan's name: R. Jose maintained that the whole of the altar stood in the north.2 What then does AS THOUGH [etc.] mean? You might think that we require [them to be slaughtered] on the side [of the altar].3 which they were not. Hence he informs us [that it is not so]. Said R. Zera to R. Assi: If so, will you indeed say that R. Jose son of R. Judah holds that [the altar] is half in the north and half in the south?4 And should you answer, That indeed is so; surely it was you who said in R. Johanan's name: R. Jose son of R. Judah admits that if he slaughtered them in a corresponding position on the ground,5 they are unfit? - Said he to him, This is what R. Johanan said: Both of them inferred [their views] from the same text:6 And thou shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings:7 R. Jose holds: The whole of it [the altar] is fit for [the slaughtering of] the burnt-offering,8 and the whole of it is fit for peace-offerings. While R. Jose son of R. Judah holds: Divide it: half of it is for a burnt-offering, and half for a peace-offering. For if you think that the whole of it is fit for a burnt-offering, then seeing that the whole of it is fit for a burnt-offering, need it be said that the whole of it is fit for a peace-offering. And the other?9 - It is necessary:10 You might think that only a burnt-offering [is fit if slaughtered on the top of the altar]. since its room is cramped.11 But as for peace-offerings, whose room is not cramped,12 I would say that it is not so. Hence [the text] informs us [otherwise].

The [above] text [stated]: 'R. Assi said in R. Johanan's name: R. Jose son of R. Judah admits that if he slaughtered them in a corresponding position on the ground, they are unfit.' R. Aha of Difti asked Rabina: What does 'in a corresponding position on the ground' mean?13 Shall we say, on the cubit of the base or the cubit of the terrace:14 surely that is the altar itself? Moreover, what does 'on the ground' mean?15 And if you say that he made a cavity in the ground16 and slaughtered therein: would that be a [proper altar]? Surely it was taught: An altar of earth thou shalt make unto Me:17 [this teaches] that it must be joined to the earth, that it must not be built over cavities or on rocks? - It means that he shortened it18

R. Zera said: Is it possible that this statement of R. Johanan19 is correct, and yet we have not learnt it in the Mishnah?20 So he went out, searched, and found it. For we learnt: They selected from there21 sound fig-tree wood22 to arrange the second pile for incense23 by the south-west horn at a distance of four cubits from it northward; [sufficient wood was taken to make] about five se'ahs of coals,24 and on the Sabbath, about eight se'ahs, because they placed there the two censers of frankincense for the shew-bread.25 And what is the token?26 - This agrees with R. Jose. For it was taught:

____________________
(1) Hence valid.
(2) Supra 53a.
(3) Lev. I, 11.
(4) R. Zera assumed that R. Assi's statement was inferred from the Mishnah: since R. Jose rules that if it is slaughtered anywhere on the top of the altar, it is as though it is slaughtered in the north, it follows that the whole of the altar is in the north. But if this inference is correct, a similar deduction can be made with respect to R. Jose b. R. Judah.
(5) This will be explained anon.
(6) I.e., R. Johanan did not base his statement on the Mishnah, but on the Scriptural interpretation of these Rabbis.
(7) Ex. XX, 21.
(8) Hence the whole of the altar is in the north, since a burnt-offering must be slaughtered in the north (Lev. I, 11).
(9) How does he rebut this argument?
(10) To state that the whole of it is fit for a peace-offering.
(11) As it must be slaughtered in the north, there may not be enough room when there are many sacrifices; hence Scripture permitted the top of the altar too.
(12) They can be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple court.
(13) It cannot mean on the pavement at the side of the altar, for then there would be no difficulty on R. Assi's view. For even if the whole altar stood in the north, yet if one slaughtered on the west or east of it at some distance from the actual side, it would still be unfit, because it must be killed between the north side of the altar and the opposite wall of the Temple court; therefore this could not prove that R. Jose did not hold that half the altar was in the north and half in the south. Hence it must apparently mean, on the ground of the altar itself. Now, how is this possible?
(14) The altar' was recessed a cubit for the base and a cubit for the terrace (v. supra 54a).
(15) The top of the base or the terrace is not 'on the ground'.
(16) Under the altar.
(17) Ex. XX, 21.
(18) It was decided to shorten the altar, and the northern half of it was thus left clear. Although it is still the side, the offerings slaughtered there are unfit, which proves that he holds that the altar is in the south, as there is no other reason for its unfitness.
(19) That R. Jose holds that the whole altar stood in the north.
(20) There must be some hint of it in the Mishnah.
(21) The wood-shed, in which the wood for the altar was kept.
(22) Not worm-eaten.
(23) At the side of the large wood-pile, on which the offerings were burnt, a smaller pile was made, whence three kabs of burning coals were taken every morning and evening for the inner altar, on which the incense was burnt.
(24) So that it should be easy to take the necessary quantity of live coals from it for the inner altar.
(25) This frankincense was burnt on the Sabbath, and on the outer altar, on this special pile. Therefore more coals were required (as the other incense still had to be burnt on the inner altar). V. Tam. II, 5.
(26) By which sign did the Sages rule that this second pile was in that particular spot?

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 58b

R. Jose said: This is the token: whatever is taken [from] within to be placed without,1 is placed as near as possible [to the inner altar]; and whatever is taken from without to be placed within, is taken from as near as possible [to the inner altar]. 'Whatever is taken [from] within to be placed without': What is it? If we say, the residue [of the blood], surely it is distinctly written thereof, [And all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out] at the base of the altar of burnt-offering, which is at the door of the tent of meeting?2 Further, as to whatever is taken without to be placed within', what is it? If we say, the coals of the Day of Atonement, surely it is explicitly written thereof, And he shall take a censer full of coals of fire from off the altar before the Lord?3 Rather, 'whatever is taken within to be placed without' means the two censers of the frankincense for the shewbread,4 which we infer from the residue [of the blood];5 and 'Whatever is taken without to be placed within' is the coals of every day.6 which are inferred from the coals of the Day of Atonement. Now, what does he hold?7 If he holds [that] the whole altar is in the south, he would have to carry it twenty-seven [cubits from the horn]?8 And even if he holds that the sanctity of the hekal and that of the ulam are one,9 yet he would have to carry it down twenty-two cubits?10 And if he holds that it was half in the north and half in the south, he would have to bring it down eleven cubits?11 And even if he holds that the sanctity of the hekal and that of the ulam are one, he would have to bring it down six cubits?12 Hence it must surely be that he holds that the whole altar was in the north, and these four cubits are as follows: one cubit for the base, one for the terrace, one for the horns, and one for the feet of the priests; for should one go further than this, there would no more be the door.13 Said R. Adda b. Ahabah:14 This is in accordance with R. Judah. For it was taught. R. Judah said: The altar stood in the middle of the Temple court.15 Now, it was thirty-two cubits [square], [of which] ten cubits faced the door of the hekal, and [it extended] eleven cubits on either side [thereof]. Thus the altar was exactly opposite the hekal. Yet even so, according to R. Judah he would have to bring it down eleven cubits? And even if he held that the sanctity of the hekal and that of the ulam are one, he would still have to bring it down six cubits? - Do you think that these four cubits include the cubit of the base and the cubit of the terrace? [No:] they are exclusive of the cubit of the base and the cubit of the terrace. Now, let us make this agree with R. Jose, and [assume] that [he too holds that] it stood in the centre?16 - Because we know definitely that R. Judah holds that it stood in the middle.17

R. Sherabia said: This is in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean. For it was taught: R. Jose the Galilean said: Since it says. And thou shalt set the laver between the tent of meeting and the altar,18 while another verse states, [And thou shalt set]

____________________
(1) From the inner altar on to the outer altar.
(2) Lev. IV, 7. That is the nearest point to the inner altar. Why then must R. Jose give a general rule for this, when it is explicitly stated?
(3) Ibid. XVI, 12. 'Before the Lord' implies near the inner sanctum.
(4) They were taken on the Sabbath from the Table, which was within.
(5) They must be placed (presented) on the side facing the door, which is the nearest point.
(6) Which are taken from the second pile and placed on the inner altar. R. Jose thus teaches that they are taken from the side facing the door.
(7) When he states that this second pile is arranged four cubits from the horn northwards.
(8) The width of the door was ten cubits, five of which were in the north and five in the south, while the altar was thirty-two square. Now, deducting the five cubits which the door passed into the north, the nearest point to the door would thus be twenty-seven cubits from the opposite horn.
(9) Supra 14a.
(10) For then, as soon as he reaches a point opposite the door of the ulam he is 'before the Lord'. As the door of the ulam was five cubits wider than that of the hekal on both sides (i.e., ten wider in all), five cubits can be deducted from the preceding calculation.
(11) For then there will be sixteen cubits in the south. The figure eleven is arrived at by deducting the five of the door from these sixteen.
(12) Deducting a further five cubits (cf. n. 5.) from the eleven.
(13) I.e., it would carry it beyond the line of the door. Thus we have a Mishnah in support of R. Johanan's statement regarding R. Jose.
(14) To refute this proof.
(15) I.e., half in the north and half in the south.
(16) Why insist that the author is R. Judah?
(17) Whilst we do not know R. Jose's opinion.
(18) Ex. XL, 7.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 59a

the altar of burnt-offering [before the door of the tabernacle of the tent of meeting].1 [it follows that] the altar was at the door of the tent of meeting, while the laver was not at the door of the tent of meeting. Where then was it [the laver] placed? Between the ulam and the altar, slightly toward the south. Now what does he hold? If he holds that the whole altar stood in the south, let it be placed southward from the wall of the hekal, [for that would be] between the ulam and the altar? And even if he holds that the sanctity of the ulam and that of the hekal are one, let it be placed southward from the wall of the ulam, [for that would still be as] between the ulam and the altar? Or if he holds that half was in the north and half in the south, let it be placed southward from the wall of the hekal, between the ulam and the altar? And even if he holds that the sanctity of the ulam and that of the hekal are one, let it be placed southward from the wall of the ulam, this being between the ulam and the altar? Hence it must surely be that he2 holds that the whole altar stood in the north. Then let it be placed between the altar and the hekal northward? - He holds that the sanctity of the hekal and ulam is identical.3 Then let it be placed northward from the wall of the ulam, when it would be between the ulam and the altar? - Scripture saith, northward, which means that the north must be free from vessels.4

Which Tanna disagrees with R. Jose the Galilean?5 - R. Eleazar b. Jacob. For it was taught: R. Eleazar b. Jacob said: 'Northward' [intimates] that the north must be free from everything, even from the altar:

Rab said, If the altar was damaged, all sacrifices slaughtered there are unfit. We have a text to this effect, but have forgotten it. When R. Kahana went up,6 he found R. Simeon b. Rabbi teaching in R. Ishmael b. R. Jose's name: How do we know that all the sacrifices slaughtered at a damaged altar are unfit? Because it is said, And thou shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings and thy peace-offerings:7 now, do you then sacrifice on it?8 Rather, [it means:] when it is whole, and not when it is defective. Said he: That is the text which eluded Rab. But R. Johanan maintained: In both cases they are unfit.9 Wherein do they disagree? - Rab holds: Live animals cannot be [permanently] rejected; while R. Johanan holds: Live animals can be [permanently] rejected.10

An objection is raised. All the sacred animals which were before the altar was built,11 and then the altar was built, are unfit.12 [Now before] it was built, they were rejected ab initio?13 - [Say] rather: before it was razed.14 '[Before] it was razed?' But they [the animals] would be too old!15 Rather [it means] [the animals which were consecrated] before the altar was damaged, and then the altar was damaged, are unfit!16 - Now, did you not emend it? Then read, which were slaughtered.17 But surely R. Giddal said in Rab's name: If the altar was removed [from its place], the incense was burnt on its [the altar's] site?18 - Even as Raba said, R. Judah agrees in respect of the blood,19 so here too. Rab agrees in respect of the blood.20

What [statement of] R. Judah [is referred to]? - It was taught: The same day did the king hallow the middle of the court that was before the house of the Lord . . . because the brazen altar that was before the Lord was too little to receive the burnt-offering, and the meal-offering and the fat of the peace-offerings:21 this is meant literally:22 these are the words of R. Judah. Said R. Jose to him:

____________________
(1) Ibid. 6.
(2) R. Jose the Galilean.
(3) So Rashi. The reading varies in different texts, v. Sh. M.
(4) And the laver is a vessel.
(5) Maintaining that the whole of it was in the south.
(6) To Eretz Israel.
(7) Ex. XX, 21.
(8) Surely not. The sacrifice was slaughtered at the side of the altar.
(9) All animals in a state of consecration while the altar was damaged are unfit, whether slaughtered while it was actually damaged, or after it was repaired.
(10) V. supra 12a. When the altar became damaged these animals were rejected, since they could not be sacrificed then. The controversy is whether this rejection is permanent or not.
(11) The altar in the second Temple.
(12) I.e., if they were consecrated before the altar was actually built.
(13) At the very moment that they were consecrated they were unfit, since there was as yet no altar, and in this case there is a view that the animals do not become permanently rejected, v. Kid. 7a.
(14) I.e., the animals consecrated before the altar in the first Temple was destroyed might not be offered when that in the second was built.
(15) By the time that that in the second was built.
(16) Even if slaughtered after it is repaired. This contradicts Rab who declares fit sacrifices offered after the altar had been repaired.
(17) Since you must emend the text in any case, emend it to: all the animals which were slaughtered while the altar was damaged.
(18) This refers to the inner altar, and it is assumed that the same applies to the outer altar. When it is removed it is as damaged, and so Rab is self-contradictory.
(19) The sprinkling of the blood requires an altar.
(20) His ruling applies only to incense, but he agrees that the blood must be sprinkled on a whole altar.
(21) I Kings VIII, 64.
(22) Lit., 'the words are as written'. - I.e., Solomon sanctified the whole of the pavement to serve as an altar, to permit the burning of the limbs, etc., upon it.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 59b

But surely it is said, A thousand burnt-offerings did Solomon offer upon that altar,1 while of the Eternal House2 it is said, And Solomon offered for the sacrifice of peace-offerings, which he offered unto the Lord, two and twenty thousand oxen,3 and when you calculate the number of burnt-offerings and the number of cubits, the latter was larger than the former?4 Rather, what does 'was too little to receive' mean? As one says to his neighbours. 'So-and-so is a dwarf', when he is unfit for [sacrificial] service.5 But R. Jose says well to R. Judah?6 - R. Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintained that the altar made by Moses was large. For it was taught: [And thou shalt make the altar of acacia wood.] five cubits long, and five cubits broad; [the altar shall be square]:7 this is meant literally: these are the words of R. Jose. R. Judah said: 'Square' is stated here, and 'square' is stated elsewhere:8 as there it was measured from the centre, so here it was measured from the centre. And how do we know [that it was so] there? - Because it is written, And the hearth9 shall be twelve cubits long by twelve cubits broad, square. You might think that it was only twelve cubits square; when, however, it says, to10 the four sides thereof, it teaches that the measurement was taken from the middle.11 And R. Jose?12 - The gezerah shawah refers to the height [of the altar]. For it was taught: And the height thereof shall be three cubits:13 this is meant literally: these are the words of R. Judah. R. Jose said: 'Square' is stated here, and 'square' is stated elsewhere:14 as there its height was twice its length, so here too [its height was] twice its length.15 Said R. Judah to him: Is it possible that the priest stood on the altar, performing the service, whilst all the people saw him from without?16 Said R. Jose to him: But surely it is stated, And the hangings of the court, and the screen for the door of the gate of the court, which is by the tabernacle and by the altar roundabout,17 [which teaches that] as the tabernacle was ten cubits [high], so was the altar ten cubits [high]; and it says. The hangings for the one side were fifteen cubits.18

____________________
(1) Ibid. III, 4. The altar referred to is the brazen one made in the days of Moses (cf. II Chron. I, 6).
(2) The Temple.
(3) Ibid. VIII, 63.
(4) Moses' altar was five cubits square. From these a cubit must be deducted on all sides for the horns, and a further cubit on all sides for the terrace where the priests walked. This left only one cubit square for the actual burning. Whereas in Solomon's altar the actual place for burning was twenty cubits square, according to R. Jose, which means four hundred times as large. If then the smaller altar could cope with a thousand animals, this larger one was surely more than enough for the number offered that day. Hence 'was too little to receive' etc. cannot be meant literally.
(5) I.e., instead of saying directly that for some reason he is unfit, he uses a euphemism and calls him a dwarf. Similarly here, the altar had become unfit for service, and that is delicately stated by saying that it was too small.
(6) His argument is sound. How then does R. Judah rebut it?
(7) Ex. XXVII. 1.
(8) Ezek. XLIII, 16, q.v. It is quoted in the text.
(9) I.e., the actual portion of the altar for burning.
(10) Lit. translation, not in as E.V.
(11) Interpreting 'to' as intimating that from one particular point there were twelve cubits in all directions, hence from the centre. Accordingly, Moses' altar was ten cubits square, not five, and when the two cubits on all sides are deducted (v. n. 11, p. 296) it was still six as against Solomon's twenty cubits square. The latter therefore would not be large enough for the extra work it had to do.
(12) How does he rebut this reasoning?
(13) Ex. ibid.
(14) In reference to the golden altar, Ex. XXX, 2: a cubit shall be the length thereof, and a cubit the breadth thereof; square shall it be; and two cubits shall be the height thereof.
(15) Hence, ten cubits.
(16) As would be the case if the altar were ten cubits high; this would not be seemly. - The text is emended in accordance with the Yalkut.
(17) Num. IV, 26.
(18) Ex. XXXVIII, 14. Rashi: it is now understood that they were fifteen cubits in height. Tosaf. objects that the whole context refers to the width, and accordingly emends: 'and the hangings were fifteen cubits,' omitting 'and it says' and 'for one side', this being a statement by R. Jose on their height, not a Biblical quotation.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 60a

What then is the meaning of 'And the height five cubits'?1 From the [upper] edge of the altar to the top [of the hangings]. And what does 'and the height thereof shall be three cubits' mean? From the edge of the terrace to the top [of the altar]. And R. Judah?2 - He relates the gezerah shawah to the breadth. Now according to R. Judah, surely the priest could be seen? - Granted that the priest could be seen, the service [sacrifice] in his hand could not be seen.

As for R. Judah. it is well: hence it is written, [did the king] hallow.3 But according to R. Jose, what is the meaning of 'did hallow [the middle of the court]?'4 - [He hallowed it] to set up the altar therein.5

As for R. Jose, it is well: hence it is written, '[was] little'.6 But according to R. Judah, what is meant by 'little'?7 - This is what it means: The altar of stones which Solomon made instead of the brazen altar was too small.

Wherein do they differ?8 - One master holds: You learn without from without,9 but you do not learn without from within.10 While the other master holds: You learn a utensil from a utensil, but you do not learn a vessel from an edifice.11

Raba said: R. Judah admits in respect of the blood.12 For it was taught. R. Judah said: He used to fill a goblet with the mingled blood, so that should the blood of one of them be spilt, it is found that this renders it fit.13 But if you think that R. Judah holds that the whole of the Temple court was sanctified,14 the precept has been already performed.15 - [No:] perhaps that is because he holds that we require pouring out with man's force?16 - If so, let us take it and pour it out in its place.17 [No:] perhaps [that cannot be done] because he holds that the precept must be performed in the most fitting way.18

R. Eleazar said: If the altar was damaged, you cannot eat the remainder of the meal-offering on account of it, because it is said, And eat it without leaven beside the altar.19 Now did they eat it then beside the altar?20 Rather [it means]: when it is whole, and not when it is damaged.

We have found [it true of] the residue of the meal-offering. How do we know [it of] sacrifices of higher sanctity? - The implication of 'holy' [kodesh] is learnt by a gezerah shawah.21 Whence do we know [it of] sacrifices of lesser sanctity? - Said Abaye: It is derived by R. Jose's exegesis. For it was taught: R. Jose stated three laws on the authority of

____________________
(1) Ibid. XXVII, 18.
(2) How does he rebut this?
(3) He hallowed the pavement to serve as an altar.
(4) In which respect did he hallow it?
(5) For this purpose itself the pavement had to be hallowed.
(6) Not, 'was too little', as E.V. R. Jose understands the verse (I Kings VIII, 64) to mean that Solomon set up an altar of stones, because the brazen altar was unfit, and euphemistically called 'small'.
(7) Since according to him even the stone altar was not large enough, why state that 'the brazen altar . . . was too little'?
(8) Sc. R. Jose who learns the gezerah shawah of 'square' from the golden altar, and R. Judah who learns it from Ezekiel.
(9) The brazen altar and the Temple court were both 'without', i.e., not in the inner sanctum.
(10) Viz., from the golden altar, which was in the inner sanctum.
(11) Both the brazen altar and the golden altar were technically utensils, whereas Ezekiel's stone altar was a constructed edifice.
(12) That the blood could not be sprinkled on the pavement. He sanctified the pavement only in respect of the burning of the fats and the limbs.
(13) V. supra 34b.
(14) Even for the sprinkling of the blood.
(15) The very act of spilling constitutes sprinkling.
(16) I.e., intentionally done, and not accidentally spilt.
(17) As soon as the blood is received in a vessel, let it be poured out there and then.
(18) Which is to sprinkle the blood actually on the altar. Yet possibly, if he did intentionally pour it out on the ground, the rite would be valid.
(19) Lev. X, 12.
(20) It might be eaten anywhere in the Temple court.
(21) Lit., we learn 'holy', 'holy' (Emended text-Sh. M.). - The present text states, for it is most holy, and so the same law is applied to sacrifices of higher sanctity, which are likewise so designated. e.g.. Lev. VI. 18.

Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 60b

three elders, and the following is one of them: R. Ishmael said: You might think that a man can take up second tithe1 to Jerusalem and consume it2 there now-a-days.3 and that would be logical: a firstling must be brought to the 'Place' ,4 and tithe must be brought to the 'Place': as [the law of] firstling operates only whilst the Temple stands, so [the law of] tithe is valid only whilst the Temple stands. [No:] as for a firstling, the reason is because its blood and emurim must be presented at the altar!5 Let first-fruits prove it.6 As for first-fruits, the reason is because they must be placed [before the altar]!7 Therefore it states, And thither shall ye bring your burnt-offerings. and your tithes . . . and the firstlings of your herd and of your flock:8 this assimilates tithe to firstling: as [the law of] firstling is valid only whilst the Temple stands, so is tithe valid only whilst the Temple stands. Yet let us revert to the argument and learn it from the common characteristic?9 - Because that can be refuted: the feature common to both is that each is connected with the altar.10

What does he hold?11 If he holds that the first sanctity hallowed it for the nonce and for the future.12 then even a firstling too [is thus]?13 While if he holds that it did not hallow it for the future, there should be a question even about a firstling too? - Said Rabina: In truth he holds that it did not hallow it [for all time], but here we discuss a firstling whose blood was sprinkled before the Temple was destroyed, then the Temple was destroyed, and we still have its flesh.14 Now its flesh is likened to its blood:15 as its blood requires the altar, so does its flesh require the altar.16 Then tithe comes and is learnt from a firstling.17 But can then that which is derived by a hekkesh teach in turn by a hekkesh? - The tithe of corn is merely hullin. That is well on the view that the taught is the determining factor; but on the view that the teacher is the determining factor, what can be said?18 - Blood and flesh are the same thing.19

When Rabin went up,20 he reported this teaching21 in R. Jeremiah's presence, whereupon he observed: The Babylonians are fools. Because they dwell in a land of darkness22 they engage in dark discussions.23 Have they not heard what was taught: During the dismantling [of the Tabernacle] on their travels,24 sacrifices became unfit,25 and zabin and lepers were sent out of their precincts.26 Whereas another [Baraitha] taught: Sacrifices might be eaten in two places.27 Surely then, the former refers to sacrifices of higher sanctity, and the latter to sacrifices of lesser sanctity?28 - Said Rabina: Both refer to sacrifices of lesser sanctity, yet there is no difficulty:

____________________
(1) V. p. 246, n. 3.
(2) Instead of redeeming it.
(3) I.e., after the destruction of the Temple. - He holds that the sanctity of Eretz Israel was not annulled thereby, and so one must still set aside tithes.
(4) The 'Place' par excellence - Jerusalem.
(5) Hence the law does not operate without a Temple and altar. But that would not apply to tithe.
(6) Which were brought only whilst the Temple stood, as it says, And he shall set it down before the altar of the Lord thy God (Deut. XXVI, 4) which implies that there must be an altar, though there was no blood or emurim to be presented thereat
(7) Hence at this stage there are no grounds for supposing that the law of tithe is valid only when the Temple is standing.
(8) Deut. XII, 6.
(9) Why is the foregoing hekkesh necessary? Though it cannot be learnt from either firstling or first-fruits, it could be learnt from their common feature, which is that both must be brought to Jerusalem and both are in force only as long as the Temple stands. Hence the same applies to second tithe, which shows this feature.
(10) The blood and emurim of a firstling must be presented at the altar, and first-fruits must be placed before the altar. But tithe is not connected with the altar in any way.
(11) When he assumes that the law is certain and obvious in respect of firstling, but not in respect of tithe.
(12) I.e., that the sanctity of the Temple was for all time, even after its destruction.
(13) Rashi: even a firstling should be brought to Jerusalem and eaten there, for on the view that its sanctity was for all time it was to be offered even after the Temple's destruction.
(14) Which no longer needs the altar; nevertheless it may not be eaten.
(15) Num. XVIII, 17f: Thou shalt dash their blood against the altar, and shalt make their fat smoke for an offering made by fire...and the flesh of them shall be thine. These, being written together, are assimilated to one another.
(16) In the sense that it may not be eaten when there is no longer an altar.
(17) That the same applies to it.
(18) For notes v. supra 45a.
(19) They are both parts of the same offering . Hence, when we say that the flesh requires the altar, just as the blood, this is not regarded as the result of a hekkesh, but as though the Biblical teaching concerning the blood naturally refers to the flesh too.
(20) To Palestine. Rabin and R. Dimi were two Rabbis who travelled backwards and forwards between Palestine and Babylon, acting as intellectual links between the academies of both.
(21) Viz., Abaye's statement that sacrifices become unfit through the altar being damaged, and its inference by R. Jose's exegesis.
(22) Babylonia is possibly so called on account of the Parsees (fireworshippers), who forbade the Jews to have any light in their dwellings on their (the Parsees') festivals.
(23) They discuss laws without knowing their true meaning or derive them incorrectly.
(24) When the Tabernacle was dismantled and taken apart, which was when the Israelites were actually travelling.
(25) The flesh of sacrifices of higher sanctity might not be eaten, even if their blood had been sprinkled before the dismantling.
(26) The precincts which were permitted to them whilst the Israelites were encamped. Thus zabin were sent out of the Levitical camp, and lepers out of the camp of the Israelites (v. p. 276. n. 6).
(27) (i) Within their normally permitted boundaries, when the Tabernacle was up; and (ii) in any place, when they were actually travelling. This contradicts the former teaching.
(28) The latter may be eaten even when the Tabernacle is dismantled. At that time there would be no altar either, and that is certainly no better than when the altar stands but is damaged. This proves that sacrifices of lesser sanctity may be eaten when the altar is damaged, and thus contradicts Abaye Therefore R. Jeremiah called Abaye's teaching 'dark', i.e., incorrect.

 

Next

 


2009 JCR