Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 61a
The former agrees with R. Ishmael,1 the latter with the Rabbis.2 Alternatively, both treat of sacrifices of higher sanctity; but what does 'in two places' mean? Before the Levites set up the Tabernacle
(1) Who assimilates the flesh to the blood; hence it may not be eaten.
(2) Who do not assimilate the flesh to the blood.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 61b
and after the Levites dismantled the Tabernacle.1 You might argue that [in the latter case the flesh] became unfit through having gone out [of bounds].2 Therefore he informs us [otherwise]. Yet say that that is indeed so? - Scripture saith, Then the tent of meeting shall set forward:3 even when it has set forward4 it is 'the tent of meeting.'5
R. Hisda6 said in Rab's name: The altar at Shiloh was of stones. For it was taught. R. Eleazar b. Jacob said: Why is 'stones' stated three times?7 One refers to that of Shiloh, another to that of Nob and Gibeon, and the third to that of the Eternal House.8 R. Aha b. Ammi raised an objection: The fire which descended from heaven in the days of Moses9 did not depart from the brazen altar until the days of Solomon.10 And the fire which descended in the days of Solomon11 did not depart until Manasseh came and removed it. Now if this is correct,12 it should have departed earlier?13 - He [R. Hisda in Rab's name] made his statement in accordance with R. Nathan. For it was taught, R. Nathan said: The altar at Shiloh was of brass; it was hollow, and filled with stones.14 R. Nahman b. Isaac said: What does 'it did not depart' mean? It did not depart [disappear] into nothingness.15 How was it? - The Rabbis said: It sent forth sparks.16 R. Papa said: It took up its abode now here, now there.
We learnt elsewhere: And when the Children of the Exile went up [to Eretz Israel],17 they added thereto18 four cubits on the south and four cubits on the west, like a [Greek] gamma.19 What is the reason? - Said R. Joseph: Because it [the first] was not sufficient. Said Abaye to him: If it was sufficient for the first Temple, when it is written, Judah and Israel were many, as the sand which is by the sea [shore] in multitude;20 would it be insufficient for the second Temple. whereof it is written, The whole congregation together was forty and two thousand [etc.]?21 - There [in the first Temple] the heavenly fire assisted them;22 here [in the second Temple] it did not assist them.
When Rabin came [from Palestine], he said in the name of R. Simeon b. Pazzi: They added the pits [to its structure].23 At first they had thought that an 'altar of earth' meant that it was to be closed in with earth.24 But subsequently they held that drinking must be like eating.25 and what does 'an altar of earth' mean? that it should be attached to the earth, not built on rocks
(1) 'Before the Levites set up the Tabernacle' cannot be understood literally, but means whilst the Tabernacle was standing, this phrase merely being used in contrast to the second half. Thus the two places are: (i) within the normal precincts of the Tabernacle (within the 'hangings' - v. p. 266, n. 6) whilst it stood; and (ii) likewise within the normal precincts, but after the Tabernacle had been dismantled. The altar, however, was still standing.
(2) I.e. when the Tabernacle is dismantled, and the hangings are no longer there, the flesh should be regarded as having gone out of bounds, and so disqualified.
(3) Num. II, 17.
(4) Hence dismantled.
(5) It still retains its sanctity, in the sense that the flesh is not regarded as having gone out of bounds.
(6) Emended text (Sh. M). Cur. edd. Huna.
(7) Ex. XX, 22: And if thou make Me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stones; Deut XXVII, 5-6: And there shalt thou build . . . an altar of stones . . . Thou shalt build the altar of the Lord thy God of unhewn stones.
(8) The Temple at Jerusalem.
(9) V. Lev. IX, 24.
(10) Rashi: A pot was placed over it when they travelled, and the fire remained in its place. When Solomon built the Temple, this fire left the brazen altar and moved to the stone altar in the Temple.
(11) This same fire.
(12) That the altar at Shiloh was of stone.
(13) As soon as the stone altar was built at Shiloh, the fire should have departed from Moses' brazen altar.
(14) The answer is not clear. Presumably it means that it was Moses' brazen altar except that the hollow was filled with stones instead of earth.
(15) Lit., 'in vain,' 'for no purpose.' Until Solomon built the Temple the fire did not completely depart from Moses' altar which was still in existence, for though it did move to the altar at Shiloh, some of it nevertheless remained on that of Moses.
(16) When the fat, etc., was burnt on the stone altar, sparks and flames shot out from the heavenly fire on the brazen altar, which was there too, on to the stone altar.
(17) I.e., when the Jews returned from Babylon.
(18) To the altar.
(19) The altar in the first Temple was twenty-eight cubits square overall, whilst that of the second Temple was thirty-two cubits. The addition would thus be a strip four cubits broad in triangular shape, like a Greek gamma thus:
(20) I Kings IV, 20. The bracketed word 'shore', not in the M.T., is found in some old Hebrew MSS.
(21) Ezra II, 64.
(22) To burn the sacrifices quickly.
(23) In Solomon's Temple there was a pit near the south-west of the altar, into which the altar libations were directly poured. But in the second Temple the altar was extended on the south and the west, so that the place of the pit was incorporated in it, and over against this extension on top of the altar they made holes for the libations to flow' into the pit below.
(24) Not hollow or perforated in any way.
(25) As 'eating' (the consumption of the flesh) was on top of the altar itself, so must 'drinking' (the libations) be on top of the altar itself.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 62a
or over cellars.1
R. Joseph said: Is that not which was taught: And they set the altar upon its bases,2 [which means] that they attained to its final measurements?3 But surely it is written, And all this [do I give thee] in writing, as the Lord hath made me wise by His hand upon me, even all works of this pattern?4 Rather said R. Joseph: They found a text and interpreted it:5 Then David said: This is the house of the Lord God, and this is the altar of burnt-offering for Israel:6 [this intimated that the altar was] like the house: as the house was sixty cubits [in length], so were there sixty cubits for the altar.7
As for the Temple, it is well, for its outline was distinguishable;8 but how did they know [the site of] the altar? - Said R. Eleazar: They saw [in a vision] the altar built, and Michael the great prince standing and offering upon it. While R. Isaac Nappaha9 said: They saw Isaac's ashes lying in that place.10 R. Samuel b. Nahman said: From [the site of] the whole House they smelt the odour of incense, while from there [the site of the altar] they smelt the odour of limbs.
Rabbah b. Hanah said in R. Johanan's name: Three prophets11 went up with them from the Exile: one testified to them about [the dimensions of] the altar; another testified to them about the site of the altar; and the third testified to them that they could sacrifice even though there was no Temple.12 In a Baraitha it was taught, R. Eleazar b. Jacob said: Three prophets went up with them from the Exile: one who testified to them about [the dimensions of] the altar and the site of the altar; another who testified to them that they could sacrifice even though there was no Temple; and a third who testified to them that the Torah should be written in Assyrian characters.13
Our Rabbis taught: The horn, the ascent, the base and squareness are indispensable; the measurements of its length, breadth and height are not indispensable. How do we know it? - Said R. Huna, Scripture saith, 'The altar', and wherever 'the altar' is said it is indispensable.14 If so, are the laver, according to Rabbi, and the terrace, according to R. Jose son of R. Judah, also indispensable, because it is written, And thou shalt put it under the karkob [ledge] round the altar beneath,15 and it was taught: What was the karkob? Rabbi said: It was the laver; R. Jose son of R. Judah said: It was the terrace!16 - Yes [it is indeed so], for it was taught: On that day17 the horn of the altar was damaged, and they brought a lump of salt and stopped it up. Not because it was [now] fit for service, but that it should not appear damaged, for every altar which lacks18 a horn, ascent, base and squareness is invalid. R. Jose son of R. Judah said: The same applies to the terrace.
Our Rabbis taught: What was the karkob? [A strip] between one horn and another horn a cubit [in breadth], where the priests walked. Did then the priests walk between one horn and another? - Rather say: and there was [a strip of] a cubit where the priests walked.19 But it is written, Under the karkob round it beneath, reaching halfway up!20 - Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: There were two, one for ornamental purposes, and the other for the priests, that they should not slip.21
'The measurements of its length, breadth, and height are not indispensable.' Said R. Mani: provided that it is not smaller than the altar made by Moses. And how much is that? - Said R. Joseph: One cubit [square]. They ridiculed him: [quoting the text, And thou shalt make the altar . . . ] five cubits long, and five cubits broad!22 Said Abaye to him: perhaps the master meant the place of the pile?23 - The master [sc. yourself], who is a great man, knows what I meant, he replied. Then he dubbed them24
(1) But that did not exclude the possibility of its being hollow.
(2) Ezra III, 3.
(3) R. Joseph had once fallen sick, and on his recovery it was found that he had forgotten many of his earlier teachings and traditions. Here he states that his assertion that because the heavenly fire helped them a larger altar was unnecessary was incorrect, the real reason being as he proceeds to explain. - 'They attained its final measurements' means that it was revealed to the builders of the second altar (the 'Men of the Great Assembly') exactly which site was sacred for the altar, this knowledge having been withheld from Solomon when he built the first altar.
(4) I Chron. XXVIII, 19. 'All this' refers to the plans of the first Temple with all its appurtenances. Thus it had all been divinely revealed to Solomon too, which contradicts the former statement.
(5) The Men of the Great Assembly were guided by a text in their decision to enlarge the altar.
(6) Ibid. XXII, 1.
(7) An area of sixty cubits square was sacred for the altar, and they might build it anywhere within that. Nevertheless, they did not need it so large, and therefore they enlarged it merely according to their requirements.
(8) They could easily ascertain, from a study of the ruins, what had been sanctified for each part of the Temple.
(9) Or, the smith.
(10) According to legend Isaac was bound, and the substitute ram sacrificed, on the very site of the altar, and the ashes were still there.
(11) Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.
(12) Because the sanctity of the Temple had hallowed the spot for all time.
(13) I.e., the square form of Hebrew now in use. V. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 119. notes.
(14) The def. art. implies that only when it is exactly as specified (in the place where the def. art. is used) is it an altar. The horns: the horns of the altar (Lev. IV, 18); the base: the base of the altar (ibid. 30); squareness: the altar shall be four square (Ex. XXVII, 1); the ascent: in front of the altar (Lev. VI, 7)' 'in front' being the ascent to the altar.
(15) Ex. XXVII, 5.
(16) Thus 'the altar' is written in connection with these.
(17) When 'a certain man' poured out the water of libation over his feet; v. Suk. 48b.
(18) This includes the case where they are damaged.
(19) There was a kind of trench between the ma'arakah, i.e., the place on the altar where the sacrifices etc. were burnt, and the edge of the altar. This trench was two cubits wide, including one cubit between the horns and one cubit where the priests walked (Rashi, as emended by Sh. M.).
(20) Ibid. XXXVIII, 4. Scripture states that the network grating around the sides of the altar was under the karkob. This implies that the karkob was on the wall of the altar; for if it was on the top surface, a grating on the sides could not be described as under it.
(21) There was an ornamental ledge on the side of the altar, and a trench on the top, to provide a firm foothold for the priests.
(22) Ex. XXVII, 1.
(23) Where the sacrifice was burnt. For of the five cubits two cubits had to be deducted on all sides for the strip between the horns and the pathway for the priests, leaving an area of one cubit square for the place of the pile.
(24) Who had ridiculed him.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 62b
'the children of Keturah'.1
The sons of R. Tarfon's sister were sitting before R. Tarfon.2 Thereupon he quoted: And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Johani.3 Said they to him: 'Keturah' is written. Then he dubbed them 'the children of Keturah'.4
R. Abin5 b. Huna said in R. Hama b. Guria's name: The logs which Moses made6 were a cubit long and a cubit broad, and their thickness was that of the instrument for levelling off the top of a se'ah.7 R. Jeremiah observed: [It was measured] with a stumped cubit.8 Said R. Joseph: Is not that which was taught: Upon the wood that is on the fire which is upon the altar:9 [this intimates] that the wood must not project at all beyond the altar?10
We learnt elsewhere: There was an ascent at the south [side] of the altar, thirty-two [cubits] in length by sixteen cubits in breadth. Whence do we know it?11 - Said R. Huna: Scripture saith, And he shall kill it on the side of the altar northward;12 [this intimates] that the side must be in the north and the front in the south.13 Yet say: the side in the north and the face in the north?14 - Said Raba: Throw a man on his face.15 Said Abaye to him: On the contrary, let the man sit upright? - It is written, [The altar shall be] rabua'.16 But surely that is required [to teach] that it must be square? - Is then meruba' written?17 And on your reasoning, is then rabuz written?18 Rather, rabua' is written, which implies both,19
Now, a Tanna infers it from the following. For it was taught. R. Judah said: And the steps thereof shall look toward the east:20 every turning which you take must be rightward to the east.21 Yet say: must be leftward to the east?22 - You cannot think so. For Rami b. Ezekiel recited: The sea which Solomon made 'stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east:23 [this teaches that] every turning which you take must be to the right, eastward.24 But that is required for its own purpose25 - If so, why must 'looking toward' be repeated?26
R. Simeon b. Jose b. Lakunia asked R. Jose: Did R. Simeon b. Yohai maintain that there was a space between the ascent and the altar?27 - And do you not maintain so? he replied. Surely it is said, And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood:28 [this intimates that] just as the blood requires throwing,29 so does the flesh require throwing?30 I assert that he stood at the side of the place of the pile and threw it, he answered.31 Said he to him: When he threw, did he throw on to a burning pile or on to a pile that was not burning? Surely on to a burning pile, and there it would be impossible [to do otherwise].32 R. Papa said: [It must be] like the blood. Just as [in the case of the] blood, the air-space above the pavement interposed, so [in the case of the] flesh, the air-space above the pavement interposed.33
Rab Judah said: Two small stairways branched off from the [major] ascent, by which one turned to the base and to the terrace. and these were separated from the altar by a hairsbreadth, because 'round about' is said.34 Whilst R. Abbahu quoted rabua'[foursquare].35 Now, both 'round about' and 'rabua'' must be written. For if the Divine Law wrote 'round about' [only].I would say that it can be circular; therefore the Divine Law wrote rabua'. Whilst if the Divine Law wrote rabua' [only], I would say that it could be long and narrow;36 hence the Divine Law wrote 'round about'.37
We learnt elsewhere: The ascent and the altar were sixty-two [cubits]. But they were sixty four?38 - Hence it is found that it overhung a cubit of the base and a cubit of the balcony.39
(1) Gen. XXV, 4. You are indeed Abraham's descendants, but not his true Jewish descendants through Isaac and Jacob.
(2) In silence. So he misquoted a verse in order to evoke a comment.
(3) Ibid. I. The last word of course is wrong.
(4) Rashi: ignoramuses, who could not discuss halachah.
(5) Emended text (Sh. M.). Cur, edd. Abaye.
(6) Two logs were placed on the altar fire pile for the morning tamid (q.v. Glos.) and the evening tamid; v. Yoma 26b.
(7) A se'ah was a measure. In buying and selling corn this measure was filled, and the top or pile was levelled down by a stick, called a 'strike'. - Sh. M. observes that as the place of the pile itself on Moses' altar was only one cubit square, these logs must have been stood endways upon it, with wood chips between to assist the fire to catch on.
(8) I.e., rather shorter than a cubit. 'Aruch reads gerumah instead of gedumah, which reverses the meaning: with a generous cubit, i.e., slightly more than a cubit. This makes the difficulty that follows more plausible.
(9) Lev.I, 8.
(10) I.e. beyond the place of the pile. Rashi: why then must it be a stumped cubit; it could be exactly a cubit? Tosaf. and Sh. M.: how then can it be a 'generous' cubit? - The objection remains unanswered.
(11) That it had to be on the south side.
(12) Ibid. 11.
(13) Yerek, translated 'side' literally means 'thigh', hence the legs. Thus the altar must be like a man lying with his legs stretched northward and his face in the south. The side of the altar having this ascent would naturally be the front.
(14) Like a man sitting upright.
(15) It must be like a man lying face downward-hence the face in the opposite direction to the legs.
(16) E.V. 'foursquare'. Ex. XXVII, 1. He connects rabua' with raba', to lie down, and interprets: the altar shall be like a man lying down.
(17) Which definitely means square and nothing else.
(18) Which equally means lying down and nothing else.
(19) Square and lying down.
(20) Ezek. XLIII, 17.
(21) The text refers to the altar, and is interpreted to mean that the altar must be so constructed that when the priest, standing by the altar, has to turn round the side, he will turn right, and go eastward. That is possible only if the ascent is at the south.
(22) Which would necessitate the ascent on the north.
(23) II. Chron. IV, 4.
(24) Since the order here is first north and then west, and when a man is facing the north, he must turn right in order to go to the west.
(25) To describe the position of the oxen.
(26) In each case. The word literally means 'turning toward', and the repetition is interpreted as in the text.
(27) The ascent did not come right up to the altar, but left a gap between.
(28) Deut. XII, 27.
(29) I.e., dashing against the altar.
(30) On to the altar. Consequently, a priest standing at the top of the ascent could not place the flesh on the altar, but had to throw it, which implies that there was a gap.
(31) This would not necessitate a gap.
(32) Since the wood was burning, the priest obviously could not go right up to it, but had to stand at a distance and throw it. But in that case, since it was impossible to do otherwise, no text would be required. Hence the text must teach that there was a gap between the ascent and the altar, not that there was one between the priest and the pile.
(33) Which would not be the case if he stood at the side of the pile.
(34) Which implies that it must be possible to encompass the altar itself, even if only by drawing a thread about it. But if the ascent actually joined the altar, this could not be done.
(35) Which likewise implies that the altar stood, unattached, as a square edifice.
(36) I.e., I could translate rabua'= rectangular, but not necessarily square.
(37) Implying that all its sides must be equal.
(38) Since each was thirty-two.
(39) Cf. supra 54a.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 63a
Rami b. Hama said: All the ascents had a gradient of one cubit in three,1 except the ascent of the altar, which [rose one cubit] in three and a half cubits and a finger and a third, counting the little fingers.2 MISHNAH. THE FISTFULS OF MEAL-OFFERINGS WERE TAKEN IN ANY PART OF THE TEMPLE COURT, AND THEY [THE MEAL-OFFERINGS] WERE EATEN WITHIN THE HANGINGS, BY MALE PRIESTS, PREPARED IN ANY MANNER, ON THE SAME DAY AND NIGHT, UNTIL MIDNIGHT.
GEMARA. R. Eleazar said: If the fistful of a meal-offering was taken in the hekal, it [the ceremony] is valid, for thus we find it in the removal of the censers.3 R. Jeremiah raised an objection: And he shall take thence4 [his fistful]:5 [that means] from the place where the feet of the zar stand.6 Ben Bathyra said: How do we know that if [the priest] took the fistful with his left [hand], he must return [the fistful] and take it with his right [hand]? Because it says, 'thence', [which means,] from the place whence he had already taken a fistful?7 Some state that he [R. Jeremiah] raised the objection, and answered it himself; others state. R. Jacob8 answered R. Jeremiah: Bar Tahlifa has explained it: Its purpose is only to declare the whole of the Temple court fit.9 I might argue: Since a burnt-offering is a most holy sacrifice, and a meal-offering is most holy: as a burnt-offering requires the north, so does a meal-offering require the north. [Therefore the text informs us otherwise.] As for a burnt-offering, the reason is because it is altogether burnt?10 - [Then learn it] from a sin-offering.11 As for a sin-offering, the reason is because it atones for those who are liable to kareth? - [Then learn it] from a guilt-offering. As for a guilt-offering, the reason is because it is a blood sacrifice. And as for all these too, the reason is because they are blood sacrifices?12 - Rather, [the text] is necessary. I might think, since it is written, And he shall bring it unto the altar . . .13 and he shall take up therefrom his fistful:14 as it must be brought near to the south-west horn,15 so must the fistful be taken by the south-west horn. Hence [the text] informs us [that it is not so].
R. Johanan said: If a peace-offering is slaughtered in the hekal, it is fit, because it is said, And he shall kill it at the door of the tent of meeting.16 and the adjunct cannot be stricter than the principal.17 An objection is raised: R. Johanan b. Bathyra said: How do we know that if heathens surrounded the whole of the Temple court,18 the priests enter the hekal and eat there the most holy sacrifices and the remainder of the meal-offering?19 Because it says, In a most holy place20 shalt thou eat thereof.21 Yet why [is this text necessary]? Let us quote, In the court of the tent of meeting shall they eat it,22 and the adjunct cannot be stricter than the principal?23 - How compare: there [that we are dealing with] service, we say, Let the adjunct not be stricter than the principal, since a man can perform a service in the presence of his master. [But as for] eating, since a man cannot eat in the presence of his master.24 we do not say, Let the adjunct not be stricter than the principal.
MISHNAH. THE SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD WAS SACRIFICED25 BY THE SOUTH-WEST HORN. NOW, IT WAS FIT [IF DONE] IN ANY PLACE, BUT THIS WAS ITS [PARTICULAR] PLACE.26 THAT HORN SERVED FOR THREE THINGS BELOW, AND THREE THINGS ABOVE.27 BELOW: FOR THE SIN-OFFERING OF THE BIRD, FOR THE PRESENTING [OF MEAL-OFFERINGS].28 AND FOR THE RESIDUE OF THE BLOOD.29 ABOVE: FOR THE POURING OUT OF WINE AND WATER, AND FOR THE BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD WHEN THE EAST WAS TOO MUCH OCCUPIED.30 ALL WHO ASCENDED THE ALTAR ASCENDED BY THE RIGHT,
(1) They rose one cubit in every three.
(2) Of which six go to a tefah (handbreadth). - As heavy limbs of animals had to be carried up on it, it had an easier gradient, nine cubits in thirty-two, which works out as in the text. (The translation adopts the marginal reading.)
(3) Twelve loaves, called Shewbread, were placed on the Table in the hekal, accompanied by censers of frankincense (v. Lev. XXIV, 5 seq.). When the censers were removed (a week after they were placed there), the Shewbread might be eaten by the priests. Thus the removing of the censers corresponded to the taking of the fistful, which likewise rendered the rest permitted; hence, as the former was done in the hekal, so was the latter valid if done in the hekal.
(4) E.V. thereout, but the Talmud understands the word to bear a local meaning.
(5) Lev. II, 2.
(6) The verse commences: And he (sc. the zar) shall bring it to Aaron's sons the priests; and continues, And he (sc. the priest) shall take thence etc. Hence 'thence' is interpreted, from the place where the zar is standing. This is now assumed to exclude the ulam and the hekal, where a zar might not enter.
(7) Thus it intimates that it is sometimes necessary to take the fistful twice, which is only possible in this case.
(8) Marginal emendation.
(9) 'From the place where the feet of the zar stand' teaches that the whole of the Temple court is fit for the ceremony, and all the more the hekal and the court of the priests, seeing that this was a priestly ceremony.
(10) But a meal-offering is not, and so there is no reason for supposing that it requires the north. What then is the need for a text to teach that it does not?
(11) Which is not altogether burnt, and yet requires the north.
(12) I.e., this reason would suffice apart from the others already stated.
(13) Lev. II, 8.
(14) Ibid. VI, 8.
(15) As is deduced infra.
(16) lbid. III, 2.
(17) Since it must be killed at the door of the tent of meeting, the tent of meeting (corresponding to the hekal) is obviously the principal place for it, while the Temple court is but an adjunct thereto.
(18) Shooting arrows and hurling missiles into it.
(19) Emended text (Sh. M.).
(20) Implying the hekal.
(21) Num. XVIII, 10.
(22) Lev. VI, 9.
(23) By the same argument as above: the 'court' is an adjunct to the 'tent of meeting' (the hekal); if it can be eaten in the former place, it can surely be eaten in the latter.
(24) Eating is for one's own benefit, and it may therefore be disrespectful to do it in the master's (here, God's) presence. - The hekal, being more sacred than the Temple court, is referred to as 'in the Master's presence'.
(25) Lit., 'made', The Mishnah does not say 'slaughtered', as it was not slaughtered but had its neck wrung.
(26) The Gemara discusses what this means,
(27) 'Below' and 'above' refer to the scarlet line which encompassed the altar.
(28) Before their fistfuls were taken they were presented ('brought near') at this horn.
(29) Of the outer sin-offerings. These were sprinkled there.
(30) Its proper place was at the south-east horn, but if many animal burnt-offerings were being sacrificed there, this was offered at the south-west horn, above the line.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 63b
THEN THEY WENT ROUND [THE ALTAR]1 AND DESCENDED BY THE LEFT, EXCEPT FOR THESE THREE, WHO ASCENDED AND DESCENDED BY RETRACING THEIR STEPS.2
GEMARA. Whence do we know it? - Said R. Joshua, Scripture saith: He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon, for it is a sin-offering:3 a sin-offering is designated a meal-offering.4 and a meal-offering is designated a sin-offering: as a sin-offering requires the north, so does a meal-offering require the north;5 and as a meal-offering [is presented] at the south-west horn, so is a [bird] sin-offering [offered] at the south-west horn.6
And how do we know this of the meal-offering itself? - Because it was taught: [The sons of Aaron shall offer it] before the Lord:7 You might think, at the west [of the altar];8 therefore it states, in front of the altar.9 If [it is to be] 'in front of the altar', you might think, in the south; but Scripture says, 'before the Lord'. How then was it done? He presented it at the south-west horn, opposite the edge of the horn, and that is sufficient. R. Eleazar said: You might think that he presents it on the west of the horn or the south of the horn; but you can rebut [this], [for] wherever you find two texts, one confirming itself and the other, whereas the second confirms itself but annuls the other, you abandon the one which confirms itself and annuls the other, and accept that which confirms itself and the other too. Thus, if you say 'before the Lord' [means] in the west, how can you confirm 'in front of the altar'? But when you say, 'in front of the altar', means in the south, you confirm before the Lord as meaning the south10 But how can you confirm this? - Said R. Ashi: This Tanna holds that the whole altar stood in the north.11
NOW. IT WAS FIT [IF DONE] IN ANY PLACE etc. What does this mean?12 - Said R. Ashi, This is what it means: Any place is fit for its melikah, but this was the place for its sprinkling. We have thus learnt here what our Rabbis taught: If he nipped it by any part of the altar, it is valid; if he sprinkled its blood on any part [of the altar], it is valid. (If he sprinkled [the blood] but did not drain it out, it is valid)13 provided that he applies some of the life blood14 below the scarlet line. What does this mean?15 - This is what he means: If he nipped it by any part of the altar, it is valid; if he drained the blood at any part of the altar, it is valid,
(1) For whatever they had to do, e.g., sprinkle the blood or arrange the wood pile.
(2) By the left. V. Suk. 48b.
(3) I.e., they returned the same way as they came. (10) Lev. V, 11. This refers to a sinner's meal-offering brought in extreme poverty instead of a bird sin-offering.
(4) Since the latter can be a substitute for it.
(5) Rashi maintains that the text is faulty, because a bird sin-offering did not require the north, nor did a sinner's meal-offering. He conjectures as an emendation: as a (bird) sin-offering is invalid if offered under a different designation, so is a (sinner's) meal-offering invalid in similar circumstances. R. Hayyim in Tosaf. emends: as the blood of a bird sin-offering must be poured out at the base, so must a sinner's meal-offering be presented at the base.
(6) I.e., its blood is sprinkled there.
(7) Lev. VI, 7. This refers to a meal-offering, and 'before the Lord' means at the altar.
(8) Which faced the hekal, and so might appropriately be described as 'before the Lord'.
(9) Ibid. 'Front' is the south, where the ascent ran.
(10) For variant reading v. Men. 19b.
(11) Hence the south of the altar ended opposite the door leading to the hekal, and so that too would be called 'before the Lord'.
(12) It cannot be meant as it stands, for if it was fit in any place, why insist on a particular spot?
(13) Sh. M. deletes the bracketed passage.
(14) The first blood which gushes forth.
(15) This is apparently self-contradictory, as the first states that it is valid if sprinkled anywhere, and then states that it must be sprinkled below the scarlet line.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 64a
for if he sprinkled but did not drain out, it is valid,1 provided that he applies some of the life blood below the scarlet line.
[THAT HORN SERVED FOR] THREE THINGS etc. FOR THE SIN-OFFERING OF THE BIRD, as we have stated.2 FOR THE PRESENTING: for it is written, And he shall bring it near [i.e., present it] unto the altar.3 FOR THE RESIDUE OF THE BLOOD: for it is written, And all the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out at the base of the altar.4
ABOVE: FOR THE POURING OF THE WINE AND THE WATER, AND FOR THE BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD WHEN THE EAST WAS TOO MUCH OCCUPIED. What is the reason?5 - R. Johanan said: Because it is nearest to the ash deposit.6 R. Johanan said: Come and see how great was the strength of the priests, for no part of birds is lighter than the crop and the feathers, yet sometimes the priest threw them more than thirty cubits.7 For we learnt: He8 took a silver pan [brazier] and ascended to the top of the altar, where he parted the coals to either side, [and] shovelled out some of the inner burnt coals; then he descended and reached the pavement. He turned his face toward the north, proceeded to the east of the ascent, a distance of ten cubits. There he heaped up the coals on the pavement three handbreadths away from the slope, at the site where they placed the crop and the feathers and the ashes of the inner altar and the candlestick.9 But this would be more than thirty-one [cubits]?10 - He does not count the place of the person.11
ALL WHO ASCENDED THE ALTAR etc. What is the reason?12 - Said R. Johanan: In the case of libations,lest they become smoke-laden; and as to the burnt-offering of a bird, lest it perish through the smoke.13 An objection is raised: When he came to make a circuit of the altar,14 whence did he commence? From the south-east horn, [whence he successively passed to] the north-east, north-west, and south-west, and he was handed the wine to pour it out!15 - Said R. Johanan:
(1) Thus it is valid even if he omits the draining altogether. Therefore it is certainly valid when he drains it anywhere by the altar.
(2) Supra 63b.
(3) Lev. II, 8. It was stated supra 63b that this means at the south-west of the altar.
(4) Ibid. IV, 30. It is stated supra 53a and 54a that this applies to the southern base.
(5) This implies that the proper place for the burnt-offering of a bird was the east; what then was the reason for this?
(6) The ashes which were placed every morning by the side of the altar, to the east of the ascent.
(7) When the bird was sacrificed by the south-west horn, he had to throw the crop and the feathers to the ash deposit, more than thirty cubits away. It requires great strength to throw anything that is very light a great distance,
(8) The priest who removed the ashes.
(9) V. Tam. I, 4.
(10) Rashi gives the exact calculation.
(11) That itself is responsible for one cubit.
(12) Why were these different?
(13) Of the burning wood and limbs. Hence the shortest route was taken.
(14) This refers to the High Priest, v. Tam. VII, 3.
(15) On to the altar. It is now assumed that he is given the wine when he commences the circuit, which shews that we are not afraid of the smoke.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 64b
He made the circuit on foot.1 Raba observed: That indeed may be inferred, for it teaches, 'and he was handed the wine to pour it out', but it does not teach,' He was told to pour it out'.2 This proves it.
Our Rabbis taught: All who went up the altar ascended by the right and descended by the left ; they ascended by the east and descended by the west,3 except those who went up for these three things:4 they ascended by the west and descended by the west, ascended by the right and descended by the right. [You say] 'by the right'; it is by the left?5 - Said Rabina: Read 'left'. Raba said: 'Right'6 means the right of the altar, while 'left'7 means the left of the person.8 Then let him teach either both with reference to the altar or both with reference to the person? That is indeed a difficulty.
MISHNAH. HOW WAS THE SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD SACRIFICED?9 HE PINCHED OFF ITS HEAD CLOSE BY ITS NECK, BUT DID NOT SEVER IT, AND HE SPRINKLED ITS BLOOD ON THE WALL OF THE ALTAR; THE RESIDUE OF THE BLOOD WAS DRAINED OUT ON THE BASE. ONLY THE BLOOD BELONGED TO THE ALTAR, WHILE THE WHOLE OF IT BELONGED TO THE PRIESTS.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin-offering:10 [that means] with the body of the sin-offering.11 How is it done? He [the priest] grasps the head and the body [of the bird] and sprinkles [its blood] on the wall of the altar, but not on the wall of the ascent, nor on the wall of the hekal, nor on the wall of the ulam; and which [wall] is meant? The lower wall.12 Yet perhaps it is not so, but rather on the upper wall, and that is indeed logical: if [the blood of] an animal sin-offering is [sprinkled] above, though [that of] an animal burnt-offering is [sprinkled] below: surely [the blood of] a bird sin-offering is [sprinkled] above, seeing that [that of] a bird burnt-offering is [sprinkled] above? Therefore it states, And the rest of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar,13 [which intimates that it must be sprinkled on] a wall where the residue will drain down to the base, and which is that? The lower wall.14 Yet let us [first] perform it above, and then below?15 - Said Raba: Is then yamzeh [he shall drain] written? Surely yimmazeh [shall be drained] is written, which implies of its own accord.16
R. Zutra b. Tobiah said in Rab's name: How is the bird sin-offering pinched off? He grasps its two wings in two fingers, and its two legs in two fingers, stretches its neck over the width of his thumb and pinches it off. In a Baraitha it was taught: The bird is without:17 he holds its wings in two fingers and its two legs with two fingers, stretches its neck over the width of two fingers, and pinches it off; and this was a difficult rite in the Temple. This and no other? Surely there were kemizah and hafinah?18 - Say rather, this was one of the difficult rites in the Temple.
MISHNAH. HOW WAS THE BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD SACRIFICED? - HE [THE PRIEST] ASCENDED THE ASCENT AND TURNED TO THE SURROUNDING BALCONY,19 WHENCE HE MADE HIS WAY TO THE SOUTH-EAST HORN. HE NIPPED ITS HEAD CLOSE BY THE NECK, AND SEVERED IT,20 SAND DRAINED OUT ITS BLOOD ON TO THE WALL OF THE ALTAR. HE TOOK THE HEAD, TURNED THE PART WHERE IT WAS NIPPED TO THE ALTAR,21 DRIED IT WITH SALT,22 AND THREW IT ON TO THE [ALTAR-]FIRE.23 THEN HE CAME TO THE BODY. REMOVED THE CROP, THE FEATHERS,24 AND THE ENTRAILS THAT CAME FORTH WITH IT,25 AND THREW THEM ON TO THE ASH DEPOSITORY. HE RENT [THE BODY], BUT DID NOT SEVER IT, YET IF HE DID SEVER IT, IT IS FIT. THEN HE DRIED IT [THE BODY] WITH SALT, AND THREW IT ON TO THE [ALTAR-] FIRE. IF HE DID NOT REMOVE THE CROP OR THE FEATHERS OR THE ENTRAILS WHICH CAME FORTH WITH IT, AND DID NOT DRY IT WITH SALT, OR MADE ANY OTHER DEVIATION THEREIN AFTER HE HAD DRAINED THE BLOOD OUT, IT IS FIT. IF HE SEVERED THE SIN-OFFERING26 OR DID NOT SEVER THE BURNT-OFFERING, IT IS UNFIT. IF HE DRAINED OUT THE BLOOD OF THE HEAD, BUT NOT THE BLOOD OF THE BODY, IT IS UNFIT; THE BLOOD OF THE BODY, BUT NOT THE BLOOD OF THE HEAD, IT IS FIT. IF HE NIPPED A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD FOR THE SAKE OF SOMETHING ELSE;27 IF HE DRAINED OUT ITS BLOOD FOR THE SAKE OF SOMETHING ELSE, OR FOR ITS OWN SAKE AND FOR THE SAKE OF SOMETHING ELSE,28 OR FOR THE SAKE OF SOMETHING ELSE AND FOR ITS OWN SAKE, IT IS UNFIT. A BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD IS FIT [IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES]. SAVE THAT IT DOES NOT FREE ITS OWNER OF HIS OBLIGATION.29
IF A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD OR A BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD WAS NIPPED OR IF ITS BLOOD WAS DRAINED OUT [WITH THE INTENTION] TO EAT WHAT WAS NORMALLY EATEN OR TO BURN WHAT WAS NORMALLY BURNT WITHOUT BOUNDS, IT IS INVALID, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH; AFTER TIME, IT IS PIGGUL AND INVOLVES KARETH, PROVIDED THAT THE MATTIR WAS OFFERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS. HOW DOES HE OFFER THE MATTIR ACCORDING TO REGULATIONS? IF HE NIPPED IT IN SILENCE AND DRAINED THE BLOOD [WITH AN INTENTION OF] AFTER TIME; OR IF HE NIPPED IT [WITH AN INTENTION OF] AFTER TIME AND DRAINED THE BLOOD IN SILENCE; OR IF HE NIPPED IT AND DRAINED THE BLOOD [WITH AN INTENTION OF] AFTER TIME: IN THESE CASES HE OFFERED THE MATTIR ACCORDING TO REGULATION. HOW DOES HE NOT OFFER THE MATTIR ACCORDING TO REGULATION? IF HE NIPPED IT [WITH AN INTENTION OF] WITHOUT BOUNDS AND DRAINED THE BLOOD [WITH AN INTENTION OF] WITHOUT BOUNDS, OR IF HE NIPPED IT [WITH AN INTENTION OF] AFTER TIME AND DRAINED THE BLOOD [WITH AN INTENTION OF] WITHOUT BOUNDS; OR IF HE NIPPED IT AND DRAINED THE BLOOD [WITH AN INTENTION OF] WITHOUT BOUNDS;
(1) He was not given the wine until he completed the circuit, the circuit being made merely to add dignity to the ceremony and to shew that he enjoyed privileges which the other priests lacked (Rashi and Sh. M.).
(2) Which would be the case if he already had the wine when he started.
(3) They ascended the stairway at its east side, since they would have to turn right, and had they ascended it by the west, they would have to cross the width of the ascent before they could do this. Similarly they descended by the west side of the stairway.
(4) Enumerated in the Mishnah.
(5) The west of the ascent was on the left side of a man facing the altar.
(6) In the second clause.
(7) In the first clause.
(8) Standing in front of the altar.
(9) Lit., 'made'. V. p. 312, n. 2.
(10) Lev. V, 9. - It refers to a bird sin-offering.
(11) Not from a vessel.
(12) Below the red line.
(14) For if he sprinkled it on the upper wall, it might drain on to the terrace, not on to the base.
(15) I.e., sprinkle the blood on the upper wall, and then drain out the rest on the lower.
(16) The blood must be so sprinkled that it will then naturally drain down on to the base.
(17) It is grasped face-downward to the palm of the hand, so that its nape is uppermost.
(18) The taking of the fistful of meal-offerings and the taking of the two hands full of incense on the Day of Atonement. These rites were done in a particular fashion, and both are described as difficult in Yoma 47b and 49b.
(19) V. supra 53a notes.
(20) By nipping both the windpipe and the gullet (Hul. 21b).
(21) He pressed it against the wall, to drain out the blood.
(22) By rubbing salt on the dripping head until it became dry.
(23) Of the burnt-offerings, which were being burnt on the altar.
(24) I.e., the skin opposite the crop, together with the feathers on it.
(25) Sc. with the crop, as he removed this.
(26) By nipping both organs of the throat.
(27) E.g., as a burnt-offering,
(28) He nipped it for its own sake and drained it for the sake of something else.
(29) V. supra 2a.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 65a
IF HE NIPPED A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD UNDER A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION AND DRAINED THE BLOOD [WITH AN INTENTION OF] AFTER TIME; OR IF HE NIPPED IT [WITH AN INTENTION OF] AFTER TIME AND DRAINED THE BLOOD UNDER A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION; OR IF HE NIPPED IT AND DRAINED THE BLOOD UNDER A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION: IN THESE CASES HE DID NOT OFFER THE MATTIR ACCORDING TO REGULATION. [IF HE INTENDED] TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS [AND] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW, [OR] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW [AND] AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS; HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS [AND] HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW; HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE ON THE MORROW [AND] HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WITHOUT BOUNDS, [THE SACRIFICE] IS UNFIT, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. SAID R. JUDAH: THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: WHERE THE [WRONGFUL] INTENTION OF TIME PRECEDES THAT OF PLACE, [THE SACRIFICE] IS PIGGUL, AND INVOLVES KARETH; BUT IF THE [WRONGFUL] INTENTION OF PLACE PRECEDES THAT OF TIME, IT IS UNFIT AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: IN BOTH CASES [THE SACRIFICE IS] UNFIT AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. [IF ONE INTENDS] TO EAT HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [WITHOUT BOUNDS OR AFTER TIME] [AND] TO BURN HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE [SIMILARLY]. IT IS FIT, FOR EATING AND BURNING DO NOT COMBINE.1
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: And [the priest] shall bring it [unto the altar]:2 Why is this stated? Because it is said, Then he shall bring his offering of turtle-doves, or of young pigeons,3 you might think that when he vows a bird [as a burnt-offering], he must give not less than two birds; therefore it states, 'And [the priest] shall bring it:' he can bring even one bird to the altar, Why is 'the priest' stated? To prescribe a priest for it.4 For you might argue, is not [the reverse] logical? If a priest was not prescribed for a sheep.5 though north was prescribed for it;6 is it not logical that a priest is not prescribed for a bird, seeing that [Scripture] did not prescribe north for it? Therefore 'the priest' is stated, in order to prescribe a priest for it. You might think that he must nip it with a knife, and that is indeed logical: If [Scripture] prescribed a utensil7 for shechitah, though it did not prescribe a priest for it; is it not logical that it prescribed a utensil for nipping, seeing that it prescribed a priest for it? Therefore it states, [And] the priest . . . shall pinch off [its head].8 Said R. Akiba: Would you then think that a zar might approach the altar?9 Why then is 'the priest' stated? To teach that the pinching must be done by the very priest himself.10 You might think that he can pinch it off either above [the red line] or below [it]; therefore it states, 'and pinch off [its head], and make it smoke [on the altar]:' as haktarah [making it smoke] is [done] on the top of the altar, so is pinching [done] on the top of the altar.11 'And shall pinch off': Close by the nape [of the neck]. You say, close by the nape; yet perhaps it is not so, but rather by the throat?12 It follows by logic: 'and shall pinch off' is stated here, and 'and shall pinch off' is stated elsewhere:13 as there it is close by its neck, so here it is close by its neck. If so, just as there he pinches but does not sever it, so here too he pinches but does not sever it? Therefore it states, 'and shall pinch off [its head], and make it smoke': as [in] haktarah, the head is by itself and the body is by itself, so [after] pinching, the head is by itself and the body is by itself. And how do we know that the haktarah of the head is separate and that of the body is separate? Because it is said, 'And make it smoke': thus the burning of the body is ordered. How then do I interpret, [and the priest] shall make it smoke upon the altar?14 Scripture [here] treats of the burning of the head.15
And the blood thereof shall be drained out on the side of the altar,16 but not on the wall of the ascent, nor on the wall of the hekal. And which is it? The upper wall. Yet perhaps it is not so, but rather the lower wall; and that is indeed logical: if [the blood of] an animal burnt-offering is [sprinkled] below, though [that of] an animal sin-offering is [sprinkled] above; surely [the blood of] a burnt-offering of a bird is [sprinkled] below, seeing that [that of] a sin-offering of a bird is [sprinkled] below? Therefore it states, 'and shall pinch off... and shall burn . . . and the blood thereof shall be drained out': now, can you really think that after he has burnt it he returns and drains it?17 Rather it is to tell you: as haktarah is [done] on the top of the altar, so is the draining out on the top of the altar. How did he do this? He ascended the ascent and turned to the terrace, whence he proceeded to the south-east horn. Then he pinched off its head close by the neck, severed it, and drained [some] of its blood on the wall of the altar. If he did it below his feet18 even a cubit, it is fit.19 R. Nehemiah and R. Eliezer b. Jacob maintained: It must essentially be done nought elsewhere but on the top of the altar. Wherein do they differ? - Abaye and Raba both said: They differ in respect of building a pyre on the terrace.20
THEN HE TOOK THE BODY etc. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall take away its crop with the feathers thereof:21 that is the crop.22 You might think that he cuts through with a knife and takes it;23 therefore it states, 'with the feathers thereof': [hence] he takes the plumage together with it. R. Abba Jose b. Hanan said: He takes it [the crop] together with the craw.24 The school of R. Ishmael taught: 'With the feathers thereof' [means] with its [very] own feathers,25 [hence] he cuts it [round] with a knife like a skylight.26
(1) V. supra 29b for the whole passage.
(2) Lev. I, 15. This refers to a bird burnt-offering, and is apparently superfluous, since the preceding verse states, Then he shall bring his offering etc. Hence Scripture should continue: 'And the priest shall pinch off its head by the altar.'
(3) Ibid. 14.
(4) Only a priest, and not a zar, must nip off its head.
(5) A sheep can be slaughtered by a zar, and the slaughtering of a sheep corresponds to the nipping of a bird.
(6) It must be slaughtered at the north side of the altar.
(7) Viz., a knife.
(8) The Priest himself, without the assistance of a utensil, as R. Akiba explains.
(9) For the bird-offering one had actually to ascend the slope of the altar and walk round the terrace (supra 64b); that would obviously not be permitted to a zar. An animal-offering, however, which could be slaughtered by a zar, was killed on the ground, and even at some distance from the altar.
(10) Not with a knife.
(11) The 'top' here means the upper half, above the red line.
(12) The front part of the neck.
(13) Lev, V, 8: and shall pinch off its head close by its neck, but shall not divide it asunder.
(14) Lev, I, 17. This apparently a repetition of v. 15.
(15) Hence each was separate.
(16) Ibid. 15.
(17) That is obviously impossible!
(18) Stooping down,
(19) Because the red line, which demarcated the upper part of the altar from the lower, was a cubit below the terrace.
(20) The first Tanna holds that this can be done, therefore the blood can be drained out even below the terrace. But R. Nehemiah and R. Eliezer b. Jacob hold that the haktarah must be done on the top of the altar itself; therefore the draining too must be done near there.
(21) Lev. I, 16.
(22) The Talmud translates the less familiar mur'ah by the more familiar zefek.
(23) Sc. the crop alone, without the skin and the feathers.
(24) The thick muscular stomach of birds.
(25) Not more than the feathers opposite the crop.
(26) He cuts the skin exactly opposite the crop, and then removes the crop, skin and feathers.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 65b
HE RENT IT. BUT DID NOT SEVER IT. Our Rabbis taught: And he shall rend it:1 rending is by hand only, and thus it says, and he rent him as one would have rent a kid.2
IF HE DID NOT REMOVE THE CROP etc. Our Mishnah does not agree with R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon. For it was taught. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: I have heard that one severs the sin-offering of a bird.3 Wherein do they differ? - Said R. Hisda: They disagree as to whether the draining [of the blood] of the bird sin-offering is indispensable. The first Tanna4 holds that it is indispensable, and since then he must drain out the blood, when he [also] severs [it] he performs the rites of a burnt-offering with the bird sin-offering.5 Whereas R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon holds that the draining out of the bird sin-offering is not indispensable,6 therefore he is merely cutting flesh.7 Raba said: They differ about a delay at [the nipping of] the second organ in the case of a bird burnt-offering. The first Tanna holds that it does not invalidate [it], and though he does delay, he performs the rites of a burntoffering with a sin-offering; whereas R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon holds that it does invalidate [it], and since he delays, he is merely cutting flesh.8 Abaye said: They differ as to whether [the cutting through of] the greater part of the flesh is indispensable. And they [Raba and Abaye] disagree in the same controversy as that of R. Zera and R. Samuel son of R. Isaac: One maintains that they [the first Tanna and R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon] disagree on whether delay at the second organ invalidates; and the other maintains that they disagree as to whether the [cutting of] the greater part of the flesh is indispensable.9
Now, this proves that in the first place we require [the cutting of] the greater part of the flesh?10 - Yes, and it was taught likewise: How is the melikah of a bird sin-offering performed? He cuts through the spinal column and the nape, without the greater part of the flesh, until he reaches the gullet or the windpipe. When he reaches the gullet or the windpipe he cuts one organ, or the greater part thereof, together with the greater part of the flesh; and in the case of a burnt-offering, two [organs] or the greater part thereof.11
This was stated before R. Jeremiah.12 Said he: Have they not heard what R. Simeon b. Eliakim said on the authority of R. Eleazar b. Pedath on the authority of R. Eleazar b. Shammu'a: R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon affirmed: I have heard that a bird sin-offering is severed, and what does he shall not divide it asunder13 mean?
(1) Ibid., 17.
(2) Jud. XIV, 6. There, of course, it was done by hand.
(3) In the sense that if both organs of the throat are nipped, it is not unfit. Our Mishnah states that it is.
(4) The Tanna of our Mishnah.
(5) For now the rites do not differ in any way, and it is stated infra 66a that such is unfit. Though the blood of the sin-offering is sprinkled below and that of the burnt-offering is sprinkled above the red line, that is not regarded as a sufficient distinction (Tosaf.).
(6) Whereas it is in the case of a burnt-offering.
(7) When he nips the second organ. By refraining from draining out the blood after this he makes it clear that he is not performing the rites of a burnt-offering.
(8) The shechitah of an animal consists of cutting through both organs of the throat, viz., the windpipe and the gullet; should a delay occur between these two organs, it is invalid, and the animal is nebelah (q.v. Glos.). The shechitah of a bird (of hullin) consists of cutting through one organ only (the second is optional), since that is sufficient to kill it. Now, a bird burnt-offering must have both organs pinched (which is the equivalent of cut) through, and this can be done without delay between the organs; but when one nips both organs of a bird sin-offering, delay is inevitable, owing to the particular manner in which the rite must be performed, as stated infra. The first Tanna holds that delay between the two organs in the case of a burnt-offering does not invalidate the sacrifice, because the nipping of the second organ is not really part of the shechitah at all. Hence when he nips both organs of a sin-offering, he performs the same rite as would be valid in the case of a burnt-offering, and therefore it (the sin-offering) is unfit. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon holds that delay in the case of a burnt-offering does invalidate the sacrifice, and since delay is inevitable in the case of a sin-offering, it is obvious that he is not treating it like a burnt-offering.
(9) After the priest nips the first organ, he must also cut through the greater part of the flesh that surrounds it (v. infra), and this naturally makes a delay before the second organ inevitable. Abaye explains that all hold that a delay at the second organ of a burnt-offering invalidates the sacrifice, but they disagree as to whether the cutting through of the flesh in the case of a sin-offering is indispensable. The first Tanna holds that it is not indispensable, hence it is possible to nip both organs without a delay, and so it becomes like the rites of a burnt-offering and is therefore invalid. But R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon holds that this cutting through is indispensable; hence there must be a delay between the organs, and thereby it differs from a burnt-offering.
(10) Since they disagree on whether it is indispensable, it follows that it is certainly necessary.
(11) V. Hul. 21a. - By 'cut' is meant with his nail, not with a knife.
(12) Sc. the controversies of the amoraim on the points of difference between the first Tanna and R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon.
(13) Lev. I, 17.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 66a
He need not sever it.1 Said R. Aha the son of Raba to R. Ashi: If so, when it is written in connection with a pit, [And if a man shall open a pit . . .] and not cover it,2 does that too mean that he need not cover it? - How compare! There, since it is written, the owner of the pit shall make it good.3 he is [obviously] bound to cover it. But here, consider: it is written, And [the priest] shall bring [offer] it [unto the altar],4 [whereby] the Writ drew a distinction between a bird sin-offering and a bird burnt-offering. What then is the purpose of 'he shall not divide it asunder'?5 Infer from this that he need not sever it.6
IF HE DRAINED THE BLOOD OF THE BODY. Our Rabbis taught: A burnt-offering7 [teaches that] even if he drained the blood of the body but did not drain the blood of the head [it is still a valid burnt-offering].8 You might think that even if he drained the blood of the head, but not the blood of the body [it is valid]; therefore it states, 'it is'.9 How does this imply it?10 - Said Rabina: It is logical, for most of the blood is found in the body.11
MISHNAH. IF A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD IS OFFERED12 BELOW [THE RED LINE] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING13 [AND] FOR THE SAKE OF A SIN-OFFERING, IT IS FIT. [IF IT IS OFFERED] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING, [BUT] IN THE NAME OF A BURNT-OFFERING; [OR] WITH THE RITES OF A BURNT-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING; OR WITH THE RITES OF A BURNT-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A BURNT-OFFERING, IT IS UNFIT. IF HE OFFERS IT ABOVE [THE RED LINE]. [EVEN] WITH THE RITES OF ANY OF THESE,14 IT IS UNFIT. IF A BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD IS OFFERED ABOVE, WITH THE RITES OF A BURNT-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A BURNT-OFFERING, IT IS FIT; WITH THE RITES OF A BURNT-OFFERING [BUT] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING, IT IS FIT15 BUT DOES NOT FREE ITS OWNER OF HIS OBLIGATION.15 [IF HE OFFERS IT] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A BURNT-OFFERING; [OR] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING, IT IS UNFIT. IF HE OFFERS IT BELOW, [EVEN] WITH THE RITES OF ANY OF THESE,16 IT IS UNFIT.
(1) The foregoing controversies of the amoraim assumed that R. Eleazar merely meant that the sacrifice is not unfit if he does sever it, but that nevertheless he may not sever it in the first place. But on the present interpretation he differs from the first Tanna on the very law itself.
(2) Ex. XXI, 33.
(3) Ibid. 34.
(4) Lev. I, 15. This refers to the burnt-offering.
(5) In Lev. V, 8, referring to the sin-offering.
(6) In Hul. 21a R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon deduces from this 'shall bring it' that the priest must sever the neck of a burnt-offering by nipping both organs; and further, that in this respect Scripture draws a distinction between a burnt-offering and a sin-offering. Now, if 'he shall not divide it asunder' means that he may not sever it, then the distinction would merely justify us in saying that in the case of a burnt-offering he may sever it, but not that he must. Hence it must mean, he need not sever it, and then the distinction shows that he must sever a burnt-offering.
(7) Lev. I, 17.
(8) 'A burnt-offering' here is superfluous, since the context makes it perfectly clear. Hence it is interpreted to mean that it still counts as such even if something of its rites is omitted.
(9) This is emphatic, intimating that it must be done with the proper rites.
(10) Perhaps it is the reverse?
(11) Hence that it at least must be drained out.
(12) Lit., 'made' - I.e., its blood is sprinkled.
(13) Viz., nipping one organ only, and sprinkling and draining the blood.
(14) Enumerated above, i.e., even with the rites and in the name of a sin-offering.
(15) V. supra 2a.
(16) Cf. n. 3.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 66b
GEMARA. Wherein does he deviate?1 If we say that he deviates in melikah?2 Shall we then say that it does not agree with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, who said: I have heard that one severs a bird sin-offering? - But have we not explained that it does not agree with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon?3 - No:4 [it means] that he deviates in the sprinkling.5 That too is logical, since the sequel teaches, IF HE OFFERS IT ABOVE, EVEN WITH THE RITES OF ANY OF THESE, IT IS UNFIT, [which means] even with the rites of a sin-offering [and] in the name of a sin-offering. Now, wherein does he deviate?6 If you say that he deviates in melikah, surely a master said: If he performed its melikah on any part of the altar, it is fit? Hence it must surely mean that he deviates in sprinkling, and since the second clause means in sprinkling, the first clause too means in sprinkling! - Why interpret it thus? Each is governed by its own circumstances.7
IF A BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD etc. Wherein does he deviate?8 If we say, that he deviates in melikah,9 then when he [the Tanna] teaches in the sequel:10 'All of these do not defile in the gullet,11 and involve trespass';12 shall we say that this does not agree with R. Joshua; for if it agreed with R. Joshua, surely he ruled [that] they do not involve trespass?13 - Rather, [he deviated] in draining [the blood].14 Then consider the subsequent clause: If one offered a burnt-offering of a bird below [the red line] with the rites of a sin-offering [and] in the name of a sin-offering. R. Eliezer maintains: It involves trespass; R. Joshua said: It does not involve trespass. Now, wherein did he deviate? If we say, in draining; granted that R. Joshua ruled [thus] where he deviated in melikah, did he rule [thus] in reference to draining?5 , Hence it must mean, in melikah: then the first and the last clauses refer to melikah, while the middle clause refers to draining? - Yes: the first and the last clauses refer to melikah, while the middle clause refers to draining.
MISHNAH. AND ALL OF THESE15 DO NOT DEFILE IN THE GULLET16 AND INVOLVE TRESPASS,17 EXCEPT THE SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD WHICH WAS OFFERED BELOW [THE RED LINE] WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING.18 IF ONE OFFERED THE BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD BELOW WITH THE RITES OF A SIN-OFFERING [AND] IN THE NAME OF A SIN-OFFERING, R. ELIEZER MAINTAINED: IT INVOLVES TRESPASS;19 R. JOSHUA RULED: IT DOES NOT INVOLVE TRESPASS.20 SAID R. ELIEZER: IF A SIN-OFFERING INVOLVES TRESPASS WHEN [THE PRIEST], DEVIATED IN ITS NAME,21 THOUGH IT DOES NOT INVOLVE TRESPASS WHEN [IT IS OFFERED] IN ITS OWN NAME, IS IT NOT LOGICAL THAT A BURNT-OFFERING INVOLVES TRESPASS IF HE DEVIATED IN ITS NAME, SEEING THAT IT INVOLVES TRESPASS [WHEN HE OFFERED IT] IN ITS OWN NAME?22 NO, ANSWERED R. JOSHUA: WHEN YOU SPEAK OF A SIN-OFFERING WHOSE NAME HE ALTERED TO THAT OF A BURNT-OFFERING, [IT INVOLVES TRESPASS] BECAUSE HE CHANGED ITS NAME TO SOMETHING THAT INVOLVES TRESPASS; WILL YOU SAY [THE SAME] OF A BURNT-OFFERING WHOSE NAME HE CHANGED TO THAT OF A SIN-OFFERING, SEEING THAT HE CHANGED ITS NAME TO SOMETHING WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE TRESPASS?23
(1) When he offers a sin-offering with the rites of a burnt-offering.
(2) Nipping both organs, and thus severing it.
(3) Supra 65b. The same obviously applies here: What then is your difficulty?
(4) This Mishnah can be explained as agreeing even with him.
(5) Instead of first sprinkling some of the blood (v. Lev. V, 9), he drains out the whole of it, thus treating it like a burnt-offering (I, 15).
(6) Which rite does he perform above?
(7) The sequel, it is true, can only refer to a deviation in sprinkling, yet the first clause can still refer to a deviation in melikah.
(8) When he performs the rites of a sin-offering.
(9) He does not sever it.
(10) The next Mishnah, which is the sequel to this.
(11) V. p. 176. n. 10.
(12) V. p. 257. n. 1 and note on next Mishnah.
(13) If the melikah is not done properly.
(14) There R. Joshua agrees. For R. Joshua's reason, as stated infra, will not apply. (11) He did not, as already stated.
(15) Enumerated in the preceding Mishnah.
(16) V. p. 257. no. 1. Though they are unfit, the melikah frees them from the uncleanness of nebelah.
(17) v. p. 176, n. 10. If their rites were properly performed, they would no longer involve trespass, since they would be permitted to the priests, which is secular benefit. Since, however, they became unfit, and so were not permitted at any time, they retain the trespass, involving status which they possessed before they were offered. This applies even to a sin-offering, save for the exception which follows.
(18) Since that is fit, and there is a time when it is permitted to the priests; hence even a zar is not liable to trespass.
(19) For it is a burnt-offering, and at no time was it permitted to the priests.
(20) For it has become a sin-offering through all these deviations, and is permitted.
(21) For it is then unfit and not permitted to the priests.
(22) Since a burnt-offering must be altogether burnt, and is not permitted at any time.
(23) Surely not.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 67a
SAID R. ELIEZER TO HIM: LET SACRED SACRIFICES WHICH ARE SLAUGHTERED IN THE SOUTH AND IN THE NAME OF LESSER SACRIFICES1 PROVE IT: FOR HE CHANGED THEIR NAME TO SOMETHING WHICH DOES NOT INVOLVE TRESPASS, AND YET THEY INVOLVE TRESPASS.2 SO ALSO, DO NOT WONDER THAT IN THE CASE OF THE BURNT-OFFERING, ALTHOUGH HE CHANGED ITS NAME TO SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE TRESPASS, IT INVOLVES TRESPASS. NOT SO, REPLIED R. JOSHUA: IF YOU SAY THUS OF MOST SACRED SACRIFICES WHICH ARE SLAUGHTERED IN THE SOUTH AND IN THE NAME OF LESSER SACRIFICES, [THEY INVOLVE TRESPASS] BECAUSE HE CHANGED THEIR NAME TO SOMETHING WHICH IS PARTLY FORBIDDEN AND PARTLY PERMITTED;3 WILL YOU SAY THE SAME OF A BURNT-OFFERING, WHERE HE CHANGED ITS NAME TO SOMETHING THAT IS ALTOGETHER PERMITTED?4
GEMARA. It was taught: R. Eliezer said to R. Joshua: Let a guilt-offering slaughtered in the north as a peace-offering prove it; though he changed its name, it involves trespass.5 So need you not wonder that a burnt-offering involves trespass even though he changed its name. Said R. Joshua to him: No. If you say thus of a guilt-offering, where he changed its name but not its place,6 will you say [the same] of a burnt-offering, where he changed its name and its place? Said R. Eliezer to him: Let a guilt-offering slaughtered in the south as a peace-offering prove it, where he changed its name and its place, yet it involves trespass. So need you not wonder that a burnt-offering involves trespass even though he changed its name and changed its place. No, replied R. Joshua. If you say [thus] of a guilt-offering, where [though] he changed its name and its place, he did not deviate in its rites; will you say [the same] of a burnt-offering, where he changed its name and its place and its rites? Thereupon he was silent. Said Raba: Why was he silent?7 He could answer him: Let a guilt-offering which one slaughtered in the south, in the name of a peace-offering and with change of owner,8 prove it, where he changed its name and its place and its rites,9 and yet it involves trespass. Now, since he did not answer him thus, you may infer that R. Eliezer discerned R. Joshua's reason.10 For R. Adda b. Ahabah said: R. Joshua maintained: If a bird burnt-offering was offered below with the rites of a sin-offering and in the name of a sin-offering, immediately he nipped one organ thereof it is transmuted into a bird sin-offering.11 If so, a bird sin-offering which was offered above [the red line] with the rites of a burnt-offering [and] in the name of a burnt-offering, as soon as he nips one organ of it, let it be transmuted through the other organ into a bird burnt-offering? And should you say, That indeed is so,12 surely R. Johanan said in R. Banna'ah's name: That is the tenor of the Mishnah.13 Does that not mean, That is the tenor of the Mishnah, but no more?14 - No: [it means,] that is the tenor of the whole Mishnah.15 R. Ashi said: As for a bird burnt-offering offered below with the rites of a sin-offering [and] in the name of a sin-offering, it is well:16 since the fitness of the latter requires one organ, whereas that of the former requires both organs, while a bird burnt-offering cannot be offered below, immediately he nips one organ, it is transmuted into a bird sin-offering. But when one offers a bird sin-offering above with the rites of a burntoffering [and] in the name of a burnt-offering, since a master said, Melikah is valid wherever it is done, immediately he nips one organ, it becomes unfit;17 when therefore he nips the second organ, how can it be transmuted into a bird burnt-offering?18
The [above] text [stated]: 'R. Adda b. Ahabah said: R. Joshua maintained: If a bird burnt-offering was offered below with the rites of a sin-offering [and] in the name of a sin-offering, immediately he nipped one organ thereof, it is transmuted into a bird sin-offering.'
(1) Thus they were treated altogether like lesser sacrifices, both in name and in the place of slaughtering.
(2) For since they became unfit through being slaughtered in the south, the subsequent sprinkling does not permit them that they should no longer involve trespass.
(3) The flesh is permitted, but the emurim are forbidden and involve trespass.
(4) No part of a bird sin-offering is forbidden.
(5) Rashi: before the sprinkling of the blood, but not after, for then it is eaten by priests. Tosaf.: even after the sprinkling, as R. Eliezer holds that a guilt-offering slaughtered under a different designation is unfit and may not be eaten (supra 2a).
(6) He slaughtered it in the right place.
(7) Emended text (Sh. M.).
(8) l.e., in the name of a different person.
(9) Change of owner is equivalent to change of rites.
(10) Which applies only to a bird burnt-offering.
(11) For the latter requires one organ only. Hence immediately one organ is nipped, there is absolutely nothing to distinguish it from a sin-offering, and so it does turn into one before it can become unfit through having its rites incorrectly performed. This reason can only apply to a bird burnt-offering, for animal sacrifices require the cutting of both organs.
(12) And it is fit. On this hypothesis the Mishnah which states that it is unfit will not agree with R. Joshua.
(13) The Mishnah is to be understood as it is read.
(14) I.e., exactly as it reads, viz., that R. Joshua disagrees only where stated.
(15) That he disagrees in respect of both a burnt-offering and a sin-offering.
(16) That R. Joshua disagrees and holds that it is fit.
(17) For it was properly nipped (the wrong place not affecting it) as a sin-offering, but under a different designation, which renders it unfit (supra 2a).
(18) Hence here R. Joshua agrees with the Mishnah.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 67b
Come and hear. In the case of a sin-offering for one and a burnt-offering for the other,1 if he [the priest] offered both above [the red line].2 half is fit and half is unfit;3 [if he offered] both below, half is fit and half is unfit;3 [if he offered] one above and one below, both are unfit, for I assume that he offered the sin-offering above and the burnt-offering below.4 Yet even granted that he did offer the burnt-offering below, let it be transmuted into a bird sin-offering?5 Granted that R. Joshua ruled thus in the case of one man, did he rule so in the case of two men?6
Come and hear: In the case of a sin-offering and a burnt-offering and an unspecified [sacrifice] and a specified [sacrifice].7 if he [the priest] offered all of them above,8 half are fit and half are unfit;9 [if he offered] all of them below, half are fit and half are unfit.9 [If he offered] half of them above and half of them below, only the undefined [pair] are fit,10 and they share them.11 Thus, the defined ones are not [fit]. Yet why so? even granted that he offered the burnt-offering below, let it be transmuted into a sin-offering?12 And should you answer, This does not agree with R. Joshua - can you say so? Surely we learnt:13 If a woman declared, I vow a pair of birds if I give birth to a male child,14 and she bore a male child, she must bring two pairs, one for her vow, and one for her statutory obligation. When she gives them to the priest, the priest must offer three above and one below.15 If he did not do thus, but offered two above and two below, not having consulted her,16 she must bring another bird and offer it above, [if both were] of the same species.17 But if they were of two species,18 she must bring two [birds].19 If she defined her vow, she must bring another three birds [and offer them] above [the line], [if both were] of the same species; [if they were] of two species, she must bring four.20 If she fixed [the time of] her vow,
(1) After birth confinement a woman, if poor, brings two birds for a burnt-offering and a sin-offering (Lev. XII, 8). Now, two women had each brought one bird for a burnt-offering and a sin-offering respectively. Then they bought a brace together, appointed one bird for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering, as each required, and gave them to the priest.
(2) I.e., as burnt-offerings.
(3) What is offered in the right place is fit; the other is unfit.
(4) I.e., he may have done so.
(5) So that there should be no further liability to a sin-offering.
(6) Obviously not. For one woman's burnt-offering cannot acquit the other woman of her liability to a sin-offering.
(7) Rashi: Two women, A an B, each owed a bird burnt-offering and a bird sin-offering (e.g., on account of confinement). In addition A owed another bird burnt-offering and B another bird sin-offering (either on account of another confinement or on account of sin. Lev. V, 7-, each having brought so far one sacrifice only). Now, A and B accordingly bought three pairs of birds in conjunction. They took one of the pairs and appointed one bird a burnt-offering for A and one a sin-offering for B. The second pair they left unspecified, not stating which was a burnt-offering and which a sin-offering. The third they did specify, i.e., they appointed one for a burnt-offering and the other for a sin-offering, but did not state the owner of each. V. Kin. III, 3.
(8) As burnt-offerings.
(9) Cf. p. 331. n. 5. The women still owe the sacrifices which are now unfit.
(10) Since the owners did not define them, it depends on the priest.
(11) One sacrifice counting to each. V. ibid. 4.
(12) For since the owners were not specified, the answer given above obviously no longer applies.
(13) Emended text (Sh. M.); cur. edd. 'Come and hear'.
(14) In addition to her statutory obligation.
(15) A sin-offering cannot be vowed. Hence the additional pair are both burnt-offerings, which makes three in all. These naturally must be offered above the red line.
(16) Why she brought two pairs. Thus he thought that both pairs were statutory obligations.
(17) If both pairs were turtle-doves or young pigeons.
(18) One pair were turtle-doves, and the other pair were young pigeons.
(19) One bird of one pair has become unfit, and the pair must be completed with a bird of the same species. Since we do not know which bird actually became unfit, she must bring another two, viz., a turtle-dove and a pigeon.
(20) When she vowed, she declared which birds she would bring, but subsequently forgot which she had vowed. Hence when she came to fulfil her vow, she needed two pairs for the vow alone, viz., a pair of turtle-doves and a pair of pigeons, to cover both contingencies, and in addition one pair of either on account of her statutory obligation, i.e., three pairs in all. She, however, had brought only two pairs of which the first was offered for her statutory obligation, while the second was left for her vow, and of that one bird became unfit. Therefore she now owes one bird of the same species to replace the unfit one, and a pair of the other species, in case it was the other species that she had vowed. But if the two pairs which she had brought were of different species, she must now bring four birds, all for burnt-offerings, because we do not know which species was offered second for the vow, and it is that species which must be completed. She cannot simply bring a pair of one species, for she does not know whether she owes one turtle-dove and two pigeons, or vice versa. Therefore she must bring two turtle-doves and two pigeons and declare: 'Let one of these, of the species which I vowed, replace the one that became unfit, and let the second of that pair be another votive offering. And let the second pair cover the doubt of my definite declaration.'
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 68a
she must bring another five birds [to be sacrificed] above, [if she had vowed] of one species; if of two, she must bring six.1 If she gave them to the priest, but does not know what she gave; and the priest went and offered them, but he does not know how he offered them, she now requires four birds on account of her vow and two on account of her statutory obligation, and one sin-offering. Ben 'Azzai said: Two sin-offerings. R. Joshua observed: This is the case where they [the Sages] said: When it is alive it has one voice, and when it is dead, it has seven voices!2 - Granted that R. Joshua ruled thus in respect of liberating it from trespass, did he rule thus in respect of converting it into an obligatory offering?3
MISHNAH. [IN REGARD TO] ALL UNFIT PERSONS WHO PERFORMED MELIKAH, THE MELIKAH IS INVALID, AND THEY [THE SACRIFICES] DO NOT DEFILE IN THE GULLET.4 IF HE [THE PRIEST] NIPPED [THEM] WITH HIS LEFT [HAND] OR AT NIGHT; IF HE SLAUGHTERED HULLIN WITHIN5 OR A SACRIFICE WITHOUT [THE TEMPLE COURT]. THEY DO NOT DEFILE IN THE GULLET.6 IF HE NIPPED WITH A KNIFE; OR IF HE NIPPED HULLIN WITHIN [OR] SACRIFICES WITHOUT;
(1) If she vowed to bring the additional offerings at the same time as her statutory obligation, and then brought two pairs of birds to the priest, who offered them as above, she owes another five or six, as stated. For her vow made her liable to three burnt-offerings together, had she remembered what she had vowed. As she did not remember, she required five burnt-offerings in the first place, one for her statutory obligation, and four consisting of a pair of pigeons and a pair of turtle-doves, since she did not know which she owed. Now, what she has already brought does not count, for she does not know these were the birds which she had vowed. Nor can she simply bring another four on account of the vow, since these must be sacrificed at the same time as the statutory offering. Hence she must now bring five, one for the statutory offering and four on account of the vow, whilst the first which was sacrificed as her statutory obligation will count as a votive offering. If, however, she had vowed them of two species, she does not know which species she owes. Therefore she must bring six: viz., two turtle-doves and two pigeons on account of the doubt of what she had specified, and one turtle-dove and one pigeon. because the former had to be offered at the same time as her statutory obligation.
(2) If she gave the birds to the priest but does not know whether they were turtle-doves or pigeons, or a pair of each, and she does not know how the priest sacrificed them, whether all above or all below or half above and half below, perhaps she did not even fulfil her statutory obligation. For he may have sacrificed all above, so that she lacks a sin-offering; or all below, and she lacks a burnt-offering. She must then bring four birds for her vow, since she does not remember which of the two species she specified, and two for her statutory burnt-offering, viz., a turtle-dove and a pigeon, as possibly the first were all offered below, as sin-offerings, and now she requires a burnt-offering of the same species. Or perhaps the first were offered half above and half below, and she has fulfilled her obligation with the first pair offered. But as she had vowed to bring a burnt-offering at the same time and of the same species as the statutory burnt-offering, she must now bring a turtle-dove and a pigeon to cover this doubt. In addition, she must bring one sin-offering of whichever species she wishes, for perhaps the first were all offered below, and this will combine with the bird she brought as her burnt-offering. Though she has already brought the latter, yet the sin-offering need not be of the same species as the first, according to the Rabbis who disagree with Ben 'Azzai, for they hold that it all depends on the sin-offering. Therefore, since she must bring two burnt-offerings, as explained, that of the same species as the sin-offering combines with it. But Ben 'Azzai holds that it all depends on the first, i.e., a sin-offering must be brought of the same species as the first burnt-offering which was correctly offered for her statutory obligation. Now, perhaps all the first were offered above, in which case she has fulfilled this obligation, and so she must bring a sin-offering of the same species. As, however, she does not know which species this was, she must bring two sin-offerings, one of each. R. Joshua observes that this is similar to what the Rabbis said about a ram, that when it is alive it has one voice only, but when it is dead it has seven: i.e., the two horns are used for two trumpets (bugle-horns); out of the two legs two reed-pipes (flutes) are made; the skin is used for tabrets; the entrails for a lyre, and the guts for harps. In a similar way here too, when she vowed and did not know what she had specified, she merely required four birds and two for her statutory obligation. Whereas now that she has already brought four, she still needs another eight, four on account of her vow and four on account of her obligation; v. Kin. III, 6. - Since R. Joshua makes this comment, you may infer that he accepts these laws; hence the difficulty of 67b.
(3) Surely not! This is the answer to the difficulty: The burnt-offering is transmuted only in so far that it no longer involves trespass, but the deviation in its rites cannot turn it into a sin-offering to acquit its owner of his obligation for same.
(4) v. p. 257. n. 1. Although the melikah is invalid, it frees the birds from uncleanness. The reason is because they became unfit in the sanctuary, and the melikah is effective in that if they are taken up on to the altar, they are not removed. Therefore the birds are not regarded as nebelah.
(5) A bird of hullin, with ritual shechitah.
(6) Although there must be no shechitah (of birds of hullin) within, or of consecrated birds anywhere at all, yet these do not defile.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 68b
OR [IF HE SACRIFICED] TURTLE-DOVES BEFORE THEIR TIME OR PIGEONS AFTER THEIR TIME;1 [OR A BIRD] WHOSE WING WAS WITHERED, [OR] BLIND IN THE EYE. [OR] WHOSE FOOT WAS CUT OFF, - [ALL THESE] DEFILE IN THE GULLET. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: ALL WHOSE UNFITNESS [AROSE] IN THE SANCTUARY2 DO NOT DEFILE IN THE GULLET; IF THEIR UNFITNESS DID NOT ARISE IN THE SANCTUARY, THEY DEFILE IN THE GULLET.
GEMARA. Rab said: [If they were nipped with] the left [hand] or at night, they do not defile in the gullet; [by] a zar or [with] a knife, they do defile in the gullet. Why is the left [hand] different; [presumably] because it is fit on the Day of Atonement; and likewise night is fit in respect of [the burning of] the limbs and the fats;3 then surely a zar too is fit for shechitah?4 - Shechitah is not a [sacrificial] rite.5 Is it not? Surely R. Zera said: Shechitah of the [red] heifer by a zar is invalid, and Rab observed thereon: [The reason is because] 'Eleazar' and 'statute' [are written in connection with it]?6 - The [red] heifer is different, because it is of the holy things of the Temple repair. Does it not then follow a fortiori; if the holy things of the Temple repair require priesthood, surely the holy objects dedicated to the altar require priesthood? - Said R. Shisha the son of R. Idi: Let it be analogous to the inspection of [leprous] plagues, which is not a rite, and yet requires priesthood.7 But let us learn it from the high places?8 - One cannot learn from the high places.9 Can one not? Surely it was taught: How do we know that if [flesh] which went out ascended [the altar], it does not descend? Because [flesh that] goes out is fit at the high places! - The Tanna relies on the text, This is the law of the burnt-offering.10
But R. Johanan maintained: [If a] zar [performed melikah] it does not defile in the gullet; [if melikah was done with] a knife, it does defile in the gullet. We learnt: [IN REGARD TO] ALL UNFIT PERSONS WHO PERFORMED MELIKAH, THE MELIKAH IS INVALID. As for R. Johanan, it is well: ALL includes a zar;11 but according to Rab, what does ALL include? - It is surely to include [melikah with] the left [hand] and [at] night. [But] the left [hand] and night are explicitly taught? - He [the Tanna] teaches and then explains.12 Come and hear: THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: ALL WHOSE UNFITNESS [AROSE] IN THE SANCTUARY DO NOT DEFILE GARMENTS [WHEN THE FLESH OF THE BIRD IS] IN THE GULLET.13 As for R. Johanan, it is well: ALL includes a zar. But according to Rab, what does it include?
(1) Only fully grown turtle-doves or young pigeons might be sacrificed. Otherwise they are not eligible, and therefore it is as though he nipped hullin.
(2) Birds which were brought to the Temple court fit, and there became unfit.
(3) On the Day of Atonement the spoon containing incense was taken with the left hand. The limbs and fats of sacrifices were burnt at night. Thus in two instances the left hand and night are fit for service, and presumably for that reason he rules that even in the present case, though they are not fit, they free them from uncleanness.
(4) An animal sacrifice might be slaughtered by a zar.
(5) Whereas the taking of the spoon and the burning of the limbs are sacrificial rites.
(6) Cf. Num. XIX, 2.
(7) For notes v. supra 14b.
(8) Where a zar might perform melikah (v. infra 113a). By the same reasoning melikah by a zar even in the Temple should free the bird from defilement.
(9) Because by comparison with the Temple they were non-sacred.
(10) Lev. VI, 2. For notes v. supra 51a. He does not really learn it from the high places at all.
(11) It is a general principle that 'all' is an extension.
(12) First he states the law in general, and then he explains who are meant in the word ALL.
(13) 'Garments' is absent in the Mishnah.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 69a
- Yet even on your view, what does [the clause] IF THEIR UNFITNESS DID NOT ARISE IN THE SANCTUARY include?1 Rather, the first clause includes shechitah of [bird] sacrifices within,2 while the second clause includes melikah of hullin without.3
It was taught in accordance with R. Johanan: If a zar nipped it; or if an unfit person nipped it; or [if it was] piggul, nothar or [an] unclean [sacrifice].4 it does not defile in the gullet.5
R. Isaac said: I have heard two [laws], one relating to kemizah6 by a zar and the other to melikah by a zar: one descends and the other does not descend, but I do not know which is which.7 Said Hezekiah: It is logical that [in the case of] kemizah it goes down, while [in the case of] melikah it does not go down. Why is melikah different? [presumably] because it was done at the high places?8 [but] kemizah too was done at the high places? And should you say, There were no meal-offerings at the high places; then there were no bird[-offerings] at the high places [either].9 For R. Shesheth said: On the view that there were meal-offerings at the high places, there were bird[-offerings] at the high places; on the view that there were no meal-offerings, there were no bird [-offerings]. What is the reason? [And sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the Lord]:10 offerings [implies,] but not birds; offerings [implies,] but not meal-offerings!11 - Say rather: There was no sanctification of a meal-offering in service vessels at the high places.12
IF HE NIPPED [THEM] WITH HIS LEFT [HAND] OR AT NIGHT etc. Our Rabbis taught: You might think that melikah, which is [done] within, defiles garments [when the flesh is] in the gullet;13 therefore it states, [And every soul that eateth] nebelah [that which dieth of itself] [ . . . he shall wash his clothes etc].14 [But] this too is nebelah?15 - Rather, it states 'terefah' [that which is torn of beasts]:16 as terefah does not permit the forbidden, so everything which does not permit the forbidden [is included]: thus melikah, which is [performed] within, is excluded: since it permits the forbidden. it does not defile garments [when the flesh is] in the gullet.17 Hence it includes melikah (Mnemonic: Kez Hefez)18 of sacrifices without, and melikah of hullin both within and without: since they do not permit the forbidden, they defile garments [when the flesh is] in the gullet.
Another [Baraitha] taught: You might think that the shechitah of hullin within and [that of] sacrifices both within and without defile in the gullet: therefore nebelah is stated. But this too is 'nebelah'?19 - Rather, therefore it states 'terefah': as terefah is the same within and without,20 so all which are the same within and without [are included in this law]: thus the shechitah of hullin within and [that of] sacrifices within and without is excluded: since these are not the same within as without, they do not defile garments [when the flesh is] in the gullet. As for hullin, it is well: that is not the same within as without;21 but sacrifices are unfit in both cases? - Said Raba: If shechitah without is effective in that it involves kareth,22 shall it not be effective in cleansing it from [the defilement of] nebelah?23 We have thus found [it of shechitah] without; how do we know [it of shechitah] within? - Because it is not the same within as without.24 If so, when one performs melikah on sacrifices without, they too [should] not [defile], since within is not the same as without?25 - Said R. Shimi b. Ashi: You infer that which does not make it fit from that which does not make it fit.26 but you do not infer that which does not make it fit from that which does make it fit.27 Do you not? Surely it was taught: How do we know that [if flesh] which went out ascended [the altar] it does not descend? Because [flesh] that goes out is fit at the high places? - The Tanna relies on the extension intimated in, 'This is the law of the burnt-offering'28
MISHNAH. IF ONE PERFORMED MELIKAH, AND IT [THE BIRD] WAS FOUND TO BE TEREFAH. R. MEIR SAID: IT DOES NOT DEFILE IN THE GULLET;
(1) For the ALL of the first clause applies to that too.
(2) That such do not defile.
(3) That such do defile.
(4) I.e., if the flesh of a bird sacrifice became defiled after it was properly offered up.
(5) For only nebelah does this. - The ruling thus agrees with R. Johanan.
(6) V. GIos.
(7) Either a bird-offering nipped by a zar or a meal-offering whose kemizah was performed by a zar does not descend from the altar if it was taken up there.
(8) By a zar.
(9) Hence no melikah.
(10) Ex. XXIV. 5. This was before the erection of the Tabernacle, and so the equivalent of the high places.
(11) The Heb. is applicable to animals only.
(12) He holds that there were both bird- and meal-offerings at the high places. But whereas melikah by a zar in the Temple can be learnt from that of the high places (in so far, at least, that it does not descend), kemizah can not. For at the high places meal-offerings were not sanctified in service vessels, whereas in the Temple they were. That being so, when kemizah is performed by a zar it is unfit to that extent that even if taken up on to the altar, it must be taken down.
(13) I.e., after melikah done improperly the flesh defiles.
(14) Lev. XVII, 15.
(15) Since the melikah was not properly done and does not permit the eating of the sacrifice, the bird is like any other not killed by shechitah, hence nebelah.
(17) The verse quoted is applied to the nebelah of a clean bird. Terefah is not interpreted literally, for reasons stated anon, but as a definition of nebelah, thus: only nebelah similar to terefah defiles. Now when a bird becomes terefah, that fact cannot possibly remove any prohibition to which it was subject. Similarly, only a nebelah which cannot remove a prohibition defiles. Now, melikah should render a bird of hullin nebelah, but a consecrated bird is thereby relieved of a prohibition, for whilst alive it could not be offered, whereas after melikah in the sanctuary it can be (i.e., its blood can be sprinkled on the altar, which is the essence of offering). Hence it does not cause the bird to defile garments even when it is improperly done, e.g., at night or with the left hand.
(18) A Mnemonic is a phrase consisting of a string of letters or words, as an aid to the memory. Here K = Kodashim (sacrifices); Z=behuz (without); H=Hullin; F=bifenim (within); Z = behuz.
(19) Since melikah is required for sacrifices, whilst hullin may not be slaughtered within at all, the birds so killed are nebelah!
(20) It is forbidden in both places.
(21) For hullin slaughtered without does not defile even when the shechitah does not permit it. e.g., if the bird is terefah.
(22) He who slaughters a sacrificial bird without the Temple incurs kareth. This proves that his act does count as shechitah.
(23) It certainly is. Hence the deduction from the word 'terefah' is necessary only in respect of hullin, but not in respect of sacrifices,
(24) Sh. M.: Since shechitah without involves kareth, whilst shechitah within does not, although it actually requires melikah.
(25) For melikah is proper within, but not without.
(26) I.e., you infer shechitah of sacrifices within from shechitah of sacrifices without; similarly, shechitah of hullin within from shechitah of hullin, when same is terefah, without. In all these cases shechitah does not make the bird permitted.
(27) Viz., from melikah of sacrifices within, which is the proper way.
(28) Lev. VI, 2. V. supra 51a for notes.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 69b
R. JUDAH SAID: IT DOES DEFILE IN THE GULLET. SAID R. MEIR: IT IS A KAL WA-HOMER: IF THE SHECHITAH OF AN ANIMAL CLEANSES IT, EVEN WHEN TEREFAH, FROM ITS UNCLEANNESS, 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 CONTACT OR CARRIAGE? NOW, AS WE HAVE FOUND THAT SHECHITAH, WHICH MAKES IT [A BIRD OF HULLIN] FIT FOR EATING, CLEANSES IT WHEN TEREFAH FROM ITS UNCLEANNESS; SO MELIKAH, WHICH MAKES IT [A BIRD SACRIFICE] FIT FOR EATING, CLEANSES IT WHEN TEREFAH FROM ITS UNCLEANNESS. R. JOSE SAID: IT IS SUFFICIENT FOR IT TO BE LIKE THE NEBELAH OF A CLEAN [PERMITTED] ANIMAL, WHICH IS CLEANSED BY SHECHITAH, BUT NOT BY MELIKAH.1
GEMARA. Now, does not R. Meir accept the principle of dayyo [it is sufficient]; Surely the principle of dayyo is biblical? For it was taught: How is a kal wa-homer applied? And the Lord said unto Moses: If her father had but spit in her face, should she not hide in shame seven days?2 How much more should a divine reproof necessitate [shame for] fourteen days; but it is sufficient for that which is inferred by an argument to be like the premise!3 - Said R. Jose son of R. Abin: R. Meir found a text and interpreted it:4 This is the low of the beast and of the bird.5 Now, in which law is a beast similar to a bird and a bird to a beast? A beast defiles through contact and carriage, whereas a bird does not defile through contact or carriage; a bird defiles garments [when its flesh] is in the gullet, whereas a beast does not defile garments [when its flesh] is in the gullet. But it is to tell you: as in the case of a beast, that which makes it fit for eating makes it clean when terefah from its defilement; so in the case of a bird, that which makes it fit for eating6 makes it clean when terefah from its defilement.
Then what is R. Judah's reason? - Said Rabbah, R. Judah found a text, and interpreted it:7 [And every soul which eateth] nebelah or terefah8 [ . . , he shall wash his clothes etc.].9 Said R. Judah: Why is 'terefah' stated? If 'terefah' can live, then surely 'nebelah' is already stated;10 while if 'terefah' cannot live, it is included in nebelah?11 Hence it is to include a terefah which one slaughtered, [and teaches] that it defiles.
If so, said R. Shisbi to him, when it is written, And the fat [heleb] of nebelah, and the fat of terefah [may be used for any other service, but ye shall in no wise eat it]:12 there too let us argue: Why is terefah stated? If terefah can live, then surely nebelah is already stated; and if terefah cannot live, it is included in nebelah? Hence it is to include a terefah which one slaughtered, [and teaches] that its heleb is clean? Hence it follows that it defiles?13 But surely Rab Judah said in Rab's name, whilst others say that it was taught in a Baraitha: And if there die of a beast:14 some beasts defile, and some beasts do not. And which is it [that is excluded]? A terefah which was slaughtered! - Rather, [this is R. Shizbi's difficulty]: This terefah15 is necessary in order to exclude an unclean animal,16 [for it intimates:] only that in whose species there is terefah: hence this [an unclean animal] is excluded, since there is no terefah in its species.17 Then here too18 [say that] [the inclusion of terefah] excludes an unclean [forbidden] bird, since there is no terefah in its species?19 [The exclusion of] an unclean bird is, in R. Judah's opinion, derived from nebelah. For it was taught. R. Judah said: You might think that the nebelah of an unclean bird defiles garments [when its flesh] is in the gullet. Therefore it states, Nebelah or terefah he shall not eat [to defile himself therewith]:20 only that [defiles] whose interdict is on account of 'do not eat nebelah'; hence this [an unclean bird] is excluded, since its interdict is not on account of 'do not eat nebelah', but on account of 'do not eat unclean'.21
(1) For notes v. supra 50b, 51a.
(2) Num. XII, 14.
(3) Since you argue from her father's reproof, even a Divine reproof does not necessitate a longer period of shame. As Scripture proceeds. 'Let her be shut up without the camp seven days', it is evident that this principle is Scriptural.
(4) He accepts the principle of dayyo, but his ruling is based on a text, which makes him disregard the principle in this instance.
(5) Lev. XI, 46.
(6) Sc. melikah, in the case of a bird sacrifice.
(7) Emended text (Sh. M.).
(8) E.V. that which dieth of itself or that which is torn of beasts. According to the Talmudic interpretation an animal which dies by any method other than the correct ritual one (shechitah) is called nebelah, even if it is ritually slaughtered, but there is a defect in the shechitah. Terefah denotes an animal which was properly slaughtered with shechitah, but was then found to have been suffering from certain diseases or organic disturbances. These are listed in Hul. 42a, where there is a controversy whether a terefah could have lived (for more than twelve months) or not. On the view that it could, it is regarded as having been alive until the shechitah; on the view that it could not, it is regarded as already dead (technically) even before the shechitah, in which case it is obviously the same as nebelah.
(9) Lev. XVII, 15.
(10) So that if the terefah dies of its disease before it is slaughtered, it is obviously included in nebelah.
(11) Even whilst alive. So Rashi. Tosaf. and Sh. M. explain differently.
(12) Ibid. VII, 24. The Talmud (Pes. 23a) interprets this to mean that the heleb of a nebelah is clean and does not defile.
(13) The Talmud interposes: since R. Shizbi objects thus, it follows that in truth such heleb is unclean and defiles.
(14) Ibid. XI, 39. Lit. translation. 'Of' is partitive, and is understood as a limitation. The verse continues: he that touches the carcass thereof shall be unclean until the evening.
(15) In the verse which he quotes.
(16) The heleb of an unclean (i.e., forbidden) animal does not defile.
(17) Only the heleb of an animal which can become terefah defiles. But an unclean animal, which cannot be eaten in any case, can never become terefah in a technical sense, and therefore its heleb does not defile.
(18) In the verse quoted by R. Judah (the Tanna), not Rab Judah, the amora.
(19) That is the conclusion of R. Shizbi's objection: Interpret the text thus, and the question returns. What is R. Judah's reason, after R. Meir proves the contrary?
(20) Lev. XXII, 8.
(21) Hence the former verse is left free for the interpretation stated above.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 70a
Let this too be derived from, 'And the fat of nebelah', [which intimates:] that whose interdict is on account of 'do not eat the heleb of nebelah;'1 hence this [the heleb of a forbidden animal] is excluded, since its interdict is not on account of 'do not eat the heleb of nebelah', but on account of uncleanness?2 - Rather, this terefah3 is required in order to include hayyah.4 I might argue: Only that whose heleb is forbidden whilst its flesh is permitted [is included in this law]; hence a hayyah is excluded, since its heleb and its flesh are permitted.5 Therefore [the word terefah] informs us [that it is not so].6 Wherein7 does an unclean [forbidden] animal differ?8 [presumably] because its heleb is not distinct from its flesh?9 but then the heleb of a hayyah is not distinct from its flesh?10 Moreover, surely it is written, but ye shall in no wise eat it?11 - Rather, said Abaye. Terefah12 is needed for its own purpose.13 lest you argue: Since an unclean [animal] is forbidden whilst yet alive, and a terefah is forbidden whilst yet alive:14 as the heleb of an unclean [animal] is unclean [defiles], so is the heleb of a terefah unclean.15 If so, this too16 is required, lest you say: Since an unclean bird may not be eaten, and a terefah may not be eaten; as an unclean bird does not defile [garments, when the flesh is in the gullet], so a terefah too does not defile? Moreover, can terefah really be derived from an unclean animal:17 an unclean animal enjoyed no period of fitness,18 whereas a terefah enjoyed a period of fitness?19 And should you answer, what can be said of a terefah from birth; yet of its kind this can be said.20 - Rather said Raba: The Torah ordained, Let the interdict of nebelah come and fall upon the interdict of heleb; let the interdict of terefah come and fall upon the interdict of heleb.21 And both are necessary. For if we were informed [this about] nebelah, [I would argue that the reason is] because it defiles;22 but as for terefah, I would say that it does not [fall upon the interdict of heleb]. And if we were informed [this about] terefah. [I would say that the reason is] because its interdict dates from when it was alive; but as for nebelah, l would say that it is not so. Hence [they are both] necessary.
Now how does R. Meir employ this [word] terefah?23 - He needs it to exclude shechitah which is within.24 And R. Judah?25 - Another 'terefah' is written.26 And R. Meir?27 - One excludes shechitah which is within, and the other excludes an unclean forbidden bird. And R. Judah?28 - That is derived from nebelah.29 And R. Meir: how does he employ this 'nebelah'? - [To show that] the standard of eating [is required], viz., as much as an olive.30 Yet let this be derived from the first text,31 since the Divine Law expressed it in terms of eating? - One [text] is employed to shew that the standard of eating [is required for defilement], viz., as much as an olive; while the other intimates that this standard of eating must be within the time of eating half [a loaf].32 I might argue, since this is anomalous,33 let it defile even when it takes more than the time required for eating half [a loaf],34 Hence [the text] informs us [otherwise].
Our Rabbis taught: And the heleb of nebelah, and the heleb of terefah. [may be used for any other service; but ye shall in no wise eat of it]: Scripture speaks of the heleb of a clean [permitted] animal.35 You say, Scripture speaks of the heleb of a clean animal; yet perhaps it is not so, but rather of the heleb of an unclean animal? You can answer: [Scripture] declared [an animal] clean on account of its being slaughtered, and declared it clean on account of heleb:36 as when it declared it clean on account of being slaughtered, it referred to a clean [permitted], but not an unclean [forbidden] animal;37 so when it declared it clean on account of heleb, it referred to a clean, but not an unclean animal. Or argue in this wise: [Scripture] cleansed from nebelah,38 and it cleansed from heleb:39 as when it cleansed from nebelah, it was in the case of unclean, and not in the case of clean;40 so when it cleansed from heleb, [it did so] in the case of unclean, not in the case of clean? Thus you must say,
(1) Only that heleb does not defile.
(2) I.e., the whole animal is forbidden.
(3) In the verse quoted by R. Shizbi.
(4) A non-domestic animal, e.g., a deer, which may be eaten. The heleb of a hayyah is permitted; that of a behemah (a domestic animal, e.g., a sheep) is forbidden. The discussion hitherto has been about the heleb of a behemah.
(5) Therefore if a hayyah becomes nebelah, I would think that its heleb defiles, just as its flesh.
(6) For it teaches that the heleb of whatever is liable to become terefah, which includes hayyah, does not defile when nebelah.
(7) 'Said he to him' is deleted (Sh. M.).
(8) That you do not learn from this text that its heleb is clean and does not defile.
(9) Both are forbidden, and therefore you do not apply this text to it, since that implies that there is a distinction between them.
(10) Both being permitted. Hence you should not apply it to hayyah either.
(11) Lev. VII, 24. From this we infer anon that the heleb of a hayyah which is nebelah does defile. Hence the text cannot apply to it.
(12) In the verse quoted by R. Shizbi.
(13) To shew that the heleb of a terefah which died is clean.
(14) In the sense that shechitah cannot permit it.
(15) Hence the text teaches otherwise.
(16) Terefah in the text quoted by R. Judah.
(17) That you need a text to shew that it does not defile.
(18) Never at any time might it be eaten.
(19) Before it became terefah.
(20) Though that particular terefah was never fit, terefah in general was fit at one time.
(21) The text teaches that when one eats heleb of nebelah or terefah, he is liable not only on account of heleb but also on account of nebelah or terefah. For otherwise one might argue: since the interdict of heleb comes first, the other interdicts cannot apply to it at all.
(22) Which heleb does not. Hence it is logical that the interdict of nebelah, being greater in that respect, falls upon that of heleb.
(23) In the verse quoted by R. Judah.
(24) As stated supra 69a.
(25) How does he know that?
(26) Terefah is written in Lev. XVII, 15 and XXII, 8. Hence one is used for each.
(27) How does he utilise this second 'terefah'?
(28) Whence does he derive the latter?
(29) As supra 69b bottom.
(30) One is not liable for eating nebelah unless he eats at least as much as an olive (this is the general standard for all forbidden food). The text intimates that this too is the smallest quantity which defiles.
(31) Lev. XVII, 15.
(32) One is not liable for eating unless he eats as much as an olive within the normal time for eating half a loaf, which is half a meal (Rashi: half a loaf is the size of four average eggs; Maim.: three average eggs). The text teaches that when a man eats the flesh of nebelah (of a bird), he does not defile his garments unless he eats as much as an olive within that time.
(33) There is no other case in Scripture where an article does not defile through contact, but only when it enters the gullet.
(34) Being unique in one respect, it might be unique in another.
(35) Teaching that its heleb does not defile as nebelah.
(36) Scripture decreed that when an animal is slaughtered (with shechitah) it does not defile; and that the heleb of nebelah does not defile.
(37) Even if an unclean animal is ritually slaughtered, it defiles.
(38) There is a case where nebelah does not defile.
(39) Heleb does not defile, as stated.
(40) An unclean (forbidden) bird does not defile (as nebelah) when it is in the gullet, whereas a clean bird does.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 70b
when you argue in the one way [the text] applies to clean, whilst when you argue in the other way it applies to unclean. Therefore it says, 'terefah'. [which intimates,] the kind where there is terefah: then I might exclude the unclean, since there is no terefah in its kind,1 but I will not exclude hayyah, since there is terefah in its kind. Scripture, however, teaches: 'But ye shall in no wise eat of it', [intimating that it refers to] that whose heleb is forbidden whereas its flesh is permitted; thus hayyah is excluded, since its heleb and its flesh are permitted.
R. Jacob b. Abba said to Raba: If so,2 is it only the nebelah of a clean animal that defiles, whereas the nebelah of an unclean animal does not defile? - Said he to him: How many elders [scholars] of you have erred therein!3 the second clause4 applies to the nebelah of an unclean bird.
R. Johanan said: Only unblemished [birds] did R. Meir declare clean,5 but not blemished ones. While R. Eleazar maintained: [He ruled thus] even in the case of blemished ones. It was stated likewise: R. Bibi said in R. Eleazar's name: R. Meir declared blemished [birds] clean, even ducks and fowls.6
R. Jeremiah asked: What if one beheaded a goat?7 What is the reason in the case of ducks and fowls? [Is it] because they are species of birds; but a goat is not of the same species as a heifer.8 Or perhaps, it is of the species of cattle?9 R. Dimi sat and recited this discussion. Said Abaye to him: Hence it follows that the beheaded heifer10 is clean? - Yes, he replied: the School of R. Jannai said: 'Forgiveness'11 is written in connection therewith, as in the case of sacrifices.12
R. Nathan the father of R. Huna objected: 'But ye shall in no wise eat of it': I know [this law only of] heleb which may not be eaten but may be [otherwise] used.13 How do we know [it of] the heleb of the ox that is stoned14 and the beheaded heifer? - Because it says, All heleb [ . . . ye shall not eat].15 But if you think that the beheaded heifer is clean, could it be clean while its heleb is unclean?16 Where one did indeed behead it, no text is required; it is required only where one slaughtered it.17 Then let shechitah be efficacious in cleansing it from nebelah?18 - The text is necessary only where it died.19 Hence it follows that it was forbidden whilst yet alive?20 - Yes.
R. Jannai observed: I have heard a time limit for it,21 but have forgotten it; while our colleagues maintain: Its descent to the rugged valley, that renders it forbidden.
MISHNAH. ALL SACRIFICES WHICH BECAME MIXED UP WITH SIN-OFFERINGS THAT MUST BE LEFT TO DIE,22 OR WITH AN OX THAT IS TO BE STONED,23 EVEN ONE IN TEN THOUSAND, ALL MUST BE LEFT TO DIE. IF THEY WERE MIXED UP WITH AN OX WITH WHICH TRANSGRESSION HAD BEEN COMMITTED, E.G.24 ,
(1) There is no particular interdict of terefah since it is forbidden in any case.
(2) If you argue, 'as when it cleansed from nebelah it was in the case of unclean and not in the case of clean', which implies that the nebelah of a forbidden animal is clean.
(3) I am astonished that you (and presumably, your colleagues in the Academy - perhaps R. Jacob spoke on their behalf) - should so err.
(4) That to which he referred.
(5) After melikah, if they are terefah. The reason is because melikah is applicable to them.
(6) Which are not eligible sacrifices at all. For terefah too is not fit and yet R. Meir declares it clean.
(7) V. Deut. XXI, 1-9. Beheading' instead of shechitah normally renders an animal nebelah, so that it defiles, but since it was prescribed for the heifer, it presumably does not defile. What, however, if he beheaded a goat instead of a heifer, and for the same purpose: is the goat nebelah or not?
(8) Hence it will defile. - A heifer is counted amongst the large cattle, while a goat belongs to the small; therefore they are regarded as different species.
(9) Behemah; v. p. 342, n. 9.
(10) V. Deut. XXI, I ff.
(11) Ibid. 8.
(12) Hence it is treated as such, and does not defile.
(13) As Scripture states, may be used for any other service. Only such heleb does not defile.
(14) V. Ex. XXI, 28f. All benefit of the ox was forbidden.
(15) Lev. VII, 23. This ref. adopts Sh. M.'s emendation of Rashi, and is the preceding verse. The marginal ref. is Lev. III, 17, which seems out of place. - 'All' is an extension and includes the heleb of these.
(16) Obviously not, and no verse would be necessary to teach it.
(17) After becoming forbidden whilst alive through being set aside for this purpose, it was slaughtered (with shechitah) instead of beheaded. Then a text is required to shew that its heleb does not defile.
(18) Though shechitah will not permit it, at least it should free it from defilement, since we find no instance of a slaughtered and clean (permitted) animal defiling.
(19) This retracts the preceding answer. It had died of itself before it was beheaded. Here its flesh does defile as nebelah, and the text teaches that its heleb does not defile.
(20) Since the question is asked in respect of a heifer which died, it follows that even before it was beheaded, whilst yet alive, all benefit thereof was forbidden, and that is why the question is asked concerning the heleb.
(21) When it becomes forbidden.
(22) I.e., which for some reason can neither be offered up nor revert to hullin, so that they must not be put to work, but must be kept until they die. They are as follows: (i) The young of a sin-offering which calved before it was slaughtered. (ii) One whose owner died. (iii) The substitute of a sin-offering (v. p. 22, n. 8). (iv) A sin-offering whose owner had already made atonement. E.g., it was lost, whereupon he dedicated another and sacrificed it, and then the original one was found. And (v) an animal consecrated before it was a year old, but which passed its first year before being sacrificed (Rashi, as marginally emended). In cur. edd. Rashi enumerates an animal found to be blemished after consecration as the fifth.
(23) V. Ex. XXI, 28.
(24) Lit., 'or'.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 71a
THAT HAD KILLED A MAN ON THE TESTIMONY OF ONE WITNESS OR OF ITS OWNER;1 A ROBA OR A NIRBA';2 OR AN ANIMAL SET ASIDE [FOR AN IDOLATROUS SACRIFICE] OR THAT HAD BEEN WORSHIPPED [AS AN IDOL]; OR THAT WAS [A HARLOT'S] HIRE, OR [A DOG'S] EXCHANGE;
(1) So that it cannot be stoned.
(2) Animals used bestially: roba', a male with a woman, nirba', a female with a man.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 71b
OR THAT WAS KILAYIM;1 OR TEREFAH; OR AN ANIMAL CALVED THROUGH THE CAESAREAN SECTION,2 THEY MUST GRAZE UNTIL THEY BECOME UNFIT;3 THEN THEY ARE SOLD, AND ONE BRINGS [A SACRIFICE] OF THE SAME KIND4 AT THE PRICE OF THE BETTER OF THEM.5 IF THEY WERE MIXED UP WITH UNBLEMISHED [ANIMALS] OF HULLIN,6 THE HULLIN MUST BE SOLD FOR THE PURPOSE OF THAT KIND.7 [IF] A SACRIFICE [WAS MIXED UP] WITH A SACRIFICE, BOTH BEING OF THE SAME KIND:8 THIS ONE MUST BE OFFERED IN THE NAME OF WHOEVER IS ITS OWNER, AND THE OTHER MUST BE OFFERED IN THE NAME OF WHOEVER IS ITS OWNER.9 [IF] A SACRIFICE [WAS MIXED UP] WITH A SACRIFICE, BOTH BEING OF DIFFERENT KINDS,10 THEY MUST GRAZE UNTIL THEY BECOME UNFIT,11 AND THEN ONE PURCHASES AT THE PRICE OF THE BETTER OF THEM [AN ANIMAL] OF EACH KIND,12 AND BEARS THE LOSS OF THE EXCESS OUT OF HIS OWN POCKET.13 IF THEY WERE MIXED UP WITH A FIRSTLING OR TITHE, THEY MUST GRAZE UNTIL THEY BECOME UNFIT, AND THEN ARE EATEN AS FIRSTLING OR TITHE.14 ALL [SACRIFICES] CAN BE MIXED UP, EXCEPT THE SIN-OFFERING AND THE GUILT-OFFERING.15
GEMARA. What does EVEN mean?16 - This is what he means: ALL SACRIFICES with which SIN-OFFERINGS THAT MUST BE LEFT TO DIE, E.G., AN OX THAT MUST BE STONED, BECAME MIXED UP, EVEN ONE IN TEN THOUSAND, MUST BE LEFT TO DIE.17
[But] we have already learnt it once: All which are forbidden to the altar, e.g., a roba' and a nirba', render [others] forbidden whatever their number?18 - Said R. Kahana: I reported this discussion to R. Shimi b. Ashi, and he said to me: They are both necessary.19 For if [we learnt] from there, I would say. That is only [where they are forbidden] to the altar;20 but [where they are forbidden] to a layman, it is not [so].21 While if [we learnt] from here, I would say that [this ruling applies] only to these, which are forbidden for any use; but as for the others, which are not forbidden for general use, it is not [so].22 Thus they are both necessary.
But surely those which are not interdicted for all use are taught [in this Mishnah]?23 - Does he teach by what number [they render all forbidden]?24 Then let him teach the other, and we would not require this one? - He needs the remedy.25
But [those which are forbidden] to layman he also teaches; [there:] The following are themselves forbidden, and render [others] forbidden, whatever their number: Wine of nesek26 and [animals of] idolatry?27
(1) A hybrid, offspring of two heterogeneous animals, e.g., a goat and a sheep.
(2) These last two are included, though not implicated in sin, because the same law applies to them.
(3) I.e., blemished.
(4) As that which had thus been mixed up.
(5) None of these are eligible for sacrifices, yet a layman may make use of (though not eat) them; therefore they are not left to perish. At present, however, these animals cannot be used, since one of them is sacred, nor can they be redeemed (i.e., sold, and the money devoted to a sacrifice), for an unblemished consecrated animal cannot be redeemed. Hence they must be allowed to graze until they receive a blemish, when they are sold etc.
(6) One consecrated animal with either one or many of hullin.
(7) E.g., an animal consecrated for a peace-offering was mixed up with five of hullin, five of the six must be sold to people who owe a peace-offering. Thus all the six are now sacred and stand for the same purpose.
(8) E.g., both are peace-offerings or burnt-offerings, but belong to different owners.
(9) Rashi: the priest who offers it must declare, 'Lo, this is for the sake of its owner', without specifying a name. Tosaf, and Sh. M.: the priest says nothing at all about its owner, and then it is tacitly understood to be for its owner, whoever he is.
(10) E.g., a burnt-offering with a peace-offering.
(11) They cannot be offered themselves, because their rites of sprinkling and presenting the emurim are dissimilar.
(12) One for each sacrifice.
(13) The two animals, each of the value of the better of the first two, naturally involve a loss.
(14) The animals are redeemed, and other sacrifices bought with the redemption money. All those which were mixed up are eaten as firstling or tithe, i.e., they are subject to the same laws as these when blemished, which is that they must not be slaughtered in the public abattoirs (market) nor sold by weight.
(15) Because they are distinct, as explained in the Gemara.
(16) EVEN ONE IN TEN THOUSAND implies that the unfit are in the majority. But in that case it is all the more obvious that they cannot be sacrificed.
(17) This reverses the numbers.
(18) I.e., the smallest number of forbidden animals disqualify even the largest number with which they are mixed up. v. Tem. 28a. That is the same as our Mishnah.
(19) Emended text (Sh. M.).
(20) Lit., 'to the All-high'.
(21) All those enumerated there are forbidden to the altar but not for general use, and so they can (and must) be redeemed. Here, however, they are completely forbidden, and cannot be redeemed. I would say therefore that we cannot be so strict as to rule that all must die, but that on the contrary the one (or few) is annulled by the many, and all are permitted. Hence the Mishnah informs us otherwise.
(22) This reverses the preceding argument. I would argue that we are stricter here, precisely because the interdict is greater.
(23) Sc. in the clause, IF THEY BECAME MIXED UP WITH AN OX etc. These are only forbidden as sacrifices, but not for general use.
(24) EVEN ONE IN TEN THOUSAND may apply only to what precedes, but not to what follows. Hence the other Mishnah is necessary.
(25) The other Mishnah only states that they cannot be sacrificed. Here he teaches what is to be done with them.
(26) V. Glos.
(27) If wine of nesek is mixed with other permitted wine, or animals which had been worshiped are mixed up with others, they are all forbidden for any use whatever.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 72a
- They are both necessary: for if [I learnt] from there, I would say. That applies only to hullin; but as for sacrifices, Let us not cause the loss of all of them.1 While if [I learnt] from here, I would say. This applies only to sacred animals, because it is repulsive;2 but as for hullin, where it is not repulsive, I would say that though they are forbidden for any use, let them be annulled by the majority. Thus [both] are necessary.
Now, let them indeed be annulled by the majority? And should you answer, They are important and cannot be annulled; that is well on the view that we learnt 'whatever one is wont to count'; but on the view that we learnt 'that which one is wont to count what can be said?3 For we learnt: If a man has bundles of fenugreek of kil'ayim4 of a vineyard,5
(1) Since they are of greater (religious) value, let the forbidden animals be annulled by the larger number of consecrated ones.
(2) The slightest possibility of sacrificing a forbidden animal, though it be one in a thousand, is repulsive. Therefore they are all forbidden.
(3) This is explained anon.
(4) V. Glos.
(5) Cf. Lev. XIX, 19 and Deut. XXII, 9.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 72b
they must be burnt.1 If they were mixed up with others,2 and those again with others,3 they must all be burnt: that is the view of R. Meir. But the Sages maintain: They are neutralized in a mixture of two hundred to one. For R. Meir used to say: Whatever one is wont to count renders [others] forbidden;4 while the Sages maintain: Only six things forbid [the whole] - R. Akiba says: Seven - and they are as follows: The nuts of Perek, the pomegranates of Badan,5 sealed casks [of wine], beetroot tops, cabbage stalks,6 and Grecian gourds. R. Akiba adds the loaves of a householder.7 Those which are subject to the law of 'orlah8 [render the mixture] 'orlah;9 and those which are subject to the law of kil'ayim of the vineyard, [render the mixture] kil'ayim of the vineyard. Now it was stated thereon: R. Johanan said: We learnt,10 That which one is wont to count;11 while Resh Lakish said: We learnt, Whatever one is wont to count.12 Now, it is well according to Resh Lakish;13 but according to R. Johanan, what can be said?14 - Said R. Papa: This Tanna15 is the Tanna who taught [the Baraitha] concerning the litra of dried figs, who maintained:
(1) For they must not be used in any way. Burning is deduced from the word tikdash (E.V. forfeited) in the latter text, which is read tukad esh, 'shall be burnt in fire'.
(2) Permitted bundles of the same.
(3) This clause is omitted in 'Orlah III, 6 and Yeb. 81b.
(4) Lit., consecrated.'
(5) Perek and Badan are towns in Samaria N.E. of Shechem. In Yeb. 81b s.v. פרך Tosaf. renders the former by cracknuts.
(6) Beverages were made from these two.
(7) In connection with the neutralizing of leavened mixed up with unleavened bread before Passover, when the latter is required for the festival. All these were considered of particular importance, and could not be neutralized. In the last-mentioned a distinction is drawn between home-made loaves and the loaves of a baker, the latter being less important.
(8) V. Glos. They are the nuts, pomegranates and sealed casks of wine (made of grapes of 'orlah).
(9) The whole comes under the law of 'orlah.
(10) In R. Meir's ruling.
(11) Only such objects which are always counted cannot be neutralized, but not objects which are sometimes counted and sometimes sold in bulk.
(12) Even only occasionally. For further notes v. Yeb. (Sonc. ed.) 81b.
(13) For animals are sometimes sold singly and sometimes in lots (uncounted save by a general estimate).
(14) Let them indeed be neutralized.
(15) Of our Mishnah, and the Mishnah cited in the text.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 73a
Whatsoever is numbered [in selling], even [if its prohibition is] Rabbinical, cannot be neutralized, and how much the more when it is Biblical!1 For it was taught: If a litra of dried figs2 was pressed on the top of a round jar, and he does not know in which jar it was pressed; or on the top of a cask, and he does not know in which cask; or on top of a 'beehive',3 and he does not know in which, R. Meir maintains that R. Eliezer said: We regard the upper [layers] as if they are separated, and the lower ones neutralize the upper ones;4 while R. Joshua ruled: If there were a hundred tops, they neutralize; if not, [all] the tops are forbidden, and the bottom layers5 are permitted.6 R. Judah maintained: R. Eliezer said: If there were a hundred tops, they neutralize; if not, [all] the tops are forbidden etc.; while R. Joshua ruled: Even if you have three hundred tops, they do not neutralize.7 If he pressed it8 in a round jar, and he does not know in which part of the jar he pressed it, whether in the north or in the south, all agree that it is neutralized.9 R. Ashi said: You may even say [that it agrees with] the Rabbis: Living creatures are important, and cannot be neutralized.
Now, let us detach [them] one by one and say, whatever is detached,10 is detached from the majority?11 [You say,] 'detach [them]'! but that is kabua'
(1) As in the instances which we are discussing.
(2) Of terumah (q.v. Glos.), which may not be eaten by a zar. Normally it is neutralized by one hundred times its quantity. By Biblical law terumah must be given only of corn, wine, and oil (v. Num. XVIII, 8; Deut. XVIII, 4); the Rabbis added fruit.
(3) A receptacle of that shape.
(4) Though only the top layer of each cask etc. is in doubt, for the bottom ones are certainly not terumah, we regard the top layers as if they were taken away from their place and dispersed among all the layers of all the casks. Hence, if there are a hundred layers in all against the one in doubt, it is neutralized and all are permitted.
(5) I.e., all but the top one.
(6) But you cannot count all the layers for neutralizing purposes, since they are not in doubt.
(7) For layers of figs are sold by number.
(8) The litra of figs.
(9) Because it may not be a complete layer, and is therefore not sold by number. - Hence our Mishnah agrees with R. Joshua. For further notes v. Bez. (Sonc. ed.) 3bff.
(10) Lit., 'separates'.
(11) This is a general rule: when one thing is detached from many, we assume that it was detached from what constituted the majority. Here the majority of the animals are fit for sacrifice; as we detach each one, we may assume that it was of the majority, and therefore it can be sacrificed. Only the last two will then remain forbidden.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 73b
and every [case of] kabua' is like half and half?1 - Rather, [the difficulty is this]: Let us force them to scatter and then say, whatever is detached, is detached from the majority? - Said Raba: We fear lest [e.g.] ten priests come at the same time and offer them.2 One of the Rabbis observed to Raba: If so, is the tray forbidden?3 - [Rather the reason is] because [we fear] lest [e.g.] ten priests come and take them simultaneously.4 Is that possible?5 - Rather said Raba: The reason is because of kabua'.6
Raba said: Since the Rabbis ruled that we must not offer them, if one does offer, it [each animal] does not propitiate.7 R. Huna b. Judah raised an objection to Raba: If a sin-offering was mixed up with a burnt-offering, or a burnt-offering with a sin-offering,8 even one in ten thousand, all must die.9 When is this? If the priest consulted [the authorities].10 But if the priest did not consult [the authorities], and he sacrificed them [all] above,11 half are fit and half are unfit;12 below, half are fit and half are unfit. [If he sacrificed] one above and one below, both are unfit, for I assume [that] the sin-offering was offered above, and the burnt-offering below!13 - Said he to him:14 This [my ruling] is in accordance with the view that live animals can be [permanently] rejected; the other is in accordance with the view that live animals cannot be [permanently] rejected.15 But what about slaughtered animals regarding which all agree that they are [permanently] rejected,
(1) This is a general rule in the Talmud: although the majority is always followed, that is only when the minority is not kabua', fixed, settled in a certain place; otherwise it is equal to the majority; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 531, n. 4. Here, the forbidden animal being kabua', is therefore equal to the majority.
(2) This is now assumed to mean that after they are detached and slaughtered one after the other, ten priests will sprinkle the blood of ten animals or present their emurim (these are the essential acts of offering) simultaneously. Now, where e.g. the ten constitute the majority, they may therefore be assumed to include the forbidden one.
(3) After each animal has been slaughtered in the presumption that it is permitted, can they now become forbidden when their emurim are on the tray, waiting to be presented at the altar? That is absurd.
(4) From the confused herd.
(5) Surely not. Since they are scattered, it is impossible for the priests to take them at the identical moment.
(6) If we permit this when they are scattered, the priests may come and take them one by one even when they are not scattered, which, as stated above, is forbidden.
(7) This is a technical expression to denote that the sacrifice is invalid, and the owner still remains liable to his obligation.
(8) This refers to birds. These cannot be left until they are blemished, as bird-offerings cannot be redeemed.
(9) Since we do not know now how each is to be sacrificed.
(10) He asked what he was to do.
(11) As burnt-offerings.
(12) And if there was one bird of each, he must bring another for a sin-offering; similarly when it is reversed.
(13) I.e., this is possible; v. Kin. I, 2 and III, 1. - Thus although the priest is forbidden to offer them in the first place, yet if he does, those offered properly are fit. The same then should apply here.
(14) Marginal emendation.
(15) v. p. 295, n. 7, 10.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 74a
yet we learnt, R. Eliezer said: If he offered the head of one of them, all the heads must be offered?1 - He ruled in accordance with Hanan the Egyptian. For it was taught: Hanan the Egyptian said: Even if the blood is in the cup, he brings its companion and pairs it.2
R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbuha [in Rab's name]:3 If a ring of idolatry4 was mixed up with a hundred rings, and one of them fell into the Great Sea,5 all are permitted, because we say: The one which fell was the one which was forbidden.6 Raba raised an objection to R. Nahman: EVEN ONE IN TEN THOUSAND, ALL MUST BE LEFT TO DIE. Yet why so; let us say that the first which dies is the forbidden one? Said he to him: Rab ruled in accordance with R. Eliezer, for we learnt: R. Eliezer said: if he offered the head of one of them, all the heads may be offered.7 But surely R. Eleazar8 said: R. Eliezer permitted [them to be offered] only in twos,9 but not singly? - I also meant in twos,10 he replied.
Rab said:11 If a ring of idolatry was mixed up with a hundred rings, and forty of them [were] detached to one place, and sixty to another: if one [was] detached from the forty, it does not forbid [others];12 if one [was detached] from the sixty, it renders [others] forbidden. Why is one from forty different? [presumably] because we say, The forbidden [article] is among the majority? Then [in the case of] one from sixty too we must say, The forbidden [article] is in the majority?13 Rather [this is what he said]: If the forty were all separated to one place, they do not render [others] forbidden;14 [if] sixty [were detached] to one place, they render [others] forbidden.15 When I stated this before Samuel, he said to me: Leave idolatry alone, for a doubt therein and a double doubt are forbidden for all time.16
An objection is raised: The doubt of idolatry is forbidden, but a double doubt is permitted. How so? If a goblet of idolatry fell into a storeroom filled with goblets, all are forbidden. If one of these was detached and mixed up with ten thousand, and from the ten thousand [one was detached into] ten thousand, they are permitted?17 - It is a controversy of Tannaim. For it was taught, R. Judah said: pomegranates of Badan, however small their proportion, render [others] forbidden. How so? If one of them fell into ten thousand, and [one] of the ten thousand into [another] ten thousand, all are forbidden. R. Simeon b. Judah said on R. Simeon's authority: [If it fell] into ten thousand, they are forbidden; but [if one] of the ten thousand [fell] into three, and [one] of the three [fell] among others,18 they are permitted .19
In accordance with whom did Samuel rule? If in accordance with R. Judah, it is forbidden even in the case of other interdicts?20 If in accordance with R. Simeon, then even in the case of idolatry too [a double doubt] is permitted? And should you say, R. Simeon allows a distinction between idolatry and other interdicts; then when it was taught, 'A doubt of idolatry is forbidden, but a double doubt is permitted,' who is its author? it is neither R. Judah nor R. Simeon? - In truth [the author of this is] R. Simeon, and he permits in the case of idolatry too,21 while Samuel agrees with R. Judah in one matter, but disagrees in another.22
The master said: '[If one] of the ten thousand [fell] into three, and [one]' of the three [fell] among others, they are permitted.'
(1) V. infra 77b. Though had the priest asked, we would have instructed him not to offer any.
(2) V. supra 34b.
(3) Sh. M. deletes 'in Rab's name'.
(4) One which adorned an idol; all benefit thereof is forbidden, and it is not neutralized when it is mixed up with any number of others, all of which become forbidden (supra 71b).
(5) Probably the Mediterranean. Of course, the same applies, to any place where it is lost.
(6) We make this lenient assumption.
(7) Thus the first is assumed to have been the forbidden one.
(8) The amora.
(9) Where one is definitely not forbidden, and so we assume the same about the other.
(10) The remaining rings must be sold in twos.
(11) Marginal emendation: Rab Judah said in Rab's name.
(12) If it became mixed up with others. 'Separated' in the whole passage means accidentally.
(13) I.e., the remaining fifty nine.
(14) If these forty were mixed up with others, because we assume that the forbidden one is in the sixty. If they were not mixed up with others, they would remain forbidden, for the forbidden ring cannot be nullified in the majority, and even R. Eliezer permits a lenient assumption only where an article is lost or destroyed, as where the head of one of them is offered. Nevertheless, when the forty are mixed up with others, all are permitted, because now there is a double doubt concerning each ring: Firstly, the forty may not have contained the forbidden one at all; and secondly, even if they did, each one of the present mixed group may not be of the forty. Hence they are all permitted.
(15) Because we assume that the forbidden one is in the majority, and so now there is only a single doubt concerning each ring: whether it is the forbidden one or not. Therefore we must adopt a rigorous ruling.
(16) No matter how slight the doubt, it is always forbidden. Thus even in the case of forty they render others forbidden.
(17) This contradicts Samuel. - It is not clear why this second clause, 'and from the ten thousand into ten thousand' is necessary, for since a double doubt is permitted, when one of the storeroom is mixed up with the first ten thousand, the latter should be permitted. Sh. M. suggests that the first ten thousand are permitted, but they may not be all used simultaneously, for then we have only a single doubt, whether the one from the storeroom was the goblet of idolatry or not. (He rejects the explanation, given by Tosaf. in the next passage, that the second ten thousand is mentioned to shew that he who forbids, forbids even then, as inapplicable here since no view forbidding these is expressed in this Baraitha at all. Nevertheless, it is possible that the Baraitha is a fragment, the other half being lost even in Talmudic times, and so the Talmud cites it as a refutation of Samuel.)
(18) Lit., 'into another place'.
(19) Rashi: both the first three and the others, because there is a double doubt in connection with both. Tosaf.: the first three may not all be enjoyed simultaneously (v. n. 2.). The number three is discussed anon.
(20) Since R. Judah's ruling does not refer particularly to idolatry.
(21) Emended text (Sh. M.).
(22) He agrees that a double doubt of idolatry is forbidden, but does not apply it to other interdicts, as does R. Judah.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 74b
Why are three different? [presumably] because there is a majority? Then [if it fell] among two, there is also a majority? - What does he mean by 'three'? two together with itself. Alternatively, he agrees with R. Eliezer.1
Resh Lakish said: If a cask of terumah was mixed up with a hundred casks [of hullin], and one of them fell into the Salt Sea,2 all of them become permitted, for we assume: The one which fell was the forbidden one.3 Now, the rulings of both R. Nahman4 and Resh Lakish are necessary. For if [we learnt] from R. Nahman's [ruling], I would say: It applies to idolatry only, because it has no remedy to permit it;5 but in the case of terumah, which has a remedy,6 I would say that it is not so.7 While if [we learnt] from Resh Lakish, I would say: It applies only to a cask, whose fall is noticeable; but as for a ring, whose fall [loss] is not noticeable, I would say that it is not so.8 Thus they are both necessary.
Rabbah said: Resh Lakish permitted only a cask, whose fall is noticeable, but not a fig.9 But R. Joseph said: Even a fig: as its fall, so its removal [rise].10
R. Eleazar said: If a [closed] cask of terumah fell among a hundred casks, he opens one of them, removes therefrom the proportion of the mixture,11 and drinks [the rest]. R. Dimi sat and reported this ruling. Said R. Nahman to him: We see here quaffing and drinking!12 Say rather: If one of them was opened,13 he removes thereof the proportion of the mixture, and drinks.
R. Oshaia said: If a [sealed] cask of terumah was mixed up with a hundred and fifty casks, and a hundred of them were opened [accidentally], he removes from them the proportion of the mixture and drinks, but the rest are forbidden until they are opened [accidentally], [for] we do not say, The forbidden article is in the majority.14
A ROBA' OR A NIRBA' etc. As for all the others, it is well; [for their disqualification] is not perceptible;15 but how is this [case of] terefah possible? if it is perceptible, let [the priest] come and remove it?16 whilst if he cannot distinguish it, how does he know that [a terefah] was mixed up?17 The school of R. Jannai said: The circumstances here are e.g., that [an animal] perforated by a thorn was mixed up with one attacked by a wolf.18 Resh Lakish said: It was mixed up e.g. with a fallen animal. [You say,] 'A fallen animal'? that too can be examined?19 He holds [that] if it, stood up, it needs [observation for] twenty-four hours; if it walked, it needs examination.20 R. Jeremiah said: E.g., it was mixed up with the young of a terefah, this being in accordance with R. Eliezer, who maintained: The young of a terefah cannot be offered at the altar.
All these [Rabbis] did not explain it as the school of R. Jannai, [because they hold that] you can distinguish [an animal] perforated by a thorn from one attacked by a wolf, [as the perforation of] the former is elongated, whereas [that of] the latter is round. They did not explain it as Resh Lakish, [for] they hold: If it arose, it does not need twenty-four hours; if it walked, it does not need examination. They did not explain it as R. Jeremiah, because they would not make it agree with R. Eliezer.21
[IF] A SACRIFICE [WAS MIXED UP] WITH A SACRIFICE, BOTH BEING OF THE SAME KIND etc. But [the sacrifice] requires laying on [of hands]?22 - Said R. Joseph: It refers to sacrifices of women.23 But not to men's sacrifices?
(1) V. supra a, where it is stated that R. Eliezer permits the heads to be offered only in twos. Similarly here, the pomegranates can be used only in twos, and for that reason it must have fallen into at least three, so that there are four in all; otherwise, two could be used, while the third would be forbidden. (Rashi gives two explanations: this is the second, which is adopted by Tosaf. too, though Rashi favours the first.)
(2) The Dead Sea.
(3) Sc. that of terumah.
(4) V. supra a: he gives a similar ruling on a ring of idolatry.
(5) In itself; hence it would be too rigorous to say that they remain forbidden.
(6) The lot can be sold to a priest, to whom it is permitted.
(7) There is no need for this lenient assumption.
(8) A cask is a large object, and its loss is noticeable. Hence when the rest are permitted, one can see that it is because one fell out. But a ring is small and its loss out of a large number is not noticeable. Therefore it might be thought that if the rest are permitted, one will not know the reason and believe that they are all permitted, even if none fell out.
(9) Which is small. - Sh. M.: This is only if the fig was mixed up with less than a hundred, as otherwise it is neutralized in any case. But a closed cask is not neutralized by any number (supra 72b.).
(10) Just as you consider it sufficiently important to render all forbidden when it falls among other figs, so must its removal be considered sufficiently noticeable to render them all permitted.
(11) One cask is forbidden, while a hundred are permitted; hence the proportion of the forbidden is 1/101st part; this he must remove, and the rest is permitted, for an open cask can be neutralized (Sh. M. reads in Rashi: he must remove 1/100th part, not 1/101st part).
(12) If he is permitted to open the cask, how is this law, that a sealed cask can never be neutralized, possible?
(14) As Rab supra a. If we did say thus, we would assume the cask of terumah to be in the hundred, so that the other fifty are immediately permitted.
(15) Lit., 'known'. Hence they can be mixed up with others.
(16) From the other animals. - It is perceptible when it is an outward form of terefah, e.g., if the skull was perforated. But then it is distinguishable from the other animals.
(17) If it is an internal form of terefah, so that it is not distinguishable from the others, how indeed does he know that it is terefah until it is slaughtered and examined?
(18) Both show marks of perforation, and so are indistinguishable; but the former is not terefah (unless the thorn penetrated right through the flesh into the interior of the animal, which it did not here), whereas the latter is (any animal attacked by a beast of prey is terefah).
(19) If it can get up and walk, it is entirely fit, as there is an opinion that in such a case one need not wait but can slaughter it immediately, and it need not even be examined after slaughter to see if there is a lesion of the vital organs, which would render it terefah. Hence it is merely necessary in the present instance to see which animals can walk.
(20) If the animal merely succeeded in rising, but could not walk, it must be kept to see if it can live twenty-four hours; if it is slaughtered before, it is terefah even if no internal lesion is discovered. But if it succeeded in walking, it can be slaughtered at any time, save that after slaughtering all the vital organs, e.g., the spinal cord, lungs, heart, etc, must be examined for injury (this is not required in the case of an ordinary animal); thus it is considered as a doubtful terefah and may not be offered. In this instance all the animals can walk, yet as there remains the doubt, none can be offered.
(21) His ruling is generally rejected, v. Shab. 130b, (Sonc. ed.) p. 653, n. 9.
(22) By its owner, whereas he is unknown.
(23) Which did not require it.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 75a
Abaye raised an objection to him: If an individual's sacrifice was mixed up with an individual's sacrifice, or a congregational sacrifice with a congregational sacrifice, or if an individual's sacrifice and a congregational sacrifice were mixed up, [the priest] must make four applications [of the blood] of each [sacrifice];1 Yet if he made an application of each, he has fulfilled his obligation;2 and if he made four applications from all,3 it suffices. When is this said?4 If they were mixed up alive; but if they were mixed up after being slaughtered,5 he makes four applications for all of them; yet if he made one application, he fulfilled his duty. Rabbi said: We examine the application: if it contains sufficient for each,6 it is fit; if not, it is unfit. Now, he teaches about an individual who is similar to the congregation: as the congregation [consists of] men, so the individual [means] a man!7 - Said Raba: And is it reasonable that this is correct [as it stands]? [Surely not,] for he teaches: When is this said? if they were mixed up alive; but not if they were mixed up when slaughtered. But what does it matter whether they are alive or slaughtered?8 Rather, this is what he means: when is this said? If they were mixed up, when slaughtered, as if they were alive, [viz.,] the goblets [were mixed up]; but where one mingled [the blood in one goblet], [the priest] makes four applications for all of them; yet if he made one application on behalf of all, he has fulfilled his duty.9
'Rabbi said: We examine the application: if it contains sufficient for each, it is fit; if not, it is unfit.' Now does Rabbi hold this view? Surely it was taught: Rabbi said: According to R. Eliezer,
(1) Cf. supra 52b.
(2) Cf. supra 36a: whatever is sprinkled on the outer altar, if the priest made one application thereof, he has atoned.
(3) Rashi: two for each sacrifice, i.e., four from one sacrifice, so that it can be regarded as two for each; similarly according to the explanations of Tosaf. and Sh. M.: this means where four sacrifices were mixed up, an individual's with an individual's and a congregational one with a congregational one, so that he makes one for each sacrifice. Sh. M. regards this as forced, and proposes an emendation: 'and if he made two applications etc'.
(4) That in the first place four applications of each are necessary.
(5) So that their blood was mixed in one goblet.
(6) If he applied enough blood in this one application for two.
(7) Not only a woman.
(8) Even if they are slaughtered they may still require four applications from each, e.g., if the goblets were mixed up, but all the blood was not in one goblet.
(9) Hence the passage refers to slaughtered animals, laying of hands having already taken place before they were mixed up.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 75b
sprinkling, no matter how little, cleanses; sprinkling does not require a definite standard; sprinkling [is valid even if the mixture is] half fit and half unfit?1 - He states [the law] according to R. Eliezer.2 Alternatively, sprinkling [upon a person] is one thing, while a [blood] application is another.3
IF THEY WERE MIXED UP WITH A FIRSTLING OR TITHE etc. Rami b. Hama said: According to Beth Shammai, a firstling may not be given as food to menstruant women;4 what about its substitute?5 A firstling cannot be redeemed;6 what about its substitute? A firstling cannot be weighed by the pound;7 what about its substitute? - Said Raba: It was taught: A firstling and tithe, [even] when they became blemished, effect substitution.8 and their substitute is like themselves.9
Rami b. Hama asked: If one dedicated a [blemished] firstling for the Temple repair,10 can it be weighed by the pound?11 Is the profit of hekdesh12 of greater consideration, or is the degradation of the firstling13 of greater consideration? - Said R. Jose b. Zebida, Come and hear: IF THEY WERE MIXED UP WITH A FIRSTLING OR TITHE, THEY MUST GRAZE UNTIL THEY BECOME UNFIT, AND THEN THEY ARE EATEN AS FIRSTLING OR TITHE. Surely that means that they are not weighed by the pound?14 - R. Huna and R. Hezekiah, disciples of R. Jeremiah, said: How compare? There you have two sanctities and two bodies,15 but here you have two sanctities16 and one body.17 To this R. Jose b. Abin demurred:18 What if he said, 'Redeem me a firstling'19 which he had devoted to Temple repair: Would we heed him?20 - [If he says,] 'Redeem' - [surely] the Divine Law said that it must not be redeemed!21 - Rather said R. Ammi: Did he transmit ought save what he possessed?22
ALL [SACRIFICES] CAN BE MIXED UP etc. Why are a sin-offering and a guilt-offering different; [presumably] because one is a male and the other is a female? Then the same applies to a sin-offering and a burnt-offering? - There is the ruler's he-goat.23 In the case of a guilt-offering too, there is the ruler's he-goat? - One has hair and the other has wool.24 A Passover-offering and a guilt-offering too cannot be mixed up, for the former is a year old, while the latter is two years old? - There are the nazirite's guilt-offering and the leper's guilt-offering.25 Alternatively, sometimes a year old looks like a two-year old, and sometimes a two-year old looks like a year old.
MISHNAH. IF A GUILT-OFFERING WAS MIXED UP WITH A PEACE-OFFERING, R. SIMEON SAID: THEY MUST BE SLAUGHTERED AT THE NORTH [SIDE OF THE ALTAR]26 AND EATEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH [THE LAWS OF] THE MORE STRINGENT OF THEM.27 SAID THEY TO HIM: ONE MUST NOT BRING SACRIFICES TO THE PLACE OF UNFITNESS.28 IF PIECES [OF FLESH] WERE MIXED UP WITH PIECES [OF FLESH], MOST SACRED SACRIFICES WITH LESSER SACRIFICES, [PIECES] THAT ARE EATEN ONE DAY WITH [THOSE] THAT ARE EATEN TWO DAYS AND ONE NIGHT, THEY MUST BE EATEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH [THE LAWS OF] THE MORE STRINGENT OF THEM.29
GEMARA. A Tanna recited before Rab: You must not purchase terumah with the money of seventh-year produce, because you diminish the time allowed for its consumption.30 The Rabbis stated in Rabbah's31 presence: This does not agree with R. Simeon, for if it agreed with R. Simeon, surely he maintained: One may bring sacrifices32 to the place of unfitness. Said he to them: You may say that it agrees even with R. Simeon: That33 is only when it was done,34 but not at the very outset.35 'But not at the outset'? Abaye raised an objection to him:
(1) V. infra 80a. This refers to the besprinkling of a man defiled through contact with the dead. It is assumed that the same applies to the sprinkling of the blood of a sacrifice, which proves that such does not require a definite quantity at all, and so contradicts Rabbi's present statement.
(2) But does not accept it himself.
(3) The same law does not apply to both.
(4) Bek. 33a.
(5) If another animal was proposed as its substitute, whereupon both receive the sanctity of a firstling: does the same law about menstruant women apply?
(6) So as to become hullin, while the redemption-money becomes sacred.
(7) When the priest sells it.
(8) In the sense that the substitute too is holy.
(9) Subject to the same laws.
(10) Lit., 'if one caused a firstling to be seized (with sanctity).' On 'Temple repair' v. p. 74. n. 7.
(11) Can it be sold by weight, or only by general computation? In the former case a higher price will be obtained, so that the Temple repair will benefit more.
(12) V. Glos.
(13) It is considered a degradation for a firstling to be treated exactly like hullin and sold by weight, for which reason it is normally forbidden. When other sacrifices become unfit and are redeemed, they are sold by weight in the public market, thereby fetching a higher price, because the money obtained, which is the redemption money, is used for hekdesh; this is not permitted in the case of a firstling, because the money goes to the priest. Here, however, that he dedicated it to hekdesh, it may be the same as other sacrifices. On the other hand, in the former instance the money is used for buying other animals for sacrifices, whereas here it is used for Temple repair only.
(14) When they are redeemed. Thus even the other sacrifices, which normally would be sold by the pound, are restricted on account of the firstling. This proves that the degradation of tithe is of greater consideration.
(15) The sacrifice and the firstling are two separate animals (bodies) and possess different sanctities; therefore you may not degrade the latter in order to obtain a higher price for the former.
(16) Viz., that of a firstling and that of Temple repair.
(17) Since the profit arises in the same body, it is possibly permitted, though the profit is utilised for a different purpose.
(18) What question is there at all: how can you think that we permit its degradation because it was dedicated?
(19) That it might become altogether hullin, to permit its shearing or being put to the plough etc.
(20) Surely not, though the Temple repair would profit thereby.
(21) That is forbidden by Biblical law, which obviously cannot be transgressed. But the prohibition of selling by weight is only Rabbinical and therefore it may possibly be waived (Rashi).
(22) A man can only give over what he possesses himself. Since the priest could not sell it by weight for his own use, he cannot empower the Temple repair fund to do so.
(23) V. Lev. IV, 22f.
(24) The guilt-offering is a male ram, which has wool. Hence it cannot be mixed up with a he-goat.
(25) Which are likewise a year old.
(26) The side prescribed for the slaughtering of a guilt-offering. Peace-offerings could be slaughtered on any side of the Temple court, supra 54b, 55a.
(27) I.e., as guilt-offerings, viz., during one day and one night only, within the Temple precincts, and by male priests. For a peace-offering v. supra 55a.
(28) For one of the sacrifices is a peace-offering, and is fit on the second day; we cannot therefore consign it to the place of unfitness, as is necessary in R. Simeon's ruling. Hence they must be left to graze until blemished.
(29) Here the Rabbis agree, as there is no alternative.
(30) In the seventh year, when nothing is left for the beasts in the field, this terumah will have to be destroyed, whereas if it had not been purchased with the money of seventh-year produce it could always be eaten. (The terumah itself was not of seventh-year produce, the latter being exempt from terumah or tithe.)
(31) Marginal emendation. Cur. edd. Raba's.
(32) Or, holy food in general which includes terumah.
(33) Sc. R. Simeon's ruling.
(34) As in the Mishnah: Since the animals were mixed up, there is no alternative.
(35) There is no need to purchase terumah at the outset, when it will have that effect.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 76a
And in all these the priests may deviate in their mode of eating, and eat them roast, stewed, or boiled; and they may season them with condiments of hullin or terumah: that is R. Simeon's ruling!1 - Leave the terumah of condiments, he replied, as it is [only] Rabbinical.2
He raised an objection: You may not purchase terumah with second-tithe money,3 because you reduce its consumption;4 but R. Simeon permits it? Thereupon he was silent.
When he [Abaye] came before R. Joseph, he said to him, Why did you not refute him from the following: You may not boil seventh-year vegetables in oil of terumah, in order not to bring sacred food5 to the place of unfitness;6 but R. Simeon permits it? - Said Abaye to him: Did I not refute him from this law of condiments, and he answered me, 'Leave the terumah of condiments, as it is [only] Rabbinical'? So here too [he would answer me]: The terumah of vegetables is [only] Rabbinical. If so,7 he [the Tanna] should teach the reverse, [viz.,] vegetables of terumah with seventh-year oil? - And did I not raise the objection to him, and he answered me, It means where they were mixed together?8 so here too [he could answer me] that they were mixed together.9 If they were mixed together, what is the reason of the Rabbis?10 - It is analogous to a guilt-offering and a peace-offering.11 How compare? there it has a remedy, viz., in grazing;12 whereas here it has no remedy in grazing.13 This can only be compared to a piece [mixed up] with other pieces, where, since there is no remedy, they are eaten in accordance with [the laws of] the more stringent of them.14 To this Rabina demurred: How compare? [when] a piece [is mixed up] with [other] pieces, it has no remedy at all; whereas this has a remedy in squeezing out!15 And R. Joseph?16 - How shall we squeeze it out? If we squeeze it out well,16 - seventh year produce is spoiled;17 if we squeeze it a little, then after all it remains mixed up.18
He raised an objection to him: R. Simeon said: On the morrow he brings his guilt-offering together with the log [of oil] and declares: If this is a leper's [offering] this is his guilt-offerings and this is its log [of oil];
(1) V. infra 90b. When he seasons it with terumah, he reduces the time for its consumption, as it is now limited to the time in which the sacrifice may be eaten; and yet R. Simeon permits it even at the outset.
(2) By Biblical law no terumah need be separated at all on condiments. Since it is only Rabbinical, we are not so strict.
(3) V. Deut. XIV, 22-26.
(4) Before it could be eaten anywhere, whereas now in Jerusalem only.
(5) Sc. terumah.
(6) Cf. n. 4, p. 363.
(7) If that is why R. Simeon is lenient.
(8) The oil and the vegetables were accidentally mixed together.
(9) Apparently Abaye answered that he had cited this in refutation of some other ruling (not stated here), and that this had been his reply. Consequently he did not cite it now, as he could give the same reply.
(10) In forbidding it.
(11) Which must be left to graze until they receive a blemish. So here too, the mixture of oil and vegetables must be left, rather than that we should reduce the time during which the terumah may be eaten.
(12) The animals will still be eaten, save that we must wait until they are blemished.
(13) If they may not be boiled together, the terumah is simply wasted altogether.
(14) Hence here too let the Rabbis permit them to be boiled together.
(15) The oil can be squeezed out of the vegetables.
(16) How does he answer this?
(17) The action of strong squeezing damages it.
(18) You cannot extract all the oil.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 76b
and if not, let this guilt-offering be a votive peace-offering.1 That guilt-offering must be slaughtered in the north, and requires sprinkling on the thumbs,2 laying [of hands], [the accompaniment of] drink-offerings, and the waving of the breast and the thigh; and it is eaten one day and one night.3 - A man's repair is different.4
That is well of the guilt-offering; what can be said about the log [of oil]?5 - He declares: [If I was not a leper,] let this log be a votive gift.'6 But perhaps he was not a leper, and he must take off a fistful?7 - He does take off a fistful. But perhaps he was a leper, and he requires seven sprinklings?8 - He makes them. But it is defective?9 - He brings a little more and replenishes it. For we learnt: If the log became defective before he poured it,10 he replenishes it. But it [the fistful] must be burnt? - He does burn it [on the altar].11 When? if after the seven sprinklings, it becomes a residue which was reduced between the taking of the fistful and the burning, and you may then not burn the fistful on its account;12 while if before the seven sprinklings, [we have the exegetical rule:] Every offering whereof a portion has been consigned to the fire [of the altar] is subject to 'Ye shall not make smoke [burn]'?13 - Said R. Judah the son of R. Simeon b. Pazzi: He brings it up [on the altar] as mere fuel '14 For it was taught, R. Eliezer said: 'For a sweet savour'15 you may not take it up [on the altar], but you may take it up
(1) This refers to a case of doubtful leprosy. 'On the morrow' means on the eighth day, the morrow after the final seven days of purification; v. Lev. XIII-XIV. If the man had not actually been a leper he is not liable now to a guilt-offerings and therefore he stipulates that in that event it shall be a votive peace-offering.
(2) V. Lev. XIV, 14.
(3) Like a guilt-offering. Thus he may reduce the time of its consumption (for it may be a peace-offering, which can be eaten two days) even at the outset!
(4) There is no other way by which he can become clean.
(5) This is not a refutation of Raba, but a difficulty in R. Simeon's statement. The guilt-offering can be a votive peace-offering, if the man was not a leper; but what about the log of oil, to which he is not liable in that case?
(6) For oil could be brought by itself, without an animal sacrifice.
(7) If oil is votively brought, a fistful must be taken off and burnt on the altar; v. infra 91b.
(8) V. Lev. XIV, 16.
(9) As a fistful was removed, there is now less than a log, and that invalidates the rites.
(10) On to his left hand, v. ibid. 15.
(11) Then the residue may be consumed in any event. For if he was a leper, it may be consumed, as stated supra 44b. While if this is a votive offering, it is the same as the residue of any meal-offering, which of course is eaten (v. Lev. II,3).
(12) It may be a votive offering, in which case the sprinklings are not a purification rite but simply a lessening of the oil. Now, the fistful had already been taken, and thus between that act and the burning the residue was reduced, in which case the fistful may not be burnt, v. Men. 9b.
(13) V. Lev. II, 11. Here too, perhaps it was a votive offering, and so the burning of the fistful is a valid rite, in accordance with Lev. II, 2 q.v. When this burning has once been done, none of the residue may be burnt again on the altar. Now in this instance the sprinklings of the oil are equivalent to the burning on the altar of part of a meal-offering; hence just as that would be forbidden, so are the sprinklings forbidden.
(14) Not as a fistful whose burning is a necessary rite. Thus when he sprinkles the oil the priest declares: 'If he was a leper' (so that the burning of the fistful was not a rite and does not count, since it was not a votive offering, for only such requires it), 'this is not a residue, and I sprinkle of the whole, not of the residue. While if he was not a leper' (so that the burning of the fistful was a necessary rite), 'let this not be accounted as ritual sprinkling but as merely pouring water on the altar' (the equivalent of burning the fistful not as a rite, but as though one added fuel to the altar). So Rashi. According to this explanation, the Talmud speaks figuratively: in the difficulty it raises, 'Ye shall not make smoke' means that you must not sprinkle, while 'he brings it up as mere fuel' in the answer means that he simply pours it out as water. This is perhaps forced, while it is questionable whether this sprinkling is the exact equivalent of the ritual burning of the fistful. Tosaf. therefore explains that the passage is meant literally, this agreeing with R. Akiba who maintained that it is forbidden to burn ritually a fistful of the leper's log of oil; hence the difficulty, How can he burn this fistful, in case he was a leper? The answer is that he does not burn it ritually, but merely as fuel.
(15) Lev. II, 12.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 77a
But there is the residue which is to be eaten, whereas we have this little more on whose account no fistful was taken?2 - He redeems it.3 Where does he redeem it? If within [the Temple court], then he brings hullin into the Temple court?4 If without, it becomes unfit through having gone out?5 - In truth, [he redeems it] within, but it is hullin automatically.6
Yet surely R. Simeon said: You cannot bring oil as a votive offering? - The repair of a man is different .7
R. Rehumi sat before Rabina, and stated in the name of R. Huna b. Tahlifa: Yet let him declare:8 Let this guilt-offering be a suspensive guilt-offering?9 You may infer from this10 that the Tanna who disagrees with R. Eliezer and maintains that you cannot bring a suspensive guilt-offering votively is R. Simeon. Said he [Rabina] to him [R. Rehumi] Torah! Torah!11 You have confused lambs with rams!12
MISHNAH. IF THE LIMBS OF A SIN-OFFERING WERE MIXED UP WITH THOSE OF A BURNT-OFFERING, R. ELIEZER SAID: HE MUST PLACE [THEM ALL] ON THE TOP [OF THE ALTAR], AND11 REGARD THE FLESH OF THE SIN-OFFERING ON TOP AS THOUGH IT WERE WOOD.13 BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: THEY MUST BECOME DISFIGURED, AND THEN GO OUT TO THE PLACE OF BURNING.14
GEMARA. What is R. Eliezer's reason? - Scripture saith, But they shall not come up for a sweet sovour on the altar:15 'for a sweet savour' you may not take it up [on the altar], but you may take it up as wood. And the Rabbis?16 - The Divine Law expressed a limitation [in the word] 'them': 'them' you may not bring up [for a sweet savour] but only as wood; but not anything else.17 And R. Eliezer? - Only [in respect of] 'them' have I included the ascent, making it like the altar, but not [in respect of] anything else.18 And the Rabbis?19 - You may infer both things from it.20
Our Mishnah does not agree with the following Tanna. For it was taught: R. Judah said: R. Eliezer and the Sages had no controversy about the limbs of a sin-offering which were mixed up with the limbs of a burnt-offering, [both agreeing] that they must be offered up; [if mixed up] with the limbs of a roba' or a nirba',21 [both agree] that they must not be offered. Wherein do they differ? About the limbs of an unblemished burnt-offering which were mixed up with the limbs of a blemished [one]: there R. Eliezer maintains [that] they must be offered up [on the altar], and I regard the flesh of the blemished animal on top as mere wood; while the Sages say: They must not be offered up.
Now [according to] R. Eliezer, why are roba' and nirba' different: [presumably] because they are not eligible? A blemished animal too is not eligible?
(1) These things which may not be taken up on the altar for ritual burning may be taken up as fuel.
(2) It may be a votive offering, of which a fistful must be taken for the altar, and only in virtue thereof is the rest permitted. Here he added a little after the fistful was taken, and so it was not permitted thereby. As it is mixed up with the rest, all is forbidden.
(3) He declares: 'If he was not a leper, and this log is a votive offering, let the additional oil' (which was not necessary for a votive offering) 'be redeemed by this money.'
(4) As soon as he redeems it, it is hullin, and in the Temple court, whereas hullin may not be brought into the Temple court.
(5) The whole log, for it ranks as most holy, which becomes unfit when taken without.
(6) He does not actually bring hullin into the Temple court.
(7) It is permitted here, as there is no other way out.
(8) If he was not a leper.
(9) To atone for a sin doubtfully committed. For R. Eliezer holds that such can be offered voluntarily, since every man stands in doubt whether he has sinned or not. This is preferable to declaring it a peace-offering, as the former too may only be eaten one day, and so we would not reduce the time permitted for consumption,
(10) Since R. Simeon does not adopt this expedient.
(11) Where is your learning?
(12) A leper's guilt-offering must be a year old lamb, whereas a suspensive guilt-offering must be a two year old ram.
(13) It cannot be ritually burnt, but it can be regarded merely as fuel.
(14) They must be kept until they no longer look like flesh and then be taken out and burnt where all unfit flesh is burnt. But they cannot be regarded and treated simply as fuel.
(15) Lev. II, 22. As stated supra 76b, this means that no sacrifice may be ritually burnt (haktarah) on the altar after a portion thereof has already been so burnt.
(16) How do they rebut this?
(17) The two verses (ibid. 11, 12) read: No meal-offering, which ye shall bring unto the Lord, shall be made with leaven; for all leaven and all honey, ye shall not make smoke of it as an offering made by fire unto the Lord (lit. translation). As an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them unto the Lord; but they shall not come up for a sweet savour on the altar. Now, as stated supra 76b, the first verse is interpreted to mean that the ritual burning on the altar of anything whose haktarah was already done is forbidden, This is learnt from the apparently superfluous 'of it', and is made to include sacrifices in general, and not particularly honey or leavened bread. The second verse nevertheless teaches that they can be burnt simply as fuel. The Rabbis hold that 'them' in the second verse is a limitation: only those things enumerated in the preceding verse, viz., honey and leavened bread may not come up 'for a sweet savour' yet may come up as fuel; other things, however, which may not come up (as deduced from 'of it'), may not come up at all.
(18) From the words, but they may not come up . . . to (lit. translation, not on as E.V.) the altar it is inferred that they may not even be placed on the ascent. R. Eliezer holds that 'them' teaches that only leavened bread and honey are so forbidden, but nothing else.
(19) Whence do they know this?
(20) The limitation of 'them' applies to everything that is implied in that verse; hence, as it teaches that things other than honey or leavened bread may not be brought up even as fuel, so it also teaches that they are not included in the interdict of the ascent.
(21) V. supra 71a.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 77b
- Said R. Huna: It refers to cataracts in the eye, and is in accordance with R. Akiba who maintained that if they ascended [the altar], they do not descend.1 Granted that R. Akiba ruled thus if it was done; did he rule thus at the very outset?2 - Said R. Papa: The circumstances here are, e.g., that they went up the ascent. If so, even when they are by themselves [they must be offered]?3 - Rather, [this is] R. Eliezer's reason: The Divine Law expressed a limitation in, 'There is a blemish in them; [they shall not be accepted:]'4 only when there is a blemish in them shall they not be accepted, but when they are mixed up they are accepted. And the Rabbis?5 - Only when the blemish is in them shall they not be accepted, but if their blemish has gone they are accepted. And R. Eliezer?6 - [He derives it] from bam, bahem.7 And the Rabbis? - They attribute no significance to8 bam, bahem. If so, [how can R. Eliezer say,] 'I regard'. Surely the Divine Law declared it fit?9 - He says this to them on their ruling: In my opinion, the Divine Law declared it fit; but [even] on your view, you should at least admit that the flesh of a blemished animal is like wood, by analogy with the flesh of a sin-offering. And the Rabbis? - Here10 it is repulsive;11 there12 it is not repulsive.
MISHNAH. [IF THE] LIMBS OF BURNT-OFFERINGS [WERE MIXED UP] WITH THE LIMBS OF A BLEMISHED [BURNT-OFFERING], R. ELIEZER SAID: IF [THE PRIEST] OFFERED THE HEAD OF ONE OF THEM, ALL THE HEADS ARE TO BE OFFERED; THE LEGS OF ONE OF THEM, ALL THE LEGS ARE TO BE OFFERED.13 BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: EVEN IF THEY HAD OFFERED ALL EXCEPT ONE OF THEM, IT GOES FORTH TO THE PLACE OF BURNING.
GEMARA. R. Eleazar said: R. Eliezer declared them fit only in twos, but not singly.14 R. Jacob raised an objection to R. Jeremiah:15 BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: EVEN IF THEY HAD OFFERED ALL EXCEPT ONE OF THEM, IT GOES FORTH TO THE PLACE OF BURNING?16 - Said R. Jeremia b. Tahlifa, I will explain it for you: What does ONE mean? One pair.
MISHNAH. IF THE BLOOD WAS MIXED WITH WATER, IF IT RETAINS THE APPEARANCE OF BLOOD, IT IS FIT,17 IF IT WAS MIXED WITH WINE, WE REGARD IT AS THOUGH IT WERE WATER.18 IF IT WAS MIXED WITH THE BLOOD OF A DOMESTIC ANIMAL OR BEAST OF CHASE, WE REGARD IT AS THOUGH IT WERE WATER;
(1) V. Bekh. 16a.
(2) That they may be taken up-surely not!
(3) According to R. Akiba, not only when they are mixed up with unblemished animals.
(4) Lev. XXII, 25. 'Shall not be accepted' intimates that they must not he presented on the altar.
(5) How do they interpret this?
(6) How does he know this?
(7) Scripture writes bam (in them) instead of bahem, as it does in the preceding phrase: 'because their corruption is bahem (in them)'. The change in word suggests a double limitation, and so both are learnt from it. Var. lec.: Scripture writes bam, bahem, i.e., two limiting words.
(8) Lit., 'they do not interpret'.
(9) If the text teaches that the limbs are fit to be burnt on the altar, how can you regard them as mere wood?
(10) In the case of a blemished animal.
(11) To burn it on the altar.
(12) The flesh of a sin-offering.
(13) Burnt on the altar. For I assume that the head or the legs already offered belonged to the blemished animal, and so all the rest are of the unblemished ones; v. supra 74a.
(14) V. supra 74a.
(15) Emended text (Sh. M.).
(16) Hence R. Eliezer must hold that this last one would be offered, which shews that they can be offered singly.
(17) For sprinkling.
(18) And if the blood would lose its appearance in that quantity of water, it is unfit. Similarly the following clauses.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 78a
R. JUDAH SAID: BLOOD CANNOT NULLIFY BLOOD.1 IF IT WAS MIXED WITH THE BLOOD OF UNFIT [ANIMALS],2 IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT.3 [IF IT WAS MIXED] WITH THE DRAINING BLOOD,4 IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT; R. ELIEZER DECLARED IT FIT. IF HE [THE PRIEST] DID NOT ASK BUT SPRINKLED IT, IT IS VALID.5
GEMARA. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: We learnt this6 only if the water fell into the blood; but if the blood fell into the water, each drop is nullified as it falls.7 R. Papa observed: [But] it is not so in respect to covering, because there is no rejection in precepts.8
Resh Lakish said: If piggul, nothar and unclean [flesh] were mixed up together, and one ate them, he is not culpable, [for] it is impossible that one kind should not exceed the other and nullify it.9 You may infer three things from this. You may infer [i]: Interdicts nullify each other. And you may infer [ii]: [The interdict of] taste in a greater quantity is not Scriptural.10 And you may infer [iii]: A doubtful warning is not called a warning.
Raba raised an objection: If one made a dough of wheat and rice, if it tastes of corn, it is subject to hallah.11 Now that is so even if the greater part is rice?12 - [That is] by Rabbinical law [only]. If so, consider the sequel: A man can fulfil his duty thereby on Passover?13
(1) Even if the added blood would cause the original blood to lose its appearance if the former were water, the mixture is still fit for sprinkling.
(2) E.g., with the blood of a roba' or a nirba' (v. supra 71a), or the blood of a sacrifice offered with the intention of eating the flesh after time or out of bounds.
(3) The duct or sewer in the Temple court which carried off the blood.
(4) V. p. 173, n. 6.
(5) Even according to the first Tanna.
(6) That if it retains the appearance of blood it is fit, which implies even where there is more water than blood.
(7) Lit., 'the first is nullified'. As each drop of blood falls into the water it is instantaneously nullified, so that even if eventually the mixture looks like blood, it is unfit for sprinkling.
(8) When one slaughters a bird or a beast of chase, he must cover its blood (Lev. XVII, 13). Now, even if this blood fell into water, if the whole looks like blood he must cover it, and we do not say that each consecutive drop was nullified. For though the first drop was indeed nullified, yet when so much has fallen in as to make the whole look like blood it regains its identity and combines with the rest, because where precepts are concerned a thing cannot be permanently rejected and made to lose its identity.
(9) Rashi:if one mixed as much as an olive of two of these (both from Rashi and Tosaf., it appears that 'and unclean flesh' should be deleted), as one chews them together there must be in each piece that he chews rather more of the one kind and less of the other. This lesser part is nullified in the greater and is technically added thereto, whilst the kind which it is, is naturally diminished thereby. This will happen with each piece that he chews, and as it is impossible to equalise them, one of the kinds has less than the standard (as much as an olive is the minimum to involve liability). Now, liability in general is not incurred unless a formal warning, called hathra'ah, is first given to the offender; this warning must be couched in precise terms, e.g., 'We warn you that for eating so-and-so you will incur such and such penalty.' In this instance such a precise warning is impossible, for if it is given on account of piggul, perhaps liability may be incurred on account of nothar, piggul being short of the standard. Hence only a doubtful warning can be given, and such is not accounted a warning. Tosaf. explains differently.
(10) If forbidden food is mixed even with a greater quantity of permitted food and communicates its taste to it, the whole is forbidden, (even if the former is subsequently removed). From Resh Lakish we learn that this interdict is not Scriptural and therefore does not involve flagellation. For if it were Scriptural, then even when one kind exceeds the other, yet since each imparts its taste to the other, there is the forbidden taste in the full standard, and the offender would be culpable.
(11) V. Glos. and Num. XV, 20. Only a dough of corn (which includes wheat but not rice) is subject to hallah.
(12) Hence the status conferred by taste is Scriptural, since hallah is a Scriptural law.
(13) As much as an olive of unleavened bread must be eaten on the first evening of Passover. This must be made of one of the five species of grain (wheat, barley, rye, oats and spelt), but not of rice, But if this dough counts as a wheat dough only by Rabbinical law, how can one fulfil his Scriptural obligation with it?
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 78b
- Rather, [when] one kind [is mixed] with a different kind, [its status is determined] by taste; [when] one kind [is mixed] with the same kind, [its status is determined] by the greater part.1
Yet, [where] one kind [is mixed] with its own kind, let us determine [its status] as though it were one kind with a different kind.2 For we learnt: IF IT WAS MIXED WITH WINE, WE REGARD IT AS THOUGH IT WERE WATER. Does that not mean [that] we regard the wine as though it were water?3 - No: [it means that] we regard the blood as though it were water.4 If so, he should state, [The blood] is nullified? Moreover, it was taught, R. Judah said: We regard it as though it were red wine if its appearance goes faint, it is valid; if not, it is invalid!5 - It is a controversy of Tannaim.6 For it was taught: If one immerses a pail containing white wine or milk, we decide by the excess. R. Judah said: We regard it as though it were red wine: if its appearance goes faint, it is valid; if not, it is invalid.7
But the following contradicts this: If one immersed a pail full of saliva, it is as though he had not immersed it.8 [If it was full of]9 urine, we regard it as though it were water.10 If it was filled with water of lustration,11 the water [of the mikweh] must exceed the water of lustration.12 Now, whom do you know to hold [that] we regard'? R. Judah;13 yet he teaches that an excess is sufficient?14 - Said Abaye: There is no difficulty:
(1) Resh Lakish referred to the latter case. Hence inference [ii] is incorrect.
(2) Since an article cannot be nullified where its taste is distinguishable, even though it is the smaller part of the mixture, let us rule likewise even where its taste is not distinguishable because it is of the same kind.
(3) And if it would then still look like blood, it is fit. Now, in respect to appearance wine and blood may he regarded as of the same kind: this shews that the lesser is not nullified by the greater, but we regard the mixture as of two different kinds,
(4) And it is unfit, because it is nullified by the greater quantity of water.
(5) The passage is quoted in full anon. - This proves definitely that we consider it as a mixture of two different kinds.
(6) The Sages disagree with R. Judah, and Resh Lakish accepts their view,
(7) An unclean pail containing white wine or milk was immersed in a mikweh (ritual bath) for purification, and the water of the mikweh naturally filled it, The Sages maintain that if this exceeded the wine or milk (which is not readily distinguishable from the water), the latter is nullified, the whole is regarded as water, and the pail becomes clean. This is similar to the ruling of Resh Lakish. But R. Judah maintains that we regard it as though it were red wine: if there is so little of it that the water of the mikweh would make it go faint and lose the appearance of wine, the immersion is valid, and the pail becomes clean; otherwise it is invalid, and the pail remains unclean,
(8) The saliva is thick and interposes between the water of the mikweh and the pail. Hence the immersion is invalid, for there must not be any interposition.
(9) The bracketed words are absent from cur. edd., but were apparently contained in Rashi's edition.
(10) For it is in fact a kind of water, and immediately it makes contact with the water of the mikweh, it becomes part of the mikweh itself. For that reason it is not necessary for the water of the mikweh to exceed it.
(11) Running water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, used for lustration (v. Num, XIX). Although it cleansed the unclean person upon whom it was sprinkled, it defiled a clean person with its touch.
(12) He must first pour out some of the water of lustration, so that when the pail is filled with the water of the mikweh, the latter exceeds what is left of the former. For although the latter too is water, owing to its sanctity and to its high degree of uncleanness it does not simply become part of the mikweh, but must be nullified by an excess.
(13) Only he rules that you regard a thing as though it were something else.
(14) If the mikweh water exceeds the water of lustration, the immersion is valid, and we do not regard the latter as though it were wine, as above.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 79a
The latter is his own view; the former is his teacher's.1 For it was taught, R. Judah said on R. Gamaliel's authority: Blood cannot nullify [other] blood;2 saliva cannot nullify saliva; and urine cannot nullify urine.3
Raba said: We are discussing a pail which is clean on the inside and unclean on the outside:4 by law even a small quantity is sufficient,5 and it was only the Rabbis who enacted a preventive measure,6 lest one begrudge [the water] and not immerse it.7 Since then we have an excess [of mikweh water], nothing else is required.8
Raba said: The Rabbis have said that taste [is the determining factor]; and the Rabbis have said [that we decide] by the majority; and the Rabbis have said that [we go] by appearance. [When] one kind [is mixed] with a different kind, taste [is the determining factor]. [When] one kind [is mixed] with the same kind, the greater part [determines its status]; and where there is appearance,9 [we go] by looks.
Now, [Resh Lakish] disagrees with R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said: Just as precepts cannot nullify one another, so can interdicts not nullify one another.10 Whom do you know to maintain that precepts cannot nullify one another? - It is Hillel. For it was taught: It was related of Hillel the Elder that he used to wrap them11 together, for it is said, they shall eat it with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.12
(1) His own view is the lenient one. - The interpretation of this whole passage follows Rashi, Tosaf. urges many objections to this, and gives a different interpretation based on an emended text.
(2) In respect to sprinkling; v. supra 35a.
(3) The saliva and the urine of a zab (q.v. Glos.), which are unclean, cannot be nullified by those of a clean person, which are clean, even though the latter exceed the former. This is a stringent view, and the similar stringent view above is likewise his teacher's ruling, not his own.
(4) E.g., the outside was defiled through unclean water. Such defilement is Rabbinical only, and leaves the inside clean.
(5) Even if a little water enters the pail, it becomes clean, since the inside is clean in any case. - A little must enter, so that we can be sure that it has run over the edge, which is unclean.
(6) I.e., they ruled that it must be properly immersed, with a considerable quantity of water inside.
(7) If he is permitted to immerse the outside only, he may wish to save the water of lustration for further use and not allow even a trickle of mikweh water to enter the pail.
(8) Raba explains that R. Judah generally agrees with his teacher's stricter ruling, but that here there is a particular reason for his more lenient ruling.
(9) Where taste is irrelevant, as e.g., in the case of a mikweh, as above.
(10) One forbidden thing cannot nullify another. Resh Lakish ruled supra 78a that forbidden things do annul one another.
(11) Sc. unleavened bread and bitter herbs and the paschal meat, the eating of which is obligatory on the first evening of Passover.
(12) Num. IX, 11, Thus he does not hold that the taste of one nullifies the other,
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 79b
Our Rabbis taught: As to the shard of a zab and a zabah, the first and second time it is unclean, the third time it is clean. When is that? if one poured water into it; but if one did not pour water into it, it is unclean even the tenth time. R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: At the third time it is clean even if one did not pour water into it.1 Now, whom do you know to maintain that one kind is not nullified by its own kind? R. Judah.2 But the following contradicts it: If flax was spun by a niddah,3 he who moves it is clean; but if it is damp, he who moves it is unclean, on account of the fluid of her mouth.4 R. Judah said: One also who moistens it in water is unclean, on account of the fluid of her mouth,5 even [if he washes it] many times!6 - Said R. Papa: Saliva is different, because it is incrusted.7
IF IT WAS MIXED WITH THE BLOOD OF UNFIT [ANIMALS], IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT [etc.] Wherein do they differ? - Said R. Zebid: They differ as to whether a preventive measure is enacted in the Temple: one master holds that we enact a preventive measure, while the other master holds that we do not enact a preventive measure.8 R. Papa said: All agree that we do enact a preventive measure, but here they disagree as to whether it is usual for the draining blood to exceed the life blood: one master holds that it is common, while the other master holds that it is not common.9 As for R. Papa, it is well: for that reason he teaches, IF IT WAS MIXED WITH THE BLOOD OF UNFIT [ANIMALS]. IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT; WITH THE DRAINING BLOOD, IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT.10 But according to R. Zebid, let him [the Tanna] combine them and teach them together?11 - That indeed is a difficulty.
MISHNAH. [IF] BLOOD OF WHOLE [UNBLEMISHED] ANIMALS [WAS MIXED] WITH BLOOD OF BLEMISHED ANIMALS, IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT. [IF] A GOBLET [WAS MIXED UP] WITH OTHER GOBLETS,12 R. ELIEZER SAID: IF HE [THE PRIEST] OFFERED [SPRINKLED] ONE GOBLET, ALL THE GOBLETS ARE OFFERED;13 BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: EVEN IF THEY OFFERED ALL OF THEM SAVE ONE, IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT. IF [BLOOD] THAT IS SPRINKLED BELOW WAS MIXED WITH BLOOD THAT IS SPRINKLED ABOVE, R. ELIEZER SAID: HE MUST SPRINKLE [IT] ABOVE, AND I REGARD THE LOWER [BLOOD] ABOVE14 AS THOUGH IT WERE WATER, AND THEN HE SPRINKLES AGAIN BELOW. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT.15 YET IF [THE PRIEST] DID NOT ASK BUT SPRINKLED [IT]. IT IS FIT.
(1) The reference is to an earthen bed-chamber used by a zab or zabah, which was broken. The shard thereof, having absorbed their urine, contaminates through carriage, i.e., it defiles anyone who carries it even without actually touching it. Now, if one washed it (the pot) once or twice, it still remains unclean, because that does not suffice to expel the urine; but when one washes it a third time, the urine is held to have been washed out, and so it is clean. That however is only when the pot was washed by pouring water into it each time; if, however, not water but the urine of a clean person (which is ritually clean) was poured into it, this does not render it clean, because they are both of the same kind, viz., urine, and one kind cannot nullify the same kind. R. Eliezer b. Jacob holds that it does nullify, and therefore if it was washed three times, even by pouring the urine of a clean person into it, it is clean.
(2) Hence he must be the author of the first ruling in opposition to R. Eliezer b. Jacob.
(3) V. Glos.
(4) When flax is spun it is moistened with the moisture or saliva of one's mouth. Now, the saliva of a niddah defiles any person who moves it, e.g., when it is on an article, even if he does not touch it; but only as long as it is moist. This explains the passage.
(5) As this re-moistens the saliva.
(6) For the water does not wash it out. This contradicts his statement supra that three washings suffice.
(7) It becomes hardened in the flax and is difficult to remove.
(8) The first Tanna holds that a preventive measure is enacted in the loss of sacred flesh. Therefore, when the blood of a fit sacrifice is mixed with that of an unfit sacrifice or with the draining blood, although the latter may be insufficient to nullify the former, it must be poured out (and hence the sacrifice to which it belonged is declared unfit), as a preventive measure, lest one declare it fit even where the latter is sufficient to nullify the former. (Nevertheless, a preventive measure is not enacted where it is mixed with the blood of an animal or beast that is hullin, because hullin in the Temple court is rare.) R. Eliezer holds that we do not enact a preventive measure, for such would cause the unnecessary loss of sacred flesh. Therefore the mixture is fit for sprinkling unless the unfit blood is so much that if it were water, the fit blood would lose its appearance of blood.
(9) When it is mixed with the blood of an unfit animal (which may happen quite frequently), all, even R. Eliezer, agree that we enact a preventive measure, and the rule of the first part of the Mishnah applies. They disagree only where it is mixed with the draining blood: here R. Eliezer holds that a preventive measure is not enacted, since it is rare for the draining blood to exceed the life blood.
(10) These are taught as separate clauses because R. Eliezer agrees with one and disagrees with the other.
(11) As one clause: if it was mixed up with the blood of unfit animals or with the draining blood, it must etc. Only one clause is necessary, since R. Eliezer disagrees with both.
(12) The former containing blood of blemished animals, the latter blood of whole animals.
(13) We assume that the first offered was that of the blemished animal, so that the rest are fit.
(14) I.e., the blood which should be sprinkled below but was sprinkled above.
(15) They reject the view that we can regard the lower blood as water, and hold that you cannot deviate in the rites of same (by sprinkling it above) in order to sprinkle the upper blood.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 80a
[IF BLOOD] WHICH REQUIRES ONE APPLICATION [WAS MIXED] WITH BLOOD [ALSO] REQUIRING ONE APPLICATION,1 IT [THE MIXTURE] SHOULD BE PRESENTED WITH ONE APPLICATION. [IF BLOOD] WHICH REQUIRES FOUR APPLICATIONS [WAS MIXED] WITH BLOOD REQUIRING FOUR APPLICATIONS,2 THEY MUST BE PRESENTED WITH FOUR APPLICATIONS. [BLOOD] WHICH REQUIRES FOUR APPLICATIONS WITH THAT WHICH REQUIRES ONE APPLICATION, R. ELIEZER SAID: IT [THE MIXTURE] MUST BE PRESENTED WITH FOUR APPLICATIONS.3 R. JOSHUA MAINTAINED: IT MUST BE PRESENTED WITH ONE APPLICATION.4 SAID R. ELIEZER TO HIM: BUT LO, HE TRANSGRESSES THE [INJUNCTION] NOT TO DIMINISH [FROM GOD'S COMMANDMENT]! LO, HE TRANSGRESSES THE INJUNCTION NOT TO ADD [THERETO], R. JOSHUA COUNTERED.5 THE INJUNCTION NOT TO ADD APPLIES ONLY WHERE IT IS BY ITSELF, REPLIED R. ELIEZER. THE INJUNCTION NOT TO DIMINISH APPLIES ONLY WHERE IT IS BY ITSELF, R. JOSHUA ANSWERED. MOREOVER, SAID R. JOSHUA, WHEN YOU MAKE [FOUR] APPLICATIONS YOU TRANSGRESS THE INJUNCTION NOT TO ADD, AND COMMIT A POSITIVE ACTION WITH YOUR OWN HANDS; WHEREAS WHEN YOU DO NOT MAKE [FOUR] APPLICATIONS YOU TRANSGRESS THE INJUNCTION NOT TO DIMINISH, BUT DO NOT COMMIT A POSITIVE ACTION WITH YOUR OWN HANDS.
GEMARA. R. Eleazar said: R. Eliezer declared them fit only in twos, but not singly.6 R. Dimi raised an objection: BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: EVEN IF THEY OFFERED ALL OF THEM SAVE ONE, IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT.7 Said R. Jacob to R. Jeremiah b. Tahlifa: I will explain it to you: What does ONE mean? One pair.
Now, both are necessary.8 For if it were stated in the former case, I would argue that only there does R. Eliezer rule thus, because his atonement was already made therewith,9 but in the present instance he agrees with the Rabbis. While if it were stated in the present case, I would argue that only here do the Rabbis rule thus, but in the former instance they agree with R. Eliezer. Hence both are necessary.
We learnt elsewhere: In the case of a flask10 into which a little water fell,11 R. Eliezer said: He [the priest] makes two sprinklings;12 but the Sages disqualify [it]. As for the Rabbis, it is well: They hold that we assume even distribution,13 and sprinkling requires a [minimum] standard, and sprinklings do not combine.14 But what does R. Eliezer hold? If he holds that there is no even distribution, what if he does sprinkle twice; perhaps he sprinkles [ordinary] water both times? - Rather, he holds that there is even distribution. Now, if he holds that sprinkling does not require a [minimum] standard, why must he sprinkle twice? - Rather, he holds that sprinkling does require a [minimum] standard. And if he holds that sprinklings do not combine, what if he does sprinkle twice? And even if sprinklings do combine, who can say that the standard is made up? - Said Resh Lakish: In truth he holds that there is even distribution, and sprinkling does require a [minimum] standard; but the case we discuss here is where one [standard quantity] was mixed up with another.15 Raba said: In truth there is even distribution, and sprinkling does not require a standard; but the Rabbis penalised [him] so that he should not benefit thereby.16 R. Ashi said: There is no even distribution, [therefore] he must sprinkle twice.17
An objection is raised: Rabbi said: According to R. Eliezer,18 the sprinkling of any quantity purifies, sprinkling does not require a standard, sprinkling [is permissible if] half [the water] is fit and half is unfit.19
(1) E.g., the blood of a firstling with that of tithe.
(2) E.g., the blood of a burnt-offering with that of a peace, or a guilt-offering.
(3) And I regard the superfluous three applications in respect of e.g. the firstling as though they were water.
(4) Because one must not make more applications than are necessary. On the other hand, even where four are required one suffices (supra 36b).
(5) V. Deut. IV, 2.
(6) V. supra 74a. Here too, the blood of two goblets must be presented each time together.
(7) V. p. 371, n. 1.
(8) The controversy of R. Eliezer and the Rabbis is taught here and supra 77b, q.v. in reference to limbs.
(9) The limbs were mixed up after the blood was sprinkled. Thus atonement (sc. sprinkling) was already made, and therefore R. Eliezer is lenient.
(10) Containing water sanctified for lustration; v. Num. XIX, 17 seq.
(11) Ordinary, unsanctified water.
(12) On an unclean person, whereby he becomes clean.
(13) Lit., 'there is thorough mixture' - we assume that a mixture is evenly distributed.
(14) The unsanctified water is regarded as evenly distributed in the sanctified. Therefore when he sprinkles, it lacks the minimum standard, since part of it is unfit. He cannot remedy this by sprinkling again, for sprinklings do not combine. (It is assumed that one sprinkling could not contain more than the minimum quantity required.)
(15) Both the unfit and the fit water each contained the minimum standard. Hence when he sprinkles the whole in two applications, he must sprinkle the required amount; v. Parah IX, 1.
(16) The Rabbis ordered two sprinklings instead of one so that we should not benefit by the addition of unfit water to be able to use this for more unclean persons than would otherwise have been possible.
(17) Sprinkling does not require a minimum standard. Now, in one sprinkling only all the water may be the unfit, since there is no even distribution. But in two this is impossible, for only a small quantity fell into it in the first place.
(18) That two sprinklings purify.
(19) This contradicts Resh Lakish.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 80b
Moreover, it was explicitly taught: If [blood] which is applied above was mixed with [blood] that is applied below, R. Eliezer said: He must sprinkle [it] above, and the lower [blood] acquits him.1 But if you say that there is no even distribution, why does it acquit him? perhaps he sprinkled the upper [blood] below and the lower [blood] above? - The case we discuss here is where we have an excess of upper [blood], and he sprinkles above the quantity of the lower [blood] plus a little more.2 But he teaches that the lower [blood] acquits him?3 - [It counts] as the residue.4
Come and hear: If he [the priest] sprinkled [it]5 without asking.6 R. Eliezer said: He must re-sprinkle above, and the lower [blood] acquits him?7 - Here too the excess was upper [blood], and he sprinkles above the quantity of the lower blood plus a little more. But he teaches that the lower [blood] acquits him? - [It counts] as the residue.
Come and hear: If he sprinkled it above without asking,8 both9 agree that he must re-sprinkle below, and both [sprinklings] are credited to him!10 - Here too the excess was upper [blood], and he sprinkles above the quantity of the lower blood plus a little more. Yet surely he teaches: Both [sprinklings] are credited to him? - Does he then teach, 'Both agree [in this]'? Surely he teaches, 'Both are credited to him', this final clause thus agreeing with the Rabbis [only], who maintain that there is even distribution.
Come and hear: IF [BLOOD] WHICH REQUIRES ONE APPLICATION [WAS MIXED] WITH BLOOD [ALSO] REQUIRING ONE APPLICATION, IT [THE MIXTURE] SHOULD BE PRESENTED WITH ONE APPLICATION. Now, if you say that there is no even distribution, why should it be presented with one application? perhaps he sprinkles [the blood] of one [sacrifice] but not that of the other?11 - It means, e.g., where one [minimum quantity] was mixed with another [minimum quantity].12 [BLOOD] WHICH REQUIRES FOUR APPLICATIONS WITH [BLOOD] THAT REQUIRES FOUR APPLICATIONS?13 There too it means that [the quantity for] four [applications] was mixed with [the quantity for] four [applications].14 [BLOOD] WHICH REQUIRES FOUR APPLICATIONS WITH [BLOOD] REQUIRING ONE APPLICATION?13
(1) When he pours out the residue at the base of the altar, it counts as sprinkling for the burnt-offering.
(2) So that some of the upper blood must be properly sprinkled above.
(3) Whereas all the lower blood was perhaps sprinkled above: how then can the burnt-offering be made fit thereby?
(4) Of the sin-offering, which must be poured out at the base. The burnt-offering, however, does not become fit.
(5) Sc. the mixed blood.
(6) For had he asked, R. Eliezer holds that he would be bidden to sprinkle above first; v. infra 89a.
(7) Here too it is assumed that both sacrifices are thereby made fit.
(8) For had he asked, the Rabbis hold that he would be bidden to pour it out into the duct.
(9) The Rabbis and R. Eliezer.
(10) Thus both sacrifices are fit.
(11) And this does agree with R. Eliezer, since the next clause contains a controversy of R. Eliezer and the Rabbis.
(12) Sc. the minimum quantity for sprinkling (one application). When the Mishnah teaches that he must make one application it means one application on account of each separately.
(13) The same difficulty arises there too.
(14) Here too he must make four applications on behalf of each sacrifice.