Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 81a
And should you answer: Here too it means that [the quantity for] four [applications] was mixed with [the quantity for] one [application],1 - if so: LO HE TRANSGRESSES THE INJUNCTION NOT TO ADD THERETO, R. JOSHUA COUNTERED: Whence have you here the injunction not to add thereto?2 - Rather said Raba:3 Where [the blood is] mixed together, they do not disagree; they disagree in respect of the goblets. R. Eliezer holds [the view that] 'we regard' [etc.], while the Rabbis reject [the view that] 'we regard' [etc.].4
Now, do they not disagree where [the blood itself] is mingled? Surely it was taught: R. Judah said: R. Eliezer and the Sages did not dispute about the blood of a sin-offering which was mixed with the blood of a burnt-offering, [both agreeing] that it must be offered [sprinkled];5 [if it was mixed] with the blood of a roba' or a nirba',6 [they agree that] it must not be offered. About what do they disagree? About the blood of an unblemished [animal] which was mixed with the blood of a blemished [animal]; there R. Eliezer maintains that it must be offered, whether [the blood itself is] mingled or whether the goblets [are mixed]; while the Sages say that it must not be offered!7 - R. Judah when teaching R. Eliezer's view relates it to both mixing [of the blood itself] and [to that of] the goblets; but the Rabbis8 hold that they disagree about goblets [only].
Abaye said: They learnt this only of the beginning of the sin-offering and the burnt-offering;9 but as to the end of the sin-offering and the beginning of the burnt-offering,10 all agree that the place of the burnt-offering is the place of the residue.11 Said R. Joseph to him: Thus did R. Judah say: The residue requires the projection.12 And thus said Resh Lakish:13 They learnt this only of the beginning of the sin-offering and the burnt-offering; but as to the end of the sin-offering and the beginning of the burnt-offering, all agree that the place of the burnt-offering is the place of the residue. Whereas R. Johanan-others say, R. Eleazar-said: There is still the controversy.14
R. Huna b. Judah raised an objection: They are holy:15 [this teaches] that if it [the blood of a firstling] was mixed with the blood of other sacrifices, it must be offered [sprinkled]. Surely it speaks of the end of a burnt-offering and [the beginning of] a firstling;16 and this proves that the place of the burnt-offering is the place of the residue? - No: it speaks of the beginning of the burnt-offering and that of the firstling. What then does it inform us?17 that sacrifices do not nullify one another!18 [Surely] that is deduced from [the text]. And he shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the goat?19 - It is a controversy of Tannaim: one deduces it from this text, and another deduces it from the other text.
Raba raised an objection: And Aaron's sons, the priests, shall present the blood, and dash the blood [round about against the altar]:20
(1) Emended text (Sh. M.). Thus R. Eliezer means that four applications must be made in addition to the one, i.e., five in all.
(2) Since there is only sufficient for one application of the blood of the firstling, he certainly sprinkles the blood of the burnt-offering in the other applications, as is actually necessary; thus he does not add thereto.
(3) Sh. M. reads: Rabbah.
(4) The answers given above are now rejected. When it is taught that the lower blood acquits him, it means both as the residue of the upper blood and as the sprinklings of the lower, and the burnt-offering does become fit thereby. Again, when the Mishnah speaks of the mixture, it means even where a large quantity is mixed, and not the minimum quantity required. Nevertheless, this does not prove that R. Eliezer holds that there is even distribution, for all these cases refer not to the mixing of the blood (in one goblet) but to the mixing of the goblets. Here R. Eliezer rules that of each goblet sprinklings must be made above and below, the superfluous sprinklings being regarded as mere water; similarly, if a goblet containing the blood of a firstling is mixed up with another containing the blood of a burnt-offering, four applications must be made from each goblet. The Sages, however, refuse to regard such sprinklings, where they are superfluous, as mere water, and therefore all the blood must be poured out into the duct.
(5) For the Sages too accept the view that 'we regard' etc. (In this R. Judah disagrees with the Tanna of our Mishnah.)
(6) Cf. supra 71a.
(7) The interdict against sprinkling the blood of a blemished animal is contained in Lev. XXII, 25: there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you. R. Eliezer holds that this applies only where the blood is by itself, but not where it is mixed with that of a sound animal. Now, though R. Judah disagrees with the Tanna of the Mishnah in respect of the scope of the controversy, yet it may be assumed that they both agree that the controversy applies to the mingling of the blood as well as that of the goblets.
(8) Not the Sages who disagree with R. Eliezer, but the scholars who disagree with R. Judah's interpretation of the controversy; hence the anonymous Tanna of our Mishnah. (An anonymous teacher is often referred to as the Rabbis, because he generally represents the Rabbis in general where an opposing view is recorded in the name of an individual.)
(9) The controversy in the Mishnah holds good only at the beginning, i.e., if their blood was mingled before the sprinkling. Only then do the Sages disqualify it, as they reject the view that 'we regard' etc., and maintain that we may not sprinkle the blood of the burnt-offering above in order to make the sin-offering fit.
(10) Emended text Sh. M. - I.e., if the residue of the blood of the sin-offering, after it was sprinkled, was mixed with the blood of the burnt-offering before it was sprinkled.
(11) He sprinkles the blood on the wall of the altar below the scarlet line, and thence it drains down on to the base, whither the residue of the blood of the sin-offering should be poured. Thus this counts for both the initial sprinkling of the burnt-offering and the final pouring out of the residue of the sin-offering.
(12) Sc. the base, which projected from the altar. - It must not be poured on to the wall of the altar but directly on to the base. - Hence the Sages disagree even if the blood of the sin-offering had already been sprinkled.
(13) Emended text.
(14) Even in the latter instance.
(15) Num. XVIII, 17. The whole verse reads: But the firstling of an ox . . . thou shalt not redeem; they are holy. These last words are emphatic and imply that they retain their sanctity, and if their blood is mingled with other blood, it must still be offered. According to the Sages this must mean where it is mingled with lower blood, like itself, e.g., with that of a burnt-offering, but not that of a sin-offering.
(16) I.e., the blood of a burnt-offering after sprinkling was mixed with that of a firstling before sprinkling. (The residue of a firstling is not poured out on the base, and sprinkling completes its blood rites.)
(17) For in that case the text is apparently superfluous; since both bloods need sprinkling on the lower wall of the altar, it is obvious that they must be sprinkled even when they are mingled.
(18) If their blood mingles, even if the blood of one exceeds that of the other, the latter is not nullified.
(19) Lev. XVI, 18. Though the former exceeds the latter, it does not nullify it; v. Men. 22a, b.
(20) Lev. I, 5.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 81b
why is 'blood' repeated?1 For one might think: I only know about a burnt-offering which was mixed up with its substitute,2 for even [if they were mixed up] whilst alive, they must be offered. Whence do I know to include the thanksoffering and the peace-offering?3 I include the thanksoffering and the peace-offering. because they can be brought as a votive or a freewill-offering.4 like itself. Whence do I know to include the guilt-offering? I include the guilt-offering which requires four applications, like itself, Whence do I know [to include] a firstling, tithe, and the Passover-offering? Because it says, blood, blood.5 Now surely that speaks of the end of the burnt-offering and [the beginning of] the firstling; whence you may infer that the place of the burnt-offering is the place of the residue? - No: it speaks of the beginning of the burnt-offering and [that of] the firstling. What then does he inform us? that sacrifices do not nullify one another! [Surely] that is deduced from [the text]. And he shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the goat? - It is a controversy of Tannaim: one deduces it from this text, and another deduces it from the other text.
Now, these Tannaim do not learn it from 'and he shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the goat', because they hold, You do not mingle [the blood] for [sprinkling] on the horns.6 They do not learn it from the repetition of 'blood', because they do not attribute any significance to this repetition. But why do they not deduce it from 'they are holy'?7 - They hold [that] 'they are holy' [teaches:] 'they' are offered, but their substitute is not offered.8 And the other?9 - He deduces it from, Whether it be ox or sheep, it is the Lord's:10 'it' is offered, but its substitute is not offered.
Come and hear: If [the priest] sprinkled [it]11 above without asking, both agree that he must re-sprinkle [it] below, and both are accounted to him. Now does that not mean that [the blood of] a sin-offering and [that of] a burnt-offering were mixed, in which case as soon as he sprinkles above, it becomes a residue, yet he teaches, 'both agree that he must re-sprinkle [it] below', which proves that the place of the burnt-offering is the place of the residue? - When R. Isaac b. Joseph came,12 he said: In the West13 they said: The case we are discussing here is where e.g. [the blood of] an outer sin-offering was mixed with the residue of an inner sin-offering.14 Said Abaye to him: Yet let the master say, 'e.g., where it was mixed with a residue'?15 perhaps this is what you would inform us: Even on the view that the residue16 is indispensable,17 yet if some of it is lacking it does not matter?18 Said Raba Tosfa'ah19 to Rabina: But we have explained that as meaning that the greater part was upper [blood], and he sprinkles above as much as there was of the lower [blood] plus a little more?20 - That was only, he replied, on the hypothesis first stated that [the Mishnah treats of where the blood itself] was mingled, and in accordance with the thesis that there is no even distribution. But in our final conclusion [we hold that] they disagree where the goblets were mixed up.21
MISHNAH. IF [BLOOD] WHICH IS TO BE SPRINKLED WITHIN WAS MIXED WITH [BLOOD] THAT IS TO BE SPRINKLED WITHOUT, IT MUST BE POURED OUT INTO THE DUCT. IF [THE PRIEST] SPRINKLED WITHOUT AND THEN SPRINKLED WITHIN, IT IS VALID. [IF HE SPRINKLED] WITHIN AND THEN RESPRINKLED WITHOUT, R. AKIBA DECLARES IT UNFIT, WHILE THE SAGES DECLARE IT FIT. FOR R. AKIBA MAINTAINED: ALL BLOOD WHICH ENTERED THE HEKAL TO MAKE ATONEMENT IS UNFIT; BUT THE SAGES RULE: THE SIN-OFFERING ALONE [IS UNFIT]. R. ELIEZER SAID: THE GUILT-OFFERING TOO, FOR IT SAYS, AS IS THE SIN-OFFERING, SO IS THE GUILT-OFFERING.22
GEMARA. Now, let R. Eliezer disagree here too? - What should be done? Shall we [first] sprinkle without and then sprinkle within? [that cannot be done], [because] just as the upper [blood] must precede the lower, so must the inner precede the outer.
(1) Rashi reads: How do we know that if the blood of a burnt-offering was mixed with the blood of another burnt-offering, or with the blood of a substitute (v. p. 22, n. 8), or with the blood of hullin, it must be offered (i.e., sprinkled)? Because it says, blood, blood (i.e., this repetition is an extension). I know it only of these, for even if these were mixed up whilst alive they must be offered. How do I know it even when it is mixed with the blood of a guilt-offering? etc.
(2) Sc. their blood was mixed. - From the verse I know that their blood must still be sprinkled.
(3) That the blood of a burnt-offering must be sprinkled even if it is mixed with these; similarly the other cases posited.
(4) V. supra 2b, p. 2, n. 6.
(5) The repetition teaches the inclusion of all these.
(6) Of the altar; supra 42b. Hence the blood of each must be stated, because they were taken separately, not mixed together, and so no inference can be made from the text about nullification.
(7) As the first Tanna does.
(8) A substitute of a firstling must be redeemed, but cannot be offered.
(9) The first Tanna: how does he know this?
(10) Lev. XXVII, 26. This refers to a firstling.
(11) The mingled blood.
(12) From Eretz Israel.
(13) Sc. Palestine, which lies to the west of Babylon.
(14) Emended text. After he sprinkles thereof above the red line, all the rest is the residue, which must be poured out at the base.
(15) Not particularly 'the residue of an inner sin-offering'.
(16) Sc. of the inner sin-offering.
(17) It must be poured out at the base; otherwise the sacrifice is invalid.
(18) It is unnecessary for the whole of the residue to be poured out on the base. For here some of the residue will have been sprinkled above the line, and yet the sacrifice is valid when the rest is poured out at the base.
(19) Perhaps of Thospia. Neub. Geogr. p. 332: capital of the Armenian district Thospitis.
(20) And he applies it below as the residue of the sin-offering, not as the blood of the burnt-offering, which does not become valid. Hence even if it were explained as the mingling of the sin-offering and the burnt-offering, it would not prove that the place of the burnt-offering is the place of the residue, since the burnt-offering does not become fit. Why then must you explain it as meaning that the blood of a sin-offering and the residue were mingled?
(21) And unless it refers to a sin-offering and residue, this contradicts the opinion that the place of the burnt-offering is not the place of the residue.
(22) Lev. VII, 7. V. supra 10b for notes.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 82a
Then let us [first] sprinkle within and then sprinkle without? - Since the sin-offering and the guilt-offering become unfit if their blood enters within, he could not give a general ruling.1
FOR R. AKIBA MAINTAINED etc. Rab Judah said in Samuel's name: For example, to what may R. Akiba's ruling be compared? To a disciple who was mixing [wine] for his master with hot water,2 when he [the master] said to him, Mix me [a drink]. With what?3 he enquired. Are we not occupied with hot water? he replied; now then [I mean] with either hot or cold.4 So here too: consider: we are discussing the sin-offering:5 for what purpose then does the Divine Law write 'sin-offering'?6 [To teach:] I do not mean a sin-offering [alone], but all sacrifices.7 To this R. Huna the son of R. Joshua demurred: Consider: all sacrifices are included in respect of scouring and rinsing; why then does the Divine Law write 'sin-offering'?8 Hence you may infer from this: only the sin-offering, but nothing else. This then can only be compared to a disciple who was mixing [a drink] for his master with either hot or cold water, when he said to him, Mix it for me with hot water only! - Rather, R. Akiba's reason is that 'and every sin-offering' is written where '[and] a sin-offering' [would suffice].9 For it was taught: 'A sin-offering': I know [this] only [of] a sin-offering; how do we know [it of] most sacred sacrifices [in general]? Because it says, 'Every sin-offering'. How do we know [it of] lesser sacrifices? Because it says, 'And every sin-offering': this is the view of R. Akiba. Said R. Jose the Galilean to him: Even if you go on including all day, I will pay no heed to you.10 Rather: 'a sin-offering': I only know [this of] a private sin-offering:11 whence do we know [it of] a public sin-offering? Because it says, 'Every sin-offering'. Again, I know it only of a male sin-offering: whence do I know [it of] a female sin-offering? Because it says. 'And every'. It is just the reverse!12 - Rather, this is what he means: I only know [it of] a female sin-offering: whence do I know [it of] a male sin-offering? From the text, 'And every sin-offering'.
Now, does R. Jose the Galilean hold that this text comes for this purpose? Surely it was taught, R. Jose the Galilean said: The whole passage speaks only of the bullocks which were to be burnt and the he-goats which were to be burnt, and its purpose is [i] to teach that when they are disqualified they must be burnt before the Temple; and [ii] to impose a negative injunction against eating them.13 Said they to him: As to an [outer] sin-offering whose blood entered the innermost [sanctuary], whence do we know [that it is disqualified]? Said he to them: [From the verse,] Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within?14 - He argues on R. Akiba's contention.15
MISHNAH. IF THE BLOOD OF A SIN-OFFERING WAS RECEIVED IN TWO GOBLETS AND ONE OF THEM WENT WITHOUT,16 THE INSIDE ONE IS FIT.17 IF ONE OF THEM ENTERED WITHIN,18 R. JOSE THE GALILEAN DECLARES THE OUTER ONE19 FIT;20 BUT THE SAGES DISQUALIFY IT. SAID R. JOSE THE GALILEAN: IF THE PLACE WHERE AN INTENTION [DIRECTED TO IT] DISQUALIFIES, [VIZ.,] WITHOUT,21 YOU DO NOT TREAT WHAT IS LEFT AS WHAT WENT OUT;21 THEN THE PLACE WHERE AN INTENTION [DIRECTED TO IT] DOES NOT DISQUALIFY, [VIZ.,] WITHIN,22 IS IT NOT LOGICAL THAT WE DO NOT TREAT WHAT IS LEFT23 AS WHAT ENTERED WITHIN? IF IT ENTERED WITHIN TO MAKE ATONEMENT,24 EVEN IF HE [THE PRIEST] DID NOT MAKE ATONEMENT,25 IT IS UNFIT: THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. ELIEZER. R. SIMEON SAID: [IT IS NOT UNFIT] UNLESS HE MAKES ATONEMENT. R. JUDAH SAID: IF HE TOOK IT IN UNWITTINGLY,26 IT IS FIT. FOR ALL UNFIT BLOOD WHICH WAS PRESENTED AT THE ALTAR [I.E., SPRINKLED] THE HEADPLATE DOES NOT PROPITIATE,27 SAVE FOR UNCLEAN [BLOOD]. FOR THE HEADPLATE PROPITIATES FOR THAT WHICH IS UNCLEAN, BUT DOES NOT PROPITIATE FOR WHAT GOES OUT.28
GEMARA. It was taught, R. Jose the Galilean said: It is a kal wa-homer: If the place where an intention [directed to it] disqualifies. [viz.,] without, the blood without does not disqualify that which is within;29 then the place where an intention [directed to it] does not disqualify. [viz.,] within, is it not logical that the blood within does not disqualify that which is without? Said they to him, Lo, it says, [And every sin-offering] whereof any of the blood is brought [into the tent of meeting . . . shall be burnt with fire]:30 [this implies,] even part of its blood. Said he to them: Then you now have a kal wa-homer in respect of [blood] that goes out; if the place where an intention [directed to it] does not disqualify [viz.,] within, yet the blood within disqualifies [the blood] without; where intention does disqualify, [viz.,] without, it is not logical that the blood without disqualifies [the blood] within? Said they to him: Lo, it says, whereof [any of the blood] is brought [into etc.]: that which enters within disqualifies, but that which goes out does not disqualify. Now, let intention [to sprinkle] within31 disqualify, a fortiori: if though32 blood without does not disqualify [the blood] within, yet intention without33 disqualifies; then seeing that the blood within does disqualify the blood without, is it not logical that intention within disqualifies? Lo, it says: On the third day:34
(1) That the blood should be sprinkled first within and then without, since this would not apply to these two. Therefore his view is not stated at all.
(2) Their wine was too strong to be drunk without dilution.
(3) Hot or cold water.
(4) As you were actually mixing wine with hot water, I had no need to say anything at all. Therefore when I told you to mix me a drink, I meant that it could be with either hot or cold water (Tosaf.).
(5) The whole section in Lev. VI, 19-23 q.v. treats of the sin-offering.
(6) Ibid. 23: And every sin-offering whereof any of the blood is brought into the tent of meeting to make atonement in the holy place (i.e., an outer sin-offering whose blood is sprinkled on the inner altar) shall not be eaten; it shall be burnt with fire.
(7) Interpreting: And even every sin-offering, although some sin-offerings must be brought within, and how much the more other sacrifices!
(8) Lev. VI, 21 states: But the earthen vessel wherein it (sc. the sin-offering) is sodden shall be broken; and if it be sodden in a brazen vessel, it shall be scoured and rinsed in water. The following verse states 'it is most holy' from which it is inferred infra 96b that the law of scouring and rinsing applies to all sacrifices. Hence at this stage (v. 22) we are already treating of all sacrifices; if then v. 23 is to apply likewise to all, Scripture should simply write: And that whereof any of the blood etc.
(9) Lit., 'R. Akiba's reason is from sin-offering, and every sin-offering.'
(10) I reject your view that 'and' and 'every' are extensions which include other kinds of sacrifices, seeing that the passage speaks of sin-offerings only.
(11) For this section is followed by sections on the guilt-offering and the peace- and thanksofferings, which were private sacrifices.
(12) The usual sin-offering is a female, and no extension is needed to include it.
(13) This refers to the verse under discussion, which the Rabbis relate to an outer sin-offering whose blood was carried into the inner court, thereby disqualifying it. But R. Jose the Galilean relates it to an inner sin-offering, e.g., the bullock brought when the entire congregation sins in ignorance (v. Lev. IV, 13 f). Hence he interprets: And every sin-offering whereof any of the blood is (rightly) brought into the tent of meeting etc. shall not be eaten. Now this is superfluous in respect of a valid sacrifice, since it is explicitly stated in IV, 21: and he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn it. Consequently, the verse must mean that if it became unfit through going outside its legitimate boundary or through defilement, it must be burnt in front of the Birah (the Temple), and not carried 'without the camp'. i.e., beyond the Temple Mount. Further, this prohibits the eating of its flesh by a negative injunction, violation of which involves flagellation (Lev. IV, 21 merely contains an affirmative precept, the disregard of which is not punished by flagellation). Thus R. Jose the Galilean does not relate this text to outer sin-offerings at all.
(14) Lev. X, 18; v. supra 10b.
(15) He personally holds that it refers to inner sin-offerings. But he argues that even on R. Akiba's view that it refers to outer sin-offerings, the extension of 'and' and 'every' must apply to sin-offerings likewise, not to other sacrifices.
(16) Sc. the Temple court.
(17) One can sprinkle the blood in it, and the sacrifice is valid.
(18) Into the hekal, the inner sanctum.
(19) I.e., the one that remained in the Temple court.
(20) For sprinkling.
(21) An intention at the shechitah to sprinkle the blood without the Temple court disqualifies the sacrifice. Yet if one actually carried one goblet without, we do not regard the other goblet as though it too had been carried without, for the first clause states, THE INSIDE ONE IS FIT.
(22) The intention to sprinkle the blood within, in the hekal, does not disqualify the sacrifice.
(23) V. p. 389, n. 7.
(24) If it was carried into the hekal for sprinkling.
(25) He did not actually sprinkle it.
(26) Not knowing that it was forbidden.
(27) Make it fit.
(28) v. supra 23b.
(29) As in the Mishnah.
(30) Lev. VI, 23.
(31) I.e., the intention to take the blood into the hekal.
(32) Lit., 'where'.
(33) Sc. the intention to sprinkle the blood without.
(34) Lev. VII, 17.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 82b
[this teaches that the illegitimate intention must refer to] a place with a threefold function, [viz.,] in respect of blood, flesh, and emurim.1
Now, let an intention concerning without not disqualify [the sacrifice], a fortiori: if although the blood within disqualifies [the blood] without, an intention concerning within does not disqualify; then seeing that the blood without does not disqualify [the blood] within, is it not logical that an intention concerning without shall not disqualify? Therefore Scripture writes 'third', which means after time; while piggul means without bounds.2
Flesh which goes without becomes unfit; that which enters within, is fit. Now, logically it might be unfit. For if though the blood without does not disqualify [the blood] within, flesh which goes without becomes unfit; then since blood within does disqualify [blood] without, is it not logical that flesh which enters within shall be disqualified? Lo, it says, any of the blood: its blood [disqualifies],3 but not its flesh. Then in that case you can argue a fortiori: if though the blood within disqualifies [the blood] without, flesh that enters within is fit; then since blood without does not disqualify [blood] within, is it not logical that flesh that goes without is fit? Lo, it says. Therefore ye shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field:4 once flesh passes without bounds, it is forbidden.5
Our Rabbis taught: [Behold the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary] within:6 I only know [it of] within;7 how do we know [it of] the hekal? Because it says, into the sanctuary within.8 Then let the 'sanctuary' be stated, but not 'within'? - Said Raba: One comes and illumines the other,9 this being analogous to the case of toshab and sakir. For it was taught: Toshab means one [a Hebrew slave] acquired in perpetuity; sakir, one purchased for a period of [six] years.10 Now, let toshab be stated, but not sakir, and I would reason: if one acquired in perpetuity may not eat, how much more so one acquired only for a period of [six] years?11 Were it so, I would say: Toshab is one purchased for a limited period, but one acquired in perpetuity may eat. Therefore sakir comes and teaches the meaning of toshab, that the latter is one purchased in perpetuity, while the former is one purchased for a period of [six] years, and [neither] may eat. Said Abaye to him, As for there, it is well: They are two persons, and though Scripture could write, A [slave] whose ear was bored may not eat,12 and the other would be inferred a minori, yet Scripture [often] takes the trouble to write a thing which is derived a minori. But here, since it becomes unfit in the hekal, what business has the inner sanctuary?13 - Rather said Abaye: It is required only [where the priest takes] a circuitous route.14 Said Raba to him: But 'entering' is written in connection therewith?15 - Rather said Raba: Whatever [the priest] intends [to carry into] the innermost sanctuary does not become unfit in the hekal.16
Raba asked: What if [the priest] carried the blood of the congregational bullock for forgetfulness or the he-goat for idolatry into the innermost sanctuary?17 Do we say, [Scripture writes] 'into the sanctuary within'; wherever we read 'into the sanctuary' we read 'within', and wherever we do not read 'into the sanctuary', we do not read 'within'?18 Or perhaps, it is not in its place.19 Now, should you answer that it is not in its place, what if [the priest] sprinkled the blood of the bullock and that of the he-goat of the Day of Atonement on the slaves, then carried it out into the hekal,20 and then took it in again?21 Do we say, It is their place; or perhaps, once it has gone out, it has gone out?22 Should you answer, Once it has gone out, it has gone out: What if he sprinkled their blood on the veil,
(1) V. supra 29a.
(2) V. supra 28a and whole discussion there.
(3) When it is brought into the hekal.
(4) Ex. XXII, 30.
(5) 'In the field', is apparently superfluous. Hence it is interpreted as intimating that when flesh is found beyond its bounds (as a field, which has no barriers), it is a terefah (lit., torn of the beasts'), and forbidden.
(6) Lev. X, 28.
(7) l.e., only if the blood is taken into the innermost sanctuary is the sacrifice disqualified.
(8) The sanctuary corresponds to the hekal, which contained the Table and the Candlestick (v. Ex. XXV, 23. 31), and led into the Holy of Holies; cf. infra 83a.
(9) Only because 'within' is written do we know that 'sanctuary' means the hekal (for otherwise it is superfluous). But if 'sanctuary' alone were written, it might mean the innermost sanctuary.
(10) The reference is to Lev. XXII, 10: A toshab of a priest, or a sakir, shall not eat of the holy thing (i.e., terumah).
(11) For the former is more of the priest's chattel (v. ibid. 10) than the latter.
(12) V. Ex. XXI, 5 f.
(13) For, in order to get into the inner sanctuary it must pass through the hekal.
(14) E.g. he enters the innermost sanctuary by way of the roof or through upper chambers, avoiding the hekal altogether.
(15) Which implies that it becomes unfit only if he enters the innermost sanctuary in the usual way.
(16) This is intimated when Scripture states both 'sanctuary' and 'within'. Hence if he changes his mind after carrying it into the hekal and takes it back, it remains fit.
(17) If the whole congregation sins through having forgotten a law a bullock must be sacrificed; for unwitting idolatry a he-goat is brought. The blood of these must be taken into the hekal, but not into the innermost sanctuary.
(18) Only where the sacrifice is disqualified when the blood is taken 'into the sanctuary' (i.e., the hekal), it is likewise disqualified when it is taken 'within' (the innermost shrine), but not otherwise.
(19) The text implies that when the blood is taken without bounds the sacrifice is disqualified, and that applies here too.
(20) To sprinkle the blood on the veil, as is necessary.
(21) Into the innermost shrine: this was no longer necessary.
(22) And must not be taken in again.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 83a
carried it out to the altar, and then carried it within? Here it is certainly the same place; or perhaps, we designate this carrying [going] out?1 The questions stand over.
IF IT ENTERED WITHIN TO MAKE ATONEMENT. It was taught, R. Eliezer said: It is stated here, to make atonement in the holy place;2 and it is stated elsewhere, And there shall be no man in the tent of appointment when he goeth in to make atonement in the holy place:3 as there it means when he has not yet made atonement,4 so here too it means when he has not yet made atonement.5 R. Simeon said: It is stated here, 'to make atonement'; and it is stated elsewhere, 'And the bullock of the sin-offering, and the goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement':6 as there it means when he had [already] made atonement,7 so here it means where he made atonement.8 Wherein do they differ? - One master holds, You learn without from without,9 but you do not learn without from within;10 while the other master holds: You learn an animal from an animal, but you do not learn an animal from man.
R. JUDAH SAID etc. But if [the priest took it in] deliberately, it is disqualified; [when?] if he made atonement, or [even] if he did not make atonement? - Said R. Jeremiah, It was taught:11 Since it is said, 'And the bullock of the sin-offering, and the goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place'; why is it [further] said, And he that burneth them [shall wash his clothes]?12 (You ask, why is it further said, 'And he that burneth them'? that is required for itself!)13 - Rather [the question is] why is 'sin-offering, repeated? Because we have only learnt that when the bullock and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement are burnt they defile garments; how do we know [the same of] other [sacrifices] which are burnt? - Because 'sin-offering' is repeated:14 these are the words of R. Judah. R. Meir said: That [exegesis] is unnecessary.15 Lo, it says, 'And the bullock of the sin-offering and the he-goat of the sin-offering': now, 'to make atonement' need not be stated;16 why then is 'to make atonement stated? It teaches that with all atoning sacrifices,17 he that burns them [the sacrifices] defiles his garments. Whereas R. Judah does not understand 'to make atonement' in that way. What is the reason? Surely because he utilises it for a gezerah shawah.18
MISHNAH. THE ALTAR SANCTIFIES WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR IT.19 R. JOSHUA SAID: WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE ALTAR FIRE DOES NOT DESCEND [THENCE] ONCE IT ASCENDED, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, THAT IS THE BURNT-OFFERING UPON ITS FIREWOOD:20 AS THE BURNT-OFFERING, WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE ALTAR FIRE, DOES NOT DESCEND ONCE IT ASCENDED, SO WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE ALTAR FIRE DOES NOT DESCEND ONCE IT ASCENDED. R. GAMALIEL SAID: WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE ALTAR DOES NOT DESCEND ONCE IT ASCENDED, BECAUSE IT IS SAID: THAT IS THE BURNT-OFFERING UPON ITS FIREWOOD UPON THE ALTAR: AS THE BURNT-OFFERING, WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE ALTAR, DOES NOT DESCEND ONCE IT ASCENDED, SO WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE ALTAR DOES NOT DESCEND ONCE IT ASCENDED. R. GAMALIEL AND R. JOSHUA DIFFER ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE BLOOD AND LIBATIONS, R. GAMALIEL MAINTAINING THAT THEY MUST NOT DESCEND, WHILE R. JOSHUA MAINTAINS THAT THEY MUST DESCEND.21 R. SIMEON SAID: IF THE SACRIFICE IS FIT WHILE THE LIBATIONS [WHICH ACCOMPANIED IT] ARE UNFIT; OR IF THE LIBATIONS ARE FIT WHILE THE SACRIFICE IS UNFIT; OR EVEN IF BOTH ARE UNFIT, - THE SACRIFICE MUST NOT DESCEND, WHILE THE LIBATIONS DO DESCEND.22 [
(1) V. Lev. XVI, 18 f: And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lord, and make atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times. According to the Talmud this refers to the golden altar which was in the same portion as the veil. Hence 'and he shall go out' can only mean that he passes beyond the whole altar, i.e., he must not stand on the inner side of the altar, between it and the veil, but on the outer side, between it and the door. In the present instance he carried the blood back on the inner side of the altar; and the question is: as it is in the same portion as the veil, perhaps it does not disqualify it; or do we say that since Scripture designates going to the outer side of the altar 'going out' the inner side is ipso facto a separate place and disqualifies it?
(2) Lev. VI, 23.
(3) Ibid. XVI, 17.
(4) No man must be there when he is about to make atonement.
(5) The flesh is disqualified if the blood is taken into the hekal to make atonement, even if atonement was not made, i.e., the blood was not sprinkled there.
(6) Lev. XVI, 27.
(7) That is evident from the whole passage.
(8) Only then is the sacrifice disqualified.
(9) Viz., the law about the bullock whose blood must be sprinkled without from the man who is bidden to stay without.
(10) From the Day of Atonement sacrifice whose blood is rightly brought within.
(11) Emended text (Sh. M.).
(12) Ibid. 28.
(13) To teach that his garments are defiled.
(14) The second one being superfluous, it extends the law to all sin-offerings which are burnt.
(15) It is implied in the Biblical text itself.
(16) We already know from the context that that was its purpose.
(17) I.e., all those for whom atonement is made.
(18) Sc. as R. Simeon supra. Accordingly, the sacrifice is disqualified only if he did make atonement.
(19) I.e., anything which was appointed for the altar, even if it subsequently became unfit, is nevertheless sanctified by the altar in the sense that if laid upon it, it must not be removed.
(20) Lev. VI, 2.
(21) R. Joshua and R. Gamaliel disagree as to the meaning of 'WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR IT'. R. Joshua holds that it means whatever is eligible for the altar fire, i.e., to be burnt on the altar, such as the limbs of a burnt-offering. Blood and libations, however, which are not meant for burning on the altar at all, must be taken down even laid on it. R. Gamaliel maintains that ELIGIBLE means in any capacity, and so if these ascended, they do not descend.
(22) R. Simeon agrees with R. Joshua where the libations accompany a sacrifice, and with R. Gamaliel where they come by themselves. His view is discussed below.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 83b
GEMARA. Only what is ELIGIBLE FOR IT, but not what is not eligible for it; what does this exclude?1 - Said R. Papa: It excludes 'fistfuls'2 which were not sanctified in a [service] vessel.3 To this Rabina demurred: How does this differ from 'Ulla's [ruling]? For 'Ulla said: If the emurim of lesser sacrifices were laid [on the altar] before the sprinkling of their blood, they are not removed, [because] they have become the food of the altar!4 - The latter do not themselves lack a rite, while the former themselves lack a rite.5
R. JOSHUA SAID: WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE ALTAR FIRE etc. And R. Gamaliel too? Surely it is written, the burnt-offering upon its firewood? - That comes to teach that [limbs] which spring off [from the altar] must be replaced.6 And the other;7 how does he know that the [limbs] which spring off must be replaced? - He deduces it from whereto the fire hath consumed.8 And the other?9 - That is required [for teaching]: What was consumed as a burnt-offering you must replace, but you do not replace what was consumed as incense [ketoreth]. For R. Hanina b. Minyomi the son of R. Eliezer b. Jacob recited: [And he shall take up the ashes] whereto the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering on the altar: what was consumed as a burnt-offering you replace, but you do not replace what was consumed as incense. And the other?10 - Do you then not learn automatically that we replace what was consumed as a burnt-offering?11
R. GAMALIEL SAID: WHAT IS ELIGIBLE etc. And R. Joshua too: surely upon the altar is written? - He requires that [as follows]: What does the Divine Law say? Whatever is eligible for its firewood, the altar sanctifies.12 And the other?13 - Another 'altar' is written.14 And the other?15 - One [is required] where it had a period of fitness,16 while the other [text] is required where it had no period of fitness.17 And the other?18 - Since they are [now] unfit and the Divine Law included them,19 there is no difference whether they had a period of fitness or did not have a period of fitness.
R. SIMEON SAID: IF THE SACRIFICE IS FIT etc. It was taught, R. Simeon said: [Scripture speaks of] a burnt-offering: as a burnt-offering comes on its own account, so all which come on their own account [are included]:20 [hence] libations which come on account of a sacrifice are excluded. R. Jose the Galilean said: From the text, 'Whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy', I understand whether it is eligible [for the altar] or not eligible. Therefore Scripture states: [Now this is what thou shalt offer upon the altar: two] lambs:21 as lambs are eligible [for the altar], so whatever is eligible [is included]. R. Akiba said: [Scripture states,] burnt-offering:22 as a burnt-offering is eligible [for the altar], so whatever is eligible [is included]. Wherein do they differ? - Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: They differ about a disqualified burnt-offering of a bird: one master deduces [the law] from 'burnt-offering',23 while the other master deduces it from 'lambs'.24 Now, as to the one who deduces it from 'lambs', surely 'burnt-offering' [too] is written? - If 'lambs' were written while 'burnt-offering' were not written, I would think [that the law applies] even [if they became disqualified] while yet alive:25 therefore the Divine Law wrote 'burnt-offering'.26 And as to the one who deduces it from 'burnt-offering', surely 'lambs' is written? - If 'burnt-offering' were written while 'lambs' were not written, I would think [that the law applies] even [to] a meal-offering.27 Therefore the Divine Law wrote 'lambs'.
Wherein do these Tannaim and the Tannaim of our Mishnah differ? - Said R. Papa: They differ in respect of fistfuls which were sanctified in a [service] vessel.28 According to our Tannaim, they do not descend;29 while according to the other Tannaim they descend.30
Resh Lakish said: With regard to a meal-offering which comes by itself,31 all32 of them hold that it does not descend; but according to R. Jose the Galilean and R. Akiba
(1) On which both R. Joshua and R. Gamaliel will agree.
(2) Taken from meal-offerings; v. Lev. II, 2.
(3) These are not considered eligible at all, and even if laid on the altar they must be removed.
(4) Now, the fistfuls of a meal-offering correspond to the emurim of animal sacrifices; and the former are sanctified for the altar by being placed in a service vessel, while the latter are likewise sanctified by the sprinkling of the blood. Hence the same law should apply to both.
(5) Nothing more was to be done to the emurim themselves, and only the blood still required sprinkling. Whereas the fistfuls themselves should first have been placed in a service vessel.
(6) Because 'upon its firewood' implies that whatever has already become as firewood and is feeding the flames of the altar must remain as a burnt-offering; so that if anything springs off it must be put back.
(7) R. Joshua.
(8) Lev. VI, 3. That is superfluous, as it is obvious that the ashes are the result of the fire. Hence it is interpreted as intimating that whatever once fed the fire belongs to the altar, even if it jumped off.
(9) R. Gamaliel; how does he utilise that text?
(10) R. Joshua; how does he know this?
(11) If the text teaches that you must replace whatever sprang off, that obviously includes what was consumed as a burnt-offering. And at the same time, since the whole passage treats of the burnt-offering only, you cannot make it refer to incense.
(12) I.e., 'upon the altar' does not extend the law, as R. Gamaliel maintains, but intimates why whatever is eligible for the altar-fire must be replaced, viz., because the altar sanctified it.
(13) Where does he find the reason?
(14) Ex. XXIX, 37: Whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy.
(15) R. Joshua: what need is there of two texts?
(16) Before it became unfit, e.g., if it was kept overnight, taken out of bounds, or defiled.
(17) E.g., if it was slaughtered with an illegitimate intention.
(18) R. Gamaliel: whence does he know this?
(19) In the law that they must remain on the altar if laid thereon.
(20) In the law that if laid on the altar they must remain there.
(21) Ex. XXIX, 38. This immediately follows the text quoted.
(22) Ibid. 42. Rashi says that it is written in the present verse (38). In fact, it is absent in the M.T. in this verse, but found in the Samaritan Text; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 34a
(23) Hence it includes a burnt-offering of a bird too.
(24) Hence only animal sacrifices are included, but not a burnt-offering of a bird.
(25) E.g., if it had a cataract on the eye.
(26) Intimating that this law applies only from the time that it was fit to ascend as a burnt-offering (in Heb. 'ascend' - the altar - and 'burnt-offering' are the same word viz., 'olah). Yet the law still applies to animal sacrifices only.
(27) By interpreting 'olah that which ascends (v. preceding note), and so including everything that ascends the altar.
(28) But were subsequently disqualified.
(29) For they infer the law from 'its firewood' and 'on the altar' and these fulfil the conditions implied in these words, as they feed the fire and are brought on the altar.
(30) As they cannot be included in 'lambs' or 'burnt-offering'.
(31) It does not accompany an animal sacrifice.
(32) I.e., all except those whom he specifies. Similarly the other cases.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 84a
it does descend.1 With regard to a meal-offering which accompanies a sacrifice, in the view of R. Gamaliel and R. Joshua it does not descend,2 while in the view of all [the others] it does descend. Libations which come by themselves,3 in the view of all of them, descend, but in the view of R. Gamaliel and R. Simeon they do not descend. Libations which come together with a sacrifice, in the view of all of them, descend, and only in the view of R. Gamaliel do they not descend. That is obvious?4 - He needs [to state this on account of] a meal-offering which comes by itself,5 and in accordance with Raba. For Raba said: A man can vow a meal-offering of libations every day.6 Then let [Resh Lakish] inform us [this law], as Raba?7 - He needs [to state the law about] libations which come with a sacrifice, where he offers them [the libations] on the morrow or on some other day.8 I might argue, Since a master said: And the meal-offerings thereof and their drink-offerings9 [can be brought] at night; 'the meal-offerings thereof and their drink-offerings' [can be brought] on the morrow,10 they are as drink-offerings [libations] which are brought by themselves, and R. Simeon admits that they do not descend. Hence he [Resh Lakish] informs us [that it is not so].
MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING DO NOT DESCEND ONCE THEY ASCENDED: [FLESH] THAT IS KEPT OVERNIGHT, OR THAT GOES OUT [OF ITS PERMITTED BOUNDARIES], OR WHICH IS UNCLEAN, OR WHICH WAS SLAUGHTERED [WITH THE INTENTION OF CONSUMING SAME] AFTER TIME OR WITHOUT BOUNDS; OR IF UNFIT [PERSONS] RECEIVED AND SPRINKLED ITS BLOOD. R. JUDAH SAID: THAT WHICH WAS SLAUGHTERED AT NIGHT OR WHOSE BLOOD WAS SPILT OR WHOSE BLOOD PASSED WITHOUT THE HANGINGS,11 IF IT ASCENDED, MUST DESCEND. R. SIMEON SAID: IT DOES NOT DESCEND; BECAUSE R. SIMEON MAINTAINED: IF ITS DISQUALIFICATION AROSE IN THE SANCTUARY, THE SANCTUARY12 RECEIVES IT; IF ITS DISQUALIFICATION DID NOT ARISE IN THE SANCTUARY, THE SANCTUARY DOES NOT RECEIVE IT. THE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE FOLLOWING DID NOT ARISE IN THE SANCTUARY: A ROBA' AND NIRBA', ONE SET ASIDE [FOR AN IDOLATROUS SACRIFICE]; AN ANIMAL WORSHIPPED [IDOLATROUSLY]; [A HARLOT'S] HIRE; [A DOG'S] EXCHANGE; KIL'AYIM; TEREFAH; AN ANIMAL CALVED THROUGH THE CAESAREAN SECTION; AND BLEMISHED ANIMALS.13 R. AKIBA DECLARED BLEMISHED ANIMALS FIT.14 R.HANINA THE SEGAN15 OF THE PRIESTS SAID: MY FATHER USED TO REPULSE BLEMISHED ANIMALS FROM OFF THE ALTAR. JUST AS THEY DO NOT DESCEND ONCE THEY ASCENDED, SO THEY DO NOT ASCEND IF THEY HAD DESCENDED. AND ALL OF THESE, IF THEY ASCENDED TO THE TOP OF THE ALTAR WHILST ALIVE, MUST DESCEND. IF A BURNT OFFERING WENT UP ALIVE TO THE TOP OF THE ALTAR, IT MUST DESCEND. IF ONE SLAUGHTERED IT ON THE TOP OF THE ALTAR, HE MUST FLAY IT AND DISMEMBER IT WHERE IT LIES.16
GEMARA. It was taught, R. Judah said: [This is the law of the burnt-offering:] it is that which goeth up [on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning]:17 here you have three limitations. It excludes [an animal] slaughtered at night; [an animal] whose blood was spilt; and [an animal] whose blood passed out beyond the hangings: if any one of these ascended [the altar], it must descend. R. Simeon said: 'Burnt-offering': I only know this of a fit burnt-offering; whence do I know to include one which was slaughtered at night, or whose blood was spilt, or whose blood passed without the hangings, or [the flesh of] which spent the night [away from the altar], or went out, or the unclean, or which was slaughtered [with the intention of burning its flesh] after time or without bounds; or whose blood was received and sprinkled by unfit [persons]; or whose blood was applied below [the scarlet line] when it should be applied above, or above when it should be applied below; or without when it should be applied within, or within when it should be applied without; or a Passover-offering or a sin-offering which one slaughtered for a different purpose: whence do we know [to include all these]? From the phrase, 'the law of the burnt-offering', which intimates one law for all burnt-offerings [viz.,] that if they ascended, they do not descend. You might think that I also include a roba' and a nirba', one set aside [for an idolatrous sacrifice], or worshipped; a [harlot's] hire or the price [of a dog], or a hybrid, or a terefah or an animal calved through the caesarean section. Scripture, however, states: 'it is that.' And why do you include the former and exclude the latter? Since Scripture includes
(1) As stated above.
(2) Since 'upon its firewood' and 'on the altar' are applicable to it.
(3) E.g., if one vows wine without a sacrifice.
(4) All this directly follows from their views stated above.
(5) I.e., to teach that a meal-offering can be brought alone.
(6) I.e., even without a sacrifice, which naturally would not be vowed so frequently.
(7) Explicitly, and not overlay it with all the other rulings.
(8) Not at the same time as the animal sacrifice.
(9) Num. XXIX, 6 et passim. 'Their' refers to the animal sacrifices.
(10) V. supra 8a.
(11) I.e., outside the Temple court.
(12) Here the altar.
(13) Cf. supra 71a and b.
(14) If they ascend, they do not descend.
(15) Chief of the priests and deputy High Priest; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 97, n. 1.
(16) Lit., 'in its place'.
(17) Lev. VI, 2.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 84b
and excludes, I include the former, because their disqualification arose in the sanctuary, while I exclude the latter whose disqualification did not arise in the sanctuary.1
But R. Judah infers [the law] from the following: Why did they say that if blood is kept overnight it is fit? Because if the emurim are kept overnight they are fit. Why are the emurim fit if they are kept overnight? Because flesh is fit if kept overnight. [Flesh that] goes out? Because [flesh that ] goes out is fit at the high place [bamah]. Unclean [flesh]? Because it was permitted in public service. [The emurim of a sacrifice intended to be burnt] after time? Because it propitiates in respect of its piggul status. [The emurim of a sacrifice intended to be burnt] out of bounds? Because it was likened to [the intention to burn it] after time. Where unfit [persons] received [the blood] and sprinkled it - in the case of those unfit persons who are eligible for public service. Can you then argue from what is its proper way to that where the same is not the proper way? - The Tanna relies on the extension indicated by, This is the law of the burnt-offering.2
R. Johanan said: If one slaughters an animal at night within3 and offers it4 without,5 he is culpable:6
(1) For notes v. supra 27b.
(2) Lev. VI, 2. For notes v. supra 51a.
(3) The Temple court.
(4) Lit., 'carries up' (its limbs).
(5) The Temple court; he offers it up by laying it on a stone or on an altar-like pile (v. Sifra on Lev. XVII, 6).
(6) On account of laying limbs sacrificially without, even according to R. Judah who maintained that if it ascended the altar it must still descend. Those which if laid on the altar do not descend certainly render the priest culpable if he lays them without, since these can be received by the altar(v. infra 111b).
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 85a
let this not be less than slaughtering without and offering up [the limbs without1 ]. R. Hiyya b. Abin raised an objection: One who slaughters a bird within and offers it up without is not culpable; if he slaughtered [it] without and offered it up without, he is culpable. Yet let us say: Let it not be less than slaughtering and offering up without? - That is a refutation. Alternatively, The slaughtering of a bird within is mere killing.2
'Ulla said: If the emurim of lesser sacrifices are laid [on the altar] before their blood is sprinkled, they do not descend, [because] they have become the food of the altar. R. Zera observed, We too learnt [likewise]: THAT . . . WHOSE BLOOD WAS SPILT OR WHOSE BLOOD PASSED WITHOUT THE HANGINGS: If you say there that if [the limbs or emurim] ascended they do not descend, though if he [the priest] should come to sprinkle, he has nothing to sprinkle;3 how much more so here, seeing that if he comes to sprinkle, he has what to sprinkle! - [No:] relate this to a most sacred sacrifice.4 But there is the Passover-offering, which is a lesser sacrifice?5 - Relate this to [where it is slaughtered] under a different designation.6
We learnt: AND ALL OF THESE, IF THEY ASCENDED THE ALTAR WHILST ALIVE, MUST DESCEND. Hence [if they ascended] when slaughtered, they do not descend: surely that is so whether they are most sacred sacrifices or lesser sacrifices? - No: [deduce thus:] but if they are slaughtered, some of these must descend,7 and some do not descend. But he teaches, AND ALL OF THESE. - That refers to whilst alive. That is obvious?8 - In truth it refers to living animals which have a cataract in the eye, this being in accordance with R. Akiba who maintained that if these ascend they do not descend.9
How have you explained it? As referring to unfit [animals]! Then consider the final clause: IF A BURNT-OFFERING WENT UP ALIVE TO THE TOP OF THE ALTAR, IT MUST DESCEND. IF ONE SLAUGHTERED IT ON THE TOP OF THE ALTAR, HE MUST FLAY IT AND DISMEMBER IT WHERE IT LIES. But if it is unfit, can it be flayed and dismembered? Surely the Divine Law said: And he shall cut it into pieces,10 'it' [implies] a fit; but not an unfit [animal]? - The final clause refers to a fit [sacrifice]; and what does he [the Tanna] inform us?11 that flaying and dismembering can be done on top of the altar. Then on the view that flaying and dismembering cannot be done on top of the altar, what can be said? - The case we discuss here is, e.g., where it had a period of fitness and then became disqualified,12 this agreeing with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon who maintained: Since the blood was sprinkled and the flesh had become acceptable13 even for a single hour, he must flay it, and its skin belongs to the priests.14 If so, when it was taught: 'What does he do?15 He takes down the inwards and washes them', why should he do so?16 - What then should we do? Offer [i.e. burn] them with their dung? 'Present it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee? or will he accept thy person?'17 This is our difficulty: why must he wash them?18 - So that if another priest chances upon them and does not know,19 he will take them up.
(1) Where one is culpable for each act separately.
(2) Not ritual slaughtering (shechitah), since it requires melikah (v. Glos.). For that reason he is not culpable. But when he slaughters an animal sacrifice at night, it does count as shechitah (since hullin may be slaughtered at night).
(3) Since the blood is spilt.
(4) The Mishnah may refer to most sacred sacrifices only, whose emurim are intrinsically holy even before the blood is sprinkled. Possibly, however, the same does not apply to lesser sacrifices, whose emurim are sacred only in virtue of the sprinkling of the blood.
(5) The Mishnah enumerates this too, and it is now assumed that this law applies even where its blood is spilt.
(6) As the Mishnah actually states. It does not apply, however, to the present instance.
(7) Sc. lesser sacrifices.
(8) Obviously they cannot remain there but must be brought down and slaughtered, and then they will be taken up again. If then this is not taught for the sake of the inference (viz., that all of these, if slaughtered, do not descend), it is altogether superfluous.
(9) V. supra 77b. The Mishnah thus informs us that they must descend, and even if subsequently slaughtered they may not re-ascend.
(10) Lev. I, 6.
(11) If it is fit, it obviously descends, since it will be taken up again.
(12) It refers indeed to a fit animal which ascended alive, but after it was slaughtered on top of the altar and its blood was sprinkled, it became disqualified; therefore it must be flayed and dismembered on top of the altar, for if it is taken down it may not be taken up again, since it was disqualified. And as to the objection that an unfit animal cannot be flayed, the answer is that it had a period when it was fit for flaying before it became disqualified.
(13) This is a technical term denoting that the flesh was now fit for its purpose.
(14) Even if it became unfit after the sprinkling of the blood. Though the flesh cannot be burnt on the altar but in the place of burning unfit sacrifices, the skin is not burnt with it but belongs to the priests. So here too, when it is on top of the altar it must likewise be flayed and dismembered.
(15) In this case where an animal ascended the altar whilst alive and it was slaughtered there.
(16) Seeing that they are unfit. For though these unfit animals must not be taken down, yet if they are, they may not be taken up again.
(17) Mal. I, 8. This is a protest against offering anything unseemly, and it is most unseemly to offer the inwards uncleaned.
(18) Since they must be taken down, after which they cannot go up again, let them be left as they are.
(19) That they are unfit.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 85b
And shall we arise and do a thing to priests whereby they may come to a stumbling block?1 - Even so it is better, that Divine sacrifices should not lie like carrion.2
R. Hiyya b. Abba said: R. Johanan asked: If the emurim of lesser sacrifices were taken up before their blood was sprinkled, must they go down or not? Said R. Ammi to him: Then inquire about a trespass-offering?3 - I do not ask about a trespass-offering, he replied, because sprinkling alone makes it subject to a trespass-offering; I only ask about [their] going down. And he [eventually] ruled that they do not go down and do not involve trespass.
R. Nahman b. Isaac recited it thus. R. Hiyya b. Abba said, R. Johanan asked: If the emurim of lesser sacrifices were taken up before their blood was sprinkled, do they involve a trespass-offering or not? Said R. Ammi to him: Then ask about [their] going down? I do not ask about going down, he replied, because they have become the food of the altar;4 I ask only about a trespass-offering. And [eventually] he ruled: They do not go down and do not involve trespass.
THE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE FOLLOWING DID NOT ARISE IN THE SANCTUARY etc. R. Johanan said: Only in the case of cataracts in the eye did R. Akiba declare them fit, since such are fit in the case of birds, and provided that their consecration [for a sacrifice] preceded their blemish. And R. Akiba admits in the case of a female burnt-offering [that it must be taken down], because that is tantamount to the blemish preceding its consecration.5
R. Jeremiah asked: Is nirba' [a disqualification] in birds or is nirba' no [disqualification] in birds?6 Do we say: [Ye shall bring your offering] of the cattle7 excludes roba' and nirba': [hence] whatever is subject to [the disqualification of] roba' is subject to [the disqualification of] nirba'; and whatever is not subject to roba' is not subject to nirba'.8 Or perhaps, sin has been committed with it?9 - Said Raba, Come and hear: R. AKIBA DECLARED BLEMISHED ANIMALS FIT. Now, if this is correct,10 let him also declare a nirba' fit,11 since it is fit in the case of birds.12 Hence infer from this [that it is not fit]. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We too have learnt thus: With regard to a nirba', a bird set apart [for an idolatrous sacrifice], a bird worshipped, a [harlot's] hire, the price [of a dog], a tumtum13 and a hermaphrodite, all of these defile garments when they are in the gullet.14 This proves it.
R. HANINA THE SEGAN OF THE PRIESTS. What does he inform us? - I can say that he informs us of the actual fact.15 Alternatively, what does HE REPULSED mean? Indirectly.16
JUST AS THEY DO NOT DESCEND IF THEY ONCE ASCENDED etc. 'Ulla said: They learnt this only where the fire had not taken hold of it; but if the fire had taken hold of it, it must re-ascend. R. Mari recited this in connection with the first clause.17 R. Hanina of Sura recited it in connection with the final clause:18 With regard to the bones, tendons, horns and hoofs, if they are attached [to the animal], they ascend [the altar]; if they are severed [from the animal] they do not ascend.19 Said 'Ulla: They learnt this only where the fire had not taken hold of them; but if the fire had taken hold of them, they ascend.20 He who recites it in connection with the final clause [holds that it applies] all the more to the first clause.21 He however who recites it in connection with the first clause [maintains]: but as for the final clause, those things are not normally burnt [on the altar].22
MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING IF THEY ASCENDED GO DOWN:23 THE FLESH OF MOST SACRED SACRIFICES AND THE FLESH OF LESSER SACRIFICES; THE RESIDUE OF THE 'OMER;24 THE TWO LOAVES;25 THE SHEWBREAD;26 THE RESIDUE OF MEAL-OFFERINGS;27 AND INCENSE.28 THE WOOL ON THE HEADS OF LAMBS, THE HAIR OF HE-GOATS BEARDS; THE BONES, TENDONS, HORNS AND HOOFS, IF THEY ARE ATTACHED, GO UP, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE THE WHOLE SMOKE ON THE ALTAR;29 IF THEY ARE SEVERED [FROM THE ANIMAL], THEY DO NOT GO UP, FOR IT IS SAID, AND THOU SHALT OFFER THY BURNT-OFFERINGS, THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD, [UPON THE ALTAR OF THE LORD THY GOD]].30
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught : And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar: this includes the bones, tendons, horns and hoofs. You might think, even if they were severed; therefore it states, 'And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood'. If [we had only the text] flesh and blood [to go by],
(1) Surely we may not cause another priest to think that they are fit.
(2) Hence they must be washed.
(3) If one misappropriates sacred property to secular use he is liable to a trespass-offering. Normally when emurim are laid on the altar (after the sprinkling of the blood) they become the property of the altar, and anyone thus misappropriating them incurs a trespass-offering. Then let the question be asked: does the law of trespass apply if they were taken up before the sprinkling of the blood?
(4) V. supra a.
(5) For notes v. supra 35b.
(6) There is no question about roba', as a male bird does not copulate with a woman.
(7) Lev. I, 2. 'Of' (Heb. מ) is partitive, and regarded as a limitation.
(8) So that it does not disqualify a bird.
(9) Hence it is disqualified.
(10) That nirba' does not disqualify a bird.
(11) Sc. an animal, in the sense that it does not descend.
(12) Even to sacrifice such in the first place.
(13) An animal or bird whose genitals are covered up, so that its sex cannot be determined. - This passage refers to birds.
(14) V. p. 257, n. 1. This proves that nirba' is a disqualification.
(15) What happened in such cases.
(16) Not openly, as this would seem to degrade sacrifices, but covertly. Lit., 'as with the back of the hand'.
(17) The present Mishnah, referring to unfit animals.
(18) The next Mishnah.
(19) And if they did, they must be removed.
(20) Even if taken down.
(21) Because the first clause deals with things that are normally burnt on the altar.
(22) Therefore even if the fire had taken hold of them, they are taken down, since they have no connection with the altar at all.
(23) Because they do not belong to the altar at all.
(24) The 'omer (q.v. Glos.) after it was waved; v. Lev. XXIII, 20 seq.
(25) V. Lev. XXIII, 15 seq.
(26) V. Ex. XXV, 30.
(27) V. Lev. II, 2 seq.
(28) Which must be burnt on the inner altar.
(29) Lev.I, 9.
(30) Deut. XII, 27.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 86a
you might have thought that one must remove the tendons and bones and lay [only] flesh on the altar; therefore it says, 'And the priest shall make the whole smoke'. How are these text reconciled? If they are attached, they ascend; if they are severed, even if they are on the top of the altar, they must go down.
Which Tanna do you know to maintain that if they were severed, they must go down? It is Rabbi. For it was taught: 'And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar': this includes the bones, tendons, horns and hoofs, even if they were severed. How do then I interpret, 'And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood'? It is to teach you: Burnt pieces [flesh] of the burnt-offering you must replace [on the altar],1 but you do not replace burnt tendons and bones. Rabbi said: One text states, 'And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar', thus extending [the law], while another text states, 'And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood', thus limiting [it]. How do you reconcile them? If they are attached, they ascend; if they are severed, even if they are on the top of the altar, they descend.
IF THEY ARE SEVERED [FROM THE ANIMAL], THEY DO NOT GO UP etc. R. Zera said: They learnt this only if they were severed downwards;2 but [if they were severed] upwards,3 they come nearer to being burnt.4 Even if they were severed?5 - Said Rabbah: This is what he means: They learnt this only if they were severed after sprinkling;6 but if they were severed before sprinkling, the sprinkling comes and makes them permitted [for general use], even to make from them a knife handle.7 He holds as R. Johanan said on R. Ishmael's authority: 'It shall be his' [the priest's] is said of the burnt-offering, and 'it shall be his' is said of the guilt-offering:8 as the bones of a guilt-offering are permitted, for even its flesh is permitted to the priests, so are the bones of a burnt-offering permitted. This must be redundant,9 for if it is not redundant, you can refute [the deduction]: as for a guilt-offering, the reason is because its flesh is permitted.10 [It is redundant, for] a superfluous 'it shall be his' is written.11
R. Adda b. Ahaba raised an objection: The bones of sacrifices involve trespass12 before sprinkling, but do not involve trespass after sprinkling; whereas the bones of a burnt-offering always involve trespass?13 - Say: Whereas those of a burnt-offering, if they were severed before sprinkling, involve trespass until the sprinkling; [if they were severed] after sprinkling, they always involve trespass.14
Now he [Rabbah] disagrees with R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said: If they were severed before sprinkling, they involve trespass; after sprinkling, one must not use them,15 but they do not involve trespass.16
MISHNAH. AND IF ANY OF THESE17 SPRANG OFF FROM THE ALTAR18 THEY ARE NOT REPLACED. SIMILARLY, IF A COAL SPRANG OFF FROM THE ALTAR, IT IS NOT REPLACED. LIMBS THAT SPRANG OFF FROM THE ALTAR: IF BEFORE MIDNIGHT, MUST BE REPLACED, AND INVOLVE TRESPASS; AFTER MIDNIGHT, THEY ARE NOT REPLACED AND DO NOT INVOLVE TRESPASS. JUST AS THE ALTAR SANCTIFIES WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR IT, SO DOES THE ASCENT SANCTIFY WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR IT;19 AND JUST AS THE ALTAR AND THE ASCENT SANCTIFY WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR THEM, SO DO VESSELS SANCTIFY.20
GEMARA. How is it meant? If they have substance,21 then even after midnight too [let them be returned]; while if they have no substance, even before midnight too [they need] not [be returned]? - This holds good only
(1) If they sprang off.
(2) Away from the burning pile. Then they do not go up, and if they did, they are removed. - They were placed on the altar, of course, whilst attached to the flesh.
(3) Springing nearer to the centre of the pile.
(4) They are not removed. - This passage is thus apparently based on the Mishnah . Tosaf. however points out that the Mishnah discusses whether they are to be placed on the altar at all, whereas this assumes that it was already there. Accordingly Tosaf. explains that it refers to the Baraitha just quoted, where the first Tanna maintains that the bones etc. are included even if they are severed.
(5) The meaning of this is doubtful, and Rashi assumes that there is a lacuna in the text. If the text is correct, the meaning would be: do you say that even if they were severed (upwards) they remain on the altar; surely the Mishnah teaches that only when attached do they ascend? Sh. M. quotes a variant reading: It was stated above: this includes the bones etc. even if they were severed. Said Rabbah: They learnt this only etc.
(6) Then they must descend, nevertheless they are still regarded as sacred, and must be so treated.
(7) I.e., they have no sanctity at all.
(8) Lev. VII, 7f.
(9) Lit., 'free', 'disengaged.' The form of exegesis just used, based on the fact that the same words are used of both, is called a gezerah shawah, and in such the word used as a basis of deduction must be entirely free for that purpose, being otherwise redundant.
(10) Hence its bones are too. Whereas the flesh of a burnt-offering must be burnt on the altar, and so its bones too may be forbidden.
(11) Scripture could write, the skin of the burnt-offering . . . shall be the priest's.
(12) V. p. 405, n. 8.
(13) This proves that they are always forbidden.
(14) Emended text (Sh.M.).
(15) By Rabbinical law.
(16) This agrees with R. Ishmael supra. When he quotes 'it shall be his' it must mean after sprinkling, for it is the sprinkling that permits the flesh (and so the bones too, on his view) to the priests.
(17) The unfit and bones etc. which if laid on the altar must not be removed.
(18) Through the heat.
(19) If laid on the ascent, it must not be removed.
(20) Sc. service-vessels - they sanctify what is placed in them.
(21) If these limbs are not burnt right through and the flesh is recognisable.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 86b
of hardened [limbs].1
Whence do we know it?2 - Said Raba: One text states, [This is the law of the burnt-offering: it is that which goeth up on its firewood upon the altar] all night . . . and he shall burn thereon etc.3 Whereas another text states, all night . . . and he shall take up the ashes.4 How are these texts reconciled?5 Divide it [the night]: half is for burning, and half for taking up [the ashes].6 R. Kahana raised an objection: Every day he [the priest] takes up [the ashes]7 at cockcrow, or slightly before or slightly after. On the Day of Atonement, [he does this] at midnight; on festivals, at the first watch.8 If then you maintain that [the altar must be cleared] from midnight [onwards], how may we advance it? - Said R. Johanan: From the implication of 'all night', do I not know that it is until the morning? Why then is 'unto the morning' stated? Add another morning to the morning of the night.9 Therefore every day it is sufficient from cockcrow. On the Day of Atonement [it is done] at midnight, on account of the fatigue10 of the High Priest.11 On festivals when there were many sacrifices and so the Israelites came very early, [it was done] at the first watch, as the sequel teaches: and before cockcrow the Temple court was full of Israelites.
It was stated: If they sprang off12 before midnight and he replaced them after midnight: Rabbah said:
(1) The fire had hardened them and completely dried up all their natural moisture, yet had not turned them into charred coals.
(2) That the matter depends on midnight.
(3) Lev. VI, 2-5. The combination of these texts implies that 'all night' is meant in respect of burning.
(4) Ibid. 3. He assumes that 'and he shall take up the ashes' also means during the night, (i.e., 'all night'), since the whole verse reads: And the priest shall put on his linen garment . . . and he shall take up the ashes: as it does not say that he must don his linen garment in the morning, it is assumed that he did it at night and straightway took up the ashes. Thus this contradicts the implication of the first verse.
(5) Emended text (Sh.M.).
(6) The first half is for burning, and during this time the flesh is not considered completely consumed unless it has actually been turned into ashes. The second half is for clearing, in the sense that even before the flesh has actually become ashes but has merely reached the stage of hardness it is regarded as ashes. If, however, it still retains the softness of flesh, it is obviously not ashes, and must not be removed.
(7) A shovelful of ashes which were placed at the east side of the ascent.
(8) Yoma 20a. The night (roughly from 6 P.M. to 6 A.M.) was divided into three or four watches (the matter is debated in Ber. 3a). The end of the first watch would be about 9 or 10 P.M., two or three hours before midnight.
(9) The morning of the night is dawn, while the additional morning is any earlier hour when the priests might rise to commence the service, according to the exigencies of the day. Since this is not fixed, it can be put forward or deferred as may be necessary.
(10) Lit., 'weakness'.
(11) To enable him to rest after it until the morning burnt-offering. This assumes that the High Priest removed the ashes himself. Tosaf. however suggests that it may mean that the ashes were removed (by another priest) earlier to enable the wood pile to be arranged and likewise the other rites to be performed as early as possible, so that the High Priest could sacrifice the daily burnt-offering at dawn, before he was hungry and fatigued.
(12) Lit., 'separated'.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 87a
The second midnight consumes them.1 R. Hisda said: The dawn consumes them. The scholars of the Academy said: What is R. Hisda's reason? If midnight, which does not establish linah,2 establishes 'ikul;3 then dawn, which establishes linah, surely establishes 'ikul. If they sprang off before midnight and he replaced them after dawn, - Rabbah said: The second midnight consumes them; R. Hisda said: They never reach 'ikul.4 To this R. Joseph demurred: And who is to tell us that midnight establishes 'ikul [only when they are] on the top of the altar; perhaps it establishes 'ikul wherever they are? They sent from thence:5 The law agrees with R. Joseph.6 It was stated likewise: R. Hiyya b. Abba said: If they sprang off before midnight and were replaced after midnight, you may not use them, nor do you commit trespass on their account.7 Bar Kappara taught likewise: If they sprang off before midnight and were replaced after midnight, they are not subject to trespass. R. Papa asked Abaye: Now, since they sent from there [that] the law agrees with R. Joseph, and R. Hiyya b. Abba said [the same], and Bar Kappara taught likewise, wherein do Rabbah and R. Hisda disagree? - In the case of fat [limbs], he answered him.8
Raba asked Rabbah: Is linah effective [when the limbs are] on the top of the altar, or is it not effective on top of the altar? - What are the circumstances: if we say that they [the limbs] did not descend,9 surely since you say that even if they were kept overnight in the Temple court they do not descend,10 can there be a question [when they are kept on] the top of the altar?11 Rather [the question is] where they descended. Do we liken it to the Table, for we learnt: Even if they12 are on the Table many days, it does not matter? Or perhaps we liken it to the pavement of the Temple court?13 - Said he to him: Linah is not [effective when the flesh is] on the top of the altar. Did he accept [this ruling] from him or did he not accept it from him? - Come and hear. For it was stated: Limbs which spent the night in the Temple court, [the priest] can go on burning them all night;14 if they were kept overnight on the top of the altar, he can always go on burning them.15 If they descended: Rabbah said: They re-ascend; Raba said: They do not re-ascend.16 This proves that he did not accept [the ruling] from him. This proves it.
JUST AS THE ALTAR SANCTIFIES etc. Our Rabbis taught: Whatsoever touches the altar [shall be holy]:17 I know it only of the altar; how do I know [it of] the ascent? Because it says, the [eth] altar.18 How do we know [it of] service vessels? Because it says: Whatsoever toucheth them shall be holy.19
Resh Lakish asked R. Johanan: Do the service vessels sanctify the disqualified? - We have learnt it, he replied: JUST AS THE ALTAR AND THE ASCENT SANCTIFY WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR THEM, SO DO VESSELS SANCTIFY!20 Said he, My question is whether they can be offered in the first place. But that too we have learnt:
(1) They will not be assumed to reach the stage of hardness (v. supra 86b) until the following midnight; unless, of course, they are reduced to ashes before then.
(2) The status of flesh that is kept overnight. Midnight does not confer that status, and flesh that falls off after midnight is replaced on the altar.
(3) Lit. 'burning,' 'consumption'. If the flesh is hard by midnight (v. supra 86b top) it is regarded as consumed, and if it springs off after that it is not replaced.
(4) Whenever they spring off, until they are actually ashes, they must be replaced, and involve trespass.
(5) Sc. from Palestine - The reference is to R. Eleazar (v. Sanh. 17b).
(6) His argument is correct. - Actually they did not give a ruling (Tosaf).
(7) They need not have been replaced, as they no longer belong to the altar. Hence they do not involve trespass; nevertheless, benefit from them is interdicted by Rabbinical law.
(8) Even when they harden they are not regarded as consumed ('ikul), because their fat keeps them from becoming ashes. Only then do Rabbah and R. Hisda disagree as to their status. But in the case of ordinary flesh they agree that midnight establishes 'ikul.
(9) But remained on the altar, away from the fresh wood pile for the new sacrifices.
(10) If placed on the altar after the night passed.
(11) Surely they do not descend.
(12) The loaves of the Shewbread.
(13) Hence it becomes unfit.
(14) But not after, for linah disqualifies them.
(15) They are never disqualified as long as they are there.
(16) Because linah disqualifies them, and so like all disqualified limbs they do not re-ascend once they descended.
(17) Ex. XXIX, 37.
(18) The reference is probably either to XXIX, 44: And I will sanctify the tent of meeting, and the altar; or to XXX, 26-28: And thou shalt anoint therewith . . . the altar of burnt-offering. In either case the preceding eth (which denotes the acc.) is regarded as an extension, thus including the ascent.
(19) Ibid. XXX, 29. 'Them' refers (among other things) to service vessels, which are spoken of in the preceding verses.
(20) The reference being to disqualified sacrificial parts. V. Mishnah notes.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 87b
[Or] where unfit [persons] received and sprinkled the blood.1 Surely that means, where unfit [persons] received and sprinkled the blood.2 - No: [it may mean] that unfit [persons] received it or unfit persons sprinkled the blood.3
The scholars asked:4 Is the air-space above the altar as the altar, or not?5 - Come and hear: JUST AS THE ALTAR SANCTIFIES SO DOES THE ASCENT SANCTIFY. Now, if you say that the airspace above the altar is not as the altar, then the air-space above the ascent too is not as the ascent; how then can one carry it up from the ascent to the altar, seeing that it is as having descended?6 - He drags it.7 But there was a gap between the ascent and the altar?8 - When the greater part of it [the limb] is nearer the ascent, it is as though it were [on] the ascent, and when the greater part of it is nearer the altar,it is as though it were on the altar. Then from this you can solve Rami b. Hama's question, [viz.]: Is there a connective in [limbs which] ascend the altar or not?9 Solve that there is a connective?10 - That is no difficulty: Then solve it!
Raba son of R. Hanan demurred: If you say that the air-space above the altar is as the altar, how is it possible for a burnt-offering of a bird to be disqualified through an [illegitimate] intention; surely the altar has received it?11 R. Shimi b. Ashi demurred: Why not? It is possible e.g., where he declared: Behold, I pinch it intending to take it off to-morrow [from the altar], then carry it up again and burn it.12 (That is well according to Raba who maintained [that] linah is effective [when the sacrifice is] on top of the altar; but according to Rabbah who held that linah is not effective on top of the altar, his intention [certainly] does not count!13 - According to Rabbah too it is possible e.g. if he declared: Behold, I pinch it with the intention of taking it down before dawn and taking it up again after dawn.)14 At all events, you can solve [the question] in the other direction, viz., that the air-space of the altar is as the altar,15 for should you think that the air-space of an altar is not as the altar,
(1) V. supra 84a.
(2) The 'and' (Heb. 7) being conjunctive. This implies that only then do they not descend once they ascended, which further implies that they may not ascend in the first place. Hence, if unfit persons received the blood (naturally, in a service vessel) whilst fit persons sprinkled it, they may ascend (be offered) in the first place, and that must be because the vessels sanctified the blood to permit its sprinkling at the outset.
(3) And we are informed that even then the limbs do not descend once they ascended, notwithstanding that they were disqualified by the sprinkling.
(4) Emended text (Sh.M.).
(5) If one suspends disqualified limbs above the altar, is it as though they are on the altar itself and must not be removed, or not?
(6) For if it is not as the ascent, when he lifts it up to carry to the altar it is as though he had taken it down, and we learnt that if it descended it must not re-ascend.
(7) Up to the altar without lifting it up from the ascent.
(8) V. supra 62b. And when the limbs reach the gap, they are as though taken down.
(9) If the smaller part of a limb springs off, is it considered as still attached to the whole, and so must be replaced, or not?
(10) For otherwise each portion of the limb becomes disqualified as it enters the gap between the altar and the ascent.
(11) The neck of a burnt-offering of a bird was pinched (v. Lev. I, 15) on top of the altar, i.e., in the air-space above the altar. Now if the priest actually kept it suspended in the air-space above the altar until the next day it would be fit then for ritual burning, for disqualified sacrifices do not descend once they ascended (i.e., even if linah does disqualify when the sacrifice is on the altar). Since then it is fit for burning on the morrow, why should the intention to burn it on the morrow disqualify it, seeing that at the very moment that it is killed it is as though laid on the altar?
(12) This would be forbidden, as if it descended it does not re-ascend. Hence the intention too can disqualify it.
(13) For even if he kept it until the morrow on the top of the altar it would not be disqualified, so that if he took it down then he would still have to replace it. The intention to do this would certainly not disqualify it.
(14) If the sacrifice were actually on the ground at dawn it would be disqualified, and so the intention too disqualifies it.
(15) This is the conclusion of R. Shimi b. Ashi's argument: though R. Hanan's reasoning is faulty, yet one can argue in the reverse direction.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 88a
how may one sprinkle the blood of a disqualified sin-offering of a bird, as it has the status of having descended,1 [and] how could one sprinkle the blood of other disqualified [sacrifices]?2 - He contacts [the blood] [with the wall of the altar].3 Is that haza'ah? it is draining; is that zerikah? it is pouring out;4 moreover, is that the way of haza'ah and zerikah?5 - Said R. Ashi: If he held it on top of the altar, that would indeed be so; the question arises where he [the priest] stands on the ground and suspends it [the blood] on a cane?6 what then? The question stands over.
MISHNAH. THE VESSELS FOR LIQUIDS SANCTIFY LIQUIDS,7 AND THE MEASURES FOR DRY MATTER SANCTIFY DRY MATTER.8 A LIQUID VESSEL DOES NOT SANCTIFY DRY MATTER, NOR DOES A DRY [MEASURE] SANCTIFY A LIQUID. IF HOLY VESSELS WERE PERFORATED AND THEY CAN BE USED FOR THE SAME PURPOSE AS WHEN WHOLE, THEY SANCTIFY [WHAT IS PLACED IN THEM]; IF NOT, THEY DO NOT SANCTIFY. AND ALL THESE SANCTIFY ONLY IN THE SANCTUARY.9
GEMARA. Samuel said: They learnt [this] only of the measures,10 but the basins sanctified,11 for it is said: Both of them filled with fine flour.12 Said R. Aha of Difti to Rabina: But that was a moist meal-offering?13 - He replied, The proof is from the dry parts thereof.14 Alternatively, a meal-offering is dry in comparison with blood.15
Samuel said. The service vessels sanctified only when whole, full,16 and through the inside.17 Others state it: They sanctify only when whole, full, and within.18 Wherein do they differ? - They differ in respect of the overflow of measures.19 In a Baraitha it was taught: They sanctify only when full, whole, through the inside and within. R. Assi said in R. Johanan's name: They learnt this20 only where he [the priest] does not intend to add thereto; but if he intends adding thereto, each portion becomes holy in turn.21 It was taught likewise: [Both of them] filled [with fine flour]: 'filled' means complete.22 Said R. Jose: When is that? When he does not intend to add [thereto]; but if he intends to add [thereto], each portion becomes holy in turn.
A LIQUID VESSEL DOES NOT SANCTIFY etc. Rab-others state R. Assi-said: They do not sanctify to be offered, but they sanctify [it] to be disqualified.23 Others recite it in connection with the following: You may not bring meal-offerings, drink-offerings, and the meal-offering of an animal [sacrifice], or the first-fruits,24 from a mixture;25 and it goes without saying from 'orlah and kil'ayim of the vineyard.26 If one did bring [such], it is not sanctified. Said Rab - others state, R. Assi - : It is not sanctified to be offered, but it is sanctified to be disqualified.27
Our Rabbis taught: When holy vessels are perforated, you may not melt them28 nor melt lead into them.29 If they were damaged,30 you may not repair them. If a knife was damaged, you may not smooth out the damage;31 if it slipped out [of its haft], you may not replace it. Abba Saul said: There was a knife which caused terefoth32 in the Temple, whereupon the priests decided by vote to hide it.
Our Rabbis taught: The priestly garments were not sewn but woven,33 as it is said, of woven work.34 If soiled, they might not be washed with natron35 or with ahal.36 But you may wash them in water?37 - Said Abaye, This is what he means: If they [merely] needed water,38 you may wash them [even] with natron or ahal.
(1) If one pinched the bird on the altar with an illegitimate intention, it is disqualified; as soon as he lifts it in order to sprinkle the blood, it is as though he had taken it down from the altar, and such may not be taken up again. Hence the blood could not be sprinkled.
(2) According to R. Gamaliel who maintains that if the blood of disqualified sacrifices ascended the altar, it must not descend. But sprinkling is done from a distance, so that the blood passes through the air-space of the altar.
(3) Not from the distance.
(4) Haza'ah and zerikah are two words for sprinkling, the latter denoting a sprinkling with greater force than the former. - If he does not sprinkle the blood from the distance, it is not sprinkling at all.
(5) Even if this could be called sprinkling, it is certainly not the manner in which sprinkling is done.
(6) The above argument proves nothing. For when the man stands on the altar and holds the blood or the bird in his hand, the air-space is certainly as the altar itself, for the fact that he is standing on it gives the blood etc. the same status as though it were on the altar.
(7) E.g. the plates and basins for blood, wine and oil.
(8) There were two dry measures, an 'issaron (tenth part of an ephah) and half an 'issaron: the first was used for measuring all meal-offerings, while the second was used for the High Priest's daily morning and evening meal-offerings (v. Lev. VI, 12 seq.).-Rashi and Tosaf. give different reasons why the Mishnah speaks of liquid vessels and dry measures.
(9) The Temple court.
(10) Only the liquid measures, of which there were seven, do not sanctify dry matter. The reason is because these were only fit for measuring, and had been anointed (whereby they were sanctified) for this purpose only.
(11) Though meant primarily for liquids, they could also be used for meal.
(12) Num. VII, 13. 'Both' included a basin, which was normally used for liquids.
(13) V. ibid.: with fine flour mingled with oil for a meal-offering.
(14) Lit., 'it is necessary only for the dry parts'. - Mingling could not be so thorough as to leave no dry parts at all, yet these too were sanctified by the basins.
(15) For which the basins were normally used.
(16) They must contain as much as is required, e.g., if flour for a meal-offering is placed in them, there must be at least an 'issaron.
(17) But if flour is heaped up on the outside of a service vessel, it is not sanctified.
(18) Rashi: in the Temple court.
(19) When a measure is overfilled, so that there is a brim, the Rabbis disagree as to whether the overflow is sanctified (Men. 90a). He who maintains that only the inside sanctifies, holds that the overflow is not sanctified.
(20) That it sanctifies only when full.
(21) Lit., 'the first, the first is holy'. Every little quantity is sanctified as it is poured into the vessel, and it remains sanctified even if it was not full eventually.
(22) Containing the necessary measure (v. n. 10, p. 416); only then is it sanctified.
(23) If meal is placed in a liquid vessel, it is sanctified in so far that if it is then carried out of the Temple court or touched by a tebul yom (q.v. Glos.), it is disqualified from being used henceforth for a meal-offering.
(24) I.e., which accompanied an animal sacrifice or the first-fruits.
(25) A mixture of terumah and hullin.
(26) V. Glos. and Deut. XXII, 9. A meal-offering or drink-offering can certainly not be brought from these, which are forbidden to all, including priests. But it may not be brought even from a mixture of terumah and hullin, which is permitted to priests, though priests consume the meal-offering, because what is brought must be permitted to all.
(27) It does not count simply as hullin but as sanctified meal which had become unfit, having been sanctified by the service-vessel in which it was placed, and therefore it must be burnt.
(28) I.e., melt the metal around the hole to close it up.
(29) For the same purpose.
(30) More extensively.
(31) I.e., if the edge is heavily notched it may not be re-ground.
(32) It frequently became slightly notched and was inadvertently used, thus making the sacrifices terefah. - Terefoth is used loosely for nebeloth.
(33) They were woven directly into garments, not first into cloth and then sewn together.
(34) Ex. XXVIII, 32.
(35) V. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 330, n. 5.
(36) A substance used as soap. - The reason for all these is that it savours of poverty to repair or cleanse them for Temple use.
(37) Surely not; that too savours of poverty and is moreover inefficient.
(38) Lit ,'if they were brought to water.' - i.e., they were only slightly soiled.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 88b
If they needed natron or ahal, you may not wash them even in water. Others maintain: You may not wash them at all,1 because there is no poverty in the place of wealth.
Our Rabbis taught: The robe [me'il] was entirely of blue,2 as it is said, And he made the robe of the ephod of woven work, all of blue.3 How were its skirts [made]? Blue [wool], purple wool and crimson thread, twisted together, were brought, and manufactured into the shape of pomegranates whose mouths were not yet opened4 and in the shape of the cones of the helmets on children's heads. Seventy two bells containing seventy two clappers were brought and hung thereon, thirty six on each side.5 R. Dosa6 said on the authority of Rabbi Judah: There were thirty six, eighteen on each side.
R. 'Inyani b. Sason said: As there is a controversy here, so is there a controversy in respect to leprous plagues.7 For we learnt: The appearances of plagues, R. Dosa b. Harkinas said: They are thirty six; Akabia b. Mahalallel said: They are eighteen.8
R. 'Inyani b. Sason also said: Why are the sections on sacrifices and the priestly vestments close together?9 To teach you: as sacrifices make atonement, so do the priestly vestments make atonement. The coat atones for bloodshed, for it is said, And they killed a he-goat, and dipped the coat in the blood.10 The breeches atoned for lewdness, as it is said, And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover the flesh of their nakedness.11 The mitre made atonement for arrogance. How do we know it? - Said R. Hanina: Let an article placed high up12 come and atone for an offence of hauteur. The girdle atoned for [impure] meditations of the heart, i.e., where it was placed.13 The breastplate atoned for [neglect of] civil laws, as it is said, And thou shalt make a breastplate of judgment.14 The ephod atoned for idolatry, as it is said, Without ephod there are teraphim.15 The robe atoned for slander. How do we know it? - Said R. Hanina: Let an article of sound16 come and atone for an offence of sound. The headplate atoned for brazenness: of the headplate it is written, And it shall be upon Aaron's forehead,17 whilst of brazenness it is written, Yet thou hadst a harlot's forehead.18
But that is not so, for surely R. Joshua b. Levi said: For two things we find no atonement through sacrifices, but find atonement for them through something else,19 and they are bloodshed and slander. Bloodshed [is atoned for] by the beheaded heifer,20 while slander [is atoned for] by incense. For R. Hanania recited: How do we know that incense atones? Because it is said, And he put on the incense, and made atonement for the people.21 And the school of R. Ishmael taught [likewise]: For what does incense atone? For slander: let that which is done in secret22 come and atone for an offence committed in secret.23 Thus slander contradicts slander, and bloodshed contradicts bloodshed? - There is no difficulty: bloodshed does not contradict bloodshed: In the one case the murderer is known,24 in the other the murderer is unknown.25 If the murderer is known, he is liable to death?26 -It means [where he committed murder] deliberately, but was not warned.27 Slander too does not contradict slander: Here it was done in secret;28 there it was done in public.29 [
(1) Even if slightly soiled.
(2) Tekeleth, wool dyed with a peculiar blue, now no longer obtainable.
(3) Ibid. XXXIX. 22.
(4) Overripe pomegranates open up slightly.
(5) I.e., in front and behind.
(6) Sh.M. reads: Rabbi.
(7) Lit., 'the appearances of plagues'.
(8) They disagree as to how many colours render these plagues leprous and unclean.
(9) Immediately after discussing the burnt-offering, meal-offering, sin-offering, and peace-offerings (Lev. VII), Scripture speaks of the priestly garments (VIII, 1 seq.)
(10) Gen. XXXVII, 31. This was a sign that later the coat would make atonement, even as dipping (Heb. tebillah, in later Hebrew denoting ritual immersion for purification) symbolised atonement.
(11) Ex. XXVIII, 42.
(12) On top of the head.
(13) It was placed at the level of the heart.
(14) Ibid., 15.
(15) Hos. III, 4. Where there is no ephod, there is the unatoned-for sin of teraphim (idols). - E.V.: without ephod or teraphim.
(16) Sc. the robe, which was fringed with bells.
(17) Ex. XXVIII, 38.
(18) Jer. III, 3.
(19) Lit., 'from another place.'
(20) V. Deut. XXI, 1-9.
(21) Num. XVII, 12.
(22) None was present when the incense was offered.
(23) Slander is first related in private and then it spreads.
(24) Then the coat makes atonement, so that the whole community should not be divinely punished.
(25) Then the beheaded heifer makes atonement.
(26) And until he is executed the community is not forgiven.
(27) On 'warning, (hathra'ah) v. p. 372, n. 1. He could not be executed in that case.
(28) Then the incense atones.
(29) Then the robe atones.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 89a
MISHNAH. WHATEVER IS MORE CONSTANT THAN ANOTHER TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE OTHER. THE DAILY OFFERINGS1 PRECEDE THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS;2 THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS OF THE SABBATH PRECEDE THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS OF NEW MOON;3 THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS OF NEW MOON PRECEDE THE ADDITIONAL OFFERINGS OF NEW YEAR; FOR IT IS SAID, [YE SHALL OFFER THESE] BESIDE THE BURNT-OFFERING OF THE MORNING, WHICH IS FOR A CONTINUAL BURNT-OFFERING.4
GEMARA. Whence do we know it? [You ask] Whence do we know it: surely he [the Tanna] states the reason, viz., 'BESIDE THE BURNT-OFFERING OF THE MORNING'? - Perhaps only the daily-offerings precede the additional offerings, because they are constant; how do we know that additional-offerings [precede] [less frequent] additional-offerings?5 - Said R. Elai, Because Scripture states, Like these ye shall offer daily, for seven days:6 [instead of] 'these', 'like these' [is written].7 But this is required for its own purpose?8 - If so,9 let [Scripture] write, 'These ye shall offer daily'.10 If it wrote, 'These ye shall offer daily for seven days', I would think [that] these [are offered] in the seven days?11 - 'Daily' is written.12 Yet I might still interpret. These [ye shall offer] for the day,13 but on the remaining days I could not know how many?14 - Scripture says, Ye shall offer, [which implies] that all your offerings must be alike.15 Abaye said: [We learn it] from that very text.16 For if so,17 let Scripture say 'beside the burnt-offering of the morning', and then be silent; why state, which is for a continual burnt-offering? To teach that that which is more constant takes precedence.18
MISHNAH. WHATEVER IS MORE SACRED THAN ANOTHER PRECEDES THAT OTHER. THE BLOOD OF A SIN-OFFERING PRECEDES THE BLOOD OF A BURNT-OFFERING,19 BECAUSE IT PROPITIATES.20 THE LIMBS OF A BURNT-OFFERING PRECEDE THE EMURIM OF A SIN-OFFERING,21 BECAUSE IT [THE FORMER] IS ENTIRELY FOR [ALTAR] FIRES. A SIN-OFFERING PRECEDES A GUILT-OFFERING, BECAUSE ITS BLOOD IS SPRINKLED ON THE FOUR HORNS AND ON THE BASE.22 A GUILT-OFFERING PRECEDES A THANKSOFFERING AND A NAZIRITE'S RAM, BECAUSE IT IS A SACRIFICE OF HIGHER SANCTITY. A THANKSOFFERING AND A NAZIRITE'S RAM PRECEDE A PEACE-OFFERING, BECAUSE THEY ARE EATEN ONE DAY [ONLY] AND REQUIRE [THE ACCOMPANIMENT OF] LOAVES. A PEACE-OFFERING PRECEDES A FIRSTLING, BECAUSE IT REQUIRES FOUR [BLOOD] APPLICATIONS, LAYING [OF HANDS]. DRINK-OFFERINGS, AND THE WAVING OF THE BREAST AND THE THIGH. A FIRSTLING PRECEDES TITHE, BECAUSE ITS SANCTITY IS FROM THE WOMB,23 AND IT IS EATEN BY PRIESTS. TITHE PRECEDES BIRD[-OFFERINGS]. BECAUSE IT IS A SLAUGHTERED SACRIFICE,24 AND PART OF IT IS MOST SACRED, [VIZ.,] ITS BLOOD AND EMURIM.25 BIRDS PRECEDE MEAL-OFFERINGS, BECAUSE THEY ARE BLOOD SACRIFICES. A SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING PRECEDES A VOTIVE MEAL-OFFERING, BECAUSE IT COMES ON ACCOUNT OF SIN. A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD PRECEDES A BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD; AND IT IS LIKEWISE WHEN HE DEDICATES THEM.26
(1) Lit., 'continual' offerings - the daily burnt-offerings.
(2) Which were sacrificed on Sabbaths, Festivals, and New Moons.
(3) When the Sabbath and New Moon concurred, similarly the other cases.
(4) Num. XXVIII, 23. 'These' are the additional festival offerings, whilst 'beside the burnt-offering of the morning' implies that that had already been offered, having preceded the additional offerings.
(5) Since even the more frequent additional offerings are not really constant, perhaps we disregard their greater frequency.
(6) Ibid. 24.
(7) He interprets: like those which are mentioned in the preceding verse: as in those the more frequent take precedence, so in these (the festival additional-offerings) the more frequent take precedence.
(8) To teach that an additional offering must be brought every day of the festival.
(9) If that is its only purpose.
(10) Not 'like these.'
(11) I.e., the seven he-lambs specified in Num. XXVIII, 19 are not offered each day but spread over the seven days.
(12) Which precludes that interpretation.
(13) Sc. the first day.
(14) If Scripture did not write, like these.
(15) The offerings on each day (including the first) must be the same. Hence 'like' is unnecessary for that purpose, and so intimates precedence.
(16) Cited in the Mishnah.
(17) If its teaching applies only to the daily offerings.
(18) In all cases. For that reason 'continual' is emphasized.
(19) If both are ready for sprinkling at the same time.
(20) It makes atonement where kareth is involved.
(21) For burning.
(22) Whereas of the guilt-offering only two applications are made, and not on the horns; nor is the blood poured out on the base (Rashi).
(23) It is born sacred.
(24) Whereas a bird requires melikah; slaughtering is considered higher.
(25) Even in lesser sacrifices these possess the same sanctity as the most sacred sacrifices, since they belong to the altar. In the case of a bird only the blood possesses that sanctity, but there are no emurim.
(26) When a man dedicates the two birds (v Lev. V, 7) he first dedicates the one for sin-offering and then the one for burnt-offering.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 89b
GEMARA. How do we know these things? - Because our Rabbis taught: And a second young bullock thou shalt take for a sin-offering:1 Now, if this comes to teach that there are two [sacrifices], surely it has already been said, And offer thou the one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering.2 What then is taught by, And a second young bullock thou shalt take for a sin-offering? For one might think that a sin-offering takes precedence over all the rites of a burnt-offering,3 therefore it says. And a second young bullock thou shalt take for a sin-offering.4 If [we had only the text] And a second young bullock [to go by], you might think that a burnt-offering precedes a sin-offering in all its rites: therefore it says, And offer thou the one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering. How are these [to be reconciled]? The blood of a sin-offering takes precedence over the blood of a burnt-offering [in sprinkling], because it propitiates.5
THE LIMBS OF A BURNT-OFFERING etc. Yet why so? say that [only] the first application [of the blood of the sin-offering], which makes atonement, takes precedence, but not the rest?6 - Said Rabina: Here we are treating of the Levites' sin-offering, and though it was like a burnt-offering,7 the Divine Law ordered it to take precedence.8 In the West [Palestine] they said: Since he commenced the applications [of the sin-offering], he completes [them].
It was asked: Regarding the blood of a sin-offering and the limbs of a burnt-offering, which of them takes precedence? Does the blood of a sin-offering take precedence, because it propitiates; or perhaps the limbs of a burnt-offering take precedence, because they are entirely [destined] for [altar] fires? - Come and hear: THE BLOOD OF A SIN-OFFERING PRECEDES THE BLOOD OF A BURNT-OFFERING; thus only the blood of a burnt-offering does it precede, but it does not precede the limbs of a burnt-offering. On the contrary, [infer] from the subsequent clause: THE LIMBS OF A BURNT-OFFERING PRECEDE THE EMURIM OF A SIN-OFFERING: thus only the emurim of a sin-offering do they precede, but they do not precede the blood of a sin-offering. Rather, no inference can be made from this.
It was asked: [As to] the blood of a burnt-offering and the emurim of a sin-offering, which of these takes precedence? Does the blood of a burnt-offering take precedence, because it comes in virtue of a sacrifice that is altogether burnt; or perhaps the emurim of a sin-offering take precedence, because they come in virtue of an atoning [sacrifice]? - Come and hear: THE BLOOD OF A SIN-OFFERING PRECEDES THE BLOOD OF A BURNT-OFFERING; thus, only the blood of a sin-offering precedes the blood of a burnt-offering, but the emurim of a sin-offering do not. On the contrary, [infer] from the subsequent clause: THE LIMBS OF A BURNT-OFFERING PRECEDE THE EMURIM OF A SIN-OFFERING: thus, only the limbs of a burnt-offering precede the emurim of a sin-offering, but the blood of a burnt-offering does not. Rather, no inference can be made from this.
It was asked: [As to] the blood of a burnt-offering and the blood of a guilt-offering, which takes precedence? Does the blood of a burnt-offering precede, because it comes in virtue of a sacrifice that is altogether burnt; or perhaps the blood of a guilt-offering precedes, because it makes atonement? - Come and hear: THE BLOOD OF A SIN-OFFERING PRECEDES THE BLOOD OF A BURNT-OFFERING; hence the blood of a guilt-offering does not. [No:] by right he [the Tanna] should have taught the blood of a guilt-offering [too], but because he wishes to teach in a later clause: THE LIMBS OF A BURNT-OFFERING PRECEDE THE EMURIM OF A SIN-OFFERING; for if he taught [that they precede] the emurim of a guilt-offering, I would argue: only the emurim of a guilt-offering do they precede, but they do not precede the emurim of a sin-offering;9 for that reason he teaches about a sin-offering [only].
Come and hear: A SIN-OFFERING PRECEDES A GUILT-OFFERING; thus, only a sin-offering precedes a guilt-offering, but a burnt-offering does not. Surely that refers to the blood? - No: it refers to the emurim. This may be proved too, for he teaches. BECAUSE ITS BLOOD IS APPLIED, [and does not teach, Because it is applied].10 This proves it.
A SIN-OFFERING PRECEDES etc. On the contrary, a guilt-offering should precede, because it has a fixed value?11 - Even so, the greater number of altar [rites] is more important.
A GUILT-OFFERING PRECEDES A THANKSOFFERING etc. On the contrary, a thanksoffering and a nazirite's ram should take precedence, since they require loaves? - Even so, sacrifices of higher sanctity are more important.
A THANKSOFFERING AND A NAZIRITE'S RAM etc. On the contrary, a peace-offering should take precedence, since it is congregational as well as private?12 - Even so [the fact that] they are eaten for one day only is more weighty.
It was asked: [As to] a thanksoffering and a nazirite's ram, which of these takes precedence? Does a thanksoffering take precedence, because it requires [the accompaniment of] four kinds of loaves;13 or perhaps a nazirite's ram takes precedence, because other sacrifices14 accompany it?15 - Come and hear: This one precedes the other,16 because the former requires four kinds of loaves, whereas the latter requires only two kinds of loaves.17
A PEACE-OFFERING PRECEDES A FIRSTLING etc. On the contrary, a firstling should take precedence, since its sanctity is from the womb and it is eaten by priests [only]? - Even so, the greater number of rites [connected with a peace-offering] are more important.
A FIRSTLING PRECEDES etc. On the contrary, tithe should take precedence, since it sanctifies what precedes it and what follows it?18 Even so, sanctity from the womb is weightier.
TITHE PRECEDES BIRD-OFFERINGS etc. On the contrary, bird-offerings should take precedence, since they are most sacred? - Even so, the species of slaughtering is more important.
Rabina b. Shila said: If the emurim of lesser sacrifices are taken out19 before the sprinkling of the blood, they are disqualified. Now, our Tanna supports this: BECAUSE IT IS A SLAUGHTERED SACRIFICE, AND PART OF IT IS MOST SACRED, [VIZ.,] ITS BLOOD AND EMURIM. As for emurim, it is well, [as] these are absent in birds; but blood at all events is present?20 Surely then he informs us this: emurim are like blood: just as blood [is most holy] before sprinkling, so are emurim [most holy only] before sprinkling, and [only then] are they designated most sacred; and as blood is disqualified through being taken out, so are emurim disqualified through going out. Shall we say that the following supports him: If the flesh of lesser sacrifices was taken out before the sprinkling of the blood, R. Johanan says: It is fit; Resh Lakish maintains: It is disqualified. R. Johanan says [that] it is fit, since it must eventually be carried out [in any case].21 Resh Lakish maintains [that] it is disqualified: it was not yet time for it to be carried out. Thus, they disagree only in respect of flesh, but not in respect of emurim!22 - [No:] in fact they disagree in respect of emurim too, but the reason that they disagree [explicitly] about flesh is to inform you how far Resh Lakish maintains his view,23 that even flesh, which will eventually be carried out, he maintains that it was not yet time for it to be carried out.
Shall we say that it is dependent on Tannaim: [With regard to] emurim of lesser sacrifices which were taken out before sprinkling: R. Eliezer maintains: They do not involve trespass,24
(1) Num. VIII, 8. This treats of the consecration of the Levites.
(2) Ibid. 12. He speaks of it as 'already said' although it comes later.
(3) As is implied in v. 13, where sin-offering is mentioned first.
(4) Which intimates that it is second to the burnt-offering in the performance of its rites.
(5) Whilst the limbs of the burnt-offering are burnt before the emurim of a sin-offering.
(6) For atonement is made with a single application, supra 38a.
(7) Since it was not on account of sin at all.
(8) Hence its precedence does not cease when atonement has been made, since here there was no atonement.
(9) Since a sin-offering is more sacred than a guilt-offering.
(10) If by SIN-OFFERING he meant the blood, he should say, because it is applied. Emended text.
(11) Not less than two shekels; v. Lev. V, 15: a ram . . . according to thy valuation in silver by shekels . . . for a guilt-offering. Shekels implies at least two, whereas a sin-offering may be of any value.
(12) Congregational (public) peace-offerings were offered on the Feast of Weeks, v. Lev. XXIII, 19, whereas these others were private sacrifices only.
(13) V. Lev. VII, 12f.
(14) Lit., 'blood'.
(15) Sc. a sin-offering and a burnt-offering.
(16) Sc. the thanksoffering precedes the nazirite's ram.
(17) V. Num. VI, 15.
(18) If a man counts his cattle in order to tithe them, and declares the ninth and eleventh each as the tenth, in addition to the real tenth, they are all sanctified.
(19) Of the Temple court.
(20) Hence blood should not be mentioned, since in this respect birds are the same.
(21) As it is eaten anywhere in Jerusalem.
(22) Presumably R. Johanan too agrees that these are disqualified.
(23) Lit., 'to inform you the strength of Resh Lakish'.
(24) V. p. 405, n. 8. - This is even after sprinkling, because sprinkling is now of no avail to make them subject to trespass.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 90a
and one is not culpable on their account in respect of piggul,1 nothar,2 or uncleanness.3 R. Akiba maintains: They involve trespass, and one is culpable on their account for piggul, nothar, and defilement. Surely they disagree where they were taken in again,4 and they disagree in this: one master [R. Eliezer] holds that they were disqualified by having been taken out, while another master holds that they were not disqualified by being taken out? - Said R. Papa: If they were taken in again, none disagree;5 but here they disagree where they are still without,6 and they disagree in this: one master holds [that] sprinkling is not effective for what is without,7 while the other master holds [that] sprinkling is effective for what went out. But surely it was R. Papa who said:8 If they are still without, none disagree;9 they disagree only where they were taken in again? - That is only in connection with the Two Loaves, which are not part of the sacrifice itself; but since emurim are part of the sacrifice itself, they disagree where they are still without.
BIRD-OFFERINGS PRECEDE etc. On the contrary, meal-offerings should take precedence, since they are both congregational and private?10 - Even so, the fact that they are blood sacrifices outweighs this.
A SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING etc. On the contrary, a votive meal-offering should take precedence, since it requires oil and frankincense? - Even so, a sinner's meal-offering, which is brought on account of sin, is more important, since it makes atonement.
It was asked: [As to] the meal-offering of a sotah11 and a votive meal-offering, which of these takes precedence? Does a votive meal-offering take precedence, because it requires oil and frankincense; or perhaps a sotah's meal-offering takes precedence, because it is brought to investigate sin? - Come and hear: A SINNER'S MEAL-OFFERING PRECEDES A VOTIVE MEAL-OFFERING: thus, only a sinner's meal-offering precedes a votive meal-offering, but a sotah's meal-offering does not! - [No:] does he then teach, because it makes atonement; [surely] he teaches, BECAUSE IT COMES ON ACCOUNT OF SIN, and this one [a sotah's meal-offering] too comes on account of sin.
Come and hear: This one precedes that one, because the former is of12 wheat, while the latter is of barley.13 Surely that means, a votive meal-offering [precedes] a sotah's meal-offering? - No: [it means that] a sinner's meal-offering [precedes] a sotah's meal-offering. Then infer it from the fact that the former makes atonement while the latter does not make atonement?14 - What then: [it refers to] a votive meal-offering? Then infer it from the fact that the one [a votive meal-offering] requires oil and frankincense, while the other does not require oil and frankincense? Rather, he states one of two reasons.15
A SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD PRECEDES etc. Whence do we know it? - For our Rabbis taught: And he shall offer that which is for the sin-offering first:16 for what purpose is this stated? If to teach that it comes before the burnt-offering, surely it is already said, And he shall prepare the second for a burnt-offering?17 This, however, furnishes a general rule for all sin-offerings, that they take precedence over all burnt-offerings which accompany them, [sc.] the bird sin-offering [precedes] the bird burnt-offering, the animal sin-offering [precedes] the animal burnt-offering, and even a bird sin-offering [precedes] an animal burnt-offering.18 Therefore, [that] a bird sin-offering [precedes] a bird burnt-offering [is inferred from], And he shall prepare the second for a burnt-offering. An animal sin-offering [precedes] an animal burnt-offering, because the Divine Law intimated an extension;19 a bird sin-offering [precedes] an animal burnt-offering, because this is a general rule.20
Come and hear: R. Eliezer said: Wherever a sin-offering is exchanged, the sin-offering [of a bird] takes precedence,21 but here22 the burnt-offering [of a bird] takes precedence.23 Wherever it comes on account of sin, the sin-offering takes precedence; but here the burnt-offering takes precedence.24 Wherever both [birds] come instead of one sin-offering, the sin-offering takes precedence; but here that they do not both come on account of one sin-offering,25 the burnt-offering takes precedence?26 - Said Raba: Scripture accorded it precedence in respect of designating it.27
Come and hear: Bullocks take precedence over rams, rams take precedence over lambs, lambs over he-goats.
(1) Because they are as though blood had not been sprinkled for them, and so all their mattirin (q.v. Glos. and supra 29b, 43a) had not been presented.
(2) Because nothar applies only to what may be eaten within the prescribed period; this, however, may not.
(3) I.e.,if an unclean person eats them, he is not liable. For only what is permitted to clean persons involves liability on account of personal defilement, but what is not so permitted does not involve liability. Now emurim (which are burnt on the altar, and so not permitted even to clean persons) are nevertheless included, as is deduced by Scriptural exegesis, but only on a similar basis to flesh: as flesh involves culpability only after sprinkling, so the emurim. Sprinkling, however, is ineffective in respect of these emurim, and therefore they do not involve culpability.
(4) Before sprinkling, yet even then R. Eliezer maintains that sprinkling is of no avail, because taking them out had disqualified them.
(5) Sprinkling is certainly effective.
(6) At the time of sprinkling.
(7) Lit., 'for what went out' - and is still outside.
(8) In connection with the two loaves which were brought on Pentecost, if they were taken out of the Temple court between the slaughtering of the accompanying sacrifice and the sprinkling of its blood.
(9) Sprinkling is certainly of no avail.
(10) Sc. the meal-offerings which accompanied the 'omer (sheaf of corn) and the Two Loaves; these were congregational (v. Lev. XXIII, 10-21). There were no public offerings of birds.
(11) A wife suspected of adultery, v. Num. V, 12-15.
(12) Lit., 'comes from'.
(13) Wheat is superior to barley.
(14) Instead of because one is of wheat while the other is of barley.
(15) This answer must be given whatever you relate it to, and therefore it may well refer to a votive meal-offering and a sinner's meal-offering.
(16) Lev. V, 8.
(17) Ibid. 10.
(18) E.g. a woman after childbirth, who brings a year-old lamb for a burnt-offering, and a pigeon or a turtle-dove for a sin-offering.
(19) By the additional text.
(20) I.e., the law thus established applies to all sin-offerings and burnt-offerings.
(21) Where an animal sin-offering is prescribed in the first place, but Scripture permits it, when one is poor, to be exchanged for two birds of which one is for a sin-offering and one for a burnt-offering (e.g. when an unclean person enters the sanctuary, v. Lev. V, 1 seq.) the bird sin-offering takes precedence over the bird burnt-offering.
(22) In the case of a woman after childbirth to whom 'here' refers in the whole passage.
(23) Because she is liable to an animal burnt-offering, and in poverty she may bring two birds, one for a burnt-offering and another for a sin-offering, v. Lev. XII, 1 seq.
(24) As even the sin-offering is not on account of sin.
(25) In poverty she substitutes a bird burnt-offering for an animal burnt-offering, as a bird sin-offering was brought in any case, v. ibid. 6-8.
(26) This contradicts the Mishnah which teaches that a bird sin-offering takes precedence over an animal burnt-offering, whereas here she brings the animal burnt-offering before the bird sin-offering.
(27) One must first designate (i.e. dedicate) the animal (or bird) for the burnt-offering and then the bird for the sin-offering. But the latter is sacrificed first.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 90b
Does that not refer to those of the Festival?1 - No: [it means those] of a votive offering:2 bullocks precede rams, because their drink-offerings are larger;3 and for the same reason rams [precede] lambs; [while] lambs [precede] he-goats because more [is offered] of them, [viz.,] the fat-tail.4
Come and hear: The bullock of the anointed priest precedes the congregation's bullock for inadvertent sin; the congregation's bullock for inadvertent sin precedes the bullock for idolatry; the bullock of idolatry precedes the he-goats of idolatry. [And this is so] not withstanding that the bullock of idolatry is a burnt-offering, whereas the he-goats of idolatry are sin-offerings? But why not deduce from the first clause: the congregation's bullock for inadvertent sin precedes the bullock of idolatry?5 - We do not speak [of where both sacrifices are] of one kind: there a sin-offering [certainly] takes precedence. We speak of two kinds,6 and yet here we find a burnt-offering preceding a sin-offering? - In the West [Palestine] they said in Raba b. Mari's name: The sin-offering of idolatry lacks an alef, as le-hattath is written.7 Rabina said: In their case8 'according to the ordinance' is written.9 Now that you have come to this, you may even say that [the preceding passage refers to] the bullocks of the Festival, [for] 'after their ordinance' is written in connection with them too.10
It was asked: [With regard to] a bird sin-offering, an animal burnt-offering, and tithe, which of these precede?11 Shall the bird sin-offering come first? there is tithe, which must precede it! Shall tithe come first? there is the animal burnt-offering, which must precede it! Shall the animal burnt-offering come first? there is the bird sin-offering, which must precede it! - Here12 they held that a slaughtered sacrifice is more important.13 In the West they said: The superiority of an animal burnt-offering [over tithe] serves the bird sin-offering and advances it over that of tithe.14
MISHNAH. ALL SIN-OFFERINGS IN THE TORAH PRECEDE GUILT-OFFERINGS,15 EXCEPT A LEPER'S GUILT-OFFERING, BECAUSE IT COMES TO MAKE [A PERSON] FIT.16 ALL GUILT-OFFERINGS OF THE TORAH MUST BE17 TWO-YEAR OLDS AND [TWO] SILVER SHEKELS IN VALUE,18 EXCEPT A NAZIRITES GUILT-OFFERING AND A LEPER'S GUILT-OFFERING: THESE MUST BE A YEAR OLD, AND NEED NOT BE [TWO] SILVER SHEKELS IN VALUE.19 AS THEY TAKE PRECEDENCE IN BEING OFFERED, SO THEY TAKE PRECEDENCE IN BEING EATEN.20 IN THE CASE OF A PEACE-OFFERING OF YESTERDAY AND A PEACE-OFFERING OF TO-DAY,21 THAT OF YESTERDAY TAKES PRECEDENCE. IN THE CASE OF A PEACE-OFFERING OF YESTERDAY AND A SIN-OFFERING AND A GUILT-OFFERING OF TO-DAY, YESTERDAY'S PEACE-OFFERING TAKES PRECEDENCE: THAT IS R. MEIR' S RULING. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: THE SIN-OFFERING TAKES PRECEDENCE, BECAUSE IT IS A MOST SACRED SACRIFICE. AND IN ALL OF THESE, THE PRIESTS MAY DEVIATE IN THEIR MODE OF EATING, AND EAT THEM ROAST, STEWED OR BOILED, AND SEASON THEM WITH CONDIMENTS OF HULLIN OR OF TERUMAH: SO SAID R. SIMEON. R. MEIR SAID: ONE MAY NOT SEASON THEM WITH CONDIMENTS OF TERUMAH, SO AS NOT TO BRING TERUMAH TO UNFITNESS.22
GEMARA. It was asked: That which is more constant and that which is more sacred,23 which takes precedence? Does that which is more constant take precedence, because it is more constant; or does that which is more sacred take precedence, because it is more sacred? - Come and hear: The continual [burnt-]offerings precede the additional offerings.
(1) Sc. Tabernacles; the he-goats were sin-offerings and the lambs were burnt-offerings, yet the lambs take precedence.
(2) And both are burnt-offerings.
(3) A bullock requires a drink-offering of three 'esronim (pl. of 'issaron, a tenth part of an ephah), a ram one of two, and a lamb one 'issaron.
(4) Which in the case of a lamb is burnt on the altar as emurim, but not in the case of a he-goat; cf. Lev. III, 6-10 with 12-15. Though this passage refers to burnt-offerings, which are entirely burnt on the altar, yet the reason is valid, because it holds good of sacrifices in general.
(5) Instead of raising a difficulty from the final clause, cite the first clause to corroborate the Mishnah.
(6) Which is what the above-stated principle sets out to establish, that a bird sin-offering takes precedence over an animal burnt-offering.
(7) Heb. לחטת instead of לחטאת Num. XV, 24. This teaches that it is an exception and does not precede the burnt-offering.
(8) Sc. the offerings for idolatry.
(9) Ibid. This implies that they must be offered in the same order as they are prescribed, and the burnt-offering is mentioned there first.
(10) Ibid. XXIX, 33. There too the burnt-offerings are mentioned first. But in all other cases the sin-offering, even if it is only a bird, precedes.
(11) When we have the three together.
(12) In Babylon.
(13) Therefore tithe comes first, then the bird sin-offering and then the animal burnt-offering. The animal burnt-offering cannot come first, since Scripture expressly stated that it follows the sin-offering.
(14) Since the burnt-offering accompanies the sin-offering, the higher importance of the former over tithe, viz., that it is a most sacred sacrifice and is altogether burnt, invests the sin-offering with the same superiority over tithe. Hence the sin-offering must be sacrificed first, then the burnt-offering, and last of all tithe.
(15) Where a person was liable to both and brought them at the same time.
(16) To enter the Temple and partake of sacrifices. This invests it with greater importance.
(17) Lit., 'come'.
(18) According to thy valuation in silver by shekels (Lev. V, 15), denoting at least two, is written in connection with the guilt-offering for trespass; other guilt-offerings are inferred from it, v. supra 48a.
(19) For both a year-old animal is prescribed (Num. VI, 12; v. Lev. XIV, 10-12). Again, since Scripture decreed that the two-year old ram for the guilt-offerings must be worth two silver shekels, a year-old lamb would be worth less.
(20) This refers to all sacrifices, those enumerated in the preceding Mishnah too.
(21) I.e., the former animal was brought yesterday, but has not yet been offered. Or, one sacrificed yesterday and one to-day, but neither has yet been eaten.
(22) For should they become nothar, the condiments too might not be eaten, even if they could be separated from the flesh, because they absorbed the taste of that flesh, which is now forbidden.
(23) E.g. if we have the blood of the daily burnt-offering and that of a sin-offering for sprinkling: the daily burnt-offering is more constant, while the sin-offering is more sacred.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 91a
[Now this is so] notwithstanding that the additional offerings are more sacred!1 - [No:] does then the Sabbath affect the additional offerings and not affect the continual-offerings?2
Come and hear: The additional-offerings of the Sabbath precede the additional-offerings of New Moon! - Does then New Moon affect its own additional offerings and not affect the additional offerings of the Sabbath?
Come and hear: The additional offerings of New Moon precede the additional offerings of New Year, although New Year is holier! - Does then New Year affect its own additional offerings and not affect the additional offerings of New Moon?
Come and hear: Another reason: the blessing for wine is constant, while the blessing for the day is not constant, and of that which is constant and that which is not constant, that which is constant comes first.3 [Now this is so] notwithstanding that the blessing for the day is holier!4 - Does then the Sabbath affect the blessing for the day and not affect the blessing for the wine?5
Come and hear, for R. Johanan said: The halachah is that one must recite the minhah [afternoon] service and then recite the additional service.6 [Although the additional service is more sacred]!7 - Does then the Sabbath affect the additional service and not affect the minhah service?
Come and hear: IN THE CASE OF A PEACE-OFFERING OF YESTERDAY, AND A SIN-OFFERING AND A GUILT-OFFERING OF TO-DAY, YESTERDAY'S PEACE-OFFERING TAKES PRECEDENCE. Hence, if both are of to-day, the sin-offering and the guilt-offering take precedence, although a peace-offering is more constant!8 - Said Raba: You speak of what is common: we ask about what is constant, not about what is more common.9 Said R. Huna b. Judah to Raba: Is then what is common not [the same as what is] constant?10 Surely it was taught: I would exclude the Passover-offering, which is not constant, but I would not exclude circumcision, which is constant!11 - What does 'constant' mean? It is more constant in precepts.12 Alternatively, circumcision is constant in comparison with the Passover-offering.13
It was asked: [If one thing is] constant and [another] non-constant, and [the priest] slaughtered the non-constant first, what is the law?14 Do we say, since he slaughtered it, he must offer [i.e., sprinkle] it [first]; or perhaps he must give it to another to stir the blood until he offers the constant, and then offer the non-constant?15 - Said R. Huna16 of Sura,17 Come and hear: IN THE CASE OF A PEACE-OFFERING OF YESTERDAY, AND A SIN-OFFERING AND A GUILT-OFFERING OF TO-DAY, YESTERDAY'S PEACE-OFFERING TAKES PRECEDENCE. Hence if it were [a peace-offering] of to-day analogous to that of yesterday - and how could that be? if he slaughtered the peace-offering first - [the sprinkling of] the sin-offering and the guilt-offering would take precedence!18 - [No:] perhaps how [is the case of] a peace-offering of yesterday and a sin-offering and a guilt-offering of to-day meant? Where he slaughtered both.19 Where, however, he did not slaughter both, there you have the question.
Come and hear: Another reason: the blessing for the wine is constant, whereas the blessing for the day is not constant, and of that which is constant and that which is not constant, that which is constant comes first!20 - Here too, since it [the wine] has arrived,21 it is analogous to both having been slaughtered.
Come and hear, for R. Johanan said: The halachah is that one must recite the minhah [afternoon] service and then recite the additional service!22 - Here too, since the time for the minhah service has come, it is as though they were both slaughtered.
R. Aha the son of R. Ashi said to Rabina: Come and hear:23 If he killed it24 before midday, it is disqualified, because 'at dusk' is said in connection with it.25 [If he killed it] before the [evening] tamid, it is fit, and one must stir its blood until he sprinkles the blood of the tamid!26 - The case we discuss here is where e.g. he first slaughtered the tamid.27 Said R. Aha the elder to R. Ashi: The Mishnah too proves that, because it teaches, 'until he sprinkles the blood of the tamid,' but it does not teach, until he slaughters [the tamid] and sprinkles its blood. This proves it.
AND IN ALL OF THESE, THE PRIESTS MAY DEVIATE etc. What is the reason? - Scripture says, [Even all the hallowed things . . . unto thee have I given them] for a consecrated portion,28 which means, as [a symbol of] greatness [so that they can be eaten] just as kings eat.29
MISHNAH. R. SIMEON SAID: IF YOU SEE OIL BEING SHARED OUT IN THE TEMPLE COURT,30 YOU NEED NOT ASK WHAT IT IS, FOR IT IS THE RESIDUE OF THE WAFERS [REKIKIM] OF THE ISRAELITE'S MEAL-OFFERINGS31 , OR OF THE LEPER'S LOG OF OIL.32 IF YOU SEE OIL BEING POURED ON TO THE FIRES,33 YOU NEED NOT ASK WHAT IT IS, FOR IT IS THE RESIDUE OF THE OIL OF THE WAFERS OF PRIESTS' MEAL-OFFERINGS, OR OF THE ANOINTED PRIEST'S MEAL-OFFERING; FOR MEN CANNOT OFFER OIL [ALONE].34 R. TARFON SAID: OIL CAN BE DONATED [BY ITSELF].
(1) For they are brought on Sabbath and Festivals, whereas continual offerings are brought on week-days too.
(2) Just as it invests the former with greater sanctity, so it invests the latter too, seeing that we are now treating of the continual offering brought on the Sabbath.
(3) This explains why in Kiddush (Sanctification Benediction, recited at the beginning of every festival) the blessing over wine precedes that over the festival! - Whenever wine is drunk a blessing over it is required, whereas the blessing of sanctification is confined to festivals.
(4) Since the other is recited on week-days too.
(5) The sanctity of the latter too is enhanced when it is recited on the Sabbath or festival.
(6) V. supra 12a.
(7) Bracketed passage added by Sh.M.
(8) They are more common, since they can be brought at any time, whereas a sin-offering and a guilt-offering can be brought only when one is liable to them.
(9) A peace-offering is not legally more constant than a sin-offering, since one is not obliged to vow a peace-offering.
(10) Is not a thing regarded as more constant when it is more common?
(11) It is a general rule that one incurs a sin-offering for an inadvertent transgression which if committed deliberately would involve kareth. This however refers to negative injunctions (hence, sins of commission), not to positive commands; therefore, though deliberate neglect of the Passover-offering or circumcision involves kareth, unintentional neglect does not involve a sin-offering. In the present passage, however, it is sought to draw a distinction between the Passover-offering and circumcision, on the grounds that the latter is constant. Now actually it is no more constant than the former, since both are obligatory, and it is only more common (since circumcision takes place at any time, while the Passover-offering is sacrificed only for Passover), and yet it is called constant, which shews that the two are identical.
(12) It is more emphasized in Scripture, the word 'covenant' occurring thirteen times in connection with it.
(13) For the reason stated in n. 6. But a peace-offering is not so much more common than a sin- or a guilt-offering to rank as constant in comparison with it.
(14) Whose blood must be sprinkled first?
(15) The blood would have to be stirred to keep it from congealing.
(16) Sh.M. reads: R. Hanina.
(17) The great academy town on the river Sura, a branch of the Euphrates; v. Obermeyer Landschaft, pp. 283-287.
(18) R. Huna understands the Mishnah thus: If a peace-offering was brought yesterday but only killed to-day, while a sin-offering or a guilt-offering brought to-day is still waiting to be slaughtered, the blood of the peace-offering must be sprinkled before the other is slaughtered. For he holds that if the peace-offering too has yet to be slaughtered, the Mishnah would not rule that it takes precedence. Hence by inference, if both were brought to-day and the peace-offering was wrongly slaughtered first, the slaughtering of the sin-offering etc. must precede the sprinkling of the peace-offering. This proves that where one sacrifice is more sacred than another, and the latter was slaughtered first, the former must nevertheless be slaughtered, and its blood sprinkled, before that of the less sacred is sprinkled, and presumably the same applies where one sacrifice is more constant than the other.
(19) Though he wrongly slaughtered the peace-offering first, yet since it is yesterday's, he must sprinkle its blood first too. From this you could infer that if both were of to-day, he must sprinkle the blood of the sin-offering first.
(20) Although the non-constant actually preceded the other, since the sanctity of the day automatically commenced at nightfall. This is analogous to slaughtering the non-constant first; and as here the blessing for the wine must be recited first, by analogy the blood of the constant must be sprinkled first.
(21) We have the wine actually before us.
(22) Although the time for the additional service came first; v. p. 435, n. 6: the argument here is similar.
(23) Emended text (Sh.M.).
(24) The Passover-offering.
(25) Ex. XII, 6: And the whole assembly . . . shall kill it at dusk; lit., 'between the evenings'.
(26) This proves that when one sacrifice is sacrificed earlier than it should be, the sprinkling must nevertheless wait.
(27) Before sprinkling the blood of the Passover-offering.
(28) Num. XVIII, 8.
(29) Hence they can eat it as they like. Cf. supra 28a.
(30) To the priests, for food.
(31) V. Lev. II, 4. The oil was used in smearing the wafers.
(32) V. Ibid., XIV, 12 seq.
(33) I.e., being burnt on the altar. The 'fires' (Heb. ishim, pl. of isheh, generally rendered, 'an offering made by fire') are those of sacrifices or portions thereof (sc. the emurim) as they are burnt on the altar.
(34) Hence this oil must be the residue of oil used in a meal-offering.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 91b
GEMARA. Samuel said: According to R. Tarfon, when a man donates oil [by itself], he removes a fistful, burns it [on the altar], and its residue is eaten. What is the reason? - Scripture saith, [And when any one bringeth] a meal-offering:1 this teaches that one can donate oil [by itself],2 and that it [an offering of oil] is like a meal-offering: as a fistful is taken of a meal-offering and the rest is eaten,3 so the oil: one takes a fistful off and the rest of it is eaten. R. Zera observed, We too have learnt thus: R. SIMEON SAID: IF YOU SEE OIL BEING SHARED OUT IN THE TEMPLE COURT, YOU NEED NOT ASK WHAT IT IS, FOR IT IS THE RESIDUE OF THE WAFERS [REKIKIM] OF THE ISRAELITES' MEAL-OFFERINGS OR OF THE LEPER'S LOG OF OIL . . . FOR MEN CANNOT OFFER OIL [ALONE]: hence it follows that on the view that it can be offered, it can be shared out!4 - Said Abaye to him: Then consider the next clause: IF YOU SEE OIL POURED ON THE FIRES, YOU NEED NOT ASK WHAT IT IS, FOR IT IS THE RESIDUE OF THE WAFERS OF PRIESTS' MEAL-OFFERINGS OR OF THE ANOINTED PRIEST'S MEAL-OFFERING, FOR MEN CANNOT OFFER OIL [ALONE]: hence it follows that on the view that it can be offered, the whole of it is a fire offering. Thus the first clause presents a difficulty on Abaye's view, while the last clause presents a difficulty on R. Zera's view. As for R. Zera, it is well: the first clause5 refers to the residue, while the last clause refers to the fistful. But on Abaye's view there is a difficulty? - The first clause is taught on account of the last clause.6 As for saying that a second clause it taught on account of a first clause, that is well; but does one teach a first clause on account of a second clause?7 - Yes: they said in the West [Palestine]: The first clause is taught on account of the second clause.
Come and hear: Wine, in R. Akiba's view, is for the basins; oil, in R. Tarfon's view, is for the fires.8 Now surely, since the whole of the wine is for basins, the whole of the oil is for burning?9 - Why choose to say thus: each is conditioned by its own law.10
R. Papa said:11 This is dependent on Tannaim: [When one donates] oil, he must bring not less than a log; Rabbi said: Three logs. Wherein do they differ? - The scholars stated before R. Papa: They differ as to whether [we say]: Judge from it and [all] from it; or, judge from it and place the deduction on its own basis.12 The Rabbis hold: 'Judge from it and [all] from it': as a meal-offering can be donated, so can oil be donated; 'and [all] from it': as a meal-offering [requires] a log of oil,13 so here too14 a log of oil [is required]; and as a meal-offering, a fistful thereof is removed, and the rest is eaten, so the oil [alone], a fistful thereof is removed and the rest is eaten. And the other [learns] from a meal-offering: as a meal-offering is donated, so is oil donated; 'but place it on its own basis', viz., it is like a drink-offering [of wine]:15 as a drink-offering consists of three logs,16 so oil consists of three logs; and as the whole of a drink-offering is for basins, so the oil is altogether for the fires. R. Papa observed to Abaye: If Rabbi inferred it from a meal-offering, then all would agree that you judge from it and [all] from it. Rabbi, however, deduces it from 'home-born'.17 Said R. Huna the son of R. Nathan to R. Papa: Can you say thus? Surely it was taught: 'A meal-offering': this teaches that oil [alone] can be donated? And how much? Three logs. Now, whom do you know to maintain [that it must be] three logs? Rabbi; yet he deduces it from a meal-offering! - If it was taught, it was taught, he replied.18
Samuel said: When one donates wine, he brings it and sprinkles it on the fires. What is the reason? Scripture saith, And thou shalt present for the drink-offering half a hin of wine, for an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.19 But he extinguishes [the fires]?20 - Partial extinguishing21 is not called extinguishing. But that is not so, for surely R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: If one removes a coal from the altar and extinguishes it, he is culpable? - That is when there is none but that [coal]. Alternatively, extinguishing as [part of] a religious rite is different.22
Come and hear, for R. Eliezer b. Jacob taught: Since Scripture authorized the taking up [of the ashes], you might think that one can extinguish [the embers] and take [them] up; but you must say that one may not extinguish!23 - There it is different, for one can sit and wait.24
Come and hear: Wine, in R. Akiba's view, is for the bowls; oil, in R. Tarfon's view, is for the fires.25 Moreover, it was taught: The wine of a drink-offering is for the bowls. Yet perhaps it is not so, but rather for the fires? Say, he must not extinguish!26 - There is no difficulty: One agrees with R. Judah; the other with R. Simeon.27 Are we to say that Samuel agrees with R. Simeon? Surely Samuel said: One may extinguish a lump of fiery metal in the street, that it should not harm the public,28
(1) Lev. II, 1.
(2) The Heb. is קרבן מנחה of which קרבן (an offering) is superfluous, since מנחה itself denotes the offering, and moreover תקריב, bringeth, is of the same root as קרבן and implies it. Hence it is understood to include even an offering of oil alone, without flour. (מנחה, generally rendered meal-offering, simply means a gift, of anything, although it is usually applied to offerings of flour.)
(3) Ibid. 2f.
(4) R. Simeon maintains that one need not ask what it is, i.e., whether it is a meal-offering in itself, because such cannot be donated. Hence he who holds that it can be donated maintains that it might happen that such itself is shared out; whence it follows that it is not altogether burnt on the altar.
(5) Which implies that oil, when donated by itself, is shared out among the priests.
(6) For the sake of symmetry and parallelism. The first clause, IF YOU SEE OIL BEING SHARED OUT IN THE TEMPLE COURT, is irrelevant to the controversy as to whether oil can be donated or not, for even if it could be donated, it would still not be shared out to the priests and so this oil, which was being shared out to the priests could only be the residue, as the Mishnah explains, on all views. But it is taught merely as a parallel to the second clause referring to a fire-offering, where it is only on the view that oil cannot be donated that one need not doubt, for on the view that oil can be donated, one might doubt what this oil is, since a votive offering of oil too is burnt on the altar.
(7) It is logical that when one clause has already been taught, a second is added for the sake of parallelism. But is it logical that an earlier clause should be added, before there is anything which it can parallel?
(8) R. Akiba holds (Men. 104b) that wine can be offered by itself, but not oil. When such wine is offered, it is to be put in basins or beakers, as a drink-offering, but it is not sprinkled on the fires. R. Tarfon agrees in this; R. Akiba's name, however, is mentioned in contrast to the next clause, which is only according to R. Tarfon, since R. Akiba holds that oil alone cannot be donated.
(9) When such is offered by itself. This contradicts Samuel.
(10) Though the whole of the wine is for basins, the whole of the oil need not be for burning.
(11) Sh.M. deletes this.
(12) I.e., whether an analogy must be carried through on all points, so that the case deduced agrees throughout with the case from which the deduction has started; or whether the deduction won by analogy be regulated by the rules of the original case (Jast.).
(13) V. Lev. XIV, 10.
(14) When oil alone is donated.
(15) Which is donated by itself. It is more logical to liken it to a drink-offering than to the ordinary meal-offering of which oil is only a part.
(16) As deduced in Men. 73b.
(17) Num. XV, 13; V. Men. 73b.
(18) I must accept it.
(19) Ibid. 10. 'For an offering made by fire' implies that it is sprinkled on same.
(20) Whereas Scripture says, Fire shall be kept burning on the altar continually; thou shalt not extinguish it (Lev. VI, 6).
(21) This could only extinguish a little.
(22) When he sprinkles the wine, he performs a religious rite.
(23) The var. lec. is preferable: say, however, (it is written), thou shalt not extinguish it. - Thus one may not extinguish even in the performance of a religious rite.
(24) Until they go out.
(25) Thus wine is not for the fires.
(26) Cf n. 1.
(27) These scholars dispute in Shab. 41b about an unintentional act on the Sabbath: R. Judah forbids, while R. Simeon permits it. Here too, the extinguishing is unintentional: the Baraithas which rule that the wine may not be sprinkled on the fires agree with R. Judah; whereas Samuel agrees with R. Simeon.
(28) Metal does not really burn, but throws off fiery sparks when hot. The prohibition of extinguishing (on the Sabbath, to which this refers) does not apply in this case by Biblical law at all, save by Rabbinical law; hence where general damage may ensue the Rabbis waived their prohibition.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 92a
but not a burning piece of wood.1 Now if you think that he agrees with R. Simeon, even that of wood too [should be permitted]?2 - In respect to what is unintentional he holds with R. Simeon; but in the matter of work which is not needed per se,3 he agrees with R. Judah.4
R. Huna said: If a drink-offering [of wine] was defiled, one must make a separate fire for it5 and burn it, for it is said, And every [sin-offering] . . . in the holy place . . . it shall be burnt with fire.6 It was taught likewise: If blood, oil, meal-offerings or drink-offerings were defiled, a separate fire is made for them, and they are burnt. Samuel said to R. Hana of Baghdad: Bring me ten people and I will teach you in their presence:7 if drink-offerings were defiled, one makes a separate fire for them and burns them.
MISHNAH. IF THE BLOOD OF A SIN-OFFERING SPURTED ON TO A GARMENT, IT MUST BE WASHED.8 THOUGH SCRIPTURE SPEAKS ONLY OF [SIN-OFFERINGS] WHICH ARE EATEN, FOR IT IS SAID, IN A HOLY PLACE SHALL IT BE EATEN,9 YET BOTH THOSE WHICH MAY BE EATEN AND THE INNER [SACRIFICES]10 NECESSITATE WASHING, FOR IT IS SAID, [THIS IS] THE LAW OF THE SIN-OFFERING:11 THERE IS ONE LAW FOR ALL SIN-OFFERINGS. THE BLOOD OF A DISQUALIFIED SIN-OFFERING DOES NOT NECESSITATE WASHING, WHETHER IT HAD A PERIOD OF FITNESS OR DID NOT HAVE A PERIOD OF FITNESS. WHICH HAD A PERIOD OF FITNESS? ONE [WHOSE BLOOD] WAS KEPT OVERNIGHT, OR WAS DEFILED, OR WAS TAKEN OUT [OF THE TEMPLE COURT]. WHICH DID NOT HAVE A PERIOD OF FITNESS? ONE WHICH WAS SLAUGHTERED [WITH THE INTENTION OF EATING IT]12 AFTER TIME OR WITHOUT BOUNDS; OR WHOSE BLOOD WAS RECEIVED BY UNFIT PERSONS.
GEMARA. IF THE BLOOD OF A SIN-OFFERING SPURTED etc. If there is one law for all sin-offerings, even a bird sin-offering too [should be included]. Why then was it taught: You might think that the blood of a bird sin-offering requires washing; therefore it states, This is [the law of the sin-offering]?13 - Said Resh Lakish on Bar Kappara's authority. Scripture saith, shall [the sin-offering] be slaughtered:14 thus the Writ speaks [only] of those which are slaughtered.15 Yet say rather that the Writ speaks [only] of those which are eaten, as it is written, 'in a holy place shall it be eaten', but not inner [sin-offerings]? - The Divine Law included [them by writing] 'the law of'.16 If so, even a bird sin-offering too [is included]? - The Divine Law expressed a limitation in 'this is'. And why do you prefer it thus?17 - It is logical to include animal inner sin-offerings, because: it is an animal; it is slaughtered in the north;18 [its blood is] received in a vessel;
(1) For that is Biblically forbidden.
(2) For though he intentionally extinguishes it, yet his work is not needed per se (v. n. 6.), and R. Simeon permits such.
(3) E.g., when one carries out a corpse on Sabbath into the street. He does not really want the corpse in the street, but merely wants it out of the house. Every case of extinguishing except that of a wick to make it easier for subsequent relighting, falls within this category, since with this exception extinguishing is always negative. R. Judah forbids such, and R. Simeon permits it.
(4) Hence he permits the unintentional extinguishing on the altar, but forbids the unintentional extinguishing of a burning piece of wood.
(5) On the pavement of the Temple court; but it must not be taken out.
(6) Lev. VI, 23. The accents are disregarded in this rendering. In Pes. 24b the verse is interpreted to mean that all sacrifices which must be eaten in the Temple court when fit, must be burnt in the same place if unfit; and the same applies to this wine.
(7) Probably a proverbial expression, denoting emphasis and certainty.
(8) Lev. VI, 20: And when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in a holy place.
(9) Ibid. 19.
(10) The sin-offerings slaughtered in the inner sanctuary (hekal); these may not be eaten; v. Lev. IV, 1-12; 13-21.
(11) Ibid. VI, 18; this is the superscription of the present passage containing this law of washing.
(12) Or sprinkling its blood.
(13) 'This is' is a limitation, implying, only what is enumerated in the section.
(15) I.e., with shechitah, whereas a bird requires melikah.
(16) One law for all.
(17) Why apply the extension to inner sin-offerings and the limitation to birds, and not the reverse?
(18) Rashi reads, and Bah emends accordingly: it is slaughtered; it requires the north.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 92b
[its blood is sprinkled on] the horn; with the finger; on the edge [of the horn]; and it is an offering made by fire.1 On the contrary, include rather the bird sin-offering, because it is an outer [offering], like itself, and is eaten, like itself? - Those [points of similarity] are more.
R. Joseph said, Scripture saith, [The priest] . . . shall eat it:2 this one shall he eat, but not another; thus the Writ excluded of those which are eaten.3 Then what is the purpose of 'this is'?4 - If not for 'this is' I would say that 'shall eat it' is the style of Scripture;5 hence this informs us [otherwise]6
Rabbah said, Scripture saith, and when there is sprinkled [yazzeh]: hence the Writ speaks of those which are sprinkled.7 But surely we learnt: THOUGH SCRIPTURE SPEAKS OF [THE SIN-OFFERINGS] WHICH ARE EATEN?8 - This is what [the Tanna] means: Although Scripture speaks of [the sin-offerings] which are eaten, that is only in respect of scouring and rinsing.9 but in respect to washing, 'and when there is sprinkled [yazzeh]' is written.10 If so, [instead of saying BOTH THOSE WHICH MAY BE EATEN AND THE INNER [SIN-OFFERINGS]. he should say. Both the inner [sin-offerings] and those which may be eaten?11 - Learn, both the inner [sin-offerings] and those which may be eaten.
If so, the bird sin-offering too [is included]?12 - The Divine Law expressed a limitation in 'this is'. If so, an outer [sin-offering] too is not [included]? - The Divine Law expressed an extension in 'the law of'. And why do you prefer it thus? - It is logical to include an animal sin-offering, because: it is an animal; it is slaughtered in the north; [its blood is] received in a vessel; [its blood is sprinkled on] the horn; with the finger; on the edge [of the horn]; and it is an offering made by fire. On the contrary, include the bird sin-offering, since it requires haza'ah, like itself?13 - Those [points of similarity] are more.
R. Abin asked: What if one took the blood of a bird sin-offering within14 by its neck?15 Is its neck like a service vessel,16 and so it [the sacrifice] is disqualified; or perhaps it is like an animal's neck, while the Divine Law said, [And every sin-offering], whereof any of the blood [is brought into the tent of meeting . . . shall be burnt with fire],17 [implying] of its blood, but not of its flesh!18 - Come and hear: If it [the bird] struggled, entered within19 and then returned,20 it is fit. Hence, if, however, [the priest] took it in, it is disqualified.21 Then according to your reasoning, when it is taught in connection with most sacred sacrifices, If it struggled and entered the south22 and then returned, it is fit; [will you infer], but if he [the priest] carried it out [of the north into the south] it is disqualified?23 Rather, this is required where it went without; so there too, it is required where it went without.24
R. Abin asked: What if the blood [of the bird-offering] poured out on to the pavement,25 and one collected it? [Do we say that] the Divine Law merely did not demand26 a service vessel,27 and therefore one collects it and it is fit;28 or perhaps, in its case the Divine Law actually disqualified a service vessel, and therefore one collects it, but it is disqualified?29 - Said Raba, Come and hear: You might think that the blood of a bird sin-offering necessitates washing; therefore 'this is' is stated. Now, if you think that in its case the Divine Law actually disqualified a service vessel, I can infer this since it was disqualified in the air-space of a vessel!30 - Said R. Huna son of Joshua: [The text is necessary] where one presses the garment31 to its neck.32
Levi asked Rabbi:33 What if it spurted from one garment on to another garment?34 [Do we say,] It was rejected from the first garment in respect of washing,35 or not? - That is indeed a question, he replied. It does need washing, on either alternative: if one can collect [the blood] and it is fit [for sprinkling], then this is fit.36 While if it is collected and disqualified,37 I agree with R. Akiba who maintained [that] if it had a period of fitness and was then disqualified, its blood necessitates washing.
(1) I.e , the emurim are burnt on the altar. The inner sin-offering has all these in common with the outer, whereas the bird sin-offering is unlike the outer in all these respects.
(2) Lev. VI, 19.
(3) 'It' sing., implies that the passage speaks only of one of the sin-offerings which may be eaten; hence the bird sin-offering is excluded.
(4) Since you already have a limitation in 'it'.
(5) Not a limitation at all.
(6) Now that we know from 'this is' that a limitation is intended, 'shall eat it' teaches that the limitation concerns those which are eaten.
(7) Haza'ah, from which yazzeh is derived, is written only in connection with the inner sin-offerings, but not in connection with the outer sin-offerings, where zarak is written (both haza'ah and zerikah denote sprinkling, but the latter implies with more force than the former). Hence the Writ refers primarily to inner sin-offerings, and it is the outer sin-offerings which are included by 'the law of', implying one law for all.
(8) Which shews that it refers primarily to outer sin-offerings.
(9) V. Lev. VI, 21.
(10) Emended text (Sh.M.).
(11) The more obvious should be mentioned first, and according to Rabbah that is the inner sin-offering.
(12) If yazzeh shews that inner sin-offerings are primarily meant, the same should apply to a bird sin-offering, as this word is written in connection with it too.
(13) Sc. like the inner sin-offering.
(14) Into the hekal.
(15) Not in a service-vessel; but its neck was taken within and ipso facto the blood too. Is the sacrifice disqualified under the law forbidding the blood of an outer sin-offering to be taken within (v. Lev. VI, 23), or not?
(16) Since no service vessel is required in its case, the blood being sprinkled straight from the throat, the throat itself may take the place of a service vessel.
(17) Ibid., 23.
(18) Only when the blood alone is taken in, sc. in a service vessel, is the sacrifice disqualified, but not when it is taken in by means of the flesh.
(19) Into the hekal.
(20) I.e., its head was nipped near the hekal, and in its death struggles it entered therein.
(21) This assumes that only when it entered itself is it fit.
(22) The south side of the Temple court; it was killed in the north.
(23) Surely not, for no barrier divided the north from the south, to disqualify a sacrifice if its blood was carried from one into the other.
(24) Do not infer that if one carried it out it is unfit (that is obviously incorrect), but that if it struggled and went out of the Temple court, even if it returned, it is disqualified. Similarly, the bird remains fit only if it struggled and entered within; but if it struggled out of the Temple court, it is disqualified. No deduction, however, is to be made where one carried the bird within.
(25) Of the Temple court.
(26) Lit, 'make it need.'
(27) The bird's throat counting as such.
(28) Just as when the blood of an animal-offering is spilt from the service vessel in which it was received.
(29) For sprinkling, for Scripture insisted that it must be sprinkled direct from the throat.
(30) As soon as the blood enters the airspace above the garment it is technically received in a vessel (a garment ranks as a utensil or vessel) and is disqualified for sprinkling. Consequently the garment need not be washed, for only blood fit for sprinkling necessitates washing. What need then is there of a text?
(31) Lit., 'vessel.'
(32) So that the blood did not enter the air-space above the garment at all. Even then it need not be washed.
(33) Emended text (Sh.M.).
(34) This refers to the blood of an animal sin-offering.
(35) When it fell on the first garment it became unfit for sprinkling, since it must be washed out, and therefore the second garment does not need washing.
(36) Although it should be washed out of the first garment, yet as long as this was not done, it is fit for sprinkling, just as though it had fallen on to the pavement; and so fit blood spurted on to the second garment.
(37) For further sprinkling.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 93a
Rami b. Hama asked R. Hisda: What if it spurted on to an unclean garment?1 R. Huna the son of R. Joshua observed: Since he asks thus, you may infer that he holds that if it had a period of fitness and was disqualified, its blood does not necessitate washing. [Nevertheless his question is:] is that only when they come consecutively, but not when they come simultaneously; or perhaps there is not difference?2 - He [R. Hisda] replied: This is a controversy of R. Eleazar and the Rabbis, in accordance with Rabbah's view, and as explained by Abaye. For it was taught: R. Eleazar said: If the water of lustration3 was defiled, it cleanses [an unclean person],4 for lo, we sprinkle [the water of lustration] upon a niddah.5 Now Rabbah observed: R. Eleazar said this in accordance with the thesis of R. Akiba, his teacher, who maintained that when the vessel [containing the water of lustration] is carried over an unclean place, it is as though it rested there.6 For we learnt: If a man stood on the outer side of an oven, and a reptile was in the oven, and he put forth his hand to the window, took a flask, and carried it across the oven,7 R. Akiba declares it unclean, while the Rabbis declare it clean. Now, they disagree in this: R. Akiba holds that it is as lying,8 while the Rabbis hold that it is not as lying [thereon]. But Abaye raised an objection: [It was taught:] R. Akiba admits that in the case of sprinkling, if one carried it over an unclean earthen vessel or over an unclean couch or seat, it is clean,9 for nothing defiles above as below10 save as much as an olive of a corpse and other things which defile through overshadowing,11 which includes a leprous stone!12 Rather said Abaye: All agree that it is not as though it lay thereon, but here they differ in this: R. Akiba holds that we enact a preventive measure, lest it lay thereon;13 while the Rabbis hold that we do not enact a preventive measure. But R. Akiba admits in the case of sprinkling,14 for since it has gone out, it has gone out.15 Now, wherein do R. Eleazar and the Rabbis disagree?16 - Said Abaye: They disagree as to whether we draw an analogy between previous defilement and contemporary defilement: one master holds that we draw an analogy,17 and the other master holds that we do not draw an analogy.18 Raba said: All hold that we do not draw an analogy; but here they disagree in this: R. Eleazar holds that sprinkling requires a [minimum] standard, and sprinklings combine; while the Rabbis hold that sprinkling does not require a [minimum] standard.19
THE BLOOD OF A DISQUALIFIED SIN-OFFERING etc. Our Rabbis taught: [And when there is sprinkled] of the blood thereof20 [that means,] of the blood of a fit [sacrifice], but not of the blood of a disqualified [one].21 R. Akiba22 said: If it had a period of fitness and was [subsequently] disqualified, its blood necessitates washing; if it did not have a period of fitness and was disqualified ab initio, its blood does not necessitate washing. Whereas R. Simeon maintained: In both cases its blood does not necessitate washing. What is R. Simeon's reason? - 'Thereof' is written,23 and 'of the blood thereof' is written:24 one [excludes] where it had a period of fitness, and the other excludes where it did not have a period of fitness.25 And R. Akiba?26 - 'Thereof' excludes terumah.27 R. Simeon, however, is consistent with his view, for he maintained: Lesser sacrifices do not necessitate scouring and rinsing, and how much the more terumah!28
MISHNAH. IF [BLOOD] SPURTED [DIRECT] FROM THE [ANIMAL'S] THROAT ON TO A GARMENT, IT DOES NOT NECESSITATE WASHING; FROM THE HORN OR FROM THE BASE [OF THE ALTAR], IT DOES NOT NECESSITATE WASHING. IF IT POURED OUT ON TO THE PAVEMENT AND [THE PRIEST] COLLECTED IT, IT29 DOES NOT NEED WASHING. ONLY BLOOD WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN A VESSEL AND IS FIT FOR SPRINKLING NECESSITATES WASHING.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: You might think that, if [the blood] spurted from the throat on to the garment, it necessitates washing; therefore it states, 'and when there is sprinkled [etc.]': I ordered thee [to wash the garment] only when [the blood] is fit for sprinkling.30 Another [Baraitha] taught: You might think that, if it spurted from the horn or from the base, it requires washing, therefore it states, 'and when there shall be sprinkled': that excludes this [blood], which was already sprinkled.
IF IT POURED OUT ON TO THE PAVEMENT etc.
(1) Whereby the blood was defiled, and so disqualified for sprinkling. Do we regard it as though it were defiled before it touched the garment, and hence does not necessitate washing; or perhaps the defilement of the blood and the obligation to wash the garment came simultaneously?
(2) He asks only if it fell on an unclean garment; hence he holds that if the blood was defiled before it fell, thus having been fit and then become disqualified, it certainly does not necessitate washing. But his question is whether that is only where these came consecutively, i.e., first the blood was disqualified and then it spurted on to the garment; or does it hold good even when both are simultaneous?
(3) Running water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer; this was sprinkled on a person defiled through the dead as a purificatory rite; v. Num. XIX.
(4) Just as though it had not been defiled.
(5) If a niddah was defiled through the dead, thereby becoming doubly unclean, both as a niddah and as one defiled by the dead, we besprinkle her with the water of lustration, while she is still a niddah, and the subsequent immersion counts for both forms of uncleanness, since we do not find Scripture ordering her first to perform immersion as a niddah and then to be besprinkled and repeat her immersion on account of her defilement through the dead. Now, as the water of lustration touches her, it is defiled itself through contact with a niddah, and yet it cleanses her. Now the analogy is apparently faulty, for here the defilement of the water and its sprinkling upon the woman are simultaneous, whereas R. Eleazar speaks of a case where the water was defiled first. Rabbah proceeds to explain why R. Eleazar regards it nevertheless as a true analogy.
(6) And unclean.
(7) An oven stood near a wall, in which was a window with a flask containing water of lustration; inside the oven lay a reptile, which made it unclean. A man, standing on the outer side of the oven, took the flask from the window, and in taking it to himself naturally carried it above the oven, through the air-space.
(8) On the oven, and is therefore defiled by it.
(9) I.e.,if the water of lustration was sprinkled upon an unclean person, and in its passage passed over unclean vessels etc., it remains clean.
(10) Nothing defiles anything above, passing through its air-space, as when it is below, actually touching it.
(11) Lit. 'tent'. This is a technical expression denoting defilement caused by the defiler being under the same covering (technically called a tent) as the defiled. E.g., everything in a room containing a corpse, or as much as an olive of a corpse, is unclean through being under the same covering as the corpse.
(12) All things, both animate and inanimate, smitten with leprosy, defile through overshadowing. - Now, an oven unclean through a reptile does not defile through overshadowing. Hence this contradicts Rabbah's statement that R. Akiba holds there too that the air-space above an article defiles the water of lustration just as though it touched it.
(13) We declare this vessel unclean, lest one think that even if it actually lay on the oven it is still clean. Sh.M. emends: lest one lay it (thereon). - Thus the vessel (and, of course, its contents) are only Rabbinically unclean, but clean by Scriptural law.
(14) Where not the vessel but the water itself passed through the air-space of something unclean, as it was sprinkled.
(15) Since the water leaves the priest's hand as he sprinkles it, we need not fear that he will place the water on the oven.
(16) Above, when R. Eleazar draws an analogy with a niddah, which the Rabbis reject.
(17) Sc. R. Eleazar: he draws an analogy with niddah, where the defilement is contemporary, i.e., simultaneous(v. n. 10. p. 446).
(18) Therefore if water of lustration was defiled before, it does not cleanse. - Similarly, when blood of an animal sin-offering spurts on to an unclean garment, R. Eleazar will rule that it must be regarded as unclean (hence disqualified for sprinkling) even before it spurted, and therefore the garment need not be washed. The Rabbis, however, who reject this view, will rule that it must be washed. This then is the answer to Rami b. Hama's question, sc. that it is dependent on Tannaim.
(19) V. supra 80a. Now, the first sprinkling does not contain the minimum standard, and so does not count as sprinkling; nevertheless it is defiled when it falls on the niddah. Hence at the next sprinkling, which is to combine with the first, the first is already unclean. Therefore it is a case of previous defilement, and is completely analogous to sprinkling with defiled water of lustration. The Rabbis, however, maintain that sprinkling does not require a minimum standard, and so the first counts as sprinkling; hence defilement and sprinkling are simultaneous, and no inference can be drawn in respect of previous defilement. - The R. Eleazar here is R. Eleazar b. Shammu'a, a disciple of R. Akiba; the R. Eliezer supra 80a, who maintains that sprinkling does not require a minimum standard, is R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus.
(20) Lev. VI, 20.
(21) 'Thereof' is a limitation.
(22) Marginal emendation, R. Jacob.
(23) In v. 22, after the law of scouring and rinsing in v. 21: Every male among the priests may eat thereof.
(24) These are two limitations.
(25) Marginal emendation.
(26) How does he explain the second limitation?
(27) If terumah is boiled in a pot, it does not need scouring and rinsing.
(28) Hence no limitation is required in respect of terumah.
(29) The garment on which it fell.
(30) I.e., received in a vessel.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 93b
Why do I need this too?1 - He states the reason: What is the reason that IF IT POURED OUT ON TO THE PAVEMENT AND [THE PRIEST] COLLECTED IT, IT DOES NOT NEED WASHING? - Because ONLY BLOOD WHICH WAS RECEIVED IN A VESSEL AND IS FIT FOR SPRINKLING NECESSITATES WASHING.
FIT FOR SPRINKLING. What does this exclude? - It excludes the case where one received less than is required for sprinkling in one vessel and less than is required for sprinkling in another vessel.2 For it was taught: R. Halafta b. Saul said: If he sanctified less than is required for sprinkling in one vessel, and less than is required for sprinkling in another vessel,3 he has not sanctified it.4 Now it was asked: How is it with blood? Is it a traditional law,5 and we cannot learn from a traditional law,6 or perhaps, what is the reason there? Because it is written,And a clean person shall take [hyssop,] and dip it in the water;7 so here too it is written, And [the priest] shall dip [his finger] in the blood?8 - Come and hear, for R. Zerika said in R. Eleazar's name: In the case of blood too he does not sanctify it.
Raba said, It was taught: And [the priest] shall dip:9 but not sponge up; in the blood:9 there must be sufficient blood for dipping from the beginning; [and sprinkle] of the blood:9 of the blood specified in this passage.10 Now, it is necessary to write both 'and he shall dip' and 'in the blood'.11 For if the Divine Law wrote 'and he shall dip' [only], I would say, even where there is insufficient for dipping in the first place; therefore the Divine Law wrote 'in the blood'. And if the Divine Law wrote 'in the blood' [only], I would say that he may even sponge it up; therefore the Divine Law wrote, 'and he shall dip'.12 What does 'of the blood specified in this passage' exclude? - Said Raba: It excludes the [blood] remaining on his finger.13 This supports R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said: The [blood] remaining on his finger is unfit.
Rabin son of R. Adda said to Raba: Your disciple said in R. Amram's name: It was taught: If [the priest] was sprinkling, and [the blood of] the sprinkling spurted out of his hand,14 [and this happened] before he had sprinkled, it needs washing; after he had sprinkled, it does not need washing. Surely this is what he means: [If it happened] before he finished sprinkling, it needs washing; after he finished sprinkling, it does not need washing.15 - No: this is what he means: before the sprinkling had left his hand, it necessitates washing; after it had gone forth from his hand, it does not need washing.16
Abaye raised an objection to him: When he finished sprinkling,17 he wipes his hand on the body of the heifer.18 Thus, only if he finished, but not if he had not finished!19 - Said he to him: When he finished, he wiped his hand on the body of the heifer; before he finished, he simply wiped his finger. Now, when he finishes, it is well: he wipes his hand on the body of the heifer, as it is said, And the flesh shall he burn in his sight, [her skin, and her flesh, and her blood . . . shall be burnt].20 But on what does he wipe his finger?21 - Said Abaye: On the edge of the bowl, as it is written, Wipers [cleansers] of gold.22
MISHNAH. IF [THE BLOOD] SPURTED ON TO THE SKIN, BEFORE IT WAS FLAYED, IT NEED NOT BE WASHED; [IF IT SPURTED] AFTER IT WAS FLAYED, IT MUST BE WASHED: THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. JUDAH. R. ELEAZAR SAID: [IT NEED NOT BE WASHED] EVEN [IF IT SPURTED] AFTER IT WAS FLAYED. ONLY THE PLACE OF THE BLOOD NEEDS WASHING.23 AND WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE TO CONTRACT UNCLEANNESS,24 AND IS FIT FOR WASHING, WHETHER A GARMENT, A SACK, OR A HIDE, MUST BE WASHED. THE WASHING MUST BE IN A HOLY PLACE;25 THE BREAKING OF AN EARTHEN VESSEL MUST BE IN A HOLY PLACE; AND THE SCOURING AND RINSING OF A BRAZEN VESSEL MUST BE IN A HOLY PLACE.26 IN THIS THE SIN-OFFERING IS MORE STRINGENT THAN [OTHER] SACRIFICES OF HIGHER SANCTITY.
GEMARA. How do we know it? - Because our Rabbis taught: [And when there is sprinkled of the blood thereof upon] a garment:27 I know it only of a garment: whence do I know to include the skin, after it is flayed? Because it says, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled.28 You might think that I include the skin [even] before it was flayed: therefore it states, 'a garment': as a garment is an article eligible to contract uncleanness, so everything that is eligible to contract uncleanness [is included]:29 these are the words of R. Judah. R. Eleazar said: 'A garment': I know it only of a garment; whence do I know to include a sack
(1) It is included in the first ruling.
(2) Then they were combined in one vessel, and some blood spurted on a garment; that garment does not need washing. Thus the Mishnah means. Only blood which was fit for sprinkling when it was received in a vessel; here, however, it was not fit then.
(3) This refers to the water of lustration, which was sanctified for its purpose by being mixed with the ashes of the red heifer.
(4) For he must sanctify as much as is required in one vessel.
(5) In the case of the water of lustration. - A traditional law is one handed down by tradition, and not Learnt directly or by inference from Scripture.
(6) In respect of other cases.
(7) Num. XIX, 18. The def. art. implies, in the water mentioned above, sc. the water sanctified for lustration; conversely it implies that the water when sanctified was sufficient for dipping, i.e., sprinkling.
(8) Lev. IV, 6.
(10) This is explained anon.
(11) Emended text (Sh.M.).
(12) For notes v. supra 40b.
(13) He must not sprinkle with the blood left on his finger, but must dip his finger into the blood for each of the seven sprinklings.
(14) On to a garment. - This refers to inner sin-offerings.
(15) That implies that if blood which remained on his finger after one of the sprinklings spurted on to a garment, it must be washed. As a corollary, that remaining blood must be fit for sprinkling, for only such necessitates washing. Hence this contradicts R. Eleazar.
(16) I.e., he had dipped his finger into the blood: now, if this blood spurted off his finger before he had sprinkled it, it necessitates washing; if after, it does not, precisely because it is then the residue of the blood.
(17) The blood of the red heifer; v. Num. XIX, 4.
(18) For the blood must be burnt together with the body.
(19) Yet if he does not wipe it, he is using this blood for the next sprinkling-there were seven in all.
(20) Num. XIX, 5.
(21) Between the sprinklings. He cannot wipe it on the body, as he would soil his finger through hairs sticking to it.
(22) Ezra. 1, 10; cf. supra. 25a.
(23) But not the whole skin.
(24) V. discussion infra.
(25) In the Temple court.
(26) V. Lev. VI, 21: But the earthen vessel wherein it (sc. the flesh of a sin-offering) is sodden shall be broken; and If it be sodden in a brazen vessel, it shall be scoured, and rinsed in water.
(27) Lev. VI, 20.
(28) This is a repetition, and intimates extension.
(29) After a skin is flayed it can be put to use as it is, without further dressing; therefore if its owner expressly intended to use it thus, it is technically a utensil, and subject to defilement. Before it is flayed, however, it cannot be put to use, and cannot become unclean.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 94a
and all kinds of garments?1 Because it says, 'thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled'. You might think that I can include a skin after it was flayed? Therefore it says, 'a garment': as a garment is an article which contracts uncleanness, so everything which contracts uncleanness [is included].2 Wherein do they differ?3 - Said Abaye: They differ about a cloth less than three [fingerbreadths square].4 He who says [that it must be] eligible, this too is eligible, for if [its owner] desires, he can intend it [for use]. But he who maintains, anything which contracts uncleanness, this at all events cannot contract uncleanness.5 Raba said, They disagree over a garment which [its owner] intended to embroider.6 He who maintains [that it must be] eligible, this too is eligible, for if [its owner] desires, he can abandon his intention. He however who maintains, anything which can contract uncleanness: now at all events it cannot contract uncleanness. Others state,7 Raba said: They disagree about an [untrimmed] hide which he intended to trim.8 He who maintains [that it must be] eligible, this too is eligible; he however who maintains, anything which can contract uncleanness, this however cannot contract uncleanness until he trims it. And it was taught even so: R. Simeon b. Menassia said: A hide which [its owner] intended trimming is clean9 until he trims it.
ONLY THE PLACE OF THE BLOOD NEEDS WASHING. How do we know it? - For our Rabbis taught: You might think that if [the blood] spurted on part of the garment, the whole garment must be washed. Therefore it states, '[thou shalt wash] that whereon it was sprinkled': I ordered thee [to wash] only the place of the blood.
WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE TO CONTRACT UNCLEANNESS. This anonymous teaching agrees with R. Judah.10 AND FIT FOR WASHING excludes a vessel which requires scraping.11
WHETHER A GARMENT, SACKCLOTH, OR HIDE. Are we to say that a skin can be washed? But the following contradicts this: If dirt is upon it, one wipes it off with a rag; if it is of leather [skin], water is poured over it until it disappears.12 - Said Abaye, There is no difficulty: one agrees with the Rabbis; the other agrees with 'others'.13 For it was taught: A garment and sackcloth are washed;14 a vessel and a skin are scraped; others maintain: A garment, sackcloth, and skin are washed; while a vessel is scraped.
With whom does the following statement of R. Hiyya b. Ashi agree, [viz.:] I stood many times before Rab, and dabbed his shoes with water?15 With whom? With the Rabbis.16
Raba observed: Does anyone maintain that skin is not washable? Surely it is written, And the garment, or the warp, or the woof, or whatsoever thing of skin it be, which thou shalt wash!17 Rather said Raba: The Scriptural text and our Mishnah refer to soft [skins], whereas they disagree about hard [skins].18 But surely R. Hiyya b. Ashi said: I stood many times before Rab, and dabbed his shoes with water?19 - They were of hard [leather], and [he acted] in accordance with the Rabbis.
Subsequently Raba said: My statement was incorrect. Are we to say that the text refers [only] to soft [skins]? Does it not refer [even] to foresters' apparel which comes from overseas,20 yet the Divine Law states that it must be washed?21 Rather said Raba: Leprosy,22 since it breaks out in the article itself, moistens it and softens it.23
Raba observed: If I have a difficulty, it is this:
(1) Garments made of any materials. A garment usually was of wool.
(2) A garment contracts uncleanness whether its owner intends to use it or not; hence the hide, even after it is flayed, is not included, because it does not contract uncleanness, but can only be made to contract uncleanness, by the owner's intention to use it.
(3) What garment is merely eligible to become unclean, though at present it cannot become unclean?
(4) This is the smallest piece which counts technically as a 'garment'. A smaller piece ranks as a garment only if the owner intends to use it.
(5) Without its owner's intention. Hence if the blood spurted on such a cloth, in R. Judah's opinion it must be washed, but not in R. Eleazar's.
(6) I.e., even a larger piece of cloth, but which has not yet been used, because its owner had expressed his intention to embroider it first. This counts as unfinished, and hence not a 'garment'; nevertheless, if the owner expressly abandons his intention, it becomes a 'garment'. Thus it is eligible, but cannot contract uncleanness at present.
(7) Marginal addition.
(8) 'Uzba is anything used as a rug or mat or tablecloth; it is generally of hide, but sometimes of cloth. Now, if one intended to use it for such purpose, it immediately ranks as a utensil, even before it is trimmed, and hence can be defiled. But if he intended trimming it, it cannot become unclean until he either trims it or abandons his intention.
(9) I.e., it cannot become unclean.
(10) Though its author is not named, we know from the Baraitha that it is R. Judah's view. - When an individual's view is stated anonymously in the Mishnah, it is generally the halachah.
(11) E.g., a wooden vessel, whence it may be impossible to wash out the blood. This does not need washing at all but scraping.
(12) This treats of the Sabbath, when washing garments is forbidden as a prohibited labour. Dirt on a cushion may be wiped off with a cloth, but not with water, as this constitutes washing. Water, however, may be poured over skin, for that is not regarded as washing. Thus skin is not technically subject to washing.
(13) 'Others' generally refers to it. Meir; Hor: 13b.
(14) If the blood of a sin-offering spurts upon them.
(15) On the Sabbath.
(16) Who hold pouring water over skin (or leather) is not washing.
(17) Lev. XIII, 58.
(18) E.g., leather.
(19) It is now assumed that they were of soft leather.
(20) It was manufactured of hard leather.
(21) Scripture does not limit itself but writes, or whatsoever thing of skin it be.
(22) To which the passage refers.
(23) Any leather garment. - Hence the text refers even to hard leather; our Mishnah refers to soft; while the controversy is in respect of hard.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 94b
pillows and bolsters are soft, yet we learnt: 'If it is of leather, water is poured over it until it disappears'?1 - Rather said Raba: All washing without rubbing is not called washing. And as to R. Hiyya b. Ashi's statement, I stood many times before Rab and dabbed his shoes with water; dabbing is [permitted], but not rubbing. [Now, our Mishnah treats] either of soft [skins], and it agrees with all; or of hard ones, and it agrees with 'others'. If so, [let water be poured] even [over] a garment too?2 - In the case of a garment, soaking it [in water] constitutes its washing. Now, Raba is consistent with his view. For Raba said: If one threw a scarf into water, he is culpable;3 if one threw linseed into water, he is culpable. As for a scarf, it is well, [as] he thereby washes it. But what is the reason In the case of linseed? And should you say, because he causes it to grow;4 if so, the same applies to wheat and barley too?-This [linseed] emits mucus.5 If so, the same applies to [undressed] hides?6 - There he kneads.7
Raba lectured: It is permitted to wash a shoe on the Sabbath. Said R. Papa to Raba. But surely R. Hiyya b. Ashi said: I stood many times before Rab, and dabbed his shoes with water for him. Thus, only dabbing [is permitted], but not washing? Subsequently Raba appointed an interpreter before him and lectured:8 What I told you was an error; but in truth, dabbing is permitted but washing is forbidden.
THE WASHING MUST BE IN A HOLY PLACE, etc. How do we know it?-Because our Rabbis taught: Thou shalt wash in a holy place:9 from this we learn that the washing must be in a holy place.10 How do we know that earthen vessels must be broken? Because it says, But the earthen vessel wherein it is sodden shall be broken.11 How do we know that brazen vessels must be scoured and rinsed? Because it says, And if it be sodden in a brazen vessel, it shall be scoured and rinsed in water.12
IN THIS THE SIN-OFFERING IS MORE STRINGENT, etc. And is there nothing else:13 surely there is the fact that its blood enters within?14 - This refers to outer sin-offerings.15 But outer sin-offerings too [have a peculiar stringency, viz.] if their blood entered within, they are disqualified? - This is in accordance with R. Akiba, who maintained: All bloods which enter the hekal to make atonement are disqualified.16 Yet there is the fact that they make atonement for those who are liable to kareth? - This refers to the sin-offering for the 'hearing of the voice' or 'oath of utterance'.17 Yet there is the fact that they require four sprinklings? - This agrees with R. Ishmael who maintained: All blood requires four sprinklings. But there is the fact that [the sprinklings must be] on the four horns? - Yet on your reasoning, surely there are the horn, the finger, and the edge?18 Rather, [the Tanna] mention one out of two or three stringencies.
MISHNAH. IF A GARMENT19 WAS CARRIED OUTSIDE THE HANGINGS,20 IT MUST RE-ENTER, AND IT IS WASHED IN A HOLY PLACE. IF IT WAS DEFILED WITHOUT THE HANGINGS21 ONE MUST TEAR IT,22 THEN IT RE-ENTERS, AND IS WASHED IN A HOLY PLACE. IF AN EARTHEN VESSEL WAS CARRIED OUTSIDE THE HANGINGS, IT RE-ENTERS AND IS BROKEN IN A HOLY PLACE. IF IT WAS DEFILED WITHOUT THE HANGINGS, A HOLE IS MADE IN IT, THEN IT RE-ENTERS AND IS BROKEN IN A HOLY PLACE. IF A BRAZEN VESSEL WAS CARRIED OUTSIDE THE HANGINGS, IT RE-ENTERS AND IS SCOURED AND RINSED IN A HOLY PLACE. IF IT WAS DEFILED OUTSIDE THE HANGINGS, IT MUST BE BROKEN THROUGH,23 THEN IT RE-ENTERS AND IS SCOURED AND RINSED IN A HOLY PLACE.
GEMARA. To this Rabina demurred. [You say,] ONE MUST TEAR IT: Surely the Divine Law speaks of a 'garment', and this is not a garment?24 - He leaves enough of it [untorn] to be used as an apron.25 But that is not so, for surely R. Huna said: They learnt this26 only if one did not leave enough to be used as an apron [untorn], but if one left enough to be used as an apron, it is [technically] joined?27
(1) Supra in connection with the Sabbath.
(2) Why must the dirt be wiped off only with a rag?
(3) For washing on the Sabbath, to which this refers.
(4) In the water. Thus it is a form of sowing, and for this he is culpable.
(5) Thin threads of mucus ooze from these seeds when they are put into water, which fastens them together.
(6) From these too a mucus issues in water.
(7) When the mucus causes the linseed to stick together, it is a kind of kneading, for which he is culpable. But kneading is inapplicable to hides.
(8) The Rabbis gave their public lectures through interpreters (amora).
(9) Lev. VI, 20.
(10) Emended text (Sh.M.).
(11) Ibid. 21.
(12) Ibid.-In each case the question is: how do we know that these things must be done in a holy place? The answer is, by reading 'in a holy place' with what follows, as well as with what precedes, thus: and in a holy place shall the earthen vessel... be broken (and) a brazen vessel... be scoured and rinsed; v. Sifra a.l.
(13) In which the sin-offering is more stringent.
(14) In the inner sanctuary (hekal), which feature is absent from other most sacred sacrifices.
(15) Whose blood was not taken into the hekal.
(16) V. supra 81b.
(17) V. Lev. V, 1. 4 seq. - Kareth is not incurred for these even if they are committed deliberately.
(18) The blood of the sin-offering must be applied with the finger, on the horn, and on the edge of the horn. In all these too it is more stringent than other most sacred sacrifices.
(19) Which needed washing through the blood.
(20) I.e.,outside the Temple court.
(21) In which condition it cannot re-enter, because nothing unclean may be taken into the Temple court.
(22) It ceases to be a garment, and thereby ceases to be unclean.
(23) I.e.,a very large hole made in it. Metal vessels do not lose their uncleanness through a small hole.
(24) Scripture orders the garment to be washed, which implies that it must be a garment when it is washed.
(25) He does not tear it right across, but leaves the width of an apron (or duster) untorn. Since the greater part of it is torn it ceases to be unclean; nevertheless, since so much is left untorn, it is still technically a garment.
(26) That a garment loses its uncleanness when it is torn.
(27) And remains unclean.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 95a
That is by Rabbinical law [only].1
IF AN EARTHEN VESSEL WAS CARRIED OUTSIDE etc. But the Divine Law spoke of a 'vessel', and this is not a vessel? - The hole is only large enough for a little root.2
IF A BRAZEN VESSEL... IT MUST BE BROKEN THROUGH etc. But then it is not a vessel? - He hammers [the hole] together.3
Resh Lakish said: If the [priest's] robe became unclean,4 one must take it in less than three [fingerbreadths] square at a time, and wash it, because it is said, That it [the robe] be not rent.5 R. Adda b. Ahabah objected: Thick [garments] and soft [unwoven garments] are not subject to the law of three [fingerbreadths] square?6 -They count, because of the parent [piece].7
But surely it requires seven substances, for R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: The blood of the sin-offering and the appearance of leprosy require seven substances; whereas it was taught: But that urine may not be taken into the Temple?8
(1) As a preventive measure, lest one does not tear the greater part of it. but Scripturally it is clean, and here the Rabbis waived this measure in order that the precept of washing may be fulfilled.
(2) Of a plant to push through. That suffices to make it clean, but not deprive it of the status of a vessel.
(3) Having broken it through, whereby it became clean, he then hammers the hole together, which makes it a vessel again.
(4) Outside the Temple court.
(5) Ex. XXVIII, 32. Hence it cannot be torn, as the Mishnah states. Therefore less than three finger-breadths square of it must be insinuated into the Temple court at a time, as then it does not count as an unclean garment.
(6) They cannot be unclean unless they are three handbreadths square. Now, the robe was of thick cloth; why then cannot one take in three handbreadths square at a time?
(7) As they are not separate pieces, but part of the whole robe, even three finger-breadths square counts technically as a garment.
(8) This is a difficulty according to the Mishnah: A garment on which the blood of a sin-offering spurted, as well as a garment which showed symptoms of leprosy, which must also be washed, needs the application of seven substances to cleanse it, viz., tasteless saliva, the liquid exuded by crushed beans, urine, natron, lye, Cimolean earth, and ashleg (v. Sanh. Sonc. ed. p. 330). How then can it be washed in the Temple Court, seeing that urine must not be brought there?
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 95b
And should you say that one mixes it in with the seven substances1 and applies them all at once; surely we learnt: If they were not applied in their order,2 or if they were all applied simultaneously, it is of no avail? And should you say that he mixes it up in one of the substances; but surely we learnt [that] he must rub the stain three times with each [substance]? - Rather, he mixes it up in tasteless saliva, for Resh Lakish said: There must be tasteless saliva with each one.
MISHNAH. WHETHER ONE BOILED THEREIN OR POURED BOILING [FLESH ETC.] INTO IT, WHETHER MOST SACRED SACRIFICES OR LESSER SACRIFICES, [THE POT] REQUIRES SCOURING AND RINSING. R. SIMEON SAID: LESSER SACRIFICES DO NOT NECESSITATE SCOURING AND RINSING.
GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [But the earthen vessel] which it is boiled in it.3 I know it only when one boiled [the flesh] therein; how do I know it when one poured boiling [flesh] therein? Because it says, which [it is boiled] in it. [shall be broken].4
Rami b. Hama asked: What if one suspended [the flesh] in the air-space of an [earthen] oven?5 Is the Divine Law particular about boiling and absorbing; or perhaps, [it is particular] about boiling [even] without absorbing?6 - Said Raba, Come and hear: WHETHER ONE BOILED THEREIN OR POURED BOILING [FLESH] INTO IT!7 - We do not ask about absorbing without boiling;8 we ask about boiling without absorbing: what is the law?-Come and hear, for R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: The Temple oven was of metal.9 Now, if you think that [only] boiling and absorbing [necessitates] breaking, let it be an earthen one?10 - Since there were the remainders of meal-offerings, which were baked in the oven, so that there is boiling and absorbing,11 we must make it of metal.
A certain oven was greased with fat. [Thereupon] Raba b. Ahilai forbade for all time12 the bread [baked therein] to be eaten even with salt, lest one come to eat it with kutah.13 An objection is raised: One must not knead dough with milk, and if he does knead it, the whole loaf is forbidden, because it leads to sin.14 Similarly, one must not grease an oven with fat, and if he does grease it, all the bread [baked therein] is forbidden until the oven is refired. This is a refutation of Raba b. Ahilai. [It is indeed] a refutation.
Rabina said to R. Ashi: Now since Raba b. Ahilai was refuted, why did Rab say: pots must be broken on Passover?15 Rab maintained that there16 a metal one is meant. Alternatively, it may be an earthen oven: this [the oven] is fired from the inside;17 while the other [the pot] is fired on the outside. Then let us burn it [the pot] from within? - He would spare it, lest it break [burst].18 Therefore a tiled pan,19 since it is burnt from without,20 is forbidden.21
(1) The urine is not brought in separately, but mixed (lit. 'swallowed') with the other substances. Then it is not noticeable, and can be taken into the Temple.
(2) As enumerated in n. 11, p.458,
(3) Lev.VI, 21.
(4) Rashi: 'shall be broken' coming immediately after 'in it' indicated that every vessel shall be broken if anything of the sin-offering is absorbed in it, even if it had not actually been boiled in it. If boiling flesh is placed in the vessel, the vessel must absorb some of it.
(5) Thus boiling or cooking it.
(6) The flesh is thus cooked, but the oven absorbs nothing of it. Does Scripture mean that only a vessel in which it is boiled and which thereby absorbs some of it must be broken; or perhaps it must be broken even when it does not absorb?
(7) Thus even if one thing only happened to the vessel (i.e., it absorbed but was not used for actual boiling), it must be broken or scoured and rinsed. Presumably boiling without absorbing is the same.
(8) That obviously necessitates breaking, since absorption is the principal reason for the whole law. For after the time allowed for the consumption of this flesh, the absorbed matter becomes nothar (v. Glos.), which is forbidden, and it will impart its flavour to any other flesh that is subsequently boiled in it, unless it is scoured and rinsed. (Scouring and rinsing are not efficacious for earthen vessels, for which reason they must be broken.)
(9) It is assumed that the reason is that it should not have to be broken.
(10) For the flesh was not actually placed in the area, but cooked (or roasted) in it on a spit. - Their ovens were open on top.
(11) Baking is technically the same as boiling.
(12) Even if the oven should be fired and burnt through again.
(13) A preserve consisting of sour milk, bread-crusts and salt (Jast.). The bread of course receives the flavour of the fat, and must not be eaten with anything containing milk or a milk product.
(14) One might eat it with meat.
(15) For we see that greased ovens (these were generally of earth) can be refired and used, the heat expelling the traces of fat. Then let the pots too be subjected to fire, which would likewise expel the absorbed leaven (it was on account of the absorbed leaven that Rab forbade their use on Passover).
(16) The oven that could be refired.
(17) Which is efficacious to expel absorbed matter.
(18) Hence if he is told to burn it from within; he will burn it from without and think that enough.
(19) A kind of plaque made of tiles and upon which bread was baked.
(20) The coals being under it and the bread on top.
(21) For use on Passover.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 96a
Then why should the pots in the Temple be broken: let them be returned to the kiln?1 - Said R. Zera: Because kilns are not permitted in Jerusalem.2 Abaye retorted: And are then refuse heaps permitted in the Temple court?3 [Abaye, however,] had overlooked what Shemaiah of Kalnebo4 recited: The fragments of earthen vessels were swallowed up in their place.5 Now, when R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name, 'The Temple oven was of metal',let it be an earthen one, since It was heated within?6 - Since the Two Loaves and the Shewbread7 were baked in the oven and were sanctified in the oven, it became a service vessel, and we do not make earthen service vessels.8
(1) Which would expel what they had absorbed.
(2) On account of the smoke.
(3) Sc. of broken potsherds.
(4) Kar-nebo, 'the city of Nebo', conjectured to be Borsippa, Funk, Monumenta, I, p. 299.
(5) Yoma 21a.
(6) And thus what it absorbed of the sacrifices would be expelled.
(7) V. Lev. XXIII, 15-17; Ex. XXV, 30.
(8) Offerings such as meal-offerings, loaves etc. were sanctified by being placed in service vessels. The Two Loaves and the Shewbread, however, were not placed in a service vessel, but were kneaded and shaped outside the Temple court, then brought in and baked in the oven. Thus the oven itself sanctified them, and ipso facto ranked as a service vessel.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 96b
And even R. Jose son of R. Judah said only that wooden ones [were permitted], but not earthen ones.1
R. Isaac the son of R. Judah used to attend Rami b. Hama['s lectures]. He left him and attended R. Shesheth['s lectures]. One day he [Rami b. Hama] met him, and observed: The noble2 has taken us by the hand, and his scent has come into the hand!3 Because you have gone to R. Shesheth, you are like R. Shesheth!4 That was not the reason,he replied. Whenever I asked a question of you, you answered me from reason, [and] if I found a teaching5 [to the contrary], it refuted.your answer. [But] when I ask a question of R. Shesheth, he answers it from a teaching, so that even if I find a teaching which refutes him, it is one teaching against another.6 Said he to him: Ask me a question, and I will answer you in accordance with a teaching.7 [Thereupon] he asked him: If one boiled [the sacrifice] in part of a vessel,8 does it require scouring and rinsing, or does it not require [them]?9 - It does not require them, he replied, by analogy with [the] spurting [of blood].10 But it was not taught so, he protested?11 - It is logical that it is like a garment, he replied; just as a garment needs washing only in the place of the blood,12 so a vessel requires scouring and rinsing only in the place of boiling. How can you compare them, he objected: blood does not spread,13 whereas boiling spreads.14 Moreover It was taught: [The] spurting [of blood] is more stringent than scouring and rinsing, and scouring and rinsing are more stringent than spurting. Spurting is more stringent, since [the law of] spurting operates in respect to outer sin-offerings and inner sin-offerings, and it operated before sprinkling,15 which is not so in the case of scouring and rinsing.16 Scouring and rinsing are more stringent, in that scouring and rinsing are required for most sacred sacrifices and for lesser sacrifices; [again] if one boiled [the flesh] in part of a vessel, the whole vessel requires scouring and rinsing, which is not so in the case of spurting! - If it was taught, it was taught,17 he replied. And what is the reason? Scripture says, And if it be boiled in a brazen vessel', which means, even in part of a vessel.
WHETHER MOST SACRED SACRIFICES etc. Our Rabbis taught: [Scripture saith] A sin-offering:18 I know it only of a sin-offering; how do I know it of all sacrifices? Because it says, it is most holy.19 You might think that I include terumah; therefore it says, [Every male among the priests may eat] thereof, which excludes terumah20 these are the words of R. Judah. R. Simeon said: Most holy sacrifices necessitate scouring and rinsing, [but] lesser sacrifices do not necessitate scouring and rinsing, because it is written, 'It is most holy': most holy sacrifices do [necessitate it], but lesser sacrifices do not. What is R. Judah's reason? - Since 'thereof' is necessary to exclude terumah, it follows that lesser sacrifices necessitate scouring and rinsing.21 And R. Simeon?22 - He can answer you: 'Thereof' Intimates what we said elsewhere.23
Now, does not terumah necessitate scouring and rinsing? Surely it was taught: You may not boil milk in a pot in which meat was boiled, and if one did, [the milk is forbidden] if it [the meat] could communicate its flavour [to it]24 If one boiled terumah in it, one must not boil hullin in it; and if one did, [the hullin is forbidden] if it [the terumah] could communicate flavour [to it]!25 - Said Abaye: This holds good26 only in respect of what a master said, [viz.]: If one boiled [flesh] in part of a vessel, the whole vessel must be scoured and rinsed; but [in the case of] terumah only the part where it was boiled needs [scouring and rinsing]. Raba said: It holds good only in respect of what a master said: '[It shall be scoured and rinsed] in water', but not in wine; 'in water', but not in a mixture:27 this, however,28 may be [scoured and rinsed] even in wine, even in a mixture. Rabbah b. 'Ulla said: It holds good only in respect of what a master said: The scouring and rinsing must be in cold water;29 this however is done in hot water.30 That is well on the view that scouring and rinsing must be done in cold [water]; but on the view that the scouring is in hot water and the rinsing in cold,31 what can be said?32 , - There is the additional rinsing.33
MISHNAH. R. TARFON SAID: IF ONE BOILED [FLESH IN A POT] AT THE BEGINNING OF A FESTIVAL, HE CAN BOIL THEREIN DURING THE WHOLE FESTIVAL;34 BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: UNTIL THE TIME OF EATING, SCOURING AND RINSING.35 SCOURING [MERIKAH] IS AS THE SCOURING OF A GOBLET;36 AND RINSING IS AS THE RINSING OF A GOBLET. SCOURING AND RINSING ARE DONE IN COLD [WATER].37
(1) V. Suk. 50b.
(2) The alkafta or arkafta was a high Persian dignitary, v. Shebu. (Sonc. ed.) 6b.
(3) A proverbial taunt against those who cultivate high acquaintances, thinking that they are thereby ennobled themselves.
(4) You think that that will give you his reputation!
(5) A Mishnah or Baraitha.
(6) A controversy, and I may still adhere to the first.
(7) I will base my answer on logic, yet you will find a mathnitha to corroborate it.
(8) It was boiled with water, and so it could be boiled as it lay only in part of a vessel. Sh.M. explains that the other part of the vessel was not over the fire.
(9) Sc. the part in which the flesh was not boiled.
(10) When the blood spurts on part of a garment, only that part must be washed.
(11) We do not find a teaching to corroborate this, whereas you said that your answer could be corroborated.
(12) And that is explicitly taught in the Mishnah, supra 93b.
(13) There is no blood at all save where it can actually be seen on the garment.
(14) Even the part where the flesh does not lie absorbs some of it.
(15) Whether the blood be of an outer or an inner sin-offering, it necessitates the washing of the garment; also it applies to blood that spurts before it is sprinkled.
(16) Scouring and rinsing are required for outer sin-offerings only, which are eaten, since Scripture continues: Every male among the priests may eat thereof (Lev. VI, 22). For the same reason they are necessary only when the flesh is boiled after the sprinkling, for if boiled before the blood is sprinkled, it may not be eaten.
(17) I must accept it.
(18) Lev. VI, 18 q.v.; this introduces the law of scouring and rinsing, and therefore whatever this verse includes is included in the law of scouring and rinsing.
(19) Ibid. 22. It is explained anon that this includes not only most holy, but also lesser sacrifices.
(20) This limitation applies to all the laws of this section, including that of scouring and rinsing.
(21) For if they did not, then terumah, whose holiness is certainly less than theirs, would obviously not necessitate scouring and rinsing, and the Scriptural limitation would be superfluous.
(22) How does he rebut this?
(23) That only a fit sacrifice necessitates scouring and rinsing, but not an unfit one; v. supra 93a.
(24) If the pot had absorbed so much of the meat that it now would noticeably impart its flavour to the milk.
(25) As in the preceding note. Hence it must be made fit by scalding with boiling water, which expels the absorbed matter (this is called hag'alah), as otherwise whatever is subsequently boiled therein is forbidden to lay Israelites. It is assumed that hag'alah is the same as scouring and rinsing.
(26) This statement that terumah does not necessitate scouring and rinsing.
(27) Of wine and water.
(28) Sc. a vessel in which terumah was boiled.
(29) After hag'alah (v. n. 9, p. 463) is performed, which must be in boiling water, the vessels must be scoured and rinsed in cold water.
(30) I.e., hag'alah alone suffices.
(31) And that nothing else is required.
(32) For scouring in hot water is ordinary hag'alah, and terumah too necessitates that.
(33) Which ordinary hag'alah does not require.
(34) It need not be scoured and rinsed until the end of the festival.
(35) The Gemara explains the meaning of this.
(36) I.e., within and without. Grace after meals was recited over a goblet of wine, and this was first washed and rinsed within and without; v. Ber. 51a.
(37) Var. lec. scouring is in hot water and rinsing is in cold.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 97a
THE SPIT AND THE GRILLE1 ARE SCALDED IN HOT WATER.2
GEMARA. What is R. Tarfon's reason? - Because Scripture saith, And thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents:3 the Writ treats the whole [of the festival] as one morning.4 To this R. Ahadboi b. Ammi demurred: Is there no piggul during a festival, and is there no nothar during a festival?5 And should you say, that indeed is so; surely it was taught, R. Nathan said: R. Tarfon gave this ruling only.6 Rather, [the reason is] as R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name, viz.: Each day effects scalding for the previous one.7
BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: UNTIL THE TIME OF EATING etc. What does this mean? - Said R. Nahman in Rabbah b. Abbuhah's name: He must wait as long as [the sacrifice] may be eaten, and then scour and rinse it. Whence do we know this? - Said R. Johanan on the authority of Abba Jose b. Abba: It is written, 'It shall be scoured and rinsed';8 and it is written, 'Every male among the priests may eat':9 what does this proximity intimate?10 He must wait as long as [the sacrifice] may be eaten, and then scour and rinse it.
SCOURING IS AS THE SCOURING OF A GOBLET; RINSING IS AS THE RINSING OF A GOBLET. Our Rabbis taught: Scouring and rinsing are [done] with cold [water]: these are the words of Rabbi; but the Sages maintain: Scouring is with hot [water], and rinsing is with cold. What is the reason of the Rabbis? - It is comparable to the cleansing [gi'ul] of heathen [vessels].11 And Rabbi?12 - He can tell you: I do not speak of hag'alah [scalding];13 I speak of the scouring and rinsing after hag'alah. And the Rabbis? - If so,14 let Scripture write either, 'it shall be well scoured',or, 'well rinsed';15 why say 'it shall be scoured and rinsed'? - To inform you [that] scouring is [done] with hot water16 and rinsing is [done] with cold. And Rabbi? - If Scripture wrote, 'it shall be well scoured', I would say [that it requires] two scourings or two rinsings; therefore 'it shall be scoured and rinsed' is written to inform you that scouring must be as the scouring of a goblet, rinsing must be as the rinsing of a goblet.17
MISHNAH. IF ONE BOILED SACRIFICES AND HULLIN IN IT, OR MOST HOLY SACRIFICES AND LESSER SACRIFICES; IF THEY WERE SUFFICIENT TO IMPART THEIR FLAVOUR,18 THE LESS STRINGENT MUST BE EATEN AS THE MORE STRINGENT OF THEM;19 BUT THEY DO NOT NECESSITATE SCOURING AND RINSING;20 AND THEY DO NOT DISQUALIFY BY TOUCH.21 IF [AN UNFIT] WAFER TOUCHED A [FIT] WAFER,22 OR AN [UNFIT] PIECE OF FLESH TOUCHED A [FIT] PIECE OF FLESH,23 NOT THE WHOLE WAFER OR THE WHOLE PIECE OF FLESH IS FORBIDDEN; ONLY THE PART THAT ABSORBED [OF THE UNFIT] IS FORBIDDEN.
GEMARA. What does this mean?24 - This is what it means: If they were sufficient to impart their flavour, the less stringent must be eaten as the more stringent of them, and they require scouring and rinsing,25 and they disqualify by their touch.26 If they were insufficient to impart their flavour, the less stringent need not be eaten as the more stringent, and they do not necessitate scouring and rinsing, and do not disqualify by their touch. Granted that they do not require [scouring and rinsing] as for most sacred sacrifices, yet they should require [them] as for lesser sacrifices? - Said Abaye: What does he mean by THEY DO NOT NECESSITATE? [As for] most sacred sacrifices; but they do necessitate [them] as for lesser sacrifices. Raba said: This is in accordance with R. Simeon, who maintained: Lesser sacrifices do not necessitate scouring and rinsing.
As for Raba, it is well: for that reason he [the Tanna] teaches, SACRIFICES AND HULLIN, OR MOST SACRED SACRIFICES AND LESSER SACRIFICES.27 But on Abaye's explanation, why do I need two clauses?28 - They are necessary. For if he taught SACRIFICES AND HULLIN [only] I would say, Only hullin can nullify sacrifices,29 as they are not of the same kind; but in the case of MOST SACRED SACRIFICES AND LESSER SACRIFICES, it is not so.30 And if he taught about MOST SACRED SACRIFICES AND LESSER SACRIFICES only, l would think that only sacrifices are strong enough to nullify other sacrifices; but hullin I would say is not [strong enough].31 Thus both are necessary.
IF AN [UNFIT] WAFER TOUCHED A [FIT] WAFER etc. Our Rabbis taught: Whatever shall touch [ . . . shall be holy];32 you might think, even if it did not absorb; therefore it says, in the flesh thereof:33
(1) On which flesh was roasted.
(2) V. n. 5. This makes them fit for further use.
(3) Deut. XVI,7. This means that the Israelite could return home on the morning after the festival.
(4) I.e., as one day. Since the reason for scouring and rinsing is that what is absorbed of the meat in the pot becomes nothar, it follows that it cannot become nothar from the beginning until the end of a festival, as it is all counted as one day.
(5) If one intends eating the sacrifice after its permitted period of two days, or if flesh is left over after two days, does it not become piggul or nothar, although it is still the festival?
(6) Sc. in respect of scouring and rinsing; but he admits that there can be piggul and nothar during a festival.
(7) Many peace-offerings were sacrificed during the festival, and the boiling of each day's sacrifice expels from the pot what it absorbed the previous day, and thus it does not become nothar.
(8) Lev. VI, 21.
(9) Ibid. 22.
(10) Lit., 'how is this?' - The second text immediately follows the first.
(11) In order to expel what they had absorbed. This requires heat, as Scripture says in this connection: Every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make go through the fire, and it shall be clean (Num. XXXI, 23).
(12) Why does he not accept this argument?
(13) That certainly requires hot water.
(14) If Scripture meant that scouring and rinsing must follow hag'alah, for scouring is not hag'alah itself.
(15) Lit., shall be scoured, scoured, or, shall be rinsed, rinsed. For if scouring is not hag'alah, it is identical with rinsing (both being in cold water), and Scripture merely means that it must be rinsed twice. Then the same word should be used for each operation.
(16) I.e., it is hag'alah.
(17) I.e., once on the outside and once on the inside.
(18) If the pot had absorbed enough of the former to impart its flavour to the latter; or, if both were boiled together, if the former was sufficient to impart its flavour noticeably to the latter. - If they are both of the same kind, we regard them as though they were two different kinds.
(19) If lesser sacrifices and hullin were boiled, the hullin must be eaten within the precincts of Jerusalem, and for two days only. If lesser sacrifices and most holy sacrifices were boiled in it, the lesser sacrifices must be eaten in the Temple court, on the same day, and by male priests only.
(20) At the end of the shorter period allowed for the consumption of the more stringent, but only at the end of the longer allowed for the less stringent.
(21) If the less stringent became disqualified, they do not in turn disqualify any flesh that touches them.
(22) Of a meal-offering, v. Lev. II, 4.
(23) The latter in each case absorbing from the former.
(24) Why is it not scoured and rinsed at the end of the period allowed for the more stringent?
(25) Accordingly, i.e. at the end of the shorter time.
(26) If the more stringent were unfit while the less stringent were fit, the less stringent become disqualified too and in turn disqualify others just as the more stringent disqualified.
(27) To give an anonymous ruling in accordance with R. Simeon, viz., that lesser sacrifices do necessitate scouring and rinsing.
(28) Seeing that the same principle operates in both.
(29) When the latter do not communicate their flavour to the former.
(30) Even if the former do not impart their flavour to the latter, the whole must be treated with the stringency of the former.
(31) Even if the sacrifice does not impart its flavour to the hullin, the whole must he treated with the stringency of the former.
(32) Lev. VI, 20. 'Holy' means that it is subject to the same restrictions as the flesh of the sacrifice.
(33) Lit. translation.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 97b
[this intimates] that it must absorb [thereof] in its flesh. You might think that if it touched a part of a piece of flesh, the whole of it is unfit. Therefore it says, '[Whatever] shall touch': only that which touches is unfit. How so? The part which absorbed is cut away. '[In] the flesh thereof': but not the tendons, bones, horns or hoofs.1 'Shall be holy', to be as itself, so that if it [the sin-offering] is unfit, that [which touches it] becomes unfit; while if it is fit, it may be eaten [only] in accordance with its stringencies. Yet why so?2 let the positive command3 come and override the negative injunction!4 - Said Raba, A positive injunction does not override a negative injunction in the Temple. For it was taught: Neither shall ye break a bone thereof.5 R. Simeon b. Menassia said: [This refers to] both a bone which contains marrow and a bone which does not contain marrow. Yet why so? let the positive injunction6 come and override the negative injunction? Hence you can infer that a positive injunction does not override a negative injunction in the Temple. R. Ashi said: 'Shall be holy' is a positive injunction: thus there are a positive and a negative injunction,7 and a positive injunction cannot override a positive and a negative injunction [combined].
We have thus found that a sin-offering sanctifies8 [whatever touches it] through absorption; whence do we know it of other sacrifices? - Said Samuel on R. Eleazar's authority: [Scripture saith,] This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the consecration-offering, and of the sacrifice of peace-offerings.9 'Of a burnt-offering': as a burnt-offering requires a utensil,10 so all require a utensil. What utensil is meant? If we say, a basin?11 in respect of public peace-offerings too it is written, And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins!12 Rather, it means a knife.13 And how do we know it of a burnt-offering itself? - Because it is written, And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife [to slay his son],14 and there it was a burnt-offering, as it is written, And offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son.15
'Of a meal-offering': as a meal-offering may be eaten by male priests [only], so all may be eaten by male priests only. Which [are thus inferred]? If the sin-offering and the guilt-offering? [surely] it is explicitly written in connection with them, Every male among the priests may eat thereof!16 If public peace-offerings? that is deduced from a Scriptural extension, [viz.] In a most holy place shalt thou17 eat thereof; every male may eat thereof:18 this teaches that public peace-offerings may be eaten by male priests only! - It is a controversy of Tannaim:
(1) These do not render the flesh that touches them 'holy'.
(2) Why does the flesh of the fit sacrifice become unfit through absorbing of the unfit?
(3) Ex. XXIX, 33: and they shall eat those things wherewith atonement was made (sc. the flesh of the sacrifices).
(4) Forbidding the unfit to be eaten, e.g. in Lev. VI, 23 q.v. It is a general principle that a positive injunction overrides a negative injunction when the two are in conflict.
(5) Ex. Xli, 46. This refers to the Passover-offering.
(6) To eat the flesh (which includes marrow), sc. and they shall eat the flesh in that night (Ex. Xli, 8).
(7) Forbidding the flesh which absorbed the taste of the disqualified sacrifice.
(8) In the sense stated above.
(9) Lev. VII, 37. The enumeration of all these together with the single superscription 'this is the law' teaches that they are all assimilated to one another, and the Talmud proceeds to explain in which respect they are so assimilated.
(10) The Heb. keli denotes a vessel or a utensil.
(11) For receiving the blood; and this teaches that a peace-offering too needs a basin. That a burnt.offering requires a basin is inferred from Ex. XXIV, 5f, q.v.
(12) Ibid. 6. The blood was that of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings. Hence peace-offerings need not be inferred from burnt-offerings.
(13) A burnt-offering must be killed with a knife (a utensil) and not e.g. with a sharp piece of stone (unfashioned into a utensil), and the text intimates that the same applies to the others.
(14) Gen. XXII, 10.
(15) Ibid 13.
(16) Lev. VII, 6.
(17) Sc. Aaron.
(18) Num. XVIII, 10.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 98a
one infers it from this verse, and another infers it from the other.
'Of a sin-offering': as a sin-offering sanctifies through absorption, so all [sacrifices] sanctify through absorption.1
'Of a guilt-offering': as a guilt-offering, the foetus and after-birth inside it are not holy, so all [sacrifices], the foetus and after-birth inside them are not holy.2 He holds that the young of sacrifices become holy when they come into existence,3 and that we infer what is possible from what is not possible.4
'Of the consecration-offering': as the consecration-offering, the remainder thereof was burnt,5 and there were no living animals among its remainder;6 so all [sacrifices], their remainder is burnt, but living animals are not counted as remainder.7
'Of the . . . peace-offering': as [parts of] a peace-offering render piggul, and [parts] are rendered piggul, so [in] all [sacrifices] [where there are parts which] render piggul and [parts which] are made piggul [the law of piggul applies].8
It was taught in a Baraitha in R. Akiba's name: 'Of the meal-offering': as a meal-offering sanctifies through absorption,9 so all [sacrifices] sanctify through absorption. Now, it is necessary for both 'meal-offering' and 'sin-offering' to be written.10 For if we were informed [this about] a meal-offering, [I might say that was] because it is soft it absorbs; but [as for] a sin-offering, I would say [that it is] not [so]. And if we were informed about a sin-offering, [I might say] that is because it is solid;11 but a meal-offering I would say is not so. Thus both are necessary.
'Of the sin-offering': as a sin-offering comes of hullin only, and by day, and [its rites must be performed] with his [the priest's] right hand; so every [sacrifice] comes of hullin only, by day, and [its rites must be performed] with his right hand. And how do we know it of a sin-offering [itself]? - Said R. Hisda, Scripture saith: And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering, which is his:12 [that intimates that] it must be his,13 and not the congregation's,14 nor of tithe.15 [That its rites must be performed] by day is inferred from: in the day that he commanded [etc.]?16 That is stated unnecessarily. [That its rites must be performed] with his right hand is inferred from Rabbah b. Bar Hanah's [exegesis]? For Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said in the name of Resh Lakish: Wherever 'finger' and 'priesthood' are stated, the right hand only [must be used]?17 That [too] is stated unnecessarily. Alternatively, he agrees with R. Simeon, who maintained: [Where] 'finger' [is stated], priesthood is not required;18 [but where] 'priesthood' [is stated], 'finger' is required.19
'Of the guilt-offering': as the bones of a guilt-offering are permitted, so the bones of every [sacrifice] are permitted.20
Raba said: It is clear to me
(1) This is the answer to the question, how do we know that all sacrifices sanctify through absorption? The rest of the discussion is really irrelevant here.
(2) A guilt-offering was a male, and so there could be no foetus or afterbirth inside it to be holy. From this we learn that the foetus and afterbirth in female sacrifices, e.g. peace-offerings and sin-offerings, are not holy. If then a foetus was found in a sacrifice after it was slaughtered, its heleb (fat) and kidneys are not burnt on the altar as emurim, as in the case of the sacrifice itself.
(3) I.e., when they are born, but not before.
(4) I.e., females from males, though in the latter case the foetus and after-birth are not holy because they do not exist.
(5) V. Lev. VIII, 32, which refers to the consecration-offering.
(6) The consecration-offering was a public sacrifice, and we do not find that two animals were dedicated for the purpose (v. next note), so that one should be a 'remainder'. Thus only flesh and bread were a remainder, and these alone were burnt.
(7) Whatever remains of a sacrifice after the time allowed for its consumption is burnt (as nothar). This, however, does not apply to a living remainder. E.g. if a man dedicated an animal for a sacrifice, lost it, dedicated a second, found the first and sacrificed one of them; similarly, if he dedicated two animals in the first instance, so that if one were lost the second would be sacrificed. The other is technically called a remainder, but this remainder is not burnt.
(8) V. supra 28b.
(9) For it is written, whatsoever toucheth them (sc. the meal-offerings) shall be holy (Lev. VI, 11).
(10) The same is written of the sin-offering.
(11) Since the flesh is thick, the grease penetrates deeply into it.
(12) Lev. XVI, 6. E.V. which is for himself.
(13) Purchased at his own expense.
(14) Not bought with public funds.
(15) It must not be an animal of tithe, which is sacred in its own right. Hence it must be hullin.
(16) Lev. VII, 38. This refers to all the sacrifices enumerated in the preceding verse; why then derive it from a sin-offering?
(17) And 'priesthood' is stated in connection with each of these sacrifices.
(18) To shew that the right hand is meant.
(19) Both are stated in connection with a sin-offering, but only priesthood is stated in connection with the others. Hence they must be inferred from a sin-offering.
(20) Supra 86a.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 98b
that if blood of a sin-offering is below and blood of a burnt-offering is above,1 it requires washing.2 Raba asked: What if blood of a burnt-offering is below and blood of a sin-offering is above? [Does a garment need washing] because of contact,3 and here there is contact;4 or perhaps the reason is on account of absorption, and here it did not absorb?5 Subsequently he solved it, that it does not require washing.
Raba said: It is clear to me that blood on his garment interposes, but if [its owner] is a slaughterer, it does not interpose.6 Grease on a garment interposes, but if [the owner] is a grease merchant, it does not interpose. Raba asked: What if there are blood and grease on a garment? [Why do you ask?] If he is a slaughterer, you can infer [that the immersion is ineffectual] because of the grease; and if he is a grease merchant, you can infer [that it is ineffectual] because of the blood. The question arises only where he is both; [do we say that] he does not object to one, but objects to two; or perhaps he does not object to two either? The question stands over.
MISHNAH. A TEBUL YOM7 AND ONE WHO LACKS ATONEMENT8 DO NOT SHARE IN SACRIFICES FOR CONSUMPTION IN THE EVENING.9 AN ONEN7 MAY HANDLE [SACRED FLESH], BUT MAY NOT OFFER,10 AND DOES NOT RECEIVE A SHARE FOR CONSUMPTION IN THE EVENING. MEN WITH BLEMISHES, WHETHER PERMANENT OR TRANSIENT, RECEIVE A SHARE AND MAY EAT [OF THE SACRIFICES]. BUT MAY NOT OFFER. WHOEVER IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SERVICE11 DOES NOT SHARE IN THE FLESH;12 AND HE WHO DOES NOT SHARE IN THE FLESH DOES NOT SHARE IN THE HIDES. EVEN IF ONE WAS UNCLEAN WHEN THE BLOOD WAS SPRINKLED BUT CLEAN WHEN THE FATS WERE BURNED [ON THE ALTAR], HE DOES NOT SHARE IN THE FLESH, FOR IT IS SAID: HE AMONG THE SONS OF AARON, THAT OFFERETH THE BLOOD OF THE PEACE-OFFERINGS, AND THE FAT, SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT THIGH FOR A PORTION.13
(1) First blood of a sin-offering fell on a garment and then blood of a burntoffering fell upon it. - Only the former necessitates the washing of the garment.
(2) Since the blood of a sin-offering fell actually on the garment and soaked into it.
(3) With the blood of a sin-offering.
(4) The blood of the burnt-offering soaks into the material, and so the second blood does actually touch the garment.
(5) The blood of the sin-offering, for the material is already saturated with the other blood.
(6) An unclean garment must be immersed in a ritual bath (mikweh) for purification; the ceremony is called immersion. Now, when immersion is performed, no foreign matter may interpose between the article to be purified and the water. Normally, blood is foreign matter, for a person objects to blood on his garment, and it interposes (rendering immersion ineffectual). A slaughterer, however, does not object to blood on his garment, and so it is not regarded as foreign matter and does not interpose.
(7) V. Glos.
(8) V. p. 80, n. 2.
(9) By which time they will be clean.
(10) I.e., perform the sacrificial rites, e.g., sprinkling.
(11) I.e., to perform the sacrificial rites.
(12) The Talmud discusses the obvious contradiction between this and the preceding statements.
(13) Lev. VII, 33. Thus he receives a portion only when he can offer both the blood (i.e., perform the sprinkling) and the fat, but not otherwise. Nevertheless, this text seems irrelevant, as it refers to the thigh only. Sh.M. substitutes, it shall belong to the priest that sprinkleth the blood of the peace-offerings (ibid. 14).
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 99a
GEMARA. How do we know it? - Said Resh Lakish, Because Scripture saith, The priest that offereth it for sin shall eat it:1 the priest who offers for sin2 may eat; he who does not offer for sin, may not eat. Yet is this a general rule? surely there is the whole ward, which do not offer for sin, yet they eat?3 - We mean he who is eligible to offer for sin. But lo, a minor is not eligible to offer for sin, yet he eats [thereof]? - Rather, what does 'Shall eat it' mean? He shall receive a share therein: he who is eligible to offer for sin, receives a share; he who is not eligible to offer for sin, does not receive a share.4
But surely one who is blemished is not eligible to offer for sin, yet he receives a share? - The Divine Law included a blemished [person] [in the privilege of sharing], viz., Every male among the priests. [may eat thereof].5 which includes a [priest] with a blemish.6 Yet say that 'every male' includes a tebul yom? - It is logical to include a blemished [priest], since he may eat. On the contrary, one should include a tebul yom, since he will be eligible in the evening?7 - Nevertheless, he is not eligible at present. R. Joseph said:8 Consider: what does 'shall eat it' mean? [Surely] shall share therein. Then let the Divine Law write 'shall share therein'? why 'shall eat therein'? That you may infer: he who is fit to eat, shares [therein]; he who is not fit to eat9 does not share [in it].10
Resh Lakish asked: Is a share to be given to a blemished [priest] who is unclean? [Do we say,] Since he is not eligible [to perform the service] and yet the Divine Law included him, it makes no difference, for what does it matter whether he is unclean or blemished? Or perhaps, he who is fit to eat [when the sacrifice is offered] receives a share, [while] he who is not fit to eat does not receive a share? - Said Rabbah, Come and hear: A High Priest can offer [a sacrifice] as an onen, but he may not eat nor receive a share to eat in the evening.11 This proves that one must be fit to eat [when the sacrifice is offered]. This proves it.12
R. Oshaia asked: Is a share of public sacrifices given to an unclean [priest]?13 Do we say, the Divine Law saith, 'The priest that offereth it for sin [shall eat it]', and this one too can offer for sin;14 or perhaps, he who is fit to eat receives a share, he who is not fit to eat does not receive a share?15 - Said Rabina, Come and hear: A High Priest may offer [sacrifices] as an onen, but he may not eat, nor receive a share to eat in the evening. This proves that he must be fit to eat. This proves it.
AN ONEN MAY HANDLE [SACRED FLESH], BUT MAY NOT OFFER etc. An onen may handle [sacred flesh]? Surely the fol!owing contradicts it: An onen and one who lacks atonement need immersion for sacred flesh?16 - Said R. Ammi in R. Johanan's name: There is no difficulty: here [in the Mishnah] he had performed immersion; there, he had not performed immersion. But what even if he did perform immersion: aninuth17 returns to him?18 for Rabbah son of R. Huna said: If an onen performed immersion, his aninuth returns to him! - Rather, there is no difficulty: here he dismissed [it] from his mind;19 in the other case he did not dismiss [it] from his mind. But inattention requires [sprinkling on] the third and the seventh [days]: for R. Justai son of R. Mathun said in R. Johanan's name: Inattention20 requires sprinkling on the third and the seventh [days]!21 - There is no difficulty: In the one case he was careless about defilement of the dead;22 in the other he was careless about defilement by a reptile.23 Defilement of the dead is genuine defilement and requires sunset?24 moreover, even terumah too [should require immersion]?25 - Said R. Jeremiah: [This law holds good] when he declares, I was on my guard against anything that would defile me, but not against anything that would disqualify me.26
And is there half watchfulness? - Yes, and it was taught even so: If the basket was still on his head27
(1) Ibid. VI, 19.
(2) I.e., sprinkles the blood and performs the priestly rites.
(3) The priests were divided into wards, which officiated in rotation, (v. Glos. s.v. Mishmar). Only one of the priests sprinkled the blood of a particular sacrifice, yet the whole of the ward to which he belonged would share it.
(4) A minor accordingly does not receive a share in his own right, but merely eats of another priest's share. - From this we learn that a tebul yom and one who lacks atonement do not receive shares.
(5) Lev. VI, 22.
(6) It is shewn infra 102a that he is included in respect of sharing, for it is explicitly stated elsewhere that he may eat, viz., He (sc. a blemished priest) may eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy (ibid. XXI, 22). No extension therefore would be required to shew that he may eat.
(7) Even to perform the sacrificial rites.
(8) In reply to your question that one should include a tebul yom.
(9) When it is actually offered.
(10) Hence it includes a blemished priest, who is fit to eat when it is sacrificed, but not a tebul yom, who will not be fit until the evening.
(11) When he ceases to be an onen.
(12) Hence an unclean blemished priest does not receive a share.
(13) The sacrifices having been offered by clean priests.
(14) For public sacrifices can be offered in uncleanness, if the whole congregation is unclean. Hence, though this priest could not sacrifice just then, yet in general he was eligible for public sacrifices.
(15) He is definitely not fit to eat, for a public sacrifice brought in uncleanness may not be eaten.
(16) Which they may not handle otherwise.
(17) The status of onen.
(18) Since aninuth lasts to the end of the first day.
(19) Sc. the care not to become unclean. He paid no attention to this, knowing that he could not officiate in any case.
(20) To ritual cleanness.
(21) From the day that he ceased to be watchful, for he may have been defiled through the dead on that day. Thus mere immersion is insufficient.
(22) He did not even take care to avoid that. Then he needs sprinkling on the third and the seventh days.
(23) But took care not to be defiled by the dead.
(24) Even after immersion the priest may not eat flesh of sacrifices until sunset, whereas only immersion is required above.
(25) He who is defiled by a reptile may not eat terumah without immersion, whereas immersion is required above only for eating sacred flesh (i.e., of sacrifices, whose sanctity is higher than that of terumah).
(26) 'Defile' means by Scriptural, 'disqualify' by Rabbinical law. The former requires sunset, but the latter requires immersion only. Also, the former disqualifies one in respect of terumah too, but not the latter.
(27) It is not clear to what 'still' refers. It is absent in Tosef. Toh. VIII, whence it is cited in the present passage.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 99b
and a shovel was in it, and he declared, 'My mind was on the basket1 but not on the shovel', the basket is clean, but the shovel is unclean. But let the shovel defile the basket? - One utensil cannot defile another. Then let it defile its contents?2 Said Raba: It means that he declared: 'I guarded it from anything which might defile, but not from anything which might disqualify it.'3 The matter was eventually reported4 to R. Abba b. Memmel. Said he to them: Have they not heard what R. Johanan5 said: He who eats terumah of the third degree may not eat [terumah again], but he may touch [terumah]?6 This proves that the Rabbis raised eating to a high degree7 but did not raise touch to a high degree.8
AND DOES NOT RECEIVE A SHARE FOR CONSUMPTION etc. He merely does not receive a share,9 but may eat if he is invited? Surely the following contradicts it: An onen performs immersion and eats his Passover-offering in the evening, but [may] not [partake] of [other] sacrifices?10 - Said R. Jeremiah of Difti: There is no difficulty: the former means on Passover [itself]; the latter, during the rest of the year. On Passover, since he may eat the Passover-offering, he may also eat other sacrifices; during the rest of the year, when he is not fit [for the former],11 he is not fit [for the latter]. And what does 'but [may] not [partake] of [other] sacrifices' mean? But [may] not [partake] of [other] sacrifices of the whole year.
R. Assi said, There is no difficulty: In the one case the man died on the fourteenth [of Nisan] and was buried on the fourteenth; in the other [sc. our Mishnah], the man died on the thirteenth and was buried on the fourteenth,[for] the day of burial does not embrace the night [that follows] [even] by Rabbinical law.12
Which Tanna holds that [the law of] aninuth at night is Rabbinical [only]? - R. Simeon. For it was taught: [The law of] aninuth at night is Scriptural: these are the words of R. Judah. R. Simeon said: [The law of] aninuth at night is not Scriptural but of the rulings of the Scribes.13 The proof is that they [the Rabbis] said: An onen performs immersion and eats his Passover-offering in the evening, but [may] not [partake] of [other] sacrifices.14 Now, does R. Simeon hold [that the law of] aninuth at night is [only] Rabbinical? Surely it was taught, R. Simeon said: An onen may not send his sacrifices.15 Now does that mean, even on Passover? - No, except the Passover-offering. But it was taught, R. Simeon said: [The designation] 'Peace-offerings' [shelamim] [indicates that] a man may bring [it] when he is whole [shalem]16 but not when he is an onen. How do I know to include the thanksoffering?17 I include the thanksoffering, because it is eaten with rejoicing, like a peace-offering.18 How do I know to include a burnt-offering? I include a burnt-offering. because it is brought as a vow or as a freewill-offering, like the peace-offering. How do I know to include a firstling, tithe, and the Passover-offering? I include firstling, tithe, and the Passover-offering because they are not brought on account of sin, like a peace-offering. How do I know to include the sin-offering and the guilt-offering? Because it says, 'sacrifice'.19 How do we know to include bird- [offerings], meal-offerings, wine, wood20 and frankincense? Because it says, 'his offering be shelamim': all offerings which he brings, he brings when he is whole [shalem], but does not bring [them] when he is an onen. Thus at all events he includes the Passover-offering? - Said R. Hisda: The Passover-offering is mentioned en courant.21 R. Shesheth said: What does the 'Passover-offering' mean? The Passover peace-offerings.22 If so, it is identical with peace-offerings? - He teaches about peace-offerings which are brought on account of Passover, and he teaches about peace-offerings which are brought independently. For if he did not teach about the peace-offering which is brought on account of Passover, I would argue: Since it comes on account of the Passover-offering,23 it is like the Passover-offering itself. Hence he informs us [that it is not so].
R. Mari said:
(1) To guard it from defilement.
(2) Sc. the food or eatables in the basket.
(3) 'Defile' means to render an object unclean in the sense that it can render another object unclean (or disqualified) in turn; 'disqualify' means to render an object unfit for use on account of uncleanness, but that object cannot disqualify another object in turn; v Pes. (Sonc. ed.) p. 62 n. 2 for this and the rest of the passage
(4) Lit., 'the matter was rolled about and reached'.
(5) Var. lec. Jonathan.
(6) His body becomes, as it were, unclean (or disqualified) in the third degree; he may not eat terumah again without immersion, nevertheless his touch does not render terumah unfit.
(7) They demanded a high standard of purity for eating.
(8) And so here too, when we learnt that an onen needs immersion, it means for eating, but not for touching.
(9) As a right.
(10) An onen may not eat the flesh of sacrifices (v. Lev. X, 19f). By Scriptural law a man is an onen on the day of death only, but not at night; the Rabbis, however, extended these restrictions to the night too. As, however, the Passover-offering is a Scriptural obligation, they waived their prohibition in respect of the night, and he may eat thereof. He is not unclean, but requires immersion to emphasize that until evening sacred flesh was forbidden to him, whereas now it is permitted.
(11) Obviously, since the Passover-offering can be eaten only on Passover.
(12) V. n. 2. That, however, applies only when the person died on the same day too; but if he was merely buried on that day, but died the previous day, there is no aninuth at all by night. Accordingly, the passage quoted (from Pes. 91b) treats of Passover itself, and not of the rest of the year.
(13) I.e., Rabbinical only. On Soferim (scribes) v. Kid. (Sonc. ed.) p. 79, n. 7.
(14) Whereas if the interdict were Scriptural, he could. not partake of the Passover-offering either.
(15) To be offered on his account.
(16) The very word for peace-offering, shelamim, indicates that a man must be whole (shalem, sing. of shelamim) - The verse discussed is Lev. III, 6: And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace-offerings etc.
(17) In the same limitation.
(18) V. Deut. XXVII, 7: And thou shalt sacrifice peace-offerings, and shalt eat there; and thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy God. This precept to rejoice is fulfilled by the eating of either peace-offerings or thanks-offerings, which are called peace-offerings, v. Lev. VII, 11-12.
(19) Lit., 'a slaughtering'. hence including every slaughtered sacrifice. (A bird was not slaughtered but nipped (melikah), which explains the question that follows.)
(20) One who donated wood brought a sacrifice along with it.
(21) Firstling tithe and the Passover-offering are generally mentioned together, and so it is mentioned here too. But actually it does not apply to the Passover-offering.
(22) When a large company shared in the Paschal lamb, an additional peace-offering (called hagigah) was brought and eaten before the Passover-offering.
(23) To remedy its inadequateness.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 100a
There is no difficulty:1 in the one case the man died on the fourteenth and was buried on the fourteenth; in the other the man died on the thirteenth and was buried on the fourteenth. If the man died on the fourteenth and was buried on the fourteenth, the day of death embraces the night [that follows] by Scriptural law;2 if the man died on the thirteenth and was buried on the fourteenth, [aninuth even on] the day of burial is [only] Rabbinical,3 and it embraces the night [that follows only] by Rabbinical law.4 Said R. Ashi to R. Mari: If so, when it is taught, R. Simeon said to him, The proof is that they [the Rabbis] said: An onen performs immersion and eats his Passover-offering in the evening, but [may] not [partake] of [other] sacrifices; let him [R. Judah] answer him: I speak to you of the day of death, [when one is an onen] by Scriptural law, whereas you tell me about the day of burial, [when aninuth is only] Rabbinical? That is a difficulty.
Abaye said, There is no difficulty: In the one case he died before midday [of the fourteenth]; in the other he died after midday. [If he died] before midday, when he had [as yet] no obligation of the Passover-offering, aninuth falls upon him; [if he died] after midday, when he is subject to the Passover-offering, aninuth does not fall upon him.5 And how do you know that we differentiate between [death] before midday and [death] after midday? - Because it was taught: For her shall he defile himself:6 this is obligatory; if he does not wish to, we defile him by force. Now, the wife of Joseph the priest happened to die on the eve of Passover, and he did not wish to defile himself, whereupon his brother priests took a vote and defiled him by force. But the following contradicts it: [He shall not make himself unclean for his father . . .] and for his sister [when they die]:7 why is this stated?8 [For this reason:] Behold if he9 was on his way to slaughter the Passover-offering or to circumcise his son,10 and he learnt that a near relation of his had died,11 you might think that he may defile himself; hence you read,12 'he shall not make himself unclean'. You might think that just as he may not defile himself for his sister, so may he not defile himself for an unattended corpse:13 therefore it states, 'and for his sister': he may not defile himself for his sister, but he must defile himself for an unattended corpse.14 Hence you must surely infer that one holds good [where the person died] before midday, and the other where he died after midday.15 Whence [does this follow]? Perhaps I can argue that in truth both refer to after midday, but one agrees with R. Ishmael and the other with R. Akiba. For it was taught: 'For her shall he defile himself': this is permissive; these are the words of R. Ishmael.16 R. Akiba said: It is an obligation!17 - You cannot think so, for the first clause of that [Baraitha]18 was taught by R. Akiba. For it was taught, R. Akiba said: [He shall not come near to a body, [to] the dead.19 'Body' refers to strangers;20 'dead' refers to relations. 'For his father' he may not defile himself, but he must defile himself for an unattended corpse.21 'For his mother': [even] if he was [both] a priest and nazirite, only for his mother he may not defile himself, but he must defile himself for an unattended corpse. For his brother': [even] if he was [both] a High Priest and a nazirite, only for his brother he may not defile himself, but he must defile himself for an unattended corpse. 'And for his sister': why is this stated? If he was on his way to slaughter his Passover-offering or to circumcise his son, and he learnt that a near relation of his had died, you might think that he may defile himself; hence you read, 'he shall not make himself unclean'. You might think that just as he may not defile himself for his sister, so he may not defile himself for an unattended corpse; therefore it states, 'and for his sister': he may not defile himself for his sister, but he must defile himself for an unattended corpse.
(1) R. Simeon is not self-contradictory.
(2) Hence he may not eat of the Passover-offering in the evening.
(3) He holds that by Scriptural law aninuth applies only to the day of death.
(4) And this Rabbinical law is waived in favour of the Passover-offering.
(5) In both cases the man died on the fourteenth, and R. Simeon holds that the aninuth of the following night is Rabbinical. Now, the obligation to sacrifice the Passover-offering commences at midday on the fourteenth. Consequently, if death took place before midday, aninuth preceded the obligation, and this prevents the obligation from becoming operative; therefore he does not eat the Passover-offering in the evening. But if the man died after midday, this person was already under the obligation, therefore he does eat the Passover-offering in the evening.
(6) Lev. XXI, 3. This refers to a priest, who may not defile himself for the dead, except for certain near relations, e.g., father and mother etc. 'Her' means an unmarried sister, and, according to the Rabbis, his wife ('his kin that is near to him,' v. 2).
(7) Num. VI, 7. This refers to a nazirite.
(8) If he may not defile himself even for his parents, it is obvious that he may not defile himself for his sister.
(9) Sc. one who was both a nazirite and a High Priest.
(10) So that he could partake of the Passover-offering, which may not be eaten by a man whose son is uncircumcised.
(11) Lit., 'that a dead had died unto him.'
(12) Lit., 'say'.
(13) Heb., meth mizwah, a corpse which it is a duty to bury. If any person, even a High Priest, comes across an unattended corpse, he must defile himself and attend to his burial.
(14) Thus it is taught here that he must not defile himself but sacrifice the Passover-offering, whereas the first Baraitha teaches that he must defile himself. An obvious difficulty arises here: the first Baraitha refers to a priest, who must defile himself for his near relations, whereas the second treats of a nazirite who is also a High Priest, who may not defile himself even for his relations. Sh.M. quotes a var. lec., according to which this second Baraitha, though interpreting a passage dealing with a nazirite, transfers its teaching to an ordinary priest; in which case there is a definite contradiction between the two.
(15) Cf. p. 479. n. 6.
(16) Hence the obligation to sacrifice the Passover-offering overrides this permission, and he may not defile himself.
(17) Yet there may be no difference between death before midday and death after midday.
(18) Which forbids him to defile himself.
(19) Num. VI, 6. E.V. to a dead body. R. Akiba however understands the Hebrew as two substantives.
(20) Lit., 'distant ones'.
(21) Since 'dead' refers to relations, v. 7 which enumerates these relations is superfluous; R. Akiba explains that each relation enumerated has a particular teaching.
Talmud - Mas. Zevachim 100b
Raba said: Both are meant after midday, yet there is no difficulty: in the one case it was before they had slaughtered [the Passover-offering] and sprinkled [its blood] on his account;1 in the other it was after they had slaughtered and sprinkled on his account.2 R. Adda b. Mattenah said to Raba: after they slaughtered and sprinkled on his account, what is done is done!3 - Said Rabina to him: The eating of the Passover-offering is indispensable, [which follows] from Rabbah son of R. Huna's [teaching]. Said [Raba] to him: Pay heed to what your master [Rabina] has told you [R. Adda b. Mattenah].4
What was Rabbah son of R. Huna's [teaching]? - It was taught: The day when one learns [of a near relation's death] is as the day of burial in respect of the laws of seven and thirty [days' mourning];5 In respect of eating the Passover-offering it is as the day on which the bones [of one's parents] are collected.6 In both cases7 he performs immersion and eats [of] sacrifices in the evening. Now this is self-contradictory: You say, the day when one learns is as the day of burial in respect of seven and thirty [days' mourning], but in respect of eating the Passover-offering it is as the day when the bones [of one's parents] are collected; whence it follows that as for the day of burial, one may not eat even in the evening; and then you teach, in both cases he performs immersion and eats of sacrifices in the evening? Said R. Hisda: It is a controversy of Tannaim.8 Rabbah son of R. Huna said: There is no difficulty. In the one case he learnt about his bereavement just before sunset, and similarly the bones of his dead were gathered just before sunset, and similarly his relation died and was buried just before sunset. In the other case [these things happened] after sunset.9 'After sunset'! but what has been has been!10 Hence you must surely infer from this that the eating of the Passover-offering is indispensable.11
R. Ashi said: What does 'both the one and the other' [mean]? It means that both on the day of hearing and on the day of gathering the bones, he performs immersion and eats of the sacrifices in the evening.12 But this statement of R. Ashi is fiction. Consider: he [the Tanna] is discussing these;13 then he should say, 'the one and the other.' Hence it surely follows that it is fiction.
Now, what is this controversy of Tannaim?14 - For it was taught: For how long is he an onen on his account?15 The whole day.16 Rabbi said: As long as he is not buried.17 What are we discussing? Shall we say, the day of death? does anyone reject the view that the day of death embraces the night following by Rabbinical law?18 Moreover, 'Rabbi said: As long as he is not buried'; but if he was buried, he is permitted?19 Does anyone reject [the implication of] And the end thereof as a bitter day?20 - Said R. Shesheth: [We are discussing] the day of burial. To this R. Joseph demurred: Then when it is taught, He who learns about his bereavement, and he who gathers bones, performs immersion and eats in the evening; whence it follows that as for the day of burial, he may not even eat in the evening; with whom will it agree?21 Rather, explain it thus: For how long is he an onen on his account? The whole of that day22 and the [following] night. Rabbi said: That is only as long as he was not buried; but if he was buried, [it is the day] without the [following] night. Now, this was reported before R. Jeremiah, whereupon he observed: That a great man like R. Joseph should say thus! Are we to assume then that Rabbi is more lenient? Surely it was taught: How long is he an onen on his account? As long as he is not buried, even for ten days: these are the words of Rabbi; but the Sages maintain: He observes aninuth on his account only on that day itself! Rather, explain it thus: How long does he observe aninuth on his account? The whole of that day without the [following] night. Rabbi maintained: As long as he is not buried, it embraces the [following] night.23
Now, it was stated before Raba: Since Rabbi maintained that the day of burial embraces the [following] night by Rabbinical law,24 it follows that the day of death embraces the [following] night by Scriptural law.25 Does then Rabbi hold that aninuth at night is Scriptural? Surely it was taught: 'Behold, this day [etc].26 I am forbidden by day yet am permitted at night;27 but [future] generations will be forbidden both by day and by night':28 these are the words of R. Judah. Rabbi maintained: Aninuth at night is not Scriptural but a law of the Scribes! - In truth, it is Rabbinical.29
(1) Then they must not do so, for he has become an onen and Scripture disqualified him.
(2) The main thing that the Baraitha teaches then is that he partakes thereof in the evening.
(3) Why is he permitted to eat thereof in the evening, any more than of other sacrifices, seeing that his aninuth exempts him? On Abaye's explanation this difficulty does not arise. For he explains that the person died after midday, but before the offering was slaughtered on his behalf. Now, since the obligation to sacrifice preceded his aninuth and is therefore still in force, if he is forbidden to eat of it in the evening, he will refrain from sacrificing at all; therefore the Rabbis waived their prohibition. But there is nothing to fear if his relation died after the sacrifice was offered, and so he should still he forbidden.
(4) His answer is correct.
(5) One must observe deep mourning for seven days after the burial of a near relation, during which time he must not work, bathe, or wear his shoes. A lighter mourning is observed for thirty days after burial, such as not putting on new garments or attending festivities. If a person learns of such a relation's death within thirty days, he must observe the seven and the thirty days' mourning from the day that he learnt it.
(6) A man may eat of the Passover-offering on the evening following the day when his parents' bones were collected; v. Pes. 92a.
(7) This can only mean, on the day of burial or on the day that the bones are collected. It cannot mean on the day of hearing and on the day of collecting, for the reason explained anon.
(8) The two clauses represent the views of different Tannaim.
(9) He may eat of sacrifices, and all the more so of the Passover-offering, if his relation died etc. before sunset; hence the evening is the night following his aninuth, and he holds that in this respect the day does not embrace the night following even by Biblical law. He may not eat on the evening of burial where he died after sunset, so that it is not the evening following the day of burial, but the evening of burial itself (the corpse will be buried either that same evening or on the next day).
(10) How can you then differentiate between the Passover-offering and other sacrifices, seeing that sacrifices may not be eaten on the day of burial? That certainly should apply to the Passover-offering too.
(11) For that reason they permitted it in the evening, because neglect to eat of it entails kareth (v. Glos.).
(12) But not on the evening after burial.
(13) Sc. the two mentioned by R. Ashi.
(14) To which R. Hisda alluded above.
(15) To be forbidden to partake of sacrifices.
(16) This is now assumed to mean without the night following.
(17) V. Sem. IV, 14.
(18) Surely not!
(19) On the same day.
(20) Amos VIII, 10. From this the Rabbis deduce (M. K. 21a) that the interdict of aninuth lasts the whole day of death, even after burial.
(21) Both Rabbi and the Rabbis hold that the evening is permitted.
(22) Of burial.
(23) This then is the controversy alluded to by R. Hisda.
(24) Obviously by Rabbinical law only, for aninuth even on the day of burial itself is Rabbinical only.
(25) Just as aninuth on the day of death is Scriptural.
(26) Lev. X, 19. Aaron was explaining why he had not eaten of the sin-offering offered on the day of his consecration, viz., because he had lost two sons on that day.
(27) Since there were no other priests to eat thereof.
(28) Thus aninuth on the night following is Scriptural.
(29) Sc. the law of aninuth on the night after the day of death.