Parallel
מנחות 56
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
It includes the he-goats offered for the sin of idolatry for the requirement of the laying on of hands. Rabina demurred, [saying], It is well according to R. Judah's view, but what is to be said if R. Simeon's view is followed? Thereupon Mar Zutra the son of R. Mari said to Rabina, But even according to R. Judah should we not say that that which is expressly included is included, and that which is not included is not included? And if you retort that without a verse to exclude it you would have included it by virtue of the general principle, then with regard to the requirement of laying on of hands Scripture should have been silent concerning it since it would have been included by virtue of the general principle. But [you would answer that] we may not derive [the regulations applicable, to] a temporary enactment from a permanent law, then with regard to this, too, we may not derive a temporary enactment from a permanent law! — This then is the interpretation: ‘It’ must be [slaughtered] on the north side but the slaughterer need not stand at the north side. But is not this to be derived from R. Ahiyah's teaching? For it was taught: R. Ahiyah says, Wherefore does the text state, And he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward? It is because concerning the receiving [of the blood] we know that [the priest] must stand on the north side and receive [the blood] on the north side, and if he stood on the south side and received [the blood] on the north side the offering is invalid; now I might have thought that it is the same here [with regard to the slaughtering], Scripture therefore stated ‘it’, signifying that ‘it’ must be on the north side but the slaughterer need not stand on the north side! — Rather [then interpret it thus]: ‘It’ must be on the north side but [the killing of] a bird-offering need not be on the north side. For I might have argued [that this was essential] by an a fortiori argument from a lamb-offering thus: if [the slaughtering of] a lamb-offering, which does not require the services of a priest, must be performed on the north side, is it not right that [the killing of] a bird-offering, which requires the services of a priest, shall be performed on the north side? But surely [one can retort,] this is so with a lamb-offering because it requires an instrument [for the slaughtering]! — Rather then [we must interpret it as follows]: ‘It’ must be on the north side, but the slaughtering of the Passover-offering need not be on the north side. But is not the [exclusion of the] Passover-offering derived from the teaching of R. Eliezer b. Jacob? For it was taught: R. Eliezer b. Jacob said, One might think that the Passover-offering requires slaughtering on the north side by reason of this a fortiori argument: if the slaughtering of a burnt-offering, which has no fixed time for the slaughtering, must be performed on the north side, is it not right that the slaughtering of the Passover-offering, which has a fixed time for the slaughtering thereof, shall be performed on the north side? But surely [one can retort,] this is so with a burnt-offering because it is wholly burnt! — One can argue the case from the sin-offering. But surely [one can retort that] this is so with the sin-offering because it effects atonement for those that are liable to the penalty of kareth! — One can argue the case from the guilt-offering. But surely this is so with the guilt-offering because it is a Most Holy offering. And if one were to argue the case from all these offerings, [one could retort that] this is so with all these mentioned because they are all Most Holy offerings! — Rather [we must say that the interpretation] is indeed as stated previously: ‘It’ must be on the north side but the slaughterer need not be on the north side; and as for your objection ‘Is not this to be derived from R. Ahiyah's teaching?’ [I say that] R. Ahiyah comes [not to teach] that the slaughterer need not be on the north side; he teaches rather that, in contradistinction from the slaughterer who need not be on the north side, the receiver of the blood must be on the north side. But is not this rule regarding the receiver of the blood derived from [the fact that Scripture states], ‘And he shall take’ and not ‘he shall take’? — He [R. Ahiyah] does not base any exposition on the fact that Scripture states ‘And he shall take’ and not ‘he shall take’. ONE IS LIABLE FOR THE KNEADING AS WELL AS FOR THE SHAPING AND FOR THE BAKING. R. Papa said, If a man baked [the meal-offering leavened], he has incurred stripes on two counts, once for shaping it [while leavened] and again for baking it. But have you not said above ‘As the baking is described as a specific work and one is liable solely on account of it’? — This is no difficulty, for in the one case he shaped it and also baked it, but in the other case another shaped it and he baked it. Our Rabbis taught: If a firstling was attacked with congestion, it may be bled in a place where no blemish would result, but it may not be bled in a place where a blemish would result. So R. Meir. The Sages say, It may be bled even in a place where a blemish would result, provided that it is not slaughtered by reason of that blemish. R. Simeon says,
—
It may even be slaughtered by reason of that blemish. R. Judah says, It may not be bled even though it would otherwise die. R. Hiyya b. Abba said in the name of R. Johanan, All agree that whosoever leavens [the meal-offering] after it was already leavened is liable, for it is written, It shall not be made leavened, and it is also written, It shall not be baked leavened. And that whosoever castrates a beast after it was already castrated is liable, for it is written, That which hath its stones bruised or crushed or torn off or cut, [. . . neither shall ye do thus in your land]. Now if one is liable for cutting how much more so for tearing off! [Wherefore is the latter mentioned?] To teach that one is also liable if one tears them away after they were already cut. They only differ as to whether one may blemish a blemished animal. R. Meir says, It is written, There shall be no blemish at all therein; but the Rabbis say, It is written, It shall be perfect to be accepted. Against R. Meir [it will be objected], is there not written, ‘It shall be perfect to be accepted’? — That would only exclude what was born blemished. But what was born blemished is no better than a tree! — It excludes rather consecrated animals that have been rendered unfit [by reason of a blemish] and have been redeemed; for I might have argued that since these may not be sheared of their wool nor put to any labour it is also forbidden to inflict any further blemish upon them, we are therefore taught [that it is not so]. And against the Rabbis [it will be objected], is it not written, ‘There shall be no blemish at all therein’? — That verse is necessary for the following teaching: It is written, ‘There shall be no blemish at all therein’: I gather from this that one may not inflict any blemish upon it, but whence do I know that one may not cause it to suffer a blemish indirectly, [e.g.] that one may not place a lump of dough or a pressed fig upon its ear so as to tempt a dog to take it? The text therefore says, ‘No blemish at all’; not only does it say ‘no blemish’ but also ‘no blemish at all’. R. Ammi said, If a man placed leaven upon the dough [of a meal-offering] and went and sat him down, and the dough became leavened of its own, he is liable for it, just as it is an act of work on the Sabbath. But would one be liable for doing such an act of work as this on the Sabbath? Has not Rabbah b. Bar Hanah said
—