Pesachim — Daf 73a

(במדבר יח, ז) עבודת מתנה אתן את כהונתכם והזר הקרב יומת עשו אכילת תרומה בגבולין כעבודת ביהמ"ק:

שחטו שלא לאוכליו: פשיטא כיון דהתם פסול הכא חייב משום דתנא סיפא פטור תנא רישא חייב

והא נמי פשיטא משום דהתם כשר הכא פטור אלא איידי דתנא שחטו שלא לשמו בשבת תנא נמי שלא לאוכליו והיא גופא למה לי משום דקבעי לאיפלוגי ר' אליעזר ור' יהושע

א"ל רב הונא בר חיננא לבריה כי אזלת לקמיה דרבי זריקא בעי מיניה לדברי האומר מקלקל בחבורה פטור שחטו שלא לאוכליו חייב מה תיקן

תיקן אם עלו לא ירדו

שחטו ונמצא בעל מום חייב מה תיקן תיקן בדוקין שבעין ואליבא דר"ע דאמר אם עלו לא ירדו

שחטו ונמצא טריפה בסתר פטור הא בגלוי חייב מה תיקן תיקן להוציא מידי נבילה

מתקיף לה רבינא הא דתניא השוחט חטאת בשבת בחוץ לע"ז חייב עליה ג' חטאות מה תיקן

אמר רב עוירא שמוציאו מידי אבר מן החי:

שחטו ונודע וכו': א"ר הונא אמר רב אשם שניתק לרעיה ושחטו סתם כשר לעולה אלמא קסבר לא בעי עקירה

א"ה כי לא ניתק נמי גזירה לאחר כפרה אטו לפני כפרה

ומנא תימרא דתנן אשם שמתו בעליו או שנתכפרו בעליו ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויפלו דמיו לנדבה ר' אליעזר אומר ימות ר' יהושע אומר ימכר ויביא בדמיו עולה

בדמיו אין אבל גופו לא דגזר לאחר כפרה אטו לפני כפרה ש"מ

איתיביה רב חסדא לרב הונא שחטו ונודע שמשכו בעלים את ידם וכו'

I give you the priesthood as a service of [‘abodath] gift; and the common man that draweth nigh shall be put to death:1 [thus] they made the eating of terumah in the borders2 as [equivalent to] the ‘abodah in the Temple. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT ITS EATERS [etc,]. That is obvious: since it is [taught] there3 [that it is] unfit, he is liable here?4 — Because the second clause teaches, HE IS NOT LIABLE, the first clause teaches, HE IS LIABLE. But that too is obvious: Since [the sacrifice] is fit there, he is not liable here?- Rather, because he teaches, IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE ON THE SABBATH, he also teaches [about] THOSE WHO ARE NOT ITS EATERS. And what is the purpose of that itself?5 — [He states it] because he wishes to teach the controversy of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua.6 R. Huna b. Hinena said to his son, ‘When you go before R. Zerika, ask him: On the view that he who causes damage through a wound is not liable,7 [when we learned] IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT ITS EATERS, HE IS LIABLE, what [of positive value] has he effected? — He effected [this. viz.,] that if they [the emurim] ascended [the top of the altar], they do not descend.8 IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT, AND IT WAS FOUND TO POSSESS A BLEMISH, HE IS LIABLE: what [of positive value] has he effected?9 — He effected [something positive] in the case of cataracts in the eye,10 this being in accordance with R. Akiba, who maintained: If they [the emurim] ascended, they do not descend,11 IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE TEREFAH INTERNALLY, HE IS NOT CULPABLE. Hence if it is in an exposed part, he is culpable; [yet] what has he effected?12 — He effected its withdrawal from the scope of nebelah.13 Rabina demurred: As to what was taught: He who slaughters a sin-offering on the Sabbath without [the Temple] to an idol, is liable on account thereof to three sin-offerings:14 -what has he effected?15 -Said R. ‘Awira: Because he withdraws it from [the interdict of] a limb [cut] from a live animal.16 IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT BECAME KNOWN etc. R. Huna said in Rab's name: A guilt-offering which was transferred to pasture and [then] slaughtered without a specified purpose is fit for a burnt-offering.17 This proves that he holds that it does not require [express] abrogation.18 If so, [even] if it was not transferred too?19 [When it is sacrificed thus immediately] after atonement it is preventively forbidden on account of [when it is sacrificed thus even] before atonement.20 And whence do you rule [thus]? For we learned: A guilt-offering whose owner died or whose owner [otherwise] obtained atonement must graze until it becomes unfit;21 then it is sold, and its money falls [is utilized] for a voluntary offering.22 R. Eliezer said: It is left to die.23 R. Joshua said: he can sell it and bring a burnt-offering for its money.24 Thus, only for its money, but not that itself, because he preventively forbids [it when sacrificed] after atonement on account of [when it is sacrificed] before atonement. This proves it. R. Hisda raised an objection against R. Huna: IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT BECAME KNOWN THAT THE OWNERS HAD WITHDRAWN THEIR HANDS etc. ‘abohah. causing damage, however, a man is not liable (Shab. 105b); but in respect to damage by wounding there is a controversy ibid, 106a. not descend but must be burnt there. Temple. source of defilement! (Rashi). R. Han.: a man is culpable when he eats as much as an olive of the limb of a live animal even if it is made up of flesh, tendons and bones; now, however, it ranks as nebelah, and he is liable only when he eats as much as an olive of the flesh, by itself, excluding the tendons and bones. transgression. Now, if a man dedicates an animal for one of these, and then dies, or dedicates and sacrifices another animal in its place, then the first, if a sin-offering, must be allowed to perish; if a guilt-offering, it must be put out to pasture until it receives a blemish, when it is redeemed and reverts to hullin (v. Glos.), while the redemption money is allocated to a special fund for voluntary sacrifices, which take the form of burnt-offerings. Nov, if he slaughtered it (in the Temple Court) before it received a blemish, it is valid as a burnt-offering, since that would eventually have been brought in any case. The flesh is then burnt on the altar, while the hide belongs to the priests. the text and Tosaf. a.l. it would appear that if he slaughters it as a burnt-offering before transferring it to pasture it is unfit, even if it was done. While even after it was transferred to pasture it is fit for a burnt-offering only if it was thus sacrificed, so that we are faced with a fait accompli. But at the outset it may not be sacrificed even after it is transferred to pasture. so that he himself can slaughter it, he lays his hands upon it (Lev. I, 4), and the accompanying drink-offerings are at his expense. Whereas when the money goes into the fund it is brought as a public sacrifice, and the foregoing are absent.