Zevachim — Daf 108a

ראש בן יונה שאין בו כזית ומלח משלימו לכזית מהו

א"ל רבא מפרזקיא לרב אשי לאו היינו פלוגתייהו דר' יוחנן ור"ל תיבעי לרבי יוחנן ותיבעי לר"ל

תיבעי לר' יוחנן ע"כ לא קאמר ר' יוחנן התם אלא עצם דמינא דבשר הוא אבל מלח דלאו מינא דבר יונה הוא לא תיבעי לר"ל ע"כ לא קאמר ר"ל התם אלא דאי פריש מינה לאו מצוה לאסוקי אבל הכא דאי פריש מצוה לאסוקי לא או דלמא ל"ש

תיקו:

ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר כו':

השיב רבי תחת רבי יוסי הגלילי מה לשוחט בפנים ומעלה בחוץ שהיתה לו שעת הכושר תאמר בשוחט חוץ ומעלה בחוץ שלא היתה לו שעת הכושר

השיב ר"א בר' שמעון תחת ר"י הגלילי מה לשוחט בפנים ומעלה בחוץ שכן קודש מקבלו תאמר בשוחט בחוץ שאין קודש מקבלו

מאי בינייהו אמר זעירי שחיטת לילה איכא בינייהו

רבה אמר קבלה בכלי חול איכא בינייהו:

טמא שאכל בין קודש כו':

שפיר קאמרי ליה רבנן לרבי יוסי הגלילי

אמר רבא כל היכא דנטמא טומאת הגוף ואחר כך נטמא בשר דכולי עלמא לא פליגי דחייב שכן טומאת הגוף בכרת

כי פליגי בשנטמא בשר ואח"כ נטמא הגוף

דרבנן סברי אמרינן מיגו ור' יוסי הגלילי סבר לא אמרינן מיגו

ורבי יוסי נהי דמיגו לא אמרינן תיתי טומאת הגוף דחמירא ותחול על טומאת בשר

אמר רב אשי ממאי דטומאת הגוף חמורה דלמא טומאת בשר חמורה שכן אין לה טהרה במקוה:

מתני׳ חומר בשחיטה מבעלייה ובעלייה מבשחיטה

חומר בשחיטה שהשוחט להדיוט חייב והמעלה להדיוט פטור חומר בעלייה שנים שאחזו בסכין ושחטו פטורים אחזו באבר והעלו חייבין

העלה חזר והעלה וחזר והעלה חייב על כל עלייה דברי ר"ש ר' יוסי אומר אינו חייב אלא אחת

ואינו חייב עד שיעלה לראש המזבח ר"ש אומר אפילו העלה על הסלע או על האבן חייב:

גמ׳ מאי שנא המעלה להדיוט דפטור דכתיב (ויקרא יז, ד) לה' בשחיטה נמי הכתיב לה'

שאני התם דאמר קרא (ויקרא יז, ג) איש איש גבי העלאה נמי כתיב איש איש מיבעי ליה לשנים שהעלו באבר חייבין

אי הכי ה"נ מיבעי ליה לשנים שאחזו בסכין ושחטו שחייבין שאני התם דאמר קרא ההוא אחד ולא שנים

אי הכי גבי העלאה נמי הא כתיב ההוא מיבעי ליה

the head of a pigeon. which is not as much as an olive, but the salt makes it up to an olive? Said Raba of Parzakia1 to R. Ashi: Is not that the controversy of R. Johanan and Resh Lakish? — [No:] You may ask on R. Johanan's view, and you may ask on the view of Resh Lakish. You may ask on R. Johanan's view: R. Johanan gives his ruling only there, in respect of the bone, which is related to the flesh,2 but not in the case of salt, which is not related to the flesh; [or perhaps, there is no difference]? You may ask on the view of Resh Lakish: Resh Lakish gives his ruling only there in respect of the bone, because if it parts from it [the flesh], there is no obligation to take it up [on the altar]; but not here, where if it parts, there is an obligation to take it up;3 or perhaps, there is no difference? The question stands over. R. JOSE THE GALILEAN SAID etc. Rabbi answered on behalf of R. Jose the Galilean: As for one who slaughters within and offers up without, the reason is because it had a time of fitness; will you say [the same] when one slaughters without and offers up without, where it never had a period of fitness? R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon answered on behalf of R. Jose the Galilean: As for slaughtering within and offering up without, that is because the sanctuary [the alter] receives it;4 will you say [the same] when one slaughters without and offers up without, where the Sanctuary does not receive it ?5 Wherein do they differ?6 — Said Ze'iri: They differ in respect to slaughtering at night.7 Rabbah said: They disagree where one received it [the blood] in a non-sacred vessel. 8 AN UNCLEAN [PERSON] WHO EATS [OF SACRIFICES], WHETHER UNCLEAN SACRIFICES etc. The Rabbis say well to R. Jose the Galilean? — Said Raba: Where the [priest's] body [first] became unclean, and then the flesh became unclean, none disagree that he is liable, because personal defilement involves kareth. They disagree where the flesh [first] became unclean and then the [priest's] body became unclean : the Rabbis hold, We say miggo [‘since’]; whereas R. Jose the Galilean holds: We do not say miggo.9 Now according to R. Jose, granted that we do not say miggo, yet let his personal uncleanness, which is graver, come and fall upon the uncleanness of the flesh?10 — Said R. Ashi: How do you know that personal uncleanness is more stringent? Perhaps uncleanness of the flesh is more stringent, since it cannot be purified in a mikweh. 11 MISHNAH. SLAUGHTERING [WITHOUT] IS MORE STRINGENT THAN OFFERING UP [WITHOUT], AND OFFERING UP [IS MORE STRINGENT] THAN SLAUGHTERING. SLAUGHTERING IS MORE STRINGENT, FOR HE WHO SLAUGHTERS [A SACRIFICE] ON BEHALF OF MAN12 IS CULPABLE, WHEREAS HE WHO OFFERS UP TO A MAN IS NOT CULPABLE.13 OFFERING UP IS MORE STRINGENT: TWO WHO HOLD A KNIFE AND SLAUGHTER [WITHOUT] ARE NOT CULPABLE, [WHEREAS] IF THEY TAKE HOLD OF A LIMB AND OFFER IT UP, THEY ARE CULPABLE. IF ONE OFFERED UP, THEN OFFERED UP AGAIN, THEN OFFERED UP AGAIN,14 HE IS CULPABLE IN RESPECT OF EACH [ACT OF] OFFERING UP: THESE ARE THE WORDS OF R. SIMEON. R. JOSE SAID: HE IS LIABLE ONLY TO ONE [SIN-OFFERING]. HE IS LIABLE ONLY WHEN HE OFFERS UP ON THE TOP OF AN ALTAR;15 R. SIMEON SAID: HE IS LIABLE EVEN IF HE OFFERS UP ON THE TOP OF A ROCK OR A STONE. GEMARA. Why is offering up to a man [without] different, that it is not culpable? [presumably] because unto the Lord is written!16 Then in the case of slaughtering too, surely ‘unto the Lord’ is written?17 — There it is different, because Scripture saith, ‘What man soever’.18 ‘What man soever’ is written in connection with offering up too? — That is required for teaching that when two men offer up a limb, they are liable. If so, [say that] here too it is required for teaching that if two men hold the knife and slaughter, they are liable? — There it is different, because Scripture saith, that [man]:19 [this implies,] one, but not two. If so, ‘that [man]’ is written in connection with offering up too? — That is required covenant of thy God to be lacking (Lev. II, 13). (v. supra 84a). had a period of fitness, for a sacrifice slaughtered at night is unfit. According to R. Eliezer, he is culpable, for if it is laid on the altar, it does not descend. Now, in the latter case posited by Raba the flesh was already forbidden on account of its own uncleanness. Nevertheless the Rabbis hold that the interdict of personal uncleanness can fall upon the first and be added to it, because it is more comprehensive, as now not only is that piece forbidden to him, but all other pieces, and so we argue: since (miggo) he is interdicted in respect of other pieces, he is also interdicted through his personal uncleanness in respect of this piece too, though that is forbidden in any case. Consequently he is liable to a sin-offering. R. Jose does not accept this argument of miggo, and holds that since the flesh is already forbidden, his own uncleanness does not count at all, and he is not liable. If, however, he became unclean first, he was already forbidden to eat any flesh on pain of a sin-offering, simply because the flesh became unclean. that is only where both are of equal gravity. Here, however, personal uncleanness is more stringent, since it involves a sin-offering, whereas the uncleanness of the flesh does not. that it was forbidden, and then forgot. meeting to sacrifice it unto the Lord, even that man shall be cut off from his people. ‘Unto the Lord’ shews that Scripture speaks of one who is offering to God, not to man, and only then does he incur kareth (or, a sin-offering if he acts in ignorance). present it as an offering unto the Lord.