Zevachim — Daf 26a

שחט ואחר כך חתך פסולה

חתך ואח"כ שחט כשרה בעל מום קא מקריב אלא אימא [חתך ואח"כ קיבל כשרה] קיבל ואח"כ חתך פסולה

חתך ואח"כ קיבל כשרה והא א"ר זירא הצורם אזן בבכור ואח"כ קיבל דמו פסול שנאמר ולקח מדם הפר פר שהיה כבר

א"ר חסדא אמר אבימי חותך באבר עד שמגיע לעצם

קיבל ואח"כ חתך פסולה שמעת מינה דם המובלע באברים דם הוא

דלמא משום שמנונית

שמעת מינה בשר קדשים קלים שיצא לפני זריקת דם פסול

דלמא בקדשי קדשים

ת"ר קדשי קדשים שחיטתן בצפון וקבול דמן בכלי שרת בצפון עמד בדרום והושיט ידו לצפון ושחט שחיטתו כשרה קיבל קבלתו פסולה הכניס ראשו ורובו כאילו נכנס כולו פרכסה ויצתה לדרום וחזרה כשרה

קדשים קלים שחיטתן בפנים וקיבול דמן בכלי שרת בפנים עמד בחוץ והכניס ידו לפנים ושחט שחיטתו כשרה קיבל קבלתו פסולה הכניס ראשו ורובו כאילו לא נכנס פרכסה ויצתה לחוץ וחזרה פסולה שמע מינה בשר קדשים קלים שיצא לפני זריקת דמים פסולים

דילמא באליה ויותרת הכבד ושתי כליות

בעא מיניה אבוה דשמואל משמואל היא בפנים ורגליה בחוץ מהו

א"ל כתיב (ויקרא יז, ה) והביאום לה' עד שתהא כולה לפנים

תלה ושחט מהו א"ל כשרה א"ל אישתבשת בעינן שחיטה על ירך וליכא

נתלה ושחט מהו אמר ליה פסולה אמר ליה אישתבשת שחיטה על ירך ולא שוחט על ירך

נתלה וקבל מהו אמר ליה כשרה אמר ליה אישתבשת אין דרך שירות בכך

תלה וקיבל מהו אמר ליה פסולה אמר ליה אישתבשת שחיטה על ירך ולא קבלה על ירך

אמר אביי בקדשי קדשים כולן פסולות בר מנתלה ושחט בקדשים קלים כולן כשרות בר מן נתלה וקיבל

אמר רבא מאי שנא תלה וקיבל בקדשים קלים דכשרה דאויר פנים כפנים דמי בקדשי קדשים נמי אויר צפון כצפון דמי

אלא אמר רבא בין בקדשי קדשים בין בקדשים קלים כשרות בר מן תלה ושחט בקדשי קדשים נתלה וקיבל בין בקדשי קדשים בין בקדשים קלים

בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי זירא הוא בפנים וציציתו בחוץ מהו אמר ליה לאו אמרת והביאום לה' עד שתבא כולה לפנים הכא נמי (שמות כח, מג) בבואם אל אהל מועד עד שיבא כולו לאהל מועד:

מתני׳ נתנו על גבי הכבש שלא כנגד היסוד נתן את הניתנין למטה למעלה ואת הניתנין למעלה למטה ואת הניתנין בפנים בחוץ ואת הניתנין בחוץ בפנים פסול ואין בו כרת:

if he slaughtered and then cut off [the legs], it is unfit.1 ‘If he cut off [the legs] and then slaughtered [it], it is fit’? Surely he offers a blemished animal! — Say rather: if he cut off [the legs] and then received [the blood], it is fit; if he received [the blood] and then cut off [the legs] it is unfit. ‘If he cut off [the legs] and then received [the blood] it is fit’? Surely R. Zera said: if one slits the ear of a firstling2 and then receives its blood, it is unfit, because it says. ‘And he shall take of the blood of the bullock’, [implying,] the bullock as it was originally! — Said R. Hisda in Abimi's name: He cuts the limb as far as the bone.3 ‘If he received [the blood] and then cut, it is unfit’: from this you may infer that the blood which is absorbed in the limbs is blood?4 — [No:] perhaps [the unfitness is] on account of the fattiness.5 Then you may infer from this that if the flesh of sacrifices of lower sanctity passes out [from the Temple court] before the sprinkling of the blood, it is unfit?6 — [No:] perhaps [R. Ammi in R. Eleazar's name] referred to sacrifices of higher sanctity. Our Rabbis taught: Sacrifices of higher sanctity are slaughtered on the north [side of the Temple court], and their blood is received on the north in service vessels. If he stood in the south, stretched out his hand to the north and slaughtered, his slaughtering is valid; if he [thus] received [the blood], his reception is invalid. If he projected his head and the greater part of his body [into the north side].7 it is as though he had entered [the north] entirely. If [the animal] struggled and passed over into the south8 and then returned, it is fit.9 Sacrifices of lower sanctity are slaughtered [anywhere] within [the Temple court], and their blood is received in a service vessel within. If he stood without and stretched his hand within and slaughtered, his slaughtering is valid; if he received [the blood thus], his reception is invalid. If he projected his head and the greater part of his body within, he is not regarded as having entered. If it struggled8 and went without and returned, it is unfit. This proves that sacrifices of lower sanctity whose flesh went without before the sprinkling of the blood are unfit! — [No:] perhaps this refers to the fat-tail, the lobe above the liver, and the two kidneys. 10 Samuel's father asked Samuel: What if it [the animal] is within, while its feet are without?11 — It is written, Even that they may bring them unto the Lord,12 he replied, [which intimates] that the whole of it must be within. What if one suspended13 [the animal] and slaughtered it? It is valid, he replied. You have erred, he observed, for the slaughtering must be ‘on the side’ [of the altar],14 which provision is unfulfilled.15 What if [the slaughterer] was suspended and slaughtered [thus]?16 — It is invalid, he replied.17 You have erred, said he; the slaughtering must be ‘on the side’ but the slaughterer need not be ‘on the side’. What if he suspended himself and received [the blood]? It is valid, he replied.18 You have erred, observed he, for such is not the way of service.19 What if he suspended [the sacrifice]20 and received [the blood]? — It is invalid, he answered. You have erred, he retorted: slaughtering must be ‘on the side’, but receiving need not be ‘on the side’. Abaye said: In the case of sacrifices of higher sanctity21 they are all invalid, except where he suspended himself and slaughtered.22 In the case of sacrifices of lower sanctity, they are all valid, except where he suspended himself and received [the blood].23 Said Raba: Why do you say that if he suspended [the animal] and received the blood it is valid in the case of sacrifices of lower sanctity? [Presumably] because the air-space of within is as within! Then in the case of sacrifices of higher sanctity too, the air-space of the north is as the north? — Rather said Raba: In the case of sacrifices of both higher and lower sanctity they are [all] valid, except in the case of sacrifices of higher sanctity, where he suspended [the animal] and slaughtered it,24 and in the cases of sacrifices of both higher and lower sanctity, where he suspended himself and received [the blood]. R. Jeremiah asked R. Zera: What if he [the priest] is within and his locks [of hair] are without? — Said he to him, Have you not said that ‘even that they may bring them unto the Lord’ intimates that the whole of it [the animal] must come within? So here too, when they go in unto the tent of meeting25 intimates, that the whole of him must enter the tent of meeting. MISHNAH. IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED IT [THE BLOOD] ON THE ASCENT,26 [OR ON THE ALTAR, BUT] NOT OVER AGAINST ITS BASE;27 IF HE APPLIED [THE BLOOD] WHICH SHOULD BE APPLIED BELOW [THE SCARLET LINE] ABOVE [IT]. OR THAT WHICH SHOULD BE APPLIED ABOVE, BELOW;28 OR THAT WHICH SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHIN [HE APPLIED] WITHOUT, OR WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHOUT [HE APPLIED] WITHIN,29 IT IS UNFIT, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.30 with the rest of the blood. Temple court, from ascending and mingling with the blood above, which is within. (cf. Hul. 113a), it could not disqualify the other blood which is received and sprinkled. out from the neck and thus disqualifies it. that he could easily stretch over to the other side. higher sanctity. north, and he holds that the air-space of the north is not the north itself. Hence if he suspended himself and received the blood it is invalid. way of service. This excludes the south-east corner, which had no base (infra 53a).