זבחים 28 — parallel

28:1

is as the fat-tail: [then the difficulty arises:] surely he intends for man what is for the altar's consumption? — Said Samuel, The author of this is R. Eliezer, who maintains that you can intend [with effect] for human consumption what is meant for the altar's consumption, and for the altar's consumption what is meant for human consumption. For we learnt: If one slaughters a sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten, or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burnt, it is fit; but R. Eliezer invalidates [the sacrifice]. How have you explained it? as agreeing with R. Eliezer? Then consider the sequel: This is the general rule: Whoever slaughters, receives, carries, and sprinkles [intending] to eat what is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] what is normally burnt [after time etc.] . . . thus, only what is normally eaten, but not what is not normally eaten, which agrees with the Rabbis. Thus the first clause agrees with R. Eliezer and the final clause with the Rabbis? — Even so, he answered him. R. Huna said: The skin of the fat-tail is not as the fat-tail. Rabbah observed. What is R. Huna's reason? — The fat thereof [is] the fat-tail [entire], but not the skin of the fat-tail. R. Hisda said: In truth, the skin of the fat-tail is as the fat-tail, but we treat here [in the Mishnah] of the fat-tail of a goat. Now, all these [scholars] did not say as Samuel, [because] they would not make the first clause agree with R. Eliezer and the second clause with the Rabbis. They did not say as R. Huna, because they hold that the skin of the fat-tail is as the fat-tail. [But] why do they not say as R. Hisda? — Because what does [the Tanna of the Mishnah] inform us [on this view]? [Presumably] that the skin of the fat-tail is as the fat-tail! Surely we have learnt it: The skin of the following is as their flesh: the skin under the fat-tail? And R. Hisda? — It is necessary: You might think that only in respect of uncleanness does it combine, because it is soft; but as for here, I would say [Scripture writes] [Even all the hallowed things of the children of Israel unto thee have I given them] for a consecrated portion, which means, as a symbol of greatness,[so that they must be eaten] just as kings eat; and kings do not eat thus. [Hence] I would say [that it is] not [as the flesh]; therefore he informs us [that it is]. An objection is raised: if one slaughters a burnt-offering [intending] to burn as much as an olive of the skin under the fat-tail out of bounds, it is invalid, but does not involve kareth; after time, it is piggul, and involves kareth. Eleazar b. Judah of Avlas said on the authority of R. Jacob, and thus also did R. Simeon b. Judah of Kefar ‘Iccum say on the authority of R. Simeon: The skin of the legs of small cattle, the skin of the head of a young calf, and the skin under the fat-tail, and all cases which the Sages enumerated of the skin being the same as the flesh, which includes the skin of the Pudenda: [if he intended eating or burning these] out of bounds [the sacrifice] is invalid, and does not involve kareth; after time, it is piggul, and involves kareth. Thus [this is taught] only [of] the burnt-offering. but not [of] a sacrifice. As for R. Huna, it is well; it is right that he specifies a burnt-offering. But according to R. Hisda, why does he particularly teach ‘burnt-offering’: let him teach ‘sacrifice’? — R. Hisda can answer you: I can explain this as referring to the fat-tail of a goat; alternatively I can answer: Read ‘sacrifice’. IT IS UNFIT, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH etc. Whence do we know it? — Said Samuel: Two texts are written. What are they? — Said Rabbah: [And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be at all eaten] on the third day: this refers to [an intention of eating the flesh] after time; it shall be piggul [an abhorred thing] refers to [an intention of eating the flesh] out of bounds; and the soul that eateth of it [shall bear his iniquity:] [only] one [involves kareth], but not two, viz., after time, and excluding out of bounds. Yet say that ‘and the soul that eateth of it’ refers to out of bounds, and excludes after time? — It is logical that after time is graver, since [Scripture] commences with it. On the contrary, out of bounds is more likely [to be meant] since it is near it? — Rather said Abaye: When R. Isaac b. Abdimi came, he said: Rabbah relies on what a Tanna taught. [Viz.;] When Scripture mentions the ‘third [day]’ in the pericope ‘Ye shall be holy’, which need not be stated, since it has already been said, And if any of the flesh of his sacrifices be at all eaten on the third day etc.;

—

28:2

— if it is superfluous in respect of after time, apply it to out of bounds. and the Divine Law expresses a limitation in connection with nothar: But every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, which excludes [eating or intending to eat] out of bounds. Yet say that ‘but every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity’ refers to out of bounds, and thus excludes nothar from kareth? — It is logical that nothar must be made to involve kareth, so that the meaning of ‘iniquity’, where it refers to [the intention of] eating after time, may be learned by analogy, since it is similar thereto in respect of Zab. On the contrary, [eating] without bounds should be made to involve kareth, so that the meaning of ‘iniquity’, where it refers to [the intention of] eating after time, may be learned by analogy, since it is similar thereto in respect of Mikdash? Rather said R. Johanan, Zabdi b. Levi taught: Kodesh is learned from kodesh. Here is written, Because he hath profaned the kodesh [holy thing] of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from the people; and it is written elsewhere, [And if ought of the flesh of the consecration, or of the bread, remain unto the morning,] then thou shalt burn the nothar [remainder] with fire,’ it shall not be eaten, because it is kodesh [holy]: just as there, [kodesh is connected with] nothar, so here too [it is connected with] nothar, and the Divine Law expresses a limitation in connection with nothar: But every one that eateth it shall bear his iniquity, which excludes without bounds from kareth. And why do you interpret the long text as referring to after time, and ‘third’ in the pericope ‘Ye shall be holy’ as referring to without bounds; perhaps I may reverse it? — It is logical that the long text refers to after time, since the meaning of ‘iniquity’ is learned by analogy from nothar, and [after time] is similar thereto in respect of Zab. On the contrary, [say that ] the long text refers to without bounds, and ‘third’ in ‘Ye shall be holy’ refers to after time: because it is similar thereto [Scripture] places it close by and excludes it? — Rather said Raba: The whole is deduced from the long text. For it is written, ‘[But if any of the flesh be] at all eaten’: Scripture refers to two eatings, viz., eating by man and eating by the altar. ‘Of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings’: as [parts of] the peace-offerings render piggul, and parts are rendered piggul, so [in sacrifices where there are parts which] render piggul and [parts which] are made piggul [the law of piggul applies]. ‘Third’ means after time. ‘It shall not be accepted’: as the acceptance of the valid [sacrifice], so is the acceptance of the invalid. And as the acceptance of the valid necessitates that all its mattirin be offered, so does the acceptance of the invalid necessitate that all its mattirin be offered. ‘Him that offereth’: it becomes unfit in offering, but does not become unfit through [being eaten on] the third [day]. ‘It’: Scripture speaks of the sacrifice, and not of the priest. ‘It shall not be imputed’:

—