Zevachim — Daf 28a

כאליה דמי והא קא מחשב מאכילת מזבח לאדם

אמר שמואל הא מני ר' אליעזר היא דאמר מחשבין מאכילת מזבח לאכילת אדם ומאכילת אדם לאכילת מזבח

דתנן השוחט את הזבח לאכול דבר שאין דרכו לאכול להקטיר דבר שאין דרכו להקטיר כשר ור"א פוסל

במאי אוקימתא כר"א אימא סיפא זה הכלל כל השוחט והמקבל והמוליך והזורק לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול ולהקטיר דבר שדרכו להקטיר

דבר שדרכו לאכול אין שאין דרכו לאכול לא אתאן לרבנן רישא ר' אליעזר וסיפא רבנן אמר ליה אין

רב הונא אמר עור אליה לאו כאליה דמי אמר רבא מ"ט דרב הונא (ויקרא ג, ט) חלבו האליה ולא עור האליה

רב חסדא אמר לעולם עור האליה כאליה דמי והכא במאי עסקינן באליה של גדי

כולהו כשמואל לא אמרי רישא ר"א וסיפא רבנן לא מוקמי כרב הונא לא אמרי עור אליה כאליה דמי קא משמע להו

כרב חסדא מאי טעמא לא אמרי מאי קמ"ל עור אליה כאליה דמי תנינא ואלו שעורותיהן כבשרן עור שתחת האליה

ורב חסדא איצטריך סד"א ה"מ לענין טומאה דרכיך מצטרף אבל הכא אימא (במדבר יח, ח) למשחה לגדולה כדרך שהמלכים אוכלין ולא עבידי מלכים דאכלי הכי אימא לא קמ"ל

מיתיבי השוחט את העולה להקטיר כזית מעור שתחת האליה חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת חוץ לזמנו פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת

אלעזר בן יהודה איש אבלי' אומר משום רבי יעקב וכן היה רבי שמעון בן יהודה איש כפר עיכוס אומר משום ר' שמעון אחד עור בית הפרסות בהמה דקה ואחד עור הראש של עגל הרך ואחד עור שתחת האליה וכל שמנו חכמים גבי טומאה ואלו שעורותיהן כבשרן להביא עור של בית הבושת חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת חוץ לזמנו פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת

עולה אין אבל זבח לא בשלמא לרב הונא היינו דקתני עולה אלא לרב חסדא מאי איריא דתני עולה ליתני זבח

אמר לך רב חסדא איבעית אימא באליה של גדי ואיבעית אימא תני זבח:

פסול ואין בו כרת כו': מנה"מ אמר שמואל תרי קראי כתיבי

מאי היא אמר רבה (ויקרא ז, יז) שלישי זהו חוץ לזמנו

פיגול זהו חוץ למקומו והנפש האוכלת ממנו אחד ולא שנים זהו חוץ לזמנו ולמעוטי חוץ למקומו

ואימא והנפש האוכלת ממנו זהו חוץ למקומו ולמעוטי חוץ לזמנו מסתברא חוץ לזמנו עדיף דפתח ביה אדרבה חוץ למקומו עדיף דסמיך ליה

אלא אמר אביי כי אתא רב יצחק בר אבדימי [אמר רב] סמיך אדתני תנא כשהוא אומר שלישי בפרשת קדושים תהיו שאין ת"ל שהרי כבר נאמר (ויקרא ז, יח) ואם האכל יאכל מבשר זבח השלמים ביום השלישי

is as the fat-tail:1 [then the difficulty arises:] surely he intends for man what is for the altar's consumption?2 — 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.3 For we learnt: If one slaughters a sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten,4 or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burnt, it is fit;5 but R. Eliezer invalidates [the sacrifice].6 How have you explained it? as agreeing with R. Eliezer? Then consider the sequel:7 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.8 Rabbah observed. What is R. Huna's reason? — The fat thereof [is] the fat-tail [entire],9 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.10 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!11 Surely we have learnt it: The skin of the following is as their flesh: the skin under the fat-tail?12 And R. Hisda?13 — It is necessary: You might think that only in respect of uncleanness does it combine, because it is soft;14 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,15 which means, as a symbol of greatness,[so that they must be eaten] just as kings eat; and kings do not eat thus.16 [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 burn17 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.18 Thus [this is taught] only [of] the burnt-offering.19 but not [of] a sacrifice.20 As for R. Huna, it is well; it is right that he specifies a burnt-offering.21 But according to R. Hisda,22 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;23 alternatively I can answer: Read ‘sacrifice’. 24 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:]25 [only] one [involves kareth], but not two,26 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?27 — Rather said Abaye: When R. Isaac b. Abdimi came,28 he said: Rabbah29 relies on what a Tanna taught. [Viz.;] When Scripture mentions the ‘third [day]’ in the pericope ‘Ye shall be holy’,30 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.; fat-tail itself, is burnt on the altar ‘entire’ (v. Lev. III, 9). eaten or burnt at all. for human consumption what is meant for the altar's consumption; while on R. Huna's interpretation the Tanna informs us that the skin of the fat-tail is not as the fat-tail. But if it treats of the fat-tail of a goat, then the only thing that the Tanna can inform us is that its skin is regarded as itself in the sense that it is edible, because it is soft, and therefore counts as ordinary flesh. before it can defile as nebelah (carrion. v. Lev. XI, 39f). If there is less than these standards, it can be made up by the skin under the fat-tail (Hul. 122a). Thus this teaches that this skin is as the fat-tail itself, and so the present teaching on R. Hisda's interpretation is superfluous. altar, even in the case of peace-offerings. sacrifice is burnt. no such teaching in respect of a burnt-offering: hence the present ruling can apply to a burnt-offering but not to other sacrifices. the law to eating out of bounds. (the flesh of a sacrifice) be eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul (a vile thing); it shall not be accepted.