Parallel
זבחים 35
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
spoke only of that which was received in a vessel. And how does he himself know that? — The priests are careful; but as they work quickly [the blood] may be spilt. But the draining-blood is mixed with it? — R. Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintained: The draining-blood is called blood. For it was taught: The draining-blood is subject to a ‘warning;’ R. Judah said: It is subject to kareth. But surely R. Eleazar said: R. Judah agrees in respect to atonement, that it does not make atonement, because it is said, For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life: blood wherewith life departs is called blood; blood wherewith life does not depart is not called blood? — Rather [reply]: R. Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintained: Blood cannot nullify [other] blood. R. Judah said to them [the Sages]: On your view, why did they stop up [the holes in] the Temple court? — Said they to him: It is praiseworthy for the sons of Aaron [the priests] to walk in blood up to their ankles. But blood constitutes an interposition? — It was moist, and did not constitute an interposition. For it was taught: Blood, ink, honey, and milk, if dry, interpose; if moist, they do not interpose. But their garments become [blood-] stained, whereas it was taught: If his garments were soiled and he performed the service, his service is unfit? And should you answer that they raised their garments, surely it was taught: [And the priest shall put on] his linen measure: [that means] that it must not be [too] short nor too long? — [They raised them] at the carrying of the limbs to the [altar] ascent, which was not a service. Was it not? Surely it was taught: And the priest shall offer the whole, and burn it on the altar: this refers to the carrying of the limbs to the ascent? — Rather, [they raised them] at the carrying of the wood to the [altar] pile, which was not a service. Nevertheless, how could they walk at the service? — They walked on balconies. MISHNAH. IF ONE SLAUGHTERS THE SACRIFICE [INTENDING] TO EAT WHAT IS NOT NORMALLY EATEN, OR TO BURN [ON THE ALTAR] WHAT IS NOT NORMALLY BURNT, IT IS VALID; BUT R. ELIEZER INVALIDATES [THE SACRIFICE]. [IF HE SLAUGHTERS IT INTENDING] TO EAT WHAT IS NORMALLY EATEN AND TO BURN WHAT IS NORMALLY BURNT, [BUT] LESS THAN THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE, IT IS VALID. TO EAT HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE AND TO BURN HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE, IT IS VALID, BECAUSE [INTENTIONS CONCERNING] EATING AND BURNING DO NOT COMBINE. IF ONE SLAUGHTERS THE SACRIFICE [INTENDING] TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF THE SKIN, OR OF THE JUICE, OR OF THE JELLY, OR OF THE OFFAL, OR OF THE BONES, OR OF THE TENDONS, OR OF THE HORNS, OR OF THE HOOFS, EITHER AFTER TIME OR OUT OF BOUNDS, IT IS VALID, AND ONE IS NOT CULPABLE ON THEIR ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF PIGGUL, NOTHAR, OR UNCLEANNESS. IF ONE SLAUGHTERS SACRED ANIMALS [INTENDING] TO EAT THE FETUS OR THE AFTERBIRTH WITHOUT, HE DOES NOT RENDER PIGGUL. IF ONE WRINGS [THE NECKS OF] DOVES, [INTENDING] TO EAT THEIR EGGS WITHOUT, HE DOES NOT RENDER [THEM] PIGGUL. ONE IS NOT CULPABLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE MILK OF SACRED ANIMALS OR THE EGGS OF DOVES IN RESPECT OF PIGGUL, NOTHAR, OR UNCLEANNESS. GEMARA. R. Eleazar said: If [the priest] expressed a piggul intention in respect of the sacrifice, the fetus [too] becomes piggul; [if he expresses a piggul intention] in connection with the fetus, the sacrifice does not become piggul. If he expresses a piggul intention in respect of the offal, the crop becomes piggul; in respect of the crop, the offal does not become piggul. If he expresses a piggul intention in respect of emurim, the bullocks become piggul; in respect of the bullocks, the emurim do not become piggul. Shall we say that the following supports him: And both agree that if he expressed an intention [of piggul] in connection with the eating of the bullocks and their burning, he has done nothing? Surely then, if however he expressed an intention concerning the emurim, the bullocks become piggul? — No:
—
[deduce thus:] but if he expressed an intention concerning the emurim, the emurim themselves become piggul. Come and hear: The bullocks which are to be burnt and the he-goats which are to be burnt are subject to [the law of] sacrilege from the time they are consecrated. Having been slaughtered, they are ready to become unfit through [the touch of] a tebul yom and one who lacks atonement, and through being kept overnight [linah]. Surely that means, through the flesh being kept overnight; and you may infer from this [that] since being kept overnight renders it unfit, an [illegitimate] intention renders it unfit! — No: it refers to keeping the emurim overnight. But since the second clause teaches: You trespass in the case of all when they are in the ash-house until the flesh is dissolved, it follows that the first clause treats of keeping the flesh overnight? — What reason have you for supposing this: each refers to its particular case; the first clause treats of emurim, and the second of the flesh. Rabbah objected: The following neither render nor are rendered piggul: the wool on the head of lambs, and the hair of he-goats’ beards, and the skin, the juice, the jelly, the offal, the crop, the bones, the tendons, the horns, the hoofs, the fetus, the after-birth, the milk of consecrated animals, and the eggs of doves; all of these neither render nor are rendered piggul, and one is not liable on their account in respect of piggul, nothar and uncleanness, and one who carries them up without is not liable. Does this not mean: They do not render the sacrifice piggul, and they are not rendered piggul through the sacrifice? — No: They do not render the sacrifice piggul, and they are not rendered piggul through themselves. If so, when the sequel teaches, They neither render nor are rendered piggul, why this repetition? — Yet [even] on your view, [when he teaches,] One is not liable on their account for piggul, why this repetition? But [you must answer that] because he wishes to teach [about] nothar and defilement, he also teaches about piggul. So now too [you can answer], Because he wishes to teach [about] one who carries them without, he also teaches: And all these neither render nor are rendered piggul. Raba said: We too learnt thus: IF ONE SLAUGHTERS SACRED ANIMALS [INTENDING] TO EAT THE FETUS OR THE AFTERBIRTH WITHOUT, HE DOES NOT RENDER PIGGUL. IF ONE WRINGS THE NECKS OF DOVES, [INTENDING] TO EAT THEIR EGGS WITHOUT, HE DOES NOT RENDER PIGGUL. Yet then he learns: ONE IS NOT CULPABLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE MILK OF SACRED ANIMALS OR THE EGGS OF DOVES IN RESPECT OF PIGGUL, NOTHAR, OR UNCLEANNESS. Hence [it follows that] one is culpable on account of the fetus and the after-birth? Hence you must surely infer from this that in the one case it means through the sacrifice; in the other, through themselves. This proves it. We learnt elsewhere: And blemished animals; R. Akiba declares blemished animals fit. R. Hiyya b. Abba declared in R. Johanan's name: R. Akiba declares [them] fit only in the case of cataracts in the eye, since such are fit in the case of birds, and provided that their consecration [for a sacrifice] preceded their blemish; and R. Akiba admits that a female burnt-offering must be [taken down], because that is tantamount to the blemish preceding its consecration. R. Zera objected: ‘One who offers them up without is not liable;’ but [if one offers up the flesh] of the mother, one is liable; and how is that possible? In the case of a female burnt-offering. Now,it is well if you say that R. Akiba holds that if a female burnt-offering goes up, it does not come down: then this is in accordance with R. Akiba. But if you say that [even] if it went up, it goes down, in accordance with whom is this? — Say: He who offers up [the flesh] of them without is exempt, hence [he who offers up] of the emurim of the mother, is liable. But he teaches, ‘of them’, and the mother is analogous to them? — Rather say: He who offers up of their emurim without is exempt; hence [he who offers up] of their mother's emurim is liable. MISHNAH. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT WITH THE INTENTION OF LEAVING ITS BLOOD OR ITS EMURIM FOR THE MORROW, OR OF CARRYING THEM WITHOUT, R. JUDAH DISQUALIFIES [IT], BUT THE SAGES DECLARE IT FIT. [IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT] WITH THE INTENTION OF SPRINKLING [THE BLOOD] ON THE ASCENT, [OR ON THE ALTAR] BUT NOT OVER AGAINST ITS BASE; OR OF APPLYING BELOW [THE LINE ] WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED ABOVE, OR ABOVE WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED BELOW, OR WITHOUT WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHIN,
—