Parallel
זבחים 97
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
THE SPIT AND THE GRILLE ARE SCALDED IN HOT WATER. GEMARA. What is R. Tarfon's reason? — Because Scripture saith, And thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents: the Writ treats the whole [of the festival] as one morning. To this R. Ahadboi b. Ammi demurred: Is there no piggul during a festival, and is there no nothar during a festival? And should you say, that indeed is so; surely it was taught, R. Nathan said: R. Tarfon gave this ruling only. Rather, [the reason is] as R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name, viz.: Each day effects scalding for the previous one. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: UNTIL THE TIME OF EATING etc. What does this mean? — Said R. Nahman in Rabbah b. Abbuhah's name: He must wait as long as [the sacrifice] may be eaten, and then scour and rinse it. Whence do we know this? — Said R. Johanan on the authority of Abba Jose b. Abba: It is written, ‘It shall be scoured and rinsed’; and it is written, ‘Every male among the priests may eat’: what does this proximity intimate? He must wait as long as [the sacrifice] may be eaten, and then scour and rinse it. SCOURING IS AS THE SCOURING OF A GOBLET; RINSING IS AS THE RINSING OF A GOBLET. Our Rabbis taught: Scouring and rinsing are [done] with cold [water]: these are the words of Rabbi; but the Sages maintain: Scouring is with hot [water], and rinsing is with cold. What is the reason of the Rabbis? — It is comparable to the cleansing [gi'ul] of heathen [vessels]. And Rabbi? — He can tell you: I do not speak of hag'alah [scalding]; I speak of the scouring and rinsing after hag'alah. And the Rabbis? — If so, let Scripture write either, ‘it shall be well scoured’,or, ‘well rinsed’; why say ‘it shall be scoured and rinsed’? — To inform you [that] scouring is [done] with hot water and rinsing is [done] with cold. And Rabbi? — If Scripture wrote, ‘it shall be well scoured’, I would say [that it requires] two scourings or two rinsings; therefore ‘it shall be scoured and rinsed’ is written to inform you that scouring must be as the scouring of a goblet, rinsing must be as the rinsing of a goblet. MISHNAH. IF ONE BOILED SACRIFICES AND HULLIN IN IT, OR MOST HOLY SACRIFICES AND LESSER SACRIFICES; IF THEY WERE SUFFICIENT TO IMPART THEIR FLAVOUR, THE LESS STRINGENT MUST BE EATEN AS THE MORE STRINGENT OF THEM; BUT THEY DO NOT NECESSITATE SCOURING AND RINSING; AND THEY DO NOT DISQUALIFY BY TOUCH. IF [AN UNFIT] WAFER TOUCHED A [FIT] WAFER, OR AN [UNFIT] PIECE OF FLESH TOUCHED A [FIT] PIECE OF FLESH, NOT THE WHOLE WAFER OR THE WHOLE PIECE OF FLESH IS FORBIDDEN; ONLY THE PART THAT ABSORBED [OF THE UNFIT] IS FORBIDDEN. GEMARA. What does this mean? — This is what it means: If they were sufficient to impart their flavour, the less stringent must be eaten as the more stringent of them, and they require scouring and rinsing, and they disqualify by their touch. If they were insufficient to impart their flavour, the less stringent need not be eaten as the more stringent, and they do not necessitate scouring and rinsing, and do not disqualify by their touch. Granted that they do not require [scouring and rinsing] as for most sacred sacrifices, yet they should require [them] as for lesser sacrifices? — Said Abaye: What does he mean by THEY DO NOT NECESSITATE? [As for] most sacred sacrifices; but they do necessitate [them] as for lesser sacrifices. Raba said: This is in accordance with R. Simeon, who maintained: Lesser sacrifices do not necessitate scouring and rinsing. As for Raba, it is well: for that reason he [the Tanna] teaches, SACRIFICES AND HULLIN, OR MOST SACRED SACRIFICES AND LESSER SACRIFICES. But on Abaye's explanation, why do I need two clauses? — They are necessary. For if he taught SACRIFICES AND HULLIN [only] I would say, Only hullin can nullify sacrifices, as they are not of the same kind; but in the case of MOST SACRED SACRIFICES AND LESSER SACRIFICES, it is not so. And if he taught about MOST SACRED SACRIFICES AND LESSER SACRIFICES only, l would think that only sacrifices are strong enough to nullify other sacrifices; but hullin I would say is not [strong enough]. Thus both are necessary. IF AN [UNFIT] WAFER TOUCHED A [FIT] WAFER etc. Our Rabbis taught: Whatever shall touch [ . . . shall be holy]; you might think, even if it did not absorb; therefore it says, in the flesh thereof:33
—
[this intimates] that it must absorb [thereof] in its flesh. You might think that if it touched a part of a piece of flesh, the whole of it is unfit. Therefore it says, ‘[Whatever] shall touch’: only that which touches is unfit. How so? The part which absorbed is cut away. ‘[In] the flesh thereof’: but not the tendons, bones, horns or hoofs. ‘Shall be holy’, to be as itself, so that if it [the sin-offering] is unfit, that [which touches it] becomes unfit; while if it is fit, it may be eaten [only] in accordance with its stringencies. Yet why so? let the positive command come and override the negative injunction! — Said Raba, A positive injunction does not override a negative injunction in the Temple. For it was taught: Neither shall ye break a bone thereof. R. Simeon b. Menassia said: [This refers to] both a bone which contains marrow and a bone which does not contain marrow. Yet why so? let the positive injunction come and override the negative injunction? Hence you can infer that a positive injunction does not override a negative injunction in the Temple. R. Ashi said: ‘Shall be holy’ is a positive injunction: thus there are a positive and a negative injunction, and a positive injunction cannot override a positive and a negative injunction [combined]. We have thus found that a sin-offering sanctifies [whatever touches it] through absorption; whence do we know it of other sacrifices? — Said Samuel on R. Eleazar's authority: [Scripture saith,] This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the consecration-offering, and of the sacrifice of peace-offerings. ‘Of a burnt-offering’: as a burnt-offering requires a utensil, so all require a utensil. What utensil is meant? If we say, a basin? in respect of public peace-offerings too it is written, And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins! Rather, it means a knife. And how do we know it of a burnt-offering itself? — Because it is written, And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife [to slay his son], and there it was a burnt-offering, as it is written, And offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son. ‘Of a meal-offering’: as a meal-offering may be eaten by male priests [only], so all may be eaten by male priests only. Which [are thus inferred]? If the sin-offering and the guilt-offering? [surely] it is explicitly written in connection with them, Every male among the priests may eat thereof! If public peace-offerings? that is deduced from a Scriptural extension, [viz.] In a most holy place shalt thou eat thereof; every male may eat thereof: this teaches that public peace-offerings may be eaten by male priests only! — It is a controversy of Tannaim:
—