חולין 117 — Soncino English Talmud

¹IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE, AND THE PENALTY FOR PIGGUL, NOTHAR, AND UNCLEANNESS IS INCURRED BY IT, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE BLOOD. AND THE PROHIBITION OF THE BLOOD IS MORE STRICT, FOR IT APPLIES TO CATTLE, WILD ANIMALS AND BIRDS, WHETHER CLEAN OR UNCLEAN; BUT THE PROHIBITION OF THE FAT APPLIES TO CLEAN CATTLE ONLY. GEMARA. Whence do we know this? — R. Jannai answered, It is written: As it is taken off from the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings. Now what do we learn from the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings? Indeed, ‘it comes as a teacher but turns out to be a pupil’; we must compare the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings with the bullock of the anointed High Priest; as the bullock of the anointed High Priest is subject to the law of Sacrilege, so the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings is also subject to the law of Sacrilege. Said R. Hanina to him: And is the following teaching of Rabbi unsatisfactory? ‘The verse: All the fat is the Lord's, signifies that the sacrificial portions of the less holy sacrifices are also subject to the law of Sacrilege’. — Abaye answered, [Both verses] are necessary [for our purpose]. For had the Divine Law only stated ‘All the fat’. I should have said that only the fat is [subject to the law of Sacrilege] but the caul and the two kidneys are not; the Divine Law therefore stated the verse. ‘As it is taken off’. And had the Divine Law only stated the verse: ‘As it is taken off’. I should have said that the fat of the fat tail [of a lamb], which is not found in an ox, is not subject to the law of Sacrilege; the Divine Law therefore stated. ‘All the fat is the Lord's’. Said R. Mari to R. Zebid: If the fat tail [of a lamb] is included under the term ‘fat’, should it not then be forbidden to be eaten? — He replied. It is for your sake that it is written: You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat. [Thus the Torah has forbidden] only such fat as is common to ox, sheep, and goat. R. Ashi answered: It is always referred to as ‘the fat of the fat tail’, but never as ‘fat’ simply. If so, it should not be subject to the law of Sacrilege? Obviously then the better answer is that of R. Zebid. WHICH IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE BLOOD. Whence do we know this? — Ulla answered: Scripture says: To you, that is, it shall be yours. The school of R. Ishmael taught: Scripture says. To make atonement. that is, I have given it to you for an atonement and not that you be liable for Sacrilege on its account. R. Johanan said: Scripture says. It is, that is, it is the same before the atonement as after the atonement: just as after the atonement [the residue of the blood] is not subject to the law of Sacrilege, so before the atonement [the blood] is not subject to the law of Sacrilege. Perhaps I ought to say. It is the same after the atonement as before the atonement: just as before the atonement it is subject to the law of Sacrilege, so after the atonement it is subject to the law of Sacrilege? — There is nothing that is subject to the law of Sacrilege once its rites have been performed. But is there not? Surely there is the case of the removal of the ashes [from the altar], which [ashes] are subject to the law of Sacrilege even though the rites therewith have been performed, for it is written: And he shall put them beside the altar! — This case of the removal of the ashes and that of the garments of the High Priest are two texts which teach the same thing, and one may not draw any conclusions from two texts which teach the same thing. This, however, would be right according to the Rabbis who declare that the verse: And he shall leave them there, teaches that they [sc. the garments] must be hidden away; but according to R. Dosa who declares that the verse teaches that [the High Priest] shall not wear them on a subsequent Day of Atonement, what is to be said? — Rather [say] that the case of the removal of the ashes and that of the heifer whose neck was to be broken are two texts which teach the same thing, and one may not draw any conclusions from two texts which teach the same thing. This is well according to him who maintains that one may not draw conclusions from such texts, but according to him who maintains that one may draw conclusions from such texts, what is to be said?-There are two^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ᵃnote:Cf. Lev. V, 15. If a person inadvertently makes use of the fat of a sacrifice he commits a trespass and must bring a guilt-offering for atonement. This is not the case with the blood of a sacrifice; v. Gemara.
^ᵇnote:V. Glos.
^ᶜnote:If a person ate the fat of a sacrifice which was rendered piggul or nothar (r,ub) i.e., what was left over beyond the prescribed time in which the sacrifice must be eaten, or if the person was unclean at the time he ate the fat, he would, in each alternative, incur guilt twice: for eating fat and also for eating piggul etc.
^ᵈnote:I.e., to those animals which are fit for sacrifices, for it is written (Lev. VII, 25). Whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering mode by fire unto the Lord, etc.
^ᵉnote:That the law of Sacrilege applies to the fat of a sacrifice, whether the sacrifice was of the most holy or less holy kind.
^ᶠnote:Lev. IV, 10. The sacrificial portions of the bullock brought by the anointed High Priest as his sin-offering are in this verse compared with the ox of the peace-offering.
^ᵍnote:What is the purpose of the comparison? In fact, with regard to the burning of the sacrificial portions upon the altar, all those portions which are stated in connection with the peace-offering are also expressly stated here.
^ʰnote:V. supra p. 143, n. 8.
^ⁱnote:Although the peace-offering is a sacrifice of the less holy kind, and from the time of the consecration of the animal until the sacrifice thereof it is certainly not subject to the law of Sacrilege- as soon as the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice has taken place the sacrificial portions of the animal are subject to the law of Sacrilege.
^ʲnote:Lev. III, 16.
^ᵏnote:For the caul of the liver and the two kidneys, although sacrificial parts, cannot be comprehended with the term ‘all the fat’.
^ˡnote:For this verse: As it is taken of speaks of the sacrificial portions of an ox, and therefore cannot include the fat of the fat tail of a lamb.
^ᵐnote:For all that fat in a sacrifice which is burnt upon the altar is forbidden to be eaten when the animal is slaughtered for ordinary use. Cf. Lev. VII, 25.
^ⁿnote:Lev. VII, 23.
^ᵒnote:For the law of Sacrilege in respect of the fat of less holy sacrifices is derived from the verse: All the fat is the Lord's; and if the fat of the fat tail is not included under the term ‘fat’, it cannot then be subject to the law of Sacrilege.
^ᵖnote:That the blood of a sacrifice is not subject to the law of Sacrilege.
^ᵠnote:Lev. XVII. 11: And I hove given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life. Several parts of this verse suggest that the blood ‘is not the Lord's’ and so is not subject to the law of Sacrilege.
^ʳnote:Ibid. VI. 3. Every morning the ashes of the burnt-offering upon the altar were scooped up in a firepan and were deposited on the east side of the incline leading to the altar. It was forbidden to derive any use from them.
^ˢnote:Cf. ibid. XVI. 23. The garments worn by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement when he entered the innermost Sanctuary, the Holy of Holies, had to be put away never to be used again, either by an ordinary priest for his regular services or by a High Priest for service on the Day of Atonement of the following year.
^ᵗnote:These two cases are therefore exceptions to the rule stated above, that after the performance of its rites a thing cannot be subject any more to the law of Sacrilege.
^ᵘnote:V. p. 645, n. 6.
^ᵛnote:An ordinary priest, however, may wear these garments during the year.
^ʷnote:Cf. Deut. XXI, 1ff. The heifer, after the performance of the rites with regard to it, had to be buried in the very place where the ceremony was performed, and it was forbidden to derive any use from it.

²limiting particles stated: here it is written: And he shall put them, and there it is written: Whose neck was broken. Why are the three different texts with regard to the blood necessary? One excludes blood from the law of nothar, another excludes it from the law of Sacrilege, and the third excludes it from the law of uncleanness. No text, however, is necessary to exclude it from the law of piggul. for we have learnt: ‘Whatsoever is rendered permissible, whether for man or for the altar, by a certain rite. is subject to the law of piggul’, but the blood is itself that which renders [other parts of the offering] permissible. MISHNAH. THE HIDE, MEAT JUICE, SEDIMENT, ALAL, BONES, SINEWS, HORNS AND HOOFS ARE TO BE INCLUDED [TO MAKE UP THE MINIMUM QUANTITY IN ORDER] TO CONVEY FOOD-UNCLEANNESS, BUT NOT TO [MAKE UP THE MINIMUM QUANTITY IN ORDER TO] CONVEY NEBELAH-UNCLEANNESS. SIMILARLY, IF A MAN SLAUGHTERED AN UNCLEAN ANIMAL FOR A GENTILE AND IT STILL WRITHES CONVULSIVELY, IT CAN CONVEY FOOD-UNCLEANNESS, BUT IT CAN ONLY CONVEY NEBELAH-UNCLEANNESS AFTER IT IS DEAD, OR ITS HEAD HAS BEEN CHOPPED OFF. [SCRIPTURE] HAS [THUS] INTIMATED MORE CASES THAT CONVEY FOOD-UNCLEANNESS THAN THOSE THAT CONVEY NEBELAH-UNCLEANNESS. R. JUDAH SAYS, IF SO MUCH OF ALAL WAS COLLECTED TOGETHER SO THAT THERE WAS AN OLIVE'S BULK IN ONE PLACE, ONE WOULD THEREBY BECOME LIABLE. GEMARA. We have learnt [here in our Mishnah] what our Rabbis have taught elsewhere: Protections [can be included to make up the quantity required] for a lighter uncleanness, but protections cannot [be included to make up the quantity required] for a graver uncleanness. Whence do we know that protections can be included for a lighter uncleanness? — From the following teaching of a Tanna of the school of R. Ishmael: It is written: Upon any sowing seed which is to be sown, that is to say, in the manner in which men take out the seeds for sowing: wheat in its husk, barley in its husk, lentils in their husks. And whence do we know that protections cannot be included for a graver uncleanness? — From the following which our Rabbis taught: [He that toucheth] the carcass thereof [shall be unclean], but not he that touches the hide which has not an olive's bulk of flesh attached to it.^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ

^ˣnote:Lev. VI, 3. The express addition of the suffix ‘them’ (in the Heb. ‘it’ in the sing.) in the text serves to exclude others.
^ʸnote:Deut. XXI. 6; lit., ‘the one whose neck was broken’. The redundant particle, the, limits the rule to this case only.
^ᶻnote:Namely. ‘ To you’. ‘ To make atonement’, and ‘It is’. V. supra p. 645, n. 4.
^ᵃᵃnote:If a man ate the blood of a sacrifice which remained over beyond the prescribed time within which the meat there of may be eaten, he is liable only for eating blood, but not, in addition, for eating nothar.
^ᵃᵇnote:If a man who was unclean ate the blood of a sacrifice, he is liable only for eating blood, but not, in addition, for eating it whilst unclean.
^ᵃᶜnote:I.e., if the sacrifice was rendered piggul (v. Glos.) and a man ate of the blood thereof he would not be liable for eating piggul.
^ᵃᵈnote:V. Zeb. 43a. By the proper sprinkling of the blood the sacrificial portions are rendered permissible to be burnt upon the altar, and the flesh to be consumed by the priest or owner. Therefore if the sacrifice was rendered piggul and a man ate of the flesh or of the sacrificial portions he would be liable; but if he ate of the blood, which is what renders others permissible, he would not be liable.
^ᵃᵉnote:For the precise meaning of all these substances v. Gemara.
^ᵃᶠnote:Some kind of offal of meat, as explained in the Gemara.
^ᵃᵍnote:Each of the substances enumerated would be reckoned together with a piece of meat less than an egg's bulk, so as to make up the quantity of an egg's bulk and, if unclean, would convey uncleanness to other foodstuffs or liquids. With regard to some of the substances, e.g., the meat juice, the sediment and the sinews, the reason why they would be reckoned together with the meat is because, although they are not eaten alone, they would be eaten together with the meat, and are therefore regarded as foodstuffs. And with regard to the other substances, e.g., the hide, bones, horns and hoofs, the reason is because each forms a protection or covering to a foodstuff and is therefore regarded as one with the foodstuff.
^ᵃʰnote:If the meat was nebelah these substances would not be included together with the meat in order to make up an olive's bulk, the quantity necessary in order to convey uncleanness to men or vessels.
^ᵃⁱnote:If it was touched by anything unclean. For although at this moment the animal may not be eaten, either by the Israelite who slaughtered it, for it is an unclean animal, or by the gentile, since by its death only is an animal rendered permitted to a gentile, and not by the slaughtering (v. supra 33a), nevertheless the act of slaughtering performed by the Israelite has the effect that the animal be deemed a foodstuff forthwith, for this could only have been the intention and purpose of the slaughtering.
^ᵃʲnote:Only then is it regarded as nebelah; cf. Lev. XI, 39.
^ᵃᵏnote:Although alal by itself is not a foodstuff, if one collected a number of pieces together so that there was an olive's bulk in one place, this action is significant and renders the bulk a foodstuff.
^ᵃˡnote:If this accumulated bulk was taken from a nebelah and a man touched it and later entered the Temple or ate consecrated food, he would be liable to the penalty of kareth.
^ᵃᵐnote:I.e., that which surrounds and encloses foodstuffs, e.g., the husk of grain, the peel of fruit, the shell of nuts, the hide of an animal, etc.
^ᵃⁿnote:That condition of uncleanness which can only render unclean foodstuffs and liquids, provided there was an egg's bulk of the unclean matter.
^ᵃᵒnote:Nebelah-uncleanness. The condition of uncleanness that can even render unclean men and vessels, provided there was an olive's bulk of the unclean matter.
^ᵃᵖnote:Lev. XI, 37, with reference to the uncleanness of foodstuffs.
^ᵃᵠnote:I.e., by seed is meant the grain together with its husk; hence the protection of food is considered as part of the food itself.
^ᵃʳnote:Ibid. 39.