Chullin

IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE,1 AND THE PENALTY FOR PIGGUL,2 NOTHAR,2 AND UNCLEANNESS IS INCURRED BY IT,3 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.4 GEMARA. Whence do we know this?5 — R. Jannai answered, It is written: As it is taken off from the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings.6 Now what do we learn from the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings?7 Indeed, ‘it comes as a teacher but turns out to be a pupil’;8 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.9 Said R. Hanina to him: And is the following teaching of Rabbi unsatisfactory? ‘The verse: All the fat is the Lord's,10 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;11 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;12 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?13 — He replied. It is for your sake that it is written: You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat.14 [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?15 Obviously then the better answer is that of R. Zebid. WHICH IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE BLOOD. Whence do we know this?16 — Ulla answered: Scripture says: To you,17 that is, it shall be yours. The school of R. Ishmael taught: Scripture says. To make atonement.17 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,17 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!18 — This case of the removal of the ashes and that of the garments of the High Priest19 are two texts which teach the same thing, and one may not draw any conclusions from two texts which teach the same thing.20 This, however, would be right according to the Rabbis who declare that the verse: And he shall leave them there,21 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,22 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 broken23 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 guilt-offering for atonement. This is not the case with the blood of a sacrifice; v. Gemara. 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. of which men offer an offering mode by fire unto the Lord, etc. verse compared with the ox of the peace-offering. all those portions which are stated in connection with the peace-offering are also expressly stated here. 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. the fat’. fat tail of a lamb. ordinary use. Cf. Lev. VII, 25. 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. 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. deposited on the east side of the incline leading to the altar. It was forbidden to derive any use from them. 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. cannot be subject any more to the law of Sacrilege. where the ceremony was performed, and it was forbidden to derive any use from it.