פסחים 73 — Soncino English Talmud

¹I give you the priesthood as a service of [‘abodath] gift; and the common man that draweth nigh shall be put to death: [thus] they made the eating of terumah in the borders as [equivalent to] the ‘abodah in the Temple. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT ITS EATERS [etc,]. That is obvious: since it is [taught] there [that it is] unfit, he is liable here? — Because the second clause teaches, HE IS NOT LIABLE, the first clause teaches, HE IS LIABLE. But that too is obvious: Since [the sacrifice] is fit there, he is not liable here?- Rather, because he teaches, IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT FOR A DIFFERENT PURPOSE ON THE SABBATH, he also teaches [about] THOSE WHO ARE NOT ITS EATERS. And what is the purpose of that itself? — [He states it] because he wishes to teach the controversy of R. Eliezer and R. Joshua. R. Huna b. Hinena said to his son, ‘When you go before R. Zerika, ask him: On the view that he who causes damage through a wound is not liable, [when we learned] IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT ITS EATERS, HE IS LIABLE, what [of positive value] has he effected? — He effected [this. viz.,] that if they [the emurim] ascended [the top of the altar], they do not descend. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT, AND IT WAS FOUND TO POSSESS A BLEMISH, HE IS LIABLE: what [of positive value] has he effected? — He effected [something positive] in the case of cataracts in the eye, this being in accordance with R. Akiba, who maintained: If they [the emurim] ascended, they do not descend, IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE TEREFAH INTERNALLY, HE IS NOT CULPABLE. Hence if it is in an exposed part, he is culpable; [yet] what has he effected? — He effected its withdrawal from the scope of nebelah. Rabina demurred: As to what was taught: He who slaughters a sin-offering on the Sabbath without [the Temple] to an idol, is liable on account thereof to three sin-offerings: -what has he effected? -Said R. ‘Awira: Because he withdraws it from [the interdict of] a limb [cut] from a live animal. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT BECAME KNOWN etc. R. Huna said in Rab's name: A guilt-offering which was transferred to pasture and [then] slaughtered without a specified purpose is fit for a burnt-offering. This proves that he holds that it does not require [express] abrogation. If so, [even] if it was not transferred too? [When it is sacrificed thus immediately] after atonement it is preventively forbidden on account of [when it is sacrificed thus even] before atonement. And whence do you rule [thus]? For we learned: A guilt-offering whose owner died or whose owner [otherwise] obtained atonement must graze until it becomes unfit; then it is sold, and its money falls [is utilized] for a voluntary offering. R. Eliezer said: It is left to die. R. Joshua said: he can sell it and bring a burnt-offering for its money. Thus, only for its money, but not that itself, because he preventively forbids [it when sacrificed] after atonement on account of [when it is sacrificed] before atonement. This proves it. R. Hisda raised an objection against R. Huna: IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT AND IT BECAME KNOWN THAT THE OWNERS HAD WITHDRAWN THEIR HANDS etc.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ

^ᵃnote:Num. XVIII, 7. ‘Service of gift’ refers to the priestly dues, which includes terumah, and it is designated here ‘abohah.
^ᵇnote:This is a technical term denoting all places without the Temple.
^ᶜnote:Supra 61a.
^ᵈnote:For its unfitness renders his action a desecration of the Sabbath.
^ᵉnote:For seemingly the same principles are involved here too,
^ᶠnote:Lit., ‘to make R. Eliezer and R. Joshua dispute’.
^ᵍnote:In general, the desecration of the Sabbath involves culpability only when it has a positive, beneficial effect. For causing damage, however, a man is not liable (Shab. 105b); but in respect to damage by wounding there is a controversy ibid, 106a.
^ʰnote:If a sacrifice becomes unfit in the Temple Court and its emurim (v. Glos.) are placed on the altar for burning, they do not descend but must be burnt there.
^ⁱnote:For if the emurim of a blemished animal sacrificed unwittingly are laid on the altar, they must be taken down.
^ʲnote:Which are a blemish in respect to a sacrifice.
^ᵏnote:In this case, since it is a kind of blemish that does not apply to a bird-offering, v. Zeb. 85b.
^ˡnote:For here too if the emurim are taken up to the altar they must go down again.
^ᵐnote:V. Glos. As nebelah it would defile, whereas now it does not defile.
^ⁿnote:(i) For slaughtering on the Sabbath: (ii) for sacrificing to an idol: and (iii) for slaughtering a sacrifice without the Temple.
^ᵒnote:Seeing that the slaughtering does not withdraw it from the scope of defilement, since an idol sacrifice becomes a source of defilement!
^ᵖnote:A limb cut from a live animal is forbidden even to a non-Jew. His present action renders that interdict impossible (Rashi). R. Han.: a man is culpable when he eats as much as an olive of the limb of a live animal even if it is made up of flesh, tendons and bones; now, however, it ranks as nebelah, and he is liable only when he eats as much as an olive of the flesh, by itself, excluding the tendons and bones.
^ᵠnote:A sin-offering and a guilt-offering cannot be brought as votive sacrifices, but only when they are due for transgression. Now, if a man dedicates an animal for one of these, and then dies, or dedicates and sacrifices another animal in its place, then the first, if a sin-offering, must be allowed to perish; if a guilt-offering, it must be put out to pasture until it receives a blemish, when it is redeemed and reverts to hullin (v. Glos.), while the redemption money is allocated to a special fund for voluntary sacrifices, which take the form of burnt-offerings. Nov, if he slaughtered it (in the Temple Court) before it received a blemish, it is valid as a burnt-offering, since that would eventually have been brought in any case. The flesh is then burnt on the altar, while the hide belongs to the priests.
^ʳnote:Lit., ‘uprooting’. Since this is its ultimate destiny, he need not expressly abrogate its status of a guilt-offering.
^ˢnote:I.e., if it was slaughtered as a burnt-offering immediately its owner died etc., it should be fit.
^ᵗnote:For the two cases may be confused. But once it is actually put out to pasture there is no fear of confusion. — From the text and Tosaf. a.l. it would appear that if he slaughters it as a burnt-offering before transferring it to pasture it is unfit, even if it was done. While even after it was transferred to pasture it is fit for a burnt-offering only if it was thus sacrificed, so that we are faced with a fait accompli. But at the outset it may not be sacrificed even after it is transferred to pasture.
^ᵘnote:For a sacrifice by receiving a blemish.
^ᵛnote:I.e., the money is placed in the fund for voluntary sacrifices.
^ʷnote:For he holds that a guilt-offering is the same as a sin-offering.
^ˣnote:I.e., the owner brings it as his own sacrifice, and the money does not go into the fund. Thus it is a private sacrifice, so that he himself can slaughter it, he lays his hands upon it (Lev. I, 4), and the accompanying drink-offerings are at his expense. Whereas when the money goes into the fund it is brought as a public sacrifice, and the foregoing are absent.

²Now it ways taught thereon: During the week in such circumstances it must be burnt immediately. Now it is well if you say that it requires abrogation: this is a Passover, and since it has no owners, its disqualification is in itself, [and] for that reason it must be burnt immediately. But if you say that it does not require abrogation [then] from the beginning it is a peace-offering; On account of what [then] is its disqualification? [Presumably] on account of something extraneous, viz., that he slaughtered it after the evening tamid! [But] then it requires disfigurement? For it was taught, This is the general rule: Wherever its disqualification is in itself, it must be burnt immediately; [if it is] in the blood or in its owner, [the flesh] must become disfigured and [then] it goes out to the place of burning — Rather, do not say, ‘if he slaughtered it without specifying its purpose, it is fit as a burnt-offering,’ but say, If he slaughtered it for the purpose of a burnt-offering, it is fit. This proves that it requires [express] abrogation. Then according to R, Hiyya b. Gamada, who said: It was thrown out from the mouth of the company and they said: [The circumstances are] e.g.. that its owners were unclean through a dead body and relegated to the second Passover: [thus] only this requires abrogation, but in general abrogation is not required, what can be said? — Rather, said R. Huna son of R. Joshua, what are we discussing here? E.g., if he separated it [for a Passover] before midday, and the owner died after midday, so that it was eligible and then rejected, and whatever was eligible and then rejected cannot be eligible again. — Is then our reasoning [required] for any but Rab, — surely Rab said: Live animals cannot be [permanently] rejected? Rather, said R. Papa, the author of this is R. Eliezer, who maintained: Similarly, if he slaughters other [sacrifices] for the sake of the Passover, they are unfit,] so that its disqualification is in itself. But if it is [according to] R. Eliezer, he would rule him liable to a sin-offering, since R. Eliezer rejects [the view that] he who errs in the matter of a precept is exempt! — R. Joseph the son of R. Salla the Pious explained it before R. Papa: The author of this is R. Joseph b. Honai. For we learned, R. Joseph b. Honai said: Those [other sacrifices] which are slaughtered for the purpose of a Passover or for the purpose of a sin-offering are unfit. This proves that its disqualification is in itself, and for that [reason] it must be burnt immediately; while in the matter of non-culpability he agrees with R. Joshua. R. Ashi said, Rab ruled in accordance with R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Berokah. For it was taught, R. Ishmael the son of R. Johanan b. Berokah said: If there was sufficient time in the day to ascertain whether the owners had withdrawn their hands or died or become defiled, he is liable, and it [the sacrifice] must become disfigured and [then] go out to the place of burning. he slaughtered it without a specified purpose, express abrogation not being necessary. But the reason in the Baraitha is a different one, as stated. Thus: at midday the owner was still alive and therefore it was immediately eligible for a Passover offering; the owner's death disqualified it from that purpose, and he holds that it can never be eligible again in such circumstances. What is the reason? Is it not because it does not require abrogation? — Whence [does this follow]: perhaps it is because he agrees with the tanna of the School of Rabbah b. Abbuha, who said: Even piggul too requires disfigurement, because we learn the meaning of ‘iniquity’ from nothar. For if you should not say thus, where the owners become defiled, what can be said, for surely that certainly requires abrogation, for R. Hiyya b. Gamada said, it was thrown out from the mouth of the company and they said: [The circumstances are] e.g.. that its owners were unclean through a dead body and relegated to the second Passover? Hence it is clear as we answered at first: this is [in accordance with] R. Joseph b. Honai. [^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ

^ʸnote:I.e., immediately the owners die or withdraw their hands.
^ᶻnote:V. Glos.; that is when he would actually slaughter it, thinking that it was still a Passover, whereas as a peace-offering it must be slaughtered before; v. supra 59b.
^ᵃᵃnote:V. supra 34b for notes.
^ᵃᵇnote:In the statement of Rab reported by R. Huna.
^ᵃᶜnote:V. supra 64a for notes.
^ᵃᵈnote:The original version is to be retained, viz., that
^ᵃᵉnote:This explanation is given only in order to reconcile R. Huna's statement in Rab's name with the Baraitha.
^ᵃᶠnote:V. infra 98a.
^ᵃᵍnote:The Baraitha which was cited commenting on our Mishnah.
^ᵃʰnote:V. supra 62b.
^ᵃⁱnote:I.e., it does not require abrogation, so that it is automatically a peace-offering; hence by slaughtering it expressly for a Passover he renders it intrinsically disqualified, and therefore on weekdays it must be burnt immediately.
^ᵃʲnote:V. Mishnah 71 b and note a.l.
^ᵃᵏnote:Hence in the Mishnah he should be liable for desecrating the Sabbath.
^ᵃˡnote:So MS.M. omitting ‘But’ of cur. edd.
^ᵃᵐnote:v. Zeb. 2a.
^ᵃⁿnote:When one errs in a matter of a precept.
^ᵃᵒnote:That he is not culpable.
^ᵃᵖnote:For he should have satisfied himself on these things before slaughtering. Therefore he is regarded not as having erred in the fulfilment of a precept but as an unwitting offender (shogeg); hence he is liable.
^ᵃᵠnote:As above. Thus this supports Rab, who does not accept the view of the Baraitha quoted at the beginning of the page.
^ᵃʳnote:V. Glos.
^ᵃˢnote:V. infra 82b; though piggul is certainly intrinsically disqualified.