זבחים 10 — Soncino English Talmud

¹If one slaughters an animal with the express intention of sprinkling its blood or burning its fat to an idol, — R. Johanan said: It is forbidden [for any use] , [for] an [effective] intention can be expressed at one service in respect to another service, and we learn ‘without’ from ‘within’. Resh Lakish rules that it is permitted, for an [effective] intention cannot be expressed at one service in respect of another service, and we do not learn ‘without’ from ‘within’. [Now these are both necessary.] For if we were informed [of their views] in the latter case, I might argue that Resh Lakish rules [thus only] in this instance, yet he agrees with R. Johanan [that] ‘within’ [is learnt] from ‘within’. While if we were informed [of their views] in the former instance, I might argue that R. Johanan rules [thus only] there, yet he agrees with Resh Lakish in the present case. Thus both are required. When R. Dimi came, he said: R. Jeremiah raised an objection in support of R. Johanan, while R. Ela [did so] in support of Resh Lakish. R. Jeremiah in support of R. Johanan: If it is valid where one says, ‘Behold, I slaughter after its time [for slaughtering],’ yet it is invalid if one slaughters it with the intention of sprinkling the blood after time; then seeing that it is invalid if he declares, ‘Behold, I slaughter for the sake of something else,’ is it not logical that it is invalid if one slaughters it with the intention of sprinkling the blood for the sake of something else? To this Raba b. Ahilai demurred: As for [intending to sprinkle its blood] after time, the reason [that this invalidates it even at the slaughtering] is that it entails kareth! Rather said Raba b. Ahilai, This is his argument: If it is valid where one says, ‘Behold, I slaughter [this sacrifice] without its precincts,’ yet it is invalid when one slaughters it with the intention of sprinkling its blood without its precincts; then seeing that it is invalid when he declares, ‘Behold, I slaughter for the sake of something else,’is it not logical that it is invalid if one slaughters it with the intention of sprinkling the blood for the sake of something else? To this R. Ashi demurred: As for [its unfitness when one intends sprinkling the blood] without its precincts, the reason is because it operates [as a disqualification] in the case of all sacrifices. Will you say that the same applies in the case of an intention for the sake of a different sacrifice, which does not operate [thus] save in the case of a Passover-offering and a sin-offering? Rather said R. Ashi, This is how he argues: If it is valid where one says, ‘Behold, I slaughter [this sacrifice] in the name of so-and-so,’ yet it is invalid [if one declares his intention] to sprinkle its blood for the sake of so-and-so; then seeing that when he declares, ‘Behold, I slaughter [it] for the sake of something else,’ it is invalid, is it not logical that it is invalid if he slaughters it with the intention of sprinkling the blood for the sake of something else? R. Ela [raised an objection] in support of Resh Lakish: Let it not be stated in the case of sprinkling and it could be inferred a miniori from slaughtering and receiving; then for what purpose did the Divine Law state [it]? To teach that you cannot [effectively] express an intention in respect of one service at a [previous] service. To this R. Papa demurred: Yet perhaps [its purpose is on the contrary to intimate] that you can express an intention in respect of one service at a [previous] service? — If so, let Scripture be silent about it, and infer it by R. Ashi's a minori argument. And the other? — Refute [the argument] thus: as for those [slaughtering and receiving], the reason may be that they require the north and are present at the inner sin-offerings. And the other? — Now, at all events, we are discussing peace-offerings. It was stated: If one slaughters it in its own name with the intention of sprinkling its blood for the sake of something else, — R. Nahman says: It is invalid; Rabbah says: It is valid. But Rabbah retracted on account of R. Ashi's a minori argument. R, ELIEZER SAID: THE GUILT-OFFERING TOO. It was taught: R. Eliezer said: A sin-offering comes on account of sin, and a guilt- offering comes on account of sin: just as a sin-offering [slaughtered] under a different designation is invalid, so is a guilt-offering invalid [if slaughtered] under a different designation. Said R. Joshua to him: That is not so. If you say [thus] of the sin-offering, [the reason is] because its blood is [sprinkled] above [the scarlet line]. Said R. Eliezer to him: Let the Passover-offering prove it: though its blood is [sprinkled] below, yet if one slaughters it for the sake of something else it is invalid. As for the Passover-offering, replied R. Joshua, the reason is that it has a fixed time. Said R. Eliezer to him: Then let the sin-offering prove it. R. Joshua replied:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ

^ᵃnote:Even it he did not eventually sprinkle it thus,
^ᵇnote:Idolatrous sprinkling of the blood etc. is naturally done without the Temple, while the illegitimate action of piggul is done within the Temple.
^ᶜnote:It he did not eventually sprinkle it idolatrously.
^ᵈnote:Sc. if one slaughters a sacrifice with the intention of sprinkling its blood in the name of a different sacrifice, his illegitimate intention is in respect of something that is done within, and therefore we learn by analogy from piggul that his intention is effective.
^ᵉnote:By reversing the argument.
^ᶠnote:From Palestine to Babylon. R. Dimi and Rabin were two Palestinian amoraim who travelled between the Palestinian and the Babylonian academics to transmit the teachings of one to the other.
^ᵍnote:Since whenever he slaughters it, that is the time,
^ʰnote:This illegitimate intention renders the flesh piggul immediately, so that if one eats it even within the permitted time he is liable to kareth. Since it is so strict, it is natural that an illegitimate intention in respect of one service expressed at an earlier service is effective.
^ⁱnote:For his declaration cannot negative the fact that he is slaughtering it within its precincts.
^ʲnote:For change of name is a disqualification at the sprinkling, but not at the slaughtering.
^ᵏnote:Viz.,in the case of a Passover-offering and a sin-offering.
^ˡnote:That an intention for a different sacrifice disqualifies it.
^ᵐnote:It slaughtering for the sake of a different sacrifice disqualifies, though it is valid when done by a zar (lay-Israelite), how much the more sprinkling, which may not be performed by a zar. And if you answer that slaughtering may be more stringent because a Passover-offering slaughtered for others than those enrolled for it is invalid; then let receiving prove it, where this disqualification does not operate.
^ⁿnote:I.e., the illegitimate intention in respect of sprinkling must be expressed at the sprinkling.
^ᵒnote:R. Johanan: How does he rebut this argument?
^ᵖnote:They are performed at the north side of the altar.
^ᵠnote:Resh Lakish: how does he rebut this argument?
^ʳnote:Which are not slaughtered at the north nor on the inner altar. Hence the argument does not apply.
^ˢnote:The blood of some sacrifices was sprinkled on the upper half of the altar, and the blood of other sacrifices was sprinkled on the lower half; a scarlet line on the altar demarcated them. — The fact that the blood of the sin-offering was sprinkled above that line may be the reason for greater stringency.

²I am moving in a circle. R. Eliezer then drew another analogy. In the case of a sin-offering it says, It is [a sin-offering], [which intimates that if it is slaughtered] for its own sake it is valid, and if it [is] not [slaughtered] for its own sake it is invalid; [Again] in the case of a Passover-offering it says, It is [the sacrifice of the Lord's Passover], [which likewise intimates,] for its own sake it is valid, and if not for its own sake, it is invalid; [then] in the case of a guilt-offering too it says, It is [a guilt-offering], [hence this too intimates,] for its own sake it is valid, while if not for its own sake, it is invalid. Said R. Joshua to him: ‘It is’ is stated of the sin-offering in connection with the slaughtering, [and so] ‘it is’ [intimates], for its own sake it is valid, and if not for its own sake, it is invalid. [Again] ‘it is’ is stated of the Passover-offering in connection with the sacrificing, [and here too] ‘it is’ [intimates,] for its own sake it is valid, while if it is not for its own sake, it is invalid. But as for the guilt-offering. ‘it is’ is stated of it only after the burning of the emurim [is prescribed], and yet if the emurim were not burnt at all it is valid. Said R. Eliezer to him: Lo, it says. As is the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering: [hence] as the sin-offering is invalid if not [slaughtered] for its own sake, so is the guilt-offering invalid if not [slaughtered] for its own sake. The Master said: ‘R. Joshua said to him: l am moving in a circle.’ Yet let the argument revolve and the inference be made from the feature common to both. — [That argument is not employed] because it can be refuted: the feature common to both is that there is an aspect of kareth in them. The Master said: ‘R. Joshua said to him: That is not so. If you say [thus] of the sin-offering, [the reason is] because its blood [is sprinkled] above [the scarlet line].’ Yet let him [rather] say to him: That is not so. If you say [thus] of the sin-offering, [the reason is] because its blood enters the innermost shrine? — We are discussing the outer sin-offerings. [Yet let him say: The reason is] because if its blood enters the innermost shrine it is invalid? — R. Eliezer holds that the guilt-offering too [is invalid in that case]. [Let him say to him: The reason is] because it makes atonement for those who are liable to kareth? — [R. Eliezer draws his analogy] from the sin-offering incurred through hearing a voice. [Let him say to him: The reason is] because it [the blood] requires four applications? — [R. Eliezer holds] as R. Ishmael, who maintains: All blood requires four applications. [Yet let him say: The reason is because the blood requires four applications] on the four horns [of the altar]? — Now according to your reasoning, surely there are [the distinctions of] the finger, the horn, and the point? Rather [the fact is that] he [R. Joshua] mentions [but] one of two or three reasons [distinctions]. The Master said: ‘Said R. Joshua to him: That is not so. If you say’ etc. Let R. Eliezer answer him: The blood of a guilt-offering too is [sprinkled] above [the scarlet line]? — Said Abaye: You cannot say that the blood of a guilt-offering is [sprinkled] above, [as the reverse may be inferred] from a burnt-offering, a fortiori: if the blood of a burnt-offering, which is completely burnt, is [sprinkled] below, how much the more [is this true of] a guilt-offering, which is not completely burnt. As for a burnt-offering, the reason is because it does not make atonement! Let the bird sin-offering prove it. As for a bird sin-offering, the reason is because it is not a species that is slaughtered! Then let a burnt-offering prove it. Thus the peculiarity of the one is not the peculiarity of the other, and that of the other is not the same as the peculiarity of the first: the feature common to both is that they are sacrifices of the higher sanctity, and their blood is [sprinkled] below: so will I adduce a guilt-offering too, that [since] it is of the higher sanctity, its blood is [sprinkled] below. Raba of Parzakia said to R. Ashi: But let him refute [it thus]: The feature common to both is that [their value] is unfixed; will you then say [the same of] a guilt-offering, which has a fixed [value]? Rather this is R. Eliezer's reason, viz., because Scripture saith, The priest that offereth it for a sin-offering: [‘it’ requires] its blood [to be sprinkled] above, but the blood of no other [sacrifice] is [sprinkled] above. If so, let us say with respect to [the slaughtering of] the sin-offering too, [only] it is valid [when slaughtered] in its own name but invalid when not [slaughtered] in its own name, whereas other sacrifices are valid whether in their own name or not in their own name? — That ‘it’ is not meant particularly, since it disregards the Passover-offering. Then here too it is not meant particularly, since it disregards the bird burnt-offering? — At all events nothing which is slaughtered is omitted. Alternatively, this agrees with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon, who maintained: [The blood of] the one is [sprinkled] in a separate place, and [that of] the other is [sprinkled] in a separate place. For it was taught: The lower blood is applied below the scarlet line, while the upper [blood is applied] above the scarlet line, Said R. Simeon b. Eleazar: This holds good only of the bird burnt-offering; but in the case of the animal sin-offering its [blood] is applied essentially on the very horn [of the altar]. We learnt elsewhere: For R. Akiba maintained: All blood which entered the Hekal to make atonement is unfit; but the Sages rule: The sin-offering alone [is unfit]. R. Eliezer said: The guilt-offering too [is thus], for it says, As is the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering. As for R. Eliezer, it is well, his reason being as stated. But what is the reason of the Rabbis? — Said Raba: [They argue that] you cannot say that if the blood of the guilt-offering enters within it is unfit, [for the reverse follows] from the burnt-offering, afortiori. If^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ^ᵇᶜ

^ᵗnote:This way of arguing leads nowhere.
^ᵘnote:Lev. IV, 24.
^ᵛnote:Ii is implies emphasis: it must be slaughtered as a sin-offering and nothing else.
^ʷnote:Ex. XII, 27.
^ˣnote:Lev. VII, 5.
^ʸnote:Likewise the slaughtering.
^ᶻnote:Obviously then ‘it is’ cannot have the same implication here. V. supra 5b.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lev. VII, 7.
^ᵃᵇnote:Lit. from ‘what is the side’ (which they have in common)? V. Supra a bottom; the feature common to both the sin-offering and the Passover-offering is that they may be eaten one night only. The guilt-offering shares this feature, and therefore it also, like the other two, should be invalid if slaughtered for a different purpose.
^ᵃᶜnote:The sin-offering is brought on account of an unwitting offence which if wilful is punishable by kareth, The neglect to bring the Passover-offering by one who is not unclean or on a distant journey is likewise punishable by kareth (Num. IX, 13).
^ᵃᵈnote:Emended text (Sh. M.).
^ᵃᵉnote:In the case of the sin-offering of the Day of Atonement,
^ᵃᶠnote:Those which do not enter the innermost shrine — i.e., all save that of the Day of Atonement,
^ᵃᵍnote:V. Lev, V, 1ff. This does not involve kareth,
^ᵃʰnote:The blood of all sacrifices,
^ᵃⁱnote:Whereas even R. Ishmael admits that the blood of the guilt-offering is not sprinkled on the four horns, but only on two.
^ᵃʲnote:The blood of the sin-offering must be applied with the finger on the point (i.e.. the top) of the horn, whereas the blood of other sacrifices is not applied actually on the top. — The point is: If one is seeking distinctions, there are many other than that drawn by R. Joshua.
^ᵃᵏnote:For R. Eliezer likens the guilt-offering to the sin-offering.
^ᵃˡnote:Its blood is sprinkled below, though it does make atonement.
^ᵃᵐnote:The bird-offering was not slaughtered, its neck being wrung (Lev. I, 15).
^ᵃⁿnote:V. Supra 2a p. 1, n. 7.
^ᵃᵒnote:Farausag, in the vicinity of Be Dura, one of the four districts in the middle of which Baghdad was built; v. Obermeyer, Landschaft, pp. 268-9.
^ᵃᵖnote:V. Lev. V, 15 seq.
^ᵃᵠnote:For holding that the blood of a guilt-offering is sprinkled below.
^ᵃʳnote:Lev. VI, 19. The Heb. tyjnv is understood to mean he who sprinkles its blood in accordance with its law as a sin-offering, viz., above the scarlet line.
^ᵃˢnote:Since the unfitness of a sin-offering when not killed for its own sake is deduced from, And he shall kill it for a sin-offering (Lev. IV, 33). Then R. Eliezer should regard the ‘ it’ here too as a limitation and not apply the same law to the guilt-offering.
^ᵃᵗnote:To which the same law applies, as was shewn supra 7b.
^ᵃᵘnote:Whose blood too is sprinkled above; infra 65a.
^ᵃᵛnote:The limitation of ‘it’ applies to all slaughtered sacrifices,
^ᵃʷnote:Though the blood of both the sin-offering and the bird burnt-offering is sprinkled above the scarlet line, yet each has a different place. Therefore the limitation of ‘it’ in respect to the sprinkling of the blood has no exception at all.
^ᵃˣnote:At any point above it. — ‘Lower’ and ‘upper’ mean that which is applied below and that which is applied above respectively.
^ᵃʸnote:And not merely anywhere above the line.
^ᵃᶻnote:Infra 81b.
^ᵇᵃnote:The hall containing the golden altar etc., contrad. to the Holy of Holies (Jast.).
^ᵇᵇnote:When Moses rebuked Aaron for not eating the flesh of the sin-offering on the day of his consecration, he said to him: Behold, the blood of it was not brought into the sanctuary within; ye should certainly have eaten it (Lev. X, 18; v. also ib. VI, 23). This proves that if it had been brought ‘within’ Aaron would have been right, for the sacrifice would have thereby become unfit. Now the passage actually refers to a sin-offering: R. Akiba holds that its implication extends to all other sacrifices too, while the Rabbis confine it to the sin-offering.
^ᵇᶜnote:Lev. VII, 7.