זבחים 106 — Soncino English Talmud

¹so here too it means on the east of Jerusalem. And according to the Rabbis, where did one burn them? — Even as it was taught: Where were they burnt? On the north of Jerusalem, without the three camps. R. Jose the Galilean said: They are burnt in the place of the ashes. Raba observed: Who is the Tanna that disagrees with R. Jose the Galilean? — R. Eliezer b. Jacob. For it was taught: Where the ashes are poured out it shall be burnt: [this intimates] that ashes must be there [first]. R. Eliezer b. Jacob said: It intimates that the ground must slope down. Said Abaye to him: Perhaps they disagree whether the ground must slope ? Our Rabbis taught: He who burns [the bullocks] defiles [his] garments, but he who kindles the fire does not defile [his] garments, nor does he who arranges the pile defile [his] garments. And what is the definition of ‘he who burns’? — He who assists at the time of the burning. You might think that also he [who assists] when they have already been reduced to ashes defiles [his] garments: therefore it states, [And he that burneth] them [shall wash his clothes]: [when he burns] them they defile garments, but when they have become ashes they do not defile garments. R. Simeon said: [When he burns] them they defile [his] garments. but when the flesh is disintegrated they do not defile garments. Wherein do they disagree? — Said Raba: They disagree where it [the flesh] is completely charred. MISHNAH. HE WHO SLAUGHTERS AND OFFERS UP WITHOUT [THE TEMPLE COURT]. IS CULPABLE IN RESPECT OF SLAUGHTERING AND IN RESPECT OF OFFERING R. JOSE THE GALILEAN MAINTAINED: IF HE SLAUGHTERED WITHIN AND OFFERED UP WITHOUT, [HE IS CULPABLE]; IF HE SLAUGHTERED WITHOUT AND OFFERED UP WITHOUT, HE IS NOT LIABLE, BECAUSE HE OFFERED UP ONLY THAT WHICH WAS UNFIT. SAID THEY TO HIM: WHEN ONE SLAUGHTERS WITHIN AND OFFERS UP WITHOUT, IMMEDIATELY HE CARRIES IT OUT, HE RENDERS IT UNFIT. AN UNCLEAN [PERSON] WHO EATS [OF SACRIFICES], WHETHER UNCLEAN SACRIFICES OR CLEAN SACRIFICES, IS CULPABLE. R. JOSE THE GALILEAN SAID: AN UNCLEAN PERSON WHO EATS CLEAN [SACRIFICES] IS CULPABLE, BUT AN UNCLEAN PERSON WHO EATS UNCLEAN [FLESH OF SACRIFICES] IS NOT CULPABLE. BECAUSE HE ATE ONLY THAT WHICH IS UNCLEAN. SAID THEY TO HIM: WHEN AN UNCLEAN PERSON EATS CLEAN [FLESH], IMMEDIATELY HE TOUCHES IT, HE DEFILES IT. A CLEAN PERSON WHO EATS UNCLEAN [FLESH] IS NOT CULPABLE, BECAUSE ONE IS CULPABLE ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL UNCLEANNESS. GEMARA. As for offering up. it is well: the penalty is written and the interdict is written. The penalty, for it is written, And bringeth it not unto the door of the tent of meeting [. . . even that man shall be cut off from his people]. The interdict, for it is written, Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt-offerings [in every place that thou seest], and in accordance with R. Abin's dictum in R. Eleazar's name, vis.: Wherever ‘take heed’, ‘lest’, or ‘not’ is stated, it is nought but a negative command. But as for slaughtering, the penalty, it is true, is stated, for it is written, [What man soever . . . that killeth an ox . . .] and hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting [ . . . shall be cut off from among his people]; but whence [do we derive] the interdict? — Scripture saith, And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices [unto the satyrs etc]. That is required for R. Eleazar's dictum, viz.: How do we know that if one sacrifices an animal to Merculis he is liable to punishment? Because it is written, ‘And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices unto the satyrs’. Since this is redundant in respect of normal worship, being derived from, How did these nations serve their gods? apply it to abnormal worship [as being punishable]! — Said Rabbah: Read in this text, and they shall not sacrifice, and read in it, and they shall no more. But it is still required for what was taught: Thus far it speaks of sacrifices which one consecrated when bamoth were forbidden and offered up when bamoth were forbidden,^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:Who employ this verse for a different purpose, as above.
^ᵇnote:Ashes from the altar must first be placed there, so that they are burnt ‘where the ashes are poured out.’ — It follows that the first Tanna does not require this.
^ᶜnote:Lit., ‘poured out’, it must be a place where the ashes naturally pour down.
^ᵈnote:Possibly R. Eliezer b. Jacob too admits that ashes must first be placed there, but he adds that the place must slope too. — Abaye's suggestion is unrefuted.
^ᵉnote:Lev. XVI, 28.
^ᶠnote:It is then disintegrated, yet not ashes. According to R. Simeon, a person who comes to assist in the burning at this stage does not defile his garments, whereas in the opinion of the Rabbis he does.
^ᵍnote:A man who wantonly slaughters or offers up a sacrifice without the Temple (by ‘offering up’ is meant e.g. that he burns it on a block of stone — but v. Mishnah infra 108a — as one would burn it on the altar) incurs kareth. If he does these in ignorance, being unaware that they are forbidden, he is liable to a separate sin-offering on account of each action, as each counts as a distinct transgression.
^ʰnote:Bracketed words are added from the separate edition of the Mishnayoth.
^ⁱnote:One is culpable for offering up without only when it was fit to be offered up within. But this was not, on account of having been slaughtered without.
^ʲnote:Even before he offers it up. Nevertheless he is liable; the same therefore applies when he slaughters without and offers up without.
^ᵏnote:Even before he eats it, yet he is culpable.
^ˡnote:Cf. supra 43a.
^ᵐnote:Lit., ‘the warning’.
^ⁿnote:Lev. XVII, 9. This refers to sacrifices.
^ᵒnote:Deut. XII, 13: ‘Every place that thou seest’ means outside the Temple. Thus one text intimates the penalty and another the interdict.
^ᵖnote:Var. lec. Ilai's.
^ᵠnote:Lev. XVII, 3f.
^ʳnote:Ibid. 7.
^ˢnote:Mercurius, a Roman divinity, identified with the Greek Hermes; also a statue or a way-mark dedicated to Hermes, the patron deity of the wayfarer.
^ᵗnote:Deut. XII, 30.
^ᵘnote:Hence sacrificing to Merculis, though not its normal worship (its normal worship consisted of throwing stones at it; v. Sanh. 60b). involves guilt. — Thus the text is required for this!
^ᵛnote:I.e., this is really a double injunction, and the first, ‘they shall not sacrifice’, interdicts sacrificing without, this being the subject of the whole passage.
^ʷnote:The passage until this verse, and they shall no more sacrifice, i.e., Lev. XVII, 3-6.
^ˣnote:I.e., after the Tabernacle was erected. If, however, one consecrated an animal before the Tabernacle was erected, when bamoth were permitted, there is nothing as yet to shew that he is culpable if he slaughters it at a bamah after it is erected.

²since their penalty is stated, [vis..] ‘and hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting’ [etc.]. whilst whence do we know the interdict? ‘Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt-offerings [etc.].’ From here onward it speaks of sacrifices which one consecrated when bamoth were permitted but offered when they were forbidden, for it is said, To the end that the children of Israel may bring their sacrifices which they sacrifice [viz.,] sacrifices which I formerly permitted — in the open field: this teaches you [that] he who sacrifices [slaughters] [at bamoth] when bamoth are forbidden, the Writ regards him as though he offered in the open field. ‘Even that they may bring them unto the Lord’: this is a positive injunction. Whence have we a negative injunction? From the text, ‘And they shall no more sacrifice [etc.]’ You might think that one is punished for it by kareth; therefore it states, This shall be a statute for ever unto them throughout their generations: ‘this’ is their [statute]. but nought else is theirs! — Rather said R. Abin: [We learn it] a minori: if [Scripture] interdicted where it did not punish [with kareth]; is it not logical that it interdicted where it punished [with kareth]? Rabina observed to R. Ashi: If so, let a negative injunction not be stated in connection with heleb, and it could be inferred a minori from nebelah: if [Scripture] interdicted nebelah, where it did not punish [with kareth]; is it not logical that it interdicted heleb, seeing that it did punish [with kareth]. Then he came before Raba. Said he to him: It could not be inferred from nebelah, because [the argument] can be refuted: As for nebelah, the reason is because it defiles. [Nor can it be deduced] from unclean sherazim [reptiles], [because,] As for unclean sherazim, the reason is because a small portion defiles. [Nor] from clean sherazim, [because,] As for clean sherazim, the reason is because [the standard of] their interdict is very small. [Nor] from ‘orlah and kilayim of the vineyard, [because,] As for ‘orlah and kilayim of the vineyard, that is because all benefit from them is forbidden. [Nor] from shebi'ith, [because,] As for shebi'ith, that is because it imposes its own status upon the money received for it. [Nor] from terumah, [because,] As for terumah, that is because it is never exceptionally permitted. [Nor can you deduce it] from all these because they are never permitted exceptionally. Raba said: If I have a difficulty, it is this: When we learnt, The Passover-offering and circumcision are positive commands, let us infer [a negative injunction in their case] from one who leaves [anything] over [of the Passover-offering]: If Scripture interdicted in the case of one who leaves over, though it did not prescribe a penalty, is it not logical that it interdicted in the case of the Passover-offering and circumcision, where it did prescribe a penalty? R. Ashi said: I reported this discussion in R. Kahana's presence. and he told me: [A negative injunction] cannot be inferred from leaving over, because [the argument] can be refuted: as for leaving over, that is because it cannot be repaired; will you say [that there is a negative injunction] in the case of a Passover-offer, which can be repaired [if neglected]? But can you assume an interdict by inferring a minori? [For] even on the view that you can punish through inferring a minori, you cannot assume a formal prohibition by inferring a minori! — Rather, it is as R. Johanan said [elsewhere]. For R. Johanan said: ‘Bringing’ is inferred from ‘bringing’: as in the latter case [Scripture] did not prescribe a penalty without formally interdicting, so in the former case [Scripture] did not prescribe a penalty without formally interdicting.^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ

^ʸnote:From Lev. XVII, 7.
^ᶻnote:Ibid., 5.
^ᵃᵃnote:Though the inference is obviously that they may not bring them to the bamoth but only ‘unto the Lord’ (i.e. at the Tabernacle), yet since it is expressed affirmatively, the implied interdict counts as a positive injunction.
^ᵃᵇnote:‘No more’ implies that hitherto it was permitted, but from now onwards it is forbidden.
^ᵃᶜnote:It is subject only to an affirmative and a negative precept, but not to kareth. — Thus the negative injunction applies to sacrifices which were consecrated when bamoth were permitted, but we have no explicit negative injunction in respect of those consecrated when bamoth were forbidden.
^ᵃᵈnote:Sh.M. and Bah emend: Abaye.
^ᵃᵉnote:Sc. where the sacrifice was consecrated when bamoth were permitted. As just stated, we have a negative injunction covering that case, but kareth is not involved.
^ᵃᶠnote:Sc. where the sacrifice was consecrated when bamoth were already forbidden.
^ᵃᵍnote:v. Glos.
^ᵃʰnote:Rabina and R. Ashi were later than Raba. For that reason the text is amended to Abaye (v. n. 6.). Raba's contemporary.
^ᵃⁱnote:Whereas heleb does not defile.
^ᵃʲnote:As much as a lentil defiles.
^ᵃᵏnote:Those which do not defile, e.g., a frog or an ant, but which are forbidden as food by a negative interdict,
^ᵃˡnote:He who eats as much as a lentil is culpable; whereas no penalty is incurred for eating less than an olive size of heleb.
^ᵃᵐnote:Whereas heleb is only forbidden as food.
^ᵃⁿnote:For all these words v. Glos.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lit., ‘it seizes its money.’ — If shebi'ith is sold, the money is forbidden in the same way as itself. That does not apply to heleb, however.
^ᵃᵖnote:Lit., ‘it is not permitted out of its general (interdict).’ Terumah is always forbidden to unclean priests, whereas some heleb is permitted, viz., the heleb of a hayyah (non-domesticated animal, e.g.. deer).
^ᵃᵠnote:It is stated in Ker. 2a that one is liable to a sin-offering for the unintentional violation of all negative injunctions which if deliberately violated involve kareth. These two however, though entailing kareth, are positive precepts, and so their neglect does not necessitate a sin-offering.
^ᵃʳnote:This is forbidden by a negative injunction: And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning (Ex. XII, 10).
^ᵃˢnote:Hence, if such an argument is permissible, they should rank as subject to a negative injunction too. viz., not to neglect them.
^ᵃᵗnote:Once the flesh is left over, nothing can be done.
^ᵃᵘnote:By bringing an offering on the Second Passover (v. Num. IX, 9 seq.). Circumcision should be done on the eighth day; yet if not done then, it can be performed at any time subsequently. — Thus so far all the arguments against the assumption of an interdict a minori have been rebutted.
^ᵃᵛnote:A gezerah shawah between slaughtering and offering up is deduced, based on the fact that ‘bringing’ is written in connection with both: Slaughtering: What man soever . . . that killeth an ox . . . and hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting; offering up: Whatsoever man . . . that offereth up a burnt-offering or sacrifice, and bringeth it not unto the door of the tent of meeting. — R. Johanan stated this exegesis with respect to another question (v. infra 107a), but the same applies here.