Zevachim

so here too it means on the east of Jerusalem. And according to the Rabbis,1 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.2 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.3 Said Abaye to him: Perhaps they disagree whether the ground must slope4 ? 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]:5 [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.6 MISHNAH. HE WHO SLAUGHTERS AND OFFERS UP WITHOUT [THE TEMPLE COURT]. IS CULPABLE IN RESPECT OF SLAUGHTERING AND IN RESPECT OF OFFERING7 R. JOSE THE GALILEAN MAINTAINED: IF HE SLAUGHTERED WITHIN AND OFFERED UP WITHOUT, [HE IS CULPABLE];8 IF HE SLAUGHTERED WITHOUT AND OFFERED UP WITHOUT, HE IS NOT LIABLE, BECAUSE HE OFFERED UP ONLY THAT WHICH WAS UNFIT.9 SAID THEY TO HIM: WHEN ONE SLAUGHTERS WITHIN AND OFFERS UP WITHOUT, IMMEDIATELY HE CARRIES IT OUT, HE RENDERS IT UNFIT.10 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.11 A CLEAN PERSON WHO EATS UNCLEAN [FLESH] IS NOT CULPABLE, BECAUSE ONE IS CULPABLE ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL UNCLEANNESS.12 GEMARA. As for offering up. it is well: the penalty is written and the interdict13 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].14 The interdict, for it is written, Take heed to thyself that thou offer not thy burnt-offerings [in every place that thou seest],15 and in accordance with R. Abin's dictum in R. Eleazar's16 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];17 but whence [do we derive] the interdict? — Scripture saith, And they shall no more sacrifice their sacrifices [unto the satyrs etc].18 That is required for R. Eleazar's dictum, viz.: How do we know that if one sacrifices an animal to Merculis19 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?20 apply it to abnormal worship [as being punishable]!21 — Said Rabbah: Read in this text, and they shall not sacrifice, and read in it, and they shall no more. 22 But it is still required for what was taught: Thus far23 it speaks of sacrifices which one consecrated when bamoth were forbidden and offered up when bamoth were forbidden,24 that the first Tanna does not require this. — Abaye's suggestion is unrefuted. stage does not defile his garments, whereas in the opinion of the Rabbis he does. 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. having been slaughtered without. offers up without. another the interdict. the patron deity of the wayfarer. v. Sanh. 60b). involves guilt. — Thus the text is required for this! the subject of the whole passage. 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.