זבחים 107:1 — Soncino English Talmud

Raba said, It is as R. Jonah[‘s exegesis]. For R. Jonah said: ‘There’ is inferred from ‘there’: as in the one case, [Scripture] did not prescribe a penalty without formally prohibiting, so in the other case [Scripture] did not punish without formally prohibiting. We have [now] found the case of those which should be burnt within, which were offered up without; how do we know the case of those which should be burnt without, which were offered up without? — Said R. Kahana: Scripture saith, And thou shalt say unto them [which means,] thou shalt say concerning those just mentioned. To this Raba demurred: Is it then written, ‘concerning them’: Surely ‘unto them’ is written? Rather, it is as the School of R. Ishmael taught: ‘And thou shalt say unto them’ combines the sections. R. Johanan said: ‘Bringing’ is inferred from ‘bringing’: as there it refers to those [sacrifices] which must be burnt without, so here too it refers to those which must be burnt without. To this R. Bibi demurred: When we learnt, There are thirty-six offences in the Torah which entail kareth: surely there are thirty seven, for there are offering up [a sacrifice which should be burnt within] and offering up [a sacrifice which should be burnt without]? That is indeed a difficulty. Now, when we learnt: He who sprinkles some of the blood without, is culpable: how do we know it? — It is inferred from what was taught: Blood shall be imputed [unto that man]: that is to include one who sprinkles [without]: these are the words of R. Ishmael. R. Akiba said: Or sacrifice includes sprinkling. And how does R. Ishmael employ this [phrase] ‘or sacrifice’? — To divide. And whence does R. Akiba know to divide? — He infers it from, and bringeth it not [unto the door of the tent of meeting]. And R. Ishmael? — He requires that [‘it’] [for teaching:] One is culpable for [offering up] the whole [animal], but not for [offering up] an incomplete one. And R. Akiba? — He infers it from [the phrase] ‘to sacrifice it’. And R. Ishmael? — One [‘it’] is in respect of those [sacrifices] which which should be burnt within, which were made incomplete and offered up without; the other is in respect of those which should be burnt without, which one made incomplete and offered up without. And it was taught even so: R. Ishmael said: You might think that if one made incomplete and offered up without what should be burnt within, he is culpable; therefore it says, ‘to sacrifice it’: one is culpable for [offering up] a whole [animal], but not for [offering up] an incomplete one. And R. Akiba? — He holds that if one made incomplete and offered up without what should be burnt within, he is culpable. And R. Akiba: How does he employ this [phrase], ‘blood shall be imputed’? — It includes the shechitah of a bird. And R. Ishmael? — He deduces it from, or that killeth. And R. Akiba? — He can answer you: He requires that [to teach]: One is culpable for slaughtering [shechitah], but not for nipping [melikah]. And R. Ishmael? — He infers it from, This is the thing [which the Lord hath commanded]. For it was taught: [What man soever . . .] that killeth [an ox etc.]: I know it only of slaughtering an animal; how do I know [that] if one slaughters a bird [he is culpable]? Because it says, or that killeth. You might think that I also include one who performs melikah, and that is indeed logical: if one is culpable for shechitah [of a bird], though this is not its correct rite within; is it not logical that one is culpable for melikah [without], seeing that that is its correct rite within? Therefore it states. ‘This is the thing [etc.]’. And R. Akiba? — He can answer you: that is required for a gezerah shawah. Now, as to what we learnt: He who takes the fistful, and he who receives the blood [of a sacrifice slaughtered without] is not liable: how do we know it? But whence would you infer that he is culpable? — From shechitah. As for shechitah, the reason may be because it invalidates a Passover-offering [when it is done] on behalf of such who cannot eat it! — Then infer it from sprinkling: as for sprinkling. the reason may be because a lay-Israelite is liable to death on its account!34^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ

^ᵃnote:Deut. XII, 14: There shalt thou offer up thy burnt-offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee. ‘Do’ refers to all rites (including slaughtering) in connection with sacrifices.
^ᵇnote:The ‘one case’ and ‘the other case’ are ‘offering up’ and ‘doing’ respectively (v. preceding note).
^ᶜnote:Sc. those which were slaughtered within, so that they should have been burnt (i.e., haktarah) within.
^ᵈnote:Sc. which were slaughtered without so that they could not be burnt within but without. ‘Burnt’ in this connection does not mean haktarah, but the burning of unfit sacrifices.
^ᵉnote:That this too makes one liable. For it might be argued that there is no culpability here, since the animal could not be burnt within in any case.
^ᶠnote:Lev. XVII, 8.
^ᵍnote:Lit., ‘the near ones’. (Sh.M. reads: the preceding.) Lev. XVII, 3-7 deals with slaughtering without: vv. 8f treats of offering up without, and they commence with, ‘And thou shalt say unto them’ which implies, thou shalt say about them just mentioned, sc. those who slaughter without, that they are also culpable for offering up without.
^ʰnote:Sh.M. reads: Rabbah.
^ⁱnote:I.e., ovhkt (‘alehem), not ovhkg (‘alehem).
^ʲnote:Sc. vv. 3-7 and vv. 8f. Hence the provisions of the latter section (sc. liability for offering up without) apply to those mentioned in the former (viz., those who slaughter without). — Though this exegesis too infers the law from the same phrase, the method of interpretation is different and retains the correct rendering of ‘alehem, unto them.
^ᵏnote:V. supra 106b and p. 520, n. 3. Similarly here: as ‘bringing’ in the former section refers to one who slaughters without, so it does in the latter too.
^ˡnote:The thirty-six as enumerated include offering up without. Now in answer to the question, since they are all enumerated, why is the number stated? The Talmud says that it teaches that if one committed all of them in a single state of ignorance (not knowing that they are forbidden), he is liable to thirty-six sin-offerings. If, however, culpability for offering up without sacrifices which should be burnt without, is inferred by a gezerah shawah from those which should be burnt within, they constitute two separate offences and involve separate sin-offerings. But in that case they should be enumerated separately there too, and the number given is thirty-seven.
^ᵐnote:I.e., even if he made one sprinkling only instead of four.
^ⁿnote:For Scripture speaks only of slaughtering and offering up without, but not of sprinkling.
^ᵒnote:Lev. XVII, 4.
^ᵖnote:Ibid. 8; it refers to offering up without, and ‘or’ is regarded as an extension.
^ᵠnote:To shew that one is liable for offering up without either a burnt-offering or any other sacrifice. Without ‘or’ you would assume that liability is incurred only for offering up both.
^ʳnote:‘It’ is singular and so implies one.
^ˢnote:Does he not admit this exegesis?
^ᵗnote:From which part is missing. The exact meaning of ‘whole’ and ‘incomplete’ is discussed anon.
^ᵘnote:How does he know this?
^ᵛnote:If ‘it’ were written once only, I would say that its implication applies only to those which should be burnt without. But as for those which should be burnt within, he is culpable even if he offers up only part, for when a single limb springs off the altar during the burning (haktarah), it must be replaced, which shews that haktarah applies even to part. (The general principle is that the performance of a rite without involves liability when it would count as a proper rite within.)
^ʷnote:Whence does he learn this?
^ˣnote:Though a bird sacrifice requires melikah, not shechitah, yet if it is slaughtered without (i.e., with shechitah), it involves liability.
^ʸnote:Ibid., 3.
^ᶻnote:Thus both are necessary. For from the first I would conclude that even shechitah of a bird involves liability, and all the more melikah, since that is the correct way of sacrificing a bird. Hence the second teaches that only shechitah involves liability.
^ᵃᵃnote:Lev. XVII, 2. This is the superscription to the whole passage, and is emphatic, implying that the law is exactly as stated.
^ᵃᵇnote:This is superfluous, as Scripture could say, that killeth an ox . . . in the camp or without the camp.
^ᵃᶜnote:V. Ned. 78a; B. B. 120b.
^ᵃᵈnote:Of a meal-offering, without, and does not burn it.
^ᵃᵉnote:That you seek a text to shew that he is not.
^ᵃᶠnote:By analogy: as shechitah is a sacrificial rite and involves culpability if performed without, so it is the same with every sacrificial rite.
^ᵃᵍnote:V. supra 4a. But that obviously cannot apply to taking the fistful, or to receiving.
^ᵃʰnote:For performing it. But he is not liable for the other rites.