Zevachim

in order to exclude one who acts in ignorance, under constraint, or in error.1 If so, there too it is required in order to exclude one who acts in ignorance, under constraint, or in error? — ‘That’ is written twice.2 Then what is the purpose of ‘unto the Lord’?3 — It is to exclude the goat that is sent away.4 OFFERING UP IS MORE STRINGENT etc. Our Rabbis taught: A man, a man:5 why this [repetition]? To include two who take hold of a limb and offer it up, [and it teaches] that they are liable. For I might argue, is not [the reverse] logical: if two who hold a knife and slaughter are not liable, though when one slaughters to a man he is liable; is it not logical that when two take hold [of a limb and offer it up] they are not liable, seeing that one who offers up to a man is not liable? Therefore ‘a man, a man’ is stated: these are the words of R. Simeon. R. Jose said: ‘That [man]’ implies one but not two. If so, why is ‘a man, a man’ stated? — [Because] Scripture employs human idiom.6 And R. Simeon?7 — He requires that for excluding one who acts in ignorance, under constraint, or in error. And R. Jose?8 — [He infers that] from ha-hu [being written instead of] hu.9 And R. Simeon? — He does not attribute any particular significance to 10 ha-hu [as opposed to] hu. Now, according to R. Jose, since [in] this ‘ish ish’ the Torah employs human idiom, in the other ish ish too11 [we must say that] the Torah employs human idiom; whence then does he know that one who slaughters to a man is liable? — He infers it from, blood shall be imputed unto that man, he hath shed blood: [this implies,] even one who slaughters to a man.12 IF ONE OFFERED UP, THEN OFFERED UP AGAIN etc. Resh Lakish said: The controversy is about four or five limbs, one master holds that the text, to sacrifice it, [which teaches that] a person is liable on account of a whole, but not on account of an incomplete one, is written in connection with the whole animal13 the other master holds that it is written in connection with each limb.14 But in the case of one limb,15 all agree that he is liable to one [offering] only. But R. Johanan maintained: The controversy is about one limb; one master holds that if one offers up without [limbs] which were [first] burnt within and [thus] became incomplete, he is liable;16 while the other master holds that he is not liable,17 But in the case of four or five limbs, all agree that he is liable on account of each limb [separately]. Now, this disagrees with ‘Ulla. For ‘Ulla said: All agree that one is liable if he offers up without [limbs] which were burnt within and [thus] became incomplete. They disagree only where one offers up without [limbs] which were burnt without and [thus] became incomplete: there one master holds that he is not liable, while the other master holds that he is liable.18 Others say, ‘Ulla said: All agree that one is not liable if he offers up without [limbs] which were burnt without and [thus] became incomplete. They disagree only where one offers up without [limbs] which were burnt within and [thus] became incomplete: one master holds that he is not liable, while the other master holds that he is liable. Now, Samuel's father disagrees with ‘Ulla's [view] in its first version. For Samuel's father said: In accordance with whom do we replace on the altar [limbs] that spring off? It is not in accordance with R. Jose.19 HE IS LIABLE ONLY WHEN HE OFFERS UP [ON TOP OF AN ALTAR] etc. R. Huna said, What is R. Jose's reason? — Because it is written, And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord.20 R. Johanan said: What is R. Simeon's reason? — Because it is written, So Manoah took the kid with the meal-offering, and offered it upon the rock unto the Lord.21 Now as to the other too, surely it is written, And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord? — That was merely for its elevation.22 And as to the other too, surely it is written, So Manoah took [etc.]? — That was a temporary dispensation. Alternatively, this is R. Simeon's reason, [viz.,] as it was taught: R. Simeon said: [There is] the altar [of the Lord] at the door of the tent of meeting,23 but there is no altar at the bamah;24 therefore if one offered up [without] on a rock or on a stone, he is liable. [‘He is liable’!] Surely he should say, [he] is excluded?25 — This is what he means: Therefore if one offers up on a rock or on a stone when bamoth are forbidden, he is liable. R. Jose son of R. Hanina asked: As to the horn, the ascent, the base and squareness, are these indispensable at the bamoth?26 — Said R. Jeremiah to him. It was taught: The horn, the ascent, the base and squareness were indispensable at the great bamoth,27 but were not indispensable at minor bamoth.28 MISHNAH implies that liability is incurred only when it could be sacrificed, and its rites performed, within. one offering only, viz., on account of the first, because the animal was still whole then. imposes a separate liability. become incomplete, therefore when one offers it up without, performing haktarah there, he is liable. Consequently, each successive offering up of a portion of the same limb entails a separate sacrifice. incomplete, he should also hold that one is liable for offering up without limbs which were incomplete through having been burnt within. This proves that in the opinion of Samuel's father, R. Jose disagrees, and holds that one is not liable, even if he offers up without limbs which were incomplete through having been first burnt within. altar was necessary, and one could sacrifice and offer up on a simple stone. without, and so he should have said, this excludes (from liability) one who offers up on a rock or on a stone.