זבחים 114 — Soncino English Talmud

¹As for a roba’ and a nirba’, it is well: It is conceivable [that the other proof-text is required] where one first consecrated them and then bestiality was committed with them. But as for an animal set apart [for idolatrous worship] and an animal worshipped [as an idol], no man can forbid that which does not belong to him? — This refers to lesser sacrifices, and in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean, who maintained that lesser sacrifices are their owner's property. For it was taught: [If any one sin] and commit a trespass against the Lord [ . . . then he shall bring his guilt-offering]: this is to include lesser sacrifices, because they are his [the individual's] property: this is the view of R. Jose the Galilean. Therefore [the second proof-text is required for] roba’ and nirba’, because immorality is involved. [It is required for] a [harlot's] hire, the price [of a dog], kil'ayim, and an animal calved through the caesarean section, in the case of the young of consecrated animals [sacrifices]; [because] he holds: The offerings of sacred animals are sacred from birth. BLEMISHED ANIMALS . . . AN ANIMAL TOGETHER WITH ITS YOUNG etc. Now, they are all necessary. For if he taught about blemished animals [only], I would say that the reason is that they are repulsive, but as for turtledoves, which are not repulsive, I would say that they agree with R. Simeon. While if he taught about turtledoves, I would say that the reason is because they were not rejected after having been eligible; but as for blemished animals which were eligible but became rejected, I would say that R. Simeon agrees with the Rabbis. And if he taught about these two, I would say that the reason is because their disqualification is intrinsic; but as for an animal and its young, where the disqualification comes from without, I would say that the Rabbis agree with R. Simeon. Thus [all three] are necessary. FOR R. SIMEON MAINTAINED etc. What is R. Simeon's reason? — Said R. Ela in the name of Resh Lakish: Because Scripture saith, Ye shall not do after all that we do here this day, [every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes]: Moses spoke thus to Israel: When ye enter the [Promised] Land, ye shall offer votive [sacrifices], but ye shall not offer obligatory offerings. Thus Gilgal in comparison with Shiloh was premature, and Moses said to them, Ye shall not do. Said R. Jeremiah to R. Zera: If so,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ

^ᵃnote:Now, when it was consecrated, it was fit to come to the door of the tent of meeting and therefore the text, ‘and hath not brought it’ etc. may not exclude this case; for the first text might mean that if an animal was eligible when it was consecrated and then one slaughtered it without, he is liable, even if it was not eligible when it was slaughtered; hence the Mishnah quotes the other proof-text, ‘to present it as an offering unto the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord’. This definitely excludes whatever is not actually fit to be offered.
^ᵇnote:The Mishnah must mean that the animal had been set apart before it was consecrated, for once it is consecrated it belongs to God, and it cannot be forbidden by any man's act, viz., dedicating it for an idolatrous sacrifice or worshipping it. But in that case the first proof-text is sufficient.
^ᶜnote:Hence they can be forbidden even after they are consecrated, and the Mishnah treats of such a case.
^ᵈnote:Lev. V. 21. The trespass referred to is false repudiation of liability on oath.
^ᵉnote:If one swears falsely that he did not vow a peace-offering, which is of lesser sanctity, he brings a guilt-offering. Though this law does not apply to sacred property (deduced from, ‘and deal falsely with his neighbour’ ibid.), the phrase ‘against the Lord’ shews that it does apply nevertheless even where there is an element of sanctity, viz., in the case of lesser sacrifices, and thus teaches that these count as the individual's property.
^ᶠnote:For which reason they are disqualified even if bestiality is committed after they were consecrated.
^ᵍnote:As stated above, the second proof-text is necessary only if the animals were eligible when consecrated, and in these that is possible only in the case of the young of consecrated animals, which were disqualified before birth by being promised as a harlot's hire or the exchange of a dog: when one came to sacrifice their mother, they would come to the door’ too. It cannot arise in the case of the animals themselves, for if they were consecrated and then given as a harlot's hire, this second act is invalid (Tem. 30b) and they remain fit. Whilst if they were first a harlot's hire and then consecrated, the law is deduced from the first proof-text. The same applies to the other cases, viz., kil'ayim etc. Again, if these young become sacred even before birth, the act of subsequently giving them as a harlot's hire etc. would not disqualify them, just as it does not disqualify the mother. Therefore he must hold that they are sacred only from birth. — Several words are omitted from the text, in accordance with Rashi and Sh.M.
^ʰnote:The controversy between R. Simeon and the Sages must be taught in all three instances.
^ⁱnote:Therefore the Rabbis hold that he is not liable for slaughtering them without.
^ʲnote:That he is not liable.
^ᵏnote:It is not intrinsic and only due to an accident of time, viz., that they are both slaughtered on the same day.
^ˡnote:Deut. XII, 8.
^ᵐnote:Lit., ‘which are right (or pleasing) in your eyes’.
^ⁿnote:The Sifre applies the text to their first fourteen years in Eretz Israel, when the Tabernacle was at Gilgal. These years were spent in conquering and sharing the land, and so one could apply to them the words, for ye are not as yet come to the rest . . . which the Lord your God giveth thee (ibid. v. 9). This is what Moses said to them: At present, when we are travelling about with the Tabernacle and bamoth are forbidden, all sacrifices can be offered. But in the years of conquest and division, before ye are come to the ‘rest’, ‘Ye shall not do after all that we do here this day,’ viz., offer obligatory offerings, but only ‘every man whatsoever is right in his eyes,’ i.e., votive sacrifices. Thus the statutory offerings were premature at Gilgal, (and would have to wait until they came to Shiloh), and Moses forbids their sacrifice at the bamoth by a negative injunction, ‘Ye shall not do.’ From this E. Simeon infers that the premature sacrifice of all animals at the bamoth, i.e., before they become eligible, is forbidden by a negative injunction.
^ᵒnote:That those at Gilgal are premature.

²one should even be flagellated too? Why did R. Zera say: Scripture transmuted it into a positive command? — Perhaps that is only according to the Rabbis, but in the view of R. Simeon, that indeed is so. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: Within, at Gilgal, was like without in comparison with Shiloh. Rabbah said: R. Simeon's reason is as it was taught: R. Simeon said: How do we know that one who sacrifices his Passover-offering at a private bamah when bamoth were prohibited, violates a negative command? Because it is said, ‘Thou mayest not sacrifice the Passover-offering [within one of thy gates]’. You might think that it is also thus when bamoth were permitted; therefore it is stated, ‘within one of thy gates’: I have told you [that he violates a negative injunction] only when all Israel enter through one gate. Now when is this thus? If we say, after midday, let him even incur kareth too! Hence It must surely mean before midday! — No: in truth it means after midday, but it means when bamoth were permitted. But surely he says, ‘When bamoth were prohibited’? — He means when the bamah was forbidden for that [sacrifice], but permitted for another. BEFORE TIME etc. Are these then subject to guilt-offerings? — Said Ze'iri: Include a leper amongst them. THEIR BURNT-OFFERINGS AND THEIR PEACE-OFFERINGS. And are these subject to peace-offerings? — Said R. Shesheth: Learn a nazirite [in the Mishnah]. According to Ze'iri, the Tannaim [explicitly] included it: according to R. Shesheth, the Tannaim did not include it. R. Hilkiah b. Tobi said: They learnt it only [when he sacrifices it] for its own sake. But [if he sacrifices it] under a different designation he is culpable, since it is eligible, under a different designation, within. If so, let him also be culpable [when he slaughters it] for its own sake, since it was eligible, under a different designation, within? — It lacks abrogation. To this R. Huna demurred: Is there anything which [when slaughtered] for its own sake is not fit, yet [when slaughtered] under a different designation is fit? — Is there not? Surely^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ

^ᵖnote:Sc. one who slaughters an animal prematurely within. For the public bamah at the Tabernacle of Gilgal, which was the Tent of Meeting of the wilderness, naturally ranked as within, yet Scripture said ‘Ye shall not do’. — The transgression of a negative injunction is punished by flagellation.
^ᵠnote:V. Hul. 80b. If, however, ‘Ye shall not do’ applies to such, we have a negative command.
^ʳnote:As they do not relate ‘Ye shall not do’ to premature slaughtering.
^ˢnote:One would be flagellated.
^ᵗnote:It counts as without since obligatory sacrifices might not be offered there. Thus even R. Simeon admits that he is not flagellated, for now we find the negative injunction only in connection with slaughtering without, but not in connection with slaughtering within.
^ᵘnote:Deut. XVI, 5.
^ᵛnote:For even then private bamoth were permitted only for votive sacrifices, but not for obligatory sacrifices like the Passover-offering, which were sacrificed at the public bamoth.
^ʷnote:I.e., when there is a central sanctuary; but when bamoth were permitted there was no central sanctuary. The verse is understood thus: ‘Thou mayest not sacrifice the Passover-offering’ at a private bamah when all Israel enter through ‘one of the gates’.
^ˣnote:On the fourteenth of Nisan.
^ʸnote:And not merely flagellation, (v. n. 1.), since it can then be received within.
^ᶻnote:When it is premature. Thus a sacrifice slaughtered prematurely without, under its correct designation, entails the violation of a negative prohibition.
^ᵃᵃnote:It was forbidden for the Passover-offering, but permitted for a burnt-offering and peace-offering (i.e., votive offerings). This then is what he means: You might think that this is so even when it (the Passover-offering) may be sacrificed at a bamah, viz., before midday, when it can be offered as a peace-offering; therefore it says, ‘in one of thy gates’. I have told . . . ‘at one gate ,viz., at the public bamah, to slaughter their Passover-offerings, which is after midday.
^ᵃᵇnote:I.e., ‘guilt-offering’ is mentioned only in connection with the leper, who is also enumerated. Rashi, in the Mishnah, deletes ‘leper’.
^ᵃᶜnote:Sc. leper, in the Mishnah.
^ᵃᵈnote:‘Leper’ is absent in the version of the Mishnah, nevertheless it must be added, on the assumption that the text of the Mishnah is defective.
^ᵃᵉnote:That when a leper prematurely sacrifices his guilt-offering without he is not culpable.
^ᵃᶠnote:E.g., as a burnt-offering.
^ᵃᵍnote:For all sacrifices slaughtered under a different designation are fit, except the Passover-offering and the sin-offering.
^ᵃʰnote:Before it can be eligible, its name as a guilt-offering must be abrogated, and as long as this was not done it is not eligible.
^ᵃⁱnote:For although all sacrifices slaughtered under a different designation are fit, that is surely only when they are fit if slaughtered for their own sake.