Zevachim

As 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.1 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?2 — This refers to lesser sacrifices, and in accordance with R. Jose the Galilean, who maintained that lesser sacrifices are their owner's property.3 For it was taught: [If any one sin] and commit a trespass against the Lord [ . . . then he shall bring his guilt-offering]:4 this is to include lesser sacrifices, because they are his [the individual's] property:5 this is the view of R. Jose the Galilean. Therefore [the second proof-text is required for] roba’ and nirba’, because immorality is involved.6 [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.7 BLEMISHED ANIMALS . . . AN ANIMAL TOGETHER WITH ITS YOUNG etc. Now, they are all necessary.8 For if he taught about blemished animals [only], I would say that the reason is that they are repulsive,9 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.10 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,11 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]:12 Moses spoke thus to Israel: When ye enter the [Promised] Land, ye shall offer votive [sacrifices],13 but ye shall not offer obligatory offerings. Thus Gilgal in comparison with Shiloh was premature, and Moses said to them, Ye shall not do.14 Said R. Jeremiah to R. Zera: If so,15 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.