זבחים 115 — Soncino English Talmud

¹a Passover-offering, though not fit [if slaughtered] during the rest of the year under its own designation, is nevertheless fit [if slaughtered] under a different designation! — A Passover-offering during the rest of the year is a peace-offering. Shall we say that the following supports him [R. Hilkiah]? [It was taught:] You might think that I also exclude a burnt-offering which is premature in relation to its owner, or a nazirite's guilt-offering and a leper's guilt-offering; therefore it says, an ox’, [implying] in all cases; ‘or lamb’, [implying, in all cases; or goat’, [implying] in all cases. Thus he omits a sin-offering. Now what are we discussing? If we say, [when it is sacrificed] in its time, why particularly a guilt-offering; even a sin-offering too [entails liability]? Hence it must mean [when it is] not [sacrificed] in its proper time; and in which [case]? If we say, [when he sacrifices it] for its own sake, why is he liable for a guilt-offering? Hence it must surely mean [when he sacrifices it] under a different designation! — In truth it means in the proper time and under a different designation, and this is in accordance with R. Eliezer, who maintained: We assimilate the guilt-offering to the sin-offering; and he teaches the derived case, and the same law applies to the principal case. Come and hear: You might think that I include a burnt-offering which is intrinsically premature and a sin-offering [which is premature] either intrinsically or through its owners; therefore it says, And hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting’: Whatever is not eligible to come to the door of the tent of meeting, you are not liable on its account. But [the Tanna] omits a guilt-offering. Now what are we discussing? If we say, [when it is sacrificed] for its own sake, let him not be liable in the case of a guilt-offering too? Hence it must surely mean [when one does] not [sacrifice it] for its own sake! — This agrees with R. Eliezer, who assimilates the guilt-offering to the sin-offering; and he teaches the principal case [the sin-offering], and all the more [does it apply to] the derived case. Come and hear, for when R. Dimi came, he said: The school of Bar Liwai taught: You might think that I also exclude a burnt-offering which is premature through its owner, and a nazirite's guilt-offering and a leper's guilt-offering [etc.]. Now, he [the Tanna] thus infers that one is liable, but I do not know how he infers it. Said Rabina: [The reference is:] ‘an ox’, in all cases; ‘a sheep’, in all cases; ‘a goat’, in all cases. But he omits a sin-offering. And what are we discussing [etc.]? What difficulty is this? Perhaps [it is to be explained] as you stated [in the previous discussion]? — Said R. Nahman [b. Isaac]: Because this teaching of the school of Bar Liwai contradicts what Levi taught, viz.: As to a nazirite's guilt-offering and a leper's guilt-offering, if one slaughtered them under a different designation they are valid, but do not free their owners of their obligations. If one slaughtered them before they were due from their owners, or if they were two years old when they were slaughtered, they are unfit. [And R. Dimi answered:] There is no difficulty: In the one case [he slaughtered it] for its own sake; in the other it was not [slaughtered] for its own sake. R. Ashi pointed out a contradiction between our Mishnah and the Baraitha, and he reconciled them; one means [where he slaughters it] for its own sake; the other [where he does] not [slaughter it] for its own sake. Shall we say that this refutes R. Huna? — R. Huna can answer you: The case we discuss here is that of one who set aside two [animals for] guilt-offerings, as security, so that one of them was a burnt-offering from the outset,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ

^ᵃnote:Hence when one slaughters it as such, he is slaughtering it for its own sake.
^ᵇnote:From the implication of the text, ‘and hath not brought it unto the door’ etc.
^ᶜnote:E.g. one brought by a leper or a woman after childbirth before they were fit.
^ᵈnote:Disqualified for some other reason. — I might think that these do not entail liability when sacrificed without, since they were not eligible within.
^ᵉnote:And for its own sake.
^ᶠnote:Since it is not eligible within.
^ᵍnote:Thus what is not fit within under its own designation is fit under a different designation.
^ʰnote:R. Eliezer maintains that a guilt-offering too is disqualified if slaughtered under a different designation, which he infers from the sin-offering (supra 10b), which is thus the principal instance of such disqualification. The Baraitha teaches that nevertheless when one slaughters it under a different designation without, he is liable. The reason is because even after he abrogated its name as a guilt-offering, he could still slaughter it within without any specific purpose, when it would count as a valid guilt-offering and free its owner of his obligation. Hence at the time that he slaughtered it without, under a different designation, it was fit for slaughtering within. The same law applies to the sin-offering too, this being the leading case of unfitness, as explained. This must be in accordance with R. Eliezer, because the Rabbis maintain that a guilt-offering is valid when slaughtered under a different designation. Hence it is fit to be received within, and no special text is necessary for shewing that he is culpable.
^ⁱnote:E.g., if one sacrifices it before it is eight days old.
^ʲnote:E.g. a leper's and a nazirite's sin-offering, sacrificed before it is due. — I might think that if one sacrifices these without, he is liable.
^ᵏnote:Since it is not eligible.
^ˡnote:Thus this supports R. Hilkiah and refutes R. Huna.
^ᵐnote:V. p. 46, n. 1.
^ⁿnote:The reasoning then follows as above. — The text is in some disorder, and the emendations of Sh.M. and Margin have been adopted.
^ᵒnote:Why do you cite this to refute R. Huna?
^ᵖnote:Hence, if slaughtered without under such conditions, they do not entail liability, in accordance with the general rule that what is unfit within does not entail liability without. Thus it contradicts the earlier teaching.
^ᵠnote:Sh.M. deletes bracketed words.
^ʳnote:The school of Bar Liwai means that he is culpable if he slaughtered it under a different designation; while Levi teaches that they are unfit (and hence entail no liability without) when slaughtered for their own sake. (Accordingly, the two clauses of Levi's teaching do not deal with the same circumstances.) Now, since R. Dimi opposed these two Baraithas, he must have known that the former too applies where the guilt-offering is slaughtered prematurely, and thus it refutes R. Huna. (R. Huna presumably rejects this reasoning.)
^ˢnote:Our Mishnah states that one is not liable in the case of a leper's guilt-offering, whereas the Baraitha states that one is.
^ᵗnote:Then he is not liable.
^ᵘnote:In case one is lost, the other should be sacrificed.

²this agreeing with R. Huna's dictum in Rab's name, viz.: If a guilt-offering was transferred to pasture and one then slaughtered it without a specified purpose, it is valid as a burnt-offering. ONE WHO OFFERS UP THE FLESH OF A SIN-OFFERING [. . . WITHOUT, IS NOT LIABLE]. Our Rabbis taught: How do we know that he who offers up the flesh of a sin-offering, or the flesh of a guilt-offering, or the flesh of most sacred sacrifices, or the flesh of lesser sacrifices, or the remainder of the ‘omer, or the two loaves, or the Shewbread, or the residue of meal-offerings, [without], is not liable? Because it says, ‘[Whatsoever man . . . that offereth] a burnt-offering’: as a burnt-offering is eligible for offering up, so everything which is eligible for offering up [on the altar entails liability]. How do we know that also he who pours [the oil on the meal-offering], or mingles [it with flour], or breaks up [the meal-offering cakes], or salts [the meal-offering], or waves [it], or presents [it opposite the south-west corner of the altar], or sets the table [with the Shewbread], or trims the lamps, or takes off the fistful, or receives the blood, without, is not liable? Because it says, ‘that offereth a burnt-offering or sacrifice’: as offering up completes the service, so everything that completes the service [entails liability]. BEFORE THE TABERNACLE WAS SET UP [etc.] R. Huna son of R. Kattina sat before R. Hisda, and recited [the text], And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, [who offered burnt-offerings, and sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the Lord]. Said he to him: Thus said R. Assi: And then they ceased. Now, he thought to refute him from our Mishnah, when he heard him teach in R. Adda b. Ahaba's name: The burnt-offering[s] which Israel sacrificed in the wilderness did not require flaying and dismembering; whereupon he refuted him from a Baraitha, which had a bearing upon the whole [of his teaching]. For it was taught: Before the Tabernacle was set up bamoth were permitted and the service was performed by the firstborn, and all were eligible to be offered, viz., animals, beasts, birds, male and female, unblemished or blemished; clean, but not unclean; and all offered burnt-offerings, and the burnt-offering[s] which Israel offered in the wilderness required flaying and dismembering; and gentiles are permitted to do thus in these days? It is a controversy of Tannaim. For it was taught: And let the priests also, that come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves: R. Joshua b. Karhah said: This intimated the separation of the first born. Rabbi said: This intimated the separation of Nadab and Abihu. On the view that this meant the separation of Nadab and Abihu, it is well: hence it is written, This is that the Lord spoke, saying.’ ‘Through them that are near unto Me I will be sanctified’. But on the view that it meant the retirement of the firstborn, where was [this warning] indicated? In the text, And there I will meet with the children of Israel; and [the Tent] shall be sanctified by My glory [bi-kebodi]: read not bi-kebodi, but bi-kebuday [My honoured ones]: this the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, but they did not know [its meaning] until the sons of Aaron died. When the sons of Aaron died, he [Moses] said to him: ‘Oh my brother! Thy sons died only that the glory of the Holy One, blessed be He, might be sanctified through them’. When Aaron thus perceived that his sons were the honoured ones of the Omnipresent, he was silent, and was rewarded for his silence, as it is said, And Aaron held his peace. And thus it says of David, Be silent before the Lord, and wait patiently [hith-hollel] for Him: though He casts down many slain [halalim] of thee, be silent before Him. And thus it was said by Solomon, [There is . . .] a time to keep silence, and a time to speak: sometimes a man is silent and is rewarded for his silence; at others a man speaks and is rewarded for his speaking. And this is what R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: What is meant by the text, Awful is God out of thy holy places [mi-mikdasheka]? Read not mi-mikdasheka but mimekuddasheka [through thy consecrated ones]: when the Holy One, blessed be He, executes judgment on His consecrated ones, He makes Himself feared, exalted, and praised. [To return to the original discussion:] Yet the burnt-offering is a difficulty? — It is a controversy of two Tannaim. For it was taught, R. Ishmael said: The general laws were stated at Sinai, while the details were stated at the Tent of Meeting. R. Akiba said: The general laws and the details were stated at Sinai, repeated in the Tent of Meeting, and a third time in the plains of Moab. The master said: ‘All were eligible to be offered’. How do we know this? — Said R. Huna, Because Scripture saith: And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord, and took of every clean animal [behemah] and of every clean fowl, [and offered burnt-offerings on the altar]. Animal [behemah] and fowl [bear] their plain meaning; beast [hayyah] is included in animal [behemah].^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ

^ᵛnote:Supra 5b, 112a. Hence if he slaughtered one of these without as a burnt-offering (presumably, even before the other had been sacrificed as a guilt-offering), it counts as having been slaughtered for its own sake, and therefore he is liable.
^ʷnote:The whole of it is offered up on the altar.
^ˣnote:These, however, were eaten and not offered up on the altar.
^ʸnote:None of these do so, as they are followed by another rite. On the other hand, by the same reasoning he who offers libations or burns incense or the fistful removed from a meal-offering, without, is liable.
^ᶻnote:Bah and Sh.M. emend: Hana.
^ᵃᵃnote:Ex. XXIV, 5. The ‘young men’ were the firstborn, not priests, and the occasion was when Moses built an altar at the foot of Mount Sinai (ibid. v. 4).
^ᵃᵇnote:This was the last time that the firstborn performed the sacrificial service, though it was nearly a year before the Tabernacle was set up.
^ᵃᶜnote:Only clean animals etc., i.e., those which may be eaten, could be offered.
^ᵃᵈnote:Non-Jews might still offer at bamoth ‘in these days’, after the building of the Temple.
^ᵃᵉnote:Ex. XIX, 22. This was immediately before Revelation, while the incident cited above took place immediately after Revelation.
^ᵃᶠnote:By ‘priests’ the firstborn are meant here, as it was they who ‘came near the Lord’ to perform sacrifices, and the verse now separated them and forbade them to approach the mountain.
^ᵃᵍnote:Not the firstborn but actual priests are meant, viz., Nadab and Abihu, who became priests at Sinai. — Thus Rabbi holds that henceforth only the children of Aaron might act as priests, while R. Joshua b. Karhah maintains that the service was still performed by the firstborn.
^ᵃʰnote:Lev. X, 3. I.e., God had warned them previously, in the verse under discussion.
^ᵃⁱnote:The priests had never been warned.
^ᵃʲnote:Ex. XXIX, 43.
^ᵃᵏnote:This requires only a change of punctuation.
^ᵃˡnote:God intimated that when He would ‘meet with the children of Israel’, i.e., at the consecration of the Tabernacle, He would be sanctified through His honoured ones (the priests), but they did not understand the allusion.
^ᵃᵐnote:This is what God had meant. — Emended text (Sh.M.).
^ᵃⁿnote:Or, the favoured ones. Lit., ‘the known ones’.
^ᵃᵒnote:Lev. X, 3. The reward was that God subsequently spoke specially to him, v. 8.
^ᵃᵖnote:Ps. XXXVII, 7.
^ᵃᵠnote:Ecc. III, 7.
^ᵃʳnote:Ps. LXVIII, 36.
^ᵃˢnote:For it states that it did require flaying and dismembering.
^ᵃᵗnote:E.g., an altar of earth thou shalt make unto Me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt-offerings, and thy peace-offerings (Ex. XX, 21).
^ᵃᵘnote:E.g., that the burnt-offering was to be flayed and cut up. Hence until the Tent of Meeting was set up, burnt-offerings were not flayed and dismembered.
^ᵃᵛnote:I.e., in Deuteronomy (v. Deut. I, 5).
^ᵃʷnote:Gen. VIII, 20.