זבחים 34 — Soncino English Talmud

¹the death penalty, so the offence in connection with the hallowed thing is one which involves the death penalty. Now, if this treats of touching, is then the death penalty involved? Hence it must treat of eating. Yet it is still required in respect of an unclean person who ate the sacred flesh before the sprinkling [of the blood]? For it was stated: If an unclean person ate the sacred flesh before the sprinkling of the blood, Resh Lakish maintained that he is flagellated; while R. Johanan ruled that he is not flagellated. Resh Lakish maintained [that] he is flagellated, [for it is written,] ‘She shall touch no hallowed thing’, no distinction being drawn whether it is before sprinkling or after sprinkling. While R. Johanan ruled [that] he is not flagellated, as Bardela taught: ‘It is derived from the recurring expression, ‘his uncleanness’, and that is written after the sprinkling’! — If so, let Scripture say, ‘[She shall not touch] a hallowed thing’; why state no hallowed thing? Hence two things may be inferred from it. The [above] text [stated]: ‘If an unclean person ate sacred flesh before sprinkling, Resh Lakish maintained: He is flagellated: while R. Johanan ruled: He is not flagellated.’ Abaye said: This controversy applies only to bodily uncleanness; but where the flesh is unclean, all rule that he is flagellated, because a Master said: And the flesh [that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten] is to include wood and frankincense; though these are not edible, yet Scripture includes them. Raba said: The controversy is in respect of bodily uncleanness, but where the flesh is unclean all agree that he is not flagellated. What is the reason? — Since we cannot apply to him the text, Having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off, you cannot apply to him the text, And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten. But a Master said, And the flesh includes the wood and the frankincense? — That is where they were sanctified in a vessel, so that they become as though all their mattirin had been performed. For we learnt: All which have mattirin [involve a penalty through defilement] once their mattirin have been offered; whatever has no mattirin [involves a penalty through defilement] when it has been sanctified in a [service] vessel. It was stated: If one brings up the limbs of an unclean animal on the altar, Resh Lakish maintained: He is flagellated; R. Johanan said: He is not flagellated. ‘Resh Lakish maintained [that] he is flagellated’, [for Scripture implies,] Only a clean animal [may be offered], but not an unclean one, and one is flagellated on account of a negative injunction which is inferred from an affirmative precept. ‘R. Johanan said, He is not flagellated’, because one is not flagellated on account of a negative injunction which is inferred from an affirmative precept. R. Jeremiah raised an objection: That may ye eat, but not an unclean animal; and a negative injunction which is inferred from an affirmative precept ranks as an affirmative precept ? — Said R. Jacob to R. Jeremiah b. Tahlifa: I will explain it to you: There is no disagreement at all about the limbs of an unclean [domesticated] animal; they disagree about a beast [of chase], and it was thus stated: ‘R. Johanan said: He transgresses an affirmative precept. While Resh Lakish said: He does not transgress anything.’ ‘R. Johanan said, He transgresses an affirmative precept’, [for Scripture says,] [Ye shall bring your offering] of the cattle [behemah]: [this implies] only of the cattle, but not of the beast [of chase]; while Resh Lakish said, He does not transgress anything, [for] that [text] intimates that it is meritorious. Raba raised an objection: If it were said, ‘[When any man of you bringeth] an offering to the Lord,’ cattle [behemah], I would agree that hayyah [beast of chase] is included in behemah, as in the verse, These are the animals [behemah] which ye may eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat, the hart and the gazelle and the roebuck etc. Therefore the text states, ‘even of the herd or of the flock’: of the herd or of the flock have I prescribed unto thee, but not a beast of chase [hayyah]. You might think [that] one must not bring [a hayyah], yet if one did bring [it] it is valid: for to what is this like? To a disciple whom his master bade, ‘Bring me wheat’ and he brought him wheat and barley, where he is not regarded as having flouted his orders, but as having added thereto — and it is valid; therefore the text states, ‘even of the herd or of the flock’: of the herd and of the flock have I prescribed unto thee, but not a beast. To what is this like? To a disciple whom his master bade, ‘Bring me naught but wheat’ and he brought him wheat and barley. He is not regarded as having added to his words, but as having flouted them,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ

^ᵃnote:I.e., kareth.
^ᵇnote:Surely not!
^ᶜnote:For the forewarning is learned from the penalty, and the penalty of kareth is only incurred after the sprinkling, v. Men. 25b. — Returning to our subject, we see that Resh Lakish utilises the text for a different purpose.
^ᵈnote:That the text is required for this purpose only.
^ᵉnote:Expressed in Heb. by the addition of be-kol, (‘all’ or ‘every’); the emphasis implies an additional teaching.
^ᶠnote:Emended text (Bah).
^ᵍnote:Lev. VII, 19.
^ʰnote:The exegesis is to shew that these can become unclean like an edible (though usually only an edible or a utensil can be defiled), and then the same law applies to them as to food. Now, flesh before sprinkling cannot be worse than these; if these involve flagellation, surely flesh before sprinkling does likewise.
^ⁱnote:Var. lec.: The controversy is in respect of the uncleanness of the flesh, but in the case of bodily uncleanness etc. (Sh. M.).
^ʲnote:Ibid. 20. The text refers to bodily uncleanness, which supports the var. lec. — Kareth is not incurred before the sprinkling of the blood (p. 167, n. 5).
^ᵏnote:The wood was removed from the altar in a service vessel, and the frankincense was sanctified in a censer. These, as the Talmud explains, are then in the same position as though all their ritual had been performed, and therefore are analogous to flesh after sprinkling.
^ˡnote:V. Glos.
^ᵐnote:E.g., flesh, whose mattirin is the blood which by being sprinkled on the altar permits the flesh to be eaten.
^ⁿnote:V. Me'il. 10a.
^ᵒnote:E.g., of horses or camels.
^ᵖnote:In the verse, Ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd or of the flock (Lev. I, 2.). Thus Scripture specifies clean animals.
^ᵠnote:Lev. XI, 3.
^ʳnote:And but for the special negative injunction which follows in the Scriptural text it would involve no flagellation.
^ˢnote:Animals are technically divided into behemah (domesticated animal) and hayyah (wild beast, lit., ‘living thing’). The former includes dogs, horses and camels; the latter includes the hart, deer and roebuck.
^ᵗnote:To offer sacrifices of the cattle, whereas offering a beast of chase is voluntary and permissive. Nevertheless, though we have no affirmative precept forbidding it, anything unclean of either species may certainly not be offered, v. Men. 6a.
^ᵘnote:Deut. XIV, 4f. The last three belong to the class of hayyah.
^ᵛnote:And here too, since one need not offer a sacrifice at all, when one offers a hayyah he is as though adding to God's words.

²— and it [the sacrifice] is invalid. This refutation of Resh Lakish is indeed a refutation. AND IF ANY OF THESE RECEIVED etc. Resh Lakish asked R. Johanan: Does an unfit person render [the blood in the throat] a residue? — Said he to him: There is no case of sprinkling rendering [the remaining blood] a residue, save [where it is done with the illegal intention of] after time or without bounds, since it counts in respect of piggul. R. Zebid recited it thus: Resh Lakish asked R. Johanan: Does an unfit goblet [of blood] render [the remainder] a residue? — Said he to him: What is your opinion about an unfit person himself? If an unfit person renders [the blood] a residue, then an unfit goblet too renders [the blood] a residue; if an unfit person does not render a residue, an unfit goblet too does not render a residue. R. Jeremiah of Difti recited it thus: Abaye asked Rabbah: Does one goblet render another rejected or a residue? — Said he to him: It is the subject of a controversy between R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon and the Rabbis. For it was taught: Above it is stated, And the [remaining] blood thereof shall he pour out [at the base of the altar]; while below it is stated, And all the [remaining] blood thereof shall he pour out [at the base of the altar]: How do we know that, if [the priest] received the blood of the sin-offering in four goblets and made one application [of blood] from each, all [the rest] are poured out at the base [of the altar]? From the text, And all the [remaining] blood thereof shall he pour out [at the base of the altar]. You might think that, if he made the four applications from one goblet, all [the rest] are to be poured out at the base: therefore the text states, And the [remaining] blood thereof [etc]. How is this to be understood? [The remaining blood of] that [goblet] is poured out at the base, but they [the other goblets] are poured out into the duct. R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon said: Whence do we know that, if [the priest] received the blood of the sin-offering in four goblets and made the four applications from one goblet, all are poured out at the base? From the text, And all the [remaining] blood thereof shall he pour out [at the base of the altar]. Yet surely it is written, ‘And the remaining blood thereof shall he pour out etc.’? — Said R. Ashi: That is to exclude the residue [of the blood left] in the throat of the animal. IF THE FIT PERSON RECEIVED [THE BLOOD] AND GAVE [IT] TO AN UNFIT ONE etc. Now, all these are necessary: For if we were informed about an unfit person, I would say, what is an unfit person? An unclean [priest] who is eligible for public service; but the left [hand] is not so. And if we were informed about the left hand, that is because it is fit on the Day of Atonement, but a secular [non-sacred] vessel is not so. While if we were informed about secular vessels, that is because they are eligible for sanctification; but as for the others, I would say that it is not so. Thus they are all necessary. Now, let it be regarded as rejection? — Said Rabina to R. Ashi: Thus said R. Jeremiah of Difti in Raba's name: This is in accordance with Hanan the Egyptian, who does not accept the law of rejection. For it was taught: Hanan the Egyptian said: Even if the blood is in the cup he brings its companion and pairs it. R. Ashi answered: When it lies in one's power [to rectify] the matter, it does not constitute rejection. R. Shaya observed: Reason supports R. Ashi. [For] whom do you know to accept the law of rejection? R. Judah, as we learnt: Even more did R. Judah say: If the blood [of the he-goat to be sacrificed] was spilt, the [he-goat] which was to be sent away must perish; if the [he-goat] which was to be sent away perished, the blood [of the other] must be poured out. Yet we know him to rule that where it lies in one's power [to rectify the matter] there is no rejection. For it was taught, R. Judah said: He [the priest] used to fill a goblet with the mingled blood and sprinkled it once against the base [of the altar]. This proves that where it lies in one's own hands, there is no rejection. This proves it. [To turn to] the main text: ‘It was taught, R. Judah said: He [the priest] used to fill a goblet with the mingled blood, so that should the blood of one of them be spilt, the result is that this renders it valid. Said they to R. Judah: But surely it [the mingled blood] had not been received in a vessel?’ How do they know? — Rather [they said to him]: perhaps it was not caught in a vessel? I too, he answered them,^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

^ʷnote:If he sprinkles the blood, can a fit person make the sacrifice valid by catching more blood from the animal's throat and sprinkling it? Or do we say, Once the unfit person has sprinkled the blood, what still remains in the throat is regarded as the residue of the blood, which cannot be used for sprinkling, and therefore the sacrifice is invalid? (The Mishnah speaks only of receiving the blood, not of sprinkling.)
^ˣnote:Emended text (Bah).
^ʸnote:Lit., ‘propitiates’.
^ᶻnote:Since such sprinkling counts as sprinkling to render the sacrifice piggul, it also counts to render the rest of the blood a residue. But no other illegal sprinkling renders the remainder of the blood a residue.
^ᵃᵃnote:If the goblet containing the blood to be sprinkled was taken outside the Temple court, whereby it becomes unfit, and it was then sprinkled, does it render the remainder in the throat a residue?
^ᵃᵇnote:E.g., if the blood of a sin-offering was received in two goblets, and all the sprinklings were performed out of one, is the blood in the other regarded as the residue, which must be poured out at the foot of the altar (cf. Lev. IV, 7: and all the remaining blood of the bullock shall he pour out at the base of the altar)? Or do we say that by not using it he intentionally, as it were, rejected it, and therefore it is simply poured out into the duct or sewer in the Temple court which discharged its contents into the stream of Kidron?
^ᵃᶜnote:Lev. IV, 25. 30.
^ᵃᵈnote:Four applications of blood were made on the horns of the altar.
^ᵃᵉnote:But not all, which apparently contradicts the other text.
^ᵃᶠnote:Since it is the residue of what was actually sprinkled.
^ᵃᵍnote:Because one goblet renders another rejected.
^ᵃʰnote:V. Mishnah.
^ᵃⁱnote:When the whole community is unclean, including the priests, they sacrifice the Passover-offering in that state.
^ᵃʲnote:Therefore, if the priest transferred the blood into his left hand, it should be permanently invalid.
^ᵃᵏnote:The High Priest took the censer in his right hand and the spoon in his left.
^ᵃˡnote:The blood was fit in the first place, but by taking it in the wrong hand or in a secular vessel it was rejected, and therefore should no more be fit.
^ᵃᵐnote:Viz., that once rejected it remains permanently so.
^ᵃⁿnote:Two he-goats were taken on the day of Atonement, one of which was sacrificed as a sin-offering, and the other was sent away-into the wilderness (the ‘scapegoat’), the function of each being decided by lot. The blood of the former was received in a cup or basin and sprinkled on the altar. Now, if the scapegoat died before the blood of the other was sprinkled, Hanan rules that we do not say that the blood is thereby rejected, and two other goats must be brought, but only one more is brought and paired up with the one already slaughtered. For other views that the blood is thereby rejected permanently (the two goats being interdependent) v. Mishnah Yoma 62a.
^ᵃᵒnote:Here it lies in his power to rectify the matter by transferring the blood.
^ᵃᵖnote:But not sent to Azazel, because the two are interdependent, and since a new animal must be brought for the first, as its blood was spilt before sprinkling, a new pair must be brought.
^ᵃᵠnote:And likewise two fresh animals brought. Thus in each case one is rejected because of the other, and remains so permanently.
^ᵃʳnote:Of many Passover-offerings. Lit., ‘the blood of those which were mixed’.
^ᵃˢnote:In case the blood of one of them would be spilt, this would make it valid.
^ᵃᵗnote:This is an interjection: how do the Rabbis, who raise this objection, know that it was not caught in a vessel?
^ᵃᵘnote:But poured straight from the animal's throat on to the ground. Rashi (in Pes. 65a): in that case sprinkling is of no avail. Tosaf.: sprinkling, if already performed, is efficacious, but such blood must not be taken up to the altar in the first place.