Zevachim

the death penalty,1 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?2 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’!3 — If so,4 let Scripture say, ‘[She shall not touch] a hallowed thing’; why state no hallowed thing?5 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:6 And the flesh [that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten]7 is to include wood and frankincense; though these are not edible, yet Scripture includes them.8 Raba said: The controversy is in respect of bodily uncleanness, but where the flesh is unclean9 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,10 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,11 so that they become as though all their mattirin12 had been performed. For we learnt: All which have mattirin [involve a penalty through defilement] once their mattirin have been offered;13 whatever has no mattirin [involves a penalty through defilement] when it has been sanctified in a [service] vessel.14 It was stated: If one brings up the limbs of an unclean animal15 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,16 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,17 but not an unclean animal; and a negative injunction which is inferred from an affirmative precept ranks as an affirmative precept ?18 — 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],19 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.20 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.21 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 thereto22 — 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, Men. 25b. — Returning to our subject, we see that Resh Lakish utilises the text for a different purpose. 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. M.). sprinkling of the blood (p. 167, n. 5). 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. specifies clean animals. The former includes dogs, horses and camels; the latter includes the hart, deer and roebuck. we have no affirmative precept forbidding it, anything unclean of either species may certainly not be offered, v. Men. 6a. words.