Talmud su Levitico 7:78

Are sacrifices forbidden for the uncircumcised? One cannot deduce the answer from Passover since they are not subject to [the prohibition of] breaking a bone¹⁸No bone may be broken of the Passover sacrifice; Ex. 12:46. The bone marrow of other sacrificial animals is not forbidden. Therefore, no argument de minore ad majus is possible from Passover to other sacrifices., neither from heave since that would be inference after inference¹⁹In general, the rules of R. Ismael may be combined with one another; an exeption are the rules of sacrifices and sanctified matter. This is discussed in detail in the Babli, Zebaḥim Chapter 5, which has no parallel in the Yerushalmi. Even though the authorities quoted there are all Babylonian, the reference here shows that the basis of the arguments is a Yerushalmi tradition. It is stated in Babli, Zebaḥim 50a, that rules 2 and 3 in the scheme of R. Ismael cannot be used one after the other. Since the exclusion of the uncircumcised from heave was an application of rule 2 (Note 12), the result cannot be used as premiss for an argument of type 3. An attempt to formulate the rules in an extension of symbolic logic is in H. Guggenheimer, Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, 150–164.. At the end, you have to say “from it, from it²⁰An application of rule 2 (Note 12)..” Since “from it”²¹Ex. 12:9 (once), 10 (twice). The Babli must reject this argument since it deduces laws of Passover from all three instances of the word. which was said in the laws of Passover implies that the uncircumcised is disqualified, so “from it”²²Lev. 7:14. The verse is quoted in Mishnah Menaḥot 8:2. which was said in the laws of sacrifices must imply that the uncircumcised is disqualified. Are sacrifices forbidden for the mourner?²³There is no inference to be drawn from Lev. 10:6 since, after the death of Nadab and Abihu, Aaron and his sons were commanded not to mourn. “From it, from it.” Since “from it” which was said in the laws of tithe²⁴The Second Tithe, Deut. 26:14. states that the mourner is disqualified, so “from it” which was said in the laws of Passover²⁵This word indicates an oversight by editor or copyist since (1) from the laws of Passover nothing can be inferred for other sacrifices and (2) the mourner (whose relative died outside of Jerusalem so that he could not defile himself) is admitted to the Passover sacrifice. It most probably should read “sacrifices” (Note 22). must imply that the mourner is disqualified.

¹³This is from Horaiot 3:2, Notes 40–45, and part of a longer disquisition (Notes 36–45). The quote here starts in the middle and, therefore, is not very intelligible. But in Horaiot the text is complete and completely intelligible. One ate five times the volume of an olive; he separately realized a doubt about each one. Afterwards it became known to him as a certainty. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of sacrifices. Rebbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that for the Anointed Priest the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of purification sacrifice. What is the reason? Like purification offering, like reparation offering¹⁴Lev. 7:7.. The knowledge about his doubt determines the transgression for one who brings a suspended reparation offering. The knowledge about his doubt does not determine the transgression for one who does not bring a suspended reparation offering.

There, it was stated²⁴Mishnah Menaḥot7:1. The list contains the offerings of the ‘Omer and the suspected wife. Such a list is necessary since the flour offerings accompanying an animal sacrifice (Num. 15:1–16), as well as the private offerings of a Cohen, are burned completely.: “The following flour offerings have a handful taken and the remainders are eaten.” Rebbi Abba bar Mamal and Rebbi [Samuel]²⁵This is the correct name. Possibly the name was written ר״ש in a common source of the mss. and was interpreted wrongly by some intermediate scribe. bar Rav Isaac were sitting together. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal asked from Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: From where [do we know that] the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten²⁶The paragraph of the ‘Omer offering (Lev. 23:9–14) prescribes weaving but is silent about anything done after the weaving. It might be concluded that the general rules of the flour offering specified in Lev. 6:7–11 do apply. These include that a Cohen has to present the offering to the altar, that he take a handful to the altar to be burned, and that the remainder be eaten under the rules of most holy sacrifices. However, those rules presuppose that pieces of incense are put on top of the offering; this does not apply to the ‘Omer offering. Therefore, the details of the treatment of the ‘Omer offering seem to be undefined.? He said to him: Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say²⁷Cf. Chapter 2, Note 39. in the name of Rebbi Ismael: “Offering of²⁸Num. 5:15, “an offering of jealousy”., offering of²⁹Lev. 2:14, “an offering of First Fruits,” taken to refer to the ‘Omer offering. These are the only flour offerings referred to in the construct state; this is taken as indication that they follow parallel rules except as indicated otherwise in the biblical text..” Since “offering of” mentioned there²⁸Num. 5:15, “an offering of jealousy”. is from barley, so also “offering of” mentioned here²⁹Lev. 2:14, “an offering of First Fruits,” taken to refer to the ‘Omer offering. These are the only flour offerings referred to in the construct state; this is taken as indication that they follow parallel rules except as indicated otherwise in the biblical text. is from barley. Since the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten³⁰This is not prescribed in the biblical text but since a handful must be taken to the altar it is accepted that this offering follows the rules of all offerings of which a handful is burned on the altar; cf. Note 26., so the remainders of the ‘Omer offering are eaten. Rebbi (Aqiba)³¹This attribution is certainly incorrect. Probably one should read “R. Jacob”; one Amora of this name was known as one of the colleagues of R. Jeremiah. said: After they got up, Rebbi Abba bar Mamal was standing with Rebbi Jeremiah. He³²Rebbi Jeremiah said to R. Abba bar Mamal. said to him: Look, how he made your question fly away! From where [do we know that] the remainders of the offering of the suspected wife are eaten³³For that offering also, the handful for the altar is mentioned but nothing else.? Rebbi Ze‘ira³⁴R. Jeremiah’s teacher; he called the specialist for baraitot in his academy. brought Rebbi Isaac Aṭoshiyya, who stated for him: “Any flour offering mixed with oil³⁵Lev. 7:10: “Any flour offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.””. Where do we hold? If about mixed wheat flour, it already had been said³⁶The list of private flour offerings from wheat flour is in Lev.2:1–10 and there it is emphasized that the remainders have to be eaten by the sons of Aaron.. So if it does not refer to mixed wheat flour, apply it to mixed barley flour. Another [baraita] states: “Or dry³⁵Lev. 7:10: “Any flour offering mixed with oil or dry shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.””. Where do we hold? If about dry wheat flour³⁷The purification offering of the poor sinner (Lev. 5:11–13) is from wheat flour and has to be eaten by the Cohen., it already had been said. So if it does not refer to dry wheat flour, apply it to dry barley flour. Rebbi Yose said, we deal with mixed wheat flour and dry wheat flour, and it was said for a purpose³⁸The argument of the preceding baraitot, which in the Babli (Menaḥot72b) is a pseudo-tannaïtic statement by Ḥizqiah, is irrelevant since the verse teaches important new information for all flour offerings that are eaten (also noted in the Babli).. “[It] shall belong to all sons of Aaron, to each man as to his brother.” A man takes his part even if he is blemished³⁹He has a bodily defect which disables him from serving in the Temple (Lev. 21:17–19).. A minor does not take a part even if he is unblemished⁴⁰Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 10(9); Babli Menaḥot 72b. In Zebaḥim 102a it is stated more in detail that the right of a blemished Cohen to eat of the holy food is established in Lev. 21 but his right to take part in the distribution of food in the Temple is derived from Lev. 6:11 [from Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 3(5)]. One really needs Lev. 7:10 only to show that a minor cannot claim a part in the distribution (cf. Šiṭṭa Mequbeṣet, Zebaḥim 102a).. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: Because the Torah added a detail in one case, can you add that in every case? But “remembrance⁴¹Lev. 2:9: “The Cohen has to lift its remembrance” which is the fistful of flour with the incense, to be burned on the altar., remembrance⁴²Num. 5:26: "The Cohen has to lift a fistful for its remembrance," speaking of the flour offering of the suspected wife.”. “You shall bring,²⁰Lev. 2:8: “You shall bring the offering made from these to the Eternal; the Cohen shall bring it and present it to the altar.” “These” are flour and olive oil.
The baraita is also quoted in the Babli, Menaḥot 60b.” to include the ‘Omer flour offering in presentations. “He shall present it,” to include the suspected wife’s flour offering in presentations. It is written after that⁴³While in the preceding paragraph the following verse was from the rules of the suspected wife, here the verse is taken from the general rules of a flour offering, Lev.2:10 to imply that every flour offering of which only a fistful is burned on the altar is eaten by the Cohanim.: “What is left from the offering is most holy for Aaron and his sons.”

But is it not written²³Lev. 7:23. This paragraph discusses verses which present difficulties for R. Eleazar.: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written²⁴Lev. 7:23. In the opinion of the Babli 23a, the verse is needed to permit any use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the Sifra Ṣaw (Parasha 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food nor subject to the impurity of food.
In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 49), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property.: But fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work, only it may not be eaten. But is it not written²⁵Deut. 12:16.: Only the blood you may not eat? Do you not have to understand the prohibition of usufruct from the prohibition of eating? There is a difference, for it is written: You shall pour it on the ground like water²⁶The Babli 22b deduces from here that animal blood is a fluid which prepares for impurity only if it is spilled on the ground (cf. Demay 2:3, Note 136). The argument of the Yerushalmi, and an argument that animal blood prepares for impurity in all cases, is in Sifry Deut. 73 and later here, in the second version of Ḥizqiah. (Preparation for impurity is explained in Demay 2:3, Notes 136–141.). Since water is permitted for use, so blood shall be permitted for use. But is it not written²⁷Gen. 32:33.: Therefore, the Children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the sciatic nerve? Rebbi Abbahu said, I explained it by the sinew of a carcass²⁸The argument is more explicit in the Babli 22a. R. Abbahu holds that when carcass and tom meat was permitted for the sojourner (Note 53) and the pagan, the entire animal was permitted, including the fat. Then the last paragraph of Note 24 establishes that the schiatic sinew cannot be forbidden for usufruct.. But is it not written²⁹Lev. 23:14.: Bread, parched or fresh grains you shall not eat until this very day? Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, said there is a difference since the verse fixed a time for it. But is it not written³⁰Lev. 11:42.: Do not eat them for they are abominations? Rebbi [Mana]³¹Added from Orlah, missing here. said, that excludes their prohibition of usufruct³³Latin splenium, Greek σπληνίον, τό, “pad, wound dressing.”.

Warning⁴¹An infraction of a biblical law is prosecutable only if the prohibition is mentioned at least twice in the text, once as “warning” to spell out the prohibition and once to specify the punishment for infraction. If no punishment is specified, whipping is intended; nevertheless, the second mention is necessary. Cf. Yebamot 11:1, Note 47. for one who eats carcass meat, from where? “You shall not eat any carcass meat.⁴²Deut. 14:21.” That covers carcass meat; from a “torn”⁴³Ṭerephah is a technical term, originally meaning an animal which cannot survive an attack by a predator. The meaning has been extended to include all animals who cannot survive for any length of time, including dangerously sick animals and those born with severe birth defects. (As a practical matter, slaughtered animals have to be inspected for signs of tuberculosis, which would prohibit the meat for human consumption.) animal from where? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “carcass meat” and “any carcass meat”, to include the “torn” animal⁴⁴The verse must forbid more than carcass meat, otherwise the mention of “all” was superfluous. The argument is reported as tannaitic in Sifry Deut. 104.. If somebody eats flesh from a living animal which is “torn”, Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is guilty twice, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. What is the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan? “You shall not eat any carcass meat⁴²Deut. 14:21.;” “you shall not eat of life with the flesh^45,Deut. 12:23. It is forbidden to eat limbs torn from a living animal. (In rabbinic interpretation, this is the prohibition imposed on all mankind by Gen. 9:4: "But meat in whose blood is life you shall not eat", meat taken when life is still carried by the blood.)⁴⁶The argument is that in one act one may transgress two prohibitions referring to two distinct verses as warnings and, therefore, be subject to distinct punishments. In the Babli, Hulin 102b/103a, the difference between the interpretations of R. Johanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish boils down to the question whether "flesh from a living animal" and "limbs from a living animal " are different prohibitions following distinct rules. (For the problems raised by the competition of laws, cf. Terumot 7:1, Notes 6 ff.).” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: The assertion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels what Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: “ ‘Flesh torn on the field you shall not eat’⁴⁷Ex. 22:30. In this interpretation, the verse forbids flesh or limbs torn from an animal (and also supports R. Joḥanan’s interpretation of Deut. 14:21.) A similar formulation, also in the name of R. Eliezer ben Jacob, is in Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai, p. 214., you shall not tear from an animal and eat in the way you tear from the ground⁴⁸Vegetables. and eat.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish does not hold with Rebbi Joḥanan about the “torn” animal; if he did hold with him, one should be twice guilty. He said to them, even if he held with him, one should be guilty only once. There is a difference, because He repeated it and combined it⁴⁹It is impossible to say that Ex. 22:30 does not contain a prohibition of meat from “torn” animals, since this is the obvious meaning of the text. But since following R. Eliezer ben Jacob, the verse also prohibits flesh torn from living animals, there is no separate “warning” for eating meat from “torn” animals. The offender can be prosecuted either on basis of Deut. 14:21 or of Ex. 22:30, but not of both together. (Since in the desert, consumption of any non-sacrificial meat of domesticated animals was forbidden, Lev. 17:4, the mention of carcass meat would have been out of place in Ex. 22.). They objected: “Suet you shall not eat,⁵⁰Lev. 7:24.” “and blood you shall not eat,⁵¹Lev. 7:26.” and it is written: “Any suet and any blood you shall not eat.⁵²Lev. 3:17.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “suet and blood”, you would be correct. But it is written “any suet and any blood,” to declare him guilty for each case separately. But it is not written: “Anything soaked with grapes he shall not drink⁵³Num. 6:3.,” and it is written, “from skins to seeds he shall not eat⁵⁴Num. 6:4..” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once!⁵⁵But Mishnah 6:2 will state that the nazir can be punished separately for each item on the list. He said to them, if it were written “skins and seeds”, you would be correct. But it is written “skins unto⁵⁶A redundant word, not really required by the context. seeds,” to declare him guilty for each case separately.

Warning⁴¹An infraction of a biblical law is prosecutable only if the prohibition is mentioned at least twice in the text, once as “warning” to spell out the prohibition and once to specify the punishment for infraction. If no punishment is specified, whipping is intended; nevertheless, the second mention is necessary. Cf. Yebamot 11:1, Note 47. for one who eats carcass meat, from where? “You shall not eat any carcass meat.⁴²Deut. 14:21.” That covers carcass meat; from a “torn”⁴³Ṭerephah is a technical term, originally meaning an animal which cannot survive an attack by a predator. The meaning has been extended to include all animals who cannot survive for any length of time, including dangerously sick animals and those born with severe birth defects. (As a practical matter, slaughtered animals have to be inspected for signs of tuberculosis, which would prohibit the meat for human consumption.) animal from where? Rebbi Joḥanan said, “carcass meat” and “any carcass meat”, to include the “torn” animal⁴⁴The verse must forbid more than carcass meat, otherwise the mention of “all” was superfluous. The argument is reported as tannaitic in Sifry Deut. 104.. If somebody eats flesh from a living animal which is “torn”, Rebbi Yasa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is guilty twice, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is guilty only once. What is the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan? “You shall not eat any carcass meat⁴²Deut. 14:21.;” “you shall not eat of life with the flesh^45,Deut. 12:23. It is forbidden to eat limbs torn from a living animal. (In rabbinic interpretation, this is the prohibition imposed on all mankind by Gen. 9:4: "But meat in whose blood is life you shall not eat", meat taken when life is still carried by the blood.)⁴⁶The argument is that in one act one may transgress two prohibitions referring to two distinct verses as warnings and, therefore, be subject to distinct punishments. In the Babli, Hulin 102b/103a, the difference between the interpretations of R. Johanan and R. Simeon ben Laqish boils down to the question whether "flesh from a living animal" and "limbs from a living animal " are different prohibitions following distinct rules. (For the problems raised by the competition of laws, cf. Terumot 7:1, Notes 6 ff.).” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues said before Rebbi Yose: The assertion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels what Rebbi Eliezer ben Jacob stated: “ ‘Flesh torn on the field you shall not eat’⁴⁷Ex. 22:30. In this interpretation, the verse forbids flesh or limbs torn from an animal (and also supports R. Joḥanan’s interpretation of Deut. 14:21.) A similar formulation, also in the name of R. Eliezer ben Jacob, is in Mekhilta dR. Simeon ben Ioḥai, p. 214., you shall not tear from an animal and eat in the way you tear from the ground⁴⁸Vegetables. and eat.” What is the reason of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? The colleagues before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish does not hold with Rebbi Joḥanan about the “torn” animal; if he did hold with him, one should be twice guilty. He said to them, even if he held with him, one should be guilty only once. There is a difference, because He repeated it and combined it⁴⁹It is impossible to say that Ex. 22:30 does not contain a prohibition of meat from “torn” animals, since this is the obvious meaning of the text. But since following R. Eliezer ben Jacob, the verse also prohibits flesh torn from living animals, there is no separate “warning” for eating meat from “torn” animals. The offender can be prosecuted either on basis of Deut. 14:21 or of Ex. 22:30, but not of both together. (Since in the desert, consumption of any non-sacrificial meat of domesticated animals was forbidden, Lev. 17:4, the mention of carcass meat would have been out of place in Ex. 22.). They objected: “Suet you shall not eat,⁵⁰Lev. 7:24.” “and blood you shall not eat,⁵¹Lev. 7:26.” and it is written: “Any suet and any blood you shall not eat.⁵²Lev. 3:17.” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once! He said to them, if it were written “suet and blood”, you would be correct. But it is written “any suet and any blood,” to declare him guilty for each case separately. But it is not written: “Anything soaked with grapes he shall not drink⁵³Num. 6:3.,” and it is written, “from skins to seeds he shall not eat⁵⁴Num. 6:4..” Then because He repeated it and combined it, one should be guilty only once!⁵⁵But Mishnah 6:2 will state that the nazir can be punished separately for each item on the list. He said to them, if it were written “skins and seeds”, you would be correct. But it is written “skins unto⁵⁶A redundant word, not really required by the context. seeds,” to declare him guilty for each case separately.

The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating if it is written do not eat, do not eat. It may not be eaten (f.). it may not be eaten (m.), you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating⁴⁶In contrast to the statement of R. Eleazar (Note 17) it is asserted that if the prohibition of food is in the active voice it does not imply prohibition of usufruct. Still the passive voice does imply prohibition of usufruct.. The paradigm for all cases is⁴⁷Lev. 6:23.: Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned⁴⁸It is shown that the passive voice implies prohibition of usufruct, since it is the only such case where the inference is valid according to everybody. The verse is understood (Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 8(5), quoted in Babli Zebaḥim 82a, Yerushalmi Pesaḥim7:9, fol. 35a] following a punctuation which differs from the masoretic one: Any purification offering, some of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify, in the Sanctuary it shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. This is a possible reading since purification offerings may be eaten only in the Sanctuary. Then “Sanctuary” is taken also to refer to the last clause, (in the sanctuary) in fire it shall be burned. This excludes all sacred and profane usufruct after purification.. Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said⁴⁹Lev. 7:23.: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat, why has it been said: but fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work? Even for the work of Heaven²⁴Lev. 7:23. In the opinion of the Babli 23a, the verse is needed to permit any use of profane fat since otherwise one would argue that since fat is forbidden for humans but required for the altar, fat of animals unfit for the altar should be permitted for use in the Temple but forbidden for profane use. In the Sifra Ṣaw (Parasha 10), the argument of the Babli is attributed to R. Yose the Galilean; R. Aqiba concludes that fat of domesticated animals is not food nor subject to the impurity of food.
In the opinion of the Yerushalmi, since some fat is permitted for unrestricted use, no fat can be forbidden for usufruct in the absence of an explicit verse. For Ḥizqiah, this is a third verse that could be used for R. Eleazar’s argument; nobody will contest that three parallel verses invalidate the argument. In the second version of Ḥizqiah’s position (below, after Note 49), he needs the verse to permit use of fat for work on Temple property.. If one understands what has been said⁵⁰Deut. 12:16.: But the blood you shall not eat, why has it been said,you shall pour it on the ground like water? As water prepares⁵¹Preparation for impurity is explained in Demay 2:3, Notes 136–141., so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said⁵²Deut. 14:21.: Do not eat any carcass; why has it been said, to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it? It serves to tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat⁵³The resident sojourner, in order to receive the full protection of the law, only has to follow the “precepts of the descendants of Noe”, to abstain from idolatry, murder, incest and adultery, eating limbs tom from a living animal, blasphemy, robbery, and anarchy.. If one understands what has been said⁵⁴Ex. 22:30.: Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat, why does the verse say, throw it to the dog? This you throw to the dog but you do not throw profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct⁵⁵In the Babli 22a this is quoted as the opinion of R. Meïr. It is forbidden to slaughter anything but sacrifices in the Temple precinct, Lev.17:4..

“Nor with oil to be burned⁷Olive oil given as heave to a Cohen which became impure and therefore cannot be consumed. The Cohen may use it as fuel. But since it is holy, it is subject to the (rabbinic) rule that sancta may not be burned on a day on which defective sacrifices may not be burned, i. e., Sabbath or holiday..” Rav Ḥisda said, this implies that it is forbidden to start a fire on a pyre of sancta so it should continuously burn on the Sabbath⁴⁷Since impure heave, which belongs to the class of disabled sancta, may not be burned on the Sabbath. Babli 23b, Menaḥot 46b.. But have we not stated⁴⁸Mishnah 1:15 (Notes 22,23).: “One starts a fire at the fire place in the heating chamber, but outside the Temple only if the fire has started burning on most of the logs.” Rebbi Yose said, it is written about the Sabbath, do not do any work⁴⁹Ex. 20:10. Here starts a new Genizah leaf, Ginzberg p. 71 (G).; it is done automatically. But here the Torah said that one does not burn sancta on a holiday, not to speak of the Sabbath. What did you see that you said so? ⁵⁰Ex. 12:10. The mention of two “mornings” implies that different times are implied. Babli 24b, 133a, Pesaḥim 83b, Temurah 4b. Mekhilta dR. Ismael Bo 6, end, dR. Simeon benYoḥai Bo p. 14.You shall not leave any leftovers until the morning; what is left over from it until morning you shall burn in fire. After two mornings, one the morning of the 15^th and the other the morning of the 16^th. And it is written, what is left of the well-being sacrifice should be burned on the third day⁵¹Lev. 7:17. The sacrifice may be eaten for two days and the intervening night..

Rebbi Assi understood it from the following (Deut. 12:22): “The impure and the pure shall eat it together.” Here, the impure and the pure shall eat it⁴⁰Profane meat slaughtered away from the sanctuary. from the same platter, but heave the impure and the pure may not eat from the same platter. About sacrifices⁴¹The verse points out the difference between profane and sacrifice meat.? Rebbi Joḥanan ben Marius said, if about sacrifices it is already written (Lev. 7:19): “Meat touching anything impure may not be eaten.⁴²While verse 12:22 may also apply to sacrifices, its main emphasis cannot be directed towards sacrifices but towards sanctified food eaten away from the sanctuary. This can only mean heave since the prohibition of impure sacrificial meat is already in Lev. 7:19.”

Rebbi Jehudah came back and presented another argument: Leavened matter is forbidden as food and leftover⁶⁸Sacrificial meat left over after the time allotted for its consumption, depending on the kind of sacrifice either day and night or two daytimes with the night in between. is forbidden as food. Since the latter is to be burned⁸¹Lev. 19:8., the former is to be burned. They told him, carcass meat disproves since it is forbidden as food and is not to be burned²⁰Deut. 14:21.. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food and for usufruct and leftover is forbidden as food and for usufruct; carcass meat does not disprove since it is not forbidden for usufruct. They told him, the stoned ox³⁴The Babli 24b explains that one might use fat from the stoned ox to cover a wound.
The ox was stoned by order of the court because it killed humans (Ex. 21:28–29). Its meat is forbidden for usufruct as explained in the sequel. Cf. Mekhilta dR.Ismael Mišpaṭim10 (p. 282). disproves which is forbidden as food and for usufruct⁸²Since it says, its meat may not be eaten(Ex. 21:18) in the passive voice, according to everybody this implies prohibition of usufruct. and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation⁸³Ex. 12:19., [and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation]⁸⁴Lev. 19:8.; the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not make liable for extirpation. They told him, the fat⁸⁵Lev. 7:25. of the stoned ox disproves which is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is not to be burned. He said to them, leavened matter is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, and leftover is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time; the fat of the stoned ox does not disprove since it does not depend on time. They told him, a suspended sacrifice⁸⁶The sacrifice by a person who suspects that he inadvertently committed a deadly sin. He may not bring a purification sacrifice since that is possible only if there is proof of inadvertent sin; Lev. 5:17–19. following your opinion⁸⁷In Mishnah Temurah 7:6 it is stated that Sages hold that the body of an animal dedicated as a hung sacrifice which was wrongly slaughtered has to be burned, but R. Jehudah requires that it be buried. does disprove since it is forbidden as food, and for usufruct, and makes liable for extirpation, and is dependent on time, [but is not to be burned]. Rebbi Jehudah remained silent⁸⁸And practice does not follow him..

MISHNAH: An impure person who ate holy food¹²Lev. 7:20,21; transgressions punishable by extirpation., or who came into the Temple when impure¹³Num. 19:13.. One who eats fat¹⁴Lev. 7:25., or blood¹⁵Lev. 7:27., or leftover, or piggul¹⁶Lev. 19:8., or impure¹⁷“Leftover” refers to meat from acceptable sacrifices which was not eaten during the statutory time limit. Piggul is a sacrifice which was offered with the idea in mind (of the offerer or the officiating priest) that it should be eaten out of its allotted time (or place); Lev. 7:18,19:8. The root of piggul probably is فجل “to be soft”. [sacrificial meat]. One who sacrifices outside¹⁹Lev. 17:4., or one who eats leavened matter on Passover²⁰Ex. 12:19.. One who eats or does work on the Day of Atonement²¹Lev. 23:29–30., and one who compounds the oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., or compounds the incense²³For profane purposes, Ex. 30:38. Incense had to be compounded fresh every year., and who rubs with the anointing oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., and one who eats carcass²⁴Deut. 14:21, a simple prohibition. or torn meat²⁵Ex. 22:30, a simple prohibition., abominations and crawling things²⁶Lev. 11:11,44.. If one ate ṭevel²⁷Fully harvested produce of which the priests’ heave was not taken; Lev. 22:10. or first tithe from which heave was not taken²⁸The obligation is Num. 18:28, the penalty Num. 18:32., or second tithe²⁹Outside the place of the Sanctuary it needs redemption, Deut. 14:24. or dedicated food³⁰Donated to the Temple to be sold for its value, not dedicated to the altar; Lev. 27:11. which was not redeemed. How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats (carcass meat) [an ant]³¹In editio princeps and ms., נבילה “carcass meat”. In all other sources נמלה “ant”. The latter reading is the only one which makes sense since it both is forbidden (Lev. 11:42) and much less than the size of an olive. is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat³²Given as heave (biblically restricted to grain, wine, and olive oil). is a creature.

MISHNAH: An impure person who ate holy food¹²Lev. 7:20,21; transgressions punishable by extirpation., or who came into the Temple when impure¹³Num. 19:13.. One who eats fat¹⁴Lev. 7:25., or blood¹⁵Lev. 7:27., or leftover, or piggul¹⁶Lev. 19:8., or impure¹⁷“Leftover” refers to meat from acceptable sacrifices which was not eaten during the statutory time limit. Piggul is a sacrifice which was offered with the idea in mind (of the offerer or the officiating priest) that it should be eaten out of its allotted time (or place); Lev. 7:18,19:8. The root of piggul probably is فجل “to be soft”. [sacrificial meat]. One who sacrifices outside¹⁹Lev. 17:4., or one who eats leavened matter on Passover²⁰Ex. 12:19.. One who eats or does work on the Day of Atonement²¹Lev. 23:29–30., and one who compounds the oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., or compounds the incense²³For profane purposes, Ex. 30:38. Incense had to be compounded fresh every year., and who rubs with the anointing oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., and one who eats carcass²⁴Deut. 14:21, a simple prohibition. or torn meat²⁵Ex. 22:30, a simple prohibition., abominations and crawling things²⁶Lev. 11:11,44.. If one ate ṭevel²⁷Fully harvested produce of which the priests’ heave was not taken; Lev. 22:10. or first tithe from which heave was not taken²⁸The obligation is Num. 18:28, the penalty Num. 18:32., or second tithe²⁹Outside the place of the Sanctuary it needs redemption, Deut. 14:24. or dedicated food³⁰Donated to the Temple to be sold for its value, not dedicated to the altar; Lev. 27:11. which was not redeemed. How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats (carcass meat) [an ant]³¹In editio princeps and ms., נבילה “carcass meat”. In all other sources נמלה “ant”. The latter reading is the only one which makes sense since it both is forbidden (Lev. 11:42) and much less than the size of an olive. is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat³²Given as heave (biblically restricted to grain, wine, and olive oil). is a creature.

MISHNAH: An impure person who ate holy food¹²Lev. 7:20,21; transgressions punishable by extirpation., or who came into the Temple when impure¹³Num. 19:13.. One who eats fat¹⁴Lev. 7:25., or blood¹⁵Lev. 7:27., or leftover, or piggul¹⁶Lev. 19:8., or impure¹⁷“Leftover” refers to meat from acceptable sacrifices which was not eaten during the statutory time limit. Piggul is a sacrifice which was offered with the idea in mind (of the offerer or the officiating priest) that it should be eaten out of its allotted time (or place); Lev. 7:18,19:8. The root of piggul probably is فجل “to be soft”. [sacrificial meat]. One who sacrifices outside¹⁹Lev. 17:4., or one who eats leavened matter on Passover²⁰Ex. 12:19.. One who eats or does work on the Day of Atonement²¹Lev. 23:29–30., and one who compounds the oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., or compounds the incense²³For profane purposes, Ex. 30:38. Incense had to be compounded fresh every year., and who rubs with the anointing oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., and one who eats carcass²⁴Deut. 14:21, a simple prohibition. or torn meat²⁵Ex. 22:30, a simple prohibition., abominations and crawling things²⁶Lev. 11:11,44.. If one ate ṭevel²⁷Fully harvested produce of which the priests’ heave was not taken; Lev. 22:10. or first tithe from which heave was not taken²⁸The obligation is Num. 18:28, the penalty Num. 18:32., or second tithe²⁹Outside the place of the Sanctuary it needs redemption, Deut. 14:24. or dedicated food³⁰Donated to the Temple to be sold for its value, not dedicated to the altar; Lev. 27:11. which was not redeemed. How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats (carcass meat) [an ant]³¹In editio princeps and ms., נבילה “carcass meat”. In all other sources נמלה “ant”. The latter reading is the only one which makes sense since it both is forbidden (Lev. 11:42) and much less than the size of an olive. is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat³²Given as heave (biblically restricted to grain, wine, and olive oil). is a creature.

MISHNAH: An impure person who ate holy food¹²Lev. 7:20,21; transgressions punishable by extirpation., or who came into the Temple when impure¹³Num. 19:13.. One who eats fat¹⁴Lev. 7:25., or blood¹⁵Lev. 7:27., or leftover, or piggul¹⁶Lev. 19:8., or impure¹⁷“Leftover” refers to meat from acceptable sacrifices which was not eaten during the statutory time limit. Piggul is a sacrifice which was offered with the idea in mind (of the offerer or the officiating priest) that it should be eaten out of its allotted time (or place); Lev. 7:18,19:8. The root of piggul probably is فجل “to be soft”. [sacrificial meat]. One who sacrifices outside¹⁹Lev. 17:4., or one who eats leavened matter on Passover²⁰Ex. 12:19.. One who eats or does work on the Day of Atonement²¹Lev. 23:29–30., and one who compounds the oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., or compounds the incense²³For profane purposes, Ex. 30:38. Incense had to be compounded fresh every year., and who rubs with the anointing oil²²Ex. 30:33. The anointing oil in the proportions spelled out there., and one who eats carcass²⁴Deut. 14:21, a simple prohibition. or torn meat²⁵Ex. 22:30, a simple prohibition., abominations and crawling things²⁶Lev. 11:11,44.. If one ate ṭevel²⁷Fully harvested produce of which the priests’ heave was not taken; Lev. 22:10. or first tithe from which heave was not taken²⁸The obligation is Num. 18:28, the penalty Num. 18:32., or second tithe²⁹Outside the place of the Sanctuary it needs redemption, Deut. 14:24. or dedicated food³⁰Donated to the Temple to be sold for its value, not dedicated to the altar; Lev. 27:11. which was not redeemed. How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats (carcass meat) [an ant]³¹In editio princeps and ms., נבילה “carcass meat”. In all other sources נמלה “ant”. The latter reading is the only one which makes sense since it both is forbidden (Lev. 11:42) and much less than the size of an olive. is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat³²Given as heave (biblically restricted to grain, wine, and olive oil). is a creature.

Rebbi Ḥanina⁸¹Read: Ḥinena. said before Rebbi Mana: Did you learn this from foreign worship? Then one should learn from foreign worship that for everything one needs one knowledge⁸²Since neither prior awareness nor forgetting are mentioned as prerequisite for a sacrifice for unintentional idolatry (nor for any other sacrifice not depending on the sinner’s wealth) one would have to explain away the mention of prior awareness for infractions of the laws of purity.! He told him, foreign worship requires a fixed value [sacrifice] but the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta an increasing or decreasing one. One cannot infer about a fixed value [sacrifice] from an increasing and decreasing one, nor for an increasing or decreasing from a fixed value one⁸³Therefore the previous argument is invalid; one has to find another argument to exclude any sacrifice for violations of the sanctity of heave.. How did you understand to say that the verse⁸⁴Lev. 5:2–3. Babli 7a. speaks about impurity of Sanctuary sancta? It is said here an impure animal⁸⁵Lev. 5:2. and it is said further on an impure animal⁸⁶Lev. 7:21.. Since an impure animal mentioned there is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta, so an impure animal mentioned here is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta. Not only Sanctuary sancta; from where the impurity of the Sanctuary⁸⁷Babli Zevaḥim 43b. The question is whether a violation of the purity of the Sanctuary can be expiated by a sacrifice or whether any such violation requires the full ceremony of Lev. 16 describing the Day of Atonement.? ⁸⁸Sifra Ṣav Pereq 14(3–6), partially quoted in Zevaḥim 43b.“The verse says: his impurity is on him⁸⁹Lev. 7:20.. How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]⁹⁰This is prohibited in Lev. 7:19.? The verse says: his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi says, he ate⁹¹Lev. 7:21., his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Ḥiyya says, sancta are mentioned in the plural⁹²A well-being offering is always mentioned in the plural, שְׁלָמִים. It is argued that therefore a singular cannot refer to the sacrifice. The argument is unconvincing since the sacrifice is not called שְׁלָמִים in the plural but זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים in the singular. It also is unnecessary since in 7:20 עָלָיו “on him” refers to the subject וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ “but the person”. but impurity is mentioned in the singular. How can I uphold his impurity is on him? Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Meїr says, the verse only speaks of one from whom impurity separates⁹³A person always can remove his impurity, for simple impurity by immersion in a miqweh, for severe impurities by one of the prescribed rituals. Impure sacral meat must be burned (Lev. 7:19; it also loses its impurity by rotting but as long as it is meat it remains impure.. This excludes meat from which impurity does not separate.”

Rebbi Ḥanina⁸¹Read: Ḥinena. said before Rebbi Mana: Did you learn this from foreign worship? Then one should learn from foreign worship that for everything one needs one knowledge⁸²Since neither prior awareness nor forgetting are mentioned as prerequisite for a sacrifice for unintentional idolatry (nor for any other sacrifice not depending on the sinner’s wealth) one would have to explain away the mention of prior awareness for infractions of the laws of purity.! He told him, foreign worship requires a fixed value [sacrifice] but the impurity of the Sanctuary and its sancta an increasing or decreasing one. One cannot infer about a fixed value [sacrifice] from an increasing and decreasing one, nor for an increasing or decreasing from a fixed value one⁸³Therefore the previous argument is invalid; one has to find another argument to exclude any sacrifice for violations of the sanctity of heave.. How did you understand to say that the verse⁸⁴Lev. 5:2–3. Babli 7a. speaks about impurity of Sanctuary sancta? It is said here an impure animal⁸⁵Lev. 5:2. and it is said further on an impure animal⁸⁶Lev. 7:21.. Since an impure animal mentioned there is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta, so an impure animal mentioned here is about impurity of Sanctuary sancta. Not only Sanctuary sancta; from where the impurity of the Sanctuary⁸⁷Babli Zevaḥim 43b. The question is whether a violation of the purity of the Sanctuary can be expiated by a sacrifice or whether any such violation requires the full ceremony of Lev. 16 describing the Day of Atonement.? ⁸⁸Sifra Ṣav Pereq 14(3–6), partially quoted in Zevaḥim 43b.“The verse says: his impurity is on him⁸⁹Lev. 7:20.. How did you understand to explain it? About an impure person who ate pure [meat], or a pure person who ate impure [meat]⁹⁰This is prohibited in Lev. 7:19.? The verse says: his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi says, he ate⁹¹Lev. 7:21., his impurity is on him. Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Ḥiyya says, sancta are mentioned in the plural⁹²A well-being offering is always mentioned in the plural, שְׁלָמִים. It is argued that therefore a singular cannot refer to the sacrifice. The argument is unconvincing since the sacrifice is not called שְׁלָמִים in the plural but זֶבַח שְׁלָמִים in the singular. It also is unnecessary since in 7:20 עָלָיו “on him” refers to the subject וְהַנֶּפֶשׁ “but the person”. but impurity is mentioned in the singular. How can I uphold his impurity is on him? Impurity of the body, not impurity of the meat. Rebbi Meїr says, the verse only speaks of one from whom impurity separates⁹³A person always can remove his impurity, for simple impurity by immersion in a miqweh, for severe impurities by one of the prescribed rituals. Impure sacral meat must be burned (Lev. 7:19; it also loses its impurity by rotting but as long as it is meat it remains impure.. This excludes meat from which impurity does not separate.”

One ate five times the volume of an olive; he separately realized a doubt about each one. Afterwards it became known to him (in court) [as a certainty.⁴⁰The text in parentheses is from L, the one in brackets from B. Since the testimony as to the occurrence of a sinful act by a single witness in court is sufficient to obligate the perpetrator for a sacrifice (even though a single witness is not admissible in any criminal procedure and may be contradicted by an oath in civil proceedings) the text in parentheses has to be preferred as lectio difficilior while the meaning for the English reader is more easily understood from the text of B.] Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression⁴¹The problem discussed here has no direct connection with change of status; it applies as well to a commoner who progressively becomes aware of multiple transgressions of the same kind; Ševuot2:1 (33d l. 10) Babli Keritut 18b, Ševuot19b. The Babli finds here a tannaitic controversy. It was stated that the awareness of a transgression determines the obligation of a purification sacrifice, but the obligation of a suspended reparation sacrifice may cover separate incidents. The question then arises what are the obligations if the doubts about a single suspended reparation sacrifice are resolved on different occasions? (In the Babli, R. Simeon ben Laqish’s opinion is attributed to Rebbi, that of R. Johanan to Rebbi’s teachers R. Yose ben R. Jehudah and R. Eleazar ben R. Simeon.)
In the example, the doubt is whether he ate permitted or prohibited fat.. Rebbi Yose bar Abun in the name of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish agrees that for the Anointed Priest the knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression⁴²The paragraph is referred to in Ševuot2:1.
Since the Anointed Priest is barred from bringing a reparation sacrifice, the knowledge of the doubt has no influence on his status.. What is the reason? Like purification offering, like reparation offering⁴³Lev. 7:7. The verse appears in a different context, i. e., that the technicalities of purification and reparation sacrifices are identical [Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 9(1)]. In Maimonides’s opinion, the quote here is an allusion, not a proof.. The knowledge about his doubt determines his kind of transgression for one who brings a suspended reparation offering. The knowledge about his doubt does not determine his kind of transgression for one who does not bring a suspended reparation offering.

¹⁰¹This is copied from Soṭah 5:2 (Notes 93–106, ס). In this paragraph, the corrector’s changes are copied from Soṭah and have to be accepted.“Rebbi Yose stated, from where that the fourth degree is disqualified in sanctified food? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation¹⁰²If a person is healed whose body was an original source of impurity, he needs immersion in water to be pure and also a ceremony of expiation to be admitted to the Sanctuary and sacrifices (for the person afflicted with skin disease, Lev, 14:32; for the persons healed from genital discharges 15:14–15, 29–30 for the woman after childbirth 12:6–8). After immersion in water, the person is totally pure (after the following sundown) at any place other than the Sanctuary. is not disqualified for heave¹⁰³Tosephta 3:17. but disqualified for sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree¹⁰⁴In the text here “fourth order,” not corrected by the corrector. The translated text here is from Soṭah. [impurity] which is disabled for heave should disqualify for sanctified food. That means, we learned third degree from a verse¹⁰⁵Mishnah Sotah 5:3 following R. Aqiba. and fourth degree from an argument de minore ad majus.” Rebbi Joḥanan objected: Food that was touched by a Tevul Yom¹⁰⁶Cf. Chapter 1, Note 168. is a counter-example, because he disqualifies in the case of heave but does not disqualify in the case of sanctified food¹⁰⁷Tosephta 3:16; Sifra Emor Pereq 4(8). It is proved that sacra are not in all respects more restrictive than heave. It is remarkable that the Babli does not argue against the thesis of R. Yose since it clearly violates the rule “it is enough if inference drawn from an argument be equal to the premise ” (Babli Bava qamma 25a). According to this rule, a passive impurity in the minor cannot become an active one in the major. The Yerushalmi knows no such rule; it needs the counter-example of R. Joḥanan. The difference between the Talmudim is that for the Yerushalmi, de minore ad majus is a rhetorical device but for the Babli it is part of a meta-logical system (cf. the author’s Logical Problems in Jewish Tradition, in: Confrontations with Judaism, Ph. Longworth, ed., London 1966 pp. 171–196.). Rebbi Ḥananiah¹⁰⁸In Sotah: R. Ḥiyya, the only possible reading since R. Ḥananiah was a teacher, not a student, of R. Joḥanan. in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Yose argues the method of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba. Just as Rebbi Aqiba says impure, impure by the words of the Torah, so Rebbi Yose says it will be impure, it makes impure by the words of the Torah. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Rebbi Yose does not need that argument de minore ad majus. Rebbi Yose explains the verse¹⁰⁹Lev. 7:19; Sifra Ṣaw Parasha 9. A similar interpretation is given as an additional baraita in the Babli 24a, Pesaḥim 18b/19a, Sotah 29b.: Any meat which would touch, that is second degree food because it touched primary impurity; anything impure, that is third degree food because it touched second degree impurity; shall not be eaten, the endstage of impurity may not be eaten. So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel which had become impure by a reptile¹¹⁰A dead reptile from the kinds enumerated in Lev. 11:29–30.. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile¹¹¹Vessels can become impure only from original impurity (a “father” or “grand-father” of impurity, never from derivative impurity.) There is no verse which would indicate otherwise (but in Pesaḥim 1:7, R. Ismael is quoted to the effect that Lev. 11:33 also applies to vessels. It may be a veiled reference to the argument presented here.) to defile solid food, is it not logical that solid food itself which became impure by a reptile should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food. So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: ¹¹²Lev. 7:19.Any meat which would touch anything impure, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, shall not be eaten, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a tevul yom who is not disqualified for profane food disqualifies heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation who does not disable heave disables sanctified food, it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disqualifies heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument¹¹³It is a principle accepted in both Talmudim that at least for any rules of sacrifices and connected matters, most hermeneutical rules cannot be used one after the other; cf. Yebamot 8:1, Note 19. A detailed table of legal and illegal combinations, derived from Babli Zevaḥim Chapter 5, appears in the author’s paper Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, pp. 150–164.? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices¹¹⁴Tosephta 3:8. “Practice” here corresponds to “Practice of Moses from Mount Sinai” in the Babli, generally accepted practice whose roots can no longer be ascertained. The status of such practice is more than rabbinic and less than biblical..

So far about solid food that became impure in the air space of a clay vessel³⁴Lev. 11:33, speaking of dead reptiles (which are carriers of original impurity) falling into a clay vessel. In the biblical laws of impurity, no defilement is imparted to a clay vessel touched by impurities from the outside. But if the clay vessel encloses a space that can be covered and something of original impurity enters the space (even before it touches any wall), the entire vessel becomes impure in the first degree. {Degrees of impurity are explained in the commentary to Demay, Chapter 2, Note 137.} Therefore, any food inside the vessel becomes impure in the second degree. If that food touches food susceptible to tertiary impurity, the latter becomes impure in the third degree. Which food can become impure in the third and fourth degrees is a matter of discussion in the Halakhah.
The same verse states that a clay vessel can be purified only by being broken. The shards become pure writing material. which had become impure by a reptile¹⁰¹A dead reptile from the 8 kinds enumerated in Lev. 11:29–30.. What about solid food that became impure directly from a reptile? Is that not an argument? Since vessels, which cannot become impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, become impure by contact with a reptile¹⁰²Vessels can become impure only from original impurity (a “father” or “grandfather” of impurity, never from derivative impurity.) There is no verse which would indicate otherwise (but in Pesaḥim 1:7, fol. 27d, R. Ismael is quoted to the effect that Lev. 11:33 also applies to vessels. It may be a veiled reference to the argument presented here.) to defile solid food, [is it not logical that solid food, which becomes impure in the air space of a clay vessel that became impure by a reptile, should become impure by contact with a reptile to defile solid food.] So far, following Rebbi Aqiba. Following Rebbi Ismael? Rebbi Ismael stated: ¹⁰³Lev. 7:19.“Any meat which would touch anything impure”, that is first degree food which touched any impurity, “shall not be eaten”, to add a second degree of impurity. The third degree from where? It is an argument. Since a ṭevul yom who is not disabled for profane food disables heave, it is only logical that a person secondarily impure, who disables profane food should disable heave. The fourth degree for sacrifices from where? It is an argument. Since one who lacks expiation⁹⁵If a person whose body was an original source of impurity is healed, he needs immersion in water to be pure and also a ceremony of expiation to be admitted to the Sanctuary and sacrifices (for the person afflicted with skin disease, Lev, 14:32; for the persons healed from genital discharges 15:14–15, 29–30; for the woman after childbirth 12:6–8). After immersion in water, the person is totally pure at any place other than the Sanctuary. who does not disable heave disables sanctified food⁹⁶Tosephta Ḥagigah 3:17., it is only logical that third degree [impurity] which disables¹⁰⁴Everywhere here, פוסל “disables” should read פסול “is disabled”, except the second occurrence (which infringes on the rules of דַּיּוֹ, Note 98). heave should disable sanctified food. That means, we learned first and second degrees from a verse, the third from an argument and the fourth from an argument de minore ad majus. Can one pile argument on argument¹⁰⁵It is a principle accepted in both Talmudim that at least for any rules of sacrifices and connected matters, most hermeneutical rules cannot be used one after the other; cf. Yebamot 8:1, Note 19. A detailed table of legal and illegal combinations, derived from Babli Zebaḥim Chapter 5, appears in the author’s paper Über ein bemerkenswertes logisches System aus der Antike, Methodos 1951, pp. 150–164.? Everything is subject to practice, i. e., that third degree disables heave and fourth degree disables sacrifices¹⁰⁶Tosephta Ḥagigah 3:8. “Practice” here corresponds to “Practice of Moses from Mount Sinai” in the Babli, generally accepted practice whose roots can no longer be ascertained. The status of such practice is more than rabbinic and less than biblical..

HALAKHAH: ⁵³The same statement is found in Ma`aser Šeni3:8 (Note 103) and Pesaḥim1:7, Notes 166,167. Bar Qappara said, original impurity is a word from the Torah, derivative impurity is of their words. Rebbi Joḥanan said, both these and those are words of the Torah<sup>54</sup>In Lev. 7:19 one reads: Any meat which touches anything impure may not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. Since it is not stated “touches any impure person”, one has to conclude that anything impure refers to implements or similar things which became impure from the touch of an impure person. Therefore it is clear that by biblical standards there exist derivative impurities. Bar Qappara holds that anything which makes something else impure is called original impurity. Since the verse does not refer to the meat as impure, he will hold that it is disqualified but its touch will not make the implement touched impure. He restricts the term “impure” to matter able to transmit impurity; matter disqualified is classifioed as “derivative impurity”. R. Joḥanan will hold that the meat, two touches distant from original impurity, still is impure by biblical standards (even though it is not called so in the text.) Everybody will agree that further impurities, 3 and 4 touches separated from original impurity, are rabbinic (or customary) categories of impurity.. <sup>55</sup>Similar discussions, referring to other Mishnaiot, are in Ma`aser Šeni3:8 (Note 103) and Pesaḥim 1:7, Notes 166,167. The House of Shammai is difficult for Rebbi Joḥanan, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between [original]⁵⁶Correct addition by the corrector. (The clause is missing in B.) impurity and derivative impurity outside, are not both of them words of the Torah? And even the House of Hillel is difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference between derivative impurity inside and original impurity inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? The rabbis only discuss Bar Qappara’s opinion⁵⁷Since the objections to R. Joḥanan’s opinion cannot be answered, his statement cannot be valid in rabbinic tradition.. The House of Shammai is difficult for Bar Qappara, since the House of Shammai said, “everything has to be burned inside except what became impure outside by original impurity.” What is the difference between original impurity outside or inside, are not both of them words of the Torah? Because of Rebbi Aqiba, who said “the place of its impurity shall be the place of its burning.⁵⁸The House of Shammai will accept R. Aqiba’s interpretation of Lev. 6:23; this explains their position without reference to Bar Qappara’s statement.” Would not the House of Hillel also be difficult for him, since the House of Hillel say, “everything has to be burned outside except what became impure inside by derivative impurity.” What is the difference for derivative impurity inside or outside, are not both of them their words? Because of Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, food and drink of a person afflicted with skin disease are sent outside the three camps⁵⁹This is a complicated formulation of the simple statement of Note 50. It is inferred from Num. 5:2–4 (Sifry Num. 1) that there were three encampments in the desert, the holy precinct of the Tent of Meeting, the encampment of the Levites, and that of the Israelites. These are represented by the Temple enclosure, the Temple Mount, and Jerusalem (or any walled city in the Holy Land). Then it is stated that from the categories of people excluded from the holy sites, people impure in the impurity of the dead are excluded from the Temple precinct, those suffering from gonorrhea (or anybody whose impurity is caused by his own body) is excluded from the Temple Mount, and the sufferer from skin disease is excluded from the city. R. Simeon explains that the sufferers from skin disease under no circumstance can enter the city; this is a paradigm for the statement that anything impure never may be brought into a place from which it is excluded..

MISHNAH: Dough intended for Bismarcks and made into Bismarcks is free from ḥallah.¹⁷⁶According to Maimonides, only if baked in the sun. If it was started as bread dough but made into Bismarcks, or started as Bismarck dough and used as bread dough, is obligated for ḥallah. Similarly, qenubqa’ot¹⁷⁷A word of unknown etymology, cf. Note 182. {Perhaps cf. Latin clibanicius (viz., panis) “bread baked in a clibanus, an earthen or iron vessel for baking bread; oven, furnace” (Lewis & Short) (E. G.).} are obligated.
The House of Shammai free parboiled dough but the House of Hillel obligate it. The House of Shammai obligate dumplings but the House of Hillel free it¹⁸⁵In both cases, the dough will be baked in the end. In the Babli, Pesaḥim 37b, the definition of מעיסה and חליטה are switched; the Babli essentially follows the Yerushalmi here. The disagreement of the Houses of Hillel and Shammai is also quoted in Mishnah Idiut 5:2.. The loaves for a thanksgiving sacrifice¹⁸⁶Lev. 7:12. and those needed by the nazir¹⁸⁷Num. 6:15., if he made them for himself they are exempt¹⁸⁸Since they are dedicated when baking they are exempt as sacrifice., to sell on the market obligated.

MISHNAH: Thirteen horns¹The “horns” were chests for the money given to the Temple for various reasons, as detailed in Mishnah 7. A person putting money into one of the chests could not put his hand into it, he had to let the coins drop in from the top. were in the Temple, and it was written on them: New sheqalim, and old sheqalim, nests¹³⁴Obligatory purification or reparation offerings, as prescribed in Lev. In all cases, two birds are required, one as purification and one as elevation offering, following different rules., young birds for elevation sacrifices¹³⁵Voluntary offerings which may be for a single bird., wood¹³⁶A person vowing firewood for the Temple does not bring wood but the money for it., and incense, gold for the cover¹³⁷To cover the Holiest of Holies in the absence of the Ark; Mishnah 4:4., and six for voluntary gifts¹³⁸As explained in the Halakhah and in Tosephta 3:7.. New sheqalim for the current year, and old ones, one who did not bring the past year, gives it for the next one¹³⁹New sheqalim are given for current use; sheqalim for past years are treated directly as remainders from that year (Mishnah 4:3)..
“Nests” are turtle doves and “young birds as elevation offerings” are pigeons, all for elevation offerings, the words of Rebbi Jehudah¹⁴⁷It was explained in the preceding Halakhah that R. Jehudah cannot accept the explanation of Mishnah 7 given in Note 134, but must require that a person offering two birds to be able to partake in sancta, the woman after childbirth (Lev. 12:8), the poor person healed from skin disease (Lev. 14:22), the male healed from gonorrhea (Lev. 15:14) and the female from flux (Lev. 15:29), personally deliver the birds to the Cohen who thereby is assured that the person is alive. As a consequence, for him the money deposited for “nests” is for elevation sacrifices; the distinction from “young birds for elevation offerings” only is in the amount of money required and the kind of birds bought. Mishnah 7 was explained following the Sages in Mishnah 8.. But the Sages say, of “nests” one is a purification offering and one an elevation offering; “young birds as elevation offerings” are all elevation offerings. If one says, “I am obligated for wood logs”, he may not give less than for two logs; “incense”, he may not give less than for a fistful; “gold”, he may not give less than for a gold denar¹⁴⁸25 silver denars, or their equivalent in small change.. “Six for voluntary gifts.” What did they do with this? One buys with it elevation offerings¹⁴⁹As with any money delivered to the gift account.; the flesh is for the Eternal and the skins are for the Cohanim. This explanation did Jehoyada the High Priest explain: It is a reparation offering, repairing, a reparation offering for the Eternal¹⁵⁰Lev. 5:19.; this is the principle: Elevation offerings should be bought from anything coming¹⁵¹It is obvious that money given to the Temple for purification or reparation offerings must be used for the kind of offering specified. Money “coming from” these kinds of offerings are excess monies, not used for the obligatory offerings. Since obligatory offerings cannot be brought voluntarily, nor can monies dedicated to the Temple be returned, the excess has to be deposited in the gift account and used for elevation offerings. because of sin or reparation; the flesh is for the Eternal and the skins are for the Cohanim. It turns out that both parts of the verse are fulfilled, a reparation offering for the Eternal and reparation for the Cohanim. And it says, money for reparation offerings and money for purification offerings are not to be brought to the Eternal’s House, it shall be for the Cohanim¹⁵²2K. 12:17. The money is not for the Cohanim but the Cohanim receive the skins of the animals bought with the excess monies..

HALAKHAH: It was stated: Rebbi Meïr declares liable but Rebbi Simeon declares not liable⁵⁴The people whose impurity is caused by their own body who eat from Pesaḥ slaughtered for people impure by the impurity of the dead. The Mishnah is R. Simeon’s. In Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 14, the argument is attributed to R. Josua, in Tosephta 8:9 R. Simeon in the name of R. Joshua; in the Babli 95b it is anonymous.. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? The meat, every pure person shall eat meat. But the person who would eat meat from the well-being sacrifice⁵⁵Lev. 7:19–20., for any which is permitted to pure persons one is liable for impurity, but for any which is not permitted to pure persons one is not liable for impurity⁵⁶But naturally he still is liable for a sacrifice to atone for the unauthorized use of sancta (מְעִילָה).. If he ate elevation offerings, if he ate parts⁵⁷The fat to be burned on the altar and forbidden for human consumption (Chapter 5, Note 50)., since they are not permitted to pure persons one is not liable for it.

There are Tannaim who state that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ. There are Tannaim who state that each of them is inferred from its place. He who said that all of them are inferred from the Pesaḥ, since at its fixed time which is said (here) [about Pesaḥ pushes impurity aside, also at its fixed time which is written about all of them] pushes impurity aside⁷⁰Since it says (Lev.23:4): These are the times of the Eternal, holy convocations, which you have to proclaim at their fixed times. Cf. Chapter 6, Halakhah 1.. He who said that each of them is inferred from its place, from where does he have it? It comes as it is stated⁷¹Babli 77a, Menaḥot73a, Sifra Emor Pereq 17(13).: “Rebbi says, why does the verse say, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal⁷²Lev. 23:44.. Since we learned only about Pesaḥ and the daily sacrifices that they push the Sabbath aside, since it is said about them at its fixed time⁷³Num. 9:2, 28:2., from where the rest of public offerings? The verse says, these you shall offer to the Eternal at your fixed times⁷⁴Num. 29:39.. For the Omer and what is brought with it, and for the Two Breads and what is brought with them, we have no information. But since it is said, Moses told the holidays of the Eternal to the Children of Israel⁷¹Babli 77a, Menaḥot73a, Sifra Emor Pereq 17(13)., this fixed it as obligation that all of them have to be offered in impurity.” Just as they are brought in impurity, should they not be eaten in impurity? It is a decision of the verse: Any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten⁷⁵Lev. 7:19.. One would say that the same is valid for the Pesaḥ. This is different since from the start this is what it is for⁶⁸Since it is written (Ex. 12:4), Everybody according to his eating you should slaughter the lamb..

Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: The olive-sized piece of mazzah with which a person fulfills his obligation on Passover must be without fluid²²⁸The dough must be made with water to the exclusion of any other fluid. Cf. Babli 36a.. Rebbi Jeremiah said, this was said for a meritorious deed²²⁹In this opinion the mazzah which either was made from dough containing other fluids or where fluid was rubbed into it after baking is undesirable but not forbidden.. Rebbi Abba said, this was said for a meritorious deed. Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, this was said as a necessary condition. The word of Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya implies that this was said as a necessary condition. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya objected, did we not state: “flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering”? Are there flat cakes for a thanksgiving offering without fluids²³⁰Lev. 7:12 prescribes “flat cakes mixed with oil”. If the Mishnah permits such cakes when commercially made, it must permit all mazzah kneaded with a mixture of oil and water.? Rebbi Yose said, there it is a quartarius; one quartarius splits into many kinds²³¹Mishnah Menaḥot9:3 specifies that half a log (2 quartarii, slightly more than 1/4 liter) was used to bake the bread required for a thanksgiving offering, 10 flat cakes, 10 wafers, and flour mixed with oil. The amount used for a single flat cake was negligible. Babli 38b.. But what implies this? “One might think and a person could satisfy his obligation with pancake, the verse says, guard the mazzot²³²Ex. 12:17; a similar baraita is quoted in Midrash Haggadol Ba 12:17; where it is spelled out that a pancake made from flour fried in oil is unacceptable since it never can become leavened., a mazzah which needs guarding, excluding this one which does not need guarding.” Because it does not need guarding; therefore if it would need guarding one would satisfy his obligation with it. And so we stated: “One fulfills his obligation with spiced mazzah, even if it does not taste of grain, on condition that it be mostly grain”²³³Tosephta 2:21.. They thought to say, spiced by fluids. We may say, spiced by sesame, spiced by nuts. But the following says it: One might think that a person only could satisfy his obligation on Passover with (roasted) [whole grain]²³⁴The scribe wrote “roasted bread”, i. e., baked on the open fire (parallel to the roasting prescribed for the Passover sacrifice.). The corrector changed this to “bread from the second milling”, i. e., from non-white flour. This correction is induced from the Babli 36b and should be disregarded. bread? From where even with Solomon’s mazzah²³⁵Which certainly was made from pure white flour. Sifry Deut. 130.? The verse says, you shall eat mazzot, it included. If it is so, why does it say bread of affliction²³⁶Deut. 16:3.? To exclude sursīn²³⁷This word is unexplained. סוּרְסִי is the name of the Syriac language. We do not know what “Syriac cakes” are. Sifry only mentions חָלוּט “pancake fried in oil” and cake. The rule is mentioned in the Tosephta 2:20, Babli 119b; the Babli version also in Mekhilta dR. Ismael Ba 10 (end)., and pancake, and cake.

¹⁴⁶Tosephta Ḥallah 2:7–9, Babli Baba Qama 110b, Ḥulin 132b, Sifry Qoraḥ #119 (“12 in the Temple, 12 in the countryside”), Midrash Tanḥuma Bemidbar 24, Num. rabba 5(1).24 gifts were given to Aaron and his sons, ten in the Temple, four in Jerusalem, and ten in the countryside. These are the ten in the Temple: Purification offering¹⁴⁷Lev. 6:19., reparation offering¹⁴⁸Lev. 7:7., public well-being offerings¹⁴⁹Lev. 23:19. Even though this sacrifice is labelled “well-being offering”, being a public offering it is treated as most holy and must be eaten by Cohanim in the Temple precinct., purification offering of a bird¹⁵⁰While there is no separate verse commanding that the purification offering of a bird must be eaten, since the burnt offering of a bird is consumed on the altar it follows that the purification offering must be eaten., the reparation offering for suspected guilt¹⁵¹Lev5:17–18., the log of oil of the skin-diseased¹⁵²Lev 14:10,21. The unused part of the oil becomes property of the Cohen., the two breads¹⁵³Lev. 23:17., the shew-bread¹⁵⁴Lev. 24:9., the remainders of cereal offerings¹⁵⁵Lev. 2:3, 6:9–11., and the ‘omer¹⁵⁶Lev. 23:10–11.. These are in Jerusalem: Firstlings¹⁵⁷While these are sacrifices, after the blood was sprinkled on the altar wall the animal was eaten by the Cohen and his family anywhere in the city., First Fruits¹⁵⁸Cf. Mishnah Bikkurim 3:10., what was lifted from thanksgiving sacrifices and from the nazir’s ram¹⁵⁹In fact, any part lifted for the Cohen from any well-being sacrifice is for the Cohen and his entire family, to be eaten outside the Temple precinct. Cf. Lev. 7:34, Num. 18:11., and the skins of sacrifices¹⁶⁰Only of most holy sacrifices (burnt, purification, and reparation offerings); Lev. 7:8.. These are in the countryside: Heave, Heave of the Tithe, ḥallah, foreleg, jawbone, and first stomach¹²⁷Deut. 18:3., the first shearing¹⁶¹Deut. 18:4., robbery of the proselyte¹⁶²Num. 5:8. It is assumed that the only person without legal heirs is the proselyte who had no children after his conversion., redemption of the firstborn¹⁶³Ex. 13., redemption of the firstborn donkey¹⁶³Ex. 13., ḥērem-dedications, and fields of inheritance¹⁶⁴Dedicated and not redeemed; Lev. 27:16–21..

If it comes in impurity of the officiants⁹⁰The case mentioned in the Mishnah, that the people were pure but all officiating priests impure.? How is that? If defective persons⁹¹It could have stated, “a pure non-priest”. The statement seems to imply that a priest with a bodily defect, who is barred from officiating (Lev. 21:16–24), still is permitted to act as slaughterer in the Temple. Here it is presumed that he is pure. slaughtered and pure⁹²Obviously one has to read: impure. (K is not legible at this point.) The impure (by the impurity of the dead) priest does not come into direct contact with the sacrificial animal. While the blood collected in the vessel which he holds will be impure, it does not make the carcass impure through the stream of blood falling into his vessel. ones poured. Rebbi Hila said, any meat that touched anything impure may not be eaten⁷⁵Lev. 7:19., but here it was not touched by anybody impure. The meat, anybody pure may eat meat⁷⁵Lev. 7:19.; there are pure ones available to eat it⁹³The people, as stated in the Mishnah.. Rebbi Zeˋira: Since Pesaḥ made in impurity is eaten, [this one is as if brought in impurity]⁹⁴Since the people are pure, the argument of R. Hoshaia is superfluous.. And where was this⁹⁵The source of R. Zeˋira’s argument. said? Rebbi Samuel said, Rebbi Zeˋira asked: If it comes with impurity of the blood⁹⁶The carcass is pure, the priests are pure, but the blood has become impure. Since only the blood pumped out at the moment of slaughter is acceptable on the altar (Chapter 5, Note 234), it cannot be replaced., what is done? Since one does not permit him to pour, is it as if brought in impurity? Or since if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable, is it as if not brought in impurity? Let us hear from the following which was said by [Rebbi Elazar in the name of ⁸⁷Reading of K. Rebbi Hoshaia: Aaron shall carry the iniquities of the sacrifices⁹⁷Ex. 28:38. Explained in more detail in the Babli 16b, Yoma 7a, Zevaḥim 23a., the iniquities of the sacrifices, not the iniquities of the sacrificers⁹⁸The diadem will not cover deficiencies in either the owners or the officiants of a sacrifice. Babli Zevaḥim 23b.. He separated between what is offered on behalf of an individual and what is offered on behalf of the public. If offered for an individual, if he has another one⁹⁹Another animal to offer.
The following text in brackets is a corrector’s addition which by the concurrent testimony of the original scribe and K should be deleted., one tells him, bring! If not, [one does not permit him to pour the blood;] if he transgressed and poured, it was made acceptable. The sacrificers for an individual, whether he has or does not have, [it was not made acceptable. If offered for the public, if he has another one, one tells him, bring! If not, one permits him to pour the blood a priori. The sacrificers for the public, whether he has or does not have,] it was made acceptable.

MISHNAH: The koy¹⁵⁴Since no cognate language has any animal name close to כוי, its identity cannot be determined. It might exist only for the sake of argument.
The Babli (Ḥulin 80b–81a) has a long discussion about the legal differences between the offspring of a he-goat which mated with a hind or a stag which mated with a she-goat. The Babli quotes a baraita which ascribes the opinion of R. Eleazar to anonymous authors, the opinion of the rabbis to R. Yose, and a third, anonymous, opinion that כוי is a wild goat. in some ways follows the rules for wild animals and in some those for domestic animals, in some the rules for both domestic and wild animals, and in some those for neither domestic nor wild animals.
How does it follow the rules of wild animals? Its blood must be covered like the blood of a wild animal¹⁴⁹Lev. 17:13. The blood of domestic kosher animals (cattle, sheep, and goats) may be used for industrial purposes but not that of wild animals or birds.; one does not slaughter it on a holiday¹⁵⁰While one may slaughter on a holiday for immediate consumption and may cover the blood of a wild animal or bird, one may not move earth on the holiday for a questionable case. but if it was slaughtered one does not cover its blood. Its fat can become impure in the impurity of a carcass like a wild animal¹⁵¹Since all fat of a wild animal can be eaten, it is not distinguished from its body and, unless the animal is correctly slaughtered, its entire body becomes impure as a carcass (Lev.11:39); cf. Mishnah Uqeẓin 3:9.; that impurity is one of doubt¹⁵²Since the koy might be a domestic animal. If a person who has become impure by touching fat from a koy carcass visits the Temple enclosure, he cannot be prosecuted but he will induce impurity by his touch. This rule and the one about covering the blood on a holiday are really rules distinct from those valid for domestic or wild animals.. One may not use it to redeem the first-born of a donkey¹⁵³Ex. 13:13 requires that the first-born of a female donkey be redeemed by a sheep or goat given to a Cohen..
How does it follow the rules of domestic animals? Its fat is forbidden like the fat of domestic animals¹⁵⁶Lev. 7:23, prohibition restricted to “cattle, sheep, and goats.”, but one is not punished for it by extirpation. It cannot be bought with tithe money to be eaten in Jerusalem¹⁵⁷Since tithe money should be used to buy well-being sacrifices (Ma‘aser Šeni 1:4) and a koy cannot be a sacrifice. and it is subject to the foreleg, the lower jaw, and the first stomach [to be given to a Cohen]¹⁵⁸Deut. 18:3, the part Cohen’s of profane slaughter of cattle or sheep or goats.. Rebbi Eleazar frees¹⁵⁹The person slaughtering does not have to give away the foreleg, jaw, and stomach. Since these gifts are profane, the Cohen can collect only if he can prove that the koy is subject to these rules. R. Eleazar quoted here is the Tanna R. Eleazar ben Shamua. since the claimant has to bring proof.
How does it differ from both a wild and a domestic animal? It is forbidden as kilaim with wild animals and domestic animals. If somebody writes his wild or domestic animals over to his son¹⁶⁴In a gift document., he did not include the koy¹⁶⁵Since it is neither a wild nor a domestic animal.. If somebody said, I am a nazir if that is neither a wild nor a domestic animal, he is a nazir¹⁶⁵Since it is neither a wild nor a domestic animal.. In all other ways it is like wild and domestic animals; it needs slaughtering by cutting its throat¹⁶⁶Lev. 11:39. like both, and as carcass it is impure like both.

HALAKHAH: “A congenital castrate priest,” etc. It was stated: He enables her to eat breast and thigh²²⁸The part of breast and right front thigh from a well-being offering which has to be given to the Cohen and is eaten by him and his family; Lev. 7:34. In the interpretation of the Babli, 81a, “breast and thigh” stands for all gifts to the Cohen which are biblical; “heave” is today’s heave which is only a rabbinical obligation. The following discussion in the Yerushalmi shows that this cannot be the Yerushalmi’s interpretation.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, he enables her for heave but not for breast and thigh²²⁹In the Babli, 81a, this position is ascribed to R. Simeon ben Laqish, the opposite statement to R. Joḥanan. Since practice in general follows R. Joḥanan, the two Talmudim take opposite positions in practice. According to the Babli, the entire discussion is about the hermaphrodite Cohen, not the one born without testicles. It seems from the second paragraph following that the Yerushalmi also has to be read in this sense.. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥanina asked, what means “there are several arguments de minore ad majus in this matter”? He said to him, open your mouth and receive. Rebbi Mana said, he made fun of him. Rebbi Abun said, he gave him an example. ²³⁰Sifra Ṣaw Pereq 17(5). R. Simeon ben Laqish intimates that there may be more (amoraic) arguments in the vein of the tannaitic statement to be quoted.“Since she eats heave that never was within the reach of an Israel, is it not logical that she should eat breast and thigh that were within the reach of Israel²³¹It is not clear what the argument is. R. Abraham ben David in his commentary to Sifra gives two possible explanations. (1) Before the sin of the Golden Calf, first-borns exercised the priestly functions. (2) In the obligatory sacrifices of Passover and animal tithes, the Cohen gets nothing. (In profane slaughter he should get some other parts, Deut. 18:3. During the stay in the desert, profane slaughter was forbidden, Lev. 17:3–4). Since this shows that there is nothing intrinsic in the nature of a sacrifice which requires a part to be given to the Cohen, the Cohen’s parts are in some sense robbed from the Israel and given to the Cohen.? Breast and thigh were within the reach of Israel but when they became guilty these were taken from them and given to the priests. I could think, since these were taken from them when they incurred guilt, so they would be given back to them when they acquire merit. The verse²³²Lev.7:34. says, ‘I gave them to Aaron and his sons for an eternal law;’ since a gift is not returned, so these are not returned.”

HALAKHAH: “The entire day is qualified to read the Scroll,” as it is written⁹¹Esth.9:1., on the day the enemies of the Jews thought they would rule over them. To read the Hallel, as it is written¹¹²Ps, 118:24., this is the day the Eternal made, let us enjoy and be happy on it. To blow the shofar, as it is written¹¹³Num. 29:1., a day to shofar blowing it shall be for you. To take the lulav, as it is written¹¹⁴Lev. 23:40, you shall take for yourselves on the first day. For the musaf prayer, and for musaf sacrifices, as it is written¹¹⁵Lev. 7:38. The verse continues: to bring their sacrifices to the Eternal., on the day on which He commanded the Children of Israel, etc.

“For leaning on, slaughter, weaving, presenting, taking a handful, burning on the altar, breaking the neck, receiving, sprinkling.” As it is written¹¹⁵Lev. 7:38. The verse continues: to bring their sacrifices to the Eternal., on the day on which He commanded the Children of Israel.

HALAKHAH: “For all commandments of the Torah,” etc. Halakhah 8:“For a suspended sacrifice the individual and the Prince are liable,” etc. A person, to include the Prince¹⁰²Lev. 5:17, the introduction to the rules for the suspended reparation sacrifice.. Should it include the Anointed? “And sinned inadvertently.¹⁰³Lev. 5:15. There are two problems with this quote: The first that it is a misquote, it reads וְחָֽטְאָה֙ בִּשְׁגָגָ֔ה not בְחָֽטְאָה֙ בִּשְׁגָגָ֔ה. This is easily explainable since in talmudic times under the influence of Greek every ב sounded like v. The serious problem is that the quote is from the paragraph detailing the rules of the fixed reparation sacrifice for larceny committed with sancta. It seems that the quote from Lev. 5:17 refers to the full text וְאִם־נֶ֙פֶשׁ֙ in addition, if a person . . which in Sifra Wayyiqra 2 Parašah 12(1) is explained as meaning that the rules of the suspended reparation sacrifice, vv. 17–19 are an appendix to the rules of the reparation sacrifice for larceny involving sancta, vv. 14–16.” Any depending on acting inadvertently. This excludes the Anointed who is not depending on acting inadvertently¹⁰⁴He is liable for a sacrifice only if there is an element of ruling falsely, Mishnah 3.. But following Rebbi who said, the Anointed is depending on acting inadvertently¹⁰⁵Halakhah 3. Rebbi declares him liable for a bull and a goat without an element of ruling falsely in case the subject was idolatry, not in any other case. This permits to formulate the preceding argument so it remains valid even for Rebbi.? One dependent on acting inadvertently in any situation. This excludes the Anointed who is not dependent on acting inadvertently in any situation. A person, to include the Prince and the Anointed¹⁰⁶Lev. 5:20, the introduction to the rules for the reparation sacrifice for monetary offenses.. Here you say, to include the prince, and there you say, to include the Anointed? Like the purification sacrifices is the reparation sacrifice¹⁰⁷Lev. 7:7.. Just as the purification sacrifice atones and wipes clean, also the reparation sacrifice atones and wipes clean. This excludes the suspended reparation sacrifice which atones but leaves a residue¹⁰⁸If at the end it becomes clear that a sin had be committed which qualifies for a purification offering, the suspended offering did not take its place, and a second sacrifice is due. Therefore the rules for the suspended sacrifice are separate from those of other reparation sacrifices..

“A Cohen eats most holy [food], a Cohen’s daughter may not eat most holy [food].” For it is written (Lev. 7:6): “Every male among the Cohanim shall eat it.”

²⁶⁵This paragraph is copied from Šabbat 2, Notes 50–51; it starts with a question the reason of which is found only there. Here it is used to explain why the Mishnah requires the leftovers to be burned on the Sixteenth when from the verse one would have expected that it would be the 15^th. What did you see that you said so? You shall not leave any leftovers until the morning; what is left over from it until morning you shall burn in fire²⁶⁶Ex. 12:9.. After two mornings, one the morning of the (14^th) and the other the morning of the (15^th)²⁶⁷The correct version is in K and Šabbat,15^th and 16^th.. And it is written²⁶⁸Lev.7:17., what is left of the well-being sacrifice should be burned on the third day.

Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina. Rebbi Eleazar said, the Sons of Noah brought well-being offerings. Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, the Sons of Noah brought elevation offerings⁴⁹⁹Noah certainly sacrificed elevation sacrifices (Gen. 8:20); therefore these are certainly permitted on any private altar. Well-being sacrifices can be permitted on a private altar only if they are permitted to Gentiles, the children of Noah. In order to permit well-being sacrifices on private altars one must find examples of such sacrifices from the time preceding the epiphany on Sinai. Babli Zevaḥim 116a.. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Is it not written, and Abel also brought from the firstlings of his sheep and of their excellence⁵⁰⁰Gen. 4:4. In Torah law, firstlings are sacrificed as special well-being offerings.
In Lev. it is quite clear that “fat” in general is חֵלֶב ;פֶּדֶר is used only for fat destined to the altar and forbidden to humans. The suffixed form is חֶלְבְּהֶ֑ן. In Gen. the suffixed form is וּמֵֽחֶלְבֵהֶ֑ן; one has to explain חֵלֶב in 4:4 and 45:18 from Accadic ẖilibū “magnificence, splendor, excellence.” This interpretation is accepted here.. What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? From their luxurious ones. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Is it not written, he sent the young men of Israel and they offered elevation offerings⁵⁰¹Ex. 24:5. The argument is the part of the verse which is not quoted: they sacrificed oxen as well-being sacrifices to the Eternal., etc.? What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? Entire in their bodies, without stripping and partitioning⁵⁰²Instead of שְׁלָמִים he reads שְׁלֵמִים. Cf. Babli Ḥagigah 6b.. Rebbi Eleazar objected to Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: [Is it not written, Jethro, Moses’s in-law, took elevation and well-being offerings for God⁵⁰³Ex. 18:12. While the corrector’s addition seems to be a logical necessity, it probably is taken from Babli Zevaḥim116a.?] What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? Following him who said that Jethro came after the giving of the Torah⁵⁰⁴His sacrifices followed all rules of Lev.. Rebbi Ḥuna said, Jehudah the great one and Rebbi Yannai disagreed. One said, Jethro came before the giving of the Torah; but the other one said, Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. We did not know who said what. Let us hear from the following: Jethro, the priest of Midyan, Moses’s in-law, heard⁵⁰⁵Ex. 18:1.. What did he hear? Ḥizqiah said, he heard the parting of the Reed Sea. Rebbi Joshua said, he heard the parting of the Reed Sea. [Rebbi Levi said, he heard the war of Amaleq.] The Great Jehudah said, he heard the giving of the Torah. Therefore he must be the one who said, Jethro came after the giving of the Torah. Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the following supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Awake North, and come South⁵⁰⁶Cant. 4:16.. Awake North refers to the elevation sacrifice which is slaughtered in the North. What means “awake”? What was sleeping⁵⁰⁷Old practices resurrected. and awoke. And come South refers to well-being sacrifices which are slaughtered in the South. What means “come”? Something new⁵⁰⁸This is R. Yose ben Ḥanina’s argument that well-being sacrifices were introduced only by the Torah.. What does Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina do with this? When the diasporas in the North awake and build the Temple in the South. Rebbi Abba the son of Rebbi Pappai, Rebbi Joshua from Sikhnin in the name of Rebbi Levi: also the following verse supports Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: This is the teaching about the elevation sacrifice⁵⁰⁹Lev. 6:2.. This is the elevation sacrifice which the Sons of Noah were sacrificing. When he comes to well-being sacrifice he says, this is the teaching about the well-being sacrifice⁵¹⁰Lev. 7:11. Again the argument is from the continuation of the verse, not quoted.. It is not written “which one brought” but shall bring from now on..

HALAKHAH: ⁵⁴⁰Corrector’s addition, inserted at the wrong place since this paragraph is a direct continuation of the preceding one, showing that at all times a prophet may legally build an altar separate from the official sanctuary. As noted in N. 537, Deuteronomy nowhere declares that only one sanctuary is tolerated, but only that the place of sacrifices must have been chosen by the Eternal. The high cost of official worship as demanded in Num. 28–29 automatically restricts permanent worship to one place, making any additional place used on the authority of a recognized prophet a temporary matter. Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius understood it from the following⁵⁴¹Jos. 8:30. Since the altar on Mount Ebal was built at the time when the Tent and Moses’s altar were at Gilgal, this proves that at this time secondary public altars were not forbidden.: Then Joshua would build an altar for the Eternal, the God of Israel, on Mount Ebal. Not only Mount Ebal, from where Shilo⁵⁴²That several official and private altars were permitted after the destruction of Shilo.? Samuel took a milk lamb and brought it up totally as elevation offering for the Eternal⁵⁴³1S. 7:9.. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, three sins were permitted for Samuel’s sheep: It and its hide⁵⁴⁴In Lev. 1:6 it is decreed that an elevation offering is burned without its hide. Babli Zevaḥim 120a., and deficient in time⁵⁴⁵This is not spelled out in the verse. No lamb may be sacrificed on an official altar if it is not at least 8 days old; Lev. 23:27., and he was a Levite⁵⁴⁶He was a descendant of Qoraḥ, and only descendants of Aaron may officiate at a public altar.. Rebbi Yose said, if about this it implies nothing, since Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, seven sins were permitted for Gideon’s bull⁵⁴⁷Jud. 6:25–27. The stones had been used for an altar of Baal, therefore they were forbidden for all usufruct together with the wood of the Asherah tree. They could have been used only by direct commandment from God. That the bull had been worshipped as a deity is deduced from the involved language in the verse, where a single bull is called “second” to show that two sins were committed with it. (Babli Temurah 28b.) That sacrifices are permitted only during daytime is deduced from Lev. 7:38 (Halakhah 2:5). In Gideon’s time the sanctuary of Shilo was in existence.: Disqualified stones, and Asherah wood, and separated, and worshipped, and night, and outsider, and altar prohibition. He who wants may understand it well from that by Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: When he returned to Rama, for there was his house, and there he judged Israel, and there he built an altar for the Eternal⁵⁴⁸1S. 8:17, after the destruction of Shilo.. It is written⁵⁴⁹1S. 9:24., the cook lifted the thigh and what was on it and put before Saul, etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, the thigh and meat⁵⁵⁰The thigh belongs to the officiating Cohen (Ex. 29:27–28); Saul could have received it only if no Cohen was officiating at the altar. Babli Avodah zarah 25a, Zevaḥim 119b.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the thigh and the fat tail⁵⁵¹The fat tail is to be burned on the altar, Lev. 3:9.. Rebbi Eleazar said, the thigh and the breast⁵⁵⁰The thigh belongs to the officiating Cohen (Ex. 29:27–28); Saul could have received it only if no Cohen was officiating at the altar. Babli Avodah zarah 25a, Zevaḥim 119b., as Rebbi Eleazar said, the thigh and the breast belong to the Cohanim at a public altar but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The hide of the elevation sacrifice belongs to the Cohanim at a public altar<sup>552</sup>In Lev. 7:8 it is decreed that the hide belongs to the officiating Cohen. Since a non-Cohen was shown to be able to officiate at a private altar, the hide belongs to the owner. Babli Zevaḥim 119b. but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The contribution of a thanksgiving sacrifice⁵⁵³The officiating Cohen’s part of the breads accompanying the sacrifice, Lev. 7:14. belongs to the Cohanim at a public altar but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, is the night qualified at a private altar⁵⁵⁴Since on an official altar sacrifices are possible only during daytime, Halakhah 2:5.? Rebbi Eleazar answered, is it not written,⁵⁵⁵1S. 14:34. It is stated in the verse that the slaughter was in the night; in v. 35 it is stated that Saul built an altar. Saul said, disperse under the people and tell them, every man shall bring to me his ox, etc. And it is written⁵⁵⁶1S. 14:33, they engaged in pagan slaughter., they told Saul saying, behold the people are sinning against the Eternal by eating on the blood, etc. How is this? The night for profane {slaughter}, and the day for sacrificial. When Rebbi Joḥanan heard this, he said, well did Rebbi Eleazar teach us⁵⁵⁷That the verse emphasizes profane slaughter during nighttime. Babli Zevaḥim 120a..