זבחים עה - מקורות נלווים

(1)All the offerings that were intermingled with animals from which deriving benefit is forbidden, e.g., sin offerings left to die, or with an ox that was sentenced to be stoned, even if the ratio is one in ten thousand, deriving benefit from them all is prohibited and they all must die. If the offerings were intermingled with animals whose sacrifice is forbidden but deriving benefit from them is not, the halakha is different. Examples of this are an ox with which a transgression was performed, which disqualifies it from being sacrificed as an offering, or an ox that is known to have killed a person based on the testimony of one witness or based on the admission of the owner. Had two witnesses testified, deriving benefit from the ox would have been prohibited. Additional examples include when an offering is intermingled with an animal that copulated with a person; or an animal that was the object of bestiality; or with an animal that was set aside for idol worship; or one that was worshipped as a deity; or with an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, as it is written: “You shall not bring the payment of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19). Additional examples include an offering that was intermingled with an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds, e.g., the offspring of a ram and a goat, or with an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], or with an animal born by caesarean section. In all these cases the animals that are intermingled shall graze until they become unfit for sacrifice and then they shall be sold. And from the money received in the sale, the owner shall bring another offering of the monetary value of the highest-quality animal among them, of the same type of offering that the intermingled offering was. The mishna continues: If sacrificial animals were intermingled with unblemished, non-sacred animals, which, if consecrated, are fit for sacrifice, the non-sacred animals shall be sold for the purpose of purchasing offerings of the same type as the offering with which they were intermingled.

(2) In a case where sacrificial animals were intermingled with other sacrificial animals, if it was an animal of one type of offering with animals of the same type of offering, one shall sacrifice this animal for the sake of whoever is its owner and one shall sacrifice that animal for the sake of whoever is its owner, and both fulfill their obligation. In a case where sacrificial animals were intermingled with other sacrificial animals, where an animal of one type of offering was intermingled with animals not of the same type of offering, e.g., two rams, where one is designated as a burnt offering and one as a peace offering, they shall graze until they become unfit for sacrifice and then they shall be sold. And from the money received in the sale, the owner shall bring another offering of the monetary value of the highest-quality animal among them as this type of offering, and another offering of the monetary value of the highest-quality animal among them as that type of offering, and he will lose the additional expense of purchasing two highest-quality animals, when he had sold only one highest-quality animal, from his own assets. In a case where sacrificial animals were intermingled with a firstborn offering or with an animal tithe offering, they shall graze until they become unfit for sacrifice and they shall both be eaten as a firstborn offering or as an animal tithe offering. All offerings can become indistinguishably intermingled with each other, except for a sin offering and a guilt offering, as the Gemara will explain.

(3) In the case of a guilt offering that was intermingled with a peace offering, Rabbi Shimon says: Both of them should be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, as a guilt offering must be slaughtered in the north while a peace offering may be slaughtered anywhere in the courtyard. And they both must be eaten in accordance with the halakha of the more stringent of them, i.e., the guilt offering, with the following halakhot: They may be eaten only in the courtyard rather than throughout Jerusalem; by male priests and not by any ritually pure Jew; and on the day they were sacrificed and the following night, and not on the day they were sacrificed, the following day, and the intervening night. The Rabbis said toRabbi Shimon: One may not limit the time of the consumption of an offering, as one may not bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness. According to Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, the peace offering becomes leftover, notar, the morning after it is sacrificed, and not at the end of that day, as is the halakha concerning peace offerings. Rather, the owner shall wait until these animals become blemished, redeem them, and bring an offering of each type that is worth the monetary value of the higher-quality animal among them. The mishna adds: Even according to the opinion of the Rabbis, if pieces of the meat of one offering were intermingled with pieces of the meat of another offering, e.g., meat from offerings of the most sacred order with meat from offerings of lesser sanctity; or if pieces of meat from offerings eaten for one day and the following night were intermingled with pieces of meat from offerings eaten for two days and one night, since in that case the remedy with regard to offerings that were intermingled cannot be implemented, they both must be eaten in accordance with the halakha of the more stringent of them.

(4) In the case of the limbs of a sin offering, which are eaten by priests and may not be burned on the altar, that were intermingled with the limbs of a burnt offering, which are burned on the altar, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest shall place all the limbs above, on the altar, and I view the flesh of the limbs of the sin offering above on the altar as though they are pieces of wood burned on the altar, and not as though they are an offering. And the Rabbis say: One should wait until the form of all the intermingled limbs decays and they will all go out to the place of burning in the Temple courtyard, where all disqualified offerings of the most sacred order are burned.

(5) In a case where limbs of burnt offerings fit for sacrifice were intermingled with limbs of blemished burnt offerings, Rabbi Eliezer says: Although all the limbs are unfit for sacrifice, if the head of one of them was sacrificed all the heads shall be sacrificed, as the head that was sacrificed is assumed to have been that of the unfit animal in the mixture. Likewise, if one sacrificed the legs of one of them all the legs shall be sacrificed. And the Rabbis say: Even if all the limbs were sacrificed except for one of them, there is a concern that the remaining limb is the unfit limb, which may not be sacrificed. Rather, all of the limbs must go out to the place of burning in the Temple courtyard.

(6) In the case of blood of an offering fit for sacrifice that was mixed with water, if the mixture has the appearance of blood it is fit for sprinkling on the altar, even though the majority of the mixture is water. If the blood was mixed with red wine, one views the wine as though it is water. If that amount of water would leave the mixture with the appearance of blood it is fit for presentation. And likewise if the blood was mixed with the blood of a non-sacred domesticated animal or the blood of a non-sacred undomesticated animal, one considers the non-sacred blood as though it is water.Rabbi Yehuda says: Blood does not nullify blood. Therefore, the priest presents the blood of the mixture on the altar.

(7) If blood fit for presentation was mixed with the blood of unfit offerings, there is no remedy. Therefore, the entire mixture shall be poured into the drain running through the Temple courtyard. Likewise, if blood fit for presentation was mixed with blood of exudate, i.e., that exudes from the neck after the initial spurt following its slaughter concludes, which is unfit for presentation, the entire mixture shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain. Rabbi Eliezer deems this mixture fit for presentation. Even according to the first tanna, if the priest did not consult the authorities and placed the blood on the altar, the offering is fit.

(8) If the blood of unblemished offerings was mixed with the blood of blemished animals unfit for sacrifice, the entire mixture shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain. This is the halakha when the fit and unfit blood were mixed in one vessel. By contrast, if a cup of the blood of a blemished offering was intermingled with cups of blood fit for offering and it is unclear which blood is in the cup, Rabbi Eliezer says: Although it is prohibited to present all the blood due to the uncertainty, if it happened that a priest already sacrificed, i.e., presented, one cup, the blood in all the other cups shall be sacrificed, as the blood that was presented is assumed to have come from the unfit cup in the mixture. And the Rabbis say: Even if the blood in all the cups was sacrificed except for one of them, the remaining blood shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain.

(9) With regard to blood that is to be placed below the red line circumscribing the altar, e.g., blood of a burnt offering, a guilt offering, or a peace offering, that was mixed with blood that is to be placed above the red line, e.g., blood of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest shall initially place the blood of the mixture above the red line for the sake of the sin offering, and I view the blood that was to be placed below that was in fact placed above as though it is water, and the priest shall again place blood from the mixture below. And the Rabbis say: It shall all be poured into the Temple courtyard drain. Even according to the Rabbis, if the priest did not consult the authorities and placed the blood above the red line, the offering is fit, and he should then place the remaining blood below the red line.

(10) In a case of the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with one placement that was mixed with the blood of another offering that is to be placed on the altar with one placement, e.g., the blood of a firstborn offering with the blood of another firstborn offering or the blood of an animal tithe offering, the blood shall be placed with one placement. In a case of the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with four placements that was mixed with the blood of another offering that is to be placed on the altar with four placements, e.g., the blood of a sin offering with that of another sin offering, or the blood of a burnt offering with that of a peace offering, the blood shall be placed with four placements. If the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with four placements was mixed with the blood of an offering that is to be placed on the altar with one placement, Rabbi Eliezer says: The blood shall be placed with four placements. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The blood shall be placed with one placement, as the priest fulfills the requirement with one placement after the fact. Rabbi Eliezer said toRabbi Yehoshua: According to your opinion, the priest violates the prohibition of: Do not diminish, as it is written: “All these matters that I command you, that you shall observe to do; you shall not add thereto, nor diminish from it” (Deuteronomy 13:1). One may not diminish the number of required placements from four to one. Rabbi Yehoshua said toRabbi Eliezer: According to your opinion, the priest violates the prohibition of: Do not add, derived from the same verse. One may not add to the one required placement and place four. Rabbi Eliezer said toRabbi Yehoshua: The prohibition of: Do not add, is stated only in a case where the blood is by itself, not when it is part of a mixture. Rabbi Yehoshua said toRabbi Eliezer: Likewise, the prohibition of: Do not diminish, is stated only in a case where the blood is by itself. And Rabbi Yehoshua also said: When you placed four placements, you transgressed the prohibition of: Do not add, and you performed a direct action. When you did not place four placements but only one, although you transgressed the prohibition of: Do not diminish, you did not perform a direct action. An active transgression is more severe than a passive one.

(11) Blood that is to be placed on three locations inside the Sanctuary, i.e., between the staves, on the Curtain, and on the golden altar, that was mixed with blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary on the external altar in the Temple courtyard, has no remedy, as one may not change the location of the placement of the blood of one to fulfill his obligation with the other type of blood. Therefore, all the blood shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain. If the priest, on his own initiative, placed the mixture of blood outside the Sanctuary and again placed the mixture of blood inside the Sanctuary, the offering is fit. If the priest, on his own initiative, placed the mixture of blood inside the Sanctuary and again placed the mixture of blood outside the Sanctuary, Rabbi Akiva deems the blood placed outside disqualified, and the Rabbis deem it fit. As Rabbi Akiva says: Any blood that is to be presented outside that entered to atone in the Sanctuary is disqualified; but the Rabbis say: That is the halakha with regard to the blood of an external sin offering alone, as it is written: “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23). Rabbi Eliezer says: The status of a guilt offering is like that of a sin offering as well, as it is stated: “As is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:7), i.e., there is one halakha for them. That is not the case with regard to the blood of other offerings.

(12) In the case of a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar whose blood the priest collected in two cups, if one of them left the Temple courtyard and was thereby disqualified, the cup that remained inside the courtyard is fit to be presented. If one of the cups entered inside the Sanctuary and was thereby disqualified, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili deems the blood in the cup that remained outside the Sanctuary, in the courtyard, fit to be presented, and the Rabbis deem it disqualified from being presented. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said in support of his opinion: The halakha is that if one slaughters an offering with the intent that its blood be presented outside of the Temple courtyard, the offering is disqualified, but if his intention was that the blood be presented inside the Sanctuary, the offering is not disqualified. Just as in a case where part of the blood reached a place where the intent to present the blood there disqualifies the offering, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard, and yet when some of the blood is taken there it does not render the status of the remaining blood disqualified like that of blood that leaves the courtyard, so too, in a case where part of the blood reached a place where the intent to present the blood there does not disqualify the offering, i.e., inside the Sanctuary, is it not logical that we will not deem the status of the remaining blood like that of blood that entered the Sanctuary? The mishna continues: If all of the blood of a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar entered the Sanctuary to atone through sprinkling, despite the fact that the priest did not actually sprinkle the blood to atone, the offering is disqualified; this is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Shimon says: The offering is disqualified only when he atones and sprinkles the blood in the Sanctuary. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he took the blood into the Sanctuary unwittingly, the blood remains fit to be presented. With regard to all the blood disqualified for presentation that was placed on the altar, the frontplate effects acceptance only for offerings sacrificed that are ritually impure. Although it is written with regard to the frontplate worn on the forehead of the High Priest: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead, and Aaron shall bear the iniquity committed in the sacred matters” (Exodus 28:38), this does not apply to all disqualifications of offerings. This is because the frontplate effects acceptance for offerings sacri-ficed that are ritually impure but does not effect acceptance for offerings that leave the courtyard.

(1) 1) (Vayikra 1:2): "Speak to the children of Israel … (Vayikra 1:4) and he shall place his hand on the head of the burnt-offering" — The children of Israel perform semichah (the placing of the hands), and gentiles do not perform semichah. Now which measure is greater? That of tenufah (waving the devoted portions) or that of semichah? The measure of tenufah is greater. For tenufah obtains both with things that have a spirit of life (i.e., animals) and with things that do not have a spirit of life (e.g., first-fruits, the two breads, etc.), whereas semichah obtains only with things that have a spirit of life. If I exclude them (gentiles) from tenufah, the greater measure, (as the Torah does, indeed, exclude them), should I not exclude them from semichah, the lesser measure! (so that the exclusion verse for semichah would seem to be superfluous) Perceived thus, tenufah is (indeed) the greater measure, and semichah, the lesser. But perceived otherwise, semichah is the greater measure and tenufah, the lesser. For semichah obtains with all partners (to the offering), but not tenufah. If they (gentiles) are excluded from tenufah, the lesser measure, would I (without the verse) exclude them from semichah, the greater? So that because there obtains with tenufah what does not obtain with semichah, and with semichah, what does not obtain with tenufah, it must be written "Speak to the children of Israel, etc." — The children of Israel perform semichah, and not the gentiles.

(2) 2) ("Speak to the sons of Israel, etc.") — the sons of Israel perform semichah, and not the daughters of Israel. R. Yossi and R. Shimon say: Women (though not obligated to do so) may perform semichah. R. Yossi said: Abba Elazar once told me: We had a calf for the peace-offerings, and we took it out to the women's quarter, where the women placed their hands upon it — not because semichah obtains with women, but for their gratification. I might think that they do not perform semichah upon burnt-offerings, which do not require tenufah, but they do perform semichah upon peace-offerings, which require tenufah; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 1:4): "and say to them" ("b'nei Yisrael") — to include all that is mentioned in that context. Just as they do not perform semichah upon burnt-offerings, they do not perform semichah upon peace-offerings.

(3) 3) [(Vayikra 1:2): "A man, if he offer of you, a sacrifice to the L–rd"] "A man" — to include proselytes; "of you" — to exclude heretics. Why do you see it that way? Why not: "A man" — to include heretics; "of you" — to exclude proselytes? After Scripture includes, it excludes, viz. (Vayikra 1:2): "the children of Israel." Just as the children of Israel are accepters of the covenant, so proselytes — to exclude heretics, who do not accept the covenant. — But why not say: Just as the children of Israel are children of accepters of the covenant, so, heretics — to exclude proselytes, who are not! It is, therefore, written "of you" (i.e., like you, in your deeds). So that, perforce, we must understand it as: Just as Israel are accepters of the covenant, so, proselytes — to exclude heretics, who are not, having broken the covenant. And thus is it written (Mishlei 21:27): "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination."

(4) 4) "A man, if he offer, etc." I might think this is a decree (i.e., that he must do so), it is, therefore, written "if he offer" — it is optional. (Mishlei 21:27): "a sacrifice (korban) to the L–rd" — he must sanctify it (by saying "This is a burnt-offering") before offering it up, (thus rendering it a "korban" before he actually sacrifices it). These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon said: Whence is it derived that one should not say: "To the L–rd, a burnt-offering," "To the L–rd, a meal-offering," "To the L–rd, peace-offerings?" From "a sacrifice (korban) to the L–rd." Now is this not a kal vachomer? If in respect to what is destined to be sanctified, Scripture states that the name of Heaven is to be mentioned only after "korban" (to forestall the possibility of its being mentioned in vain by his saying "To the L–rd," and not following up with "korban") — how much more so must the name of Heaven not be mentioned in vain (in mundane circumstances)!

(5) 5) R. Yossi says: Wherever "korban" is written, it is stated (only) in conjunction with Yod-Keh (the Tetragrammaton) so as not to provide an "opening" for heretics (as it would, if alternate names were used).

(6) 6) (Vayikra 1:2): "… an offering to the L–rd from the beasts (behemah)": I might think (that this permitted) even (non-domesticated) animals, which are also subsumed in "behemah," viz. (Devarim 14:4): "These are the beasts (behemah) that you may eat: the ox, the sheep … the hart and the roebuck" (animals); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra, Ibid.): "from the cattle and from the sheep" (domesticated). I might think that he should not bring ("animals"), but if he did bring them they are permitted — as when one's master tells him: "Go and bring me wheat," and he goes and brings him wheat and barley, in which instance he (merely) adds to his master's words; it is, therefore, written: "from the cattle and from the sheep shall you offer" — i.e., from the beasts shall you offer cattle and sheep alone. This is analogous to one's master telling him: "Bring me only wheat, in which instance, if he adds (barley) to wheat, he transgresses his master's words.

(7) 7) "from the beasts" (but not all) — to exclude (animals used for sodomy), rovea (active) and nirva (passive). Now does this not follow by kal vachomer? (Why is a verse needed to exclude them? (the kal vachomer:) If an animal with a blemish, which was not the object of transgression, is pasul (unfit) for the altar, rovea and nirva, which were objects of transgression, does it not follow that they should be unfit for the altar?

(8) 8) — No, this is refuted by the instance of an ox plowing together with an ass, where, even though the ox was the object of transgression, it is kasher for the altar. — No, in that instance the animals are not to be killed, whereas rovea and nirva are to be killed. — "Take what you have brought" (i.e., let us grant this); still, (without the exclusion clause) I would know that they (rovea and nirva) are pasul only if they were the (proved) objects of transgression by the testimony of two witnesses. If there were only one witness, or only the testimony of the owner, whence would I derive this (that they are pasul, if not for the exclusion clause?) R. Yishmael said: I could derive it through a kal vachomer, viz.: If a blemished animal, which is not made pasul for eating by the testimony (to the blemish) of two witnesses, is made pasul for sacrifice by the testimony of one witness or of the owner — then rovea and nirva, which are made pasul for eating by the testimony of two witnesses, should they not be made pasul for sacrifice by the testimony of one witness or of the owner? (What need, then, is there for the exclusion clause?) R. Akiva said: No, (i.e., your argument does not stand.) In the instance of a blemished animal, the blemish is visible, whereas in the instance of rovea and nirva, the "blemish" is not visible, so that (without the exclusion clause), they would not be pasul for the altar. It must, therefore, be written "from the beasts," to exclude rovea and nirva.

(9) 9) "from the cattle" (but not all) — to exclude ne'evad (objects of idolatry). Now does this not follow by kal vachomer? (Why is the exclusion clause necessary?) (the kal vachomer:) If an ethnan (the hire of a prostitute) [see Devarim 23:19]) and a mechir (the exchange of a dog [Devarim 23:19], whose ornaments are permitted (for mundane use), are forbidden for the altar — then ne'evad, whose ornaments are forbidden (see Devarim 7:25) — how much more so should it be forbidden for the altar! (Why, then, is an exclusion clause needed?) — But perhaps the reverse is true, viz.: If the ethnan and mechir, which are forbidden for the altar, (yet) their ornaments are permitted (for mundane use) — then ne'evad, which is permitted (for the altar [barring an exclusion clause]) — how much more so should its ornaments be permitted! — You have (hereby) abolished (Devarim 7:25) "Do not covet the silver and gold upon them!" I shall restore it, viz.: "Do not covet the silver and gold" of things (i.e., their images) which do not have a spirit of life. But things (i.e., their cattle), which do have a spirit of life, if they are permitted (for the altar), how much more so should their ornaments be permitted! It is, therefore, written "from the cattle" — to exclude ne'evad.

(10) 10) Why need it be written below (Vayikra 1:3): "from the cattle"? ("If his offering is a burnt-offering from the cattle, etc.") To exclude treifah (a "torn," ritually unfit animal). Now does this not follow by kal vachomer? If a blemished animal, which is permitted for mundane purposes (i.e., eating), is pasul for the altar, treifah, which is forbidden for mundane purposes, how much more so should it be pasul for the altar! — This is refuted by cheilev (forbidden fats) and blood, which are forbidden for mundane purposes, yet kasher for the altar! — No (i.e., this is no refutation of the kal vachomer, for) forbidden fats and blood come from a thing (i.e., an animal) which is permitted (for mundane purposes), unlike treifah, which is entirely forbidden (for such purposes)! — This is refuted by melikah ("pinching" a bird's neck [as opposed to shechitah]), which is entirely forbidden (for mundane purposes), yet kasher for the altar! — No, (this is no refutation, for) the very thing that makes it kadosh (holy, for an offering), i.e., melikah, renders it forbidden (for mundane purposes), whereas with treifah, it is not the thing that makes it kadosh which renders it forbidden (for mundane purposes), and since this is so, it should be pasul for the altar! (Why, then, do we need an exclusion clause for treifah?) — Now that this refutation has been countered (at its origin, [viz., R. Akiva 8) above], so that the kal vachomer stands), what is the thrust of "from" (but not all) the cattle"? To exclude treifah.

(11) 11) (Vayikra 1:2): "from the sheep" — to exclude muktzeh (an animal designated for idolatry); "and from the sheep" — to exclude noge'ach (an animal which gored a man to death). If rovea is excluded, why need noge'ach be (separately) excluded? And if noge'ach is excluded, why need rovea be excluded? For there is that in rovea (prompting exclusion) which is lacking in noge'ach, and there is that in noge'ach which is lacking in rovea, viz.: With rovea, forcing (the animal to be rovea) was equated with volition (i.e., in both instances, the animal must be killed); with noge'ach, forcing was not equated with volition (i.e., only in the latter instance is the animal killed). (The owners of) noge'ach pay kofer (indemnity) after (the animal has been put to) death; rovea (in an instance where the woman dies as a result) does not pay indemnity after death. There is that in rovea which is lacking in ne'evad, and that in ne'evad which is lacking in rovea. Rovea, whether one's own animal or another's is forbidden (for the altar); ne'evad — one's own (animal that he made an object of idolatry) is forbidden; another's (animal that he made an object of idolatry) is permitted (for the altar, one not voiding what is not his). Rovea — its ornaments are permitted; ne'evad — its ornaments are forbidden. Therefore, Scripture must adduce all (of these exclusions).

(1)What is the location of the slaughtering and consumption of offerings? The principle is that with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard. Specifically, with regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, their slaughter is in the north and the collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north, and their blood requires sprinkling between the staves of the Ark in the Holy of Holies, and upon the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, and on the golden altar. Concerning all those sprinklings, failure to perform even one placement of their blood disqualifies the offering. As to the remainder of the blood, which is left after those sprinklings, a priest would pour it onto the western base of the external altar. But if he did not place the remainder of the blood on the western base, it does not disqualify the offering.

(2) With regard to bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard, and the collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north, and their blood requires sprinkling upon the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, and upon the golden altar, and failure to perform even one placement of their blood disqualifies the offering. As for the remainder of the blood that is left after those sprinklings, a priest would pour it onto the western base of the external altar, but if he did not pour the remainder it does not disqualify the offering. These, the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, and those, the bulls and the goats that are burned, are then burned in the place of the ashes, a place outside of Jerusalem where the priests would bring the ashes from the altar.

(3) These are the halakhot of the communal and the individual sin offerings. These are the communal sin offerings: Goats of the New Moon and of the Festivals. Their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard, and the collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north, and their blood requires four placements on the four corners of the altar. How did the priest do so? He ascended the ramp of the altar and turned right to the surrounding ledge and he continued east, and he came to the southeast corner and sprinkled the blood of the sin offering there and then to the northeast corner and sprinkled the blood there, and then to the northwest corner and sprinkled the blood there, and the southwest corner, where he performed the fourth sprinkling and descended from the altar. He would pour the remainder of the blood on the southern base of the altar. And the meat portions of the offering are eaten within the curtains, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, by the males of the priesthood. And they are eaten prepared in any form of food preparation, on the day the offering is sacrificed and during the night that follows, until midnight.

(4)The burnt offering is an offering of the most sacred order. Its slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard and the collection of its blood in a service vessel is in the north, and its blood requires two placements that are four, and it requires flaying of its carcass and the cutting of the sacrificial animal into pieces, and it is consumed in its entirety, with the exception of its hide, by the fire of the altar.

(5) These are the halakhot of communal peace offerings and guilt offerings. These are guilt offerings: The guilt offering for robbery, brought by one from whom another demanded payment of a debt and he denied it and took a false oath (see Leviticus 5:20–26); the guilt offering for unwitting misuse of consecrated property (see Leviticus 5:14–16); the guilt offering of an espoused maidservant, brought by one who engaged in sexual intercourse with a Canaanite maidservant betrothed to a Hebrew slave (see Leviticus 19:20–22); the guilt offering of a nazirite who became impure via contact with a corpse (see Numbers 6:12); the guilt offering of a leper, brought for his purification (see Leviticus 14:12); and the provisional guilt offering, brought by one who is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering (see Leviticus 5:17–18). Concerning all of these, their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard and collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north, and their blood requires two placements that are four. And the meat portions of the offering are eaten within the curtains, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, by male priests. And they are eaten prepared in any manner of food preparation, on the day the offering was sacrificed and during the night that follows, until midnight.

(6)The thanks offering and nazirite’s ram are offerings of lesser sanctity. Their slaughter is anywhere in the Temple courtyard, and their blood requires two placements that are four, and they are eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem, by every person, i.e., any ritually pure Jew, prepared in any manner of food preparation, on the day the offering was sacrificed and during the night that follows, until midnight. The status of the portion that is separated from them and given to the priests is similar to theirs; but the portion that is separated is eaten by the priests, by their wives, and by their children, and by their slaves.

(7)Peace offerings are offerings of lesser sanctity. Their slaughter is anywhere in the Temple courtyard, and their blood requires two placements that are four, and they are eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem, by every person, i.e., any ritually pure Jew, prepared in any manner of food preparation, for two days and one night, i.e., the day on which they are slaughtered, the following day, and the intervening night. The status of the portion that is separated from them and given to the priests is similar to theirs; but the portion that is separated is eaten by the priests, by their wives, and by their children, and by their slaves.

(8)The firstborn offering, the animal tithe offering, and the Paschal offering are offerings of lesser sanctity. Their slaughter is anywhere in the Temple courtyard, and their blood requires one placement, provided that the priest places it so that the blood goes on the base of the altar. The halakhadiffers with regard to their consumption. The firstborn offering is eaten by the priests, and the animal tithe offering is eaten by any person, i.e., any ritually pure Jew. And they are eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem, prepared in any manner of food preparation, for two days and one night. The Paschal offering is eaten only at night, and it is eaten only until midnight, and it is eaten only by its registrants, i.e., those who registered in advance to partake of the offering, and it is eaten only roasted, not prepared in any other manner.

MISHNAH: He took the blood from the one who was stirring it, entered to the place where he had entered, and stood at the place where he had stood, and sprinkled from it once upwards and seven times downwards. He did not intend upwards nor downwards but like one who was spanking. And so was he counting: One, one and one, one and two, one and three, one and four, one and five, one and six, one and seven. He left and put it down on the golden pedestal which was in the Temple.
They brought him the he-goat, he slaughtered it and received its blood in a bowl. He entered to the place where he had entered, and stood at the place where he had stood, and sprinkled from it once upwards and seven times downwards. He did not intend downwards nor upwards but like one who was spanking. And so was he counting, etc. He left and put it down on the second pedestal which was in the Temple. Rebbi Jehudah says, only one pedestal was there.
He took the blood of the bull, and put down the blood of the he-goat, and sprinkled from it on the gobelin at the place of the Ark from the outside and sprinkled from it once upwards and seven times downwards. He did not intend upwards nor downwards but like one who was spanking. And so was he counting. He took the blood of the he-goat, and put down the blood of the bull, and sprinkled from it on the gobelin at the place of the Ark from the outside and sprinkled from it once upwards and seven times downwards. He did not intend upwards nor downwards but like one who was spanking. And so was he counting. He poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the he-goat and emptied the full vessel into the empty one. He shall go out to the altar which is before the Eternal, that is the golden altar. HALAKHAH: What means כְמַצְלִיף? Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥananiah in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Like one who whips. Rebbi Joḥanan said, so he should not err. Rebbi Zeˋira said, that he should finish his sprinkling with “seven”. But was it not stated, “seven and one”? Rebbi Abun said, it is written, before the cover .. seven. Why does the verse say, he shall sprinkle? That the first sprinkling should be counted with them. It is written, he shall sprinkle it on the cover. I could think on its top, the verse says, in front of the cover. I could think on its front, the verse says, on, in front of. Rebbi Zeˋira said, it needs to touch; Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, it does not need to touch. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said, the reason of Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: he shall sprinkle it on the cover and in front of the cover. Since “the cover” mentioned there means in front of but not on its top and it does not need to touch, also “the cover” mentioned here means in front of but not on its top and it does not need to touch. Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya thinks that the upwards sprinkling of the he-goat is inferred from the upwards sprinkling of the bull, but it is not so, but the upwards sprinkling of the he-goat is inferred from the downwards sprinkling of the bull: “He shall sprinkle it, [in front of thecover], this teaches that he gives a single one upwards. In front of the cover, I do not know how many. So I am arguing: It mentions giving the bull’s blood downwards, and it mentions giving the he-goat’s blood downwards. Since giving the bull’s blood downwards as mentioned is seven times, so giving the he-goat’s blood downwards as mentioned must be seven times. Or go in the following way: Blood is mentioned upwards and blood is mentioned downwards. Since the blood mentioned upwards is once, so the blood mentioned downwards must be once. Let us see to what it is comparable. One argues downwards from downwards; one does not argue downwards from upwards. Or go in the following way: One argues he-goat’s blood from he-goat’s blood; but one does not argue he-goat’s blood from bull’s blood. The verse says, he shall treat its blood as he treated the bull’s blood. Since the bull’s blood is downwards seven times, also the he-goat’s blood is downwards seven times. But I do not know how many times to give the bull’s blood upwards. Giving the blood upwards is mentioned for the he-goat and giving the blood upwards is mentioned for the bull. Since giving the blood upwards as mentioned for the he-goat is once, so giving the blood upwards as mentioned for the bull is once. Or go in the following way: Blood is mentioned downwards; blood is mentioned upwards. Since the blood mentioned downwards is seven, so the blood mentioned upwards must be seven. Let us see to what it is similar. One argues upwards from upwards; one does not argue upwards from downwards. Or go in the following way: One argues bull’s blood from bull’s blood; but one does not argue bull’s blood from he-goat’s blood. The verse says, he shall treat its blood as he treated the bull’s blood, that all its works be the same. Since the bull’s blood is seven times downwards, also the he-goat’s blood is seven times downwards. Since the he-goat’s blood is once upwards, also the bull’s blood is once upwards.” The holiness. He has to aim vis-a-vis the holiness. “Rebbi Nehemiah said, since we find about the bull which comes for all commandments that he stands before the altar and sprinkles on the gobelin at the moment of his sprinkling, I could think that here it is the same; the verse says, which is before the Eternal. Where was he? Inside of the altar. Or does he speak only of the outer altar? The verse says, which is before the Eternal. Therefore he only speaks of the inner altar.” Everybody agrees about the bull of the anointed and the community that it need not touch. Where do they disagree? About the bull and the he-goat of the day of Atonement. There are Tannaim who state, it needs to touch. There are Tannaim: it does not need to touch. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Yose said, I saw it in Rome full of drops of blood. I said, these are of the blood sprinkled on it on the Day of Atonement. This implies that it needs to touch. [Even if you say that it does not need to touch], (but) if it touched, it touched. If one gave from a sanctified vessel to a profane vessel he disqualified. Does this imply that from a sanctified vessel to a sanctified vessel it remains qualified? Rebbi Haggai said before Rebbi Yose, the Mishnah implies this: “He poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the he-goat. Rebbi Mana said, could we say, the blood of the bull from a full vessel into the blood of the he-goat in an empty vessel? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he poured the blood of the bull from a full vessel into the blood of the he-goat in a full vessel; after that he again mixes them into another vessel to make a perfect mixture. From where that he is required to pour out? The verse says, he shall give of the blood of the bull and the blood of the he-goat, when they are mixed. I could think each one by itself, the verse says, Aaron shall atone on its corners once yearly, he atones once yearly, he does not atone twice yearly. Or should we say, the bull’s blood once yearly, not twice yearly? Rebbi Ismael stated, from the blood of the atoning purification offering, he atones once yearly, he does not atone twice yearly. Everybody agrees that for the seven sprinklings downward he has to pour, for it is written seven, not fourteen. If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is he obligated to pour? May a person think of half an atonement? But it is so: If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups [and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups,] to give from one between the beams, and from one on the gobelins, and from one on the golden altar. Which of them is he obligated to pour? It is a disagreement between Rebbi Zeˋira and Rebbi Hila, since they disagreed: If he drew lots for three pairs, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is sent away? Rebbi Zeˋira said, to atone on him, one with whom one atones, the companion is sent away; one with whom one does not atone, the companion is not sent away.. Rebbi Hila said, to atone on him, one with whom one completes atonement, the companion is sent away, one with whom one does not complete atonement, the companion is not sent away. In Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, all three are sent away. In Rebbi Hila’s opinion, only the last one is sent away. And here, in Rebbi Zeˋira’s opinion, he must pour all three; in Rebbi Hila’s opinion, he must pour only the one from which he sprinkled. If he received of the bull’s blood in three cups and of the he-goat’s blood in three cups, to give from one between the beams, from one on the gobelins, from one on the golden altar. Which of them is poured into the base? The disagreement between Rebbi and Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon, as they disagreed: “A purification offering whose blood was received in four cups and from each one he gave one giving, from where that all of them are poured on the base? The verse says, and its blood he shall pour. I could think that if he {only} gave all four givings from one of them, all of them should be poured, the verse says, and all its blood he shall pour. How is this? It is poured on the base, and they are emptied into the canal, the words of Rebbi. Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon: From where that even if he gave all four givings from one of them, all of them shall be poured on the base? The verse says, and its blood he shall pour. In Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Simeon’s opinion, all are poured into the base. In Rebbi’s opinion, only the one from which he sprinkled is poured. The colleagues say, if one becomes piggul, so does the other; if the parts of one were lost, one sprinkles for the parts of the other. Everybody agrees about the bull of the Anointed or the community, unless there be one giving of each of them. The colleagues say, qualified parts which were mixed up with disqualified parts, only if there was a giving of the qualified. Where do they disagree? About the blood of two purification sacrifices which were mixed up. Rebbi says, I am saying one investigates the blood; if there is enough for one giving for each one it is qualified, otherwise it is disqualified. But the Sages say, even if there is only one giving [for both of them] it is qualified. In Rebbi’s opinion, there is a measure for givings, in the Sages’ opinion there is no measure for givings. This implies, if one becomes piggul, so does the other; if the parts of one were lost, one sprinkles for the parts of the other.

(1) With regard to all disqualified consecrated animals that were disqualified for sacrifice due to blemishes and were redeemed, all benefit accrued from their sale belongs to the Temple treasury. In order to ensure that the Temple treasury will not suffer a loss, these animals are sold in the butchers’ market [ba’itliz] and slaughtered in the butchers’ market, where the demand is great and the price is consequently higher. And their meat is weighed and sold by the litra, in the manner that non-sacred meat is sold. This is the halakha with regard to all consecrated animals except for the firstborn offering and an animal tithe offering. When these become blemished and their slaughter is permitted, they are sold and slaughtered only in the owner’s house and are not weighed; rather, they are sold by estimate. The reason is that all benefit accrued from their sale belongs to the owner, i.e., the priest in the case of the firstborn and the owner in the case of the animal tithe offering. It is not permitted to treat disqualified consecrated animals as one treats non-sacred animals merely to guarantee that the owner will receive the optimal price. This is in contrast to disqualified consecrated animals, where all benefit accrued from their sale belongs to the Temple treasury, and therefore the animal is sold in the market to ensure that the optimal price is received. And although the meat of the firstborn is not weighed and sold by the litra, nevertheless, if one has non-sacred meat weighing one hundred dinars, one may weigh one portion of non-sacred meat against one portion of the meat of the firstborn, because that is unlike the manner in which non-sacred meat is weighed.

And the other verse teaches that just as a gazelle and a deer are exempt from the first of their offspring being counted a firstborn, as the verse states: “All the firstling males that are born of your herd and of your flock” (Deuteronomy 15:19), referring specifically to domesticated animals but not undomesticated animals such as a gazelle and a deer; so too, disqualified consecrated animals are exempt from the first of their offspring being counted a firstborn (see 14a). § The Sages taught in a baraita: One may not give a blemished firstborn offering to menstruating women to eat; this is the statement of Beit Shammai. And Beit Hillel say: One may give it to menstruating women to eat. The Gemara asks: What is the reason of Beit Shammai? It is written with regard to the firstborn offering: “And their flesh shall be yours, as the wave breast and the right thigh” (Numbers 18:18). Just as there, with regard to the wave breast and the right thigh, menstruating women may not eat them, as these consecrated meats may not be eaten by a ritually impure individual, so too here, with regard to the firstborn offering, menstruating women may not eat its meat, as it too is consecrated. And Beit Hillel would respond: This statement, i.e., this verse, is referring only to the meat of an unblemished firstborn offering. Only such meat is compared to the wave breast and the right thigh. But with regard to a blemished firstborn offering, the verse explicitly states that the impure and the pure may eat it (see Deuteronomy 15:22). And Beit Shammai would claim: This statement, that the ritually impure may eat the meat of a blemished firstborn offering, applies only where the impurity does not issue upon him from his own body but is contracted from an external source, e.g., from a corpse or the carcass of a creeping animal. But where the impurity issues upon him from his own body, such as in the case of a zav or a menstruating woman, that individual may not eat the meat of a blemished firstborn offering.

(1) יהוה said to Aaron: You and your sons and the ancestral house under your charge shall bear any guilt connected with the sanctuary; you and your sons alone shall bear any guilt connected with your priesthood. (2) You shall also associate with yourself your kinsmen the tribe of Levi, your ancestral tribe, to be attached to you and to minister to you, while you and your sons under your charge are before the Tent of the Pact. (3) They shall discharge their duties to you and to the Tent as a whole, but they must not have any contact with the furnishings of the Shrine or with the altar, lest both they and you die. (4) They shall be attached to you and discharge the duties of the Tent of Meeting, all the service of the Tent; but no outsider shall intrude upon you (5) as you discharge the duties connected with the Shrine and the altar, that wrath may not again strike the Israelites. (6) I hereby take your fellow Levites from among the Israelites; they are assigned to you in dedication to יהוה, to do the work of the Tent of Meeting; (7) while you and your sons shall be careful to perform your priestly duties in everything pertaining to the altar and to what is behind the curtain. I make your priesthood a service of dedication; any outsider who encroaches shall be put to death. (8)יהוה spoke further to Aaron: I hereby give you charge of My gifts, all the sacred donations of the Israelites; I grant them to you and to your sons as a perquisite, a due for all time. (9) This shall be yours from the most holy sacrifices, the offerings by fire: every such offering that they render to Me as most holy sacrifices, namely, every meal offering, sin offering, and guilt offering of theirs, shall belong to you and your sons. (10) You shall partake of them as most sacred donations: only males may eat them; you shall treat them as consecrated. (11) This, too, shall be yours: the gift offerings of their contributions, all the elevation offerings of the Israelites, I give to you [and your wives], to your sons, and to the daughters that are with you, as a due for all time; everyone of your household who is pure may eat it. (12) All the best of the new oil, wine, and grain—the choice parts that they present to יהוה —I give to you. (13) The first fruits of everything in their land, that they bring to יהוה, shall be yours; everyone of your household who is pure may eat them. (14) Everything that has been proscribed in Israel shall be yours. (15) The first [male] issue of the womb of every being, human or beast, that is offered to יהוה, shall be yours; but you shall have the male first-born of human beings redeemed, and you shall also have the firstling of impure animals redeemed. (16) Take as their redemption price, from the age of one month up, the money equivalent of five shekels by the sanctuary weight, which is twenty gerahs. (17) But the firstlings of cattle, sheep, or goats may not be redeemed; they are consecrated. You shall dash their blood against the altar, and turn their fat into smoke as an offering by fire for a pleasing odor to יהוה. (18) But their meat shall be yours: it shall be yours like the breast of elevation offering and like the right thigh. (19) All the sacred gifts that the Israelites set aside for יהוה I give to you, to your sons, and to the daughters that are with you, as a due for all time. It shall be an everlasting covenant of salt before יהוה for you and for your offspring as well. (20) And יהוה said to Aaron: You shall, however, have no territorial share among them or own any portion in their midst; I am your portion and your share among the Israelites. (21) And to the Levites I hereby give all the tithes in Israel as their share in return for the services that they perform, the services of the Tent of Meeting. (22) Henceforth, Israelites shall not trespass on the Tent of Meeting, and thus incur guilt and die: (23) only Levites shall perform the services of the Tent of Meeting; others would incur guilt. It is the law for all time throughout the ages. But they shall have no territorial share among the Israelites; (24) for it is the tithes set aside by the Israelites as a gift to יהוה that I give to the Levites as their share. Therefore I have said concerning them: They shall have no territorial share among the Israelites. (25)יהוה spoke to Moses, saying: (26) Speak to the Levites and say to them: When you receive from the Israelites their tithes, which I have assigned to you as your share, you shall set aside from them one-tenth of the tithe as a gift to יהוה. (27) This shall be accounted to you as your gift. As with the new grain from the threshing floor or the flow from the vat, (28) so shall you on your part set aside a gift for יהוה from all the tithes that you receive from the Israelites; and from them you shall bring the gift for יהוה to Aaron the priest. (29) You shall set aside all gifts due to יהוה from everything that is donated to you, from each thing its best portion, the part thereof that is to be consecrated. (30) Say to them further: When you have removed the best part from it, you Levites may consider it the same as the yield of threshing floor or vat. (31) You and your households may eat it anywhere, for it is your recompense for your services in the Tent of Meeting. (32) You will incur no guilt through it, once you have removed the best part from it; but you must not profane the sacred donations of the Israelites, lest you die.