A History of the Mishnaic Law of Holy Things, Part 1: Zebahim: Translation and Explanation (Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity) 9781556353499, 1556353499

Table of contents :
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication

Citation preview

A HISTORY OF THE :.\IISH:t\AIC LAW OF HOLY THINGS PART ONE

STUDIES IN JUDAISM IN LATE ANTIQUITY EDITED BY

JACOB NEUSNER

VOLUME THIRTY

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF HOLY THINGS PART ONE

A HISTORY OF THE MISHNAIC LAW OF HOLY THINGS BY

JACOB NEUSNER University Professor Professor of Religious Studies and The Ungerleider Distinguished Scholar of Judaic Studies Brown University

PART ONE

ZEBAHIM TRANSLATION AND EXPLANATION

Wipf&Stock PUBLISHERS Eugene, Oregon

Wipf and Stock Publishers 199 W 8th Ave, Suite 3 Eugene, OR 97401 A History of the Mishnaic Law of Holy Things, Part 1 Zebahim: Translation and Explanation By Neusner, Jacob Copyright©1978 by Neusner, Jacob ISBN 13: 978-1-55635-349-9 ISBN 10: 1-55635-349-9 Publication date 3/20/2007 Previously published by E. J. Brill, 1978

For David Goodblatt

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface

IX

Abbreviations and Bibliography . · Transliterations Introduction I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. Index

Zebahim Chapter One Zebahim Chapter Two Zebahim Chapter Three Zebahim Chapter Four Zebahim Chapter Five Zebahim Chapter Six Zebahim Chapter Seven Zebahim Chapter Eight Zebahim Chapter Nine Zebahim Chapter Ten Zebahim Chapter Eleven Zebahim Chapter Twelve . Zebahim Chapter Thirteen Zebahim Chapter Fourteen

XIII

xx 1 12 23 47 64 91 104 119

137 169 181 191 201 216 234 254

PREFACE This is the first. of a five-part presentation of the Mishnaic law of Holy Things-.:-that is, matters pertaining to the Temple and its cultcontaining a form-analytical translation and explanation of Mishnah and ( more briefly) Tosefta of the entire Order of Holy Things. There will in addition be a volume of studies of the history of the law, its structure and system, and the larger purposes of the philosopherlegislators who stand behind Mishnah. The plan of the whole is as follows: I.

Zebahim. Translation and Explanation.

fl. Menahot. Translation and Explanation. HI. IV.

Hullin, i3ekhoroi. Translation and Explanation. Arakhin, Temurah. Translation and Explanation. V. Keritot, Meilah, Tamid, Middot, Qinnim. Translation and Explanation. VI. The Mishnaic System of Sacrifice and Sanctuary.

Even though the project self-evidently carries forward the work begunin my History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities, there are many important .differences, as I shall explain. For the task need not be done exactly as in the past. Much greater economy of intellectual effort and brevity of presentation and explanation of the sources facilitates our reaching our goal, which is, after all, not exegetical at all. Our ultimate purpose is to write the history of the ideas of the principal and generative document of Rabbinic Judaism, Mishnah. Let me now restate what it is that this rather sizable effort, in which my graduate students and former students now join for the history of the Mishnaic law of agriculture, is meant ultimately to achieve. The purpose of the present work is to investigate the history of the formation of Rabbinic Judaism, down to the redaction of Mishnah in ca. 200. Even though attainment of that purpose presently seems remote, depending as it does upon the completion of the historical analysis of Mishnah, we have to keep in mind why we do the work and what we hope to learn. As I said, while the present work continues that of its predecessor, it also redefines how the task is to be. carried out. The sole issue here is historical. All discussion, both in the five exegetical parts and in the synthetic one to follow, is shaped to

X

PREFACE

address the historical question announced in the title of the work. Questions of the history of exegesis and of the formation, formulation, transmission, and redaction of the literature of Mishnah-Tosefta, to which a fair amount of intellectual energy is devoted in Purities, here are not raised. The reason is that the answers to these questions do not materially advance the single inquiry at hand, an investigation of the history of religions and of ideas. Methods for the finding of answers to literary and exegetical questions have proved their validity and do not require further demonstration in the present work. In the exegesis of the Order of Purities of Mishnah-Tosefta, I devote a great deal of thought to the solution of problems of interpretation which do not materially affect the history of the Mishnaic law of purities. Much intellectual effort is invested into the reconsideration, from the fresh form-analytical perspectives created by me, of long-standing exegetical disputes, on the one side, and fresh reflection on meanings, long ago imputed to pericopae and regarded as firm and unyielding, on the other. While in my view the new exegeses produce interesting and compelling results, they do not vastly contribute to the recovery of the history of earlier Rabbinic Judaism, in particular of its principal ideas, which, as I said, is the sole purpose of this rather considerable project. Finally, in the earlier sequence I paid respectful attention to the prior exegetical literature, citing it both when it defines the meaning of a pericope and when it obscures that meaning. But there is no reason to continue this thankless work of analytical criticism of the prior, harmonistic exegesis of Mishnah. It too hardly adds to our understanding of Mishnah-Tosefta in its original condition. Recognizing that some sorts of work, once done, need not be endlessly repeated, I therefore revise very considerably my exegetical program, specifically limiting my comments on each pericope to those remarks, beyond the translation itself, absolutely necessary for an understanding of the clear, simple, and historically fundamental meaning of th'e pericope. The translation is one commentary, of course. But what follows as amplification-the second commentary-takes for granted that that commentary has been read and understood. The result, beginning in this part of the work, is a much briefer "commentary"-more precisely, explanation-than would have been produced by my former procedures. To be sure, it is, alas, not nearly so brief as I had hoped it would be. But it will have to serve. I can eliminate no more. This work is not called a commentary, but "translation and explanation," which I hope will more adequately define and delimit my

PREFACE

XI

purpose as a commentator. A commentary may serve any number of useful and important purposes. It may be "scientific," that is, archaeological or philological. It may serve a wide range of quite distinctive and valid exegetical purposes, e.g., harmonistic, ha/akhic, atomistic, text-critical, and the like. It may constitute a supercommentary, not to Mishnah at all, but to a particular trend of Mishnah-commentaries. My contribution is defined by my purpose, to repeat; to attain a history of the Mishnaic law of· Holy Things. The history cannot be laid forth without a systematic, careful, and complete presentation of the relevant sources. This is accomplished in the translation. These sources have also to be interpreted and explained, since no reader can be expected to effect the rather complex task of exegesis, only at the time of turning to what I might off er in part VI as the history of these-by me, unexplained-texts. That is why, in addition to a fresh translation ( the first in English of Tosefta, the first form-analytical one for Mishnah), I offer what I call an explanation, a simple and straight-forward account of what I believe each pericope meant to the person who made it up. Turning directly to the historical parts of the project without first learning the texts upon which they are based will not serve any useful purpose. I vary my former procedure in yet two more ways. First, I prepared a single, continuous, rough commentary to the entire order, and only then did I return to Zebahim and revise and rework the first version. This allows for a more continuous and coherent commentary to the order as a whole. Second, I have decided that the synthetic work, corresponding to Purities, Parts III, V, VIII, X, XII, XIV, XVI, and the 'weaving of the law' and other pertinent chapters of XVII, XVIII, XIX, and XX, should be done in a different way. Instead of working through the history of the law of each tractate in sequence, I decided to present the history of the tractates and of the law of the Order as a whole as part of the synthetic work of historical reconstruction. This too should provide a more cogent and tight account of the detailed history of the law and its ideas. Finally, as I said, I omit from my program of research all further discussion of literary problems. I believe that in the relevant sections of Purities I have solved all the problems I planned to begin with to address, concerning Mishnah' s literary character and redaction. I am certain I have no further methodological or substantive contribution to make. I believe it obvious that the solution of literary questions yields no important historical facts or insights whatsoever. Hence a

XII

PREFACE

history of the Mishnaic law of Holy Things need not ·repeat those many literary pi;ocedures and analyses which so preoccupied us in. the earlier project. , · As already indicated, my goal is to present Seder Qodoshim in a much smaller. corpus than the twenty-two parts required for Seder Tohorot. For the ultimate purpose, the history of the law and of its ideas, defines each and every procedure to be undertaken here. My friend and colleague, Professor Richard Samuel Sarason, has read and criticized each page of this work. I thank him for all that he has done. I enjoy the good advice, in planning and executing the project, of Professors Morton Smith, Columbia University, ·Baruch A. Levine, New York University, and Jonathan Z. Smith, University of Chicago. Historian, philologist and Semitist, and historian of reli.gions, each continues to contribute to my education and appreciation of the work. This book inaugurates a requence ·of dedications to triy former students, all of them professors in their own right, carrying forward the ·task of teaching and scholarly i:esearch begun in my seminar ,at Brown University. It was at Brown that they gained a·.vision of the reciprocal importance of teaching to learning and learning to 'teaching, .the notion that there is no scholarship without the sharing of scholarship,. and no sharing without something fresh and interesting. to convey. Each one knows full well why it .is that I put forth these dedications, what it is that I mean thereby to say, and why it is that this is the right time, and (alas!) the right Order of Mishnah. J.N., Providence, Rhode Island 12 September 1977 29 Elul 5737

The fourth anniversary ofthe death of Max Richter of / erusalem and Paterson

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY AE Ah. Albeck Allony , Altschuler

AN Ar. A.Z. B.' B.B. B.M. B.Q. Ber. Berget

Berlin, 1968 Berlin, 1972 Berlin, 1971 Bert. · Bes. .Bik. Blackman Buchler

C

Cashdan, Menahoth Ahilot .,;, l;lanokh Albeck, Shishah sidre mishnah. Seder Qddoshim. (Tel Aviv, 1959). See GF Ezra Altschuler, Taqqanat CEzra:>... Cal masekhet MeCi/ah (Piotrkov, 1931). Abraham Mesokhtschub. Hagahot abne nezer. In QMH. cArakhin cAbodah Zarah . Babylonian Talmud ·· Baba:>Batra:> Baba:>M~ica Baba:>Qamma" Berakhot Isaiah Berger, ed., Analytfral lndex to The Jewish Quarterly Review. 1889-1908 (N.Y., 1966). Charles Berlin, Harvard University Library. Catalogue' of Hebrew Books (Cambridge, 1968) I-VI. Supplement (Cambridge, 1972) I-III. Widener Library Shelflist, 39. Judaica (Cambridge, 1971). Obadiah of Bertinoro. From Mishnah, ed. Romm. Be~ah .. Bikkurim Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth. Volume V. Order Qodashim. Pointed Hebrew Text, Introductions, Translation, Notes, Appendix, Supplement Indexes (London, 1954). Adolph Abraham Buchler, Hakkohanim vecabodatam (Jerusalem, 1966). Trans. into Hebrew by N. Ginton. English title page: rhe Priests and their Cult in the Last Decade of the Temple in Jerusalem. H. Loewe, The Mishnah of the Palestinian Ta/m·ud (Hammishnah Ca/pi ketav-yad Cambridge) (Jerusalem, 1967). Eli Cashdan, Menahoth. Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices (London, 1948). Eli Ca'shdan, Hullin. Translated into English. With Notes, Glossary, and Indices (London, 1948). John Cohn, Ordnung Kadaschim, iibersetzt und erk/art (Third ed., Basel, 1968). · · Herbert Danby, The Mishnah (London, 1933). Herbert Danby, trans., The Code of Maimonides. Book Nine. The Book of Offerings. (New Haven, 1950). Dema:>i · Deuteronomy CEduyyot Hiddushe Eliyyahu MiGreiditz. From Mishnah, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887).

XIV

EK Epstein, Nusal; Epstein, Tan.

Erub. Freedman GF

GRA Gelbstein

Ginzberg, T amid Git. Gray

HA Hag. Hakkohen Hakkohen-Zaks

Hal. I:Iayyot HD Bildesheimer

Holtzmann, Middot

Holtzmann, T amid

Boltzmann, Qinnim

Hor.

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Yeshoshuca Yosef Hakkohen, CEzrat kohanim ... ca/ mishnayyot masekhet Middot (Warsaw, 1873) I-III. Y. N. H. Epstein, Mabo lenusal; hammishnah (Tel Aviv, 1954). Y. N. H. Epstein, MeboJot lesifrut hattanaJim. Mishnah, tosefta, ummidrashe halakhah. Ed. E. ~- Melammed (Tel Aviv, 1957). Cfaubin H. Freedman, Zebahim. Translated into English with Notes, Glossary, and Indices (London, 1948). Geniza Fragments of Rabbinic Literature. Ed. Nehemya Alloni (Jerusalem, 1973). Elijah hen Solomon Zalman ("Elijah Gaon" or "Vilna Gaon"), 1720-1797. For Tosefta: Babli, ed. Romm (Vilna, 1887), Vol. XVII. Hillel Mos.he Mishil Gelbstein, Sefer mishkenot /eJabir Yacaqob. lfiddushim ubbe'urim bemasekhet Tamid (Repr. Jerusalem, 1972). Louis Ginzberg, "The Mishnah Tamid," Journal of Jewish Lore and Philosophy, 1, 1919, pp. 33-44, 197-209, 265-295. Ginin George Buchanan Gray, Sacrifice in the Old Testament. Its Theory and Practice (1925. Repr.: N.Y., 1971). Emanuel Hai Riqi. Hon 'ashir. In QMH. l:Iagigah Alexandry Hakkohen, Sefer haJagudah /eseder qodoshim veseder fohorot (Jerusalem, 1975). Isra'el MeJir Hakkohen, Sefer liqute halakhot. Ed. Menal;iem Mendel Yosef Zaks (Jerusalem, 1971). I. Zebal;im, Mena/pot, Tamid, Temurah, Meci/ah. II. Bekhorot, Keritot, CArakhin, Nazir, Sofah, Niddah. l:Iallah Yi:µ;iaq l:Iayyot, Zerac yiJ/paq. Ed. H. Y. L. Deutsch (N.Y., 1960). Hasde David. David Pardo, Hasde David. IV. Tosefet Qedushah (Repr., Jerusalem, 1970). CAzri'el Hildesheimer, Middot bet hammikdash shel hordos bemasekhet Middot ubekitbe Yosef b. Matityahu (Jerusalem, 1974). [Compare "The Herodian Temple according to the Treatise Middoth and Flavius Josephus," Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement, 1886, pp. 92-113, and Israel Hildesheimer, Gesammelte Aufsatze (Frankfurt a/M, 1923)}. Oscar Holtzmann, Middot (Von den Massen des Tempe/s). Text, Vbersetzung, and Erklarung. Nebst einem textkritischen Anhang (Giessen, 1913). Oscar Boltzmann, Tamid (Vom taglichen, Gemeindeopfer). Text, Vbersetzung, und Erklarung. Nebst einem textkt'itischen Anhang (Giessen, 1928). Oscar Boltzmann, Qinnim ( Von den Voge/op/ ern). Text, Vbersetzung, und Erklarung. Nebst einem textkritischen Anhang (Giessen, 1931). Horayot

ABBREVIA'I'IONS AND BlBUOGRAPHY Hubert & Mauss

Hul. HY

ID Jastrow Jung, Arakin

K Katsh

Kel. Ker. Kil. KM

Krupp

Lehrman Levin and Boyden Levine, 1971

Levy, Worterbuch Lewittes M

M. Ma. Maimonides, Comm.

Mak. Makh. Me. Meg. Meiri

xv

Henri Hubert and Marcel Mauss, Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function. (Chicago, 1964). Translated from the French, "Essai sur la nature et la fonction du sacrifice," U Annee sociologique, 1898, by W .D. Halls. 1;1ullin Tosefta lfazon Yel;ezqel by Yel;lezqel Abramsky (Jerusalem, 1954). Nathan Lebam, Imre dacat. In QMH. Marcus Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli, and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (1904, Repr., N.Y., 1950) I-II. Leo Jung, CArakin. Translated into English. With Notes, Glossary, and Indices ( London, 1948). Georg Beer, Faksimile-Ausgabe des Mishnacodex Kaufmann A 50 (Reprint: Jerusalem, 1968). Abraham I. Katsh, Ginze Mishna. One Hundred and FiftyNine Fragments from the Cairo Geniza in the SaltykovShchedrin Library in Leningrad Appearing for the First Time with an Introduction, Notes and Variants (Jerusalem, 1970). Kelim Keritot Kila)yim Kesef Mishneh. Joseph Karo. Commentary to Maimonides, Mishneh Torah. Published in Venice, 1574-5. Text used: Standard version of Maimonides, Mishneh Torah. Michael Krupp. CArakin (Schiitzungen). Text, (Jbersetzung, und Erkliirung. Nebst einem textkritischen Anhang (Berlin & N.Y., 1971). S. M. Lehrman, ]5:innim.Translated mto English. With notes, Glossary, and Indices (London, 1948). S. I. Levin and Edward A. Boyden, The Kosher Code of the Orthodox Jew (Minneapolis, 1940. Repr. N.Y., 1975). Baruch A. Levine, "Prolegomenon." in Sacrifice in the Old Testament. In Theory and Practice. By George Buchan.in Gray (Repr. N.Y., 1971), pp. vii-xliv. Jacob Levy, Worterbuch uber die Talmudim und Midrashim (1924. Repr., Darmstadt, 1963) I-IV. Mendell Lewittes, trans. The Code of Maimonides. Book Eight. The Book of the Temple Service (New Haven, 1957). Babylonian Talmud Codex Munich (95) (Repr., Jerusalem, 1971). Mishnah Macaserot Moses b. Maiman, Mishnah. Seder Qodoshim. Trans. by Yosef Kappal;i (Jerusalem, 1967). Makkot Makhshirin MeCilah Megillah Menal;iem Shelomoh lebet Meir, Bet habbel;irah Ca/ ma.rekhet lfallah, Sheqalim, Tamid, veMiddot (Jerusalem, 1977). Ed. by Abraham Sofer.

XVI

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY

Menal;i.emShelomoh lebet Meir, Bet habbebirah cat masekhet lfullin (Jerusalem, 1974). Ed. by Abraham Liss. Melammed, Midrash E. ~- Melammed, Hayya};as sheben midrashe halakhah lammishnah velattosefta (Jerusalem, 1967). Melammed, Ta/mud E. ~- Melammed, Pirqe mabo lesifrut hattalmud (Jerusalem, 1973). Men. Menal;i.ot L. Miller and Maurice Simon, Bekoroth. Translated into Miller and Simon English. With Notes, Glossary, and Indices (London, 1948). Miller, Temurah = L. Miller, Temurah. Translated into English. With Notes, Glossary, and Indices (London, 1948) . .,. MiqvaJot Miq; Mishneh Lammelekh. Commentary to Maoimonides, Mishneh ML Torah.Judah Rosannes 1657-1727. For source see KM. MoCedQatan M.Q, MeleJkhet Shelomo. Shelomo bar Joshua Adeni, 1567-162~. MS From Mishnah, ed. Romm. Mishnah c;m perush HaRambam. Defus risho'n Napoli N 5252 [1492} (Jerusalem, 1970). Nazir Naz. Netibot haqqodesh Netibot haqqodesh ... Zeba};im. By A. I. M. Salman (Jerusalem, 1956). Ned. Nedarim Negacim Neg. Nezer Nezer haqqodesh cat masekhet Zebabim. By Moses Rosen (N.Y., 1953)., Nid. Niddah Numbers Num. ·Aminoal;i.Noal;i.,The Redaction of the Tractate Qiddushin in Noah the Babylonian Talmud. In Hebrew (Tel Aviv, 1977). NS Sevi Gutmacher; Nabalat 1evi. In QMH. ·= 'Ohalot Oh. COrlah Or. = Oiar shitfot. CArakhin (Jerusalem, 1972). Bekhorot (JeruO1ar shittot salem, 1973), Keritot (Jerusalem, 1973). Temurah (Jerusalem, 1973). p Shishah sidre mishnah. Ketab yad Parma DeRossi 138 (Reprint: Jerusalem, 1970). Pa Mishnah .ketab yad Paris, P4ris 328-329 (Reprint: Jerusalem, 1973). Parah Par. PB Mishnah Codex Parma "B" DeRossi 497, Seder Tehoroth. Introduction by M. Bar Asher (Reprint: Jerusalem, 1971). Pes. PesaJ;i.im Porusch, , Kerithoth I. Pontsch, Kerithoth. Translated into Engliih. With Notes, Glossary, and Indices (London, 1948). I. Porusch, MeCi/ah. Translated into English. With Notes, Porusch, Meilah Glossary, and Indices (London, 1948). Prov. Proverbs Purities Jacob Neusner, A History of the Mishnaic Law of Purities (kiden, 1974-1977) I-XXII. Qorban /1.haron. Aaroo Ibn 1:fayyim (d. 1632), Qorban QA Aharon, Perush LaSefer Sifra (Dessau, 1749). Meiri,Hu/,

ABBREVIATioNS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY· Qahaty QH

QMH QS Rabad Rabad, Sifra Rabinowitz

Ralbag Rappap.ort

Ray R.H. Rosen, Bekhorot Roseri, T emurah San, Sens Shah. Shabu. Sheb. Sheq:· SifraFink.

SifraHillel Sifra ed, Weiss SifHillel SifHorovitz SifishShalom .. SifLieberman

SifPardo SifVolk SifYasq

xvu

Pinhas Qahaty, Seder Qodoshim (Jerusalem, 1976) I-II. Moshe Zakhuta, Qol haramaz. In QMH. Qeburat meforshe hammishnah (Jerusalem, 1962). · l;fayyim Sofer, Qol Sofer. In QMH. Supercommentary to Maimonides, Code. R. Abraham hen David, Commentary to Sifra. From Sifra, ed. Weiss; The Code of Maimonides, Book Five. The Book of Holiness. Translated from the Hebrew by Louis I. Rabinowitz and Philip Grossman (New Haven and London, 1965). Particularly: Treatise· II. Forbidden Foods. Treatise III. Shebifah. - Yi~J:iaqRalbag, MaCayannehattalmud ... cat masekhet Keritot (Jerusalem, 1971). ~evi Hirsch Hakohen Rappaport, Torat Kohanim, with the commentaries CEzrat Kohanim and Tosefet HaCEzrah (Jerusalem, 1972). · Benjamin Ray, "Sacred Space and Royal Shrines in Buganda," 363, 373. ·· History of Religions 16, 4, 1977, Rosh Hashshanah Moshe Rosen, Sefer nezer haqqodesh Ca/ masekhet Bekhorot (Newark, 1945). = Moshe Rosen, Sefer nezer haqqodesh Ca/ masekhet Temurah (Newark, 1936). Sanhedrin Yacaqob David Ilan, Tosafot Shen1 (Bene Beraq, 1973). Shabbat ShabuCot ShebiCit = Sheqalim· Sifra or Torat Kohanim. According to Codex Assemani LXVI. With a Hebrew Introduction· by Louis Finkelstein (N.Y., ·1956). Sifra, With the Commentary of Hillel b. R. Eliaqim. Ed. by Shachne K.oleditzky (Jerusalem, 1%1). - Sifra, ed; Isaac Hirsch Weiss (Repr. N.Y., 1947). Sifre .. . Cim Perush .. . Rabbenu Hillel bar Eliaqim. Ed. Shachne Koleditzky (Jerusalem, 1958). Siphre d'Be Rab. Fasciculus primus: Siphre ad Numeros adiecto Siphre Zutta. Ed. H. S. Horovitz (Leipzig, 1917). = Sifre debe ·Rab; Cim Tosafot Meir 'Ayin. Ed. Meir IshShalom (Friedman). (Vienna, 1864). Siphre Zutta (The Midrash of Lydda). II. The Talmud of Caesarea (N.Y., 1968). '• = Sifre L. CEmeq HaNefiV, Naftali ~evi Yehudah Berlin (Jerusalem, 1960). · Sefer Sifre debe Rab. David Pardo (Salonika, 1799. Reprint Jerusalem, 1970). = Sifre ... c;m Hagahoi ... HaGRA vecim perush Keter Kehunah. $evi Hirsch Hakkohen Volk. Ed. Ya'aqob Hakkohen Volk (Jerusalem, 1954). Sifre Zutta leSeder Bamidbar ... JAmbuhaJ deSifre. Ya'aqov ZeJev Yaskobitz (Lodz, 1929. Reprint Bene Beraq, 1967) 1-11.

pp.

XVIII

Simon, T amid Simon, Middoth SM

Sot. Suk.

T. T

Ta. Tem. Ter. Toh. TR T.Y. TYB TYT TYY

Uqs. V

V* Vat118

Vatl19 Y. Y.T. Yad. Yeivin

Yeh.

z

Zab. Zeb. ZY

ABBREVIATIONS AND BIBLIOGRAPHY Maurice Simon, Tamid. Translated into English. With Notes, Glossary, and Indices (London, 1948). Maurice Simon, Middoth. Translated into English. With Notes, Glossary, and Indices (London, 1948). Shiftah mequbefet ca/ masekhet CArakhin (Bene Beraq 19,76). Ed. Yacaqob David Elan. Bekhorot (Bene Beraq, 1975). Temurah (Bene Beraq, 1975). So~ah Sukkah Tosefta Sidre Mishnah. Neziqin, Qodoshim, 'f ohorot. Ketab yad Yerushalayim, 1336. Ketab Y ad beniqud lefi massoret Teman. (Reprint Jerusalem, 1970). Introduction by S. Morag. Tacanit Temurah Terumot 'fohorot Saul Lieberman, Tosefet Rishonim. II. Seder Nashim, Neziqin, Qodoshim (Jerusalem, 1938). 'febul Yom Tife:>ret Yisra'el BoCaz. See TYY. Tosafot Yom 'fob. Yom Toh Lipmann Heller, 1579-1654. From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. Tife'ret Yisra'e/, Yakhin. Israel ben Gedaliah Lipschutz, 1782-1860. (With supercommentary of Baruch Isaac Lipschiitz = TYB.) From reprint of Mishnah, ed. Romm. cuq~in Talmud Babli. Nidpas ca/ yede Daniel Bomberg bishenat 5282 [= 1522]. Venezia. (Venice, 1522. Reprint Jerusalem, 1971). Nazir, Sotah, Qodoshim. Talmud Babli ... [as above]. Zebal;im. Manuscripts of the Babylonian Ta/mud from the Collection of the Vatican Library (Jerusalem, 1974). IV. Vat. Ebr. 118. Zevachim, Menahot. As above. V. Zevachim, Temura, Arechim, Bechorot, Mei/ah, Keritut. Yerushalmi. Palestinian Talmud. Yom 'fob Yadayim Israel Yeivin, A Collection of Mishnaic Geniza Fragments with Babylonian Vocalization. With Description of the Manuscripts and Indices (Jerusalem, 1974). Yebamot M. S. Zuckermandel, Tosephta. Based on E,furt and Vienna Codices (Repr., Jerusalem, 1963). Zabim Zeba.l;iim ZeraC yif/;aq. By Yiwaq J:layyot (Brooklyn, 1960).

TRANSLITERATIONS C

~

-

::i

-

B

l

-

G

., :,

Ii t,

, 1;,

- D - H - w - z - I:I - T - y :) -

K

-

L

1

~

l

t) 3,i

M

-

- N - s -

17 !:') -

r

~

=

,p

p $

Q R

s s

tv

-

iv

-

l'l

-- T

INTRODUCTION Mishnah-tractate Zebahim deals with the sacrifice of animals and birds in the cult. While the tractate makes use of the facts supplied by Scripture, its principal intent is not only to repeat, in its own language and mode of organization, what Scripture says, but also to make its own points about, first, the role of intention in the cult; second, rules for the sacrifice of beasts and birds; third, rules for the altar; and, finally, the location of the altar and the matter of sacrifice outside of the Temple in Jerusalem. The first and fourth matters are rather fully worked out, while the second and the third tend to treat the subject under discussion in an episodic manner, not in a logically sustained and orderly way. Scripture knows seven kinds of sacrifices. These are, for Most Holy Things: the burnt-offering, beast or bird; the sin-offering, beast or bird; the guilt-offering; and, for Lesser Holy Things: peace-offerings, the firstling, the tithe of cattle, and the Passover. While our tractate' s rules will apply to the sacrifice of all seven, in fact its principal concrete references are to the first two. Scripture, of course, lays forth the rules governing these seven kinds of offerings. Our tractate furthermore knows four cultic acts which, properly performed, render the animal-sacrifice suitable for offering up or for priests' consumption: the act of slaughter of the beast, the act of collecting the blood, in a utensil of service, from the neck of the beast, the act of bringing the blood to the altar, and the act of tossing drops of the blood on the altar. In the case of fowl, we have two acts, pinching or wringing the head of the bird from the body, and draining the blood out onto the altar. Since the priests are permitted to eat parts of all sacrifices except for the burnt-offering, which is wholly offered up on the altar fire, we have a fair number of references, moreover, to how the priests prepare and eat their portion. The matter of intention is spelled out in due course. It is our tractate' s most interesting contribution to the law. A convenient and brief summary of the principal animal-sacrifices is supplied by Maimonides (Laws Concerning the Manner of Offering Sacrifices l :1-6, 16-18, Lewittes, pp. 163-167), as follows: 1. Any offering of a species of living creature might be brought from ( one of) five species only: from cattle, from sheep, from goats, from turtledoves, and from young pigeons.

2

INTRODUCTION

2. There were only four kinds of offerings, whether they were congregational or individual offerings: burnt offerings, sin offerings, guilt offerings, and peace offerings. 3. There were three additional kinds of individual offerings: the Passover offering, the firstling, and the title of cattle. 4. All congregational offerings were either burnt offerings or sin offerings. There was no congregational offering brought as a peace offering except the two lambs which were brought with the wave loaves on Pentecost. The latter were called "sacrifices of the congregational peace offerings." The congregation never offered either a guilt offering or a bird offering. 5. The congregational offerings were as follows: the two daily offerings of every day; the additional offerings of the Sabbaths, the New Moons, and the Festivals; and the he-goat for a sin offering of the Day of Atonement. Furthermore, if the court erred in a decision concerning idolatry, each tribe would bring a bullock and a he-goat, the bullock as a burnt offering and the he-goat as a sin offering. These he-goats were called "the he-goats for idolatry." If the court erred in a decision concerning other laws, each tribe would bring a bullock for a sin offering. It was called, "the bullock for a thing being hid from the congregation." 6. The offerings of individuals were as follows: the firstling, the tithe, the Passover offering, and the festal offering, the latter being a peace offering; the pilgrimage offering, which was a burnt offering; the offering of a proselyte, which was either an animal burnt offering, or two young pigeons, or two turtledoves, both of them being burnt offerings, or two animals, one a burnt offering and the other a peace offering; the vow or the free-will offering of either a burnt offering or a peace offering; the peace offering that was brought with loaves and was called a "thank offering"; also, the offerings of a Nazirite, which were a burnt offering, a sin offering, and a peace offering; the offerings of a leper, which were a sin offering, a guilt offering, and a burnt offering; the offerings of men with flux and women after childbirth, which were a sin offering and a burnt offering; the offering of one who unwittingly transgressed a negative commandment punishable by excision (if committed wittingly), which was a sin offeringbut if in doubt whether he did or did not commit such transgression, he brought a guilt offering, which was called a "guilt offering of suspense"; there were also other transgressions for which one brought a guilt offering, called a "guilt offering of certainty"; furthermore, the ram for a burnt offering and the bullock for a sin offering which were offered by the High Priest out of his own means on the Day of Atonement were counted as individual offerings, this bullock being called "the bullock of the Day of Atonement." All these offerings are clearly described in the Law, while the specific rules concerning each of them will be expounded in their proper place. 16. All congregational sin offerings were to be eaten, except the

INTRODUCTION

3

he-goat of the Day of Atonement whose partner was sent away. Also the he-goats for idolatry and the bullock for a (prohibited) thing being hid were to be burned. The bullock brought for (transgressing) any of the other commandments and the bullock for a (prohibited) thing being hid were called "bullocks which were burned," while he-goats for idolatry were called "he-goats which were burned." Thus we learn that there were five kinds of sin offering that were burned, two of them being for individuals and three for the congregation. 17. All these offerings were called "sacrifices." All the burnt offerings, the sin offerings, the guilt offerings, and the two lambs for peace offerings on Pentecost were called "most holy offerings." Individual peace offerings, however-the firstling, the tithe, and the Passover offering-were called "less holy offerings." 18. Those limbs that were burned upon the Altar, whether of sin offerings that were eaten or of guilt offerings or of peace offerings, were called "sacrificial portions." The following were the sacrificial portions of a bullock or of a goat: the fat upon the innards, including the fat upon the maw, the two kidneys and the fat upon them, the fat upon the loins, and the lobe of the liver, with a small part of the liver taken with the lobe. If the offering was of the species of lambs, there was added to the above ( sacrificial portions) the fat tail entire together with the vertebrae of the spine as far as far as the place of the kidneys; for it is said: which he shall take away hard by the rump-bone (Lev. 3:9). All the sacrificial portions were burned upon the Outer Altar.

While the tractate is fairly long, it follows a clearcut and readily discernible program, laying out in accord with a simple plan the rules for sacrifice which Mishnah chooses to contribute. These cover three main subjects: ( 1) the laws governing the sacrifice of animals and birds, ( 2) the rules for the altar, and ( 3) the proper location of the altar for the sacrifice of animals and birds ( units II, III, and IV in the following outline). Since Mishnah's principal contribution will be the delineation of the rules of intention, the opening unit (I) will define the role of intention in the invalidation of the act of sacrifice. Accordingly, Rabbi as usual presents his materials in an orderly way, beginning with the importance of correct attitude toward the rite, then giving the rules for the conduct of the rite and for the altar, concluding with a relevant, but essentially secondary, discussion of sacrifice outside of the cult in Jerusalem. Since, as we shall see in a moment, units II, III, and IV cannot be logically arranged in any order but the present one, Rabbi's only choice concerns unit I, and here one can hardly criticize his disposition of the matter. Placing unit I at the end will hardly have

4

INTRODUCTION

accorded with its size and conceptual importance and will have diverted attention from what, we shall ultimately see, is Mishnah's principal and paramount contribution. The outline of the tractate is as follows.

I.

Improper intention and invalidating the act of sacrifice. 1:1-4:6

1:1 1:2

1:3 1:4

2:1 2 .,., .L

2:3 2:4-5

3:1

3:2 3:3

3:4

3:5 3:6

4:1-2

All animal-offerings slaughtered not for their own name are valid, except for Passover and sin-offering. Offerings slaughtered for the name of the Passover and sinoffering are invalid ( expansion of M. 1: 1). Passover slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan not for its own name ( expansion of M. 1: 1) . Passover and sin-offering slaughtered not for their own name, or for their own name and not for their own name, or not for their own name and for their own name, are unfit ( expansion of M. 1:1). All animal-offerings, the blood of which was received by ,l non-priest and other invalid priests, are invalid. He who slaughters the cmim,11-offering intending to toss its blood outside the Temple court or to burn the sacrificial portions outside-it is invalid. And punishment by extirpation does not apply. If he did so intending to toss the blood the next day or burn the sacrificial parts the next day, it is refuse. And those who eat it are liable to extirpation. This is the general rule ( continues foregoing). (Continuation of M. 2:3.) Unfit people (M. 2:1) who may validly slaughter the sacrifice also have the power to invalidate it through improper intention. If they may not do the act, their improper intention docs not spoil the sacrifice. ( Continuation of M. 3: 1.) He who slaughters the animal-sacrifice intending to eat something not usually eaten-it is valid. Eliezer declares invalid. (Counterpart of M. 2:3.) He who slaughters the animal-offering to eat an olive's bulk of the hide, etc., outside of the proper time or place-it is valid (continuation of M. 3:3). (Further instantiation of M. 3:4.) Improper intention invalidates only rn respect to eating the flesh or burning the sacrificial parts outside the proper place or time, and, in respect to the Passover and sin-offering, not for their own name. M. 3: 6S summarizes the range of discourse of M. 1:1-3:6: the limitations of the affectiveness of improper intention in invalidating the sacrifice. House of Shammai: Any offerings, the blood of which is to be tossed on the outer altar, if one properly tossed one drop of blood, are accepted and effect atonement. In the case of the

INTRODUCTION

4:3 4:4 4:5

4:6

II.

5

sin-offering: two. The House of Hillel: Even in the case of a sin-offering, one. Therefore: If one placed the first properly ( in silence = without improper intent) and the second with improper intent, it has effected atonement. If one placed the first with improper intent to eat the flesh outside the proper time and the second outside the proper place, it is refuse. 4:2: Any offering, the tossings of blood of which are placed on the inner altar, if one omitted one of the drops of blood, has not effected atonement. Therefore: if one tossed all properly but one, it is invalid. (Even though the Houses' dispute has to do with the number of drops of blood which must be properly tossed in the case of the sin-offering, the secondary development ["therefore"] links the whole to the present unit.) These are things on account of which they are not liable because of transgression of the law of refuse (through improper intention to carry out the rite at the wrong time). The whole-offering-its blood renders its flesh permissible for the altar [when properly tossed, with correct intention] and its hide for the priests-illustrative of M. 4:3H. Holy Things of gentiles-they are not liable on their account because of transgression of the laws of refuse, remnant, and uncleanness. Things on account of which they are not liable because of transgression of the laws of refus~n their account they are nonetheless liable because of transgression of the laws of remnant and uncleanness, except for the blood. For the sake of six things is the animal-offering sacrificed.

The rules for sacrifice of animals and fowl. 5:1-7:6 A. Animals. 5:1-6:1

5:1-5 The location of the offering and sprinkling of blood of Most Holy Things. 5:6-8 The location of the offering and sprinkling of the blood of Lesser Holy Things. (In all instances: A sacrifice is designated as Most Holy Things or Lesser Holy Things, then the place at which it is slaughtered, its blood received, is specified; finally, the number of drops of blood which must be tossed on the altar is defined, along with the disposition of the meat.) 6:1 Appendix to the foregoing: Most Holy Things which one slaughtered on top of the altar.

B.

Fowl. 6:2-7:6

6:2-3 The sin-offering of fowl was prepared at the southwestern corner of the altar.

6

INTRODUCTION

6:4-6 The sin-offering of fowl-how was it prepared? The burntoffering of fowl-how was it prepared? 6:7 The sin-offering of fowl, the neck of which one wrung not for its own name, the blood of which one drained not for its own name, etc., is invalid. In the case of the burnt-offering of fowl, it is valid. All the same are the sin-offering and burnt-offering of fowl, the heads of which one wrung off or the blood of which one drained with the intention to eat what is usually eaten-outside of its proper place-it is invalid. Outside of its proper time-it is refuse, etc. A replay of M. 2:3-5, now with reference to fowl. 7:1-3 A sin-offering of fowl prepared below the red line in accord with the rites of the sin-offering for the sake of a sin-offering is valid. Otherwise, invalid. The burnt-offering of fowl prepared above the red line in accord with the rites of the burnt-offering for the sake of a burnt-offering for the sake of a sin-offering, it is invalid. If one did so in accord with the rites of the sin-offering for the sake of a burnt-offering or in accord with the rites of a burnt-offering for the sake of a sin-offeriing, it is invalid. And all of them which are invalid do not impart uncleanness in the gullet and are subject to the laws of sacrilege, except the sin-offering of fowl prepared below in accord with the rites of the sin-offering for the name of a sin-offering. 7:4 The burnt-offering of fowl prepared below in accord with the rites of the sin-offering for the sake of the sin-offering-Eliezer: The laws of sacrilege apply. Joshua: The laws of sacrilege do not apply. 7:5-6 If one pinched the neck with the left hand or at night, it does not impart uncleanness of the gullet. If one did not pinch the neck with the finger-nail but with a knife ... , it imparts uncleanness of the gullet. General principle: Any bird which became invalid while subject to the rites of sacrifice does not impart uncleanness of the gullet, since the pinching of the neck suffices to remove the carcass from the category of carrion. If it did not become invalid while subject to the cultic processes, it does impart uncleanness of the gullet. If one pinched the neck and the bird turned out to be /erefah -dispute: Meir, Judah, Yose. III.

Rules of the altar. 8:1-12:4 A. Rules for disposing of sacrificial portions or blood which derive from diverse sacrifices and have been confused. 8:1-12

8:1-2 All animal offerings which were mixed up with sin-offering that had been left to die or an ox to be stoned-all are left to

INTRODUCTION

7

die. If mixed up with an ox upon which a sin had been committed, etc., let them all pasture until blemished, then be sold. The proceeds are used to replace the animal-offering which had been confused, etc. (Six instances of confusion in all.) 8:3 A guilt-offering confused with peace-offerings. Pieces of meat of one offering mixed up with those of another are eaten in accord with the rules governing the more stringent of them. 8:4-5 The limbs of a sin-offering mixed up with the limbs of a bumtoffering-Eliezer: Put onto the altar and all burned. Sages: Allowed to spoil and burned as remnant. Limbs of burnt-offerings mixed with limbs of blemished beasts--Eliezer: If head of one was offered, all are offered, in the assumption that the one which was offered is the one which was blemished. Sages: Even if all but one had been offered, it is assumed to be the blemished one . 8:6-8 Blood mixed with (1) water, (2) wine, blood mixed with (3) blood of a beast or bird which was unconsecrated, ( 4) with blood of unfit offerings, etc. 8:9 Blood to be sprinkled below the line mixed with blood to be sprinkled above-Eliezer: Sprinkle it above (four times). Sages: Pour into gutter. 8:10 Blood to be tossed once mixed with blood to be tossed four times--Eliezer: Toss four times. Joshua: Toss once. 8:11-12 Blood to be sprinkled on inner altar mixed with blood to be sprinkled on outer altar. Sin-offering, the blood of which one received in two cups, one of which went forth outside the courtyard and one of which remained inside.

B. The altar sanctifies what is appropriate to it. 9:1-7 The altar sanctifies that which is appropriate to it. Joshua vs. Gamaliel: Whatever is appropriate to the altar fires vs. Whatever is appropriate to the altar. 9:2 What are those things which, if they have gone up, should not go down? Judah: What is slaughtered by night, and that the blood of which is poured out, and that the blood of which has gone outside the veils, if it has gone up, should go down. Simeon: It should not go down. Simeon: Anything, the invalidation of which took place in the sanctuary-the sanctuary accepts it. If its invalidation did not take place in the sanctuary, the sanctuary does not accept it. 9:3 What are those things, the invalidation of which did not take place in the sanctuary? 9:4 Just as, if they have gone up, they should not go down, so, if they have gone down, they should not once more go up. 9:5-6 What are those things which, even if they have gone up, should go down (since they are not offered at all)? And any of them which burst from off the altar-one should not put them back. 9:1

8

INTRODUCTION

9:7

Just as the altar sanctifies that which is appropriate to it, so the ramp sanctifies that which is appropriate to it, and so do the utensils.

C.

Precedence in use of the altc1r. 10: 1-7 + 8

10:1-4 Whatever is offered more often than its fellow takes precedence over its fellow. Whatever is more holy than its fellow takes precedence over its fellow. All sin-offerings take precedence over guilt-offerings, except 10: 5 for the guilt-offering of the me,rorac.All guilt-offerings come from animals in their second year .... 10:6 Just as they take precedence in being offered up, so they take precedence in being eaten. 10:7 And in the case of all of them (which are eaten), the priests are permitted to vary the manner of preparing them for eating. Simeon, "If you see oil spread around the court, you know it [10:8 is the residue of meal-offering wafers of Israelites or of the log of oil of a meforac. If you see oil on top of the altar-fires, you know it is the residue of meal-offering wafers of priests or the meal-offering of the anointed priest."]

D.

Blood of a sin-offering 1fihich spurts onto ,1 g,mnent. (Exposition of Lev. 6:27-8: Whatever touches the flesh shall be holy; and when any of its blood is sprinkled on it was ?t gcmnent, you shall wash that on which sprinkled in a holy place. And the earthen vessel in which it is boiled sh,tll be broken; but if it is boiled in a bronze vessel, it shc1ll be scoured and rimed in water). 11:1-8.

11: 1-4 The garment on which blood of a sin-offering spurts.

11 :5-8 The utensil in which the sin-offering is cooked: scouring and rinsing.

E. 12:1

12:2 12:3

The division of the meat and hides of sacrificial animals among the eligible priests. 12:1-4 ( + 5-6).

A priest who is a {ebul yom and one whose atonement is not yet complete do not share in Holy Things (three stichs). Whoever does not participate in the cult does not share in the meat. Whoever does not share in the meat does not share in the hides. Any burnt-offering, the meat of which the altar has not ac(_pired -the priests do not acquire a right to its hide. The hides of Lesser Holy Things belong to the owner, and the hides of Most Holy Things belong to the priests.

INTRODUCTION

9

12:4

All Holy Things which suffered an invalidity before they were flayed-their hides do not belong to the priests. If it happened after they were flayed, their hides belong to the priests. [12:5-6 Bullocks which are to be burned and goats which are to be burned, when they are burned properly, are burned in the place of ashes, and impart uncleanness to the clothing of those who burn them. Perhaps this is intended as a transition to the discussion of performing acts of the cult outside of the Temple, since M. 12:5-6 speak of a cultic rite outside of the Temple. But I see no clear connection to M. 12:4, and M. 13:1-2 dearly commence their own formal and conceptual unit. So the location of M. 12:5-6 is not easily explained.}

IV. The proper location of the altar and the act of sacrifice. 13:1-14:10 13:1-2 He who slaughters and offers up Holy Things outside the courtyard is liable both for the act of slaughtering and for the act of offering up. Yose: If he slaughtered inside and offered up outside, that is so. But if he both slaughtered and offered up outside, he is liable only for the slaughtering. M. 13:2 repeats the principle for a distinctive issue. 13:3 A more strict rule applies to slaughtering Holy Things outside than to offering up outside, and to offering up outside than to slaughtering outside. 13:4 All the same valid Holy Things and invalid Holy Things which became invalid inside the sanctuary, which one offered up outside--he is liable. He who offers up as much as an olive's bulk of flesh outside is liable. What must be wholly burned inside need not be wholly offered up outside for a man to be liable. Only part of what must be wholly burned is sufficient to cause liability. 13:5 He who offers up Holy Things and their unsevered sacrificial parts outside is liable: A meal-offering from which the handful had not been taken which one offered up outside--he is exempt. 13:6 The handful and the frankincense, one of which one offered up outside--he is liable ( since either one by itself may be offered inside). 13:7 He who pinched the neck of the fowl inside and offered it outside is liable. If he pinched it outside and offered it up outside, he is free. Simeon: Any act for which they are liable when it is done outside, for like act are they liable when it is done inside and when one offered the consequent offering up outside, except for him who slaughters inside and offers up the bird-offering outside. 13:8 A sin-offering, the blood of which one received in a single cup, and the blood of which one first placed outside, and then

10

INTRODUCTION

inside, or first inside and then outside--he is liable, for all of it is suitable to be placed on the altar inside. 14:1 A red cow which one burned outside of its pit-he is free. So too a goat which is sent forth which one offered outside-he is free. The invalid animal ·which one offered outside--he is free. l1:2 Jil:3 He who offers up part of the flesh of a sin-offering outside (plus five more examples), or he who pours out oil over the is free. meal-offering (plus nine more examples)-outside-he The principle is: Any action which is not done on account of the sacrificial rite and which does not produce something suitable for offering inside--on its account they are not liable if they do it outside. 14:4-8 + 9, 10 Appendix: The definition of the times at which performing the cult outside was permitted and at which it was prohibited. Five periods, down to Jerusalem, and their rules.

Let us now briefly comment on the construction of the four divisions of the tractate. The first, improper intention and invalidating the act of sacrifice, flows so smoothly as not to require any indication of subdivisions. The end of the unit, M. 4:6, could not be improved as a counterpoint and summary of what has gone before. Having paid close attention to improper intention or motivation, the unit concludes with a lucid statement of those things to which one must in his heart and mind devote the act of sacrifice. The second unit is divided into two. The part on animals is a single, highly unified chapter, 5:1-5 +6-8, with a brief appendix, M. 6:1. The section on fowl is nicely joined to the foregoing at M. 6:2-6, at which we go over the points important to Chapter Five. M. 6:7 thrusts us back into unit I, since it supplies for fowl precisely the same information, in the same language, what M. 2: 3-6 tell us about animals. This is demonstrably a secondary restatement of M. 2 :3-5. The issues of Chapter Seven, by contrast, are fresh and important. Chapter Seven must be seen as a unitary composition, located here only after its completion. The third unit is still more diverse than the second, since we have to deal with no fewer than five distinct topics. But we are justified in regarding them as falling under the single, specific rubric I have indicated. Having treated the rules for sacrifice, we now ask about the law governing confusion, at the altar, of sacrificial pieces of sacrificial meat, or of cups of blood deriving from diverse animalsacrifices. We turn then to a quite separate rule, located here because

INTRODUCTION

11

it spells out the issue of the foregoing. If we have mixtures of blood or pieces of sacrificial meat, we treat them as holy. The reason, B then goes on to indicate, is that the altar sanctifies what is appropriate to it, so that, in the foregoing case, whatever has gone up onto the altar is deemed consecrated. We proceed to the issue of which offering is placed first on the altar and related questions of precedence. The fourth unit is quite distinct as well, the exposition of the rule governing the disposition of blood of a sin-offering which spurts onto a garment. The final miscellaneous rule on conduct at the altar concerns division of the meat and hides of sacrificial animals. The tractate's final principal division treats the act of sacrifice inside and outside of the Temple, with a handsome construction, M. 14:4-8, on the five locations of the cult in Israelite history, itself supplied with two separate appendices. The purpose of the translation is to give an accurate and literal version, in English, of the original Hebrew, and to do so in such a way that the formal and formulary traits of the Hebrew are made clear. The purpose of the appended commentary-"explanation"-is, first, to point up the formal and formulary character of each pericope and, second, to clarify whatever points of law are not immediately clear from their original statement in the translation itself. The comments are brief and follow a single system, which should be clear throughout. Further studies of our tractate, its history and Scriptural or other origins of its law, the character of its system and how said system fits into the structure of the Order of Holy Things as a whole, will follow the complete presentation of Mishnah and Tosefta of our order. If these were widely known or readily available, it would be unnecessary to undertake the present part of the work. Since they are not, we must begin with a careful presentation and exposition of the texts which form the sources of the history of the law which is to follow.

CHAPTER ONE

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER ONE Our order and tractate open with a brief chapter, consisting of a single rule, evidently coming down from the period before 70, which is richly and fully spelled out and glossed by sayings assigned to Yavneans. These sayings themselves are augmented by comments attributed to Ushans. The chapter is highly reminiscent of M. Niddah Chapter One, with its trait of working out and glossing a few basic rules or formulas. The inherited formula consists of the saying, "All animalofferings which were sacrificed not for their own name" -that is, for some purpose other than that for which they ought to be designated, e.g., peace-offerings which are slaughtered by the officiating priest with the notion that they are a burnt-offering-"are valid." That means that the blood is collected, conveyed to the altar, and tossed against the altar. The first gloss explains that, in any case, if said sacrifice is in fulfillment of the obligation of the owner, e.g., for a vow or a purificatory sacrifice, the owner nonetheless has to bring another sacrifice. The second states two exceptions. The anonymous rule, assigned to Joshua in Tosefta, excepts the Passover at the time that it is offered, the fourteenth of Nisan, and the sin-offering at any time. Eliezer then wishes to add the guilt-offering. T. supplies both logical and exegetical foundations for his opinion and Joshua's as well, while M. gives only a logical explanation for Eliezer's opinion. M. 1 :2 then raises the complementary question of animals erroneously slaughtered, for their part, as a Passover or sin-offering. These too are unfit, simply a reversal of M. 1 :1's rule (Joshua's) . Simeon, brother of cAzariah, states the matter in a different way. If one slaughtered an animal for the sake of a sacrifice of higher sanctity, it is a valid sacrifice, but if for the sake of one of lower sanctity, it is not. This saying too is laboriously glossed. M. 1:3 raises the issue of the proper time for the sacrifice of the Passover, again glossing M. 1 :1. Joshua assigns the period of proper slaughter to the whole of the fourteenth of Nisan, Ben Betera only to the afternoon. M. 1 :3 gives us yet another, a "historical", version of the rule of M. 1: 1, now with a new qualification, all sacrifices which are eaten, slaughtered not in their own name, are valid, except the Passover and sin-offering. This

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER ONE 1 : 1

13

addition, the gloss forthwith explains, encompasses the burnt-offering. M. 1 :4 resta,tes the proposition on .the Passover and the sin-offering, then specifies four processes which are essential to the rite: sacrifice, collecting the blood, conveying the blood to the altar, and tossing it against the altar. This too is richly glossed, so that we are told that a sacrifice "not for its name" may be defined not only in the slaughter, but also in the collecting, conveying, and tossing of the blood. Simeon wants to exclude conveying the blood from those elements of the sacrifice essential to the rite, and Eleazar then glosses Simeon's saying. So the whole, as I said, is spun out of the simple rule at M. 1 :lA, an extended essay on the requirement that a sacrifice be properly designated. The issue therefore is the correct intention to slaughter an animal for its proper purpose, that is, "in its own name." The issue is phrased with the expected clarity by Maimonides (Offerings Rendered Unfit 13:1): What was an intention involving a change in name? If one slaughtered a sacrifice not in its own name, for example, if the sacrifice was a burnt offering and the slaughterer had in mind that it was a peace offering, or if he slaughtered it in the name of both a burnt offering and a peace offering, or in the name of a peace offering and sacrifice in the name of its (rightful) owner, this constituted an intention of a change in name. The matter of slaughter in the right name further extends to collecting the blood, conveying the blood to the altar, and tossing the blood on the altar-all with the intention to do so for the correct purpose and in the name of the owner.

It is not difficult to see in the present chapter merit as the proem either to its own tractate or to the Order of Holy Things, because it focuses upon the issue of intention, Mishnah's particular contribution to the topic. 1:1 A. All animal-offerings which were slaughtered not for their own name [Danby: "under the name of some other offering"] are valid [ so that the blood is tossed, the entrails burned, etc.J, B. but they do not go to the owner is credit in fulfillment of (LSM; C: MSWM; K, P: MsM) an obligation, C. except for the Passover and the sin-offeringD. the Passover at its appointed time [the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan ], E. and the sin-offering at any time.

14

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER ONE 1: 1

F. R. Eliezer says, "Also: the guilt-offering. G. "The Passover at its appointed time, H. "and the sin-offering and the guilt-offering at any time." I. Said R. Eliezer, "The sin-offering comes on account of sin, and the guilt-offering comes on account of sin. J. "Just as the sin-offering is unfit [if it is offered] not for its own name ["under some other name"], so the guilt-offering is unfit [if offered] not for its own name." M.1:1

A-E form an extended declarative sentence. A is complete by itself, but is glossed at B, and, again, by C, which itself bears the glosses of D-E. Eliezer then enters a disputing opinion by glossing C at F and D-E at G-H. It follows that A, C-E are formulated along with F-H. I-J is an argument based on logic. No contrary argument is supplied. T. will provide it. The point is simple. If an offering is slaughtered for some purpose other than that for which it is brought, it is valid; that is to say, its blood is tossed, its entrails are burned, and what is available for the priest's consumption is permitted to be eaten. But the owner has to bring another offering to carry out his obligation, e.g., to fill his vow. If, for example, the burnt offering is slaughtered as ("in the name of") the peace-offering, the owner has to bring another sacrifice for his burnt-offering. If, moreover, the burnt offering of one person is slaughtered in the name of another person, the former does not get credit, and the latter has to bring another burnt offering (Maimonides, Offerings Rendered Unfit 15:1). The meaning of valid, therefore, has to do with the acceptability of the sacrifice, but not the matter of the owner's obligation, in accord with B's qualification of A. The exclusions are the Passover, offered from noon on the fourteenth of Nisan, which at that time must be offered for the sake of a Passover; and the sin-offering at any time. At any other time than the fourteenth of Nisan, the Passover is deemed a peace-offering. In these cases, then, the offering is not valid; the blood is not tossed. Eliezer wishes to include the guilt-offering along with the sin-offering, for the stated reason. A. R. Joshua says, "All animal offerings which were slaughtered not for their own name are valid, B. "but they do not go to their owner's credit in fulfillment of an obligation, C. "except for the Passover and the sin-offeringD. "the Passover at its appointed time,

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER ONE 1: 1

15

"and the sin-offering at any time" [ = M. 1:lA-EJ. R. Eliezer says, "Also: the guilt-offering. "The Passover at its appointed time, H. "and the sin-offering and the guilt-offering at any time." I. R. Eliezer says, "The sin-offering comes on account of sin, and the guilt-offering comes on account of guilt. Just as the sin-offering is invalid if it is not for its own name, so the guilt-offering is invalid if it is not for its own name" [ = M. 1:lF-J]. J. Said to him R. Joshua, "No. If you have said so concerning the sin-offering, the blood of which is placed above [the red line on the altar], on which account if one slaughtered it not for its own name, it is invalid, will you say so of a guilt-offering, the blood of which is placed below, on which account if one slaughtered it not for its own name, it is valid?" K. Said to him R. Eliezer, "The Passover will prove [my case]. For its blood is placed below [the red line}, and if one slaughtered it not for its own name, it is invalid. "So I encompass the guilt-offering, the blood of which is placed below. If one slaughtered it not for its own name, it is invalid." L. Said to him R. Joshua, "No. If you have said so in the case of the Passover, to which applies a fixed time, so that if one slaughtered it not for its own name, it is invalid, will you say so concerning the guilt-offering, to which does not apply a fixed time, so that if one slaughtered it not for its own name, it is valid ?" M. Said to him R. Eliezer, "The sin-offering will prove the matter. For it is not subject to a fixed time, and if one slaughtered it not for its own name, it is invalid. So I encompass [ under the rule} the guiltoffering, which is not subject to a fixed time. If one slaughtered it not for its own name, it [too} should be deemed invalid." N. Said to him R. Joshua, "We have come full circle." 0. R. Eliezer says, "It is a sin-offering (Lev. 5:9). And It is a guiltoffering (Lev. 5:19). Just as the sin-offering is invalid when it is offered not for its own name, so a guilt-offering is invalid when it is not offered in its own name." P. Said to him R. Joshua, "Concerning the sin-offering, it says, And he shall kill it for a sin-offering (Lev. 4:33), [meaning} that its slaughter must be in the name of the sin-offering. In the case of the Passover, it says, It is the sacrifice of the Passover to the Lord (Ex. 12:27), [ meaning} that its sacrifice must be in the name of the Passover. But in the case of guilt-offering, it [says}, It is a guilt-offering (Lev. 5:19) only in connection with the burning of the fat. "It itself, even though one has not offered up the fat, is valid." T. 1:1, Z p. 479, ls. 1-17

E.

F. G.

T. cites and augments M., as indicated, assigning the anonymous rule to Joshua and supplying Joshua with an argument contrary to Eliezer's at J. Then K-M give both parties a second logical argu-

16

ZEBAHIM

CHAPTER

ONE

1 :1

ment. Finally, at O-P we invoke Scripture, with both sides able to adduce suitable proof therefrom. I do not understand the relevance of Q. I's attributive is less satisfactory than M's said. The exegesis of Eliezer at O rests on the formal traits, and Joshua's depends upon the fact that the slaughter of the sin-offering and the sacrifice of the Passover both specify the purpose, while the reference to the guiltoffering does not refer to the act of slaughter. A. A guilt-offering (which requires a lambJ of the first year for which one brought [ a Iamb] of the second year,

and one [ requiring a lamb J of the second year for which one brought [ a lamb} of the first year, B. or one which one slaughtered before the time [had arrived} for the owner [to offer them]C. their appearance is allowed to become rotten, D. and they are taken out to the place of burning. T. l :2, Z p. 479, ls. 17-19 E. The burnt-offering of a Nazir, the burnt-offering of a woman after childbirth, and the burnt-offering of a mejorac which one slaughtered at the age of twelve months and one day, F. or which one sbughtered before the time (had arrived for the owner to offer them J---G. ascend to the altar and require drink-offerings. H. But they do not go to their owner's credit in fulfillment of an obligation. I. This is the general principle of the matter: Whatever does not invalidate a free-will burnt-offering does not invalidate an obligatory burnt-offering [ following HD' s emendation]. J. And whatever invalidates sin-offering invalidates a guilt-offering, K. except for the guilt-offering which one slaughtered not for its own name. T. 1: 3, Z p. 479, ls. 19-22 Having cited and augmented M., T. proceeds to enrich M.'s materials, specifically at M. l: lB. As if to underline the intent to comment on M., T. concludes with a summary of M.'s rule at J-K. The guilt-offering of a Nazir who has been made unclean and of a leper at the purification is called a KBS, a lamb, understood at M. Par. 1 :3 to mean, of the firrt year. The guilt-offering for robbery and for sacrilege is cailecl an 'YL, a ram, which is a sheep of the second year. A's point then is that if the wrong sort of animal is brought, it is not valid. As to B, the rrzefora' has to wait seven days from the beginning of his rite of purification, so Lev. 14:8, and the Nazirite has to wait seven days before he is deemed clean, Num. 6:12. Accordingly, B carries forward the consideration of A's opening clause.

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER ONE

1: 1-2

17

Then, E proceeds, if the burnt-offerings of the Nazir, woman after childbirth, and leper, which are to be in their first year, are in fact in their second (E), or, again, if they are slaughtered before the appropriate day, they are valid. These obligatory burnt-offerings are deemed valid, "for in the case of a free-will burnt-offering, if an older animal was offered in place of a younger one, it is valid" (Freedman, p. 292, n. 7). Then comes the relevant point. Even though acceptable to the altar, the owner must nonetheless bring another offering to carry out his obligation. I then generalizes, explaining E. J explains A, tying that rule, as I said, to M. 1 :1.

1:2 A. Yose ben I;Ionisays, "Those [other offeringsJ which are slaughtered for the sake of (C: LSWM) the Passover and for the sake of the sin-offering are invalid." B. Simeon, brother of cAzariah, says, "[If] one slaughtered them for the sake of that which is higher than they [Danby: "If they were slaughtered under the name of a higher grade of offering"], they are valid. "[If one slaughtered themJ for the sake of that which is lower than they ["But if under the name of a lower grade"], they are invalid. C. "How so? D. "Most Holy Things which one slaughtered for the sake of Lesser Holy Things are invalid. Lesser Holy Things which one slaughtered for the sake of Most Holy Things are valid. [Most Holy Things are the sin-offering, meal-offering, burntoffering, and guilt-offering; Lesser Holy Things are the peace-offering, Passover, and thank-offering.J E. "The firstling and tithe which one slaughtered for the sake of peace-offeringsare valid, and peace-offeringswhich one slaughtered for the sake of a firstling, [or] for the sake of tithe, are invalid." M. 1:2

Clearly continuing the foregoing, M. now asks, What about other offerings slaughtered for the sake of the Passover ( at its time) or for the sake of the sin-offering? The question flows logically from the foregoing and continues the gloss of M. 1:lA-E. Since we know that, when the sin-offering or the Passover is offered not for its own name, it is invalid, we have only to ask about other offerings falsely presented under the stated designation as the Passover or sin-offering. There is no reason to ask about the erroneous designation of, e.g., a peaceoffering for a burnt-offering, for, as we know ( 1: lA), the offerings nonetheless are reciprocally valid. The answer is very clear to Yose 2

18

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER ONE

1:2-3

ben I;Ioni. Just as the one is invalid, so is the other: a Passover offered on the fourteenth of Nisan for some other purpose is invalid, and an animal-sacrifice destined for some purpose offered at that time instead as a Passover also is invalid. Simeon, cAzariah's brother, takes a more qualified view, as given at B, then spelled out at D, and further glossed at E. The whole is splendidly articulated, continuing in declarative sentences, with no effort made at balancing one against the other. But the clauses of B, D, and E internally are carefully stated in highly formulaic language. E takes for granted the fact that the firstling and tithe of cattle are Lesser Holy Things, like peace-offerings. But they are in a lower status of sanctity than peace-offerings---a minor gloss of a major rule. It remains to ask, What is the view of M. 1:lA-E on the question raised by M. 1 :2A? The answer is obvious. M. 1: lA refers to all offerings sacrificed not in their own name. This surely will include offerings sacrificed for the sake of the Passover ( at its time) or for the sin-offering. They too are valid. Accordingly, Y ose b. Honi rejects the view of M. 1:lA by introducing the same distinction given by M. 1 :lC-E in reference to all other offerings (Maimonides, Comm.). That is, he wants to qualify M. 1 :lA by saying tha.t that rule applies on condition that the offerings not be given for the purpose of a sinoffering or Passover. The issue is clearly drawn. Simeon then takes up a third position, different from both Honi' s and M. 1: 1A's.

1:3 A. The Passover which one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of Nisan] not for its own name ["under some other name"]B. R. Joshua declares valid, C. as if it were slaughtered on the thirteenth [ of Nisan]. D. Ben Betera declares invalid, E. as if it were slaughtered at twilight [ of the fourteenth]. F. Said Simeon hen cAzzai, "I have received a tradition from the seventy-two elder[s], G. "on the day on which they seated R. Eleazar b. cAzariah in session, H. "that: "all animal-offerings which are eaten, I. "which were slaughtered not for their own name, J. "are fit, K. "but they do not go to the owner's credit in fulfillment of an obligation, L. "except for the Passover and the sin-offering."

ZEBAHIM

CHAPTER

ONE

1:3-4

19

M. And Ben cAzzai [thereby} added [to L} only the burnt-offering. N. But sages did not agree with him. M. 1:3 The exposition of M. 1:lA-E continues at A-E. Then, at F-N, we have a further version of the same matter. The first problem is to specify "at its time" of M. 1:1D. Joshua's view, which I have inserted at M. 1 :1, is that only the afternoon of the fourteenth of Nisan is deemed the time for sacrificing the Passover. Therefore the morning of that day is treated as any other day. The sacrifice of the Passover not for its own name now is valid, e.g., as a peace-offering. Ben Betera regards the entire day of the fourteenth of Nison as the time for the slaughter of the Passover. Therefore he treats the morning as equivalent to the late afternoon. It follows that a Passover sacrificed not for its own name on the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan is invalid. C and E are matched glosses of B, D, respectively, and the whole is in fine balance. Simeon, F-L, then offers a slightly different version of the rule of M. 1 :lA-E. What his version changes is given in italics at H. Otherwise, H- L are identical to M. 1: 1A-C ( omitting the further qualifications at M. 1: 1D-E). M then explains the difference between this version and M. 1: 1's, an internal gloss of Mishnah which, given the propensity of our chapter to gloss its materials rather heavily, we cannot find surprising. N refers to F-L. The point is that Ben cAzzai regards the burnt-offering, which is entirely burned on the altar, to be unfit if slaughtered not for its own name. So he would read M. 1 :IC, "except for the Passover, and burnt-offering," just as Eliezer wants to read the gloss, "except for the Passover, sinoffering, and guilt-offering." Accordingly, the sages' tendency is to limit the exclusions of animals slaughtered not for their own name which are invalid only to the Passover and sin-offering, as against Simeon b. cAzzai, Eliezer, Yose ben J:Ioni, and Simeon, brother of cAzariah.

1:4 A. The Passover and the sin-offering which one slaughtered not for their own name-B. the blood [ of which} one received, conveyed, or tossed not for their own name-C. or for their own name and not for their own name, D. or not for their own name and for their own name-E. are unfit.

20

ZEBAHIM

CHAPTER

ONE

1 :4

F. How [ does one do it (C)] for their own name and not for their own name ? G. For the sake of the Passover [ at its time J and for the sake of peace-offerings. H. Not for their own name and for their own name [DJ? I. For the sake of peace-offerings and for the sake of the Passover. J. For an animal-offering is made unfit [by improper intention or deed] in four respects: K. (1) in slaughtering, and (2) in receiving (the blood], and (3) in conveying (the blood], and (4) in tossing (the blood]. L. R. Simeon declares fit in the case of [improperly J conveying [the blood]. M. For R. Simeon did say, "It is not possible [to make an animaloffering] without slaughtering, and without receiving [the blood] and without tossing [the blood]. But it is possible [to make an animaloffering] without conveying [the blood]. N. "One slaughters [the animal] at the side of the altar and [forthwith, without conveying the blood at all] tosses [the blood onto the altar]." 0. R. Eleazar says, "He who conveys [the blood]P. "[if he does so] in a situation in which he has to convey [the blood], (the wrong} intention renders invalid [the act of sacrifice]. [If he does soJ in a situation in which he does not have to convey [the blood], the [wrong] intention does not render [the act of sacrifice] invalid." M. 1:4

The exposition of M. 1:lA-E now concludes in a most interesting unit. A announces that we return to M. 1:lA+C, phrasing M. 1:l's exceptions not as a gloss but as a well-formulated rule. But the real interest is in expounding the meaning of 'not for their own name,' in line with M. 1: 1C's specification that the only offerings in which the wrong designation makes a difference are the Passover and the sin-offering. (Had the views of the others prevailed, of course, we obviously should have a different version at A, for instance, The Passover, sin-offering, and guilt-offering, etc.) The main point is to include B, three processes, in addition to slaughter, in which the wrong intention spoils the sacrifice. Then C-D build on B, by pointing out that, since we have a number of steps in the process, all of which require appropriate intention, each step may be spoiled by itself, e.g., one slaughters with the correct intention but receives the blood with the wrong intention, and so on. The whole therefore constitutes a complex spelling out of the simple rule of A+ E, but the glosses of B, C-D, constitute the real purpose of stating the rule as a whole.

ZEBAHIM

CHAPTER

ONE

1 :4

21

F-G and H-I provide still further glosses of C-D. J-K generalize on the foregoing ( or the rule of A-C depends on J-K), specifying the four steps in which correct intention is reWNN), and is prohibited then .(and thus the night thereafter, even after burial) to eat Holy Things. He is not deemel equivalent to an unclean person; he may touch Holy Things. C's blemished priests have the right to share in and eat Holy Things, Lev. 21: 21- 2 3. But this must be .treated as ·an exception to the rule of D-E. F is clear as stated, an acute reading of G. A. A priest who mourns his next of kin is not permitted to bring animal-offerings all seven days [ of the period of mourning} [M. Zeb. 12:lB]. B. All the same are sacrifices which are suitable to come as a freewill-offering and sacrifices which are not suitable to come as a freewill-offering [ e.g., sin-offerings and guilt-offerings}, C. even wine, even wood, and even frankincense, D. as it is said, Peace [complete] offerings (Lev. 3:6: And if his offering for a sacrifice of peace-offerings)E. R. Simeon says, "Peace-offerings [ are so-called becauseJ all are at peace { each sharing] in them: Part of them is for the altar, and part of them is for the priests, and part of them is for the owner." T. 11:1 Z p. 495, ls. 27-30 A. The animal-sacrifices of thank-offering-lo, this is a thankoffering under all circumstances, as it is said, He who brings a thankoffering as his sacrifice honors me; to him who orders his way aright, I will show the salvation of God (Ps. 50:23). T. 11:2 Z p. 495, ls. 30-31

204

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER

TWELVE

12: 1

A. "A high priest offers [sacrifices] as a mourner [Lev. 21:11-12), but does not eat [the flesh of the sacrifice]," the words of R. Meir [M. 12:lBJ. B. R. Judah says, "That entire day." C. R. Simeon says, "He finishes the act of sacrifice for which he is responsible and goes forth. But an ordinary priest who was standing and making an offering and suffered a bereavement leaves off the act of sacrifice for which he is responsible and goes forth. D. "Therefore if he tossed the blood or burned the incense for the act of sacrifice which he has carried out, lo, these [ actionsJ are invalid." T. 11:3 Z p. 495, ls. 31-34

T.'s first unit augments M. 12:lB. A defines the period during which the priestly mourner is not permitted to participate in the cult, and B-D do the same for the sorts of cultic offerings which are excluded. The point of the proof-text, D, is that the priest must exhibit whole and perfect concentration on the rite, which he cannot do when in mourning (HY) . Judah's point, T. ll:3B, is to define the time during which the priest is deemed to be in mourning; he differs from T. 11:lA. Lieberman, TR II, p. 214, cites Y. Sanh. 2:1, in which Rabbi and sages differ on the same matter. Rabbi says the priest is deemed a mourner until the burial of the next of kin, and sages regard the period as lasting the whole day of burial, even after the hour of burial. It follows that T. 11 :3B has nothing to do with its context. Simeon, C, treats the matter of what a priest is to do when he becomes bereaved while engaged in the act of sacrifice. In accord with the present reading ( see TR II, p. 214, to 1. 33), Simeon speaks of a high priest, that is, continuing Meir's saying at A. The high priest completes the sacrifice in which he is involved and then leaves. An ordinary priest, by contrast, leaves off in the middle. But, D, if the ordinary priest should toss the blood, etc., it is invalidly done. A. The adult [priest] takes a share, even though he is blemished. B. The minor [priest J does not take a share, even though he is unblemished. C. When is a minor fit to take a share of the Holy Things of the sanctuary? D. When he will produce two pubic hairs. E. But they do not bring him near (to participate in) the sacrificial service until his [lower J beard is full. F. Rabbi says, "I say, 'Until he will be twenty years old and there-

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER TWELVE 12: 1-2

205

after: [They appointed the Levites] from twenty years old and upward, to have the oversight of the work of the house of the Lord (Ezra 3:8)." T. 11:6 Z p. 496, ls. 2-5

T. augments M. 12:lC. 12:2 A. Any [burnt-offering], the meat of which the altar has not acquired [e.g., which was invalidated before the blood was tossed]B. the priests do not acquire a right to its hide, C. as it is said, A man's burnt-offering (Lev. 7:8)D. a burnt-offering which has been burned to the credit of a man. E. A burnt-offering which was slaughtered not for its own name, even though it has not gone for the credit of the owner-its hide belongs to the priests [because, A, the altar has acquired its meatM. 1:lAJ. F. All the same are the burnt-offering of a man and the burntoffering of a woman-their hides belong to the priests. M. 12:2

This is a unitary pericope, each entry answering a question raised in the one before. A-D are dear, congruent to the principle of M. 12:1D-E, which link the meat to the hides in connection with the priests' rights. The exegesis, C-D, speaks of a burnt-offering which goes to the credit of a man. This then raises i:he question of one which does not go to the credit of the owner, E, the hide of which nonetheless is assigned to the priest; and it raises the question of whether a woman's burnt-offering is treated as is the man's, which it is, F. So E and F separately augment A-D. A. All sin-offerings, the blood of which is taken inside [ and is invalidated]-the priests have no right to any part of them at all. B. But the blood and the sacrificial parts belong to the altar. C. And the hide and the flesh go out to the place of burning. D. Where do they burn them? E. In the great place of ashes outside of Jerusalem and to the north of Jerusalem, outside of the three camps. F. And they did not burn them whole, but they would chop them up on their hide like pieces of burnt-offerings. T. 11:4 Z p. 495, ls. 34-38

M. 8:11-12 have already told us that if the blood of a sin-offering is taken inside the Hekhal, the offering is invalidated. Here is an example of a sacrifice, the meat of which the altar has not acquired.

206

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER 'tWELVE 12: 1- 2

The priests have no right to the hide (M. 12:2A-B), and the rest follows. Maimonides ( Manner of Offering 7:3-4) defines the several places of burning as follows: There were three places for bu.ming: one in the Court itself, where were burned Most Holy Offerings rendered unfit, sacrificial portions of Lesser Holy Offerings rendered unfit, and bullocks and he-goats of sin-offerings which were to be burned that were rendered unfit, either before or after the sprinkling of the blood. For example, if they became unclean, or they were taken out of the Court before the proper time, or their flesh remained overnight, or their sacrificial portions remained overnight. The second place for burning was in the Temple Mount, the place called Birah. There sin-offerings that were to be burned, which were rendered unfit after they had been taken out of the Court, were burned. The third place was outside of Jerusalem, and it was called, 'the place of the ashes.' There sin-offerings which were to be burned were burned in accord with the regular procedure prescribed for them. A. The priests do not take a share of meat instead of [some other] meat, or of fowl instead of [ some other} fowl, of meat instead of fowl, of fowl instead of meal-offerings, of meal-offerings instead of [other] meal-offerings, B. As it is said, And every cereal offering, mixed with oil or dry, shall be for all the sons of Aaron, one as well as another (Lev. 7:10). T. 11:5 Z p. 495, 1. 38, p. 496, ls. 1-2

T. is autonomous of M. Its point is that priests cannot pick and choose what they are to receive, but take their share of each part of what is given to the group of priests. A. [If} one slaughtered it [with the intention of burning the sacrificial parts or eating the meat] outside of its proper time or outside or its proper place, B. since the altar has not acquired its meat, the priests to not acquire its hide. C. "A burnt-offering [ of an animal which is] sanctified [purchased with Temple funds (HY) }-its hide does not belong to the priests," the words of R. Judah. D. And sages say, "Its hide belongs to the priests." E. R. Yose b. R. Judah adds," Even that of proselytes, women, and slaves, as it is said, The burnt-offering of a man (Lev. 7:8)exduding these." F. They said to him, "Has it not already been stated, And the priest who offers any man's burnt-offering shall have for himself the skin of the burnt-offering which he has offered (Lev. 7:8)-

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER TWELVE 12: 1-3

207

G. "If so, why has it been said, The burnt-offering of a man? H. "But: a burnt-offering which has gone up for a man's creditits hide belongs to the priests. I. "And that which has not gone up t,o a man's credit-its hide does not belong to the priests." T. 11:8 Z p. 496, ls. 9-14

After restating and illustrating M. 12:2A-B at A-B, T. goes over the ground of M. 12:2E, rejecting that rule ot H. Yose, E, supplements his father's ruling at C, reading a man of Lev. 7:8 to exclude the listed persons. Sages reject the view of father and son. 12:3 A. The hides of Lesser Holy Things belong to the owner, and the hides of Most Holy Things belong to the priests. B. And [this proposition is supported by] an argument a fortiori: Now if the burnt-offering, the flesh of which does not belong to them, produces hide which belongs to them, Most Holy Things, the flesh of which does belong to them, all the more so should produce hides which belong to them. C. The altar itself does not prove the contrary, because it has no portion in the hide under any circumstances. M. 12:3

Once more we have a rule, A, followed by a commentary, B-C. The rule at A is clear. Then B supplies .the source for A. The hide of the burnt-offering belongs to the priests, as M. 12:2 has just told us. And the meat of the burnt-offering is wholly burned on the altar. The flesh of Most Holy Things, e.g., of a sin-offering, is given to the priests. How much the more so should the hides of Most Holy Things belong to them (and not to the owner)! C takes up a contrary argument, which is not spelled out, because it is obvious. The altar acquires the meat and not the hide. Likewise, the priests should acquire the meat and not t.he hide in the case of Most Holy Things. But the altar does not acquire the hide even of the burnt-offering, and the argument a fortiori therefore stands firm. A. The burnt-offering belongs wholly to the Most High, and its hide belongs to the priests. B. Most Holy Things: The blood and sacrificial parts belong to the altar, and the meat and the hide to the priests. C. Lesser Holy Things: The blood and sacrificial parts belong to the altar, and the hide and meat belong to the owner. D. This is the general principle: Whoever has a share in the meat

208

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER TWELVE

12: 3-4

has a share in the hides. Whoever does not have a share in the meat does not have a share in the hides, E. except for the burnt-offering, concerning which Scripture explicitly supplied the interpretation: And the priest who offers any man's burnt-offering shall have for himself the hide of the burnt-offering which he has offered (Lev. 7:8). T. 11:7 Z p. 496, ls. 5-9

T. augments M. 12:1-3 as a unit, citing M. 12:lE at D, the gist of M. 12:2 at A, and the rule of M. 12:3A at B-C.

12:4 A. All Holy Things [burnt-offering, sin-offering, guilt-offering] which suffered an invalidity before they were flayedB. their hides do not belong to the priests. C. [If an invalidity was incurred] after they were flayed, their hides belong to the priests. D. Said R. I:Iananiah, Prefect of the Priests, "In all my days I never saw a hide taken out to the place of burning." E. Said R. cAqiba, "From his statement we learn that: "He who flays the firstling [which was blemished and slaughtered] [that is, it was disqualified even before flaying] and it turns out to be ferefah"the priests make use of its hide." F. And sages say, "'We have not seen' is no proof. But: G. "It goes forth to the place of burning." M. 12:4

M. 11 :3 already has made the distinction between the status of the hide before and after it is flayed from the carcass of the offering. M. 12:2A-B have stated that if the altar does not get the meat, the priests do not get the hide, so A-B are entirely familiar. The form here is somewhat complex. A-B allege that if a sacrifice is somehow made invalid, the hide is burned along with the carcass. If the invalidity took place after flaying, however, the hide, already removed, remains the possession of the priests. At D, Hananiah rejects this rule, saying that the hide belongs to the priests even if the sacrifice is invalid. If the pericope is viewed as a unity, E is interpolated, since it is not relevant to the issue. F rejects the evidence of D and repeats the point, but not the language, of A-B. G in fact responds to the language of D. So the whole set, D-G, is secondary to A-B, and, without G, does not belong at all. 1 1 "F-G is a single unit which responds to D and repeats its language. E is secondary to D." - Richard S. Sarason.

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER TWELVE

12:4

209

cAqiba' s point is that the firstling which is blemished and slaughtered outside the sanctuary (Deut. 15 :22), the blood of which is not tossed onto the altar at all ( so that which permits the offering has not been offered in accord with its requirement) , and which turns out to be ferefah after the skin is flayed from the carcass, is given to the priests for their own use. This follows from I:Iananiah's testimony; even in the present case the hide is not burned.

A. {If] one slaughtered it, did not flay it, and did not have time to toss the blood before the blood was made unclean, B. or [ if] one slaughtered it and did flay it, but did not have time to toss the blood before the blood was made uncleanC. the blood is [HY: not] tossed, and the hide and meat are prohibited. D. If the blood is tossed [in any event], the hide and the flesh are permitted. T. 11:9Zp. 496, ls. 14-17 A. [If] one slaughtered it and did not slay it and did not have time to toss the blood before the sacrifice [the meat] was made unclean, B. the hide is prohibited. C. "[If] one slaughtered it and flayed it and the [TR II, p. 214:] sacrifice (hide) was made unclean, and afterward one tossed the blood, the hide is permitted," the words of Rabbi. D. R. [Eleazar b. R.] Simeon says, "The hide is prohibited." T. 11:10 Z p. 496, ls. 17-19

A. [If] one slaughtered it and did not flay it, tossed the blood, and afterward the sacrifice was made unclean, the hide is prohibited. B. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon says, "Let him flay the hide from the meat." C. [If] one slaughtered it and flayed it, tossed the blood, and afterward the sacrifice was made unclean, D. all agree that the hide is permitted. T. 11:11 Z p. 496, ls. 19-21 A. [If] one slaughtered it and did not flay it and did not have time to toss the blood before the blood went forth [beyond the veils], B. or [ if] one slaughtered it and flayed it and did not have time to toss the blood before the blood went forth [beyond the veils}, C. the blood is [ not] to be tossed. D. The hide and the flesh are prohibited. E. And even though the blood is tossed, the hide and the meat are prohibited. F. [If} one slaughtered it and did not flay it and did not have time to toss the blood until the sacrifice [TR II, p. 214:} went forth ( remained overnight), the hide is prohibited. T. 11:12 Z p. 496, ls. 21-25

210

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER TWELVE

12:4

A. [If] one slaughtered it and flayed it and the sacrifice went outside [the veils] and afterward one tossed the blood, B. "the hide is permitted," the words of Rabbi. C. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon says, "The hide is prohibited." D. [If] one slaughtered it and did not flay it and tossed the blood and afterward the sacrifice went outside [the veils], E. "the hide is prohibited," the words of Rabbi. F. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon says, "Let him flay the hide from the meat." G. [If] one slaughtered it and flayed it and tossed the blood and afterward the sacrifice went forth [beyond the veils], H. all agree that the hide is permitted. T. 11:13 Z p. 496, ls. 25-29 A. [If] one slaughtered it and did not flay it and did not have time to toss the blood before the blood went forth [beyond the veils], B. or [if] one slaughtered it and flayed it and did not have time to toss the blood before the blood was kept overnight, C. the blood is [not] to be tossed. D. The hide and the flesh are prohibited. E. And even though the blood is tossed, the hide and the meat are prohibited. F. [If] one slaughtered it and did not flay it and did not have time to toss the blood before the sacrifice was kept overnight, G. the hide is prohibited. H. "[If] one slaughtered it and did not flay it and the sacrifice remained overnight, and afterward one tossed the blood, it is prohibited," the words of Rabbi. I. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon says, "Let him flay the hide from

the flesh." J. [If) one slaughtered it and flayed it and tossed the blood and afterward the sacrifice remained overnight, all agree that the hide is permitted. T. 11:14 Z p. 496, ls. 29-34

A. Rabbi says, "The blood effects appeasement for the hide by itself [that is, when it already has been flayed from the meat]. B. "When it is with the meat, [however, that is, before it is flayed], [ if] an invalidity occurs in it, whether before the tossing of the blood or after the tossing of the blood, lo, it follows its [the meat's) status." C. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon says, "The blood does not effect atonement for the hide by itself [that is, even when it has been flayed from the meat]. D. "When it is with the meat [before flaying], [if] the blood has been tossed [properly] for it, it has been accepted for one moment. E. "Therefore if an invalidity occurs in it, even after the tossing of the blood, let him flay the hide from the meat [ and make full use of it)." T. 11:15 Z p. 496, ls. 35-38

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER TWELVE

12:4

211

T. gives us a major essay on the principle of M. 12:4A-C, the relationship between the time at which a sacrifice became invalid and the rights of the priests to the hide. M. has told us that if the offering became invalid before flaying, the priests have no right to the hide. If the invalidity took place thereafter, the priests do own the hide. The exegetical fulcrum for T. 11:9-15 is at T. 11:15. Here Rabbi maintains that when the hide is by itself-after it has been flayed-then, if the blood is properly tossed, the hide is released, by the proper tossing of the blood, for use by priests. Before the meat and hide are flayed apart, however, the hide retains the status of the meat, and this, therefore, has no relationship to the tossing of the blood. M. 12:4A-C thus explicitly state the position of Rabbi: all things depend upon whether or not the hide has been flayed from the meat, for the reason given at T. 11:15A. Eleazar b. R. Simeon's position is that the hide by itself is unaffected by the tossing of the blood. If the blood is properly tossed and the hide is unflayed from the meat, one may flay the hide from the meat. But if the blood is not properly tossed, then even though the hide be flayed from the meat, that is of no account, and the priests do not have the use of the hide. Only if the blood is properly tossed is the hide available for the priests, without regard to when or whether the hide is flayed from the meat. With this in mind, we turn to the cases of T. 11:9-14. T. 11 :9 has the blood made unclean. Without regard to whether or not the hide is flayed from the meat, the hide and meat are prohibited. The issue of flaying is irrelevant here, because the blood to begin with is not properly tossed. If the blood should thereafter be tossed, however, the hide and meat are permitted. The frontlet, we recall, effects atonement for blood which is made unclean, and, since the blood is acceptable, the rest follows. At T. 11 :10 the sacrifice is made unclean. The hide also is prohibited. What if the hide is flayed, then the sacrifice is made unclean, and then the blood is tossed? The blood is acceptable, and, since the hide was flayed from the meat and was all by itself before the tossing of the blood, the hide, in Rabbi's view, is permitted. Eleazar b. R. Simeon, in line with T. 11:15, will maintain that the blood does not effect acceptance for the hide when it is by itself. So the hide is prohibited. At T. 11:11, we slaughter the animal and do not flay it, the blood is then tossed, and the sacrifice is made unclean. Rabbi, T. 11:15, maintains that the blood effects acceptance for the hide when it is

212

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER TWELVE

12:4

separate. But here there has been no flaying. So the hide is unaffected and prohibited. Eleazar b. R. Simeon, in line with his position at T. 11:15, says that the blood does not effect acceptance for the hide when it is by itself. Here it has not been flayed, so it follows the status of the meat, which has been permitted by the proper tossing of the blood. Then the hide now is flayed and used. Of course, T. 11 :llC-D, all will agree that if the hide has been flayed, then the blood tossed, the hide is permitted-that is Rabbi's position to begin with. T. 11:12 shifts the definition of the problem, but not the positions of the participants in the dispute. Now we have a case in which the blood is taken out of the courtyard. We know that the frontlet effects atonement for blood which is made unclean, but not for blood which is taken outside the courtyard. So in the present case, we are not going to have a point at which the blood can be properly tossed. It will then follow that at no point and in no one's opinion will the hide ever be permitted to the priests. T. 11 :12AsD say exactly that. Whether or not the hide is flayed, the blood has been irrevocably invalidated, and the hide is never permitted. T. 11:13 then has the sacrifice taken outside the veils. The blood remains inside. It has not been invalidated. We therefore repeat the earlier dispute. If the hide has been flayed and the blood properly tossed, the hide has been released by the proper tossing of the blood, because it has been treated as separate from the meat, so Rabbi. Eleazar takes up the contrary position, just as he does before. If then there is no flaying, T. 11: 13D, and the blood is properly tossed, in Rabbi's view, the hide is prohibited, and Eleazar takes up the expected position. If, T. 11:13G-H, there has been flaying and proper tossing before the sacrifice goes out, Rabbi now can concur with Eleazar that the hide is permitted. T. 11:14 has slaughter, no flaying, no proper tossing; the blood goes beyond the veils, or the blood is kept overnight. Once more, there is no point at which the blood may be tossed, since the blood is irremediably invalidated. Just as at T. 11 :12, therefore, there is no point at which the hide or the meat will be permitted, and on this point, both parties will of course concur. T. 11 :14F-J then go over familiar ground. We turn to the matter of the maladministration of the sacrifice, not the blood. The familiar dispute occurs at H, where we have slaughtering, no flaying, improper disposition of the sacrifice, but proper tossing of the blood. Rabbi prohibits the hide, since the blood effects acceptance of the hide when it is by

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER TWELVE

12:4-6

213

itself, not when it has not been flayed. Eleazar takes up the familiar position. And, at J, Rabbi finds his condition met .and ,agrees that the hide is permitted. So, as I said, we have a very systematic and orderly exposition of the several cases of T. 11 :9-14 in light of the fundamental dispute of T. 11:15. A. At first they would bring in the hides of Holy Things to the chamber of the Bet Happarwah and would divide them in the evening among all the priestly families of that day. B. But the powerful men of the priesthood would come and grab them by force. C. They ordained that they should divide them on Fridays among each and every watch. D. But still did the powerful men of the priesthood come and grab them by force. E. The owners thereupon went and sanctified them to Heaven. T. 11:16 Z p. 497, ls. 1-4 = T. Men. 13:18, Z p. 533, ls. 22ff. A. Abba Saul says, "Poles of sycamore were in Jericho, and strong men take them. B. "They went and sanctified them [to Heaven}." C. They said, "The owners sanctified to heaven only poles of sycamore alone." T. 11:17 Z p. 497, ls. 4-6

Autonomous of M., T.'s point has to do with the division of the hides, e.g., of the burnt-offerings, sin-offerings, and guilt-offerings which were given to the priests. At first these were divided daily, without regard to whether, on a given day, there were more or fewer hides. The thugs among the priests would come and take what they wanted. They determined to divide them only once a week, but this did no good. So the owners declared the hides sanctified to Heaven. This would mean that the priests would have no further rights in the hides. The same picture is given at T. 11: 17. 12:5-6 A. Bullocks which are to be burned and goats which are to be burned [M. 5:1-2, Lev. 4:3, 13-14, 16:9, Num. 15:24}, B. when they are [valid and therefore} to be burned in accord with their requirement [ and have not been invalidated}, are burned in the place of ashes. C. And they [who burn them} impart uncleanness to [their} clothing [Lev. 16:28}.

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER

TWELVE

12:5-6

D. And if they are [ invalid and therefore J not burned in accord with their requirement, they are burned in the Bet Birah [Temple precincts}. E. And they do not impart uncleanness to clothing. M. 12:5

A. They would carry them on poles. B. [If] the foremost [bearers J went outside the wall, and the latter did not [yet J go outside the wall, C. the former impart uncleanness to clothing, D. and the latter do not impart uncleanness to clothing-until they [ actually J go forth. E. [If] both went forth, these and those impart uncleanness to clothing. F. R. Simeon says, "These and those [who are to burn the bullocks or goats] do not impart uncleanness to clothing until [ they actually do the burning so that] the flame will take hold of their [the carcasses'] greater part." G. [When] the flesh h:ls been wholly burned [to ashes], the one who burns it no longer imparts uncleanness to clothing [ which he wears]. M. 12:6

M. 12:5A's bullocks and goats are familiar from M. 5:1-2. If the bullocks or goats have not been made invalid, B, they are burned in the place of the ashes. Those who do the work of burning impart uncleanness to their clothes (Lev. 16:28). If the bullocks or goats ,Lre invalid, they are burned on the Temple Mount, and uncleanness is not imparted by those who burn the bullocks or goats to their clothing. M. 12:6 LLkesup the narrative style of M. Par. 3:lff. The carcasses to be burned were carried on poles. B-D define the point at which the people who burn the carcass impart uncleanness to their clothing. It is at the moment that they go outside the wall. E then completes the matter. The whole turns out to form part of a dispute, B-E vs. F. Simeon's saying is balanced with E, which proves that B-D, which necessitate E's these and those, are integral to the dispute. Simeon assigns the point of the commencement of contamination to the time at which the carcass is being burned. G concludes the matter of B-F. Once the flesh has burned, the one who burns it-supervising the burning until the carcass is wholly dust~no longer imparts uncleanness to clothing, since the process is deemed endr~d. A. Bullocks which are to be burned and goats which are to be burned, when they are burned in accord with their requirement, are

ZEBAHIM

CHAPTER

TWELVE

12:5-6

215

burned in the place of ashes. And they [ who burn them] impart uncleanness to [their] clothing. B. And if they are not burned in accord with their requirement, they are burned in the Bet Birah. And they do not impart uncleanness to clothing [M. Zeb. 12:5). C. R. Yose the Galilean says, "In the great house of ashes did they burn them-" D. even with straw, E. even with stubble, F. even with chips. G. And even if the fire has caught only the greater part of it, lo, these are valid. T. 11:18 Z p. 497, ls. 6-10 After citing M., T. supplies Yose's contrary opinion as to where the burning took place. D-F do not contradict A-B. G augments M. Zeb. 12:16F. When the fire has caught the greater part, not when the flesh is wholly burned, the rite of burning is deemed suitably begun, as Simeon says (HD) .

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER THIRTEEN Still another problem generated by Scripture forms the focus of a chapter, specifically, this one and part of the next. Lev. 17:3ff. clearly state that slaughter must take place in the Temple. Naturally, Mishnah takes for granted this limitation pertains solely to slaughtering Holy Things. It wants, however, to ask for more details of the rule against slaughtering Holy Things outside of the Temple. Our chapter seeks the underlying principle which will generate details of the rule. What Mishnah wants to say is that what is prohibited outside of the Temple is an action which, if done in the Temple, is valid. This is an acute way of supplying Lev. 17:3ff. with a truly important conception: What is consecrated by Temple usage is what also defines and governs what cannot be done outside of the Temple. If something in the Temple is null, then doing it outside the Temple does not produce liability. The principle is stated most clearly at M. 13 :8. One is liable when the whole of a given substance or action is suitable for the Temple; and at its counterpart at M. 14:1, Whatever is not suitable "to come to the door of the Tent of meeting" does not produce liability if done outside. A further excellent way of saying the same thing will be observed at M. 13: 7. The opening set of the chapter, M. 13: 1-2, works out the theory of Yose the Galilean on the matter. The anonymous rule maintains that if one slaughters Holy Things outside the Temple and also offers them up outside the Temple, he is liable for both actions separately. Yose concurs in the case of slaughtering Holy Things inside and offering them up outside. But if one slaughtered Holy Things outside and offered them up outside, he is liable only for the slaughtering, but not for the offering up. Why? Because what he has offered up outside is invalid, having been slaughtered outside-a fine application of the chapter's deepest conviction on the matter. Sages point out that, as soon as the person carries outside the Holy Things he has slaughtered inside the Temple, he already has invalidated them, even without offering them up. Accordingly, what Yose concedes at the outset convicts his position of inconsistency. M. 13:2 goes over the

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER

THIRTEEN

217

same set of arguments, now with regard to an unclean person who eats either clean or unclean Holy Things. M. 13:3 resumes the discussion be,gun at M. 13:lA. While M. 13 :lA has stated that if one slaughters Holy Things outside and offers them up outside, he is liable, M. 13:3 points out that each of the two actions is subject to a more strict rule than the other. After spelling these out, the pericope attaches two separate disputes between Simeon and Yose. These, while supplying interesting facts, do not materially advance the chapter's discussion. It is at M. 13 :4 that the matter is carried forward. If one offers up outside of the Temple valid Holy Things or invalid Holy Things which are ma.de invalid in the sanctuary, the same rule applies (as against Yose the Galilean's position). The principle, I think is that, in both cases, the things were at some point suitable for the sanctuary (T. 12:1). Theimportant point of dispute is at M. 1 3 :4D-G + 13 :6. Herc an anonymous rule maintains that, if one offered up an olive's bulk of the handful of meal-offering, or frankincense, or incense, or the meal-offering of priests, and the like, he is liable. Now these things arc suitable only when wholly offered up. So they will not have been suitable, in the form in which one has offered them up outside--that is, only the olive's bulk thereof-if they were offered inside. Eleazar declares the person free of liability until he will offer up the whole volume of mealoffering and the like. Eleazar, of course, will concede that, if all of the volume but an olive's bulk were offered inside, and an olive's bulk were offered up outside, then the person is liable. For what he has offered up outside now completes the offering up of the entire volume of meal-offering ( and the like), and therefore there is no reason for the man not to be liable. M. 13:5B-C make a parallel point. We know that a meal-offering from which one has not taken a handful for offering is not suitable. Only when part of the volume --the handful--has been designated is the meal-offering deemed suitable for the Temple's use. Therefore if one took a batch of mealoffering from which the handful had not been taken and offered it up outside, there is no liability on that account. If a handful of mealoffering is taken up and then put back into the whole, and then one offered the whole outside, hmvever, he is liable. In the larger bulk of meal-offering is a handful which is suitable for use in the sanctuary. This is a further statement of exactly the point with which we began. M. 13 :6 then goes over the dispute of Eleazar and sages, repeating the principle of M. 13:4.

218

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER THIRTEEN

13: 1- 2

M. 13:7 explores an interesting paradox. A fowl is killed for the purposes of the cult by the pinching of its neck. It is killed for unconsecrated purposes-outside the cult-by slaughter with a knife. If one pinched the neck inside, the fowl is suitable for the cult. If it is offered outside, the person is liable. If, however, the neck is pinched outside and the fowl offered up outside, why should there be liability? Pinching the neck is affective only in the cult. Likewise if one slaughters the fowl inside the Temple and offers it up outside, he is not liable. If he both slaughtered it outside-now the proper mode of slaughter -and offered it up outside, he is liable. Simeon has his own view of the matter, but his basic principle is no different from that governing the law as a whole. M. 13:8 brings us to the familiar ground of the disposition of the blood of a sacrifice, now of a sin-offering. We know that the blood must be received in a cup and tossed on the altar. What if one receives the blood and places it outside the cult, then goes and does it inside, or reverses the order? He is liable. Why? Because all of the blood is suitable for the cult. If the blood is received in two cups and both are used for sprinkling inside, obviously there is no liability. Equally obviously, if the blood of the two cups is used outside, the man is liable. What if one placed the blood in one cup inside, and then the blood of the other outside? He is free of liability. Why? Because the blood in the first cup has done its duty. The blood in the second cup--deriving from the same animal-no longer is suitable to be brought inside. It is deemed simply remnants or residue of blood and is disposed of. If one placed the blood of one cup outside then the blood of the other inside, is the blood first placed outside suitable for the cult? Of course it is. None of the blood of the animal has yet been tossed. The blood inside can be tossed. So the man is liable for the blood placed outside. But the blood which has until now remained inside the Temple and which has not been used at all can then be used. In line with M. 8:12A, the blood which remains inside is unaffected by the disposition of the blood of the other cup, which has been taken outside. So it is used and it effects atonement. This last problem is somewhat out of line with the chapter's chief interest, but its main point, as to the suitability of the blood for use on the altar, is well within the range of the persistent inquiry. 13:1-2 A. He who [both] slaughters [Holy Things} and offers up [Holy

ZEBAHIM

CHAPTER THIR TELN 1 3: 1-2

219

Things] outside [the Temple courtyard] is liable [P, C: he is liable] for the act of slaughtering and is liable for the act of offering up. B. R. Yose the Galilean says, "[If] he slaughtered [the animal] inside and offered it up outside, he is liable. C. "[If] he slaughtered outside and offered up outside, he is free [ of liability for the offering up]. D. "For he has offered up outside only something which [in any event J is invalid [having been slaughtered outside, it could not have been offered inside anyhow]." E. They [ = A J said to him, "Also: He who slaughters inside and offers up outside, since he took it outside, has invalidated it [ and so too at BJ." M. 13:1

A. An unclean person who ate either unclean Holy Things or clean Holy Things, is liable. B. R. Yose the Galilean says, "An unclean person who ate clean [Holy Things J is liable. But an unclean person ,vho ate unclean [Holy Things J is free [ of liability]. C. "For he ate only something [of Holy Things] which [in any event] is unclean." D. They [ = AJ said to him, "Also: The urKlean person who ate clean [Holy Thin1~s], since he touched it, has rendered it unclean." E. And a clean person who ate unclean [Holy Things J is free, for he is liable only on account of the contamination of the body. M. 13:2

Lev. 1 7 :3ff. requires that sacrifice take place in the Temple: If any man of the house of Israel kills an ox or a lamb or a goat in the camp. or kills it outside the ct1mp, and does not bring it to the door of the tent of meeting, to offer it as a gift to the Lord before the tabernacle of the Lord, hloodgvilt shall be imputed to th,11 man .. . This is to the end that the people of Israel may bring their s,1crifces which they slcty in the open field, thctt they mcty bring them to the Lord, to the priest ctt the door of the tent of meeting and slay them as sacrifices of pec1ceofferings to the Lord,- and the priest shall sprinkle the blood rm the cdtc1r of the Lord at the door of the tent of meeting ... M. 13:1 addresses the issue of the liability incurred in this connection. It understands that there arc two separate actions involved, one, the slaughtering of Holy Things, the other, the act of offering up Holy Things. If a man does so inadvertently, he is liable to bring a sin-offering. The view of A, a simple declarative sentence, is that we treat the two actions separately. If a man slaughters Holy Things outside the Temple and offers them up outside the Temple, he is liable on account of both acts, thus, in the case of inadvertence, to bring two

220

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER

THIRTEEN

13:1-2

sin-offerings. Yose, B-D, rejects this view. If the slaughter takes place inside the Temple and the offering, outside, the man is liable for both actions. Why? Because the animal has been properly slaughtered. If, however, the man slaughters outside and offers up outside, he is free of liability for the latter action ( C). There is nothing for which to be liable in connection with the offering up (D). Sages, E, reject this reasoning, because it should produce a contrary result at B. Yose concedes that, if the animal is slaughtered inside and offered up outside, the man is liable for the offering up outside. For the same reason, he should be liable if he slaughtered outside and offered up outside (C/E). M. 13:2 follows exactly the same arrangement. A's view is clear as stated. Yose's opinion, B, is that an unclean person who ate unclean Holy Things is free of liability, because what he ate in any case was unclean; he did not make it unclean. Sages' reply, D, points out that the unclean person who ate clean Holy Things in fact renders the Holy Things unclean before he eats them, so the same reasoning should apply at B as at C. E then continues A. The liabilities remain to be spelled out. In the case of A, the man is liable to extirpation if he deliberately ate the Holy Things, and is liable to a sin-offering if he inadvertently did so. The exemption from liability is likewise with respect to these same punishments. If the clean person, E, ate unclean Holy Things, he is not liable for anything he has done to the Holy Things. The liability is incurred, as A-D make clear, solely in the case of an unclean person. A. Rabbi says, "There is a difference between [the case of one] who slaughters inside and offers up outside and [that of one] who slaughters outside and offers up outside. B. "For he who slaughters inside and offers up outside-it [the offering] had a moment of validity. C. "But he who slaughters outside and offers up outside-it [the offering] never had a moment of validity." D. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon says, "There is a difference between [the case of one] who slaughters inside and offers up outside and [the case of one] who slaughters outside and offers up outside. E. "For he who slaughters inside and offers up outside-the sanctuary accepts it. F. "He who slaughters outside and offers up outside-the sanctuary does not accept it." T. 21:la Z p. 497, ls. 11-15

Rabbi and Eleazar explain Yose's position, M. 13:IB-D. Eleazar's

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER THIRTEEN

13: 1-3

221

point is that, at M. 13: lB, if the sacrifice is put up on the altar, it is not removed, but at M. 13:1D, if the sacrifice is put on the altar, it is removed. 13:3 A. A more strict rule applies to slaughtering [Holy Things outside] than to offering up [outside], and to offering up than to slaughtering. B. More strict is [the rule which applies] in the case of slaughtering: C. For one who slaughters [Holy Things outside] [in behalf of] an ordinary person is liable. D. But one who offers up for [the use, e.g., the eating] of an ordinary person is free. E. More strict is [the rule which applies] in the case of offering up: F. Two who took hold of a knife and slaughtered [with it] are free of liability. G. [If] they took hold of a limb and offered it up, they are liable. H. "[If] one offered up [outside] and went and offered up [again] and went and offered up [again], he is liable [to bring a sin-offering] for each and every act of offering up," the words of R. Simeon. I. R. Yose says, "He is liable only for one [act of offering up]." J. And he is liable only when he will offer up at the head of the altar [ which he has built outside]. K. R. Simeon says, "Even if he offered up on a rock or on a stone, he is liable." M. 13:3

The unit is in three parts, A-G, then two disputes, H-1 and J-K. The point of B-D is that if one slaughters Holy Things outside of the Temple for the honor of an ordinary person, not for the sake of the Lord, he is liable. But if someone offers up Holy Things outside for the honor of an ordinary person and not for the Lord, he is free. Then, at E-G, we distinguish between joint action in slaughtering Holy Things outside the Temple, which does not produce liability, and joint action in offering up a limb, for which the two are jointly liable. H-I develop the following conjectural case: Someone has offered up part of an animal outside, doing so inadvertently. He realizes he has sinned. Then he forgets. He goes and does the same thing, using another part of the same animal which he originally used; he is informed of his inadvertent action, then forgets the whole thing, then repeats the process. Even though all this has been done with a single

222

ZEBAHIM CHAPTER THIRTEEN

13:3-4

beast, the man owes three sin-offerings, so Simeon. Y ose sees the man as liable for a single sin-offering. The final dispute has to do with whether or not the offering up outside must take place on an altar. J rules that that is the case. Simeon says that offering up Holy Things outside of the Temple, without regard to the location of the altar, is sufficient to incur liability. G. It is not possible for one to slaughter after another has slaughtered (the animal], but there can be a case in which one offers up [the part of an animal] after another has offered up [the part of the same animal]. T. 12:lb Z p. 497, ls. 15-16 A.

[If} two slaughtered it, they are free.

B. [If] two offered it up, they are liable. C. "[If] one offered it up and went and offered it up again, he is liable for each and every act of offering up," the words of R. Simeon. D. R. Yose says, "He is liable only for one [such action]" [M. Zeb.

13:3H-I]. E. "And one is liable only if he will build an altar and arrange the wood," the words of R. Yose. F. R. Simeon says, "Even if he offered it up on a stone or on a rock, he is liable" [M. Zeb. 13:3K]. T. 12:2 Z p. 497, ls. 16-19

T. 12:1G-12:2A-B explain M. 13:3F-G. E augments M. 13:31 and assigns it to Yose, and F then cites M. verbatim. 13:4 A. All the same are valid Holy Things and invalid Holy Things, the invalidity of which took place inside the sanctuary [M. 9:2}, and [ either of] which one offered up outsideB. he is liable. C. He who offers up as much as an olive's bulk of flesh of a burnt-offering and of the sacrificial parts outside [the courtyard] is liable. D. ( 1) The handful, and ( 2) the frankincense, and ( 3) the incense, and ( 4) the meal-offering of priests, and ( 5) the meal-offering of the anointed priest, and ( 6) the meal-offering which goes along with drink-offerings, an olive's bulk of one of which one offered up outside-he is liable. E. R. Eleazar declares free, until he will offer up the entire [volume of the meal-offering]. F. And all of them which one offered up inside, and of which one left as residue an olive's bulk, which one offered up outsideG. he is liable.

ZEBAHIM

CHAPTER 1"HIR'I'EEN

13 :4

223

H. And all of them which lacked any [ of the requisite] amount at all, which one offered up outside---he is free [ of liability, since offering them inside is invalid in any event.] M. 13:4

The primary interest of the pericope is in the volume which is offered outside. We have the following rules: A-B, C, D + E, F-G, H, five in all. The first, A, is in the same formulary pattern as D, F-G, and H, so it belongs to the unit as a whole. But it does not speak of the principal problem. Its point is that valid Holy Things and invalid Holy Things made invalid in the sanctuary-which therefore should not go down from the altar, M. 9:2-produce the equivalent penalty when offered outside. The point is that what belongs to the altar must stay inside, and that view governs the subsequent rules and is the shared supposition of Eleazar and sages. C brings us to the recurrent issue. The volume of the Holy Things which prochtees liability when offered outside is an olive's bulk. The point is that the burnt-offering should be wholly burned on the altar. If, then, there is half an olive's bulk of the burnt-offering and of the sacrificial parts, the two join together to impose liability (B. Zeb. 109a = Al beck, among all commentaries) . The items at D are supposed to be entirely offered on the altac When offered inside, they have to be wholly burned up. If offered outside, they cause the man to incur liability if only an olive's bulk is off erc