Talmud sur Zevahim 8:5

Rebbi Simon says, Rebbi Eliezer stays with his opinion. Just as he says there²⁵In Mishnah Zebaḥim 8:5, R. Eliezer states that if limbs of valid sacrifices were mixed up with limbs of a sacrifice which had been found defective and one of these had been burned on the altar before the error was detected, then all limbs of the same kind can be brought to the altar. R. Simon interprets this to mean that we say the first limb was from a defective animal and the rest therefore are proper sacrifices., all that is defective was in his hand, so he says here all that is impure is in his hand. Rebbi Zeїra asked, may we not say that Rebbi Eliezer said it only because of a fence²⁶He disagrees with R. Simon; his position is that of R. Eleazar in the Babli (Zebaḥim 77b) that R. Eliezer permits the limbs on the altar only if at least two of the same kind are brought simultaneously, so that one of them at least is valid. The “fence” is the fence around the law, a measure of precaution that no biblical law could possibly be violated; cf. Demay Chapter 1, Note 89.? Does not Rebbi Eliezer agree that for a seah lifted from ṭevel he must give a name to its tithes⁷Tosephta 6:2: “A seah of heave which fell into less than 100 and made it dema‘, if it was ṭevel he uses it as heave and tithes for other produce or he gives a name to the heave of the tithe.” 6:3: “A seah of heave which fell into 100 of Sabbatical produce shall be lifted, less than that must be left to rot.” Ṭevel is forbidden to everybody, including a Cohen, but the Cohen may turn it all into heave and heave of the tithe without actually separating anything.? If you say the seah which fell is the seah which came up, it would not be necessary to give a name to its tithes²⁷If it were 100% heave, no tithes would be possible.! Rebbi Mana said, Rebbi Zeїra is correct since we have stated after this²⁸Mishnah 3. If R. Eliezer would consider all that came into his hand as heave, it would be pure and would not have to be eaten with the precautions indicated in the Mishnah.: “A seah of pure heave which fell into a hundred of impure profane produce,” and Rebbi Eliezer does not disagree! The colleagues argued before Rebbi Yose: Rebbi Simon is correct, because otherwise would one burn heave because of a “fence”? He said to them, are the six doubts which we have stated not because of their “fences”? Do we not also burn here because of its “fence”²⁹The reference is to Mishnah Ṭahorot 4:5: “For six doubts one burns heave: For the doubt of field of pieces (a field where a grave was ploughed), the doubt of earth from a Gentile country (which is impure by tradition), the doubt of the garments of a vulgar person (who does not observe the rules of purity), the doubt of found vessels, the doubts of spittle and urine (from unknown persons), if one certainly touched them but does not know about their status of purity one burns heave. R. Yose says, even on a doubt whether one touched them in a private domain (cf. Chapter 3, Note 10), but the Sages say, on that doubt in a private domain one suspends and on a public road it is pure.” The normal procedure for heave that may be impure is to “suspend”, i. e., to leave the heave to rot and then dispose of it if it is no longer food. The questioner assumes that all questionable heave is suspended; R. Yose points out that there are instances in which questionable heave is burned.? The colleagues said, we asked before Rebbi Yose: In any case, if it is impure heave, it should be burned, if it is profane, why could it not become impure³⁰Why do the Sages have to oppose R. Eliezer; could the lifted seah not be burned and all problems would be eliminated?? He said to us, is it not eaten as heave? Heave cannot be eaten except if it is pure, maybe impure? Do you not agree that if a doubt of impurity arose in its place that he cannot burn it³¹The position of the Sages in Mishnah Ṭahorot 4:5: If the heave was of doubtful status before it fell into the 100 other seah (“in its place” before it fell), it would have to be suspended, not burned. Why could its replacement be burned now?? What is the difference whether a doubt of impurity arose at another place or at its place? But if you want to question, then question what Rebbi Hoshaiah stated, since Rebbi Hoshaiah stated: “A seah of pure heave that fell into 100 seah of impure heave³²There is no Tosephta dealing with this case, but everybody agrees that all must be burned; one does not lift one seah to let it rot..”