Talmud sobre Zevachim 8:13

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..”

As we have stated there⁷⁸MishnahZevaḥim 8:10.: “[Blood] to be given in one batch etc. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, would you not transgress do not diminish? Rebbi Joshua answered him, would you not transgress do not add?⁷⁹Deut. 4:2,13:1.” He said to him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by me than a prohibition which will come before me.]

There, we have stated²²⁴Mishnah Keritut 5:1.: “Rebbi Jehudah declares liable for squeezed blood²²⁵If an animal is slaughtered by having its throat cut, the blood pumped out from the carotid arteries by the heart is called “life blood”; all other blood is “squeezed out” blood unfit for sacrificial use. For the majority, all blood is prohibited (Lev. 7:23) but only life blood is forbidden on penalty of extirpation (Lev. 17:10). R. Jehudah disagrees since life blood is mentioned only in v. 17:11..” Rebbi Joḥanan said, Rebbi Jehudah added it only for extirpation²²⁶He agrees that only life blood is qualified for the altar.. There came Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Rebbi Jehudah added it only for extirpation. There²²⁷Tosephta 4:12; Babli 65a, Zevaḥim34b, 60a., they are saying in the name of Rav Ḥisda: a baraita²²⁷Tosephta 4:12; Babli 65a, Zevaḥim34b, 60a. says so: “They said to him, is that not squeezed blood? And squeezed blood is disqualified on the altar²²⁸As explained at the end of the paragraph.. And also from the following, most of it was not received in a vessel, and blood not received in a vessel is disqualified on the altar²²⁹Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:1..” Does Rebbi Jehudah hold that blood invalidates blood²³⁰In Mishnah Zevaḥim 8:6, R. Jehudah is quoted as saying that no blood invalidates blood. Therefore if only a small portion of the blood collected in the cup was qualified, the remainder is disregarded and the entire contents can be poured on the altar.? Since he did not reply, it follows that he accepted their position²³¹A possible interpretation of the Mishnah here.. Since in the other case he does not hold so but did not respond, so here he does not hold so but did not respond²³²Since we know that R. Jehudah holds that no blood invalidates blood and he is not reported to have answered the argument in the Tosephta, nothing can be inferred from his silence in the Mishnah.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun in the name of Rav Ḥisda: a baraita²²³The priests stood on elevated benches above the accumulated blood. Since the priestly garments are enumerated in Ex. 28 and shoes are not mentioned there, the priests had to officiate barefoot, their feet touching the floor of the courtyard. Therefore one has to assume that the benches were rows of stones connected to the floor and counted as floor. Babli 65b. says so: “Not only life blood for sancta, matter appropriate for atonement, from where life blood for profane animals and squeezed blood for both sancta and profane animals? The verse says blood and all blood. When it is about life it mentions atonement, for squeezed blood it does not mention atonement²³⁴This is R. Jehudah’s argument. In Lev.17:10 all blood is prohibited under penalty of extirpation. In Lev. 17:11 blood is the carrier of life, showing that life blood used for atonement is less than all blood. Babli 65a..

Rebbi Ḥama bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: Rebbi Nehemiah and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa both said the same²³¹That under certain circumstances a disqualified sacrifice must be burned immediately, without waiting that it lose its shape, even if the disqualification is not in the victim’s body., as it was stated²³²Sifra Šeminy Pereq 2(8–10).: “it was burned because of deep mourning²³³This is R. Nehemiah’s statement. The discussion refers to Lev. 10:16–17. Since tradition fixes the inauguration of Tabernacle and Priesthood on a First of Nisan (Seder Olam Chapter 7, in the author’s edition p. 82; cf. Rashi ad 9:1), there were three goats as purification offering: the one required for every New Moon (Num. 28:15), the people’s initiation sacrifice (Lev. 10:3), and the one offered by the chief of the tribe of Judah (Num. 7:16). Only the first of these was presented pursuant a permanent law; the other two were one time affairs from which no conclusions could be drawn for generally valid principles. R. Nehemiah holds that since a deep mourner on the day of burial is biblically excluded from all sacral rites, the order given in 18:12–15 to Aaron and his sons to eat sancta even though Aaron’s sons Nadav and Avihu had been buried on that day necessarily was restricted to the one time offerings of that day, to the exclusion of offerings presented following a permanent prescription. But the mourning of the priests is a condition of the enablers, not of the victim, and nevertheless Moses agreed that the purification offering correctly had been burned and not eaten.? Was it not burned only because of impurity? But it was not burned because of impurity, since if it had been burned because of mourning, all three of them²³⁴Since in Moses’s order to eat the sancta purification offerings are not mentioned. should have been burned. Another opinion, was not Phineas with them²³⁵Phineas was born in Egypt (Ex. 6:25). As a nephew of Nadav and Avihu he had no biblical obligation to mourn and could legally have eaten all sacrifices. Since there was one eater, R. Joḥanan ben Beroqa would agree that the sacrifice cannot be burned.? Another opinion, would it not have been permitted to be eaten in the evening²³⁶Since the talmudic rule is that only the day of burial is biblically forbidden. While his sons would have to observe seven days of mourning, the High Priest is forbidden mourning where it is not prescribed; in the following night he could have joined Phineas. Purification offerings are eaten by the priests during the day of offering and the following night.?” In the opinion of Rebbi Nehemiah it should be burned but be counted²³⁷There is no doubt that the obligation for which the sacrifice was brought had been fulfilled.. Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that all three of them were burned. Should not Phineas have eaten? He was not yet appointed {High} Priest²³⁸In the initiation rites (Lev. Chapter 8), only Aaron and his sons are mentioned, not his grandson Phineas. This is the basis of the opinion that Phineas was not originally included in the priesthood; priesthood was conferred on him only after the incident with Zimry (Num. 25:13); Babli Zevaḥim 101b.. Should not Aaron have eaten in the evening? Rebbi Nehemiah is of the opinion that deeo mourning in the night is from the Torah. Rebbi Jeremiah said, also Rebbi Yose the Galilean is with them²³⁹In the same Chapter of Sifra (Halakhah 5), he deduces from Lev. 10:18 that any purification sacrifice whose blood was brought into the sanctuary is disqualified and must be burned immediately. This proves that he agrees with R. Nehemiah that the verses have to be interpreted referring to the ordinary Temple service, and that disqualification of the enabler may trigger an obligation of immediate burning.. ²⁴⁰This paragraph has no direct connection with the preceding; the connection being that R. Yose the Galilean interprets Lev.10:18. And we have stated there:²⁴¹Mishnah Zevaḥim 8:12. “A purification sacrifice whose blood was received in two cups, of which one was brought outside²⁴²Since purification sacrifice has to be eaten by the priests in the Temple courtyard (Lev. 6:19), if any part leaves the sacred domain it becomes disqualified. Since pouring the blood on the walls of the altar enables the meat to be eaten, if blood is brought outside before it was poured the sacrifice is disqualified.; the one inside is qualified. If one of them was brought to the interior²⁴³As noted later, this is required/permitted only in extraordinary cases. The Mishnah here refers to ordinary sacrifices. Since then the blood is not in the courtyard, it is outside its prescribed domain and disqualified., Rebbi Yose the Galilean declares qualified but the Sages declare disqualified. [Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, since in a case where intent disqualifies outside²⁴⁴Slaughtering a victim with the intent of pouring the blood outside the sacred precinct disqualifies the sacrifice; Mishnah Zevaḥim 2:2.
The text in brackets was added by a corrector from a different source; it is neither in the scribe’s text nor in K. the remainder was not made equal to what was brought outside, in a case where intent does not disqualify in the interior²⁴⁵The intent to pour the blood in the Temple itself does not disqualify; Mishnah Zevaḥim 3:6. is it not logical that we not make the remainder to what was brought inside? If it was brought into the interior to atone, even if it did not atone it is disqualified, the words of Rebbi Eliezer²⁴⁶The fact that the blood was inside when it should not have been makes it “outside its place” and disqualifies.. Rebbi Simeon says, only if it atones²⁴⁷Only if something was done against the rules with the blood; the interior of the Temple still is sacred domain.. Rebbi Jehudah says, if it was brought into the interior in error, it remains qualified. Of all disqualified blood which one gave on the altar, the diadem only makes the impure acceptable; for the diadem makes the impure acceptable but not what was brought outside.”] Rebbi Eleazar said, you have to know that for Rebbi Yose the Galilean it is disqualification of the enabler since the other part is outside²⁴⁸In the case that one cup was brought to the interior. and it is qualified. You have to know that for the rabbis it is disqualification of the body since it is within its enclosure²⁴⁹Since one cup remained outside, it could be poured on the walls of the altar even if the cup inside became unusable. and it is disqualified. The rabbis explain, since nothing of the blood was brought to the interior, you shall certainly eat it²⁵⁰Lev. 10:18.. Therefore if some of the blood had been brought to the interior, you²⁵¹Aaron’s sons, addressed by Moses. [would have done well] in burning it. Rebbi Yose the Galilean explains, since not all of the blood was brought to the interior, [you shall certainly eat it. Therefore if all of the blood had been brought inside,] you would have done well in burning it. What is the rabbis’ reason? Any purification offering of whose blood was brought; even part of the blood²⁵²Lev. 6:33. As usual, a prefixed mem is interpreted to mean “some, not all”.. What is Rebbi Yose the Galilean’s reason? Behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary^250,Lev. 10:18.²⁵³If Lev. 10:18 is read to refer to rules of the purification sacrifices applicable at all times then it seems to contradict Lev. 6:33 since the prefixed mem is missing.. [This fits with] what was stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean says, the entire matter only speaks of bulls to be burned and goats to be burned²⁵⁴The purification offering of the High Priest (Lev. 4:1–12), of the people (Lev.4:13–21), and of the day of Atonement (Lev.1627). Babli 83a top, Zevaḥim 82a., to prohibit eating them and to teach that if they are disqualified they are burned inside the citadel²⁵⁵Whereas all the other disqualified sacrifices have to be burned outside like the impure Pesaḥ.. They asked him, from where that a purification sacrifice becomes disqualified if some of its blood is brought inside? Not from this verse, behold, its blood was not brought inside the Sanctuary? There it does not say of whose blood but all of its blood²⁵⁶Since this is the formulation in the actual case decided by Moses, it is the operative version.. An answer to Rebbi Aqiba who was saying, of whose blood, not all of its blood²⁵⁷Whose opinion is that of the “Sages” opposing R. Yose the Galilean..

There, we have stated¹⁷⁰Mishnah Zevaḥim 8:10. Blood of all animal sacrifices has to be spilled at the walls of the altar. Blood of most holy sacrifices must be given to all 4 corners of the altar; that of simple sacrifices is given in one batch. If blood of different categories is mixed, one can satisfy only one requirement. R. Joshua is consistent in prescribing the minimal action.: “[Blood] to be given in one batch which was mixed with [blood] to be given in one batch should be given in one batch. That to be given in four batches with that to be given in four batches should be given in four batches. That to be given in four batches with that to be given in one batch, Rebbi Eliezer says, it should be given in four batches. Rebbi Joshua says, it should be given in one batch. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, would you not transgress do not diminish? Rebbi Joshua answered him, would you not transgress do not add?” He said to him, it is better to violate a prohibition that was not caused by me than a prohibition which will come before me.