C. For as to fat: [117a] (1) the laws of sacrilege apply to it. And (2) they are liable on its account to the laws of refuse, remnant, and uncleanness,
D. which is not the case with blood, for [the law forbidding] blood applies to cattle, a wild beast, and a bird, whether unclean or clean.
F. But [the prohibition of] fat applies only to a clean cattle alone.
I.1
A. What is the source of these assertions [that the law of sacrilege applies to fat]? Said R. Yannai, “As scripture stated: `Just as these are taken from the ox of the sacrifice of the peace offerings, [and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of burnt offering]' (Lev. 4:10). And what [rule] did we learn from, `The ox of the sacrifice of the peace offerings'? Behold this comes to teach us a rule [about another case] and it turns out that it derives a rule from another source.”
B. [Scripture] juxtaposes the ox of the sacrifice of the peace offerings to the bull of the anointed High Priest. What is the case regarding the bull of the High Priest? It is subject to the laws of sacrilege. So too the ox of the sacrifice of the peace offerings is subject to the laws of sacrilege.
C. Said to him R. Hanina, “Do you reject as implausible that which Rabbi taught?” [As follows:] “[And the priest shall burn them on the altar as food offered by fire for a pleasing odor.] All fat is the Lord's” (Lev. 3:16) includes the portions offered on the altar from Lesser Holy Things as subject to the laws of sacrilege.
D. Said Abayye, “It is necessary to state both verses. For if the Torah had written only the rule for fat I would have reasoned that fat is [subject to sacrilege]. The caul and the two kidneys are not [subject to sacrilege]. The Torah accordingly stated, `Just as these are taken.' And if the Torah had written only, `Just as these are taken,' I would have reasoned that the fat of the fat-tail that is not present in the ox is not [subject to sacrilege]. The Torah accordingly stated, `All fat [is the Lord's].'”
E. Said R. Mari to R. Zebid, “If the fat-tail is called fat [i.e., referred to with the same word that means forbidden fat (Lev. 7:25)], let it be prohibited for eating.”
F. He said to him, “Pertaining to your claim scripture said, `[Say to the people of Israel, You shall eat no] fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat' (Lev. 7:23). [This means only] something that is identical in the ox, sheep and goat [excluding the fat-tail].”
G. And R. Ashi said, “It is called, `The whole of its fat-tail' (Lev. 3:9, Rashi). It is not called just plain `fat'.”
H. But on this basis should we infer that it is not subject to sacrilege? Rather it is preferable to explain in accord with R. Zebid.
II.1
A. Which is not the case with blood, [for the law forbidding blood applies to cattle, a wild beast, and a bird, whether unclean or clean. But the prohibition of fat applies only to a clean cattle alone] [M. 8:6 D-F]. What is the source of these assertions [that blood is not subject to sacrilege]?
B. Said Ulla, “Scripture stated, `[For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it] for you [upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life]' (Lev. 17:11). [This means] it belongs to you [and is not subject to sacrilege].”
C. The House of R. Ishmael taught: “[For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar] to make atonement [for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life]” (Lev. 17:11). [This means] I gave it to you to make atonement and not to be subject to sacrilege.
D. And R. Yohanan said, “Scripture said, `[For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it for you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for] it is [the blood that makes atonement, by reason of the life]' (Lev. 17:11). [This means] `it is' [in the same status] prior to the atonement as it is after the atonement. What is the case after the atonement? It is not subject to sacrilege. So too prior to the atonement, it is not subject to sacrilege.”
E. [But you may object] it makes sense to say `it is' [in the same status] after the atonement as it is prior to the atonement. What is the case before the atonement? It is subject to sacrilege. So too after the atonement, it is subject to sacrilege.
F. [But this is not possible because we have a principle]: There is no article whose obligation has been fulfilled [i.e., its ritual has been performed] that is subject to sacrilege [cf. b. Suk. 49b].
G. And is there none? But lo [consider the case of the ritual of] carrying the ashes [from the altar]. For even after its obligation has been fulfilled, it is subject to sacrilege. As it is written, “[Then he shall take off his vestments and put on other garments. And he shall take up the ashes to which the fire has reduced the burnt offering on the altar,] and place them beside the altar” (Lev. 6:3).
H. [This instance is not a valid counter-example to the stated principle] because [the rules concerning] carrying the ashes and the priestly vestments are two distinct topics that make one point [i.e., both the ashes and the vestments must be put away permanently and cannot be used again]. And [the hermeneutical principle is] we do not derive [any generalization] from two distinct topics that make one point.
I. This would settle the matter in accord with the view of the rabbis who say [regarding the priestly vestments that], “[Then Aaron shall come into the tent of meeting, and shall put off the linen garments which he put on when he went into the holy place,] and shall leave them there” (Lev. 16:23) — this teaches us that they must be put away for good.
J. But in accord with the view of R. Dosa who said [that the verse means] he should not use them on another Day of Atonement [but that one can make other use of them] what can you say? [The two topics do not make one point; the principle does not apply; the instance serves as a valid counter-example to the assertion of E!]
K. [This instance is not a valid counter-example to the stated principle] because [the rules concerning] carrying the ashes and the heifer whose neck is broken are two distinct topics that make one point [i.e., both the ashes and the heifer must be put away permanently and cannot be used again, cf. Deut. 21:1-9 regarding the rite of the heifer]. And [the hermeneutical principle is] we do not derive [any generalization] from two distinct topics that make one point.
L. This would settle the matter in accord with the authority who holds the view that we do not derive [any generalization] from two distinct topics that make one point. But in accord with the authority who holds the view that we do derive [a generalization] from two distinct topics that make one point, what can you say? [The instance serves as a valid counter-example to the assertion of E!]
M. [You can respond that even in accord with that latter authority, this instance is exceptional.] Two [117b] exclusionary usages were written [regarding these matters]. Here [regarding the ashes] it was written, “And place them [beside the altar]” (Lev. 6:3) [i.e., only “them”]. And there [regarding the heifer] it is written, “Whose neck was broken” (Deut. 21:6) [i.e., limiting it to this one].
II.2
A. And why to I need three phrases [in Lev. 11:17 to serve as exclusions] concerning blood? [Cf. II.1 B-D above]. One excludes [the blood of Holy Things] from the rules for a remnant [of a sacrifice]. And one excludes it from the rules of sacrilege. And one excludes it from the rules of uncleanness [that pertain to Holy Things].
B. But [to exclude it] from the rule of refuse, you do not need a verse. As it was taught on Tannaite authority in the Mishnah: Whatever has that which renders the offering permissible [for offering or eating], whether for man or for the altar they are liable because of [transgression of the law of] refuse [M. Zeb. 4:3 H].
C. And the blood renders itself permissible. [Rashi: Something else does not render it permissible. It therefore does not come under the law of refuse.]
Units I and II.1 seek the scriptural basis for the rule of Mishnah in a familiar process. Unit II.2 extends the discussion.
Chapter Nine Folios 117B-129B
9:1
A. The (1) hide, and (2) grease, and (3) sediment, and (4) flayed-off meat, and (5) bones, and (6) sinews, and (7) horns and (8) hooves join together [with the meat to which they are attached to form the requisite volume] to impart food uncleanness, but [they do] not [join together to impart] uncleanness of carrion.
B. Similarly:
C. He who slaughters unclean cattle for a gentile, while it yet is writhing —
D. it imparts food uncleanness, but [it does] not [impart] uncleanness of carrion —
E. until it dies,
F. or until one will cut off its head.
G. [Scripture] has [prescribed] more [conditions] to impart food uncleanness than uncleanness of carrion.
H. R. Judah says, “The flayed-off meat which was collected together, if there is the volume of an olive's bulk in one place — one is liable on its account [if one touched it and entered the Temple].”
I.1
A. We taught on Tannaite authority [in our Mishnah] that which our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: Protectors [i.e., husks, peels, shells, hides, count to make up the minimum quantity needed for] less severe forms of uncleanness. But protectors do not [count] for more severe forms of uncleanness.
B. What is the source of the assertion: Protectors [count to make up the minimum quantity needed for] less severe forms of uncleanness? For taught the House of R. Ishmael: “[And if any part of their carcass falls upon] any seed for sowing that is to be sown, [it is clean]” (Lev. 11:37). [This implies they become unclean when they are found] in the manner in which people take them out for planting: a grain of wheat with its husk, a grain of barley with its husk, a lentil with its husk.
C. What is the source of the assertion: But protectors do not [count] for more severe forms of uncleanness? For our rabbis taught on Tannaite authority: “[And if any animal of which you may eat dies, he who touches] its carcass [shall be unclean until the evening]” (Lev. 11:39) [means uncleanness is transferred by hide that has flesh attached but] not by hide that does not have on it an olive's bulk of flesh.
No comments:
Post a Comment