יכול לא יביא ואם הביא כשר הא למה זה דומה לתלמיד שאמר לו רבו הבא לי חטים והביא לו חטים ושעורים שאינו כמעביר על דבריו אלא מוסיף על דבריו וכשר
but not an unclean animal; and a negative injunction which is inferred from an affirmative precept ranks as an affirmative precept?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And but for the special negative injunction which follows in the Scriptural text it would involve no flagellation.');"><sup>18</sup></span> - Said R'Jacob to R'Jeremiah B'Tahlifa: I will explain it to you: There is no disagreement at all about the limbs of an unclean [domesticated] animal; they disagree about a beast [of chase],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Animals are technically divided into behemah (domesticated animal) and hayyah (wild beast, lit., 'living thing') . The former includes dogs, horses and camels; the latter includes the hart, deer and roebuck.');"><sup>19</sup></span>
Sefer HaChinukh
From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Zevachim 33b) that the impurity for which we are liable is when one is made impure by a Torah-level impurity, for which we are liable excision - the understanding is for approaching the Temple and its consecrated things, as we wrote above (Sefer HaChinukh 123). And that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Zevachim 34a) that we are not liable for eating of the holy that has things that permit it, until those things that permit it have been brought - meaning to say its entrails. And likewise did they, may their memory be blessed, instruct us (Meilah 10a) that we are not liable on account of pigul or notar or on account of [being] impure, until those things that permit it have been properly brought. And [regarding] anything that does not have things that permit it, once it has been consecrated in a vessel, we are [potentially] liable for it. And the rest of its details are in the thirteenth chapter of Zevachim (see Mishneh Torah, Laws of Sacrifices Rendered Unfit 18).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
