Talmud Bavli
Talmud Bavli

Halakhah for Zevachim 67:17

תלמוד לומר בקר וצאן בקר וצאן אמרתי לך ולא חיה הא למה זה דומה לתלמיד שאמר לו רבו אל תביא לי אלא חיטין והביא לו חיטין ושעורים שאינו כמוסיף על דבריו אלא כמעביר על דבריו

and it was thus stated: R'Johanan said: He transgresses an affirmative precept. While Resh Lakish said: He does not transgress anything.' R'Johanan said, He transgresses an affirmative precept', [for Scripture says,] [Ye shall bring your offering] of the cattl [behemah]: [this implies] only of the cattle, but not of the beast [of chase]; while Resh Lakish said, He does not transgress anything, [for] that [text] intimates that it is meritorious.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To offer sacrifices of the cattle, whereas offering a beast of chase is voluntary and permissive. Nevertheless, though we have no affirmative precept forbidding it, anything unclean of either species may certainly not be offered, v. Men. 6a.');"><sup>20</sup></span> Raba raised an objection: If it were said, '[When any man of you bringeth] an offering to the Lord,' cattle [behemah], I would agree that hayyah [beast of chase] is included in behemah, as in the verse, These are the animals [behemah] which ye may eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat, the hart and the gazelle and the roebuck etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 4f. The last three belong to the class of hayyah.');"><sup>21</sup></span> Therefore the text states, 'even of the herd or of the flock': of the herd or of the flock have prescribed unto thee, but not a beast of chase [hayyah]. You might think [that] one must not bring [a hayyah], yet if one did bring [it] it is valid: for to what is this like? To a disciple whom his master bade, 'Bring me wheat' and he brought him wheat and barley, where he is not regarded as having flouted his orders, but as having added thereto<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And here too, since one need not offer a sacrifice at all, when one offers a hayyah he is as though adding to God's words.');"><sup>22</sup></span> - and it is valid; therefore the text states, 'even of the herd or of th flock': of the herd and of the flock have I prescribed unto thee, but not a beast. To what is this like? To a disciple whom his master bade, 'Bring me naught but wheat' and he brought him wheat and barley. He is not regarded as having added to his words, but as having flouted them,

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
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse