Chullin 233

מועלין בו וחייבין עליו משום פיגול ונותר וטמא מה שאין כן בדם

IS SUBJECT TO THE LAW OF SACRILEGE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Lev. V, 15. If a person inadvertently makes use of the fat of a sacrifice he commits a trespass and must bring a guilt-offering for atonement. This is not the case with the blood of a sacrifice; v. GEMARA:');">¹</span>

וחומר בדם שהדם נוהג בבהמה וחיה ועוף בין טמאים ובין טהורים וחלב אינו נוהג אלא בבהמה טהורה בלבד:

AND THE PENALTY FOR PIGGUL,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. r,ub');">²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מנא הני מילי

NOTHAR,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. r,ub');">²</span>

אמר ר' ינאי

AND UNCLEANNESS IS INCURRED BY IT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a person ate the fat of a sacrifice which was rendered piggul or nothar () i.e., what was left over beyond the prescribed time in which the sacrifice must be eaten, or if the person was unclean at the time he ate the fat, he would, in each alternative, incur guilt twice: for eating fat and also for eating piggul etc.');">³</span>

דאמר קרא (ויקרא ד, י) כאשר יורם משור זבח השלמים

WHICH IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE BLOOD.

וכי מה למדנו משור זבח השלמים

AND THE PROHIBITION OF THE BLOOD IS MORE STRICT, FOR IT APPLIES TO CATTLE, WILD ANIMALS AND BIRDS, WHETHER CLEAN OR UNCLEAN; BUT THE PROHIBITION OF THE FAT APPLIES TO CLEAN CATTLE ONLY.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to those animals which are fit for sacrifices, for it is written (Lev. VII, 25) . Whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering mode by fire unto the Lord, etc.');">⁴</span>

מעתה הרי זה בא ללמד ונמצא למד מקיש שור זבח השלמים לפר כהן משיח מה פר כהן משיח יש בו מעילה אף שור זבח השלמים יש בו מעילה

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Whence do we know this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the law of Sacrilege applies to the fat of a sacrifice, whether the sacrifice was of the most holy or less holy kind.');">⁵</span>

א"ל ר' חנינא

- R'Jannai answered, It is written: As it is taken off from the ox o the sacrifice of peace-offerings.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. IV, 10. The sacrificial portions of the bullock brought by the anointed High Priest as his sin-offering are in this verse compared with the ox of the peace-offering.');">⁶</span>

כעורה זו ששנה רבי (ויקרא ג, טז) כל חלב לה' לרבות אימורי קדשים קלים למעילה

Now what do we learn from the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' What is the purpose of the comparison? In fact, with regard to the burning of the sacrificial portions upon the altar, all those portions which are stated in connection with the peace-offering are also expressly stated here.');">⁷</span>

אמר אביי

Indeed, 'it comes as a teacher but turns out to be a pupil';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 143, n. 8.');">⁸</span>

איצטריך דאי כתב רחמנא חלב הוה אמינא חלב אין יותרת ושתי כליות לא כתב רחמנא כאשר יורם

we must compare the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings with the bullock of the anointed High Priest; as the bullock of the anointed High Priest is subject to the law of Sacrilege, so the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings is also subject to the law of Sacrilege.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Although the peace-offering is a sacrifice of the less holy kind, and from the time of the consecration of the animal until the sacrifice thereof it is certainly not subject to the law of Sacrilege- as soon as the sprinkling of the blood of the sacrifice has taken place the sacrificial portions of the animal are subject to the law of Sacrilege.');">⁹</span>

ואי כתב רחמנא כאשר יורם הוה אמינא חלב אליה דליתא בשור לא כתב רחמנא כל חלב

Said R'Hanina to him: And is the following teaching of Rabbi unsatisfactory? 'The verse: All the fat is the Lord's,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. III, 16.');">¹⁰</span>

א"ל רב מרי לרב זביד

signifies that the sacrificial portions of the less holy sacrifices are also subject to the Sacrilege'.

אי אליה איקראי חלב תיתסר באכילה

- Abaye answered, [Both verses] are necessary [for our purpose].

א"ל

For had the Divine Law only stated 'All the fat'.

עליך אמר קרא (ויקרא ז, כג) כל חלב שור וכשב ועז דבר השוה בשור וכשב ועז

I should have said that only the fat is [subject to the law of Sacrilege] but the caul and two kidneys are not;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the caul of the liver and the two kidneys, although sacrificial parts, cannot be comprehended with the term 'all the fat'.');">¹¹</span>

רב אשי אמר

the Divine Law therefore stated the verse.'

(ויקרא ג, ט) חלבו האליה איקראי חלב סתמא לא איקראי

As it is taken off'.

אלא מעתה לא ימעלו בה

And had the Divine Law only stated the verse: 'As it is taken off'.

אלא מחוורתא כדרב זביד:

I should have said that the fat of the fat tail [of a lamb], which found in an ox, is not subject to the law of Sacrilege;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For this verse: As it is taken of speaks of the sacrificial portions of an ox, and therefore cannot include the fat of the fat tail of a lamb.');">¹²</span>

משא"כ בדם:

the Divine Law therefore stated.'

מנה"מ

All the fat is the Lord's'.

אמר עולא דאמר קרא

Said R'Mari to R'Zebid: If the fat tail [of a lamb] is included under the term 'fat', should it not then b forbidden to be eaten?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For all that fat in a sacrifice which is burnt upon the altar is forbidden to be eaten when the animal is slaughtered for ordinary use. Cf. Lev. VII, 25.');">¹³</span>

(ויקרא יז, יא) לכם שלכם יהא

- He replied.

דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא

It is for your sake that it is written: You shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 23.');">¹⁴</span>

(ויקרא יז, יא) לכפר לכפרה נתתיו ולא למעילה

[Thus the Torah has forbidden] only such fat as is common to ox, sheep, and goat.

ורבי יוחנן אמר

R'Ashi answered: It is always referred to as 'the fat of the fat tail', but never as 'fat' simply.

אמר קרא (ויקרא יז, יא) הוא הוא לפני כפרה כלאחר כפרה מה לאחר כפרה אין בו מעילה אף לפני כפרה אין בו מעילה

If so, it should not subject to the law of Sacrilege?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the law of Sacrilege in respect of the fat of less holy sacrifices is derived from the verse: All the fat is the Lord's; and if the fat of the fat tail is not included under the term 'fat', it cannot then be subject to the law of Sacrilege.');">¹⁵</span>

ואימא

Obviously then the better answer is that of R'Zebid.

הוא לאחר כפרה כלפני כפרה מה לפני כפרה יש בו מעילה אף לאחר כפרה יש בו מעילה

WHICH IS NOT THE CASE WITH THE BLOOD.

אין לך דבר שנעשה מצותו ומועלין בו

Whence do we know this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the blood of a sacrifice is not subject to the law of Sacrilege.');">¹⁶</span>

ולא

- Ulla answered: Scripture says: To you,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII. 11: And I hove given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life. Several parts of this verse suggest that the blood 'is not the Lord's' and so is not subject to the law of Sacrilege.');">¹⁷</span>

והרי תרומת הדשן דנעשה מצותו ומועלין בו דכתיב (ויקרא ו, ג) ושמו אצל המזבח

that is, it shall be yours.

משום דהואי תרומת הדשן ובגדי כהונה שני כתובין הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובין הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין

The school of R'Ishmael taught: Scripture says.

הניחא לרבנן דאמרי

To make atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII. 11: And I hove given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life. Several parts of this verse suggest that the blood 'is not the Lord's' and so is not subject to the law of Sacrilege.');">¹⁷</span>

(ויקרא טז, כג) והניחם שם מלמד שטעונין גניזה

that is, I have given it to you for an atonement and not that you be liable for Sacrilege on its account.

אלא לר' דוסא דאמר

R'Johanan said: Scripture says.

שלא ישתמש בהן ליום הכפורים אחר מאי איכא למימר

It is,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII. 11: And I hove given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life. Several parts of this verse suggest that the blood 'is not the Lord's' and so is not subject to the law of Sacrilege.');">¹⁷</span>

אלא משום דהואי תרומת הדשן ועגלה ערופה שני כתובים הבאין כאחד וכל שני כתובים הבאין כאחד אין מלמדין

that is, it is the same before the atonement as after the atonement: just as after the atonement [the residue of the blood] is not subject to the law of Sacrilege, so before the atonement [the blood] is not subject to the law of Sacrilege.

הניחא למ"ד אין מלמדין אלא למאן דאמר מלמדין מאי איכא למימר

Perhaps I ought to say.

תרי

It is the same after the atonement as before the atonement: just as before the atonement it is subject to the law of Sacrilege, so after the atonement it is subject to the law of Sacrilege? - There is nothing that is subject to the law of Sacrilege once its rites have been performed. But is there not? Surely there is the case of the removal of the ashes [from the altar], which [ashes] are subject to the law of Sacrilege even though the rites therewith have been performed, for it is written: And he shall put them beside the altar!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. VI. 3. Every morning the ashes of the burnt-offering upon the altar were scooped up in a firepan and were deposited on the east side of the incline leading to the altar. It was forbidden to derive any use from them.');">¹⁸</span> - This case of the removal of the ashes and that of the garments of the High Priest<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. ibid. XVI. 23. The garments worn by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement when he entered the innermost Sanctuary, the Holy of Holies, had to be put away never to be used again, either by an ordinary priest for his regular services or by a High Priest for service on the Day of Atonement of the following year.');">¹⁹</span> are two texts which teach the same thing, and one may not draw any conclusions from two texts which teach the same thing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These two cases are therefore exceptions to the rule stated above, that after the performance of its rites a thing cannot be subject any more to the law of Sacrilege.');">²⁰</span> This, however, would be right according to the Rabbis who declare that the verse: And he shall leave them there,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 645, n. 6.');">²¹</span> teaches that they [sc. th garments] must be hidden away; but according to R'Dosa who declares that the verse teaches that [the High Priest] shall not wear them on a subsequent Day of Atonement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' An ordinary priest, however, may wear these garments during the year.');">²²</span> what is to be said? - Rather [say] that the case of the removal of the ashes and that of the heifer whose neck was to be broken<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Deut. XXI, 1ff. The heifer, after the performance of the rites with regard to it, had to be buried in the very place where the ceremony was performed, and it was forbidden to derive any use from it.');">²³</span> are two texts which teach the same thing, and one may not draw any conclusions from two texts which teach the same thing. This is well according to him who maintains that one may not draw conclusions from such texts, but according to him who maintains that one may draw conclusions from such texts, what is to be said? -There are two