Zevachim 213

רבא אמר כדרבי יונה דאמר רבי יונה אתיא שם שם מה להלן לא ענש אלא א"כ הזהיר אף כאן לא ענש אלא אם כן הזהיר

Raba said, It is as R'Jonah['s exegesis]. For R'Jonah said: 'There' is inferred from 'there':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 14: There shalt thou offer up thy burnt-offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee. 'Do' refers to all rites (including slaughtering) in connection with sacrifices.');">¹</span>

אשכחן מוקטרי פנים שהעלן לחוץ מוקטרי חוץ שהעלן לחוץ מנין

as in the one case, [Scripture] did not prescribe a penalty without formally prohibiting, so in the other case [Scripture] did not punish without formally prohibiting.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'one case' and 'the other case' are 'offering up' and 'doing' respectively (v. preceding note) .');">²</span> We have [now] found the case of those which should be burnt within, which were offered up without;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. those which were slaughtered within, so that they should have been burnt (i.e., haktarah) within.');">³</span>

אמר רב כהנא אמר קרא ואליהם תאמר על הסמוכין תאמר

how do we know the case of those which should be burnt without,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. which were slaughtered without so that they could not be burnt within but without. 'Burnt' in this connection does not mean haktarah, but the burning of unfit sacrifices.');">⁴</span> which were offered up without?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That this too makes one liable. For it might be argued that there is no culpability here, since the animal could not be burnt within in any case.');">⁵</span>

מתקיף לה רבא מי כתיב ועליהם ואליהם כתיב אלא כדתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל ואליהם תאמר לערב פרשיות

- Said R'Kahana: Scripture saith, And thou shalt say unto them<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 8.');">⁶</span> [which means,] thou shalt say concerning those just mentioned.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the near ones'. (Sh.M. reads: the preceding.) Lev. XVII, 3-7 deals with slaughtering without: vv. 8f treats of offering up without, and they commence with, 'And thou shalt say unto them' which implies, thou shalt say about them just mentioned, sc. those who slaughter without, that they are also culpable for offering up without.');">⁷</span>

ר' יוחנן אמר אתיא הבאה הבאה מה להלן מוקטרי חוץ אף כאן מוקטרי חוץ

To this Raba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sh.M. reads: Rabbah. ovhkt ovhkg');">⁸</span> demurred: Is it then written, 'concerning them': Surely 'unto them' is written?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., ('alehem) , not ('alehem) .');">⁹</span>

מתקיף לה רב ביבי הא דתנן שלשים ושש כריתות בתורה תלתין ושב הויין דאיכא המעלה והמעלה קשיא

Rather, it is as the School of R'Ishmael taught: 'And thou shalt say unto them' combines the sections.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. vv. 3-7 and vv. 8f. Hence the provisions of the latter section (sc. liability for offering up without) apply to those mentioned in the former');">¹⁰</span> R'Johanan said: 'Bringing' is inferred from 'bringing':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra ');">¹¹</span>

והדתנן הזורק מקצת דמים בחוץ חייב מנלן נפקא ליה מדתניא (ויקרא יז, ד) דם יחשב לרבות הזורק דברי רבי ישמעאל ר"ע אומר (ויקרא יז, ח) או זבח לרבות את הזורק

as there it refers to those [sacrifices] which must be burnt without, so here too it refers to those which must be burnt without. To this R'Bibi demurred: When we learnt, There are thirty-six offences in the Torah which entail kareth: surely there are thirty seven, for there are offering up [a sacrifice which should be burnt within] and offering up [a sacrifice which should be burnt without]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The thirty-six as enumerated include offering up without. Now in answer to the question, since they are all enumerated, why is the number stated? The Talmud says that it teaches that if one committed all of them in a single state of ignorance (not knowing that they are forbidden) , he is liable to thirty-six sin-offerings. If, however, culpability for offering up without sacrifices which should be burnt without, is inferred by a gezerah shawah from those which should be burnt within, they constitute two separate offences and involve separate sin-offerings. But in that case they should be enumerated separately there too, and the number given is thirty-seven.');">¹²</span>

ורבי ישמעאל האי או זבח מאי עביד ליה לחלק

That is indeed a difficulty. Now, when we learnt: He who sprinkles some of the blood without, is culpable:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even if he made one sprinkling only instead of four.');">¹³</span>

ור' עקיבא לחלק מנא ליה נפקא ליה (ויקרא יז, ט) מלא יביאנו

how do we know it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For Scripture speaks only of slaughtering and offering up without, but not of sprinkling.');">¹⁴</span> - It is inferred from what was taught: Blood shall be imputed [unto that man]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 4.');">¹⁵</span>

ורבי ישמעאל ההוא מיבעי ליה על השלם הוא חייב ואינו חייב על החסר ורבי עקיבא נפקא ליה (ויקרא יז, ט) מלעשות אותו

that is to include one who sprinkles [without]: these are the words of R'Ishmael. R'Akiba said: Or sacrifice<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 8; it refers to offering up without, and 'or' is regarded as an extension.');">¹⁶</span>

ור' ישמעאל חד למוקטרי פנים שחסרו והעלו בחוץ וחד למוקטרי חוץ שחסרו והעלו בחוץ והא תניא רבי ישמעאל אומר יכול מוקטרי פנים שחסרו והעלו בחוץ חייב ת"ל לעשות אותו על השלם חייב ואינו חייב על החסר

includes sprinkling. And how does R'Ishmael employ this [phrase] 'or sacrifice'? - To divide.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To shew that one is liable for offering up without either a burnt-offering or any other sacrifice. Without 'or' you would assume that liability is incurred only for offering up both.');">¹⁷</span>

ורבי עקיבא מוקטרי פנים שחסרו והעלו בחוץ חייב

And whence does R'Akiba know to divide? - He infers it from, and bringeth it not [unto the door of the tent of meeting].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'It' is singular and so implies one.');">¹⁸</span> And R'Ishmael?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does he not admit this exegesis?');">¹⁹</span>

ורבי עקיבא האי דם יחשב מאי עביד ליה לרבות שחיטת העוף ורבי ישמעאל נפקא ליה (ויקרא יז, ג) מאו אשר ישחט

- He requires that ['it'] [for teaching:] One is culpable for [offering up] the whole [animal], but not for [offering up] an incomplete one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which part is missing. The exact meaning of 'whole' and 'incomplete' is discussed anon.');">²⁰</span> And R'Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he know this?');">²¹</span>

ורבי עקיבא אמר לך ההוא מיבעי ליה על השוחט הוא חייב ולא על המולק ור' ישמעאל נפקא ליה מזה הדבר

- He infers it from [the phrase] 'to sacrifice it'. And R'Ishmael? - One ['it'] is in respect of those [sacrifices] which which should be burnt within, which were made incomplete and offered up without; the other is in respect of those which should be burnt without, which one made incomplete and offered up without.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If 'it' were written once only, I would say that its implication applies only to those which should be burnt without. But as for those which should be burnt within, he is culpable even if he offers up only part, for when a single limb springs off the altar during the burning (haktarah) , it must be replaced, which shews that haktarah applies even to part. (The general principle is that the performance of a rite without involves liability when it would count as a proper rite within.)');">²²</span>

דתניא אשר ישחט אין לי אלא שוחט בהמה שחט עוף מנ"ל ת"ל או אשר ישחט

And it was taught even so: R'Ishmael said: You might think that if one made incomplete and offered up without what should be burnt within, he is culpable; therefore it says, 'to sacrifice it': one is culpable for [offering up] a whole [animal], but not for [offering up] an incomplete one. And R'Akiba?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whence does he learn this?');">²³</span>

יכול אף המולק ודין הוא מה שחיטה דאין דרך הכשירה בפנים חייב מליקה שדרך הכשירה בפנים אינו דין שהוא חייב ת"ל (ויקרא יז, ב) זה הדבר

- He holds that if one made incomplete and offered up without what should be burnt within, he is culpable. And R'Akiba: How does he employ this [phrase], 'blood shall be imputed'? - It includes the shechitah of a bird.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though a bird sacrifice requires melikah, not shechitah, yet if it is slaughtered without (i.e., with shechitah) , it involves liability.');">²⁴</span>

ורבי עקיבא אמר לך ההוא מיבעי ליה לגזירה שוה

And R'Ishmael? - He deduces it from, or that killeth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid., 3.');">²⁵</span> And R'Akiba? - He can answer you: He requires that [to teach]: One is culpable for slaughtering [shechitah], but not for nipping [melikah].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus both are necessary. For from the first I would conclude that even shechitah of a bird involves liability, and all the more melikah, since that is the correct way of sacrificing a bird. Hence the second teaches that only shechitah involves liability.');">²⁶</span>

והא דתנן הקומץ והמקבל דמים בחוץ פטור מנלן ומהיכא תיתי דחייב

And R'Ishmael? - He infers it from, This is the thing [which the Lord hath commanded].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 2. This is the superscription to the whole passage, and is emphatic, implying that the law is exactly as stated.');">²⁷</span> For it was taught: [What man soever.] that killeth [an ox etc.]: I know it only of slaughtering an animal; how do I know [that] if o slaughters a bird [he is culpable]?

תיתי משחיטה מה לשחיטה שכן נפסלת שלא לאוכלין בפסח

Because it says, or that killeth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is superfluous, as Scripture could say, that killeth an ox . . in the camp or without the camp.');">²⁸</span> You might think that I also include one who performs melikah, and that is indeed logical: if one is culpable for shechitah [of a bird], though this is not its correct rite within; is it not logical that one is culpable for melikah [without], seeing that that is i correct rite within?

תיתי מזריקה מה לזריקה שכן זר חייב עליה מיתה

Therefore it states.' This is the thing [etc.]'. And R'Akiba? - He can answer you: that is required for a gezerah shawah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Ned. 78a; B. B. 120b.');">²⁹</span> Now, as to what we learnt: He who takes the fistful,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of a meal-offering, without, and does not burn it.');">³⁰</span> and he who receives the blood [of a sacrifice slaughtered without] is not liable: how do we know it? But whence would you infer that he is culpable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That you seek a text to shew that he is not.');">³¹</span> - From shechitah.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By analogy: as shechitah is a sacrificial rite and involves culpability if performed without, so it is the same with every sacrificial rite.');">³²</span> As for shechitah, the reason may be because it invalidates a Passover-offering [when it is done] on behalf of such who cannot eat it!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 4a. But that obviously cannot apply to taking the fistful, or to receiving.');">³³</span> - Then infer it from sprinkling: as for sprinkling. the reason may be because a lay-Israelite is liable to death on its account!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For performing it. But he is not liable for the other rites.');">³⁴</span>