Zevachim 214:1

תיתי מבינייא

- Infer it from both combined.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'from between them' - sc. shechitah and sprinkling, for the refutation that applies to one does not apply to the other. Their only common feature is that they are both sacrificial rites; hence the same law should apply to all other sacrificial rites.');">¹</span> But if so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That such reasoning is permissible.');">²</span>

א"כ לא יאמר בזריקה ותיתי מבינייא

let it not be stated in connection with sprinkling, which may be inferred from both [shechitah and offering up] combined. [Thus: when you say,] let it be inferred from shechitah, [you can argue], as for shechitah, the reason is because it is invalid in the case of the Passover-offering [when done] on behalf of such who cannot eat.

ותיתי משחיטה מה לשחיטה שכן נפסלת שלא לשם אוכלין בפסח תיתי מהעלאה מה להעלאה שכן ישנה במנחה ותיתי מבינייא

Let it be inferred from offering up: As for offering up, the reason is because it applies to a meal-offering [too].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But there is no sprinkling in a meal-offering.');">³</span> Then infer it from both combined?

להכי כתיב קרא למימר דלא אתא מבינייא

Rather, for that reason a text is written [to include sprinkling] to intimate that you may not infer from both combined.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture thus intimates that this reasoning is not permissible in the present instance, Hence it is also not permissible in respect of taking the fistful or receiving, and so no text is required to show that these do not involve liability.');">⁴</span> R'Abbahu said: If one slaughtered [a sacrifice] and sprinkled [its blood without]: according to R'Ishmael he is liable to one [sin-offering], [whereas] according to R'Akiba he is liable to two.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Ishmael infers liability for sprinkling from the phrase, 'blood shall be imputed'. Now, this is actually written in connection with slaughtering: thus we have a single interdict covering both, and the same kareth is written in connection with both. Hence when he commits both in one state of ignorance, they rank as one offence, and render him liable to one sin-offering only. R. Akiba, however, infers it from 'or a sacrifice', which is written in reference to offering-up. Hence slaughtering and sprinkling are separate interdicts and involve separate sin-offerings.');">⁵</span>

אמר ר' אבהו שחט וזרק לדברי ר' ישמעאל חייב אחת לדברי ר"ע חייב שתים

Abaye said: Even on R'Akiba's view, he is liable to one only, because Scripture saith, There thou shalt offer up thy burnt-offerings, and there thou shalt do all that I command thee:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 14,');">⁶</span> Scripture thus ranked them as one 'doing' [rite].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By enumerating 'offer-up' and 'do' separately, it follows that Scripture counts offering up as one act, and all other rites which are 'done' as another single act. Hence they involve one offering only. 'Offer up' means to burn on the altar. The other sacrificial rites (do) comprise slaughtering, receiving the blood and carrying it to the altar, and sprinkling.');">⁷</span>

אביי אמר אפי' [לדברי] ר"ע אינו חייב אלא אחת דאמר קרא שם תעשה הכתוב עשאן לכולן עבודה אחת

If one sprinkled and offered up [without], according to R'Ishmael he is liable to two [sin-offerings], [whereas] according to R'Akiba he is liable to one only.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reasoning is similar to that in n. 3, but reversed.');">⁸</span> Abaye said: Even on R'Akiba's view he is liable to two, that being the reason that Scripture divided them, [vis.] 'There thou shalt offer-up.

זרק והעלה לדברי ר' ישמעאל חייב שתים לדברי ר"ע אינו חייב אלא אחת

and there thou shalt do'. If one slaughtered, sprinkled, and offered up all agree that he is liable to two.

אביי אמר אפי' [לדברי] ר"ע חייב שתים להכי פלגינהו קרא (דברים יב,, יד) שם תעלה ושם תעשה

Our Rabbis taught: [Or that killeth it] without the camp:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 3.');">⁹</span> You might think [that that means] without the three camps;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 276, n. 6. Only then is he culpable.');">¹⁰</span>

שחט וזרק והעלה לדברי הכל חייב שתים

therefore it states,. or goat, in the camp.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 3.');">⁹</span>

ת"ר (במחנה יכול השוחט עולה בדרום יהא חייב ת"ל אל) מחוץ למחנה

If [you thus stress] 'in the camp', you might think that [even] one who slaughters a burnt-offering in the south is culpable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it should be slaughtered on the north side of the Temple court; supra 53b.');">¹¹</span> therefore it is stated, or that kill it without the camp: as 'without the camp' is distinguished in that it is not eligible for the slaughtering of most sacred sacrifices or for the slaughtering of any sacrifice, so 'in the camp' means in a place which is not eligible for the slaughtering of any sacrifice: hence the south [side of the Temple court] is excluded, for though it is not fit for the slaughtering of most sacred sacrifices, it is eligible for the slaughtering of less sacrifices.'

יכול חוץ לשלש מחנות [ת"ל (ויקרא יז, ג) או עז במחנה] (מנין אף במחנה לוייה ת"ל במחנה)

Ulla said: One who slaughters on the roof of the Hekal is culpable, since it is not eligible for the slaughtering of any sacrifice. To this Raba demurred: If so, let Scripture write, 'in the camp or.

אי במחנה יכול השוחט עולה בדרום יהא חייב ת"ל או אל מחוץ למחנה

without camp', and 'unto the door of the tent of meeting' will not be necessary; what is the purpose of '[and hath not brought it] unto the door of the tent of meeting': surely it is to exclude the roof?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the text implies, only he who does not bring it to the 'tent of meeting' (the Temple court) at all is liable, whereas he who slaughters on the roof has brought it.');">¹²</span> Now according to Raba, if that is so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That 'unto the door of the tent of meeting' implies any part thereof.');">¹³</span>

מה חוץ למחנה מיוחד שאין ראוי לשחיטת קדשים ולשחיטת כל זבח יצא דרום שאע"פ שאין ראוי לשחיטת קדשי קדשים ראוי לשחיטת קדשים קלים

let [Scripture] write, 'unto the door of the tent of meeting' [only]: what is the purpose of 'in th camp' and 'without the camp'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Scripture should simply say: What man soever . . killeth an ox . . and hath not brought it unto the door of the tent of meeting. This would shew that killing anywhere outside the Temple court makes one liable, while killing anywhere inside (e.g. on the roof, or a burnt-offering in the south) does not.');">¹⁴</span> Surely that is to include the roof?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As being a place of culpability.');">¹⁵</span>

אמר עולא השוחט על גגו של היכל חייב הואיל ואין ראוי לשחיטת כל זבח מתקיף לה רבא א"כ ניכתוב קרא (אל) מחוץ למחנה ולא בעי אל פתח אהל מועד אל פתח אהל מועד ל"ל לאו למעוטי גגו

- Said R'Mari: No: it includes [the case where] the whole of [the animal] is within, but its throat is without.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even then one is culpable.');">¹⁶</span> If its throat is without, it is obvious [that one is culpable]; [for] to what does the Divine Law object?

ולרבא א"כ נכתוב אל פתח אהל מועד במחנה (ואל) מחוץ למחנה ל"ל לאו לאתויי גגו

to slaughtering without; and this is slaughtering without! - Rather, it includes [the case where] the whole of the animal is without, while its throat is within.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even then one is culpable.');">¹⁷</span> It was stated: One who offers up nowadays.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' After the destruction of the Temple, when all offering up is without.');">¹⁸</span>

אמר רב מרי לאיתויי כולה בפנים וצוארה בחוץ

R'Johanan maintained: He is culpable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he does it deliberately he incurs kareth.');">¹⁹</span> Resh Lakish said: He is not liable.

[צוארה] בחוץ פשיטא אמאי קפיד רחמנא אשחיטה ושחיטה בחוץ היא אלא לאיתויי כולה בחוץ וצוארה בפנים

R'Johanan maintained, He is culpable: The first sanctity hallowed it for the nonce and for the future. Resh Lakish said, He is not liable: the first sanctity hallowed it for the nonce, but did not hallow for the future.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V supra 60b. On the first view, Jerusalem is still 'the chosen place'; hence the present is technically a time when bamoth are forbidden, and so there is culpability.');">²⁰</span>

איתמר המעלה בזמן הזה ר' יוחנן אמר חייב ריש לקיש אמר פטור

Shall we say that they differ in the same controversy as that of R'Eliezer and R'Joshua? For we learnt: R'Eliezer said: [I have heard that] when they were building the Temple.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the second Temple, in the days of Ezra.');">²¹</span>

ר' יוחנן אמר חייב קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא ריש לקיש אמר פטור קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבא

they made curtains for the Temple and curtains for the courts;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Temporarily, until proper walls should be built.');">²²</span> but that they built the Temple [walls] on the outside [of these curtains].

נימא דבפלוגתא דר"א ור' יהושע קמיפלגי דתנן א"ר אליעזר כשהיו בונין בהיכל היו עושים קלעים בהיכל קלעים בעזרות אלא שבהיכל בונין מבחוץ ובעזרה בונין מבפנים

whereas they built the courts on the inside [of these curtains]. R'Joshua said: I have heard that they offered [sacrifices] though there was no Temple; and they ate most sacred sacrifices though there were no curtains, and lesser sacrifices and second tithe though there was no wall,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Around Jerusalem.');">²³</span>

א"ר יהושע שמעתי שהיו מקריבין אע"פ שאין בית ואוכלים קדשי קדשים אע"פ שאין קלעים קדשים קלים ומעשר שני אע"פ שאין חומה מפני שקדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא

because the first sanctity hallowed it for the nonce and hallowed it for the future.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the sites were holy for their various purposes, though walls and curtains were lacking.');">²⁴</span> Hence it follows that R'Eliezer holds that it did not hallow it [f the future].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which reason temporary curtains were necessary to make the site which they enclosed holy.');">²⁵</span>

לאו מכלל דר"א סבר לא קידשה

Said Rabina to R'Ashi: Whence [does this follow]? Perhaps all agree that the first sanctity hallowed it for the nonce and hallowed it for the future, and one master reported what he had heard, while the other master reported what he had heard.

א"ל רבינא לרב אשי ממאי דלמא דכולי עלמא קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא ומר מאי דשמיע ליה קאמר ומר מאי דשמיע ליה קאמר וכי תימא קלעים לר' אליעזר למה לי לצניעותא בעלמא

And should you say. What was the purpose of curtains, according to R'Eliezer?

איתמר המעלה ואין בו כזית ועצם משלימו לכזית רבי יוחנן אמר חייב ריש לקיש אמר פטור

Simply for privacy. It was stated: If one offers up [a limb] less than an olive [in size],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the flesh.');">²⁶</span>

ר' יוחנן אמר חייב חיבורי עולין כעולין דמי ריש לקיש אמר פטור חיבורי עולין לאו כעולין דמו

but the bone makes it up to an olive,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a bone springs off the altar while it is being offered within, it is not replaced; supra 85b; v. also p. 522, n. 8.');">²⁷</span> R'Johanan maintained: He is culpable; Resh Lakish said: He is not culpable.

בעי רבא המעלה

R'Johanan maintained, He is culpable: that which is attached to what ascends [the altar] is as what is ascends [in its own right]. Resh Lakish said, He is not liable: that which is attached to what ascends is not as what ascends.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Actually, only the flesh ascends, while the bone ascends too merely because it is attached to the flesh, R. Johanan, holds that the bone nevertheless counts as something which is itself offered up, and therefore in the present case one is culpable. Resh Lakish takes the reverse view.');">²⁸</span> Raba asked: What if one offers up