Zevachim 216

למעוטי שוגג אנוס ומוטעה אי הכי הכא נמי מיבעי למעוטי אנוס שוגג ומוטעה

in order to exclude one who acts in ignorance, under constraint, or in error.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'In error' means when he is led into error by another.');">¹</span> If so, there too it is required order to exclude one who acts in ignorance, under constraint, or in error? - 'That' is written twice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Blood shall be imputed unto that man . . and that man shall be cut off. Thus we have two limitations.');">²</span>

תרי ההוא כתיבי

Then what is the purpose of 'unto the Lord'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Written in connection with slaughtering.');">³</span> - It is to exclude the goat that is sent away.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Day of Atonement, Lev. XVI, 21. A man is not liable for slaughtering that without, because 'unto the Lord' implies that liability is incurred only when it could be sacrificed, and its rites performed, within.');">⁴</span>

ואלא לה' למה לי להוציא שעיר המשתלח:

OFFERING UP IS MORE STRINGENT etc. Our Rabbis taught: A man, a man:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 2.');">⁵</span> why this [repetition]?

חומר בהעלאה כו':

To include two who take hold of a limb and offer it up, [and it teaches] that they are liable. For I might argue, i not [the reverse] logical: if two who hold a knife and slaughter are not liable, though when one slaughters to a man he is liable; is it not logical that when two take hold [of a limb and offer it up] they are not liable, seeing that one who offers up to a man is not liable?

ת"ר (ויקרא יז, ג) איש איש מה ת"ל לרבות שנים שאחזו באבר והעלו שחייבין שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה השוחט להדיוט שחייב שנים שאחזו בסכין ושחטו פטורין המעלה להדיוט שפטור אינו דין ששנים שאחזו פטורין ת"ל איש איש דברי ר"ש

Therefore 'a man, a man' is stated: these are the words of R'Simeon, R'Jose said: 'That [man]' implies one but not two. If so, why is 'a man, a man' stated? - [Because] Scripture employs human idiom.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where this repetition is quite common.');">⁶</span>

רבי יוסי אומר ההוא אחד ולא שנים א"כ מה ת"ל איש איש דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם

And R'Simeon?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does he not admit the implication of 'that'?');">⁷</span> - He requires that for excluding one who acts in ignorance, under constraint, or in error.

ור"ש האי ההוא מיבעי ליה למעוטי שוגג אנוס מוטעה ורבי יוסי מהוא ההוא ור"ש הוא ההוא לא דריש

And R'Jose?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whence does he know this?');">⁸</span> - [He infers that] from ha-hu [being written instead of] hu.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both mean 'that', The longer form implies a further limitation.');">⁹</span>

ורבי יוסי מדהאי איש איש דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם ההוא איש איש נמי דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם ואלא השוחט להדיוט מנא ליה דחייב נפקא ליה (ויקרא יז, ד) מדם יחשב לאיש ההוא דם שפך ואפילו השוחט לאיש:

And R'Simeon? - He does not attribute any particular significance to<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'he does not interpret'.');">¹⁰</span> ha-hu [as opposed to] hu.

העלה וחזר והעלה כו':

Now, according to R'Jose, since [in] this 'ish ish' the Torah employs human idiom, in the other ish ish too<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. in connection with slaughtering.');">¹¹</span> [we must say that] the Torah employs human idiom; whence then does he know that one who slaughters to a man is liable? - He infers it from, blood shall be imputed unto that man, he hath shed blood: [this implies,] even one who slaughters to a man.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That is implied in the emphatic 'he hath shed blood' - no matter to whom.');">¹²</span>

אמר ר"ל מחלוקת בד' וה' אברים דמר סבר כי כתיב לעשות אותו על השלם הוא חייב ואינו חייב על החסר אכל בהמה כתיב ומר סבר אכל אבר ואבר כתיב אבל אבר אחד דברי הכל אינו חייב אלא אחת

IF ONE OFFERED UP, THEN OFFERED UP AGAIN etc. Resh Lakish said: The controversy is about four or five limbs, one master holds that the text, to sacrifice it, [which teaches that] a person is liable on accou of a whole, but not on account of an incomplete one, is written in connection with the whole animal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One is liable only when he offers up the whole animal; therefore even if he offered up several limbs, he is liable to one offering only, viz., on account of the first, because the animal was still whole then.');">¹³</span> the other master holds that it is written in connection with each limb.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One is liable only when he offers up a whole limb, but not when he offers up part of a limb. Hence each limb imposes a separate liability.');">¹⁴</span>

ור' יוחנן אמר מחלוקת באבר אחד דמר סבר מוקטרי פנים שחסרו והעלה בחוץ חייב ומר סבר פטור אבל בד וה' איברין דברי הכל חייב על כל אבר ואבר

But in the case of one limb,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if a man offered up one limb in several portions consecutively.');">¹⁵</span> all agree that he is liable to one [offering] only.

ופליגא דעולא דאמר עולא הכל מודים במוקטרי פנים שחסרו והעלו בחוץ שחייב לא נחלקו אלא במוקטרי בחוץ שחסרו והעלו בחוץ דמר סבר פטור ומ"ס חייב

But R'Johanan maintained: The controversy is about one limb; one master holds that if one offers up without [limbs] which were [first] burnt within and [thus] became incomplete, he is liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because if such a limb springs off the altar, it must be replaced. This shews that it still requires haktarah after it has become incomplete, therefore when one offers it up without, performing haktarah there, he is liable. Consequently, each successive offering up of a portion of the same limb entails a separate sacrifice.');">¹⁶</span> while the other master holds that he is not liable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Save for a whole limb. Therefore when he offers up the limb in several parts, he incurs one offering only.');">¹⁷</span>

איכא דאמרי אמר עולא הכל מודים במוקטרי חוץ שחסרו והעלו בחוץ שהוא פטור לא נחלקו אלא במוקטרי פנים שחסרו והעלו בחוץ דמ"ס פטור ומ"ס חייב

But in the case of four or five limbs, all agree that he is liable on account of each limb [separately]. Now, this disagrees with 'Ulla.

ופליגי דאבוה דשמואל אלישנא קמא דעולא דאמר אבוה דשמואל כמאן מהדרינן פוקעין לגבי מזבח כמאן דלא כר' יוסי:

For 'Ulla said: All agree that one is liable if he offers up without [limbs] which were burnt within and [thus] became incomplete. They disagree only where one offers up without [limbs] which were burnt without and [thus] became incomplete: there one master holds that he is not liable, while the other master holds that he is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The latter holds that 'it' excludes less than the size of an olive, but not an incomplete limb.');">¹⁸</span>

ואינו חייב עד שיעלה כו': אמר רב הונא מאי טעמא דרבי יוסי דכתיב (בראשית ח, כ) ויבן נח מזבח לה'

Others say, 'Ulla said: All agree that one is not liable if he offers up without [limbs] which were burnt without and [thus] became incomplete. They disagree only where one offers up without [limbs] which were burnt within and [thus] became incomplete: one master holds that he is not liable, while the other master holds that he is liable.

א"ר יוחנן מ"ט דר"ש דכתיב (שופטים יג, יט) ויקח מנוח את גדי העזים ואת המנחה ויעל על הצור לה'

Now, Samuel's father disagrees with 'Ulla's [view] in its first version. For Samuel's father said: In accordance with whom do we replace on the altar [limbs] that spring off?

ואידך נמי והכתיב ויבן מזבח לה' ההוא גובהה בעלמא ואידך נמי הא כתיב ויקח מנוח הוראת שעה היתה

It is not in accordance with R'Jose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For if R. Jose held thus, then since they still require haktarah within, though when they spring off they are already incomplete, he should also hold that one is liable for offering up without limbs which were incomplete through having been burnt within. This proves that in the opinion of Samuel's father, R. Jose disagrees, and holds that one is not liable, even if he offers up without limbs which were incomplete through having been first burnt within.');">¹⁹</span> HE IS LIABLE ONLY WHEN HE OFFERS UP [ON TOP OF AN ALTAR] etc. R'Huna said, What is R'Jose's reason? - Because it is written, And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. VIII, 20. This proves that only an altar makes the act one of offering up.');">²⁰</span>

ואיבעית אימא ה"ט דר"ש כדתניא ר"ש אומר (ויקרא יז, ו) מזבח פתח אהל מועד ואין מזבח בבמה לפיכך העלה על הסלע או על האבן חייב

R'Johanan said: What is R'Simeon's reason? - Because it is written, So Manoah took the kid with the meal-offering, and offered it upon the rock unto the Lord.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Judg. XIII, 19.');">²¹</span> Now as to the other too, surely it is written, And Noah builded an altar unto the Lord? - That was merely for its elevation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To facilitate the act of offering up, but not because an actual altar was necessary.');">²²</span>

יצא מיבעי ליה ה"ק לפיכך בשעת איסור הבמות העלה על הסלע או על האבן חייב

And as to the other too, surely it is written, So Manoah took [etc.]? - That was a temporary dispensation. Alternatively, this is R'Simeon's reason, [viz. ,] as it was taught: R'Simeon said: [There is] the altar [o Lord] at the door of the tent of meeting,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 6.');">²³</span>

בעי רבי יוסי בר' חנינא קרן וכבש ויסוד וריבוע מהו שיעכבו בבמה

but there is no altar at the bamah;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only at the door of the tent of meeting was a proper altar required. But when bamoth were permitted, no proper altar was necessary, and one could sacrifice and offer up on a simple stone.');">²⁴</span> therefore if one offered up [without] on a rock or on a stone, he is liable.

א"ל רבי ירמיה תניא קרן וכבש וריבוע ויסוד מעכבין בבמה גדולה ואין מעכבין בבמה קטנה:

['He is liable'!] Surely he should say, [he] is excluded?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'But there is no altar at a bamah', obviously means when this is permitted. But one is not liable then for offering up without, and so he should have said, this excludes (from liability) one who offers up on a rock or on a stone.');">²⁵</span> - This is what he means: Therefore if one offers up on a rock or on a stone when bamoth are forbidden, he is liable. R'Jose son of R'Hanina asked: As to the horn, the ascent, the base and squareness, are these indispensable at the bamoth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These were indispensable to the altar in the Tabernacle: v. supra 62a.');">²⁶</span> - Said R'Jeremiah to him. It was taught: The horn, the ascent, the base and squareness were indispensable at the great bamoth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. at Nob and Gibeon; these were public bamoth.');">²⁷</span> but were not indispensable at minor bamoth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. private bamoth, which individuals built for themselves.');">²⁸</span> MISHNAH