Zevachim 227

בשלמא רובע ונרבע משכחת ליה דאקדשינהו מעיקרא והדר רבעו

As for a roba' and a nirba', it is well: It is conceivable [that the other proof-text is required] where one fir consecrated them and then bestiality was committed with them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, when it was consecrated, it was fit to come to the door of the tent of meeting and therefore the text, 'and hath not brought it' etc. may not exclude this case; for the first text might mean that if an animal was eligible when it was consecrated and then one slaughtered it without, he is liable, even if it was not eligible when it was slaughtered; hence the Mishnah quotes the other proof-text, 'to present it as an offering unto the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord'. This definitely excludes whatever is not actually fit to be offered.');">¹</span>

אלא מוקצה ונעבד אין אדם אוסר דבר שאינו שלו בקדשים קלים ואליבא דר' יוסי הגלילי דאמר קדשים קלים ממון בעלים הוא

But as for an animal set apart [for idolatrous worship] and an animal worshipped [as an idol], no man can forbid that which does not belong to him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah must mean that the animal had been set apart before it was consecrated, for once it is consecrated it belongs to God, and it cannot be forbidden by any man's act, viz., dedicating it for an idolatrous sacrifice or worshipping it. But in that case the first proof-text is sufficient.');">²</span>

דתניא (ויקרא ה, כא) ומעלה מעל בה' לרבות קדשים קלים שהן ממונו דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי

- This refers to lesser sacrifices, and in accordance with R'Jose the Galilean, who maintained that lesser sacrifices are their owner's property.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence they can be forbidden even after they are consecrated, and the Mishnah treats of such a case.');">³</span>

הלכך רובע ונרבע דבר ערוה מוקצה ונעבד עבודת כוכבים בקדשים קלים

For it was taught: [If any one sin] and commit a trespass against the Lord [.

אתנן ומחיר כלאים יוצא דופן בולדות קדשים

then he shall bring his guilt-offering]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V. 21. The trespass referred to is false repudiation of liability on oath.');">⁴</span>

קסבר ולדי קדשים בהוייתן הן קדושים:

this is to include lesser sacrifices, because they are hi [the individual's] property:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one swears falsely that he did not vow a peace-offering, which is of lesser sanctity, he brings a guilt-offering. Though this law does not apply to sacred property (deduced from, 'and deal falsely with his neighbour' ibid.) , the phrase 'against the Lord' shews that it does apply nevertheless even where there is an element of sanctity, viz., in the case of lesser sacrifices, and thus teaches that these count as the individual's property.');">⁵</span>

בעלי מומין וכו' אותו ואת בנו וכו':

this is the view of R'Jose the Galilean.

וצריכי דאי תנא בעלי מומין משום דמאיסי אבל תורין דלא מאיסי אימא (לא) דמודו ליה לר"ש

Therefore [the second proof-text is required for] roba' and nirba', because immorality is involved.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For which reason they are disqualified even if bestiality is committed after they were consecrated.');">⁶</span>

ואי תנא תורין משום דלא חזי ואידחו אבל בעלי מומין דאיחזו ואידחו אימא (לא) דמודה להו ר"ש לרבנן

[It is required for] a [harlot's] hire, the p [of a dog], kil'ayim, and an animal calved through the caesarean section, in the case of the young of consecrated animals [sacrifices]; [because] he holds: The offerings of sacred animals are sacred from birth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As stated above, the second proof-text is necessary only if the animals were eligible when consecrated, and in these that is possible only in the case of the young of consecrated animals, which were disqualified before birth by being promised as a harlot's hire or the exchange of a dog: when one came to sacrifice their mother, they would come to the door' too. It cannot arise in the case of the animals themselves, for if they were consecrated and then given as a harlot's hire, this second act is invalid (Tem. 30b) and they remain fit. Whilst if they were first a harlot's hire and then consecrated, the law is deduced from the first proof-text. The same applies to the other cases, viz., kil'ayim etc. Again, if these young become sacred even before birth, the act of subsequently giving them as a harlot's hire etc. would not disqualify them, just as it does not disqualify the mother. Therefore he must hold that they are sacred only from birth. - Several words are omitted from the text, in accordance with Rashi and Sh.M.');">⁷</span>

ואי תנא הני תרתי משום דפסולא דגופייהו אבל אותו ואת בנו דפסולא מעלמא קאתי לה אימא מודו ליה רבנן לר"ש צריכא:

BLEMISHED ANIMALS.

שהיה רבי שמעון אומר: מאי טעמא דר"ש

AN ANIMAL TOGETHER WITH ITS YOUNG etc. Now, they are all necessary.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The controversy between R. Simeon and the Sages must be taught in all three instances.');">⁸</span>

אמר רבי אילעא אמר ריש לקיש דאמר קרא (דברים יב, ח) לא תעשון ככל אשר אנחנו עושים פה היום אמר להו משה לישראל כי עייליתו לארץ ישרות תקריבו חובות לא תקריבו

For if he taught about blemished animals [only], I would say that the reason is that they are repulsive,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Therefore the Rabbis hold that he is not liable for slaughtering them without.');">⁹</span>

וגלגל לגבי שילה מחוסר זמן הוא וקאמר להו משה לא תעשון

but as for turtledoves, which are not repulsive, I would say that they agree with R'Simeon, While if he taught about turtledoves, I would say that the reason is because they were not rejected after having been eligible; but as for blemished animals which were eligible but became rejected, I would say that R'Simeon agrees with the Rabbis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he is not liable.');">¹⁰</span>

אמר רבי ירמיה לרבי זירא אי הכי

And if he taught about these two, I would say that the reason is because their disqualification is intrinsic; but as for an animal and its young, where the disqualification comes from without,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not intrinsic and only due to an accident of time, viz., that they are both slaughtered on the same day.');">¹¹</span> I would say that the Rabbis agree with R'Simeon, Thus [all three] are necessary. FOR R'SIMEON MAINTAINED etc. What is R'Simeon's reason? - Said R'Ela in the name of Resh Lakish: Because Scripture saith, Ye shall not do after all that we do here this day, [every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 8.');">¹²</span> Moses spoke thus to Israel: When ye enter the [Promised] Land, ye shall offer votive [sacrifices],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'which are right (or pleasing) in your eyes'.');">¹³</span> but ye shall not offer obligatory offerings. Thus Gilgal in comparison with Shiloh was premature, and Moses said to them, Ye shall not do.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Sifre applies the text to their first fourteen years in Eretz Israel, when the Tabernacle was at Gilgal. These years were spent in conquering and sharing the land, and so one could apply to them the words, for ye are not as yet come to the rest . . which the Lord your God giveth thee');">¹⁴</span> Said R'Jeremiah to R'Zera: If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That those at Gilgal are premature.');">¹⁵</span>