Zevachim 55

כאליה דמי והא קא מחשב מאכילת מזבח לאדם

is as the fat-tail:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even in respect of burning on the altar, so that in the case of lamb peace-offerings, the skin of the fat-tail, just as the fat-tail itself, is burnt on the altar 'entire' (v. Lev. III, 9) .');">¹</span> [then the difficulty arises:] surely he intends for man what is for the altar's consumption?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which intention should not count at all.');">²</span>

אמר שמואל הא מני ר' אליעזר היא דאמר מחשבין מאכילת מזבח לאכילת אדם ומאכילת אדם לאכילת מזבח

- Said Samuel, The author of this is R'Eliezer, who maintains that you can intend [with effect] for human consumption what is meant for the altar's consumption, and for the altar's consumption what is meant for human consumption.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the intention counts.');">³</span> For we learnt: If one slaughters a sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., the emurim, which are burnt on the altar. He intended eating these after time or out of bounds.');">⁴</span>

דתנן השוחט את הזבח לאכול דבר שאין דרכו לאכול להקטיר דבר שאין דרכו להקטיר כשר ור"א פוסל

or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burnt, it is fit;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because such an illegitimate intention concerning time or place does not count, seeing that the things could not be eaten or burnt at all.');">⁵</span> but R'Eliezer invalidates [the sacrifice].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 35a.');">⁶</span>

במאי אוקימתא כר"א אימא סיפא זה הכלל כל השוחט והמקבל והמוליך והזורק לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול ולהקטיר דבר שדרכו להקטיר

How have you explained it? as agreeing with R'Eliezer?

דבר שדרכו לאכול אין שאין דרכו לאכול לא אתאן לרבנן רישא ר' אליעזר וסיפא רבנן אמר ליה אין

Then consider the sequel:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The end of the present Mishnah, infra 29b.');">⁷</span> This is the general rule: Whoever slaughters, receives, carries, and sprinkles [intending] to eat what is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] what is normally burnt [after time etc.].

רב הונא אמר עור אליה לאו כאליה דמי אמר רבא מ"ט דרב הונא (ויקרא ג, ט) חלבו האליה ולא עור האליה

thus, only what is normally eaten, but not what is not normally eaten, which agrees with the Rabbis. Thus the first clause agrees with R'Eliezer and the final clause with the Rabbis? - Even so, he answered him.

רב חסדא אמר לעולם עור האליה כאליה דמי והכא במאי עסקינן באליה של גדי

R'Huna said: The skin of the fat-tail is not as the fat-tail.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is eaten, and not burnt on the altar. The difficulty therefore does not arise.');">⁸</span> Rabbah observed.

כולהו כשמואל לא אמרי רישא ר"א וסיפא רבנן לא מוקמי כרב הונא לא אמרי עור אליה כאליה דמי קא משמע להו

What is R'Huna's reason? - The fat thereof [is] the fat-tail [entire],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. III, 9.');">⁹</span> but not the skin of the fat-tail.

כרב חסדא מאי טעמא לא אמרי מאי קמ"ל עור אליה כאליה דמי תנינא ואלו שעורותיהן כבשרן עור שתחת האליה

R'Hisda said: In truth, the skin of the fat-tail is as the fat-tail, but we treat here [in the Mishnah] of fat-tail of a goat.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was not burnt on the altar; v. supra 9a.');">¹⁰</span> Now, all these [scholars] did not say as Samuel, [because] they would not make the first clause agree with R'Eliezer and the second clause with the Rabbis.

ורב חסדא איצטריך סד"א ה"מ לענין טומאה דרכיך מצטרף אבל הכא אימא (במדבר יח, ח) למשחה לגדולה כדרך שהמלכים אוכלין ולא עבידי מלכים דאכלי הכי אימא לא קמ"ל

They did not say as R'Huna, because they hold that the skin of the fat-tail is as the fat-tail. [But] why do they not say as R'Hisda? - Because what does [the Tanna of the Mishnah] inform us [on this view]?

מיתיבי השוחט את העולה להקטיר כזית מעור שתחת האליה חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת חוץ לזמנו פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת

[Presumably] that the skin of the fat-tail is as the fat-tail!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the Mishnah treats of the fat-tail of a lamb, then on Samuel's interpretation we are informed that you can intend for human consumption what is meant for the altar's consumption; while on R. Huna's interpretation the Tanna informs us that the skin of the fat-tail is not as the fat-tail. But if it treats of the fat-tail of a goat, then the only thing that the Tanna can inform us is that its skin is regarded as itself in the sense that it is edible, because it is soft, and therefore counts as ordinary flesh.');">¹¹</span> Surely we have learnt it: The skin of the following is as their flesh: the skin under the fat-tail?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There must be at least as much as an olive of flesh before it can be defiled, and at least as much as the size of an egg before it can defile as nebelah (carrion. v. Lev. XI, 39f) . If there is less than these standards, it can be made up by the skin under the fat-tail (Hul. 122a) . Thus this teaches that this skin is as the fat-tail itself, and so the present teaching on R. Hisda's interpretation is superfluous.');">¹²</span>

אלעזר בן יהודה איש אבלי' אומר משום רבי יעקב וכן היה רבי שמעון בן יהודה איש כפר עיכוס אומר משום ר' שמעון אחד עור בית הפרסות בהמה דקה ואחד עור הראש של עגל הרך ואחד עור שתחת האליה וכל שמנו חכמים גבי טומאה ואלו שעורותיהן כבשרן להביא עור של בית הבושת חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת חוץ לזמנו פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת

And R'Hisda?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' How does he answer this?');">¹³</span> - It is necessary: You might think that only in respect of uncleanness does it combine, because it is soft;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And edible.');">¹⁴</span>

עולה אין אבל זבח לא בשלמא לרב הונא היינו דקתני עולה אלא לרב חסדא מאי איריא דתני עולה ליתני זבח

but as for here, I would say [Scripture writes] [Even all the hallowed things of the children of Israel unto thee have I given them] for a consecrated portion,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XVIII, 8.');">¹⁵</span> which means, as a symbol of greatness,[so that they must be eaten] just as kings eat; and kings do not eat thus.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the skin is edible, yet kings would not eat it. rhyevk');">¹⁶</span>

אמר לך רב חסדא איבעית אימא באליה של גדי ואיבעית אימא תני זבח:

[Hence] I would say [that it is] not [as the flesh]; therefore he informs us [that it is]. An objection is raised: if one slaughters a burnt-offering [intending] to burn<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. which generally refers to the burning of these parts (the emurim) which are always burnt on the altar, even in the case of peace-offerings.');">¹⁷</span>

פסול ואין בו כרת כו': מנה"מ אמר שמואל תרי קראי כתיבי

as much as an olive of the skin under the fat-tail out of bounds, it is invalid, but does not involve kareth; after time, it is piggul, and involves kareth. Eleazar B'Judah of Avlas said on the authority of R'Jacob, and thus also did R'Simeon B'Judah of Kefar 'Iccum say on the authority of R'Simeon: The skin of the legs of small cattle, the skin of the head of a young calf, and the skin under the fat-tail, and all cases which the Sages enumerated of the skin being the same as the flesh, which includes the skin of the Pudenda: [if he intended eating or burning these] out of bounds [the sacrifice] is invalid, and does not involve kareth; after time, it is piggul, and involves kareth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Hul. (Sonc. ed.) 132a, q.v. notes.');">¹⁸</span>

מאי היא אמר רבה (ויקרא ז, יז) שלישי זהו חוץ לזמנו

Thus [this is taught] only [of] the burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Only there does an illegitimate intention in respect of the skin of the fat-tail disqualify the sacrifice, since the whole sacrifice is burnt.');">¹⁹</span> but not [of] a sacrifice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Unspecified, which would include peace-offerings.');">²⁰</span>

פיגול זהו חוץ למקומו והנפש האוכלת ממנו אחד ולא שנים זהו חוץ לזמנו ולמעוטי חוץ למקומו

As for R'Huna, it is well; it is right that he specifies a burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to R. Huna, Scripture definitely teaches that the skin of the fat-tail is not counted as emurim. But there is no such teaching in respect of a burnt-offering: hence the present ruling can apply to a burnt-offering but not to other sacrifices.');">²¹</span> But according to R'Hisda,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains that the skin of the fat-tail of all sacrifices is burnt along with it as emurim.');">²²</span>

ואימא והנפש האוכלת ממנו זהו חוץ למקומו ולמעוטי חוץ לזמנו מסתברא חוץ לזמנו עדיף דפתח ביה אדרבה חוץ למקומו עדיף דסמיך ליה

why does he particularly teach 'burnt-offering': let him teach 'sacrifice'? - R'Hisda can answer you: I can explain this as referring to the fat-tail of a goat;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In which case the reference is to an intention of eating it out of bounds or after time, not to burning it on the altar.');">²³</span> alternatively I can answer: Read 'sacrifice'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Instead of burnt-offering.');">²⁴</span>

אלא אמר אביי כי אתא רב יצחק בר אבדימי [אמר רב] סמיך אדתני תנא כשהוא אומר שלישי בפרשת קדושים תהיו שאין ת"ל שהרי כבר נאמר (ויקרא ז, יח) ואם האכל יאכל מבשר זבח השלמים ביום השלישי

IT IS UNFIT, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH etc. Whence do we know it? - Said Samuel: Two texts are written. What are they? - Said Rabbah: [And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be at all eaten] on the third day: this refers to [an intention of eating the flesh] after time; shall be piggul [an abhorred thing] refers to [an intention of eating the flesh] out of bounds; and the soul tha eateth of it [shall bear his iniquity:]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 18; 'shall bear his iniquity' means that he incurs kareth.');">²⁵</span> [only] one [involves kareth], but not two,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This follows from the sing. 'it'.');">²⁶</span> viz. , after time, and excluding out of bounds. Yet say that 'and the soul that eateth of it' refers to out of bounds, and excludes after time? - It is logical that after time is graver, since [Scripture] commences with it. On the contrary, out of bounds is more likely [to be meant] since it is near it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The word mimennu, ('of it') , is in immediate proximity to the word piggul, which on the present exegesis extends the law to eating out of bounds.');">²⁷</span> - Rather said Abaye: When R'Isaac B'Abdimi came,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon.');">²⁸</span> he said: Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text. Printed edd: Rab.');">²⁹</span> relies on what a Tanna taught. [Viz. ;] When Scripture mentions the 'third [day]' in the pericope 'Ye shall be holy',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the name of the pericope or weekly reading commencing with Lev. XIX, 1. The verse alluded to is: And if it (the flesh of a sacrifice) be eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul (a vile thing) ; it shall not be accepted.');">³⁰</span> which need not be stated, since it has already been said, And if any of the flesh of his sacrifices be at all eaten on the third day etc. ;