Zevachim 67

נטילת נשמה אף קודש דבר שיש בו נטילת נשמה ואי בנוגע נטילת נשמה מי איכא אלא באכילה

the death penalty,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., kareth.');">¹</span> so the offence in connection with the hallowed thing is one which involves the death penalty.

ואכתי מיבעי ליה לטמא שאכל בשר קודש לפני זריקה דאתמר טמא שאכל בשר קודש לפני זריקה ריש לקיש אמר לוקה ורבי יוחנן אמר אינו לוקה

Now, if this treats of touching, is then the death penalty involved?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not!');">²</span> Hence it must treat of eating.

ריש לקיש אמר לוקה בכל קודש לא תגע לא שנא לפני זריקה ולא שנא לאחר זריקה רבי יוחנן אמר אינו לוקה כדתני ברדלא אתיא טומאתו טומאתו וכי כתב ההוא לאחר זריקה

Yet it is still required in respect of an unclean person who ate the sacred flesh before the sprinkling [of blood]? For it was stated: If an unclean person ate the sacred flesh before the sprinkling of the blood, Resh Lakish maintained that he is flagellated; while R'Johanan ruled that he is not flagellated.

אם כן לימא קרא בקודש מאי בכל קודש ש"מ תרתי

Resh Lakish maintained [that] he is flagellated, [for it is written,] 'She shall touch no hallowed thing', no distinction be drawn whether it is before sprinkling or after sprinkling. While R'Johanan ruled [that] he is not flagellated, as Bardela taught: 'It is derived from the recurring expression, 'his uncleanness', and that is written after th sprinkling'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the forewarning is learned from the penalty, and the penalty of kareth is only incurred after the sprinkling, v. Men. 25b. - Returning to our subject, we see that Resh Lakish utilises the text for a different purpose.');">³</span>

גופא טמא שאכל בשר קודש לפני זריקה ר"ל אמר לוקה רבי יוחנן אמר אינו לוקה אמר אביי מחלוקת בטומאת הגוף אבל בטומאת בשר דברי הכל לוקה

- If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the text is required for this purpose only.');">⁴</span> let Scripture say, '[She shall not touch] a hallowed thing'; why state no hallowed thing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Expressed in Heb. by the addition of be-kol, ('all' or 'every') ; the emphasis implies an additional teaching.');">⁵</span>

דאמר קרא (ויקרא ז, יט) והבשר לרבות עצים ולבונה דלאו בני אכילה נינהו ואפילו הכי רבינהו קרא

Hence two things may be inferred from it. The [above] text [stated]: 'If an unclean person ate sacred flesh before sprinkling, Resh Lakish maintained: He is flagellated: while R'Johanan ruled: He is not flagellated.'

ורבא אמר מחלוקת בטומאת הגוף אבל בטומאת בשר דברי הכל אינו לוקה מאי טעמא כיון דלא קרינא ביה (ויקרא ז, כ) וטומאתו עליו ונכרתה לא קרינא ביה (ויקרא ז, יט) והבשר אשר יגע בכל טמא לא יאכל

Abaye said: This controversy applies only to bodily uncleanness; but where the flesh is unclean, all rule that he is flagellated, because a Master said:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Emended text (Bah) .');">⁶</span> And the flesh [that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 19.');">⁷</span>

והאמר מר והבשר לרבות עצים ולבונה

is to include wood and frankincense; though these are not edible, yet Scripture includes them.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The exegesis is to shew that these can become unclean like an edible (though usually only an edible or a utensil can be defiled) , and then the same law applies to them as to food. Now, flesh before sprinkling cannot be worse than these; if these involve flagellation, surely flesh before sprinkling does likewise.');">⁸</span> Raba said: The controversy is in respect of bodily uncleanness, but where the flesh is unclean<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Var. lec.: The controversy is in respect of the uncleanness of the flesh, but in the case of bodily uncleanness etc. (Sh. M.) .');">⁹</span>

הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שקדשו בכלי דנעשה כמי שקרבו כל מתיריו

all agree that he is not flagellated. What is the reason? - Since we cannot apply to him the text, Having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 20. The text refers to bodily uncleanness, which supports the var. lec. - Kareth is not incurred before the sprinkling of the blood (p. 167, n. 5) .');">¹⁰</span>

דתנן כל שיש לו מתירים משקרבו מתיריו כל שאין לו מתירין משקדש בכלי

you cannot apply to him the text, And the flesh that toucheth any unclean thing shall not be eaten. But a Master said, And the flesh includes the wood and the frankincense? - That is where they were sanctified in a vessel,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wood was removed from the altar in a service vessel, and the frankincense was sanctified in a censer. These, as the Talmud explains, are then in the same position as though all their ritual had been performed, and therefore are analogous to flesh after sprinkling.');">¹¹</span>

איתמר המעלה אברי בהמה טמאה ע"ג המזבח ריש לקיש אמר לוקה רבי יוחנן אמר אינו לוקה ריש לקיש אמר לוקה טהורה אין טמאה לא ולאו הבא מכלל עשה לוקין עליו ורבי יוחנן אמר אין לוקין עליו לאו הבא מכלל עשה אין לוקין עליו

so that they become as though all their mattirin<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹²</span> had been performed.

מותיב רבי ירמיה (ויקרא יא, ג) אותה תאכלו ולא בהמה טמאה ולאו הבא מכלל עשה עשה

For we learnt: All which have mattirin [involve a penalty through defilement] once their mattirin have been offered;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., flesh, whose mattirin is the blood which by being sprinkled on the altar permits the flesh to be eaten.');">¹³</span> whatever has no mattirin [involves a penalty through defilement] when it has been sanctified in a [service] vessel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Me'il. 10a.');">¹⁴</span>

א"ל רבי יעקב לרבי ירמיה בר תחליפא אסברא לך באברי בהמה טמאה דכולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי בחיה והכי איתמר רבי יוחנן אמר עובר בעשה ריש לקיש אמר אינו עובר בולא כלום

It was stated: If one brings up the limbs of an unclean animal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., of horses or camels.');">¹⁵</span> on the altar, Resh Lakish maintained: He is flagellated; R'Johanan said: He is not flagellated.'

רבי יוחנן אמר עובר בעשה בהמה אין חיה לא ריש לקיש אמר אינו עובר עליו בולא כלום ההוא למצוה

Resh Lakish maintained [that] he is flagellated', [for Scripture implies,] Only a clean animal [may be offered], but not an unclean one,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the verse, Ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd or of the flock (Lev. I, 2.) . Thus Scripture specifies clean animals.');">¹⁶</span> and one is flagellated on account of a negative injunction which is inferred from an affirmative precept.

מותיב רבא אילו נאמר (ויקרא א, ב) קרבן לה' בהמה הייתי אומר חיה בכלל בהמה כענין שנאמר (דברים יד, ד) זאת הבהמה אשר תאכלו שור שה כשבים ושה עזים איל וצבי וגו' תלמוד לומר (ויקרא א, ב) בקר וצאן בקר וצאן אמרתי לך ולא חיה

R'Johanan said, He is not flagellated', because one is not flagellated on account of a negative injunction which is inferred from an affirmative precept. R'Jeremiah raised an objection: That may ye eat,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XI, 3.');">¹⁷</span>

יכול לא יביא ואם הביא כשר הא למה זה דומה לתלמיד שאמר לו רבו הבא לי חטים והביא לו חטים ושעורים שאינו כמעביר על דבריו אלא מוסיף על דבריו וכשר

but not an unclean animal; and a negative injunction which is inferred from an affirmative precept ranks as an affirmative precept?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And but for the special negative injunction which follows in the Scriptural text it would involve no flagellation.');">¹⁸</span> - Said R'Jacob to R'Jeremiah B'Tahlifa: I will explain it to you: There is no disagreement at all about the limbs of an unclean [domesticated] animal; they disagree about a beast [of chase],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Animals are technically divided into behemah (domesticated animal) and hayyah (wild beast, lit., 'living thing') . The former includes dogs, horses and camels; the latter includes the hart, deer and roebuck.');">¹⁹</span>

תלמוד לומר בקר וצאן בקר וצאן אמרתי לך ולא חיה הא למה זה דומה לתלמיד שאמר לו רבו אל תביא לי אלא חיטין והביא לו חיטין ושעורים שאינו כמוסיף על דבריו אלא כמעביר על דבריו

and it was thus stated: R'Johanan said: He transgresses an affirmative precept. While Resh Lakish said: He does not transgress anything.' R'Johanan said, He transgresses an affirmative precept', [for Scripture says,] [Ye shall bring your offering] of the cattl [behemah]: [this implies] only of the cattle, but not of the beast [of chase]; while Resh Lakish said, He does not transgress anything, [for] that [text] intimates that it is meritorious.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To offer sacrifices of the cattle, whereas offering a beast of chase is voluntary and permissive. Nevertheless, though we have no affirmative precept forbidding it, anything unclean of either species may certainly not be offered, v. Men. 6a.');">²⁰</span> Raba raised an objection: If it were said, '[When any man of you bringeth] an offering to the Lord,' cattle [behemah], I would agree that hayyah [beast of chase] is included in behemah, as in the verse, These are the animals [behemah] which ye may eat: the ox, the sheep, and the goat, the hart and the gazelle and the roebuck etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XIV, 4f. The last three belong to the class of hayyah.');">²¹</span> Therefore the text states, 'even of the herd or of the flock': of the herd or of the flock have prescribed unto thee, but not a beast of chase [hayyah]. You might think [that] one must not bring [a hayyah], yet if one did bring [it] it is valid: for to what is this like? To a disciple whom his master bade, 'Bring me wheat' and he brought him wheat and barley, where he is not regarded as having flouted his orders, but as having added thereto<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And here too, since one need not offer a sacrifice at all, when one offers a hayyah he is as though adding to God's words.');">²²</span> - and it is valid; therefore the text states, 'even of the herd or of th flock': of the herd and of the flock have I prescribed unto thee, but not a beast. To what is this like? To a disciple whom his master bade, 'Bring me naught but wheat' and he brought him wheat and barley. He is not regarded as having added to his words, but as having flouted them,