innards

These things in [connection with] the pesah override Shabbat: its slaughtering and the sprinkling of its blood and the cleansing of its innards and the burning of its fat. But its roasting and the washing of its innards do not override Shabbat. Carrying it and bringing it from outside the Shabbat border and cutting off its wart do not override Shabbat. R. Eliezer says they do override [Shabbat].

These things in [connection with] the pesah override Shabbat: its slaughtering and the sprinkling of its blood and the cleansing of its innards and the burning of its fat. But its roasting and the washing of its innards do not override Shabbat. Carrying it and bringing it from outside the Shabbat border and cutting off its wart do not override Shabbat. R. Eliezer says they do override [Shabbat].

The second count:who slaughters [the daily regular offering], who sprinkles [the blood], who removes the ashes from the inner altar, who removes the ashes from the candlestick, 5-10) Who takes the limbs [of the offering up to the ramp], the head and the [right] hind-leg, the two forelegs, the tail and the [left] hind-leg, the breast and the throat, the two flanks, the innards, the fine flour, the cakes and the wine. Altogether thirteen priests merited a task. Ben Azzai said before Rabbi Akiba in the name of Rabbi Joshua: [the daily offering] was offered up in the way it walks.

A ram was offered by eleven: the flesh by five, the innards, the fine flour, and the wine by two each.

A bull was offered by twenty-four: The head and [right] hind-leg: the head by one and the [right] hind-leg by two. The tail and [left] hind-leg: the tail by two and the [left] hind-leg by two. The breast and neck: the breast by one and the neck by three. The two fore-legs by two, The two flanks by two. The innards, the fine flour, and the wine by three each. To what does this refer? To communal offerings. But individual offerings, if a single priest wants to offer [all], he may do so. But as to the flaying and dismembering [of both communal and individual sacrifices] the same regulations apply.

One who slaughters a sacrifice [intending]: To sprinkle its blood outside [the Temple] or part of its blood outside; To burn its innards or part of its innards outside; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh outside, Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of the fat-tail outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One he slaughters a sacrifice intending]: To sprinkle its blood or part of its blood the next day, To burn its innards or part of its innards on the next day; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh on the next day; Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of its fat-tail on the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth.

One who slaughters a sacrifice [intending]: To sprinkle its blood outside [the Temple] or part of its blood outside; To burn its innards or part of its innards outside; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh outside, Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of the fat-tail outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One he slaughters a sacrifice intending]: To sprinkle its blood or part of its blood the next day, To burn its innards or part of its innards on the next day; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh on the next day; Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of its fat-tail on the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth.

One who slaughters a sacrifice [intending]: To sprinkle its blood outside [the Temple] or part of its blood outside; To burn its innards or part of its innards outside; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh outside, Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of the fat-tail outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One he slaughters a sacrifice intending]: To sprinkle its blood or part of its blood the next day, To burn its innards or part of its innards on the next day; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh on the next day; Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of its fat-tail on the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth.

One who slaughters a sacrifice [intending]: To sprinkle its blood outside [the Temple] or part of its blood outside; To burn its innards or part of its innards outside; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh outside, Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of the fat-tail outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One he slaughters a sacrifice intending]: To sprinkle its blood or part of its blood the next day, To burn its innards or part of its innards on the next day; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh on the next day; Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of its fat-tail on the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth.

If he slaughtered it with the intention of leaving its blood or its innards for the next day, or of carrying them outside of their place: Rabbi Judah disqualifies [it], But the sages declare it valid. [If he slaughtered it] with the intention of sprinkling [the blood] on the ascent, [or on the altar] but not against its base; or of applying below [the scarlet line] what should be applied above, or above what should be applied below, or without what should be applied within, or within what should be applied without; [Or with the intention] that unclean [persons] should eat it, [or] that unclean [priests] should offer it; [Or] that uncircumcised [persons] should eat it, [or] that uncircumcised persons should offer it; [Or with the intention] of breaking the bones of the pesah, or eating of it before it is roasted; Or of mingling its blood with the blood of invalid [sacrifices]; [In all of these cases] it is valid, because an [illegitimate] intention does not disqualify [a sacrifice] except when it refers to after its time or outside its prescribed place, and [in the case of] a pesah and a hatat, [the intention to slaughter them] for the sake of their being a different sacrifice.

[The sprinkling of] the blood of the olah permits its flesh for [burning on] the altar, and its skin to the priests. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the olah of a bird permits its flesh to the altar. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the hatat of a bird permits its flesh to the priests. [The sprinkling of] the blood of the bullocks that are burned and the goats that are burned permits their innards to be offered [on the altar]. Rabbi Shimon said: whatever is not [sprinkled] on the outer altar, as in the case of shelamim, one is not liable for it on account of piggul.

Whatever is more sacred than another precedes the other. The blood of a hatat precedes the blood of a olah, because it propitiates. The limbs of a olah precede the innards of a hatat, because it [the former] is entirely for the fires [of the altar]. A hatat precedes an asham, because its blood is sprinkled on the four horns and on the base. An asham precedes a today and a nazirite’s ram, because it is a most holy sacrifice. A todah and a nazirite's ram precede a shelamim, because they are eaten one day [only] and require [the accompaniment of] loaves. A shelamim precedes a firstling, because it requires four [blood] applications and laying [of hands], libations, and the waving of the breast and the thigh.

A first-born precedes tithe, because its sanctity is from the womb, and it is eaten by priests. Tithe precedes bird [-offerings] because it is a slaughtered sacrifice, and part of it is most sacred: its blood and innards.

In regard to both valid sacrifices or invalid sacrifices which had become unfit within [the Temple]: if one offers them outside, he is liable. If one offers up outside [the Temple] as much as an olive’s worth of an olah and its innards [combined], he is liable. As for the fistful [of flour], the frankincense, the incense, the priests’ meal-offering, the anointed priest’s meal-offering, and the meal offering of libations, if [one] offered up as much as an olive of one of these outside, he is liable. But Rabbi Elazar exempts him unless he offers up the whole of them. In all of these cases, if they offered them within, and left over an olive’s worth and one offered it outside, he is liable. In all of these cases, if they became lacking something, and one offered them outside, he is not liable.

One who offers sacrifices together with the innards outside the Temple, is liable. If a minhah had not had its fistful removed and one offered it outside, he is exempt. If one took out the fistful, and then the fistful went back into the minhah, and he offered it outside, he is liable.

These require waving but not bringing near: The log of oil of the leper and his guilt-offering, The first fruits, according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, The innards of an individual’s shelamim and its breast and thigh, whether they are the offerings of men or of women, by Israelites but not by others; The two loaves and the two lambs of Shavuot. How does he perform [the waving]? He places the two loaves upon the two lambs and puts his two hands beneath them and waves them forward and backward and upward and downward, for it is written, “which is waved and which is lifted up” (Exodus 29:27). The waving was performed on the east side [of the altar] and the bringing near on the west side. The ceremony of waving comes before that of bringing near. The minhah of the omer and the minhah of jealousy require bringing near and waving. The showbread and the minhah with the libations require neither bringing near nor waving.

The following [defects] render birds terefah: If the esophagus was pierced, If the windpipe was severed; If a weasel struck [the bird] on the head in such a place as would render it terefah. If the gizzard was pierced, If the intestines were pierced, If it fell into the fire and its innards were scorched: If they turned green, it is invalid, But if they remained red it is valid. If one trod upon it or knocked it against a wall or if an animal trampled upon it, and it still jerks its limbs, and it remained alive after this for twenty-four hours, and it was thereafter slaughtered, it is valid.

And the following [defects] do not render birds terefah: If the windpipe was pierced or cracked lengthwise; If a weasel struck it on the head in such a place as would not render it terefah. If the crop was pierced Rabbi says: even if it was gone. If the innards protruded [from the body] but were not pierced. If its wings were broken, or its legs; or if [the wing’s] feathers were plucked. Rabbi Judah says: if its down was gone it is invalid.

If the innards of sacrifices of that have a lower degree of holiness were taken out [of the Temple court] before the blood was sprinkled: Rabbi Eliezer says: they are not subject to the laws of sacrilege and one cannot become guilty of [transgressing with them the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement. Rabbi Akiva says: they are subject to the laws of sacrilege and one can become guilty of [transgressing with them the laws of] notar, piggul and defilement.

The act of [sprinkling the] blood of most holy sacrifices may have either a lenient or a stringent effect, but with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With most holy sacrifices, before the sprinkling, the law of sacrilege applies both to the innards and to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of [transgressing the laws of] notar, iggul and defilement. It is thus found that with most holy sacrifices the act of sprinkling has a lenient as well as a stringent effect. With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, before the sprinkling the law of sacrilege does not apply to the innards or to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of transgressing the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. It is thus found that with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect.

The act of [sprinkling the] blood of most holy sacrifices may have either a lenient or a stringent effect, but with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With most holy sacrifices, before the sprinkling, the law of sacrilege applies both to the innards and to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of [transgressing the laws of] notar, iggul and defilement. It is thus found that with most holy sacrifices the act of sprinkling has a lenient as well as a stringent effect. With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, before the sprinkling the law of sacrilege does not apply to the innards or to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of transgressing the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. It is thus found that with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect.

The act of [sprinkling the] blood of most holy sacrifices may have either a lenient or a stringent effect, but with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With most holy sacrifices, before the sprinkling, the law of sacrilege applies both to the innards and to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of [transgressing the laws of] notar, iggul and defilement. It is thus found that with most holy sacrifices the act of sprinkling has a lenient as well as a stringent effect. With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, before the sprinkling the law of sacrilege does not apply to the innards or to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of transgressing the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. It is thus found that with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect.

The act of [sprinkling the] blood of most holy sacrifices may have either a lenient or a stringent effect, but with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With most holy sacrifices, before the sprinkling, the law of sacrilege applies both to the innards and to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of [transgressing the laws of] notar, iggul and defilement. It is thus found that with most holy sacrifices the act of sprinkling has a lenient as well as a stringent effect. With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect. How so? With sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness, before the sprinkling the law of sacrilege does not apply to the innards or to the flesh; after the sprinkling it applies to the innards but not to the flesh; In respect of both one is guilty of transgressing the laws of notar, piggul and defilement. It is thus found that with sacrifices of a lesser degree of holiness it has only a stringent effect.

The law of sacrilege applies to the hatat, and asham and to shelamim sacrifices of the congregation from the moment of their dedication. Once slaughtered they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once their blood has been sprinkled they are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement. The law of sacrilege then no longer applies to the flesh, but applies to the innards until the ashes are removed to the place of the ashes.

He did not use to break the leg, but he made a hole in it at the [knee-] joint and suspended it from there. He then began to flay it until he came to the breast. When he came to the breast he cut off the head and gave it to the one who merited [bringing it onto the ramp]. He then cut off the legs [up to the knees] and gave them to the one who merited [bringing them onto the ramp]. He then finished the flaying. He tore out the heart and squeezed out the blood in it. He then cut off the forelegs and gave them to the one who merited [bringing them onto the ramp]. He then went back to the right leg and cut it off and gave it to the one who merited [to bring it onto the ramp], and the two testicles with it. He then tore it [the remaining carcass] open so that it was all exposed before him. He took the fat and put it on top of the place where the head had been severed. He took the innards and gave them to the one to who had merited washing them. The stomach was washed very thoroughly in the washing chamber, while the entrails were washed at least three times on marble tables which stood between the pillars.

He then took a knife and separated the lung from the liver and the finger of the liver from the liver, but he did not remove it from its place. He cut out the breast and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp]. He came to the right flank and cut into it as far as the spine, without touching the spine, until he came to the place between two small ribs. He cut it off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], with the liver attached to it. He then came to the neck, and he left two ribs on each side of it, cut it off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], with the windpipe and the heart and the lung attached to it. He then came to the left flank in which he left the two thin ribs above and two thin ribs below; and he had done similarly with the other flank. Thus he left two on each side above and two on each side below. He cut it off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], and the spine with it and the spleen attached to it. This was really the largest piece, but the right flank was called the largest, because the liver was attached to it. He then came to the tail bone, which he cut off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp], along with the tail, the finger of the liver and the two kidneys. He then took the left leg and cut it off and gave it to the one who had merited [bringing it onto the ramp]. Thus they were all standing in a row with the limbs in their hands The first had the head and the [right] hind leg. The head was in his right hand with its nose towards his arm, its horns between his fingers, and the place where it was severed turned upwards with the fat covering it. The right leg was in his left hand with the place where the flaying began turned away from him. The second had the two fore legs, the right leg in his right hand and the left leg in his left hand, the place where the flaying began turned away from him. The third had the tail bone and the other hind leg, the tail bone in his right hand with the tail hanging between his fingers and the finger of the liver and the two kidneys with it, and the left hind leg in his left hand with the place where the flaying began turned away from him. The fourth had the breast and the neck, the breast in his right hand and the neck in his left hand, its ribs being between two of his fingers. The fifth had the two flanks, the right one in his right hand, and the left one in his left hand, with the place where the flaying began turned away from him. The sixth had the innards on a platter with the knees on top of them. The seventh had the fine flour. The eighth had the griddle cakes. The ninth had the wine. They went and placed them on the lower half of the ramp on its western side, and salted them (see Leviticus 2:13). They then came down and went to the Chamber of Hewn Stone to recite the Shema.

Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Ḥelbo. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Ḥelbo comes to it in the name of Rebbi Eudaimon from Ḥaifa: A person has to turn his face to the wall in order to pray. What is the reason? (Is. 38:2) “Hezekiah turned his face to the wall.” Which wall did he lift his eyes to? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he lifted his eyes to Raḥab’s wall, (Jos. 2:15) “For her house was on the wall of the fortification.” He said before Him: Master of the world, Raḥab the inn-keeper saved two souls for You, and see how many souls You saved for her. [That is what is written (Jos.6:23): “The youths came, etc.” Rebbi Simeon bar Yoḥai said, even if her family was 200 persons strong and they furthermore were related to another 200 families, all of these were saved by her merit.] My forefathers who brought to You all these proselytes, so much more. Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Pappus said, he lifted his eyes to the wall of the Temple. (Ez. 43:8) “When they put their lintel next to My lintel, their doorposts next to My doorpost, with the wall between Me and them.” They were important people, they could not go and pray in the Temple every time, so they prayed in their house and the Holy One, praise to Him, considers it as if they had prayed in the Temple. My fathers who built for You all this glory, so much more. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, he lifted his eyes to the wall of the woman from Sunem, as it was said (2Kings 4:10): “Let us make a small upper storey on the wall”. He said before Him: Master of the world, the woman from Sunem made one wall for Elisha and You revived her son. My forefathers who built for You all this glory, so much more that You should give me my life. The rabbis say, he lifted his eyes to the walls of his heart. (Jer. 4:19) “My innards, my innards I make tremble, the walls of my heart are in uproar.” He said before Him: Master of the world, I checked all my 248 limbs that You gave me and I did not find one of them I offended You with; so much more that You should give me my life.

Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Ḥelbo. Rebbi Berekhiah, Rebbi Ḥelbo comes to it in the name of Rebbi Eudaimon from Ḥaifa: A person has to turn his face to the wall in order to pray. What is the reason? (Is. 38:2) “Hezekiah turned his face to the wall.” Which wall did he lift his eyes to? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, he lifted his eyes to Raḥab’s wall, (Jos. 2:15) “For her house was on the wall of the fortification.” He said before Him: Master of the world, Raḥab the inn-keeper saved two souls for You, and see how many souls You saved for her. [That is what is written (Jos.6:23): “The youths came, etc.” Rebbi Simeon bar Yoḥai said, even if her family was 200 persons strong and they furthermore were related to another 200 families, all of these were saved by her merit.] My forefathers who brought to You all these proselytes, so much more. Rebbi Ḥananiah bar Pappus said, he lifted his eyes to the wall of the Temple. (Ez. 43:8) “When they put their lintel next to My lintel, their doorposts next to My doorpost, with the wall between Me and them.” They were important people, they could not go and pray in the Temple every time, so they prayed in their house and the Holy One, praise to Him, considers it as if they had prayed in the Temple. My fathers who built for You all this glory, so much more. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, he lifted his eyes to the wall of the woman from Sunem, as it was said (2Kings 4:10): “Let us make a small upper storey on the wall”. He said before Him: Master of the world, the woman from Sunem made one wall for Elisha and You revived her son. My forefathers who built for You all this glory, so much more that You should give me my life. The rabbis say, he lifted his eyes to the walls of his heart. (Jer. 4:19) “My innards, my innards I make tremble, the walls of my heart are in uproar.” He said before Him: Master of the world, I checked all my 248 limbs that You gave me and I did not find one of them I offended You with; so much more that You should give me my life.

When does one recite the benediction for šeḥiṭah? Rebbi Yoḥanan says, if he prepares to slaughter. Yose ben Nehorai says, after he slaughtered. Why? Maybe its slaughtering is producing a carcass. Now, should he not first check the signs? The ḥazaqah of intestines is that they are in order. It was stated: If it was slaughtered and the wolves took its innards, it is in order. Should one question whether they were pierced? Rebbi Abba in the name of the rabbis from there: Intestines have ḥazaqah that they are in order.

It was stated: “If somebody saw a bird pecking at a fig or a rat nibbling at a watermelon, it is forbidden [to eat from them] for I say, they might have eaten from the place of a pecking hole.” Rebbi Abba said, that means that a snake spits out repeatedly. Rebbi Jonah said, who considers for us commandments for peckings? But for torn [animals], Rebbi Abba said in the name of the rabbis from there, “if it was slaughtered and the wolves took its innards, it is in order because intestines are presumed to be in order.” Should one not question whether they were pierced? Intestines are presumed to be in order. But here, you say so? It is worse if there is danger to life; for peckings they went all the way with Rabban Gamliel.

“Nor with fat.” Rav Berona said, one mixes some oil with it and kindles. Yose asked, where do we hold? If it was made into a paste, even if he did not mix it with oil, as Samuel stated, any which one turns into a fluid and it does not jell is a paste. But if it was not made into a paste, even if he mixes with oil. There came Rav Ḥananiah, Rav Berona in the name of Rav: One may kindle with liquefied fat and fish innards. Rebbi Ḥiyya ber Ashi failed to come before Rav. He asked him, where have you been? He answered. I was trying to get olive oil. He asked him, do you not have innards of fish?

“Nor with fat.” Rav Berona said, one mixes some oil with it and kindles. Yose asked, where do we hold? If it was made into a paste, even if he did not mix it with oil, as Samuel stated, any which one turns into a fluid and it does not jell is a paste. But if it was not made into a paste, even if he mixes with oil. There came Rav Ḥananiah, Rav Berona in the name of Rav: One may kindle with liquefied fat and fish innards. Rebbi Ḥiyya ber Ashi failed to come before Rav. He asked him, where have you been? He answered. I was trying to get olive oil. He asked him, do you not have innards of fish?

“Rebbi Ismael says, one does not kindle with ˋiṭran because of the honor of the Sabbath.” What is the difference between ˋiṭran and innards of fish? Innards of fish are not smelling badly as long as they are burning; they are smelling badly when extinguished. ˋIṭran smells badly whether extinguished or burning. Since it smells badly one should need to distance himself four cubits; therefore it is necessary to say “one does not kindle”.

“Rebbi Ismael says, one does not kindle with ˋiṭran because of the honor of the Sabbath.” What is the difference between ˋiṭran and innards of fish? Innards of fish are not smelling badly as long as they are burning; they are smelling badly when extinguished. ˋIṭran smells badly whether extinguished or burning. Since it smells badly one should need to distance himself four cubits; therefore it is necessary to say “one does not kindle”.

He who burns potter’s clay, softens glass, melts pitch, melts מוסרין. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina: One who melts down lead is liable because of cooking. One who roasts, or who fries, who preserves by cooking, or by smoking, all these because of cooking. If somebody cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias, what? Ḥizqiah said, it is forbidden; Rebbi Joḥanan said, it is permitted. Rebbi Mana said, I went to Caesarea and heard Rebbi Zeriqan in the name of Ḥizqiah; for Ḥizqiah it was a problem: what if the Passover sacrifice was cooked in the hot springs of Tiberias? Two Amoraim, one said, it is forbidden; the other said, it is permitted. He who said, it is forbidden, do not eat from it raw, nor cooked in water. But he who said, it is permitted, but only roasted in fire, its head with its feet and its innards.

MISHNAH: How does one roast the Pesaḥ? A spit of pomegranate wood he sticks from its mouth to its buttocks and puts the hooves and its innards into it, the words of Rebbi Yose the Galilean. Rebbi Aqiba says, this is a kind of cooking; but one hangs them outside.

What? Does Rebbi Yose the Galilean consider it as thick hips, or does he explain the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards. What is the difference between them? If he roasted it like a profane lamb. If you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is disqualified; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is qualified. If he cut some meat from it and roasted it inside, if you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is qualified; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is disqualified. If he roasted it in the steam of a pot, if you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is disqualified; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is qualified. But did one not state, roasted in fire, not roasted in a pot. [Explain it,] if it touched the body of the pot. This implies that he explained the verse.

What? Does Rebbi Yose the Galilean consider it as thick hips, or does he explain the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards. What is the difference between them? If he roasted it like a profane lamb. If you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is disqualified; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is qualified. If he cut some meat from it and roasted it inside, if you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is qualified; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is disqualified. If he roasted it in the steam of a pot, if you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is disqualified; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is qualified. But did one not state, roasted in fire, not roasted in a pot. [Explain it,] if it touched the body of the pot. This implies that he explained the verse.

What? Does Rebbi Yose the Galilean consider it as thick hips, or does he explain the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards. What is the difference between them? If he roasted it like a profane lamb. If you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is disqualified; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is qualified. If he cut some meat from it and roasted it inside, if you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is qualified; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is disqualified. If he roasted it in the steam of a pot, if you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is disqualified; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is qualified. But did one not state, roasted in fire, not roasted in a pot. [Explain it,] if it touched the body of the pot. This implies that he explained the verse.

What? Does Rebbi Yose the Galilean consider it as thick hips, or does he explain the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards. What is the difference between them? If he roasted it like a profane lamb. If you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is disqualified; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is qualified. If he cut some meat from it and roasted it inside, if you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is qualified; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is disqualified. If he roasted it in the steam of a pot, if you are saying that Rebbi Yose the Galilean considers it as thick hips, it is disqualified; if you are saying that he explains the verse, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards, it is qualified. But did one not state, roasted in fire, not roasted in a pot. [Explain it,] if it touched the body of the pot. This implies that he explained the verse.

Inside-out, the words of Rebbi Tarphon. Rebbi Ismael says, helmeted. It turns out that Rebbi Tarphon parallels Rebbi Aqiba, and Rebbi Ismael Rebbi Yose the Galilean; as we have stated: Rebbi Yose the Galilean said, “what is a helmeted kid-goat? Entirely roasted, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards. If he parboiled part of it, or cooked part of it, this is not a helmeted kid-goat. One serves helmeted kid-goat in the evening of the first day of Tabernacles, and on the last day of Passover. One serves helmeted calf on the first night of Passover but not helmeted kid-goat.”

“And one makes a helmeted kid-goat in the Passover night, but the Sages forbid.” “What is a helmeted kid-goat? Entirely roasted, its head, on its hooves, and on its innards. If he parboiled part of it, or cooked part of it, this is not a helmeted kid-goat. One serves helmeted kid-goat in the evening of the first day of Tabernacles, (and on the first day of) [and in the night of the last day of] Passover. One serves helmeted calf on the first night of Passover but not helmeted kid-goat.” It was stated: Rebbi Yose said, Theudas of Rome led the people of Rome to eat helmeted kid-goat in the Passover nights. The Sages sent and said to him, if you were not Theudas, would we not put you in the ban? Who was Theudas? Rebbi Ḥananiah said, because he was providing for the rabbis. Are you not causing the public to eat sancta outside the Temple? And anybody causing the public to eat sancta outside the Temple has to be put in the ban.

MISHNAH: The order of burning: One makes him sink into manure up to his knees, puts a stiff cloth into soft ones and winds them around his throat. One person draws in his direction, the other draws in his direction until he opens his mouth. Then one lights a wick and throws it into his mouth that it enters his innards and chars his intestines. Rebbi Jehudah says, in that case, if he would die in their hands they would not have fulfilled the duty of burning; one opens his mouth forcefully with tongs, lights a wire and throws it into his mouth that it enters his innards and chars his intestines. Rebbi Eleazar ben Ṣadoq said, it happened that a Cohen’s daughter whored; they surrounded her with firewood and burned her. They told him, because the court at that time was incompetent.

MISHNAH: The order of burning: One makes him sink into manure up to his knees, puts a stiff cloth into soft ones and winds them around his throat. One person draws in his direction, the other draws in his direction until he opens his mouth. Then one lights a wick and throws it into his mouth that it enters his innards and chars his intestines. Rebbi Jehudah says, in that case, if he would die in their hands they would not have fulfilled the duty of burning; one opens his mouth forcefully with tongs, lights a wire and throws it into his mouth that it enters his innards and chars his intestines. Rebbi Eleazar ben Ṣadoq said, it happened that a Cohen’s daughter whored; they surrounded her with firewood and burned her. They told him, because the court at that time was incompetent.

Rebbi Crispus in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of a ba `aṣ wire. What is a ba `aṣ wire? The rabbis of Caesarea say, a mixture of lead and tin. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, this follows him who said, “one lights a wire and throws it into his mouth.” But for him, who says, “it enters his innards and chars his intestines,” the Mishnah speaks of a wick of Naphtha.

But the rabbis say, he lifted his eyes to the walls of his heart. My innards, my innards I make tremble, the walls of my heart are in uproar; my heart is beating inside me, I cannot be silent. He said before Him: Master of the world, I checked all my 248 limbs that You gave me and I did not find one of them I offended you with; so much more that You should spare my life.

But the rabbis say, he lifted his eyes to the walls of his heart. My innards, my innards I make tremble, the walls of my heart are in uproar; my heart is beating inside me, I cannot be silent. He said before Him: Master of the world, I checked all my 248 limbs that You gave me and I did not find one of them I offended you with; so much more that You should spare my life.

“A Jewish woman should not be a midwife for a Non-Jew, for she brings a son to pagan worship; but a Non-Jew may be a midwife for a Jewish woman.” It was stated so: From the outside but not the inside. She should not put her hand inside not to squish the fetus in her innards, and she should not give her a cup of root-extract to drink. If she was a medical doctor? This will come as what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If he was a professional healer it is permitted. And here, if she was a medical doctor it is permitted. [Rebbi Yose bar Abun, these questions … [doc]tor permitted.]

Ulla the leatherworker stated before Rebbi Dosa, an impure fish has live births, a pure fish lays eggs. He started again and stated, fish intestines and fish innards are eaten only upon certification by an expert. He told him, change your statement! This one state or that one. Rebbi Ze`ira said to him, do not change your statement. They are finished only upon being laid. Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav Jehudah, if one tells you, I salted them, he may be believed Nathan bar Abba said before Samuel, I know how to distinguish between fetuses of impure fish and fetuses of pure fish. The fetuses of impure fish are spherical, the fetuses of pure fish are elongated. He showed him a salpe; he asked him, what is its status? He answered, impure. He told him, not only am I aggravated that you said impure of what is pure but at the end you will say pure of what is impure.

It was stated: One buys fish intestines and fish innards only upon certification by an expert. One buys dark blue wool only upon certification by an expert. One buys Bithynian cheese only upon certification by an expert. One buys wine in Syria only upon certification by an expert. One buys meat without a mark only upon certification by an expert. But all one may eat at a person’s who is not an expert without worry.