sacrificial

And they took sacrificial oxen and summoned all people and sacrificed the sacrifice before the Lord's face.

And I looked round, and lo! there were following us all the prescribed sacrificial (animals) — the young heifer, and the she-goat, and the ram, and the turtle-dove, and the pigeon.

But let it be granted that Jesus observed all the Jewish usages, including even their sacrificial observances, what does that avail to prevent our recognising Him as the Son of God? Jesus, then, is the Son of God, who gave the law and the prophets; and we, who belong to the church, do not transgress the law, but have escaped the mythologizings of the Jews, and have our minds chastened and educated by the mystical contemplation of the law and the prophets. For the prophets themselves, as not resting the sense of these words in the plain history which they relate, nor in the legal enactments taken according to the word and letter, express themselves somewhere, when about to relate histories, in words like this, “I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter hard sayings of old;” and in another place, when offering up a prayer regarding the law as being obscure, and needing divine help for its comprehension, they offer up this prayer, “Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law.”

For with what purpose in view did Providence accomplish the marvels related of Aristeas? And to confer what benefit upon the human race did such remarkable events, as you regard them, take place? You cannot answer. But we, when we relate the events of the history of Jesus, have no ordinary defence to offer for their occurrence;—this, viz., that God desired to commend the doctrine of Jesus as a doctrine which was to save mankind, and which was based, indeed, upon the apostles as foundations of the rising edifice of Christianity, but which increased in magnitude also in the succeeding ages, in which not a few cures are wrought in the name of Jesus, and certain other manifestations of no small moment have taken place. Now what sort of person is Apollo, who enjoined the Metapontines to treat Aristeas as a god? And with what object does he do this? And what advantage was he procuring to the Metapontines from this divine worship, if they were to regard him as a god, who a little ago was a mortal? And yet the recommendations of Apollo (viewed by us as a demon who has obtained the honour of libation and sacrificial odours) regarding this Aristeas appear to you to be worthy of consideration; while those of the God of all things, and of His holy angels, made known beforehand through the prophets—not after the birth of Jesus, but before He appeared among men—do not stir you up to admiration, not merely of the prophets who received the Divine Spirit, but of Him also who was the object of their predictions, whose entrance into life was so clearly predicted many years beforehand by numerous prophets, that the whole Jewish people who were hanging in expectation of the coming of Him who was looked for, did, after the advent of Jesus, fall into a keen dispute with each other; and that a great multitude of them acknowledged Christ, and believed Him to be the object of prophecy, while others did not believe in Him, but, despising the meekness of those who, on account of the teaching of Jesus, were unwilling to cause even the most trifling sedition, dared to inflict on Jesus those cruelties which His disciples have so truthfully and candidly recorded, without secretly omitting from their marvellous history of Him what seems to the multitude to bring disgrace upon the doctrine of Christianity. But both Jesus Himself and His disciples desired that His followers should believe not merely in His Godhead and miracles, as if He had not also been a partaker of human nature, and had assumed the human flesh which “lusteth against the Spirit;” but they saw also that the power which had descended into human nature, and into the midst of human miseries, and which had assumed a human soul and body, contributed through faith, along with its divine elements, to the salvation of believers, when they see that from Him there began the union of the divine with the human nature, in order that the human, by communion with the divine, might rise to be divine, not in Jesus alone, but in all those who not only believe, but enter upon the life which Jesus taught, and which elevates to friendship with God and communion with Him every one who lives according to the precepts of Jesus.

The Egyptians, then, having been taught to worship Antinous, will, if you compare him with Apollo or Zeus, endure such a comparison, Antinous being magnified in their estimation through being classed with these deities; for Celsus is clearly convicted of falsehood when he says, “that they will not endure his being compared with Apollo or Zeus.” Whereas Christians (who have learned that their eternal life consists in knowing the only true God, who is over all, and Jesus Christ, whom He has sent; and who have learned also that all the gods of the heathen are greedy demons, which flit around sacrifices and blood, and other sacrificial accompaniments, in order to deceive those who have not taken refuge with the God who is over all, but that the divine and holy angels of God are of a different nature and will from all the demons on earth, and that they are known to those exceedingly few persons who have carefully and intelligently investigated these matters) will not endure a comparison to be made between them and Apollo or Zeus, or any being worshipped with odours and blood and sacrifices; some of them, so acting from their extreme simplicity, not being able to give a reason for their conduct, but sincerely observing the precepts which they have received; others, again, for reasons not to be lightly regarded, nay, even of a profound description, and (as a Greek would say) drawn from the inner nature of things; and amongst the latter of these God is a frequent subject of conversation, and those who are honoured by God, through His only-begotten Word, with participation in His divinity, and therefore also in His name. They speak much, too, both regarding the angels of God and those who are opposed to the truth, but have been deceived; and who, in consequence of being deceived, call them gods or angels of God, or good demons, or heroes who have become such by the transference into them of a good human soul. And such Christians will also show, that as in philosophy there are many who appear to be in possession of the truth, who have yet either deceived themselves by plausible arguments, or by rashly assenting to what was brought forward and discovered by others; so also, among those souls which exist apart from bodies, both angels and demons, there are some which have been induced by plausible reasons to declare themselves gods. And because it was impossible that the reasons of such things could be discovered by men with perfect exactness, it was deemed safe that no mortal should entrust himself to any being as to God, with the exception of Jesus Christ, who is, as it were, the Ruler over all things, and who both beheld these weighty secrets, and made them known to a few.

But since nothing belonging to human nature is permanent, this polity also must gradually be corrupted and changed. And Providence, having remodelled their venerable system where it needed to be changed, so as to adapt it to men of all countries, gave to believers of all nations, in place of the Jews, the venerable religion of Jesus, who, being adorned not only with understanding, but also with a share of divinity, and having overthrown the doctrine regarding earthly demons, who delight in frankincense, and blood, and in the exhalations of sacrificial odours, and who, like the fabled Titans or Giants, drag down men from thoughts of God; and having Himself disregarded their plots, directed chiefly against the better class of men, enacted laws which ensure happiness to those who live according to them, and who do not flatter the demons by means of sacrifices, but altogether despise them, through help of the word of God, which aids those who look upwards to Him. And as it was the will of God that the doctrine of Jesus should prevail amongst men, the demons could effect nothing, although straining every nerve to accomplish the destruction of Christians; for they stirred up both princes, and senates, and rulers in every place,—nay, even nations themselves, who did not perceive the irrational and wicked procedure of the demons,—against the word, and those who believed in it; yet, notwithstanding, the word of God, which is more powerful than all other things, even when meeting with opposition, deriving from the opposition, as it were, a means of increase, advanced onwards, and won many souls, such being the will of God. And we have offered these remarks by way of a necessary digression. For we wished to answer the assertion of Celsus concerning the Jews, that they were “fugitives from Egypt, and that these men, beloved by God, never accomplished anything worthy of note.” And further, in answer to the statement that “they were never held in any reputation or account,” we say, that living apart as a “chosen nation and a royal priesthood,” and shunning intercourse with the many nations around them, in order that their morals might escape corruption, they enjoyed the protection of the divine power, neither coveting like the most of mankind the acquisition of other kingdoms, nor yet being abandoned so as to become, on account of their smallness, an easy object of attack to others, and thus be altogether destroyed; and this lasted so long as they were worthy of the divine protection. But when it became necessary for them, as a nation wholly given to sin, to be brought back by their sufferings to their God, they were abandoned [by Him], sometimes for a longer, sometimes for a shorter period, until in the time of the Romans, having committed the greatest of sins in putting Jesus to death, they were completely deserted.

But, that we may not pass without notice what Celsus has said between these and the preceding paragraphs, let us quote his words: “We might adduce Herodotus as a witness on this point, for he expresses himself as follows: ‘For the people of the cities Marea and Apis, who inhabit those parts of Egypt that are adjacent to Libya, and who look upon themselves as Libyans, and not as Egyptians, finding their sacrificial worship oppressive, and wishing not to be excluded from the use of cows’ flesh, sent to the oracle of Jupiter Ammon, saying that there was no relationship between them and the Egyptians, that they dwelt outside the Delta, that there was no community of sentiment between them and the Egyptians, and that they wished to be allowed to partake of all kinds of food. But the god would not allow them to do as they desired, saying that that country was a part of Egypt, which was watered by the inundation of the Nile, and that those were Egyptians who dwell to the south of the city of Elephantine, and drink of the river Nile.’ Such is the narrative of Herodotus. But,” continues Celsus, “Ammon in divine things would not make a worse ambassador than the angels of the Jews, so that there is nothing wrong in each nation observing its established method of worship. Of a truth, we shall find very great differences prevailing among the nations, and yet each seems to deem its own by far the best. Those inhabitants of Ethiopia who dwell in Meroe worship Jupiter and Bacchus alone; the Arabians, Urania and Bacchus only; all the Egyptians, Osiris and Isis; the Saïtes, Minerva; while the Naucratites have recently classed Serapis among their deities, and the rest according to their respective laws. And some abstain from the flesh of sheep, and others from that of crocodiles; others, again, from that of cows, while they regard swine’s flesh with loathing. The Scythians, indeed, regard it as a noble act to banquet upon human beings. Among the Indians, too, there are some who deem themselves discharging a holy duty in eating their fathers, and this is mentioned in a certain passage by Herodotus. For the sake of credibility, I shall again quote his very words, for he writes as follows: ‘For if any one were to make this proposal to all men, viz. to bid him select out of all existing laws the best, each would choose, after examination, those of his own country. Men each consider their own laws much the best, and therefore it is not likely that any other than a madman would make these things a subject of ridicule. But that such are the conclusions of all men regarding the laws, may be determined by many other evidences, and especially by the following illustration. Darius, during his reign, having summoned before him those Greeks who happened to be present at the time, inquired of them for how much they would be willing to eat their deceased fathers; their answer was, that for no consideration would they do such a thing. After this, Darius summoned those Indians who are called Callatians, who are in the habit of eating their parents, and asked of them in the presence of these Greeks, who learned what passed through an interpreter, for what amount of money they would undertake to burn their deceased fathers with fire; on which they raised a loud shout, and bade the king say no more.’ Such is the way, then, in which these matters are regarded. And Pindar appears to me to be right in saying that ‘law’ is the king of all things.”

It is evident that, by the preceding remarks, Celsus charges the Jews with falsely giving themselves out as the chosen portion of the Supreme God above all other nations. And he accuses them of boasting, because they gave out that they knew the great God, although they did not really know Him, but were led away by the artifices of Moses, and were deceived by him, and became his disciples to no good end. Now we have in the preceding pages already spoken in part of the venerable and distinguished polity of the Jews, when it existed amongst them as a symbol of the city of God, and of His temple, and of the sacrificial worship offered in it and at the altar of sacrifice. But if any one were to turn his attention to the meaning of the legislator, and to the constitution which he established, and were to examine the various points relating to him, and compare them with the present method of worship among other nations, there are none which he would admire to a greater degree; because, so far as can be accomplished among mortals, everything that was not of advantage to the human race was withheld from them, and only those things which are useful bestowed. And for this reason they had neither gymnastic contests, nor scenic representations, nor horse-races; nor were there among them women who sold their beauty to any one who wished to have sexual intercourse without offspring, and to cast contempt upon the nature of human generation. And what an advantage was it to be taught from their tender years to ascend above all visible nature, and to hold the belief that God was not fixed anywhere within its limits, but to look for Him on high, and beyond the sphere of all bodily substance! And how great was the advantage which they enjoyed in being instructed almost from their birth, and as soon as they could speak, in the immortality of the soul, and in the existence of courts of justice under the earth, and in the rewards provided for those who have lived righteous lives! These truths, indeed, were proclaimed in the veil of fable to children, and to those whose views of things were childish; while to those who were already occupied in investigating the truth, and desirous of making progress therein, these fables, so to speak, were transfigured into the truths which were concealed within them. And I consider that it was in a manner worthy of their name as the “portion of God” that they despised all kinds of divination, as that which bewitches men to no purpose, and which proceeds rather from wicked demons than from anything of a better nature; and sought the knowledge of future events in the souls of those who, owing to their high degree of purity, received the spirit of the Supreme God.

As, then, this act of self-restraint, which in appearance is one and the same, is found in fact to be different in different persons, according to the principles and motives which lead to it; so in the same way with those who cannot allow in the worship of the Divine Being altars, or temples, or images. The Scythians, the nomadic Libyans, the godless Seres, and the Persians, agree in this with the Christians and Jews, but they are actuated by very different principles. For none of these former abhor altars and images on the ground that they are afraid of degrading the worship of God, and reducing it to the worship of material things wrought by the hands of men. Neither do they object to them from a belief that the demons choose certain forms and places, whether because they are detained there by virtue of certain charms, or because for some other possible reason they have selected these haunts, where they may pursue their criminal pleasures, in partaking of the smoke of sacrificial victims. But Christians and Jews have regard to this command, “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him alone;” and this other, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me: thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them;” and again, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” It is in consideration of these and many other such commands, that they not only avoid temples, altars, and images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High God.

Let us see what Celsus next goes on to say. It is as follows: “What need is there to collect all the oracular responses, which have been delivered with a divine voice by priests and priestesses, as well as by others, whether men or women, who were under a divine influence?—all the wonderful things that have been heard issuing from the inner sanctuary?—all the revelations that have been made to those who consulted the sacrificial victims?—and all the knowledge that has been conveyed to men by other signs and prodigies? To some the gods have appeared in visible forms. The world is full of such instances. How many cities have been built in obedience to commands received from oracles; how often, in the same way, delivered from disease and famine! Or again, how many cities, from disregard or forgetfulness of these oracles, have perished miserably! How many colonies have been established and made to flourish by following their orders! How many princes and private persons have, from this cause, had prosperity or adversity! How many who mourned over their childlessness, have obtained the blessing they asked for! How many have turned away from themselves the anger of demons! How many who were maimed in their limbs, have had them restored! And again, how many have met with summary punishment for showing want of reverence to the temples—some being instantly seized with madness, others openly confessing their crimes, others having put an end to their lives, and others having become the victims of incurable maladies! Yea, some have been slain by a terrible voice issuing from the inner sanctuary.” I know not how it comes that Celsus brings forward these as undoubted facts, whilst at the same time he treats as mere fables the wonders which are recorded and handed down to us as having happened among the Jews, or as having been performed by Jesus and His disciples. For why may not our accounts be true, and those of Celsus fables and fictions? At least, these latter were not believed by the followers of Democritus, Epicurus, and Aristotle, although perhaps these Grecian sects would have been convinced by the evidence in support of our miracles, if Moses or any of the prophets who wrought these wonders, or Jesus Christ Himself, had come in their way.

Celsus supposes that men “discharge the duties of life until they are loosened from its bonds,” when, in accordance with commonly received customs, they offer sacrifices to each of the gods recognised in the state; and he fails to perceive the true duty which is fulfilled by an earnest piety. For we say that he truly discharges the duties of life who is ever mindful who is his Creator, and what things are agreeable to Him, and who acts in all things so that he may please God. Again, Celsus wishes us to be thankful to these demons, imagining that we owe them thankofferings. But we, while recognising the duty of thankfulness, maintain that we show no ingratitude by refusing to give thanks to beings who do us no good, but who rather set themselves against us when we neither sacrifice to them nor worship them. We are much more concerned lest we should be ungrateful to God, who has loaded us with His benefits, whose workmanship we are, who cares for us in whatever condition we may be, and who has given us hopes of things beyond this present life. And we have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread which we call the Eucharist. Besides, as we have shown before, the demons have not the control of those things which have been created for our use; we commit no wrong, therefore, when we partake of created things, and yet refuse to offer sacrifices to beings who have no concern with them. Moreover, as we know that it is not demons, but angels, who have been set over the fruits of the earth, and over the birth of animals, it is the latter that we praise and bless, as having been appointed by God over the things needful for our race; yet even to them we will not give the honour which is due to God. For this would not be pleasing to God, nor would it be any pleasure to the angels themselves to whom these things have been committed. Indeed, they are much more pleased if we refrain from offering sacrifices to them than if we offer them; for they have no desire for the sacrificial odours which rise from the earth.

Celsus, however, suspecting that the tendency of such teaching as he here gives is to lead to magic, and dreading that harm may arise from these statements, adds: “Care, however, must be taken lest any one, by familiarizing his mind with these matters, should become too much engrossed with them, and lest, through an excessive regard for the body, he should have his mind turned away from higher things, and allow them to pass into oblivion. For perhaps we ought not to despise the opinion of those wise men who say that most of the earth-demons are taken up with carnal indulgence, blood, odours, sweet sounds, and other such sensual things; and therefore they are unable to do more than heal the body, or foretell the fortunes of men and cities, and do other such things as relate to this mortal life.” If there is, then, such a dangerous tendency in this direction, as even the enemy of the truth of God confesses, how much better is it to avoid all danger of giving ourselves too much up to the power of such demons, and of becoming turned aside from higher things, and suffering them to pass into oblivion through an excessive attention to the body; by entrusting ourselves to the Supreme God through Jesus Christ, who has given us such instruction, and asking of Him all help, and the guardianship of holy and good angels, to defend us from the earth-spirits intent on lust, and blood, and sacrificial odours, and strange sounds, and other sensual things! For even, by the confession of Celsus, they can do nothing more than cure the body. But, indeed, I would say that it is not clear that these demons, however much they are reverenced, can even cure the body. But in seeking recovery from disease, a man must either follow the more ordinary and simple method, and have recourse to medical art; or if he would go beyond the common methods adopted by men, he must rise to the higher and better way of seeking the blessing of Him who is God over all, through piety and prayers.

For consider with yourself which disposition of mind will be more acceptable to the Most High, whose power is supreme and universal, and who directs all for the welfare of mankind in body, and in mind, and in outward things,—whether that of the man who gives himself up to God in all things, or that of the man who is curiously inquisitive about the names of demons, their powers and agency, the incantations, the herbs proper to them, and the stones with the inscriptions graven on them, corresponding symbolically or otherwise to their traditional shapes? It is plain even to the least intelligent, that the disposition of the man who is simple-minded, and not given to curious inquiries, but in all things devoted to the divine will, will be most pleasing to God, and to all those who are like God; but that of the man who, for the sake of bodily health, of bodily enjoyment, and outward prosperity, busies himself about the names of demons, and inquires by what incantations he shall appease them, will be condemned by God as bad and impious, and more agreeable to the nature of demons than of men, and will be given over to be torn and otherwise tormented by demons. For it is probable that they, as being wicked creatures, and, as Celsus confesses, addicted to blood, sacrificial odours, sweet sounds, and such like, will not keep their most solemn promises to those who supply them with these things. For if others invoke their aid against the persons who have already called upon them, and purchase their favour with a larger supply of blood, and odours, and such offerings as they require, they will take part against those who yesterday sacrificed and presented pleasant offerings to them.

In a former passage, Celsus had spoken at length on the subject of oracles, and had referred us to their answers as being the voice of the gods; but now he makes amends, and confesses that “those who foretell the fortunes of men and cities, and concern themselves about mortal affairs, are earth-spirits, who are given up to fleshly lust, blood, odours, sweet sounds, and other such things, and who are unable to rise above these sensual objects.” Perhaps, when we opposed the theological teaching of Celsus in regard to oracles, and the honour done to those called gods, some one might suspect us of impiety when we alleged that these were stratagems of demoniacal powers, to draw men away to carnal indulgence. But any who entertained this suspicion against us, may now believe that the statements put forth by Christians were well-founded, when they see the above passage from the writings of one who is a professed adversary of Christianity, but who now at length writes as one who has been overcome by the spirit of truth. Although, therefore, Celsus says that “we must offer sacrifices to them, in so far as they are profitable to us, for to offer them indiscriminately is not allowed by reason,” yet we are not to offer sacrifices to demons addicted to blood and odours; nor is the Divine Being to be profaned in our minds, by being brought down to the level of wicked demons. If Celsus had carefully weighed the meaning of the word “profitable,” and had considered that the truest profit lies in virtue and in virtuous action, he would not have applied the phrase “as far as it is profitable” to the service of such demons, as he has acknowledged them to be. If, then, health of body and success in life were to come to us on condition of our serving such demons, we should prefer sickness and misfortune accompanied with the consciousness of our being truly devoted to the will of God. For this is preferable to being mortally diseased in mind, and wretched through being separate and outcasts from God, though healthy in body and abounding in earthly prosperity. And we would rather go for help to one who seeks nothing whatever but the well-being of men and of all rational creatures, than to those that delight in blood and sacrificial odours.

One who bought a domesticated animal for a shelamim offering or a wild animal for non-sacrificial eating, the hide becomes hullin [non-sacred], even though the value of the hide exceeds the value of the flesh. Sealed jars of wine [which were bought] in a place where they were usually sold sealed, the jars are hullin. Walnuts and almonds, their shells become hullin. Grape-skin wine: before it has fermented it cannot be bought with second tithe money, but after it has fermented it may be bought with second tithe money.

One who bought a wild animal for a shelamim offering or a domesticated beast for non-sacrificial eating, the hide does not become hullin. Open or sealed jars of wine [which were bought] in a place where they are usually sold open, the jars do not become hullin. Baskets of olives or baskets of grapes [bought] together with the vessel, the value of the vessel does not become hullin.

Rabbi Hanina the vice-chief of the priests says: during all of the days of the priests they never refrained from burning [sacrificial] meat which had been defiled by an offspring of uncleanness with meat which had been defiled by a father of uncleanness, even though they add uncleanness to its uncleanness. Rabbi Akiva added and said: during [all] the days of the priests they did not refrain from lighting oil which had been rendered unclean by a tevul yom in a lamp which had been made unclean by one who had contracted corpse impurity, even though they add uncleanness to its uncleanness.

Rabbi Eliezer says: [Sacrificial meat] which was defiled by a principal uncleanness, whether inside or outside [the Temple precincts], must be burned outside [the Temple]. [Sacrificial meat] which was defiled with a derived uncleanness whether inside or outside the Temple, is burned inside the Temple. Rabbi Akiva says: where it was defiled there it is burned.

Rabbi Eliezer says: [Sacrificial meat] which was defiled by a principal uncleanness, whether inside or outside [the Temple precincts], must be burned outside [the Temple]. [Sacrificial meat] which was defiled with a derived uncleanness whether inside or outside the Temple, is burned inside the Temple. Rabbi Akiva says: where it was defiled there it is burned.

He [the high priest] came to the bull and the goat that were to be burnt. He cut them open and took out the sacrificial portions and put them on a tray, and them burned them on the altar. He twisted them around carrying poles and took them out to the place of burning. And from when are his clothes unclean? After they have gone outside the walls of the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: from the moment the fire has taken hold of most of them.

Anything that I am responsible to guard, I have rendered it possible to do injury [for which I will become obligated]. If I have partially rendered it possible to do injury, I must make restitution for that injury as if I totally rendered it possible to do injury. When one damages [property that fits all of the following categories]: property that does not have “sacrilege” [i.e. sacrificial animals or property that belongs to the Temple in Jerusalem], property that belongs to other members of the covenant [Jews], property that is owned, and the injury is done in any place other than the private domain of the injurer and the common domain of the injured and injurer, in these cases the injurer must make restitution for the injury with the best of his land.

An unclean person who ate holy meat (Leviticus 7:20, 12:4); One who entered the sanctuary while unclean (Leviticus 12:4, Numbers 5:3, 19:13); One who ate forbidden fat or blood (Leviticus 3:16, 7:23-27); Or leftover sacrificial meats (Leviticus 19:6-8); Or sacrifices that had been offered up with improper intention (Leviticus 7:18); Or [an offering] that has became unclean (Leviticus 7:19); One who slaughters, or offers up a sacrifice, outside the Temple precincts (Leviticus 17:4); One who ate leavened [bread] during Passover (Exodus 12:15,; One who partakes of food [or drink] or does work on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 23:27-31); One who puts together the ingredients for the [anointing] oil, or the ingredients for the incense, or anoints with the oil for anointing (Exodus 30:22-28): One who eats an animal that died a natural death (Deuteronomy 14:21); Or was improperly slaughtered (Exodus 22:30); Or any of the [creatures deemed] ‘abominable’ and ‘teeming’ (Leviticus 11:11,. One who eats non-tithed produce, or first-tithe from which heave offering has not been removed, or unredeemed second-tithe, or unredeemed sanctified property. How much untithed produce is one to eat to become liable? Rabbi Shimon says: “Any amount.” The Sages say: “An olive's size.” Rabbi Shimon said to them: “Do you not admit that if one ate the minutest ant that he would be liable? They said to him: “[Only] because it is a whole creature.” He said to them: “Even a grain of wheat is a whole entity.”

All sacrifices whose blood was caught by a: non-priest, an onen, a tebul yom, one lacking [priestly] vestments, one lacking sacrificial atonement, one who had not washed his hands and feet, an uncircumcised [priest]; an unclean [priest]; one who was sitting, one who was standing on utensils or on an animal or on another’s feet, are disqualified. If [the priest] caught [the blood] with his left hand, it is disqualified. Rabbi Shimon declares it valid. If the blood was poured out on to the pavement and [the priest] collected it, it is disqualified. If [the priest] put it [the blood] on the ramp [to the altar], [or on the altar, but] not against its base; if he applied [the blood] which should be applied below [the scarlet line] above [it] or that which should be applied above, below, or that which should be applied within [he applied] without, or that which should be applied without [he applied] within, it is invalid, but does not involve karet.

An asham which was mixed up with a shelamim: They graze until they become unfit. Rabbi Shimon says: they are slaughtered at the north [side of the altar] and eaten in accordance with [the laws of] the more stringent of them. They said to him: one must not bring sacrifices to a place of unfitness. If pieces [of sacrificial flesh] were mixed up with pieces [of other sacrificial flesh], most sacred sacrifices with lesser sacrifices, [pieces] that are eaten one day with [those] that are eaten two days and one night, they must be eaten in accordance with [the laws of] the more stringent of them.

An asham which was mixed up with a shelamim: They graze until they become unfit. Rabbi Shimon says: they are slaughtered at the north [side of the altar] and eaten in accordance with [the laws of] the more stringent of them. They said to him: one must not bring sacrifices to a place of unfitness. If pieces [of sacrificial flesh] were mixed up with pieces [of other sacrificial flesh], most sacred sacrifices with lesser sacrifices, [pieces] that are eaten one day with [those] that are eaten two days and one night, they must be eaten in accordance with [the laws of] the more stringent of them.

The following do not descend once they have ascended: [Sacrificial flesh] that was kept overnight, Or that which becomes unclean Or that that which goes out [of its permitted boundaries], Or which was slaughtered [with the intention of consuming it] after the appropriate time or outside the appropriate place; Or if unfit [persons] received and sprinkled its blood. Rabbi Judah says: that which was slaughtered at night or whose blood was spilt or whose blood went outside the curtains, if it ascended, it must descend. Rabbi Shimon says: it does not descend, because Rabbi Shimon says: anything whose disqualification arose in sanctity, the sacred [altar] receives it; if its disqualification did not arise in sanctity, the sacred [altar] does not receive it.

Whether one boiled in it or poured boiling [sacrificial flesh] into it, whether most sacred sacrifices or lesser sacrifices, [the pot] requires scouring and rinsing. Rabbi Shimon says: lesser sacrifices do not require scouring and rinsing. Rabbi Tarfon says: if one boiled [sacrifices in a pot] at the beginning of a festival, he can boil in it during the whole festival. But the sages say: until the time of eating, scouring and rinsing. Scouring is done as the scouring of a goblet; and rinsing is as the rinsing of a goblet, Scouring [in hot water] and rinsing in cold [water]. The spit and the grill are cleansed with hot water.

The following sacrifices were offered in the Tabernacle sacrifices consecrated for the Tabernacle: Public sacrifices were offered in the Tabernacle, and private sacrifices were offered at a bamah. If private sacrifices were consecrated for the Tabernacle, they must be offered in the Tabernacle; yet if one offered them at a bamah, he is not liable. What is the difference between the bamah of an individual and the bamah of the congregation? Laying [of hands], slaughtering in the north, sprinkling around [the altar], waving and presenting, (Rabbi Judah says: there were no meal-offerings at the bamah); priesthood, sacrificial vestments, ministering vessels, a sweet fragrance, a line of demarcation for [the sprinkling of] the blood, and the washing of hands and feet. But [the prohibitions of] time, remnant and defilement were the same in both.

If he took out the handful [intending] to eat the remainder or to burn the handful the next day, in this case Rabbi Yose agrees that the offering is piggul and he is obligated for karet. [If he intended] to burn its frankincense the next day: Rabbi Yose says: it is invalid but he is not liable for karet. But the sages say: it is piggul and he is liable for karet. They said to him: how does this differ from an animal-offering? He said to them: with the animal-offering the blood, the flesh and the sacrificial portions are all one; but the frankincense is not part of the minhah.

If the sheath [of the penis] is defective or the genitals of a female animal in the case of sacrificial offerings [it is defective.] If the tail is mutilated from the bone but not from the joint; or if the top end [root] of the tail is bared to the bone; or if there is flesh between one joint and another [in the tail] to the amount of a finger's breadth [the animal is defective].

There were four chambers inside the fire chamber, like sleeping chambers opening into a hall, two in sacred ground and two in non-holy, and there was a row of mosaic stones separating the holy from the non-holy. For what were they used? The one on the southwest was the chamber of sacrificial lambs, The one on the southeast was the chamber of the showbread. In the one to the northeast the Hasmoneans deposited the stones of the altar which the kings of Greece had defiled. Through the one on the northwest they used to go down to the bathing place.

There were rings to the north of the altar, six rows of four each. And some say, four rows of six each. Upon them they used to slaughter the sacrificial animals. The slaughter house was to the north of the altar, and on it were eight small pillars on top of which were blocks of cedar wood, in which were fixed hooks of iron, three rows in each, upon which they would hang [the sacrifice] and they would strip its hide on tables of marble that stood between the pillars.

There were six chambers in the courtyard, three on the north and three on the south. On the north were the salt chamber, the parvah chamber and the washer's chamber. In the salt chamber they used to keep the salt for the offerings. In the parvah chamber they used to salt the skins of the animal-offerings. On its roof was the bath used by the high priest on Yom Kippur. In the washers’ chamber they used to wash the entrails of the sacrificial animals, and from it a winding way went up to the roof of the parvah chamber.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says: One does add a fifth only for the first dedication. Rebbi Eleazar said, this is what has been stated (Lev. 27:27): “If it is an impure animal, he shall redeem it for its value;” just as an impure animal is special in that it is a first dedication so for anything which is a first dedication he has to add a fifth. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If well-being sacrificial animals bought with tithe money developed a blemish and one redeemed them, he adds a fifth. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If well-being sacrificial animals bought with Passover money developed a blemish and one redeemed them, he adds a fifth. Rebbi Yudan said, one is needed and one is not needed. Rebbi Mana said, Passover is needed, well-being sacrifices are not needed. You should not say that since the Pesaḥ sacrifice is changed into well-being sacrifices it is like one dedication, he would not add a fifth.

Rebbi Joshua ben Levi says: One does add a fifth only for the first dedication. Rebbi Eleazar said, this is what has been stated (Lev. 27:27): “If it is an impure animal, he shall redeem it for its value;” just as an impure animal is special in that it is a first dedication so for anything which is a first dedication he has to add a fifth. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If well-being sacrificial animals bought with tithe money developed a blemish and one redeemed them, he adds a fifth. Rebbi Samuel bar Ḥiyya bar Jehudah in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina: If well-being sacrificial animals bought with Passover money developed a blemish and one redeemed them, he adds a fifth. Rebbi Yudan said, one is needed and one is not needed. Rebbi Mana said, Passover is needed, well-being sacrifices are not needed. You should not say that since the Pesaḥ sacrifice is changed into well-being sacrifices it is like one dedication, he would not add a fifth.

Can they whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law? Rebbi Jonah in the name of Samuel, Rebbi Yose, Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: one cannot whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish stays with his opinion, as they differed: If somebody ground and mixed piggul and leftover [sacrificial meat], Rebbi Joḥanan said they do not cancel one another, but Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said they do cancel one another. Rebbi Yose said, the cases are not similar. There, one says this is forbidden and that is forbidden. But here, two kinds are more than the third and cancel it; they cancelled it before it became forbidden. If one made five doughs from five different kinds and then mixed them, if Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish would say that one cannot whip because of their ḥallah as a biblical law, then the argument would be correct.

“Not only heave food in heave food; from where heave food in profane food, profane food in heave food, heave food in sacrificial food, sacrificial food in heave food, heave drink in heave drink, heave drink in profane drink, profane drink in heave drink, heave drink in sacrificial drink, sacrificial drink in heave drink, sacrificial drink in sacrificial drink? From where? The verse says (Lev. 22:7) ‘From the holy foods’, it adds.” Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Explain it if the log of oil of the skin-diseased was mixed with the excess of the loaves of the gift of the nazir; so we have stated, two drinks. Rebbi Ḥanania said, that means burned offerings in burned offerings; but purification offerings in burned offerings is certainly a prohibition.

“Not only heave food in heave food; from where heave food in profane food, profane food in heave food, heave food in sacrificial food, sacrificial food in heave food, heave drink in heave drink, heave drink in profane drink, profane drink in heave drink, heave drink in sacrificial drink, sacrificial drink in heave drink, sacrificial drink in sacrificial drink? From where? The verse says (Lev. 22:7) ‘From the holy foods’, it adds.” Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Explain it if the log of oil of the skin-diseased was mixed with the excess of the loaves of the gift of the nazir; so we have stated, two drinks. Rebbi Ḥanania said, that means burned offerings in burned offerings; but purification offerings in burned offerings is certainly a prohibition.

“Not only heave food in heave food; from where heave food in profane food, profane food in heave food, heave food in sacrificial food, sacrificial food in heave food, heave drink in heave drink, heave drink in profane drink, profane drink in heave drink, heave drink in sacrificial drink, sacrificial drink in heave drink, sacrificial drink in sacrificial drink? From where? The verse says (Lev. 22:7) ‘From the holy foods’, it adds.” Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Explain it if the log of oil of the skin-diseased was mixed with the excess of the loaves of the gift of the nazir; so we have stated, two drinks. Rebbi Ḥanania said, that means burned offerings in burned offerings; but purification offerings in burned offerings is certainly a prohibition.

“Not only heave food in heave food; from where heave food in profane food, profane food in heave food, heave food in sacrificial food, sacrificial food in heave food, heave drink in heave drink, heave drink in profane drink, profane drink in heave drink, heave drink in sacrificial drink, sacrificial drink in heave drink, sacrificial drink in sacrificial drink? From where? The verse says (Lev. 22:7) ‘From the holy foods’, it adds.” Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Explain it if the log of oil of the skin-diseased was mixed with the excess of the loaves of the gift of the nazir; so we have stated, two drinks. Rebbi Ḥanania said, that means burned offerings in burned offerings; but purification offerings in burned offerings is certainly a prohibition.

“Not only heave food in heave food; from where heave food in profane food, profane food in heave food, heave food in sacrificial food, sacrificial food in heave food, heave drink in heave drink, heave drink in profane drink, profane drink in heave drink, heave drink in sacrificial drink, sacrificial drink in heave drink, sacrificial drink in sacrificial drink? From where? The verse says (Lev. 22:7) ‘From the holy foods’, it adds.” Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Explain it if the log of oil of the skin-diseased was mixed with the excess of the loaves of the gift of the nazir; so we have stated, two drinks. Rebbi Ḥanania said, that means burned offerings in burned offerings; but purification offerings in burned offerings is certainly a prohibition.

“Not only heave food in heave food; from where heave food in profane food, profane food in heave food, heave food in sacrificial food, sacrificial food in heave food, heave drink in heave drink, heave drink in profane drink, profane drink in heave drink, heave drink in sacrificial drink, sacrificial drink in heave drink, sacrificial drink in sacrificial drink? From where? The verse says (Lev. 22:7) ‘From the holy foods’, it adds.” Rebbi Abin in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Explain it if the log of oil of the skin-diseased was mixed with the excess of the loaves of the gift of the nazir; so we have stated, two drinks. Rebbi Ḥanania said, that means burned offerings in burned offerings; but purification offerings in burned offerings is certainly a prohibition.

MISHNAH: Similarly, somebody who left Jerusalem and remembers that he has with him sacrificial meat, if he passed Mount Scopus he burns it on the spot, otherwise he returns and burns it before the citadel on altar wood. Up to what do they return? Rebbi Meïr says, in both cases the size of an olive; Rebbi Jehudah says, in both cases the size of an egg. But the Sages say, sacrificial meat in the volume of an olive, but leavened matter in that of an egg.

MISHNAH: Similarly, somebody who left Jerusalem and remembers that he has with him sacrificial meat, if he passed Mount Scopus he burns it on the spot, otherwise he returns and burns it before the citadel on altar wood. Up to what do they return? Rebbi Meïr says, in both cases the size of an olive; Rebbi Jehudah says, in both cases the size of an egg. But the Sages say, sacrificial meat in the volume of an olive, but leavened matter in that of an egg.

Some Tannaim state it switched. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Yasa following our Mishnah. Rebbi Yudan said, an indication is that of Berakhot: “What is the minimum to ‘invite’? Down to the size of an olive, Rebbi Jehudah says to the size of an egg.” Less than that one does not importune him to return. What is the difference between one and the other? One can be declared insignificant, the other cannot be declared insignificant. So far sacrificial meat; leavened matter from where? Rebbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, from what we have stated, “similarly, somebody who left Jerusalem”, this implies that what is incident to one is incident to the other.

MISHNAH: One roasts the Pesaḥ neither on a spit nor on a grill. Rebbi Ṣadoq said, it happened that Rabban Gamliel said to his slave Tabi, go and roast us the Pesaḥ on a sacrificial hearth. If it touched the pottery of the tannur, he has to shave off its place. If some of its fluid fell on clay and returned, one has to remove this place. If some of its fluid fell on flour, one has to remove its place.

“You shall deprive yourselves. I could think that one should sit in the sun or in the cold to make himself feel badly, the verse says, do not do any work. The work which I forbade you elsewhere. And the deprivation of what I forbade you elsewhere. Since the work which I forbade you elsewhere is work for which one would be liable to extirpation, so also deprivation which I forbade you elsewhere is deprivation from which one would be liable to extirpation, and the following are those: piggul and leftovers. From where to add ṭevel? The verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. [I am adding ṭevel which is a deadly sin, but would not add carcass meat which is not a deadly sin; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added.] I am adding carcass meat which is prohibited, but would not add profane meat which is not prohibited; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding profane meat which is not under a commandment to be eaten, but would not add heave and Second Tithe which is under a commandment to be eaten; the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. I am adding heave and tithe of which leftovers are not prohibited, but would not add sacrificial meat for which leftovers are prohibited, the verse says, you shall deprive yourselves; it added. Another explanation: You shall deprive yourselves, something which is a deprivation (father house) {which diminishes} the spirit/ What is this? Eating and drinking. In the name of Rebbi Ismael they said, it is said here you shall deprive yourselves, and it says there, He deprived you and made you hungry. Since deprivation there is one of hunger, also deprivation here is one of hunger.”

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Joḥanan bar Marius understood it from the following: Then Joshua would build an altar for the Eternal, the God of Israel, on Mount Ebal. Not only Mount Ebal, from where Shilo? Samuel took a milk lamb and brought it up totally as elevation offering for the Eternal. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, three sins were permitted for Samuel’s sheep: It and its hide, and deficient in time, and he was a Levite. Rebbi Yose said, if about this it implies nothing, since Rebbi Abba bar Cahana said, seven sins were permitted for Gideon’s bull: Disqualified stones, and Asherah wood, and separated, and worshipped, and night, and outsider, and altar prohibition. He who wants may understand it well from that by Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman: When he returned to Rama, for there was his house, and there he judged Israel, and there he built an altar for the Eternal. It is written, the cook lifted the thigh and what was on it and put before Saul, etc. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, the thigh and meat. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the thigh and the fat tail. Rebbi Eleazar said, the thigh and the breast, as Rebbi Eleazar said, the thigh and the breast belong to the Cohanim at a public altar but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: The hide of the elevation sacrifice belongs to the Cohanim at a public altar but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Ze`ira in the name of Rav Jeremiah: The contribution of a thanksgiving sacrifice belongs to the Cohanim at a public altar but to the owner at a private altar. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, is the night qualified at a private altar? Rebbi Eleazar answered, is it not written, Saul said, disperse under the people and tell them, every man shall bring to me his ox, etc. And it is written, they told Saul saying, behold the people are sinning against the Eternal by eating on the blood, etc. How is this? The night for profane {slaughter}, and the day for sacrificial. When Rebbi Joḥanan heard this, he said, well did Rebbi Eleazar teach us.

Rav said, in any case where the true fact can never be established, one does not have to bring a reparation offering for the doubt. How is that? If there were before him two olive-sized pieces, one of suet and one of fat, he ate one of them, and then a raven ate the other. Since he cannot ascertain the true fact, one does not have to bring a reparation offering for this doubt. But if the raven ate first and then he ate, since he could have ascertained the true fact, one has to bring a reparation offering for the doubt. But did not Rav say, only if he made sure that it certainly was suet? Even though Rav said, only if he made sure that it certainly was suet, he agrees here that he could have ascertained the true fact. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “As Rebbi Eleazar says, one must bring a reparation offering for the doubt of suet.” What does Rav do with that? They disagree with the words of Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita disagrees with Rav: “If there were both a piece of profane [meat] and a piece of sacrificial [meat], he ate one of them and it is not known which one, he brings a reparation offering for the doubt. If he [then] ate the second piece, he brings a reparation offering for a certain transgression. If he ate the first piece and another person came and ate the second, each one brings a reparation offering for the doubt.” One understands that the first brings a reparation offering for the doubt. Why the second? Rebbi Yose said, explain it that the piece was large, he ate half of it and left the other half. A Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “If it is doubtful whether [the child is] a nine-month child of the first [brother] or a seven-month of the second, he has to divorce her, the child is legitimate, and they are obligated for a reparation offering for the doubt.” Here it is impossible to ascertain the true fact and they are obligated for a reparation offering for the doubt! Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Ze‘ira explained it before Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba; Rebbi Ḥizqiah, Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: Rebbi Ze‘ira explained it before us. Since he could just have touched her and then separated, he could have known whether it is his or the other’s, it is as if he could have ascertained the true fact!

A Mishnah supports Rav: “Profane food which is impure primarily is impure and defiles, secondarily it invalidates but does not defile, but the tertiary can be eaten in heave broth.” This implies that it is forbidden to turn it into heave. And it is said after that: “Heave which is impure primarily or secondarily is impure and defiles, tertiarily impure it invalidates but does not defile, but the fourth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say that it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, you would find that Rav’s statements are contradictory since Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav: The tertiary comes because of the reptile but the fourth degree can be turned into sacrificial food, because they spoke about fourth degree [of impurity] for sacrifices only for dedicated sacrifices of the Temple! Rebbi Ḥuna said, are we not talking about heave? But it is forbidden to turn heave into sacrificial food in order to avoid accidents! And it was said after that: “Sacrifices which are impure primarily, secondarily, or tertiarily are impure and defile, impurity in the fourth degree invalidates but does not defile, but the fifth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say, it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, is there any impurity of the fifth degree in sacrifices? But you say there is not. So here also, there is not.

A Mishnah supports Rav: “Profane food which is impure primarily is impure and defiles, secondarily it invalidates but does not defile, but the tertiary can be eaten in heave broth.” This implies that it is forbidden to turn it into heave. And it is said after that: “Heave which is impure primarily or secondarily is impure and defiles, tertiarily impure it invalidates but does not defile, but the fourth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say that it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, you would find that Rav’s statements are contradictory since Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav: The tertiary comes because of the reptile but the fourth degree can be turned into sacrificial food, because they spoke about fourth degree [of impurity] for sacrifices only for dedicated sacrifices of the Temple! Rebbi Ḥuna said, are we not talking about heave? But it is forbidden to turn heave into sacrificial food in order to avoid accidents! And it was said after that: “Sacrifices which are impure primarily, secondarily, or tertiarily are impure and defile, impurity in the fourth degree invalidates but does not defile, but the fifth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say, it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, is there any impurity of the fifth degree in sacrifices? But you say there is not. So here also, there is not.

A Mishnah supports Rav: “Profane food which is impure primarily is impure and defiles, secondarily it invalidates but does not defile, but the tertiary can be eaten in heave broth.” This implies that it is forbidden to turn it into heave. And it is said after that: “Heave which is impure primarily or secondarily is impure and defiles, tertiarily impure it invalidates but does not defile, but the fourth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say that it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, you would find that Rav’s statements are contradictory since Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav: The tertiary comes because of the reptile but the fourth degree can be turned into sacrificial food, because they spoke about fourth degree [of impurity] for sacrifices only for dedicated sacrifices of the Temple! Rebbi Ḥuna said, are we not talking about heave? But it is forbidden to turn heave into sacrificial food in order to avoid accidents! And it was said after that: “Sacrifices which are impure primarily, secondarily, or tertiarily are impure and defile, impurity in the fourth degree invalidates but does not defile, but the fifth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say, it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, is there any impurity of the fifth degree in sacrifices? But you say there is not. So here also, there is not.

A Mishnah supports Rav: “Profane food which is impure primarily is impure and defiles, secondarily it invalidates but does not defile, but the tertiary can be eaten in heave broth.” This implies that it is forbidden to turn it into heave. And it is said after that: “Heave which is impure primarily or secondarily is impure and defiles, tertiarily impure it invalidates but does not defile, but the fourth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say that it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, you would find that Rav’s statements are contradictory since Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav: The tertiary comes because of the reptile but the fourth degree can be turned into sacrificial food, because they spoke about fourth degree [of impurity] for sacrifices only for dedicated sacrifices of the Temple! Rebbi Ḥuna said, are we not talking about heave? But it is forbidden to turn heave into sacrificial food in order to avoid accidents! And it was said after that: “Sacrifices which are impure primarily, secondarily, or tertiarily are impure and defile, impurity in the fourth degree invalidates but does not defile, but the fifth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say, it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, is there any impurity of the fifth degree in sacrifices? But you say there is not. So here also, there is not.

A Mishnah supports Rav: “Profane food which is impure primarily is impure and defiles, secondarily it invalidates but does not defile, but the tertiary can be eaten in heave broth.” This implies that it is forbidden to turn it into heave. And it is said after that: “Heave which is impure primarily or secondarily is impure and defiles, tertiarily impure it invalidates but does not defile, but the fourth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say that it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, you would find that Rav’s statements are contradictory since Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav: The tertiary comes because of the reptile but the fourth degree can be turned into sacrificial food, because they spoke about fourth degree [of impurity] for sacrifices only for dedicated sacrifices of the Temple! Rebbi Ḥuna said, are we not talking about heave? But it is forbidden to turn heave into sacrificial food in order to avoid accidents! And it was said after that: “Sacrifices which are impure primarily, secondarily, or tertiarily are impure and defile, impurity in the fourth degree invalidates but does not defile, but the fifth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say, it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, is there any impurity of the fifth degree in sacrifices? But you say there is not. So here also, there is not.

A Mishnah supports Rav: “Profane food which is impure primarily is impure and defiles, secondarily it invalidates but does not defile, but the tertiary can be eaten in heave broth.” This implies that it is forbidden to turn it into heave. And it is said after that: “Heave which is impure primarily or secondarily is impure and defiles, tertiarily impure it invalidates but does not defile, but the fourth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say that it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, you would find that Rav’s statements are contradictory since Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rav: The tertiary comes because of the reptile but the fourth degree can be turned into sacrificial food, because they spoke about fourth degree [of impurity] for sacrifices only for dedicated sacrifices of the Temple! Rebbi Ḥuna said, are we not talking about heave? But it is forbidden to turn heave into sacrificial food in order to avoid accidents! And it was said after that: “Sacrifices which are impure primarily, secondarily, or tertiarily are impure and defile, impurity in the fourth degree invalidates but does not defile, but the fifth degree can be eaten in sacrificial broth.” If you say, it is forbidden to turn it into sacrificial food, is there any impurity of the fifth degree in sacrifices? But you say there is not. So here also, there is not.

Rebbi Joḥanan said: The tertiary comes because of the reptile but it is (forbidden) [permitted] to turn it into heave. They asked before him: Even for Rebbi Aqiba? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: Even following Rebbi Aqiba. And why? The ṭevul yom makes invalid, secondary impurity makes invalid. Just as the ṭevul yom does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave, so secondary impurity does not invalidate profane food that it could not be turned into heave. Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: The tertiary comes because of the reptile, and it is (forbidden) [permitted] to turn it into heave but (permitted) [forbidden] to turn it into sacrificial food. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Yasa: It defiles sacrifices and you say so? He said to him, because of the distinction. Rebbi Samuel ben Rebbi Isaac said, the source of its impurity is the distinction. Rebbi Yose said, why does it defile sacrifices? Because of the distinction. Rebbi Yudan said, even for the rabbis who say that there is no tertiary in profane food, why is it forbidden? It defiles sacrifices because of the distinction. Rebbi Yose said to him, do we not need to hear this from a great personality?

“Like the storage places,” like the storage places of wood, like the storage places of sacrificial animals. “Like wood,” like the two logs. “Like altar gifts,” like the flame of the fire. “Like the altar,” like the sacrifices on the altar. “Like the Temple hall,” like the sacrifices in the Temple hall. Like Jerusalem,” like the sacrifices in Jerusalem.

MISHNAH: A nazir who was doubtfully impure and doubtfully definitely [suffering from skin disease] may eat sacrificial meat after 60 days and drink wine and become impure by the dead after 120 days, since the shaving for skin disease supersedes the shaving of the nazir when it is certain, but when it is in doubt it does not supersede.

HALAKHAH: Who is doubtfully definitely [suffering]? Two who came to him. He declared one of them definitively affected but before he could declare the second one definitively affected, they were changed for him. That is a doubtfully definitely [suffering person]. This is the one about whom Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: A nazir, in doubt whether impure or pure, but certainly he was a nazir. A sufferer from skin disease, in doubt whether impure or pure, but certainly he was a sufferer from skin disease. He eats from sacrificial meat after 60 days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 120 days. How is that? One said to him, you are an impure nazir, go count seven [days]. He sprinkled, repeated, shaved, and brought. He then counted seven [days] and wanted to shave. One said to him, impure nazir, go count seven [days] and continue for 30. He counted 30 [days] and wanted to shave. One said to him, you are a pure nazir, does not a pure nazir shave on kinds of blood? He brings an elevation offering and shaves on it, a bird purification offering and stipulates, saying: “If I was impure, the purification offering is my obligation and the elevation offering is voluntary. If I was pure, the elevation offering is my obligation and the purification offering is in doubt.” He shaves his head, his beard, and his eyebrows in the way the sufferer from skin disease shaves.

He may eat sacrificial meat immediately. He cannot drink wine or defile himself for the dead since his nezirut is not counted during the days of his [impurity of] skin disease.

He may drink wine and defile himself for the dead immediately. When has this been said? If he made the vow of nazir as a nazir, but if he made the vow of nazir as a sufferer from skin disease he might eat sacrificial meat after two years, drink wine, and defile himself for the dead after four years.

“If he was doubtfully impure and certainly definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after 60 days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 120 days. If he was certainly impure and doubtfully definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after 20 days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 44 days. If he was certainly impure and certainly definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after eight days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 44 days.”

“If he was doubtfully impure and certainly definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after 60 days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 120 days. If he was certainly impure and doubtfully definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after 20 days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 44 days. If he was certainly impure and certainly definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after eight days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 44 days.”

“If he was doubtfully impure and certainly definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after 60 days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 120 days. If he was certainly impure and doubtfully definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after 20 days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 44 days. If he was certainly impure and certainly definitely [suffering from skin disease], he eats from sacrificial meat after eight days, drinks wine and defiles himself for the dead after 44 days.”

MISHNAH: An impure person who ate holy food, or who came into the Temple when impure. One who eats fat, or blood, or leftover, or piggul, or impure [sacrificial meat]. One who sacrifices outside, or one who eats leavened matter on Passover. One who eats or does work on the Day of Atonement, and one who compounds the oil, or compounds the incense, and who rubs with the anointing oil, and one who eats carcass or torn meat, abominations and crawling things. If one ate ṭevel or first tithe from which heave was not taken, or second tithe or dedicated food which was not redeemed. How much does he have to eat from ṭevel to be liable? Rebbi Simeon says, anything; but the Sages say, the volume of an olive. Rebbi Simeon told them, do you not agree that one who eats (carcass meat) [an ant] is liable? They told him, because it is a creature. He answered them, also a grain of wheat is a creature.

It is found in the following Baraita (Sifre, Deut. § 41): "To love the Lord your God and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deut., 11.13). Now "service" is prayer. You say it is prayer, may it not be (sacrificial) service? No, Scripture says: "with all your heart"; what service is that of the heart? You must say that it is prayer; while immediately following, Scripture says: "Then I will give the rain of your land in its season, the former rain and the latter rain."

R. Yose b. Hanina said: What is meant by what is written, “And I will take away his blood out of his mouth and his detestable things from between his teeth, and he also shall be a remnant for our God?” (Zechariah 9:7). “And I will take away his blood out of his mouth”: this refers to their sacrificial shrines.“ And his detestable things from between his teeth”: this refers to their oracles. “And he also shall be a remnant for our God”: these are the synagogues and houses of learning in Edom.

And an impure person who ate sacrificial food: [Receiving malkus by] enters the Temple while impure is understandable as both the punishment and the scriptural warning are written in the Torah. The punishment is written (Numbers 19,13) "The Tabernacle of G-d he has defiled and he shall be cut off". The scriptural warning is written (Numbers 5,3) "And he shall not defile the camps". But as for an impure person who ate sacrificial [meats] the punishment is easily understandable as it is written (Leviticus 7,20) "And the soul that eats meat from the alter of the Sh'lamim that are for G-d while his impureness is upon him will be cut off", only from where is the scriptual warning derived?

And an impure person who ate sacrificial food: [Receiving malkus by] enters the Temple while impure is understandable as both the punishment and the scriptural warning are written in the Torah. The punishment is written (Numbers 19,13) "The Tabernacle of G-d he has defiled and he shall be cut off". The scriptural warning is written (Numbers 5,3) "And he shall not defile the camps". But as for an impure person who ate sacrificial [meats] the punishment is easily understandable as it is written (Leviticus 7,20) "And the soul that eats meat from the alter of the Sh'lamim that are for G-d while his impureness is upon him will be cut off", only from where is the scriptual warning derived?

And then where does Reish Lakash derive a scriptual warning for Terumah [if he uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach against eating sacrificial meats]? He derives it from (Leviticus 22,4) "Any man from the seed of Ahron, who is a lepor or zav". What is fit [only] for the seed of Ahron? You must say that this is referring to Terumah. And what does Rebbi Yochanon use that verse for [if he learns Terumah from elsewhere]? That verse is for consuming [Terumah while one is impure] and this verse [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is for touching [Terumah while one is impure].

And does Reish Lakash indeed use b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach this [eating sacrificial meats while one is impure]? But he needs it to teach about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. That it was said about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. Reish Lakash says he is liable to malkus, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus. Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is just a scriptural warning for Terumah [not for touching sacrificial meats].

And does Reish Lakash indeed use b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach this [eating sacrificial meats while one is impure]? But he needs it to teach about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. That it was said about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. Reish Lakash says he is liable to malkus, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus. Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is just a scriptural warning for Terumah [not for touching sacrificial meats].

And does Reish Lakash indeed use b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach this [eating sacrificial meats while one is impure]? But he needs it to teach about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. That it was said about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. Reish Lakash says he is liable to malkus, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus. Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is just a scriptural warning for Terumah [not for touching sacrificial meats].

And does Reish Lakash indeed use b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach this [eating sacrificial meats while one is impure]? But he needs it to teach about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. That it was said about an impure person who touched sacrificial meats. Reish Lakash says he is liable to malkus, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus. Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because [b'chol kodesh lo sigah] is just a scriptural warning for Terumah [not for touching sacrificial meats].

[Nevertheless we see that Reish Lakash uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach touching sacrificial meats, not consuming them. How do we resolve this contradiction?] An impure person who touches sacrificial meats [is learned] out from the fact that the Torah uses the expression of touching. The scriptural warning for eating is derived from the hekesh [juxtaposition] of sacrificial meats to the temple.

[Nevertheless we see that Reish Lakash uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach touching sacrificial meats, not consuming them. How do we resolve this contradiction?] An impure person who touches sacrificial meats [is learned] out from the fact that the Torah uses the expression of touching. The scriptural warning for eating is derived from the hekesh [juxtaposition] of sacrificial meats to the temple.

[Nevertheless we see that Reish Lakash uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach touching sacrificial meats, not consuming them. How do we resolve this contradiction?] An impure person who touches sacrificial meats [is learned] out from the fact that the Torah uses the expression of touching. The scriptural warning for eating is derived from the hekesh [juxtaposition] of sacrificial meats to the temple.

Reish Lakash says that he is liable to malkus because of b'chol kodesh lo sigah, [which teaches] that it makes no difference if it was before z'rikas hadam or after z'rikas hadam. and Rebbi Yochanon says that he is not liable to malkus because Rebbi Yochanon is saying according to his own reasoning. That the Torah says [the g'zaira shava] of טומאתו טומאתו and where is "טומאתו" written? It is written after z'rikas hadam. [Therefore one would not be liable for eating before z'rikas hadam according to Rebbi Yochanon.] [Nevertheless we see that Reish Lakash uses b'chol kodesh lo sigah to teach before z'rikas hadam and not to teach the scriptural warning for consuming sacrificial meats while one is impure. How do we resolve this contradiction?] That law is learned from "In all meats". [the extra word "all" is what teaches us even before z'rikas hadam.]

A baraisa was taught in accordance with [the view of] Reish Lakash, "B'chol kodesh lo sigah" is a scriptural warning for eating [sacrificial foods while one is impure]. You say that it is a warning for eating? Or maybe it's only a warning for touching? The Torah therefore says, "In all sanctity he shall not touch and into the Temple etc." The Torah juxtaposes sacrificial foods with the Temple. Just as the Temple is a thing that involve the loss of life [one who enters while impure is subject to kares], so too the whole [verse] most involve the loss of life. And does touching [sacrificial foods, which is punishable with malkus] involve any loss of life? Rather you must say that the "b'chol kodesh lo sigah" refers to eating [sacrificial foods].

A baraisa was taught in accordance with [the view of] Reish Lakash, "B'chol kodesh lo sigah" is a scriptural warning for eating [sacrificial foods while one is impure]. You say that it is a warning for eating? Or maybe it's only a warning for touching? The Torah therefore says, "In all sanctity he shall not touch and into the Temple etc." The Torah juxtaposes sacrificial foods with the Temple. Just as the Temple is a thing that involve the loss of life [one who enters while impure is subject to kares], so too the whole [verse] most involve the loss of life. And does touching [sacrificial foods, which is punishable with malkus] involve any loss of life? Rather you must say that the "b'chol kodesh lo sigah" refers to eating [sacrificial foods].

A baraisa was taught in accordance with [the view of] Reish Lakash, "B'chol kodesh lo sigah" is a scriptural warning for eating [sacrificial foods while one is impure]. You say that it is a warning for eating? Or maybe it's only a warning for touching? The Torah therefore says, "In all sanctity he shall not touch and into the Temple etc." The Torah juxtaposes sacrificial foods with the Temple. Just as the Temple is a thing that involve the loss of life [one who enters while impure is subject to kares], so too the whole [verse] most involve the loss of life. And does touching [sacrificial foods, which is punishable with malkus] involve any loss of life? Rather you must say that the "b'chol kodesh lo sigah" refers to eating [sacrificial foods].

A baraisa was taught in accordance with [the view of] Reish Lakash, "B'chol kodesh lo sigah" is a scriptural warning for eating [sacrificial foods while one is impure]. You say that it is a warning for eating? Or maybe it's only a warning for touching? The Torah therefore says, "In all sanctity he shall not touch and into the Temple etc." The Torah juxtaposes sacrificial foods with the Temple. Just as the Temple is a thing that involve the loss of life [one who enters while impure is subject to kares], so too the whole [verse] most involve the loss of life. And does touching [sacrificial foods, which is punishable with malkus] involve any loss of life? Rather you must say that the "b'chol kodesh lo sigah" refers to eating [sacrificial foods].

And what is the stringency of Todah and Shelamim over maaser [sheni]? That [Todah and Shelamim] require the placement of blood and sacrificial parts on the alter. But, to the contrary, Maaser [sheni] is more stringent, as it requires a minted coin.

But what comparison can be made to a Bechor which needs the blood and sacrificial parts placed on the alter? Bikorim will then prove it. But what comparison can be made to Bikorim which need placement before the alter?

Rebbi Hoshiah said, One who breeds a disqualified sacrificial bull incurs two sets of malkus. Rebbi Yitzchak says, One who leads a disqualified sacrificial ox incurs malkus, because although it is one body, the Torah considers it like two distinct bodies.

Rebbi Hoshiah said, One who breeds a disqualified sacrificial bull incurs two sets of malkus. Rebbi Yitzchak says, One who leads a disqualified sacrificial ox incurs malkus, because although it is one body, the Torah considers it like two distinct bodies.