slaughtered

Most holy sacrifices which were slaughtered on the south side [of the altar], the law of sacrilege [still] applies to them. If they were slaughtered on the south side and their blood received on the north or [slaughtered] on the north side and their blood received on the south, or if they were slaughtered by day and [their blood] sprinkled during the night or [slaughtered] during the night and [their blood] sprinkled by day, or if they were slaughtered [with the intention of eating the flesh] beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, the law of sacrilege still applies to them. Rabbi Joshua stated a general rule: whatever has at some time been permitted to the priests is not subject to the law of sacrilege, and whatever has at no time been permitted to the priests is subject to the law of sacrilege. Which is that which has at some time been permitted to the priests? [Sacrifices] which remained overnight or became defiled or were taken out [of the Temple Court]. Which is that which has at no time been permitted to the priests? [Sacrifices] that were slaughtered [with the intention of eating its flesh] beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, or [the blood of which] was received by the unfit and they sprinkled it.

Most holy sacrifices which were slaughtered on the south side [of the altar], the law of sacrilege [still] applies to them. If they were slaughtered on the south side and their blood received on the north or [slaughtered] on the north side and their blood received on the south, or if they were slaughtered by day and [their blood] sprinkled during the night or [slaughtered] during the night and [their blood] sprinkled by day, or if they were slaughtered [with the intention of eating the flesh] beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, the law of sacrilege still applies to them. Rabbi Joshua stated a general rule: whatever has at some time been permitted to the priests is not subject to the law of sacrilege, and whatever has at no time been permitted to the priests is subject to the law of sacrilege. Which is that which has at some time been permitted to the priests? [Sacrifices] which remained overnight or became defiled or were taken out [of the Temple Court]. Which is that which has at no time been permitted to the priests? [Sacrifices] that were slaughtered [with the intention of eating its flesh] beyond its proper time or outside its proper place, or [the blood of which] was received by the unfit and they sprinkled it.

The law of sacrilege applies to the bullocks which are to be burned and the goats which are to be burned 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. And the law of sacrilege applies to them even while they are at the place of the ashes so long as the flesh has not been charred.

The law of sacrilege applies to an olah from the moment of its dedication. When it is slaughtered it becomes susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, or by remaining overnight. Once its blood has been sprinkled it is subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement; And the law of sacrilege does not apply to its hide, but it does apply to it flesh until [the ashes have been] removed [from the altar] to the place of the ashes.

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.

The law of sacrilege applies to the two loaves of bread from the moment of their dedication. Once they have formed a crust in the oven they become susceptible to be disqualified through contact with a tevul yom or one who still requires atonement, and the [festival] offerings can then be slaughtered. Once the blood of the lambs has been sprinkled they [the loaves] are subject to [the laws of] piggul, notar and defilement, and the law of sacrilege no longer applies to them.

They would not tie up the lamb but rather they would string its legs together. Those who merited [to bring up] the limbs took hold of it. Thus it was strung up: its head was to the south while its face was turned to the west. The slaughterer stood to the east of it, facing the west. The morning tamid was killed by the north-western corner of the altar at the second ring. The evening tamid was killed by the north-eastern corner at the second ring. While one slaughtered another received the blood. He then proceeded to the north-eastern corner and cast the blood on the eastern and northern sides; he then proceeded to the southwestern corner and cast the blood on the western and southern sides. The remnant of the blood he poured out at the southern base of the altar.

How would they purify a metzora? A new earthenware flask and a quarter of a log of living water was put in it. Two undomesticated birds are also brought. One of these was slaughtered over the earthenware vessel and over the living water. A hole was dug and it was buried in his presence. Cedarwood, hyssop and scarlet wool were taken and bound together with the remaining ends of the strip of wool. Near to these were brought the tips of the wings and the tip of the tail of the second bird. All were dipped together, and sprinkled upon the back of the metzora's hand seven times. Some say that the sprinkling was done upon his forehead. In the same manner one would sprinkle on the lintel of a house from the outside.

With regard to the two birds: the commandment is that they be alike in appearance, in size and in price; and they must be purchased at the same time. But even if they are not alike they are valid; And if one was purchased on one day and the other the next they are also valid. If after one of the birds had been slaughtered it was found that it was not wild, a partner must be purchased for the second, and the first may be eaten. If after it had been slaughtered it was found to terefah, a partner must be purchased for the second and the first may be made use of. If the blood had been spilled out, the bird that was to be let go must be left to die. If the one that was to be let go died, the blood must be spilled out.

With regard to the two birds: the commandment is that they be alike in appearance, in size and in price; and they must be purchased at the same time. But even if they are not alike they are valid; And if one was purchased on one day and the other the next they are also valid. If after one of the birds had been slaughtered it was found that it was not wild, a partner must be purchased for the second, and the first may be eaten. If after it had been slaughtered it was found to terefah, a partner must be purchased for the second and the first may be made use of. If the blood had been spilled out, the bird that was to be let go must be left to die. If the one that was to be let go died, the blood must be spilled out.

If the cow refused to go out, they may not take out with it a black one lest people say, "They slaughtered a black cow" nor another red [cow] lest people say, "They slaughtered two." Rabbi Yose says: it was not for this reason but because it is said "And he shall bring her out" by herself. The elders of Israel used to go first by foot to the Mount of Olives, where there was a place of immersion. The priest that was to burn the cow was (deliberately) made unclean on account of the Sadducees so that they should not be able to say, "It can be done only by those on whom the sun has set."

If the cow refused to go out, they may not take out with it a black one lest people say, "They slaughtered a black cow" nor another red [cow] lest people say, "They slaughtered two." Rabbi Yose says: it was not for this reason but because it is said "And he shall bring her out" by herself. The elders of Israel used to go first by foot to the Mount of Olives, where there was a place of immersion. The priest that was to burn the cow was (deliberately) made unclean on account of the Sadducees so that they should not be able to say, "It can be done only by those on whom the sun has set."

They bound it with a rope of reed and placed it on the pile with its head towards the south and its face towards the west. The priest stood in the east with his face towards the west. He slaughtered with his right hand and received the blood with his left. Rabbi Judah said: he received the blood with his right hand and put it in his left hand. He sprinkled with his right. Seven times he dipped his finger in the blood and sprinkled it towards the Holy of Holies, dipping once again for each sprinkling. When he finished the sprinkling he wiped his hand on the body of the cow, came down and kindled the fire with wood chips. Rabbi Akiva said: with dry branches of palm-trees.

If a hatat cow was slaughtered not for its own name, or if its blood was received or sprinkled not for its own name, or if this was done for its own name and for some other name, or for some other name and for its name, it is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer rules it valid. If [the service] was performed by one whose hands or feet were unwashed, it is invalid. Rabbi Eliezer rules that it is valid. If it was performed by one who was not the high priest, it is invalid. Rabbi Judah rules that it is valid. If it was performed by one who was not wearing all the prescribed garments, it is invalid. And in white garments it was to be prepared.

If he burned it without wood, or with any kind of wood, and even if only with straw or stubble, it is valid. If he flayed it and cut up, it is valid. If he slaughtered it with the intention of eating its flesh or drinking its blood, it is valid. Rabbi Eliezer rules: no intention can invalidate the red cow.

All who are occupied with the preparation of the [red] cow from the beginning until the end, defile their clothing, and they also render it invalid by [doing other] work. If some invalidity occurred while it was being slaughtered, it does not defile clothing. If it occurred while the blood was being sprinkled, for all who were occupied with it before the invalidity occurred, it defiles their clothing, but for those who were occupied with it after it had become invalid it does not defile their clothing unclean. Thus it follows that the stringency turns into a leniency. It is always subject to the rules of trespassing. Wood may be added to the fire. The service must be performed by day and by a priest. Work renders it invalid. [All of this is only] until it becomes ashes And work causes the water to be invalid until the ashes are put into it.

The hide, meat juice, sediment, dried-up meat, bones, sinews, horns and hooves join together [to make up the minimum quantity in order] to convey food-uncleanness, but not to [make up the minimum quantity in order to] convey nevelah-uncleanness. Similarly, if a man slaughtered an unclean animal for a Gentile and it still has convulsions, it can convey food-uncleanness, but it conveys nevelah-uncleanness only after it is dead, or its head has been chopped off. [Scripture] has [thus] made more cases that convey food-uncleanness than those that convey nevelah-uncleanness.

[A woman] may attribute [a bloodstain] to any [external] cause to which she can possibly attribute it. If [for instance] she had slaughtered a beast, a wild animal or a bird, Or if she was handling bloodstains or if she sat beside those who handled them. Or if she killed a louse, she may attribute the bloodstain to it. How large a stain may be attributed to a louse? Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: one up to the size of a split bean; And even if she did not kill it. She may also attribute it to her son or to her husband. If she herself had a wound that could open again and bleed she may attribute it to it.

What is the reason of the rabbis? (Num. 28:3) “Two for the day”, split the day in two. The reason of Rebbi Yehudah: “two for the day”, two advocates per day; “two for the day” that they should be slaughtered expressly for the day.

“Two for the day”, that their slaughtering should be facing the day. That is what we have stated: The perpetual morning sacrifice was slaughtered at the Northwest corner at the second ring, facing the day, and the evening one was slaughtered at the Northeast corner at the second ring, facing the day. And that he should know which one was to be slaughtered in the morning and which one in the evening.

“Two for the day”, that their slaughtering should be facing the day. That is what we have stated: The perpetual morning sacrifice was slaughtered at the Northwest corner at the second ring, facing the day, and the evening one was slaughtered at the Northeast corner at the second ring, facing the day. And that he should know which one was to be slaughtered in the morning and which one in the evening.

“Two for the day”, that their slaughtering should be facing the day. That is what we have stated: The perpetual morning sacrifice was slaughtered at the Northwest corner at the second ring, facing the day, and the evening one was slaughtered at the Northeast corner at the second ring, facing the day. And that he should know which one was to be slaughtered in the morning and which one in the evening.

There (Pesaḥim 5:1) we have stated: “The perpetual sacrifice is slaughtered at 8:30 hours and brought at 9:30 hours. On Passover Eve days it is sacrificed at 7:30 hours and brought at 8:30 hours, whether it be weekday or Sabbath.” Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Here you make Minḥah at two and a half hours and here you make Minḥah at three and a half hours? Rebbi Yose said, Minḥah prayer was not bound to the perpetual sacrifice of evening but to incense burning. What is the reason? (Ps. 141:2): “May my prayer be prepared as incense before You, the lifting up of my hands as the gift of evening.” Take one hour for its preparation and you make Minḥah at two and one half hours.

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.

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.

In its written (Gen. 37:2): “And Joseph reported their evil slander to their father.” What did he say? Rebbi Meir, Rebbi Jehudah, and Rebbi Simeon. Rebbi Meir said, they are suspected of eating flesh from a living animal. Rebbi Jehudah said, they abuse the sons of the handmaidens and treat them like slaves. Rebbi Simeon said, they are infatuated with local girls. Rebbi Judah ben Pazi said, (Prov. 16:11) “Balance and scales of justice are the Eternal’s; all weight-stones are His work. “What did he say, they are suspected of eating flesh from a living animal? The Holy One, praise to Him, said: So I testify for them that they first slaughter and then eat, (Gen. 37:31) “they slaughtered the he-goat and dipped the coat into the blood.” What did he say, they abuse the sons of the handmaidens and treat them like slaves? (Ps. 105:17) “Joseph was sold as a slave.” What did he say, they are infatuated with local girls? Lo, a she-bear will attack you, (Gen. 39:7) “his master’s wife lifted her eyes to Joseph, etc.”

A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar. “ ‘Guard yourself’ means a prohibition. And it is written: There you should present, there you should perform.” Because that is written, otherwise I would have said it is a positive commandment. But that you should not say as you say regarding the Sabbath that if somebody dug a hole, made a ditch, and dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense, so similarly, if somebody slaughtered, sprinkled the blood, and presented he should be guilty only of one offense. Therefore, it is necessary to say that he is guilty for each action separately.

Rebbi dwelt in Sepphoris seventeen years and applied to himself (Gen. 47:28): “Jacob lived in Egypt seventeen years,” Jehudah lived in Sepphoris seventeen years. Of these he suffered from toothache for thirteen years. {Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, all these thirteen years no woman lying-in died in the Land of Israel and no pregnant woman had a miscarriage in the Land of Israel.} Why did he have a toothache? Once he saw a calf to be slaughtered when it bellowed and said to him, Rebbi, save me! He said to it, for that you were created. At the end, how was he healed? He saw them killing a burrow of rats. He said to them, let them live, it is written (Ps. 145:9) “His mercy extends to all His creatures.”

Rebbi Abba bar Mamai asked: Does this not contradict Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina? As Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, a carcass can become insignificant in slaughtered [meat]; it becomes insignificant for touch, but for motion it cannot become insignificant for slaughtered [meat] can never become carcass [meat]. Rebbi Yose said, there it is impossible for slaughtered [meat] to become carcass [meat], but here profane produce may become heave. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, Rebbi Simon raised the question and Rebbi Abba bar Mamai explained it.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamai asked: Does this not contradict Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina? As Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, a carcass can become insignificant in slaughtered [meat]; it becomes insignificant for touch, but for motion it cannot become insignificant for slaughtered [meat] can never become carcass [meat]. Rebbi Yose said, there it is impossible for slaughtered [meat] to become carcass [meat], but here profane produce may become heave. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, Rebbi Simon raised the question and Rebbi Abba bar Mamai explained it.

Rebbi Abba bar Mamai asked: Does this not contradict Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina? As Rebbi Yose bar Ḥanina said, a carcass can become insignificant in slaughtered [meat]; it becomes insignificant for touch, but for motion it cannot become insignificant for slaughtered [meat] can never become carcass [meat]. Rebbi Yose said, there it is impossible for slaughtered [meat] to become carcass [meat], but here profane produce may become heave. Rebbi Ḥizqiah said, Rebbi Simon raised the question and Rebbi Abba bar Mamai explained it.

Rebbi Ḥaggai asked the colleagues, from where that he who eats with permission is free? What is the difference between him who thought that it was profane but it turned out that it was heave, who is obligated, and him who thought that he was an Israel but it turned out that he was a Cohen, who is free? They said to him, by the declaration of the court. He said to them, still I am having a problem. What is the difference between him who thought that it was a weekday but it turned out that it was a Sabbath, who is obligated, and him who thought that it was a Passover sacrifice but it turned out that it was a well-being offering, who is free? They said to him, because he slaughtered with permission. He said to them, still I am having a problem. What is the difference between him who thought that it was permitted fat but it turned out that it was forbidden fat, who is obligated, and him who thought that it was forbidden but it turned out that it was permitted, who is free? They did not answer him. What did he say to them? Let us take counsel! (Lev. 4:23,28): “Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring.” He who returns from his prior knowledge is obligated for his error; this excludes one who would not stop even if he knew! Rebbi Assi went to see them and said, why did you not answer him (Lev. 4:23,28): “Or his transgression in which he sinned was made known to him; he has to bring”? They said to him, he asked the question and gave the answer.

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.

There, we stated: “A firstling afflicted by blood, even if it is going to die, cannot be bled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, it should be bled even if this causes a blemish. If it did cause a blemish, it should not be slaughtered because of it. Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he makes a blemish.” Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Eleazar: Rebbi Jehudah parallels Rabban Gamliel, the Rabbis parallel Rebbi Eliezer, Rebbi Simeon parallels Rebbi Joshua. But we have stated: “Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he knows he will cause a blemish.” This parallels the later opinion of Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: The reason of Rebbi Jehudah (Deut. 12:24): “You shall not eat it; spill it onto the ground like water.” I permitted you its blood only to spill it. Rebbi Abba Mari, the brother of Rebbi Yose, objected: That is written about [blood of] invalid sacrifices: “You shall not eat it; spill it onto the ground like water.” Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, you get from it for preparation. Just as water prepares, so blood prepares. Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Both of them explained the same verse (Lev. 22:21): “Perfect it shall be for goodwill; any blemish shall not be on it.” Rebbi Simeon explains: As long as it is for goodwill, you may not induce a blemish. If it is no longer for goodwill, you may induce a blemish. But the Sages say, even if it is all blemishes, you may not add a blemish.

MISHNAH: One does not sell Second Tithe, one does not take it as a pledge, one does not barter it, and one does not weigh corresponding to it. One should not say to his neighbor in Jerusalem, here you have wine, give me its value in oil, but they may give free gifts to one another. One may not sell animal tithe unblemished alive, or blemished alive or slaughtered, and one may not use it for preliminarily marrying a woman. One may sell a firstling unblemished alive, blemished alive or slaughtered, and one may use it for preliminarily marrying a woman. One does not exchange Second Tithe by a blank, or by a coin not in circulation, or on money not in his possession.

MISHNAH: One does not sell Second Tithe, one does not take it as a pledge, one does not barter it, and one does not weigh corresponding to it. One should not say to his neighbor in Jerusalem, here you have wine, give me its value in oil, but they may give free gifts to one another. One may not sell animal tithe unblemished alive, or blemished alive or slaughtered, and one may not use it for preliminarily marrying a woman. One may sell a firstling unblemished alive, blemished alive or slaughtered, and one may use it for preliminarily marrying a woman. One does not exchange Second Tithe by a blank, or by a coin not in circulation, or on money not in his possession.

Therefore, once it was slaughtered, is it permitted? It was stated by the House of Rebbi Yannai: There is no difference between alive and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished. For what did we state then “live but not slaughtered?” For example, what was stated after this: “One may sell a firstling unblemished alive, blemished alive or slaughtered.”

Therefore, once it was slaughtered, is it permitted? It was stated by the House of Rebbi Yannai: There is no difference between alive and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished. For what did we state then “live but not slaughtered?” For example, what was stated after this: “One may sell a firstling unblemished alive, blemished alive or slaughtered.”

Therefore, once it was slaughtered, is it permitted? It was stated by the House of Rebbi Yannai: There is no difference between alive and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished. For what did we state then “live but not slaughtered?” For example, what was stated after this: “One may sell a firstling unblemished alive, blemished alive or slaughtered.”

Therefore, once it was slaughtered, is it permitted? It was stated by the House of Rebbi Yannai: There is no difference between alive and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished. For what did we state then “live but not slaughtered?” For example, what was stated after this: “One may sell a firstling unblemished alive, blemished alive or slaughtered.”

Rebbi Abba bar Jacob in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: It is said here (Lev. 27:33): “It may not be redeemed.” It has been said about Cohanim‘s bans (Lev. 27:28) “It may not be sold or redeemed.” Since “it may not be redeemed” for Cohanim’s bans includes sale, so “it may not be redeemed” here includes sale. Rebbi Jacob the Southerner asked before Rebbi Yose: Is it not written about a firstling (Num. 18:17) “it should not be redeemed?” About a blemished animal. For animal tithe, the Torah made no difference between living and slaughtered, unblemished and blemished.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Alive, but not slaughtered. There, we have stated: “If somebody betrothes a woman with his share in most holy or simple holy sacrifices, she is not betrothed.” Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, Rebbi Jehudah learns all dedicated things from the firstling. Just as one may betrothe a woman with a firstling, so all sacrifices may be used to betrothe a woman. Rebbi Meїr learns all sacrifices from animal tithe. Just as one may not betrothe a woman with animal tithe, so no sacrifices may be used to betrothe a woman. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi is inverted. There, he says, alive or slaughtered. But here, he says alive, but not slaughtered. There in his own name, here in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Even if you say there and here in his own name; if he betrothes while it is still alive and with what is scheduled to fall to him. After slaughter, what is the reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi? (Num. 18:18): “Their meat shall be for you, like the breast of weaving.” And what is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi? “Shall be for you”, even after slaughtering. How does Rebbi Joshua ben Levi uphold “shall be for you”? He added another being that it should be eaten during two days and one night.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Alive, but not slaughtered. There, we have stated: “If somebody betrothes a woman with his share in most holy or simple holy sacrifices, she is not betrothed.” Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, Rebbi Jehudah learns all dedicated things from the firstling. Just as one may betrothe a woman with a firstling, so all sacrifices may be used to betrothe a woman. Rebbi Meїr learns all sacrifices from animal tithe. Just as one may not betrothe a woman with animal tithe, so no sacrifices may be used to betrothe a woman. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi is inverted. There, he says, alive or slaughtered. But here, he says alive, but not slaughtered. There in his own name, here in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Even if you say there and here in his own name; if he betrothes while it is still alive and with what is scheduled to fall to him. After slaughter, what is the reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi? (Num. 18:18): “Their meat shall be for you, like the breast of weaving.” And what is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi? “Shall be for you”, even after slaughtering. How does Rebbi Joshua ben Levi uphold “shall be for you”? He added another being that it should be eaten during two days and one night.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Alive, but not slaughtered. There, we have stated: “If somebody betrothes a woman with his share in most holy or simple holy sacrifices, she is not betrothed.” Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, Rebbi Jehudah learns all dedicated things from the firstling. Just as one may betrothe a woman with a firstling, so all sacrifices may be used to betrothe a woman. Rebbi Meїr learns all sacrifices from animal tithe. Just as one may not betrothe a woman with animal tithe, so no sacrifices may be used to betrothe a woman. The opinion of Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi is inverted. There, he says, alive or slaughtered. But here, he says alive, but not slaughtered. There in his own name, here in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. Even if you say there and here in his own name; if he betrothes while it is still alive and with what is scheduled to fall to him. After slaughter, what is the reason of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi? (Num. 18:18): “Their meat shall be for you, like the breast of weaving.” And what is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah ben Pazi? “Shall be for you”, even after slaughtering. How does Rebbi Joshua ben Levi uphold “shall be for you”? He added another being that it should be eaten during two days and one night.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decreed on a blemished female because of her young. They decreed on a blemished male because of the blemished female. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even an unblemished one is a decree. Earlier they said one may buy an animal for meat of desire and hide it from the altar. They turned to say, not even a wild animal, not even birds as it was stated: “Sabbatical [money] and Second Tithe [money] can be exchanged for a blemished female animal or other domestic and wild animals and birds whether alive or slaughtered, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one exchanges only on slaughtered ones.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They decreed this that one should not raise them in herds. Rebbi Jeremiah stood next to Rebbi Zeïra who said to him, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is still alive and you hang your rags on him! Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say even an unblemished one is a decree! Maybe this was said only for Sabbatical [money]? They found it stated for Sabbatical [money].

Rebbi Joḥanan said, they decreed on a blemished female because of her young. They decreed on a blemished male because of the blemished female. They said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, even an unblemished one is a decree. Earlier they said one may buy an animal for meat of desire and hide it from the altar. They turned to say, not even a wild animal, not even birds as it was stated: “Sabbatical [money] and Second Tithe [money] can be exchanged for a blemished female animal or other domestic and wild animals and birds whether alive or slaughtered, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, one exchanges only on slaughtered ones.” Rebbi Jeremiah in the name of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: They decreed this that one should not raise them in herds. Rebbi Jeremiah stood next to Rebbi Zeïra who said to him, Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is still alive and you hang your rags on him! Did not Rebbi Joḥanan say even an unblemished one is a decree! Maybe this was said only for Sabbatical [money]? They found it stated for Sabbatical [money].

After he transported it, may he say take your part and I shall take mine? May he say to him, take this barrel of wine and we shall eat the barrel of oil that is there. Is it similar with animal tithe? Second Tithe, since it has special conditions for a sale you say is forbidden but animal tithe since it has no conditions for a sale you say is permitted. It should not be clear to you that it is permitted. May he ask him, take and transport this domesticated or wild animal, and we shall eat meat from a ritually slaughtered animal there?

MISHNAH: If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried. They said to Rebbi Jehudah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you said about original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place? If a deer bought with tithe money died, it should be buried in its hide. Rebbi Simeon says, it should be redeemed. If he bought it alive and slaughtered it, if it became impure it should be redeemed. Rebbi Yose said, it should be buried. If he bought it slaughtered and it became impure, he treats it following the rules of produce. If somebody lends flasks for Second Tithe, even if he closed the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it. If he filled them without saying anything, before he closed the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it; after he closed the top with clay, tithe acquired it. Before he closed the top with clay, one may lift by 101, after he closed the top with clay any one sanctifies. Before he closed the top with clay, he gives heave from one for all, after he closed the top with clay he has to give heave from each single one. The House of Shammai say, he opens and pours into a vat, but the House of Hillel say, he opens and does not have to pour. Where has this been said? At a place where usually one sells sealed, but at a place where usually one sells open, the flask did not become profane. However, if he is meticulous to sell by volume, the flask did become profane. Rebbi Simeon said, also if somebody says to another person, I am selling to you this amphora except its flask, the flask became profane.

MISHNAH: If what was bought with tithe money became impure, it should be redeemed. Rebbi Jehudah says, it should be buried. They said to Rebbi Jehudah, if original Second Tithe which became impure is redeemed, what was bought with tithe money and became impure certainly should be redeemed. He said to them, no! If you said about original Second Tithe, which can be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place, can you say the same about what was bought with tithe money which cannot be redeemed when it is pure and far from the Place? If a deer bought with tithe money died, it should be buried in its hide. Rebbi Simeon says, it should be redeemed. If he bought it alive and slaughtered it, if it became impure it should be redeemed. Rebbi Yose said, it should be buried. If he bought it slaughtered and it became impure, he treats it following the rules of produce. If somebody lends flasks for Second Tithe, even if he closed the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it. If he filled them without saying anything, before he closed the top with clay, tithe did not acquire it; after he closed the top with clay, tithe acquired it. Before he closed the top with clay, one may lift by 101, after he closed the top with clay any one sanctifies. Before he closed the top with clay, he gives heave from one for all, after he closed the top with clay he has to give heave from each single one. The House of Shammai say, he opens and pours into a vat, but the House of Hillel say, he opens and does not have to pour. Where has this been said? At a place where usually one sells sealed, but at a place where usually one sells open, the flask did not become profane. However, if he is meticulous to sell by volume, the flask did become profane. Rebbi Simeon said, also if somebody says to another person, I am selling to you this amphora except its flask, the flask became profane.

There, we have stated: “If a proselyte became Jewish while he had a cow, if she was slaughtered before he became Jewish he is free, after he had become Jewish he is obligated. In case of doubt he is free because the burden of proof is on the claimant.” There you say in doubt he is free, here you say in doubt he is obligated. Rebbi Abba said, this was challenged before Rebbi Ammi and he said, who would tell me that he takes its value from the tribe! Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi, Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, he takes its value from the tribe. Why can he not put aside there and take its value from the tribe? Rebbi Yose said, ḥallah which is ṭevel and a deadly sin he puts aside and does not take its value from the tribe since the burden of proof is on the claimant.

It was stated: “A piece of the showbread which was mixed with a hundred pieces of profane [bread], or a piece of purification sacrifice mixed with a hundred profane pieces [of meat], should not be lifted. Rebbi Jehudah says they should be lifted.” What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? (Ez. 45:15) “One sheep from 200 from the drink of Israel,” from what is permitted to Israel. It is difficult! It is written 200 and Rebbi Jehudah says 100. It is written alive and Rebbi Jehudah says slaughtered. What is the difference between alive and slaughtered? Rebbi Ḥinena said, they considered live ones under the category of what usually is counted.

It was stated: “A piece of the showbread which was mixed with a hundred pieces of profane [bread], or a piece of purification sacrifice mixed with a hundred profane pieces [of meat], should not be lifted. Rebbi Jehudah says they should be lifted.” What is the reason of Rebbi Jehudah? (Ez. 45:15) “One sheep from 200 from the drink of Israel,” from what is permitted to Israel. It is difficult! It is written 200 and Rebbi Jehudah says 100. It is written alive and Rebbi Jehudah says slaughtered. What is the difference between alive and slaughtered? Rebbi Ḥinena said, they considered live ones under the category of what usually is counted.

In a baraita one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “What does one understand from what has been said (Ex. 21:28): ‘The ox shall certainly be stoned’? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food? Then why does the verse say, ‘its meat shall not be eaten’? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct.” What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced.

MISHNAH: The koy in some ways follows the rules for wild animals and in some those for domestic animals, in some the rules for both domestic and wild animals, and in some those for neither domestic nor wild animals. How does it follow the rules of wild animals? Its blood must be covered like the blood of a wild animal; one does not slaughter it on a holiday but if it was slaughtered one does not cover its blood. Its fat can become impure in the impurity of a carcass like a wild animal; that impurity is one of doubt. One may not use it to redeem the first-born of a donkey. How does it follow the rules of domestic animals? Its fat is forbidden like the fat of domestic animals, but one is not punished for it by extirpation. It cannot be bought with tithe money to be eaten in Jerusalem and it is subject to the foreleg, the lower jaw, and the first stomach [to be given to a Cohen]. Rebbi Eleazar frees since the claimant has to bring proof. How does it differ from both a wild and a domestic animal? It is forbidden as kilaim with wild animals and domestic animals. If somebody writes his wild or domestic animals over to his son, he did not include the koy. If somebody said, I am a nazir if that is neither a wild nor a domestic animal, he is a nazir. In all other ways it is like wild and domestic animals; it needs slaughtering by cutting its throat like both, and as carcass it is impure like both.

I could think that they should be giving lashes for the addition. Rebbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for ploughing during the Sabbatical year, but Rebbi Eleazar explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state: Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard; but some Tannaïm state: Your field you shall not sow, etc. He who says six years supports Rebbi Joḥanan; he who says your field you shall not sow supports Rebbi Eleazar. A baraita disagrees with Rebbi Eleazar: Beware of, a prohibition. Lest, a prohibition. And it is written: There, you shall offer your elevation offerings and there you shall make. There, you shall offer, that is the offering; and there you shall make, that is slaughtering and sprinkling. Just as offering is a positive commandment and a prohibition, so slaughtering and sprinkling which are positive commandments should be covered by a prohibition. Because it is written there you shall offer, and there you shall make. Therefore, if there you shall offer, and there you shall make were not written, no positive commandment would allow inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition would allow inferences for a positive commandment. How does Rebbi Joḥanan handle this? That you should not say as you say referring to the Sabbath: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense. Similarly, if he slaughtered and offered, he should be guilty only of one offense; therefore, it was necessary to say, he is liable for every single action.

HALAKHAH: 3. They asked before Rebbi Abba: Just as you are saying there, “one who slaughtered his purification sacrifice on the Sabbath did atone but has to bring another one,” so one should say also here, he did not accomplish his tearing. But it must follow Rebbi Simeon, since Rebbi Simeon said, only if he needed the thing itself. He told them, there he caused it himself, but here you caused it to him. Rebbi Yose said, and even there you caused it to him for had you not told him to come how could it be atoning? Is there need to say that it follows Rebbi Simeon?

If he did not stipulate? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody made eruvim for two domains he can go to the South according to his eruv in the North, to the North according to his eruv in the South. If he split the domain he may not move from his place.” An animal belonging to two partners one of which made an eruv in the North and the other in the South. It may walk to the South according to the eruv of the one in the North and to the North according to the eruv of the one in the South. If they split the domain it may not move from its place. If they slaughtered it. Rav said, limbs suck from one another. Ulla bar Ismael said, limbs do not suck from one another. Rav agrees about an amphora that it was his part from before.

There, we have stated: “A firstling afflicted by blood, even if it is going to die, cannot be bled, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. But the Sages say, it should be bled, only he should not intend to cause a blemish. If it did cause a blemish, it may not be slaughtered because of it. Rebbi Simeon says, he should bleed it even if he makes a blemish.”

In a baraita one disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: What does one understand from what has been said: the ox shall certainly be stoned? Do we not know that its meat is forbidden as food? Then why does the verse say, its meat shall not be eaten? To tell you that just as it is forbidden as food so it is forbidden for usufruct. What does Rebbi Joḥanan do with this? He explained it if the owners slaughtered it before sentence was pronounced.

The rabbis of Caesarea, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Nowhere do you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating if it is written do not eat, do not eat. It may not be eaten (f.). it may not be eaten (m.), you understand a prohibition of usufruct included in the prohibition of eating. The paradigm for all cases is: Any purification offering of whose blood was brought into the Tent of Meeting to purify the sanctuary shall not be eaten, in fire it shall be burned. Ḥizqiah stated support for Rebbi Joḥanan: If one understands what has been said: Any fat of cattle, sheep, or goats you shall not eat, why has it been said: but fat of a carcass and fat of a torn animal may be used for any work? Even for the work of Heaven. If one understands what has been said: But the blood you shall not eat, why has it been said,you shall pour it on the ground like water? As water prepares, so blood prepares. If one understands what has been said: Do not eat any carcass; why has it been said, to the sojourner in your gates you shall give it and he may eat it? It serves to tell you that the resident sojourner may eat carcass meat. If one understands what has been said: Flesh torn in the field you shall not eat, why does the verse say, throw it to the dog? This you throw to the dog but you do not throw profane meat slaughtered in the Temple precinct.

MISHNAH: The daily sacrifice is slaughtered at [hour] eight and a half and brought at nine and a half. On Passover Eve it is slaughtered at [hour] seven and a half and brought at eight and a half whether it be weekday or Sabbath. If Passover Eve falls on a Friday, it is slaughtered at [hour] six and a half and brought at seven and a half. The Pesaḥ is following.

MISHNAH: The daily sacrifice is slaughtered at [hour] eight and a half and brought at nine and a half. On Passover Eve it is slaughtered at [hour] seven and a half and brought at eight and a half whether it be weekday or Sabbath. If Passover Eve falls on a Friday, it is slaughtered at [hour] six and a half and brought at seven and a half. The Pesaḥ is following.

MISHNAH: The daily sacrifice is slaughtered at [hour] eight and a half and brought at nine and a half. On Passover Eve it is slaughtered at [hour] seven and a half and brought at eight and a half whether it be weekday or Sabbath. If Passover Eve falls on a Friday, it is slaughtered at [hour] six and a half and brought at seven and a half. The Pesaḥ is following.

HALAKHAH: “The daily sacrifice is slaughtered,” etc. It is written: The following you shall do on the altar, etc. I would have said, both of them should be sacrificed in the morning, or both of them in the afternoon. The verse says, one sheep you shall do in the morning. I would have said, the morning one should be sacrificed at dawn and the evening one at dusk; the verse says, between the evenings. It is said here between the evenings and it is said there between the evenings. Since between the evenings which is said there means after six hours, also between the evenings which is said here must mean after six hours. What did you see that makes you say, between the evenings means after six hours? [Even though it is no proof there is a hint:] woe on us that the day has turned, that evening shadows are turned. Since evening which is said there means after six hours, also evening which is said here must mean after six hours. Then should it not be qualified after six hours? Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, what is between the evenings? Split the evening into two, give it two and a half hours before, two and a half hours afterwards, and one hour for its work. It turns out that the daily sacrifice is brought at nine hours and a half.

Rebbi Yose said, that is, for merit. But for invalidation it is what we have stated: “If one slaughtered it before noon it is disqualified; after noon it is immediately qualified. Before the daily evening sacrifice it is qualified.” Could one say that it also is the same for the morning? Here it is written between the evenings; do you have a verse between the mornings?

Could not both be brought simultaneously? Rebbi Yose said, the sheep is second, the Pesaḥ is not second. It was stated: Rebbi Nathan says, every day the daily sacrifice was slaughtered at eight and a half, and brought at nine and a half. What means “every day”? Every Passover Eve. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the reason of this Tanna is to allow half an hour between one group and the next.

MISHNAH: Pesaḥ which he slaughtered not for its purpose, received [the blood], transported it, or poured it, not for its purpose, or for its purpose and not for its purpose, or not for its purpose and for its purpose, is disqualified. What is “for its purpose and not for its purpose”? As Pesaḥ and as well-being offering. “Not for its purpose and for its purpose”? As well-being offering and as Pesaḥ.

HALAKHAH: From where that he must slaughter it for its purpose? Rebbi Abba in the name of Rav: And you shall say, a Pesaḥ slaughter it is; to imply that if he slaughtered it for the purpose of Pesaḥ it is Pesaḥ, otherwise it is not Pesaḥ. From where the remainder of its actions? You shall make [a Pesaḥ], that all its actions shall be for the purpose of Pesaḥ. But then also the burning of its parts? The verse says, slaughter But then also the burning of its parts? The verse says, slaughter. Since slaughter is particular in that it invalidates expiation, this excludes the burning of its parts which does not invalidate expiation.

If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service and it is disqualified. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, is there transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service? It should be qualified. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned this from thought of piggul. If he poured not for its purpose would that not cause piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification. If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified? If he slaughtered for its purpose and received its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If he slaughtered for its purpose in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose and in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, it is qualified.

If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service and it is disqualified. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, is there transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service? It should be qualified. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned this from thought of piggul. If he poured not for its purpose would that not cause piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification. If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified? If he slaughtered for its purpose and received its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If he slaughtered for its purpose in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose and in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, it is qualified.

If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service and it is disqualified. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, is there transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service? It should be qualified. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned this from thought of piggul. If he poured not for its purpose would that not cause piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification. If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified? If he slaughtered for its purpose and received its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If he slaughtered for its purpose in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose and in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, it is qualified.

If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service and it is disqualified. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, is there transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service? It should be qualified. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned this from thought of piggul. If he poured not for its purpose would that not cause piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification. If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified? If he slaughtered for its purpose and received its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If he slaughtered for its purpose in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose and in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, it is qualified.

If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service and it is disqualified. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, is there transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service? It should be qualified. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned this from thought of piggul. If he poured not for its purpose would that not cause piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification. If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified? If he slaughtered for its purpose and received its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If he slaughtered for its purpose in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose and in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, it is qualified.

If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service and it is disqualified. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, is there transfer of “not for its purpose” from service to service? It should be qualified. Rebbi Ila said, Rebbi Joḥanan learned this from thought of piggul. If he poured not for its purpose would that not cause piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification. If he slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified? If he slaughtered for its purpose and received its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If he slaughtered for its purpose in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If he slaughtered for its purpose and in order to burn its parts not for its purpose, it is qualified.

Rebbi Yose said, I saw Rebbi Jeremiah grabbing Rebbi Abba and saying to him, tell me the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan , why it is disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and it is disqualified. He told him, if this is so, even if he slaughtered not for its eaters and to sprinkle its blood not for its eaters, it should be as if from the start he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters and be qualified. This you cannot do, as Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. Rebbi Yose got his strength from the two reasons of Rebbi Joḥanan . Why is it disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and is disqualified. Why is it qualified if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters, and is qualified.

Rebbi Yose said, I saw Rebbi Jeremiah grabbing Rebbi Abba and saying to him, tell me the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan , why it is disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and it is disqualified. He told him, if this is so, even if he slaughtered not for its eaters and to sprinkle its blood not for its eaters, it should be as if from the start he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters and be qualified. This you cannot do, as Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. Rebbi Yose got his strength from the two reasons of Rebbi Joḥanan . Why is it disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and is disqualified. Why is it qualified if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters, and is qualified.

Rebbi Yose said, I saw Rebbi Jeremiah grabbing Rebbi Abba and saying to him, tell me the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan , why it is disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and it is disqualified. He told him, if this is so, even if he slaughtered not for its eaters and to sprinkle its blood not for its eaters, it should be as if from the start he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters and be qualified. This you cannot do, as Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. Rebbi Yose got his strength from the two reasons of Rebbi Joḥanan . Why is it disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and is disqualified. Why is it qualified if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters, and is qualified.

Rebbi Yose said, I saw Rebbi Jeremiah grabbing Rebbi Abba and saying to him, tell me the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan , why it is disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and it is disqualified. He told him, if this is so, even if he slaughtered not for its eaters and to sprinkle its blood not for its eaters, it should be as if from the start he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters and be qualified. This you cannot do, as Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. Rebbi Yose got his strength from the two reasons of Rebbi Joḥanan . Why is it disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and is disqualified. Why is it qualified if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters, and is qualified.

Rebbi Yose said, I saw Rebbi Jeremiah grabbing Rebbi Abba and saying to him, tell me the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan , why it is disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and it is disqualified. He told him, if this is so, even if he slaughtered not for its eaters and to sprinkle its blood not for its eaters, it should be as if from the start he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters and be qualified. This you cannot do, as Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. Rebbi Yose got his strength from the two reasons of Rebbi Joḥanan . Why is it disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and is disqualified. Why is it qualified if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters, and is qualified.

Rebbi Yose said, I saw Rebbi Jeremiah grabbing Rebbi Abba and saying to him, tell me the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan , why it is disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and it is disqualified. He told him, if this is so, even if he slaughtered not for its eaters and to sprinkle its blood not for its eaters, it should be as if from the start he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters and be qualified. This you cannot do, as Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. Rebbi Yose got his strength from the two reasons of Rebbi Joḥanan . Why is it disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and is disqualified. Why is it qualified if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters, and is qualified.

Rebbi Yose said, I saw Rebbi Jeremiah grabbing Rebbi Abba and saying to him, tell me the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan , why it is disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and it is disqualified. He told him, if this is so, even if he slaughtered not for its eaters and to sprinkle its blood not for its eaters, it should be as if from the start he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters and be qualified. This you cannot do, as Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. Rebbi Yose got his strength from the two reasons of Rebbi Joḥanan . Why is it disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and is disqualified. Why is it qualified if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters, and is qualified.

Rebbi Yose said, I saw Rebbi Jeremiah grabbing Rebbi Abba and saying to him, tell me the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan , why it is disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and it is disqualified. He told him, if this is so, even if he slaughtered not for its eaters and to sprinkle its blood not for its eaters, it should be as if from the start he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters and be qualified. This you cannot do, as Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. Rebbi Yose got his strength from the two reasons of Rebbi Joḥanan . Why is it disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and is disqualified. Why is it qualified if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters, and is qualified.

Rebbi Yose said, I saw Rebbi Jeremiah grabbing Rebbi Abba and saying to him, tell me the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan , why it is disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and it is disqualified. He told him, if this is so, even if he slaughtered not for its eaters and to sprinkle its blood not for its eaters, it should be as if from the start he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters and be qualified. This you cannot do, as Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. Rebbi Yose got his strength from the two reasons of Rebbi Joḥanan . Why is it disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and is disqualified. Why is it qualified if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters, and is qualified.

Rebbi Yose said, I saw Rebbi Jeremiah grabbing Rebbi Abba and saying to him, tell me the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan , why it is disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and it is disqualified. He told him, if this is so, even if he slaughtered not for its eaters and to sprinkle its blood not for its eaters, it should be as if from the start he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters and be qualified. This you cannot do, as Rebbi Ila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. There came Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters, it is qualified. Rebbi Yose got his strength from the two reasons of Rebbi Joḥanan . Why is it disqualified if one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose? It is made from start as if he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose, and is disqualified. Why is it qualified if he slaughtered for its eaters and to pour its blood not for its eaters? It is made from the start as if he slaughtered for its eaters and not for its eaters, and is qualified.

Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Yudan. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan that if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, would that not be piggufl? If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If one slaughtered for its purpose and to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified, since on the act of receiving he is thinking. Therefore, if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If at the moment of burning he does not think, then if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action. He told him, do not object to me about disqualification because of piggul, since Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification.

Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Yudan. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan that if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, would that not be piggufl? If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If one slaughtered for its purpose and to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified, since on the act of receiving he is thinking. Therefore, if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If at the moment of burning he does not think, then if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action. He told him, do not object to me about disqualification because of piggul, since Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification.

Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Yudan. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan that if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, would that not be piggufl? If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If one slaughtered for its purpose and to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified, since on the act of receiving he is thinking. Therefore, if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If at the moment of burning he does not think, then if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action. He told him, do not object to me about disqualification because of piggul, since Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification.

Rebbi Ḥananiah said before Rebbi Mana in the name of Rebbi Yudan. The reason of Rebbi Joḥanan that if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, would that not be piggufl? If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to pour its blood not for its purpose, it is disqualified. If one slaughtered for its purpose and to receive its blood not for its purpose, would that not be qualified, since on the act of receiving he is thinking. Therefore, if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to burn its parts not for its purpose, would that not be piggul? If at the moment of burning he does not think, then if one would come to perform a certain action without thinking, one continues the thinking from another action. He told him, do not object to me about disqualification because of piggul, since Rebbi Yose said, in two aspects is the intent of piggul not equivalent to the intent of disqualification.

What results from the difference between them? Rebbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, switching on the other days of the year. If one slaughtered for its purpose with the intent to sprinkle its blood not for its purpose, on the other days of the year. In the opinion of Rebbi Joḥanan it is qualified; in the opinion of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish it is disqualified.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering [from small cattle]? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. [Rebbi Abun objected,] everywhere you are saying that מִן is to include, but here you are saying that מִן is to exclude? Rebbi Mana said, it excludes it, since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, [but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that you are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi [Il]la said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan : And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, about this Abba bar Abba enlightened me, for they are saying, from where that Pesaḥ is changed into the denomination of well-being sacrifices? The verse says, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything from small cattle comes as well-being offering. They objected, is there not an elevation offering [from small cattle]? Anything which only comes from small cattle; this eliminates the elevation offering which even may come from large cattle. They objected, is there not reparation offering? Rebbi Abun bar Cahana said, “from small cattle”. this eliminates the reparation offering, which only comes from rams. [Rebbi Abun objected,] everywhere you are saying that מִן is to include, but here you are saying that מִן is to exclude? Rebbi Mana said, it excludes it, since it only comes from rams. They objected, is there not written, and if his sacrifice be from small cattle, from sheep or goats, as elevation offering; then excess Pesaḥ should become elevation offering? Rebbi Abun said, one changes something to be eaten into something to be eaten, [but one does not change something to be eaten into something not to be eaten.] Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, one changes simple sancta into simple sancta, but one does not change simple sancta into most holy sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, about what Rebbi Ḥanina enlightened, that you are saying, Pesaḥ is changed into a well-being offering only if he slaughtered it for the purpose of well-being offering; but I am saying, even for the purpose of an elevation offering. Rebbi [Il]la said, the reason of Rebbi Joḥanan : And if his sacrifice be from small cattle as meal well-being offering; anything to be consumed as sanctum is a well-being offering. Does it change with respect to disqualifying thoughts? How is this? If he slaughtered it for the purpose of an elevation offering in order to pour its blood the next day. In any case, it is disqualified. If you are saying that it changes with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is piggul. If you are saying that it does not change with respect to disqualifying thoughts, it is disqualified.

For its purpose and not for its purpose on the other days of the year? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel bar Abba: Since it is left without a name it is as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and is qualified. They said to him. if it is so, even if he slaughtered for its purpose to pour the blood not for its purpose it should be treated as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and be qualified. Rebbi Abba Mari said, who says that in silence it is qualified? Or may we say, in silence it is disqualified?

For its purpose and not for its purpose on the other days of the year? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel bar Abba: Since it is left without a name it is as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and is qualified. They said to him. if it is so, even if he slaughtered for its purpose to pour the blood not for its purpose it should be treated as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and be qualified. Rebbi Abba Mari said, who says that in silence it is qualified? Or may we say, in silence it is disqualified?

For its purpose and not for its purpose on the other days of the year? Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya in the name of Samuel bar Abba: Since it is left without a name it is as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and is qualified. They said to him. if it is so, even if he slaughtered for its purpose to pour the blood not for its purpose it should be treated as if from the start he slaughtered for its purpose and not for its purpose in silence and be qualified. Rebbi Abba Mari said, who says that in silence it is qualified? Or may we say, in silence it is disqualified?

MISHNAH: If he slaughtered it for those who cannot not eat it, for those who did not subscribe to it, for the uncircumcised, or for the impure, it is disqualified. For those who eat it and those who will not eat it, for those who subscribed to it and those who did not subscribe to it, for the circumcised and the uncircumcised, or for the pure and the impure, it is qualified. If one slaughtered it before noon it is disqualified since it was said about it: between the evenings. If one slaughtered it before the daily evening sacrifice it is qualified, on condition that somebody stir the blood until after the blood of the daily evening sacrifice was poured; but if the blood was poured it is qualified.

MISHNAH: If he slaughtered it for those who cannot not eat it, for those who did not subscribe to it, for the uncircumcised, or for the impure, it is disqualified. For those who eat it and those who will not eat it, for those who subscribed to it and those who did not subscribe to it, for the circumcised and the uncircumcised, or for the pure and the impure, it is qualified. If one slaughtered it before noon it is disqualified since it was said about it: between the evenings. If one slaughtered it before the daily evening sacrifice it is qualified, on condition that somebody stir the blood until after the blood of the daily evening sacrifice was poured; but if the blood was poured it is qualified.

MISHNAH: If he slaughtered it for those who cannot not eat it, for those who did not subscribe to it, for the uncircumcised, or for the impure, it is disqualified. For those who eat it and those who will not eat it, for those who subscribed to it and those who did not subscribe to it, for the circumcised and the uncircumcised, or for the pure and the impure, it is qualified. If one slaughtered it before noon it is disqualified since it was said about it: between the evenings. If one slaughtered it before the daily evening sacrifice it is qualified, on condition that somebody stir the blood until after the blood of the daily evening sacrifice was poured; but if the blood was poured it is qualified.

“How is ‘those who cannot eat it’? If he slaughtered it in the name of a sick person, in the name of an old person, who cannot eat the volume of an olive. How about ‘those who did not subscribe to it’? If he slaughtered it in the name of a different group.” This implies that a baby can be counted to disqualify. This implies that if one was on a distant trip and he slaughtered it in this person’s name, it is disqualified. This implies that it supports the Southerners, since the Southerners are saying, one thinks about parts which were lost as if they were in existence. This implies that if one slaughtered so that half of the group should eat, it is disqualified. Rebbi Haggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it that all of them were sick. He told him, then one should have stated, “in the name of disqualified members of the group.” He said to him, if there were qualified people, but he slaughtered in the name of the disqualified.

“How is ‘those who cannot eat it’? If he slaughtered it in the name of a sick person, in the name of an old person, who cannot eat the volume of an olive. How about ‘those who did not subscribe to it’? If he slaughtered it in the name of a different group.” This implies that a baby can be counted to disqualify. This implies that if one was on a distant trip and he slaughtered it in this person’s name, it is disqualified. This implies that it supports the Southerners, since the Southerners are saying, one thinks about parts which were lost as if they were in existence. This implies that if one slaughtered so that half of the group should eat, it is disqualified. Rebbi Haggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it that all of them were sick. He told him, then one should have stated, “in the name of disqualified members of the group.” He said to him, if there were qualified people, but he slaughtered in the name of the disqualified.

“How is ‘those who cannot eat it’? If he slaughtered it in the name of a sick person, in the name of an old person, who cannot eat the volume of an olive. How about ‘those who did not subscribe to it’? If he slaughtered it in the name of a different group.” This implies that a baby can be counted to disqualify. This implies that if one was on a distant trip and he slaughtered it in this person’s name, it is disqualified. This implies that it supports the Southerners, since the Southerners are saying, one thinks about parts which were lost as if they were in existence. This implies that if one slaughtered so that half of the group should eat, it is disqualified. Rebbi Haggai said before Rebbi Yose, explain it that all of them were sick. He told him, then one should have stated, “in the name of disqualified members of the group.” He said to him, if there were qualified people, but he slaughtered in the name of the disqualified.