slaughtering

Derivatives of water are: the liquids that come from the eye, from the ear, from the nose and from the mouth, and urine, whether of adults or of children, whether [its flow is] conscious or unconscious. Derivatives of blood are: blood from the slaughtering of cattle and wild animals and birds that are clean, and blood from bloodletting for drinking. Whey is like milk, And the sap of olives is deemed like oil, since it is never free from oil, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Meir says: even though it contains no oil. The blood of a sheretz is like its flesh, it causes uncleanness but does not cause susceptibility to uncleanness, and there is nothing else like it.

The following cause neither uncleanness nor susceptibility to uncleanness: Sweat, rotten secretion, excrement, blood issuing with any of these, liquid [issuing from a child born in the] eight month. Rabbi Yose says: except its blood. [The discharge from the bowels of] one who drinks the water of Tiberias even though it comes out clean. Blood from the slaughtering of cattle and wild animals and birds that are unclean, and blood from bloodletting for healing. Rabbi Eliezer declares these unclean. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: the milk of a male is clean.

The behavior of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi disagrees since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi read psalms afterwards. But have we not stated: One does not say words after Emet Weyaẓiv? He explains that as relating to Emet Weyaẓiv of the morning prayers, since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Abba bar Jeremiah: There are three immediacies: immediately after leaning comes slaughtering, immediately after hand-washing comes benediction, immediately after redemption comes prayer. Immediately after leaning comes slaughtering: “He shall lean … he shall slaughter” (Lev. 1:4–5). Immediately after hand-washing comes benediction, (Ps. 134:2) “Lift your hands in holiness and bless the Lord.” Immediately after redemption comes prayer, (Ps. 19:15) “May the words of my mouth be for goodwill” and it is written after that (Ps. 20:2) “May the Lord answer you on the day of worry.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: For anyone who immediately slaughters after leaning, no disqualification will appear regarding his sacrifice. For anyone who immediately pronounces the benediction after washing his hands, Satan will not find anything to accuse about at that meal. For anyone who immediately prays after mentioning redemption, Satan will not find anything to accuse him of the entire day. Rebbi Zeïra said, I am used to immediately pray after mentioning redemption and I was conscripted to forced labor, to bring myrrh to the Palace. They said to him: our teacher, that is an honor. There are people who pay money to see the inside of the Palace. Rebbi Immi said: Anyone who does not immediately pray after mentioning redemption, whom is he to be likened to? To an acquaintance of the king who comes from afar to the king’s door. When the king comes to see what he wants, he finds that the person left. Hence, the king also leaves.

The behavior of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi disagrees since Rebbi Joshua ben Levi read psalms afterwards. But have we not stated: One does not say words after Emet Weyaẓiv? He explains that as relating to Emet Weyaẓiv of the morning prayers, since Rebbi Zeïra said in the name of Rav Abba bar Jeremiah: There are three immediacies: immediately after leaning comes slaughtering, immediately after hand-washing comes benediction, immediately after redemption comes prayer. Immediately after leaning comes slaughtering: “He shall lean … he shall slaughter” (Lev. 1:4–5). Immediately after hand-washing comes benediction, (Ps. 134:2) “Lift your hands in holiness and bless the Lord.” Immediately after redemption comes prayer, (Ps. 19:15) “May the words of my mouth be for goodwill” and it is written after that (Ps. 20:2) “May the Lord answer you on the day of worry.” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said: For anyone who immediately slaughters after leaning, no disqualification will appear regarding his sacrifice. For anyone who immediately pronounces the benediction after washing his hands, Satan will not find anything to accuse about at that meal. For anyone who immediately prays after mentioning redemption, Satan will not find anything to accuse him of the entire day. Rebbi Zeïra said, I am used to immediately pray after mentioning redemption and I was conscripted to forced labor, to bring myrrh to the Palace. They said to him: our teacher, that is an honor. There are people who pay money to see the inside of the Palace. Rebbi Immi said: Anyone who does not immediately pray after mentioning redemption, whom is he to be likened to? To an acquaintance of the king who comes from afar to the king’s door. When the king comes to see what he wants, he finds that the person left. Hence, the king also leaves.

“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.

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.

“The House of Shammai say”, etc. It was stated: If somebody sells an ox and it turns out be a goring one, Rav said it is an erroneous transaction but Samuel says, he can tell him: I sold it to you for slaughtering. What are we talking about? If he sold it to a sharecropper, he sold it for ploughing. If he sold it to a butcher, he sold it for slaughter. But we are considering that he sold it to a broker. Rav said it is an erroneous transaction but Samuel says, he can tell him I sold it to you for slaughtering. The reasoning of Rav is inverted, the reasoning of Samuel is inverted. For they disagreed: If he sold it during the Jubilee year itself, Rav said he acquired it and it leaves his hand in the Jubilee year; Samuel says he did not acquire. The reasoning of Rav is inverted: there he said he acquired and here he said he did not acquire. There the Jubilee is public knowledge but here there is an erroneous transaction. The reasoning of Samuel is inverted: there he said he did not acquire and here he said he acquired. For what purpose did he sell it to him if not for sowing? But here he can tell him I sold it to you for slaughtering.

“The House of Shammai say”, etc. It was stated: If somebody sells an ox and it turns out be a goring one, Rav said it is an erroneous transaction but Samuel says, he can tell him: I sold it to you for slaughtering. What are we talking about? If he sold it to a sharecropper, he sold it for ploughing. If he sold it to a butcher, he sold it for slaughter. But we are considering that he sold it to a broker. Rav said it is an erroneous transaction but Samuel says, he can tell him I sold it to you for slaughtering. The reasoning of Rav is inverted, the reasoning of Samuel is inverted. For they disagreed: If he sold it during the Jubilee year itself, Rav said he acquired it and it leaves his hand in the Jubilee year; Samuel says he did not acquire. The reasoning of Rav is inverted: there he said he acquired and here he said he did not acquire. There the Jubilee is public knowledge but here there is an erroneous transaction. The reasoning of Samuel is inverted: there he said he did not acquire and here he said he acquired. For what purpose did he sell it to him if not for sowing? But here he can tell him I sold it to you for slaughtering.

“The House of Shammai say”, etc. It was stated: If somebody sells an ox and it turns out be a goring one, Rav said it is an erroneous transaction but Samuel says, he can tell him: I sold it to you for slaughtering. What are we talking about? If he sold it to a sharecropper, he sold it for ploughing. If he sold it to a butcher, he sold it for slaughter. But we are considering that he sold it to a broker. Rav said it is an erroneous transaction but Samuel says, he can tell him I sold it to you for slaughtering. The reasoning of Rav is inverted, the reasoning of Samuel is inverted. For they disagreed: If he sold it during the Jubilee year itself, Rav said he acquired it and it leaves his hand in the Jubilee year; Samuel says he did not acquire. The reasoning of Rav is inverted: there he said he acquired and here he said he did not acquire. There the Jubilee is public knowledge but here there is an erroneous transaction. The reasoning of Samuel is inverted: there he said he did not acquire and here he said he acquired. For what purpose did he sell it to him if not for sowing? But here he can tell him I sold it to you for slaughtering.

Rebbi Yudan asked: If somebody said to a woman, draw this animal tithe to you from me and be preliminarily married to me by it after slaughtering. Since it is in his hand to slaughter, is she immediately preliminarily married or only after slaughtering?

Rebbi Yudan asked: If somebody said to a woman, draw this animal tithe to you from me and be preliminarily married to me by it after slaughtering. Since it is in his hand to slaughter, is she immediately preliminarily married or only after slaughtering?

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.

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.

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.

It and its young fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? There he says, one is prohibited from cunning but here he says, one is permitted to be cunning. Here it is because “not to be seen nor found”; there, what do you have? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? There he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but here, he says, one is prohibited from cunning. Rebbi Idi said, there it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but here liability for a purification offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, there it is to protect Jews’ money; here what do you have?

It and its young fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? There he says, one is prohibited from cunning but here he says, one is permitted to be cunning. Here it is because “not to be seen nor found”; there, what do you have? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? There he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but here, he says, one is prohibited from cunning. Rebbi Idi said, there it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but here liability for a purification offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, there it is to protect Jews’ money; here what do you have?

It and its young fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? There he says, one is prohibited from cunning but here he says, one is permitted to be cunning. Here it is because “not to be seen nor found”; there, what do you have? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? There he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but here, he says, one is prohibited from cunning. Rebbi Idi said, there it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but here liability for a purification offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, there it is to protect Jews’ money; here what do you have?

Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what did you see to say that evening is later; could we not say that between the evenings is later? But it must be: The one about which is written between the evenings at sundown shall be delayed more than one about which is written only between the evenings. The formulation of a baraita supports Rebbi Jeremiah: “There you shall slaughter the Pesaḥ in the evening. In the evening you are slaughtering, at sundown you are eating, at the time of your exodus from Egypt you are roasting.” There are Tannaim who state: “In the evening you are eating, at sundown you are slaughtering, at the time of your exodus from Egypt you are roasting.”

Rebbi Jeremiah asked, what did you see to say that evening is later; could we not say that between the evenings is later? But it must be: The one about which is written between the evenings at sundown shall be delayed more than one about which is written only between the evenings. The formulation of a baraita supports Rebbi Jeremiah: “There you shall slaughter the Pesaḥ in the evening. In the evening you are slaughtering, at sundown you are eating, at the time of your exodus from Egypt you are roasting.” There are Tannaim who state: “In the evening you are eating, at sundown you are slaughtering, at the time of your exodus from Egypt you are roasting.”

Rebbi Yose said, from that of Rebbi Eleazar one may deduce two [conclusions]. Since Rebbi Eleazar said, the Mishnah if he slaughtered it for those who eat it, but it was covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it. But it is disqualified if from the start he slaughtered for those who eat it and it was covered by those who eat it and those who cannot eat it. Then its disqualification is of others and you can pick out the disqualified from the qualified, and you are saying so? But it must be the following, “for its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all sacrifices; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to the Pesaḥ. Rebbi Abin said, there are others. “For its purpose and not for its purpose”, applies to all services; “for those who eat it and those who cannot eat it” applies only to slaughtering.

HALAKHAH: From where that one who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter transgresses a prohibition? The verse says, do not slaughter on leavened matter the blood of My sacrifice. I have not only the slaughterer, from where the one who pours the blood? The verse says, not on leavened matter the blood. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, since he becomes guilty for pouring, this implies that the Pesaḥ be qualified. Rebbi Yose said, explain it that leavened matter came to him between slaughter and pouring or that one person was slaughtering and another pouring.

The burning of the parts on leavening. There are Tannaim who state, he is liable; there are Tannaim who state, he is not liable. He who says liable, blood anywhere. He who says not liable, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement.

The rabbis of Caesarea asked: I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that one is liable for it outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Instead of arguing for absence of liability, argue for liability. I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], I also am adding burning of the parts for which one is liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, I also am adding the one who receives or carries who is indispensable for atonement. He said to him, anything equal in both respects instructs; anything not equal in both respects does not instruct. Sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement and for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside; it excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement.

The rabbis of Caesarea asked: I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that one is liable for it outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Instead of arguing for absence of liability, argue for liability. I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], I also am adding burning of the parts for which one is liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, I also am adding the one who receives or carries who is indispensable for atonement. He said to him, anything equal in both respects instructs; anything not equal in both respects does not instruct. Sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement and for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside; it excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement.

The rabbis of Caesarea asked: I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that one is liable for it outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, this excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement. Rebbi Jacob bar Zavdi asked before Rebbi Yose. Instead of arguing for absence of liability, argue for liability. I could think that the one who receives or carries [the blood] on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], I also am adding burning of the parts for which one is liable outside. I could think that one who burns parts on leavened matter not be liable. The verse says, and he atones. Since pouring is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement, I also am adding the one who receives or carries who is indispensable for atonement. He said to him, anything equal in both respects instructs; anything not equal in both respects does not instruct. Sacrifice. Since slaughtering for sacrifice is particular in that it is indispensable for atonement and for it one is liable outside [the Sanctuary], this excludes the one who receives or carries on leavened matter for which one is not liable outside; it excludes burning of the parts, which is not indispensable for atonement.

From where that one subscribes? The verse says, by the number of souls. From where that one appoints? It is said here a lamb, and it is said in Egypt a lamb. Since the lamb quoted in Egypt is live, not slaughtered, so the lamb quoted here is live, not slaughtered. What is Rebbi Simeon’s reason? If he dies between slaughtering and pouring, would it not count for the owner as merit? What is the difference between the owner dying or the owner withdrawing from it.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua said, I have heard that the substitute of a Pesaḥ is sacrificed and that the substitute of a Pesaḥ is not sacrificed, and I cannot explain it. Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it. The Pesaḥ which is found before the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ shall graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and for the money one shall bring well-being offerings; the same holds for its substitute. After the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ, it shall be brought as well-being offering; the same holds for its substitute.

MISHNAH: Rebbi Joshua said, I have heard that the substitute of a Pesaḥ is sacrificed and that the substitute of a Pesaḥ is not sacrificed, and I cannot explain it. Rebbi Aqiba said, I shall explain it. The Pesaḥ which is found before the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ shall graze until it becomes unusable, then be sold, and for the money one shall bring well-being offerings; the same holds for its substitute. After the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ, it shall be brought as well-being offering; the same holds for its substitute.

If he substituted for it on the Thirteenth, Rebbi Zeˋira said, the substitute is brought as a well-being offering; Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, the substitute is not brought as a well-being offering. The strength of Rebbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac is from the following: “after the time of slaughtering the Pesaḥ, it shall be brought as well-being offering.” If you are saying, if he substituted for it on the Thirteenth and the substitute is brought as a well-being offering, is it not better to infer the {rules of the} substitute of a Pesaḥ from the {rules of the} Pesaḥ than to infer the [rules of the] substitute of a well-being sacrifice from the {rules of the} Pesaḥ?

It and its young fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for at its place so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? Here he says, one is prohibited from cunning but there he says, one is permitted to be cunning. There it is because “not to be seen nor found”; here, what do you have? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? Here he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but there he says, one is prohibited from cunning. Rebbi Idi said, here it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but there liability for a purification offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, here it is to protect Jews’ money; there what do you have? Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Joshia, one like one of them, the other like the other.

It and its young fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for at its place so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? Here he says, one is prohibited from cunning but there he says, one is permitted to be cunning. There it is because “not to be seen nor found”; here, what do you have? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? Here he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but there he says, one is prohibited from cunning. Rebbi Idi said, here it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but there liability for a purification offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, here it is to protect Jews’ money; there what do you have? Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Joshia, one like one of them, the other like the other.

It and its young fell into a cistern. Rebbi Eliezer said, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and slaughter it. The second one has to be provided for at its place so it should not die. Rebbi Joshua says, he should lift the first one for the purpose of slaughtering it and not slaughter it, and be cunning and lift the second one. Even though he had no intention of slaughtering either of them, he is permitted. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is the argument of Rebbi Eliezer not inverted? Here he says, one is prohibited from cunning but there he says, one is permitted to be cunning. There it is because “not to be seen nor found”; here, what do you have? Is the argument of Rebbi Joshua not inverted? Here he says, one is permitted to be cunning, but there he says, one is prohibited from cunning. Rebbi Idi said, here it is a rabbinic Sabbath prohibition, but there liability for a purification offering. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, here it is to protect Jews’ money; there what do you have? Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Joshia, one like one of them, the other like the other.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the finger-holes which they mentioned, whether inside or outside, in the manner in which cleanly people hold it. Rebbi Ze`ira said, “it is impossible to say, about one which is wiped dry, for hands are not made impure by anything wiped dry. In truth it is impossible to say, if it is full of fluid, for in the moment he touched it he made it impure. But we must hold that [it was dirtied] by fluid.” Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah: They treated fluid in a finger-hole like fluid at the slaughtering place. As you are saying there that fluids of the slaughtering place are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place, [so here, fluids in a finger-hole are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place.] Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside {the Temple courtyards} become impure. But did we not state, fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside continue in their sanctity? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Simon explained it. Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. If they came out and returned. If the upper fluid became impure and flowed down, Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya. One said, at its place it is pure, if it flows down it is impure. The other one said, since it comes from purity it is pure.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the finger-holes which they mentioned, whether inside or outside, in the manner in which cleanly people hold it. Rebbi Ze`ira said, “it is impossible to say, about one which is wiped dry, for hands are not made impure by anything wiped dry. In truth it is impossible to say, if it is full of fluid, for in the moment he touched it he made it impure. But we must hold that [it was dirtied] by fluid.” Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah: They treated fluid in a finger-hole like fluid at the slaughtering place. As you are saying there that fluids of the slaughtering place are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place, [so here, fluids in a finger-hole are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place.] Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside {the Temple courtyards} become impure. But did we not state, fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside continue in their sanctity? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Simon explained it. Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. If they came out and returned. If the upper fluid became impure and flowed down, Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya. One said, at its place it is pure, if it flows down it is impure. The other one said, since it comes from purity it is pure.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the finger-holes which they mentioned, whether inside or outside, in the manner in which cleanly people hold it. Rebbi Ze`ira said, “it is impossible to say, about one which is wiped dry, for hands are not made impure by anything wiped dry. In truth it is impossible to say, if it is full of fluid, for in the moment he touched it he made it impure. But we must hold that [it was dirtied] by fluid.” Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah: They treated fluid in a finger-hole like fluid at the slaughtering place. As you are saying there that fluids of the slaughtering place are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place, [so here, fluids in a finger-hole are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place.] Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside {the Temple courtyards} become impure. But did we not state, fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside continue in their sanctity? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Simon explained it. Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. If they came out and returned. If the upper fluid became impure and flowed down, Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya. One said, at its place it is pure, if it flows down it is impure. The other one said, since it comes from purity it is pure.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the finger-holes which they mentioned, whether inside or outside, in the manner in which cleanly people hold it. Rebbi Ze`ira said, “it is impossible to say, about one which is wiped dry, for hands are not made impure by anything wiped dry. In truth it is impossible to say, if it is full of fluid, for in the moment he touched it he made it impure. But we must hold that [it was dirtied] by fluid.” Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Banaiah: They treated fluid in a finger-hole like fluid at the slaughtering place. As you are saying there that fluids of the slaughtering place are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place, [so here, fluids in a finger-hole are pure at their proper place but impure at any other place.] Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside {the Temple courtyards} become impure. But did we not state, fluids of the slaughtering place which came outside continue in their sanctity? Rebbi Yose said, Rebbi Simon explained it. Rebbi Ḥinena, Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi. If they came out and returned. If the upper fluid became impure and flowed down, Rebbi Abba and Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya. One said, at its place it is pure, if it flows down it is impure. The other one said, since it comes from purity it is pure.

Does he break its neck until he has cut two blood arteries or most of them? Let us hear from the following, that Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: Any place the bottom of the neck is acceptable for slaughtering, the back of the neck is acceptable for breaking; here he would say the same.

Rebbi Aḥa: Rebbi Immi said that Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: May his bird be eaten when its neck was broken? Instead of asking about a bird whose neck was broken, why do you not ask about a slaughtered bird? There is one doubt, here are two doubts. Rebbi Mani said, here also it is one doubt, as it was stated: One who perforates or tears out is not guilty because of profane slaughter in the Temple courtyard. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: There is not even one doubt, following him who says that slaughtering birds is not clear from the Torah: “They spread them a spread,” they spread out slaughtered [birds].

“By money.” Rebbi Abba was of the opinion, by money if there was no intention to write a deed. But if money was given with the intention to write a deed for him, possession was transferred only when the deed was written. Rebbi Jonah and Rebbi Yose disagree. It follows that Rebbi Abba parallels Samuel and Rav Huna Rebbi Joḥanan. Rebbi Abba parallels Samuel. Samuel asked Rav Ḥuna: He was slaughtering sacrifices while being occupied? He answered, “for your intention,” this excludes one otherwise occupied. If one wrote a gift in the language of a sale? He answered, he made it ride on two racing horses; Rebbi Abba said this; Samuel did not accept it. What means “he made it ride on two shining racing horses”? They wanted to say, one brings two crazy horses and makes it ride on both. One goes in one direction and the other in another; he has nothing in his hand. Rebbi Yose from Mamelia said, he doubly empowered him, for there is a title guarantee in a sale but none for a gift; the seller did not sell everything but the giver of a gift gave everything. And Rav Ḥuna parallels Rebbi Joḥanan. A person, when he lay dying, said: my property should be given to X. Afterwards he said: write and deliver. Rebbi Eleazar and Rebbi Simeon bar Yaqim brought the case before Rebbi Joḥanan who said: If he said to transfer to him, everybody agrees that he entered into possession. If the transfer was to be in writing, everybody agrees that nobody transfers rights in writing after his death. Who would notify the greatness? Explain it if witnesses know. Think of it, if no witnesses know it? Rebbi Yose said, the field remains in the hand of its proprietors; the burden of proof is on the claimant.

Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Alive, but not slaughtered. And Rebbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, Rebbi Meïr learns all sacrifices from animal tithe. Just as one may not become betrothed to a woman with animal tithe, so no sacrifices may be used to become betrothed to a woman. Rebbi Jehudah learns all dedicated things from the firstling. Just as one may become betrothed to a woman with a firstling, so all sacrifices may be used to become betrothed to 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 becomes betrothed 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.

MISHNAH: One was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on their testimony; if they are found perjured they pay everything to him. If he was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on the testimony of two others who all were found perjured, the first group pays double restitution and the second group triple. If the second group were found perjured, he pays double restitution while they pay triple. If one of the second group was found perjured, the second testimony is invalidated. If one of the first group is found perjured, the entire testimony is invalidated since if there is no theft there is no slaughter or sale.

MISHNAH: One was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on their testimony; if they are found perjured they pay everything to him. If he was convicted of theft on the testimony of two witnesses and of slaughtering or selling on the testimony of two others who all were found perjured, the first group pays double restitution and the second group triple. If the second group were found perjured, he pays double restitution while they pay triple. If one of the second group was found perjured, the second testimony is invalidated. If one of the first group is found perjured, the entire testimony is invalidated since if there is no theft there is no slaughter or sale.

Rebbi Eleazar said: If they saw him slaughtering a black ox in a forest, it is prima facie evidence that it was stolen. Could you not assume that it was lying down? Explain it if they saw him dragging it.

Jeremiah intercalated outside the Land. Ezechiel intercalated outside the Land. Baruch ben Neriah intercalated outside the Land. Ḥanania the nephew of Rebbi Joshua intercalated outside the Land. Rebbi sent him three letters through Rebbi Isaac and Rebbi Nathan. In one he wrote, to His holiness Ḥanania. And in one he wrote, the kid goats you left behind became rams. And in one he wrote, if you do not accept, go to the thistle desert, do the slaughtering and let Onias sprinkle. After the first [letter], he honored them. After the second, he honored them. After the third, he wanted to disgrace them. They said to him, you cannot do that since you already did honor us. Rebbi Isaac rose and read in the Torah: These are the holidays of Ḥanania the nephew of Rebbi Joshua. They said to him, the holidays of the Eternal. He told them, that is with us. Rebbi Nathan rose and concluded: For from Babylonia will Torah go forth and the Eternal’s word from Nahar-Peqod. They said to him, for from Zion will Torah go forth and the Eternal’s word from Jerusalem. He told them, that is with us. He went to complain about them to Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra at Nisibis. He said to him, follow them, follow them. He said to him, I do not know whom I left there. Who would tell me that they are knowledgeable in computations as I am? If they did not know the computations, they should listen to him. Since they are knowledgeable in computations as he is, he has to listen to them. He got up and rode on a horse. Where he reached, he reached. Where he did not reach, they continued to follow the corrupt [calendar].

“And to proclaim the greatness of the King over kings of kings, the Holy One, praise to Him,” etc. To proclaim the greatness of the King over kings of kings Who from one die coins all seals and no one is like the other, as it is said: The seal turns around like clay. Why did He change their looks? That no man should jump and go to another’s wife or another’s field. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Meïr: Three things did the Holy One, praise to Him, diversify in humans: looks of the face, understanding, and voice. Looks and understanding because of the robbers, voice because of forbidden women. Rebbi Isaac said, even a fig tree or a wheat plant is not identical to any other. Man was created Sabbath Eve so from the start he should enter with a commandment. Another explanation: Why was he created last? A parable of a king who made a banquet. After he had ordered the meal, he invited the guests. So wisdom built her house, that is the Holy One, praise to Him, Who created the world in wisdom, as it is said, the Eternal in wisdom based the earth, etc. She quarried its seven pillars, these are the seven days of creation. She slaughtered her slaughtering, mixed her wine, these are seas and rivers and all the needs of the world. Any silly one shall come here, that is Adam and Eve.

A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: Be on guard, 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.

A baraita supports Rebbi Eleazar: Be on guard, 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.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, if somebody claims against another a claim of thief he pays double restitution. If he slaughtered or sold, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. There, they say, he pays quadruple or quintuple restitution. Rebbi Pedat in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: There we state and it supports Rebbi Joḥanan: “‘Where is my ox?’ He told him, ‘it was lost.’ ‘I want you to swear;’ he answered ‘Amen’. Witnesses testify that he ate it; he has to pay its value. If he confessed himself he pays the value, and a fifth, and a reparation sacrifice.” Is there eating without slaughtering? Rebbi Ḥaggai said, explain it if another slaughtered. And the following said so: He said to one in the market place, “where is my ox which you stole?” He says, “I did not steal.” “I want you to swear,” and he says “Amen.” He is (not) liable. Because he is one in the market place. But if he said it to one of the keepers, that one would be liable. The baraita when he ate it and then swore. What Rebbi Joḥanan said, if he swore and after that ate it.

The haughtiness of Jeroboam damned him absolutely. Rebbi Yose ben Jacob said, Jeroboam became king at the end of a Sabbatical year. This refers to what is written, at the end of seven years, at the time of the Sabbatical year, on the festival of Tabernacles, when all of Israel comes to appear before the Eternal, your God, at the place which He shall choose, you shall read this Torah in the presence of all of Israel to their ears. He said, if I am asked to read, I have to stand. They will say, the local king has precedence. But if I am reading as second, it is a shame for me. If I do not read, it is a disgrace for me. And if I let them go, they will ascend and desert me. They will go to Rehabeam, Solomon’s son. This is what is written: If this people would go up to sacrifice in the Temple in Jerusalem will this people’s heart return to their master, to Rehabeam. What did he do? He made two golden calves and wrote on their hearts, “they will kill you.” He said, any king who will succeed me will look at them. Rebbi Ḥuna said, companions of ingenious conjurations. Anybody who joined with him he will make a coconspirator. Rebbi Ḥuna said, a slaughtering place deepened by seducers, for he deepened in crime. He said, anybody, I shall kill anybody who makes this public.

HALAKHAH: “One does not sell to them anything connected to the ground,” etc. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Is there also a disagreement about large cattle? May one sell for the purpose of slaughter? It was found stated: Also large cattle is in dispute; Rebbi Jehudah says, he may sell for the purpose of slaughtering.

as R. Joshua b. Levi said to his sons, "Finish your Parashot with the congregation, twice the Hebrew text and once the Targum; and also be careful to sever the jugular vein [of a bird when slaughtering] in accord with the opinion of R. Judah —

Rab said : He who is accustomed [to anoint his hands] with oil [after finishing a meal], the oil impedes him Rab Ashe said : When we were at the school of Rab Kahana, he said to us, "For instance we are accustomed to the use of oil, and the oil impedes us." But the Halakah is in agreement with none of these teachings, but with that which Rab Hiyya b. Ashe said in the name of Rab, viz.: There are three actions which have to be performed with dispatch : the putting on of hands must be followed immediately by the act of slaughtering ; the Tefillah must follow immediately on the Ge'ullah ; and the Grace after meals must follow immediately on the washing of the hands.

R. Judah says in the name of Ben Bathyra, of those who go before the ark, etc. A contradiction was pointed out (by quoting the following Mishnah): Until what time is one to pray for rain? R. Judah says, until Passover is over; R. Jose says, until after Nisan. Said R. Ḥisda, there is no contradiction, for the one passage of the Mishnah refers to praying, the other to mentioning; one may continue to pray until the end of Passover, but the mention of rain must cease on the first day. Said 'Ulla, what is here said by R. Ḥisda is "as vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes" (Prov., 10.26), for if one is allowed to mention the rain even when one is not allowed to pray for it, is it not logical that one should be allowed to mention it also at times when one is allowed to pray for it? 'Ulla therefore suggested that there existed two different recensions of R. Judah's statement. R. Joseph said, do you know what "until Passover is over" means? It means until the time for the first reader of the first day of the festival is over. 'Abbayi, however, objected: Is there any opportunity at all to mention rain in the holiday prayer? Yes, answered R. Joseph, the Interpreter prays for rain. Does the Interpreter ever pray for anything which is not needed by the congregation? 'Ulla's answer is, therefore, the best. Rabbah said, do you know what "until Passover is over" means? It means until the time for slaughtering the Pascal lamb is over, for the discontinuing of the reference to rain must be like the beginning thereof: Just as in the beginning one mentions the rain, although one does not pray for it, so also at the end of the season one should mention it though not pray for it. 'Abbayi objected: It is quite correct at the beginning of the season to mention the rain without praying for it, because the mention is to serve the purpose of propitiating (God) preparatory to praying, but at the end of the season, what need is there for propitiation (since it is not to be followed by praying)? It is therefore best to accept the answer of 'Ulla.

for slaughtering [the sacrifices]; for waving [them]; for bringing near [the vessel with the minhah-offering to the altar]; for taking a handful; for placing it on the fire; for pinching off [the head of a bird-offering]; for receiving the blood [in a vessel]; for sprinkling [the blood on the altar]; for making the sotah drink [the bitter waters];