slaughters

And took the city by the will of God, and made unspeakable slaughters, insomuch that a lake two furlongs broad near adjoining thereunto, being filled full, was seen running with blood.

And every man who does any work thereon, or goes a journey, or tills (his) farm, whether in his house or any other place, and whoever lights a fire, or rides on any beast, or travels by ship on the sea, and whoever strikes or kills anything, or slaughters a beast or a bird, or whoever catches an animal or a bird or a fish, or whoever fasts or makes war on the Sabbaths:

Yet of Your goodness You did not overlook him, nor allow him to perish utterly, for he was Your creature; but You subjected the whole creation to him, and granted him liberty to procure himself food by his own sweat and labours, while You caused all the fruits of the earth to spring up, to grow, and to ripen. But when You had laid him asleep for a while, You with an oath called him to a restoration again, loosed the bond of death, and promise him life after the resurrection. And not this only; but when You had increased his posterity to an innumerable multitude, those that continued with You You glorified, and those who did apostatize from You You punished. And while You accepted of the sacrifice of Abel as of an holy person, You rejected the gift of Cain, the murderer of his brother, as of an abhorred wretch. And besides these, You accepted of Seth and Enos, and translated Enoch: for You are the Creator of men, and the giver of life, and the supplier of want, and the giver of laws, and the rewarder of those that observe them, and the avenger of those that transgress them; who brought the great flood upon the world by reason of the multitude of the ungodly, and delivered righteous Noah from that flood by an ark, with eight souls, the end of the foregoing generations, and the beginning of those that were to come; who kindled a fearful fire against the five cities of Sodom, and turned a fruitful land into a salt lake for the wickedness of them that dwelt therein, but snatched holy Lot out of the conflagration. You are He who delivered Abraham from the impiety of his fore-fathers, and appointed him to be the heir of the world, and discovered to him Your Christ; who aforehand ordained Melchisedec an high priest for Your worship; who rendered Your patient servant Job the conqueror of that serpent who is the patron of wickedness; who made Isaac the son of the promise, and Jacob the father of twelve sons, and increased his posterity to a multitude, and bring him into Egypt with seventy-five souls. You, O Lord, did not overlook Joseph, but granted him, as a reward of his chastity for Your sake, the government over the Egyptians. You, O Lord, did not overlook the Hebrews when they were afflicted by the Egyptians, on account of the promises made unto their fathers; but You delivered them and punish the Egyptians. And when men had corrupted the law of nature, and had sometimes esteemed the creation the effect of chance, and sometimes honoured it more than they ought, and equalled it to the God of the universe, You did not, however, suffer them to go astray, but raised up Your holy servant Moses, and by him gave the written law for the assistance of the law of nature, and showed that the creation was Your work, and banished away the error of polytheism. You adorned Aaron and his posterity with the priesthood, and punished the Hebrews when they sinned, and receive them again when they returned to You. You punished the Egyptians with a judgment of ten plagues, and divided the sea, and bring the Israelites through it, and drown and destroy the Egyptians who pursued after them. You sweetened the bitter water with wood; You brought water out of the rock of stone; You rained manna from heaven, and quails, as meat out of the air; You afforded them a pillar of fire by night to give them light, and a pillar of a cloud by day to overshadow them from the heat; You declared Joshua to be the general of the army, and overthrew the seven nations of Canaan by him; You divided Jordan, and dry up the rivers of Etham; You overthrew walls without instruments or the hand of man. For all these things, glory be to You, O Lord Almighty. You do the innumerable hosts of angels, archangels, thrones, dominions, principalities, authorities, and powers, Your everlasting armies, adore. The cherubim and the six-winged seraphim, with two covering their feet, with two their heads, and with two flying, say, together with thousand thousands of archangels, and ten thousand times ten thousand of angels, incessantly, and with constant and loud voices, and let all the people say it with them: Holy, holy, holy, Lord of hosts, heaven and earth are full of His glory: be blessed forever. Amen. And afterwards let the high priest say: For You are truly holy, and most holy, the highest and most highly exalted forever. Holy also is Your only begotten Son our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, who in all things ministered to His God and Father, both in Your various creation and Your suitable providence, and has not overlooked lost mankind. But after the law of nature, after the exhortations in the positive law, after the prophetical reproofs and the government of the angels, when men had perverted both the positive law and that of nature, and had cast out of their mind the memory of the flood, the burning of Sodom, the plagues of the Egyptians, and the slaughters of the inhabitant of Palestine, and being just ready to perish universally after an unparalleled manner, He was pleased by Your good will to become man, who was man's Creator; to be under the laws, who was the Legislator; to be a sacrifice, who was an High Priest; to be a sheep, who was the Shepherd. And He appeased You, His God and Father, and reconciled You to the world, and freed all men from the wrath to come, and was made of a virgin, and was in flesh, being God the Word, the beloved Son, the first-born of the whole creation, and was, according to the prophecies which were foretold concerning Him by Himself, of the seed of David and Abraham, of the tribe of Judah. And He was made in the womb of a virgin, who formed all mankind that are born into the world; He took flesh, who was without flesh; He who was begotten before time, was born in time; He lived holily, and taught according to the law; He drove away every sickness and every disease from men, and wrought signs and wonders among the people; and He was partaker of meat, and drink, and sleep, who nourishes all that stand in need of food, and fills every living creature with His goodness; He manifested His name to those that knew it not; He drove away ignorance; He revived piety, and fulfilled Your will; He finished the work which You gave Him to do; and when He had set all these things right, He was seized by the hands of the ungodly, of the high priests and priests, falsely so called, and of the disobedient people, by the betraying of him who was possessed of wickedness as with a confirmed disease; He suffered many things from them, and endured all sorts of ignominy by Your permission; He was delivered to Pilate the governor, and He that was the Judge was judged, and He that was the Saviour was condemned; He that was impassible was nailed to the cross, and He who was by nature immortal died, and He that is the giver of life was buried, that He might loose those for whose sake He came from suffering and death, and might break the bonds of the devil, and deliver mankind from his deceit. He arose from the dead the third day; and when He had continued with His disciples forty days, He was taken up into the heavens, and is sat down on the right hand of You, who art His God and Father.

Now as these men were ravaging Carmel, many of the Jews ran together to Antigonus, and showed themselves ready to make an incursion into the country; so he sent them before into that place called Drymus, [the woodland ] to seize upon the place; whereupon a battle was fought between them, and they drove the enemy away, and pursued them, and ran after them as far as Jerusalem, and as their numbers increased, they proceeded as far as the king's palace; but as Hyrcanus and Phasaelus received them with a strong body of men, there happened a battle in the market-place, in which Herod's party beat the enemy, and shut them up in the temple, and set sixty men in the houses adjoining as a guard to them. But the people that were tumultuous against the brethren came in, and burnt those men; while Herod, in his rage for killing them, attacked and slew many of the people, till one party made incursions on the other by turns, day by day, in the way of ambushes, and slaughters were made continually among them.

About this very time king Agrippa was going to Alexandria, to congratulate Alexander upon his having obtained the government of Egypt from Nero; but as his sister Bernice was come to Jerusalem, and saw the wicked practices of the soldiers, she was sorely affected at it, and frequently sent the masters of her horse and her guards to Florus, and begged of him to leave off these slaughters; but he would not comply with her request, nor have any regard either to the multitude of those already slain, or to the nobility of her that interceded, but only to the advantage he should make by this plundering; nay, this violence of the soldiers brake out to such a degree of madness, that it spent itself on the queen herself; for they did not only torment and destroy those whom they had caught under her very eyes, but indeed had killed herself also, unless she had prevented them by flying to the palace, and had staid there all night with her guards, which she had about her for fear of an insult from the soldiers. Now she dwelt then at Jerusalem, in order to perform a vow which she had made to God; for it is usual with those that had been either afflicted with a distemper, or with any other distresses, to make vows; and for thirty days before they are to offer their sacrifices, to abstain from wine, and to shave the hair of their head. Which things Bernice was now performing, and stood barefoot before Florus's tribunal, and besought him [to spare the Jews]. Yet could she neither have any reverence paid to her, nor could she escape without some danger of being slain herself.

But as for the multitude of the Jews, they addressed themselves to the king, and to the high priests, and desired they might have leave to send ambassadors to Nero against Florus, and not by their silence afford a suspicion that they had been the occasions of such great slaughters as had been made, and were disposed to revolt, alleging that they should seem to have been the first beginners of the war, if they did not prevent the report by showing who it was that began it; and it appeared openly that they would not be quiet, if any body should hinder them from sending such an embassage. But Agrippa, although he thought it too dangerous a thing for them to appoint men to go as the accusers of Florus, yet did he not think it fit for him to overlook them, as they were in a disposition for war. He therefore called the multitude together into a large gallery, and placed his sister Bernice in the house of the Asamoneans, that she might be seen by them, [which house was over the gallery, at the passage to the upper city, where the bridge joined the temple to the gallery,] and spake to them as follows:

Upon this the men of power, with the high priests, as also all the part of the multitude that were desirous of peace, took courage, and seized upon the upper city [Mount Sion;] for the seditious part had the lower city and the temple in their power; so they made use of stones and slings perpetually against one another, and threw darts continually on both sides; and sometimes it happened that they made incursions by troops, and fought it out hand to hand, while the seditious were superior in boldness, but the king's soldiers in skill. These last strove chiefly to gain the temple, and to drive those out of it who profaned it; as did the seditious, with Eleazar, besides what they had already, labor to gain the upper city. Thus were there perpetual slaughters on both sides for seven days' time; but neither side would yield up the parts they had seized on.

As soon as ever Titus had said this, he leaped upon his horse, and rode apace down to the lake; by which lake he marched, and entered into the city the first of them all, as did the others soon after him. Hereupon those that were upon the walls were seized with a terror at the boldness of the attempt, nor durst any one venture to fight with him, or to hinder him; so they left guarding the city, and some of those that were about Jesus fled over the country, while others of them ran down to the lake, and met the enemy in the teeth, and some were slain as they were getting up into the ships, but others of them as they attempted to overtake those that were already gone aboard. There was also a great slaughter made in the city, while those foreigners that had not fled away already made opposition; but the natural inhabitants were killed without fighting: for in hopes of Titus's giving them his right hand for their security, and out of a consciousness that they had not given any consent to the war, they avoided fighting, till Titus had slain the authors of this revolt, and then put a stop to any further slaughters, out of commiseration of these inhabitants of the place. But for those that had fled to the lake, upon seeing the city taken, they sailed as far as they possibly could from the enemy.

But the rage of the Idumeans was not satiated by these slaughters; but they now betook themselves to the city, and plundered every house, and slew every one they met; and for the other multitude, they esteemed it needless to go on with killing them, but they sought for the high priests, and the generality went with the greatest zeal against them; and as soon as they caught them they slew them, and then standing upon their dead bodies, in way of jest, upbraided Ananus with his kindness to the people, and Jesus with his speech made to them from the wall. Nay, they proceeded to that degree of impiety, as to cast away their dead bodies without burial, although the Jews used to take so much care of the burial of men, that they took down those that were condemned and crucified, and buried them before the going down of the sun. I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs, whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their preservation, slain in the midst of their city. He was on other accounts also a venerable, and a very just man; and besides the grandeur of that nobility, and dignity, and honor of which he was possessed, he had been a lover of a kind of parity, even with regard to the meanest of the people; he was a prodigious lover of liberty, and an admirer of a democracy in government; and did ever prefer the public welfare before his own advantage, and preferred peace above all things; for he was thoroughly sensible that the Romans were not to be conquered. He also foresaw that of necessity a war would follow, and that unless the Jews made up matters with them very dexterously, they would be destroyed; to say all in a word, if Ananus had survived, they had certainly compounded matters; for he was a shrewd man in speaking and persuading the people, and had already gotten the mastery of those that opposed his designs, or were for the war. And the Jews had then put abundance of delays in the way of the Romans, if they had had such a general as he was. Jesus was also joined with him; and although he was inferior to him upon the comparison, he was superior to the rest; and I cannot but think that it was because God had doomed this city to destruction, as a polluted city, and was resolved to purge his sanctuary by fire, that he cut off these their great defenders and well-wishers, while those that a little before had worn the sacred garments, and had presided over the public worship; and had been esteemed venerable by those that dwelt on the whole habitable earth when they came into our city, were cast out naked, and seen to be the food of dogs and wild beasts. And I cannot but imagine that virtue itself groaned at these men's case, and lamented that she was here so terribly conquered by wickedness. And this at last was the end of Ananus and Jesus.

This was Eleazar's speech to them. Yet did not the opinions of all the auditors acquiesce therein; but although some of them were very zealous to put his advice in practice, and were in a manner filled with pleasure at it, and thought death to be a good thing, yet had those that were most effeminate a commiseration for their wives and families; and when these men were especially moved by the prospect of their own certain death, they looked wistfully at one another, and by the tears that were in their eyes declared their dissent from his opinion. When Eleazar saw these people in such fear, and that their souls were dejected at so prodigious a proposal, he was afraid lest perhaps these effeminate persons should, by their lamentations and tears, enfeeble those that heard what he had said courageously; so he did not leave off exhorting them, but stirred up himself, and recollecting proper arguments for raising their courage, he undertook to speak more briskly and fully to them, and that concerning the immortality of the soul. So he made a lamentable groan, and fixing his eyes intently on those that wept, he spake thus: "Truly, I was greatly mistaken when I thought to be assisting to brave men who struggled hard for their liberty, and to such as were resolved either to live with honor, or else to die; but I find that you are such people as are no better than others, either in virtue or in courage, and are afraid of dying, though you be delivered thereby from the greatest miseries, while you ought to make no delay in this matter, nor to await any one to give you good advice; for the laws of our country, and of God himself, have from ancient times, and as soon as ever we could use our reason, continually taught us, and our forefathers have corroborated the same doctrine by their actions, and by their bravery of mind, that it is life that is a calamity to men, and not death; for this last affords our souls their liberty, and sends them by a removal into their own place of purity, where they are to be insensible of all sorts of misery; for while souls are tied down to a mortal body, they are partakers of its miseries; and really, to speak the truth, they are themselves dead; for the union of what is divine to what is mortal is disagreeable. It is true, the power of the soul is great, even when it is imprisoned in a mortal body; for by moving it after a way that is invisible, it makes the body a sensible instrument, and causes it to advance further in its actions than mortal nature could otherwise do. However, when it is freed from that weight which draws it down to the earth and is connected with it, it obtains its own proper place, and does then become a partaker of that blessed power, and those abilities, which are then every way incapable of being hindered in their operations. It continues invisible, indeed, to the eyes of men, as does God himself; for certainly it is not itself seen while it is in the body; for it is there after an invisible manner, and when it is freed from it, it is still not seen. It is this soul which hath one nature, and that an incorruptible one also; but yet it is the cause of the change that is made in the body; for whatsoever it be which the soul touches, that lives and flourishes; and from whatsoever it is removed, that withers away and dies; such a degree is there in it of immortality. Let me produce the state of sleep as a most evident demonstration of the truth of what I say; wherein souls, when the body does not distract them, have the sweetest rest depending on themselves, and conversing with God, by their alliance to him; they then go every where, and foretell many futurities beforehand. And why are we afraid of death, while we are pleased with the rest that we have in sleep? And how absurd a thing is it to pursue after liberty while we are alive, and yet to envy it to ourselves where it will be eternal! We, therefore, who have been brought up in a discipline of our own, ought to become an example to others of our readiness to die. Yet, if we do stand in need of foreigners to support us in this matter, let us regard those Indians who profess the exercise of philosophy; for these good men do but unwillingly undergo the time of life, and look upon it as a necessary servitude, and make haste to let their souls loose from their bodies; nay, when no misfortune presses them to it, nor drives them upon it, these have such a desire of a life of immortality, that they tell other men beforehand that they are about to depart; and nobody hinders them, but every one thinks them happy men, and gives them letters to be carried to their familiar friends [that are dead], so firmly and certainly do they believe that souls converse with one another [in the other world]. So when these men have heard all such commands that were to be given them, they deliver their body to the fire; and, in order to their getting their soul a separation from the body in the greatest purity, they die in the midst of hymns of commendations made to them; for their dearest friends conduct them to their death more readily than do any of the rest of mankind conduct their fellow-citizens when they are going a very long journey, who at the same time weep on their own account, but look upon the others as happy persons, as so soon to be made partakers of the immortal order of beings. Are not we, therefore, ashamed to have lower notions than the Indians? and by our own cowardice to lay a base reproach upon the laws of our country, which are so much desired and imitated by all mankind? But put the case that we had been brought up under another persuasion, and taught that life is the greatest good which men are capable of, and that death is a calamity; however, the circumstances we are now in ought to be an inducement to us to bear such calamity courageously, since it is by the will of God, and by necessity, that we are to die; for it now appears that God hath made such a decree against the whole Jewish nation, that we are to be deprived of this life which [he knew] we would not make a due use of. For do not you ascribe the occasion of our present condition to yourselves, nor think the Romans are the true occasion that this war we have had with them is become so destructive to us all: these things have not come to pass by their power, but a more powerful cause hath intervened, and made us afford them an occasion of their appearing to be conquerors over us. What Roman weapons, I pray you, were those by which the Jews at Cesarea were slain? On the contrary, when they were no way disposed to rebel, but were all the while keeping their seventh day festival, and did not so much as lift up their hands against the citizens of Cesarea, yet did those citizens run upon them in great crowds, and cut their throats, and the throats of their wives and children, and this without any regard to the Romans themselves, who never took us for their enemies till we revolted from them. But some may be ready to say, that truly the people of Cesarea had always a quarrel against those that lived among them, and that when an opportunity offered itself, they only satisfied the old rancor they had against them. What then shall we say to those of Scythopolis, who ventured to wage war with us on account of the Greeks? Nor did they do it by way of revenge upon the Romans, when they acted in concert with our countrymen. Wherefore you see how little our good-will and fidelity to them profited us, while they were slain, they and their whole families, after the most inhuman manner, which was all the requital that was made them for the assistance they had afforded the others; for that very same destruction which they had prevented from falling upon the others did they suffer themselves from them, as if they had been ready to be the actors against them. It would be too long for me to speak at this time of every destruction brought upon us; for you cannot but know that there was not any one Syrian city which did not slay their Jewish inhabitants, and were not more bitter enemies to us than were the Romans themselves; nay, even those of Damascus, when they were able to allege no tolerable pretense against us, filled their city with the most barbarous slaughters of our people, and cut the throats of eighteen thousand Jews, with their wives and children. And as to the multitude of those that were slain in Egypt, and that with torments also, we have been informed they were more than sixty thousand; those indeed being in a foreign country, and so naturally meeting with nothing to oppose against their enemies, were killed in the manner forementioned. As for all those of us who have waged war against the Romans in our own country, had we not sufficient reason to have sure hopes of victory? For we had arms, and walls, and fortresses so prepared as not to be easily taken, and courage not to be moved by any dangers in the cause of liberty, which encouraged us all to revolt from the Romans. But then these advantages sufficed us but for a short time, and only raised our hopes, while they really appeared to be the origin of our miseries; for all we had hath been taken from us, and all hath fallen under our enemies, as if these advantages were only to render their victory over us the more glorious, and were not disposed for the preservation of those by whom these preparations were made. And as for those that are already dead in the war, it is reasonable we should esteem them blessed, for they are dead in defending, and not in betraying their liberty; but as to the multitude of those that are now under the Romans, who would not pity their condition? and who would not make haste to die, before he would suffer the same miseries with them? Some of them have been put upon the rack, and tortured with fire and whippings, and so died. Some have been half devoured by wild beasts, and yet have been reserved alive to be devoured by them a second time, in order to afford laughter and sport to our enemies; and such of those as are alive still are to be looked on as the most miserable, who, being so desirous of death, could not come at it. And where is now that great city, the metropolis of the Jewish nation, which was fortified by so many walls round about, which had so many fortresses and large towers to defend it, which could hardly contain the instruments prepared for the war, and which had so many ten thousands of men to fight for it? Where is this city that was believed to have God himself inhabiting therein? It is now demolished to the very foundations, and hath nothing but that monument of it preserved, I mean the camp of those that hath destroyed it, which still dwells upon its ruins; some unfortunate old men also lie upon the ashes of the temple, and a few women are there preserved alive by the enemy, for our bitter shame and reproach. Now who is there that revolves these things in his mind, and yet is able to bear the sight of the sun, though he might live out of danger? Who is there so much his country's enemy, or so unmanly, and so desirous of living, as not to repent that he is still alive? And I cannot but wish that we had all died before we had seen that holy city demolished by the hands of our enemies, or the foundations of our holy temple dug up after so profane a manner. But since we had a generous hope that deluded us, as if we might perhaps have been able to avenge ourselves on our enemies on that account, though it be now become vanity, and hath left us alone in this distress, let us make haste to die bravely. Let us pity ourselves, our children, and our wives while it is in our own power to show pity to them; for we were born to die, as well as those were whom we have begotten; nor is it in the power of the most happy of our race to avoid it. But for abuses, and slavery, and the sight of our wives led away after an ignominious manner, with their children, these are not such evils as are natural and necessary among men; although such as do not prefer death before those miseries, when it is in their power so to do, must undergo even them, on account of their own cowardice. We revolted from the Romans with great pretensions to courage; and when, at the very last, they invited us to preserve ourselves, we would not comply with them. Who will not, therefore, believe that they will certainly be in a rage at us, in case they can take us alive? Miserable will then be the young men who will be strong enough in their bodies to sustain many torments! miserable also will be those of elder years, who will not be able to bear those calamities which young men might sustain! One man will be obliged to hear the voice of his son implore help of his father, when his hands are bound. But certainly our hands are still at liberty, and have a sword in them; let them then be subservient to us in our glorious design; let us die before we become slaves under our enemies, and let us go out of the world, together with our children and our wives, in a state of freedom. This it is that our laws command us to do; this it is that our wives and children crave at our hands; nay, God himself hath brought this necessity upon us; while the Romans desire the contrary, and are afraid lest any of us should die before we are taken. Let us therefore make haste, and instead of affording them so much pleasure, as they hope for in getting us under their power, let us leave them an example which shall at once cause their astonishment at our death, and their admiration of our hardiness therein."

One who slaughters a cow and divides it up on Rosh Hashanah [at the end of the seventh year]: If the month had been intercalated, [the debt] is remitted. But if it had not been intercalated, it is not remitted. [Fines for] rape, for seduction, for defamation, and all other obligations arising from legal procedure, are not remitted. One who loans and takes a pledge, and one who hands over his debt documents to a court, [these debts] are not remitted.

One who slaughters the pesah with chametz [in his possession] violates a negative commandment. Rabbi Judah says: also the [evening] tamid. Rabbi Shimon says: [If he slaughters] the pesah [with chametz] on the fourteenth for its own purpose, he is liable; [if] for a different purpose, he is exempt. But [for] all other sacrifices, whether slaughtered for their own purpose or for a different purpose, he is exempt. [If he slaughters the pesah with chametz] on the festival for its own purpose, he is exempt; if for a different purpose, he is liable; But [for] all other sacrifices [slaughtered on the festival with chametz], whether for their own purpose or for another purpose, he is liable, except [in the case or] a sin-offering which he slaughtered for a different purpose.

One who slaughters the pesah with chametz [in his possession] violates a negative commandment. Rabbi Judah says: also the [evening] tamid. Rabbi Shimon says: [If he slaughters] the pesah [with chametz] on the fourteenth for its own purpose, he is liable; [if] for a different purpose, he is exempt. But [for] all other sacrifices, whether slaughtered for their own purpose or for a different purpose, he is exempt. [If he slaughters the pesah with chametz] on the festival for its own purpose, he is exempt; if for a different purpose, he is liable; But [for] all other sacrifices [slaughtered on the festival with chametz], whether for their own purpose or for another purpose, he is liable, except [in the case or] a sin-offering which he slaughtered for a different purpose.

One who slaughters the pesah with chametz [in his possession] violates a negative commandment. Rabbi Judah says: also the [evening] tamid. Rabbi Shimon says: [If he slaughters] the pesah [with chametz] on the fourteenth for its own purpose, he is liable; [if] for a different purpose, he is exempt. But [for] all other sacrifices, whether slaughtered for their own purpose or for a different purpose, he is exempt. [If he slaughters the pesah with chametz] on the festival for its own purpose, he is exempt; if for a different purpose, he is liable; But [for] all other sacrifices [slaughtered on the festival with chametz], whether for their own purpose or for another purpose, he is liable, except [in the case or] a sin-offering which he slaughtered for a different purpose.

If the pesah was slaughtered for a different purpose on Shabbat, he [the slaughterer] is liable to a sin-offering on its account. All other sacrifices which he slaughtered as a pesah: if they are not fit [to be a pesah] he is liable; if they are fit [to be a pesah]: Rabbi Eliezer makes him liable to a sin-offering, But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: if for the pesah, which it is permitted [to slaughter] for its own purpose, yet when he changes its purpose he is liable; then [other] sacrifices, which are forbidden [to slaughter even] for their own purpose, if he changes their purpose is it not logical that he should be liable. Rabbi Joshua said to him: not so. If you say [with regard to] the pesah, [he is liable] because he changed it to something that is forbidden; will you say [the same] of [other] sacrifices, where he changed them for something that is permitted? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: let the community sacrifices prove it, which are permitted for their own sake, yet he who slaughters [other sacrifices] in their name is liable. Rabbi Joshua said to him: not so. If you say [with regard to] the public sacrifices, [that is] because they have a limit; will you say [the same] of the pesah, which has no limit? Rabbi Meir says: he too who slaughters [other sacrifices] in the name of public sacrifice is not liable.

If the pesah was slaughtered for a different purpose on Shabbat, he [the slaughterer] is liable to a sin-offering on its account. All other sacrifices which he slaughtered as a pesah: if they are not fit [to be a pesah] he is liable; if they are fit [to be a pesah]: Rabbi Eliezer makes him liable to a sin-offering, But Rabbi Joshua exempts him. Rabbi Eliezer said to him: if for the pesah, which it is permitted [to slaughter] for its own purpose, yet when he changes its purpose he is liable; then [other] sacrifices, which are forbidden [to slaughter even] for their own purpose, if he changes their purpose is it not logical that he should be liable. Rabbi Joshua said to him: not so. If you say [with regard to] the pesah, [he is liable] because he changed it to something that is forbidden; will you say [the same] of [other] sacrifices, where he changed them for something that is permitted? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: let the community sacrifices prove it, which are permitted for their own sake, yet he who slaughters [other sacrifices] in their name is liable. Rabbi Joshua said to him: not so. If you say [with regard to] the public sacrifices, [that is] because they have a limit; will you say [the same] of the pesah, which has no limit? Rabbi Meir says: he too who slaughters [other sacrifices] in the name of public sacrifice is not liable.

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

He who slaughters a wild animal or a bird on a festival Bet Shammai says: he may dig with a pronged tool and cover up [the blood], but Bet Hillel says: he may not slaughter unless he has had earth made ready. But they agree that if he did slaughter he should dig with a pronged tool and cover up [the blood, and] that the ashes of a stove count as being prepared for the holiday.

More encompassing in use is the rule of twofold restitution than the rule of fourfold or fivefold restitution; For the rule of twofold restitution applies both to what has life and what does not have life, while the rule of fourfold and fivefold restitution applies only to an ox or a sheep, for it is written, “If a man shall steal an ox or a sheep and kill it, or sell it, he shall pay five oxen for an ox and four sheep for a sheep” (Ex. 21:37). One who steals from a thief does not pay twofold restitution; And the one who slaughters or sells what is [already] stolen does not make fourfold or fivefold restitution.

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

A beast which was born on a festival all agree that it is permitted; and a chicken which was hatched from the egg all agree that it is forbidden. He who slaughters a wild animal or a bird on a festival Beth Shammai says: he may dig with a pronged tool and cover up [the blood] , but Beth Hillel says: he may not slaughter unless he has had earth made ready. But they agree that if he did slaughter he should dig with a pronged tool and cover up [the blood, and] that the ashes of a stove count as being prepared for the holiday.

A pesah and a hatat which were slaughtered not in their own name, or he received [the blood], and carried it [to the altar] and sprinkled [it] not in their own name, Or in their own name and not in their own name, or not in their own name and in their own name, they are disqualified. What is the case of ‘in their own name and not in their own name’? In the name of it being a pesah [first] and [then] in the name of it being a shelamim. ‘Not in their own name and in their own name:’ in the name of a shelamim [first] and [then] in the name of a pesah. For a sacrifice can be disqualified in [any one of] the four elements: slaughtering, receiving, carrying and sprinkling. Rabbi Shimon declares it valid if carried [with the wrong intent], for Rabbi Shimon said: it is impossible [to have a valid sacrifice] without slaughtering, without receiving and without sprinkling, but it is possible without carrying. [How so]? One slaughters it at the side of the altar and sprinkles. Rabbi Eliezer says: if one goes where he needs to go, an [illegitimate] intention disqualifies [it]; where he doesn’t need to go, an [illegitimate] intention does not disqualify [it].

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

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

This is the general rule: anyone who slaughters or receives [the blood], or carries [it] or sprinkles [it] [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the sacrifice] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law.

If one slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten, or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid; But Rabbi Eliezer invalidates [the sacrifice]. [If he slaughters it intending] to eat what is normally eaten and to burn what is normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], [but] less than the size of an olive, it is valid. To eat half as much as an olive and to burn half as much as an olive [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid, because [intentions concerning] eating and burning do not combine.

If one slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten, or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid; But Rabbi Eliezer invalidates [the sacrifice]. [If he slaughters it intending] to eat what is normally eaten and to burn what is normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], [but] less than the size of an olive, it is valid. To eat half as much as an olive and to burn half as much as an olive [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid, because [intentions concerning] eating and burning do not combine.

One who slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat as much as an olive of the skin, or of the juice, or of the jelly, or of the hardened meat, or of the bones, or of the tendons, or of the horns, or of the hoofs, either after time or out of bounds, it is valid, and one is not liable on their account in respect of piggul, remnant, or uncleanness.

If one slaughters sacred animals [intending] to eat the fetus or the afterbirth outside [of the place or time where the animal must be eaten], he does not render it piggul. If one plucks off [the necks of] doves, [intending] to eat their eggs outside [of the place or time where the animal must be eaten], he does not render [them] piggul. The milk of sacred animals or the eggs of doves one is not liable for eating them in respect of piggul, remnant, or uncleanness.

The sacrifices of non-Jews: one is not liable on their account for piggul, remnant, or defilement, and if [a priest] slaughters them outside [the Temple], he is not liable, the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yose declares him liable. The things for which one is not liable on account of piggul, one is liable on account of remnant and defilement except blood. Rabbi Shimon declares one liable for anything which is normally eaten, but for wood, frankincense and incense, one is not liable for [transgressions involving] defilement.

He who slaughters and offers up outside [the Temple courtyard] is liable in respect of slaughtering and in respect of offering. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: if he slaughtered inside and offered up outside, [he is liable]; if he slaughtered outside and offered up outside, he is not liable [for offering up], because he offered up only that which was unfit. They said to him: even when one slaughters inside and offers up outside, since he carries it out, he renders it unfit.

He who slaughters and offers up outside [the Temple courtyard] is liable in respect of slaughtering and in respect of offering. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: if he slaughtered inside and offered up outside, [he is liable]; if he slaughtered outside and offered up outside, he is not liable [for offering up], because he offered up only that which was unfit. They said to him: even when one slaughters inside and offers up outside, since he carries it out, he renders it unfit.

Slaughtering [outside the Temple] is more stringent than offering up [outside], and offering up [is more stringent] than slaughtering. Slaughtering is more stringent, for he who slaughters [a sacrifice] to a man is liable, whereas he who offers up to a man is not liable. Offering up is more stringent: two who hold a knife and slaughter are not liable, [whereas] if two take hold of a limb and offer it up, they are liable. If one offered up, then offered up again, then offered up again, he is liable in respect of each [act of] offering up, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yose says: he is liable for only one. He is liable only when he offers up on the top of an altar. Rabbi Shimon says: he is liable even if he offers up on the top of a rock or a stone.

If one nips a bird [offering] inside and offers it up outside, he is liable; If one nips it outside and offers it up outside, he is exempt. If one slaughters a bird inside and offers it up outside, he is exempt. If one slaughters [it] outside and offers [it] up outside, he is liable. Thus its prescribed rite inside exempts him [if he does it] outside, while its prescribed rite outside exempts him [if he does it] inside. Rabbi Shimon says: whatever he is liable for outside, he is liable in similar circumstances inside when one [subsequently] offers it up outside; except when one slaughters [a bird] inside and offers [it] up outside.

If one nips a bird [offering] inside and offers it up outside, he is liable; If one nips it outside and offers it up outside, he is exempt. If one slaughters a bird inside and offers it up outside, he is exempt. If one slaughters [it] outside and offers [it] up outside, he is liable. Thus its prescribed rite inside exempts him [if he does it] outside, while its prescribed rite outside exempts him [if he does it] inside. Rabbi Shimon says: whatever he is liable for outside, he is liable in similar circumstances inside when one [subsequently] offers it up outside; except when one slaughters [a bird] inside and offers [it] up outside.

If one nips a bird [offering] inside and offers it up outside, he is liable; If one nips it outside and offers it up outside, he is exempt. If one slaughters a bird inside and offers it up outside, he is exempt. If one slaughters [it] outside and offers [it] up outside, he is liable. Thus its prescribed rite inside exempts him [if he does it] outside, while its prescribed rite outside exempts him [if he does it] inside. Rabbi Shimon says: whatever he is liable for outside, he is liable in similar circumstances inside when one [subsequently] offers it up outside; except when one slaughters [a bird] inside and offers [it] up outside.

If one slaughtered for a non-Jew, the slaughtering is valid. Rabbi Eliezer declares it invalid. Rabbi Eliezer said: even if one slaughtered a beast with the intention that a non-Jew should eat [only] its liver, the slaughtering is invalid, for the thoughts of a non-Jew are usually directed towards idolatry. Rabbi Yose said: is there not a kal vehomer argument? For if in the case of consecrated animals, where a wrongful intention can render invalid, it is established that everything depends solely upon the intention of him who performs the service, how much more in the case of unconsecrated animals, where a wrongful intention cannot render invalid, is it not logical that everything should depend solely upon the intention of him who slaughters!

Rabbi Yose ben Meshullam says: one who slaughters the first born, [first] clears a space with the [butcher's] knife on both sides and tears the hair, as long as he does not remove the wool from its place. And similarly one may tear the hair to show the place of the blemish [to a sage].

There are in the Torah thirty-six [transgressions which are punishable with] karet: When one has intercourse with his mother, His father's wife; Or his daughter-in-law; When a man has intercourse with a male, Or with a beast, Or when a woman brings a beast upon herself; When one has intercourse with a woman and her daughter; Or with a married woman; Or with his sister; Or with his father's sister; Or his mother's sister; Or his wife's sister; Or his brother's wife; Or the wife of his father's brother; Or with a menstruating woman; One who blasphemes [the Lord]; One who worships idols; Or dedicates his children to Molech; Or has a ba’al ov; Or desecrates the Shabbat; When an unclean person eats of sacred food; Or when one enters the precincts of the Temple in an unclean state; When one eats forbidden fat, Or blood; Notar; Or piggul; When one slaughters Or offers up [a consecrated animal] outside [the Temple]; One who eats anything leavened on Pesah; One who eats Or works on Yom Kippur; One who compounds the oil [of anointing]; Or compounds incense; Or uses [unlawfully] oil of anointing; And [when one transgresses the laws of] the pesah, And circumcision from among positive commandments.

He comes to the guilt-offering and he puts his two hands on it. He then slaughters it. Two priests receive its blood, one in a vessel and the other in his hand. He who received it in the vessel proceeded to sprinkle it on the wall of the altar. The one who received it in his hand would approach the metzora. The metzora had in the meantime immersed himself in the chamber of the metzoraim. He would come and stand at the Nikanor gate. Rabbi Judah says: he did not require immersion.

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.

He who makes a mezuzah for himself, says “to make a mezuzah.” For somebody else, “to make a mezuzah for his name.” When he nails it to the doorpost, he recites: “Praise to Him Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to about mezuzah.” He who makes tefillin for himself, etc. For somebody else, etc. When he puts them on, he says “about the commandment of tefillin.” He who makes ẓiẓit for himself, etc. For somebody else etc. When he wraps himself in them, etc.. He who separates terumah and tithes says: “Praise to Him Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us to separate terumah and tithes.” For somebody else, “to separate terumah and tithes for his name.” He who slaughters must say: “Praise to You, Eternal, our God, King of the Universe, Who sanctified us by His commandments and commanded us about šeḥitah.” He who covers [the blood] says, “about covering the blood.”

MISHNAH: The Sabbatical remits any loan, with or without a document. Store credit is not remitted; if it is transformed into a loan it is remitted. Rebbi Jehudah says, any preceding one is remitted. Wages of a hired hand are not remitted; if they are transformed into a loan they are remitted; Rebbi Yose says, for any work that stops in the Sabbatical they are remitted; if it does not stop they are not remitted. If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year’s Day, if the month was long it is subject to remission, otherwise it is not subject to remission. The rapist, the seducer, the calumniator, and all court documents are not subject to remission. If somebody gives loans on pledge, or deposits his documents with the court, they are not subject to remission.

Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah since he could ask him for payment on New Years’s Day. Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rav Mattanah in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he will not press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it. We did state: “If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year’s Day,” and Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah. But can he require payment on New Year’s Day? As Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Zeïra: Since he could ask him for payment, he can believe him. And since he could believe him, he could pay him. And here, because he could have given him but did not give, the first [debt] is turned into a loan.

“The Gentile’s heave creates dema‘ and one is obligated to a fifth for it, but Rebbi Simeon frees from the obligation.” Rebbi Zeïra said, I said this before Rebbi Abbahu in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: They disagree only for the heave of his threshing floor. But for a Gentile who bought the produce of a Jew, even Rebbi Simeon will agree. Rebbi Abbahu said to me in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, the disagreement is about the latter case. It is difficult according to Rebbi Simeon, does he free his ṭevel from the Torah and you say so? But are sacrifices not from the Torah, and nevertheless Rebbi Simeon frees, as we have stated there: “Sacrifices of Gentiles are not subject to piggul, left-overs, and impurity and one who slaughters them outside is free [from punishment], the words of Rebbi Yose, but Rebbi Simeon declares him guilty.” They wanted to say that they disagree only about the fifth but not about dema‘. They found stated: It is all the same.

Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about prohibitions and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? For Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish! But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly payment in extirpation cases. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! They disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. Here are two cases, there it is one case.

Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If somebody slaughters an animal and finds in it an abomination, that is forbidden as food. What is the reason? An animal (Lev. 11:3) “inside an animal you may eat,” but an abomination inside an animal you may not eat.

Abba bar Rav Ḥuna in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: He who slaughters an animal and found in it a pig may eat it. Rebbi Jonah said, it is forbidden to eat, what is the reason? An animal (Lev. 11:3) “inside an animal you may eat.” You should not eat a bird inside an animal and not an abomination inside an animal.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, so is the Mishnah: “Their insides are holy and their roofs (are profane), over the holy and in the direction of the holy they are holy, over the profane and in direction of the profane they are profane.” “Built in the holy but open to the holy and the profane, the inside is holy. Built in the profane but open to the holy and the profane, the inside is profane. There, where you say the inside is holy one eats most holy sacrifices, slaughters simple holy sacrifices and the impure who enters is guilty.”

Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: One whips only for 187 length by 135 width. But did we not state: In a chamber built flush with the wall of the Temple courtyard one eats most holy sacrifices, slaughters simple holy sacrifices, but an impure person who enters there cannot be punished. Explain it following the Tanna who stated: “Rebbi Yose said, these are the words of Rebbi Aqiba. But the Sages say, they classified the chambers and all chambers follow their openings.”

MISHNAH: There are 39 categories of work. He who ploughs, who sows, who harvests, who binds into sheaves, who threshes, and who winnows, who selects, who grinds, and who sifts, who makes dough, and who bakes. He who shears wool, who bleaches it, who cards it, who dyes it, who spins it, who prepares the loom, who ties two threads as warp, who weaves two rows, who hits two threads, who ties, and who unties. Also who sews two stitches, who tears in order to sew two stitches. He who catches a deer, who slaughters it, who skins it, who salts it, who rubs it clean, who tans it, who cuts it, who writes two letters, and who erases in order to write two letters. He who builds, and who tears down, who extinguishes fire, and who lights fire, and who hits with a hammer, and who transports from one domain to another; these are the 39 categories of work.

“He who shears wool.” If he shore without specification, what? Let us hear from the following: If one brought out ink, if it was in a reed, in order to write two letters, if to correct, enough to correct one letter. There, we have stated: “He who slaughters the firstling makes space for the dagger on both sides and tears out the hair, but he should not move it from its place. Similarly, he who tears out hair to see a defect.” Rebbi Ila in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: One who tears out hair from a dedicated animal is not liable. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish follows his own opinion, as they disagreed: If one tears out hair from a dedicated animal, Rebbi Joḥanan said, he is liable; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is not liable. Rebbi Jeremiah asked, is not Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reasoning inverted? Since they disagreed. “One who tears out a wing of a bird, who plucks it, and who cuts it is liable under three [categories].” Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, they do not disagree. He who tears out is liable because of shearing; he who plucks out is liable because of wiping clean; he who cuts it is liable because of hitting with a hammer. But it cannot be compared; for a bird which has no shearing, tearing out is its shearing. But here he is not liable unless he sheared. You should know that this is so since it was stated: If he tore from a dead animal he is liable since tearing is its shearing.

“Who slaughters it.” Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, there is no slaughter here; slaughter is a derivative of wounding. And why was it (not) stated with it? Only because we stated the proceedings of a meal it was stated with it.

MISHNAH: One who slaughters the Pesaḥ on leavened matter transgresses a prohibition; Rebbi Jehudah says, also the daily sacrifice. Rebbi Simeon says, the Pesaḥ on the Fourteenth, if for its purpose, he is liable, not for its purpose he is not liable. All other sacrifices, whether for their purposes or not for their purposes, he is not liable. On the holiday, for its purpose he is not liable, not for its purpose he is liable; for all other sacrifices, whether for their purposes or not for their purposes, he is liable except for the purification offering which he slaughtered not for its purpose.

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.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, where are we holding? If it was lost and found before propitiation, whether it was for its purpose or not for its purpose it is qualified and sent to grazing. If it was lost and found after propitiation, whether for its purpose or not for its purpose, it is disqualified as well-being offering. But we confirmed it when the owner became impure or acted criminally and already pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. For its purpose, he is not liable and it is disqualified. Not for its purpose, he is liable and it is qualified. There they are saying in the name of Rav Ḥisda: If its year was completed between First and Second. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : When the time for its propitiation was passed. “If a Pesaḥ whose time had passed was slaughtered for its purpose at its time, or that he slaughtered another one for its purpose at its time, Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies and Rebbi Joshua qualifies. Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies since he is like one who slaughters a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice. Rebbi Joshua qualifies since he is like one who slaughters a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ.” Since its time is passed, there is no difference whether he slaughtered a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice or he slaughtered a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ. In the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, if its year was completed between First and Second. In the opinion of Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , when the time for its propitiation was passed.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, the company was asking, where are we holding? If it was lost and found before propitiation, whether it was for its purpose or not for its purpose it is qualified and sent to grazing. If it was lost and found after propitiation, whether for its purpose or not for its purpose, it is disqualified as well-being offering. But we confirmed it when the owner became impure or acted criminally and already pushed to the Second Pesaḥ. For its purpose, he is not liable and it is disqualified. Not for its purpose, he is liable and it is qualified. There they are saying in the name of Rav Ḥisda: If its year was completed between First and Second. Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan : When the time for its propitiation was passed. “If a Pesaḥ whose time had passed was slaughtered for its purpose at its time, or that he slaughtered another one for its purpose at its time, Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies and Rebbi Joshua qualifies. Rebbi Eliezer disqualifies since he is like one who slaughters a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice. Rebbi Joshua qualifies since he is like one who slaughters a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ.” Since its time is passed, there is no difference whether he slaughtered a Pesaḥ for the purpose of a well-being sacrifice or he slaughtered a well-being sacrifice for the purpose of a Pesaḥ. In the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, if its year was completed between First and Second. In the opinion of Rebbi La in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan , when the time for its propitiation was passed.

MISHNAH: The Israel slaughters and the Cohen receives; he hands it to his colleague and the colleague to his colleague; he accepts the full [cup] and returns the empty one. The Cohen standing next to the altar pours it in one pouring in the direction of the foundations.

MISHNAH: He who slaughters the Pesaḥ not for its purpose on the Sabbath is for this liable for a purification sacrifice. For any other sacrifice which he slaughtered for the purpose of Pesaḥ, if they are not suitable he is liable, if suitable, Rebbi Eliezer declares him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares not liable. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, since for Pesaḥ, which is permitted for its purpose, he is liable if he changed its purpose, sacrifices which are forbidden for their purpose, it should be logical that he be liable if he changed their purpose. Rebbi Joshua answered him, no. If you argue about Pesaḥ, which he changed to something forbidden, what can you infer about sacrifices which he changed to something permitted? Rebbi Eliezer said to him, public parts should prove it, which are permitted for their purpose and he who slaughters for their purpose is liable. Rebbi Joshua answered him, no. If you argue about public parts which are fixed in number, what can you infer about Pesaḥ which is not fixed in number? Rebbi Meïr says, also he who slaughters for the purpose of public parts is not liable.

MISHNAH: He who slaughters the Pesaḥ not for its purpose on the Sabbath is for this liable for a purification sacrifice. For any other sacrifice which he slaughtered for the purpose of Pesaḥ, if they are not suitable he is liable, if suitable, Rebbi Eliezer declares him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares not liable. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, since for Pesaḥ, which is permitted for its purpose, he is liable if he changed its purpose, sacrifices which are forbidden for their purpose, it should be logical that he be liable if he changed their purpose. Rebbi Joshua answered him, no. If you argue about Pesaḥ, which he changed to something forbidden, what can you infer about sacrifices which he changed to something permitted? Rebbi Eliezer said to him, public parts should prove it, which are permitted for their purpose and he who slaughters for their purpose is liable. Rebbi Joshua answered him, no. If you argue about public parts which are fixed in number, what can you infer about Pesaḥ which is not fixed in number? Rebbi Meïr says, also he who slaughters for the purpose of public parts is not liable.

MISHNAH: He who slaughters the Pesaḥ not for its purpose on the Sabbath is for this liable for a purification sacrifice. For any other sacrifice which he slaughtered for the purpose of Pesaḥ, if they are not suitable he is liable, if suitable, Rebbi Eliezer declares him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares not liable. Rebbi Eliezer said to him, since for Pesaḥ, which is permitted for its purpose, he is liable if he changed its purpose, sacrifices which are forbidden for their purpose, it should be logical that he be liable if he changed their purpose. Rebbi Joshua answered him, no. If you argue about Pesaḥ, which he changed to something forbidden, what can you infer about sacrifices which he changed to something permitted? Rebbi Eliezer said to him, public parts should prove it, which are permitted for their purpose and he who slaughters for their purpose is liable. Rebbi Joshua answered him, no. If you argue about public parts which are fixed in number, what can you infer about Pesaḥ which is not fixed in number? Rebbi Meïr says, also he who slaughters for the purpose of public parts is not liable.

“Rebbi Meïr says, also he who slaughters for the purpose of public parts is not liable.” Rebbi Eleazar said, the words of Rebbi Meïr: even a calf. You understand from here two things. You understand something which has no fixed number, or that is apt to being changed, only if the act is meritorious. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if the act is meritorious, for example his sister-in-law which is menstruating and he slept with her. Rebbi Joḥanan said, if the act is [not] meritorious, for example two spits, one with slaughtered meat, the other with carcass meat, and he intended to eat from one but ate from the other. A Mishnah disagrees with Rebbi Joḥanan: “If he forgot and circumcised the one for Sunday on the Sabbath, Rebbi Eliezer makes him liable for a purification sacrifice but Rebbi Joshua declares him not liable.” In this case the act is not meritorious and Rebbi Joshua declares not liable. Samuel from Cappadocia said, the next day it is meritorious.

MISHNAH: For a sufferer from gonorrhea after two episodes one slaughters on the seventh {day}, if he had three episodes one slaughters for him on the eighth. Similarly for a woman watching day for day one slaughters on the second, if she had episodes on two consecutive days one slaughters on the third; but for the sufferer from flux one slaughters on the eighth.

MISHNAH: For a sufferer from gonorrhea after two episodes one slaughters on the seventh {day}, if he had three episodes one slaughters for him on the eighth. Similarly for a woman watching day for day one slaughters on the second, if she had episodes on two consecutive days one slaughters on the third; but for the sufferer from flux one slaughters on the eighth.

MISHNAH: For a sufferer from gonorrhea after two episodes one slaughters on the seventh {day}, if he had three episodes one slaughters for him on the eighth. Similarly for a woman watching day for day one slaughters on the second, if she had episodes on two consecutive days one slaughters on the third; but for the sufferer from flux one slaughters on the eighth.

MISHNAH: For a sufferer from gonorrhea after two episodes one slaughters on the seventh {day}, if he had three episodes one slaughters for him on the eighth. Similarly for a woman watching day for day one slaughters on the second, if she had episodes on two consecutive days one slaughters on the third; but for the sufferer from flux one slaughters on the eighth.

MISHNAH: For a sufferer from gonorrhea after two episodes one slaughters on the seventh {day}, if he had three episodes one slaughters for him on the eighth. Similarly for a woman watching day for day one slaughters on the second, if she had episodes on two consecutive days one slaughters on the third; but for the sufferer from flux one slaughters on the eighth.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “For the menstruating woman one slaughters on her eighth day. For a man having had intercourse with a menstruating woman one slaughters on his seventh day.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a man having had intercourse with a menstruating woman is pure on his seventh day.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Ḥiyya stated: “For the menstruating woman one slaughters on her eighth day. For a man having had intercourse with a menstruating woman one slaughters on his seventh day.” Rebbi Yose said, this implies that a man having had intercourse with a menstruating woman is pure on his seventh day.

MISHNAH: One slaughters for the deep mourner, and one who digs out a collapsed building, and one who was promised that he would be freed from jail, the sick person or the old who are able to eat the volume of an olive. But for all of these one does not slaughter for themselves lest the Pesaḥ become disqualified. Therefore if a disqualification should occur they are not liable for the Second Pesaḥ except for one who digs out a collapsed building who from the start could expect to be impure.

MISHNAH: The second lottery: Who slaughters, who pours, who removes the ashes from the interior altar, who cleans the candelabrum, and who brings the parts to the ramp: head and leg, the two front legs, spine and leg, breast and fat, two side pieces, and the intestines, and the fine flour, and the pan-baked breads, and the wine. Thirteen Cohanim won here. Ben Azzai said before Rebbi Aqiba in the name of Rebbi Joshua, it was brought in the way of its walking.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be qualified by a non-Cohen. Rav commanded his students, everywhere state “he slaughters”, but for the Cow state “sprinkles”; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be (qualified) [disqualified] by a non-Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected. Is it not written, he slaughters, he sprinkles? Since sprinkling is not qualified by a woman as by a man, also slaughter is not qualified by a woman as by a man. He said to him, but sprinkling always was qualified by a Non-Cohen and disqualified by a woman. He answered him, there “Cohen” is not written. For which purpose is written a man? To qualify a non-Cohen. There is no difference between man and woman. If you are saying that it is qualified by a non-Cohen, it has to be qualified by a woman.

Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be qualified by a non-Cohen. Rav commanded his students, everywhere state “he slaughters”, but for the Cow state “sprinkles”; and Rebbi Joḥanan said, we do not find that slaughter be (qualified) [disqualified] by a non-Cohen. Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba objected. Is it not written, he slaughters, he sprinkles? Since sprinkling is not qualified by a woman as by a man, also slaughter is not qualified by a woman as by a man. He said to him, but sprinkling always was qualified by a Non-Cohen and disqualified by a woman. He answered him, there “Cohen” is not written. For which purpose is written a man? To qualify a non-Cohen. There is no difference between man and woman. If you are saying that it is qualified by a non-Cohen, it has to be qualified by a woman.

Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull of the Day of Atonement requires a Cohen. But why does he not say, “and the he-goat”? That is the verse, and he slaughters, and he brings. Since bringing is by a Cohen, also the slaughter is by a Cohen. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Iohai. The bull and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement require a Cohen.

MISHNAH: He slaughters it and receives its blood in a pitcher which he hands to one who stirs it on the fourth level of the Temple Hall so it should not congeal. He took a fire-pan and ascended to the top of the altar where he cleared away coals to both sides and collects coals on the fire pan from the interior well-burned ones, descends, and puts it on the fourth level in the courtyard.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, Rebbi Eleazar asked: If bulls and he-goats to be burned became impure, may they still become disqualified for being taken out? What is his problem? Following Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish; but following Rebbi Joḥanan it is obvious for him. For they disagreed: “If somebody slaughters a thanksgiving sacrifice inside while its bread is outside the walls, the bread was not sanctified.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, outside the walls of Jerusalem; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, outside the walls of the Temple court. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish is consequent in his opinion since Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, meat of well-being offerings which was taken out and then returned, if the blood is poured for it already it is disqualified because of removal. Rebbi Yose said, he questions even according to Rebbi Joḥanan. While Jerusalem is not an enclosure for most holy sacrifices, it is an enclosure for simple sacrifice. Outside the walls of Jerusalem it is an enclosure neither for most holy sacrifices nor for simple sacrifices. Rebbi Mana said, it is not an enclosure for them.

Which of the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Moon has precedence? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, between the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Month, the musaf sacrifices of the New Month have precedence. The strength of Rebbi Jeremiah is from the following: Between the song of the Sabbath and the song of the New Month, the song of the New Month has precedence. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference there since Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To make a proclamation to publicize that it is the start of a new month. How does one do it? One slaughters the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and says for them the song of the New Month. But here, between the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Month, the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath have precedence, under the category: what is more frequent than another precedes the other.

Which of the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Moon has precedence? Rebbi Jeremiah wanted to say, between the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Month, the musaf sacrifices of the New Month have precedence. The strength of Rebbi Jeremiah is from the following: Between the song of the Sabbath and the song of the New Month, the song of the New Month has precedence. Rebbi Yose said, there is a difference there since Rebbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: To make a proclamation to make known that it is the start of a new month. How does one do it? One slaughters the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and says for them the song of the New Month. But here, between the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath and of the New Month, the musaf sacrifices of the Sabbath have precedence, under the category: what is more frequent than another precedes the other.

HALAKHAH: “An egg was laid on a holiday,” etc. What is the reason of the House of Shammai? It is prepared in its mother’s body. What is the reason of the House of Hillel? It is like muqṣeh which dried without him realizing it, and is muqṣeh which dried without him realizing it not forbidden? But was it not stated, “if one slaughters a chicken and found eggs inside it, even if they are complete they are permitted”? Rebbi Ḥananiah and Rebbi Mana. One said, its taste when eaten from its inside is not comparable to its taste when eaten from the outside. But the other said, it is not completed for a chick until it comes outside. What are they with milk? Let us say, if they are connected to blood vessels they are forbidden, otherwise permitted.

MISHNAH: One does not subscribe to an animal on the holiday but one subscribes to it on the eve of the holiday and then slaughters and distributes among them. Rebbi Jehudah says a person may weigh against a vessel or against a dagger, but the Sages are saying that one does not use scales at all.

MISHNAH: One does not sharpen the knife but he cleanses it on another. A person may not say to the butcher, weigh me meat for a denar, but he slaughters and they distribute among themselves.

MISHNAH: If he invited guests they may not carry away their parts unless through another person he gave them the right to their parts on the eve of the holiday. One does not water or slaughter prairie animals but one waters and slaughters domestic animals. What are domestic animals? Those that stay overnight in the village, prairie animals that stay overnight in the dust.

“The only difference between Sabbath and the Day of Atonement is that in the first case its intentional desecration is punished by man and in the second case by extirpation.” Therefore, for payment both follow the same rules. This is by Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah since Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah says, the Day of Atonement follows the rules of Sabbath for payment. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah says those subject to extirpation equal those subject to capital punishment. What is between them? Rebbi Aḥa in the name of Rebbi Abuna said, a menstruating adolescent girl is between them. Rebbi Mana said, also his wife’s sister is between them. In the opinion of Rebbi Neḥoniah ben Haqanah, just as the Sabbath does not become permitted after its prohibition started; so the Day of Atonement does not become permitted after its prohibition started. However, these may become permitted after their prohibition started, he has to pay. But Rebbi Simeon ben Menassiah said, extirpation applies to the Sabbath and the day of Atonement; extirpation does not apply to these, he has to pay. Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaim about whipping and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Yoḥai stated: Rebbi Tarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there can be no whipping connected to extirpation, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no whipping in a case involving extirpation. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? Not for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly flogging in extirpation cases, since they disagreed: If somebody slaughters an animal and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! Here are two cases, there it is one case.

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “The community only brings what Scripture fixed for it.” Rebbi Simeon is of the opinion that since when Second Tithe was introduced it was not interrupted. What is between them? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the bull of hidden things is between them. Rebbi Yose says, voluntary offerings of the community are between them. It was stated, both men and women. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no woman here, “man” is written in the paragraph. It was stated, also a nazir’s sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there are no nazir’s sacrifices here; nazir’s sacrifices are an obligation. It was stated, also libations. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he who states “libations” does not hold with Rebbi, as it was stated, Rebbi says, I am saying that also after Israel entered the Land, libations only are brought inside. What is the reason? In the Sanctuary pour alcoholic libations to the Eternal. A prohibition is written only for inside; from where for the outside? Let us hear from the following. From where that one who slaughters as Pesah for an individual on a private altar or the public altar in a time where altars are forbidden, that he transgresses a prohibition? The verse says, you may not slaughter the Pesaḥ at one. He is punished with extirpation and you are saying so? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is about one who slaughters in the afternoon not for its name in a time when altars are permitted. Then why does he say, in a time when altars are forbidden? In a time when his altar is forbidden. Why not for its name? That you should not say, it is well-being offering and qualified. In addition, from the following: I could think that if he slaughtered it in the afternoon it should be qualified. Why do you have (in the afternoon it should be qualified) [in the morning it should be disqualified]? No. It is not for its name. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that well-being sacrifices brought because of Pesaḥ are qualified on an altar. Would an elevation offering be brought because of a reparation sacrifice be qualified on an altar according to Rebbi Eleazar? Let us hear from the following: “This is the principle: Anything which can be vowed or donated is sacrificed on a private altar; but nothing which cannot be vowed or donated is sacrificed on a private altar.”

It was stated in the name of Rebbi Simeon: “The community only brings what Scripture fixed for it.” Rebbi Simeon is of the opinion that since when Second Tithe was introduced it was not interrupted. What is between them? Rebbi Abba bar Mamal said, the bull of hidden things is between them. Rebbi Yose says, voluntary offerings of the community are between them. It was stated, both men and women. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is no woman here, “man” is written in the paragraph. It was stated, also a nazir’s sacrifices. Rebbi Joḥanan said, there are no nazir’s sacrifices here; nazir’s sacrifices are an obligation. It was stated, also libations. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, he who states “libations” does not hold with Rebbi, as it was stated, Rebbi says, I am saying that also after Israel entered the Land, libations only are brought inside. What is the reason? In the Sanctuary pour alcoholic libations to the Eternal. A prohibition is written only for inside; from where for the outside? Let us hear from the following. From where that one who slaughters as Pesah for an individual on a private altar or the public altar in a time where altars are forbidden, that he transgresses a prohibition? The verse says, you may not slaughter the Pesaḥ at one. He is punished with extirpation and you are saying so? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, this is about one who slaughters in the afternoon not for its name in a time when altars are permitted. Then why does he say, in a time when altars are forbidden? In a time when his altar is forbidden. Why not for its name? That you should not say, it is well-being offering and qualified. In addition, from the following: I could think that if he slaughtered it in the afternoon it should be qualified. Why do you have (in the afternoon it should be qualified) [in the morning it should be disqualified]? No. It is not for its name. Rebbi Yose said, this implies that well-being sacrifices brought because of Pesaḥ are qualified on an altar. Would an elevation offering be brought because of a reparation sacrifice be qualified on an altar according to Rebbi Eleazar? Let us hear from the following: “This is the principle: Anything which can be vowed or donated is sacrificed on a private altar; but nothing which cannot be vowed or donated is sacrificed on a private altar.”

Rebbi Jonathan in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Rebbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked, how? Rebbi follows Rebbi Eliezer? As we have stated there, “He who eats food impure in the first degree is impure in the first degree. He who eats food impure in the second degree is impure in the second degree. He who eats food impure in the third degree is impure in the third degree.” It is everybody’s opinion, so he should stay away from heave. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is second degree impure for tithe, is his body disqualified from eating tithe? Let us hear from the following: “But the Sages forbid for tithe.” They had not heard that Rebbi Samuel said in the name of Rebbi Ze`ira, what means “but the Sages forbid for tithe”? His body is disqualified from eating tithe. And similarly, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, is his body disqualified from eating sancta? Let us hear from the following, as Rebbi Jeremiah said in the name of Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, they made him like one eating fourth degree impure food for sancta. This implies, if somebody eats food which is fourth degree impure for sancta, his body is disqualified from eating sancta. So far in Temple sancta which were sanctified. Or also for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta? Let us hear from the following, [as we stated there]: “If somebody slaughters domestic animals, wild animals, or birds, and no blood came out from them, they are qualified and may be eaten with unclean hands, since they were not prepared by blood. Rebbi Simeon says, they were prepared by slaughter.” Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Hoshaia: The Mishnah is about profane food prepared in the standards of sancta following Rebbi Joshua. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai in the name of Rebbi: If somebody eats food which is third degree impure for heave, his body is disqualified from eating heave. Is that not a Mishnah that third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta? The Mishnah is about Temple sancta which were sanctified. He tells you in addition, even for profane food prepared in the standards of sancta. Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said before Rebbi Ze`ira: The Mishnah says so, “loaves of sancta bread; the water in their cavities is sanctified.” Does it displease you that it comes to tell you that he makes fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid? Rebbi Ze`ira said, as you are saying there, one made one pure for the ashes of the Red Cow equal to the water for the ashes of the Red Cow and to the ashes of the Red Cow, and here one made fluid by your pronouncement like sanctified fluid. Rebbi Ze`ira, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Joḥanan, Rebbi Yannai, and it is unknown whether this is in the name of Rebbi: There is a Mishnah which is both confirmation and disproof. From it confirmation: “For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of heave.” But if it was prepared in the standards of sancta, his body is second degree impure for sancta. From it disproof: For third degree impurity is second degree impurity for sancta, but not second degree impurity for heave, if it was prepared by the standards of sancta. But if it was prepared in the standards of heave, his body is second degree impure for heave and a fortiori for sancta.

Rebbi Judah bar Pazi asked: What say these Tannaïm about whipping and extirpation? Rebbi Yose said, that is a problem for the rabbis. Rebbi Jonah said, why can we not understand it from what Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated? As Rebbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “Rebbi Ṭarphon says, extirpation was mentioned for the Sabbath and the Day of Atonement. Since for extirpation mentioned for the Sabbath there is no payment in a case involving the death penalty, so for extirpation mentioned for the Day of Atonement there is no payment in a case involving extirpation.” Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yose: When do we need this? Not for Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? But for Rebbi Joḥanan, if he admits flogging in death penalty cases, certainly flogging in extirpation cases, since they disagreed: If somebody slaughters [an animal] and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is flogged, about idolatry, he is stoned to death. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he was cautioned about an animal and its young, he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he been cautioned about idolatry. He said to him, we need it even for Rebbi Joḥanan! Here are two cases, there it is one case.

MISHNAH: What is shaving in purity? He brings three animals, a purification sacrifice, an elevation sacrifice, and a well-being sacrifice. He slaughters the well-being sacrifice ands shaves for it, the words of Rebbi Jehudah. Rebbi Eleazar says, he only should shave for the purification sacrifice since that has precedence everywhere, but if he shaved for any of the three, he satisfied his obligation.

How does one deal with him in a restrictive way? He brings two swallows and slaughters one of them over a clay vessel filled from running water; one digs und buries it, for it is forbidden for usufruct. He shaves his head, beard, and eyebrows in the way the sufferers from skin disease do. He counts 30 days and brings another animal as elevation offering, saying: “If I was impure, the first elevation offering was voluntary and this one is obligatory, and the purification offering is my obligation. If I was pure, the first elevation offering was my obligation, this one is voluntary, and the purification offering is in doubt.” He shaves his head, his beard, and his eyebrows in the way the sufferer from skin disease shaves.

Rebbi Simeon said: On the next day, he brings his reparation sacrifice and a log of oil with it and says: If I was impure, this is my obligatory offering, otherwise it is my doubtful offering. He slaughters in the North, it needs giving on the thumbs, and it is eaten by male Cohanim at any place during the day and the following night until midnight. But the Sages did [not] agree with Rebbi Simeon because he causes sacrifices to become invalid.

MISHNAH: The obligation to make double restitution is more frequent than that of paying quadruple or quintuple restitution since the obligation to make double restitution applies both to living things and to inanimate objects; but the obligation of paying quadruple or quintuple restitution only applies to oxen and sheep, as it is said: “If a man steal an ox or a sheep,” etc. He who steals from a thief does not pay double restitution, nor does the one who slaughters or sells after a thief pay quadruple or quintuple restitution.

It was stated: “It was stolen from the man’s house”, but not from the woman’s house? Is not “his neighbor” only written in respect of the borrower? But one has to say that “he who steals from a thief does not pay [double restitution, nor does the one who slaughters or sells after a thief pay] quadruple or quintuple restitution. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him; [when in the end the stolen object was found, to whom does he pay? To the first owner, to the second, to both of them? If something was stolen which then was stolen from him]; the owners apprehended the second thief who swore to them. If you say that one takes it away from the second, he has to bring a sacrifice for the oath. If you say that one does not take it away from the second, he does not have to bring a sacrifice for his oath. If something was stolen which then was stolen from him and the second thief decides to return it, if you say that he has to return it to the owners, they might not inform the first thief. If you say that he has to return it to the first thief, that one might not inform the owners. What does he have to do? He returns it to the owners in the presence of the thief.

There is a rule about the slaughterer which does not apply to the seller and to the seller which does not apply to the slaughterer, for he who slaughters on the Sabbath is criminally liable but he who sells on the Sabbath cannot be prosecuted. Rebbi Yannai ben Rebbi Ismael said, we find a case of sale for which one is criminally liable on the Sabbath. Think of it, if somebody said to another: tear something off from this ground to acquire, did he not acquire? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, the tearing makes him liable, not the sale.

Rebbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked: Why did he not say, “an oath that I shall eat of the slaughter of X”? Is there not fat? If he slaughters deer. Is there not the hip sinew? About fowl. Is there not blood?

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Jehudah said, Rebbi Ismael asked Rebbi Joshua,” etc. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because [most] calves there are slaughtered in the name of pagan worship. Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, my teacher taught us well, since if one slaughters for pagan worship even its excrement is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one found a ring in it? Rebbi Yose said, a ring is recognizable; excrement is part of its body.

Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: Because most calves there are slaughtered in the name of pagan worship. Rebbi Joḥanan heard this and said, my teacher taught us well, since if one slaughters an animal for pagan worship even its excrement is forbidden. Rebbi Joḥanan asked, if one found a ring in it? Rebbi Yose said, a ring is recognizable; excrement is part of its body.

The practice of Mercurius is the following: Two stones one touching the other and the third on top of them. If one put down the second one and they warned him because of “it and its young”, he is whipped. Because of idolatry he is stoned. If he put down the third; there is a disagreement between Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish. For they disagreed: If somebody slaughters an animal and its young for idolatrous purposes. Rebbi Joḥanan says, if he was cautioned about an animal and its young he is flogged, about idolatry he is stoned. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, even if he is cautioned about an animal and its young he is not flogged since he would be stoned to death had he be cautioned about idolatry.

HALAKHAH: Rebbi Abba bar Mamal, Rav Amram, Rab Mattanah in the name of Rav: If somebody makes a loan to another person stipulating that he won’t press for repayment, the Sabbatical will remit it. Did we not state: “If somebody slaughters a cow and divides it up on New Year’s Day”? And Rebbi Eleazar said, this follows Rebbi Jehudah. But can he require payment on New Year’s Day? As Rebbi Abba said in the name of Rebbi Zeˋira: Since he could not ask him for payment, it is as if he could not believe him. And since he could not believe him, it is as if he could not pay him. And here, because he could have given him but did not give, the first [debt] is turned into a loan.

They objected: R. Yose says: One who slaughters a daily offering which has not been properly examined on Shabbat, he is liable to bring a sin-offering and another daily offering must be offered.