Chullin 117a — the Talmud in English

That the fat ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

is subject to misuse

if it is a sacrifice, but with blood one is not subject to misuse, as the Gemara learns.

And one is liable on its account for piggul, notar, and impurity

if he ate it in a state of impurity, he is liable for two sin-offerings: one on account of fat and one on account of impurity.

Which is not the case with blood

as the Gemara explains.

And there is a stringency with blood

over fat:

for blood applies to domesticated animal, wild animal, and bird, whether impure or pure.

But fat applies only to a pure domesticated animal,

as it is written concerning it, “from the domesticated animal that they offer.” And it does not apply to a wild animal or a bird.

Gemara:

From where are these matters

that fat is subject to misuse, even when it comes from lesser sanctity offerings, for the tanna does not distinguish between most holy offerings and lesser sanctity offerings?

Rabbi Yannai said: For the verse says

concerning the fats of the bull of the anointed priest,

“as it is removed from the ox of the peace-offering sacrifice.” -

So are the fats of the bull of the High Priest removed for burning upon the altar.

But what have we learned from the ox of the peace-offering sacrifice?

For the burning of the fats is also explicitly stated concerning the bull of the anointed priest!?

From now, this —

the ox of the peace-offering sacrifice —

comes to teach, and is found to be taught! The verse compares

the

ox of the peace-offering sacrifice

to the bull of the anointed priest.

To teach us:

Just as the bull of the anointed priest

is subject to misuse,

for it is a most holy offering,

so too the ox of the peace-offering sacrifice,

which is a lesser sanctity offering,

is subject to misuse.

Rabbi Hanina said to him

to Rabbi Yannai: Why did you need to learn it from there? Is

ugly

this

that Rabbi taught:

It is written concerning lesser sanctity offerings,

“Every fat is for the Lord,”

and from the fact that it is written “for the Lord”

we expound:

to include the fats of lesser sanctity offerings as subject to misuse!?

Abaye said: It was necessary

for both derivations.

For if the Merciful One had written

only “every

fat

for the Lord,”

I would have said that with

the

fat —

yes,

there is misuse. But with

the diaphragm and the two kidneys,

which are not called fat,

no,

there would not be misuse in them. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote

“as it is removed

from the ox of the peace-offering sacrifice,” to compare all the fats of a peace offering to the fats of the bull of the anointed priest, to say that one is subject to misuse in them as in the bull.

And if the Merciful One had written

only

“as it is removed,”

I would have said that specifically fat of the kind that also exists in an ox is subject to misuse, but

the kind of fat that exists in an ox

the fat of the tail, which does not exist in an ox

but only in a sheep, we would have thought that it is not subject to misuse; and if he brings a sheep as a peace offering,

there would not

be misuse with its tail. Therefore

the Merciful One wrote

concerning peace offerings

“every fat,”

which implies also the tail, for the tail is called fat, as it is written, “its fat, the tail, complete.”

Rav Mari said to Rav Zevid: If the tail is called fat —

should the tail of a sheep be prohibited

to eat

!?

He said to him,

Rav Zevid:

Concerning you the verse says, “Every fat of ox, sheep, and goat

you shall not eat.” And we expound: Specifically

a thing that is common to ox, sheep, and goat

you shall not eat, which is not the case with the fat of the tail, which does not exist in an ox and a goat.

Rav Ashi said:

For this reason the tail is not forbidden, for

“its fat, the tail” is called

the tail, but

“fat” without specification

is not called so, and the verse prohibited only unspecified fat for eating.

And we raise an objection:

But from now, it should not be subject to misuse

with the tail. For we learned that misuse with fat from that which is written, “Every fat is for the Lord,” and this implies specifically unspecified fat!?

And we conclude: Rather, it is clear —

in accordance with Rav Zevid!

The resolution of Rav Zevid is compelled, and the resolution of Rav Ashi is rejected.

We learned in our Mishna:

Which is not the case with blood.

From where are these matters

that one is not subject to misuse with blood?

Ulla said: For the verse says,

“For the soul of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you, et cetera, to make atonement for your souls, for the blood it is, et cetera.” And from the fact that it is written

“to you,”

it implies

“it shall be yours”;

it implies that it is not an offering of the Most High and one is not subject to misuse with it!

The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught

that this is how we learned: From the fact that it is written

“to make atonement,”

it implies that specifically

for atonement

for you

I gave it, and not

that it should be called Mine

with regard to

the matter of

misuse.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: The verse says, “It

— and “it” implies: It shall remain as it is! And we expound:

It,

the blood, shall be

before atonement

that is, before the blood is sprinkled —

as after atonement,

that is, after he has placed the blood portions upon the altar, blood remains in the vessel.

Just as after atonement —

there is no misuse with it,

as will be explained below, for we have the principle that there is nothing whose mitzva has been performed with which one is subject to misuse, since the need of the Most High has already been performed through it and it is no longer called sacred property of the Most High,

so too before atonement —

there is no misuse with it.

And we raise an objection:

But say

the opposite:

It, after atonement

is like before atonement.

Just as before atonement

there is misuse with it, so too after atonement —

is there misuse with it?

And we answer: It is impossible to say that after atonement there is misuse with it, for

there is nothing whose mitzva has been performed —

and one is subject to misuse with it.

And we raise an objection:

But is it not so? Yet there is the removal of the ashes,

for each morning the priest would remove a full panful from the ashes upon the altar, place it at the side of the altar, and it would be absorbed there in its place,

whose

already

mitzva

had been performed, for it had been burned upon the altar,

and

nevertheless

one is subject to misuse with it.

For it is written, “And he shall place it beside the altar,”

which teaches that it requires placing and concealment, and we see that deriving benefit from it is forbidden!?

And we answer:

Because the removal of the ashes was

a case with which one is subject to misuse after its mitzva has been performed, as we said,

and the priestly garments,

that is, the four white garments worn by the High Priest on the Day of Atonement, whose law is that they require concealment, and an ordinary priest does not use them throughout the entire year, nor does a High Priest use them on another Day of Atonement, as it is written, “And he shall remove the linen garments and place them there,” and from this we learn that they require concealment —

are two verses that come as one. And whenever there are two verses that come as one,

they do not teach.

And we raise an objection:

That works for the Rabbis, who say

that this is how they expound:

“And he shall place them there” —

teaches that they require concealment. But according to Rabbi Dosa, who says

that they learn from this verse

that he shall not use them

the High

Priest for another Day of Atonement,

but an ordinary priest uses them throughout the entire year — if so, he maintains that their mitzva has not yet been completed, and therefore one is subject to misuse with them.

What is there to say,

for there are not two verses that come as one?

Rather, because there are the removal of the ashes and the beheaded heifer,

which is forbidden to benefit from after it is beheaded and its mitzva has already been performed, as it is written, “And they shall behead it there” — there shall be its burial there, meaning that it is forbidden to benefit from it —

are two verses that come as one. And whenever there are two verses that come as one,

they do not teach.

And we raise an objection:

That works according to the one who says

that two verses that come as one

do not teach.

But according to the one who says that they do teach, what is there to say?