Zevachim 106a — the Talmud in English

Here too,

in the case of the bulls that are burned, their place of burning is

to the east of Jerusalem.

And we explain:

And according to the Rabbis,

who expound this verse as referring to the impurity of garments, and do not expound the gzera shava,

where,

in what place and on which side of Jerusalem

do they burn them

the bulls that are burned?

As it was taught: Where are they burned,

the bulls that are burned?

To the north

of

Jerusalem,

for all its actions as a sin-offering are on the north side,

outside the three camps.

Rabbi Yosei Ha-Gelili says: They are burned at the House of the Ashes.

It is necessary that he place there beforehand ashes from the altar, so that the place will already be called previously the place of “the pouring out of the ashes.”

And it follows that the first tanna holds that, indeed, it is necessary to burn them to the north of Jerusalem, but he is not particular that there should already have been ashes in that place.

Rava said: Who

is the first tanna

who disputes Rabbi Yosei Ha-Gelili,

and holds that it is not necessary that there should first be ashes there?

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

For it was taught:

It is stated in the passage concerning the burning of the bull of the anointed priest:

“Upon the pouring out of the ashes it shall be burned.”

And it follows that we require

that there be ashes there

before the bull is burned.

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov says:

The verse comes to teach us

that its place

of the ashes

shall be sloping.

That is, that the place should be in the form of a slope, so that the ashes can be poured out there. And it follows that he holds that it is not necessary that there should already have been ashes there.

Abaye said to him: But perhaps

only

over whether its place is sloping do they dispute,

the first tanna and Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. But concerning whether there must first be ashes there, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov also agrees that it is necessary. Rather, he requires in addition that its place be sloping. And if so, there is no proof that Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov is the one who disputes Rabbi Yosei Ha-Gelili.

The Sages taught: The one who burns and the one occupied with the needs of the burning render garments impure. But the one who kindles the fire

for the purpose of the burning,

and the one who arranges the pyre

for the burning of the red heifer

do not render garments impure.

This tanna holds in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, that they do not render garments impure until the fire has caught on to them.

And who is the one who burns

who renders garments impure?

This is the one who assists at the time of the burning.

For example, one who turns over the flesh, one who throws on wood, and one who turns over and stirs the coals.

And the tanna explains:

Could it be that once they have become

the limbs

ashes,

they still

render

the ashes

garments impure? The Talmud says, “

And the one who burns

them

shall wash his garments.” Only when burning

them,

when they are still the bulls that are burned, do they

render garments impure, but once they become ashes they do not render garments impure.

For the ashes of the bulls are not called “them.”

Rabbi Shimon says: “Them” render

garments impure, but

once melted,

the flesh having dissolved,

they do not render garments impure.

What is the difference between them,

what practical difference is there between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon?

Rava said: There is a difference between them when it has been made charred.

That the flesh has become charred, which is considered like flesh that has melted, but is still not ashes. According to the first tanna, “them” applies to it, and it renders garments impure until they become ashes. But according to Rabbi Shimon, it does not render garments impure, because from the moment it has been made charred, it is no longer called a bull.

We return to you, chapter “One who immersed during the day.”

Mishna:

1.

The one who slaughters and offers up

sacred offerings

in

a place that is

outside

the wall of the Temple courtyard— is liable for two [transgressions]. One, he is

liable for the slaughter

because he slaughtered sacred offerings outside,

and

one, he is

liable for the offering up

of sacred offerings and their burning outside.

And even if he performed them in one lapse of awareness, not knowing that they were sacred offerings, or not knowing that the place where he slaughters and offers up is outside the Temple courtyard, he is liable for two, because slaughtering and offering up are two separate categories of transgression, like eating forbidden fat and blood.

Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: only if

he slaughtered inside and offered up outside

is he

liable,

because he offered up outside a valid offering, which was slaughtered according to its law inside. But if he

slaughtered

an offering

outside

and that offering became disqualified for offering because it was slaughtered outside,

and

offered up

it

outside, he is

exempt

from the offering up, because

he offered up only a disqualified object,

and one is liable only for offering up an offering that was fit to be offered up inside. For the reason for the liability for offering up outside is that “he shall not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,” and this verse was stated concerning a valid offering, which can be brought and offered at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and not concerning a disqualified offering, which became disqualified through its slaughter outside.

One is liable only for offering a sacrifice that was fit to be offered inside, since the reason for liability for offering outside is the verse, “He shall not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” This verse refers to a valid offering, which could be brought and offered at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and not to an invalid offering that became unfit through being slaughtered outside.

The Sages said to him

to Rabbi Yose the Galilean: According to your words, how is one who slaughters inside and offers it up outside liable? For

even one who slaughters inside and offers up outside—

once they have taken it out

the offering that was slaughtered inside, outside,

they have disqualified it

because of “that which has gone out”?

Rather, necessarily the Torah imposed liability for offering up outside even when he offers up an offering that became disqualified. If so, the same law applies to an offering slaughtered outside: one is liable for offering it up outside.

B.

Similarly, Rabbi Yose the Galilean and the Rabbis disagreed concerning the law of

an impure person who ate

sacred-offering meat—

whether

he ate meat of

impure sacred offering, or whether

he ate meat of

pure sacred offering, he is liable

for eating it intentionally by karet, and for eating it unintentionally, a sin offering.

Rabbi Yose the Galilean says:

Only a

ritually impure person who ate

sacred-offering meat

that was pure is liable

for eating it.

But

a

ritually impure person who ate

sacred-offering meat

that was impure is exempt

for eating it, because

he ate only an impure object.

The Sages said to him

to Rabbi Yose the Galilean: Behold,

even an impure person who ate the

sacred offering’s meat

that was pure,

you have no right to make him liable, for

once he touched it

the impure person touched the pure meat before he ate it,

he made it impure. And if you make him liable despite its having become impure before the eating, so too you should make him liable even if it became impure earlier through others.

C.

And

a

pure person who ate

sacred-offering meat

that was impure—

is exempt

from the punishment of karet for eating it [but he is lashed by Torah law],

for he is not liable

for karet for eating sacred offerings in impurity

except for bodily impurity,

as they learned above [43a] from the verse, “and the soul that eats, while its impurity is upon it”: the liability of karet is stated only for an impurity that can depart from him. An impurity that departs is only the bodily impurity of the person, which has purification in a ritual bath, and not the impurity of the meat, which has no purification ever.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: The one who slaughters and offers up sacred offerings outside is liable.

And we raise an objection concerning it:

Granted, the offering up

of sacred offerings outside

is written

with

a punishment and it is written

with

a warning,

and therefore he is liable for a sin offering when he performed it unintentionally.

A punishment—

as it is written: “And he shall not bring it to the entrance of the Tent,

to make it an offering to the Lord—and that man shall be cut off from among his people.”

A warning—

as it is written: “Take heed for yourself, lest you offer up your burnt offerings

in every place,”

and as Rabbi Avin said in the name of Rabbi Elazar: Wherever it says

in the Torah

“take heed,” “lest,” or “do not,” it refers only to

not—

do,

and since it says, “take heed lest you offer up,” it follows that he transgresses a prohibition.

And since intentionally he has upon him a warning of a prohibition and a punishment of karet, he is liable for it unintentionally for a sin offering, for there is liability for a sin offering only for something for whose intentional violation one is liable for karet and concerning which there is a warning of a prohibition.

But slaughtering

of sacred offerings outside—why is one liable for it for a sin offering? For—

Granted, a punishment,

we find

as it is written

concerning it,

“And he did not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting,

and that man shall be cut off from among his people.”

But a warning

for one who slaughters sacred offerings outside,

from where do we know it?

Since we do not find a warning of a prohibition concerning slaughtering, how can we make him liable for it for a sin offering?

And we answer: The warning is included in that which

the verse says: “And they shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices to the goat-demons

after whom they go.” And it implies that Scripture warned not to slaughter sacred offerings outside.

And we challenge: How can a warning be learned from this verse? For

this

verse

is needed for [the teaching] of Rabbi Elazar.

For Rabbi Elazar said: From where [do we know] that one who slaughters an animal for Markulis is liable

for death, although the service of Markulis is in a degrading manner, to stone it with stones, whereas this person served it in an honorable manner, by slaughtering an animal, which is not its manner of service; and from where [do we know] that he is liable for this manner as well?

As it is written: “And they shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices.” If it is not needed for

service

in its usual manner, for

we have already

derived

the service of Markulis by stoning in its usual manner

from

“Lest you inquire after their gods, saying, ‘How do these nations serve their gods, that I too may do likewise?’”—

give it a meaning concerning

service of Markulis

not in its usual manner,

by slaughtering!

And if so, it is difficult: How shall we derive from the verse “And they shall no longer slaughter” a warning for one who slaughters sacred offerings outside? Is it not needed to teach that one is also liable for service not in its usual manner in idolatry?

And we answer:

Rabba said:

This verse teaches in two ways:

Read in it: “And they shall no longer slaughter

their sacrifices”—and this is a warning for one who slaughters sacred offerings outside, since it was written adjacent to that passage.

And also read in it: “And no longer

[shall they slaughter] their sacrifices,” to teach that one who slaughters for Markulis is liable for death, although it was served not in its usual manner.

And we challenge:

But

still

it is impossible to learn from this verse a warning for one who slaughters sacred offerings outside, from “And they shall no longer slaughter,” for

it is needed for [the teaching] that was taught:

Up to here,

up to the verse “And they shall no longer slaughter,” which is stated concerning the punishment of karet for slaughtering outside and offering up outside,

it,

the verse,

speaks of sacred offerings that he consecrated at the time when private altars were forbidden,

that is, from the time the Tabernacle was erected and service at private altars was forbidden,

and offered them at the time when private altars were forbidden.

And it is necessary to say that the verse speaks of these sacred offerings,

folio 106b

for their punishment is stated

here, as it is said,