Zevachim 115b — the Talmud in English

And since it is fit [to be offered] inside, he is liable for it outside,

as Rav Huna said in the name of Rav.

For Rav Huna said in the name of Rav: An asham that was detached

from the law of being offered after its owner had obtained atonement through the second one, and was handed over

for grazing,

that it was handed over to a herdsman until a blemish should occur in it,

and they slaughtered it

before a blemish occurred in it,

without specification,

even not for the sake of an olah,

it is fit

itself

for an olah,

and the same is true of an asham lacking time: it itself is fit for an olah when they slaughtered it explicitly for the sake of an olah.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who offers up from the flesh of a sin-offering

outside is exempt.

The Sages taught: From where [do we know] that one who offers up from the flesh of an outer sin-offering

outside,

and from the flesh of an asham, and from the flesh

of other

most sacred sacrifices,

that is, the lambs of Shavuot,

and from the flesh of lesser sacred sacrifices, and from the remainder

of the meal-offering of

the Omer

after the removal of the handful,

and the two loaves

that come on Shavuot,

and the showbread, and the remainders of meal-offerings

after the removal of the handful, outside,

for which he is exempt? The verse says

in the passage of slaughtering outside, “which he offers up

an olah”

and we expound:

Just as an olah is fit for being offered up

on the altar,

so, everything that is fit for being offered up

he is liable for it outside; which is not so with all these, for they are eaten and do not ascend to the altar .

From where [do we know] that also one who pours

oil onto the meal-offering,

and one who mixes

the meal-offering,

and one who breaks

the meal-offering into pieces,

and one who salts

the sacrifice,

and one who waves

the meal-offering,

and one who brings

the meal-offering to the altar,

and one who arranges

the showbread on

the table, and one who prepares the lamps, and one who removes the handful

from the meal-offering,

and one who receives the blood

in a vessel from the sacrifice—if he performed one of all these

outside, [he is liable?] [unclear: the source text is corrupted].

The verse says, “which he offers up, an olah or a sacrifice,”

and we expound:

Just as offering up is the completion of the service,

after which there is no additional service,

so, everything that is the completion of the service ,

such as one who pours wine, and one who burns the incense or the handful or the priests’ meal-offering, is liable for it outside; which is not so with all the services listed here, for they are not the completion of the service, but another service follows them .

We learned in the Mishna:

Before the Tabernacle was erected

the private altars were permitted, and the service was performed by the firstborn.

Rav Hana bar Rav Ketina was sitting before Rav Hisda, and Rav Hisda was sitting

and reciting

the verse said [Exodus 24:5] concerning the sacrifices they offered at Mount Sinai before the giving of the Torah: “

And he sent the young men of the children of Israel

and they offered up olot and slaughtered shelamim.” From his reciting the entire verse in one continuous unit, it is apparent that he interpreted it as meaning that the firstborn were the ones who offered the sacrifices.

He said to him

Rav Hana said to Rav Hisda:

This is what Rav Asi said: And they interrupted it!

From that day the service ceased to be performed by the firstborn, and from the giving of the Torah onward the priests served .

Rav Hisda considered

using the Mishna

to refute him

Rav Hana

from the Mishna,

for we learned in it that until the Tabernacle was erected the firstborn served, and their service did not cease before the giving of the Torah.

But before he raised the objection again,

he heard

Rav Hana

saying in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava: “The olah that Israel offered in the wilderness

before the giving of the Torah, as stated in the aforementioned verse, “And he sent the young men of the children of Israel,”

does not require flaying and cutting up,

but it is offered on the altar with its hide.

And therefore he did not raise his difficulty from the Mishna, but rather

he refuted him

Rav Hisda

from a baraita, which makes equal [the laws] in all of them,

from which a difficulty may be raised against all the words of Rav Hana:

For it was taught: Before the Tabernacle was erected, the private altars were permitted, and the service

was

by the firstborn, and everything

was

fit to be offered

on private altars:

domesticated animal, wild animal, and bird

[108], males and females, unblemished and blemished, pure—

but not impure.

And everything,

all the sacrifices

were offered

only

as olot.

And the olah that Israel offered in the wilderness required flaying and cutting up.

And gentiles,

even

at the present time are permitted to do so,

to offer on private altars everything stated above, for offering on private altars was not prohibited to them.

And from this baraita a difficulty may be raised against Rav Hana: both regarding what he said—that the service of the firstborn ceased with the giving of the Torah, whereas in the baraita we learned that they served until the Tabernacle was erected—and regarding the olah that they brought in the wilderness, for in the baraita we learned that it required flaying and cutting up, whereas Rav Hana said that it did not require flaying and cutting up?

And we answer:

It is a matter of tanna’im,

for tannaim disagreed regarding the law of service by the firstborn.

For it was taught:

It was said regarding restricting the people at Mount Sinai before the giving of the Torah:

“And also the priests who approach the Lord shall sanctify themselves.”

That is, the priests who are accustomed to approach the Lord and offer sacrifices shall sanctify themselves from ascending the mountain.

Rabbi Joshua ben Korha says: This is the separation of the firstborn.

For the “priests” mentioned in this verse are the firstborn, who were warned to separate themselves from the mountain. In accordance with him, the baraita holds that at the time of the giving of the Torah the service was still by the firstborn.

Rabbi says: This is the separation of Nadav and Avihu.

They were the priests who approached the Lord and were warned to separate themselves, for they had become priests for the service at Mount Sinai. In accordance with him, Rav Hana held that from Sinai onward the firstborn were no longer called “priests,” because from then the service was performed by priests.

And we raise a difficulty:

Granted, according to the one who says this is the separation of Nadav and Avihu, this is why it is written

when Nadav and Avihu died,

“This is what the Lord spoke, saying: Through those who are near to Me I shall be sanctified.”

And where did He speak? In the separation that was said to them at Mount Sinai, as it is written, “lest He break forth against them”; and since they were not careful to separate themselves from the Sanctuary when the Tabernacle was erected, He broke forth against them.

But according to the one who says this is the separation of the firstborn, where is it hinted

that Nadav and Avihu would die, which was told to Moses beforehand, and concerning which the verse said, “This is what the Lord spoke, saying: Through those who are near to Me I shall be sanctified”?

And we answer: The intention of the verse is to that which

is written

on the day Moses was commanded regarding the work of the Tabernacle:

“And I shall meet there with the children of Israel, and I shall be sanctified through My glory.” Do not read “through My glory,” but rather “through My honored ones.” This matter the Holy One, blessed is He, said to Moses,

and He hinted to him that on the day He would cause His Presence to dwell in the Tabernacle, He would be sanctified through His honored ones,

but he did not know

who the honored ones were

until the sons of Aaron died!

When the sons of Aaron died

and he knew that they were the honored ones,

he said to him

to Aaron:

“Aaron, my brother, your sons died only

in order

to sanctify the honor of the Omnipresent through them,”

to make known that He is awe-inspiring toward those who know Him, punishing the righteous for the few sins in their hands, and certainly the wicked. This is the meaning of the verse, “This is what the Lord spoke, saying: Through those who are near to Me I shall be sanctified,” for He said to Moses, “And I shall be sanctified through My glory,” that is, through My honored ones and those who are near to Me I shall be sanctified.

When Aaron knew that his sons were those known to the Omnipresent, he was silent and received reward for his silence. As it is stated, “And Aaron was silent,”

for this shows that he was silent [and the receiving of the reward: speech was uniquely addressed to him in the passage concerning those who drank wine, stated after that matter, for it was said only to him and not to Moses].

And likewise concerning David it says, “Be silent before the Lord and wait for Him,”

the explanation is:

Even though He causes slain ones to fall upon you, be silent! And likewise Solomon says, “A time to be silent and a time to speak.” Sometimes a person is silent and receives reward for the silence, and sometimes he speaks and receives reward for the speech.

And this is what Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: What is the meaning of that which is written, “God is awesome from Your sanctuaries”? Do not read “from Your sanctuaries,” but rather “from Your sanctified ones.”

And this is its explanation: When is He “awesome”?

When the Holy One, blessed is He, executes judgment

[that is, “God,” which is the attribute of judgment],

among His holy ones,

He

is feared, exalted, and praised,

through the fact that even from the righteous He exacts punishment.

And the Gemara returns to the words of Rav Hana, for indeed we find a source for his words that the service of the firstborn ceased at Sinai.

However,

there still

is a difficulty concerning the olah,

regarding what he said, that the wilderness olah does not require flaying and cutting up; and Rav Hisda raised a difficulty against him from what we learned in the baraita, that it did require flaying and cutting up?

And we answer:

It is a matter of two tannaim.

For it was taught: Rabbi Ishmael says: General principles were stated at Sinai, and details were stated at the Tent of Meeting.

According to him, only general principles of the laws of sacrifices were stated at Sinai, such as “An altar of earth you shall make for Me, and you shall slaughter upon it your olot,” but the details of their laws, such as flaying and cutting up, were stated later at the Tent of Meeting. It follows that according to Rabbi Ishmael, the wilderness olah that was at Sinai had not yet been required to undergo flaying and cutting up, and Rav Hana holds in accordance with Rabbi Ishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: General principles and particulars were stated at Sinai, repeated in the Tent of Meeting, and stated a third time in the plains of Moab

when Moses recited the repetition of the Torah to them; and according to his words, the wilderness burnt offering requires flaying and dismemberment. And this is the reason of the tanna of the beraita who says that it requires flaying and dismemberment, because these laws had already been stated at Sinai .

The Master said: All are fit to be offered

an animal, a wild animal, and a bird, etc.

And we raised an objection:

From where are these matters

that everything is fit to be offered on a bama?

And we explain:

Rav Huna said: For the verse says, “And Noah built an altar to the Lord, and he took from every pure animal and from every pure bird,”

we learn from here that

animal and bird

are offered,

as its plain meaning indicates,

and it follows that we also learn that a

wild animal

is offered, because a wild animal

is indeed included within the category of animal.