Zevachim 116a (קטז.) — the Talmud in English

Males and females, unblemished and blemished

from where is it derived that they may be sacrificed on a bama?

As the master said:

“Unblemished and male”

is stated only with regard to

an animal

that the offering must be unblemished and male,

but the requirements of being unblemished and male do not apply to birds,

rather, blemished animals and females are also fit for sacrifice on them.

And an animal was juxtaposed

in this verse

to a bird,

to tell you that on a bama, blemished animals and females are also fit for sacrifice.

But specifically

unblemished and blemished animals

may be sacrificed on a bama,

to exclude an animal lacking a limb, which may not

be sacrificed.

As Rabbi Elazar said: From where is it derived that an animal lacking a limb was prohibited

from being sacrificed on a bama

for the descendants of Noah?

The verse states

in the command of the Holy One, blessed be He, to Noah to bring animals into the ark,

“And of every living thing, of all flesh

you shall bring into the ark.”

The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Noah: Bring an animal whose principal limbs are alive!

From here it is derived that for the descendants of Noah, an animal lacking a limb is prohibited as an offering. Therefore He commanded Noah not to bring them when they were lacking a limb, so that he would be able to sacrifice them after leaving the ark.

We raise a difficulty:

Perhaps that

verse

comes specifically to exclude a tereifa,

so that Noah should not bring it into the ark, and it does not come to exclude an animal lacking a limb?

We answer: There is no need to exclude a tereifa, because

that is derived from “to preserve seed.”

That is, only a living creature capable of reproducing was to be brought, whereas a tereifa cannot reproduce.

We raise a difficulty:

This works according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot reproduce. But according to the one who says that a tereifa can reproduce, what can be said?

A tereifa was not excluded by “to preserve seed,” and if so, the exclusion is needed for a tereifa; how, then, do we know that an animal lacking a limb is excluded?

We answer:

The verse says,

“Bring into the ark, to preserve alive

with you,”

which indicates:

“those similar to you”

you shall bring—those that are not tereifot, just as you are not a tereifa. Thus, the phrase “of every living thing” remains available to exclude an animal lacking a limb.

There is still room to argue:

Perhaps Noah himself was a tereifa?

If so, he could bring a tereifa into the ark.

We answer:

“Unblemished” is written concerning him

concerning Noah, indicating that he was not a tereifa.

We object:

Perhaps the word

“unblemished” does not mean physically whole; rather, he was

“unblemished in his ways,”

humble and patient?

We answer:

“Righteous” is written concerning him

concerning Noah, which indicates that “unblemished in his ways” is expressed by the word “righteous”; therefore, “unblemished” must necessarily teach that he was not a tereifa.

The difficulty nevertheless remains:

Perhaps

this is what the verse means:

“Unblemished” in his ways, “righteous” in his deeds?

It would still be possible to say that Noah was a tereifa, and the verse “of every living thing” is still needed to exclude a tereifa. From where, then, do we know that an animal lacking a limb is excluded?

We answer: The source that Noah did not bring a tereifa is derived from “with you”—those similar to you.

And one cannot object that perhaps Noah himself was a tereifa, because

if it would enter your mind that Noah himself was a tereifa, would the Merciful One have said to Noah, “Bring in those like you,”

meaning, bring a tereifa into the ark, while

you shall not bring in whole animals?

Rather, it is necessarily the case that Noah was not a tereifa, and he was instructed to bring only those similar to him—that is, animals that were not tereifot.

We raise a difficulty:

And once we derive

the exclusion of a tereifa

from “with you,” why do we need

“to preserve seed”?

We answer:

It might have been said

that had “to preserve seed” not been written, I would have said that “with you” does not mean that the animals must be similar to you, but rather

“with you”

means that the Holy One, blessed be He, informed him that the animals’ entry into the ark was for Noah’s honor, so that they would be

merely companions

for him, and that the reason he should not bring a tereifa was that it would not live alongside him as a companion for an entire year. But he could bring

even an old animal or even a sterile animal; this teaches us

that the living creatures came into the ark in order “to preserve seed,” not to serve as companions. Necessarily, then, “with you” teaches that they were to be similar to him, excluding a tereifa.

The master said:

all are fit to be sacrificed,

the pure, but not the impure

[since Noah sacrificed only from the pure animals].

We raise a difficulty:

Were there impure and pure animals at that time,

in the time of Noah, before the Giving of the Torah? How, then, could he be told to take specifically from “the pure animal”?

We answer:

Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said:

The pure animals that Noah took were

those among which no transgression had been committed,

meaning that they had neither mated with another species nor been mated with by another species.

We object:

How did they know

which of them had been involved in a transgression?

We answer:

As Rav Ḥisda said: He passed them

Noah

before the ark. Any that the ark received, it was known that it was pure; any that the ark did not receive, it was known that they were impure 125 .

Rabbi Abbahu said: The verse says, “And those entering, male and female.”

The expression “those entering” implies that

all those entering came of their own accord.

From this Noah knew that those which came in groups of seven were the pure animals, while those which came in pairs were the impure animals.

The master said:

before the Tabernacle was erected, the bamot were permitted, and so on;

and all were sacrificed as burnt-offerings.

We raise a difficulty: Does this mean that

burnt-offerings, yes,

but

peace-offerings, no,

were not sacrificed on bamot?

But it is written

concerning the offerings brought at Mount Sinai before the Giving of the Torah:

“And they sacrificed peace-offerings to the Lord—bulls.”

This took place before the Tabernacle was erected, proving that peace-offerings were sacrificed at that time!?

We answer:

Rather, say

that the beraita means:

“For all, burnt-offerings were sacrificed,”

both for the descendants of Noah and for Israel. Burnt-offerings were sacrificed for them before the Tabernacle was erected. However, they differed with regard to peace-offerings:

for the descendants of Noah, burnt-offerings, yes; peace-offerings, no.

But peace-offerings were also sacrificed for Israel from the time of the Giving of the Torah. Therefore it says concerning them, “And they sacrificed peace-offerings,” since Israel had already been chosen at the time of the Giving of the Torah. And this is

according to the one who says that peace-offerings were not sacrificed for the descendants of Noah.

For it was stated: Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina

disagreed:

one said: Peace-offerings were sacrificed by the descendants of Noah; and one said: Peace-offerings were not sacrificed by the descendants of Noah 127 .

And even Rahab the prostitute said to Joshua’s messengers: “For we have heard what the Lord did to the waters of the Red Sea.” 137 .