Zevachim 116a — the Talmud in English

Males and females, unblemished and blemished

From where [do we know] that they may be offered on a bama?

For the Master said:

Unblemishedness and maleness

are stated only regarding a sacrifice

of an animal,

that the sacrifice must be unblemished and male,

but unblemishedness and maleness do not apply to birds,

rather, even blemished animals and females are valid for them.

And it was likened

in this verse

an animal to a bird,

to tell you that on a bama, even blemished animals and females are valid for offering.

And specifically

unblemished and blemished

may be offered on a bama,

to exclude one lacking a limb, which may not

be offered.

For Rabbi Elazar said: From where [do we know] that one lacking a limb was prohibited

from being offered on a bama

for the descendants of Noah?

The verse says

in the command of the Holy One, blessed is He, to Noah to bring [animals] into the ark,

“And from every living thing, from all flesh

you shall bring into the ark

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

And from here [it follows] that for the descendants of Noah, one lacking a limb is prohibited for offering; therefore He commanded him not to bring them when they lacked a limb, so that he would be able to offer from them when he emerged from the ark.

And we raise an objection:

But perhaps that

that verse comes

to exclude a tereifa

specifically, so that he should not bring it into the ark, and it did not come to exclude one lacking a limb?

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

that is derived from “to preserve living seed.”

That is to say, specifically a living creature that can reproduce, whereas a tereifa does not give birth.

And we raise an objection:

This works according to the one who says that a tereifa does not give birth. But according to the one who says that a tereifa does give birth, what can be said?

For a tereifa was not excluded by “to preserve living seed”; if so, the exclusion is needed for a tereifa, and how will we know to exclude one lacking a limb?

And we answer:

Does the verse not say

“you shall bring into the ark to preserve”

“with you,”

and this implies

those similar to you

you shall bring, so that they should not be tereifa, just as you are not a tereifa; and the verse “from every living thing” remains to exclude one lacking a limb .

And there is still room to consider:

But perhaps Noah himself was a tereifa?

And if so, he could bring a tereifa into the ark .

And we answer: “

“Unblemished” is written concerning him

concerning Noah, implying that he was not a tereifa.

And we object:

But perhaps “

unblemished” does not mean whole in body, but rather that he was

unblemished in his ways

humble and patient?

And we answer: “

“Righteous” is written concerning him

concerning Noah, which implies from this that he was unblemished in his ways; and “unblemished” must therefore come to say that he was not a tereifa.

Yet it can still be objected:

But perhaps

this is what it means: “

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

It is still possible to say that Noah was a tereifa, and the verse “from every living thing” is still needed to exclude a tereifa; from where, then, do we know to exclude one lacking a limb?

And we answer: The source that he did not bring a tereifa is learned from “with you”—“those similar to you.”

And one cannot object, “Perhaps Noah himself was a tereifa?” because

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

that is, “Bring a tereifa into the ark, whereas animals

that are whole you shall not bring in?”

Rather, necessarily Noah was not a tereifa, and he was warned to bring only those similar to him—that is, an animal that is not a tereifa .

And we raise an objection:

And since we derive

to exclude a tereifa

from “with you,” “

“to preserve living seed”—why do I need it?

And we answer:

Lest you say

if “to preserve living seed” had not been stated, I would say that “with you” does not come to say that they should be similar to you, but rather

“with you”

means that the Holy One, blessed is He, informed him that the coming of the animals into the ark was for Noah’s honor, to be for him

merely for companionship,

and the reason he should not bring a tereifa is that it would not live with him in companionship for an entire year. But he could bring

even an old animal, even a sterile one; it teaches us

that the living creatures came into the ark in order “to preserve living seed,” and not for companionship. Necessarily, the verse “with you” was stated to teach that they should be among those similar to you, to exclude a tereifa.

The Master said:

all are valid to be offered,

the pure, but not the impure [for Noah offered only from the pure] .

[as Noah offered only from the pure animals].

And we raise an objection:

Were there impure and pure animals at that time

in the time of Noah, before the giving of the Torah? And how could he be told to take specifically from “the pure animal”?

And we answer:

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nahmani said in the name of Rabbi Yonatan:

the pure ones that Noah took were

from those with which no transgression had been committed

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

And we object:

How did they know

with which of them a transgression had been committed?

And we answer:

As Rav Hisda said: He passed them

Noah

before the ark. Every one that the ark admitted was certainly pure. Those that the ark did not admit were certainly impure 125 .

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

Those entering” implies that all

those entering came of their own accord,

and from this Noah knew that those that came seven at a time were the pure ones, while those that came two at a time were the impure ones.

The Master said:

Before the Tabernacle was erected, the bamot were permitted, etc.

And all were offered as burnt-offerings.

And we raise an objection: Is it so that

burnt-offerings, yes,

whereas

peace-offerings, not

were offered on the bamot?

But it is written

regarding the sacrifices they offered at Mount Sinai before the giving of the Torah: “

And they slaughtered peace-offerings to the Lord, bulls.

And this was before the erection of the Tabernacle; it is thus proven that peace-offerings were offered then!?

And we answer:

Rather, say

in the beraita: “

For all, burnt-offerings were offered,

both for the descendants of Noah and for Israel, burnt-offerings were offered for them before the Tabernacle was erected; but with regard to peace-offerings, they differ:

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

But for Israel, peace-offerings were also offered from the time of the giving of the Torah; therefore it is stated concerning them, “And they slaughtered 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 offered for the descendants of Noah.

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

disagreed:

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

And we raised this question:

What is the reason of the one who says that peace-offerings were offered by the descendants of Noah?

As it is written: “And Abel, he also brought

from the firstborn

of his flock and from their fats.” What is something whose fat is offered upon the altar, but not all of it is offered upon the altar?

You must say that this is a peace-offering.

And it is proved that Abel offered a peace-offering, and from here is the source that peace-offerings were offered by the descendants of Noah.

What is the reason of the one who says that peace-offerings were not offered by the descendants of Noah?

As it is written: “Awake, north, and come, south,”

its explanation is:

shake yourself [from the expression “And the Lord shook Egypt”]

[from the expression, “And the Lord shook Egypt”]

a nation whose deeds are in the north,

that is, the descendants of Noah, who offer only burnt-offerings, which require slaughtering on the north side,

and come

to the King Messiah,

a nation whose deeds are in the north and in the south,

that is, Israel, who offer burnt-offerings and peace-offerings, which do not require the north.

And we challenge this:

But, Master,

according to the one who says, “Peace-offerings were not offered by the descendants of Noah,” according to his view

also

there is a difficulty:

is it not written

concerning Abel

“and from their fats,”

which implies that he offered a peace-offering, as above?

And we answer: According to his view, the explanation of “from their fats” is:

from the choicest [from the select ones]

[from the best]

of theirs.

But in fact they were burnt-offerings.

And we challenge this:

But, Master,

according to the one who says that peace-offerings were offered by the descendants of Noah, according to his view

also

there is a difficulty:

is it not written, “Awake, north,”

and we expound this specifically with regard to burnt-offerings, as above?

And we answer:

That verse is written with regard to the gathering of the exiles.

And this is its explanation: Awake, northern wind, and come, southern wind, to gather the exiles scattered among you.

And we challenge the one who says that peace-offerings were not offered by the descendants of Noah:

But is it not written: “And Moses said: You too shall place in our hands slaughterings and burnt-offerings, and we shall perform [them] for the Lord our God”?

And “slaughterings” implies peace-offerings, and before the giving of the Torah they were all subject to the law of descendants of Noah; thus it follows that descendants of Noah offered peace-offerings?

And we answer:

“Slaughterings”

these are not peace-offerings, but the expression refers to slaughtering, and this is what Moses said to Pharaoh: that he should give them animals that they would slaughter

for eating, and burnt-offerings

he should give

for offering.

And we further challenge that same one who says:

But is it not written: “And Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt-offering and slaughterings,”

and we would have said that Jethro was before the giving of the Torah, and nevertheless he offered slaughterings, that is, peace-offerings

Maharsha. And we answer:

Jethro was after the giving of the Torah

and he converted, and he brought peace-offerings according to the law of Israel .

And we challenge:

This works according to the one who says that Jethro was after the giving of the Torah. But according to the one who says that Jethro was before the giving of the Torah, what is there to say?

How did he offer peace-offerings, since the descendants of Noah did not offer peace-offerings?

For it was stated: The sons of Rabbi Hiyya and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi

disputed:

One said: Jethro was before the giving of the Torah. And one said: Jethro was after the giving of the Torah.

And we answer:

According to the one who says that Jethro was before the giving of the Torah,

necessarily

he holds that the descendants of Noah offered peace-offerings,

for according to his view Jethro was a descendant of Noah and he offered peace-offerings.

As a dispute between tannaim,

the tannaim disputed whether Jethro was before the giving of the Torah or after the giving of the Torah.

For it was taught: “And Jethro, priest of Midian, heard”—what report did he hear and come, and convert? Rabbi Joshua says: He heard of the war against Amalek, for it is written adjacent to it,

before the passage of “And Jethro heard”: “And Joshua weakened Amalek and his people by the sword.”

the passage

And according to his view, it follows that Jethro was before the giving of the Torah.

It follows, according to his view, that Jethro lived before the giving of the Torah.

Rabbi Eliezer Ha-Moda’i says: He heard of the giving of the Torah and came.

Thus, he was after the giving of the Torah.

For when the Torah was given to Israel, its voice

of the Holy One, blessed is He,

went from one end of the world to the other, and all the kings of the nations were seized by trembling in their palaces, and they recited song. As it is stated: “And in his palace

of every king

all of it says: Glory.”

And this refers to the time of the giving of the Torah, for at the beginning of the matter it is stated: “The voice of the Lord causes the does to tremble.”

They all gathered before the wicked Balaam and said to him: What is the voice of the multitude that we have heard? Perhaps a flood is coming upon the world?

And for this reason this voice was heard,

as it is stated: “The Lord sat at the flood.”

He said to them

Balaam:

“And the Lord sits as King forever,”

there will not be a flood; rather, the Lord will be King forever over His creatures, for

the Holy One, blessed is He, has already sworn that He will not bring a flood upon the world, as it is stated: “For this is like the waters of Noah to Me, that I swore.” 133 .

They said to him: Perhaps He will not bring a flood of water, but a flood of fire

He will bring? As it is stated: “For with fire the Lord executes judgment.”

He said to them: He has already sworn

the Holy One, blessed is He,

that He will not bring a flood at all, as it is stated: “And there shall no longer be a flood to destroy all flesh.”

They said to him:

“But then what is this voice of the multitude that we have heard?” He said to them: He has a precious good thing

with the Holy One, blessed is He,

in His treasure house,

and it is the Torah,

which had been hidden with Him for nine hundred and seventy-four

generations before the world was created, and He wished

now

to give it to His children, as it is stated: “The Lord will give strength to His people,”

for the Torah is Israel’s stronghold, and from here is the voice of the multitude that you heard .

Immediately they all began and said: “The Lord will bless His people with peace.”

Rabbi Eliezer says: He heard of the splitting of the Red Sea and came

[and if so, Jethro was before the giving of the Torah],

as it is stated: “And it came to pass, when all the kings of the Amorites ...

...

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

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 .

And we raised this question:

What is different there

with the kings of the Amorites,

that it is written, “And there was no longer any spirit in them,” and what is different here

with Rahab the harlot,

that it is written, “And there no longer arose any spirit in a man”?