Zevachim 25b — the Talmud in English

Rav Hisda said in the name of Rav Yirmeya bar Abba: The one who slaughters must place ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

the veins

of the neck of the animal, and likewise its two slaughtered signs,

into the vessel

in which he receives the blood, and through this he properly fulfills the law of receiving from the bullock, without an interruption between the vessel and the bullock. And the intention is not that he should place the veins inside the walls of the vessel, for it is impossible to do so, but rather that he should place them above the vessel, opposite its airspace, and not at its side, because the airspace at its side interrupts between the bullock and the vessel, and here there is no receiving from the bullock, but from the airspace.

It was also stated: Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: The veins must see

the

airspace

of the

vessel,

that is, what we said: he should place them above the vessel.

Rav Asi asked Rabbi Yohanan:

If

the

priest

was receiving

the blood in a basin,

and the bottom of the basin was split,

that its bottom broke

before

he had time to

bring

the

blood to the airspace

of the walls of the basin, and it was still opposite its airspace from above, and since the bottom of the basin broke, the blood spilled onto the floor,

what

is its law?

Is the state of the blood when it is in the

airspace

of the vessel from above, even though

its end is not to come to rest

in the vessel, since its bottom is destined to fall before the blood comes to rest inside it,

considered as at rest

in the vessel

is

and it is considered that the blood was received in the vessel, and afterward the blood spilled from the vessel onto the floor, and it is valid?

Or

shall it be said:

it is not considered as at rest,

and it is not considered that the blood was received in the vessel, and it turns out that it spilled directly from the neck of the animal onto the floor, and it is disqualified?

And in a case in which the blood reached the airspace of the basin, but did not have time to come to rest on its bottom before it broke, Rav Asi did not raise the uncertainty, since once the blood entered between the walls of the basin, it is considered receiving, and it need not come to rest on its bottom.

He said to him

Rabbi Yohanan to Rav Asi:

You have learned its answer,

we learned the solution to this problem in a beraita taught concerning the consecration of the waters of purification:

As it was taught: The Torah said that in order to consecrate the “waters of purification” [in which they mix the ashes of the burning of the red heifer, and sprinkle them upon those impure through a corpse to purify them], one must receive “living water into a vessel.” That is, one must receive the spring water, called “living water,” directly from the source of the water’s flowing into a vessel intended to receive the water for the purpose of consecrating the waters of purification; and if he draws the water or receives it in a vessel not for the purpose of consecrating the waters of purification, the water becomes disqualified.

Therefore, a

barrel placed beneath the spout

of a spring, a channel of spring water that pours water from the height of a steep mountain over a distance, and the barrel was not placed there for the purpose of consecrating the waters of purification, the

water that

came

inside it

between the walls of the barrel, even though it did not come to rest on its bottom,

and

likewise water

that is outside it,

which reached opposite its airspace from above,

is disqualified

for the consecration of the waters of purification, and it is not effective to place another vessel inside it or above it in order to receive the water for the purpose of consecrating the waters of purification.

For these waters, already while they are in the airspace, are considered as resting in the barrel; and since the barrel was not placed there for the purpose of consecrating the waters of purification, the water is no longer considered “living water,” but is like water that was placed in a barrel not for the purpose of consecration for the waters of purification. Therefore, even if he now places another vessel there, or holds it in his hand for the purpose of receiving the waters of purification, the water is disqualified, because it is considered like water that was placed in the barrel not for the purpose of consecration.

And from here Rabbi Yohanan proved that something found opposite the airspace of a vessel from above is considered as resting in the vessel.

And the beraita continues: However, if

he joined its mouth,

he brought the mouth of the barrel close to beneath

the spout,

in such a manner that there is no distance of airspace [at the height of the spout] interrupting between its mouth below and the spout above it, only the

water that

came

inside it,

inside the airspace between its walls,

is disqualified,

since the water had already been received inside it not for the purpose of consecrating the waters of purification.

And

however, the water

that is outside it,

which is still found within the spout itself, although it is opposite its airspace from above,

is valid,

since the water has not yet left and separated from the spout, and it is not detached in the airspace, so that we should consider it as resting in the barrel beneath it.

And we object:

What is this!?

What proof is there from this beraita for Rav Asi’s problem? After all, he

asked him

from Rabbi Yohanan what is the law regarding

air whose end is not to come to rest,

such as when the bottom of the basin split, in which case the blood in the airspace was neither destined nor fit to come to rest in the basin, since it was damaged and was unfit for receiving,

and

if Rabbi Yohanan

resolved it for him

from the case of

air whose end is to come to rest, namely, the case of the barrel, for although in this case too the end of the water that did not come to rest in the barrel is not to come to rest, it is possible to consider it as resting in the barrel because it was fit to be at rest in it, since the barrel was whole and fit in itself to receive the water, were it not that this [other vessel] received it and prevented it from entering it.

namely, the case of the barrel, although in that case too the water ultimately did not come to rest in the barrel, it could be considered as though it had been placed in the barrel because it had been fit to come to rest there: the barrel was intact and inherently fit to receive the water, except that the stream received the water and prevented it from entering the barrel?

And we answer: Rav Asi

asked him about two matters:

A. Is air whose end is not to come to rest considered as at rest or not? B.

If you should say that air whose end is not to come to rest is not considered as at rest, what is the law concerning air whose end is to come to rest?

Is it considered as at rest or not? And Rabbi Yohanan proved from the beraita only concerning the second problem, that in the case of the barrel we learn that where its end is to come to rest, it is considered as at rest.

Rav Yosef teaches

the discussion between Rav Asi and Rabbi Yohanan

thus,

as we said.

Rav Kahana teaches

their words in a manner in which Rav Asi had not heard this beraita of the barrel, and for that reason, a

barrel

placed beneath the spout, the water outside it opposite its airspace,

he asked him

what the law is concerning receiving it for the sake of the waters of purification,

and he resolved it for him

Rabbi Yohanan from this beraita of the

barrel,

which says that it is disqualified.

Whereas

Rabba teaches

their words differently: Rav Asi

asked him about a barrel

as Rav Kahana said,

and he resolved it for him

Rabbi Yohanan, that one can learn this matter from receiving the blood in a

basin.

For, is it not so that

you acknowledge concerning a basin, that it is impossible for it

to receive the blood

without a spout

of the blood through the airspace opposite the basin!? For even if one slaughters opposite the airspace of the vessel, in such a manner that he brings the rim of the vessel close to the place of slaughter, the blood does not descend from the place of slaughter into the vessel except by streaming through the airspace from above across the width of the vessel and afterward descending into the vessel, and it follows that it descends from the airspace and not directly from the bullock, yet the Torah said: “Blood from the bullock shall he receive,” and not from the airspace; rather, necessarily you say that the state of the blood in the airspace is considered as at rest in the vessel, and from here you can learn concerning the barrel that air whose end is to come to rest is considered as at rest, and the water is disqualified for the waters of purification.

We learned there

in tractate Parah [6:4]: If a stream of water was descending from a crooked mountain, in such a manner that it was not descending into a stationary barrel, and he

placed

near the water his

hand or foot, or leaves of vegetables

that are fit for eating and contract impurity, and made them like a gutter,

so that

the

water should pass through them into the barrel

for the purpose of consecrating the waters of purification, these waters in the barrel

are disqualified.

Because the coming of these waters into the vessel was through something that contracts impurity. However, if he placed there

reed leaves or walnut leaves,

which are not fit for eating and do not contract impurity, then the water is

valid!

This is the principle: Something that contracts impurity,

if the water came through it into the vessel,

the water is disqualified.

But if it came through

something that does not contract impurity,

then the water is

valid.

And the Gemara discusses:

From where are these matters

that something that contracts impurity, which brings the water into being, disqualifies it?

And it explains:

For Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Abba: The verse says

Leviticus 11] “

Only a spring and a pit, a gathering of water, shall be pure,”

and from the word “shall be” they expound that

their coming into being

of waters that purify others, such as a ritual bath or the waters of purification, must be

through purity!

That is, when you bring them into being as a ritual bath or holy waters, you must bring them into being through something that does not contract impurity.

Rabbi Hiyya said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: This is to say,

this law, which disqualifies water in the airspace when the water passed into the vessel through the placement of his hand, teaches that something found in the

airspace of a vessel is

as

considered at rest in the vessel.

For the water did not descend and flow from his hand directly into the barrel, immediately and without interruption; rather, through the placement of his hand, the water streamed and came into the airspace above the barrel, and from there it passed in a stream across its width, into it. And if you say that what is found above the airspace of the vessel is not considered as at rest in the vessel, it follows that the water entered the vessel from the airspace and not from his hand, and it should not thereby become disqualified [for if a person places his hand into a stream of water, and the water continues to flow onward and afterward enters a vessel, the water would not thereby become disqualified]. Rather, necessarily, the airspace of a vessel is like the vessel; therefore, the transfer of the water from the person’s hand to the airspace above the barrel is considered like bringing it into the barrel, and it is done through his hand.

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba:

This is not a proof,

but perhaps

this halakha of one who placed his hand concerns

a

manner in which the flow of the water

trickles

directly from his hand into the sides of the barrel, and his hand was not raised above it.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said to him:

fool,

for the wording of the Mishna is: “He placed his hand

so that water would pass into the barrel,”

we learned.

And from the word “would pass” it is implied that the water did not fall and trickle from his hand directly into the barrel immediately; rather, through the placing of his hand, it passed into the barrel in a flow across its width from above.

And Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said:

That which we learned in the Mishna, that nutshells do not become impure,

this Mishna was taught on the basis of Rabbi Zadok’s testimony.

For we learned [in Eduyot 7:4]:

Rabbi Zadok testified concerning the flowing waters—

spring water—

which he caused to flow

and directed into the ritual bath

by

means of

nut shells,

which he made into a conduit and through which he directed the water into a vessel,

that they are fit

for immersion, since nutshells do not become impure, and the formation of the ritual bath was not accomplished through something that becomes impure. And thus he testified:

this was an incident in

a place called

Ohelaya, and the matter came before the Sages

the Sanhedrin,

in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, and they declared it fit.

Rabbi Zeira said that Rabbi Yohanan said: One who notches the ear of the bull

after slaughter, and it thereby becomes blemished,

and afterward received its blood, it is disqualified

the offering, because even at the time of receiving the blood the offering must be whole,

as it is stated [Leviticus 4], “

and he shall take from the blood of the bull,”

and from the letter heh of the word “the bull” they expound:

a bull that already existed!

That is, the bull must be whole at the time of receiving the blood, as it was at the time of slaughter.

And the Gemara discusses:

we find this with offerings of most sacred sanctity,

in which the verse was stated. But

offerings of lesser sanctity—from where do we derive

this law?

Rava said: It was taught:

It is stated concerning the Paschal offering, which is an offering of lesser sanctity [Exodus 12], “

a male lamb without blemish, in its first year,”

the verse teaches that it is necessary

that it be without blemish and in its first year.

However, this verse teaches only

at the time of slaughter,

for at the end of the preceding verse it is stated, “You shall slaughter it by the lamb,” which means slaughter, and adjacent to this the verse states, “a lamb without blemish”; therefore, we find only that it must be without a blemish and must be in its first year at the time of slaughter. But

with regard to receiving the blood and carrying it,

and likewise

with regard to sprinkling, from where

do we know that it must be without blemish and in its first year?

The verse says “

shall be,”

and we expound:

all its states of being,

its services of the Paschal offering,

shall be only with it without blemish and in its first year.

Abaye raised an objection to Rava

from that which was taught:

Rabbi Yehoshua says: All the offerings in the Torah

whose flesh and fats were lost or became impure before sprinkling,

if an olive-bulk of flesh or an olive-bulk of fat remained of them

alone—

he sprinkles the blood!

But if nothing at all remained of them, he does not sprinkle, because it is stated, “And you shall perform your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood”; the verse teaches that if there is no flesh, there is no blood!

And from here Abaye raises a difficulty against Rava, who holds that in all the services of the offering it must be whole, for there is no greater blemish than this—when only an olive-bulk of flesh remained of it—and nevertheless he sprinkles the blood [but there is no difficulty for Rabbi Zeira, because he said this only with regard to receiving the blood; it is difficult only for Rava, who expounded from the verse all the services].

Rava said to Abaye:

interpret it:

You must interpret the beraita that you brought, which expounds from the verse that all its states of being must be without blemish and in its first year as at the time of slaughter, only

with regard to “in its first year”,

with regard to the law of being in its first year, since the word “shall be” is written adjacent to it, meaning that if it entered its second year after slaughter, before its services were completed, it is disqualified. But with regard to being without blemish, it need be so only at the time of receiving the blood. And although the verse was not stated with regard to being without blemish, we can learn this law from offerings of most sacred sanctity: since there the Torah revealed, through the exposition “a bull that already existed,” this law of being without blemish at the time of receiving the blood, the same law applies to offerings of lesser sanctity.

And the Gemara wonders: Why do we need to include that it must be in its first year at the time of the other services, as at the time of slaughter? Surely, since at slaughter it was in its first year, it is impossible that at the other services it should not be in its first year:

and is there anything that at the time of slaughter

is

in its first year,

and

at the time of carrying and sprinkling

will be

in its second year!?

And we answer:

Rava said: This is to say that hours disqualify in consecrated offerings!

That is, with regard to “in its first year,” stated concerning consecrated offerings, even the hours of the offering are counted; and if it was born today at the ninth hour and in the following year it was slaughtered at that same hour, it is forbidden to sprinkle its blood at the tenth hour, since its year has already passed. And the reason is that it is stated concerning it, “in its year,” and we expound: its own year, and not a year according to the reckoning of the world. Therefore, even though the reckoning of the world is from Tishrei, with regard to an offering its year must be counted from the day it was born, from one time of day to the corresponding time of day at which it was born.

Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Elazar said:

If the offering-animal was standing while

it was inside

the courtyard,

and its legs were outside

the courtyard, and

he cut off

its legs,

and afterward slaughtered it, it is fit.

Because the blood of the legs that were standing outside, although it became disqualified as yotzei, did not mix with the blood in the sprinkling vessel [and below we raise the difficulty: Why is it not disqualified as a blemished animal?]