diff --git "a/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json" "b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json" new file mode 100644--- /dev/null +++ "b/json/Mishnah/Modern Commentary on Mishnah/English Explanation of Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim/English/Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp.json" @@ -0,0 +1,655 @@ +{ + "language": "en", + "title": "English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim", + "versionSource": "http://learn.conservativeyeshiva.org/mishnah/", + "versionTitle": "Mishnah Yomit by Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "status": "locked", + "license": "CC-BY", + "shortVersionTitle": "Dr. Joshua Kulp", + "actualLanguage": "en", + "languageFamilyName": "english", + "isBaseText": true, + "isSource": true, + "isPrimary": true, + "direction": "ltr", + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה זבחים", + "categories": [ + "Mishnah", + "Modern Commentary on Mishnah", + "English Explanation of Mishnah", + "Seder Kodashim" + ], + "text": { + "Introduction": [ + "Tractate Zevahim is the first tractate in Seder Kodashim, most of which deals with sacrificial laws and other various laws governing the Temple. Zevahim deals with animal and bird sacrifices, with what disqualifies them and what happens when they are sacrificed outside of the Temple. There are seven types of sacrifices which I shall list here. Some offerings are mandatory and some are voluntary, some are communal and some are individual, and both of these distinctions are critical. Below I will list them by their Hebrew name and by an attempt at translating that name into English. However, throughout my translation and commentary I will refer to them mostly by their Hebrew name, in order to encourage the reader to learn them in a version closer to the original. 1. Olah, the wholly burnt offering. This is also sometimes called a “holocaust” but for obvious reasons, I won’t be using that translation. The olah can either be a mandatory offering, such as the tamid, the daily sacrifices (Numbers 28:1-8) or the musaf, additional offering (Numbers 28: 9ff) or a voluntary offering (Leviticus 1). There are many other mandatory types of the olah. The olah is sometimes a beast and sometimes a bird. 2. Hatat, the sin offering, also sometimes translated as a cleansing offering. The main type of hatat is one that is brought to atone for an unintentional sin (Leviticus 4:1-5). There are also hataot (the plural of hatat) brought on the festivals (Numbers 28: 15ff). There are several other types of hataot as well. The hatat is sometimes a beast and sometimes a bird. 3. Asham, guilt offering. This is brought by robbers, people who made illicit use of Temple property, and by several others (Leviticus 5:14-26; 19:20-22). The asham, the hatat and the olah are all considered “holy of holies” which means that they are eaten entirely by priests within the Temple confines. 4. Shelamim, well-being or peace offering. This is generally an individual offering, either voluntary or mandated, with the exception of the two lambs brought on Shavuot (Leviticus 23:19) which are a communal offering. The todah, or thanksgiving offering, is considered a type of shelamim (Leviticus 7:11ff). 5. Bechor, the first-born animal. There is an entire tractate devoted to the bechor, so we will deal with it there. 6. Maaser behemah, the animal tithe (Leviticus 27:32). This subject is also covered in Tractate Bechorot. 7. Pesah, the passover lamb. This sacrifice is covered in Tractate Pesahim.", + "There are four steps that are essential and are covered extensively concerning in the sacrifice of a beast: 1) the slaughter (shechitah); 2) collecting the blood from the animal’s neck in a vessel; 3) bringing the blood to the altar; 4) spilling the blood on the altar. When it comes to the slaughter of the bird sacrifices that are two main steps: 1) the plucking off of its head (melikah); 2) the squeezing out of its blood. " + ], + "": [ + [ + [ + "Introduction\nToday’s mishnah discusses sacrifices that are offered by the priest with the intent of their being a different type of sacrifice from that which the person bringing them intended them to be. For instance a shelamim (peace offering) is offered with the intent of its being an olah (burnt offering). There are two issues at stake: 1) Does the owner get the credit for having brought the sacrifice? 2) Can the sacrifice even be eaten?", + "All sacrifices slaughtered not in their own name are valid, except that they do not count in fulfilling their owners’ obligation, with the exception of the pesah and the hatat (sin-. For most sacrifices, if the priest offering them thinks that he is offering a different sacrifice than he is really supposed to be offering, the sacrifice is still valid. This means that its blood can be spilled on the altar and the sacrifice can be eaten by those who would have been able to eat it had it been offered properly. However, the sacrifice does not count as far as fulfilling the obligation of its owner. Thus if the owner was obligated to bring an olah, for instance, and it was sacrificed with the intent of it being another sacrifice, the owner must bring another olah in its place. The exception to this is the pesah and the hatat. If either of these two sacrifices is offered with the intent of its being a different type of sacrifices, not only does it not count for the owner who brought it, it is completely disqualified. Its blood cannot be spilled on the altar, nor can it be eaten.", + "[This is true for] a pesah in its proper time and a hatat at all times. The pesah is only disqualified if it is slaughtered with the wrong intent at the time that it is supposed to be slaughtered, on second half of the day on the fourteenth of Nissan. If it is slaughtered on the wrong day, for the wrong purpose, then paradoxically, it is valid, although it would obviously not count for its owner. Its as if the mishnah is saying that in this case, two negatives can make a positive. When it comes to the hatat, there is no specific time in which it must be offered. Therefore, no matter when it is offered, if the intention is for the wrong sacrifice, it is disqualified.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: also the asham (guilt-. [This is true for] a pesah in its proper time and a hatat and an asham at all times. Rabbi Eliezer said: the hatat comes on account of sin, and the asham comes on account of sin: just as a hatat [slaughtered] not in its own name is invalid, so the asham is invalid if [slaughtered] not in its own name. Rabbi Eliezer argues that the same rule that applies to the hatat applies to the asham, also a sacrifice brought to atone for sin. If it is slaughtered for the sake of it being a different sacrifice, it is disqualified." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah continues to deal with sacrifices offered “not for their own name”, meaning in order for them to be different from what they were supposed to be.", + "Yose ben Honi says: [Sacrifices] slaughtered in the name of a pesah or a hatat are invalid. Yose ben Honi points out the mirror image rule to that which we learned in yesterday’s mishnah. There we learned that if a pesah or a hatat were offered with the wrong intent, they are disqualified. Here we learn that if a different sacrifice is offered with the intent of its being a pesah or a hatat it is disqualified. Concerning the pesah, this must be on the fourteenth of Nissan, the only day that the pesah can be offered. The hatat rule is true any time.", + "Shimon the brother of Azariah says: if one slaughtered them under a higher designation than their own they are valid; under a lower designation than their own, they are invalid. How so? If one slaughtered most sacred sacrifices under the designation of lesser sacrifices, they are invalid; [but] if one slaughtered lesser sacrifices under the designation of most sacred sacrifices, they are valid. Shimon the brother of Azariah (an unusual way of referring to someone) has a different rule. The sacrifices are divided into two main groups most sacred sacrifices (hatat, asham and olah) and lesser sacrifices (shelamim, pesah, bekhor and tithe). If the sacrifice is a lesser sacrifice and it is offered with the intent of its being a higher sacrifice then it is valid. However, if it is a most sacred sacrifice and it is offered with the intent of it being a lesser sacrifice, then it is invalid because he has reduced its sanctity.", + "If one slaughtered a bekhor or a tithe in the name of a shelamim, it is valid, but if one slaughtered a shelamim in the name of a bekhor or tithe, it is invalid. Technically, the bekhor (firstling), the tithe and shelamim are all lesser sacrifices. However, we see here that the sanctity of the bekhor and the tithe is actually lower than that of the shelamim. Thus if a priest offers a bekhor or tithe (lesser sanctity) in order for it to be a shelamim, then the sacrifice is valid (and can be eaten) because he has raised its sanctity. But if he offers a shelamim with the thought that it is a tithe or bekhor, then it is invalid." + ], + [ + "A pesah that was slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth [of Nisan] under a different designation: Rabbi Joshua declares it valid, just as if it had been slaughtered on the thirteenth. Ben Batera declares it invalid, as if it had been slaughtered in the afternoon. The pesah must be offered on the fourteenth of Nisan, during the second half of the day. It cannot be offered in the morning, at least not according to most opinions. Therefore, according to Rabbi Joshua, a pesah that was offered before it should have been offered, and was slaughtered for it to be a different sacrifice, can be eaten because we learned in mishnah one that a pesah that is slaughtered under a different name is only disqualified if it is slaughtered at the time when a pesah can be slaughtered. Ben Batera holds that the pesah can be slaughtered any time of the day on the fourteenth. Therefore, if one slaughters a pesah in the morning of the fourteenth under the name of a different sacrifice, then it is disqualified because it has been slaughtered when it could have counted as a pesah.", + "Said Shimon ben Azzai: I have a tradition from seventy-two elder[s] on the day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah] was placed in the academy, that all sacrifices which are eaten, though slaughtered under a different designation are valid, except that their owners have not fulfilled their obligation, except the pesah and the hatat. And ben Azzai added only the olah, but the sages did not agree with him. Shimon ben Azzai relates here a tradition that is very close to the tradition found in the beginning of mishnah one. There we learned that the two exceptional sacrifices that are disqualified if offered with the wrong intent are the pesah and the hatat. According to mishnah one, all other sacrifices are valid if slaughtered with the intent of their being different sacrifices. Shimon ben Azzai quotes this tradition as being true only for sacrifices that are eaten. This would not include the olah, which is wholly burnt. According to ben Azzai’s tradition, the olah is disqualified if it is slaughtered with the intent of it being a different sacrifice. The final line of the mishnah notes that ben Azzai added the olah to the pesah and hatat, but that the sages (whose opinion is found in mishnah one) did not agree with this tradition. Ben Azzai states that he received this tradition on the day that Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was appointed a member of the yeshiva (academy). This seems to be a famous day in rabbinic recollection and there is a significant amount of aggadah concerning the background to this appointment. The most expansive version of this aggadah is found in Bavli Berakhot 27b, where Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah is appointed head of the academy after Rabban Gamaliel is deposed. The historical accuracy of that legendary account is a bit suspect, but here in the Mishnah we can see that although we might not know exactly what happened that day, it was a memorable day, one which later rabbis used as a reference point." + ], + [ + "A pesah and a hatat which were slaughtered not in their own name, or he received [the blood], and carried it [to the altar] and sprinkled [it] not in their own name,
Or in their own name and not in their own name, or not in their own name and in their own name, they are disqualified.
What is the case of ‘in their own name and not in their own name’? In the name of it being a pesah [first] and [then] in the name of it being a shelamim.
‘Not in their own name and in their own name:’ in the name of a shelamim [first] and [then] in the name of a pesah.
For a sacrifice can be disqualified in [any one of] the four elements: slaughtering, receiving, carrying and sprinkling.
Rabbi Shimon declares it valid if carried [with the wrong intent], for Rabbi Shimon said: it is impossible [to have a valid sacrifice] without slaughtering, without receiving and without sprinkling, but it is possible without carrying. [How so]? One slaughters it at the side of the altar and sprinkles.
Rabbi Elazar says: if one goes where he needs to go, an [illegitimate] intention disqualifies [it]; where he doesn’t need to go, an [illegitimate] intention does not disqualify [it].
Section one: This section expands upon the halakhah that we learned in mishnah one, that a pesah or a hatat that were offered with the intent of their being a different sacrifice are disqualified. Here we learn two new halakhot. First of all, if any of the other essential parts of the sacrifice are done with the intent of the sacrifice being something else other than a pesah or a hatat, the sacrifice is invalid. The four essential elements of sacrifices are: slaughtering, receiving the blood, carrying it to the altar and sprinkling it on the altar.
Sections 2-4: The second new law we learn is that if one of these actions is done with the proper intent, but another of the actions is done with the improper intent, the sacrifice is invalid. The mishnah now illustrates this. If the sacrifice is supposed to be a pesah and it is first done in the name of it being a pesah and then later on the priest is confused and performs one of the later actions with the intent of it being a shelamim, the sacrifice is invalid. The same is true if at first he has the wrong intention and then when performing one of the later actions he has the correct intention. In either case the sacrifice is disqualified.
Section five: This supports what was stated above in section one any of the four essential aspects of the sacrifice can also serve as potential disqualifiers, if the intention is incorrect.
Section six: Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the statement in section five and holds that if the sacrifice’s blood is carried to the altar with the wrong intent, it is not disqualified because carrying is not essential to all sacrifices. Theoretically, one could slaughter a sacrifice right next to the altar and then sprinkle the blood without having to carry the blood from the point of slaughter to the altar.
Section seven: If the person is carrying the blood from the point at which he slaughtered it to the altar and while doing so he has the intention that it should be a different sacrifice, then the sacrifice is disqualified. However, if he slaughtered it next to the altar and received the blood in a vessel right there and then brought the blood elsewhere, an action that he did not need to do, and while carrying it he intended to offer it as another sacrifice, then the sacrifice is not disqualified, at least according to Rabbi Elazar. This carrying of the blood was unnecessary and therefore his intents at that moment do not factor into determining the validity of the sacrifice." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "All sacrifices whose blood was caught by a: non-priest, an onen, a tebul yom, one lacking [priestly] vestments, one lacking sacrificial atonement, one who had not washed his hands and feet, an uncircumcised [priest]; an unclean [priest]; one who was sitting, one who was standing on utensils or on an animal or on another’s feet, are disqualified.
If [the priest] caught [the blood] with his left hand, it is disqualified. Rabbi Shimon declares it valid.
If the blood was poured out on to the pavement and [the priest] collected it, it is disqualified.
If [the priest] put it [the blood] on the ramp [to the altar], [or on the altar, but] not against its base; if he applied [the blood] which should be applied below [the scarlet line] above [it] or that which should be applied above, below, or that which should be applied within [he applied] without, or that which should be applied without [he applied] within, it is invalid, but does not involve karet.
Section one: This is a list of people who cannot receive the blood of a sacrifice in a vessel, or carry it to the altar, or sprinkle it on the altar. Note that the mishnah does not say that these people cannot slaughter the animal. The laws regarding slaughtering the sacrifice are less strict. I shall explain each category one at a time:
Non-priest: only priests can perform these activities.
An onen: Someone who had one of their close relatives die is considered an onen on the day of the death.
A tebul yom: This is the word for an impure person who has immersed in a mikveh but before the end of the day (before the sun sets after he was made pure). See Leviticus 22:7. Believe it or not, there is an entire tractate in Seder Toharot devoted to this subject.
One lacking [priestly] vestments: A regular priest must wear four garments and the high priest must wear eight garments (see Yoma 7:5). Without the proper attire, the sacrifice is invalid.
One lacking sacrificial atonement: In certain cases, when one’s period of impurity is over he must bring a sacrifice. If the priest has not brought the required sacrifice, he cannot take part in the sacrificial worship.
One who had not washed his hands and feet: See Exodus 30:19.
An uncircumcised [priest]: See Ezekiel 44:9.
An unclean [priest]: one must be ritually pure to offer sacrifices.
One who was sitting, one who was standing on utensils or on an animal or on another’s feet, are disqualified: the sacrificial procedure must be performed while standing on the floor of the Temple’s courtyard, not sitting or standing on something else.
Section two: According to the first opinion, the blood must be caught in one’s right hand. Rabbi Shimon says it can be caught in the left hand.
Section three: The blood has a very specific place upon which it must be poured. It cannot be poured on the floor of the Temple, or on the ramp leading up to the Temple. It must be applied to the base of the altar. Sometimes the blood must be poured on the lower part of the base, which was separated by a crimson line from the upper part, and sometimes it must be poured on the upper part. The important thing is that the blood is poured on the part appropriate to that sacrifice. If it is not, the sacrifice is invalid. Similarly, sometimes the blood must be poured on the altar inside the Sanctuary (the Hekhal) or even within the Holy of Holies, and at other times it must be poured on the outer altar. What again is essential is that the blood of each sacrificed is poured on the altar upon which it is supposed to be poured. If it is not, the sacrifice is invalid.
Although this sacrifice is invalid, one who eats of its flesh is not liable for karet (a biblical penalty of great severity) unlike one who eats of one of the sacrifices disqualified in mishnah two or three. In those cases, when the animal was sacrificed with the wrong intent, eating its flesh was punished by the serious penalty of karet." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah begins to deal with the subject of a priest who slaughters a sacrifice with the intent of doing a subsequent activity at the wrong time or wrong place. The wrong intention disqualifies the sacrifice, but in different ways and with different consequences.", + "One who slaughters a sacrifice [intending]: To sprinkle its blood outside [the Temple] or part of its blood outside; To burn its innards or part of its innards outside; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh outside, Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of the fat-tail outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. In all of the cases in this section, the priest sacrifices the animal with the intent of doing one of the activities outside of the Temple. I’m not sure why he would do this, but the message is clear the priest must realize that all of the following are done in the Temple. A) All of the blood that needs to be sprinkled must be sprinkled within the Temple. B) The innards that are burned on the altar must be entirely burned within the Temple. C) The flesh of certain sacrifices must be eaten within the Temple. D) If the priest has the intention of doing any of these steps outside of the Temple, the sacrifice is disqualified. However, the transgression is not punished by karet. The reason probably is that this specific problem, sacrificing it with the intent of doing something with it outside of the Temple, is not directly addressed by the Torah. As we shall see, this is contrasted with “piggul” found in the next section, which is punished by karet.", + "[One he slaughters a sacrifice intending]: To sprinkle its blood or part of its blood the next day, To burn its innards or part of its innards on the next day; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh on the next day; Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of its fat-tail on the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth. In all of the cases here, the priest sacrifices the animal with the intent of doing something else with it after the time in which the animal must be eaten has expired. For some animals this is one day (until the next morning) and for some it is two days (until the morning after tomorrow). We shall discuss this issue more fully in chapter five. Here we learn that if the priest does any of the activities explained above with the intent of doing them after this time has expired, the animal is considered “piggul”, a word found in Leviticus 7:18. One who eats such a sacrifice is liable for karet, even if he eats it during the time when the sacrifice must be eaten. Note that this is a category different from “notar (remnant)” which is what the sacrifice is called if it is actually left over past the time when it must be eaten. This sacrifice is not actually “notar” rather it was sacrificed with the intent of making it notar. That is sufficient for it to be biblically prohibited." + ], + [ + "This is the general rule: anyone who slaughters or receives [the blood], or carries [it] or sprinkles [it] [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the sacrifice] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. This is the general rule that explains the details in mishnah two. If while performing one of the four essential activities he had the intent to eat or burn part of the sacrifice outside of the place where it must be eaten or burned, the sacrifice is invalid, but one who eats it is not punished by karet. This is not the “piggul” referred to in the Torah. In contrast, if the priest has the intent of eating or burning its innards on the altar after the time in which it must be eaten or burned, the sacrifice is “piggul” and one who eats of it is liable for karet, as we explained in yesterday’s mishnah.", + "Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law. The sprinkling of the blood onto the altar is what permits the sacrifice to be eaten. The word for “permit” in Hebrew is “mattir” so the blood is called the “mattir.” This section teaches that for the previous halakhot to hold true, the blood must have been properly sprinkled on the altar. This will be explained more fully in tomorrow’s mishnah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah explains the last line of yesterday’s mishnah.", + "How is the mattir offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered in silence, and received, or carried, or sprinkled, [intending to eat the sacrifice] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, and received, and carried and sprinkled in silence, or if one slaughtered, or received, or carried, or sprinkled [intending to eat] after its designated time. That is offering the mattir in accordance with the law. The case of a mattir offered in accordance with the law is a case in which one of the four activities was done with intent of eating it or burning it after it needs to be eaten or burned, and the rest of the activities were done correctly, meaning in silence. “Silence” means that the sacrifice was done without the improper intent. When one (or more of the activities were done with the intent of eating it after its designated time, and all of the other activities were done properly, then the sacrifice is piggul. The only improper element was the intent to eat it or burn its innards after its designated time.", + "How is the mattir not offered in accordance with the law? If one slaughtered [intending to eat] outside the designated place, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [with the intention of eating] after its designated time; Or if one slaughtered [intending to eat] after its designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated place, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat] outside its designated time. However, if while doing one of the activities he has the intention of eating or burning it outside its proper place and while doing another one he has the intention of eating it or burning it outside of its designated time, then the sacrifice is doubly invalid and one who eats it is not liable for karet. In other words, in order for it to be piggul it must be purely an error of improper time when improper place is mixed in, the sacrifice is still invalid, but one who eats it is not liable for karet.", + "If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; The pesah and hatat must be sacrificed with the intent of their being a pesah or hatat (see 1:1). If while performing one of these actions one has the intent of it being a different sacrifice (and thereby invalidates it) and then has the intent of eating or burning it after the proper time, the sacrifice does not become piggul because there was another improper intent mixed in with the intent of eating it at the wrong time.", + "If one slaughtered the pesah or the hatat for the sake of something else, and received, carried, and sprinkled [intending to eat them] after their designated time; Or if one slaughtered [them, intending to eat them] after their designated time, [and] received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else, or if one slaughtered, received, carried, and sprinkled for the sake of something else; This summarizes the general rule for something to become piggul, the improper intent is only to eat or burn it at the wrong time. If there is some other improper intent, the sacrifice is not piggul." + ], + [ + "[If one intended] to eat as much as an olive on the next day [and] as much as an olive on the outside its intended place, [or] as much as an olive outside its designated place [and] as much as an olive on the next day; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place; Half as much as an olive on the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside its designated place, [The sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. The priest performs the sacrifice with the intention of first eating part of it on the wrong day, and then he has the intention of eating part of it outside its designated place, or vice versa. Alternatively, he has one type of improper intention with half of an olive’s worth of the sacrifice and then another type of improper intention with the other half. Note in all of these cases he has mixed between the two types of improper intention wrong time and wrong place. The sacrifice is invalid, because the two half-olives combine since they were both offered with the wrong intention. However, in none of the cases is there karet for eating the sacrifice because the penalty of karet is only for piggul, and for something to be piggul, the problematic intent must be solely that of eating it after its designated time. Having the intent of eating it in the wrong place takes it out of the category of karet.", + "Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: where the [improper] intention of time precedes the [improper] intention of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [improper] intention of place precedes the [improper] intention of time, it is invalid and does not involve kareth. Rabbi Judah says that the order of the wrong intentions is critical. If the improper intention of time precedes the improper intention of place, then the sacrifice is piggul because the second improper intention does not affect the first improper intention. However, if the first improper intention is place and then he has an improper intention of time, the sacrifice is not piggul.", + "But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice] is invalid and does not involve karet. The sages, whose opinion is found in section one, say that the order doesn’t matter. For something to be piggul, the improper intention must have been only that of time.", + "[If one intends] to eat half as much as an olive [after its intended time or outside its intended place] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is valid, for eating and burning do not combine. In section one we learned that if one has one type of improper intention with one half of an olive’s worth of meat and the other type of improper intention with the other half, then the two half-olives’ worth of meat join together to prohibit the sacrifice. Here we learn that if the priest intends to eat one half of an olive’s worth at either the wrong time or place and burn another half of an olive’s worth at either the wrong time or place, the two half-olives do not join together to create a prohibition. While two types of wrong intention can join together, improper intentions to do different things, burn and eat, do not join together." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn chapter two mishnah one we learned that only a fit priest can receive the blood, carry it to the altar and sprinkle it on the altar. Today we learn that anyone can slaughter the animal.", + "All unfit persons who slaughtered, their slaughtering is valid, for slaughtering is valid [even when performed] by non-priests, and by women, and by slaves, and by the unclean, even in the case of most-holy sacrifices, provided that unclean [persons] do not touch the flesh. The first action in the process of sacrificing an animal can be performed by anyone, and not necessarily just a male priest. This is true for all sacrifices, even most holy sacrifices. There is one caveat if an unclean person slaughters the animal, they must not touch the flesh. The animal is not susceptible to uncleanness but once it has been slaughtered, its flesh is.", + "Therefore they invalidate [the sacrifice] by an [illegitimate] intention. Since anyone can slaughter the animal, if such a person has an illegitimate intention he/she invalidates the sacrifice. In other words, since they can perform these actions, the same rules apply to them as apply to priests when performing the other three actions.", + "And in all of these cases, if they received the blood [in order to eat the sacrifice] after the prescribed time, or outside of the prescribed place, if there remains [in the animal] life-blood, a fit person should go back and receive the blood. Those people listed in section one cannot receive the blood of the sacrificed animal. Therefore, if they do receive the blood and while doing so have an illegitimate intention, it does not automatically render the sacrifice invalid. If there is still blood flowing from the animal’s neck, the life-blood, then a valid priest can come and receive the blood and bring it to the altar and thereby preserve the validity of the sacrifice." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nIn chapter two, mishnah one we learned that only a fit priest can receive the blood, carry it to the altar and sprinkle it on the altar. Today we learn that anyone can slaughter the animal.", + "All unfit persons who slaughtered, their slaughtering is valid, for slaughtering is valid [even when performed] by non-priests, and by women, and by slaves, and by the unclean, even in the case of most-holy sacrifices, provided that unclean [persons] do not touch the flesh. The first action in the process of sacrificing an animal can be performed by anyone, and not just a fit priest. This is true for all sacrifices, even most-holy sacrifices such as the hatat and the asham. There is one caveat if an unclean person slaughters the animal, they must not touch the flesh. The animal is not susceptible to uncleanness but once it has been slaughtered, its flesh is.", + "Therefore they invalidate [the sacrifice] by an [illegitimate] intention. Since anyone can slaughter the animal, even people who are unfit to perform the other three actions, if such a person has an illegitimate intention while slaughtering, he/she invalidates the sacrifice. In other words, since they can perform these actions, the same rules apply to them as apply to fit priests when performing the other three actions.", + "And in all of these cases, if they received the blood [in order to eat the sacrifice] after the prescribed time, or outside of the prescribed place, if there remains [in the animal] life-blood, a fit person should go back and receive the blood. Those people listed in section one cannot receive the blood of the sacrificed animal. Therefore, if they do receive the blood and while doing so have an illegitimate intention, it does not automatically render the sacrifice invalid. If there is still blood flowing from the animal’s neck, the life-blood, then a valid priest can still receive the blood and bring it to the altar and thereby preserve the validity of the sacrifice." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah we learn that at certain times a priest may perform one of the sacrificial actions in an invalid manner and yet may afterwards remedy the situation and thereby preserve the validity of the sacrifice.", + "If a fit person received [the blood] and gave [it] to an unfit person, he must return it to the fit one. A fit priest must receive the blood. Were an unfit person to receive it, the sacrifice would be rendered invalid. But if the fit priest receives the blood and then gives the vessel to an unfit person, the unfit person can give the vessel back to the fit priest and the sacrificial procedure can continue. The mere fact that an unfit person handled the vessel does not automatically render the sacrifice invalid.", + "If he received [the blood] in his right hand and transferred [it] to his left, he must return it to his right. As we learned in 2:1, all of the sacrificial actions must be performed with one’s right hand. If one received the blood with his right hand, but then transferred the vessel to his left, he can then transfer the vessel back to his right. This too has not rendered the entire procedure invalid.", + "If he received [it] in a sacred vessel and poured it into a secular [non-sacred] vessel, he must return it to the sacred vessel. The same structure works here. He must receive the blood with a sanctified vessel, but if he first receives it with a sanctified vessel and then pours it into a non-sacred vessel, all he has to do is pour the blood back into the sacred vessel and .", + "If he spilled it from the vessel on to the pavement and then collected it, it is fit. In 2:1 we learned that if the blood pours directly from the neck of the animal onto the floor and he doesn’t receive it in a vessel, the blood cannot be put back into the vessel. Here we learn that if the blood is first put into a sacred vessel, and then it spills onto the floor of the Temple, he can scoop it up and then use it to sprinkle on the altar.", + "If [the priest] applied it on the ascent [or on the altar], [but] not against [the altar’s] base; [or] if he applied what should be applied below [the scarlet line] above [it], or what should be applied above, below; or what should be applied within [he applied] without, or what should be applied without, within1 and life-blood is [still] available, a fit [priest] must receive [blood] anew. In all of these cases (these are the same cases mentioned in 2:1) the priest sprinkles the blood on the altar on a place where it should not be sprinkled. If he has no more life-blood then the sacrifice is not valid. But if he has other life-blood, he can go back, get the other life-blood and sprinkle that blood in the appropriate place." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah lists cases in which a person has an improper intention while sacrificing the animal but this improper intention does not render the sacrifice invalid.", + "If one slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten, or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid; But Rabbi Eliezer invalidates [the sacrifice]. Normally, having an intention to eat or burn something outside of the place or time it should be eaten or burned will invalidate a sacrifice. However, here he intends to burn or eat something that is not normally burned or eaten. Therefore, this improper intention does not render the sacrifice invalid. Rabbi Eliezer disagrees and holds that an improper intention even concerning that which is not normally eaten or burned will still render the sacrifice invalid.", + "[If he slaughters it intending] to eat what is normally eaten and to burn what is normally burned [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], [but] less than the size of an olive, it is valid. Here his improper intention was to do the action with less than an olive’s worth of the sacrifice, and therefore the sacrifice is still valid.", + "To eat half as much as an olive and to burn half as much as an olive [outside of the time or place the sacrifice must be eaten or burned], it is valid, because [intentions concerning] eating and burning do not combine. As we learned in 2:5, improper intentions with regard to eating a sacrifice and burning a sacrifice do not join together to add up to the requisite olive’s worth. Therefore, the sacrifice is still valid." + ], + [ + "One who slaughters the sacrifice [intending] to eat as much as an olive of the skin, or of the juice, or of the jelly, or of the hardened meat, or of the bones, or of the tendons, or of the horns, or of the hoofs, either after time or out of bounds, it is valid, and one is not liable on their account in respect of piggul, remnant, or uncleanness. This mishnah teaches that if one has an improper intention to eat a part of the sacrifice that is not normally eaten, then that does not render the sacrifice invalid. In addition, one who eats any of these things from a sacrifice that was offered with an improper intention has not transgressed the prohibition of “piggul.” If the sacrifice was “remnant,” meaning it was left over beyond the time in which it must be eaten, then one who eats these parts has not transgressed the prohibition of eating remnant. Finally, if these parts become impure or he is impure and he eats them, he has not transgressed the prohibition of eating impure sacrifices, or eating pure sacrifice while impure (see Leviticus 7:19-20). In short, when it comes to sacrificial eating laws, these parts of the animal do not count as “meat.”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with offspring, eggs and milk and their status vis a vis the sacrifice as a whole.", + "If one slaughters sacred animals [intending] to eat the fetus or the afterbirth outside [of the place or time where the animal must be eaten], he does not render it piggul. The fetus and the afterbirth are not considered integral parts of the sacrificial animal. Therefore, if one slaughters an animal with an improper intention concerning eating its fetus or afterbirth the sacrifice is not rendered invalid.", + "If one plucks off [the necks of] doves, [intending] to eat their eggs outside [of the place or time where the animal must be eaten], he does not render [them] piggul. Birds are slaughtered by having their heads plucked off. We will learn about this more later. Our mishnah teaches that if one has an improper intention concerning eating the eggs, this does not render the sacrifice invalid. The eggs are not part of the bird.", + "The milk of sacred animals or the eggs of doves one is not liable for eating them in respect of piggul, remnant, or uncleanness. The milk of a mammal and the eggs of a bird are not considered part of the animal in respect of sacrificial laws. Therefore, the laws of piggul, remnant and uncleanness do not apply to them see yesterday’s mishnah for a discussion of these three laws." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah we learn that usually only two types of illegitimate intentions can invalidate a sacrifice the intention of eating it outside the prescribed place of after the prescribed time. Other illegitimate intentions do not render the sacrifice invalid.", + "If he slaughtered it with the intention of leaving its blood or its innards for the next day, or of carrying them outside of their place: Rabbi Judah disqualifies [it], But the sages declare it valid. The person sacrificing had the intention of leaving the blood or the innards that must be burned on the altar for the next day, but he was not thinking that he would sprinkle the blood on the next day or burn the innards on the next day. Alternatively, he had the intention of taking the blood or innards to a place outside of where they must be spilled or burned, but not of offering them up there. According to Rabbi Judah this is sufficient to disqualify the sacrifice. Just as leaving them over for the next day or taking them out of their prescribed place disqualifies them, so too does thinking about doing such a thing. The rabbis however disagree. Since he did not have the intention of burning or eating after the prescribed time or outside the prescribed place, the sacrifice is not invalid.", + "[If he slaughtered it] with the intention of sprinkling [the blood] on the ascent, [or on the altar] but not against its base; or of applying below [the scarlet line] what should be applied above, or above what should be applied below, or without what should be applied within, or within what should be applied without; The mishnah now brings a long list of cases where a person has the intention of doing an action that will render the sacrifice invalid, but his intention is not to burn or eat the sacrifice after the prescribed time or outside the prescribed place. Section seven will state that in only of these cases the sacrifice is valid. The first list is the same as that found in 2:1 spilling the blood in the wrong place.", + "[Or with the intention] that unclean [persons] should eat it, [or] that unclean [priests] should offer it; The second wrong intention is giving it to an impure person, who cannot eat sacrificial meat.", + "[Or] that uncircumcised [persons] should eat it, [or] that uncircumcised persons should offer it; Uncircumcised men cannot eat sacrifices.", + "[Or with the intention] of breaking the bones of the pesah, or eating of it before it is roasted; The bones of the pesah cannot be broken and it must be eaten wholly roasted. See Exodus 12:9, 46.", + "Or of mingling its blood with the blood of invalid [sacrifices]; If the blood of a valid sacrifice is mixed with the blood of an invalid sacrifice, the sacrifice cannot be eaten.", + "[In all of these cases] it is valid, because an [illegitimate] intention does not disqualify [a sacrifice] except when it refers to after its time or outside its prescribed place, and [in the case of] a pesah and a hatat, [the intention to slaughter them] for the sake of their being a different sacrifice. In all of these cases the sacrifice is valid because his improper intention was not connected with eating or burning it outside the prescribed place or after the prescribed time, the improper intention that does render a sacrifice invalid. The only other improper intention that can render a sacrifice invalid is if the sacrifice is a pesah or a hatat and the person offering it sacrifices it thinking that they are other sacrifices (see 1:4)." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Bet Shammai says: any [blood] which is to be sprinkled on the outer altar, if [the priest] applied [it] with one sprinkling, he has made atonement, [and in the case of a hatat two applications, but Bet Hillel says: also the case of the hatat if the priest applied it with one sprinkling it atones When it comes to sacrifices offered on the outer altar, some require four sprinklings of blood, some two and some one (we will learn more about this in chapter five). Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel agree that for most of these sacrifices if he sprinkled the blood only one time atonement has been effected. They disagree with regard to the hatat. To Bet Shammai the hatat doesn’t atone without two applications of the blood, whereas Bet Hillel holds that one application is sufficient.", + "Therefore if he made the first application in the proper manner and the second [with the intention to eat the flesh] after the prescribed time, it atones. The previous section was all just an introduction. The consequence of this rule (that one application of blood is sufficient to atone, and for Bet Shammai two in the case of the hatat) is that if he made the first application of blood in a proper manner and the second with an improper intention, the sacrifice effects atonement and is valid. The second application was put on the altar after atonement had already been effected by the first application, and therefore it does not render the sacrifice invalid.", + "If he made the first application [with the intention to eat the flesh] after the prescribed time and the second outside the prescribed place, it is piggul and involves [the punishment of] karet. Again, we see here that the second application does not affect the status of the sacrifice. Thus if the first application was done with the intent of eating the sacrifice after the prescribed time, the sacrifice is piggul, and the fact that while sprinkling the blood for a second time he had a different improper intention does not matter. Concerning which improper intention causes the sacrifice to be piggul and is punished by karet, see 2:4-5." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to discuss the effect of improper intentions had when sprinkling the blood.", + "With regard to any [blood] which is sprinkled on the inner altar, if [the priest] omitted one of the applications, he has not atoned; therefore if he applied all in the proper manner but one in an improper manner, it [the sacrifice] is invalid, but does not involve karet. When it comes to sacrifices whose blood must be spilled on the altar inside the sanctuary (the golden altar), all of the sprinklings must be applied and if any one is skipped atonement is not effected. This differs from those sacrifices whose blood is spilled on the outer altar (see yesterday’s mishnah). Since all of the applications of the blood are mandatory, if any one of them is done with the wrong intention, the sacrifice is invalid. However, the sacrifice is not piggul and one who eats it is not obligated for karet unless all of the applications were done with the improper intent. If any one of the mandatory applications was done with the correct intent, the sacrifice is not piggul, although it cannot be eaten." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nAs we have learned, piggul is something that was sacrificed with the intent of eating or burning it outside of its appropriate time. In today’s mishnah we learn that certain items are not liable for piggul, meaning that if one eats or burns these items he cannot be liable for having eaten piggul (although they may nevertheless be prohibited for other reasons).\nThe general rule concerning when one is liable for piggul and when one is exempt is found at the end of the mishnah. Piggul is only applicable to an item if something else permits that item to be eaten or burned. For instance, the flesh of a sacrifice can be eaten once its blood has been sprinkled on the altar. Therefore, if one eats the flesh after the sacrifice was offered with improper intent, he has transgressed the violation of piggul. Some items “permit themselves” and to these items, piggul does not apply.", + "These are the things for which one is not liable on account of piggul:
The fistful, The “fistful” is the fistful of flour that the priest puts on the altar from the minhah, or meal-offering. If he grabs this fistful with the intent of eating it outside the proper time, or of burning it outside of its time, the minhah offering is piggul. However, one who eats the fistful taken from the minhah offering has not transgressed piggul for the fistful permits the minhah to be eaten, but the fistful permits itself, and one who eats something that permits itself has not violated piggul.", + "The incense, The incense that is put on the altar with the “fistful” (see Leviticus 2:2). The same rules that apply to the fistful apply to it as well.", + "The frankincense, The frankincense offering referred to in Exodus 30:7-8. The case here is one in which a person, while bringing the frankincense to the altar to turn it into smoke thought that he would burn it on the next day. One who then eats such frankincense, has not transgressed piggul.", + "The priests’ meal-offering, The priests’ entire minhnah offering is burned on the altar (Leviticus 6:16). There is no fistful taken from it that permits it to be eaten or burned. Therefore, it “permits itself” and the laws of piggul do not apply.", + "The anointed priest's meal-offering, The high priest would bring a minhah offering everyday (Leviticus 6:15). It too is entirely burned.", + "The minhah with libation This refers to a minhah offering that a person volunteers to bring (Numbers 15:2ff).", + "The blood, The blood permits the sacrifice to be eaten, but nothing permits it. One who eats this blood is liable for eating blood, but not for the violation of piggul.", + "The libations that are brought separately, the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: also those that are brought with an animal [sacrifice]. This refers to a minhah brought with a libation but not with an accompanying animal sacrifice, for the sacrifice was offered on the previous day. According to Rabbi Meir, this minhah permits itself and does not permit the sacrifice (the blood permits the sacrifice). Therefore, in such a case, the minhah is not piggul, even if the animal was. However, according to Rabbi Meir, if the minhah was brought with the animal sacrifice, and the animal becomes piggul (offered with improper intent), then the minhah also becomes piggul. The other rabbis disagree and hold that the minhah offering cannot become piggul even when it accompanies an animal sacrifice. The minhah offering is independent from the animal offering and even if the animal becomes piggul, the minhah does not.", + "The log of oil brought by the metzora: Rabbi Shimon says: one is not liable on account of piggul; But Rabbi Meir says: one is liable on account of piggul, See Leviticus 14:10. This log (a measure) of oil is offered by the metzora (one who had some type of skin disease) upon becoming pure. It accompanies an asham sacrifice. According to Rabbi Shimon, if the asham becomes piggul, the oil does not because the sacrifice does not “permit” the oil, rather the oil permits itself. Rabbi Meir holds that the asham does permit the oil to be put on the ear and thumb/big toe of the metzora and therefore it is something that other things permit and it can become piggul. If the sacrifice is offered with the wrong intent, then the oil becomes piggul and one who eats it would be liable.", + "because the blood of the asham makes it permitted and whatever has something else that makes it permitted, whether for man or for the altar, one is liable on its account for piggul. This is the general rule that underlies the entire mishnah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses what permits the parts of various sacrifices to be burned or eaten. The importance of this is that if one has an improper intent while performing an action with the blood that permits this sacrifice to be eaten or burned, then the sacrifice is piggul and one who eats it is liable for karet (if the improper intent was to eat or burn it after the time in which it must be eaten or burned).", + "[The sprinkling of] the blood of the olah permits its flesh for [burning on] the altar, and its skin to the priests. Once the blood of the olah sacrifice has been sprinkled on the altar, its flesh can be burned on the altar and the skin goes to the priests. Thus, if one has an improper intent while sprinkling the blood, the olah is piggul.", + "[The sprinkling of] the blood of the olah of a bird permits its flesh to the altar. The same holds true for the bird olah, except that in this case the skin is also burned (what would the priests do with the skin of a dove?).", + "[The sprinkling of] the blood of the hatat of a bird permits its flesh to the priests. A hatat bird can be eaten by the priests, once its blood has been sprinkled.", + "[The sprinkling of] the blood of the bullocks that are burned and the goats that are burned permits their innards to be offered [on the altar]. Rabbi Shimon said: whatever is not [sprinkled] on the outer altar, as in the case of shelamim, one is not liable for it on account of piggul. There are three types of bullocks referred to here: 1) The bullock offered on Yom Kippur; 2) the bullock offered by a high priest for issuing a mistaken instruction; 3) the bullock offered by the court that makes a mistaken instruction. There are two types of goats that are referred to here: 1) The goat offered on Yom Kippur; 2) The goat offered by a court for making a mistaken instruction concerning a law related to idol worship. In all of these cases the blood is sprinkled on the inner altar, their flesh is burned and their innards are burned on the altar. Therefore, if one has an improper intent while sprinkling the blood, the flesh is piggul. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that in these cases, since the blood is not sprinkled on the outer altar, as is the case in shelamim concerning which the laws concerning piggul were written (Leviticus 7:18), the laws of piggul don’t apply. So in this case, even if he has an improper thought, the flesh is not piggul." + ], + [ + "The sacrifices of non-Jews: one is not liable on their account for piggul, remnant, or defilement, and if [a priest] slaughters them outside [the Temple], he is not liable, the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yose declares him liable.
The things for which one is not liable on account of piggul, one is liable on account of remnant and defilement except blood.
Rabbi Shimon declares one liable for anything which is normally eaten, but for wood, frankincense and incense, one is not liable for [transgressions involving] defilement.
Section one: Non-Jews may bring sacrifices to the Temple, and this probably was not altogether an uncommon occurrence in the Second Temple period. Rabbi Meir says that the laws concerning piggul, remnant, defilement and the prohibition of slaughtering a sacrifice outside of the Temple do not apply to these sacrifices. What this means is that if someone has an improper intent while offering this sacrifice, and then someone eats the meat, the one who ate the meat is not liable for karet, as he would be had the sacrifice been brought by a Jew. The same holds true if the sacrifice is left over, or if someone eats it while impure. While doing so is prohibited, one who does so is not liable for karet, according to Rabbi Meir.
Rabbi Yose says that the same laws that govern sacrifices brought by Jews also govern sacrifices brought by non-Jews and that one who eats from such a sacrifice would be liable for karet.
Section two: This section refers to the list found in mishnah three above. For all of those things, while the laws of piggul don’t apply, the laws of remnant and defilement do apply. Thus if one eats one of them after the time has elapsed, he is liable for transgressing the laws of remnant, and if one eats one of them while impure, he has violated the prohibition of eating holy things while impure. The one exception is blood one who eats blood has violated the prohibition of eating blood, but he has not violated other prohibitions.
Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that for anything that is normally eaten, one can violate the prohibitions of eating it while defiled. This would apply to the fistful of the minhah offering, the priests’ minhah offering and other edible things found in the list in mishnah three. However, if one eats or burns inedible things, such as wood or incense, while impure, he is not liable. The sages disagree and hold that he is liable for violating the prohibition of impurity in such cases as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nWhen a priest offers a sacrifice, he must have six things in mind while doing so. Our mishnah teaches what these six things are.", + "The sacrifice is slaughtered for the sake of six things:
For the sake of the sacrifice, The priest must have in mind what type of sacrifice is being offered, for instance an olah must be offered with the intent that it be an olah, and not a shelamim.", + "For the sake of the sacrificer, The priest must have in mind the person who is bringing the sacrifice. In other words, he must intend that the sacrifice should “count” for that person.", + "For the sake of the [Divine] Name, The priest must have in mind that the sacrifice is for God (our God, of course) and not for some other god, or any other entity one could think of.", + "For the sake of fire-offerings, When sacrificing the priest has to have in mind that it will be burned on the altar, and not that it will merely be burned.", + "For the sake of fragrance, The sacrifice must be offered with the intent to produce a fragrance for God, as it says in Leviticus 1:9, “an olah, a fire-offering of pleasing fragrance.”", + "For the sake of pleasing; The final word (in Hebrew) of the above-verse is “pleasing.” The priest must have in mind that the sacrifice be pleasing to God.", + "And a hatat and an asham for the sake of sin. A hatat and an asham come to atone for sins. They must be offered with the sake that they atone for the sin that they are intended to atone for.", + "Rabbi Yose said: even if one did not have any of these purposes in his heart, it is valid, because it is a regulation of the court. According to Rabbi Yose, even if the priest did not have any of these intentions, the sacrifice is still valid. This is because the court stipulates that any sacrifice done without one of these intentions (but not with an improper intention) is valid.", + "Since the intention is determined only by the worshipper. This line explains the entire mishnah. The intent of the worshipper, meaning the priest, is what is determinative of the sacrifice, and not the intent of the owner of the sacrifice. If the worshipper had these six things in mind when offering the sacrifice, the sacrifice is valid even if the owner had an intent that would disqualify the sacrifice." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe fifth chapter of Zevahim is a well-known chapter of Mishnah, at least in traditional circles, because it is recited every morning before Shacharit, the morning prayer service. The chapter describes how the sacrifices were offered, where in the Temple, how many times the blood was sprinkled on the altar, and other various issues. The reason why this chapter was recited every morning was that its recitation was meant to take the place of the sacrifices which could no longer be offered after the Temple was destroyed.", + "Which is the place [for the offering] of the sacrifices?
Most holy sacrifices are slaughtered on the north [side of the altar]. This is a general clause that will be further expanded henceforth through mishnah five. The three most holy sacrifices are the hatat, the asham and the olah.", + "The bullock and the goat of Yom Kippur are [done] at the north, and the receiving of their blood is [performed] with ministering vessels at the north, and their blood requires sprinkling between the poles [of the ark], on the curtain, and on the golden altar. These sacrifices are mentioned in Leviticus 16, the chapter that is read in the synagogue on Yom Kippur. The section gives basic instructions as to where these two sacrifices are offered and where their blood must be sprinkled. When sprinkling the blood the high priest would stand between the poles of the ark and sprinkle the blood on the poles, on the veil in the sanctuary and on the golden altar which also stood in the sanctuary. For more detailed information, see Yoma 5:3-6.", + "[The omission of] a single application of [the blood] invalidates [them]. Every application of the blood must be executed and the omission of a single one of them invalidates these two sacrifices.", + "He [the priest] would pour out the remainders of the blood on the western base of the outer altar, but if he did not pour it out, he did not invalidate [the sacrifice]. The mishnah instructs the priest to pour the blood out on the base of the altar. If he doesn’t do so, or doesn’t do so in a proper manner, the sacrifice is still valid." + ], + [ + "As for the bullocks which were burnt and the goats which were burnt, their slaughtering is [done] at the north, and the reception of their blood is [done] at the north, and their blood requires sprinkling on the veil, and on the golden altar;
[The omission of] a single one of these applications invalidates [the sacrifice].
He [the priest] pours the remainder of the blood on the western base of the altar; but if he did not pour it out, he did not invalidate [the sacrifice].
Both of these were burnt at the ash pit.
This mishnah deals with two sacrifices: the bullocks and the goats that were wholly-burned. These sacrifices were explained above in chapter four, mishnah four.
As far as how they were sacrificed, these sacrifices, both of which are an olah, are treated basically the same as the two sacrifices discussed in yesterday’s mishnah.
Sections one-three: For an explanation, see yesterday’s mishnah. The one difference between these two sacrifices and the Yom Kippur sacrifices in yesterday’s mishnah are that those mentioned in today’s mishnah do not require sprinkling the blood on the altar.
Section four: All of the sacrifices mentioned in this mishnah and in yesterday’s are burned at the ash pit, outside of the camp of Israel, a place mentioned in Leviticus 6:4." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday’s mishnah provides instruction concerning the sacrifice of the hatat.", + "[Concerning] public and private hatats: (These are the public hatats: the goats of new moons and The mishnah notes that the discussion here is concerning both the public and the private hatat. In a parenthetical remark, the mishnah lists the public hatats, meaning those offered on behalf of the entire people of Israel. These include the goats offered on Rosh Hodesh (the new moons) and festivals. These are listed in Numbers 28: 15ff.", + "They are slaughtered in the north, and their blood is received in ministering vessels in the north, and their blood requires four applications on the four corners [of the altar]. The hatat, like all most holy sacrifices, is slaughtered on the north side of the altar. Its blood is then received in ministering vessels. The blood of the hatat is spilled on all four corners (or horns, the word is the same in Hebrew) of the altar that stands outside in the Temple courtyard.", + "How was it done? He went up the ascent, turned to the surrounding walkway, and came to the south-east corner, then the north-east, then the north-west, and then the south-west. The priest would ascend the altar on the ascent, and arrive at a walkway that surrounds the altar, known as the “sovev” in Hebrew. The ascent begins on the southern side of the altar, and the priest would first arrive at the southeastern corner. He would then walk north to the northeastern corner, then west to the northwestern corner, and finish at the southwestern corner.", + "He would pour the residue of the blood out at the southern base. The residues of the blood would be poured out on the southern base to the altar.", + "They were eaten within the hangings [of the Tabernacle], by male priests, prepared in any fashion, the same day and night, until midnight. The hatat must be eaten within the Temple confines. The mishnah expresses this by referring to the Tabernacle, and the hangings that enclosed it. When it comes to the Temple, the hatat must be eaten within the walls of the Temple courtyard. Any priest can eat the hatat. The priests can prepare the hatat in any manner they like. This distinguishes it from the pesah sacrifice, which must be roasted. The hatat must be eaten on the day that it is sacrificed and the remainder of the night, up until midnight. The next morning it will become remnant, and anyone who eats it will be liable for karet. See Leviticus 7:15, and Mishnah Berakhot 1:1." + ], + [ + "The olah is a most holy sacrifice.
It is slaughtered in the north, and its blood is received in a ministering vessel in the north; and its blood requires two applications, which are four.
It had to be flayed, dismembered, and completely consumed by the fire.
Today’s mishnah discusses the olah, the second of the three “most holy sacrifices.”
Section two: The olah, like the hatat and the asham, the other two most holy sacrifices, must be slaughtered on the north side of the altar. Its blood must be received in a ministering vessel. The priest then takes the blood and while standing on the floor of the Temple (and not on the walkway) he applies two blood applications. Both are on the lower part of the altar, the first on the northeastern corner and the other on the southwestern corner, thus causing the blood to spread in all four directions (see Leviticus 1:5). This is how two applications of blood can be considered four.
Section three: After the blood has been applied to the altar, the animal is flayed, dismembered and then all of its parts are burnt completely on the altar (see Leviticus 1:6-9). In English this is called the “wholly burned sacrifice.”" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nToday’s mishnah teaches details concerning the asham and the public shelamim sacrifices.", + "The shelamim of the public and the ashams: This mishnah will deal mostly with different types of ashams, but it also deals with the shelamim offering of the public, which consists of two sheep offered on behalf of the entire congregation of Israel on Shavuot. See Leviticus 23:19. Other types of shelamim have different rules and we shall deal with them below in mishnah seven.", + "These are the[different types of] ashams: The asham for robbery; The asham or illegal use of holy property; The asham for a betrothed maidservant; A nazirite's asham; A leper's asham; And the suspended asham. There are six different types of ashams. I shall briefly explain each one and provide biblical reference: The asham for robbery: This is brought by one who swore that he had not stolen something, and then confessed to his crime. See Leviticus 5:25 and Mishnah Shevuot 5:1. The asham for illegal use of holy property: Someone who makes personal use of holy property, such as something that was dedicated to the Temple, must bring an asham to atone for his sin. See Leviticus 5:15. For a betrothed maidservant: This is brought by a man who sleeps with a maidservant betrothed to another man. See Leviticus 19:20-21. We will deal more extensively with this passage when we get to tractate Keritot 2:5. A nazirite's asham: Brought by a nazirite who had come into contact with a dead body. See Numbers 6:12. A leper's asham: Brought by the leper (one with some sort of skin affliction) when he has recovered from his disease. See Leviticus 14:12. And the suspended asham: This is brought by a person who is not sure if he transgressed a prohibition for which a hatat is usually brought. He would bring this asham and then if he found out later that he had sinned, he would have to bring a hatat. In that sense this asham “suspends” for the punishment is suspended until it is determined whether a transgression has been committed. See Leviticus 5:17-18.", + "These are slaughtered in the north, and their blood is received in a service vessel in the north, and their blood requires two sprinklings, which constitute four. The rules here are the same as those concerning the sprinkling of the blood of the olah above in mishnah four.", + "And they are eaten within the curtains [of the Tabernacle], by male priests, prepared in any manner, the same day and night, until midnight. These sacrifices can be eaten. The same rules that applied to the hatat (see mishnah three) apply to the asham and to the public shelamim." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the todah, or thanksgiving offering (Leviticus 7:11 ff.) and the ram brought by the nazirite upon the completion of his naziriteship.", + "The todah and the nazirite's ram are sacrifices of lesser sanctity. Both of these sacrifices are of lesser sanctity, and this will be expressed in some of the halakhot which we will see below. These halakhot are more lenient than those governing the most holy sacrifices which we dealt with above.", + "They are slaughtered anywhere in the Temple Court, and their blood requires two sprinklings, which constitute four; Unlike sacrifices of most holy sanctity, which must be slaughtered north of the altar, these sacrifices can be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple courtyard. The blood is sprinkled on the altar in the same way as was done for the olah (see mishnah four).", + "And they are eaten in any part of the city, by any person, prepared in any manner, the same day and the night following, until midnight. Most holy sacrifices must be eaten within the walls of the Temple (or the curtains of the Tabernacle when the Israelites were in the desert). Lesser holy sacrifices can be eaten anywhere within the walls of the city of Jerusalem. Anyone can eat them, not just priests. These two sacrifices can be prepared in any manner and must be eaten by midnight of the night following their offering (like the hatat in mishnah three).", + "The parts of them which are raised are governed by the same law, save that these are eaten [only] by the priests, their wives, their children and their slaves. The breast and the thigh are raised from these sacrifices and given to the priests (see Leviticus 7:34). All of the rules that apply to the rest of the sacrifice apply to these two parts, except that these can only be eaten by priests and their households (wives, children and slaves). They can be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem, prepared in any manner and until midnight." + ], + [ + "The shelamim is a sacrifice of lesser sanctity.
It may be slaughtered in any part of the Temple court, and its blood requires two sprinklings, which constitute four.
And they are eaten in any part of the city, by any person, prepared in any way, during two days and one night.
The parts of them which are raised are governed by the same law, save that these are eaten [only] by the priests, their wives, their children and their slaves.
Section two: The same rules that governed the slaughtering of the todah in yesterday’s mishnah.
Section three: The difference between the shelamim and the todah is that the shelamim can be eaten for longer. They can be eaten on the day that they are sacrificed, on the entire following night and on the following day. See Leviticus 7:16-17.
Section four: The same rule as we saw in yesterday’s mishnah regarding the todah." + ], + [ + "The first-born animal, tithe and the pesah are sacrifices of lesser sanctity.
They are slaughtered in any part of the Temple court, and their blood requires one sprinkling, provided that he applies it against the base [of the altar].
They differ in the [rules governing] their eating:
The first-born animal is eaten by priests [only], the tithe is eaten by anyone and they can be eaten in any part of the city, prepared in any manner, during two days and one night.
The pesah can be eaten only at night, only until midnight, and it can be eaten only by those registered for it, and it can be eaten only when roasted.
The last mishnah of our chapter is concerned with the three remaining sacrifices of lower sanctity the first-born animal, the tithe and the pesah.
Section two: These sacrifices require only one sprinkling of blood. This is derived from the fact that Numbers 18:17 says concerning the first-born animal, “and the blood you shall sprinkle on the altar” and it doesn’t say “around the altar” as it says regarding other sacrifices. This one sprinkling must be applied a section of the altar that has a base. There was no base (Hebrew: yesod) to the altar on the east or south sides, so this blood sprinkling had to be done on the north or west sides.
Section three: The rules concerning eating these three sacrifices differ, and therefore each must be discussed individually.
Section four: The first-born is given to the priests and can be eaten only by them (and also their households). These are the same rules that govern the breast and thigh of other sacrifices. See Numbers 18:18. In contrast, the tithe can be eaten by anyone.
Both of these sacrifices can be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem. They can be prepared in any manner and they can be eaten with the same time limitations as the shelamim, meaning the day they are slaughtered, the night that follows and the entire following day.
Section five: The pesah is different in many ways. First of all, it can be eaten only on the night following the day on which it was slaughtered (see Exodus 12:8). This is the night on which we now observe the seder. That night it can only be eaten until midnight. We should note that there was some debate among the rabbis concerning this see Pesahim 10:9. Some rabbis held that it could be eaten until the following morning, but that one should try to eat it before midnight. In order for a person to eat a pesah he had to be registered for it. What this means is that before it is slaughtered the people who intend to eat it must inform the slaughterer of their intention. A person could not register for two pesah sacrifices. Finally, the pesah must be fully roasted it can’t be boiled or cooked using any water." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Most holy sacrifices which were slaughtered on the top of the altar: Rabbi Yose says: it is as though they were slaughtered in the north. Rabbi Yose son of Rabb Judah says: from the middle of the altar southward is as south, from the middle of the altar northward is as the north. We already learned in the previous chapter that most-holy sacrifices (the olah, hatat and asham) are slaughtered north of the altar. Our mishnah discusses what happens if the priest slaughters one of these sacrifices on top of the altar. According to Rabbi Yose this is sufficient to validate the sacrifice, since the top of the altar counts as the north of the altar. Rabbi Yose the son of Rabbi Judah divides the altar in half if the sacrifice was slaughtered on the northern half, then it is valid, but if on the southern half it is not valid.", + "The fistfuls of meal-offerings were taken in any part of the Temple court, and they [the minhah-offerings] were eaten within the curtains, by male priests, prepared in any manner, on the same day and night, until midnight. The mishnah has now completed the topic of animal sacrifices and is moving on to other things that are offered in the Temple. Out of minhah offerings (grain) are removed fistfuls of flour and they are burned on the altar (see Leviticus 2:1-3). The removal of the fistful from the minhah can be done anywhere in the Temple court, and not just on the northern side of the altar. The minhah itself (not the fistful) is eaten by male priests (and not their households) within the Temple confines. It can be cooked in any manner, but it must be eaten by midnight of the day it was brought." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah begins to deal with bird offerings. There are two types of bird offerings: the hatat and the olah.", + "The hatat of a bird was sacrificed by the southwest horn [of the altar]. The sacrifice of a bird consists of plucking off its head and then sprinkling its blood on the altar. These were both done on the southwest horn (or corner) of the altar.", + "It is valid [if done] in any place, but this was its [particular] place. The mishnah notes that this is where the bird hatat was supposed to be done, but it didn’t have to be done there. If it was done elsewhere it is still valid.", + "That horn served for three things below, and three things above: Below: for the hatat of the bird, For the presenting [of meal-offerings]. And for the residue of the blood. There were six sacrificial actions performed on this corner of the altar, three of which were performed above the crimson line in the middle of the altar and three below. The bird hatat, the main topic of our mishnah, was performed below the line. The minhah (meal) offerings were presented, meaning drawn near, to the altar, at this corner, below the line. Also, the residue of the blood from animal sacrifices was poured out on the southern base (yesod) at this corner (see above 5:3).", + "Above: for the pouring out of wine and water, and for the olah of a bird when there was too much on the east. There were three actions above the line at this corner. The first two are the libations, liquids poured out onto the altar. There are two such libations. The water libation which occurs only on Sukkot (see Sukkah 4:9) and the wine libation, which was done frequently as an accompaniment to animal sacrifices. In addition, usually the bird olah was done on the southeastern corner of the altar. But if there were too many bird olahs and the southeastern corner became busy, they would offer the extra on the southwestern corner." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with the three offerings mentioned at the end of yesterday’s mishnah the water and wine libations and the extra bird olahs.", + "All who ascended the altar, ascended by the right, then they went round [the altar] and descended by the left, except for these three, who ascended and descended by retracing their steps. The ramp was on the southern side of the altar. Usually a priest would ascend the southern side of the altar and then walk around to the right of the altar, its eastern side, and then turn towards the left, or western side of the altar and make his way back down. In other words, he would arrive at the southeastern corner first and the southwestern corner last. For things done on the southwestern corner, the priest did not have to circle the entire altar. Rather, he could just go up the left side, immediately arrive at the southwestern corner, and when done come right back. Perhaps this was a traffic-saving device, meant to prevent too many priests from having to circle the entire altar. The problem would be that priests would be walking in opposite directions, but I guess they somehow managed that problem." + ], + [ + "How was the hatat of a bird sacrificed?
He pinches off its head behind its neck, but he did not sever it.
And he would sprinkle its blood on the wall of the altar.
The residue of the blood was drained out on the base.
Only the blood belonged to the altar, while the rest of it belonged to the priests.
Our mishnah continues to provide instructions as to how the bird hatat was sacrificed.
Section one: Birds are not slaughtered to be sacrifices in the same way that birds are slaughtered to be eaten. To make a bird kosher, the shochet slices its neck, the same way that he does for an animal. But for sacrificing, the priest pinches off its head off with his thumbnail from the back of the bird’s neck. See Leviticus 5:8-9. He does not sever the head entirely from the body, just separates it by pinching it off.
Sections two-three: After pinching off its head, he sprinkles the blood out of the bird onto the wall of the altar. Note that its blood is not received in a ministering vessel. The residue of the blood is squeezed out of the bird onto the base of the altar.
Section four: The rest of the bird was eaten by priests only the blood was put on the altar." + ], + [ + "How was the olah of a bird sacrificed?
He [the priest] ascended the ramp, and turned to the surrounding walkway, and made his way to the southeast horn.
There he pinched its head at the back of the neck, and severed it, and drained out its blood on the wall of the altar.
He took the head, turned the part where it was nipped to the altar, saturated it with salt, and threw it on to the fires [of the altar].
Then he came to the body, and removed the crop, the feathers, and the entrails that came out of it, and threw them on to the burning place. He tore [the body], but did not sever it in half, but if he did sever it, it is still valid. Then he saturated it [the body] with salt, and threw it on to the fires of the altar.
This mishnah provides instructions as to how the bird olah was sacrificed. Some of this mishnah does not need explanation, so I have commented only upon the sections that I felt require it.
Section three: After having slaughtered the bird by pinching its head off at the back of the neck, the priest severs the head off of the body (see Leviticus 1:15-17).
Section four: The first thing he takes care of is the head. He drains its blood by turning the point at which it was pinched toward the altar. Then he salts it very well until it is saturated (see Leviticus 2:13). After it has been salted, he can throw the head onto the altar so it can be burned.
Section five: Now he must take care of the body. He removes the parts that are not to be offered on the altar (Leviticus 1:16), the crop, the feathers and the entrails and then he throws them on the “Bet Hamoked”, the burning place where parts of animals that are not burned on the altar are burned. This was on the southern side of the altar.
He then tears the body at its wings, but he tries not to sever it in half (Leviticus 1:17). Finally, he salts the body and burns it on the altar." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah teaches that if the priest deviates from some of the above instructions regarding the bird sacrifices, the sacrifice might still be valid. But if he deviates from others, they invalidate the sacrifice.", + "If he did not remove the crop or the feathers or the entrails which came out of it, or did not dry it with salt, or made any other deviation after he had drained the blood out, it is still valid. The general rule here is quite clear if he makes any changes from the prescribed way of acting after he has drained out the blood, then the sacrifice is still valid.", + "If he severed the [head of the] hatat or did not sever the olah, it is unfit. However, if he makes some changes before the blood is drained, such as severing the head of the hatar, or not severing the head of the olah, the sacrifice is invalid. It seems that the sacrifice is validated by the blood being drained out, and therefore deviations that occur before that moment can invalidate the sacrifice whereas those that occur after cannot.", + "If he drained out the blood of the head, but not the blood of the body, it is unfit; The blood of the body, but not the blood of the head, it is fit. As far as the blood is concerned, the rule is that he must drain the blood out of the body, for that is where most of the blood is. If he does not do so, the sacrifice is invalid. He should also drain the blood out of the head, but if he does not, the sacrifice is still valid." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah introduces the problem of a sacrifice not sacrificed with the correct intent in connection with bird sacrifices. Many of these same rules can be found in the first four chapters of the tractate in connection with the animal sacrifices.", + "If he nipped a hatat of a bird for the sake of something else; if he drained out its blood for the sake of something else, or for its own sake and for the sake of something else, or for the sake of something else and for its own sake, it is unfit. An olah of a bird is fit [in such circumstances] except that it does not count for its owner’s obligation. In all of these cases the priest offering the bird hatat performed one of the actions with the intention that the offering be something other than a hatat. Such an intention invalidates the sacrifice, but only in the case of the hatat. In the case of the bird olah, the animal can still be burned on the altar. Nevertheless, it doesn’t count for its owners, so they will have to bring a replacement bird olah. This is the same rule we saw with regard to animal olahs (see 1:3).", + "A hatat of a bird or an olah of a bird which he nipped, or drained out the blood [with the intention] to eat what was normally eaten or to burn what was normally burned outside of the appropriate place, is invalid, but it does not involve karet; After the appropriate time, it is piggul and involves karet, Provided that the mattir was offered in accordance with the regulations. If the priest nips off the head of either bird sacrifice or drains the blood with the intention of either eating something or burning something outside of the proper place (meaning outside of the Temple) then the sacrifice is invalid (see mishnayot 2:3-5). However, an intention concerning the wrong place does not make the sacrifice piggul, and the person who eats it is not liable for the punishment of karet. If he nips off the head or drains the blood with the intention of eating or burning it after the appropriate time, then the sacrifice is piggul and one who eats it liable for karet. The one caveat is that in order for the sacrifice to be piggul and for the one who eats it to be liable for karet the “mattir” has to be offered correctly. What this means, as we shall see, is that if both problematic intentions are involved with the sacrifice, then the sacrifice is not piggul, although it is still invalid. It is piggul only if the only type of wrong intention involved in the sacrifice was eating it after the appropriate time.", + "How does he offer the mattir according to regulations? If he nipped it in silence and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood in silence; or if he nipped it and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time: in these cases he offered the mattir according to regulation. The mishnah now illustrates what the previous line means. One of the actions was done in silence, meaning with correct intention, and the other of the actions was done with the intent of eating it after its appropriate time, or if both actions were done with the intent of eating at the wrong time, then the sacrifice is piggul, because the only wrong intention was with regard to time.", + "How does he not offer the mattir according to regulation? If he nipped it [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place; or if he nipped it and drained the blood [with an intention of] outside the appropriate place; or if he nipped a hatat of a bird for the sake of a different sacrifice and drained the blood [with an intention of] after the appropriate time; or if he nipped it [with an intention of] after the appropriate time and drained the blood for the sake of a different sacrifice; or if he nipped it and drained the blood for the sake of a different sacrifice: in these cases he did not offer the mattir according to regulation. If, however, one of the actions done with the intention of eating it or burning it in the wrong place, and the other action was done with the intention of eating it or burning it after the appropriate time, then it is not piggul. It is also not piggul if both actions were done with the intention of eating it in the wrong place, as we learned in section two above.", + "[If he intended] to eat as much as an olive outside the appropriate place [and] as much as an olive the next day, [or] as much as an olive the next day [and] as much as an olive outside the appropriate place; Or half as much as an olive outside the appropriate place [and] half as much as an olive the next day; Or half as much as an olive the next day [and] half as much as an olive outside the appropriate place, [the sacrifice] is unfit, and does not involve karet. In this section he performs one action (nipping the head or draining the blood) with the intention of eating at least one olive’s worth in the wrong place and one olive’s worth at the wrong time, or in the opposite order, or half an olive’s worth in the wrong place and half an olive’s worth at the wrong time, or in the opposite order. In these cases the sacrifice is invalid, but one who eats it is not liable for karet for two wrong intentions were involved in this sacrifice. The order of the wrong intentions, according to this opinion, doesn’t matter. As long as the two different improper intentions were mixed up in one sacrifice, the sacrifice is not piggul and the one who eats it is not liable for karet.", + "Rabbi Judah said: this is the general rule: if the [wrongful] intention of time precedes that of place, [the sacrifice] is piggul, and involves karet; but if the [wrongful] intention of place precedes that of time, it is unfit and does not involve karet. But the sages say: in both cases [the sacrifice is] unfit and does not involve karet. According to Rabbi Judah, the order of the wrong intentions is significant. If the wrong intention of time comes first, then the sacrifice is piggul. It is determinative of the ultimate status of the sacrifice, because it came first. If, however, the wrong intention concerning place came first, then it is determinative, and as we learned in section two, the sacrifice is not piggul and one who eats it is not liable for karet. The sages, whose opinion was found in section five, restate their opinion that in neither case is the sacrifice piggul, and one who eats it would not be liable for karet.", + "[If he intended] to eat half as much as an olive [outside the appropriate place or after the appropriate time] [and] to burn half as much as an olive [similarly] it is fit, for eating and burning do not combine. The situation described here is actually impossible when it comes to the bird hatat, none of it is burned on the altar and it when it comes to the bird olah, none of it is eaten. So with one sacrifice, one could never have a wrong intention to eat half an olive and a wrong intention to burn half an olive. The section is taught because this was possible with animal sacrifices. There and here we learn that wrong intents with regard to eating and burning half an olive’s worth do not join together to fill the requirement for their to be the wrong to intent with regard to an olive’s worth of the flesh." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nIn chapter six, mishnayot five and six we learned how the bird hatat and bird olah were offered. There were a few differences between them. The first two mishnayot of this chapter discuss what happens if one mixes up between the two of them.", + "If a hatat of a bird is offered below [the red line] with the rites of a hatat [and] for the sake of a hatat, it is fit. The blood of the hatat is supposed to be offered below the red line. In this case the bird hatat is offered in the correct manner, and is therefore fit. This line is only here in the mishnah to serve as a contrast with the following four sections.", + "[If it is offered] with the rites of a hatat, [but] in the name of a olah; If the rites followed are those for a hatat, but his intention was for it to be an olah, the sacrifice is unfit.", + "[Or] with the rites of an olah [and] in the name of a hatat; If the intent of the priest is for it to be a hatat, but he sacrifices it using the rites for an olah, then it is unfit.", + "Or with the rites of an olah [and] in the name of an olah, it is unfit. If the sacrifice is supposed to be a hatat, but the priest thinks and acts as if it is an olah, it is similarly unfit. Basically for the hatat to be fit, it must be offered for the sake of a hatat and with the rites of a hatat.", + "If he offers it above [the red line] [even] with the rites of any of these, it is unfit. If he sprinkles the blood above the red line, then it is invalid even if he offers it for the sake of a hatat, using the rites of a hatat. Sprinkling the blood below the red line is mandatory and without it the hatat is invalid." + ], + [ + "If an olah of a bird is offered above [the red line], with the rites of an olah [and] in the name of a olah, it is fit.
With the rites of an olah [but] in the name of a hatat, it is fit, but does not count for its owner’s obligation.
[If he offers it] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a olah;
[Or] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a hatat, it is unfit.
If he offers it below, [even] with the rites of any of these, it is unfit.
This mishnah is similar to yesterday’s mishnah, but the topic here is the olah.
Section one: This olah is offered in the manner in which it is supposed to be offered and therefore it is valid.
Section two: If an olah is offered with the rites of an olah but for the sake of it being a hatat, it is still fit and can be burned on the altar. However, it doesn’t count for discharging the owner of his obligation, as we explained in chapter six, mishnah seven. The owners will need to bring another hatat.
Sections three and four: However, if he uses the rites of a hatat, it is invalid.
Section five: As with the hatat, if he sprinkles the blood in the wrong place, it is invalid, even if he uses the rites of the olah and does it for the sake of an olah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah refers to the cases in the previous two mishnayot of bird hatats and olahs that were not offered correctly.", + "And all of these do not defile in the gullet One who eats a bird that was not slaughtered properly becomes impure when the piece of meat he is swallowing reaches his gullet. However, these birds were slaughtered properly (the problem was in the sacrificial ritual) and therefore they do not cause impurity as do carrion birds.", + "And they involve trespass, except the hatat of a bird which was offered below [the red line] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a hatat. Trespass refers to illegal use of Temple property. One who uses a bird hatat or olah that was sacrificed improperly has still trespassed and must bring an asham to atone for his sin. The exception is a bird hatat that was offered correctly. At this point a priest can eat from it, and once priests can eat it, non-priests can derive benefit from it, they have not trespassed Temple property. Note that an olah is not eaten by the priests and therefore no one is ever allowed to derive benefit from it." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah we find an extended argument between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua concerning whether or not one who derives benefit from a bird olah that was sacrificed as a hatat has “trespassed”. As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, trespassing means making illegal use of Temple property. This topic is interesting (at least to the sages) because an olah does involve trespass, but a hatat does not.\nThis mishnah is a bit complicated but I hope that you will appreciate the glimpse we get here of the types of logical arguments employed by the sages.", + "If one offered an olah of a bird below [the red line] with the rites of a hatat [and] in the name of a hatat: Rabbi Eliezer says: it involves trespass. But Rabbi Joshua says: it does not involve trespass. This section lays out the two opinions. Rabbi Eliezer says that this olah, sacrificed in the name of a hatat with the rites of a hatat still involves trespass, as does every olah. Rabbi Joshua says that just as a bird hatat doesn’t involve trespass (because it is entirely edible for priests) so too this olah that was sacrificed as a hatat does not involve trespass.", + "Rabbi Eliezer said: if a hatat which does not involve trespass when he offers it for its own name, nevertheless when he changes the name [for which it is offered] it does involve trespass, is it not logical that an olah which does involve trespass when he offers it for its own name, would involve trespass when he changes its name? Rabbi Eliezer now begins to prove his opinion by comparing the wrongly sacrificed olah with a wrongly sacrificed hatat. When someone sacrifices a hatat in the right way, it does not involve trespass, because it can be eaten by priests. However, when he offers it as an olah it does involve trespass. All the more so, Rabbi Eliezer argues, with an olah. If it involves trespass when it is offered for its own sake, all the more so it should involve trespass when it is offered for the sake of something else.", + "Rabbi Joshua said to him: No, when you speak of a hatat whose name he changed to that of an olah, [it involves trespass] because he changed its name to something that involves trespass; will you say [the same] of an olah whose name he changed to that of a hatat, seeing that he changed its name to something which does not involve trespass? Rabbi Joshua responds that a hatat that he offered for the sake of an olah involves trespass because he changed it to a sacrifice that involves trespass (the olah). However, in the case of our mishnah, when he offered the olah for the sake of a hatat, he changed it to something that doesn’t involve trespass (the hatat). Therefore, this olah offered as a hatat does not involve trespass. Digging a bit deeper into the meaning of this debate, we might say that Rabbi Joshua accords greater power to the intention of the sacrificer when he changes something into a hatat it is a hatat and the rules regarding an olah no longer apply. In contrast, according to Rabbi Eliezer, if it was supposed to be an olah it stays an olah, no matter what his intention.", + "Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Behold, most holy sacrifices which he slaughtered in the south and which he slaughtered in the name of lesser sacrifices will prove the matter, for he changed their name to something which does not involve trespass, and yet they involve trespass, so too, do not be surprised that in the case of the olah, although he changed its name to something that does not involve trespass, it still involves trespass. Rabbi Eliezer responds by noting that there is a case where a person changes something from a type of sacrifice that does involve trespass to a type that does not involve trespass and yet the sacrifice still involves trespass. If one sacrifices a most holy sacrifice as if it were a less holy sacrifice which does not involve trespass, the sacrifice still involves trespass. This simply proves that what Rabbi Joshua said in section two was incorrect.", + "Rabbi Joshua said: No, when you speak of most holy sacrifices which are slaughtered in the south and in the name of lesser sacrifices, [they involve trespass] because he changed their name to something which is partly forbidden and partly permitted; will you say the same of an olah, where he changed its name to something that is altogether permitted? Rabbi Joshua responds that in the case of most holy sacrifices which were offered as if they were less holy sacrifices, he has changed it into something that has both prohibited and permitted parts. When it comes to less holy sacrifices, some parts can be eaten, whereas some of the inner parts of the animal cannot be eaten and do involve trespass. Therefore, in this case the sacrifice still involves trespass because he changed it into something that at least partially involves trespass. However, in the case of the bird olah sacrificed as a bird hatat, he changed the sacrifice into something that doesn’t involve trespass at all. This defends Rabbi Joshua’s opinion that a bird olah offered as a bird hatat doesn’t involve trespass." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with the subject of when a sacrificial bird that was nipped (this is how sacrificial birds are slaughtered) causes impurity if its flesh is swallowed. We began to discuss this subject in mishnah three.", + "If he nipped [the bird sacrifice] with his left [hand] or at night; if he slaughtered hullin within [the Temple courtyard] or a sacrifice outside [the Temple courtyard] they do not defile in the gullet. As I stated in the commentary to mishnah three, one who eats a pure bird that was not slaughtered properly becomes impure when the flesh of the bird reaches his gullet. Our mishnah lists cases where an action was done improperly with the slaughtering of a bird sacrifice. A bird sacrifice must be nipped with the right hand, during the day, so if he nips it with the left hand or at night, it is invalid. If one brings a non-sacred bird into the Temple and slaughters it (not nips but slaughters by cutting its neck), it may not be eaten, and a sacrifice that was slaughtered (not nipped) outside of the Temple is invalid. In all of these cases, the slaughtering or nipping was done properly, but it was done at the wrong time, with the wrong hand, or in the wrong place. Since the slaughtering/nipping itself was done correctly, the flesh of the bird doesn’t cause impurity.", + "If he nipped with a knife; or if he nipped hullin within [or] sacrifices without; or [if he sacrificed] turtle-doves before their time or pigeons after their time; [or a bird] whose wing was withered, [or] blind in the eye [or] whose foot was cut off, [all these] defile in the gullet. In contrast, in some these cases the slaughtering itself was performed incorrectly. Nipping must be done with one’s fingernail and not with a knife. If the bird was hullin (non-sacred), then nipping it is an improper means to slaughter it (it must have its neck sliced). If he nips a bird sacrifice outside of the Temple it is invalid. In all of these cases, the bird is considered carrion and it does cause impurity if swallowed. The mishnah now lists other problems that will cause the bird to defile when its flesh is swallowed. When it comes to turtle-doves, they are valid as sacrifices only when they are older (about three months) whereas pigeons are valid as sacrifices when they are younger (before three months). So if he sacrificed a bird either before or after it reached majority, it causes impurity. Furthermore, if the bird was missing a limb it cannot be used as a sacrifice. So if he nipped a bird that couldn’t be used as a sacrifice, it is completely invalid and does cause impurity.", + "This is the general rule: all whose unfitness [arose] in sanctity do not defile in the gullet; if their unfitness did not arise in sanctity, they defile in the gullet. The mishnah now provides the general rule. If a bird was valid as a sacrifice and it was nipped in the Temple, using the correct method for nipping, but then became disqualified for some reason, the bird does not cause impurity when its flesh is swallowed. However, if the bird was disqualified before it arrived at the Temple courtyard, or was disqualified because its nipping was not performed correctly, the bird is considered carrion and one who eats it becomes impure when its flesh is swallowed.", + "And anyone who is unfit who nips, their nipping is invalid, and they [the birds] do not defile in the gullet. If someone performs the nipping who is not allowed to do so (see mishnah 2:1), for instance a non-priest, or an impure priest, the nipping is invalid and the bird cannot be used as a sacrifice. However, it does not place the bird into the category of carrion because this is a case of unfitness that arose in sanctity." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with a case where a priest did melikah (nipping the bird) and the bird turned out to be a terefah, an animal with some flaw which would have caused it to die. Such a bird cannot be sacrificed the question in our mishnah is does it defile in the gullet, like the nevelah (improperly slaughtered) bird.", + "If one performed melikah, and he found it [the bird] to be a terefah: Rabbi Meir said: it does not defile in the gullet; Rabbi Judah said: it does defile in the gullet. Rabbi Meir says that if a bird sacrifice has its head nipped (melikah) and it is found to be a terefah, it does not defile when swallowed. According to Rabbi Meir melikah purifies a terefah sacrificial bird from defiling as does a nevelah (carrion), just as slaughtering (shechitah) purifies a terefah beast from imparting carrion impurity. Rabbi Judah says that when a bird is slaughtered or nipped and it is found to be a terefah it still defiles in the gullet, as does a nevelah.", + "Rabbi Meir said: if with regard to a beast, when it is carrion (a it defiles through contact or carrying, yet slaughtering it purifies its terefah from defiling, when it comes to carrion ( of a bird which does not defile through contact or carriage, is it not logical that slaughtering would cleanse its terefah? Now, just as we have found that slaughtering, which makes it [a bird of hullin] fit for eating, cleanses its terefah from its uncleanness; so melikah (, which makes it [a bird sacrifice] fit for eating, cleanses its terefah. Rabbi Meir now proceeds to argue out his position. When it comes to a beast, its nevelah (carrion it died without having been slaughtered properly) defiles when it is touched or even when it is carried. Nevertheless, if one slaughters it and it turns out to be a terefah (an animal with some defect that would have caused it to die) it now does not defile through contact and carrying. The nevelah of a bird is less stringent for it never defiles through contact or carriage. Therefore, Rabbi Meir argues, it is logical that if one slaughters a hullin (non-sacred) bird and it turns out to be a terefah, it is purified from defiling in the way it would have had it been a nevelah (in the gullet). Rabbi Meir now proceeds with his argument. Slaughtering a hullin bird is parallel to nipping (melikah) a sacrificial bird. Both make the birds fit (for eating or sacrifice) and both cleanse the terefah from defiling in the gullet.", + "Rabbi Yose says: it is sufficient for it to be like the nevelah of a beast, which is cleansed by slaughtering, but not by melikah (. Rabbi Yose says that the laws concerning carrion of a bird do not need to be any more lenient than the laws concerning the carrion of a beast. Just as slaughtering and not melikah (nipping) purifies a beast’s terefah from carrion impurity (because there is no such thing as melikah with a beast) so too when it comes to birds slaughtering purifies them from carrion impurity but not melikah. So if the bird was hullin (non-sacred) and one slaughtered it and it turned out to be a terefah it would not impart carrion impurity. But if it was a sacrificial bird and one nipped it and it turned out to be a terefah it would still impart carrion impurity. Again, the argumentation in this mishnah was classic mishnaic type of argumentation. While the mishnah was certainly not easy, if you want to see what type of logic the sages employed, this is a great example." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with sacrifices that become mixed up with other animals. There are three possibilities in the mishnah for the type of animal the sacrifice is mixed up with:\n1) Animals that cannot be eaten or sacrificed.\n2) Animals that can be eaten but not sacrificed.\n3) Animals that can be sacrificed or eaten.", + "All sacrifices which became mixed up with hatats that must be left to die, or with an ox that is to be stoned, even one in ten thousand, all must be left to die. To understand this clause we need to explain what a hatat is that must be left to die. There are five categories of this type of problematic hatat, cases where for some reason the hatat cannot be sacrificed and all that can be done with it is let it die. We shall learn more about this when we learn Tractate Temurah. If a valid sacrifice becomes mixed up with a hatat that must be left to die, then all of the animals that are mixed up must be left to die. The same is true if it is mixed up with an ox that has been condemned to be stoned for either killing a person or for having sexual relations with a person. In both of these cases, none of the animals mixed up can be sacrificed, even if one forbidden hatat becomes mixed up with 10,000 valid ones.", + "If they were mixed up with: an ox with which a transgression had been committed [for instance]: one that had killed a man on the testimony of one witness or of its owner; or [an ox] that had sexual relations with a woman or one with whom a man had sexual relations; or an animal set aside [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through the caesarean section, [In all of these cases] they must graze until they become defected, then they are sold, and one brings [a sacrifice] of the same kind at the price of the better of them. If the sacrifice is mixed up with another animal that cannot be sacrificed, then the animals should graze until they become defected [and thereby unfit for sacrifice], then they can all be sold and the proceeds from the better of them (or the best if there were more than two) must be used to buy a sacrifice of the same kind that was originally mixed in. The mishnah now lists possible ways for a sacrifice to become invalid. The first is that it transgresses or a transgression is committed with it. An animal that kills a human being must be executed and its meat is forbidden, but only if there are two witnesses to the killing. If there is one witness the animal cannot be sacrificed but it can be slaughtered and then eaten. Similarly, an animal that has sexual relations with a human being must be executed but only if there are two witnesses. If there is only one witness it is forbidden to sacrifice the animal but not for people to eat it. The next two categories are animals that were involved in idolatry. If there is only one witness, the animals are only prohibited as sacrifices. According to Deuteronomy 23:19 one may not bring “the fee of a whore or the pay of a dog into the house of the Lord.” The rabbis understand these two things to be an animal used to pay a prostitute or an ox used as payment for a dog. Neither of them can be used as a sacrifice. An animal born from mixed parentage, such as a ram and a ewe, cannot be sacrificed, although it can be eaten. The mishnah here lists a terefah, an animal who after having been slaughtered is found to have a defect that would have caused it to die. A terefah cannot be eaten, so commentators explain that this refers to the offspring of a terefah, which according to some opinions, cannot be sacrificed. An animal born through cesarean section also cannot be sacrificed, although it can be eaten. In all of these cases the animal cannot be used as a sacrifice but it can be eaten. Therefore, if one of these is mixed up with a sacrificial animal, they do not have to let the animals die, as was the case in the previous clause.", + "If they were mixed up with unblemished [animals] of hullin, the hullin must be sold to those who need that kind [for a sacrifice]. If the sacrifice was mixed up with unblemished non-sacred animals, then all of the animals can be sold to people who need such animals as sacrifices and then they will all eventually be used as sacrifices." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we dealt with sacrifices that were mixed up with animals that either were already disqualified from being sacrifices, or were not sacrifices. Today’s mishnah discusses sacrifices that were mixed up with other sacrifices.", + "A sacrifice [which was mixed up] with another sacrifice, both being of the same kind: this one is offered in the name of whoever is its owner, and the other is offered in the name of whoever is its owner. If both sacrificial animals are the same kind, for instance both are hatats, then both can be offered as hatats. When they are offered, instead of mentioning the name of the owner, the priest should use a general formula, “in the name of whoever is its owner.” In this way both owners can get credit.", + "A sacrifice [which was mixed up] with a sacrifice, both being of different kinds: they must graze until they become unfit, and then he purchases at the price of the better of them [an animal] of each kind, and he pays the loss of the excess out of his own pocket. In this case the two sacrifices are different kinds. For instance a hatat becomes mixed up with an olah. It is impossible to sacrifice either because their sacrificial rituals are different. Therefore, he let both graze until they become unfit by having a defect which disqualifies them from being sacrifices. Then the animals themselves can be redeemed and the money used to buy new sacrifices. However, he must pay for each new sacrifice at the higher price at which the animals were sold. For instance, if one animal was sold for two selas, and the other for one sela, then he must buy two new sacrifices, each for two selas. The extra sela he must make up from his own pocket. In this way, he can ensure that no sacrifice has lost out by being worth less than the original animal.", + "If they were mixed up with a firstling or tithe, they must graze until they become unfit, and then they are eaten as firstling or tithe. If a sacrifice is mixed up with a tithe or firstling, then they must let all the animals graze until they become unfit for sacrifice. The tithe and the firstling cannot be redeemed for money until they have a defect, so he has to wait with all of the animals. At this point he can eat all of the animals as if they were all firstling or tithe. What this means is that they can’t be sold at a butcher’s shop, nor can their flesh be weighed out on scales. In addition, he must redeem the animal that was set aside as a sacrifice at the value of the most expensive of the animals and with that money he has to buy a new sacrifice to make up for the one that was lost.", + "All [sacrifices] can be mixed up, except the hatat and the asham. All sacrifices can possibly be mixed up together, except for an asham and a hatat because a hatat almost always has to be brought from a female animal, (the exception is the male goat brought by the chieftain (Leviticus 4:23)]. The asham is always a male ram or sheep and never a goat. Thus there is no possibility that these two sacrifices could ever be confused." + ], + [ + "An asham which was mixed up with a shelamim: They graze until they become unfit. Rabbi Shimon says: they are slaughtered at the north [side of the altar] and eaten in accordance with [the laws of] the more stringent of them. They said to him: one must not bring sacrifices to a place of unfitness. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, if an asham and a shelamim get mixed up, then the same thing must be done with them as is done with all sacrifices that are mixed up they graze until they become unfit, and then he must bring two new sacrifices, both at the cost of the higher of them (see yesterday’s mishnah). According to Rabbi Shimon, there is another solution in this case. Both sacrifices can be offered and slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, as is the rule for the asham. They are eaten in accordance with the stricter laws, which are those for the asham. They must be eaten within the Temple walls, by male priests only, for one day and the following night. With regard to the blood applications, the laws are the same. The rabbis respond that this might cause the loss of a sacrifice. One of these sacrifices is a shelamim, which can be eaten for two days and the night in between. If we treat both as ashams, and they are left over after the first night, we will treat them as remnant and burn the leftover. This might cause a valid sacrifice to be destroyed. Since unnecessarily burning sacrifices should be avoided so as not to disgrace the sacrifice, it is better that neither are offered and both are left to graze until they become unfit, as was described above.", + "If pieces [of sacrificial flesh] were mixed up with pieces [of other sacrificial flesh], most sacred sacrifices with lesser sacrifices, [pieces] that are eaten one day with [those] that are eaten two days and one night, they must be eaten in accordance with [the laws of] the more stringent of them. If pieces of sacrificial meat get mixed up, for instance hatat meat with shelamim meat, then the rabbis agree with Rabbi Shimon that the only thing we can do is treat all of the meat with the laws governing the stricter of the sacrifices. In this case, all of the meat will be eaten by priests, for one day and one night, within the Temple confines, as are the rules for the hatat. Any meat left over will have to be burned, because there is no other solution in this case." + ], + [ + "Limbs of a hatat which were mixed up with limbs from an olah: Rabbi Eliezer says: he must place [them all] on the top [of the altar], and regard the flesh of the hatat on top as though it were wood. But the sages say: they must become disfigured, and then go out to the place of burning. In this mishnah a hatat and an olah have been slaughtered and cut up and then the limbs of the two animals get mixed up. As a reminder, a hatat can be eaten by male priests while an olah is completely burned on the altar. The problem is that the limbs cannot be eaten, because of the olah. The debate is over whether the hatat can be burned with the olah meat. Rabbi Eliezer says that he can burn the hatat flesh as long as his intent is not to “turn it into smoke” as is done with sacrifices, but rather to burn it as if it was wood. The other rabbis say that this is not possible. Rather they must leave all the meat until the following morning, when it becomes “disfigured” by being left over. At this point it becomes remnant and it must be burned as is always the rule with remnant sacrifices." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah, limbs of unblemished olahs which can be burned on the altar become mixed up with limbs of blemished olahs which cannot be burned on the altar. As in yesterday’s mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer and the other rabbis debate.", + "Limbs of [unblemished olahs which were mixed up] with the limbs of blemished [olahs]: Rabbi Eliezer says: if [the priest] offered the head of one of them, all the heads are to be offered; the legs of one of them, all the legs are to be offered. But the sages say: even if they had offered all except one of them, it goes forth to the place of burning. All of the sages agree that what he should do is take all of the flesh out to the place of burning, where disqualified sacrifices are disposed (this is not the altar). The debate is over what to do if some of the limbs have already been burned on the altar. Rabbi Eliezer says that if he already burned a head on the altar and then realized the situation, then we can suppose that that head was from the blemished animal and all of the rest of the heads can be offered on the altar, with the assumption that they were from the unblemished animals. The same is true for the other limbs once one has been burned on the altar all of the rest of the same type of limb can be burned. The other sages disagree and say that we can never assume that the already burned limbs were from the blemished animal. We must always be concerned that the flesh that has not yet been burned is from the blemished animal. Therefore, all remaining flesh must be taken out to the burning place and burned there." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah deals with blood from a sacrificial animal that becomes mixed up with some other liquid. The question is: can it still be sprinkled on the altar?", + "If blood was mixed with water, if it retains the appearance of blood, it is fit [to be sprinkled on the altar]. If the blood is mixed with water, it can still be sprinkled on the altar, as long as it is not so watered down that it loses the appearance of blood.", + "If it was mixed with wine, we regard it as though it were water. If the blood is mixed with red wine, then it will have the appearance of blood even if there is mostly red wine. So what we do is we look at the wine as if it were water, and if there is enough wine such that if it were water there would no longer be an appearance of blood, it cannot be used.", + "If it was mixed with the blood of a beast or wild animal, we regard it as though it were water. The same is true if the blood is mixed in with the blood of a non-sacrificial beast or a wild animal (that can never be used as a sacrifice). Since this mixture will always have the appearance of blood, we look at the blood of the non-sacrificial animal as if it were water, and if there is enough of this blood such that if it were water there would no longer be an appearance of blood, it cannot be used.", + "Rabbi Judah said: blood cannot nullify blood. According to Rabbi Judah like things do not nullify each other. Thus no matter how much blood there was from the non-sacrificial animal, the mixture can still be sprinkled on the altar." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with blood from a valid sacrificial animal that is mixed up with other blood.", + "If it was mixed with the blood of unfit [animals], it must be poured out into the duct. In this case the blood of the fit animal is mixed up with blood from an animal that either cannot be sacrificed or was sacrificed and became unfit at some point during the sacrificial procedure. It is forbidden to sprinkle blood from such an animal on the altar. Therefore, all of this blood must be poured into the aqueduct that flows through the Temple courtyard. This aqueduct was used to clean out the Temple, so putting blood there is akin to throwing it in the garbage.", + "[If it was mixed] with the blood that came out after death, it must be poured out into the duct. Rabbi Eliezer declares it fit. The blood that is sprinkled on the altar is the blood that spurts out of the animal as the animal is dying. This is the “life-blood” for it is the blood that carries the animal’s life force. Blood that seeps out after the animal has already died is not sprinkled on the altar. So according to the first opinion, if the life-blood that was supposed to be used is mixed in with this post-mortem blood, it all must be poured into the duct. Rabbi Eliezer allows this blood to be used, at least in this case when it was accidentally mixed in with the valid life-blood.", + "If he [the priest] did not ask but sprinkled it, it is valid. If the priest didn’t ask what to do in any of these cases, and just went ahead and sprinkled a mixture of valid and invalid on the altar, then his sprinkling is valid. According to the Tosefta, it is valid only if the invalid blood is not of sufficient quantity such that if it were water it would cause the mixture to lose the appearance of blood (see yesterday’s mishnah)." + ], + [ + "[If] blood of unblemished animals [was mixed] with blood of blemished animals, it must be poured out into the duct. Blood of blemished animals cannot be spilled on the altar, therefore this mixture must be dumped out into the duct.", + "[If] a goblet [of valid blood was mixed up] with other goblets [of invalid blood]: Rabbi Eliezer said: if he [the priest] offered [sprinkled] one goblet, all the goblets can be offered; But the sages say: even if they offered all of them save one, it must be poured out into the duct. Here, instead of the blood being mixed up, goblets of blood are mixed up. Some of these goblets have the valid blood from unblemished animals and one has the invalid blood of a blemished animal. All of the sages seem to agree that all of the goblets should be spilled out into the duct. They debate what should be done if one of the goblets had already had its blood sprinkled. According to Rabbi Eliezer, we can treat this like the situation with the mixed up limbs in mishnah five. If one of the goblets’ contents has been sprinkled, we can assume that the rest of the goblets are those containing valid blood and their blood can be sprinkled. The sages disagree, as they did above in mishnah five, and say that in all circumstances all of the blood must be poured out into the duct." + ], + [ + "If [blood] that is to be sprinkled below [the red line on the altar] was mixed with blood that is sprinkled above: As we have seen in earlier chapters, some sacrificial blood is sprinkled on the altar above the red line that runs through its middle, and some is sprinkled below. In the case in our mishnah, blood from a sacrifice that is sprinkled above, namely a hatat whose blood is sprinkled on the four corners of the altar, is mixed in with blood that is sprinkled below from either an olah, an asham or a shelamim.", + "Rabbi Eliezer says: he must sprinkle [it] above, and I regard the lower [blood which was sprinkled] above as though it were water, and then he sprinkles again below. Rabbi Eliezer says that the first thing he should do is sprinkle the blood on the four corners of the altar, as is the rule for the hatat. Then Rabbi Eliezer employs a legal fiction similar to that which we saw him use in earlier mishnayot. The priest can look at the blood that was sprinkled above as if it were water, even though it may have in fact been from the blood that was supposed to be sprinkled below, and what is left in the mixture is blood that is supposed to be sprinkled below. Sprinkling the blood below will also count towards the requirement to pour out the remainder of that hatat blood below (see 5:3).", + "But the sages say: he must pour it out into the duct. As in all of the previous cases, the rabbis say that this should not be done. All of the mixture should be poured into the duct for disposal.", + "If he [the priest] did not ask but sprinkled it, it is valid. This is the same line that appeared at the end of mishnah seven. If the priest did apply the blood above the line, then the application is “ex post facto” valid." + ], + [ + "[If blood] which requires one application [was mixed] with blood [also] requiring one application, it [the mixture] should be presented with one application.
[If blood] which requires four applications [was mixed] with blood requiring four applications, they should be presented with four applications.
[If blood] which requires four applications [was mixed] with blood which requires one application: Rabbi Eliezer says: it [the mixture] should be presented with four applications. Rabbi Joshua says: it should be presented with one application.
Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Behold, he transgresses the [injunction] not to diminish [from God’s commandment]! Rabbi Joshua said to him: Behold, he transgresses the injunction not to add [to God’s commandments].
Rabbi Eliezer said to him: The injunction not to add applies only where it is by itself. Rabbi Joshua said to him: The injunction not to diminish applies only where it is by itself.
Moreover, Rabbi Joshua said: when you make [four] applications you transgress the injunction not to add, and perform an action with your own hands; whereas when you do not make [four] applications you transgress the injunction not to diminish, but do not perform an action with your own hands.
The first-born animal, the tithe and the pesah require only one blood application on the outer altar. Some other sacrifices require two applications that are actually four because they are applied on two corners. The hatat requires four distinct blood applications. Our mishnah deals with a case where blood from animals requiring different numbers of blood applications are mixed up with each other.
Note that unlike the previous cases where the mixture had invalid blood in it, in this case the mixture consists of only valid blood. The problem is not in the blood itself, but what exactly to do with it.
Sections one and two: If blood from animals requiring the same number of applications is mixed up then they can simply make that number of applications with the blood. These two sections are quite obvious and probably serve as an introduction to the more interesting case which arises in the next section.
Section three: Here blood requiring two different numbers of applications is mixed up. Rabbi Eliezer holds that in such a situation, they should apply the maximum number of applications, in this case four, whereas Rabbi Joshua holds that they should apply the minimum number of applications, one.
Section four: Let the battle begin! Rabbi Eliezer says that if they make only one application, they will be transgressing the biblical prohibition against diminishing from God’s commandments. Rabbi Joshua quickly responds that Rabbi Eliezer’s suggestion is also problematic, for by making four blood applications, he will be adding to God’s commandments, and this is also prohibited (see Deuteronomy 4:2).
Section five: Rabbi Eliezer explains that the prohibition against adding to God’s commandments only applies when the blood is alone, meaning it is not mixed in with blood that requires four applications. If someone were to take blood that requires one application and apply it four times, that would be a transgression. But in our case since some of the blood does require four applications, there is no transgression.
Of course, Rabbi Joshua responds accordingly that the same can be said with regard to the prohibition against diminishing from God’s commandments it would only apply if there was only blood requiring four applications and he applied it only once. Since some of the blood requires one application, there is no transgression.
This argument seems to be going nowhere!
Section six: So now we’re all tied up in the bottom of the ninth. Rabbi Eliezer had his arguments and Rabbi Joshua responded to each of them. The winning blow (to mix my metaphor) is delivered by Rabbi Joshua who says that in this situation it is preferable to transgress by omission rather than commission. It is preferable to make only one blood application and thereby omit the other three, than to make four applications, thereby adding on three to the blood which only required one.
Interesting, this becomes a halakhic rule in other situations. Generally, if there is a conflict of mitzvoth or a situation of such nature, it is better to not perform anything, than to potentially actively transgress a commandment. As I stated in my introduction, many rules that originally appear in Seder Kodashim, are adopted to other areas of halakhah. Temple law, while not in practice by the time of the Mishnah, remained a rich source of halakhah." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nWhile the blood of most sacrifices is sprinkled on the outer altar, the altar that was in the courtyard, some sacrifices have their blood sprinkled inside, on the golden altar that was in the Sanctuary (the Hekhal). These sacrifices were described in 5:2. Our mishnah deals with a situation where blood that was supposed to be sprinkled inside was mixed up with blood that was supposed to be sprinkled outside.", + "If [blood] which is to be sprinkled inside [the Sanctuary] was mixed with [blood] that is to be sprinkled outside, it must be poured out into the duct. If inside and outside blood are mixed up together, then the mixture should be poured into the duct.", + "If [the priest] sprinkled outside and then sprinkled inside, it is valid. If, however, the priest did not ask and went ahead and sprinkled the blood, if he first sprinkled it outside and then inside, it is valid.", + "[If he sprinkled] inside and then went back and sprinkled outside: Rabbi Akiva declares it unfit, But the sages declare it fit. For Rabbi Akiva says: all blood which entered the Sanctuary to make atonement is unfit; But the sages say: the hatat alone [is unfit]. R. Eliezer said: the asham too, for it says, “As is the hatat, so is the asham” (Leviticus 7:7). The thornier problem is if he first brought the blood inside and sprinkled it on the inner altar and then brought it back outside and sprinkled it on the outer altar. According to Rabbi Akiva, the blood sprinkled on the outer altar is invalid. According to Rabbi Akiva, once blood that is supposed to be sprinkled on the outer altar is brought into the Sanctuary, it is disqualified. The other sages say that both blood applications are valid. The rule that once blood enters the Sanctuary it is invalid to spill it outside was stated only with regard to the hatat, as it says in Leviticus 6:23, “But no sin offering (hatat) whose blood has been brought into the Tent of Meeting for expiation in the sanctuary may be eaten; it shall be burned in the fire.” Rabbi Eliezer expands this to include the asham because Leviticus 7:7 says that the rules that govern the hatat also govern the asham." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with blood from a hatat, which should be sprinkled on the outer altar (found in the Temple courtyard).", + "If the blood of a hatat was received in two goblets and one of them went outside [the Temple courtyard], the inside one is fit. In this case the outside one is rendered invalid but the inside one, which never left the Temple courtyard, remains fit.", + "If one of them entered within [the Sanctuary]: Rabbi Yose the Galilean declares the outer one fit. The sages disqualify it. When one of the two goblets goes into the Sanctuary, it becomes unfit, as we learned in yesterday’s mishnah. The debate is over whether the goblet of blood that remained outside of the Sanctuary, in the Temple courtyard (where it belongs) is also unfit. Rabbi Yose the Galilean argues that the outer one remains fit, but the sages say that in this case, since part of the blood which came from the animal became unfit by going inside the Sanctuary, it all becomes unfit.", + "Rabbi Yose the Galilean: if the place where an intention [directed to it] disqualifies, i.e. without, you do not treat what is left [inside] as what went out; then the place where an intention [directed to it] does not disqualify, i.e. within, is it not logical that we do not treat what is left [outside] as what entered within? Rabbi Yose now argues his position. Had the priest thought to bring the blood of the hatat outside of the Temple, it is already invalid. Nevertheless, if one of the goblets is brought out of the Temple, the other goblet remains valid, as we learned in section one. In contrast, had he thought to bring the blood into the Sanctuary he has not rendered the sacrifice unfit. Therefore, Rabbi Yose argues, all the more so if he actually brings one of the goblets into the Sanctuary, the other one remains fit. It is interesting that the other rabbis do not respond to this argument. It seems likely that they just don’t believe that this argument works here rather, once part of the blood goes into the Sanctuary, all of the blood is rendered unfit no matter where it is.", + "If it entered within to make atonement, even if he [the priest] did not make atonement, it is unfit, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. Rabbi Shimon said: [it is not unfit] unless he makes atonement. Rabbi Judah said: if he took it in unwittingly, it is fit. In this section, there is a debate over whether blood that enters the sanctuary is always rendered unfit, or only under certain circumstances. According to Rabbi Eliezer, if he brought the blood into the Sanctuary in order to sprinkle it on the golden altar, then it is unfit, even if he did not end up sprinkling it. Rabbi Shimon says that it is not rendered unfit until he actually sprinkles it on the altar. Rabbi Judah is even more lenient. If he brings the blood in accidentally, it is not rendered unfit, even if he sprinkles it on the altar. It is unfit only if he intentionally brings it in and sprinkles it on the altar.", + "For all unfit blood which was put on the altar, the head plate [of the high priest] does not propitiate, save for the unclean, for the headplate propitiates for that which is unclean, but does not propitiate for what goes out. According to Exodus 28:38, the head plate worn by the high priest “bears the iniquity of any holy things (sacrifices).” The mishnah explains that the head plate propitiates, meaning cleanses, in a case where a sacrifice becomes impure. In such a case the sacrifice will count, even though it should not have been offered. However, it does not propitiate for a sacrifice whose blood has gone out of the Temple courtyard. If they offer such a sacrifice, it is invalid." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nExodus 29:37 states, “Whatever touches the altar shall become sanctified.” From this verse the rabbis learn that once certain things have been put on the altar they may not be taken back down, even if they were invalidated from being fit sacrifices. In today’s mishnah there is a debate over how far this rule extends: i.e. what things can be taken off the altar once they have been put on, and what things may not.", + "The altar sanctifies whatever is eligible for it. The altar sanctifies anything that is “eligible” for it, even if that thing became unfit. Thus if an animal that was fit (such as a sheep) became unfit and the animal is put up onto the altar, it cannot subsequently be removed.", + "Rabbi Joshua says: whatever is eligible for the altar fire does not descend once it has ascended, as it is said, “The olah itself shall remain where it is burned upon the altar [all night until morning, while the fire of the altar is kept going on it]” (Leviticus 6:: just as the olah, which is eligible for the altar fire, does not descend once it has ascended, so whatever is eligible for the altar fire does not descend once it ascended. Rabbi Joshua limits this rule to that which is eligible for the altar’s fire, meaning things that are burned. As we shall see below in section four, this does not include blood and libations, which are not burned on the altar and therefore can be taken down once they have been put onto the altar. Rabbi Joshua understands the words “eligible for it” in section one to refer to that which is eligible for the fires of the altar, and not just eligible to be put up onto the altar.", + "Rabbi Gamaliel said: whatever is eligible for the altar does not descend once it ascended, as it is said: “The olah itself shall remain where it is burned upon the altar [all night until morning, while the fire of the altar is kept going on it]” (Leviticus 6:2): just as the olah, which is eligible for the altar, does not descend once it ascended, so whatever is eligible for the altar does not descend once it ascended. Rabban Gamaliel expands the rule to include anything that can be put on the altar, including libations and blood. Once one of these has been put on the altar, it cannot be taken back down.", + "The only difference between Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua is in respect of the blood and libations, for Rabban Gamaliel says that they cannot descend, while Rabbi Joshua says that they can descend. As explained above, the difference between Rabbi Joshua and Rabban Gamaliel is with regard to blood and libations which are not burned. All other matter that is eligible for the altar is burned and therefore all agree that it is not taken down.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: if the sacrifice is fit while the libations [which accompanied it] are unfit; or if the libations are fit while the sacrifice is unfit; or even if both are unfit, the sacrifice does not descend, while the libations do descend. Rabbi Shimon distinguishes between libations that accompany a sacrifice (see 4:3) and libations that are put on the altar without a sacrifice. If the libations accompany a sacrifice, then in all cases, regardless of whether the sacrifice is valid and the libations are invalid, vice versa or even both are invalid, the sacrifice stays on the altar and the libations can be taken down. This is like Rabbi Joshua. In contrast, in a case where the libations are put alone on the altar, they remain there even if they become unfit." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn yesterday’s mishnah we learned that when a sacrifice is placed on the altar, it is not taken off, even if it turned out to be unfit. Today’s mishnah discusses what types of disqualifications require that the sacrifice be left on the altar.", + "The following do not descend once they have ascended: [Sacrificial flesh] that was kept overnight, Or that which becomes unclean Or that that which goes out [of its permitted boundaries], Or which was slaughtered [with the intention of consuming it] after the appropriate time or outside the appropriate place; Or if unfit [persons] received and sprinkled its blood. If one of the following disqualifications occurs to a sacrifice and then it is put on the altar, the flesh is not removed from the altar. A) This refers to parts of the sacrifice that are burned on the altar that were outside the Temple overnight. This disqualifies them from being sacrificed. B) Sacrificial flesh is subject to uncleanness. C) Sacrificial flesh cannot be taken out of the Temple courtyard. D) The person offering it had a disqualifying intention (see 2:2). E) Unfit persons can receive and sprinkle the blood of a sacrifice (2:1).", + "Rabbi Judah says: that which was slaughtered at night or whose blood was spilt or whose blood went outside the curtains, if it ascended, it must descend. Rabbi Judah lists a few other cases in which, in his opinion, the sacrifice is taken off of the altar even if it was already put up there. There are three such cases: 1) It was slaughtered at night sacrifices must be slaughtered during the day. 2) If the blood spilled and therefore they could not sprinkle it on the altar, as is done with all sacrifices. 3) If the blood was taken out of the curtains, which is another way of saying that the blood was taken out of the Temple courtyard.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: it does not descend, because Rabbi Shimon says: anything whose disqualification arose in sanctity, the sacred [altar] receives it; if its disqualification did not arise in sanctity, the sacred [altar] does not receive it. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with Rabbi Judah concerning the last category the blood taken out of the courtyard. He holds that only if the disqualification occured “in sanctity” meaning within the Temple courtyard does the sacrifice not descend from the altar. If the disqualification occurred outside of the sacred Temple courtyard, then the sacred altar does not receive it, and it must be taken down. Tomorrow’s mishnah will explain what disqualifications occur outside the Temple’s courtyard." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah is a continuation of Rabbi Shimon’s rule at the end of yesterday’s mishnah, that if a disqualification occurred outside the Temple courtyard, then if the sacrifice is put up on the altar, it should be taken off. The sacrifices that stay on the altar despite their disqualification are ones which became disqualified only some time after they came into the Temple.", + "Which are the ones whose disqualification did not arise in sanctity: An animal which had sexual relations with a woman or with a man, or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or terefah; or an animal born through the caesarean section, and blemished animals. All of these animals were disqualified even before they entered the Temple courtyard. Hence, if they are put up on the altar, they must be taken down. The list is explained in 8:1.", + "Rabbi Akiva declared blemished animals fit [to remain on the altar if they had already been put up]. Rabbi Hananya, chief of the priests, said: my father used to push blemished animals off the altar. Rabbi Akiva allows blemished animals to remain on the altar, even though they may have been blemished before they entered the courtyard. Rabbi Hananya, who himself seems to have served in the Temple, says that his father would push blemished animals off the altar. Interestingly, this is another case where the Mishnah does not seem to provide any more authority in Temple matters to priests than it does to non-priests. Rabbi Akiva does not seem to have changed his opinion, despite Rabbi Hananya’s testimony." + ], + [ + "Just as they do not descend once they have ascended, so they do not ascend if they have descended. Once one of the disqualified sacrifices listed in mishnah two is taken off the altar, it cannot be put back on.", + "And all of these, if they ascended alive to the top of the altar, they must descend. In contrast, if a live animal is put on the altar it may be taken off. The altar only sanctifies sacrifices that have already been slaughtered.", + "An olah which ascended live to the top of the altar, it must descend. If an olah is put alive on the altar, it still should be taken off. It should not be slaughtered there, even though all of it will eventually be burned on the altar.", + "If one slaughtered it on the top of the altar, he must skin it and dismember it where it lies. If, however, one did slaughter the olah on top of the altar, it has now become sanctified and cannot be taken down. It should be skinned and dismembered there on the altar. Then the skin can be removed for burning elsewhere and the pieces can be burned right there on the altar." + ], + [ + "The following if they ascended are taken down:
The flesh of most sacred sacrifices
The flesh of lesser sacrifices;
The remnants of the omer;
The two loaves;
The showbread;
The remnants of meal-offerings;
And the incense.
The wool on the heads of lambs, the hair of he-goats’ beards, the bones, tendons, horns and hoofs if they are attached, go up, because it is said, “And the priest shall turn it all into smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9).
If they were severed [from the animal], they do not go up, for it is said, “And You shall offer your olah, the flesh and the blood, [upon the altar of the Lord your God]” (Deuteronomy 12:27).
Our mishnah lists things that are not meant to be on the altar at all, meaning not in any state. Unlike the things listed in mishnah two, which were once valid and then became invalid, these things were never supposed to be put on the altar. Therefore, even if they were put on the altar, the altar doesn’t sanctify them and they may be taken down.
Sections one and two: The flesh of sacrifices, both most holy sacrifices and lesser sacrifices, is meant to be eaten and not burned on the altar.
Section three: The volume of the omer, offered on the sixteenth of the month of Nissan, was a tenth of an ephah. A handful was burned on the altar and the rest was eaten by the priests. If the remnants were put on the altar, they may be taken down.
Section four: The two loaves that are brought on Shavuot are not meant to be put on the altar.
Section five: The showbread (Leviticus 24:5-19) sat on the golden table in the Sanctuary from week to week. It was eaten not sacrificed.
Section six: Part of the meal offering was put on the altar, but the remnant was eaten by the priests.
Section seven: The incense was put on the inner altar, the one in the Sanctuary. If it was mistakenly put on the outer altar, it can be taken down.
Sections eight and nine: This section seems to be based on a contradiction between the two quoted verses. The verse from Leviticus seems to say that the entire olah is burned on the altar, whereas the verse from Deuteronomy says that only the flesh and blood are burned. The first verse implies that non-flesh and blood parts of the animal, the hair, the bones, sinews etc. are burned, whereas the second implies that they are not. The mishnah resolves this contradiction by stating that when the non-flesh and blood parts are detached from the flesh and blood, then they are not burned on the altar and if they are put up there, they should be taken down. If they are put up there while still attached to the animal, then they have been sanctified and cannot be taken down." + ], + [ + "And if any of these sprang off from the altar they are not replaced. If any item that is not supposed to be taken down from the altar, whether it was one of the list of disqualified sacrifices found in mishnah two, or the hair, bones, sinews etc. referred to in yesterday’s mishnah, is flung off the altar by the power of the fires of the altar, it is not put back on. In other words, if a person used his own power to take them off, then they must be put back on. But if they come off the altar due to some other power, they need not be put back on.", + "Similarly, if a coal sprang off from the altar, it is not replaced. The same is true for a coal found on the altar if it comes off on its own, it need not be put back.", + "Limbs that sprang off from the altar: if before midnight, must be replaced, and they involve trespass; after midnight, they are not replaced and do not involve trespass. Up until midnight, the mitzvah to burn the limbs of the sacrifice has not been fulfilled (see Berachot 1:1). Up until this point, the limbs “belong” to the altar, if you will. Therefore, if they come off on their own, they must be put back. Up until this point, one who unintentionally derives benefit from them has trespassed Temple property. After midnight, their mitzvah has been completed and therefore one who derives benefit from them has not trespassed (although he should not do so). If one of the limbs does fall off the altar after midnight, it need not be replaced." + ], + [ + "Just as the altar sanctifies whatever is eligible for it, so does the ascent sanctify whatever is eligible for it;
And just as the altar and the ascent sanctify whatever is eligible for them, so do vessels sanctify.
Vessels for liquids sanctify liquids,
And the measures sanctify dry material.
A liquid vessel does not sanctify dry matter, nor does a dry [measure] sanctify a liquid.
If holy vessels were perforated and they can be used for the same purpose as when whole, they sanctify [what is placed in them]; if not, they do not sanctify.
And all these sanctify only in the holy place.
The final mishnah of our chapter teaches that the altar is not the only item that sanctifies that which is fit for it other items in the Temple do so as well.
Section one: The ascent is the ramp that leads up to the altar. If something that is fit for the altar is brought onto the ascent, it is sanctified and cannot be taken down. The same rules that apply to things that ascend onto the altar will apply to the ascent.
Section two: The ministering vessels, listed in Exodus 30:28-29, also sanctify things that are put in them, as long as they are fit.
Sections three-five: There are vessels meant to hold liquids, such as wine libations, and there are vessels meant to hold dry measures, such as the minhah (grain) offerings. Each type of vessel only sanctifies the type of material it is meant to hold.
Section six: If there is a hole in one of the vessels but it can still be used for its original purpose, then it still sanctifies that which is put in it. But if it can no longer be used, then it has lost its status as a holy vessel and it does not sanctify that which is put in it.
Section seven: The sanctifying effect of the vessels is dependent upon their being in the Temple courtyard. If the vessel is taken out of the courtyard, it will no longer sanctify." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Whatever is more frequent than another, takes precedence over the other.
The daily offerings precede the additional offerings;
The additional offerings of Shabbat precede the additional offerings of Rosh Hodesh;
The additional offerings of Rosh Hodesh precede the additional offerings of Rosh Hashanah.
As it is said, “You shall present these in addition to the morning portion of the regular burnt offering” (Numbers 28:23).
The first five mishnayot of this chapter deal with the order in which different sacrifices are offered. There are two general rules, one which we will see in this mishnah and one in the next mishnah.
Section one: This is a general principle that is today often invoked when determining which prayer, or which blessing is recited first (for instance over the matzah on Pesah). As is frequently the case, a principle that plays a large role in later halakhah, has its origins in sacrificial law.
Sections two-four: Here, the principle is invoked in connection to the daily offerings and the additional offerings (musaf). A more frequent sacrifice is offered first.
Section five: This is the proof text that the daily tamid, the morning offering, is offered before the other additional offerings for holidays. The verse implies that the morning offering has already been offered before the other sacrifices are offered. Hence, whatever is more frequent comes first." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe principle that whatever is more frequent takes precedence is determinative only when there is a set frequency to a given sacrifice. Most sacrifices are offered whenever a person needs to bring one without a determined frequency. Therefore, there is a different principle as to which takes precedence.", + "Whatever is more sacred than another precedes the other. The principle invoked here is that whatever is more sacred is offered first. As we shall see below, there are different ways of determining what is more sacred.", + "The blood of a hatat precedes the blood of a olah, because it propitiates. If a priest has to sprinkle blood from a hatat and blood from an olah, he first sprinkles the blood from the hatat because the hatat propitiates (atones) for sin, whereas an olah does not have that function. Here we see that sanctity is determined by what a sacrifice does the greater effect it has, the greater its sanctity.", + "The limbs of a olah precede the innards of a hatat, because it [the former] is entirely for the fires [of the altar]. An olah is completely burned, whereas parts of the hatat are eaten. This means, to the mishnah, that an olah is more sacred. Therefore, the parts of the olah that are burned take precedence over the parts of the hatat that have to be burned.", + "A hatat precedes an asham, because its blood is sprinkled on the four horns and on the base. A hatat is holier than an asham because it requires four full blood applications, whereas the asham requires only two that are four (they are applied on the corners. See above 5:3 and 5:5.", + "An asham precedes a today and a nazirite’s ram, because it is a most holy sacrifice. An asham is a most holy sacrifice and therefore it is offered before sacrifices of lesser sanctity such as the todah and the nazirite’s ram, brought at the end of the term of his naziriteship.", + "A todah and a nazirite's ram precede a shelamim, because they are eaten one day [only] and require [the accompaniment of] loaves. The shelamim is also a sacrifice of lesser sanctity. But the todah and nazirite’s ram can only be eaten for one day and night, whereas the shelamim can be eaten the next day and night. And when a todah or nazirite’s ram are brought, loaves accompany them. Here we see that more restrictions and more mitzvoth (loaves) implies greater sanctity.", + "A shelamim precedes a firstling, because it requires four [blood] applications and laying [of hands], libations, and the waving of the breast and the thigh. The first-born animal is also considered a lesser sacrifice. The shelamim is offered before it because the shelamim requires four blood applications. It requires the bringer to lay his hands on the animal. It is accompanied by wine libations and when it is offered, the breast and thigh are waved. The only one of these elements found in a firstling is laying of the hands." + ], + [ + "A first-born precedes tithe, because its sanctity is from the womb, and it is eaten by priests. If a priest has a first-born and a tithe to sacrifice, he first sacrifices the first-born because it has greater sanctity than the tithe for two reasons: 1) it is sacred as soon as it is conceived, whereas the tithe has to wait until it is counted as a tenth animal to become sacred; 2) The first-born is eaten only by priests, whereas the tithe can be eaten by anyone.", + "Tithe precedes bird [-offerings] because it is a slaughtered sacrifice, and part of it is most sacred: its blood and innards. Tithe is sacrificed before either of the bird-offerings (olah and hatat) for two reasons: 1) It is a slaughtered whereas bird-offerings are nipped. Also, there are various sacrifices for which there is a sliding-scale: a rich person brings a bullock, a person of medium wealth brings a sheep or goat and a poor person brings a bird. Hence, a bird is a lesser sacrifice. 2) Part of the tithe is burned on the altar namely its blood and innards (emurim), the same way that parts of a most holy sacrifice are burned on the altar. In contrast, although the bird hatat and olah are most holy sacrifices, only the innards of the bird hatat are put on the altar. The entire bird olah is burned on the altar, and therefore one would think that the bird olah should take precedence over the tithe. But because the bird olah takes precedence over the bird hatat (as we shall see in tomorrow’s mishnah) the tithe, which definitely precedes the bird hatat, must also precede the bird olah." + ], + [ + "Birds precede meal-offerings (, because they are blood sacrifices. Meal-offerings are offered by the very, very poor, those who can’t even offer a bird (see Leviticus 5:11). Hence, a bird-offering precedes them. Also, the blood of a bird-offering is sprinkled on the altar, and there is obviously no blood to the meal-offering.", + "A sinner’s meal-offering precedes a voluntary meal-offering, because it comes on account of sin. The sinner’s meal offering (Leviticus 5:11) is brought to atone for certain sins, either various false oaths or bringing defilement into the Temple. It precedes the voluntary meal-offering because it atones, whereas the voluntary meal-offering does not atone for any sin.", + "A hatat of a bird precedes an olah of a bird. The rabbis derive from Leviticus 5:8 that the hatat takes precedence over the olah. Note that in 10:2 the mishnah stated that parts of the olah take place to parts of the hatat. That was in reference to parts of animal sacrifices. When it comes to the whole sacrifice, the hatat takes precedence.", + "And it is likewise when he dedicates them. When a person brings a bird offering as a hatat, he also brings one bird as on olah (Leviticus 5:7). When he separates them and declares which is the hatat and which is the olah, he must first designate the hatat and then the olah." + ], + [ + "All hatats in the Torah precede ashams, except the asham of a metzora (one with a skin, because it comes to make [a person] fit. As we learned in mishnah two of this chapter, the hatat takes precedence over the asham because its blood is sprinkled on all four corners of the altar, whereas the blood of the asham is sprinkled on only two corners. There is one exception to this rule and that is the asham of the metzora (Leviticus 14:14). The blood of this asham is placed on the ear, thumb and large toe of the metzora and it purifies him from his skin affliction. This makes him fit to participate in rituals which require purity. The metzora also brings a hatat and this sacrifice is also required in order for him to be purified from his affliction. However, since it is the blood from the asham and not the blood of the hatat that is placed on his body, it takes precedence.", + "All ashams of the Torah must be two-year olds and [two] silver shekels in value, except a nazirite’s asham and the asham of a metzorah, for they are a year old, and need not be [two] silver shekels in value. The mishnah now begins to discuss some general principles with regard to the asham. The Torah describes most ashams as being “rams.” In order to be a ram the animal must be at least two years old. The asham must also be worth at least two silver shekels. In describing the asham brought for illegal trespass of Temple property Leviticus 5:15 states that it must be worth “shekalim” which is the plural of “shekel.” The minimum number of a plural is two, and therefore the asham ram must be worth at least two shekels. There are two exceptions to this rule: the asham brought by the nazirite and the asham brought by the metzora. When it comes to the nazirite’s asham, Numbers 6:12 says that he must “bring a lamb (keves) in its first year as an asham.” The same word “keves” is used in Leviticus 14:12 with regard to the metzora’s asham, and hence we can learn that it too is one year old, and not two. If a two-year old ram is worth two shekels, then a one year old lamb is not worth two shekels (at least not usually). Therefore, the rabbis waive the requirement that these ashams, which are lambs and not rams, must be worth two silver shekels." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah returns to the discussion of what sacrifices take precedence over other sacrifices.", + "Just as they take precedence in being offered, so they take precedence in being eaten. Until now our chapter of mishnah has been discussing precedence with regard to sacrificing an animal (or meal-offering). Now the mishnah adds that if someone has two or more sacrifices to eat, the rules of precedence continue to apply. The hatat precedes the asham, the asham precedes the todah, etc.", + "Yesterday’s shelamim and today’s shelamim, yesterday’s takes precedence. A shelamim can be eaten the day it is sacrificed, the following night and the following day. Since yesterday’s shelamim must be eaten before the day is over, it takes precedence over today’s shelamim, which has longer in which to be eaten.", + "Yesterday’s shelamim and today’s hatat and asham, yesterday's shelamim takes precedence, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the sages say: the hatat takes precedence, because it is a most sacred sacrifice. Yesterday’s shelamim must be eaten by the end of the day, whereas the hatat and the asham that were offered today can be eaten today and tonight. To Rabbi Meir, the fact that the shelamim must be eaten earlier than the hatat or asham means that it takes precedence, despite the general rule that the asham and hatat take precedence over the shelamim. The sages rule that today’s hatat takes precedence over yesterday’s shelamim, and the same would hold true for today’s asham. Since they are most holy sacrifices their innate holiness overrides any consideration of how much longer the sacrifice can be eaten." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses how the sacrifices that priests eat are to be prepared. It is brought here because the debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon is tangentially related to the debate between the sages and Rabbi Shimon in yesterday’s mishnah.", + "And in all of these, the priests may deviate in how they eat, and eat them roasted, stewed or boiled. The priest(s) eating the sacrifice may choose to prepare the meat in any way they wish. There are no restrictions as to how the meat can be eaten.", + "And one may season them with hullin spices or terumah spices, the words of Rabbi Shimon. According to Rabbi Shimon, the priest may spice his sacrificial meat with either sacred (terumah) or non-sacred (hullin) spices.", + "Rabbi Meir says: one should not season them with terumah spices, so as not to bring terumah to unfitness. Rabbi Meir points out that by spicing his sacrificial meat with terumah spices, the priest might cause the terumah to become unfit for eating. This is because there is a time limit as to how long any sacrifice can be eaten, be it the day it is slaughtered and the following night, or the following night and day. If he spices the meat with terumah, then the spices will absorb some of the taste of the meat. Since they have the taste of the meat, they will be restricted with regard to how long they can be eaten, just as the meat was restricted. Once past this time, they will need to be burned, the same rule that applies to the meat. Thus, by spicing his sacrifice with terumah he may cause terumah to have to be burned, and this is prohibited. Rabbi Meir rules, therefore, that the priest should not use terumah to season his sacrificial meal." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn this mishnah Rabbi Shimon points out how one could identify what type of oil is being divided up by the priests in the Temple courtyard and what type of oil is being burned in order to remove it.", + "Rabbi Shimon said: if you see oil being divided in the Temple courtyard, you don’t need to ask what it is for, for it is the remnant of oil of the wafers of the Israelite’s meal-offerings, or of the metzora’s log of oil. The extra oil used to anoint the meal offering brought by an Israelite goes to the priests. The “wafers of the Israelite’s meal-offerings” refers to a type of meal offering that is either brought as loaves soaked with oil or as wafers that have been dabbed with oil (see Leviticus 2:4: we will learn a lot more about the meal-offering, the minhah, in tractate Menahot). The remnant of the oil brought by the metzora (a person afflicted with scale disease, see Leviticus 14:15) also belongs to the priest. This oil is brought in a vessel and used among other things to anoint the metzora. What is leftover, the priest gets to keep.", + "If you see oil being poured on to the fires, you don’t need not ask what it is for, for it is the remnant of the oil of the wafers of priests’ meal-offerings, or of the anointed priest's meal-offering; for one cannot voluntarily offer offer oil [alone]. Rabbi Shimon now explains what oil doesn’t go to the priest and instead is poured out onto the altar. If the priest is bringing the minhah (meal) offering, then neither he nor any other priest gets to keep the oil. All of this meal offering, and all of the oil, is burned. The high priest (the anointed priest) offers a minhah offering every day. The remnant of this oil does not go to the priests, but rather is burned.. A person cannot voluntarily offer just oil. Therefore, any oil that one sees in the Temple being either divided up among the priests or burned on the altar cannot come from a voluntary offering. This line comes to explain how one knows that the oil being divided up among the priests or burned on the altar is not from a voluntary offering oil simply cannot be brought alone as a voluntary offering.", + "Rabbi Tarfon say: oil can be voluntarily offered [alone]. Rabbi Tarfon disagrees and holds that oil can be brought as an individual offering. Therefore, if one sees oil being divided or burned it might also come from such an offering." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nIn connection with a hatat, Leviticus 6:20 states, “Anything that touches its flesh shall become holy; and if any of its blood is spattered upon a garment, you shall wash the bespattered part in the holy place.”\nThis chapter deals with various details that stem from this verse. Our mishnah deals with the second half of the verse.", + "If the blood of a hatat spurted on to a garment, it must be washed. As the second half of verse 20 states, if blood from a hatat splatters onto a piece of clothing, the piece of clothing must be washed.", + "Though scripture speaks only of [hatats] which are eaten, for it is said, “In the holy place shall it be eaten,” (Leviticus 6:19), yet both those which may be eaten and the inner [sacrifices] necessitate washing, for it is said, “[This is] the law of the hatat” (Leviticus 6:18), there is one law for all hatats. The mishnah clarifies that verse 20 speaks about all hatats, both those that are eaten by the priests and those that are offered inside the Sanctuary on the golden altar and are not eaten (see 5:1-2). Although verse 19 seems to refer only to hatats that are eaten, since verse 18 refers to all hatats, the rules that are in verse 20 are understood as referring to all hatats as well." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches that when Leviticus 6:20 states, “And if any of its [the hatat] blood is spattered upon a garment, you shall wash the bespattered part in the holy place,” it is only referring to a valid hatat, and not to a disqualified one.", + "The blood of a disqualified hatat does not necessitate washing, whether it had a period of fitness or did not have a period of fitness. If the blood came from a disqualified hatat, then the garment does not require ritual cleansing (I might advise one to wash it before wearing it again, but that’s not the type of washing referred to here). This applies whether or not the hatat was once valid and then became disqualified (“had a period of fitness”) or whether it was disqualified from the minute it was sacrificed (“did not have a period of fitness”). The mishnah now explains these two categories.", + "Which had a period of fitness? One [whose blood] was kept overnight, or was defiled, or was taken out [of the Temple courtyard]. There are three cases where the hatat “had a period of fitness”. First it was sacrificed properly and then: 1) its blood was kept overnight in the Temple courtyard; 2) It was defiled for instance its flesh was defiled before the blood was sprinkled; 3) The blood was taken out of the Temple courtyard before it was sprinkled on the altar. For more information on these categories see 9:2.", + "Which did not have a period of fitness? One which was slaughtered [with the intention of eating it] after the appropriate time or outside the appropriate bounds; or whose blood was received by unfit persons, and sprinkled by them. If the hatat was slaughtered improperly, for instance with the wrong intention, or its blood was received and/or sprinkled by a person not qualified to do so (see 2:1), then the blood never had a period of fitness." + ], + [ + "If [blood] spurted [direct] from the [animal's] throat onto a garment, it does not require washing.
From the horn or from the base [of the altar], it does not require washing.
If it spilled out on to the floor [of the Temple] and [the priest] collected it, [and then it splattered onto a garment] it does not require washing.
Only blood which was received in a vessel and is fit for sprinkling requires washing.
If [the blood] spurted on to the hide, before it was flayed, it does not require washing.
[If it spurted] after it was flayed, it requires washing, the words of Rabbi Judah. Rabbi Elazar says: even [if it spurted on the skin] after it was flayed [it does not require washing].
Only the place of the blood requires washing.
And whatever is eligible to contract uncleanness,
And whatever is fit for washing.
Sections one-four: In section four the general rule that explains the first three sections of the mishnah is stated. The blood which if spilled on a garment requires the garment to be washed is only blood that was in a vessel and was fit for being sprinkled on the altar. In other words, totally valid blood, ready to be spilled onto the altar, contaminates the garment, because that’s not where the blood is supposed to be. But if the blood was not valid blood in a vessel, the garment need not be ritually washed.
The mishnah lists three such possibilities.
1) Blood which splatters directly from the neck of the animal onto the garment. Since it is not in a vessel, the blood doesn’t contaminate the garment.
2) If the blood was already spilled on the horn or the base of the altar, and then it gets on the garment, the blood doesn’t contaminate. This blood has already fulfilled its purpose and therefore it no longer contaminates.
3) If it had spilled onto the floor of the Temple, it can no longer be sprinkled onto the altar. Since it is no longer eligible for the altar, it doesn’t contaminate.
Section five: Before the hide is flayed from the animal, it is not a “garment” and not even in a state from which it can become a garment. Therefore, if blood spills on it, it is not contaminated.
Section six: According to Rabbi Judah, once it has been flayed, the hide is close enough to a garment, that it can become contaminated by the hatat blood. Even though a hide usually cannot become impure until it has been processed, if one should decide to use it as a garment in its current state, it would become susceptible to impurity. [We will learn more about this when we learn Seder Toharot]. Therefore, Rabbi Judah says it does require washing.
Rabbi Elazar says that since it is not at this moment susceptible to impurity, it does not require washing.
Section seven: The entire garment does not require washing, just the point that came into contact with blood.
Section eight: Only a garment that is susceptible to impurity must be washed. This would seem to exclude a piece of cloth so small that it can no longer become impure.
Section nine: Finally, if the garment cannot be washed, for instance a garment made of wood (I know, sounds weird), then it doesn’t require washing. The Torah only requires that washables be washed." + ], + [ + "Whether a garment, a sack, or a hide, it requires washing in a holy place. No matter the material of the garment, whether it be normal cloth, probably made of wool or linen, or coarse sack-cloth or a hide, it must be washed in the holy place, which means in the Temple courtyard. This is stated explicitly in Leviticus 6:20.", + "The breaking of an earthen vessel must be in a holy place. Leviticus 6:21 states, “An earthen vessel in which it [the hatat] was boiled shall be broken.” The mishnah teaches that just as the washing of the garment must be in the Temple courtyard, so too the breaking of the copper vessel must be done there. In both cases the hatat contaminates, and therefore the contamination must be cleansed.", + "And the scouring and rinsing of a copper vessel must be in a holy place. The continuation of the verse states, “If it was boiled in a copper vessel, [the vessel] shall be scoured and rinsed with water.” This too must be done in the Temple courtyard.", + "In this the hatat is more stringent than [other] sacrifices of higher sanctity. In this regard, the laws concerning the hatat are more stringent than the laws concerning other sacrifices, even most holy ones. In cases involving other sacrifices, the garment can be washed, the earthen vessel can be broken and the copper vessel can be rinsed and scoured in places other than the Temple courtyard." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with washing a garment or breaking an earthen vessel in the holy place in order to cleanse it from contamination from the hatat.", + "If a garment was carried outside the curtains [of the Tabernacle], it must re-enter, and is washed it in the holy place. If the garment which was splattered with the hatat blood is brought out of Temple confines (the Mishnah always uses the term “curtains” which refers to the Tabernacle, even though it clearly means the walls of the Temple), it must be brought back into the Temple and washed there.", + "If it was defiled outside the curtains, one must tear it, then it re-enters, and is washed in the holy place. If it is defiled outside the Temple, it cannot be brought back into the Temple because it is prohibited to bring defilement into the Temple. Therefore, he should tear it, and thereby make it no longer susceptible to impurity. Once garments are torn and thereby no longer are “garments” they are pure. Then he can bring it back into the Temple and wash it there.", + "If an earthen vessel was carried outside the hangings, it re-enters and is broken in a holy place. Similarly, with regard to the earthen vessel. If it is brought out of the Temple, he should bring it back in and break it inside the Temple.", + "If it was defiled outside the curtains, a hole is made in it, then it re-enters and is broken in a holy place. And if it becomes impure outside the Temple, he puts a hole in it. This makes it pure because a vessel with a hole in it is no longer usable as a vessel and it thereby becomes pure. Then he can bring it back in and break it inside the Temple." + ], + [ + "If a copper vessel was carried outside the hangings, it re-enters and is scoured and rinsed in a holy place.
If it was defiled outside the hangings, it must be broken through, then it re-enters and is scoured and rinsed in a holy place.
This mishnah teaches the exact same law as was found in yesterday’s mishnah, except that today’s mishnah refers to a copper vessel. Since the law is the same, I refer the reader to yesterday’s mishnah for more commentary.
Section two: In order to purify the copper vessel, he must make a large hole in it, for metal vessels become pure only if large holes are put into them." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThe earthen vessel is broken and the copper vessel scoured and rinsed if sacrifices were cooked in them. Our mishnah continues to deal with this law.\nWe should note that again a mishnah concerning sacrificial law later becomes halakhically significant by being applied to other areas. The laws concerning cleansing the vessel in which a sacrifice is cooked are eventually used as a source for laws for how vessels are “kashered.”", + "Whether one boiled in it or poured boiling [sacrificial flesh] into it, whether most sacred sacrifices or lesser sacrifices, [the pot] requires scouring and rinsing. Rabbi Shimon says: lesser sacrifices do not require scouring and rinsing. The earthen vessel must be broken and the copper vessel scoured and rinsed whether they were used to boil a sacrifice or whether a boiled sacrifice was poured into them. The important thing is that since the sacrifice was hot when it was in the vessel, the vessel absorbed some of the taste of the sacrifice and it must subsequently be cleansed. This remains a normative law in kashrut – vessels absorb the taste of that which is cooked in them only if the food is hot. The verses from Leviticus 6 refer only to the hatat. Nevertheless, the rabbis extend these laws to other sacrifices. Just as the taste of the hatat needs to be removed from the vessels, so too does the taste of other sacrifices. The first opinion holds that this is true for most holy sacrifices, like the hatat and the asham, and for less holy sacrifices like the shelamim and todah. Rabbi Shimon says that if the vessel was used to cook a less holy sacrifice, it need not be scoured and rinsed.", + "Rabbi Tarfon says: if one boiled [sacrifices in a pot] at the beginning of a festival, he can boil in it during the whole festival. But the sages say: until the time of eating, scouring and rinsing. Rabbi Tarfon says that if a vessel was used to cook a sacrifice at the beginning of a seven day festival (Sukkot or Pesah), one can continue to use that vessel throughout the entire festival without scouring and rinsing it. Since the vessel will be in continuous use due to the large number of sacrifices offered during the festival, each time it is used the vessel will discharge the taste of the previous sacrifice cooked in it, and thereby the taste of that sacrifice will never become “remnant,” sacrifice left over past the time when it must be eaten. The other rabbis hold that the vessel must be scoured and rinsed before the time in which any sacrifice that was in it had to be eaten. For instance, if a hatat is put into the vessel, then the vessel must be scoured and rinsed by midnight, for that is when the hatat becomes remnant. This is true even if another sacrifice, for instance a shelamim, is cooked in there before this time. The rabbis disagree that the taste of the sacrifice will be completely discharged through cooking another sacrifice. Since the taste will remain, it must be scoured and rinsed within the time that any sacrifices are cooked in it.", + "Scouring is done as the scouring of a goblet; and rinsing is as the rinsing of a goblet, Scouring and rinsing are done to the copper vessels as is done with a goblet, which means that they are thoroughly cleansed.", + "Scouring [in hot water] and rinsing in cold [water]. There are two different versions of this line. According to one version, not found in manuscripts but accepted by the Rambam, scouring is done with hot water. Since the taste came in to the vessel through hot water, it can only be removed through hot water. According to the other version, the scouring need only be done through cold water. According to both versions, rinsing is done through cold water.", + "The spit and the grill are cleansed with hot water. A spit or grill upon which a sacrifice was roasted, must be cleansed by being put into boiling water. Since these were directly on the fire, the requirements for cleansing are greater." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah introduces several principles as to when taste is transferred from one thing to another. Again, while the principles here relate directly to sacrificial law that is no longer practiced today (and wasn’t practiced at the time of the Mishnah either), these principles are also applicable to the laws of kashrut and thus historically were and remain significant practical halakhah.", + "If one boiled sacrifices and hullin in it [the copper pot], or most holy sacrifices and lesser sacrifices, if they were sufficient to impart their flavor, the less stringent must be eaten as the more stringent of them; In both cases mentioned here, a person boils two different things in one pot, one of greater stringency (sacrifices, or most holy sacrifices) and one of lesser stringency (hullin, or less holy sacrifices). If there is enough of the sacrifices to impart a taste to the hullin, or enough most holy sacrifices to impart taste to the less holy sacrifices, then the rules of the stringent will apply to everything in the pot. Thus the hullin would have to be treated like sacrificial meat and the less holy sacrifices like most holy sacrifices. But if there is not enough to impart taste, then the more lenient rules remain in place.", + "But they do not necessitate scouring and rinsing; This line seems to say that even if the sacrifices impart their flavor, the pot still need not be scoured and rinsed. However, the Talmud emends the line to read “they do necessitate scouring and rinsing and they do disqualify by touch; if there is not enough to impart taste, then the less stringent need not be eaten as the more stringent ….” In other words, the Talmud emends the line to read the opposite of what it actually says. As long as the more stringent stuff does not impart taste, the less stringent rules apply.", + "And they do not disqualify by touch. Leviticus 6:20 states that anything that touches the flesh of the hatat shall become holy. The rabbis rule that any food that absorbs the taste of sacrifices becomes holy like the sacrifice. If the sacrifice is unfit then it too is unfit. If he cooks a mixture of sacrifices and hullin in a pot, and there is not enough sacrifice to impart a taste to the mixture, then the mixture does not disqualify other food which absorbs its taste. (This is according to the talmudic reading of this line, which I mentioned above in my commentary to section two).", + "If [an unfit] wafer touched a [fit] wafer, or an [unfit] piece of meat touched a [fit] piece of meat, not the whole wafer or the whole piece of meat is forbidden; only the part that absorbed [of the unfit] is forbidden. When a permitted thing and a forbidden thing touch and the permitted thing absorbs some of the taste of the forbidden thing, only the part that absorbed the taste would become prohibited. The mishnah illustrates this with regard to the wafer (brought as an accompaniment to a sacrifice) or a piece of sacrificial flesh." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nOur chapter discusses what parts of the sacrifices the priests receive. Our mishnah begins by pointing out which priests do not receive a share.", + "A tebul yom and one who lacks atonement do not share in sacrifices for consumption in the evening. A tebul yom is a priest who immersed in a mikveh in order to cleanse himself of his impurity but the sun has not yet set upon him. He cannot eat sacrifices, although he is clean once he has been in the mikveh. “One who lacks atonement” is an impure priest, for instance one who had been a zav, who had to bring a sacrifice the day after he immerses in a mikveh. He cannot eat sacrificial meat until after he brings the sacrifices, even though he is clean after having gone in the mikveh. Both of these types of priest do not receive their share of sacrificial meat today, in order to eat it tomorrow, or tonight. Since they cannot currently eat sacrifices, they lose out on their share.", + "An onen may handle [sacrifices], but he may not offer them, and he does not receive a share for consumption in the evening. An onen is a person (in this case a priest) whose close relative has died. The priest remains an onen on the day of the death according to Torah law, but the rabbis add that he remains an onen throughout the following night as well. An onen is not allowed to eat sacrifices, but he can touch them, for he is not impure. He does not receive a share in order to eat that night, since this is rabbinically forbidden.", + "Priests with blemishes, whether permanent or passing, receive a share and may eat [of the sacrifices] but they may not offer them. A priest with a blemish cannot offer sacrifices, but he can eat them and therefore he receives his share with the other priests. See Leviticus 21:21-23.", + "Whoever is not eligible for service does not share in the flesh. A priest who is not eligible to take part in the service, for instance a priest who is impure, does not receive part of the sacrificial flesh. The exception is those with blemishes, as stated in section three.", + "And he who does not share in the flesh does not share in the hides. Someone who doesn’t get his part of the flesh, also loses out on his part of the hides of the sacrifices.", + "Even if one was unclean when the blood was sprinkled but clean when the fats were burned [on the altar], he does not share in the flesh, for it is said: “he among the sons of Aaron, that offers the blood of the shelamim, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). Even if the person was impure during the day when the blood was sprinkled on the altar, and then pure in the evening when the fats were burned, he still doesn’t get a share of the flesh or hides, until he is pure at the point when the blood is sprinkled. This is derived from the verse which says that one who offers both the blood and the fat gets a portion of the flesh – but if he can’t offer the blood, he loses his portion. In other words, no blood, no flesh!" + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah teaches that the priests have the right to the hide of a sacrifice only if the flesh of the sacrifice was burned on the altar.", + "Whenever the altar does not acquire its flesh, the priests do not acquire the hide, for it is said, “[And the priest that offers] any man’s olah [the priest shall have … the hide]” (Leviticus 7:8), [this means,] an olah which went up on the altar on behalf a man. If for some reason the flesh of the sacrifice cannot be burned on the altar, for instance it was sacrificed with a disqualifying intention, then the priests also don’t acquire the hides. This is learned from a midrash on Leviticus 7:8 which implies that when the priest successfully sacrifices a person’s olah, then he gets to keep the hide. Only if the olah is actually put on the altar, does the priest receive the hide.", + "If an olah was slaughtered under a different designation, although it does not count for its owner, its hide belongs to the priests. If the olah was slaughtered with the intent of it being a different sacrifice, it can be put on the altar, even though it does not discharge the owner of his obligation (see 1:1). Since it can be put on the altar, the priest does receive the hide.", + "Whether [it be] a man’s olah or a woman's olah, the hide belong to the priests. Even the Torah says, “man”, the priest receives the hide of the sacrifice whether it was brought by a man or a woman. The word “man” in this context was not meant to exclude a woman." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah discusses who receives the hides of different types of sacrifices.", + "The hides of less holy sacrifices belong to their owners. The Torah states that the hide of an olah goes to the priests. Since the olah is a most holy sacrifice (as is the hatat and the asham), the rabbis extrapolate that the hides of all most holy sacrifices go to the priests, as we shall see below. But when it comes to the hides of less holy sacrifices, such as the shelamim, the todah, the tithe and the first-born, they go to those who bring these sacrifices.", + "The hides of most holy sacrifices belong to the priest. This is a kal vehomer: if with an olah, even though they do not acquire its flesh they do acquire its hide, is it not logical that they acquire the hides of most holy sacrifices, when they do acquire their flesh? While the Torah states that the hides of the olah go to the priest, the rabbis expand this to include all most holy sacrifices. The argument is a kal vehomer argument, which roughly translates as an “all the more so” type of argument. If the priests receive the hide even when they don’t receive the flesh, as is the case with the olah, all the more so they receive the hide when they do receive the flesh, as is the case with the asham and hatat.", + "The altar does not refute [this argument], for it does not acquire the hide in any instance. In order to refute a kal vehomer argument, what one must do is show that the relationship between the two things being discussed is not stable. In our case, the mishnah tried to claim that the relationship between hide and flesh is stable whenever one receives the flesh, he receives the hide. However, the altar could seemingly prove the opposite the altar receives the flesh and doesn’t receive the hide. Therefore, we could say that the priests receive the flesh of most holy sacrifices but they don’t receive the hide. The mishnah rejects this argument because the altar never receives the hide, unlike the priests who do receive the hide of the olah. In other words, we reason the kal vehomer argument from the fact that the priests do receive the hide of the olah and therefore they also receive the hide of other most holy sacrifices, and not from some general argument that any time someone receives the flesh, he also receives the hide." + ], + [ + "All sacrifices which became disqualified, before they were flayed, their hides do not belong to the priests. After they were flayed, their hides belong to the priests. When sacrifices are disqualified, they cannot be eaten. The question in our mishnah is what to do with the hides when the priests do not get the flesh. If the sacrifice was disqualified before the animal was flayed, then the hide does not belong to the priest. In this case the disqualification renders the hide disqualified as well. If the disqualification takes place after the hide has already been removed, then it does not affect the status of the hide, which goes to the priest.", + "Rabbi Hanina vice-chief of the priests said: Never in my life have I seen a hide go out to the place of burning. Rabbi Hanina was the vice-chief of the priests, and hence his testimony of what occurred in the Temple is first-hand. Rabbi Hanina claims that he never saw a hide go out to be burned in the place of burning, which is what would have to be done to a hide if it was disqualified from going to either the priest or the owner. Rather, the always went to the priests (or to the owners in the case of less holy sacrifices). This line is an interesting interpolation of actual Temple practice into abstract rabbinic law concerning what is supposed to happen in the Temple. As I have stated many times, the rabbis’ laws are not simply recordings of what actually happened in the Temple. Rather, they are based mostly on rabbinic interpretation of the Torah and rabbinic application of legal principles. These interpretations and principles are occasionally mixed in with traditions about what actually happened in the Temple. Very rarely do we have a priest actually tell us what he saw in the Temple. And here, when a priest of priestly and rabbinic authority does testify, it seems to contradict what was stated above, for according to the previous halakhah, if the disqualification occurred before the animal was flayed, the hide must be burned.", + "Rabbi Akiva said: we learn from his words that if one flays a firstling and it is found to be terefah, the priests have a right to its hide. Rabbi Akiva attempts to derive a halakhah from Rabbi Hanina’s testimony. If a firstling was slaughtered, whether in the Temple as a sacrifice when it does not have a blemish, or outside the Temple when it is blemished, and it is found to be a terefah, an animal with an internal flaw such that it cannot be eaten, the priests receive the hide. Were it not for Rabbi Hanina’s testimony, we would have thought that the hide should have been burned.", + "But the sages say: “I have never seen” is not proof: rather, it [the hide] must go forth to the place of burning. The other rabbis discount Rabbi Hanina’s testimony as being valueless. The fact that he didn’t see something occur does not mean that it did not actually occur. Perhaps there was a hide burned at the burning place and not given to the priests but that this did not occur while Rabbi Hanina was serving in the Temple. Hence, the law cannot be based on his testimony, rather if the disqualification occurs before the animal is flayed, the priests do not receive the hide, as was stated in section one." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nIn chapter five mishnayot 1-2 we learned that in certain cases, namely that of certain bullocks and goats, the sacrificial rites are performed on the inner altar. Their blood is spilled on the inner altar. Our mishnah deals with where these sacrifices are burned.", + "Bullocks which are burned and goats which are burned: when they are burned in fulfillment of their prescribed commandment, they are burned in the ash depository (bet, and they defile garments. If the bullocks or goats had not been disqualified, then the flesh is burned in the “ash depository” or “bet hadeshen” which was outside of Jerusalem. In addition, one who burns these sacrifices must wash his clothes and any clothes that he touches, see Leviticus 16:28 and Yoma 6:7.", + "But when they are not burned in fulfillment of their commandment, they are burned in the bet habirah and they do not defile garments. However, if they were disqualified in some way, then they are burned in a place called “bet habirah.” According to some commentators there are two places that are called “bet habirah” one in the Temple courtyard, and one on the Temple Mount, outside the Temple. If they were disqualified before they left the courtyard, then they would be burned inside the Temple, and if they were disqualified after they left the courtyard, then they would be burned outside the Temple but on the Temple Mount. These bullocks and goats do not defile garments only valid ones are defiling." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with the bullocks and goats whose blood was offered inside the sanctuary, in the inner altar. Specifically, the question is when do these carcasses defile the clothes of those who deal with them and cause him to defile any clothes that he touches.", + "They would carry them on staves [out of the Temple courtyard]. After the rites were performed inside the Sanctuary, they would carry the carcasses outside using staves.", + "If those in front had passed outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, but those in the back had not [yet] gone out, those in front defile their garments, while those in the back do not defile their garments, until they go out. When they both go out, both defile their garments. Rabbi Shimon says: neither defile [their garments] until the fire is burning in the greater part of them. The Torah (Leviticus 16:28) states that the one who burns these sacrifices shall wash his clothes. The debate in this section is when does someone become “one who burns.” According to the first opinion, the one who deals with these sacrifices defiles clothes once they have left the walls of the Temple courtyard. If some of those carrying the carcasses have left and some have not, then only those who have left the walls defile clothes. Once they have all left, they all defile. According to this interpretation “one who burns” is one who has left the Temple in order to burn one of these sacrifices. Rabbi Shimon holds that only once the fire has begun to consume a majority of the carcass of the bullock or goat does the one who burned it defile clothing. He interprets “one who burns” in a much more limiting fashion to defile one must actually begin the burning process.", + "When the flesh is dissolved, he who burns [it] does not defile his garments. Burning is over once the flesh has been dissolved. One who deals with the burning after this point does not defile clothes." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nChapter thirteen deals with the prohibition of slaughtering and offering sacrifices outside of the Temple. This prohibition is found in Leviticus 17 which reads:\nLeviticus 17:2-9 2 Speak to Aaron and his sons and to all the Israelite people and say to them: This is what the LORD has commanded: 3 if anyone of the house of Israel slaughters an ox or sheep or goat in the camp, or does so outside the camp, 4 and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to present it as an offering to the LORD, before the LORD's Tabernacle, bloodguilt shall be imputed to that man: he has shed blood; that man shall be cut off from among his people... 8 Say to them further: If anyone of the house of Israel or of the strangers who reside among them offers a burnt offering or a sacrifice, 9 and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer it to the LORD, that person shall be cut off from his people.\nNote that the verses prohibit slaughtering (verse 3) and offering (verse 9). The punishment for intentionally transgressing either of these prohibitions is karet, which is translated here as “cut off from his people.” According to the rabbis, any sin which is punished with karet when done intentionally, is atoned for with a sin-offering, a hatat, when done unwittingly. Our mishnah deals with how many hatats a person would be liable for if he unwittingly slaughters and offers a sacrifice outside of the Temple.", + "He who slaughters and offers up outside [the Temple courtyard] is liable in respect of slaughtering and in respect of offering. If one unwittingly slaughters and then offers a sacrifice outside of the Temple courtyard he is liable to bring two hatats one for slaughtering and one for offering it up.", + "Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: if he slaughtered inside and offered up outside, [he is liable]; if he slaughtered outside and offered up outside, he is not liable [for offering up], because he offered up only that which was unfit. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says that one is liable for offering outside the Temple only if he slaughtered it inside. If he slaughtered the animal outside and then offered it up outside he would be liable for only one hatat, since by the time he offered it up, it was already unfit by having been slaughtered outside. Rabbi Yose would read verse 3 as prohibiting slaughtering outside the Temple and verse 9 as saying that even if he slaughtered inside, where one is allowed to slaughter, he is punished for offering outside. Verse 9’s punishment for offering up does not apply if verse 3’s prohibition of slaughtering outside was already transgressed.", + "They said to him: even when one slaughters inside and offers up outside, since he carries it out, he renders it unfit. The rabbis reject his argument, claiming that even if he slaughters it inside and then carries it outside, he is still offering up something that is unfit. In other words, there is no way to offer up a fit sacrifice outside the Temple because as soon as it leaves the Temple it is unfit. Nevertheless, verse 9 punishes one who offers a sacrifice outside the Temple. The only conclusion is that this verse is applicable even if the sacrifice was already disqualified. Thus he must bring two hatats one for slaughtering and one for offering." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nOur mishnah contains a debate between the sages and Rabbi Yose the Galilean similar in structure to the debate in yesterday’s mishnah. Here the topic is an unclean person who eats sacrifices. This is prohibited in Leviticus 7:20.", + "An unclean [person] who eats [of sacrifices], whether unclean sacrifices or clean sacrifices, is liable. Leviticus 7:20 says that an unclean person who intentionally eats a sacrifice is punished with karet. According to the first opinion in the mishnah, this prohibition applies whether the sacrifice was clean and therefore permitted, or unclean and was prohibited.", + "Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: an unclean person who eats clean [sacrifices] is liable, but an unclean person who eats unclean [sacrifices] is not liable because he ate only that which is unclean. Rabbi Yose the Galilean says that an unclean person is liable for eating a sacrifice that he would otherwise have been allowed to eat, i.e a clean sacrifice. If he ate an unclean sacrifice he is not liable because he couldn’t have eaten it even if he was clean. This is similar to Rabbi Yose’s reasoning in yesterday’s mishnah, where he stated that one is liable for offering up a sacrifice outside of the Temple only if the sacrifice was slaughtered in the Temple.", + "They said to him: even when an unclean person eats clean [sacrifices], when he touches it, he defiles it. As in yesterday’s mishnah, the sages respond to Rabbi Yose the Galilean by saying that an unclean person cannot eat a clean sacrifice, because as soon as he touches it, he renders it unclean. Therefore, when the Torah states that it is a transgression for an unclean person to eat a sacrifice, it doesn’t make a difference whether the sacrifice was clean (before he began to eat it) or unclean in both cases he is liable.", + "A clean person who eats unclean [sacrifices] is not liable, because one is liable only on account of bodily uncleanness. The mishnah now limits the punishment in Leviticus 7:20 to a case of an unclean person who eats a clean sacrifice. While it is forbidden for a clean person to eat an unclean sacrifice, he is not liable for karet or a hatat if he does so." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with various differences between the laws governing the prohibition of slaughtering a sacrifice outside of the Temple and those prohibiting offering a sacrifice outside of the Temple.", + "Slaughtering [outside the Temple] is more stringent than offering up [outside], and offering up [is more stringent] than slaughtering. This is a classic style of introduction in the Mishnah. The rabbis seem to have been fascinated by these types of situations, sometimes the laws of x (here slaughtering) are stricter than those of the related prohibition y (here offering) whereas sometimes the situation is opposite and the laws governing y are more stringent than x.", + "Slaughtering is more stringent, for he who slaughters [a sacrifice] to a man is liable, whereas he who offers up to a man is not liable. The laws governing slaughtering are more stringent, for he who slaughters an animal to a man, in worship of that man, is liable. However, one who offers up a sacrifice in worship of a man is not liable. This distinction is derived midrashically from the verses in Leviticus 7.", + "Offering up is more stringent: two who hold a knife and slaughter are not liable, [whereas] if two take hold of a limb and offer it up, they are liable. If two people together hold a knife and slaughter an animal then neither is liable. This is because each could have done the act on his own, and often when an act that could be done by one person is performed jointly by two, both are exempt. However, we would not say about offering that it is an act that could be performed by one person. It could be performed by as many people who wish to do so. Therefore, each person who offers up a limb of the animal outside of the Temple is liable for karet or a hatat.", + "If one offered up, then offered up again, then offered up again, he is liable in respect of each [act of] offering up, the words of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Yose says: he is liable for only one. According to Rabbi Shimon, if one offers up the limb of an animal multiple times, he is liable for each and every act. Rabbi Shimon looks at each act as being separate and therefore each carries its own culpability. Rabbi Yose says that one cannot really offer up the same animal (or piece thereof) twice. Thus he is liable for only one hatat, even though he offered it up multiple times.", + "He is liable only when he offers up on the top of an altar. Rabbi Shimon says: he is liable even if he offers up on the top of a rock or a stone. According to the first opinion he is liable only if he offers up the sacrifice on an altar which he built outside the Temple. Without an altar, something is not really a sacrifice. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that even if he offers it on a rock or a stone, which are not properly built altars, he is still liable for offering a sacrifice outside of the Temple." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah continues to deal with the prohibition of offering a sacrifice outside of the Temple.", + "In regard to both valid sacrifices or invalid sacrifices which had become unfit within [the Temple]: if one offers them outside, he is liable. One is liable for offering up outside of the Temple either a valid sacrifice or an invalid sacrifice that had been invalidated while it was in the Temple. The rule with regard to such sacrifices is that if they are put on the altar they do not come down (see 9:2). However, if one offers up a sacrifice that had been disqualified outside of the Temple, one that if put up on the altar would have to be taken down, he is not liable.", + "If one offers up outside [the Temple] as much as an olive’s worth of an olah and its innards [combined], he is liable. In order to be liable for offering up a sacrifice outside the Temple, one must offer up at least an olive’s worth of flesh. The mishnah rules that when offering an olah, a sacrifice that is wholly burned, the flesh and the innards, which are always burned for every sacrifice, add up together. Assumedly, in a sacrifice that is partially eaten, the parts that are eaten would not be combined with the parts that are normally burned, in order to add up to the requisite olive’s worth.", + "As for the fistful [of flour], the frankincense, the incense, the priests’ meal-offering, the anointed priest’s meal-offering, and the meal offering of libations, if [one] offered up as much as an olive of one of these outside, he is liable. But Rabbi Elazar exempts him unless he offers up the whole of them. All of the types of sacrifices listed in this section were explained in 4:3. They are all completely burned on the altar, without any of their parts being eaten by priests or non-priests. According to the first opinion, even though they are completely burned, if one offers up even a part of them outside of the Temple, he is liable. Rabbi Elazar disagrees and holds that just as they must be completely burned on the altar if done properly, so too in order for one to be liable for offering them outside the Temple, they must be completely offered.", + "In all of these cases, if they offered them within, and left over an olive’s worth and one offered it outside, he is liable. Rabbi Elazar, however, agrees that if most of one of the above-mentioned things is offered on the altar, and then an olive’s worth is left over and offered outside the Temple, that one is liable. Since this olive’s worth completes the offering of the sacrifice, one is liable for offering it up outside.", + "In all of these cases, if they became lacking something, and one offered them outside, he is not liable. The sacrifices in section three must be completely offered for them to be valid. Therefore, if even the smallest part of them is missing and one offers it up outside the Temple, he is not liable. In other words, since this would not have been valid had it been offered on the altar, it doesn’t make one liable if offered outside." + ], + [ + "One who offers sacrifices together with the innards outside the Temple, is liable. In this case one offers parts of sacrifices that are eaten, together with the innards that are burned on the altar. Had he offered up just the edible parts outside the Temple, he would not be liable, because these parts did not need to be put on the altar. He is liable for offering the innards, because one is liable for offering up outside the Temple anything that should have been burned on the altar. This is true even if the sacrifices that are to be eaten were directly on the fire and the innards were on top, and not directly upon the fire. The edible parts of the sacrifices don’t cause a separation between the fire and the innards because they are of the same type, and things that are of the same type don’t cause separation.", + "If a minhah had not had its fistful removed and one offered it outside, he is exempt. When a minhah, a meal-offering, is sacrificed, a fistful is removed and burned on the altar and then the remainder of the minhah can be eaten. Since part of the minhah is burned and part is eaten one is liable for offering up only the part that is supposed to be burned, as we saw in section one. If one offered up a minhah outside of the Temple before its fistful has been removed he is exempt because it has not yet been determined what part of the minhah was supposed to have been burned.", + "If one took out the fistful, and then the fistful went back into the minhah, and he offered it outside, he is liable. However, if the fistful is removed and thereby determined, and then it falls back into the remainder of the minhah, and he offers up the whole minhah outside the Temple, in this case he is liable because the fistful was determined, even though we now cannot tell what part was the fistful and what part was the remainder." + ], + [ + "As for the fistful and the frankincense, if one offered one of them [without the other] outside [the Temple], he is liable. Rabbi Elazar says: he is exempt unless he offers the second too. [If one offered] one inside and the other outside, he is liable. In order for the non-sacrificed parts of the minhah (meal) offering to be eaten, the fistful of the minhah and the frankincense must both be burned on the altar (see Leviticus 2:2-3). If one offers one of these outside of the Temple, he is still liable, according to the first opinion, even though he didn’t offer the other one. Rabbi Elazar says that he is exempt until he offers both the fistful and the frankincense, because one is not effective without the other. This matches his opinion in mishnah four. Rabbi Elazar agrees with the sages that if he offers one of them inside and then the other outside, he is liable. This is similar to the case in mishnah four where he offered most of a certain type of sacrifice inside the Temple, but left over an olive’s worth which he offered outside the Temple. Since this completes the offering, all agree that he is liable.", + "As for the two dishes of frankincense, if one offered one of them outside, he is liable. Rabbi Elazar says: he is exempt unless he offers the second too. [If one offered] one inside and the other outside, he is liable. Burning the two dishes of frankincense allows the priests to eat the showbread. Both dishes must be burned. Again, the first opinion holds that if he offers one of them outside the Temple he is liable, whereas Rabbi Elazar holds that he is not liable unless he offers both. As above, if he offers one inside the Temple and the other outside, Rabbi Elazar agrees that he is liable.", + "If one sprinkles part of the blood outside, he is liable. Every sprinkling of the blood is considered its own separate entity. Therefore, if one offers even one sprinkling of blood outside the Temple, he is liable, even if he didn’t perform the requisite two or four sprinklings. In this case Rabbi Elazar would agree.", + "Rabbi Elazar says: also one who makes a libation of the water of the Festival [of Sukkot] on the festival, outside is liable. On Sukkot there is a water libation. If one performs this water libation outside the Temple he is liable.", + "Rabbi Nehemiah says: if one offered the residue of the blood outside, he is liable. The remainder of the blood after some of it has been sprinkled is poured onto the base of the altar. If one offers this blood outside the Temple, he is liable." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nThis mishnah deals with a person who “nips,” or slaughters a bird inside or outside the Temple and offers it up outside. As a reminder “nipping,” plucking off the head from the back of the neck, was the way that bird sacrifices were slaughtered inside the Temple, whereas slaughtering, slicing the neck with a knife, was how they were slaughtered outside the Temple, to be eaten not as a sacrifice.", + "If one nips a bird [offering] inside and offers it up outside, he is liable; Inside the Temple a bird is slaughtered by nipping. Therefore, if he nips it inside the Temple he has slaughtered it correctly. When he then brings it outside the Temple and offers it up there, he is liable because he has offered a valid sacrifice outside of the Temple.", + "If one nips it outside and offers it up outside, he is exempt. However, if he nips it outside, he has disqualified it from being a valid sacrifice and when he offers it up outside he is not liable.", + "If one slaughters a bird inside and offers it up outside, he is exempt. Slaughtering it inside the Temple also disqualifies it from being a sacrifice and thus when he offers it up outside he is exempt.", + "If one slaughters [it] outside and offers [it] up outside, he is liable. Slaughtering is the proper way to kill the bird outside the Temple. So if he slaughters it and then offers it outside the Temple he is liable.", + "Thus its prescribed rite inside exempts him [if he does it] outside, while its prescribed rite outside exempts him [if he does it] inside. We now get a summary, which may also serve as a type of mnemonic device. If one kills the bird outside the Temple with the rite prescribed for inside, that is nipping, he is exempt. Similarly, if one kills the bird inside the Temple with the rite prescribed for outside, that is slaughtering with the knife, he is exempt.", + "Rabbi Shimon says: whatever he is liable for outside, he is liable in similar circumstances inside when one [subsequently] offers it up outside; except when one slaughters [a bird] inside and offers [it] up outside. Rabbi Shimon holds that one who nips outside the Temple and then offers it up outside the Temple is liable. He then adds a rule that any time one is liable for an act when done outside the Temple, he is also liable if done inside and then offered up outside the Temple. The one exception is one who slaughters an animal inside and then offers it up outside. One who does this is exempt even though if he slaughtered it outside and offered it up there he would be liable. Rabbi Shimon disagrees with Rabbi Yose the Galilean in mishnah one of our chapter, who holds that one who slaughters outside the Temple and offers it up outside the Temple is exempt, whereas one who slaughters inside the Temple and offers it up outside is liable. Rabbi Shimon holds that since he is exempt when done outside, he is also exempt when done inside. I should note that Rabbi Shimon’s words are exceedingly difficult. I have explained them according to Albeck’s commentary." + ], + [ + "As for a hatat whose blood was received in one goblet: If one [first] sprinkled [the blood] outside and then sprinkled [it] inside; [Or] inside and then outside, he is liable, because the whole of it was eligible inside. The first scenario is one in which the priest received the blood of the hatat in one goblet. All of this blood should be poured out on the altar inside the Temple. Therefore, it doesn’t matter if he first pours some blood inside the Temple and then some outside, or some outside and then some inside, he is always liable. This matches Rabbi Nehemiah’s opinion in mishnah six, who held that even if one offers up the remainder of the blood outside the Temple he is liable. Once he pours out the blood inside the Temple, he still is liable for pouring the remainder outside.", + "If the blood was received in two goblets: If he sprinkled both inside, he is exempt; Both outside, he is liable. One inside and one outside, he is exempt; One outside and one inside, he is liable on account of the one outside, while the one inside makes atonement. The situation is now more complex. The priest receives the blood in two goblets. A) If he sprinkled both inside he is obviously exempt, since he has not offered anything outside the Temple. The mishnah did not need to state this; it only did so in order to exhaust all of the possibilities. B) If he sprinkled both outside, he is liable. Again, this seems obvious. C) Once he sprinkles one inside the other cannot be sprinkled on the altar and is to be poured out into the aqueduct which cleans out the Temple. Therefore, if he offers up this one outside the Temple he is exempt. D) If he first offers up one of the goblets of blood outside, he is liable, for this one should have been offered up inside. If he then offers the other goblet inside, it is valid and it effects atonement, as the sprinkling of the blood always does. The fact that the other goblet was spilled outside does not render invalid the goblet to be spilled inside.", + "To what may this be compared? To one who set aside [an animal for] a hatat, then it was lost, and he set aside another in its place; then the first was found, and [so] both are present. If he slaughtered both of them inside, he is exempt; Both of them outside, he is liable. [If he slaughtered] one inside and one outside, he is exempt; One outside and one inside, he is liable on account of the one outside, while the one inside makes atonement. The mishnah compares this situation to a person who set aside an animal to be a hatat, lost the animal, then set aside another animal and then found the first one. The two animals are now both hatats, but only one can effect atonement. The mishnah now runs through all of the possible scenarios, as it did above. A) Obviously, if he slaughters both inside he is exempt. B) Similarly, if he slaughters both outside, he is liable. C) If he first slaughters one inside and then the second one outside he is exempt, because the first animal already effected atonement. In this case the rule with the second one is that it cannot be a valid sacrifice and therefore he is not liable for offering it outside the Temple. D) When he slaughters the first one outside the Temple he is liable for slaughtering outside the Temple. However, the second one can still effect atonement when it is slaughtered inside because the first one does not affect its status.", + "Just as the blood exempts its own flesh, so does it exempt the flesh of its companion [the other animal]. The mishnah now makes a final note with regard to the situation of the two hatats. This section is not really connected to the issue of slaughtering outside the Temple. In this situation if one was to slaughter both hatats inside the Temple and then pour the blood of one of them on the altar, the pouring of the blood exempts one who benefits from the flesh of that animal from being punished for illicit benefit from Temple property. The flesh is exempt from this prohibition because after the blood is spilled the animal can be eaten by the priest. The mishnah teaches that just as the pouring of the blood exempts the flesh of the animal whose blood was poured, so too it exempts one who benefits from the other animal. The second animal cannot be a sacrifice and it is forbidden to derive benefit from it. However, since it is no longer in the category of sacrifice, the laws of illegal use of Temple property no longer apply to it." + ] + ], + [ + [ + "Introduction\nThe first three mishnayot of our chapter continue to deal with the prohibition of slaughtering an animal outside the Temple.", + "If one slaughtered the hatat cow [the red heifer] outside its appointed place, and likewise if one offered the scapegoat [of Yom Kippur] outside, he is not liable, because it says, “And has not brought it unto the door of the Tent of Meeting,” (Leviticus 17:4): whatever is not eligible to come to the door of the Tent of Meeting, one is not liable on its account. The hatat cow (see Numbers 19:9) is burned and its ashes are placed into water which is then used to purify people from corpse impurity. None of this is performed inside the Temple. The scapegoat of Yom Kippur is brought to Azazel, a place in the wilderness, and there it is thrown off a cliff. Neither of these animals is sacrificed in the Temple. One who slaughters the heifer in the wrong place, or offers up the scapegoat outside the Temple is not liable. This is derived from the wording of the verse: one is liable for offering outside the Temple only animals that were supposed to be brought into the Temple (Tent of Meeting while in the desert)." + ], + [ + "[As for an ox] that had sexual relations with a woman or one with whom a man had sexual relations; or an animal set aside [for idolatry], or that had been worshipped [as an idol]; or that was the fee of a whore, or [a dog's] exchange; or that was kilayim; or a terefah; or an animal born through caesarean section, if one offered any of these outside, he is not liable, because it says, “Before the Tabernacle of the Lord” (Leviticus 17:4): whatever is not eligible to come before the Tabernacle of the Lord, one is not liable on its account. All of the animals on this list were explained in 8:1, so for a more detailed explanation, look there. None of these animals can be sacrificed and they all became unfit to be put onto the altar outside the Temple. Since none of these can be sacrificed, one who offers one of them up outside the Temple is not liable.", + "[As for] blemished animals, whether with permanent blemishes or with passing blemishes, if one offers them outside, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: [if one offers] animals with permanent blemishes, he is exempt; [if one offers] animals with passing blemishes, he violates a negative commandment. Blemished animals cannot be offered as sacrifices. Animals that have permanent blemishes will never be able to be used as sacrifices whereas animals that have passing blemishes are only temporarily disqualified. According to the sages (the first opinion in the mishnah), since the animal cannot now be sacrificed in the Temple, one is not liable if one offers it outside the Temple. Rabbi Shimon says that if one offers up outside the Temple an animal that is only temporarily disqualified from being used as a sacrifice on the Temple’s altar, he has transgressed the negative commandment found in Deuteronomy 12:13, “Take care not to sacrifice your burnt offerings in any place” but he has not transgressed the commandment found in Leviticus 17:8-9, which is punished with karet. This seems to be Rabbi Shimon’s way of answering why the Torah repeats the same prohibition, once in Leviticus 17 and once in Deuteronomy 12. The case in Deuteronomy refers to a person who sacrifices outside the Temple an animal that is only temporarily disqualified from being put on the altar inside the Temple.", + "[As for] turtledoves before their time and young pigeons after their time, if one offered them outside, he is exempt. Rabbi Shimon says: [if one offers] young pigeons after their time, he is exempt; turtledoves before their time, he violates a negative commandment. Turtledoves are valid as sacrifices only when they are older (about three months) whereas pigeons are valid as sacrifices when they are younger (before three months). According to the sages, if one sacrifices either of these outside the Temple at a time when it cannot be sacrificed in the Temple, he is not liable. Rabbi Shimon holds that since a turtledove that is not yet three months will eventually become fit for the altar, if one sacrifices it outside the Temple, he is liable for transgressing a negative commandment although he is exempt from karet.", + "[One who offers] an animal together with its young [on the same day], and [one who offers] an animal before its time, is not liable. Rabbi Shimon says: he violates a negative commandment. Leviticus 22:28 prohibits one from slaughtering a mother animal and her offspring on the same day. If one already slaughtered one of these animals, he can’t then slaughter the other and the other animal would not be fit on that day to be a sacrifice. Thus, according to the sages, if one offers up the other animal outside the Temple he is liable. Rabbi Shimon says that since the animal can be offered on the next day, if he offers it on the day its mother/offspring was already slaughtered, he has transgressed a negative commandment. It is also forbidden to sacrifice an animal before it is eight days old (Leviticus 22:27). The same rules apply here: the sages hold that he is exempt if he sacrifices it outside the Temple whereas Rabbi Shimon holds that he has transgressed a negative commandment, since the animal can be sacrificed after it is eight days old.", + "For Rabbi Shimon would say: whatever is eligible to come [onto the altar] later entails a negative commandment, but does not entail karet. But the sages say: whatever does not entail karet also does not entail a negative commandment. In this section we see the debate that serves as the basis for the particular debates in sections 2-4. Rabbi Shimon holds that Deuteronomy 12:13 applies to one who sacrifices an animal outside the Temple that cannot currently be sacrificed on the altar, but that will be fit later on. The other sages disagree and hold that if karet (Leviticus 17) doesn’t apply, then he doesn’t transgress the negative commandment found in Deuteronomy either." + ], + [ + "“Before time” applies both to [the animal] itself and to its owner. What is “before time” as applied to its owner? If a zav or a zavah, a woman after childbirth, or a metzora, offered their hatat or their asham outside [before the time in which they were obligated], they are exempt;
[If they offered] their olah or their shelamims outside [before their time], they are liable.
One who offers up flesh of a hatat, or flesh of an asham, or flesh of most holy sacrifices, or flesh of less holy sacrifices; or the remainder of the omer, or the two loaves, or the showbread, or the remainder of meal-offerings;
Or if he pours [the oil on to the meal-offering], or mingles [it with flour], or breaks up [the meal-offering cakes], or salts [the meal-offering], or waves it, or presents it; or sets the table [with the showbread], or trims the lamps, or takes out the fistful, or receives the blood; [If he does any of these] outside, he is exempt.
One is also not liable for any of these acts on account of not being a priest, or uncleanness, or lack of [priestly] vestments, or the non-washing of hands and feet.
This is the final mishnah that deals with the prohibition of sacrificing an animal outside the Temple (take a deep breath, we’re almost there).
Section one: At the end of yesterday’s mishnah, we learned that if someone sacrifices an animal outside the Temple before that animal is eight days old he is not liable because that animal could not be sacrificed on the altar. This section explains that “before time” refers not only to animal but also to a person who is not yet obligated to bring an animal to the Temple. There are several such categories of people: the zav or zavah, a man or woman with unusual genital discharge, bring expiatory sacrifices after having been pure for eight days (Leviticus 15:14, 29). A woman after childbirth brings a sacrifice after a set amount of time, depending upon whether the child is male or female (Leviticus 12:6). A metzora, a person suffering some sort of skin affliction, brings his sacrifices after eight days of purity (Lev 14:10). In all of these cases, if a person offered up the hatat or the asham outside the Temple that he/she would have to bring at the end of that period, they are exempt because they had not yet become liable to bring those sacrifices to the Temple.
However, if someone who is liable to bring a shelamim or an olah offers it up outside the Temple before the prescribed time has arrived, for instance if a nazirite offers up his shelamim before his naziriteship is complete, or if a zav or a zavah brings his/her olah before the eight days are over, he is liable. This is because a person can always voluntarily bring an olah or a shelamim, even without being liable for one. Since this olah or shelamim could be brought inside the Temple and put on the altar, one who brings it outside the Temple is liable. In contrast, a hatat and an asham can only be brought by someone obligated to bring such a sacrifice, and therefore if someone is not obligated and he offers one outside the Temple he is exempt.
Section three: Sections three and four teach that liability is incurred for offering up a sacrifice outside the Temple only if it was an animal, or a part thereof, that could have been put on the altar. Section three contains a list of parts of animals or other parts of sacrifices that are eaten by priests or non-priests. Since these are eaten and not sacrificed, one who offers them up outside of the Temple is not liable.
Section four: One is liable for offering up a sacrifice outside the Temple but not for performing other parts of the worship service. The first set of these are directly taken from Leviticus 2 which discusses preparing the minhah (meal-offering). Then the mishnah proceeds to note other types of work done in the Temple, such as arranging the showbread on the table, trimming the wicks of the menorah, taking a fistful of the minhah offering, and receiving blood from an animal’s neck.
The general rule is that one is liable only for an act of the sacrificial service which is the completion of that sacrifice, such as burning the animal on an altar. Since all of these acts are merely preparatory, one is not liable for performing them outside the Temple.
Section five: The mishnah now adds that just as one is not liable for performing one of these acts outside the Temple, so too several other prohibitions are not transgressed. If a non-priest does one of these acts, he is not liable for death (by the hands of heaven), as he would be had he actually offered a sacrifice (see Numbers 18:7). An impure priest is also not liable, nor is a priest who is not wearing the prescribed clothing or has not washed his hands and feet. In all of these cases, the act done by the priest (or non-priest) is invalid, but nevertheless he is not liable for having done so." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nSince the past chapter and a half have dealt with the prohibition of offering a sacrifice outside the Temple, the mishnah now notes that in the past, before the Temple was built, there were periods where it was permissible to offer a sacrifice anywhere one wished. These local altars are called “bamot,” which is close to the Hebrew word for the pulpit, “bimah.", + "Before the Tabernacle was set up bamot (local were permitted and the service was performed by the firstborn. Before the Israelites set up the Tabernacle in the desert it was permitted to offer a sacrifice anywhere. This was the way that sacrifices were performed from the time of Adam until the Tabernacle was set up in the desert. In addition, the Temple service was performed by the firstborns. This is hinted at in several places. First of all, Numbers 3:12 states, “I hereby take the Levites from among the Israelites in place of all the first-born.” This seems to state that at some earlier point in Israelite history, the firstborns performed the worship that the Levites (which here includes priests) used to perform. Second, in Exodus 24:5 Moses designates “some young men among the Israelites” to offer sacrifices. The rabbis understand these “young men” to be firstborns.", + "After the Tabernacle was set up bamot were forbidden and the service was performed by priests. After the Tabernacle was set up, it became forbidden to offer sacrifices elsewhere, as it says in Leviticus 17:5, “This is in order that the Israelites may bring the sacrifices which they have been making in the open…to the priest at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” At this point, the worship was performed at the Tabernacle and by priests.", + "Most holy sacrifices were [then] eaten within the curtains, and lesser sacrifices [were eaten] anywhere in the camp of the Israelites. When in the desert, most holy sacrifices, the asham and hatat, had to be eaten within the curtain of the Tabernacle. Lesser sacrifices, such as the shelamim and todah, had to be eaten within the camp of Israel." + ], + [ + "When they came to Gilgal, bamot (local were [again] permitted. When the Israelites crossed the Jordan they came first to Gilgal and they set up the Tabernacle there. However, they didn’t set up camp around the Tabernacle, as they did in the desert. The Tabernacle contained an altar, but the ark was not inside it. At this point it became permitted to offer sacrifices elsewhere. Communal sacrifices and mandatory individual sacrifices (such as the hatat and the asham) were offered in the Tabernacle whereas voluntary individual offerings could be sacrificed at local altars.", + "Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices [were eaten] anywhere. The most holy sacrifices continued to be eaten within the Tabernacle’s curtains. Lesser sacrifices could now be eaten anywhere, since there was no official encampment." + ], + [ + "When they came to Shiloh, bamot were forbidden. When they came to Shiloh (see Joshua 18:1) the ark was put back into the Tabernacle (see I Samuel 3:3). At this point bamot were again forbidden because at Shiloh the Tabernacle was considered to be at “rest”, a reference to Deuteronomy 12:9, “Because you have not yet come to the resting place, to the inheritance, that the Lord your God is giving you.” “Resting place” is understood to be Shiloh because the Israelites came to Shiloh after fourteen years spent conquering the land of Israel. Once the Tabernacle came to rest in Shiloh, local altars, bamot, were prohibited.", + "[The Tabernacle] there had no roof, but [consisted of] a base of stones with a ceiling of curtains, and that was the “resting place” [referred to in the Torah]. In the desert, the Tabernacle was made of wood. In Shiloh the Tabernacle was made of a base of stones and a roof of curtains.", + "Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices and second tithe [were eaten] wherever [Shiloh] could be seen. As always, most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains of the Tabernacle. Less holy sacrifices and second tithe could now be eaten in any place that could see Shiloh. According to the Talmud’s account, the ark was in Shiloh for 369 years." + ], + [ + "When they came to Nov and to Givon, bamot were [again] permitted. When Shiloh was destroyed and the ark was taken by the Philistines (I Samuel 4) the Tabernacle was set up in Nov (I Samuel 21). And after Nov was destroyed during Saul’s reign (I Samuel 21-22), they brought the Tabernacle to Givon (I Kings 3:4). While the Tabernacle was in Nov and Givon local altars were again permitted. It seems that these were not important central places, as were Shiloh and subsequently Jerusalem. Thus sacrifices could be offered outside of the Tabernacle.", + "Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices in all of the cities of Israel. As was the situation before Shiloh, once Shiloh was destroyed most holy sacrifices must be eaten within the Tabernacle, whereas less holy sacrifices, specifically voluntary offerings, could be eaten anywhere within the cities of Israel. Note that when the Tabernacle was in Gilgal (mishnah five) they could eat anywhere. Once the cities were built they offered sacrifices there." + ], + [ + "When they came to Jerusalem, bamot were forbidden and were never again permitted, and that was the ‘inheritance’. Deuteronomy 12:9 reads, “Because you have not yet come to the resting place, to the inheritance, that the Lord your God is giving you.” As we saw in mishnah six “resting place” refers to Shiloh. “Inheritance” refers to Jerusalem. Once Solomon built the Temple in Jerusalem, local altars were forever thereafter prohibited, even after the destruction of the altar. We should note that this mishnah represents an ideology and not an historic fact. There were definitely Jews who offered sacrifices in places other than the Temple, both while the Temple stood and when it was destroyed. The rabbis, at least those speaking in this mishnah, were opposed to this.", + "Most holy sacrifices were eaten within the curtains, and less holy sacrifices and second tithe within the walls [of Jerusalem]. As before, most holy sacrifices must be eaten inside the Temple, whereas less holy sacrifices could be eaten anywhere within the walls of Jerusalem (see also 5:3, 5)." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nWhen it comes to sacrificing outside the Temple, according to rabbinic reckoning one can transgress three commandments: 1) A negative commandment “Take care not to sacrifice your burnt offerings in any place you like” (Deuteronomy 12:13); 2) A positive commandment “But only in the place that the Lord will choose in one of your tribal territories” (ibid 14); 3) A commandment punished by karet “If anyone of the house of Israel or of strangers who reside among them offers a burnt offering or a sacrifice and does not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to offer it to the Lord, that person shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 17:8-9).\nOur mishnah deals with various situations in which one might transgress one of these commandments, but not all of them.", + "All sacrifices consecrated while bamot were forbidden and offered outside while bamot were forbidden involve the transgression of a positive and a negative commandment, and one is liable for karet on their account. The simplest situation is one in which a person consecrated the animal to be a sacrifice while bamot were forbidden and then offered it up outside Shiloh/Jerusalem also while bamot were forbidden. Such a person has transgressed both the positive and negative commandment and is liable for karet.", + "If one consecrated them while bamot were permitted, but offered them without when bamot were forbidden, they involve the transgression of a positive and a negative commandment, but one is not liable for karet on their account. If he consecrated the animal when it was permitted to offer sacrifices at bamot, for instance when the Tabernacle stood in Gilgal, and when the Tabernacle came to Shiloh he didn’t offer it there but rather at a local altar, he is not liable for karet. However, he has transgressed both a positive and negative commandment.", + "If one consecrated them when bamot were forbidden, and offered them when bamot were permitted, they involve the transgression of a positive commandment, but they do not involve the transgression of a negative commandment. If he consecrated the animal when bamot were forbidden, for instance when the Tabernacle stood in Shiloh, and then offered it once Shiloh was destroyed and bamot were again permitted, he has transgressed the positive commandment of not bringing the animal to Shiloh while the Tabernacle was still there. However, he has not transgressed the negative commandment, nor is he liable for karet." + ], + [ + "Introduction\nWhen the Tabernacle stood in Gilgal, Nov and Givon, it was permitted to offer sacrifices at local altars. Still there were certain sacrifices that were offered only at the Tabernacle, as we explained in connection to some of the earlier mishnayot of this chapter. Our mishnah discusses the difference between the “bamah of the congregation” that was in the Tabernacle and the “bamah of the individual,” the local altars that were found elsewhere.", + "The following sacrifices were offered in the Tabernacle sacrifices consecrated for the Tabernacle: Public sacrifices were offered in the Tabernacle, and private sacrifices were offered at a bamah. The general rule is that public sacrifices had to be performed at the Tabernacle, and that any private sacrifices could be offered at the local altar, the bamah of the congregation.", + "If private sacrifices were consecrated for the Tabernacle, they must be offered in the Tabernacle; yet if one offered them at a bamah, he is not liable. If an individual specifically stated that he was consecrating an animal in order to offer it at the Tabernacle, then it must be offered at the Tabernacle. If he nevertheless goes ahead and offers it at a bamah, he is not liable for offering a sacrifice outside the Temple.", + "What is the difference between the bamah of an individual and the bamah of the congregation? Laying [of hands], slaughtering in the north, sprinkling around [the altar], waving and presenting, (Rabbi Judah says: there were no meal-offerings at the; priesthood, sacrificial vestments, ministering vessels, a sweet fragrance, a line of demarcation for [the sprinkling of] the blood, and the washing of hands and feet. This list consists of actions that were to be performed at the Tabernacle, but not at a local bamah. I shall explain each separately: a) Laying [of hands]: Laying one’s hands on the sacrifice before it is slaughtered. b) Slaughtering in the north: side of the altar, obligatory for most holy sacrifices. c) Sprinkling around [the altar]: sprinkling the blood on various corners of the altar. d) Waving and presenting: the minhah (meal) offering. i) (Rabbi Judah says: there were no meal-offerings at the bamah): Rabbi Judah disagrees and holds that minhah offerings were only offered at the Tabernacle. e) Priesthood: sacrifices could be offered by non-priests at the local bamot. f) Sacrificial vestments: neither did the person offering have to wear the priestly clothing. g) Ministering vessels: He also did not need to use sanctified vessels. h) A sweet fragrance: Inside the Tabernacle (and subsequently the Temple) it was prohibited to put onto the altar limbs of a sacrifice that have already been roasted elsewhere. Such limbs will not give off the sweet fragrance of roasting meat (think bbq!). This was not prohibited at local altars, where one could first roast the limb and then put it onto the altar. i) A line of demarcation for [the sprinkling of] the blood: On the altar in the Tabernacle there was a crimson line separating the upper and lower parts. Blood of some sacrifices was sprinkled below and of others it was sprinkled above. There was no such line on the local altar. j) And the washing of hands and feet: In the Tabernacle and Temple priests had to wash their hands and feet before performing any of the worship service. There was no such requirement for local altars.", + "But [the prohibitions of] time, remnant and defilement were the same in both. When it comes to these three prohibitions, they apply to local altars just as they do to the public altar. If one offering the sacrifice intends to eat it after the prescribed time, he has rendered it invalid. The laws governing when a sacrifice must be eaten, and when it becomes “remnant,” which is prohibited, apply in all places. And the prohibition of offering or eating a sacrifice when impure, applies to individual bamot as well. Congratulations! We have finished Tractate Zevahim! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. Tractate Zevahim introduced us to a world which probably seems quite strange. To imagine a version of Judaism centered on animal sacrifice is probably quite difficult for modern Jews, myself included. For two thousand years, Jews have not offered sacrifices, and it is hard to imagine returning to such a form of Judaism. However, that is not the point of learning Zevahim. In my opinion, there are at least three solid reasons to study Zevahim in particular and Seder Kodashim in general. The first is that it is always interesting and helpful to remind ourselves of where our religion comes from and what it would have been like in ancient times. I also hope that learning Zevahim will make Leviticus more interesting, when you hear it in the synagogue. Second, and more importantly, in Zevahim we can see a system created by the rabbis based on their interpretation of Torah, and not just a simple record of how things were done in the Temple. This allows us to get into the mindset of the rabbis and understand better who they were and how they created their laws. Third, many later principles of halakhah, especially those connected with prayer, have their origins in sacrificial law. So while most of these laws are no longer observed, their principles often still manifest themselves. In any case, I hope you enjoyed Zevahim. I know that I especially enjoyed writing my commentary on it, for I always learn the most when I have to try to explain something to others. Tomorrow we start Tractate Menahot." + ] + ] + ] + }, + "schema": { + "heTitle": "ביאור אנגלי על משנה זבחים", + "enTitle": "English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim", + "key": "English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim", + "nodes": [ + { + "heTitle": "הקדמה", + "enTitle": "Introduction" + }, + { + "heTitle": "", + "enTitle": "" + } + ] + } +} \ No newline at end of file