If the blood of a sin-offering is taken outside the Courtyard, it becomes invalid. Likewise, if it is brought inside the Temple Hall, it also becomes invalid.
If one received the blood of a sin-offering in two cups and took one of these cups outside, the other cup remains valid. However, if one cup was brought inside the Temple Hall, then Rabbi Yosi still declares the second one valid, but the Sages invalidate it.
Argued Rabbi Yosi, “The invalidation of taking the blood outside should be more serious, since even thinking of taking the blood outside already invalidates the offering.” How can the Sages attach more importance to bringing the blood inside? - The Sages base their opinion on the verse “...that from its blood shall be brought inside.” They explain this to mean that if any of it is brought inside, all blood is invalidated.
Art: Adriaen Jansz. Van Ostade - Inside a Peasant's Cottage
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Zevachim 81 – Inside and Outside Bloods
If bloods that are applied inside the Sanctuary (like those of Yom Kippur sacrifices) mixed with bloods applied outside on the Altar (most regular sacrifices), then the resulting mixture cannot be applied either outside or inside and has to be poured out into the canal. Note that the author of this ruling does not agree with the principle we saw earlier that blood applied to the wrong place can be viewed as water.
If, however, the Kohen went ahead and applied the mixture outside, and then inside, it is valid. The only potential problem could have been when outside blood is brought inside, and this did not happen here. If, however, the Kohen applied it first inside and then outside, then Rabbi Akiba declares the outside blood invalid – for the very reason we just mentioned, that of outside blood being first brought inside. The Sages declare the blood valid in all cases except of a sin-offering.
The underlying reason for their disagreement is this: the Torah prohibited the blood on a sin-offering from entering the Sanctuary. According to Rabbi Akiba, this applies to all sacrifices, but according to the Sages, it does not.
Art: Maurycy Gottlieb - Jews praying in the synagogue on Yom Kippur
If, however, the Kohen went ahead and applied the mixture outside, and then inside, it is valid. The only potential problem could have been when outside blood is brought inside, and this did not happen here. If, however, the Kohen applied it first inside and then outside, then Rabbi Akiba declares the outside blood invalid – for the very reason we just mentioned, that of outside blood being first brought inside. The Sages declare the blood valid in all cases except of a sin-offering.
The underlying reason for their disagreement is this: the Torah prohibited the blood on a sin-offering from entering the Sanctuary. According to Rabbi Akiba, this applies to all sacrifices, but according to the Sages, it does not.
Art: Maurycy Gottlieb - Jews praying in the synagogue on Yom Kippur
Zevachim 80 – Do Not Add to the Torah and Do Not Subtract From It – How To Understand This?
If blood requiring four applications (such as that of a sin-offering) mixed with blood requiring one application (such as that of a first-born), then Rabbi Eliezer says that the mixed bloods should be applied with four applications, but Rabbi Yehoshua says that they should be applied with one application.
Said Rabbi Eliezer to Rabbi Yehoshua, “But if a Kohen were to perform only one application with this mixture, he would violate the prohibition not to subtract from the Torah!” Answered Rabbi Yehoshua, “And if he were to apply it with four applications, he would transgress the prohibition not to add to the Torah!”
Said Rabbi Eliezer in his defense “The prohibition not to add applies only when the blood is by itself, and here we have a mixture of bloods,” to which Rabbi Yehoshua countered, “The prohibition not to subtract applies only where the blood requiring four-sided applications is by itself, but here it is mixed with blood requiring one application.” And then Rabbi Yehoshua added a winning argument: “With your four application you actively transgress 'do not add' with your hands, whereas with my one application I only refrain from performing additional applications but I do not transgress with my hands.”
Art: El Greco (Domenikos Theotokopoulos) - Nobleman with his Hand on his Chest -1583-85
Said Rabbi Eliezer to Rabbi Yehoshua, “But if a Kohen were to perform only one application with this mixture, he would violate the prohibition not to subtract from the Torah!” Answered Rabbi Yehoshua, “And if he were to apply it with four applications, he would transgress the prohibition not to add to the Torah!”
Said Rabbi Eliezer in his defense “The prohibition not to add applies only when the blood is by itself, and here we have a mixture of bloods,” to which Rabbi Yehoshua countered, “The prohibition not to subtract applies only where the blood requiring four-sided applications is by itself, but here it is mixed with blood requiring one application.” And then Rabbi Yehoshua added a winning argument: “With your four application you actively transgress 'do not add' with your hands, whereas with my one application I only refrain from performing additional applications but I do not transgress with my hands.”
Art: El Greco (Domenikos Theotokopoulos) - Nobleman with his Hand on his Chest -1583-85
Zevachim 79 – Blood Mixed with Blood
Previously we saw that to determine whether blood mixed with water is still considered blood – one can use the criteria that the mixture still looks like blood. Other possible approaches to mixtures can be by volume or by taste, and they depend on whether the mixed substances are of the same or different nature.
What happens when blood of unblemished offerings mixed with blood of blemished offerings? Since this is a common occurrence, the Sages decreed that such blood must be poured into the canal, which ran from the Temple into the adjoining fields. The Sages adopted this decree to prevent a situation where someone may mistakenly rule that there is enough valid blood, whereas in reality the valid blood would be nullified by the invalid one.
What if not the blood, but the cups holding that blood got mixed up? Rabbi Eliezer says that if one cup was already offered, then we can say that it was the blemished one, and offer the remaining ones. The Sages, on the other hand, say that even if all but one were offered, we cannot bring the remaining last one.
Art: William Sidney Mount - Fruit Piece: Apples on Tin Cups
What happens when blood of unblemished offerings mixed with blood of blemished offerings? Since this is a common occurrence, the Sages decreed that such blood must be poured into the canal, which ran from the Temple into the adjoining fields. The Sages adopted this decree to prevent a situation where someone may mistakenly rule that there is enough valid blood, whereas in reality the valid blood would be nullified by the invalid one.
What if not the blood, but the cups holding that blood got mixed up? Rabbi Eliezer says that if one cup was already offered, then we can say that it was the blemished one, and offer the remaining ones. The Sages, on the other hand, say that even if all but one were offered, we cannot bring the remaining last one.
Art: William Sidney Mount - Fruit Piece: Apples on Tin Cups
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Zevachim 78 – Blood Mixed with Water
If, before the Kohen got a chance to throw the blood on the Altar, some water fell into the vessel with the blood, then if the mixture has the appearance of blood, it is still valid. This is true even if there is more water than blood, and even though some unconsecrated water will be thrown on the Altar – since it is not the intent of the Kohen to throw water.
If wine fell into blood, we view this wine as if it were water. If that amount of water would change the color of blood, then the blood is invalid, even though wine, being red, does not change the color of the blood.
If sacrificial blood became mixed with the blood of an unconsecrated animal, or the blood of a wild beast (no wild beast, even if it is kosher, such as a deer or antelope, may be consecrated for sacrificial use), we again view the additional blood as if it were water, and estimate the color accordingly.
Art: Jean Beraud - The drinkers
If wine fell into blood, we view this wine as if it were water. If that amount of water would change the color of blood, then the blood is invalid, even though wine, being red, does not change the color of the blood.
If sacrificial blood became mixed with the blood of an unconsecrated animal, or the blood of a wild beast (no wild beast, even if it is kosher, such as a deer or antelope, may be consecrated for sacrificial use), we again view the additional blood as if it were water, and estimate the color accordingly.
Art: Jean Beraud - The drinkers
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Zevachim 77 – When Limbs of Sacrifices Get Mixed
If the limbs of a sin-offering intermingled with the limbs of a burnt-offering, then our problem is this: the limbs of a sin-offering should be eaten by the kohanim, and it is prohibited to burn them, while the limbs of a burnt-offering must be burnt, and it is prohibited to eat them.
Rabbi Eliezer says, “Let the kohen place all these limbs on the Altar, and I view the sin-offering (which is not supposed to be burned) as if it were mere wood.” But the Sages say that the limbs must be left until the next morning, when they become invalidated as “leftovers”, and then they can be burned together with all other invalidated offerings, in a place specially designated for this.
What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? After all, the Torah said, “They may not go on the Altar for satisfying aroma...” Rabbi Eliezer says, “for satisfying aroma they should not go, but they can go on the Altar as fuel for fire.”
Art: Winslow Homer - CampFire
Rabbi Eliezer says, “Let the kohen place all these limbs on the Altar, and I view the sin-offering (which is not supposed to be burned) as if it were mere wood.” But the Sages say that the limbs must be left until the next morning, when they become invalidated as “leftovers”, and then they can be burned together with all other invalidated offerings, in a place specially designated for this.
What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? After all, the Torah said, “They may not go on the Altar for satisfying aroma...” Rabbi Eliezer says, “for satisfying aroma they should not go, but they can go on the Altar as fuel for fire.”
Art: Winslow Homer - CampFire
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Zevachim 76 – A Leniency That Leads to a Stringency
If a guilt-offering became intermingled with a peace offering, then we have a problem that the guilt-offering bears more limitations, even though their blood services are equivalent. Rabbi Shimon suggests that we can still resolve the situation by bringing both in the north (which will work for both types of sacrifices) and eating them according to the stringencies of the guilt-offering. We will have brought the offerings right away.
However, the Sages disagree with this solution because of the principle that one may not expose offerings to more invalidations than necessary. By applying the stringencies of a guilt-offering to both, one shortens the time to eat the peace offering, which may lead to its invalidation. Rather, the animals to be offered should be left to graze until they become blemished, then sold, and the money from the proceeds should be used to buy replacement offerings.
Where pieces of meat of different offerings became intermingled, everybody agrees that they have be eaten with the limitations of the most stringent of them – since in this case there is no way out similar to the above.
Art: Heinrich Bürkel - The Village Cattle Market
However, the Sages disagree with this solution because of the principle that one may not expose offerings to more invalidations than necessary. By applying the stringencies of a guilt-offering to both, one shortens the time to eat the peace offering, which may lead to its invalidation. Rather, the animals to be offered should be left to graze until they become blemished, then sold, and the money from the proceeds should be used to buy replacement offerings.
Where pieces of meat of different offerings became intermingled, everybody agrees that they have be eaten with the limitations of the most stringent of them – since in this case there is no way out similar to the above.
Art: Heinrich Bürkel - The Village Cattle Market
Monday, January 24, 2011
Zevachim 75 – Mixing Wine vs. Mixing Animals
Rabbi Elazar gave the following rule: If a sealed cask of the kohen's tithe wine became intermingled with a hundred casks of ordinary wine, one can open a cask (making it insignificant and subject to nullification), take out one-hundredth (for otherwise he would be stealing from the Kohanim to whom the tithe belongs), and then drink the rest of the wine in that cask.
Rav Nachman said about this that only he who quaffs and drinks could issue such a ruling. How is one allowed to open the cask in the first place? Rather, if one of the casks was opened accidentally, one can take out the percentage of intermixed tithe and drink the rest.
If two sacrifices of the same kind became mixed up, then the Kohen takes one and says, “Let this sacrifice be in the name of whoever it belongs to,” and then slaughters it. But the owner needs to put his hands on his animal's head and confess his guilt!? - That is indeed true. Rather let us say that this rule applies when the animals were already slaughtered, and the cups with their blood got mixed.
Art: Abraham Hendrickz Van Beyeren - Still Life With Wine Glasses
Rav Nachman said about this that only he who quaffs and drinks could issue such a ruling. How is one allowed to open the cask in the first place? Rather, if one of the casks was opened accidentally, one can take out the percentage of intermixed tithe and drink the rest.
If two sacrifices of the same kind became mixed up, then the Kohen takes one and says, “Let this sacrifice be in the name of whoever it belongs to,” and then slaughters it. But the owner needs to put his hands on his animal's head and confess his guilt!? - That is indeed true. Rather let us say that this rule applies when the animals were already slaughtered, and the cups with their blood got mixed.
Art: Abraham Hendrickz Van Beyeren - Still Life With Wine Glasses
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Zevachim 74 – Counting One at a Time
The following ruling was reported in the name of Rav: if a ring of an idol became intermingled with a hundred permitted rings, and afterwards one of these rings fell into the Mediterranean sea, they all become permitted, because we say that the ring that fell was the forbidden one.
What is the background of this ruling? The ring that was used for idol worship is forbidden for all use. Thus all 101 rings should be forbidden. However, by the Torah law, the forbidden ring should be nullified in simple majority. It is the Sages who removed this nullification. And it is the same Sages who reinstated the nullification in the case when one ring accidentally fell into the sea and is no longer available.
The ruling of Rav is completely at odds with our previous ruling that one forbidden sacrifice is not nullified even in ten thousand permitted sacrifices. Since the sacrifices are consigned to die, we should just wait till the first one dies, then say that this one that died was the prohibited one, and bring the rest! The answer: Rav's “ring” opinion follows only Rabbi Eliezer, but the majority of Sages do not agree to it.
Art: Rembrandt Van Rijn - A Young Woman Trying on Earings
What is the background of this ruling? The ring that was used for idol worship is forbidden for all use. Thus all 101 rings should be forbidden. However, by the Torah law, the forbidden ring should be nullified in simple majority. It is the Sages who removed this nullification. And it is the same Sages who reinstated the nullification in the case when one ring accidentally fell into the sea and is no longer available.
The ruling of Rav is completely at odds with our previous ruling that one forbidden sacrifice is not nullified even in ten thousand permitted sacrifices. Since the sacrifices are consigned to die, we should just wait till the first one dies, then say that this one that died was the prohibited one, and bring the rest! The answer: Rav's “ring” opinion follows only Rabbi Eliezer, but the majority of Sages do not agree to it.
Art: Rembrandt Van Rijn - A Young Woman Trying on Earings
Zevachim 73 – How Does One Count?
We have previously said that one forbidden animal sacrifice is not nullified even in ten thousand of permitted ones. However, this presupposes a certain way of counting, and not everyone agrees to it. The argument arose when counting vegetables, and here it is.
If one has bundles of fenugreek (valuable spice) that grew in a vineyard and thus became prohibited, they should be burned. If they mixed with permitted ones - Rabbi Meir says they must all be burned. But the Sages say that the prohibited bundle is nullified in 200 of permitted ones. What is the argument? Rabbi Meir considers anything that is normally counted as important, which can never be nullified, but the Sages says that only six things (pomegranates and sealed casks of wine among them) are important. In explaining this, Rabbi Yochanan said that only things which are exclusively counted and not weighed, are important. Since sometimes animals are sold by total weight, they should be nullified!
Answer: there is yet a third counting opinion, known as “the bag of figs” which says that anything that is only sometimes counted is never nullified. According to it, one forbidden sacrifice is not nullified.
Art: Theodule Augustine Ribot - Still Life with a Pomegranate
If one has bundles of fenugreek (valuable spice) that grew in a vineyard and thus became prohibited, they should be burned. If they mixed with permitted ones - Rabbi Meir says they must all be burned. But the Sages say that the prohibited bundle is nullified in 200 of permitted ones. What is the argument? Rabbi Meir considers anything that is normally counted as important, which can never be nullified, but the Sages says that only six things (pomegranates and sealed casks of wine among them) are important. In explaining this, Rabbi Yochanan said that only things which are exclusively counted and not weighed, are important. Since sometimes animals are sold by total weight, they should be nullified!
Answer: there is yet a third counting opinion, known as “the bag of figs” which says that anything that is only sometimes counted is never nullified. According to it, one forbidden sacrifice is not nullified.
Art: Theodule Augustine Ribot - Still Life with a Pomegranate
Friday, January 21, 2011
Zevachim 72 – Why Nullification Does Not Apply
According to Biblical law, if forbidden food becomes commingled with permitted and is indistinguishable from it, and there is more permitted food than forbidden food, then the entire mixture may be eaten. This is the rule of nullification by simple majority. The Sages have introduced stricter rules, such as nullification of one part in sixty, but nevertheless the possibility of nullification in a mixture should exist. Why is it that a forbidden sin-offering, when mixed with permitted offerings, is never nullified, even one in ten thousand?
The answer is that living creatures are considered important in their own right and are never nullified. But let us pull out an individual animal and say that since it came from a group where the majority is permitted, then we can presume that it is permitted! - No, this won't work. Since the animals are not really mixed but are standing, we cannot apply a rule of pulling from a majority. But let us make the animals move, then they will be mixed, and we will be able to apply a rule of pulling from a majority! - Sorry, but this is prohibited by the Sages, because people may mistakenly take an animal before they started moving.
Art: John Frederick Herring, Jnr. - A horse, pigs, ducks and cattle in a farmyard
The answer is that living creatures are considered important in their own right and are never nullified. But let us pull out an individual animal and say that since it came from a group where the majority is permitted, then we can presume that it is permitted! - No, this won't work. Since the animals are not really mixed but are standing, we cannot apply a rule of pulling from a majority. But let us make the animals move, then they will be mixed, and we will be able to apply a rule of pulling from a majority! - Sorry, but this is prohibited by the Sages, because people may mistakenly take an animal before they started moving.
Art: John Frederick Herring, Jnr. - A horse, pigs, ducks and cattle in a farmyard
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Zevachim 71 – Animal Mix-Up
There are five cases when a sin-offering cannot be brought, cannot be left to graze, and has to die. One of these cases is when the owner of the sacrifice died. Since the sacrifice is only brought to atone for his misdeed, and there is no atonement after death, such sacrifice cannot be brought. Furthermore, it cannot be left to graze until it develops a blemish which would allow to redeem it - which is a usual solution in such circumstances. Instead, it is left confined in a cell without food. The other cases include consecration by exchange, an offspring of a sin-offering, the owner being atoned for with another animal, and an animal that is older than one year.
If any of these doomed animals got mixed-up with other sacrifices – even if only one became mixed with ten thousand – they must all be left to die. The root cause of it is that this sacrifice is forbidden for all benefit, and thus measures need to be taken to avoid possible transgression. The law about five cases of a sin-offering is in the category of laws that were taught to Moses on Sinai and cannot be derived from the Torah.
Art: Rembrandt Van Rijn - Dead Peacocks
If any of these doomed animals got mixed-up with other sacrifices – even if only one became mixed with ten thousand – they must all be left to die. The root cause of it is that this sacrifice is forbidden for all benefit, and thus measures need to be taken to avoid possible transgression. The law about five cases of a sin-offering is in the category of laws that were taught to Moses on Sinai and cannot be derived from the Torah.
Art: Rembrandt Van Rijn - Dead Peacocks
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Zevachim 70 – Ritual Impurity of Birds According to Rabbi Yehudah
Rabbi Yehudah has said that if a Kohen did a melikah to a bird and then the bird was found to be a “trefah” - possessing a defect that would surely cause its death anyway - that bird imparts ritual impurity. Why does he say so? After all, Rabbi Meir compared this to the slaughter of animals, where the slaughter does remove the impurity.
Rabbi Yehudah found a verse which he expounded. In regard to the carcass of a kosher species of bird the Torah says “died by itself or was torn by wild animals”. Why is the word “torn” mentioned at all? If a torn animal can survive for a year, then it does not transmit impurity until it actually dies. And if it cannot survive a year, then it is already like dead, and this is the case of “died by itself,” and it imparts impurity. Either way, we already know the answer.
Therefore it must be that the extra mention of the word “torn” teaches us that if it was torn, then even if it was slaughtered correctly, this does not remove its ritual impurity, and one who eats it becomes impure.
Art: William Gowe Ferguson - Still Life Of Dead Birds
Rabbi Yehudah found a verse which he expounded. In regard to the carcass of a kosher species of bird the Torah says “died by itself or was torn by wild animals”. Why is the word “torn” mentioned at all? If a torn animal can survive for a year, then it does not transmit impurity until it actually dies. And if it cannot survive a year, then it is already like dead, and this is the case of “died by itself,” and it imparts impurity. Either way, we already know the answer.
Therefore it must be that the extra mention of the word “torn” teaches us that if it was torn, then even if it was slaughtered correctly, this does not remove its ritual impurity, and one who eats it becomes impure.
Art: William Gowe Ferguson - Still Life Of Dead Birds
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Zevachim 69 - The Impurity of Swallowing
The two-step derivation of the “impurity of the throat” - that is, the impurity that a dead bird can transmit by swallowing its flesh – is as follows. The Torah said, “And any person who will eat an animal that died by itself or was torn... - he shall immerse his garments and immerse himself in the water and remain impure until evening and then be pure.”
Furthermore, the Oral Law tells us that this verse is talking only about birds, and not about any animals. As an exception, we have previously learned that if a bird has a melikah applied to it, even in the wrong way - it may not have the law of a bird who died by itself.
What if the Kohen did a melikah to the bird and then it was found to be a “trefah,” - possessing a defect that would surely cause its death anyway? Rabbi Meir says that it does not contaminate, and Rabbi Yehudah says that it does.
Rabbi Meir proves his points of view by comparing with the slaughter of an animal – whose impurity is more strict, and nevertheless the slaughter purifies it – and the same should be true for birds.
Art: Pieter the Elder Bruegel - Winter Landscape with Skaters and a Bird Trap (detail)
Furthermore, the Oral Law tells us that this verse is talking only about birds, and not about any animals. As an exception, we have previously learned that if a bird has a melikah applied to it, even in the wrong way - it may not have the law of a bird who died by itself.
What if the Kohen did a melikah to the bird and then it was found to be a “trefah,” - possessing a defect that would surely cause its death anyway? Rabbi Meir says that it does not contaminate, and Rabbi Yehudah says that it does.
Rabbi Meir proves his points of view by comparing with the slaughter of an animal – whose impurity is more strict, and nevertheless the slaughter purifies it – and the same should be true for birds.
Art: Pieter the Elder Bruegel - Winter Landscape with Skaters and a Bird Trap (detail)
Monday, January 17, 2011
Zevachim 68 – When is a Bird Considered Dead
In bird offerings, sometimes the invalid killing of it makes it “dead by itself (nevelah),” with the result that its flesh transmits ritual impurity by “way of the throat” - that is, when one swallows its meat. At other times, however, the invalidation is not so strict, and although the bird cannot be eaten, it does not transmit impurity. What are the cases?
If an unqualified person performed the melikah (killing the bird with the nail from the back of the neck), it cannot be eaten, but it transmits no impurity. The same result happens when a kohen performed the melikah with his left hand, or at night, or if he slaughtered unconsecrated birds inside the Courtyard.
By contrast, if he performed melikah with a knife rather than his nail, or he performed melikah on an unconsecrated bird inside the Courtyard, or on consecrated birds outside the Courtyard, or if he performed melikah on turtledoves that are too young or on pigeons that are too old, a bird whose wing has atrophies, or whose eye has been blinded or foot cut off – these transmit impurity when swallowed.
Art: Francisco De Goya y Lucientes - Knife Grinder
If an unqualified person performed the melikah (killing the bird with the nail from the back of the neck), it cannot be eaten, but it transmits no impurity. The same result happens when a kohen performed the melikah with his left hand, or at night, or if he slaughtered unconsecrated birds inside the Courtyard.
By contrast, if he performed melikah with a knife rather than his nail, or he performed melikah on an unconsecrated bird inside the Courtyard, or on consecrated birds outside the Courtyard, or if he performed melikah on turtledoves that are too young or on pigeons that are too old, a bird whose wing has atrophies, or whose eye has been blinded or foot cut off – these transmit impurity when swallowed.
Art: Francisco De Goya y Lucientes - Knife Grinder
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Zevachim 67 – Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer Argue About a Bird Burnt-Offering
If a Kohen took a bird that was sanctified by its owner as a burnt-offering and proceeded to bring it as a sin offering, then Rabbi Eliezer says that one commits misappropriation if he misuses it, but Rabbi Yehoshua says that misappropriation is not committed.
What is their argument? Rabbi Eliezer's line of reasoning is this. As soon as the owner consecrated the bird as a burnt-offering, it became Temple property, subject to the law of misappropriation. It never lost this status, and thus is forbidden to use.
Rabbi Yehoshua, on the other hand, says that if the Kohen changed the burnt-offering with regard to designation, procedure, and location, and did all as if it were a sin-offering, it became transformed into a sin-offering, at least as far as the law of misappropriation is concerned, and there is no punishment for its misuse. Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that the Kohen still should not eat it.
Art: Melchior de Hondecoeter - Birds In A Park 1686
What is their argument? Rabbi Eliezer's line of reasoning is this. As soon as the owner consecrated the bird as a burnt-offering, it became Temple property, subject to the law of misappropriation. It never lost this status, and thus is forbidden to use.
Rabbi Yehoshua, on the other hand, says that if the Kohen changed the burnt-offering with regard to designation, procedure, and location, and did all as if it were a sin-offering, it became transformed into a sin-offering, at least as far as the law of misappropriation is concerned, and there is no punishment for its misuse. Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that the Kohen still should not eat it.
Art: Melchior de Hondecoeter - Birds In A Park 1686
Zevachim 66 – Invalidations of Bird Offerings
The proper place for the service of the bird sin-offering is the lower part of the wall of the Altar, below the red line, and that of the bird burnt-offering – above the red line. If one changed the procedure and performed the bird offering on the wrong part of the Altar, the offering became invalid. The same is true if he exchanged the other aspects of the bird service.
Nevertheless, disqualified offerings do not convey ritual impurity. As a rule, an animal or a bird that was not properly slaughtered conveys ritual impurity – the animal by being carried, and the bird by being eaten, at the moment it enters the throat. The offerings above are purified from it.
In addition, one who uses a disqualified bird offering for his purposes, commits misappropriation of Temple property. Normally, the bird sin-offering, after being killed properly by the method of melikah, is eaten by the kohanim and thus does not have the prohibition of misappropriation. These offerings, however, never became allowed for consumption and remained the property of the Temple, subject to misappropriation.
Art: Momo Chidori Kyoka Awase - Cockerel And Hen On The Right With A Bunting On The Left, From An Album Birds Compared In Humorous Songs, 1791
Nevertheless, disqualified offerings do not convey ritual impurity. As a rule, an animal or a bird that was not properly slaughtered conveys ritual impurity – the animal by being carried, and the bird by being eaten, at the moment it enters the throat. The offerings above are purified from it.
In addition, one who uses a disqualified bird offering for his purposes, commits misappropriation of Temple property. Normally, the bird sin-offering, after being killed properly by the method of melikah, is eaten by the kohanim and thus does not have the prohibition of misappropriation. These offerings, however, never became allowed for consumption and remained the property of the Temple, subject to misappropriation.
Art: Momo Chidori Kyoka Awase - Cockerel And Hen On The Right With A Bunting On The Left, From An Album Birds Compared In Humorous Songs, 1791
Friday, January 14, 2011
Zevachim 65 – The Logic of Bird Offering
How do we know the laws of bird offerings? The Torah said, “And the Kohen shall bring it to the Altar.” Since it says, “from turtledoves or young pigeons,” you might think that only two birds are valid – the word “it” teaches that even one bird is acceptable.
The word “Kohen” teaches that only a Kohen can do the killing of the bird (melikah). For you might think that since for animal offerings anybody can do the slaughter, it should also be true for birds – the word “Kohen” dispels this notion. Rabbi Akiva says, “Would it enter your mind that a non-Kohen can approach the Altar? Rather, you might think that the melikah is done with the knife. The word 'Kohen' teaches that it has to be done with the very body of the Kohen, that is, with his nail.”
Why is the melikah done from the nape? For sin-offering it says, “and he shall perform the melikah on its head opposite the back,” and for burnt-offerings we learn it by the method of the “same word” - “separate,” which is used in both contexts.
Art: Pieter Gysels - Still Life with Dead Birds
The word “Kohen” teaches that only a Kohen can do the killing of the bird (melikah). For you might think that since for animal offerings anybody can do the slaughter, it should also be true for birds – the word “Kohen” dispels this notion. Rabbi Akiva says, “Would it enter your mind that a non-Kohen can approach the Altar? Rather, you might think that the melikah is done with the knife. The word 'Kohen' teaches that it has to be done with the very body of the Kohen, that is, with his nail.”
Why is the melikah done from the nape? For sin-offering it says, “and he shall perform the melikah on its head opposite the back,” and for burnt-offerings we learn it by the method of the “same word” - “separate,” which is used in both contexts.
Art: Pieter Gysels - Still Life with Dead Birds
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Zevachim 64 – Bird Sin-Offering and Burnt-Offering
The bird sin-offering is done in the following way. While all animal offerings are slaughtered with a knife, a bird is killed by piercing the back of its neck with the right thumbnail of a Kohen. This type of slaughter, called “melikah,” is valid only for bird offerings in the Temple. The Kohen must take care not to separate the head of the bird from its body. Then he would sprinkle some of the bird's blood upon the Altar at the southwest corner, and the remainder of the blood must be squeezed onto the base of the Altar. The meat of the bird is eaten by the Kohanim.
For the bird burnt-offering, the Kohen first ascends the ramp, then goes on the surrounding ledge, and arrives at the southeast corner. There he kills the bird in the same way (melikah), and may separate the head from the body. He squeezes out its blood on the wall of the Altar, saturates the head of the bird with salt, and burns it on the Altar. Then he throws the crop and the feathers to the place of the ashes, thirty cubits away, and burns the body.
Art: Jean Baptiste Greuze - Young Girl Weeping for her Dead Bird-1759
For the bird burnt-offering, the Kohen first ascends the ramp, then goes on the surrounding ledge, and arrives at the southeast corner. There he kills the bird in the same way (melikah), and may separate the head from the body. He squeezes out its blood on the wall of the Altar, saturates the head of the bird with salt, and burns it on the Altar. Then he throws the crop and the feathers to the place of the ashes, thirty cubits away, and burns the body.
Art: Jean Baptiste Greuze - Young Girl Weeping for her Dead Bird-1759
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Zevachim 63 – Flour and Bird Offerings
The flour offering was brought either in its raw form or prepared as an unleavened wafer. It required a service called “kemitzah”: the kohen would scoop the flour or wafer pieces with his middle three fingers, then break off protruding pieces, using the thumb and the little finger, and burn this portion on the Altar. The kemitzah is analogous to slaughter in the case of the animal sacrifice. The leftovers are prepared in any manner (only that they should not leaven and become chametz), and are eaten by the kohanim in any place of the Courtyard, for a day and the following night until midnight.
The bird sin-offering would be brought at the southwest corner of the Altar. This corner served for three things at the lower half (below the red line) and for three things above the red line. The three things below were the bird sin-offering, flour offering, and pouring the remnants of the blood. The three things above were wine libation, water libation, and bird burnt-offering – when there were too many kohanim on the east side of the Altar.
Art: Francisco De Goya y Lucientes - Dead Birds
The bird sin-offering would be brought at the southwest corner of the Altar. This corner served for three things at the lower half (below the red line) and for three things above the red line. The three things below were the bird sin-offering, flour offering, and pouring the remnants of the blood. The three things above were wine libation, water libation, and bird burnt-offering – when there were too many kohanim on the east side of the Altar.
Art: Francisco De Goya y Lucientes - Dead Birds
Zevachim 62 - The Place of the Altar
Rabba bar bar Chanah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, “When the Jews came back from Babylon to Israel, three prophets (Chaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi) came with them. One testified about the size of the Altar, another - about the position of the Altar, and the third one testified that they may offer sacrifices on the Altar, even though the Temple was not built yet.”
Therefore some say that sacrifices can be brought even nowadays. The opponents say that we would be missing not only the Temple, but also many other details for which we need a prophet.
The Altar had a ramp leading to it; the ramp was in the south, while the Altar was in the north. Why? Compare this to a person lying face down, whose thigh (Altar) is in the north, and his head (the ramp) will have to be in the south, following the verse “He shall slaughter it at the side (literally, thigh) of the Altar, in the north.”
Alternatively, the ramp is in the south so that the first turn the Kohen takes is to the right, and all turns a person takes should be to the right.
Art: Camille Pissarro - Resting, Peasant Girl Lying on the Grass, Pontoise
Therefore some say that sacrifices can be brought even nowadays. The opponents say that we would be missing not only the Temple, but also many other details for which we need a prophet.
The Altar had a ramp leading to it; the ramp was in the south, while the Altar was in the north. Why? Compare this to a person lying face down, whose thigh (Altar) is in the north, and his head (the ramp) will have to be in the south, following the verse “He shall slaughter it at the side (literally, thigh) of the Altar, in the north.”
Alternatively, the ramp is in the south so that the first turn the Kohen takes is to the right, and all turns a person takes should be to the right.
Art: Camille Pissarro - Resting, Peasant Girl Lying on the Grass, Pontoise
Monday, January 10, 2011
Zevachim 61 – Altar without the Temple
When Ravin went up from Babylonia to the Land of Israel, he recounted to Rabbi Yirmiyah the view of Abaye that the holy offerings cannot be eaten without the Altar standing. Said Rabbi Yirmiyah, “Stupid Babylonians! Because they live in a dark land, they say a teaching that darkens!” The answer, he said, was found in the following simple ruling.
When the Tabernacle was dismantled, the offerings were immediately disqualified. This refers to the most holy offerings. Furthermore, offerings can be eaten in two places, both in place of encampment and while traveling. This must refer to the regular holy offerings. Thus, the most holy offerings cannot be eaten without the Altar, but the regular ones can!
However, Abaye found for himself support from a different teaching: Rabbi Ishmael says that the offerings cannot be eaten without the Altar, but the Sages says that they can – and Abaye follows the view of Rabbi Ishmael!
Alternatively, said Abaye, the “second place” where even the most holy offerings can be eaten is the time when the Levites took down the curtains. You might think that having no curtains is the same as taking the meat outside the Courtyard. It's not! - and you may eat the sacrifices without the Temple standing.
Art: Joseph Mallord William Turner - Shade and Darkness
When the Tabernacle was dismantled, the offerings were immediately disqualified. This refers to the most holy offerings. Furthermore, offerings can be eaten in two places, both in place of encampment and while traveling. This must refer to the regular holy offerings. Thus, the most holy offerings cannot be eaten without the Altar, but the regular ones can!
However, Abaye found for himself support from a different teaching: Rabbi Ishmael says that the offerings cannot be eaten without the Altar, but the Sages says that they can – and Abaye follows the view of Rabbi Ishmael!
Alternatively, said Abaye, the “second place” where even the most holy offerings can be eaten is the time when the Levites took down the curtains. You might think that having no curtains is the same as taking the meat outside the Courtyard. It's not! - and you may eat the sacrifices without the Temple standing.
Art: Joseph Mallord William Turner - Shade and Darkness
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Zevachim 60 – The Copper Altar
The Copper (Outer) Altar of Moses can be compared either to the Inner Altar of Moses, or to the Outer Altar in the vision of Ezekiel, since in all cases the same word “square” is used. Rabbi Yose opts to derive the dimensions of the Outer Altar of Moses from his Inner Altar, because both were portable, while Rabbi Yehudah compares the Outer Altar of Moses with the Outer Altar in the vision of Ezekiel.
This leads them to other differences: Rabbi Yehudah maintains that the floor of the Courtyard was sacred, and offerings could be burned directly on it; they differ on the size of the Altar; the height of the curtains around the Altar was five cubits according to Rabbi Yehudah, and fifteen cubits according to Rabbi Yose - because the Altar of Rabbi Yose was that much higher.
But we have a rule that the laws of the Torah cannot be derived from the Prophets, such as Ezekiel! - True, and we use the words of Ezekiel only to define what the Torah means when it says that the Altar was five by five cubits.
Art: Fra Bartolomeo - Prophet Isaiah C.1516
This leads them to other differences: Rabbi Yehudah maintains that the floor of the Courtyard was sacred, and offerings could be burned directly on it; they differ on the size of the Altar; the height of the curtains around the Altar was five cubits according to Rabbi Yehudah, and fifteen cubits according to Rabbi Yose - because the Altar of Rabbi Yose was that much higher.
But we have a rule that the laws of the Torah cannot be derived from the Prophets, such as Ezekiel! - True, and we use the words of Ezekiel only to define what the Torah means when it says that the Altar was five by five cubits.
Art: Fra Bartolomeo - Prophet Isaiah C.1516
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Zevachim 59 – Sacrifice Rejection, Damaged Altar
If a sacrifice was slaughtered, and then the Altar became damaged, this sacrifice is rejected. It cannot become valid again, even after the Altar is repaired.
However, Rav commented on the reverse situation, “If the Altar became damaged, all sacrifices that were slaughtered there are disqualified, and there is a verse for that, but we have forgotten it.” When Rav Kahana went to Babylon, he heard Rabbi Shimon teaching the verse that states “On the Altar you will slaughter your burnt offerings...” But, he asked, you are not slaughtering them ON the Altar, but at its side, so what does it mean? That your offerings are valid only when the Altar is complete. Said Rav Kahana, “That is the teaching that slipped away from Rav!”
How large was the Outer Altar that Moses built? It was 10 by 10 cubits, and 3 cubits high – according to Rabbi Yehudah, but according to Rabbi Yose it was 5 by 5, with a height of 10. And how large was the Outer Altar in the Temple? It was 30 by 30 cubits, with a height of 10.
Art: Edgar Degas - Semiramis Building Babylon, 1861
However, Rav commented on the reverse situation, “If the Altar became damaged, all sacrifices that were slaughtered there are disqualified, and there is a verse for that, but we have forgotten it.” When Rav Kahana went to Babylon, he heard Rabbi Shimon teaching the verse that states “On the Altar you will slaughter your burnt offerings...” But, he asked, you are not slaughtering them ON the Altar, but at its side, so what does it mean? That your offerings are valid only when the Altar is complete. Said Rav Kahana, “That is the teaching that slipped away from Rav!”
How large was the Outer Altar that Moses built? It was 10 by 10 cubits, and 3 cubits high – according to Rabbi Yehudah, but according to Rabbi Yose it was 5 by 5, with a height of 10. And how large was the Outer Altar in the Temple? It was 30 by 30 cubits, with a height of 10.
Art: Edgar Degas - Semiramis Building Babylon, 1861
Friday, January 7, 2011
Zevachim 58 – Sacrifice at the Top of the Altar
The correct place to slaughter the most holy offerings is in the northern part of the Courtyard. However, what would happen if a sacrifice were to be slaughtered on the actual top of the Altar? Rabbi Yose says that the sacrifice is valid as if it were slaughtered in the north of the Courtyard. Rabbi Yose ben Yehudah says that from the middle of the Altar and southward is the same as the south of the Courtyard, and from the middle and northward is the same as the north of the Courtyard.
What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yose? There is in fact a disagreement as to where exactly the Altar stood in the Courtyard, and Rabbi Yose is of the opinion that it stood completely in the north. If so, let Rabbi Yose say this directly, why did he use the words “as if it were slaughtered in the north?” Rabbi Yose wants to pre-empt your question, for you might say, that since the Torah requires “at the side of the Altar,” then perhaps on top of the Altar is not valid – and Rabbi Yose tells you that nevertheless it is valid.
Art: Caspar David Friedrich - Northern Sea in the Moonlight
What is the rationale for the opinion of Rabbi Yose? There is in fact a disagreement as to where exactly the Altar stood in the Courtyard, and Rabbi Yose is of the opinion that it stood completely in the north. If so, let Rabbi Yose say this directly, why did he use the words “as if it were slaughtered in the north?” Rabbi Yose wants to pre-empt your question, for you might say, that since the Torah requires “at the side of the Altar,” then perhaps on top of the Altar is not valid – and Rabbi Yose tells you that nevertheless it is valid.
Art: Caspar David Friedrich - Northern Sea in the Moonlight
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Zevachim 57 – First-born, Tithe, and Passover Sacrifices
The first-born, tithe, and Passover sacrifices are the remaining holy offerings. The first-born offering is a male offspring of a cow, sheep or goat; it is given to a Kohen, who offers it as a sacrifice. The animal tithe is taken each year from the newborns of the herds and flocks. Each tenth animal is designated as the tithe one, and then the owner takes it to Jerusalem, brings it as a sacrifice, and eats it there, together with his family and friends.
These offerings are slaughtered anywhere in the Courtyard, and their blood requires only one application on the Altar, provided that it is done against the foundation. The foundation is the one-cubit step at the bottom of the Altar; it ran along the western and northern sides, plus another cubit to the east and to the south sides.
The Passover offering is special in that it is eaten only at night until midnight, only by those who have registered beforehand, and only roasted.
One who desires to reach God is called "the firstborn", and one deep feeling of this is sufficient, provided that it is sincere - that is, done against the foundation (the very depth) of the heart.
Art: Julien Dupre - A Shepherd And His Flock
These offerings are slaughtered anywhere in the Courtyard, and their blood requires only one application on the Altar, provided that it is done against the foundation. The foundation is the one-cubit step at the bottom of the Altar; it ran along the western and northern sides, plus another cubit to the east and to the south sides.
The Passover offering is special in that it is eaten only at night until midnight, only by those who have registered beforehand, and only roasted.
One who desires to reach God is called "the firstborn", and one deep feeling of this is sufficient, provided that it is sincere - that is, done against the foundation (the very depth) of the heart.
Art: Julien Dupre - A Shepherd And His Flock
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Zevachim 56 – The Area for Slaughter, the Time for Blood
Peace offerings had to be slaughtered after the doors of the Temple Hall were opened; if they were slaughtered before that time, they were invalid, since the Torah said, “And he shall slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of the Meeting” - at the time when one can enter, not when it is locked.
Most holy offerings must be eaten, and the peace offerings must be slaughtered “in front of the Tent of the Meeting.” In order to make the whole area of the Courtyard “in front,” there were additional doors, on the opposite far sides of the Hall, leading into the Hall.
The blood of the sacrifices had to be offered before sunset. After sunset it became disqualified, because of the verse “on the day that he offers his sacrifice it shall be eaten.” This teaches that both the slaughter and the offering of the blood must occur on the same day.
Art: Charles Théodore Frère - Sunset On The Nile
Most holy offerings must be eaten, and the peace offerings must be slaughtered “in front of the Tent of the Meeting.” In order to make the whole area of the Courtyard “in front,” there were additional doors, on the opposite far sides of the Hall, leading into the Hall.
The blood of the sacrifices had to be offered before sunset. After sunset it became disqualified, because of the verse “on the day that he offers his sacrifice it shall be eaten.” This teaches that both the slaughter and the offering of the blood must occur on the same day.
Art: Charles Théodore Frère - Sunset On The Nile
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Zevachim 55 – Guilt-, Thanksgiving-, and Peace-Offerings
The remaining most holy offerings are the two lambs brought on Shavuot, and the guilt offerings, which are brought for the following: theft (when one swears falsely that he does not owe the money); misappropriation and personal use of Temple property; relations with a slave woman designated for another man – even if done on purpose and not by mistake; guilt-offerings of a Nazir and a Metsora; and a “pending” offering, brought when one might have transgressed but is not sure.
The thanksgiving offering is holy, but not the most holy: it can be slaughtered anywhere in the Courtyard, it may be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem, by any person, for the day of the offering and the following night. Special portions of it are given to the kohanim and their families.
Peace offerings are similar holy offerings, but can be eaten for an additional day.
Art: Gaetano Chierici - Feeding The Lambs
The thanksgiving offering is holy, but not the most holy: it can be slaughtered anywhere in the Courtyard, it may be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem, by any person, for the day of the offering and the following night. Special portions of it are given to the kohanim and their families.
Peace offerings are similar holy offerings, but can be eaten for an additional day.
Art: Gaetano Chierici - Feeding The Lambs
Monday, January 3, 2011
Zevachim 54 – Burnt Offering
The burnt offering is considered a most holy offering. Together with the other most holy offerings it possesses the following stringencies: if one uses it for personal benefit, even before slaughter, he has misappropriated of Temple property and needs atonement. Its meat becomes invalidated if taken outside the Temple Courtyard.
Its slaughter is in the north of the Altar, and the reception of its blood must also be in the north, using a service vessel. Its blood requires two applications that are equivalent to four – that is, it is applied to two corners of the Altar diagonally across from each other, in such a way that it reaches both sides of each corner. Thus, applications to the two corners suffice to place the blood an all four sides of the Altar. This is also described "as a Greek letter Gamma," which in upper case forms a right angle.
It requires skinning and dismemberment, after which it is consigned in its entirety to the fires, that is, burnt on the Altar.
The place of the Temple was figured out by King David and the prophet Shmuel while David was hiding from Saul. They followed the book of Joshua, which called for the highest place in Israel.
Art: Rembrandt Van Rijn - David Playing The Harp To Saul
Its slaughter is in the north of the Altar, and the reception of its blood must also be in the north, using a service vessel. Its blood requires two applications that are equivalent to four – that is, it is applied to two corners of the Altar diagonally across from each other, in such a way that it reaches both sides of each corner. Thus, applications to the two corners suffice to place the blood an all four sides of the Altar. This is also described "as a Greek letter Gamma," which in upper case forms a right angle.
It requires skinning and dismemberment, after which it is consigned in its entirety to the fires, that is, burnt on the Altar.
The place of the Temple was figured out by King David and the prophet Shmuel while David was hiding from Saul. They followed the book of Joshua, which called for the highest place in Israel.
Art: Rembrandt Van Rijn - David Playing The Harp To Saul
Sunday, January 2, 2011
Zevachim 53 – Communal and Individual Sin-Offerings
Here is the law of the individual and communal offerings - which include the communal sin-offering of a goat on New Moon, and on every Festival: their slaughter is in the north of the Altar and the reception of their blood is also in the north. This law is derived with the logic of “general rule”: since the Torah told us this law regarding one type of one sin-offering, we can extend it to all other sin-offerings, if there is no indication to the contrary.
The blood of sin-offerings requires four applications on the four horns of the Outer Altar. At each corner on top of the Altar there was a cube-shaped “horn.” The Kohen would start on the ramp leading up the Altar, but then turn to the right and step on the ledge which surrounded the Altar at the hight of 6 ells. In this the Kohen followed the rule of “if you have a choice of two roads, take the one to the right.” He would then continue on the ledge around the Altar, going counter-clockwise, and apply the blood with his finger to each of the horns.
Art: Camille Pissarro - Crossroads at l'Hermitage, Pontoise
The blood of sin-offerings requires four applications on the four horns of the Outer Altar. At each corner on top of the Altar there was a cube-shaped “horn.” The Kohen would start on the ramp leading up the Altar, but then turn to the right and step on the ledge which surrounded the Altar at the hight of 6 ells. In this the Kohen followed the rule of “if you have a choice of two roads, take the one to the right.” He would then continue on the ledge around the Altar, going counter-clockwise, and apply the blood with his finger to each of the horns.
Art: Camille Pissarro - Crossroads at l'Hermitage, Pontoise
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Zevachim 52 – The Base of the Altar
The base of the Altar was a protrusion at its bottom, a step, one ell (about 2 feet) high and one ell wide. It ran around the Altar, except its eastern side. The blood of burnt offerings was thrown on this base, that is, on its top flat part, or above it, on the Altar's wall. How do we know this?
The Torah writes, “onto the base of the burnt-sacrifice Altar.” From the extra word “Altar” we understand that the blood is to be thrown on the top of the base, which is similar to the roof (top) of the Altar.
Rabbi Ishmael says that the verse is not needed for this, and that it can be derived by logic: if the remnant of the blood of the sin offering, which, being the remnant, does not atone for anything, is poured on the base, then certainly the first application of the blood of the burnt offering, which does atone, definitely needs the base.
Then what does rabbi Ishmael do with the verse, since he derives his law without it? He uses it to expand the law about the base to all other types of sacrifices.
Art: Orazio Riminaldi - Sacrifice Of Isaac C. 1625
The Torah writes, “onto the base of the burnt-sacrifice Altar.” From the extra word “Altar” we understand that the blood is to be thrown on the top of the base, which is similar to the roof (top) of the Altar.
Rabbi Ishmael says that the verse is not needed for this, and that it can be derived by logic: if the remnant of the blood of the sin offering, which, being the remnant, does not atone for anything, is poured on the base, then certainly the first application of the blood of the burnt offering, which does atone, definitely needs the base.
Then what does rabbi Ishmael do with the verse, since he derives his law without it? He uses it to expand the law about the base to all other types of sacrifices.
Art: Orazio Riminaldi - Sacrifice Of Isaac C. 1625
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)