skip to main |
skip to sidebar
What is Rabbi Yose's reason? - It is written, “and Noah built an altar to God” - which proves that an altar is required. And what is the reason of Rabbi Shimon? - It is written, “And Manoach took the goat-kid and the flour offering and he offered them up on the rock to God.”
How does Rabbi Shimon explain Noah's altar? - He says it was built only to provide comfortable height upon which to perform the sacrifice. And how does Rabbi Yose explain the rock of Manoach? - An angel told Manoach to act thus.
For what sacrifices is one liable when offering them outside? - Any valid sacrifice, or even an invalid one if it would be accepted on the Altar after the fact. One is liable for offering an olive's volume of the meat, flour, and incense. For non-blood offerings, Rabbi Elazar makes him liable only for a complete amount.
Art: Adam Colonia - Noah Leaving the Ark
If one takes an animal that was consecrated as a sacrifice and slaughters it for someone's consumption, he is liable to slaughtering outside. If, however, he offers it up for someone, he is not liable for offering up a sacrifice outside the Temple, because he did not dedicate it to God. In truth, he is liable for idol worship for worshiping that human, but that is a different liability.
Offering up is more stringent in this way: if two people held a knife together and slaughtered a sacrifice outside the Temple, they are not liable, but if they took a sacrificial limb and offered it up, they are liable.
If one offered a limb of a sacrifice, then became aware that it was prohibited, then forgot it, then offered another limb, again became aware and again forgot it, and so on, he is liable for each limb – so says Rabbi Shimon, but Rabbi Yose makes him liable just once.
Art: William Lucas - Sharpening The Knife 1868
The verse states, “And any man from the House of Israel who will slaughter an ox, a sheep or goat in the camp... and he did not bring it to the Tent of the Meeting... ” We might think that even if he takes a sacrifice that is normally brought in the northern part of the Courtyard and slaughters it in the southern part of the Courtyard – he would already be liable. To dispel this notion, the Torah added, “outside the camp.”
But now that the Torah has said, “outside the camp,” you might think this to mean outside of all three special camps, that is, outside the Temple, outside the Temple Mount, and even outside Jerusalem – that only then one would be liable. For that, the Torah said, “in the camp.” Thus, if he slaughters a sacrifices in the south, even if it is not its place, it is not called “outside,” because some other sacrifices can be brought there. However, if he slaughters it outside the Courtyard, then he is liable for “slaughter outside.”
Art: Cornelis van Leemputten - Shepherdess with Sheep in a Landscape
If one slaughtered and burned a sacrifice outside the Temple, he is liable for slaughtering it, and he is liable for burning it as well. Rabbi Yose HaGlili says: “If he slaughtered the sacrifices inside the Temple, so that it was indeed valid, and then burned it outside, then he is liable for burning. But if he slaughtered it outside, then it became invalid right away, and he is not liable if he then burns it.”
But the Sages told him, “Even in your case, when he slaughtered the sacrifice inside the Temple, it becomes invalid as soon as he takes it out. Then he should not be liable for burning it outside! According to your logic, Rabbi Yose, one should never be liable for burning an offering outside. This proves that you are wrong, and that when one slaughtered and burned an offering outside the Temple, he is liable for both acts.
Challenge: what can Rabbi Yose answer in his defense?
Art: Abel Grimmer - A Wooded Winter Village Landscape With Peasants Slaughtering
Rabbi Elazar asked the following question, “If exactly half of the carcass of a bull or a goat that are burned has left the Courtyard, together with the majority of one of its limb, is the remaining part of that limb considered outside, together with the limb? Or perhaps, since the limb belongs to the body, and the body is only half-out, then the limb is considered inside?” To this there was no answer.
Some say that Rabbi Eliezer asked a different question: “If three of the five carriers have left the Courtyard, are the other two carriers considered already out and impure?” To this there was also no answer.
Rabbi Elazar asked another question, “Do the bulls that are burned already contaminate foods and liquids while they are still inside the Courtyard?” Since they will have a very strong impurity when they are out of the Courtyard, perhaps it is enough to make food and liquids impure, since these are easily rendered impure. Afterwards he himself resolved it: prior to their exiting from the Courtyard they are not fully considered bulls that are burned, and thus they do not contaminate the food yet.”
Art: Henri De Toulouse-Lautrec - Two Bulls Wearing a Yoke
There are special sin-offerings, such as the goat brought for communal idol worship, that are not eaten but are burned in a designated place outside Jerusalem, called the place of ashes. These offerings contaminate the people who are carrying them, and they contaminate even the people's clothing. The offerings were carried out on poles. The first group of carriers becomes impure when it leaves the Courtyard, while the second group remains pure until they in their turn leave the Courtard. Rabbi Shimon says that none of them become impure until the fire catches onto the larger part of the sacrifice.
Art: Giovacchino Toma - The Rain Of Ashes, 1880
Therefore, the rule is that whenever the Altar does not get the right to the meat, the kohanim do not get the right to the hide. However, if an offering was valid even for some time, so that the Altar got the right to the meat, the kohanim acquired the right to the hide. This rule is derived from a phrase “the burnt offering of a man.” Since the rule would be also true for a woman, the extra word “man” teaches us that it was valid for men to eat.
Hides of regular offerings, such as a peace offering, belong to their owners. Hides of all most holy offerings other than the burnt offering also belong to the kohanim, and this is derived through logic: if in the case of a burnt offering, where the kohanim do not eat the meat, the hide nevertheless goes to them, then for a sin offering, where the kohanim do eat the meat, certainly the hide goes to them.
Art: Pieter Gysels - Still Life with Vegetables Meat Fruit and Game
Rav made the following statement: “Our teacher Moses was a High Priest and shared in the offerings – as the Torah says, 'from the ram of inauguration was a portion of Moses'”. Now he had to face the challenges.
In the previous argument with Aaron about eating the sin-offering, why didn't Moses eat it himself, for he, unlike them, was not precluded by mourning? Rav answered – he was busy talking to God from morning till evening.
When Miriam contracted leprosy, it was not Moses, who was not a kohen, who pronounced her status, and not Aaron, who was a relative, but it was God himself, who also was a kohen, Who confined her and later released her. We see from this that Moses was not a kohen! - No, maybe leprosy is specifically given to the sons of Aaron to decide.
In truth this is an argument found between earlier authorities of the Mishna, for when God became angry with Moses for refusing to go Egypt, this, unlike all other angers, left no mark – so says Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha. However, Rabbi Shimon says that this anger too left a mark, and Aaron became a kohen instead of Moses, who thus remained a Levi.
Art: Jules Charles Boquet - Mourning
He said “Why did you not eat the sin-offering of New Moon?” Moses asked Aaron, “Perhaps its blood was accidentally brought into the Most Holy chamber?” But Aaron replied, “Behold, it was not brought inside.”
Moses then asked, “Perhaps it went outside the boundary,” but Aaron replied that it was always within. Moses then suggested, “Perhaps you offered it when you were mourners and thereby disqualified it?” - to which Aaron replied that he, the High Priest, has brought it, and the High Priest does not disqualify an offering even as a mourner.
Having exhausted all possibilities, Moses demanded why it was not eaten, when they were commanded to do so, and Aaron replied, “Today such things (as the death of my sons) happened, so perhaps you did not hear right what God has said, but eating should apply only to the inauguration sacrifices, and not the New Moon ones.”
Moses agreed completely and said, “I heard it but forgot.”
Art: Johann Hamza - A Good Dinner
If the relative died before midday when the mourner was not yet fit to offer a Passover sacrifice, then the laws of mourning devolve on him first and prevent him from offering the sacrifice. If, however, the relative died after midday, the mourner was already obligated to bring the Passover sacrifice from before, and then the state of mourning does not prevent him from bringing the sacrifice.
But do we find anywhere a difference between before and after midday? - Yes, we do! There was a story about a kohen named Yosef who did not want to become ritually impure because of his wife's burial, and the other kohanim forced him. On the other hand, the Torah tell the kohanim not to go into the cemetery, with the exception of burying his relatives? We have to say that one ruling applies after midday, while other one – before.
Art: Vasily Perov - Seeing off the Dead
A person whose close relative has died gets the legal status of a mourner (onein) for that day. A kohen who is a mourner is allowed to touch sacrifices – he does not make them ritually impure – but he cannot offer them, and he does not have a claim to a share to eat that night.
A kohen who has a blemish, whether passing or permanent, does have a share in the offerings and is allowed to eat them, but cannot offer them or do any kind of sacrificial service.
Any kohen who was disqualified at any point of the service – for example, if he was impure when the blood was thrown but later, when the fats were burned, he became pure – does not have a share in that offering. And one who does not have a share in the meat does not have a share in the hides. This is derived from the Torah phrase “The one from the among the sons of Aharon who offers (that is, who is fit to offer) the blood of the peace offering and the fat – the right thigh shall be his portion.”
Art: Georges de La Tour - Dying Monk
Basically, every kohen is entitled to a share from every sacrifice. However, practically it would be inconvenient for everyone to come to the Temple when they pleased, so Moses diveded them into eight groups, and later Shmuel and David expanded this to twenty four groups, or families. Therefore, each kohen would have to serve in the Temple for one week in six months, and during this week he was entitled to a share from sacrifices.
If a kohen became ritually impure and went to the mikveh to dip in order to purify himself, he still needs to wait for sun to go down, after which he becomes completely pure and can eat sacrifices. During that day he is still partially impure, and has no claim to the sacrifices slaughtered on that day, even though he will be fit to eat them in the evening. The same is true for a kohen who needs to offer additional sacrifices for his purification – he cannot take a raincheck to apply it in the evening.
Art: Albert Bierstadt - Sundown at Yosemite
They argue about the principle that cooking on the next day remove forbidden flavors from the previous one. Actually, they all agree to this principle, from the Torah perspective. They also agree that the Sages have forbidden this practice. In Rabbi Tarfon's view, the prohibition is relaxed for the festivals, and in the view of the Sages it is not.
Purging is done with hot water, and additional rinsing – with cold water. When two sacrifices touch and one absorbs the flavor of the other, the mixture is governed by the rules of the strictest one. This applies only to the outer layer where the flavor penetrates.
Art: Ribot Theodule - Augustin The Cook Accountant
Rami bar Chama inquired, “If, when roasting a sin-offering, one suspended it in the airspace of an earthenware oven, does the oven require breaking or not? Was the Torah concerned about cooking and absorption, or even about cooking without absorption?” Can we find the answer in the above rule about broth? - No, we cannot! Broth is a case of absorption without cooking, and our question is about cooking without absorption.
And what is the reason for breaking? - Because the absorbed flavor becomes prohibited “remains” in the morning.
Art: Camille Pissarro - Eugene Murer at His Pastry Oven
Similar law applies to an earthenware utensil, except that if it becomes impure while outside, it cannot be broken – since breaking must be inside. Instead, one punctures a small hole in it, which makes it unusable and leads it to loose its impurity, then brings it into the Courtyard and breaks it there.
Resh Lakish asked a question – What happens if the robe of the High Priest was spattered with blood, taken outside the Courtyard, and there it became impure. The advice above cannot be applied, because it is forbidden to tear this robe. It needs to be brought inside and laundered there, but it is forbidden to do so, because it is impure. One is also not allowed to dip it in a mikva to remove its impurity – because that would be the beginning of washing, and washing can only be done inside the Courtyard. Readers are invited to submit their solutions.
Art: Lovis (Franz Heinrich Louis) Corinth - In a Silk Robe
If the blood of a sin-offering spattered on a hide, then if the hide was not yet stripped from the animal, it does not require washing (because it cannot be a garment yet), but if it was stripped from the animal, then it does require washing (because the skin can be designated for use as a mat by the owner in his mind) – these are the words of Rabbi Yehudah. However, Rabbi Elazar says that until it becomes a garment, and is not merely designated for use, it cannot accept ritual impurity and thus does not require washing.
Only the place of the blood requires laundering, and it must be done in the Courtyard. So too must the earthenware be shattered in the Courtyard. Thus laundering is a stringency possessed by the sin-offering over other most holy offerings.
Art: Edward Stott - The Washing Day
Rabbi Yehudah the Prince answered, “Great question! But I will answer either way: if the blood is still valid, the garment needs laundering, and if it is invalid, then I follow Rabbi Akiva to say that since it was valid at some time, it still makes the garment liable to laundering.” However, in truth the law is not like Rabbi Akiva, and thus Levi's inquiry remains unresolved.
If the blood spattered directly from the neck onto the garment, it does not require laundering. Similarly, if it spattered from the horn of the Altar, from its base, or if it spilled on the floor and was gathered up, the garment does not require laundering. It only requires laundering when the blood was received in a sacred vessel first, and then spattered on a garment.
Art: Jan Mari Henri Ten Kate - Hanging Up the Washing
Thus, the rule is that if blood of a sin offering is spattered on a garment, this garment requires laundering in the Courtyard. Even though the Torah, in giving this law, spoke only about sacrifices that are eaten, the law is equally applicable to other sin-offerings, which are not eaten, but are brought in the Holy of Holies instead. Nevertheless, the stringency of laundering in the Courtard only applies to valid blood, but if the sacrifice was invalidated, laundering can be done elsewhere, whether the offering had a period of time when it was valid, or if it was never valid.
Art: Camille Pissarro - Woman Hanging up the Washing
Said Rabbi Shimon, “If you see Kohanim who are distributing oil in the Temple Courtyard, you don't have to ask what it is. It is either the remainder of a wafer flour-offering of a regular Jew, or the remainder of the oil of a metzora, a spiritual leper. (Only Rabbi Shimon thinks so, but the Sages say that the oil was smeared on the wafer until none remained.)
Rabbi Shimon continued, “If you see oil being poured upon the fires of the Altar, again you don't have to ask what it is; it is either the remainder of a wafer flour-offering of the Kohanim (for their flour offerings was completely burned), or it is the remainder of the daily flour offering of the Anointed Kohen. Rabbi Shimon's opinion is that one is not allowed to donate oil as an offering. However, Rabbi Tarfon says that one may donate oil.
Art: Rembrandt Van Rijn - Dr Ephraim Bueno, Jewish Physician and Writer
More special actions precede the less specials ones; thus, even though normally a sin-offering comes before a guilt-offering, a guilt-offering of a metzora (spiritual leper) comes before his sin-offering, because it prepares him for further purification. Just as they precede in offering, so they precede in consumption.
If we have a peace offering from yesterday and a sin-offering from today, then the peace offering should be eaten first, because it would an expression of disdain to allow yesterday's offerings to spoil – this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages maintain that the regular rule of “more sacred comes first” still applies even here.
For consumption, the Kohanim are allowed to cook the offerings in any way they like, to roast, boil, or fry them, and to add any spices.
Which comes first, more frequent or more sacred? Let's prove it from the additional Shabbat offering itself: it is more sacred, and nevertheless the more frequent daily offerings comes before it! - No, that is no proof, because on Shabbat the daily offering is also more special. After making five more attempts to find a proof, the Talmud leaves this unresolved.
Jean Baptiste Simeon Chardin - A "Lean Diet" with Cooking Utensils
If there is a choice of two actions, one more sacred or more special than the other, the special one comes first. For example, the application of the sin-offering blood comes before the burnt-offering, because the sin-offering brings forgiveness. How is this derived?
The Torah said, “and the second bull you will take as a sin-offering.” The word “second” is extra – we can count and know that it is the second – rather it teaches that it is brought second. On the other hand, it said, “one bull a sin-offering, another – a burnt-offering,” so which one comes first? - Sin-offering, since it effects forgiveness, has its blood brought first. Burnt-offering, since it is burned completely, has its limbs burned first.
Art: Giotto Nicolo & Stefano da Ferrara Miretto - Act of Forgiveness
If an object used in Temple service became defective, it was never repaired, but completely replaced instead, because of the rule that "there is no place for poverty in the place of opulence." Thus, punctured vessels were completely molted down and made into new vessels, but not patched, and the vestments of the kohanim were only washed from slight dirt, where water alone would be sufficient (and then using soap was allowed), but otherwise they were replaced.
The trousers worn by the kohanim atoned for immorality, the turban - for arrogant people, the belt - for improper thoughts of the heart, the breastplate of the High Priest - for wrongly administered justice, his ephod (apron) - for idolatry, the bells on his tunic – for hurtful speech, and the golden plate on his forehead – for brazenness.
Art: Jan Van Eyck - Man in a Red Turban
Resh Lakish asked a question, “Do Temple vessels sanctify what's in them?” Answered Rabbi Yochanan, “We learned the rule that the vessels sanctify just as the Altar does!” But Resh Lakish was unconvinced, “That rule only tells me that the invalid substance in the vessel need not come down from the Altar if it was put there, but can I bring it there in the first place?”
If someone suspended invalid offering parts in the airspace above the Altar, may they remain and be burned on the pyre? - Since the ramp of the Altar sanctifies, and since a kohen would have to lift the sacrificial part in order to move it to the Altar, it must be that the airspace does not invalidate it! But this proof is not accepted, for perhaps the kohen drags it.
Art: Istvan Boldizsar - Slicing the Bread
Due to the heat on the Altar's pyre, some parts may burst off, and today's question is: should they be returned? All the parts they were included in the rule of “once they are on the Altar, they should not be removed,” if they fall off, need not be returned – but it is merely allowed to do so. Similarly, the embers, if they fell off the Altar, need not be returned, but if they did not completely fall off the Altar, they must be returned to the pyre.
Limbs of valid sacrifices that burst off the Altar – if this is before midnight, they need to be returned, and are subject to the law of misappropriation of sacred property, but after midnight they need not be returned.
Just as the Altar sanctifies that which is fit for it, so does the ramp leading to the Altar sanctifies. And just as the ramp sanctifies, so do the sacred vessels.
Art: Cornelis van Leemputten - A Shepherd with Sheep and Lambs
The wool on the heads of lambs and the hair on the beards of goats, as well as bones, sinews, horns, and hooves all have a special law: as long as they are attached to the burnt-offering they came with, they should be brought up on the Altar together with the offering, but if they are separate from it, they should not be brought.
Is a sodomized bird valid for the Altar? Since the relationship is not reciprocal and the bird cannot sodomize a human, then perhaps even if the bird was sodomized, it can still be brought as a sacrifice, or, after all, since a sin was committed with it, maybe it is invalid? The answer: since the sodomized bird is not mentioned in the list of disqualified offerings that may remain on the Altar because there are situation when they are permitted (bird cannot sodomize a human), then perforce a sodomized bird is never valid as a sacrifice.
Art: William Strutt - Goats In A Cornfield
A sacrifice that was kept overnight, one that was taken out of the Courtyard after slaughter, one which became impure, one about which the kohen had an intent to consume it beyond its time or outside its place, and one whose blood was received or thrown by a disqualified person.
Rabbi Yehudah disagrees about some disqualifications and says about them that they need to be taken down even if they were already brought up on the Altar. These include one that was slaughtered at night, whose blood was either spilled or taken out of the Courtyard. His logic says that only disqualifications that are allowed under certain conditions can stay on the Altar, but those that are not allowed anywhere else, have to come down.
Rabbi Shimon, on the other hand, gives a different rule: any sacrifice that was valid prior to entering the Courtyard and whose disqualification happened in the Courtyard, if it went up the Altar, may stay there.
Art: William Henry Pyne - Slaughterman
The Torah has stated, “The Altar shall be most sacred; whatever touches it shall becomes sanctified.” What exactly does this mean? - That once certain invalid sacrifices touch the Altar, they become “Altar's fare,” and may not be taken off the Altar.
However, this statement can be understood in different ways. Rabbi Yehoshua takes it to mean that anything fit for the Altar's fire is sanctified in this way, but not invalid blood and libations. Rabban Gamliel understands this to mean that anything fit to be offered on the Altar becomes its fare, and this includes blood and libations.
Rabbi Shimon, however, makes a very fine distinction: according to him, the offerings are always sanctified and stay on the Altar, but the invalid libations, once they touch the Altar, stay there, if the owner brings just libations alone, but do go down, if they are brought together with a sacrifice.
Art: Caravaggio - The Sacrifice of Isaac
