Pisqa’ 14716H:185-186; JN2:7. 1. “Do not slaughter for HASHEM your God an ox or a sheep” (Dt.17:1). R. Judah says: Is it possible to say that one who takes the life of a Purification-offering in the southern quadrant [of the Courtyard, instead of to the north of the Altar] has transgressed a proscription? The Teaching states: “Do not slaughter . . . an ox or sheep upon which there is a blemish” (Dt.17:1)— On account of the blemish he transgresses a proscription. But one who merely slaughters a Purification-offering in the southern quadrant does not transgress a proscription. But sages say: Even one who takes the life of a Purification-offering in the southern quadrant has transgressed a proscription.
2. Is it possible to say that one who slaughters consecrated animals out of sequence—17The order of offerings assumed by the editors of Sifre appears at M. Zev.10:1-2. by presenting a Holocaust-offering before a Purification-offering, or a Paschal lamb before a Perpetual-offering,18The proper sequence of the pesakh and tamid on the eve of Passover is defned at M. Pes.5:1. or Supplementary festival-offerings 19Statutory offerings for the Sabbath, New Moon, and the festivals (see Nu. 28:1-29:39). before Perpetual-offerings — has transgressed a proscription? The Teaching states: “You may not eat within your gates the Tithe of your grain, your must, or your oil, or of the Firstlings of your herds and flocks, or any Vow-offerings you might avow” (Dt.12:17). [And in another place it states]: “You may not slaughter the Paschal lamb in one of your gates that HASHEM your God is giving you” (Dt.16:5). [And it states here as well]: “Do not slaughter for HASHEM your God an ox or a sheep upon which there is a blemish” (Dt.17:1)— on account of these [consecrated offerings] he has transgressed a proscription, but one who slaughters consecrated animals out of sequence has not transgressed a proscription.
3. “Upon which there is a blemish” (Dt.17:1). I might infer only that [an animal is disqualified as an offering] if it was born unblemished but later suffered a blemish. How do I know to include under the rule one born blemished from its mother’s womb?20A list of congenital defects that disqualify Firstlings is available at M. Bech.6:1-7. The Teaching states: “Any serious matter”21The Masoretic text reads mum (“blemish”), while Sifre reads davar (“matter”).(Dt.15:21)— [including birth defects].
How do I know to include an animal suffering from scabs, warts, or tumors? The Teaching states: “A blemish, any serious matter” (Dt.15:21)— [including diseased animals] . How do I know to include one suffering from old age, sickness, or a foul smell? The Teaching states: “An ox or a sheep” (Dt.17:1)— [any of these conditions disqualifies oxen or sheep]. “Any serious matter” (Dt.15:21)— [that renders the animal disgusting].22Cf. Pisqa’ 126.1.
4. Regarding consecrated animals that were slaughtered outside their proper time or place— how do I know that [the slaughterer] transgresses a proscription?23See M. Zev.2:3: “This is the general rule: the slaughterer, the recipient of blood, the conveyor of blood, and the sprinkler of blood . . . outside its proper place, it is disqualified,,,, outside its proper time, it is like filth (pigul).” The Teaching states: “Any serious matter” (Dt.17:1)— [its disqualification] depends upon the matter at hand.
Regarding an animal mated with a woman or a man, or one set aside for use [in a foreign cult], or [a consecrated animal] that was worked— how do I know that [they are disqualified]? The Teaching states: “It is abominable to HASHEM your God” (Dt.17:1).24Cf. Sifra, nedava’, par. 2:7; SZ, shelakh, 15:3. Regarding an animal given [in payment for sexual services], or [one purchased for] the price of a dog, or [the offspring of] incompatible-species, or a mauled animal [that is sure to die], or one born from its mother’s side— how do I know that [they are disqualified]?25Cf, M. Tem. 6:1-3. The Teaching states: “For it is abominable” (Dt.17:1). R. Judah says: the animal is abominable, but its offspring is not abominable.26Therefore, the offspring of an abomination may be offered in satisfaction of a sacrificial obligation.
5. R. Shimon says: Since we find that an animal mated with a woman or a man is disqualified [from satisfying one’s sacrificial obligation]— is it possible to say that this also applies to the human partner [who may be disqualified from meeting his or her obligation even with a suitable animal]? The Teaching states: “It is abominable” (Dt.17:1)— I have spoken about the slaughtered one, but I have not spoken about the slaughterer!
(דברים יז א) לֹא תִזְבַּח לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַטָּאת בַּדָּרוֹם יְהֵא עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: לֹא תִזְבַּח לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בוֹ מוּם – עַל מוּם עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, וְאֵין הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַטָּאת בַּדָּרוֹם עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אַף הַשּׁוֹחֵט חַטָּאת בַּדָּרוֹם עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
Pisqa’ 14716H:185-186; JN2:7.
1. “Do not slaughter for HASHEM your God an ox or a sheep” (Dt.17:1).
R. Judah says:
Is it possible to say that
one who takes the life of
a Purification-offering in the southern quadrant
[of the Courtyard, instead of to the north of the Altar]
has transgressed a proscription?
The Teaching states:
“Do not slaughter . . . an ox or sheep upon which there is a blemish” (Dt.17:1)—
On account of the blemish
he transgresses a proscription.
But one who merely slaughters
a Purification-offering in the southern quadrant
does not transgress a proscription.
But sages say:
Even one who takes the life of
a Purification-offering in the southern quadrant
has transgressed a proscription.
יָכוֹל הַמַּקְדִּים קָדָשִׁים זֶה לָזֶה, עוֹלָה לְחַטָּאת, פֶּסַח לְתָמִיד, מוּסָפִים לִתְמִידִים – יְהֵא עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים יב יז): ״לֹא תוּכַל לֶאֱכֹל בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ תִּירֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ״; (דברים טז ה) ״לֹא תוּכַל לִזְבֹּחַ אֶת הַפֶּסַח בְּאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ״; לֹא תִזְבַּח לַה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בוֹ מוּם – עַל אֵלּוּ עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, וְאֵין מַקְדִּים קָדָשִׁים זֶה לָזֶה עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה.
2. Is it possible to say that
one who slaughters consecrated animals out of sequence—17The order of offerings assumed by the editors of Sifre appears at M. Zev.10:1-2.
by presenting a Holocaust-offering
before a Purification-offering,
or a Paschal lamb
before a Perpetual-offering,18The proper sequence of the pesakh and tamid on the eve of Passover is defned at M. Pes.5:1.
or Supplementary festival-offerings 19Statutory offerings for the Sabbath, New Moon, and the festivals (see Nu. 28:1-29:39).
before Perpetual-offerings —
has transgressed a proscription?
The Teaching states:
“You may not eat within your gates
the Tithe of your grain, your must, or your oil, or of the
Firstlings of your herds and flocks, or any Vow-offerings you might avow” (Dt.12:17).
[And in another place it states]:
“You may not slaughter the Paschal lamb
in one of your gates that HASHEM your God is giving you” (Dt.16:5).
[And it states here as well]:
“Do not slaughter for HASHEM your God
an ox or a sheep upon which there is a blemish” (Dt.17:1)—
on account of these [consecrated offerings] he has transgressed a proscription,
but one who slaughters consecrated animals out of sequence
has not transgressed a proscription.
אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בּוֹ מוּם, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא שֶׁנּוֹלַד תָּם וְנַעֲשָׂה בַּעַל מוּם, נוֹלַד בַּעַל מוּם מִמְּעֵי אִמּוֹ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: כֹּל דָּבָר רָע.
3. “Upon which there is a blemish” (Dt.17:1).
I might infer only that
[an animal is disqualified as an offering]
if it was born unblemished but later suffered a blemish.
How do I know to include under the rule
one born blemished from its mother’s womb?20A list of congenital defects that disqualify Firstlings is available at M. Bech.6:1-7.
The Teaching states:
“Any serious matter”21The Masoretic text reads mum (“blemish”), while Sifre reads davar (“matter”). (Dt.15:21)—
[including birth defects].
מִנַּיִן בַּעַל גָּרָב, בַּעַל יַבֶּלֶת וּבַעַל חֲזָזִית? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: מוּם כֹּל דָּבָר רָע. מִנַּיִן לְזָקֵן וְחוֹלֶה וּמְזֹהָם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: שׁוֹר וָשֶׂה... כֹּל דָּבָר רָע.
How do I know to include an animal
suffering from scabs, warts, or tumors?
The Teaching states:
“A blemish, any serious matter” (Dt.15:21)—
[including diseased animals] .
How do I know to include
one suffering from old age, sickness, or a foul smell?
The Teaching states:
“An ox or a sheep” (Dt.17:1)—
[any of these conditions disqualifies oxen or sheep].
“Any serious matter” (Dt.15:21)—
[that renders the animal disgusting]. 22Cf. Pisqa’ 126.1.
מִנַּיִן לַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָם חוּץ לִזְמַנָּם וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמָם, שֶׁעוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: דָּבָר, שֶׁתָּלוּי בְּדָבָר.
4. Regarding consecrated animals that were slaughtered
outside their proper time or place—
how do I know that
[the slaughterer] transgresses a proscription? 23See M. Zev.2:3: “This is the general rule: the slaughterer, the recipient of blood, the conveyor of blood, and the sprinkler of blood . . . outside its proper place, it is disqualified,,,, outside its proper time, it is like filth (pigul).”
The Teaching states:
“Any serious matter” (Dt.17:1)—
[its disqualification] depends upon the matter at hand.
מִנַּיִן לְרוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע וּמוּקְצֶה וְנֶעֱבָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: תּוֹעֲבַת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ הוּא. מִנַּיִן לְאֶתְנָן וּמְחִיר וְכִלְאַיִם וּטְרֵפָה וְיוֹצֵא דֹפֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: כִּי תוֹעֲבַת. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: הִיא תּוֹעֵבָה וְאֵין הַוָּלָד תּוֹעֵבָה.
Regarding an animal mated with a woman or a man,
or one set aside for use [in a foreign cult],
or [a consecrated animal] that was worked—
how do I know that
[they are disqualified]?
The Teaching states:
“It is abominable to HASHEM your God” (Dt.17:1).24Cf. Sifra, nedava’, par. 2:7; SZ, shelakh, 15:3.
Regarding an animal given [in payment for sexual services],
or [one purchased for] the price of a dog,
or [the offspring of] incompatible-species,
or a mauled animal [that is sure to die],
or one born from its mother’s side—
how do I know that
[they are disqualified]?25Cf, M. Tem. 6:1-3.
The Teaching states:
“For it is abominable” (Dt.17:1).
R. Judah says:
the animal is abominable,
but its offspring is not abominable.26Therefore, the offspring of an abomination may be offered in satisfaction of a sacrificial obligation.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לְפִי שֶׁמָּצִינוּ בְּרוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע שֶׁהֵם פְּסוּלִים בִּבְהֵמָה, יָכוֹל אַף בָּאָדָם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: הוּא; בַּזֶּבַח דִּבַּרְתִּי, וְלֹא דִּבַּרְתִּי בַּזּוֹבֵחַ.
5. R. Shimon says:
Since we find that an animal
mated with a woman or a man
is disqualified [from satisfying one’s sacrificial obligation]—
is it possible to say that
this also applies to the human partner
[who may be disqualified
from meeting his or her obligation even with a suitable animal]?
The Teaching states:
“It is abominable” (Dt.17:1)—
I have spoken about the slaughtered one,
but I have not spoken about the slaughterer!