(Devarim 12:15) "Only with all the desire of your soul shall you slaughter": Of what is Scripture speaking here? If of "lust-flesh" (i.e., slaughtering a non-consecrated animal for food), this is spoken of elsewhere (20); and if of the eating of consecrated flesh, this has already been spoken of (as being permitted only in Jerusalem, whereas here it is written "in all of your gates"). It must be speaking, then, of consecrated animals (which had sustained a blemish) and were redeemed (and were to be eaten in "all of your gates").
2
תִּזְבַּח וְאָכַלְתָּ וְלֹא גִזָּה.
"shall you slaughter and you shall eat": and not shear.
I might think that it is forbidden (to shear them even) after slaughtering; it is, therefore, written "according to the blessing of the L-rd your G-d" (i.e., derive as much benefit from them as is consistent with their status.)
I might think that (even) if a permanent blemish preceded their dedication, and they were redeemed, they would be forbidden (to shear); it is, therefore, written "Only (with all the desire, etc.", to exclude this).
Whence is it derived that it is permitted to slaughter them only if they sustained a permanent blemish (and not a passing one). Would you say that (i.e., that a derivation is needed)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If a bechor (a first-born) — which (i.e., whose sanctity) does not obtain with all births, and which (if it were blemished) it becomes chullin (mundane, non-sacred) without redemption — (If a bechor) is slaughtered only if it sustained a permanent blemish — then consecrated animals, which obtain (i.e., whose sanctity obtains) with all births (and not only with first-born), and which become chullin only with redemption — how much more so should they be slaughtered only if they sustained a permanent blemish! — No, (i.e., this does not follow.) It may be true of a bechor, whose sanctity is from the womb and obtains even with one that is permanently blemished (i.e., it may be slaughtered only if it sustained a permanent blemish), but would you say the same (i.e., that they may not be slaughtered only if they sustained a permanent blemish) for consecrated animals, whose sanctity is not from the womb and does not obtain with those that are permanently blemished? It is, therefore, written (here) "that He has given you in all of your gates," and, elsewhere (in connection with a bechor that sustained a blemish, [Ibid. 15:22]) "In your gates may you eat it" — "gates" - "gates" for an identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: Just as there, (re bechor), it is not slaughtered unless it sustained a permanent blemish, (viz. [Ibid. 21] "lame or blind,") so, here (re offerings in general), they are not slaughtered unless the blemish were permanent.
(Ibid. 12:15) "the unclean one may eat of it": This tells me only that the unclean one may eat of it (of disqualified offerings that have been redeemed). Whence do I derive that the clean one (may eat of it)? From "the unclean one and the clean one may eat of it": Scripture hereby apprises us that they both may eat of it from the same dish.
I might think that terumah (that has become tamei) may also be eaten from the same dish; it is, therefore, written shall eat it" — This (disqualified offerings that have been redeemed) from the same dish, but not terumah.
I might think that they (disqualified offerings that have been redeemed) are subject to the priestly gifts (shoulder, cheeks, and maw); it is, therefore, written "as the deer," (which is not subject to priestly gifts).
I would then exclude them from the priestly gifts, but not from breast and thigh. It is, therefore, written "and as the hart" (for additional exclusion).
(But then I would say:) Just as deer and hart are entirely permitted (including their fats), these, too, should be entirely permitted! It is, therefore, written "Only the blood" (i.e., the fats are forbidden as is the blood).
R. Shimon says: I might think that just as the Torah prescribed separate precincts for (the eating of) holy of holies and lower-order offerings when they are unblemished, so, did it prescribe separate precincts for holy of holies and lower-order offerings when they were blemished. It is, therefore, written "as the deer and as the hart" — Just as the Torah did not prescribe a distinct precinct between deer and hart, so it did not describe a distinct precinct between holy and holies and lower-order offerings when they were blemished.
"Only the blood you shall not eat": There is (transgression of only) one negative commandment (in eating the blood of disqualified offerings) and not two. Since in offerings blood is compared to fats — viz.: Just as in (eating their) fats there is transgression of two negative commandments, so in (eating their blood) there is transgression of two negative commandments — I would think that the same applied to (eating the blood of) disqualified offerings; it is, therefore, written "Only the blood you shall not eat" — there is transgression in it of only one negative commandment and not of two.
"On the earth shall you spill it as water": Just as it is permitted to derive benefit from water, it is permitted to derive benefit from blood — Just as water renders seed susceptible (of incurring tumah), so, blood. Just as water need not be covered, so blood (that of a disqualified offering which has been slaughtered) need not be covered.
(דברים יב טו) רַק בְּכָל אַוַּת נַפְשְׁךָ תִּזְבַּח וְאָכַלְתָּ, בַּמֶּה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר? אִם בִּבְשַׂר תַּאֲוָה – כְּבָר אָמוּר, וְאִם בַּאֲכִילַת קָדָשִׁים – כְּבָר אָמוּר. הָא אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בִּפְסוּלֵי הַמֻּקְדָּשִׁים שֶׁיִּפָּדוּ. יָכוֹל יִפָּדוּ עַל מוּם עוֹבֵר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: רַק.
(Devarim 12:15) "Only with all the desire of your soul shall you slaughter": Of what is Scripture speaking here? If of "lust-flesh" (i.e., slaughtering a non-consecrated animal for food), this is spoken of elsewhere (20); and if of the eating of consecrated flesh, this has already been spoken of (as being permitted only in Jerusalem, whereas here it is written "in all of your gates"). It must be speaking, then, of consecrated animals (which had sustained a blemish) and were redeemed (and were to be eaten in "all of your gates").
תִּזְבַּח וְאָכַלְתָּ וְלֹא גִזָּה.
"shall you slaughter and you shall eat": and not shear.
בָּשָׂר וְלֹא חָלָב.
"flesh": and not fats.
יָכוֹל יְהוּ אֲסוּרִים לְאַחַר זְבִיחָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: כְּבִרְכַּת ה׳ אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לְךָ,
I might think that it is forbidden (to shear them even) after slaughtering; it is, therefore, written "according to the blessing of the L-rd your G-d" (i.e., derive as much benefit from them as is consistent with their status.)
יָכוֹל אִם קָדַם מוּם קָבוּעַ לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁם וְנִפְדּוּ, יְהוּ אֲסוּרִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים יב כו): רַק.
I might think that (even) if a permanent blemish preceded their dedication, and they were redeemed, they would be forbidden (to shear); it is, therefore, written "Only (with all the desire, etc.", to exclude this).
מִנַּיִן שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁחָטִים אֶלָּא עַל מוּם קָבוּעַ? אָמַרְתָּ, קַל וָחֹמֶר הוּא: וּמָה בְּכוֹר, שֶׁאֵין נוֹהֵג בְּכָל הַוְּלָדוֹת, וְיוֹצֵא לְחֻלִּין שֶׁלֹּא בְפִדְיוֹן – אֵין נִשְׁחָט אֶלָּא עַל מוּם קָבוּעַ, קָדָשִׁים, שֶׁהֵם נוֹהֲגִים בְּכָל הַוְּלָדוֹת, וְאֵין יוֹצְאִים לְחֻלִּין אֶלָּא בְּפִדְיוֹן – אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ נִשְׁחָטִים אֶלָּא עַל מוּם קָבוּעַ? לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בִּבְכוֹר, שֶׁכֵּן קְדֻשָּׁתוֹ מֵרֶחֶם, וּקְדֻשָּׁה חָלָה עָלָיו עַל בַּעַל מוּם קָבוּעַ, תֹּאמַר בְּקָדָשִׁים, שֶׁאֵין קְדֻשָּׁתָם מֵרֶחֶם, וְאֵין קְדֻשָּׁה חָלָה עֲלֵיהֶם עַל בַּעַל מוּם קָבוּעַ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: אֲשֶׁר נָתַן לְךָ בְּכָל שְׁעָרֶיךָ, שְׁעָרֶיךָ שְׁעָרֶיךָ לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה: מַה (דברים טו כב) ״שְׁעָרֶיךָ״ הָאָמוּר לְהַלָּן, אֵין נִשְׁחָט אֶלָּא עַל מוּם קָבוּעַ, אַף שְׁעָרֶיךָ הָאָמוּר כָּאן אֵין נִשְׁחָט אֶלָּא עַל מוּם קָבוּעַ.
Whence is it derived that it is permitted to slaughter them only if they sustained a permanent blemish (and not a passing one). Would you say that (i.e., that a derivation is needed)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If a bechor (a first-born) — which (i.e., whose sanctity) does not obtain with all births, and which (if it were blemished) it becomes chullin (mundane, non-sacred) without redemption — (If a bechor) is slaughtered only if it sustained a permanent blemish — then consecrated animals, which obtain (i.e., whose sanctity obtains) with all births (and not only with first-born), and which become chullin only with redemption — how much more so should they be slaughtered only if they sustained a permanent blemish! — No, (i.e., this does not follow.) It may be true of a bechor, whose sanctity is from the womb and obtains even with one that is permanently blemished (i.e., it may be slaughtered only if it sustained a permanent blemish), but would you say the same (i.e., that they may not be slaughtered only if they sustained a permanent blemish) for consecrated animals, whose sanctity is not from the womb and does not obtain with those that are permanently blemished? It is, therefore, written (here) "that He has given you in all of your gates," and, elsewhere (in connection with a bechor that sustained a blemish, [Ibid. 15:22]) "In your gates may you eat it" — "gates" - "gates" for an identity (gezeirah shavah ), viz.: Just as there, (re bechor), it is not slaughtered unless it sustained a permanent blemish, (viz. [Ibid. 21] "lame or blind,") so, here (re offerings in general), they are not slaughtered unless the blemish were permanent.
טָמֵא יֹאכַל, אֵין לִי אֶלָּא טָמֵא, טָהוֹר מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (דברים יב כב): ״יַחְדָּו יֹאכְלֶנּוּ״, מַגִּיד שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם אוֹכְלִים מִתּוֹךְ קְעָרָה אַחַת.
(Ibid. 12:15) "the unclean one may eat of it": This tells me only that the unclean one may eat of it (of disqualified offerings that have been redeemed). Whence do I derive that the clean one (may eat of it)? From "the unclean one and the clean one may eat of it": Scripture hereby apprises us that they both may eat of it from the same dish.
יָכוֹל אַף תְּרוּמָה נֶאֱכֶלֶת מִתּוֹךְ קְעָרָה אַחַת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: יַחְדָּו יֹאכְלֶנּוּ, זֶה נֶאֱכָל מִתּוֹךְ קְעָרָה אַחַת, וְאֵין תְּרוּמָה נֶאֱכֶלֶת מִתּוֹךְ קְעָרָה אַחַת.
I might think that terumah (that has become tamei) may also be eaten from the same dish; it is, therefore, written shall eat it" — This (disqualified offerings that have been redeemed) from the same dish, but not terumah.
יָכוֹל יְהוּ חַיָּבִים בַּמַּתָּנוֹת? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: כַּצְּבִי.
I might think that they (disqualified offerings that have been redeemed) are subject to the priestly gifts (shoulder, cheeks, and maw); it is, therefore, written "as the deer," (which is not subject to priestly gifts).
אוֹצִיאוֹ מִכְּלַל מַתָּנוֹת וְלֹא אוֹצִיאוֹ מִכְּלַל חָזֶה וְשׁוֹק! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: וְכָאַיָּל.
I would then exclude them from the priestly gifts, but not from breast and thigh. It is, therefore, written "and as the hart" (for additional exclusion).
אוֹ מָה הַצְּבִי כֻּלּוֹ מֻתָּר, יָכוֹל אַף זֶה כֻּלּוֹ מֻתָּר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: רַק.
(But then I would say:) Just as deer and hart are entirely permitted (including their fats), these, too, should be entirely permitted! It is, therefore, written "Only the blood" (i.e., the fats are forbidden as is the blood).
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל כְּשֵׁם שֶׁנָּתְנָה תּוֹרָה מְחִצָּה בֵּין קָדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵם תְּמִימִים, כָּךְ נָתְנָה תּוֹרָה מְחִצָּה בֵּין קָדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵם בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: כַּצְּבִי וְכָאַיָּל, מַגִּיד הַכָּתוּב שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁלֹּא נָתְנָה תּוֹרָה מְחִצָּה בֵּין צְבִי וְאַיָּל, כָּךְ לֹא נָתְנָה תּוֹרָה מְחִצָּה בֵּין קָדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים לְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵם בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִים.
R. Shimon says: I might think that just as the Torah prescribed separate precincts for (the eating of) holy of holies and lower-order offerings when they are unblemished, so, did it prescribe separate precincts for holy of holies and lower-order offerings when they were blemished. It is, therefore, written "as the deer and as the hart" — Just as the Torah did not prescribe a distinct precinct between deer and hart, so it did not describe a distinct precinct between holy and holies and lower-order offerings when they were blemished.
(דברים יב טז) רַק הַדָּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יִהְיוּ חַיָּבִים עַל דָּמָם שְׁנֵי לָאוִין, כְּדַם מֻקְדָּשִׁים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: רַק הַדָּם לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ, לָאו אֶחָד יֵשׁ בּוֹ וְאֵין בּוֹ שְׁנֵי לָאוִין.
"Only the blood you shall not eat": There is (transgression of only) one negative commandment (in eating the blood of disqualified offerings) and not two. Since in offerings blood is compared to fats — viz.: Just as in (eating their) fats there is transgression of two negative commandments, so in (eating their blood) there is transgression of two negative commandments — I would think that the same applied to (eating the blood of) disqualified offerings; it is, therefore, written "Only the blood you shall not eat" — there is transgression in it of only one negative commandment and not of two.
עַל הָאָרֶץ תִּשְׁפְּכֶנּוּ, וְלֹא לְתוֹךְ יַמִּים וְלֹא לְתוֹךְ נְהָרוֹת וְלֹא לְתוֹךְ כֵּלִים. כַּמָּיִם וְלֹא לְתוֹךְ מַיִם עַצְמָם, כַּמָּיִם – מַה מַּיִם מֻתָּרִים בַּהֲנָיָה אַף דָּם מֻתָּר בַּהֲנָיָה, מַה מַּיִם מַכְשִׁירִים אֶת הַזְּרָעִים אַף דָּם מַכְשִׁיר אֶת הַזְּרָעִים, מַה מַּיִם פְּטוּרִים מִלְּכַסּוֹת אַף דָּם פָּטוּר מִלְּכַסּוֹת.
"On the earth shall you spill it as water": Just as it is permitted to derive benefit from water, it is permitted to derive benefit from blood — Just as water renders seed susceptible (of incurring tumah), so, blood. Just as water need not be covered, so blood (that of a disqualified offering which has been slaughtered) need not be covered.