Torah Community Connections

Week 140 - Friday - 2 August 2002

HORAYOT: CHAPTER 3: MISHNAH 8

A priest has precedence over a Levite; a Levite over an Israelite; an Israelite over a bastard, a bastard over a Natin; a Natin over a proselyte; a proselyte over a freed slave. When? When they are all equal. But if the bastard is a scholar and the high priest ignorant, the bastard versed in the law has precedence over the ignorant high priest.

Kehati

Our mishnah continues the order of precedence between people based on holiness and lineage.

A priest has precedence over a Levite - in every matter of profit or respect (Tiferet Yisrael), for it says (I Chr. 23:13): "The sons of Amram: Aaron and Moses, and Aaron was set aside to sanctify the most holy things, he and his sons for ever" (Hor. 13a); a Levite over an Israelite, as it is written (Deut. 10:8): "At that time God separated the tribe of Levi" (Hor. 13a) an Israelite over a bastard, for the first has lineage, the second does not (Hor. 13a) a bastard over a Natin - a Natin is a descendant of the Gibonites, who became proselytes in the time of Joshua, as we explained above (1:4). The reason is given in the Gemara (Hor. 13a): one came from holy seed, the other from defective seed, that is to say, a bastard is of Jewish descent, a Natin - from a foreign people. A Natin over a proselyte - for this one grew up with us in holiness, the other did not grow up with us in holiness (ibid. ). A proselyte over a freed slave - for the proselyte bore no curse, but the Canaanite slave was included in the curse of Noah (ibid.), for so it is written (Gen. 9:25) "Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brethren."

When? - When does this order of precedence hold good? When they are all equal - in the knowledge of the Torah. But if the bastard is a scholar and the high priest ignorant - during the period of the Second Temple high priests who were ignorant of the law, were often appointed, because they purchased their high office from the king (Tiferet Yisrael, Tosefot Yom Tov), with respect to such the bastard versed in the law, has precedence over the ignorant high priest, - as it says (Proverbs 3:15): "It is more precious than pearls" (peninim), which the Rabbis interpreted homiletically as: The Torah is more precious than the high priest who enters the innermost chamber - Holy of Holies (lifnei velifnim) (Hor. 13a).

ZEVAHIM: INTRODUCTION

Tractate Zevahim deals with the laws of animal and bird sacrifices. Hence the name zevah which in Rabbinic language includes all sacrifices that require slaughtering (shehitah). Offerings of wheat-or barley-flour are called menahot which are dealt with in the next Tractate thus entitled.

There are seven kinds of sacrifices: 1. burnt-offerings, 2. sin-offerings, 3. guilt-offerings, 4. peace-offerings (which include the thanksgiving-offering), 5.the firstborn, 6. the animal tithe, and 7. the pesah (paschal) offering. The burnt- sin- and guilt-offerings belong to the "most holy" category. The others, i.e., the peace-offerings (except for the two Shavuot lambs which are offered up as a peace-offering but; belong to the "most holy" category), the firstborn animal, the animal tithe and the pesah sacrifice defined as the “light" holy (kodashim kalim). The details of and differences between these sacrifices are explained in the Fifth Chapter.

The following four elements of the sacrificial service render the sacrifices fit for burning on the altar and permitted for consumption: 1. slaughtering; 2. collecting the blood from the neck of the animal in a holy vessel; 3. conveying the blood to the altar; 4. sprinkling the blood on the altar. In the case of a bird sacrifice only two acts are required - the pinching of the bird's head and the wringing out of the blood. Except for the slaughtering, which may be performed by a non-priest, all these acts must be performed by priests.

Sacrifices must be slaughtered in day-time, and the blood sprinkled on the altar on the same day. The burning of the portions is also to be performed in the day-time; yet if the blood was sprinkled in the day-time, the portions (i.e., the fats and parts of the sacrifice consumed by the altar) may be burnt on the altar all night. Failure to place these on the altar by dawn disqualifies them.

The meat of all the sacrifices - except that of the burnt-offering - may be eaten, though the relevant rules differ: the "most holy" sin- and guilt-offerings may only be consumed by (male) priests within the Temple Court within one day and one night; the "light" holy sacrifices, however, may be eaten by their owners throughout Jerusalem, within two days and one night, except for the thanksgiving offering and the nazirite's ram which, like the "most holy" sacrifices, must be eaten within one day and one night. The pesah sacrifice may only be eaten during Pesah night. The consumption of sacrificial meat left over after the prescribed time limit, called notar (remainder) carries the penalty of karet.

Any sacrificial meat conveyed beyond the prescribed limits - i.e., the Temple Court in the case of the most holy offerings, or beyond Jerusalem in that of the light holy sacrifices - is disqualified and may not be eaten. Any meat of the most holy sacrifices found outside the Temple Court before its blood has been sprinkled, renders the sacrifice as such invalid.

Whoever performs one of the above mentioned four acts - slaughtering, receiving, conveying and sprinkling the blood - while intending to eat the meat after the prescribed time limit, or burn its portions on the altar on the next day (i.e., after its time limit), renders the sacrifice invalid as pigul whose consumption is punishable by karet. Likewise if one performs any sacrificial act while intending to eat the meat beyond the prescribed limits, or burn the portions outside the Temple Court, he invalidates it. This, though violating a negative commandment, is not punishable by karet.

The above mentioned four sacrificial acts must be performed for the sake of the respective sacrifice and its particular owner. The first chapter deals with acts concerning a particular sacrifice performed for the sake of another kind of sacrifice.

We have mentioned but some of the salient features that facilitate our entry into the gate of "wisdom", in accord with our Sages' interpretation of (Isa. 33:6): "And He shall be the trusted One of your times, a store of salvation, wisdom and knowledge," whereby the "trusted" signifies (Mishnah) Seder Zera'im (the Order of Seeds), "your times" to Seder Moed (the Order of Feasts)..., "wisdom” to Seder Kodashim (the Order of Hallowed Things).

A detailed specification of the laws regarding the sacrifices, their classification and that which renders an offering unfit, will be out-lined, with the help of "Him Who teaches men understanding" within the compass of our commentary.

FROM RAMBAM'S INTRODUCTION TO HIS MISHNAH COMMENTARY

.. he divided the subject of kodashim, beginning with animal sacrifices which are dealt with in Tractate Zevahim.

Zevahim is followed by Menahot, according to the order in the Torah.

Having concluded the subject of sacrifices and relevant topics he proceeded to deal with the slaughtering of non-consecrated animals in Tractate Hullin, following the order in the Torah (Deut. 12:11) where "and there shall be a place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause His Name to dwell there, there shall you bring..." is followed (ibid., ibid., 15) by "nonetheless, you may slaughter animals and eat their flesh to your heart's desire".

The next Tractate is Bekhorot, again following the order of the Torah which after "nonetheless ...eat their flesh to your heart's desire" states (ibid. ibid. 17), "you may not eat within your gates the tithe of your corn, or of your wine, or of your oil, or of the firstlings of your herds or of your flock."

After concluding the subject of the holy things, he addresses the laws of valuation which is also a matter of sanctity. Thus Arakhin follows Bekhorot.

Arakhin is followed by Temurah, also in accordance with the sequence in the Torah.

Having concluded to elaborate the various categories, he followed this up by Tractate Keritot which deals with the commandments whose transgression carries the penalty of karet, and other related subjects. This topic was incorporated into Kodashim because, but for certain exceptions, as will be explained, transgressions punishable by karet when committed willfully, are liable to a sin-offering when committed unwittingly.

He placed Me'ilah after Keritot since the me'ilah transgressions are lighter than those liable to a sin-offering.

Me'ilah is followed by Tractate Tamid which he left last because it deals neither with any aspect of wisdom nor with the forbidden and permitted, but rather spells out the tamid offering procedure, that it might be performed in the prescribed manner for ever more. He placed Middot after Tamid; this Tractate merely contains an account relating to the measurements, shape and construction of the Temple and other pertinent matters. The purpose of this is to enable us, when the Temple is built - may it occur soon in our days - to follow this pattern and arrangement conveyed to us in the Divine spirit, thus (I Chron. 28:19 ): "All this in writing by the hand of the Lord Who instructed me."

Having concluded to spell out the animal sacrifices and the related matter and the outlines of the Temple, where the offering takes place, he followed this up by the Tractate Kinnim. This Tractate's sole concern is with the mixed up birds, i.e., when bird sacrifices are confused. This was placed last since it applies merely in case of an accident - which may or may not occur; moreover, its dimension is slight, as will be noted. Thus concludes the "Order of Kodashim."

The subjects addressed in the "Order of Kodashim" are elaborated in eleven Tractates.

ZEVAHIM: CHAPTER 1: MISHNAH 1

Any sacrifice which was slaughtered not under its own name is valid, however the owners did not thereby fulfill their obligation, except pesah and a sin-offering; the pesah at its time and the sin-offering at any time. R. Eliezer says, Also the guilt-offering: The pesah at its time and the sin-offering and guilt-offering at any time. R. Eliezer said: The sin-offering is due for a sin and the guilt-offering is due for a sin, just as the sin-offering is invalid if not under its own name, so also is the guilt-offering invalid if not under its own name

Kehati

As mentioned in the Introduction, this chapter deals with sacrifices, one of whose elements - slaughtering, collecting the blood, conveying and sprinkling - was performed for the sake of a different sacrifice. Our mishnah specifies “which was slaughtered" merely as the first of these elements; however, the same rule applies equally to any of the remaining three elements.

Any sacrifice which was slaughtered not under its own name - but under that of a different sacrifice, e.g., a burnt- offering for the sake of a peace-offering, i.e., the offering was intended to be a peace-offering (Rambam); others define 'intention' in regard to sacrifices as implying an utterance to this effect (Rashi, Tosefot, see Mishneh Lamelekh on Rambam, Hil. Pesulei Hamukdashin 13:1), the sacrifice is valid - he may sprinkle the blood and burn the portions on the altar under its own name, and may eat the meat of such offerings where this is permitted as if he had slaughtered it under its own name - however if it was an obligatory or a pledged sacrifice the owners did not thereby fulfill their obligation since he did not slaughter it under its proper name, and he must slaughter another sacrifice under its relevant name; thus also if the sacrifice was not offered in the name of its owners (Rambam). Some confine the effect of the name changing to the blood sprinkling stage, i.e., if he slaughtered, collected or conveyed the blood in order to sprinkle it for the sake of another person (Tosafot).

The Gemara explains: "Why do the owners not thus fulfill their obligation? Because it is stated (Deut. 23:24): 'That which is gone out of your lips you shall keep and do, according as you have vowed (nadarta) a donation (nedavah) to the Lord your God' - Surely if you vowed - nadarta- then this is not a donation - nedava? (If one says, 'I vow to dedicate a burnt offering,' it is a neder; if he says, 'this animal is to be a burnt-offering' it is a nedavah. This verse therefore teaches us that if you fulfilled your vow (by associating the ritual with the vow and with the proper owners), then let the neder stand (and you thus fulfill your obligation with this sacrifice). But if not (if the service was not performed for the sake of the neder and in the name of its owner), then let it be a nedavah (the sacrifice is valid as a nedavah, but you have not fulfilled your obligation regarding the neder) - except pesah and a sin-offering - which are invalid if not slaughtered under their name - the pesah at its time - between midday and the evening of the 14th of Nisan, the eve of Passover, and if this sacrifice was not slaughtered at its appointed time, e.g., on the 13th or the 16th of Nisan or any other day of the year, then it becomes a peace-offering with all its respective rules.

However, if slaughtered at its appointed time under a different name, the offering is invalid, thus (Deut. 16:l): "Observe the month of Aviv and prepare the pesah" - implies that its entire performance must be for the sake of the pesah sacrifice; furthermore it is stated (Ex. 12:27): "And you shall say, It is the slaughtering (zevah) of the pesah" - thus the slaughtering must be performed for the sake of the pesah sacrifice; these two verses teach us that unless executed for the sake of the pesah sacrifice or for the sake of its owners, it is invalid (Gemara) - and the sin-offering at any time - if it was not slaughtered under its own name (but in that of a different sacrifice), or not in the name of its owner, or for another sin than the one for which it is due, it is invalid, thus (Lev. 4:33-35): "and he shall slaughter it for a sin-offering" - implies that the slaughtering must be performed for the sake of a sin-offering; "and the priest shall take of the blood of the sin-offering" - that the blood must be collected for the sake of a sin-offering; "and the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin" - implies that the atonement (i.e., blood sprinkling) must be made for the sake of the sin-offering; "for him" - but not for his fellow, i.e., the sin-offering must be executed in the name of the owner; "for his sin that he has committed" - i.e., the sin-offering must be for the relevant sin (Zev. 8a). However, a sin-offering slaughtered for the sake of secular hullin meat, is not disqualified, but the owner has not thereby fulfilled his duty, thus (Lev. 22:15): "And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel" - implying that while the holy can profane the holy, the secular hullin cannot profane the holy (Zev. 3b)

R.Eliezer says, Also the guilt-offering - slaughtered under another than its own name is invalid, as the mishnah explains below:

The pesah at its time and the sin-offering and guilt-offering at any time - as explained above – R. Eliezer said: The sin-offering - hatat - is due for a sin - to effect atonement for a trespass committed in error; a sin-offering is brought for any unwittingly committed sin whose wanton transgression carries the penalty of karet- and the guilt-offering - asham - is due for a sin - e.g., misappropriation, me'ilah etc. (see Hor. 2:7). Though some sin-offerings and guilt-offerings are brought when no sin has been committed, e.g., the sin-offering of a woman after childbirth or the guilt-offering of a leper, most of these sacrifices are brought for a transgression (Tosafot); hence the sin- and the guilt-offering are subject to the same rules, - just as the sin-offering is invalid if not slaughtered under its own name - as borne out by the above-quoted verses - so also is the guilt-offering invalid if not slaughtered under its own name.

A baraita cited in the Gemara records a discussion wherein R. Eliezer's ruling is rejected by the Sages (i.e., R. Yehoshua). While R. Eliezer relies on (Lev. 7:7) "As the sin-offering so is the guilt-offering", i.e., just as the sin-offering is invalid if not slaughtered under its own name, so also is the guilt-offering invalid if not slaughtered under its own name, the Sages learn from this verse that the guilt-offering requires semikhah (the laying of the hands on the animals' head) i.e., "just as a sin-offering requires semikhah so does a guilt-offering require semikhah."

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives