זבחים קטו

זבחים קטו

וְלֹא?! וַהֲרֵי פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה – דְּאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ, וְכָשֵׁר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ! פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה – שְׁלָמִים נִינְהוּ.

the Paschal offering during the rest of the days of the year, i.e., not on the fourteenth of Nisan after midday, when it is fit to be sacrificed, which is not fit if it was sacrificed for its sake, but is fit if it was sacrificed not for its sake. The Gemara responds: The Paschal offering during the rest of the days of the year is considered to be a peace offering, not a Paschal offering that was slaughtered not for its sake.

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מוֹצִיא אַף עוֹלַת מְחוּסַּר זְמַן בִּבְעָלִים, וַאֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע?

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rabbi Ḥilkiya, who holds that one who slaughters a guilt offering whose time has not yet arrived, outside the courtyard, not for its own sake, is liable: One might have thought that I exclude from the category of those who are liable for slaughtering outside the courtyard even one who slaughters a burnt offering whose time has not yet arrived due to its being premature for its owner, e.g., a woman after childbirth whose term of impurity is not yet finished, and one who slaughters the guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper before they are fit to sacrifice their offerings.

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שׁוֹר״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, ״כֶּשֶׂב״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, ״עֵז״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. וְאִילּוּ חַטָּאת – שַׁיְּירַהּ;

To counter this, the verse states with regard to slaughter outside the courtyard: “Whatever person there be of the house of Israel that slaughters an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that slaughters it outside the camp” (Leviticus 17:3). “Ox” indicates in any case of an ox, “lamb” indicates in any case of a lamb, and “goat” indicates in any case of a goat, that one is liable for slaughtering them outside the courtyard; while a sin offering was omitted from the cases in the baraita where one who slaughters the offering outside the courtyard is liable.

בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בִּזְמַנּוֹ – מַאי אִירְיָא אָשָׁם? אֲפִילּוּ חַטָּאת נָמֵי! אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא לִזְמַנּוֹ.

The Gemara clarifies: What are we dealing with in this baraita when it discusses the guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper? If we say that it is dealing with a guilt offering that was slaughtered outside the courtyard at its proper time, why state that one is liable specifically for a guilt offering? One would be liable for slaughtering a sin offering outside the courtyard at its time as well. Rather, it is discussing a guilt offering that was slaughtered not at its time, i.e., when the nazirite or leper’s time had not yet arrived.

וּבְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לִשְׁמוֹ – אָשָׁם אַמַּאי חַיָּיב? אֶלָּא לָאו שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ? לְעוֹלָם בִּזְמַנּוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ;

The Gemara explains: And what is the baraita dealing with? If we say that it is dealing with one who slaughtered it for its sake, why would he be liable for a guilt offering that was slaughtered outside the courtyard if it is not fit for sacrifice? Rather, is the baraita not dealing with one who slaughtered it not for its sake, and the baraita states that one would be liable, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥilkiya? The Gemara rejects this: Actually, the baraita is dealing with one who slaughtered a guilt offering outside the courtyard at its proper time and not for its sake.

וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מַקְּשִׁינַן אָשָׁם לְחַטָּאת.

And although there is ostensibly no need for an additional verse from which to derive the halakha in this case, as a guilt offering that was slaughtered not for its sake inside the courtyard is fit for sacrifice, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: We juxtapose a guilt offering with a sin offering in the verse: “As is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering; there is one law for them” (Leviticus 7:7), from which it may be derived that they have equivalent halakhic status. Therefore, a guilt offering that was slaughtered not for its sake is disqualified, and consequently one might say that one who slaughters a guilt offering not for its sake outside the Temple courtyard is exempt, as it is not fit for sacrifice. Therefore, the derivation from the verse is necessary.

וּתְנָא טָפֵל, וְהוּא הַדִּין עִיקָּר.

And the tanna of the baraita taught: Guilt offering, which, in this context, is secondary to the sin offering, as it is derived from the latter. But the same is true of the primary, i.e., the sin offering: One who slaughters it outside the courtyard not for its sake is liable.

תָּא שְׁמַע: יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה עוֹלַת מְחוּסַּר זְמַן – בְּגוּפָהּ, וְחַטָּאת – בֵּין בְּגוּפָהּ בֵּין בִּבְעָלִים?

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita in support of Rabbi Ḥilkiya: One might have thought that I include in liability even one who slaughters a burnt offering whose time has not yet arrived because it is intrinsically lacking, i.e., eight days have not yet passed; and one who slaughters a sin offering whose time has not yet arrived, whether because it is intrinsically lacking or because it is premature for the owner.

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ – כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָבֹא בְּפֶתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, אֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן. וְאִילּוּ אָשָׁם – שַׁיְּירֵהּ;

To counter this, the verse states with regard to one who slaughters outside the courtyard: “And has not brought it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:4), which teaches that for any sacrifice that is unfit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, one is not liable for slaughtering it outside the courtyard. But a guilt offering whose time has not yet arrived was omitted by the tanna, from which it can be inferred that one who slaughters a guilt offering outside the courtyard is liable.

בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא לִשְׁמוֹ – אָשָׁם נָמֵי לִיפְטְרֵיהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ?

The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with? If we say that the baraita is dealing with a case where one slaughtered a sin offering whose time has not yet arrived, outside the courtyard for its sake, then one who slaughters a guilt offering should also be exempt, as it is an offering whose time has not yet arrived. Rather, is it not dealing with a case of one who slaughtered a sin offering whose time has not yet arrived, outside the courtyard not for its sake? In this case, one would be exempt for slaughtering it outside the courtyard, as if it is slaughtered inside the courtyard not for its sake it is disqualified. But in the case of a guilt offering whose time has not yet arrived one would be liable, since it is fit for sacrifice, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥilkiya.

לְעוֹלָם שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא – דְּמַקֵּישׁ אָשָׁם לְחַטָּאת. תְּנָא עִיקָּר, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן לְטָפֵל.

The Gemara responds: Actually, the baraita is dealing with one who slaughtered a sin offering whose time has not yet arrived, outside the courtyard not for its sake. And nevertheless, it may not be inferred that in the case of a guilt offering one would be liable, as this baraita may be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who juxtaposes a guilt offering with a sin offering; and one who slaughters a guilt offering is also exempt. The tanna of the baraita omitted mention of a guilt offering because he taught: Sin offering, which is the primary case of the disqualification of an offering slaughtered not for its sake, and all the more so it applies to the secondary case, i.e., the guilt offering.

תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר, תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי לֵיוַאי: יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מוֹצִיא אַף עוֹלַת מְחוּסַּר זְמַן בִּבְעָלִים, אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע; מִנַּיִן? וְנָסֵיב לְהוּ תַּלְמוּדָא לְחִיּוּבָא, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא מַאי הִיא.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof for the opinion of Rabbi Ḥilkiya, as when Rav Dimi came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael he said that the school of Rabbi Livai taught a baraita: One might have thought that I exclude from the category of those who are liable for slaughtering offerings outside the Temple courtyard even one who slaughters a burnt offering whose time has not yet arrived due to its being premature for its owner, or who slaughters a guilt offering of a nazirite or the guilt offering of a leper whose time has not yet arrived due to its being premature for its owner. From where is it derived that one is liable for doing so? Rav Dimi added: And the Sages brought a derivation from a verse to prove that one is liable, but I do not know what the derivation is.

מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רָבִינָא: ״שׁוֹר״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, ״כֶּשֶׂב״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, ״עֵז״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. הָא מַאי רוּמְיָא? כִּדְאָמְרַתְּ!

The Gemara clarifies: What is the biblical derivation? Ravina said that it is derived from the verse cited above with regard to offerings that are slaughtered outside the courtyard, where “ox” indicates in any case of an ox, “lamb” indicates in any case of a lamb, and “goat” indicates in any case of a goat. This supports the opinion of Rabbi Ḥilkiya, as the baraita is discussing a guilt offering whose time has not yet arrived that is slaughtered not for its sake, and contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna. The Gemara asks: What contradiction is this? It can be resolved as you stated earlier: That the baraita is dealing with a guilt offering that was slaughtered not for its sake at the proper time, and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מִשּׁוּם דְּרָמֵי דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי לֵיוַאי אַדְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – כְּשֵׁירִין, וְלֹא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשׁוּם חוֹבָה.

Rav Naḥman said that according to the opinion of Rav Dimi, the baraita cannot be interpreted as dealing with a guilt offering that was slaughtered at its proper time, because he raises a contradiction between the baraita that the school of Rabbi Livai taught and a baraita that Levi taught: The guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper that one slaughtered not for their sakes are fit, but they do not satisfy the obligation of the owner.

שְׁחָטָן מְחוּסַּר זְמַן בִּבְעָלִים, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ בְנֵי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים וּשְׁחָטָן – פְּסוּלִין.

If one slaughtered them in a case where the offering was premature due to its owner, or if the lambs were in their second year when one slaughtered them, and not in their first year as required, they are disqualified, and one who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is not liable. This contradicts the baraita taught by the school of Rabbi Livai.

וּמְשַׁנֵּי רַב דִּימִי: לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן לִשְׁמוֹ, כָּאן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ.

And Rav Dimi answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the baraita that states that one who slaughters outside the courtyard is exempt, it is referring to a case where the animal whose time has not yet arrived was slaughtered for its sake; there, in the baraita that teaches that one who slaughters outside the courtyard is liable, it is referring to a case where the offering was slaughtered not for its sake.

רַב אָשֵׁי רָמֵי מַתְנִיתִין אַבָּרַיְיתָא, וּמְשַׁנֵּי: כָּאן לִשְׁמוֹ, וְכָאן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ.

Likewise, Rav Ashi raises a contradiction between the mishna, which teaches that one who slaughters a guilt offering whose time has not yet arrived outside the courtyard is exempt, and the baraita, which teaches that one who does so is liable. And Rav Ashi answers: Here, the mishna that teaches that one is exempt is referring to a case where the offering was slaughtered for its sake. And there, the baraita that teaches that one is liable is referring to a case where the offering was slaughtered not for its sake, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥilkiya.

לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא?

The Gemara says: If so, shall we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, who holds that one who slaughters a guilt offering whose time has not yet arrived not for its sake outside the courtyard is exempt?

אָמַר לְךָ רַב הוּנָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי אֲשָׁמוֹת לְאַחְרָיוּת, דְּחַד מִינַּיְיהוּ מֵעִיקָּרָא עוֹלָה הִיא;

The Gemara replies that Rav Huna could have said to you: What are we dealing with here, in the baraita that deems one liable for a guilt offering that was slaughtered not for its sake? We are dealing with a case where one separated two guilt offerings as a guarantee, so that atonement would be achieved through the sacrifice of the second if the first was lost, but before the proper time arrived he slaughtered one of them as a burnt offering rather than as a guilt offering. In this case there would be liability for slaughtering outside the courtyard, as is the case with one who slaughters a burnt offering outside the courtyard, since one of them, i.e., the one that will not effect atonement, is a burnt offering from the outset.

כִּדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּיתַּק לִרְעִיָּה, וּשְׁחָטוֹ סְתָם – כָּשֵׁר לָעוֹלָה.

This is in accordance with the statement that Rav Huna says that Rav says. As Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to a guilt offering whose owner died or achieved atonement through a different guilt offering and which was consigned to grazing in the field until it develops a blemish, and prior to its being consigned one slaughtered it without specification of its purpose, it is fit as a burnt offering.

הַמַּעֲלֶה מִבְּשַׂר חַטָּאת [וְכוּ׳]. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן לַמַּעֲלֶה מִבְּשַׂר חַטָּאת, וּמִבְּשַׂר אָשָׁם, וּמִבְּשַׂר קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וּמִבְּשַׂר קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וּמִמּוֹתַר הָעוֹמֶר, וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וּשְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת – שֶׁפָּטוּר?

§ The mishna teaches: One who offers up outside the Temple courtyard a portion of the meat of a sin offering that is eaten, or who offers up a portion of several other items, is exempt. With regard to the reasoning behind this halakha, the Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that one who offers up outside the Temple courtyard a portion of the meat of a sin offering, or a portion of the meat of a guilt offering, or a portion of the meat of offerings of the most sacred order, or a portion of the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity, or a portion of the surplus of the omer offering, or the two loaves, or the shewbread, or the remainder of meal offerings is exempt, as all these are eaten by the priests and not sacrificed on the altar?

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עוֹלָה״ – מָה עוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לְהַעֲלָאָה, אַף כֹּל שֶׁרְאוּיָה לְהַעֲלָאָה.

The verse states with regard to the prohibition against sacrificing outside the Temple courtyard: “Whatever man…that sacrifices a burnt offering or sacrifice, and brings it not to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to sacrifice it to the Lord, that man shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 17:8–9). The term “burnt offering” teaches: Just as a burnt offering is fit for offering up upon the altar, so too, anything that is fit for offering up is included in the prohibition. All of the offerings listed in the baraita are not sacrificed upon the altar but given to the priests.

מִנַּיִן שֶׁאַף הַיּוֹצֵק, וְהַבּוֹלֵל, וְהַפּוֹתֵת, וְהַמּוֹלֵחַ, וְהַמֵּנִיף, וְהַמַּגִּישׁ, וְהַמְסַדֵּר הַשֻּׁלְחָן, וְהַמֵּטִיב אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת, וְהַקּוֹמֵץ, וְהַמְקַבֵּל בַּחוּץ – שֶׁפָּטוּר?

From where is it derived that even with regard to one who pours oil onto the meal offering, and one who mixes the oil into the flour of the meal offering, and one who breaks the loaves of the meal offering into pieces, and one who salts the meal offering or other offerings, and one who waves the meal offering, and one who brings the meal offering to the corner of an altar that he constructs outside the courtyard, and one who arranges the shewbread on the table outside the Sanctuary, and one who removes the ashes from the lamps of the Candelabrum, and one who removes a handful from a meal offering, and one who collects the blood of an offering in a vessel, if he did so outside the Temple courtyard he is exempt.

תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר יַעֲלֶה עוֹלָה אוֹ זָבַח״ – מָה הַעֲלָאָה שֶׁהִיא גְּמַר עֲבוֹדָה, אַף כֹּל שֶׁהוּא גְּמַר עֲבוֹדָה.

The verse states: “That sacrifices a burnt offering or sacrifice” (Leviticus 17:8). Just as sacrificing is the conclusion of the sacrificial service, so too, any rite that is the conclusion of a sacrificial service is included. All of these are excluded from the prohibition, as there are rites that follow them.

עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן [וְכוּ׳]. יָתֵיב רַב הוּנָא בַּר רַב קַטִּינָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, וְקָא קָרֵי: ״וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶת נַעֲרֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: קָרְבוּ וּפָסְקוּ.

§ The mishna teaches: Until the Tabernacle was established, private altars were permitted and the sacrificial service was performed by the firstborn. The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Rav Ketina was sitting before Rav Ḥisda and was reading this verse with regard to the revelation at Sinai: “And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the Lord” (Exodus 24:5). The young men referred to in the verse were the firstborn of the Jewish people. Rav Ḥisda said to him: This is what Rabbi Asi said: They sacrificed the offerings and then ceased to serve; after that day, the firstborn no longer performed the sacrificial service.

סְבַר לְאוֹתוֹבֵיהּ מִמַּתְנִיתִין; שַׁמְעֵיהּ דְּקָאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר – אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ; אוֹתְבֵיהּ בָּרַיְיתָא דְּשָׁוְיָא בְּכוּלְּהוּ.

Rav Huna thought to raise a contradiction from the mishna, which states that the firstborn performed not only the sacrificial service on that day, but also did so until the Tabernacle was established the following year. In the meanwhile, he heard Rav Ḥisda say in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava that the burnt offering that the children of Israel sacrificed in the wilderness before the establishment of the Tabernacle did not require flaying of the skin and cutting into pieces; it was sacrificed as it was. He therefore raised the contradiction from a baraita that is equal with regard to both of them, i.e., from which Rav Huna could raise a contradiction to both of Rav Ḥisda’s statements.

דְּתַנְיָא: עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן – הַבָּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת, וַעֲבוֹדָה בִּבְכוֹרוֹת, וְהַכֹּל כְּשֵׁירִין לְהִקָּרֵיב; בְּהֵמָה, חַיָּה וָעוֹף, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת, תְּמִימִין וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין, טְהוֹרִין אֲבָל לֹא טְמֵאִין.

As it is taught in a baraita: Until the Tabernacle was established, private altars were permitted, the sacrificial service was performed by the firstborn, and all animals were fit to be sacrificed: A domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird; males and females; unblemished and blemished animals. All animal sacrifices were brought from animals and birds that were kosher, but not from non-kosher species.

וְהַכֹּל קָרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת. וְעוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר – טְעוּנָה הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ. וְגוֹיִם בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה רַשָּׁאִין לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן.

And all offerings brought before the construction of the Tabernacle were sacrificed as burnt offerings. And the burnt offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the wilderness before the Tabernacle was established required flaying of the skin and cutting into pieces. And today, gentiles are permitted to sacrifice offerings on private altars. The baraita states explicitly that until the Tabernacle was constructed, the sacrificial service was performed by the firstborn, and the burnt offering required flaying and cutting.

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא; דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְגַם הַכֹּהֲנִים הַנִּגָּשִׁים אֶל ה׳ יִתְקַדָּשׁוּ״ – רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמֵר: זוֹ פְּרִישׁוּת בְּכוֹרוֹת. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: זוֹ פְּרִישׁוּת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא.

Rav Ḥisda replied that with regard to the firstborn, it is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: God said to Moses on Mount Sinai: “And let the priests also that come near to the Lord sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them” (Exodus 19:22). In other words, they should separate themselves and not approach the mountain. This command was given one day after the burnt offerings and peace offerings were sacrificed in anticipation of the revelation at Sinai. With regard to this command, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: This command is a reference to the separation of the firstborn, as they functioned as priests. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This command is a reference to the separation of Nadav and Avihu, who were priests.

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זוֹ פְּרִישׁוּת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״הוּא אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה׳ לֵאמֹר בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ״.

The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that the command for the priests to sanctify themselves is referring to the separation of Nadav and Avihu, this is the meaning of that which is written after their death on the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle: “Then Moses said to Aaron: This is it that the Lord spoke, saying: Through them that are near to Me I will be sanctified…and Aaron held his peace” (Leviticus 10:3). Nadav and Avihu had already been warned not to draw too close: “Lest the Lord break forth upon them.”

אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זוֹ פְּרִישׁוּת בְּכוֹרוֹת – הֵיכָא רְמִיזָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנֹעַדְתִּי שָׁמָּה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנִקְדַּשׁ בִּכְבֹדִי״ – אַל תִּקְרֵי ״בִּכְבוֹדִי״, אֶלָּא ״(בִּמְכוּבָּדַיי) [בִּכְבוּדַיי]״.

But according to the one who says that the command for the priests to sanctify themselves is referring to the separation of the firstborn, where is the allusion to the fact that God would be sanctified through Nadav and Avihu? The Gemara replies: As it is written: “And there I will meet with the children of Israel; and it shall be sanctified by My glory” (Exodus 29:43). Do not read it as “by My glory [bikhvodi]”; rather, read it as: By My honored ones [bimekhubadai]. God will be sanctified by those considered honored by God when He reveals Himself in the Tabernacle.

דָּבָר זֶה אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה וְלֹא יָדְעוּ, עַד שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן. כֵּיוָן שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן, אָמַר לוֹ: אַהֲרֹן אָחִי, לֹא מֵתוּ בָּנֶיךָ אֶלָּא לְהַקְדִּישׁ שְׁמוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּדַע אַהֲרֹן שֶׁבָּנָיו יְדוּעֵי מָקוֹם הֵן, שָׁתַק וְקִבֵּל שָׂכָר; שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּדֹּם אַהֲרֹן״.

The Holy One, Blessed be He, said this statement to Moses, but Moses did not know its meaning until the sons of Aaron died. Once the sons of Aaron died, Moses said to him: Aaron, my brother, your sons died only to sanctify the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He. When Aaron knew that his sons were beloved by the Omnipresent, he was silent and received a reward, as it is stated: “And Aaron held his peace [vayidom].”

וְכֵן בְּדָוִד הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״דּוֹם לַה׳ וְהִתְחוֹלֵל לוֹ״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמַּפִּיל לְךָ חֲלָלִים חֲלָלִים, אַתְּ שְׁתוֹק. וְכֵן בִּשְׁלֹמֹה הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״עֵת לַחֲשׁוֹת וְעֵת לְדַבֵּר״ – פְּעָמִים שֶׁשּׁוֹתֵק וּמְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר עַל הַשְּׁתִיקָה, פְּעָמִים מְדַבֵּר וּמְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר עַל הַדִּבּוּר.

And likewise in a verse written by David it states: “Resign yourself [dom] to the Lord, and wait patiently [vehitḥolel] for Him” (Psalms 37:7). Although He strikes down many corpses [ḥalalim] around you, you be silent and do not complain. And likewise in a verse written by Solomon it states: “A time to keep silence, and a time to speak” (Ecclesiastes 3:7). There are times that one is silent and receives reward for the silence, and at times one speaks and receives reward for the speech.

וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״נוֹרָא אֱלֹהִים מִמִּקְדָּשֶׁךָ״? אַל תִּיקְרֵי ״מִמִּקְדָּשֶׁךָ״ אֶלָּא ״מִמְּקוּדָּשֶׁיךָ״ – בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא דִּין בִּקְדוֹשָׁיו, מִתְיָירֵא וּמִתְעַלֶּה וּמִתְהַלֵּל.

And this is what Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Awesome is God out of your holy places” (Psalms 68:36)? Do not read it as: “From your holy places [mimikdashekha]”; rather, read it as: From your holy ones [mimekudashekha]. When the Holy One, Blessed be He, carries out judgment upon His holy ones, He is feared, and exalted, and praised by all. In any event, there is no contradiction from the baraita which teaches that the firstborns perform the sacrificial service before the Tabernacle was established, as this matter is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im.

אֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא עוֹלָה! תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי הִיא; דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: כְּלָלוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּסִינַי, וּפְרָטוֹת בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.

But there is still a difficulty with regard to the burnt offering, as it was stated in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava that the burnt offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the wilderness did not require flaying of the skin or cutting into pieces, while the baraita states that it did. The Gemara replies: This is a dispute between the opinions of two tanna’im. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael says: The general statements, i.e., the principles of the Torah, were said at Sinai, and the details of the mitzvot that are explicated in Leviticus were said to Moses in the Tent of Meeting. This includes the halakha that the burnt offering must be flayed and cut into pieces. Consequently, it could not have been in effect before the construction of the Tabernacle.

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כְּלָלוֹת וּפְרָטוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּסִינַי, וְנִשְׁנוּ בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, וְנִשְׁתַּלְּשׁוּ בְּעַרְבוֹת מוֹאָב.

Rabbi Akiva says: Both general statements and the details of mitzvot were said at Sinai and later taught again in the Tent of Meeting, and taught a third time by Moses to the Jewish people in the plains of Moab, when he taught the Torah to the people (see Deuteronomy 1:1). According to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, the halakha of flaying and cutting into pieces was in effect when the Torah was given, even before the construction of the Tabernacle.

אָמַר מָר: הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁירִין לְהַקְרִיב. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וַיִּבֶן נֹחַ מִזְבֵּחַ לַה׳ וַיִּקַּח מִכֹּל הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה וּמִכׇּל עוֹף הַטָּהוֹר״; בְּהֵמָה – כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ. חַיָּה – בִּכְלַל בְּהֵמָה.

§ The Master said in the baraita: Before the Tabernacle was established, all animals were fit to be sacrificed: A domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Huna said: As the verse states with regard to the offering that was sacrificed after the flood: “And Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every pure animal, and of every pure fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar” (Genesis 8:20). The Gemara explains: “Animal [behema],” is understood in accordance with its plain meaning, a domesticated animal, and the same is true of fowl; an undomesticated animal [ḥayya] is included in the term “behema” that is stated in the verse.