J. [21a] In any event the question [of Raba at F] remains. Said Raba, “It makes sense to say that this is what he does [to avoid the objection from the ruling at F. The priest who wrings the neck] cuts the spinal cord and the neck bone without [cutting] the majority of the flesh.”
K. When R. Zira departed [to go to Israel] he found R. Ammi who was sitting and saying this teaching [of Ziri at F, above]. He said to him [by way of objection], “If it is dead [after he breaks through the neck bone and surrounding flesh, what good does it do to continue] to stand and wring the neck?” [Ammi sat and,] “He was dismayed for a moment” (Dan. 4:19). He said to him, “It makes sense to say that this is what he does [to avoid the objection from the ruling at F. The priest who wrings the neck] cuts the spinal cord and the neck bone without [cutting] the majority of the flesh.”
L. It was taught on Tannaite authority also in this way, “What is the procedure for wringing the neck of the sin-offering of a fowl? He cuts the spinal cord and the neck bone without [cutting] the majority of the flesh until he reaches the esophagus or the windpipe. Once he reaches the esophagus or the windpipe, he cuts one of the organs or a majority of one and [at that point he may cut] the major portion of the flesh along with it. And for a whole burnt-offering, [the procedure is the same but] he cuts the two organs or the majority of the two organs.”
M. Who is the authority behind these teachings? If it is in accord with the view of the rabbis, lo they said specifically that he must cut the two organs. If it is in accord with the view of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon, lo he said [he must cut] the majority of the two organs.
N. It makes sense to say [that he must cut] the two organs in accord with the view of the rabbis or the major portion of the two organs in accord with the view of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon.
O. And another possibility: Both are in accord with R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon. So then what does it mean by “the two [organs]”? It means, “[Organs that are cut sufficiently] so that they resemble two [parts].”
V.1
A. Said R. Judah said Samuel, “If the neck bone was broken and along with it the majority of the flesh around it [was torn in a human], it transmits uncleanness in a tent.”
B. And you may say [there is a contradiction to this principle from] the incident concerning [the death of] Eli. That was a case where the neck bone [was broken] but the majority of the flesh around it [was not torn, yet he was deemed thereby to have died and would have transmitted uncleanness as a corpse at that moment].
C. [We may explain that] an elderly person is subject to different criteria. For it is written, “When he mentioned the ark of God, Eli fell over backward from his seat by the side of the gate; and his neck was broken and he died, for he was an old man, and heavy. He had judged Israel forty years” (I Sam. 4:18).
V.2
A. Said R. Samuel bar Nahmani, said R. Yohanan, “If he cut it [a body] as he does to a fish, it transmits uncleanness in a tent.”
B. Said R. Samuel bar Yitzhak, “[Provided he cuts] from its back.”
C. Samuel [some versions: bar Yitzhak in the name of Hezekiah] said, “If he cleaved the body in two [lengthwise, Rashi] — it is carrion.”
D. Said R. Eleazar, “If the thigh [bone] was removed and the cavity is discernible — it is carrion [and renders objects unclean even while it is still alive].” [Rashi interprets that only flesh was removed, because if the bone was removed it would be deemed terefah.]
E. What is the circumstance where the cavity is discernible? Said Raba, “Any case where when it hunkers down, it appears that there is [part of the thigh] missing.”
V.3
A. It was taught there in the Mishnah on Tannaite authority, If their heads were severed, even though they are convulsing, they are unclean. [They are deemed to be dead and the convulsions are merely like those of] the tail of a lizard that convulses [even after it is cut off] [M. Ohal. 1:6 D-E].
B. What does “severed” mean? Resh Laqish said, “[It means] actually severed off.” R. Assi said [in the name of] Rabbi Mani, “[It means] severed in the manner of the burnt-offering of a fowl [i.e., through both organs of the neck, but not completely cut off].”
C. Said R. Jeremiah to R. Assi, “[Do you mean] severed in the manner of the burnt-offering of a fowl according to the view of the rabbis, and hence do not dispute [the view of Resh Laqish], or perhaps [you mean] severed in the manner of the burnt-offering of a fowl according to the view of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon, and you do dispute [with Resh Laqish]?” He said to him, “[I hold that it means] severed in the manner of the burnt-offering of a fowl according to the view of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon, and I do dispute [with Resh Laqish].”
D. Another version: [What does “severed” mean?] Resh Laqish said, “[It means] actually severed off.” R. Assi said [in the name of] Rabbi Mani, “[It means] severed in the manner of the burnt-offering of a fowl according to the view of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon [that he must cut through] the majority of both [organs of the neck, but not completely cut it off].”
E. What are [the views of] the rabbis and of R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon? As it was taught on Tannaite authority: “Then he shall offer the second for a burnt-offering according to the ordinance; [and the priest shall make atonement for him for the sin which he has committed, and he shall be forgiven]” (Lev. 5:10) — according to the ordinance of the sin-offering of a beast. Do you say [that this implies he must slaughter it] according to the ordinance of the sin-offering of a beast or [would it make sense to say he must slaughter it] according to the ordinance of the sin-offering of a fowl? When Scripture says, “And the priest shall bring it [to the altar and wring off its head, and burn it on the altar; and its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar]” (Lev. 1:15), [by specifying “it” in the verse] Scripture distinguishes between the [rules for the slaughter of the] sin-offering of a fowl and the whole-offering of a fowl.
F. And how do I understand “according to the ordinance”? According to the ordinance of the sin-offering of a beast. What are the rules for the sin-offering of a beast? It must come only [21b] from an unconsecrated animal, and must be brought during the day, and [its rituals] must be performed with the right hand [of the priest]. Also [the rules] for the whole-offering of a fowl [are that] it must come only from an unconsecrated animal, and must be brought during the day and [its rituals] must be performed with the right hand [of the priest].
G. [But I might argue] that there [for slaughtering the sin-offering of a beast it suffices to cut] the majority of the two organs, so even here [for wringing the neck of the whole-offering of the fowl it suffices to sever] the majority of the two organs. It comes to teach [us to the contrary]: “And the priest shall bring it to the altar and wring off its head” (Lev. 1:15) — just as when he brings it to the altar, he brings the head by itself and the body by itself, so to when he wrings its neck, he [must end up by severing the head from the body completely, with] the head by itself and the body by itself.
H. R. Ishmael says, “`According to the ordinance' means according to the ordinance of the sin-offering of a fowl.” What [is the rule for a sin-offering? It must be severed `opposite the neck bone.' So even the whole-offering of a fowl must be severed `opposite the neck bone.' But [you could argue further] what is the rule there [in the ritual for the sin-offering of a fowl]? He wrings [the neck and he] cuts one organ but does not sever [the head from the body since it remains attached with the other organ]. Even here [with regard to the whole-offering of a fowl] he cuts one organ but he does not sever [the head from the body]. It comes to teach us [to the contrary that], “And the priest shall bring it [to the altar and wring off its head, and burn it on the altar; and its blood shall be drained out on the side of the altar]” (Lev. 1:15) [i.e., “it” has its own rules].
No comments:
Post a Comment
I welcome your comments.