11. Whatsoever the Holy One, blessed is he, created in his world, he created it only for his glory, as it is written, Everything that is called by my name and that I have created, I have formed it, yea, I have made it.1* And it says, The Lord shall reign for ever and ever.'3 R. Hananiah b. Akashya tb said: The Holy One, blessed is he, was minded to grant merit to Israel; therefore hath he multiplied for them the Law and commandments, as it is written, It pleased the Lord for his righteousness sake to magnify the Law and make it honourable.1'’ 1. 1. If the court gave a decision contrary to any of the commandments enjoined in the Law19 and some man went and acted at their word [trans¬ gressing] unwittingly, whether they acted so and he acted so together with 'But there is not enough wealth there tor me to earn my living’ (Tif. Yis.).
- Somewhere where they study the Law.
16 This paragraph is found also at the close of the tractate Makkoth. 17 Is. 4231.
Lit. ‘instructions', judicial decisions. The tractate is based on Lev. 41:l, which, accord¬ ing to Jewish tradition, deals with occasions when individuals or the majority of the people have been led into transgression through a wrongful decision of the Sanhedrin.
» Such that wanton transgression of them entailed Extirpation (see below, 2J).
462 FOURTH DIVISION: NEZIKIN them, or they acted so and he acted so after them, or whether they did not act so but he acted so, he is not culpable,1 since he depended on the [de¬ cision of the] court. If the court gave a decision [contrary to the Law] and one of them knew that they had erred, or a disciple that was himself fit to give a decision [knew that they had erred], and he went and acted at their word, whether they acted so and he acted so together with them, or they acted so and he acted so after them, or whether they did not act so but he acted so, such a one is culpable, since he did not depend on [the decision of] the court. This is the general rule: he that can depend on himself is culpable, but he that must depend on the court is not culpable.
2. If a court gave a decision2 and [afterward] they knew that they had erred, and they retracted, whether they brought their [offering of] atone¬ ment3 or whether they did not bring their [offering of] atonement, if any acted at their word4 R. Simeon declares him not culpable; and R. Eleazar5 declares his case in doubt. When is it in doubt? If he had remained at home he would be culpable, but if he went beyond the sea he would not be culpable. R. Akiba said: I agree that such a one is more nearly not culpable than culp¬ able. Ben Azzai said to him: How does he differ from him that remained at home? [R. Akiba answered:] He that remained at home could hear [that the court had retracted], but the other could not hear.
3. If the court gave a decision uprooting an entire principle [in the Law]: if they said, ‘There is naught in the Law concerning the menstruant’,6 or ‘There is naught in the Law concerning the Sabbath’, or ‘There is naught in the Law concerning idolatry’, they7 are not culpable.8 If they gave a decision that in part annulled and in part sustained [what the Law enjoins], they are culpable. Thus, if they said, ‘The Law treats of the menstruant, but if a man has intercourse with a woman that awaits day against day9 he is not culpable’, or ‘The Law treats of the Sabbath, but if a man carries a burden from a private domain to the public domain he is not culpable’,10 or ‘The Law treats of idolatry, but if a man bows down [before an idol] he is not culpable’,11 the court is culpable; for it is written, If something be hid12— something, but not the whole principle.
4. If the court gave a decision and one of them knew that they had erred and said to them, ‘Ye do err’, or if the chief judge of the court was not there, or if one of them was a proselyte or a bastard or a Nothin1* or too aged [or one]14 that never had children, they are not culpable; for here15 it is written Congregation, and there’6 it is written Congregation: as the ‘congregation’ there implies that they should all be fit to give a decision, so here it is implied that they should all be fit to give a decision. If the court gave a decision [transgressing] unwittingly, and all the congregation [so] acted, 1 If he later came to know of his sin he is not liable to bring the Sin-offering prescribed in Lev. 427ff. 2 And most of the nation acted according to it.
2 The Sin-offering prescribed, Lev. 413{!.
* Not knowing that they had later retracted.
s Variant: Eliezer. 6 Lev. is13; 1819; 2018. 7 Members of the court.
8 And need not bring the Sin-offering prescribed in Lev. 41:,fl; but the individuals who act according to their decision are liable to a Sin-offering, 9 Cf. Pes. 8°; Meg. z4; Nidd. 47; Zab. i4. If she suffered any manner of flow during the eleven days that followed her seven prescribed days of uncleanness (Lev. i5ls) she is only accounted clean after a complete day of cleanness (absence of flow) shall have followed.
10 See Shab. 75 (end). 11 See Sanh. 7s. 12 Cf. Lev, 413.
11 App. I. 29. These three (see Sanh. 4s) were ineligible as judges.
14 So Maim. These two also (Sanh. 36b) were ineligibile.
[transgressing] unwittingly, they must offer a bullock.1 If the court gave a decision [transgressing] wantonly and the congregation [so] acted [trans¬ gressing] unwittingly, they2 must offer a sheep and a goat.3 If the court [transgressed] unwittingly but the congregation wantonly,4 they5 are not culpable.
5. If the court gave a decision [transgressing unwittingly] and all the congregation or the greater part of them acted at their word, they must offer I a bullock;6 and if they had permitted idolatry, they must offer a bullock and a he-goat.7 So R. Meir. R. Judah says: The twelve tribes offer twelve bullocks; and if there befell idolatry, they must offer twelve bullocks and twelve he-goats.8 R. Simeon says: [In the first case] thirteen bullocks, and if there befell idolatry, thirteen bullocks and thirteen he-goats: a bullock and a he-goat for each tribe and a bullock and a he-goat for the court. If jthe court gave a decision [transgressing unwittingly], and seven tribes or the greater part of them9 acted at their word, they must offer a bullock, and , if there befell idolatry, they must bring a bullock and a he-goat. So R. Meir. R. Judah says: The seven tribes which sinned must offer seven bullocks and the rest of the tribes which did not sin must offer a bullock on their behalf, for they also which had not sinned must offer on behalf of them that had sinned. R. Simeon says: Eight bullocks; and if there befell idolatry eight bullocks and eight he-goats — a bullock and a he-goat for each tribe and a bullock and a he-goat for the court. If the court of one of the tribes gave a decision [transgressing unwittingly], and that tribe acted at their word, that tribe is culpable, but the rest of the tribes are not culpable. So R. Judah. But the Sages say: They become culpable only through a decision given by the Great Court,10 for it is written, And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err 11 — and not the congregation of that tribe alone.
2. 1. If the anointed [High] Priest'2 made a decision for himself [that transgressed any of the commandments enjoined in the Law], and he made it unwittingly and acted [transgressing] unwittingly, he must offer a bullock; if he made it unwittingly but acted [transgressing] wantonly, or made it wantonly but acted [transgressing] unwittingly,13 he is exempt; for the decision of an anointed [High] Priest made for himself is like the decision given by the court for the congregation.14 2. If he made the decision alone and acted so alone, he makes his atone¬ ment alone. If he made the decision together with the congregation and acted so together with the congregation, he must make atonement together with the congregation. The court becomes liable only if it gives a decision which in part annuls and in part sustains [what the Law enjoins]; so, too, is it with the anointed [High Priest]. And if there befell idolatry [they are] not [liable] unless they annul in part and sustain in part [what the Law en¬ joins].
* As prescribed by Lev. 4ufl. 1 Members of the court singly.
* As prescribed (Lev. i4”"5S) for individual sinners.
* Knowing that the court had erred.
s Members of the court and the congregation. 6 Lev. 4'**.
7 Num. is’4, which is traditionally believed to apply to the case of mistakenly permitted idolatry.
* The difference turns on whether 'assembly' ( kahal ) in Lev. 41* means the whole nation jointly or the several tribes. * The nation as a whole.
10 Sanh. 1 1’ ‘whence the Law goes forth to all Israel’. “ Lev. 41*.
11 Lev. 4*. i.e. if he had forgotten that he had permitted it.
14 Decision and act must both be done transgressing unwittingly.
FOURTH DIVISION: NFZ1KIN 3. They are liable only if something be hid 1 and thereby an act [of trans¬ gression] is performed unwittingly. So, too, is it with the anointed [High Priest]. Also if there befell idolatry they are liable only if something be hid, and thereby an act [of transgression] is performed unwittingly. The court is liable only if it gives a decision that leads to a transgression for which if it is done wantonly the penalty is Extirpation and if unwittingly a Sin-offering. So, too, is it with the anointed [High Priest]. Also if there befell idolatry, they are liable only if they give a decision that leads to a transgression tor which if it is done wantonly the penalty is Extirpation and if unwittingly a Sin-offering.
4. They do not become liable through [a decision unwittingly trans¬ gressing] a negative or a positive command concerning the Temple, nor need they bring a Suspensive Guilt-offering2 because of a positive5 or a negative4 command concerning the Temple. But they become liable through [a decision unwittingly transgressing] a positive or negative command concerning the menstruant, and they must bring a Suspensive Guilt-offering because of a positive or a negative command concerning a menstruant. What is5 the positive command concerning a menstruant? ‘Separate thyself from a menstruant’. And the negative command? ‘Thou shalt not come in unto a menstruant’.
5. They do not become liable through [unwitting transgression of the law touching] him that heareth the voice of adjuration,6 or him that sweareth rashly with his lips,1 or uncleanness in what concerns the Temple and its Hallowed Things.3 So, too, is it with a Ruler.9 So R. Jose the Galilean. R. Akiba says: The Ruler is liable in each of these cases excepting that of him that heareth the voice of adjuration, because10 the king can neither judge nor be judged; he11 cannot act as a witness and others cannot bear witness against him.
6. [Through unwitting transgression] of the commandments in the Law for which the penalty for wanton transgression is Extirpation and for un¬ witting transgression a Sin-offering, the individual must offer a sheep or a goat,12 and the Ruler a he-goat,13 and the anointed [High Priest] and the court a bullock;14 and if there befell idolatry,15 the individual and the Ruler and the anointed [High Priest] must offer a she-goat,l6and the court must offer a bullock and a he-goat — the bullock as a Whole-offering, and the he-goat as a Sin-offering.17 7. The individual or the Ruler may become liable to a Suspensive Guilt-offering,18 but not so the anointed [High Priest] or the court. The individual, the Ruler, and the anointed [High Priest] may become liable to an unconditional Guilt-offering,19 but not so the court. Through [unwitting transgression of the law touching] him that heareth the voice of adjuration, or him that sweareth rashly with his lips, or uncleanness in what concerns the Temple and its Hallowed Things, the court is not liable but the individual, the Ruler, and the anointed [High Priest] are liable; save * The unclean are forbidden to enter. Cf. Num. 5*. s see Shebu. 2*.
6 Lev. 5*. See Shebu. 4lfl. 7 Lev. 5*. * See Shebu. iJfl.
7 Lev. He, too, is exempt from the offering in the three cases cited.
10 Cited from Sanh. 2 '; since he does not act as a witness the rules of the oath of testimony do not apply to him. 1 7 Some texts omit the following sentence.
'5 The prescriptions of Num. i5,,s will apply. 16 Num. 15”. 17 Num. 15”.
only that the High Priest is not liable because of uncleanness in what con¬ cerns the Temple and its Hallowed Things. So R. Simeon. And what do they offer?' A Rising and Falling Offering.2 R. Eliezer3 says: The Ruler4 offers a he-goat.s 3. 1. If the anointed [High] Priest sinned and afterward passed from his high-priesthood;6 so, too, if the Ruler sinned and afterward7 passed from his greatness; the anointed [High] Priest must [still] offer a bullock and the Ruler a he-goat.
2. If the anointed [High] Priest passed from his high-priesthood and then sinned; so, too, if the Ruler passed from his greatness and then sinned; the anointed [High] Priest must [still] offer a bullock,8 but the Ruler is accounted one of the common people.9 3. If they sinned before they were appointed and were afterward ap¬ pointed, each is accounted one of the common people. R. Simeon says: If their sin was made known to them before they were appointed, they are liable,10 but if after they were appointed, they are exempt." And who is the Ruler? This is the king, for it is written, And doeth any one of all the things which the Lord his God hath commanded [not to be done]'1 — a Ruler that has above him none save the Lord his God.
4. And who is the anointed [High Priest]? He that is anointed with the oil of unction,13 but not he that is dedicated by the many garments.14 The [High] Priest‘s anointed with the oil of unction differs from him that is dedicated by the many garments only in the bullock offered for [the un¬ witting transgression of] any of the commandments. A High Priest in office differs from the priest that is passed [from his high-priesthood] only in the bullock that is offered on the Day of Atonement and the Tenth of the Ephah. Both'6 are equal in the [Temple-]service of the Day of Atonement; and both are subject to the commandment to marry only a virgin,17 and they both are forbidden to marry a widow,'8 and neither may contract un¬ cleanness because of their near of kin'9 [that have died]; neither may unbind their hair or rend their clothes [in token of mourning];20 and both [when they die] serve to bring back the manslayer [from the cities of refuge].11 5. The High Priest rends his garment22 from below, but an ordinary priest from above. While his dead lies unburied the High Priest may offer sacrifice, but may not consume it;23 and an ordinary priest may neither offer sacrifice nor consume it.24 6. Whatsoever is offered more often than another precedes that other;2 1 The High Priest and the Ruler when they are not liable to the prescriptions of Lev. 4*"'*. **-*. 2 See p. 40a, n. 4. J Variant: Eleazar.
* Because of uncleanness respecting the Temple and the Hallowed Things, * See p. 203, n. 2. 7 Before he had offered his bullock.
* He still retains high-priestly sanctity; cf._Makk. 2*; Meg. 1*.
’’ And he brings a goat or a sheep (Lev. 4STa.')
10 To bring the Sin-offerings of common people.
1 Even from the High Priest’s or the Ruler’s special Sin-offering.
>3 With which the High Priests were anointed only until the time of Josiah.
16 Otherwise both are equally valid officiants.
** Lev. 2iu. These include father, mother, sister, brother, wife, son, and daughter.
23 On the death of any of his seven near of kin.
12 An inference derived from Lev. to'*. 24 Cf. Dcut. 26’*.
466 FOURTH DIVISION: NEZIKIN and what is more holy than another precedes that other. If the bullock of the anointed [High Priest] and the bullock of the congregation await sacrifice, the bullock of the anointed [High Priest] precedes the bullock of the congregation in its every act of preparation.1 7. A man must be saved alive sooner than a woman, and his lost property must be restored sooner than hers. A woman’s nakedness must be covered sooner than a man’s, and she must be brought out of captivity sooner than he. When both stand in danger of defilement, the man must be freed before the woman.
8. A priest precedes a levite, a levite an Israelite, an Israelite a bastard,2 a bastard a Nothin,3 a Nothin a proselyte, and a proselyte a freed slave. This applies when they all are [otherwise] equal; but if a bastard is learned in the Law and a High Priest is ignorant of the Law,4 the bastard that is learned in the Law precedes the High Priest that is ignorant of the Law.
FIFTH DIVISION KODASHIM (‘hallowed things’) ZEBAHIM MENAHOTH HULLIN BEKHOROTH ARAKHIN TEMURAH KERITHOTH MEILAH TAMID MIDDOTH KINNIM 1. x. All animal-offerings that have been slaughtered under the name of some other offering remain valid1 (but they do not count to their owner in fulfilment of his obligation)2 excepting a Passover-offering and a Sin- offering. [This rule applies to] a Passover-offering at its appointed time1 and to a Sin-offering at any time. R. Eliezer says: Excepting also a Guilt¬ offering:4 [this rule therefore applies to] a Passover-offering at its appointed time and to a Sin-offering and a Guilt-offering at any time. R. Eliezer said: A Sin-offering is offered because of a sin and a Guilt-offering is offered because of a sin; therefore as a Sin-offering is invalid if slaughtered under some other name so must a Guilt-offering be invalid if slaughtered under some other name.
2. Jose b. Onias says: If [any other offerings]5 were slaughtered under the name of a Passover-offering or of a Sin-offering, they become invalid. Simeon the brother of Azariah says: If they were slaughtered under the name of a higher grade of offering they remain valid, but if under the name! of a lower grade they become invalid.6 Thus if any of the Most Holy Things7 were slaughtered under the name of any of the Lesser Holy Things they become invalid; but if any of the Lesser Holy Things were slaughtered under the name of any of the Most Holy Things, they remain valid. If a Firstling8 or Tithe of Cattle9 was slaughtered under the name of a Peace- offering10 it remains valid; but if a Peace-offering was slaughtered under the name of a F'irstling or Tithe of Cattle it becomes invalid.
3. If a Passover-offering was slaughtered on the morning11 of the 14th [of Nisan] under some other name, R. Joshua declares it valid, as though it had been slaughtered on the 13th; but Ben Bathyra declares it invalid, as though it had been slaughtered at twilight. Simeon b. Azzai said:12 I have heard a tradition from the seventy-two elders on that day13 when they made R. Eleazar b. Azariah head of the College [of Sages], that any animal- offerings which must be consumed remain valid although slaughtered under some other name (but they do not count to their owner in fulfilment of his obligation) excepting a Passover-offering and a Sin-offering. And Ben Azzai added the Whole-offering only; but the Sages did not agree with him.
4. If a Passover-offering14 or a Sin-offering was slaughtered under some other name, or if [its blood] was received, conveyed, or tossed!S under some i.e. their blood may still be tossed against the Altar-base and their ‘sacrificial portions’ burnt on the Altar.
3 He must bring anew the offering which was due from him.
The afternoon of the 14th of Nisan. 4 Cf. Lev. 7’.
n For the grading of the offerings see xolfl.
’ Whole-offerings, Sin-offerings, Guilt-offerings, and the Pentecost Peace-offerings of the congregation; all the other animal-offerings arc classed as Lesser Holy Things. Sec oclow, 51*. * Num. i8'\ 0 Lev. ay33. See below, 5*.
0 See below, Though all three are Lesser Holv Things the Peace-offering is of a higher degree of sanctity, since its blood requires sprinkling four times and the others but once; nor do the latter require drink-offerings, laying on of hands, or waving the breast and the thigh. 11 Instead of the afternoon. Yad. 4*.
Ber. 28a, 'Wherever we find the phrase "on that day” it refers to this same occasion.’ Eduyoth was also said to have been compiled ‘on that day’. See also Shab. 1*, where another 'on that day’ is mentioned referring to a different occasion. 14 See Pes. 5s, 15 See Pes. 5s. At least three modes of applying the blood to the Altar are distinguished: ‘pouring’ it out at the base of the Altar, ‘tossing’ it out of the bowl against the side of the Altar, and 'sprinkling' it (or daubing it) with the fingers.
other name, or under its own and [then] under some other name, or under another and [then] under its own name, it becomes invalid. How [can it be treated] ‘under its own and [then] under another name’? [If, to wit, it was treated first] under the name of a Passover-offering and then under the name of a Peace-offering. How [can it be treated] ‘under another name and [then] under its own name’? [If, to wit, it was treated first] under the name of a Peace-offering and [then] under the name of a Passover-offering. For an animal-offering can be rendered invalid by [any one of] four things: by the slaughtering or by the receiving or the conveying or the tossing of its blood. R. Simeon declares it valid during the conveying [under whatso¬ ever name it is conveyed]; for R. Simeon said: [An animal-offering] is impossible without the slaughtering or without the receiving or the tossing of the blood, but it is possible without the conveying of the blood, since it can be slaughtered beside the Altar and [the blood] tossed [forthwith]. R. Eliezer says: In the conveying [of the blood], when conveying is needful, the intention can render [the offering] invalid; when conveying is not need¬ ful the intention cannot render it invalid.
2. 1. All animal-offerings become invalid if their blood is received bv one that is not a priest, or by a priest that is mourning his near of kin,1 or that had immersed himself [because of uncleanness] the selfsame day,2 or that is not clothed [in proper raiment],3 or whose atonement is yet incomplete,4 or that has not washed his hands and his feet,5 or that is uncircumcised, or unclean, or that ministers while sitting,6 or while standing on any article or on the back of a beast or on his fellow’s feet. If he received the blood in his left hand, the offering is invalid; but R. Simeon declares it valid. If it was poured out on the pavement and then gathered up again, it is invalid. If it was sprinkled on the Ramp7 and not by the [Altar-]base; or if what should have been sprinkled above was sprinkled below,8 or if what should have been sprinkled below was sprinkled above, or if what should have been sprinkled within was sprinkled outside,6 or if what should have been sprinkled outside was sprinkled within, the offering becomes invalid,10 but punishment by Extirpation is not incurred [by them that eat thereof], 2. If a man slaughtered the offering purposing to toss its blood or some of its blood outside [the Temple Court], or to burn its sacrificial portions or some of its sacrificial portions outside, or to eat its flesh or an olive’s bulk of its flesh outside, or an olive’s bulk of the skin of the fat tail11 outside, the offering becomes invalid, but punishment by Extirpation is not incurred [by them that eat thereof]. If he purposed to toss its blood or some of its blood on the morrow, or to bum its sacrificial portions or some of its sacrificial portions on the morrow, or to eat its flesh or an olive’s bulk of its flesh on the morrow, or an olive’s bulk of the skin of the fat tail on the 1 He only becomes clean at sunset; Lev. 22’. See p. 773, n. 6.
1 The inclined plane on the south by which the Altar was mounted.
» The red line which went round the Altar in the middle to distinguish the upper and lower parts of the side. See Midd. 3'.
* Referring to the great Altar which was in the Temple Court outside the Sanctuary, and to the Golden Altar inside the Sanctuary. See below, 5,f.
10 The sacrificial portions may not be burnt on the Altar and the flesh may not be con¬ sumed by the priests or owners.
" Which must be burnt ‘entire’ (Lev. 3*). Its skin (see Hull. 9*) was considered edible.
470 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM morrow, the offering becomes Refuse,' and punishment by Extirpation is incurred [by them that eat thereof).
3. This is the general rule: if any man slaughtered or received, conveyed or tossed the blood purposing to eat a thing that it is usual to eat or to burn a thing that it is usual to burn outside its proper place, the offering becomes invalid, but punishment by Extirpation is not incurred [by them that eat thereof]; but if [he purposed the like] outside its proper time, the offering becomes Refuse, and punishment by Extirpation is incurred [by them that eat thereof], provided that what renders [the offering] permis¬ sible2 is offered according to its prescribed rite.
4. How is ‘what renders [the offering] permissible’ offered according to its prescribed rite? If he had slaughtered in silence,3 but had received, conveyed, and tossed the blood [while purposing an act] outside its proper time; or if he had slaughtered [an offering, while purposing an act] outside its proper time, but had received, conveyed, and tossed the blood in silence; or if he had slaughtered and received, conveyed and tossed the blood [while purposing an act] outside the proper time, such is a case where ‘what renders [the offering] permissible’ is offered according to its pre¬ scribed rite.4 How is ‘what makes [the offering] permissible’ not offered according to its prescribed rite? If he had slaughtered [while purposing an act] outside its proper place, and had also received, conveyed, and tossed the blood [while purposing an act] outside its proper time, and had also re¬ ceived, conveyed, and tossed the blood [while purposing an act] outside its proper place, or if he had slaughtered and had also received, conveyed and tossed the blood [while purposing an act] outside its proper place, or if he had slaughtered a Passover-offering or a Sin-offering under another name, and had received, conveyed, and tossed the blood [while purposing an act] outside its proper time, or if he had slaughtered it [while purposing an act] outside its proper time and had also received, conveyed, and tossed the blood under some other name; or if he had slaughtered and also received, conveyed and tossed the blood under another name5 — such is a case where ‘what renders [the offering] permissible’ is not offered according to its prescribed rite.
5. [If a man slaughtered an offering, and received, conveyed, and tossed the blood while purposing] to eat an olive’s bulk outside, and an olive’s bulk on the morrow; or an olive’s bulk on the morrow and an olive’s bulk outside; or a half-olive’s bulk outside and a half-olive’s bulk on the morrow, or a half-olive’s bulk on the morrow and a half-olive’s bulk outside, the offering becomes invalid, but punishment by Extirpation is not incurred [by them that eat thereof]. R. Judah said: This is the general rule: if the intention about the time preceded the intention about the place, the offering becomes Refuse and punishment by Extirpation is incurred [by them that eat thereof]; but if the intention about the place preceded the intention about the time, the offering becomes invalid but punishment by Extirpation is not incurred [by them that eat thereof]. But the Sages say: 2 That permits the sacrificial portions (cf. Lev. 3*~n, 14'*) to be burnt on the Altar, and the flesh to be consumed by the priest or owner. What renders these ‘permissible’ is the proper sprinkling or tossing of the blood. See below, 4*; p. 576, n. 3.
3 i.e. without the invalidating purpose.