1 Permisaiveljr.
FIFTH DIVISION KODASHIM ftXJ If she bore offspring of double sex or of doubtful sex, Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel says: No sanctity befalls them.
3. If a man said, ‘The young of this [beast] shall be a Whole-offering and itself a Peace-offering’, his words hold good.1 If he said, ‘This shall be a Peace-offering and her young a Whole-offering’, it is accounted but the young of a Peace-offering.2 So R. Meir. R. Jose said: If from the first his intention was such, his words hold good, since3 it is not possible to assign them to two kinds of offering at the same time; but if after he said, ‘This shall be a Peace-offering’, he bethought himself and said, ‘Its young shall be a Whole-offering’, it is accounted but the young of a Peace-offering.
4. [If he said,] ‘Let this beast be [both] a Substitute for a Whole¬ offering [and] a Substitute for a Peace-offering’,4 it is accounted but the Substitute for a Whole-offering.5 So R. Meir. R. Jose said: If from the first his intention was such, his words hold good, since it is not possible to assign it to two kinds of offering at the same time; but if after he said, The Substitute for a Whole-offering’, he bethought himself and said, ‘The Substitute for a Peace-offering’, it is accounted but the Substitute for a Whole-offering.
5. [If he said,] ‘Let this be instead of this’, [or] ‘the Substitute for this’, [or] ‘in exchange for this’, it is a valid Substitute. [If he said,] ‘Let this become an unconsecrated beast by virtue of this’, it is not a valid Substitute. If the consecrated beast was blemished it becomes an unconsecrated beast, but its full value must be made good.6 6. [If he said,] ‘Let this be instead of a Sin-offering’, or ‘instead of a Whole-offering’, he has said nothing; [but if] ‘instead of this Sin-offering’ or ‘instead of this Whole-offering’, or ‘instead of the Sin-offering’ or ‘instead of the W’hole-offering which I have in my house’, and he had such, his words hold good. If he said of an unclean beast and of one that had a blemish, ‘Let these be a Whole-offering’, he has said nothing; [but if he said,] ‘Let these be for a Whole-offering’, they must be sold and a Whole¬ offering brought with their price.
6. 1. Beasts that may not be offered on the Altar render others forbidden [among which they are confused] no matter what their number; [namely]7 a beast that had committed or suffered an unnatural crime, or that had been set apart, or that had been worshipped, or that was the hire [of a harlot ] or the price [of a dog ], or that was cross-bred or that was terefah, or that was born from the side [of the mother-beast]. ‘Set apart’ means set apart for idolatry; the beast itself is forbidden, but what is upon it is allowed. ‘Worshipped’ means aught that has been worshipped [by the gentiles]. The beast itself and what is upon it are forbidden.8 Both9 alike are permitted for food.
2. What is accounted the hire [of a harlot ]? If a man said to a harlot, ‘Here is this lamb as thy hire’, even though he gave her a hundred, they are all forbidden. So, too, if a man said to his fellow, ‘Here is this lamb for ; Since the offspring’s dedication preceded that of the dam.
2 See above, 31. Since it was unborn at the time of the dedication, the dam’s dedication covered the offspring also. J Variant: although.
+ When he has a Whole-offering and a Peace-offering for which he wished to substitute a third beast. 5 What he says first alone holds good.
6 If it was replaced by a beast of less value the difference in value also falls to the Temple treasury. 7 See Zeb 81; QJ; 14*: Par. 2*. * As offerings.
7 What is ‘set apart' and what is ‘worshipped’.
thee so that thou suffer thy bondwoman to lodge with my bondman*. Rabbi1 says: This is not accounted a hire. But the Sages say: It is accounted a hire.
3. What is accounted the price of a dog? If a man said, ‘Take this lamb for this dog’; so, too, if two join tholders divided their goods, and one took ten [lambs] and the other took nine and one dog, those [lambs] that are set over against the dog are forbidden, but those that are together with the dog are permitted. The ‘hire of a dog’ and ‘the price of a harlot’ are permitted, for it is written, Even both these;2 but not four.3 Their young are permitted, for it is written, these-, [themselves are forbidden,] but not their young.
4. If a man gave money to her, this is permitted; but if [he gave to her] wine, oil, meal, or aught the like of which can be offered on the Altar, these are forbidden. If he gave to her [beasts already set apart as] animal- offerings4 these are permitted, but if Bird-offerings they are forbidden. It might have been inferred: if animal-offerings (which a blemish makes invalid) do not fall under the prohibition of the hire of a harlot and the price of a dog, how much more should Bird-offerings (which a blemish does not make invalid) not fall under the prohibition of the hire of a harlot and the price of a dog\ But Scripture says: For any vow; to take into account even Bird-offerings.
5. Of all the beasts which may not be offered on the Altar, their young are permitted. R. Eliezer says: The young of a beast that is terefah may not be offered on the Altar. But the Sages say: It may be offered. R. Hanina b. Antigonus says: A valid beast that has drawn suck from another that is terefah is unfit to be offered on the Altar. All animal-offerings that have been rendered terefah may not be redeemed, since animal-offerings may not be redeemed in order to give them as food to the dogs.
7. 1. Some conditions apply to what is consecrated for the Altar and do not apply to what is consecrated for the Temple treasury, and some con¬ ditions apply to what is consecrated for the Temple treasury and do not apply to what is consecrated for the Altar. For what is consecrated for the Altar a Substitute may be brought and by reason of them punishment can be incurred through [transgression of the laws of] Refuse, Remnant, and uncleanness;5 their young and their milk are forbidden after they have been redeemed, and if a man slaughtered them outside [the Temple Court] he is culpable; and they may not pay the [Temple] craftsmen their wages there¬ with. But it is not so with what is consecrated for the Temple treasury.6 2. Some conditions apply to what is consecrated for the Temple treasury and do not apply to what is consecrated for the Altar. Things consecrated without further assignment fall to the Temple treasury; all things may be consecrated to the Temple treasury; the law of Sacrilege7 does not apply to what is produced from them,8 and the priests have not the use of them.
3. It is all one whether they are consecrated for the Altar or for the 3 Namely the hire of a dog, and the hire of a harlot, and the price of a dog, and the price of a harlot.
4 Only the like of Passover-offerings are here meant: if, e.g., as her hire he included her among those who should share in the eating of his Passover-lamb. ‘For any vow’ (Deut. 2318) is interpreted as covering only such beasts as are offered on the Altar.
7 Lev. 515; p. 573, n. 2. 8 Such as milk, wool, or eggs.
562 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM Temple treasury: none may make any change in their consecration;1 one may vow their estimated value2 to the Temple, or devote them [to the Temple]; and if they die they must be buried. R. Simeon says: If what is consecrated for the Temple treasury dies, it may be redeemed.
4. These must be buried: miscarriages of animal-offerings must be buried; if they cast an afterbirth it must be buried; the ox that is con¬ demned to be stoned,3 the heifer whose neck is to be broken,4 [one of] the Bird-offerings of the leper,5 the hair of the Nazirite,6 the Firstling of an ass,7 flesh seethed in milk,8 and unconsecrated beasts slaughtered in the Temple Court. R. Simeon says: Unconsecrated beasts slaughtered in the Temple Court must be burnt; so, too, a wild animal that was slaughtered in the Temple Court.
5. These must be burnt: whatsoever is leavened at Passover9 must be burnt; and unclean Heave-offering, Or/a/1-fruit,10 and Diverse Kinds of the Vineyard.11 What it is the custom to bum must be burnt, and what it is the custom to bury must be buried. Bread and Heave-offering oil may be used for kindling.12 6. Animal-offerings that are slaughtered [with intent to perform an act] outside its proper time or place must be burnt. A Suspensive Guilt- offering13 must be burnt.14 R. Judah says: It must be buried. The Sin- offering of a bird that was brought in a case of doubt1 s must be burnt. R. Judah says: It should be cast into the [Temple-]gutter. What it is the custom to burn should not be buried, and what it is the custom to bury should not be burnt. R. Judah says: If a man was minded to apply to him¬ self the greater stringency of burning what it is the custom to bury, he may do so. They answered: He is not permitted to change the custom.
1. 1. For thirty-six transgressions is Extirpation prescribed in the Law: if a man has connexion with his mother, his father’s wife, his daughter-in-law; or with a male or with a beast; if a woman has connexion with a beast; or if a man has connexion with a woman and her daughter, with a married woman, with his sister, his father’s sister, his mother’s sister, his wife’s sister, his brother’s wife, or his father’s brother’s wife, or with a menstruous woman;17 if a man blasphemes,18 commits idolatry,19 offers of his seed to 1 If dedicated to the Temple treasury they may not then be dedicated as an offering for the Altar, and what is dedicated as a Whole-offering may not then be dedicated as a Sin- offering. 1 Cf. Arak. 8* (end). 3 Ex. 21**.
* Deut. 214. s Lev. 14*. One of them is set free.
* If he has not completed his vow in cleanness. See Num. 6’.
7 Which is not redeemed with a lamb but has its neck broken. Ex. 34“.
16 The tractate deals with those offences which are punishable by ‘Extirpation’, Heb. kareth, pi. kmthoth, ‘cutting off' (cf. the recurrent formula, ‘that soul shall be cut off from among his people’). This punishment is incurred in the cases cited in the first paragraph if the transgression 'is committed deliberately (‘with a high hand’, Num. 15“, and without warning from witnesses; if witnesses warned the culprit yet he committed the transgression, he is punishable in some cases by stoning, in others by burning, in others by strangling, and in others by the Forty Stripes; cf. Makk. 31S). If the transgression is committed in error the transgressor must bring a Sin-offering (Lev. 4*’®.) if he comes to a knowledge of his transgression; but if it is in doubt whether he has committed the transgression he must bring a ‘conditional’ or ‘suspensive’ Guilt-offering (Lev. sI?ff).
»7 For these transgressions see Lev. 18*® (cf. Lev. i8H).
18 Num. 15**; cf. Sanh. 7*. ** Cf. Sanh. 7*.
Molech,1 has a familiar spirit,4 or profanes the Sabbath,3 or eats what is consecrated while unclean4 or enters the Temple while unclean,5 or eats the fat,6 or the blood,7 or Remnant8 or Refuse,9 or slaughters10 or offers up1 1 [an offering] outside [the Temple Court]; or eats leavened bread during Passover, 12 or eats13 or does any work14 on the Day of Atonement, or com¬ pounds anointing oil15 or compounds incense16 [the like of what is com¬ pounded in the Temple], or anoints himself with the oil of unction;17 or, from among positive commands,18 [if he transgresses the laws of] the Passover19 and circumcision.20 2. If in these things21 he transgressed wantonly he is liable to Extirpation, and if in error to a Sin-offering; and if it was in doubt whether he had committed a transgression he is liable to a Suspensive Guilt-offering; howbeit, he that conveys uncleanness to the Temple or to its Hallowed Things is liable to a Rising and Falling [Sin-offering].22 So R. Meir. And the Sages say: The blasphemer also,23 for it is written, Ye shall have one law for him that doeth aught unwittingly;24 thereby the blasphemer, who has done no deed, is excluded.
3. Some25 women [after childbirth] bring an offering which is consumed [by the priests]; some bring one which is not consumed; and some bring no offering. These are they that bring an offering which is consumed: a woman that bears an abortion that is like to a beast or to a wild animal or to a bird (so R. Meir; but the Sages say: Only if it has somewhat of the human form), or an abortion like to a sandal, or an afterbirth or a fullv-fashioned foetus, or young that needed to be cut up [during deliver)’].26 So, too, if a bondwoman gives birth she brings an offering which is consumed.
4. These bring an offering which is not consumed:27 a woman that bears something but it is not known what she bore; so, too, if of two women28 the one bore what did not render her liable to an offering and the other what rendered her liable. R. Jose said: This applies only if they went the one to the east and the other to the west; but if they remained together they must [together] bring an offering which is consumed.
5. These are they that bring no offering: a woman that bears an abortion that is a foetus filled with water or filled with blood or variegated matter; or an abortion the like of fishes, locusts, insects, or creeping things; or that miscarries by the fortieth day or is delivered from the side.29 R. Simeon declares her liable [to an offering] that is delivered from the side.
* Lev. 20'; cf. San. 7*. 2 Lev. 20*; cf. San. 7’-.
lS The foregoing all transgress negative commands, ‘Thou shalt not...’
21 Trangressions of the negative commands, i.e. sins of commission. No Sin-offering is required for sins of omission (cf. Shebu. t4).
23 He is exempt from bringing a Sin-offering for unwitting transgression; and if he is exempt from a Sin-offering for a transgression that was known to him he is also exempt from a Suspensive Guilt-offering for a transgression unknown to him.
24 Num. 15”, with emphasis on the ‘doeth’. The quoted passage deals with those who must bring a Sin-offering (Num. is*7).
*s The following rules arise out of Lev. i24, the Sin-offering of a bird which, together with another bird as a Whole-offering, a woman must bring after childbirth at the end of her days of purifying. 26 Cf. Bekh. 8l.
27 But burnt; cf. Tern. 7*. It is in doubt whether it can be deemed a birth.
2* Whose abortions were confused together. 29 See p. 479, n. 3.
564 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM 6. If she miscarried in the night of the eighty-first day,1 the School of Shammai declare her exempt from an offering,2 but the School of Hillel declare her liable. The School of Hillel said to the School of Shammai: How does the night of3 the eighty-first day differ from the eighty-first day? — if they are alike in what concerns uncleanness4 are they not also alike in what concerns the offering? The School of Shammai answered: No! as thou arguest of her that miscarries on the eighty-first day (who was thus delivered at a time when it was fitting to bring an offering), wouldest thou likewise argue of her that miscarries on the night of the eighty-first day (who was thus delivered not at a time when it was fitting to bring an offering)? The School of Hillel answered: She that miscarries on an eighty-first day that falls on a Sabbath affords proof; for she was delivered not at a time when :t was fitting to bring an offering, yet she is liable to bring an offering. The School of Shammai answered: No! as thou arguest of her that mis¬ carries on an eighty-first day that falls on a Sabbath (when even if it is not fitting to bring the offering of the individual it is nevertheless fitting to bring the offering of the congregation) wouldest thou likewise argue of her that miscarries on the night of the eighty-first day (when it is not fitting to bring the offering either of the individual or of the congregation)? Her? blood [-uncleanness] affords no proof, for if she miscarried before her days of uncleanness were fulfilled her blood is still unclean and she is not liable to bring an offering. i 7. If a woman suffered five issues that were in doubt5 or five miscarriages that were in doubt, she need bring but one offering, and she may then eat of the animal-offerings; and she is not bound to bring the ether offerings. If she had suffered five miscarriages that were not in doubt6 or five issues that were not in doubt, she need bring but one offering and she may then eat of the animal-offerings; and she is bound to bring the other offerings. Once in Jerusalem a pair of doves cost a golden denar.7 Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel said: By this Temple! I will not suffer the night to pass by before they cost but a [silver] denar. He went into the court and taught: If a woman suffered five miscarriages that were not in doubt or five issues that I were not in doubt, she need bring but one offering, and she may then eat of j the animal-offerings; and she is not bound to offer the other offerings.81 And the same day the price of a pair of doves stood at a quarter -denar each.
2. 1. There are four whose atonement is yet incomplete,5 and there are four which must bring an offering alike whether they transgressed wantonly or in error. These are they whose atonement is yet incomplete: 10 a man and a woman that have suffered a flux,11 a woman after childbirth,12 and a leper.' 3 R. Eliezer b. Jacob savs: A proselyte’s atonement14 is yet incomplete until 1 i.e. the night following the eightieth day when (see Lev. J2‘) after a previous birth of a female she ceases to 'continue in the blood of her purifying'.
- i.e. a second and separate offering for this birth, i.e. the night preceding. Cf. p. 136, n. n.
4 If she suffered a flow she would be unclean to her husband whether it was in the night or day of the eighty-first day.
5 Whether they had befallen in the seven days of her menstrual separation or in the eleven days during which they must be reckoned fluxes (Lev. 15”).
4 See above, 1*. 7 Twenty-five silver denars. * For the four other cases.
10 Who, though their period of uncleanness has expired, are still forbidden to eat of Hallowed Things or to enter the Temple until they bring the Sin-offering prescribed for them. 11 Lev. t<j,B> lsfl. Lev. i2,n. >J Lev. I3,B.
14 Who must be circumcised, undergo immersion, and bring an offering.
the blood [of his offering] has been tossed for him [against the base of the Altar]. And likewise a Nazirite1 must abstain from wine, from cutting off his hair, and from contracting uncleanness [until he has brought his offer- ings].
2. These must bring an offering alike whether they transgressed wantonly or in error: he that has connexion with a bondwoman,2 a Nazirite that has suffered uncleanness, he that utters a [false] oath of testimony,3 and he that utters a [false] deposit-oath.4 3. There are five which need bring but one offering for many trans¬ gressions, and five which must bring a Rising and Falling Sin-offering.5 These need bring but one offering for many transgressions: he that has connexion with a bondwoman many times, a Nazirite that suffers unclean¬ ness many times, he that suspects his wife0 of adultery with many men, and the leper who is marked by many [successive] leprosy-signs. If he brought his Bird-offerings7 and was again marked by more leprosy-signs, they do not count to his credit unless he had brought his Sin-offering.8 R. Judah says: Unless he had brought his Guilt-offering.9 4. If a woman had many miscarriages (if, namely, she bore a female within the eighty days10 and bore yet another female within the [next] eighty days, or if she bore many at intervals) R. Judah says: She brings an offering for the first but not for the second; and for the third but not for the fourth. These five bring a Rising and Falling Sin-offering: [that are culp¬ able] by reason of a [false] oath of testimony" or by reason of a rash oath,12 or by reason of uncleanness that befalls the Temple or its Hallowed Things,13 a woman after childbirth, and a leper. Wherein does [connexion with] a bondwoman differ from other forbidden connexions? They are unlike in both the punishment and the [prescribed] offering, in that for other for¬ bidden connexions a Sin-offering is prescribed, but for connexion with a bondwoman a Guilt-offering;14 for other forbidden connexions the man and the woman are alike liable to the Forty Stripes or to the offering [that is prescribed], but for connexion with a bondwoman the man is not like the woman liable to the Forty Stripes, and the woman is not like the man liable to the offering; in other forbidden connexions he that begins the act is as culpable as he that completes it, and he is liable for each connexion; and herein greater stringency applies in the case of a bondwoman in that he that transgresses wantonly or in error is alike liable [to a Guilt-offering].
5. What manner of bondwoman [is here spoken of in the Law]? She that is half bondwoman and half freedwoman, for it is written, And she has not yet been altogether redeemed. 1 s So R. Akiba. R. Ishmael says: She that is wholly a bondwoman. R. Eleazar b. Azariah says: All other forbidden connexions are expressly set forth16 and none is left save only connexion with her that is half bondwoman and half freedwoman.
6. In all forbidden connexions if the one was of full age and the other a minor, the minor is not culpable; if the one was awake and the other asleep the one that was asleep is not culpable; if the one acted in error and * Num. 6*’ *. 2 Who is betrothed to another man. Lev. 19**'.
24 Some texts add: ‘for other forbidden connexions (the offering of) a female beast is prescribed, but for connexion with a bondwoman a male beast'.
J* Lev. 19’*. 16 Ail were concerned with women wholly free.
566 FIFTH DIVISION: KODASHIM the other wantonly the one that acted in error is liable to a Sin-offering and the one that acted wantonly is liable to punishment by Extirpation.
3. i. If they said to a man, ‘Thou hast eaten fat’,1 he must bring a Sin- offering.2 If one witness said, ‘He has eaten’, and another said, ‘He has not eaten’, or if one woman said, ‘He has eaten’, and another woman said, ‘He has not eaten’, he must bring a Suspensive Guilt-offering.3 If one witness said, ‘He has eaten’, and he said, ‘I have not eaten’, he is not culpable. If two said, ‘He has eaten’, but he said, ‘I have not eaten’, R. Meir declares him culpable. R. Meir said: If two witnesses suffice to bring upon him the graver penalty of death4 should they not suffice to bring upon him the lighter penalty of an offering? They answered: But how if he would say, ‘I acted wantonly’?5 2. If a man ate fat and again ate fat during one spell of forgetfulness,6 he is liable only to one Sin-offering; but if he ate fat and blood and Remnant and Refuse during one spell of forgetfulness, he is liable on each count. Herein greater stringency applies to many kinds than to one kind; but greater stringency may apply to one kind than to many kinds; for if he ate a half-olive’s bulk and then again ate a half-olive’s bulk of the same kind, he is culpable; but had they been two kinds he would not have been culpable.
3. Within what time must he eat them? [The time that he would need] if he ate a like bulk of parched grains of com. So R. Meir. But the Sages say: [He is not culpable] unless from beginning to end he ate them in the time that it takes to eat a half-loaf.7 If a man ate unclean foods or drank unclean liquids, or if he drank a quarter-fog of wine and entered the Temple, [the measure of time that renders him culpable is] if he stayed time enough to eat a half-loaf. R. Eleazar says: If he interrupted [the act of drinking] or put in any water at all, he is not culpable.
4. By but one act of eating a man may become liable to four Sin-offerings and one Guilt-offering; [namely,] if a man was unclean and he ate fat and it was Remnant from animal-offerings, and [he ate it] on the Day of Atone¬ ment. R. Meir says: If it was the Sabbath and he carried it forth in his mouth he is liable [to yet another Sin-offering]. But they said to him: This does not fall within the same class of transgression.8 5. By but one act of connexion a man may become liable to six Sin- offerings; [namely,] if he had connexion with his daughter9 he may thereby become culpable by virtue of [the laws forbidding connexion with] his daughter, his sister, his brother’s wife, his father’s brother’s wife, a married woman, and a menstruant. If10 he had connexion with his daughter’s daughter," he may thereby become culpable by virtue of [the laws forbidding: connexion with] his daughter’s daughter, his daughter-in-law, his wife’s sister, his brother’s wife, his father’s brother’s wife, a married woman, and a!
* In spite of what he may say contradicting their evidence.
5 He would then be exempt from a Sin-offering and witnesses could not contradict him.
4 Cf. Shab.?. 9 Cf. Erub. 8'; Neg. 13’. * Cf. Makk. 3”. | 9 Who was his sister through incestuous connexion with his mother, and married first to his brother and then to his uncle.
10 Some texts omit this sentence.
II e.g. Jacob had connexion with his grand-daughter Rachel, who was the daughter of his daughter Dinah — Jacob being married to Leah the daughter of Laban, and Laban being1 married to Dinah the daughter of Jacob, by whom he begot Rachel; Rachel married Reuben son of Jacob; Reuben then died or divorced her, and Rachel married Jacob’s brother Isaac; Isaac died or divorced her, and Rachel married Jacob’s uncle.
menstruant. R. Jose says: If the grandfather1 had committed transgression2 and married her, he3 may thereby become culpable by virtue of [the law of] the father’s wife. So, too, if a man had connexion with his wife’s daughter,4 or his wife’s daughter’s daughter.5 6. If a man had connexion with his mother-in-law6 he may thereby become culpable by virtue of [the laws forbidding connexion with] his mother-in-law, his daughter-in-law, his wife’s sister, his brother’s wife, his father’s brother’s wife, a married woman, and a menstruant. So, too, if a man had connexion with his mother-in-law’s mother and his father-in-law’s mother. R. Johanan b. Nuri says: If a man had connexion with his mother-in-law he may thereby become culpable by virtue of [the laws forbidding connexion with] his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother, and his father-in-law’s mother. They said to him: To all three applies a single prohibition.7