Bava Kamma

בבא קמא

the payment of the extra part of the double payment, i.e., the amount that exceeds the principal.

§ The mishna teaches: If one stole an animal and subsequently he consecrated it as an offering, and afterward he slaughtered or sold it, the thief pays the double payment but he does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. The Sages say: Granted, he is not liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment for the slaughter of the animal, as when he slaughtered it, he slaughtered an animal belonging to the Temple treasury, and he did not slaughter the animal belonging to its owner.

״גָּנַב וְהִקְדִּישׁ וְאַחַר כָּךְ טָבַח וּמָכַר״ כו׳. אָמְרִי: בִּשְׁלָמָא אַטְּבִיחָה לָא מִחַיַּיב, דְּכִי קָא טָבַח – דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ קָא טָבַח וְלָא דְּמָרֵיהּ קָא טָבַח.

ואף שאין ההקדש מכירה (שהרי אין המקדיש מקבל תמורה על כך) מכל מקום הרי הגנב חייב ארבעה וחמישה משום מוכר גם אם נתן את הבהמה במתנה, ומה לי נתינה להדיוט מה לי נתינה להקדש (מאירי).

אהקדש ליחייב

עיונים

But let him be liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment for having consecrated the animal in the first place, as what difference is it to me if he sold the animal to an ordinary person, and what difference is it to me if he sold it to Heaven by consecrating it? Consecration should be considered tantamount to a sale, as in either case ownership of the animal is transferred to another party.

אֶלָּא אַהֶקְדֵּשׁ לִיחַיַּיב, מַה לִּי מְכָרוֹ לְהֶדְיוֹט מַה לִּי מְכָרוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם!

When a thief consecrates a stolen animal, the act of consecration is not considered a proper sale. Nevertheless, the animal is considered to have been removed from the owner’s jurisdiction to a certain extent, and if the thief subsequently slaughters the animal, he is not liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment (Rashi). The same reasoning applies to the other answers given by the Gemara in the ensuing discussion.

To be in the possession of their owner

בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ דְּמָרֵיהּ קַיְימִי

שהרי לדעת ר׳ שמעון קדשים שחייב באחריותם, משום שהוא דבר הגורם לממון, שכל זמן שלא נגנב או נאבד אינו צריך להביא אחר — הרי הם כממונו לעניינים שונים (כגון שהגונבם משלם לבעלים כפל, ועוד). ולפיכך במקרה שלנו, כאשר הגנב הקדיש את הבהמה לנדר שחייב באחריותו — לא יצאה הבהמה לגמרי מרשותו, ולכן אין הקדש כזה נחשב כמכירה של הבהמה לאדם אחר, שמוציאה ממנו כל אחריות לחפץ. והוסיף רש״י שאף ר׳ שמעון מודה שאינו חייב על טביחתה של בהמה זו שחייב באחריותה, כי הרי חל עליה שם הקדש, (ואם שחטה במקדש — קרבן כשר הוא לכל ענין), ואין זו טביחה של בהמת הדיוט.

ברשותיה דמריה קיימי

The Gemara answers: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna taught? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that sacrificial animals for which the owner bears financial responsibility to replace with another animal if one of the original animals is lost or dies are considered to be in the possession of their owner <note data-assoc="n"/>(see 74b). The mishna is referring a case where the thief consecrated the animal in such a manner that he is obligated to replace it if it is lost or damaged before being sacrificed. One consequence of this potential financial loss is that the animal is considered to be in the thief’s possession even after he consecrated it. Therefore, the animal’s consecration is not tantamount to a sale to another party.

הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן בִּרְשׁוּתֵיהּ דְּמָרֵיהּ קַיְימִי.

The Gemara rejects this answer: But from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, it follows that the first clause of the mishna, which is stated before his opinion is introduced, is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

הָא מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָוֵי רֵישָׁא לָאו רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן!

The offerings sacrificed in the Temple are divided into two main categories: Offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity. Offerings of the most sacred order include offerings sacrificed on Yom Kippur, communal sin-offerings, burnt-offerings, and sin-offerings. The offerings of lesser sanctity include peace-offerings, animal tithes, and the Paschal offering. One of the primary differences between the two types of offerings is that offerings of the most sacred order are slaughtered only in the north of the Temple courtyard, whereas offerings of lesser sanctity may be slaughtered anywhere in the courtyard.

An offering of lesser sanctity

קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים

ולכן הגנב המקדיש בהמה כקדשים קלים — לא הוציאה על ידי הקדש זה לגמרי מבעלותו. אבל לענין טביחה של קדשים קלים הריהי מכל מקום דבר מוקדש, ואין בה דין טביחה כבהדיוט (רש״י).

קדשים קלים ממון בעלים

Rather, with what are we dealing here in the mishna? We are dealing with a case where the thief consecrated the animal as an offering of lesser sanctity, <note data-assoc="b"/>and the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that an offering of lesser sanctity is the property of its putative owner, and is considered in his possession. Therefore, its consecration is not tantamount to a sale to another party.

אֶלָּא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּאָמַר: קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים מָמוֹן בְּעָלִים הוּא, וּבִרְשׁוּתֵיהּ קַיְימִי.

שמשמע מזה שאם קדם והקדיש — שוב אין חיוב מכירה וטביחה חל עליו בכל מקרה (רש״י).

אדתני רישא וכו׳

The Gemara rejects this answer as well: But what would be the halakha had the thief consecrated the animal as an offering of the most sacred order? Would he have to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment? If so, rather than teaching the following in the earlier clause of the mishna (70a), in the case that stands in opposition to this one: If he stole an animal and slaughtered it and afterward he consecrated it, he must pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, let the tanna distinguish and teach the opposing halakha within the same category itself.

אֲבָל קָדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים מַאי? מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה? אַדְּתָנֵי רֵישָׁא: גָּנַב וְטָבַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקְדִּישׁ – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, לִיפְלוֹג וְלִיתְנֵי בְּדִידָהּ.

The Gemara elaborates: The tanna could have taught: In what case is this statement, that the thief is exempt if he consecrated the stolen animal and then slaughtered or sold it, said? It is said only if he consecrated the animal as an offering of lesser sanctity; but if he consecrated it as an offering of the most sacred order he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment, as the consecration itself would be tantamount to a sale to another party.

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, אֲבָל בְּקָדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים – מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה!

The commentaries note that this concept, that a sacrificial animal is still referred to as belonging to the one who consecrated it, applies only to animals consecrated for offerings. If one consecrates the value of an item or animal to the Temple treasury, or consecrates an item or sum of money for any purpose other than sacrifice, it is considered to have completely left his jurisdiction at that point (Tosafot). Therefore, if a thief consecrates a stolen animal in the latter manner he is obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment as if he had sold it.

At the outset it was Reuven’s ox and now it is still Reuven’s ox

מֵעִיקָּרָא תּוֹרָא דִּרְאוּבֵן וְהָשְׁתָּא תּוֹרָא דִּרְאוּבֵן

If one stole an ox or sheep and consecrated it to the Temple treasury, he must pay the fourfold or fivefold payment, as this is equivalent to selling it to an ordinary person (Rambam Sefer Nezikin, Hilkhot Geneiva 2:6 and Ra’avad there).

What difference is it to me if he sold the animal to an ordinary person, etc.

מַה לִּי מְכָרוֹ לְהֶדְיוֹט וכו׳

The early commentaries ask: The statement of the Gemara here apparently contradicts the earlier claim (76a) that if a thief consecrates a stolen animal, this is not considered a sale, and the thief is not liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. The reason for that ruling is stated by the Gemara there: At the outset it was Reuven’s ox and now, after consecration, it is still Reuven’s ox. Some answer that previously the Gemara was discussing the consecration of an animal as an offering, in which case it is appropriate to say that the ox still belongs to Reuven, because it is sacrificed upon the altar for his sake and in his name. Here, the Gemara is referring to consecration of an animal for the purpose of using its value for Temple maintenance. Consequently, Reuven no longer has any connection to his ox after its consecration (Tosafot; Ra’avad). Others state that the two statements in the Gemara are in fact contradictory, and the ruling of this baraita is rejected (Ramah; Meiri).

מַה לִּי מְכָרוֹ לְהֶדְיוֹט

ואם כן, למרות ההקדש — נשאר בצד מסויים ברשות בעליו (רש״י). והעירו בתוס׳ כי אף על פי כן לאחר יאוש ייחשב ההקדש כשינוי רשות. ועוד העירו בתוס׳ כי דבר זה אמור בקדשי מזבח, שקרבנו הוא, אבל המקדיש לבדק הבית, שוב אין שם בעליו עליו, והריהו שינוי רשות גמור. ובהמשך לכך שאל הרשב״א: אם כן מדוע לא יחלק בדבר זה, ויאמר: במה דברים אמורים — בקדשי מזבח, אבל בקדשי בדק הבית חייב! ותירץ כי סתם הקדש בהמה הוא לשם קרבן ולא לבדק הבית. ועוד, שחלוקה זו בענין קדשי בדק הבית נראית לתנא רחוקה יותר מאשר החילוק שהוא עושה במשנה בין אם טבח ואחר כך הקדיש לבין הקדיש ואחר כך טבח (ואין כאן איפוא ״ליפלוג בדידה״). ואילו הרי״ד סבור שאף בקדשי בדק הבית שם בעליו עליו, שהרי רק הבעלים כשפודים את ההקדש צריכים להוסיף חומש, משמע שלא הופקעה מהם הבעלות לגמרי.

והשתא תורא דראובן

Rather, the Gemara states that actually there is no difference whether the thief consecrates the animal as an offering of the most sacred order and there is no difference whether he consecrates it as an offering of lesser sanctity. And as for the matter that presented a difficulty for you, namely: What difference is it to me if he sold the animal to an ordinary person and what difference is it to me if he sold it to Heaven by consecration, one can answer as follows: If someone, e.g., Reuven, sold an ox to an ordinary person, e.g., Shimon, at the outset it was Reuven’s ox and now, after the sale, it is Shimon’s ox. By contrast, if he sold it to Heaven, i.e., he consecrated it as an offering, it is not considered to have been transferred into the possession of another party, as at the outset it was Reuven’s ox and now, after consecration, it is still Reuven’s ox. <note data-assoc="n"/>

אֶלָּא, לְעוֹלָם לָא שְׁנָא קָדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים וְלָא שְׁנָא קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים. וּדְקַשְׁיָא לָךְ: מַה לִּי מְכָרוֹ לְהֶדְיוֹט מַה לִּי מְכָרוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם! מְכָרוֹ לְהֶדְיוֹט – מֵעִיקָּרָא תּוֹרָא דִּרְאוּבֵן וְהָשְׁתָּא תּוֹרָא דְּשִׁמְעוֹן, מְכָרוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם – מֵעִיקָּרָא תּוֹרָא דִּרְאוּבֵן וְהָשְׁתָּא תּוֹרָא דִּרְאוּבֵן.

קושי זה בגמרא הוא מתוך הנחה שדברי ר׳ שמעון מתייחסים לדברי סתם המשנה, העוסקת במי שגונב ומקדיש, ולכן תהה על כך. אבל לפי המסקנה מודה ר׳ שמעון בזה, ולא חלק אלא לגבי הגונב הקדש מבית המקדיש.

נהי דסבר ר׳ שמעון

§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Shimon says: In the case of sacrificial animals for which the owner bears financial responsibility to replace with another animal if one of the original animals that one stole is lost or dies, the thief is obligated to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment if he slaughters one of the animals. If it is a sacrificial animal for which the owner bears no financial responsibility, the thief is exempt from the fourfold or fivefold payment. At this stage the Gemara assumes that Rabbi Shimon requires the fourfold or fivefold payment as a fine for the act of consecration itself rather than for the act of slaughtering the animal. The Gemara says: Although Rabbi Shimon holds that there is a logic of: What difference is it to me if he sold the animal to an ordinary person and what difference is it to me if he sold it to Heaven via consecration, nevertheless, he should have said the opposite.

״רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר״ וכו׳. אָמְרִי: נְהִי דְּסָבַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: מַה לִּי מְכָרוֹ לְהֶדְיוֹט מַה לִּי מְכָרוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם, אִיפְּכָא מִיבָּעֵי לֵיהּ.

The Gemara elaborates: He should have said that if they are sacrificial animals for which one bears financial responsibility, the thief is exempt from paying the fourfold or fivefold payment. In other words, if the thief stole a non-sacred animal and subsequently consecrated it as an offering in such a manner that he bears responsibility to replace it, he should be exempt from the fourfold or fivefold payment for the act of consecration. The reason is that the animal has not yet left his possession, and therefore this act of consecration should not be considered a sale.

קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן – פָּטוּר, דְּאַכַּתִּי לָא נְפַק מֵרְשׁוּתֵיהּ,

By contrast, if they are sacrificial animals for which one does not bear financial responsibility, the thief should be liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. If the thief stole a non-sacred animal and then consecrated it as an offering in such a way that he does not bear responsibility to replace it, he should be liable to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment for the act of consecration, as he has thereby removed the animal from his possession.

קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן – חַיָּיב, דְּמַפְּקִי לֵיהּ מֵרְשׁוּתֵיהּ!

The Sages say in response: Rabbi Shimon is not discussing the issue of whether the consecration of an animal is tantamount to its sale. Rather, he is referring to a different matter, one that is not explicitly mentioned in the mishna.

אָמְרִי: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אַמִּילְּתָא אַחֲרִיתִי קָאֵי,

One who steals consecrated property pays only the principal value of the stolen item. This is also the halakha in the case of one who steals a sacrificial animal from its owner’s house, regardless of whether the animal was designated as an offering of lesser sanctity or an offering of the most sacred order, and regardless of whether it was an animal concerning which the owner bears responsibility to replace it if lost. In all these cases the thief is exempt from the double payment and from the fourfold or fivefold payment. This halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who distinguishes between animals for which the owner bears responsibility and those for which he does not (Rambam Sefer Nezikin, Hilkhot Geneiva 2:1).

One who steals consecrated property from the house of its owner

גּוֹנֵב הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִבֵּית בְּעָלִים

הגונב נכסי הקדש אינו משלם אלא את הקרן בלבד. וכן הגונב קדשים מבית בעליהם, בין קדשי קדשים ובין קדשים קלים, בין קדשים שהבעלים חייבים באחריותם ובין שאין הבעלים חייבים באחריותם — הרי זה פטור מתשלומי כפל ותשלומי ארבעה וחמישה. שלא כר׳ שמעון. (רמב״ם ספר נזיקין הלכות גניבה פ״ב ה״א).

גונב הקדש מבית בעלים

אורח ההלכה

And this is what the mishna is teaching: One who steals an animal after a thief has already stolen it, i.e., he steals it from the thief, does not pay the double payment, and if he slaughtered or sold the animal he does not pay the fourfold or fivefold payment. And similarly, one who steals consecrated property from the house of its owner <note data-assoc="h"/>is exempt from the double payment, and if it was a sacrificial animal and the thief slaughtered or sold it, he is exempt from the fourfold or fivefold payment.

וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: אֵין הַגּוֹנֵב אַחַר הַגַּנָּב מְשַׁלֵּם תַּשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, וְכֵן גּוֹנֵב הֶקְדֵּשׁ מִבֵּית בְּעָלִים – פָּטוּר,

What is the reason for this last ruling? The reason is as it is written: “If a man gives his neighbor money or vessels to safeguard and it was stolen from the house of the man, if the thief shall be found he shall pay double” (Exodus 22:6). The phrase “from the house of the man” indicates that a thief is obligated to pay the double payment only when they are stolen from a person, but not if the item in question was stolen out of the house of the Temple treasury.

מַאי טַעֲמָא? ״וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ״ – וְלֹא מִבֵּית הֶקְדֵּשׁ;

Rabbi Shimon says: If the stolen items were sacrificial animals for which the owner bears financial responsibility, the thief who steals them is liable to pay the double payment, as well as the fourfold or fivefold payment if he slaughters or sells them. What is the reason for this? Since the owner must replace the animals, one applies to this case the phrase “and it was stolen from the house of the man.” But if the stolen animals are those for which the owner does not bear financial responsibility, the thief is exempt from the double payment and from the fourfold and fivefold payment, as one does not apply to this case the phrase “and it was stolen from the house of the man.”

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: קֳדָשִׁים שֶׁחַיָּיב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן – חַיָּיב, מַאי טַעֲמָא? קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ״. וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן – פָּטוּר, דְּלָא קָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ״.

שהרי הוא שוחט בהמת קדשים בחוץ, וקדשים שנשחטו בחוץ — אסורים בהנאה, ואם כן שחיטה שאינה ראויה היא. והעירו הראשונים שאף ר׳ שמעון מודה שעל עצם שחיטת הקדשים בחוץ מתחייב השוחט אותם (למרות שהיא שחיטה שאינה ראויה) משום שעצם האיסור הוא באופן שחיטה זה. אבל לעניינים אחרים (כגון לטביחה על ידי גנב) לא תיחשב זאת כשחיטה כלל.

שחיטה שאינה ראויה

Now, we have heard elsewhere concerning Rabbi Shimon that he said: An act of slaughter that is not fit for accomplishing its full ritual purpose is not considered an act of slaughter at all. And if the thief slaughtered the sacrificial animal he stole, this is also an act of slaughter that is not fit for accomplishing its full ritual purpose, as it does not render the animal’s meat fit for consumption, in light of the halakha that it is prohibited to eat a sacrificial animal slaughtered outside the Temple.

מִכְּדִי שָׁמְעִינַן לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה לֹא שְׁמָהּ שְׁחִיטָה, קֳדָשִׁים נַמִי שְׁחִיטָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ רְאוּיָה הִיא!

When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is referring to a case where the thief slaughters the animal, unblemished, inside the Temple, <note data-assoc="b"/>for the sake of its owner. In this case, its meat may be eaten.

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּשׁוֹחֵט תְּמִימִים מִבִּפְנִים לְשֵׁם בְּעָלִים.

הואיל ושחט את הקרבן לשם בעליו הראשונים, נמצא שיצאו ידי חובתם בקרבן זה, וחזרה איפוא קרן לבעלים, שנמצא שלא גזל מהם דבר.

חזרה קרן לבעלים

כי אם נשפך הדם לפני שזרקו מקצתו על הזבח — נפסד כל הקרבן, שאין הבעלים מתכפרים אלא בזריקת דם הקרבן. אבל השחיטה היתה מצד עצמה שחיטה ראויה.

שנשפך הדם

The Gemara asks: But by slaughtering and sacrificing the sacrificial animal on behalf of the owner, it is as though the principal, i.e., the animal itself, has been returned to the owner, and the fourfold or fivefold payment should no longer apply. The owner had designated the animal as his offering, and it was in fact used for that purpose. Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Avin said in response: This is referring to a situation where the animal’s blood was spilled before it could be sprinkled on the altar. Consequently, the owner did not achieve atonement through this offering, which is why it is not considered as though the animal has been returned to the owner.

וַהֲרֵי חָזְרָה קֶרֶן לַבְּעָלִים! אֲמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק בַּר אָבִין: שֶׁנִּשְׁפַּךְ הַדָּם.

A blemished animal cannot be used as an offering and therefore its consecration as an offering is invalid. Consequently, if one slaughtered a blemished animal outside the Temple it may be eaten without being redeemed, as its consecration as an offering did not take effect. By contrast, if the animal was consecrated for Temple maintenance one may not slaughter it without it first being redeemed.

Unblemished inside the Temple

תְּמִימִים בִּפְנִים

Any offering that was slaughtered for the sake of someone other than its owner is valid. Despite this, the owner has not fulfilled his obligation through this offering. The exceptions to this principle are sin-offerings and Paschal offerings, which are entirely invalid if slaughtered not for the sake of the owner (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 15:1).

Slaughters the animal unblemished, inside the Temple but not for the sake of its owner

שׁוֹחֵט תְּמִימִים בִּפְנִים שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם בְּעָלִים

ומסבירים הראשונים כי רבין הביא תירוץ זה משום שהעמדת הדברים בנשפך הדם נראית לו כדוחק יתר. ואילו רב דימי סבור שההעמדה בנשפך הדם עדיפה, כי אמנם לגבי רוב הקרבנות השוחט שלא לשם בעלים — הזבח כשר ולא עלה לבעלים לשם חובה, אבל יש יוצאים מן הכלל, פסח וחטאת, שבהם השוחט שלא לשם בעלים פסל את הקרבן (ואם כן היא שחיטה שאינה ראויה). מה שאין כן בנשפך הדם ששייך בכל הקרבנות.

בשוחט תמימים וכו׳

כל הקרבנות שנשחטו שלא לשם בעליהם — כשרים, אלא שלא עלו לבעלים לשם חובה. חוץ מן החטאת והפסח שאם שחטם במחשבת שינוי בעלים — פסולים. (רמב״ם ספר עבודה הלכות פסולי המוקדשין פט״ו ה״א).

שוחט תמימים שלא לשם בעלים

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he cited a different version of this answer, and said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: This is referring to a case where the thief slaughters the animal, unblemished, inside the Temple, but not for the sake of its owner. <note data-assoc="h"/>The halakha in this case is that the animal’s meat may be eaten but the owner has not fulfilled his obligation with this offering. In such a case, the slaughter of the animal does render its meat fit for consumption. Yet, it is not considered as though the animal has been returned to the owner.

כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּשׁוֹחֵט תְּמִימִים בִּפְנִים שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם בְּעָלִים.

רש״י מסביר כי השוחט קדשים בעלי מומים, כיון שאינם ראויים לקרבן אין בהם איסור שחוטי חוץ, ולכן שחיטתם בחוץ מתירה אותם באכילה כיון שניתן לפדותם. וכתב רש״י שמדובר כאן בבעלי מומים מתחילתם, שלאחר שנפל בהם מום הקדישם, שאם לא היו בעלי מומים מתחילתם — אינו יכול לפדותם עוד לכשישחטו, שיש צורך לפדותם כשהם עומדים דווקא. ומסביר הרי״ד כיצד ייתכן שתהא קדושת קרבן שחייב באחריותו בבעל מום מעיקרו, שהוא כאשר נדר אדם שיביא עולה (״הרי עלי עולה״), והביא בהמה בעלת מום ואמר שדמיה יהיו לצורך עולה זו. ועוד יש לומר שמדובר בתמורה, שקדושה חלה עליה אפילו היא בעלת מום. אכן, ר״ת מסביר שאפשר לפרש שמדובר אפילו בקדשים שנפל בהם מום לאחר שהוקדשו. ולדעתו אפשר לפדותם כל עוד הם מפרכסים (והראב״ד מסביר תחילה כדברי רש״י, אבל מסכם כדעת ר״ת).

בשוחט בעלי מומין בחוץ

And Reish Lakish says yet another explanation as to why the principal has not been returned to the owner: This is referring to a case where the thief slaughters blemished animals outside the Temple. A blemished animal may be slaughtered outside the Temple and its meat may be eaten, provided that it is redeemed with money.

וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: בְּשׁוֹחֵט בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין בַּחוּץ.

Sprinkling

זְרִיקָה

הגאונים פירשו: תוהה, שהיה תמה על הלכה זו ומקשה עליה. ואילו רש״י מסביר מלשון תהייה = הרחה, שהיה בודק וחוקר הלכה זו, ומתוך כך מקשה עליה.

תהי

לדעת רש״י הקושיה היא על דברי ר׳ יוחנן אפילו לפי שיטת רבין, משום שהוא סבור כי בכלל שחיטת קדשים היא שחיטה שאינה ראויה, שהרי השחיטה עצמה אינה מתירה את הבשר באכילה אלא רק זריקת הדם מתירתו. אכן, רוב הראשונים מסבירים שקושיה זו היא על ר׳ יצחק בר אבין, המפרש בשם ר׳ יוחנן שמדובר שנשפך הדם, שבמקרה זה אין כלל זריקה מתרת היכולה לברר למפרע ששחיטה זו ראויה היא (תוס׳, ראב״ד, רשב״א ועוד).

והלא זריקה מתרת

Rabbi Elazar wondered about this discussion: According to the explanations attributed to Rabbi Yoḥanan, which are based on the assumption that this is referring to slaughtering a sacrificial animal inside the Temple, is it the slaughtering of the animal that renders it permitted for consumption? But isn’t it the sprinkling <note data-assoc="b"/>of the blood that renders it permitted? It is prohibited to eat sacrificial meat immediately after the slaughter; only after the sprinkling of the blood is it permitted to consume the meat. As the slaughter itself does not render the animal’s meat permitted, there should be no liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.

תָּהֵי בָּהּ רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, שְׁחִיטָה מַתֶּרֶת? וַהֲלֹא זְרִיקָה מַתֶּרֶת!

כתבו בתוס׳ שלדברי רש״י שמדובר בבעלי מומים מעיקרם, הרי יכול הוא לפדות אותם גם לאחר שחיטה, ואם כן מדוע נאמר שלא פדאם? ותירצו כי מן הסתם אין הגנב יודע שהוא גונב קדשים, והוא שוחטם ואוכלם בלא לפדותם. והרי״ד מסביר שכיון שאין הקדשים של הגנב — אין הוא יכול לפדות אותם כלל.

והלא פדייה מתרת

Rabbi Elazar continues: And according to the explanation of Reish Lakish, who states that the case is referring to the slaughter of a consecrated blemished animal outside the Temple, is it the slaughtering of the animal that renders it permitted for consumption? But isn’t it the redemption of the animal that renders it permitted? Since the thief slaughtered a sacrificial animal, it is prohibited to eat its meat until its sanctity is removed by redeeming it with money. Once again, the slaughter itself does not render the meat permitted, and here too, there should be no liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.

לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, שְׁחִיטָה מַתֶּרֶת? וַהֲלֹא פְּדִיָּיה מַתֶּרֶת!

All sacrificial animals that are blemished are considered ready for redemption, as one may not sacrifice them in their current state and there is no alternative but to redeem them (Rashi). Moreover, it is a mitzva to redeem blemished sacrificial animals (see Rashba).

And any animal that is ready to be redeemed is considered as if it had already been redeemed

וְכָל הָעוֹמֵד לִפָּדוֹת כְּפָדוּי דָּמֵי

ובעלי מומים הריהם כעומדים לפדייה, שהרי אינם ראויים כמות שהם לקרבן, וסופם בהכרח שיפדו אותם (רש״י). ויתר על כן, קדשים בעלי מום — מצוה לפדותם (וראה ברשב״א).

וכל עומד לפדות

The Gemara comments: Apparently, this following statement of Rabbi Shimon escaped Rabbi Elazar, who asked these questions. Rabbi Shimon holds that any blood that is ready to be sprinkled is considered as though it had already been sprinkled, and likewise, any animal that is ready to be redeemed is considered as if it had already been redeemed. <note data-assoc="n"/>

אִישְׁתְּמִיטְתֵיהּ הָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כָּל הָעוֹמֵד לִזְרוֹק כְּזָרוּק דָּמֵי, וְכָל הָעוֹמֵד לִפָּדוֹת כְּפָדוּי דָּמֵי.

With regard to any offering whose meat is eaten, the Torah stipulates a set time for its consumption. For example, in the cases of a thanks-offering and a sin-offering, the meat may be eaten until the morning after its sacrifice. The meat of a peace-offering may be eaten for two days and the intervening night. After the allotted time for eating has passed, the leftover meat is referred to as notar and may not be eaten, nor may any benefit be derived from it. One who eats notar is liable to receive the punishment of karet, excision from the World-to-Come.

Leftover [notar]

נוֹתָר

Food is rendered ritually impure upon coming into contact with an impure person or item. This is the halakha only if the food is edible. Rabbi Shimon adds that for food to be susceptible to contracting ritual impurity it must not only be edible, but it must also be fit for consumption according to certain halakhic criteria. It is not required that it be fit for a Jew to eat, but it must at least be halakhically permitted for a Jew to give it to a gentile to eat. This excludes food from which it is prohibited to derive any benefit. Nevertheless, Rabbi Shimon concedes that even if it is currently prohibited to derive benefit from a particular food, if deriving benefit from it had been permitted at some point in the past it is susceptible to ritual impurity.

Is not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity of food

שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין

Leftover sacrificial meat is susceptible to contracting ritual impurity, despite the fact that it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. This halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon (Rambam Sefer Tahara, Hilkhot Tumat Okhalin 1:25).

Leftover

כל קרבן שיש בו דין אכילה (כגון בשר קדשים קלים, או בשר חטאת לכהנים) יש לו זמן מוגדר בתורה (לתודה וחטאת — יום ולילה, לשלמים — שני ימים ולילה) שהוא ראוי להיאכל בו, ואם לא נאכל הבשר במשך זמן זה — הריהו נאסר בהנאה (והאוכלו חייב כרת).

נותר

לדעת ר׳ שמעון אין טומאת אוכלים אלא בדבר שמותר לאכול אותו, בין שהוא מותר לישראל או שמותר לגויים. ומשום כך איסורי הנאה שאסור להאכילם אף לגויים — אינם נקראים אוכל, ואין טומאת אוכלים חלה עליהם. אבל גם ר׳ שמעון מודה שדבר שהיה ראוי לאכילה במשך זמן מה ורק אחר כך נאסר בהנאה — נחשב כאוכל ומקבל טומאה.

שאינו מטמא טומאת אוכלין

The Gemara proves that Rabbi Shimon maintains these two opinions. Rabbi Shimon holds that any blood that is ready to be sprinkled is considered as though it had already been sprinkled, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: There are cases involving leftover sacrificial meat after the time allotted for its consumption [notar], <note data-assoc="hn"/>in which the meat is susceptible to contracting ritual impurity of food, and there are cases of leftover sacrificial meat in which the meat is not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity of food. <note data-assoc="n"/>

כָּל הָעוֹמֵד לִזְרוֹק כְּזָרוּק דָּמֵי, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: יֵשׁ נוֹתָר שֶׁהוּא מִטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין, וְיֵשׁ נוֹתָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מִטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין,

How so? If sacrificial meat was disqualified due to the fact that it remained overnight, i.e., after the allotted time for that offering, before the sprinkling of its blood, it is not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity of food, as it was never fit for consumption. According to Rabbi Shimon, for an item to be susceptible to contracting ritual impurity of food it must have been permitted for consumption or benefit, either at present or at some point in the past. Sacrificial meat may not be consumed before the sprinkling of its blood, nor may it be consumed if it had been left over after a specific period of time, in most cases overnight. If it was disqualified by being left overnight before its blood had been sprinkled, there was never a time when the meat was permitted. By contrast, if the meat was disqualified by being left over after the sprinkling of the blood, it is susceptible to contracting ritual impurity of food, as it was permitted for consumption at some point after the sprinkling of the blood.

כֵּיצַד? לָן לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – אֵינוֹ מִטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין, לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – מִטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין;

And we maintain, as a result of a discussion recorded in tractate Menaḥot (101b): What is the meaning of: Before the sprinkling of the blood? It means before the blood became fit for sprinkling. And what is meant by: After the sprinkling of the blood? This means after the blood became fit for sprinkling, i.e., immediately subsequent to the slaughter.

וְקַיְּימָא לָן, מַאי ״לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה״ – קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּרְאֶה לִזְרִיקָה, ״לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה״ – לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּרְאֶה לִזְרִיקָה;

שאם שחט את הקרבן סמוך לסוף היום, ובלילה אי אפשר לזרוק את הדם, ובשר הזבח לן — הרי היה זה נותר שלא נראה כלל לזריקה, ולא היה בו היתר אכילה כלל. ומכאן משמע שאין הדבר תלוי בזריקה ממש, אלא כל שהיה ראוי לזרוק את דמו הרי זה כאילו נזרק הדם.

קודם שנראה לזריקה לן

The Gemara elaborates: What is the case in which the meat remained overnight before the blood became fit for sprinkling? Since the blood is fit for sprinkling almost immediately after the animal’s slaughter, how is it possible for the meat to become notar before that stage? The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where there was not enough time in the day to sprinkle the blood, as he slaughtered the offering immediately prior to sunset. The blood was never fit for sprinkling, as the act of sprinkling must be performed before sunset. And in this case the meat is not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity of food, as there was never a time when it was permitted for consumption.

קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּרְאֶה לִזְרִיקָה לָן מַאי הִיא? דְּלָא הָוְיָא שְׁהוּת בַּיּוֹם לְמִזְרְקֵיהּ, דְּשַׁחֲטֵיהּ סָמוּךְ לִשְׁקִיעַת הַחַמָּה, וְאֵינוֹ מִטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין;

What is the case where the meat remained overnight after the blood became fit for sprinkling? It was when there was enough time remaining in the day after the slaughter to sprinkle the blood, and therefore the meat is susceptible to contracting ritual impurity of food. The Gemara states its conclusion: Evidently, Rabbi Shimon maintains that any blood that is ready to be sprinkled is considered as though it had already been sprinkled.

לְאַחַר שֶׁנִּרְאֶה לִזְרִיקָה לָן – דְּהָוְיָא שְׁהוּת בַּיּוֹם לְמִזְרְקֵיהּ, מִטַמֵּא טוּמְאַת אוֹכָלִין; אַלְמָא: כָּל הָעוֹמֵד לִזְרוֹק כְּזָרוּק דָּמֵי.

And Rabbi Shimon holds that any animal that is ready to be re-deemed is considered as though it is already redeemed, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says:

וְכָל הָעוֹמֵד לִפָּדוֹת כְּפָדוּי דָּמֵי, דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר:

And Reish Lakish says yet another explanation as to why the principal has not been returned to the owner: This is referring to a case where the thief slaughters blemished animals outside the Temple. A blemished animal may be slaughtered outside the Temple and its meat may be eaten, provided that it 