that rejection applies to monetary sanctity. (1) ‘Ulla said in R. Johanan's name: If one ate heleb (2) and set aside a sacrifice, (3) then apostatized, yet subsequently retracted, since it was [once] rejected, (4) it remains rejected. It was stated likewise: R. Jeremiah said in R. Abbahu's name in R. Johanan's name: If a man ate heleb, set aside an offering, became insane and then regained his sanity, since it [the offering] was [once] rejected, it remains so. (5) Now both rulings are necessary. For had he informed us of the first only, [you might have said that] the reason is that he made himself ineligible [to offer a sacrifice] with his own hands; but in the latter case where he was involuntarily disqualified, he is [merely] as one who fell asleep. (6) Again, had he informed us the latter case only, you might argue that the reason is because his recovery is not dependent on himself; but in the former case [apostasy] it is not so, since it lies with him to retract — Thus both are required. R. Jeremiah asked: If one ate heleb, set aside a sacrifice, then the Beth din (7) ruled that heleb is permitted, yet subsequently they retracted, what is the law? Does this constitute [permanent] rejection (8) or does it not constitute [permanent] rejection? Said a certain old man to him: When R. Johanan commenced [his rulings] on rejected [sacrifices], he commenced with this very case. (9) What is the reason? There (10) the person was disqualified, but the sacrifice was not rejected (11) ; whereas here the sacrifice too became rejected. (12) SAID SIMEON THE SON OF’ AZZAI:I HAVE A TRADITION FROM THE MOUTH OF SEVENTY-TWO ELDER[S], etc. Why does he state, SEVENTY-TWO ELDER[S]? (13) — Because they all held this view unanimously. (14) BEN AZZAI ADDED ONLY THE BURNTOFFERING. R. Huna said: What is Ben ‘Azzai's reason? — It is a burnt-offering, an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the Lord: (15) ‘it is’ implies that [when it is slaughtered] in its own name it is valid; when not in its own name, it is invalid. But ‘it is’ is written in the case of the guilt-offering too? — That is written after the burning of the emurim. (16) But in this case too it is written after the burning of the emurim? — ‘It is’ is written twice [in connection with the burntoffering]. (17) Yet ‘it is’ is written twice in the case of the guilt-offering too? (18) — Rather, Ben ‘Azzai infers it a fortiori: If a sin-offering is invalid when one slaughters it under a different designation, though it is not entirely burnt, how much the more is a burnt-offering [invalid in such circumstances], seeing that it is entirely burnt — As for the sin-offering, [it may be argued] the reason is that it makes atonement! Then let the Passover-offering prove it. As for the Passover-offering, the reason is because its time [for slaughtering] is fixed! Then let the sin-offering prove it. And thus the argument revolves: the feature peculiar to the one is not that peculiar to the other, and the feature peculiar to the other is not that peculiar to the first. Their common characteristic is that they are sacred sacrifices, and if one slaughters them under a different designation they are invalid; so will I adduce the burnt-offering too, which is a sacred sacrifice, and if one slaughters it for a different purpose, it is invalid. [No:] their common feature is that an aspect of kareth is involved in them! (19) — Ben'Azzai

---

(1). ↑ This animal was sanctified from the very outset only for its value. i.e., that the money for which it would be sold should be expended for a sacrifice; nevertheless it becomes permanently ineligible for the altar. This excludes the possible view that only an animal that was fit in the first place to be dedicated to the altar can be rendered permanently ineligible.
(2). ↑ Forbidden fat. V. Glos.
(3). ↑ For atonement, v. Lev. IV, 27-28.
(4). ↑ For sacrifices are not accepted from apostates, cf. Hul. 5b.
(5). ↑ An insane person cannot offer.
(6). ↑ When he had to sacrifice. This gap in his intelligent consciousness does not of course permanently disqualify him.
(7). ↑ V. Glos.
(8). ↑ For when they ruled that heleb is permitted, the sacrifice became rejected, since a sin-offering can be brought only when one is liable.
(9). ↑ Teaching that it is permanently rejected.
(10). ↑ In the cases of apostasy and insanity.
(11). ↑ The animal separated still belonged to the category of sin-offerings, save that its owner was not fit to bring it.
(12). ↑ Hence it follows a minori that it remains rejected.
(13). ↑ In the singular.
(14). ↑ Sh. M. emends: they were all present at the same sitting (when they stated this). This apparently is Rashi's reading too.
(15). ↑ Lev. I, 17.
(16). ↑ V. supra, 5b for notes.
(17). ↑ The one already quoted, and the other in Ex. XXIX, 18. Though there too it is after the burning of the emurim, yet since its teaching is unnecessary in that respect, as one text is sufficient for that, you must apply its teaching as intimating that when not slaughtered in its own name it is unfit.
(18). ↑ Lev. V, 19 and VII, 5.
(19). ↑ V. supra 10b p 49. n. 2.