is as the fat-tail: (1) [then the difficulty arises:] surely he intends for man what is for the altar's consumption? (2) — Said Samuel, The author of this is R. Eliezer, who maintains that you can intend [with effect] for human consumption what is meant for the altar's consumption, and for the altar's consumption what is meant for human consumption. (3) For we learnt: If one slaughters a sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten, (4) or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burnt, it is fit; (5) but R. Eliezer invalidates [the sacrifice]. (6) How have you explained it? as agreeing with R. Eliezer? Then consider the sequel: (7) This is the general rule: Whoever slaughters, receives, carries, and sprinkles [intending] to eat what is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] what is normally burnt [after time, etc.]... thus, only what is normally eaten, but not what is not normally eaten, which agrees with the Rabbis. Thus the first clause agrees with R. Eliezer and the final clause with the Rabbis? — Even so, he answered him. R. Huna said: The skin of the fat-tail is not as the fat-tail. (8) Rabbah observed. What is R. Huna's reason? — The fat thereof [is] the fattail [entire], (9) but not the skin of the fat-tail. R. Hisda said: In truth, the skin of the fat-tail is as the fat-tail, but we treat here [in the Mishnah] of the fat-tail of a goat. (10) Now, all these [scholars] did not say as Samuel, [because] they would not make the first clause agree with R. Eliezer and the second clause with the Rabbis. They did not say as R. Huna, because they hold that the skin of the fat-tail is as the fat-tail. [But] why do they not say as R. Hisda? — Because what does [the Tanna of the Mishnah] inform us [on this view]? [Presumably] that the skin of the fat-tail is as the fat-tail! (11) Surely we have learnt it: The skin of the following is as their flesh: the skin under the fat-tail? (12) And R. Hisda? (13) — It is necessary: You might think that only in respect of uncleanness does it combine, because it is soft; (14) but as for here, I would say [Scripture writes] [Even all the hallowed things of the children of Israel unto thee have I given them] for a consecrated portion, (15) which means, as a symbol of greatness,[so that they must be eaten] just as kings eat; and kings do not eat thus. (16) [Hence] I would say [that it is] not [as the flesh]; therefore he informs us [that it is]. An objection is raised: if one slaughters a burntoffering [intending] to burn (17) as much as an olive of the skin under the fat-tail out of bounds, it is invalid, but does not involve kareth; after time, it is Piggul, and involves kareth. Eleazar b. Judah of Avlas said on the authority of R. Jacob, and thus also did R. Simeon b. Judah of Kefar ‘Iccum say on the authority of R. Simeon: The skin of the legs of small cattle, the skin of the head of a young calf, and the skin under the fat-tail, and all cases which the Sages enumerated of the skin being the same as the flesh, which includes the skin of the Pudenda: [if he intended eating or burning these] out of bounds [the sacrifice] is invalid, and does not involve kareth; after time, it is Piggul, and involves kareth. (18) Thus [this is taught] only [of] the burnt-offering. (19) but not [of] a sacrifice. (20) As for R. Huna, it is well; it is right that he specifies a burnt-offering. (21) But according to R. Hisda, (22) why does he particularly teach ‘burnt-offering’: let him teach ‘sacrifice’? — R. Hisda can answer you: I can explain this as referring to the fat-tail of a goat; (23) alternatively I can answer: Read ‘sacrifice’. (24) IT IS UNFIT, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH, etc. Whence do we know it? — Said Samuel: Two texts are written. What are they? — Said Rabbah: [And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be at all eaten] on the third day: this refers to [an intention of eating the flesh] after time; it shall be Piggul [an abhorred thing] refers to [an intention of eating the flesh] out of bounds; and the soul that eateth of it [shall bear his iniquity:] (25) [only] one [involves kareth], but not two, (26) viz., after time, and excluding out of bounds. Yet say that ‘and the soul that eateth of it’ refers to out of bounds, and excludes after time? — It is logical that after time is graver, since [Scripture] commences with it. On the contrary, out of bounds is more likely [to be meant] since it is near it? (27) — Rather said Abaye: When R. Isaac b. Abdimi came, (28) he said: Rabbah (29) relies on what a Tanna taught. [Viz.;] When Scripture mentions the ‘third [day]’ in the pericope ‘Ye shall be holy’, (30) which need not be stated, since it has already been said, And if any of the flesh of his sacrifices be at all eaten on the third day, etc.;

---

(1). ↑ Even in respect of burning on the altar, so that in the case of lamb peace-offerings, the skin of the fat-tail, just as the fat-tail itself, is burnt on the altar ‘entire’ (v. Lev. III, 9).
(2). ↑ Which intention should not count at all.
(3). ↑ I.e., the intention counts.
(4). ↑ E.g., the emurim, which are burnt on the altar. He intended eating these after time or out of bounds.
(5). ↑ Because such an illegitimate intention concerning time or place does not count, seeing that the things could not be eaten or burnt at all.
(6). ↑ Infra 35a.
(7). ↑ The end of the present Mishnah, infra 29b.
(8). ↑ It is eaten, and not burnt on the altar. The difficulty therefore does not arise.
(9). ↑ Lev. III, 9.
(10). ↑ Which was not burnt on the altar; v. supra 9a.
(11). ↑ If the Mishnah treats of the fat-tail of a lamb, then on Samuel's interpretation we are informed that you can intend for human consumption what is meant for the altar's consumption; while on R. Huna's interpretation the Tanna informs us that the skin of the fat-tail is not as the fat-tail. But if it treats of the fat-tail of a goat, then the only thing that the Tanna can inform us is that its skin is regarded as itself in the sense that it is edible, because it is soft, and therefore counts as ordinary flesh.
(12). ↑ There must be at least as much as an olive of flesh before it can be defiled, and at least as much as the size of an egg before it can defile as nebelah (carrion. v. Lev. XI, 39f). If there is less than these standards, it can be made up by the skin under the fat-tail (Hul. 122a). Thus this teaches that this skin is as the fat-tail itself, and so the present teaching on R. Hisda's interpretation is superfluous.
(13). ↑ How does he answer this?
(14). ↑ And edible.
(15). ↑ Num. XVIII, 8.
(16). ↑ Though the skin is edible, yet kings would not eat it.
(17). ↑ Heb. להקטיר which generally refers to the burning of these parts (the emurim) which are always burnt on the altar, even in the case of peace-offerings.
(18). ↑ V. Hul. (Sonc. ed.) 132a, q.v. notes.
(19). ↑ Only there does an illegitimate intention in respect of the skin of the fat-tail disqualify the sacrifice, since the whole sacrifice is burnt.
(20). ↑ Unspecified, which would include peaceofferings.
(21). ↑ According to R. Huna, Scripture definitely teaches that the skin of the fat-tail is not counted as emurim. But there is no such teaching in respect of a burnt-offering: hence the present ruling can apply to a burnt-offering but not to other sacrifices.
(22). ↑ Who maintains that the skin of the fat-tail of all sacrifices is burnt along with it as emurim.
(23). ↑ In which case the reference is to an intention of eating it out of bounds or after time, not to burning it on the altar.
(24). ↑ Instead of burnt-offering.
(25). ↑ Lev. VII, 18; ‘shall bear his iniquity’ means that he incurs kareth.
(26). ↑ This follows from the sing. ‘it’.
(27). ↑ The word mimennu, (‘of it’), is in immediate proximity to the word Piggul, which on the present exegesis extends the law to eating out of bounds.
(28). ↑ From Palestine to Babylon.
(29). ↑ Emended text. Printed edd: Rab.
(30). ↑ This is the name of the pericope or weekly reading commencing with Lev. XIX, 1. The verse alluded to is: And if it (the flesh of a sacrifice) be eaten at all on the third day, it is Piggul (a vile thing); it shall not be accepted.