Language Studies

Aramaic Thoughts

Aramaic Literature - Part 13 - The Mishnah

The third treatise in Qodashim is Hullin (animals killed for food). As with the animal sacrifices and the grain offerings, a primary concern is with the validity of the slaughter. This comes from Deuteronomy 12:21, which states that once the people have moved into the land, they may kill any of their herd or flock for food. According to Danby’s comment, this “implies the existence of a divinely ordained method of slaughtering beasts. This is not found in the Written Law, but was included in the tradition passed down through the ages” (Danby, p. 513). Accordingly, anyone may slaughter an animal, and the slaughtering be valid, except for “a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor.” The concern here is that one of these might unintentionally violate the restrictions on how the slaughter is to be carried out, making the slaughter invalid, and rendering the slaughtered animal unclean. However, any of these three categories may carry out a valid slaying if they are overseen by someone. An animal slaughtered by a non-Jew is considered unclean, as if the animal died of itself. Any tool may be used for slaughter except “a reaping-sickle or a saw or teeth.” Danby explains the last as referring to the use of the jawbone of a dead animal with the teeth still in it to cut the throat of the animal to be slaughtered (p. 513). It seems however that this is also intended to prevent a man from trying to slaughter an animal with his teeth (obviously a small animal would be in view) in the absence of any other tools.

The fourth treatise in Qodashim is Bekhoroth (firstborn). This comes from the requirement that all the firstborn in Israel were to be dedicated to the Lord (Exodus 13:2ff). With regard to animals that are acceptable for sacrifice, such as sheep and cattle, the firstborn was to be sacrificed to the Lord. However, non-sacrificial animals, such as donkeys, were to be redeemed by offering a lamb as a substitute, or if not redeemed, they were to be killed. That all seems straightforward. But what if a donkey, which had not previously given birth, gave birth to twins? In that case, only one of the animals was considered firstborn, and only one lamb would be given to the priest. In addition, the redemption animal had to be a lamb. It could not be a calf, nor could it be a wild animal. What if the lamb that had been set aside as the redemption for a donkey died before it could be given to the priest? On this the rabbis were divided. Rabbi Eliezer said the man was still liable for the lamb, whereas the Sages said he was not liable. Hence the question remained undecided.

In addition to firstborn animals, firstborn sons were to be redeemed (Exodus 13:15). However, since the Levites had been accepted by God in place of the firstborn of Israel, the Levites (and the priests as well, since they were a subset of the Levites) were exempted from the need to redeem their firstborn.

Copyright Statement
'Aramaic Thoughts' Copyright 2024© Benjamin Shaw. 'Aramaic Thoughts' articles may be reproduced in whole under the following provisions: 1) A proper credit must be given to the author at the end of each story, along with a link to https://www.studylight.org/language-studies/aramaic-thoughts.html  2) 'Aramaic Thoughts' content may not be arranged or "mirrored" as a competitive online service.