Bloodletting a Firstborn and the Ban on Leaven and Honey

Our rabbis taught: a firstborn animal seized by congestion of blood, one may let its blood in a place where one does not thereby make a blemish, but one may not let its blood in a place where one thereby makes a blemish; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. The sages say: even though he makes a blemish in it, provided he does not slaughter it on account of that blemish. Rabbi Shimon says: it may even be slaughtered on account of that blemish. Rabbi Yehuda says: even if it would die, one may not let its blood. Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: all agree regarding one who leavens after another has leavened, that he is liable, for it says "it shall not be baked" and "it shall not be made as leaven" (Leviticus 6:10, 2:11). Regarding one who castrates after another has castrated, that he is liable, for it is written "that which is bruised or crushed or torn or cut" (Leviticus 22:24); if one is liable for the cut, then for the torn how much more so; rather it comes to make liable one who severs after another has severed. They differed only regarding one who inflicts a blemish upon an already-blemished animal: Rabbi Meir held "any blemish shall not be in it" (Leviticus 22:21), and the sages held "it shall be unblemished for acceptance." And as for Rabbi Meir, is it not written "it shall be unblemished for acceptance"? That verse serves to exclude an animal blemished from the outset. An animal blemished from the outset is merely like an ordinary palm tree; rather it excludes consecrated animals that became disqualified, after their redemption. You might have reasoned: since they remain forbidden for shearing and for work, let them also be forbidden as to a blemish; therefore it tells us otherwise. And as for the sages, is it not written "any blemish shall not be"? That is needed for what was taught: "any blemish shall not be in it," I have only that no blemish be in it; from where that he must not cause it to be blemished by means of others, that he should not place dough or a fig-cake upon its ear so that a dog will come take it? Scripture teaches by saying "any blemish." It said "blemish" and it said "any blemish." "You shall not burn as an offering leaven" (Leviticus 2:11): I have only an olive's bulk; from where even half an olive's bulk? Scripture teaches "any." Its mixture, from where? Scripture teaches "for any." Rava said: thus it means, "you shall not burn leaven," I have only a handful's measure; from where half a handful? Scripture teaches "any"; its mixture, from where? Scripture teaches "for any." In what do they differ? Abaye said: there is a handful that is less than two olives' bulk, and there is a burning of less than an olive's bulk. And Rava held: there is no handful less than two olives' bulk, and there is no burning less than an olive's bulk. From where do we learn that to offer up flesh of a sin offering, or flesh of a guilt offering, or flesh of the most holy offerings, or flesh of the lesser holy offerings, or what remains of the Omer, or of the showbread, or remnants of meal offerings, is a violation of a negative commandment? Scripture teaches by saying "for no leaven and no honey shall you burn from it as a fire offering to the LORD" (Leviticus 2:11); anything of which a part goes to the altar fires is included in "you shall not burn." But do the two loaves and the showbread have a part that goes to the fires? Was it not taught that the two loaves and the showbread are excepted because no part of them goes to the fires? Rav Sheshet said: nothing of their own substance goes to the fires. It was stated: as for one who offers up any of these upon the ramp, Rabbi Yochanan said he is liable, Rabbi Elazar said he is exempt. Rabbi Yochanan said liable, for it was taught: "the altar," I have only the altar; from where the ramp? Scripture teaches by saying "and to the altar." And Rabbi Elazar said exempt; what is his reason? For the verse said "them" (Leviticus 2:12): it is "them" that I extended for you from the altar, but nothing else. And Rabbi Yochanan, what does he do with this word "them"? For what was taught: one might think an individual may donate a like offering as a freewill gift, and I would apply to it "that which goes out of your lips you shall keep and perform" (Deuteronomy 23:24); Scripture teaches by saying "as an offering of firstfruits you shall bring them" (Leviticus 2:12), the community I told you of and not an individual. One might think the individual may not bring what is not his obligation in like manner, but the community may bring what is its obligation in like manner; Scripture teaches "them." And what do you have to bring? The two loaves from the leaven, and the firstfruits from the honey. But were the two loaves never brought as a freewill offering? Was it not taught: if "any leaven" is stated why is "any honey" stated, and if "any honey" is stated why is "any leaven" stated? Because there is in leaven what is not in honey, and in honey what is not in leaven. Leaven was permitted in part within the Sanctuary, honey was not permitted in part within the Sanctuary; honey was permitted in remnants of meal offerings, leaven was not permitted in remnants of meal offerings. Thus, because there is in leaven what is not in honey and in honey what is not in leaven, it was necessary to say "any leaven" and necessary to say "any honey." The leaven that was permitted, what is it? Is it not the two loaves that were brought as a freewill offering? Rabbi Amram said: it means it shall not be brought to the altar with them. If so, the firstfruits too, as we learned: the young birds that were upon the baskets were offered up, and what was in their hands was given to the priests. Those came merely to adorn the firstfruits. "You shall not burn from it" (Leviticus 2:11): Rabbi Eliezer says, anything part of which goes to the fires. Rabbi Akiva says, anything whose name is "offering." What is between them? Rav Chisda said: the flesh of a bird sin offering is between them. Rava said: the log of oil of a leper is between them.