Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Daf Yomi

January 17, 2024 | ื–ืณ ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืคืดื“

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.ย 

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Bava Kamma 76

Today’s daf is sponsored by Jessica Shklar in honor of Ruth Leah Kahan. “It has been quite an experience learning Bava Kamma and hearing my impeccably-mannered older sister described as a thief who can’t look after her oxen. I want to assure the Daf Yomi community that she is neither of those things.”ย 

Today’s daf is also dedicated to the continued refuah shleima of Nadav Efraim ben Shulamit Leah.ย 

The Mishna teaches that if one stole then sanctified and then sold/slaughtered an animal, the thief would not pay the four/five payment. But if it was sanctified, isn’t that like selling to God as it transfers ownership, like a sale, and shouldn’t the thief be liable? The Gemara brings three answers, as the first two are rejected. In conclusion, they say that the animal is still considered “the sacrifice of the owner” even if it belongs to the Temple. Because of a difficulty with Rabbi Shimon’s position in the Mishna, Rabbi Shimon’s distinction between sanctification that comes/doesn’t come with responsibility to be referring to a different case – where the sanctification happened by the owner before it was stolen. How does this work with the position of Rabbi Shimon that a slaughter that is not kosher is not considered “slaughter” to be obligated for the four/five payment? Three answers are brought and Rabbi Elazar questions some or all of them. His question is answered by another position of rabbi Shimon that if the blood can potentially be sprinkled or the animal can be potentially redeemed, we view it as if it was done, thereby making the slaughtering in these cases be considered a kosher slaughtering.

ืชืฉืœื•ื ื“ื›ืคืœ


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


ื’ื ื‘ ื•ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื˜ื‘ื— ื•ืžื›ืจ ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจื™ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืื˜ื‘ื™ื—ื” ืœื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ื›ื™ ืงื ื˜ื‘ื— ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืงื ื˜ื‘ื— ื•ืœื ื“ืžืจื™ื” ืงื ื˜ื‘ื—


ยง 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.


ืืœื ืื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžื” ืœื™ ืžื›ืจื• ืœื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืžื” ืœื™ ืžื›ืจื• ืœืฉืžื™ื


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.


ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืžืจื™ื” ืงื™ื™ืžื™


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 (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 thiefโ€™s possession even after he consecrated it. Therefore, the animalโ€™s consecration is not tantamount to a sale to another party.


ื”ื ืžื“ืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ ืจื™ืฉื ืœืื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ


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.


ืืœื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื•ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื”ื•ื ื•ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื™ื” ืงื™ื™ืžื™


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, 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.


ืื‘ืœ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžืื™ ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ืื“ืชื ื™ ืจื™ืฉื ื’ื ื‘ ื•ื˜ื‘ื— ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ืœื™ืคืœื•ื’ ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื”


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.


ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื”


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.


ืืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืœื ืฉื ื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื•ื“ืงืฉื™ื ืœืš ืžื” ืœื™ ืžื›ืจื• ืœื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืžื” ืœื™ ืžื›ืจื• ืœืฉืžื™ื ืžื›ืจื• ืœื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืชื•ืจื ื“ืจืื•ื‘ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉืชื ืชื•ืจื ื“ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื›ืจื• ืœืฉืžื™ื ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืชื•ืจื ื“ืจืื•ื‘ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉืชื ืชื•ืจื ื“ืจืื•ื‘ืŸ


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 Reuvenโ€™s ox and now, after the sale, it is Shimonโ€™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 Reuvenโ€™s ox and now, after consecration, it is still Reuvenโ€™s ox.


ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจื™ ื ื”ื™ ื“ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื” ืœื™ ืžื›ืจื• ืœื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืžื” ืœื™ ืžื›ืจื• ืœืฉืžื™ื ืื™ืคื›ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”


ยง 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.


ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื“ืื›ืชื™ ืœื ื ืคืง ืžืจืฉื•ืชื™ื”


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.


ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ืžืคืงื™ ืœื™ื” ืžืจืฉื•ืชื™ื”


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.


ืืžืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžื™ืœืชื ืื—ืจื™ืชื™ ืงืื™


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.


ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ื ื‘ ืื—ืจ ื”ื’ื ื‘ ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื’ื•ื ื‘ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืคื˜ื•ืจ


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 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.


ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื•ื’ื ื‘ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื”ืื™ืฉ ื•ืœื ืžื‘ื™ืช ื”ืงื“ืฉ


What is the reason for this last ruling? The reason is as it is written: โ€œIf 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 doubleโ€ (Exodus 22:6). The phrase โ€œfrom the house of the manโ€ 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.


ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื’ื ื‘ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื”ืื™ืฉ ื•ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื“ืœื ืงืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื’ื ื‘ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื”ืื™ืฉ


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 โ€œand it was stolen from the house of the man.โ€ 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 โ€œand it was stolen from the house of the man.โ€


ืžื›ื“ื™ ืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื ืฉืžื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื ืžื™ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืจืื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื


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 animalโ€™s meat fit for consumption, in light of the halakha that it is prohibited to eat a sacrificial animal slaughtered outside the Temple.


ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืชืžื™ืžื™ื ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืœืฉื ื‘ืขืœื™ื


When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: This is referring to a case where the thief slaughters the animal, unblemished, inside the Temple, for the sake of its owner. In this case, its meat may be eaten.


ื•ื”ืจื™ ื—ื–ืจื” ืงืจืŸ ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืฉืคืš ื”ื“ื


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 Yitzแธฅak bar Avin said in response: This is referring to a situation where the animalโ€™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.


ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืชืžื™ืžื™ื ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืฉืœื ืœืฉื ื‘ืขืœื™ื


When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he cited a different version of this answer, and said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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. The halakha in this case is that the animalโ€™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.


ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ื‘ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ


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.


ืชื”ื™ ื‘ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืชืจืช ื•ื”ืœื ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืžืชืจืช


Rabbi Elazar wondered about this discussion: According to the explanations attributed to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, 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 isnโ€™t it the sprinkling 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 animalโ€™s meat permitted, there should be no liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.


ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืชืจืช ื•ื”ืœื ืคื“ื™ื™ื” ืžืชืจืช


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 isnโ€™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.


ืื™ืฉืชืžื™ื˜ืชื™ื” ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื–ืจื•ืง ื›ื–ืจื•ืง ื“ืžื™ ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืžื“ ืœืคื“ื•ืช ื›ืคื“ื•ื™ ื“ืžื™


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.


ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื–ืจื•ืง ื›ื–ืจื•ืง ื“ืžื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืฉ ื ื•ืชืจ ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื™ืฉ ื ื•ืชืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ


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], 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.


ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืœืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืื™ื ื• ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœืื—ืจ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ


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.


ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื ืœืŸ ืžืื™ ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื ืจืื” ืœื–ืจื™ืงื” ืœืื—ืจ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื ืจืื” ืœื–ืจื™ืงื”


And we maintain, as a result of a discussion recorded in tractate Menaแธฅot (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.


ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื ืจืื” ืœื–ืจื™ืงื” ืœืŸ ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื™ื ืฉื”ื•ืช ื‘ื™ื•ื ืœืžื–ืจืงื™ื” ื“ืฉื—ื˜ื™ื” ืกืžื•ืš ืœืฉืงื™ืขืช ื”ื—ืžื” ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ


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 animalโ€™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.


ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื ืจืื” ืœื–ืจื™ืงื” ืœืŸ ื“ื”ื•ื™ื ืฉื”ื•ืช ื‘ื™ื•ื ืœืžื–ืจืงื™ื” ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืืœืžื ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื–ืจื•ืง ื›ื–ืจื•ืง ื“ืžื™


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.


ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืžื“ ืœืคื“ื•ืช ื›ืคื“ื•ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ


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


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.ย 

  • Masechet Bava Kamma is sponsored by the Futornick Family in loving memory of their fathers and grandfathers, Phillip Kaufman and David Futornick.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Bava Kamma 70-76 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about a person who stole an animal and then killed it or sold it. If...
talking talmud_square

Bava Kamma 76: Answers from Eretz Yisroel

The daf examines the opinion of Rabbi Shimon and his distinction between payment of the fourfold or fivefold fine in...

Bava Kamma 76

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Kamma 76

ืชืฉืœื•ื ื“ื›ืคืœ


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


ื’ื ื‘ ื•ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื˜ื‘ื— ื•ืžื›ืจ ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจื™ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืื˜ื‘ื™ื—ื” ืœื ืžื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ื›ื™ ืงื ื˜ื‘ื— ื“ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืงื ื˜ื‘ื— ื•ืœื ื“ืžืจื™ื” ืงื ื˜ื‘ื—


ยง 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.


ืืœื ืื”ืงื“ืฉ ืœื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžื” ืœื™ ืžื›ืจื• ืœื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืžื” ืœื™ ืžื›ืจื• ืœืฉืžื™ื


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.


ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืžืจื™ื” ืงื™ื™ืžื™


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 (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 thiefโ€™s possession even after he consecrated it. Therefore, the animalโ€™s consecration is not tantamount to a sale to another party.


ื”ื ืžื“ืกื™ืคื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ ืจื™ืฉื ืœืื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ


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.


ืืœื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื•ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืžืžื•ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ื ื”ื•ื ื•ื‘ืจืฉื•ืชื™ื” ืงื™ื™ืžื™


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, 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.


ืื‘ืœ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžืื™ ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ืื“ืชื ื™ ืจื™ืฉื ื’ื ื‘ ื•ื˜ื‘ื— ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ื”ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ืœื™ืคืœื•ื’ ื•ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื”


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.


ื‘ืžื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื”


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.


ืืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืœื ืฉื ื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื•ื“ืงืฉื™ื ืœืš ืžื” ืœื™ ืžื›ืจื• ืœื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืžื” ืœื™ ืžื›ืจื• ืœืฉืžื™ื ืžื›ืจื• ืœื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืชื•ืจื ื“ืจืื•ื‘ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉืชื ืชื•ืจื ื“ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื›ืจื• ืœืฉืžื™ื ืžืขื™ืงืจื ืชื•ืจื ื“ืจืื•ื‘ืŸ ื•ื”ืฉืชื ืชื•ืจื ื“ืจืื•ื‘ืŸ


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 Reuvenโ€™s ox and now, after the sale, it is Shimonโ€™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 Reuvenโ€™s ox and now, after consecration, it is still Reuvenโ€™s ox.


ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืืžืจื™ ื ื”ื™ ื“ืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืžื” ืœื™ ืžื›ืจื• ืœื”ื“ื™ื•ื˜ ืžื” ืœื™ ืžื›ืจื• ืœืฉืžื™ื ืื™ืคื›ื ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”


ยง 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.


ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื“ืื›ืชื™ ืœื ื ืคืง ืžืจืฉื•ืชื™ื”


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.


ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ืžืคืงื™ ืœื™ื” ืžืจืฉื•ืชื™ื”


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.


ืืžืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืืžื™ืœืชื ืื—ืจื™ืชื™ ืงืื™


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.


ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ื”ื’ื•ื ื‘ ืื—ืจ ื”ื’ื ื‘ ืžืฉืœื ืชืฉืœื•ืžื™ ืืจื‘ืขื” ื•ื—ืžืฉื” ื•ื›ืŸ ื’ื•ื ื‘ ื”ืงื“ืฉ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืขืœื™ื ืคื˜ื•ืจ


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 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.


ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื•ื’ื ื‘ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื”ืื™ืฉ ื•ืœื ืžื‘ื™ืช ื”ืงื“ืฉ


What is the reason for this last ruling? The reason is as it is written: โ€œIf 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 doubleโ€ (Exodus 22:6). The phrase โ€œfrom the house of the manโ€ 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.


ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื’ื ื‘ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื”ืื™ืฉ ื•ืฉืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื“ืœื ืงืจื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื’ื ื‘ ืžื‘ื™ืช ื”ืื™ืฉ


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 โ€œand it was stolen from the house of the man.โ€ 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 โ€œand it was stolen from the house of the man.โ€


ืžื›ื“ื™ ืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืจืื•ื™ื” ืœื ืฉืžื” ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื ืžื™ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืฉืื™ื ื” ืจืื•ื™ื” ื”ื™ื


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 animalโ€™s meat fit for consumption, in light of the halakha that it is prohibited to eat a sacrificial animal slaughtered outside the Temple.


ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืชืžื™ืžื™ื ืžื‘ืคื ื™ื ืœืฉื ื‘ืขืœื™ื


When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: This is referring to a case where the thief slaughters the animal, unblemished, inside the Temple, for the sake of its owner. In this case, its meat may be eaten.


ื•ื”ืจื™ ื—ื–ืจื” ืงืจืŸ ืœื‘ืขืœื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืฉืคืš ื”ื“ื


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 Yitzแธฅak bar Avin said in response: This is referring to a situation where the animalโ€™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.


ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืชืžื™ืžื™ื ื‘ืคื ื™ื ืฉืœื ืœืฉื ื‘ืขืœื™ื


When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he cited a different version of this answer, and said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan 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. The halakha in this case is that the animalโ€™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.


ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ื‘ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืžื•ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ


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.


ืชื”ื™ ื‘ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืชืจืช ื•ื”ืœื ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืžืชืจืช


Rabbi Elazar wondered about this discussion: According to the explanations attributed to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, 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 isnโ€™t it the sprinkling 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 animalโ€™s meat permitted, there should be no liability to pay the fourfold or fivefold payment.


ืœืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืžืชืจืช ื•ื”ืœื ืคื“ื™ื™ื” ืžืชืจืช


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 isnโ€™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.


ืื™ืฉืชืžื™ื˜ืชื™ื” ื”ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื–ืจื•ืง ื›ื–ืจื•ืง ื“ืžื™ ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืžื“ ืœืคื“ื•ืช ื›ืคื“ื•ื™ ื“ืžื™


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.


ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื–ืจื•ืง ื›ื–ืจื•ืง ื“ืžื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืฉ ื ื•ืชืจ ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื™ืฉ ื ื•ืชืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ


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], 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.


ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืœืŸ ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืื™ื ื• ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœืื—ืจ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ


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.


ื•ืงื™ื™ืžื ืœืŸ ืžืื™ ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื ืจืื” ืœื–ืจื™ืงื” ืœืื—ืจ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื ืจืื” ืœื–ืจื™ืงื”


And we maintain, as a result of a discussion recorded in tractate Menaแธฅot (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.


ืงื•ื“ื ืฉื ืจืื” ืœื–ืจื™ืงื” ืœืŸ ืžืื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืœื ื”ื•ื™ื ืฉื”ื•ืช ื‘ื™ื•ื ืœืžื–ืจืงื™ื” ื“ืฉื—ื˜ื™ื” ืกืžื•ืš ืœืฉืงื™ืขืช ื”ื—ืžื” ื•ืื™ื ื• ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ


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 animalโ€™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.


ืœืื—ืจ ืฉื ืจืื” ืœื–ืจื™ืงื” ืœืŸ ื“ื”ื•ื™ื ืฉื”ื•ืช ื‘ื™ื•ื ืœืžื–ืจืงื™ื” ืžื˜ืžื ื˜ื•ืžืืช ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืืœืžื ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืžื“ ืœื–ืจื•ืง ื›ื–ืจื•ืง ื“ืžื™


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.


ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืขื•ืžื“ ืœืคื“ื•ืช ื›ืคื“ื•ื™ ื“ืžื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ


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


Scroll To Top