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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 24, 2019 | 讬状讝 讘讗讚专 讘壮 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Chullin 117

What are the differences between forbidden fats and blood? What are the differences between impurities of food and neveila impurities?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讚诐

one who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property. And second, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, if it was from an offering that was slaughtered with the intent to sprinkle its blood or partake of it beyond its designated time, and due to the prohibition of notar, if it was from an offering whose period for consumption has expired. And third, if one is ritually impure, he is liable due to the prohibition of partaking of it while impure. This is not so with regard to blood, as one is not liable in these cases for violating the prohibitions of piggul, notar, and partaking of offerings while impure, but rather is liable only for violating the prohibition of consuming blood.

讜讞讜诪专 讘讚诐 砖讛讚诐 谞讜讛讙 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讘讬谉 讟诪讗讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 讜讞诇讘 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘诇讘讚

And the more stringent element in the prohibition of blood is that the prohibition of blood applies to domesticated animals, undomesticated animals, and birds, both kosher and non-kosher, but the prohibition of forbidden fat applies only to a kosher domesticated animal.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讗砖专 讬讜专诐 诪砖讜专 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讜讻讬 诪讛 诇诪讚谞讜 诪砖讜专 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 诪注转讛

GEMARA: According to the mishna, one who consumes forbidden fat of an offering is liable for misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yannai said: They are derived from a verse, as the verse states that the sacrificial portions of a bull brought for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest must be burned upon the altar: 鈥淎s it is taken off from the bull of the peace offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:10). But what, then, do we learn from the bull of the peace offering? Everything that is specified with regard to a peace offering is stated with regard to this bull as well (see Leviticus 4:8鈥9).

讛专讬 讝讛 讘讗 诇诇诪讚 讜谞诪爪讗 诇诪讚 诪拽讬砖 砖讜专 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 诇驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 诪讛 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讬砖 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛 讗祝 砖讜专 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛

Rather, this phrase initially comes to teach a halakha about the bull brought as an offering for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, but it turns out that it actually derives a halakha from that case, as the verse juxtaposes the bull of the peace offering to the bull of the anointed priest. It teaches that just as the bull of the anointed priest, as an offering of the most sacred order, is subject to the prohibition on misuse of consecrated property, as offerings of the most sacred order are called 鈥渢he sacred items of the Lord鈥 (see Leviticus 5:15), so too the sacrificial portions of the bull of the peace offering, including its forbidden fat, are subject to misuse of consecrated property, even though it is an offering of lesser sanctity and is considered the property of the owner before slaughter.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻注讜专讛 讝讜 砖砖谞讛 专讘讬 讻诇 讞诇讘 诇讛壮 诇专讘讜转 讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诇诪注讬诇讛

Rabbi 岣nina said to Rabbi Yannai: Is that derivation that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught unattractive, that you derive a new one? He taught that when the Torah states with regard to peace offerings, which are of lesser sanctity: 鈥淎ll the fat is the Lord鈥檚鈥 (Leviticus 3:16), it serves to include the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity in the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, even though the prohibition is stated explicitly only with regard to offerings of the most sacred order.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞诇讘 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讞诇讘 讗讬谉 讬讜转专转 讜砖转讬 讻诇讬讜转 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讗砖专 讬讜专诐

Abaye said: Rabbi Yannai鈥檚 derivation was necessary, as, if the Merciful One had written only the verse 鈥淎ll the fat is the Lord鈥檚,鈥 I would say that the fat of offerings of lesser sanctity, yes, they are included in the prohibition, but the diaphragm and the two kidneys of such offerings are not, even though they are also burned upon the altar. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎s it is taken off from the bull of the peace offering,鈥 to teach that even these portions are subject to the prohibition of misuse.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讗砖专 讬讜专诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讞诇讘 讗诇讬讛 讚诇讬转讗 讘砖讜专 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 讞诇讘

And conversely, if the Merciful One had written only the phrase: 鈥淎s it is taken off from the bull,鈥 I would say that the prohibition applies only to those portions that are found in a bull, and that the fat of a sheep tail, which is not found in a bull, is not included. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎ll the fat is the Lord鈥檚,鈥 to teach that the prohibition of misuse applies to all portions of offerings of lesser sanctity, including a sheep tail, which is referred to as fat in Leviticus 3:9.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讬 诇专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗讬 讗诇讬讛 讗讬拽专讗讬 讞诇讘 转讬转住专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讱 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻诇 讞诇讘 砖讜专 讜讻砖讘 讜注讝 讚讘专 讛砖讜讛 讘砖讜专 讜讻砖讘 讜注讝

Rav Mari said to Rav Zevid: If a sheep tail is called 鈥渇at,鈥 it should be prohibited for consumption, like forbidden fat. Rav Zevid said to Rav Mari: With regard to your claim, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat鈥 (Leviticus 7:23). This teaches that the Torah designates as forbidden fat only an item that is found equally in an ox, and a sheep, and a goat. Since the ox and goat do not have a tail that consists of a large amount of fat, the sheep鈥檚 fatty tail is not prohibited.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讞诇讘讜 讛讗诇讬讛 讗讬拽专讗讬 讞诇讘 住转诪讗 诇讗 讗讬拽专讗讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇讗 讬诪注诇讜 讘讛 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚专讘 讝讘讬讚

Rav Ashi said a different explanation: It is called 鈥渢he fat tail,鈥 but it is not called simply: Fat, without specification. The Gemara objects: If that is so that the addition of a modifier indicates that the tail is not truly fat, then one who derives benefit from the tail should not be liable for misuse of consecrated property either. Rather, it is clear that the correct answer is as stated by Rav Zevid.

诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讚诐 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讻诐 砖诇讻诐 讬讛讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 诇讻驻专 诇讻驻专讛 谞转转讬讜 讜诇讗 诇诪注讬诇讛

搂 The mishna teaches: This is not so with regard to blood, as one who derives benefit from blood is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Ulla said: The verse states with regard to blood: 鈥淔or the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls鈥 (Leviticus 17:11). The term 鈥渢o you鈥 indicates that it shall be yours, rather than consecrated property, and is therefore not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a different derivation. By using the term 鈥渢o make atonement,鈥 the verse teaches that God is saying: I gave it to achieve atonement, but not to be subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讻诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 诪讛 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛 讗祝 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says that this halakha is derived from the latter part of the verse, which states: 鈥淔or it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul鈥 (Leviticus 17:11). The term 鈥渋t is鈥 teaches that the status of the blood remains as it is, i.e., it is before atonement as it is after atonement. As the Gemara will state, there is a principle that once the mitzva involving a consecrated item has been performed, the item is no longer subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. Accordingly, the term 鈥渋t is鈥 teaches that just as after atonement, i.e., after the blood has been sprinkled upon the altar, it is not subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, as the mitzva has already been performed, so too, before atonement, i.e., before the blood has been sprinkled upon the altar, it is not subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讜讗 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讻诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 诪讛 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讬砖 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛 讗祝 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讬砖 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 讚讘专 砖谞注砖讛 诪爪讜转讜 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜

The Gemara objects: But if the term 鈥渋t is鈥 teaches that the status of the blood remains the same before and after atonement, one can say just the opposite: It is after atonement as it is before atonement. Just as before atonement the blood is subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, so too, after atonement it is subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara responds: This cannot be the case, since as a rule, there is no item whose mitzva has been performed and is still subject to the prohibition of misusing of consecrated property.

讜诇讗 讜讛专讬 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讚谞注砖讛 诪爪讜转讜 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诪讜 讗爪诇 讛诪讝讘讞

The Gemara asks: And is there no such case? But there is the mitzva of the daily removal of the ashes of offerings burned on the altar, the mitzva of which has been performed, and yet one who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall take up the ashes of what the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:3). The ashes must be left there, where they are absorbed into the ground, and one who removes and derives benefit from them violates the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, even though their mitzva has been performed. This contradicts the principle posited above.

诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讗讬 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讜讘讙讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara answers: The principle does not apply in that case, because the mitzva of the removal of the ashes and the matter of the four white priestly vestments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, which may not be used again, are both specified as exceptions to the halakha that the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property does not apply after their mitzva has been performed. Consequently, they are two verses that come as one, i.e., they share a unique halakha not found elsewhere. And as a rule, any two verses that come as one do not teach their common element to apply to other cases. The principle therefore remains in place.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讜讛谞讬讞诐 砖诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讟注讜谞讬谉 讙谞讬讝讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讞专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: This works out well according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall take off the linen garments, which he wore when he went into the Sanctuary, and shall leave them there鈥 (Leviticus 16:23), teaches that these four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur are not fit for further use, and they require interment. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, who said that the verse teaches only that the High Priest may not use the vestments on Yom Kippur in a different year, but they are fit for an ordinary priest and do not require interment, what is there to say? If the priestly vestments are not an exception to the halakha that there is no prohibition of misuse of consecrated property after the performance of a mitzva, the removal of the ashes remains as the only exception. Why, then, does it not serve as a paradigm for other instances in the Torah?

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讗讬 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讜注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara responds: Rather, it is because the cases of the removal of the ashes and the heifer whose neck is broken to atone for an unsolved murder (Deuteronomy 21:1鈥9) are two verses that come as one, as it is also prohibited to derive benefit from the heifer after its mitzva is performed. And any two verses that come as one do not teach their common element to apply to other cases.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 转专讬

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do not teach their common element to apply to other cases, but according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach their common element to apply to other cases, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Two

诪讬注讜讟讬 讻转讬讘讬 讛讻讗 讻转讬讘 讜砖诪讜 讛转诐 讻转讬讘 讛注专讜驻讛

exclusions are written in these two cases, which indicate that this halakha applies to them alone. Here, with regard to the removal of ashes, it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall put it鈥 (Leviticus 6:3), indicating that this halakha applies to 鈥渋t,鈥 and nothing else. There, with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, it is written: 鈥淲hose neck was broken鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:6). This superfluous description teaches that the halakha that the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property is in effect even after the performance of a mitzva applies solely to this case and should not be extended to others.

讜转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘讚诐

The Gemara returns to the three phrases from Leviticus 17:11 cited above as teaching that the blood of offerings is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property: And why do I need all three verses stated with regard to blood?

讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪谞讜转专 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪诪注讬诇讛 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara answers: One term serves to exclude blood from the prohibition of notar. If one consumed the blood of such an offering, he is not liable for consuming notar as one who consumed the flesh would be. Rather, he is liable for violating only the prohibition against consuming blood. And one term serves to exclude blood from the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, and one other term serves to exclude it from the prohibition of consumption of offerings in a state of ritual impurity. If one consumed this blood in a state of ritual impurity, he is liable only for consuming blood, but not for consuming consecrated food while ritually impure.

讗讘诇 诪驻讙讜诇 诇讗 爪专讬讱 拽专讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讜讘讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讙讜诇 讜讚诐 讙讜驻讬讛 诪转讬专 讛讜讗

But no verse is required to exclude this blood from the halakha of piggul, an offering sacrificed with intention to consume it beyond its designated time, consumption of which is punishable by karet, as this exception is already derived from another source. As we learned in a mishna (Zeva岣m 43a): Concerning any item that has permitting factors, either with regard to consumption by a person or with regard to burning on the altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul. But the permitting factor itself is not subject to piggul, and the blood of an offering is itself a permitting factor, as consumption of the offering by a person or by the altar is only permitted after the blood has been sprinkled on the altar. Therefore, the blood is not subject to the prohibition of piggul.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻诇 讛讘砖专

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛注讜专 讜讛专讜讟讘 讜讛拽讬驻讛 讜讛讗诇诇 讜讛注爪诪讜转 讜讛讙讬讚讬谉 讜讛拽专谞讬诐 讜讛讟诇驻讬诐

MISHNA: All foods that became ritually impure through contact with a source of impurity transmit impurity to other food and liquids only if the impure foods measure an egg-bulk. In that regard, the Sages ruled that even if a piece of meat itself is less than an egg-bulk, the attached hide, even if it is not fit for consumption, joins together with the meat to constitute an egg-bulk. And the same is true of the congealed gravy attached to the meat, although it is not eaten; and likewise the spices added to flavor the meat, although they are not eaten; and the meat residue attached to the hide after flaying; and the bones; and the tendons; and the lower section of the horns, which remains attached to the flesh when the rest of the horn is removed; and the upper section of the hooves, which remains attached to the flesh when the rest of the hoof is removed.

诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讜转

All these items join together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food. Although if any of them was an egg-bulk they would not impart impurity of food, when attached to the meat they complete the measure. But they do not join together to constitute the measure of an olive-bulk required to impart the impurity of animal carcasses.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讛砖讜讞讟 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诇讙讜讬 讜诪驻专讻住转 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讜转 注讚 砖转诪讜转 讗讜 注讚 砖讬转讬讝 讗转 专讗砖讛 专讬讘讛 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪诪讛 砖专讬讘讛 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讜转

Similarly, there is another item that imparts impurity of food but not impurity of animal carcasses: In the case of one who slaughters a non-kosher animal for a gentile and the animal is still twitching and comes into contact with a source of impurity, the animal becomes impure with impurity of food and imparts impurity of food to other food, but does not impart impurity of animal carcasses until it dies, or until one severs its head. The mishna summarizes: The Torah included certain items to impart impurity of food beyond those which it included to impart impurity of animal carcasses.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讗诇诇 讛诪讻讜谞住 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 讻讝讬转 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讜

Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the meat residue attached to the hide after flaying that was collected, if there is an olive-bulk of it in one place it imparts impurity of an animal carcass, and one who contracts impurity from it and then eats consecrated foods or enters the Temple is liable to receive karet. By collecting it in one place, the person indicates that he considers it as meat.

讙诪壮 转谞讬谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜诪专讬诐 诇讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 讜诇讗 砖讜诪专讬诐 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the attached hide joins together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food even though it is not fit for consumption. This is because the hide acts as a protective cover for the meat. But it does not join to constitute the measure of an olive-bulk required to impart the impurity of animal carcasses. The Gemara notes: We learn in the mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita: An appendage that serves as protection joins together with food with regard to a light level of impurity, such as the impurity of food, which can be transmitted only to food but not to people or vessels. But protection attached to food does not join together with food with regard to a severe level of impurity, such as the impurity of an animal carcass, which can be transmitted even to people and vessels.

砖讜诪专讬诐 诇讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 注诇 讻诇 讝专注 讝专讜注 讻讚专讱 砖讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讝专讬注讛 讞讟讛 讘拽诇讬驻转讛 讜砖注讜专讛 讘拽诇讬驻转讛 讜注讚砖讬诐 讘拽诇讬驻转谉

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that protection joins together with food with regard to a light level of impurity? The Gemara answers that it is derived from a verse, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: With regard to the halakhot of imparting impurity of food, the verse states: 鈥淎nd if anything falls from their carcass upon any sowing seed that is sown, it is pure. But if water is put upon the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:37鈥38). The phrase 鈥渦pon any sowing seed鈥 indicates that the entire seed is susceptible to impurity when it is in a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing: This applies to wheat in its shell, and barley in its shell, and lentils in their shells. This demonstrates that shells and other components that protect the food are considered part of the food with regard to a light level of impurity.

讜诇讗 砖讜诪专讬诐 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘谞讘诇转讛 讜诇讗 讘注讜专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that protection does not join together with the food with regard to a severe level of impurity? The Gemara answers that it is as the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the impurity of a carcass, the verse states: 鈥淎nd if any animal of which you may eat dies, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39). This indicates that only one who touches the flesh of the carcass becomes impure, but one who touches the hide of the carcass upon which there is not an olive-bulk of flesh does not become impure.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Chullin 117

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 117

诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讚诐

one who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property. And second, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, if it was from an offering that was slaughtered with the intent to sprinkle its blood or partake of it beyond its designated time, and due to the prohibition of notar, if it was from an offering whose period for consumption has expired. And third, if one is ritually impure, he is liable due to the prohibition of partaking of it while impure. This is not so with regard to blood, as one is not liable in these cases for violating the prohibitions of piggul, notar, and partaking of offerings while impure, but rather is liable only for violating the prohibition of consuming blood.

讜讞讜诪专 讘讚诐 砖讛讚诐 谞讜讛讙 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讞讬讛 讜注讜祝 讘讬谉 讟诪讗讬诐 讜讘讬谉 讟讛讜专讬诐 讜讞诇讘 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讟讛讜专讛 讘诇讘讚

And the more stringent element in the prohibition of blood is that the prohibition of blood applies to domesticated animals, undomesticated animals, and birds, both kosher and non-kosher, but the prohibition of forbidden fat applies only to a kosher domesticated animal.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讻讗砖专 讬讜专诐 诪砖讜专 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讜讻讬 诪讛 诇诪讚谞讜 诪砖讜专 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 诪注转讛

GEMARA: According to the mishna, one who consumes forbidden fat of an offering is liable for misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yannai said: They are derived from a verse, as the verse states that the sacrificial portions of a bull brought for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest must be burned upon the altar: 鈥淎s it is taken off from the bull of the peace offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:10). But what, then, do we learn from the bull of the peace offering? Everything that is specified with regard to a peace offering is stated with regard to this bull as well (see Leviticus 4:8鈥9).

讛专讬 讝讛 讘讗 诇诇诪讚 讜谞诪爪讗 诇诪讚 诪拽讬砖 砖讜专 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 诇驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 诪讛 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讬砖 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛 讗祝 砖讜专 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛

Rather, this phrase initially comes to teach a halakha about the bull brought as an offering for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, but it turns out that it actually derives a halakha from that case, as the verse juxtaposes the bull of the peace offering to the bull of the anointed priest. It teaches that just as the bull of the anointed priest, as an offering of the most sacred order, is subject to the prohibition on misuse of consecrated property, as offerings of the most sacred order are called 鈥渢he sacred items of the Lord鈥 (see Leviticus 5:15), so too the sacrificial portions of the bull of the peace offering, including its forbidden fat, are subject to misuse of consecrated property, even though it is an offering of lesser sanctity and is considered the property of the owner before slaughter.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讻注讜专讛 讝讜 砖砖谞讛 专讘讬 讻诇 讞诇讘 诇讛壮 诇专讘讜转 讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诇诪注讬诇讛

Rabbi 岣nina said to Rabbi Yannai: Is that derivation that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi taught unattractive, that you derive a new one? He taught that when the Torah states with regard to peace offerings, which are of lesser sanctity: 鈥淎ll the fat is the Lord鈥檚鈥 (Leviticus 3:16), it serves to include the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity in the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, even though the prohibition is stated explicitly only with regard to offerings of the most sacred order.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讞诇讘 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讞诇讘 讗讬谉 讬讜转专转 讜砖转讬 讻诇讬讜转 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讗砖专 讬讜专诐

Abaye said: Rabbi Yannai鈥檚 derivation was necessary, as, if the Merciful One had written only the verse 鈥淎ll the fat is the Lord鈥檚,鈥 I would say that the fat of offerings of lesser sanctity, yes, they are included in the prohibition, but the diaphragm and the two kidneys of such offerings are not, even though they are also burned upon the altar. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎s it is taken off from the bull of the peace offering,鈥 to teach that even these portions are subject to the prohibition of misuse.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讗砖专 讬讜专诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讞诇讘 讗诇讬讛 讚诇讬转讗 讘砖讜专 诇讗 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 讞诇讘

And conversely, if the Merciful One had written only the phrase: 鈥淎s it is taken off from the bull,鈥 I would say that the prohibition applies only to those portions that are found in a bull, and that the fat of a sheep tail, which is not found in a bull, is not included. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淎ll the fat is the Lord鈥檚,鈥 to teach that the prohibition of misuse applies to all portions of offerings of lesser sanctity, including a sheep tail, which is referred to as fat in Leviticus 3:9.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 诪专讬 诇专讘 讝讘讬讚 讗讬 讗诇讬讛 讗讬拽专讗讬 讞诇讘 转讬转住专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 注诇讬讱 讗诪专 拽专讗 讻诇 讞诇讘 砖讜专 讜讻砖讘 讜注讝 讚讘专 讛砖讜讛 讘砖讜专 讜讻砖讘 讜注讝

Rav Mari said to Rav Zevid: If a sheep tail is called 鈥渇at,鈥 it should be prohibited for consumption, like forbidden fat. Rav Zevid said to Rav Mari: With regard to your claim, the verse states: 鈥淵ou shall eat no fat, of ox, or sheep, or goat鈥 (Leviticus 7:23). This teaches that the Torah designates as forbidden fat only an item that is found equally in an ox, and a sheep, and a goat. Since the ox and goat do not have a tail that consists of a large amount of fat, the sheep鈥檚 fatty tail is not prohibited.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讞诇讘讜 讛讗诇讬讛 讗讬拽专讗讬 讞诇讘 住转诪讗 诇讗 讗讬拽专讗讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇讗 讬诪注诇讜 讘讛 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚专讘 讝讘讬讚

Rav Ashi said a different explanation: It is called 鈥渢he fat tail,鈥 but it is not called simply: Fat, without specification. The Gemara objects: If that is so that the addition of a modifier indicates that the tail is not truly fat, then one who derives benefit from the tail should not be liable for misuse of consecrated property either. Rather, it is clear that the correct answer is as stated by Rav Zevid.

诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讻谉 讘讚诐 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讻诐 砖诇讻诐 讬讛讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 诇讻驻专 诇讻驻专讛 谞转转讬讜 讜诇讗 诇诪注讬诇讛

搂 The mishna teaches: This is not so with regard to blood, as one who derives benefit from blood is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Ulla said: The verse states with regard to blood: 鈥淔or the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls鈥 (Leviticus 17:11). The term 鈥渢o you鈥 indicates that it shall be yours, rather than consecrated property, and is therefore not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a different derivation. By using the term 鈥渢o make atonement,鈥 the verse teaches that God is saying: I gave it to achieve atonement, but not to be subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讻诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 诪讛 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛 讗祝 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛

And Rabbi Yo岣nan says that this halakha is derived from the latter part of the verse, which states: 鈥淔or it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul鈥 (Leviticus 17:11). The term 鈥渋t is鈥 teaches that the status of the blood remains as it is, i.e., it is before atonement as it is after atonement. As the Gemara will state, there is a principle that once the mitzva involving a consecrated item has been performed, the item is no longer subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. Accordingly, the term 鈥渋t is鈥 teaches that just as after atonement, i.e., after the blood has been sprinkled upon the altar, it is not subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, as the mitzva has already been performed, so too, before atonement, i.e., before the blood has been sprinkled upon the altar, it is not subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property.

讜讗讬诪讗 讛讜讗 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讻诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 诪讛 诇驻谞讬 讻驻专讛 讬砖 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛 讗祝 诇讗讞专 讻驻专讛 讬砖 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讱 讚讘专 砖谞注砖讛 诪爪讜转讜 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜

The Gemara objects: But if the term 鈥渋t is鈥 teaches that the status of the blood remains the same before and after atonement, one can say just the opposite: It is after atonement as it is before atonement. Just as before atonement the blood is subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, so too, after atonement it is subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara responds: This cannot be the case, since as a rule, there is no item whose mitzva has been performed and is still subject to the prohibition of misusing of consecrated property.

讜诇讗 讜讛专讬 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讚谞注砖讛 诪爪讜转讜 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜砖诪讜 讗爪诇 讛诪讝讘讞

The Gemara asks: And is there no such case? But there is the mitzva of the daily removal of the ashes of offerings burned on the altar, the mitzva of which has been performed, and yet one who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, as it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall take up the ashes of what the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:3). The ashes must be left there, where they are absorbed into the ground, and one who removes and derives benefit from them violates the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, even though their mitzva has been performed. This contradicts the principle posited above.

诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讗讬 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讜讘讙讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara answers: The principle does not apply in that case, because the mitzva of the removal of the ashes and the matter of the four white priestly vestments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, which may not be used again, are both specified as exceptions to the halakha that the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property does not apply after their mitzva has been performed. Consequently, they are two verses that come as one, i.e., they share a unique halakha not found elsewhere. And as a rule, any two verses that come as one do not teach their common element to apply to other cases. The principle therefore remains in place.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讜讛谞讬讞诐 砖诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讟注讜谞讬谉 讙谞讬讝讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讚讜住讗 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讬砖转诪砖 讘讛谉 诇讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讗讞专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专

The Gemara raises a further difficulty: This works out well according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall take off the linen garments, which he wore when he went into the Sanctuary, and shall leave them there鈥 (Leviticus 16:23), teaches that these four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur are not fit for further use, and they require interment. But according to the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, who said that the verse teaches only that the High Priest may not use the vestments on Yom Kippur in a different year, but they are fit for an ordinary priest and do not require interment, what is there to say? If the priestly vestments are not an exception to the halakha that there is no prohibition of misuse of consecrated property after the performance of a mitzva, the removal of the ashes remains as the only exception. Why, then, does it not serve as a paradigm for other instances in the Torah?

讗诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讗讬 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讜注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讜讻诇 砖谞讬 讻转讜讘讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讻讗讞讚 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉

The Gemara responds: Rather, it is because the cases of the removal of the ashes and the heifer whose neck is broken to atone for an unsolved murder (Deuteronomy 21:1鈥9) are two verses that come as one, as it is also prohibited to derive benefit from the heifer after its mitzva is performed. And any two verses that come as one do not teach their common element to apply to other cases.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪诇诪讚讬谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪诇诪讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 转专讬

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do not teach their common element to apply to other cases, but according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach their common element to apply to other cases, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Two

诪讬注讜讟讬 讻转讬讘讬 讛讻讗 讻转讬讘 讜砖诪讜 讛转诐 讻转讬讘 讛注专讜驻讛

exclusions are written in these two cases, which indicate that this halakha applies to them alone. Here, with regard to the removal of ashes, it is written: 鈥淎nd he shall put it鈥 (Leviticus 6:3), indicating that this halakha applies to 鈥渋t,鈥 and nothing else. There, with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, it is written: 鈥淲hose neck was broken鈥 (Deuteronomy 21:6). This superfluous description teaches that the halakha that the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property is in effect even after the performance of a mitzva applies solely to this case and should not be extended to others.

讜转诇转讗 拽专讗讬 诇诪讛 诇讬 讘讚诐

The Gemara returns to the three phrases from Leviticus 17:11 cited above as teaching that the blood of offerings is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property: And why do I need all three verses stated with regard to blood?

讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪谞讜转专 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪诪注讬诇讛 讜讞讚 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讟讜诪讗讛

The Gemara answers: One term serves to exclude blood from the prohibition of notar. If one consumed the blood of such an offering, he is not liable for consuming notar as one who consumed the flesh would be. Rather, he is liable for violating only the prohibition against consuming blood. And one term serves to exclude blood from the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, and one other term serves to exclude it from the prohibition of consumption of offerings in a state of ritual impurity. If one consumed this blood in a state of ritual impurity, he is liable only for consuming blood, but not for consuming consecrated food while ritually impure.

讗讘诇 诪驻讙讜诇 诇讗 爪专讬讱 拽专讗 讚转谞谉 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讜讘讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讙讜诇 讜讚诐 讙讜驻讬讛 诪转讬专 讛讜讗

But no verse is required to exclude this blood from the halakha of piggul, an offering sacrificed with intention to consume it beyond its designated time, consumption of which is punishable by karet, as this exception is already derived from another source. As we learned in a mishna (Zeva岣m 43a): Concerning any item that has permitting factors, either with regard to consumption by a person or with regard to burning on the altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul. But the permitting factor itself is not subject to piggul, and the blood of an offering is itself a permitting factor, as consumption of the offering by a person or by the altar is only permitted after the blood has been sprinkled on the altar. Therefore, the blood is not subject to the prohibition of piggul.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻诇 讛讘砖专

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛注讜专 讜讛专讜讟讘 讜讛拽讬驻讛 讜讛讗诇诇 讜讛注爪诪讜转 讜讛讙讬讚讬谉 讜讛拽专谞讬诐 讜讛讟诇驻讬诐

MISHNA: All foods that became ritually impure through contact with a source of impurity transmit impurity to other food and liquids only if the impure foods measure an egg-bulk. In that regard, the Sages ruled that even if a piece of meat itself is less than an egg-bulk, the attached hide, even if it is not fit for consumption, joins together with the meat to constitute an egg-bulk. And the same is true of the congealed gravy attached to the meat, although it is not eaten; and likewise the spices added to flavor the meat, although they are not eaten; and the meat residue attached to the hide after flaying; and the bones; and the tendons; and the lower section of the horns, which remains attached to the flesh when the rest of the horn is removed; and the upper section of the hooves, which remains attached to the flesh when the rest of the hoof is removed.

诪爪讟专驻讬谉 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讜转

All these items join together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food. Although if any of them was an egg-bulk they would not impart impurity of food, when attached to the meat they complete the measure. But they do not join together to constitute the measure of an olive-bulk required to impart the impurity of animal carcasses.

讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讛砖讜讞讟 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诇讙讜讬 讜诪驻专讻住转 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讗讘诇 诇讗 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讜转 注讚 砖转诪讜转 讗讜 注讚 砖讬转讬讝 讗转 专讗砖讛 专讬讘讛 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪诪讛 砖专讬讘讛 诇讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 谞讘诇讜转

Similarly, there is another item that imparts impurity of food but not impurity of animal carcasses: In the case of one who slaughters a non-kosher animal for a gentile and the animal is still twitching and comes into contact with a source of impurity, the animal becomes impure with impurity of food and imparts impurity of food to other food, but does not impart impurity of animal carcasses until it dies, or until one severs its head. The mishna summarizes: The Torah included certain items to impart impurity of food beyond those which it included to impart impurity of animal carcasses.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讛讗诇诇 讛诪讻讜谞住 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 讻讝讬转 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讞讚 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讜

Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the meat residue attached to the hide after flaying that was collected, if there is an olive-bulk of it in one place it imparts impurity of an animal carcass, and one who contracts impurity from it and then eats consecrated foods or enters the Temple is liable to receive karet. By collecting it in one place, the person indicates that he considers it as meat.

讙诪壮 转谞讬谞讗 诇讛讗 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 砖讜诪专讬诐 诇讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 讜诇讗 砖讜诪专讬诐 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the attached hide joins together with the meat to constitute the requisite egg-bulk to impart the impurity of food even though it is not fit for consumption. This is because the hide acts as a protective cover for the meat. But it does not join to constitute the measure of an olive-bulk required to impart the impurity of animal carcasses. The Gemara notes: We learn in the mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita: An appendage that serves as protection joins together with food with regard to a light level of impurity, such as the impurity of food, which can be transmitted only to food but not to people or vessels. But protection attached to food does not join together with food with regard to a severe level of impurity, such as the impurity of an animal carcass, which can be transmitted even to people and vessels.

砖讜诪专讬诐 诇讟讜诪讗讛 拽诇讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 注诇 讻诇 讝专注 讝专讜注 讻讚专讱 砖讘谞讬 讗讚诐 诪讜爪讬讗讬谉 诇讝专讬注讛 讞讟讛 讘拽诇讬驻转讛 讜砖注讜专讛 讘拽诇讬驻转讛 讜注讚砖讬诐 讘拽诇讬驻转谉

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that protection joins together with food with regard to a light level of impurity? The Gemara answers that it is derived from a verse, as the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: With regard to the halakhot of imparting impurity of food, the verse states: 鈥淎nd if anything falls from their carcass upon any sowing seed that is sown, it is pure. But if water is put upon the seed, and any of the carcass falls on it, it is impure for you鈥 (Leviticus 11:37鈥38). The phrase 鈥渦pon any sowing seed鈥 indicates that the entire seed is susceptible to impurity when it is in a state where it is typical for people to take it out to the field for sowing: This applies to wheat in its shell, and barley in its shell, and lentils in their shells. This demonstrates that shells and other components that protect the food are considered part of the food with regard to a light level of impurity.

讜诇讗 砖讜诪专讬诐 诇讟讜诪讗讛 讞诪讜专讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘谞讘诇转讛 讜诇讗 讘注讜专 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻讝讬转 讘砖专

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that protection does not join together with the food with regard to a severe level of impurity? The Gemara answers that it is as the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to the impurity of a carcass, the verse states: 鈥淎nd if any animal of which you may eat dies, one who touches its carcass shall be impure until the evening鈥 (Leviticus 11:39). This indicates that only one who touches the flesh of the carcass becomes impure, but one who touches the hide of the carcass upon which there is not an olive-bulk of flesh does not become impure.

Scroll To Top