There are discussions regarding details of the braita with the 3 different approaches to the burnt bird offering and the meaning of the word “according to the ordinance”. The mishna and gemara discuss the age range that turtle doves and pigeons need to be within in order to use for sacrificial purposes.
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
Chullin 22
אוֹחֵז בָּרֹאשׁ וּבַגּוּף וּמַזֶּה, אַף כָּאן אוֹחֵז בְּרֹאשׁ וּבַגּוּף וּמַזֶּה.
after the pinching, the priest holds [oḥez] the head and the body of the bird and sprinkles the blood on the altar, so too here, with regard to the bird burnt offering, he holds the head and the body and sprinkles the blood on the altar.
מַאי קָאָמַר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: מָה לְהַלָּן, כְּשֶׁהוּא אָחוּז הָרֹאשׁ בַּגּוּף מַזֶּה, אַף כָּאן, כְּשֶׁהוּא אָחוּז הָרֹאשׁ בַּגּוּף מַזֶּה.
The Gemara asks: What is he saying? There is no requirement with regard to a bird sin offering that the priest hold both the head and the body while sprinkling the blood. The Gemara answers that this is what he is saying: Just as there, with regard to the bird sin offering, when the head is attached [aḥuz] to the body, the priest sprinkles the blood on the altar, so too here, with regard to the bird burnt offering, when the head is attached to the body, the priest sprinkles the blood on the altar. This is what was cited above in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, that one cuts a majority of two simanim in a burnt offering and not the two simanim in their entirety.
אִי מָה לְהַלָּן בְּסִימָן אֶחָד, אַף כָּאן בְּסִימָן אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״.
The baraita continues: If so, perhaps just as there, in the sin offering, the pinching is performed with the cutting of one siman, so too here, in the burnt offering, the pinching is performed with the cutting of one siman. To counter this, the verse states: “And the priest shall bring it,” meaning that the burnt offering is sacrificed in a manner different from that of the sin offering, by cutting two simanim.
וְתַנָּא קַמָּא, וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּנָפְקָא לַן מִ״וּמָלַק … וְהִקְטִיר״, ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״ לְמָה לִי?
The Gemara asks: And according to the first tanna, once we derive that both simanim of a bird burnt offering must be cut in their entirety from the verse: “And pinch off its head…and burn it on the altar,” why do I need the phrase: “And the priest shall bring it?”
אִי לָאו ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַאי ״כַּמִּשְׁפָּט״ – כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת הָעוֹף.
The Gemara answers: If not for the verse that states: “And the priest shall bring it,” I would say: What is the meaning of “according to the ordinance” that is stated with regard to the bird burnt offering? It means according to the ordinance of the bird sin offering mentioned in that same passage, in the sense that even in the burnt offering, the priest cuts only one siman.
וְאִי מִשּׁוּם ״וּמָלַק וְהִקְטִיר״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מָה הַקְטָרָה בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ – אַף מְלִיקָה בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ.
And if you would say that one cannot suggest this interpretation due to the verse: “And pinch off its head…and burn it on the altar,” I would say that perhaps another halakha would be derived from that verse: Just as burning the offering is atop the altar, so too pinching is performed atop the altar.
הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״, דְּרוֹשׁ בֵּיהּ נָמֵי הָא.
Now that the Merciful One writes: “And the priest shall bring it,” indicating the distinction between the pinching of a bird burnt offering and the pinching of a bird sin offering, derive this also from the verse: “And pinch off its head…and burn it on the altar,” i.e., that the body and the head of a bird burnt offering must be completely separated.
חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה, דְּאֵינָהּ בָּאָה אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין, מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהִקְרִיב אַהֲרֹן אֶת פַּר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״ – מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר, וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל מַעֲשֵׂר.
§ The first tanna of the baraita derives from the analogy between the bird burnt offering and the animal sin offering that a bird burnt offering is brought only from non-sacred animals and not from an animal purchased with second-tithe money, that it is sacrificed only during the day, and that the priest sacrificing it must do so with his right hand. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive the halakha that an animal sin offering comes only from non-sacred animals? Rav Ḥisda said that the verse states: “And Aaron shall sacrifice the bull of the sin offering that is his” (Leviticus 16:6, 11), from which it is derived: The animal must come from his cattle, but not from communal property, from his cattle, but not from second-tithe property.
בַּיּוֹם – מִ״בְּיוֹם צַוֹּתוֹ״ נָפְקָא! כְּדִי נַסְבַהּ.
The Gemara objects: The halakha that the bird burnt offering is sacrificed only during the day is derived from the verse: “In the day that he commanded the children of Israel to present their offerings” (Leviticus 7:38), not from the halakha of the animal sin offering. The Gemara explains: The requirement of sacrificing the bird burnt offering during the day is not derived from the halakha of the animal sin offering, and it was cited in that list incidentally, for no reason [kedi].
יָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית – מִדְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה נָפְקָא, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֶצְבַּע אוֹ כְהוּנָּה אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא יָמִין.
The Gemara objects: The halakha that the priest performs the service with his right hand is derived from the statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Any place where the terms finger or priesthood are stated with regard to offerings, the sacrificial rites of that offering are performed only with the right hand, and in the context of the bird burnt offering the term “priest” is employed. It is therefore unnecessary to derive this halakha from the analogy to the animal sin offering.
וְאִידַּךְ, כְּהוּנָּה בָּעֲיָא אֶצְבַּע, אֶצְבַּע לָא בָּעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה.
The Gemara responds: And the other tanna, the first tanna of the baraita, who derived that the right hand is used from the analogy to the animal sin offering based on the term “according to the ordinance,” did not derive it from the statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana because in his opinion, in order to derive that the right hand must be used, if the verse mentions only the priesthood, it requires mention of finger for the limitation to apply. If the verse mentions only the term finger, then it does not require a mention of the priesthood as well. With regard to the bird burnt offering, the priesthood is mentioned, but the word finger is not. Therefore, the halakha must be derived from the animal sin offering.
וְתַנָּא קַמָּא וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מִמּוּל הָעוֹרֶף מְנָא לְהוּ? גָּמְרִי מְלִיקָה מִמְּלִיקָה.
It is taught in the baraita that Rabbi Yishmael derived from the term “according to the ordinance” that is written with regard to the bird burnt offering that the pinching of the bird burnt offering is performed at the nape of the neck, as it is in a bird sin offering. The Gemara asks: And as for the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who derive other matters from that term, from where do they derive that pinching of the bird burnt offering is performed at the nape of the neck? The Gemara answers: They derive pinching that is written with regard to the burnt offering: “And pinch off its head” (Leviticus 1:15), from pinching that is written with regard to the sin offering: “And pinch off its head adjacent to its neck” (Leviticus 5:8).
מַתְנִי׳ כָּשֵׁר בְּתוֹרִין – פָּסוּל בִּבְנֵי יוֹנָה, כָּשֵׁר בִּבְנֵי יוֹנָה – פָּסוּל בְּתוֹרִין, תְּחִלַּת הַצִּיהוּב בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה – פָּסוּל.
MISHNA: It is written with regard to bird offerings: “He shall bring his offering of doves, or of young pigeons” (Leviticus 1:14). The age that is fit for sacrifice in doves, mature birds, is unfit for sacrifice in pigeons, immature birds;the age that is fit for sacrifice in pigeons is unfit for sacrifice in doves. At the intermediate stage of the beginning of the yellowing of its plumage (see 22b), a bird is unfit both as this, a pigeon, and as that, a dove, since it is no longer a fledgling but is not yet a mature bird.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: תּוֹרִין גְּדוֹלִים – כְּשֵׁרִים, קְטַנִּים – פְּסוּלִים; בְּנֵי יוֹנָה קְטַנִּים – כְּשֵׁרִים, גְּדוֹלִים – פְּסוּלִין. נִמְצָא כָּשֵׁר בְּתוֹרִין – פָּסוּל בִּבְנֵי יוֹנָה, כָּשֵׁר בִּבְנֵי יוֹנָה – פָּסוּל בְּתוֹרִין.
GEMARA: The Sages taught a baraita in explaining the mishna: Doves, when they are older, are fit for sacrifice; when they are younger, they are unfit. Pigeons, when they are younger, are fit for sacrifice; when they are older, they are unfit. It is found that that which is fit for sacrifice in doves is unfit for sacrifice in pigeons; that which is fit for sacrifice in pigeons is unfit for sacrifice in doves.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״תּוֹרִים״ – גְּדוֹלִים וְלֹא קְטַנִּים, שֶׁיָּכוֹל וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא:
The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And he shall bring his offering of doves, or of young pigeons” (Leviticus 1:14), that doves are older and not younger. As one might have thought: And couldn’t this be derived through an a fortiori inference:
וּמָה בְּנֵי יוֹנָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּגְדוֹלִים הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּקְטַנִּים, תּוֹרִים שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּגְדוֹלִים אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּקְטַנִּים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תּוֹרִים״ – גְּדוֹלִים וְלֹא קְטַנִּים.
If pigeons, which were not deemed fit when older, were deemed fit when younger, as the term “young pigeons” indicates that they are young, then with regard to doves, which were deemed fit when older, isn’t it logical that they were deemed fit when younger? Therefore, the verse states: “Doves,” meaning older and not younger.
״בְּנֵי יוֹנָה״ – קְטַנִּים וְלֹא גְּדוֹלִים, שֶׁיָּכוֹל וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה תּוֹרִים שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּקְטַנִּים – הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּגְדוֹלִים, בְּנֵי יוֹנָה שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּקְטַנִּים – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּגְדוֹלִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּנֵי יוֹנָה״ – קְטַנִּים וְלֹא גְּדוֹלִים.
The baraita continues: Young pigeons must be younger and not older, as one might have thought: And couldn’t this be derived through an a fortiori inference: If doves, which were not deemed fit when younger, were deemed fit when older, then with regard to pigeons, which were deemed fit when younger, isn’t it logical that they were deemed fit when older? Therefore, the verse states: “Young pigeons,” meaning younger and not older.
מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רָבָא: לָא לִישְׁתְּמִיט קְרָא וְלִכְתּוֹב ״מִן בְּנֵי הַתּוֹרִים אוֹ מִן הַיּוֹנָה״.
The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation of these matters? Rava said: It is derived from the fact that it is not found that the verse would deviate from the norm and write: Of young doves, or of pigeons; rather, the wording in the Torah is always “of doves” or “of young pigeons.” Evidently, doves must be older and pigeons must be younger.
אֵימָא: בְּנֵי יוֹנָה דִּכְתַב בְּהוּ רַחֲמָנָא ״בְּנֵי״ – קְטַנִּים אִין, גְּדוֹלִים לָא, תּוֹרִים – אִי בָּעֵי גְּדוֹלִים לַיְיתֵי, אִי בָּעֵי קְטַנִּים לַיְיתֵי! דֻּמְיָא דִּבְנֵי יוֹנָה: מָה בְּנֵי יוֹנָה – קְטַנִּים אִין, גְּדוֹלִים לָא, אַף תּוֹרִים – גְּדוֹלִים אִין, קְטַנִּים לָא.
The Gemara objects: Say instead that with regard to pigeons, since the Merciful One writes: “Young,” this means younger birds, yes, older birds, no; but with regard to doves, if one wishes, let him bring older birds, and if he wishes, let him bring younger birds. The Gemara responds: Since doves and pigeons are always juxtaposed to one another in the Torah, it is derived that the halakha of doves is similar to the halakha of pigeons: Just as with regard to pigeons the halakha is younger birds, yes, older birds, no, so too with regard to doves, the halakha is older birds, yes, younger birds, no.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל יְהוּ כׇּל הַתּוֹרִים וְכׇל בְּנֵי הַיּוֹנָה כְּשֵׁרִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִן הַתּוֹרִים״ – וְלֹא כׇּל הַתּוֹרִים, ״מִן בְּנֵי הַיּוֹנָה״ – וְלֹא כׇּל בְּנֵי יוֹנָה, פְּרָט לִתְחִילַּת הַצִּיהוּב שֶׁבָּזֶה וְשֶׁבָּזֶה שֶׁפָּסוּל. מֵאֵימָתַי הַתּוֹרִים כְּשֵׁרִים – מִשֶּׁיַּזְהִיבוּ, מֵאֵימָתַי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה פְּסוּלִין – מִשֶּׁיַּצְהִיבוּ.
The Sages taught in a baraita: One might have thought that all the older doves or all the younger pigeons would be fit for sacrifice; therefore, the verse states: “Of doves,” and not all doves; “of young pigeons,” and not all young pigeons. This serves to exclude birds at the beginning of the yellowing of their neck plumage, which are unfit as this, doves, and as that, pigeons. They are unfit as doves because they are not sufficiently old and as pigeons because they are no longer young. The tanna elaborates: From when are the doves fit? It is from when the color of their feathers turns a glistening gold. From when are the pigeons unfit? It is from when their feathers turn yellow.
תָּנֵי יַעֲקֹב קָרְחָה: מֵאֵימָתַי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה כְּשֵׁרִים? מִשֶּׁיְּעַלְעוּ. הוּא תָנֵי לַהּ וְהוּא אָמַר לַהּ, ״אֶפְרוֹחָיו יְעַלְעוּ דָם״. אֵימַת? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִכִּי שָׁמֵיט גַּדְפָּא מִינֵיהּ וְאָתֵי דְּמָא.
Ya’akov Korḥa taught a baraita: From when are pigeons fit? It is from when ye’alu. He teaches the baraita and he states its explanation: The reference is to that which is stated: “Its fledglings will suck up [ye’alu] blood” (Job 39:30). When is that? Abaye said: It is from the stage when one plucks a feather from it and blood emerges.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה מִן הַתּוֹרִים אוֹ מִן בְּנֵי הַיּוֹנָה״, וְהֵבִיא תְּחִלַּת הַצִּיהוּב שֶׁבָּזֶה וְשֶׁבָּזֶה, מַהוּ? סְפֵיקָא הָוֵי וְנָפֵיק, אוֹ דִילְמָא בְּרִיָּה הָוֵי וְלָא נָפֵיק?
§ Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering of doves or of pigeons, and he brought birds at the beginning of the yellowing of their neck plumage of this, doves, and of that, pigeons, what is the halakha? Is it a case of uncertainty whether it is considered older or younger, and therefore when he brings both he fulfills his obligation, as one of the birds was fit for sacrifice; or perhaps a bird at the beginning of the yellowing is an entity in and of itself and is neither older nor younger, and he does not fulfill his obligation?
אָמַר רָבָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: פְּרָט לִתְחִילַּת הַצִּיהוּב שֶׁבָּזֶה וְשֶׁבָּזֶה, שֶׁפָּסוּל. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּרִיָּה הָוֵי – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ סְפֵיקָא הָוֵי, אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי סְפֵיקָא?
Rava said: Come and hear proof from the baraita where it is taught that the verse: “Of doves or of young pigeons,” serves to exclude birds at the beginning of the yellowing of their neck plumage that are unfit as this, doves, and as that, pigeons. Granted, if you say that a bird at that stage is an entity in and of itself, that works out well, as the verse serves to ensure that a bird at that stage of development will never be sacrificed. But if you say that it is a case of uncertainty, was it necessary for the verse to exclude a case of uncertainty?
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Sara Averick
Jerusalem, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Sue Parker Gerson
Denver, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Keren Carter
Brentwood, California, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Rebecca Stulberg
Ottawa, Canada
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Jeanne Yael Klempner
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Miriam Eckstein-Koas
Huntington, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
Vitti Kones
מיתר, ישראל
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Barbara Goldschlag
Silver Spring, MD, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
Chullin 22
אוֹחֵז בָּרֹאשׁ וּבַגּוּף וּמַזֶּה, אַף כָּאן אוֹחֵז בְּרֹאשׁ וּבַגּוּף וּמַזֶּה.
after the pinching, the priest holds [oḥez] the head and the body of the bird and sprinkles the blood on the altar, so too here, with regard to the bird burnt offering, he holds the head and the body and sprinkles the blood on the altar.
מַאי קָאָמַר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: מָה לְהַלָּן, כְּשֶׁהוּא אָחוּז הָרֹאשׁ בַּגּוּף מַזֶּה, אַף כָּאן, כְּשֶׁהוּא אָחוּז הָרֹאשׁ בַּגּוּף מַזֶּה.
The Gemara asks: What is he saying? There is no requirement with regard to a bird sin offering that the priest hold both the head and the body while sprinkling the blood. The Gemara answers that this is what he is saying: Just as there, with regard to the bird sin offering, when the head is attached [aḥuz] to the body, the priest sprinkles the blood on the altar, so too here, with regard to the bird burnt offering, when the head is attached to the body, the priest sprinkles the blood on the altar. This is what was cited above in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, that one cuts a majority of two simanim in a burnt offering and not the two simanim in their entirety.
אִי מָה לְהַלָּן בְּסִימָן אֶחָד, אַף כָּאן בְּסִימָן אֶחָד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״.
The baraita continues: If so, perhaps just as there, in the sin offering, the pinching is performed with the cutting of one siman, so too here, in the burnt offering, the pinching is performed with the cutting of one siman. To counter this, the verse states: “And the priest shall bring it,” meaning that the burnt offering is sacrificed in a manner different from that of the sin offering, by cutting two simanim.
וְתַנָּא קַמָּא, וְכִי מֵאַחַר דְּנָפְקָא לַן מִ״וּמָלַק … וְהִקְטִיר״, ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״ לְמָה לִי?
The Gemara asks: And according to the first tanna, once we derive that both simanim of a bird burnt offering must be cut in their entirety from the verse: “And pinch off its head…and burn it on the altar,” why do I need the phrase: “And the priest shall bring it?”
אִי לָאו ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מַאי ״כַּמִּשְׁפָּט״ – כְּמִשְׁפַּט חַטַּאת הָעוֹף.
The Gemara answers: If not for the verse that states: “And the priest shall bring it,” I would say: What is the meaning of “according to the ordinance” that is stated with regard to the bird burnt offering? It means according to the ordinance of the bird sin offering mentioned in that same passage, in the sense that even in the burnt offering, the priest cuts only one siman.
וְאִי מִשּׁוּם ״וּמָלַק וְהִקְטִיר״ – הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: מָה הַקְטָרָה בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ – אַף מְלִיקָה בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ.
And if you would say that one cannot suggest this interpretation due to the verse: “And pinch off its head…and burn it on the altar,” I would say that perhaps another halakha would be derived from that verse: Just as burning the offering is atop the altar, so too pinching is performed atop the altar.
הַשְׁתָּא דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״, דְּרוֹשׁ בֵּיהּ נָמֵי הָא.
Now that the Merciful One writes: “And the priest shall bring it,” indicating the distinction between the pinching of a bird burnt offering and the pinching of a bird sin offering, derive this also from the verse: “And pinch off its head…and burn it on the altar,” i.e., that the body and the head of a bird burnt offering must be completely separated.
חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה, דְּאֵינָהּ בָּאָה אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין, מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהִקְרִיב אַהֲרֹן אֶת פַּר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״ – מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל צִבּוּר, וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל מַעֲשֵׂר.
§ The first tanna of the baraita derives from the analogy between the bird burnt offering and the animal sin offering that a bird burnt offering is brought only from non-sacred animals and not from an animal purchased with second-tithe money, that it is sacrificed only during the day, and that the priest sacrificing it must do so with his right hand. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive the halakha that an animal sin offering comes only from non-sacred animals? Rav Ḥisda said that the verse states: “And Aaron shall sacrifice the bull of the sin offering that is his” (Leviticus 16:6, 11), from which it is derived: The animal must come from his cattle, but not from communal property, from his cattle, but not from second-tithe property.
בַּיּוֹם – מִ״בְּיוֹם צַוֹּתוֹ״ נָפְקָא! כְּדִי נַסְבַהּ.
The Gemara objects: The halakha that the bird burnt offering is sacrificed only during the day is derived from the verse: “In the day that he commanded the children of Israel to present their offerings” (Leviticus 7:38), not from the halakha of the animal sin offering. The Gemara explains: The requirement of sacrificing the bird burnt offering during the day is not derived from the halakha of the animal sin offering, and it was cited in that list incidentally, for no reason [kedi].
יָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית – מִדְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה נָפְקָא, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֶצְבַּע אוֹ כְהוּנָּה אֵינָהּ אֶלָּא יָמִין.
The Gemara objects: The halakha that the priest performs the service with his right hand is derived from the statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Any place where the terms finger or priesthood are stated with regard to offerings, the sacrificial rites of that offering are performed only with the right hand, and in the context of the bird burnt offering the term “priest” is employed. It is therefore unnecessary to derive this halakha from the analogy to the animal sin offering.
וְאִידַּךְ, כְּהוּנָּה בָּעֲיָא אֶצְבַּע, אֶצְבַּע לָא בָּעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה.
The Gemara responds: And the other tanna, the first tanna of the baraita, who derived that the right hand is used from the analogy to the animal sin offering based on the term “according to the ordinance,” did not derive it from the statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana because in his opinion, in order to derive that the right hand must be used, if the verse mentions only the priesthood, it requires mention of finger for the limitation to apply. If the verse mentions only the term finger, then it does not require a mention of the priesthood as well. With regard to the bird burnt offering, the priesthood is mentioned, but the word finger is not. Therefore, the halakha must be derived from the animal sin offering.
וְתַנָּא קַמָּא וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מִמּוּל הָעוֹרֶף מְנָא לְהוּ? גָּמְרִי מְלִיקָה מִמְּלִיקָה.
It is taught in the baraita that Rabbi Yishmael derived from the term “according to the ordinance” that is written with regard to the bird burnt offering that the pinching of the bird burnt offering is performed at the nape of the neck, as it is in a bird sin offering. The Gemara asks: And as for the first tanna and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who derive other matters from that term, from where do they derive that pinching of the bird burnt offering is performed at the nape of the neck? The Gemara answers: They derive pinching that is written with regard to the burnt offering: “And pinch off its head” (Leviticus 1:15), from pinching that is written with regard to the sin offering: “And pinch off its head adjacent to its neck” (Leviticus 5:8).
מַתְנִי׳ כָּשֵׁר בְּתוֹרִין – פָּסוּל בִּבְנֵי יוֹנָה, כָּשֵׁר בִּבְנֵי יוֹנָה – פָּסוּל בְּתוֹרִין, תְּחִלַּת הַצִּיהוּב בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה – פָּסוּל.
MISHNA: It is written with regard to bird offerings: “He shall bring his offering of doves, or of young pigeons” (Leviticus 1:14). The age that is fit for sacrifice in doves, mature birds, is unfit for sacrifice in pigeons, immature birds;the age that is fit for sacrifice in pigeons is unfit for sacrifice in doves. At the intermediate stage of the beginning of the yellowing of its plumage (see 22b), a bird is unfit both as this, a pigeon, and as that, a dove, since it is no longer a fledgling but is not yet a mature bird.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: תּוֹרִין גְּדוֹלִים – כְּשֵׁרִים, קְטַנִּים – פְּסוּלִים; בְּנֵי יוֹנָה קְטַנִּים – כְּשֵׁרִים, גְּדוֹלִים – פְּסוּלִין. נִמְצָא כָּשֵׁר בְּתוֹרִין – פָּסוּל בִּבְנֵי יוֹנָה, כָּשֵׁר בִּבְנֵי יוֹנָה – פָּסוּל בְּתוֹרִין.
GEMARA: The Sages taught a baraita in explaining the mishna: Doves, when they are older, are fit for sacrifice; when they are younger, they are unfit. Pigeons, when they are younger, are fit for sacrifice; when they are older, they are unfit. It is found that that which is fit for sacrifice in doves is unfit for sacrifice in pigeons; that which is fit for sacrifice in pigeons is unfit for sacrifice in doves.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״תּוֹרִים״ – גְּדוֹלִים וְלֹא קְטַנִּים, שֶׁיָּכוֹל וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא:
The Sages taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And he shall bring his offering of doves, or of young pigeons” (Leviticus 1:14), that doves are older and not younger. As one might have thought: And couldn’t this be derived through an a fortiori inference:
וּמָה בְּנֵי יוֹנָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּגְדוֹלִים הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּקְטַנִּים, תּוֹרִים שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּגְדוֹלִים אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּקְטַנִּים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תּוֹרִים״ – גְּדוֹלִים וְלֹא קְטַנִּים.
If pigeons, which were not deemed fit when older, were deemed fit when younger, as the term “young pigeons” indicates that they are young, then with regard to doves, which were deemed fit when older, isn’t it logical that they were deemed fit when younger? Therefore, the verse states: “Doves,” meaning older and not younger.
״בְּנֵי יוֹנָה״ – קְטַנִּים וְלֹא גְּדוֹלִים, שֶׁיָּכוֹל וַהֲלֹא דִּין הוּא: וּמָה תּוֹרִים שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּקְטַנִּים – הוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּגְדוֹלִים, בְּנֵי יוֹנָה שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּקְטַנִּים – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרוּ בִּגְדוֹלִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בְּנֵי יוֹנָה״ – קְטַנִּים וְלֹא גְּדוֹלִים.
The baraita continues: Young pigeons must be younger and not older, as one might have thought: And couldn’t this be derived through an a fortiori inference: If doves, which were not deemed fit when younger, were deemed fit when older, then with regard to pigeons, which were deemed fit when younger, isn’t it logical that they were deemed fit when older? Therefore, the verse states: “Young pigeons,” meaning younger and not older.
מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רָבָא: לָא לִישְׁתְּמִיט קְרָא וְלִכְתּוֹב ״מִן בְּנֵי הַתּוֹרִים אוֹ מִן הַיּוֹנָה״.
The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation of these matters? Rava said: It is derived from the fact that it is not found that the verse would deviate from the norm and write: Of young doves, or of pigeons; rather, the wording in the Torah is always “of doves” or “of young pigeons.” Evidently, doves must be older and pigeons must be younger.
אֵימָא: בְּנֵי יוֹנָה דִּכְתַב בְּהוּ רַחֲמָנָא ״בְּנֵי״ – קְטַנִּים אִין, גְּדוֹלִים לָא, תּוֹרִים – אִי בָּעֵי גְּדוֹלִים לַיְיתֵי, אִי בָּעֵי קְטַנִּים לַיְיתֵי! דֻּמְיָא דִּבְנֵי יוֹנָה: מָה בְּנֵי יוֹנָה – קְטַנִּים אִין, גְּדוֹלִים לָא, אַף תּוֹרִים – גְּדוֹלִים אִין, קְטַנִּים לָא.
The Gemara objects: Say instead that with regard to pigeons, since the Merciful One writes: “Young,” this means younger birds, yes, older birds, no; but with regard to doves, if one wishes, let him bring older birds, and if he wishes, let him bring younger birds. The Gemara responds: Since doves and pigeons are always juxtaposed to one another in the Torah, it is derived that the halakha of doves is similar to the halakha of pigeons: Just as with regard to pigeons the halakha is younger birds, yes, older birds, no, so too with regard to doves, the halakha is older birds, yes, younger birds, no.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יָכוֹל יְהוּ כׇּל הַתּוֹרִים וְכׇל בְּנֵי הַיּוֹנָה כְּשֵׁרִים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִן הַתּוֹרִים״ – וְלֹא כׇּל הַתּוֹרִים, ״מִן בְּנֵי הַיּוֹנָה״ – וְלֹא כׇּל בְּנֵי יוֹנָה, פְּרָט לִתְחִילַּת הַצִּיהוּב שֶׁבָּזֶה וְשֶׁבָּזֶה שֶׁפָּסוּל. מֵאֵימָתַי הַתּוֹרִים כְּשֵׁרִים – מִשֶּׁיַּזְהִיבוּ, מֵאֵימָתַי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה פְּסוּלִין – מִשֶּׁיַּצְהִיבוּ.
The Sages taught in a baraita: One might have thought that all the older doves or all the younger pigeons would be fit for sacrifice; therefore, the verse states: “Of doves,” and not all doves; “of young pigeons,” and not all young pigeons. This serves to exclude birds at the beginning of the yellowing of their neck plumage, which are unfit as this, doves, and as that, pigeons. They are unfit as doves because they are not sufficiently old and as pigeons because they are no longer young. The tanna elaborates: From when are the doves fit? It is from when the color of their feathers turns a glistening gold. From when are the pigeons unfit? It is from when their feathers turn yellow.
תָּנֵי יַעֲקֹב קָרְחָה: מֵאֵימָתַי בְּנֵי יוֹנָה כְּשֵׁרִים? מִשֶּׁיְּעַלְעוּ. הוּא תָנֵי לַהּ וְהוּא אָמַר לַהּ, ״אֶפְרוֹחָיו יְעַלְעוּ דָם״. אֵימַת? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִכִּי שָׁמֵיט גַּדְפָּא מִינֵיהּ וְאָתֵי דְּמָא.
Ya’akov Korḥa taught a baraita: From when are pigeons fit? It is from when ye’alu. He teaches the baraita and he states its explanation: The reference is to that which is stated: “Its fledglings will suck up [ye’alu] blood” (Job 39:30). When is that? Abaye said: It is from the stage when one plucks a feather from it and blood emerges.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלָה מִן הַתּוֹרִים אוֹ מִן בְּנֵי הַיּוֹנָה״, וְהֵבִיא תְּחִלַּת הַצִּיהוּב שֶׁבָּזֶה וְשֶׁבָּזֶה, מַהוּ? סְפֵיקָא הָוֵי וְנָפֵיק, אוֹ דִילְמָא בְּרִיָּה הָוֵי וְלָא נָפֵיק?
§ Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a burnt offering of doves or of pigeons, and he brought birds at the beginning of the yellowing of their neck plumage of this, doves, and of that, pigeons, what is the halakha? Is it a case of uncertainty whether it is considered older or younger, and therefore when he brings both he fulfills his obligation, as one of the birds was fit for sacrifice; or perhaps a bird at the beginning of the yellowing is an entity in and of itself and is neither older nor younger, and he does not fulfill his obligation?
אָמַר רָבָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: פְּרָט לִתְחִילַּת הַצִּיהוּב שֶׁבָּזֶה וְשֶׁבָּזֶה, שֶׁפָּסוּל. אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּרִיָּה הָוֵי – שַׁפִּיר, אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ סְפֵיקָא הָוֵי, אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי סְפֵיקָא?
Rava said: Come and hear proof from the baraita where it is taught that the verse: “Of doves or of young pigeons,” serves to exclude birds at the beginning of the yellowing of their neck plumage that are unfit as this, doves, and as that, pigeons. Granted, if you say that a bird at that stage is an entity in and of itself, that works out well, as the verse serves to ensure that a bird at that stage of development will never be sacrificed. But if you say that it is a case of uncertainty, was it necessary for the verse to exclude a case of uncertainty?
Follow
