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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 20, 2018 | ื™ืดื‘ ื‘ื˜ื‘ืช ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Chullin 23

Cases are brought regarding a palgas (a lamb/ram aged one year and a month – exactly in between a lamb and a ram) and seorย (in between unleavened and leavened dough) – are they cases of doubt or do they stand in their own independent category. Differences are brought between the red heifer and the heifer whose neck is broken.


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

ื›ื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืงืจื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื ืจื‘ืข ื•ื ืขื‘ื“

The Gemara rejects that proof: When the phrase in the verse โ€œof doves or of young pigeonsโ€ was necessary, it was to exclude a bird that was the object of bestiality or a bird that was worshipped as a deity.

ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืžืฉื—ืชื ื‘ื”ื ืžื•ื ื‘ื ื•ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ืฉื—ืชื” ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื“ื‘ืจ ืขืจื•ื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื“ื‘ืจ ืขืจื•ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ื”ืฉื—ื™ืช ื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ืืช ื“ืจื›ื• ืขืœ ื”ืืจืฅ

As it could enter your mind to say: Since it is written with regard to the halakhot of disqualified offerings: โ€œBecause their corruption [moshแธฅatam] is in them, there is a blemish in themโ€ (Leviticus 22:25), referring to two types of disqualifications: Corruption and blemish, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that the term corruption [hashแธฅata] is stated, it is referring to nothing other than a matter of licentiousness and idol worship. The Gemara cites proofs for this claim: Corruption is referring to matters of licentiousness, as it is written: โ€œFor all flesh had corrupted [hishแธฅit] their way upon the earthโ€ (Genesis 6:12); the word โ€œwayโ€ alludes to sexual intercourse.

ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืคืŸ ืชืฉื—ืชื•ืŸ ื•ืขืฉื™ืชื ืœื›ื ืคืกืœ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ืžื•ื ืคื•ืกืœ ื‘ื• ื“ื‘ืจ ืขืจื•ื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื•ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืžื•ื ืคื•ืกืœ ื‘ื• ืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืขืจื•ื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื•ื”ื ื™ ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืœื ืคืกื™ืœ ื‘ื”ื• ืžื•ืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืชืžื•ืช ื•ื–ื›ืจื•ืช ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืชืžื•ืช ื•ื–ื›ืจื•ืช ื‘ืขื•ืคื•ืช ืื™ืžื ื“ื‘ืจ ืขืจื•ื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื ืžื™ ืœื ืœืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ื”ื• ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

Corruption is also referring to idol worship, as it is written: โ€œLest you deal corruptly [tashแธฅitun], and make you a graven imageโ€ (Deuteronomy 4:16); one might have thought: Any type of offering that a blemish disqualifies, matters of licentiousness and idol worship disqualify it, and any type of offering that a blemish does not disqualify, matters of licentiousness and idol worship do not disqualify it. And with regard to these birds, since blemishes do not disqualify them, as the Master says: There is a requirement of an unblemished state and male gender in a sacrificial animal and there is no requirement of an unblemished state and male gender in sacrificial birds, say that matters of licentiousness and idol worship should also not disqualify the birds. Therefore, the tanna teaches us from the phrase in the verse โ€œof doves or of young pigeonsโ€ that a bird that was the object of bestiality and a bird that was worshipped as a deity are disqualified.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืขื•ืœืช ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžืŸ ื”ืื™ืœ ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื›ื‘ืฉ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืคืœื’ืก ืžื”ื•

ยง Apropos the discussion of the beginning of the yellowing of the neck plumage, the Gemara cites another matter where there is uncertainty as to whether an animal of a particular age is of uncertain status or an entity in and of itself. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an animal burnt offering of a ram, which is a sheep that is at least thirteen months old, or of a lamb, which is up to one year old, and he brought a palges, which is between one year and thirteen months old, what is the halakha?

ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ืชื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื”ื•ื™ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ื• ืžื‘ื™ื ืขืœื™ื• ื ืกื›ื™ ืื™ืœ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืœื” ืœื• ืžื–ื‘ื—ื•

The Gemara elaborates: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, do not raise a dilemma, as he says that a palges is an entity in and of itself, as we learned in a mishna (Para 1:3): If one was obligated to bring a ram or lamb as an offering, and he sacrificed a palges, he brings with it the meal offering and the libations of a ram offering, namely, a meal offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mingled with four log of oil, and a libation of four log of wine, but it does not fulfill his obligation to bring his offering.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื• ืœืื™ืœ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ืคืœื’ืก

And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says that the requirement to bring the meal offering and libations of a ram offering is derived from the verse in the portion of the libations: โ€œOr for a ram, you shall prepare for a meal offering two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with one-third of a hin of oilโ€ (Numbers 15:6); that serves to include the palges, whose meal offering and libations are like that of a ram. Based on that derivation, there is no uncertainty with regard to the status of the palges.

ื›ื™ ืชื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืคื“ื

When you raise a dilemma, it is according to the opinion of bar Padda, who holds that it is a case of uncertainty,

ื“ืืžืจ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื•ืžืชื ื™

as he says that one who sacrifices a palges brings the meal offering and the libation of a ram and stipulates: If it is a ram, this is its meal offering and libation, and if it is a lamb, whose meal offering and libation are less than that of the ram, then the remainder will be a gift offering.

ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื™ืœ ื•ื›ื‘ืฉ ืžืชื ื” ื‘ื‘ืจื™ื” ืœื ืžืชื ื” ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ื‘ืจื™ื” ื ืžื™ ืžืชื ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื ื“ื‘ื” ืชื™ืงื•

The dilemma is: Do we say that he stipulates only if it is a ram or if it is a lamb, but he does not stipulate the possibility that it is an entity in and of itself, as bar Padda does not accept such a possibility? If so, bar Padda holds that one who vowed to bring a ram or a lamb can fulfill his obligation by bringing a palges and stipulating accordingly. Or perhaps bar Padda holds that he also stipulates the possibility that it is an entity in and of itself, and in that case he says: If it is an entity, let the entire libation be a gift offering. According to that possibility, even according to bar Padda, if one vowed to bring a ram or a lamb and brought a palges, due to the uncertainty he does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืœื—ืžื™ ืชื•ื“ื” ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžืฅ ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ืžืฆื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืฉื™ืื•ืจ ืžื”ื•

ยง The concept of an entity in and of itself is mentioned with regard to a thanks offering, with which one must bring twenty tenths of an ephah for the accompanying loaves: Ten tenths of an ephah for matza and ten for leavened bread. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering of leavened bread or of matza, and he brought leavening dough [siur], what is the halakha?

ืฉื™ืื•ืจ ื“ืžืืŸ ืื™ ืฉื™ืื•ืจ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืฆื” ืžืขืœื™ื™ืชื ื”ื™ื

The Gemara asks: Siur according to whose opinion? If the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Meir, who says that it is dough at the stage when its surface pales, according to Rabbi Yehuda it is not leavened bread at all; it is full-fledged matza and one fulfills his vow to bring matza.

ืื™ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื—ืžืฅ ื”ื•ื

If the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is dough at the stage when it has cracks that look like the antennae of locusts and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Meir holds that it is full-fledged leavened bread, and one fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread.

ื•ืื™ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžื“ืœืงื™ ืขืœื™ื” ื—ืžืฅ ื”ื•ื

And if the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Meir and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, although one is not liable to receive karet for eating it on Passover, from the halakha that one is flogged for eating it on Passover it is clearly leavened bread, with which one fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread.

ืืœื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืื™ ืกืคื™ืงื ื”ื•ื™ื ื•ื ืคื™ืง ืžืžื” ื ืคืฉืš ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ื ืคื™ืง

Rather, the dilemma is with regard to the siur of Rabbi Yehuda and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that although one is obligated to destroy it before Passover, one is not liable to receive lashes for eating it on Passover. It is unclear whether this is due to uncertainty or due to siur having a unique status. Therefore, Rabbi Zeira raises the dilemma: What is its status? Is it a case of uncertainty, and consequently one who vowed to bring loaves of matza or leavened bread and brings siur fulfills his obligation whichever way you look at it, because if it is matza, he fulfills his vow to bring matza, and if it is leavened bread, he fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread? Or perhaps siur is an entity in and of itself, neither matza nor leavened bread, and he does not fulfill his obligation at all.

ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืœื—ืžื™ ืชื•ื“ื” ืžื‘ื™ื ืชื•ื“ื” ื•ืœื—ืžื” ื•ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืชื•ื“ื” ื•ืœื—ืžื” ื”ื ืœื ื™ื“ืข ื”ืื™ ื’ื‘ืจื ืื™ ื—ืžืฅ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื™ืชื™ ืžืฆื” ืื™ ืžืฆื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื™ืชื™ ื—ืžืฅ

The Gemara asks: Even if it is a case of uncertainty, how can a person fulfill his vow with that siur? But doesnโ€™t Rav Huna say that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering, is obligated to bring a thanks offering and all its loaves, twenty tenths of an ephah, ten for matza and ten for leavened bread? And since he is obligated to bring a thanks offering and all its loaves, but this man does not know whether the siur that he brought is leavened bread so that he will bring matza, or whether the siur that he brought is matza so that he will bring leavened bread, so how can he fulfill his vow? In any case, the only way that he could fulfill his vow would be to bring an additional twenty tenths of an ephah.

ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ื—ืœื” ืœืคื˜ื•ืจ ืชื•ื“ืชื• ืฉืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™

The Gemara answers: No, the dilemma of Rabbi Zeira is necessary only in a case where one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring the loaf element of the thanks offering to exempt the thanks offering of so-and-so from the obligation to bring loaves, as in that case he can fulfill his vow because he did not obligate himself to bring a thanks offering.

ืกื•ืฃ ืกื•ืฃ ื”ื ืœื ื™ื“ืข ื”ืื™ ื’ื‘ืจื ืื™ ื—ืžืฅ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื™ืชื™ ืžืฆื” ืื™ ืžืฆื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื™ืชื™ ื—ืžืฅ ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืืžืจ ืœืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžื™ืคืง ื’ื‘ืจื ื™ื“ื™ ื ื“ืจื• ื ืคื™ืง ืื• ืœื ื ืคื™ืง ืชื™ืงื•

The Gemara objects: Ultimately, this man who brings the thanks offering does not know whether the siur that the other contributed is leavened bread so that he will bring matza, or whether the siur that the other contributed is matza so that he will bring leavened bread. Therefore, the man bringing the thanks offering must bring both matza and unleavened bread in addition to the siur, and the one who vowed has then not exempted him from any obligation by contributing the siur. The Gemara responds: No, the dilemma of Rabbi Zeira is necessary only in a case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of leavened bread or matza for the thanks offering of so-and-so, but did not say: To exempt his thanks offering. In that case, he is not obligated to fulfill the otherโ€™s obligation, and the dilemma is: Does the man fulfill his vow by bringing the loaves of siur or does he not fulfill his vow? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ืคืจื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืขื’ืœื” ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ืขื’ืœื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืคืจื”

MISHNA: That which is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken; that which is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืคืจื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ืขื’ืœื” ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ื ืžืฆืืช ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ืคืจื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืขื’ืœื” ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ืขื’ืœื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืคืจื”

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita in explanation of the mishna: With regard to the red heifer, with slaughter it is fit; with breaking the neck it is unfit. With regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, with breaking the neck it is fit; with slaughter it is unfit. Consequently, that which is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken; that which is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer.

ื•ืชื”ื ืคืจื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื” ืžืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ืžื” ืขื’ืœื” ืฉืœื ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื” ืคืจื” ืฉื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืื™ื ื” ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื”

The Gemara asks: And let it be derived that the red heifer is fit with breaking the neck by means of an a fortiori inference: If a heifer whose neck is broken, which is not rendered fit with slaughter, is rendered fit with breaking the neck, then with regard to a red heifer, which is rendered fit with slaughter, isnโ€™t it logical that it is rendered fit with breaking the neck?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Chullin 23

ื›ื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืงืจื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื ืจื‘ืข ื•ื ืขื‘ื“

The Gemara rejects that proof: When the phrase in the verse โ€œof doves or of young pigeonsโ€ was necessary, it was to exclude a bird that was the object of bestiality or a bird that was worshipped as a deity.

ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ืžืฉื—ืชื ื‘ื”ื ืžื•ื ื‘ื ื•ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ืฉื ืืžืจ ื”ืฉื—ืชื” ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื“ื‘ืจ ืขืจื•ื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื“ื‘ืจ ืขืจื•ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ื™ ื”ืฉื—ื™ืช ื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ืืช ื“ืจื›ื• ืขืœ ื”ืืจืฅ

As it could enter your mind to say: Since it is written with regard to the halakhot of disqualified offerings: โ€œBecause their corruption [moshแธฅatam] is in them, there is a blemish in themโ€ (Leviticus 22:25), referring to two types of disqualifications: Corruption and blemish, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that the term corruption [hashแธฅata] is stated, it is referring to nothing other than a matter of licentiousness and idol worship. The Gemara cites proofs for this claim: Corruption is referring to matters of licentiousness, as it is written: โ€œFor all flesh had corrupted [hishแธฅit] their way upon the earthโ€ (Genesis 6:12); the word โ€œwayโ€ alludes to sexual intercourse.

ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืคืŸ ืชืฉื—ืชื•ืŸ ื•ืขืฉื™ืชื ืœื›ื ืคืกืœ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ืžื•ื ืคื•ืกืœ ื‘ื• ื“ื‘ืจ ืขืจื•ื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื•ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ืžื•ื ืคื•ืกืœ ื‘ื• ืื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืขืจื•ื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ืคื•ืกืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื• ื•ื”ื ื™ ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืœื ืคืกื™ืœ ื‘ื”ื• ืžื•ืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืžืจ ืชืžื•ืช ื•ื–ื›ืจื•ืช ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืชืžื•ืช ื•ื–ื›ืจื•ืช ื‘ืขื•ืคื•ืช ืื™ืžื ื“ื‘ืจ ืขืจื•ื” ื•ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื ืžื™ ืœื ืœืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ื”ื• ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

Corruption is also referring to idol worship, as it is written: โ€œLest you deal corruptly [tashแธฅitun], and make you a graven imageโ€ (Deuteronomy 4:16); one might have thought: Any type of offering that a blemish disqualifies, matters of licentiousness and idol worship disqualify it, and any type of offering that a blemish does not disqualify, matters of licentiousness and idol worship do not disqualify it. And with regard to these birds, since blemishes do not disqualify them, as the Master says: There is a requirement of an unblemished state and male gender in a sacrificial animal and there is no requirement of an unblemished state and male gender in sacrificial birds, say that matters of licentiousness and idol worship should also not disqualify the birds. Therefore, the tanna teaches us from the phrase in the verse โ€œof doves or of young pigeonsโ€ that a bird that was the object of bestiality and a bird that was worshipped as a deity are disqualified.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืขื•ืœืช ื‘ื”ืžื” ืžืŸ ื”ืื™ืœ ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ื›ื‘ืฉ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืคืœื’ืก ืžื”ื•

ยง Apropos the discussion of the beginning of the yellowing of the neck plumage, the Gemara cites another matter where there is uncertainty as to whether an animal of a particular age is of uncertain status or an entity in and of itself. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an animal burnt offering of a ram, which is a sheep that is at least thirteen months old, or of a lamb, which is up to one year old, and he brought a palges, which is between one year and thirteen months old, what is the halakha?

ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ืชื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ื“ืืžืจ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื”ื•ื™ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ื• ืžื‘ื™ื ืขืœื™ื• ื ืกื›ื™ ืื™ืœ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืœื” ืœื• ืžื–ื‘ื—ื•

The Gemara elaborates: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, do not raise a dilemma, as he says that a palges is an entity in and of itself, as we learned in a mishna (Para 1:3): If one was obligated to bring a ram or lamb as an offering, and he sacrificed a palges, he brings with it the meal offering and the libations of a ram offering, namely, a meal offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mingled with four log of oil, and a libation of four log of wine, but it does not fulfill his obligation to bring his offering.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืื• ืœืื™ืœ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืืช ื”ืคืœื’ืก

And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says that the requirement to bring the meal offering and libations of a ram offering is derived from the verse in the portion of the libations: โ€œOr for a ram, you shall prepare for a meal offering two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with one-third of a hin of oilโ€ (Numbers 15:6); that serves to include the palges, whose meal offering and libations are like that of a ram. Based on that derivation, there is no uncertainty with regard to the status of the palges.

ื›ื™ ืชื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ืืœื™ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจ ืคื“ื

When you raise a dilemma, it is according to the opinion of bar Padda, who holds that it is a case of uncertainty,

ื“ืืžืจ ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื•ืžืชื ื™

as he says that one who sacrifices a palges brings the meal offering and the libation of a ram and stipulates: If it is a ram, this is its meal offering and libation, and if it is a lamb, whose meal offering and libation are less than that of the ram, then the remainder will be a gift offering.

ืžื™ ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืื™ืœ ื•ื›ื‘ืฉ ืžืชื ื” ื‘ื‘ืจื™ื” ืœื ืžืชื ื” ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ื‘ืจื™ื” ื ืžื™ ืžืชื ื” ื“ืืžืจ ืื™ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ ื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื ื“ื‘ื” ืชื™ืงื•

The dilemma is: Do we say that he stipulates only if it is a ram or if it is a lamb, but he does not stipulate the possibility that it is an entity in and of itself, as bar Padda does not accept such a possibility? If so, bar Padda holds that one who vowed to bring a ram or a lamb can fulfill his obligation by bringing a palges and stipulating accordingly. Or perhaps bar Padda holds that he also stipulates the possibility that it is an entity in and of itself, and in that case he says: If it is an entity, let the entire libation be a gift offering. According to that possibility, even according to bar Padda, if one vowed to bring a ram or a lamb and brought a palges, due to the uncertainty he does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืœื—ืžื™ ืชื•ื“ื” ืžืŸ ื”ื—ืžืฅ ืื• ืžืŸ ื”ืžืฆื” ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืฉื™ืื•ืจ ืžื”ื•

ยง The concept of an entity in and of itself is mentioned with regard to a thanks offering, with which one must bring twenty tenths of an ephah for the accompanying loaves: Ten tenths of an ephah for matza and ten for leavened bread. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering of leavened bread or of matza, and he brought leavening dough [siur], what is the halakha?

ืฉื™ืื•ืจ ื“ืžืืŸ ืื™ ืฉื™ืื•ืจ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืฆื” ืžืขืœื™ื™ืชื ื”ื™ื

The Gemara asks: Siur according to whose opinion? If the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Meir, who says that it is dough at the stage when its surface pales, according to Rabbi Yehuda it is not leavened bread at all; it is full-fledged matza and one fulfills his vow to bring matza.

ืื™ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื—ืžืฅ ื”ื•ื

If the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is dough at the stage when it has cracks that look like the antennae of locusts and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Meir holds that it is full-fledged leavened bread, and one fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread.

ื•ืื™ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžื“ืœืงื™ ืขืœื™ื” ื—ืžืฅ ื”ื•ื

And if the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Meir and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, although one is not liable to receive karet for eating it on Passover, from the halakha that one is flogged for eating it on Passover it is clearly leavened bread, with which one fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread.

ืืœื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืžืื™ ืกืคื™ืงื ื”ื•ื™ื ื•ื ืคื™ืง ืžืžื” ื ืคืฉืš ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื”ื•ื ื•ืœื ื ืคื™ืง

Rather, the dilemma is with regard to the siur of Rabbi Yehuda and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that although one is obligated to destroy it before Passover, one is not liable to receive lashes for eating it on Passover. It is unclear whether this is due to uncertainty or due to siur having a unique status. Therefore, Rabbi Zeira raises the dilemma: What is its status? Is it a case of uncertainty, and consequently one who vowed to bring loaves of matza or leavened bread and brings siur fulfills his obligation whichever way you look at it, because if it is matza, he fulfills his vow to bring matza, and if it is leavened bread, he fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread? Or perhaps siur is an entity in and of itself, neither matza nor leavened bread, and he does not fulfill his obligation at all.

ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื”ืื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ืœื—ืžื™ ืชื•ื“ื” ืžื‘ื™ื ืชื•ื“ื” ื•ืœื—ืžื” ื•ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืชื•ื“ื” ื•ืœื—ืžื” ื”ื ืœื ื™ื“ืข ื”ืื™ ื’ื‘ืจื ืื™ ื—ืžืฅ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื™ืชื™ ืžืฆื” ืื™ ืžืฆื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื™ืชื™ ื—ืžืฅ

The Gemara asks: Even if it is a case of uncertainty, how can a person fulfill his vow with that siur? But doesnโ€™t Rav Huna say that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering, is obligated to bring a thanks offering and all its loaves, twenty tenths of an ephah, ten for matza and ten for leavened bread? And since he is obligated to bring a thanks offering and all its loaves, but this man does not know whether the siur that he brought is leavened bread so that he will bring matza, or whether the siur that he brought is matza so that he will bring leavened bread, so how can he fulfill his vow? In any case, the only way that he could fulfill his vow would be to bring an additional twenty tenths of an ephah.

ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ ืขืœื™ ื—ืœื” ืœืคื˜ื•ืจ ืชื•ื“ืชื• ืฉืœ ืคืœื•ื ื™

The Gemara answers: No, the dilemma of Rabbi Zeira is necessary only in a case where one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring the loaf element of the thanks offering to exempt the thanks offering of so-and-so from the obligation to bring loaves, as in that case he can fulfill his vow because he did not obligate himself to bring a thanks offering.

ืกื•ืฃ ืกื•ืฃ ื”ื ืœื ื™ื“ืข ื”ืื™ ื’ื‘ืจื ืื™ ื—ืžืฅ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื™ืชื™ ืžืฆื” ืื™ ืžืฆื” ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื™ืชื™ ื—ืžืฅ ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืœื ืืžืจ ืœืคื˜ื•ืจ ืžื™ืคืง ื’ื‘ืจื ื™ื“ื™ ื ื“ืจื• ื ืคื™ืง ืื• ืœื ื ืคื™ืง ืชื™ืงื•

The Gemara objects: Ultimately, this man who brings the thanks offering does not know whether the siur that the other contributed is leavened bread so that he will bring matza, or whether the siur that the other contributed is matza so that he will bring leavened bread. Therefore, the man bringing the thanks offering must bring both matza and unleavened bread in addition to the siur, and the one who vowed has then not exempted him from any obligation by contributing the siur. The Gemara responds: No, the dilemma of Rabbi Zeira is necessary only in a case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of leavened bread or matza for the thanks offering of so-and-so, but did not say: To exempt his thanks offering. In that case, he is not obligated to fulfill the otherโ€™s obligation, and the dilemma is: Does the man fulfill his vow by bringing the loaves of siur or does he not fulfill his vow? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ืคืจื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืขื’ืœื” ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ืขื’ืœื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืคืจื”

MISHNA: That which is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken; that which is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืคืจื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ืขื’ืœื” ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืคืกื•ืœื” ื ืžืฆืืช ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ืคืจื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืขื’ืœื” ื›ืฉืจ ื‘ืขื’ืœื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื‘ืคืจื”

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita in explanation of the mishna: With regard to the red heifer, with slaughter it is fit; with breaking the neck it is unfit. With regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, with breaking the neck it is fit; with slaughter it is unfit. Consequently, that which is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken; that which is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer.

ื•ืชื”ื ืคืจื” ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื” ืžืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ืžื” ืขื’ืœื” ืฉืœื ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื” ืคืจื” ืฉื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ืื™ื ื” ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ื›ืฉืจื” ื‘ืขืจื™ืคื”

The Gemara asks: And let it be derived that the red heifer is fit with breaking the neck by means of an a fortiori inference: If a heifer whose neck is broken, which is not rendered fit with slaughter, is rendered fit with breaking the neck, then with regard to a red heifer, which is rendered fit with slaughter, isnโ€™t it logical that it is rendered fit with breaking the neck?

Scroll To Top