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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 20, 2018 | 讬状讘 讘讟讘转 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

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 seor聽(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"

讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 谞专讘注 讜谞注讘讚


The Gemara rejects that proof: When the phrase in the verse 鈥渙f doves or of young pigeons鈥 was necessary, it was to exclude a bird that was the object of bestiality or a bird that was worshipped as a deity.


住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讻讬 诪砖讞转诐 讘讛诐 诪讜诐 讘诐 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讛砖讞转讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讛砖讞讬转 讻诇 讘砖专 讗转 讚专讻讜 注诇 讛讗专抓


As it could enter your mind to say: Since it is written with regard to the halakhot of disqualified offerings: 鈥淏ecause their corruption [mosh岣tam] is in them, there is a blemish in them鈥 (Leviticus 22:25), referring to two types of disqualifications: Corruption and blemish, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that the term corruption [hash岣ta] 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: 鈥淔or all flesh had corrupted [hish岣t] their way upon the earth鈥 (Genesis 6:12); the word 鈥渨ay鈥 alludes to sexual intercourse.


注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讻转讬讘 驻谉 转砖讞转讜谉 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讻诐 驻住诇 讻诇 砖讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讜 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讜 讗讬谉 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讜 讜讛谞讬 注讜驻讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 驻住讬诇 讘讛讜 诪讜诪讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 转诪讜转 讜讝讻专讜转 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜转 讜讝讻专讜转 讘注讜驻讜转 讗讬诪讗 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇驻住讜诇 讘讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


Corruption is also referring to idol worship, as it is written: 鈥淟est you deal corruptly [tash岣tun], and make you a graven image鈥 (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 鈥渙f doves or of young pigeons鈥 that a bird that was the object of bestiality and a bird that was worshipped as a deity are disqualified.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 诪谉 讛讗讬诇 讗讜 诪谉 讛讻讘砖 讜讛讘讬讗 驻诇讙住 诪讛讜


搂 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?


讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 转讘注讬 诇讱 讚讗诪专 讘专讬讛 讛讜讬 讚转谞谉 讛拽专讬讘讜 诪讘讬讗 注诇讬讜 谞住讻讬 讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诪讝讘讞讜


The Gemara elaborates: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜 诇讗讬诇 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛驻诇讙住


And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淥r 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 oil鈥 (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.


讻讬 转讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘专 驻讚讗


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


讚讗诪专 诪讬讬转讬 讜诪转谞讬


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.


诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬诇 讜讻讘砖 诪转谞讛 讘讘专讬讛 诇讗 诪转谞讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讘专讬讛 谞诪讬 诪转谞讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬 讘专讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛讜讬 讻讜诇讬讛 谞讚讘讛 转讬拽讜


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.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 诪谉 讛讞诪抓 讗讜 诪谉 讛诪爪讛 讜讛讘讬讗 砖讬讗讜专 诪讛讜


搂 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?


砖讬讗讜专 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 砖讬讗讜专 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讬讗


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.


讗讬 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞诪抓 讛讜讗


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.


讜讗讬 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讚诇拽讬 注诇讬讛 讞诪抓 讛讜讗


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.


讗诇讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讬讗 讜谞驻讬拽 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘专讬讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 谞驻讬拽


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.


讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 诪讘讬讗 转讜讚讛 讜诇讞诪讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇讬讛 讘转讜讚讛 讜诇讞诪讛 讛讗 诇讗 讬讚注 讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 讗讬 讞诪抓 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转讬 诪爪讛 讗讬 诪爪讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转讬 讞诪抓


The Gemara asks: Even if it is a case of uncertainty, how can a person fulfill his vow with that siur? But doesn鈥檛 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.


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 讞诇讛 诇驻讟讜专 转讜讚转讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬


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.


住讜祝 住讜祝 讛讗 诇讗 讬讚注 讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 讗讬 讞诪抓 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转讬 诪爪讛 讗讬 诪爪讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转讬 讞诪抓 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇驻讟讜专 诪讬驻拽 讙讘专讗 讬讚讬 谞讚专讜 谞驻讬拽 讗讜 诇讗 谞驻讬拽 转讬拽讜


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 other鈥檚 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.


诪转谞讬壮 讻砖专 讘驻专讛 驻住讜诇 讘注讙诇讛 讻砖专 讘注讙诇讛 驻住讜诇 讘驻专讛


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.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻砖专讛 讘注专讬驻讛 驻住讜诇讛 注讙诇讛 讘注专讬驻讛 讻砖专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 驻住讜诇讛 谞诪爪讗转 讻砖专 讘驻专讛 驻住讜诇 讘注讙诇讛 讻砖专 讘注讙诇讛 驻住讜诇 讘驻专讛


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.


讜转讛讗 驻专讛 讻砖专讛 讘注专讬驻讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 注讙诇讛 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讻砖专讛 讘注专讬驻讛 驻专讛 砖讛讜讻砖专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗讬谞讛 讚讬谉 砖讛讜讻砖专讛 讘注专讬驻讛


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, isn鈥檛 it logical that it is rendered fit with breaking the neck?

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

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

讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 谞专讘注 讜谞注讘讚


The Gemara rejects that proof: When the phrase in the verse 鈥渙f doves or of young pigeons鈥 was necessary, it was to exclude a bird that was the object of bestiality or a bird that was worshipped as a deity.


住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻转讬讘 讻讬 诪砖讞转诐 讘讛诐 诪讜诐 讘诐 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 讛砖讞转讛 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讚讻转讬讘 讻讬 讛砖讞讬转 讻诇 讘砖专 讗转 讚专讻讜 注诇 讛讗专抓


As it could enter your mind to say: Since it is written with regard to the halakhot of disqualified offerings: 鈥淏ecause their corruption [mosh岣tam] is in them, there is a blemish in them鈥 (Leviticus 22:25), referring to two types of disqualifications: Corruption and blemish, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that the term corruption [hash岣ta] 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: 鈥淔or all flesh had corrupted [hish岣t] their way upon the earth鈥 (Genesis 6:12); the word 鈥渨ay鈥 alludes to sexual intercourse.


注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讚讻转讬讘 驻谉 转砖讞转讜谉 讜注砖讬转诐 诇讻诐 驻住诇 讻诇 砖讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讜 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讜 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讜 讗讬谉 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讜 讜讛谞讬 注讜驻讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 驻住讬诇 讘讛讜 诪讜诪讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 转诪讜转 讜讝讻专讜转 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜转 讜讝讻专讜转 讘注讜驻讜转 讗讬诪讗 讚讘专 注专讜讛 讜注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇驻住讜诇 讘讛讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉


Corruption is also referring to idol worship, as it is written: 鈥淟est you deal corruptly [tash岣tun], and make you a graven image鈥 (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 鈥渙f doves or of young pigeons鈥 that a bird that was the object of bestiality and a bird that was worshipped as a deity are disqualified.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 注讜诇转 讘讛诪讛 诪谉 讛讗讬诇 讗讜 诪谉 讛讻讘砖 讜讛讘讬讗 驻诇讙住 诪讛讜


搂 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?


讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 转讘注讬 诇讱 讚讗诪专 讘专讬讛 讛讜讬 讚转谞谉 讛拽专讬讘讜 诪讘讬讗 注诇讬讜 谞住讻讬 讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 注讜诇讛 诇讜 诪讝讘讞讜


The Gemara elaborates: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.


讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讜 诇讗讬诇 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛驻诇讙住


And Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淥r 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 oil鈥 (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.


讻讬 转讘注讬 诇讱 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讘专 驻讚讗


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


讚讗诪专 诪讬讬转讬 讜诪转谞讬


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.


诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讬诇 讜讻讘砖 诪转谞讛 讘讘专讬讛 诇讗 诪转谞讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘讘专讬讛 谞诪讬 诪转谞讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬 讘专讬讛 讛讜讛 诇讬讛讜讬 讻讜诇讬讛 谞讚讘讛 转讬拽讜


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.


讘注讬 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 诪谉 讛讞诪抓 讗讜 诪谉 讛诪爪讛 讜讛讘讬讗 砖讬讗讜专 诪讛讜


搂 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?


砖讬讗讜专 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 砖讬讗讜专 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪爪讛 诪注诇讬讬转讗 讛讬讗


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.


讗讬 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讞诪抓 讛讜讗


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.


讜讗讬 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪讚诇拽讬 注诇讬讛 讞诪抓 讛讜讗


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.


讗诇讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讬讗 讜谞驻讬拽 诪诪讛 谞驻砖讱 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讘专讬讛 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 谞驻讬拽


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.


讜讛讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 诇讞诪讬 转讜讚讛 诪讘讬讗 转讜讚讛 讜诇讞诪讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讞讬讬讘 诇讬讛 讘转讜讚讛 讜诇讞诪讛 讛讗 诇讗 讬讚注 讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 讗讬 讞诪抓 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转讬 诪爪讛 讗讬 诪爪讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转讬 讞诪抓


The Gemara asks: Even if it is a case of uncertainty, how can a person fulfill his vow with that siur? But doesn鈥檛 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.


诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 讞诇讛 诇驻讟讜专 转讜讚转讜 砖诇 驻诇讜谞讬


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.


住讜祝 住讜祝 讛讗 诇讗 讬讚注 讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 讗讬 讞诪抓 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转讬 诪爪讛 讗讬 诪爪讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讬转讬 讞诪抓 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇驻讟讜专 诪讬驻拽 讙讘专讗 讬讚讬 谞讚专讜 谞驻讬拽 讗讜 诇讗 谞驻讬拽 转讬拽讜


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 other鈥檚 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.


诪转谞讬壮 讻砖专 讘驻专讛 驻住讜诇 讘注讙诇讛 讻砖专 讘注讙诇讛 驻住讜诇 讘驻专讛


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.


讙诪壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 驻专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讻砖专讛 讘注专讬驻讛 驻住讜诇讛 注讙诇讛 讘注专讬驻讛 讻砖专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 驻住讜诇讛 谞诪爪讗转 讻砖专 讘驻专讛 驻住讜诇 讘注讙诇讛 讻砖专 讘注讙诇讛 驻住讜诇 讘驻专讛


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.


讜转讛讗 驻专讛 讻砖专讛 讘注专讬驻讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 注讙诇讛 砖诇讗 讛讜讻砖专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讛讜讻砖专讛 讘注专讬驻讛 驻专讛 砖讛讜讻砖专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗讬谞讛 讚讬谉 砖讛讜讻砖专讛 讘注专讬驻讛


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, isn鈥檛 it logical that it is rendered fit with breaking the neck?

Scroll To Top