Which items can join together to create a requisite amount that obligates one in meilah, pigul, notar and impure sacrifices? Rabbi Yannai has a unique apporach that meilah is only relevant for items sanctified for temple maintenance and for burnt offerings. Several questions are raised against him until the gemara reinterprets his position. All different parts of the sacrifice including the meal offering can join together to create an amount that obligates one in pigul, notar, impure meat, and meilah. However there is a difference between burnt offerings and the others regarding meat and the parts the parts that get burned on the altar combining to obligate one if one offered them outside the temple or it only a bit was left before the blodd was sprinkled. In a burnt offering, they all get burned together and therefore they can combine but in other offerings, the mweat is eaten and the other parts are buerned and therefore they can’t join together. Teruma can join with bikurim and challa and the teruma the levites need to bring in a combination of forbidden and non forbidden items (to determine whether or not they are cancelled) and to obligated to retunr a fifth to the priests if one ate it.
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
Meilah 15
קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לִמְעִילָה וּלְחַיֵּיב עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְאֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לִמְעִילָה.
MISHNA: All items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse of consecrated property, which is deriving benefit equivalent to one peruta. And they join together to constitute an olive-bulk, which is the measure that renders one liable due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul, or notar, or partaking of the item while ritually impure. All items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse. Both items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse.
גְּמָ׳ הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דְּקָתָנֵי: ״אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְאֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת״ דְּהַאי קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף וְהַאי קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי קָתָנֵי: ״מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה״. ״קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ עִם קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ״ מִיבַּעְיָא?
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Now that one says that the mishna teaches in the latter clause: Both items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together, which is a case where this one, i.e., items consecrated for the altar, have inherent sanctity and that one, i.e., items consecrated for Temple maintenance, have sanctity that inheres in its value, and even so the mishna teaches that they join together for misuse, if so, is it necessary for the mishna to teach in the first clause that items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together with other items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar?
מִשּׁוּם דְּקָתָנֵי עֲלַהּ ״לְחַיֵּיב עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא״, דְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לָא אִיכָּא הָכִי, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָא פְּלִיג לֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the tanna to teach the first clause, because he teaches with regard to that case: They join together to render one liable due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul, or notar, or of partaking of the item while ritually impure. With regard to these matters, only items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together, not items consecrated for Temple maintenance, as these halakhot do not apply to items consecrated for Temple maintenance. The concepts of piggul, notar, and ritual impurity are relevant only to items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar. It is due to that reason that the tanna divides the first clause from the latter clause.
אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: מְחַוַּורְתָּא, אֵין חַיָּיבִין מִשּׁוּם מְעִילָה אֶלָּא עַל קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת וְעוֹלָה בִּלְבַד. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תִּמְעֹל מַעַל מִקׇּדְשֵׁי ה׳״,
§ The mishna teaches that items consecrated for Temple maintenance are subject to the halakhot of misuse. Rabbi Yannai said: It is clear that one is liable for misuse by Torah law only for items consecrated for Temple maintenance and a burnt offering alone. What is the reason? The reason is that the verse states: “If anyone commit a misuse, and sin through error, in the sacred items of the Lord, then he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to your valuation in silver by shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary, for a guilt offering” (Leviticus 5:15).
קֳדָשִׁים הַמְיוּחָדִין לַה׳ – יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מְעִילָה. אֲבָל קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ – אִית בְּהוּ לַכֹּהֲנִים, וְאִית בְּהוּ לַבְּעָלִים.
Rabbi Yannai explains that it is derived from this verse that only those consecrated items that are uniquely for the Lord are subject to the halakhot of misuse; but with regard to items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar, e.g., guilt offerings or sin offerings, as they have a portion that belongs to the priests and other items such as peace offerings also have a portion that belongs to the owners, they are not uniquely for the Lord, and therefore the halakhot of misuse do not apply.
תְּנַן: קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לִמְעִילָה! מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yannai. We learned in the mishna: All items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse, which is deriving benefit worth one peruta. Evidently, one is liable for misusing all items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar, not merely burnt offerings. The Gemara answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition that applies by rabbinic law.
קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם – מוֹעֲלִים בָּהֶן! מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara raises a further difficulty with the statement of Rabbi Yannai, from another mishna (2a): In the case of offerings of the most sacred order that were disqualified before their blood was sprinkled on the altar, e.g., if one slaughtered them in the south of the Temple courtyard, rather than in the north as required, one is liable for misusing them. Offerings of the most sacred order include sin offerings and guilt offerings, not merely burnt offerings. Once again, the Gemara answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition by rabbinic law.
תְּנַן: הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִן הַחַטָּאת כְּשֶׁהִיא חַיָּה – לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיִּפְגּוֹם. כְּשֶׁהִיא מֵתָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – מָעַל! מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara raises yet another difficulty with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yannai. We learned in a mishna (18a): One who derives benefit from a blemished sin offering while it is alive has not violated the prohibition of misuse until he causes one peruta worth of depletion of its value. Since the blemished animal will be redeemed, one lessens its value by removing wool from it. But when it is dead it will not be redeemed, which means that it cannot be devalued, and therefore once he derives one peruta worth of benefit from a dead sin offering he is liable for misuse. The Gemara again answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition by rabbinic law.
וּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא? וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל חֵלֶב לַה׳״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לִמְעִילָה!
The Gemara asks: And by Torah law is there no liability for misuse of items consecrated for sacrifice on the altar? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states at the conclusion of the passage discussing the sacrifice of a peace offering: “And the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar, it is the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasing aroma; all the fat is the Lord’s” (Leviticus 3:16). The term “all” serves to include the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity as subject to the halakhot of misuse. This is a source from the Torah for the halakha that one is liable for misuse of items consecrated for sacrifice on the altar.
מִדְּרַבָּנַן. וְהָא קְרָא קָא נָסֵיב לַהּ! אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.
The Gemara again answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition by rabbinic law. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the tanna cites a verse as the source for this halakha, which indicates that it applies by Torah law. The Gemara answers: The verse is a mere support, but it is not the actual source for the halakha.
וְהָא אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קָדָשִׁים שֶׁמֵּתוּ – יָצְאוּ מִידֵי מְעִילָה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, אֲפִילּוּ כִּי מֵתוּ נָמֵי, לָא יְהֵא אֶלָּא דְּאַקְדֵּישׁ אַשְׁפָּה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, לָאו אִית בַּהּ מְעִילָה?
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t Ulla say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Sacrificial animals that died without being sacrificed are excluded from the potential of misuse by Torah law? The Gemara clarifies the objection: To what is Rabbi Yoḥanan referring? If we say that he is referring to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, then even when they are dead they are also subject to the halakhot of misuse, as even if you say that this can be considered only like a case where one consecrated a garbage heap to the Temple maintenance, isn’t that also subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property?
אֶלָּא קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא! מִי אִית בְּהוּ מְעִילָה?
Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan must be referring to dead animals that had been consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, and he is teaching that once they die they are no longer subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. This indicates that while they are alive they are subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. The Gemara states the difficulty: According to Rabbi Yannai, are animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law?
אֶלָּא הָכִי קָא אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: מֵהַאי קְרָא קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שָׁמְעִין מִינַּהּ, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לָא שָׁמְעִין מִינַּהּ.
Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous version of Rabbi Yannai’s opinion, and states that in fact he maintains that animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar are subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. As the school of Rabbi Yannai says as follows: From this verse: “If anyone commit a misuse, and sin through error, in the sacred items of the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15), we learn that items consecrated for Temple maintenance are subject to the halakhot of misuse. But we do not learn from this verse that animals consecrated for the altar are subject to the halakhot of misuse. Instead, that halakha is derived from the verse: “And if a man eat of the sacred items through error” (Leviticus 22:14), which is referring to all sacred items, or from the verse (Leviticus 3:16): “All the fat is the Lord’s.”
מַתְנִי׳ חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים בָּעוֹלָה מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה: הַבָּשָׂר, וְהַחֵלֶב, וְהַסּוֹלֶת, וְהַיַּיִן, וְהַשֶּׁמֶן. וְשִׁשָּׁה בַּתּוֹדָה: הַבָּשָׂר, וְהַחֵלֶב, וְהַסּוֹלֶת, וְהַיַּיִן, וְהַשֶּׁמֶן וְהַלֶּחֶם.
MISHNA: Five items in the burnt offering and the accompanying meal offering and libation join together to constitute the one peruta measure with regard to liability for misuse, and the olive-bulk measure with regard to liability for piggul, notar, and partaking of sacrificial foods while ritually impure. They are: The flesh; the fat of the burnt offering that is sacrificed on the altar; the fine flour of the accompanying meal offering; the wine of the accompanying libation; and the oil of the accompanying meal offering. And there are six items in the thanks offering that join together: The flesh, the fat, the fine flour, the wine, the oil, and the loaves accompanying the thanks offering.
גְּמָ׳ מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא לְרָבָא: ״חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים בָּעוֹלָם מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה״. אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״בָּעוֹלָם״ קָא אָמְרַתְּ? וְהָא קָתָנֵי בַּתּוֹדָה ״שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹדָה – הַבָּשָׂר וְהַחֵלֶב וְהַסּוֹלֶת וְהַיַּיִן וְהַשֶּׁמֶן וְלַחְמֵי תוֹדָה״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנִי ״בָּעוֹלָה״.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that five items in the burnt offering [ba’ola] join together. Rav Huna taught Rava the mishna as follows: Five items in the world [ba’olam] join together. Rava said to Rav Huna: Did you say: In the world, i.e., that there are only five items in the world of offerings that join together? But isn’t it taught in the mishna with regard to a thanks offering that there are six items in the thanks offering that join together: The flesh, the fat, the fine flour, the wine, the oil, and the loaves accompanying the thanks offering? Rav Huna said to Rava: One should teach in the mishna: Five items in the burnt offering [ba’ola] join together, not: Five items in the world.
תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: עוֹלוֹת וְאֵימוּרִים מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת לְהַעֲלוֹתָן בַּחוּץ, וּלְחַיֵּיב עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא.
§ The mishna teaches that the flesh and the fat join together. The Gemara notes that we already learned this, as the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita (Tosefta 1:28): The meat of burnt offerings and their sacrificial portions join together to constitute the amount of an olive-bulk that renders one liable for sacrificing them outside the courtyard, and to render one liable for eating them due to piggul, notar, and partaking of them while ritually impure.
קָתָנֵי: בְּעוֹלָה – אִין, בִּשְׁלָמִים – לָא. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְהַעֲלוֹתָן בַּחוּץ, עוֹלָה דְּכָלִיל הִיא – מִצְטָרְפִין, שְׁלָמִים – לָא מִצְטָרְפִין. אֶלָּא לְחַיֵּיב עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא, שְׁלָמִים אַמַּאי לָא מְחַיֵּיב?
The Gemara notes that the baraita teaches that with regard to a burnt offering, yes, this halakha applies, whereas with regard to a peace offering, it does not apply. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, with regard to sacrificing them outside the courtyard, it stands to reason that in the case of a burnt offering, which is entirely consumed upon the altar, everything joins together, whereas with regard to peace offerings, whose meat is not burned on the altar, the meat and sacrificial portions do not join together. But with regard to rendering one liable for piggul, and notar, and partaking of them while ritually impure, in the case of a peace offering as well, why is he not rendered liable?
וְהָתְנַן: כׇּל הַפִּיגּוּלִים מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה, וְכׇל הַנּוֹתָרוֹת מִצְטָרְפוֹת זוֹ עִם זוֹ!
The Gemara elaborates: But didn’t we learn in the mishna below: All the pieces of sacrificial meat that are piggul join together with one another to constitute the olive-bulk measure for liability, and all pieces of sacrificial meat that are notar join together with one another to constitute the olive-bulk measure for liability? The mishna indicates that this is the halakha with regard to all types of offerings.
אֶלָּא אֵימָא: עוֹלָה וְאֵימוּרֶיהָ מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לִכְזַיִת לִיזְרֹק עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַדָּם.
The Gemara answers: Rather, say that the baraita should read as follows: The meat of a burnt offering and its sacrificial portions join together to constitute an olive-bulk in order to permit one to sprinkle the blood for them. If the meat of the burnt offering was lost after it was slaughtered and only an olive-bulk of the meat and sacrificial portions remain, they combine to permit the sprinkling of the blood.
וְכֵיוָן דְּמִצְטָרְפִין לִיזְרֹק אֶת הַדָּם – חַיָּיב וְכוּ׳.
The Gemara further explains: And since they join together to constitute an olive-bulk with regard to sprinkling the blood, once that blood has been sprinkled they join together to constitute the minimum amount of an olive-bulk to render one liable for eating them due to piggul, notar, and partaking of them while ritually impure. By contrast, in the case of a peace offering, the meat and the sacrificial portions do not join together for sprinkling, and as the sprinkling is not valid, they do not subsequently join together to constitute an olive-bulk to render one liable for eating them due to piggul, notar, and partaking of them while ritually impure.
וּמַאן קָתָנֵי לַהּ? רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּיֵּיר מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר וּכְזַיִת חֵלֶב – זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם, כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בָּשָׂר וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת חֵלֶב – אֵינוֹ זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם.
The Gemara adds: And who is the tanna who teaches this baraita? It is Rabbi Yehoshua, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the offerings in the Torah from which there remains an olive-bulk of meat that is fit to be eaten, or an olive-bulk of fat that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar, one sprinkles the blood. If all that remains is half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, one may not sprinkle the blood. Since the meat and fat serve different functions, as the fat is burned on the altar while the meat is eaten by the priests, they do not combine to form the minimum amount that must remain in order to sprinkle the blood.
וּבָעוֹלָה, אֲפִילּוּ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בָּשָׂר וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת חֵלֶב – זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ כָּלִיל. וּבַמִּנְחָה, אֲפִילּוּ כּוּלָּהּ קַיֶּימֶת – לֹא יִזְרוֹק.
But with regard to a burnt offering, even if all that was left was half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, one sprinkles the blood, because it is all consumed upon the altar. Since both the meat and the fat are sacrificed on the altar, they combine. And in the case of a meal offering, even if all of it remains, one may not sprinkle the blood.
מִנְחָה מַאי עֲבִידְתַּיהּ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מִנְחַת נְסָכִים.
With regard to the last statement, the Gemara asks: What is the relevance of a meal offering to this baraita? A meal offering does not require blood to be sprinkled on the altar. Rav Pappa said: The meal offering under discussion is the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings. The baraita is teaching that if none of the meat of the animal remains, even if all of the accompanying meal offering is intact, the blood of the animal may not be sprinkled.
מַתְנִי׳ הַתְּרוּמָה, וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי, וְהַחַלָּה, וְהַבִּיכּוּרִים – מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לֶאֱסוֹר וּלְחַיֵּיב עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. כׇּל הַפִּיגּוּלִים – מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. וְכׇל הַנּוֹתָרִים – מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה.
MISHNA: Teruma, and teruma of the tithe, and teruma of the tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai], and ḥalla, and first fruits all join together with one another to constitute the requisite measure to prohibit a mixture with non-sacred produce, and to form the requisite measure of an olive-bulk that serves to render one obligated for their consumption in payment of an additional one-fifth over and above the principal. All the pieces of sacrificial meat that are piggul join together with one another to constitute the olive-bulk measure for liability, and all sacrificial meat that is notar joins together with one another to constitute the olive-bulk measure for liability.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? כּוּלְּהוּ אִיקְּרוּ ״תְּרוּמָה״. גַּבֵּי חַלָּה כְּתִיב: ״רֵאשִׁית עֲרִסֹתֵכֶם חַלָּה תָּרִימוּ תְרוּמָה״,
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that all of the foods listed in the mishna join together? The Gemara answers: The reason is that all of them are called teruma in the Torah. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to ḥalla it is written: “Of the first of your dough you shall set apart ḥalla for a teruma; like teruma of the threshing floor, so shall you set it apart” (Numbers 15:20).
גַּבֵּי בִּיכּוּרִים נָמֵי אִיקְּרוּ ״תְּרוּמָה״, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וּתְרוּמַת יָדֶךָ״ – אֵלּוּ בִּיכּוּרִים, אֲבָל אִינָךְ – לָא צְרִיכָא.
With regard to first fruits, they are also called teruma, as it is taught in a baraita that discusses foods that may not be eaten outside Jerusalem: The verse states: “You cannot eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or of your wine or of your oil or the firstlings of your herd or of your flock, or any of your vows that you vow, or your freewill offerings, or the offering of your hand” (Deuteronomy 12:17). “And the offering of your hand”; these are first fruits. But with regard to the other items listed in the mishna, i.e., teruma, teruma of the tithe, and teruma of the tithe of demai, it is not necessary to explain why they join together or to cite a verse, as it is clear that they are called teruma.
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַנְּבֵילוֹת – מִצְטָרְפִין זוֹ עִם זוֹ. וְכׇל הַשְּׁקָצִים – מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה.
MISHNA: All animal carcasses, whose consumption is prohibited and which transmit impurity through contact with them and through carrying, join together with one another to constitute the requisite olive-bulk measure. And all repugnant creatures join together with one another to constitute the requisite olive-bulk measure to render one who consumes it liable to receive lashes. The eight creeping animals enumerated in the Torah join together to constitute the measure of a lentil-bulk, which transmits impurity through contact, and to render one who consumes it liable to receive lashes.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that all animal carcasses, whose consumption is prohibited and which transmit impurity through contact and through carrying, join together to constitute the requisite olive-bulk measure. Rav says:
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.
Megillah 5: Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi: Mishnah Compiler and… Gardener
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.
Minneapolis, MN, United States
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.
Englewood NJ, 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.
Wynnewood, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, 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!
San Diego, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
Oceanside NY, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
Los Angeles, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
Meilah 15
קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לִמְעִילָה וּלְחַיֵּיב עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְאֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לִמְעִילָה.
MISHNA: All items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse of consecrated property, which is deriving benefit equivalent to one peruta. And they join together to constitute an olive-bulk, which is the measure that renders one liable due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul, or notar, or partaking of the item while ritually impure. All items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse. Both items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse.
גְּמָ׳ הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר דְּקָתָנֵי: ״אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ וְאֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת״ דְּהַאי קְדוּשַּׁת הַגּוּף וְהַאי קְדוּשַּׁת דָּמִים, אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי קָתָנֵי: ״מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה״. ״קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ עִם קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ״ מִיבַּעְיָא?
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Now that one says that the mishna teaches in the latter clause: Both items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together, which is a case where this one, i.e., items consecrated for the altar, have inherent sanctity and that one, i.e., items consecrated for Temple maintenance, have sanctity that inheres in its value, and even so the mishna teaches that they join together for misuse, if so, is it necessary for the mishna to teach in the first clause that items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together with other items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar?
מִשּׁוּם דְּקָתָנֵי עֲלַהּ ״לְחַיֵּיב עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא״, דְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת לָא אִיכָּא הָכִי, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָא פְּלִיג לֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the tanna to teach the first clause, because he teaches with regard to that case: They join together to render one liable due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul, or notar, or of partaking of the item while ritually impure. With regard to these matters, only items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together, not items consecrated for Temple maintenance, as these halakhot do not apply to items consecrated for Temple maintenance. The concepts of piggul, notar, and ritual impurity are relevant only to items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar. It is due to that reason that the tanna divides the first clause from the latter clause.
אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: מְחַוַּורְתָּא, אֵין חַיָּיבִין מִשּׁוּם מְעִילָה אֶלָּא עַל קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת וְעוֹלָה בִּלְבַד. מַאי טַעְמָא? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תִּמְעֹל מַעַל מִקׇּדְשֵׁי ה׳״,
§ The mishna teaches that items consecrated for Temple maintenance are subject to the halakhot of misuse. Rabbi Yannai said: It is clear that one is liable for misuse by Torah law only for items consecrated for Temple maintenance and a burnt offering alone. What is the reason? The reason is that the verse states: “If anyone commit a misuse, and sin through error, in the sacred items of the Lord, then he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to your valuation in silver by shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary, for a guilt offering” (Leviticus 5:15).
קֳדָשִׁים הַמְיוּחָדִין לַה׳ – יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מְעִילָה. אֲבָל קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ – אִית בְּהוּ לַכֹּהֲנִים, וְאִית בְּהוּ לַבְּעָלִים.
Rabbi Yannai explains that it is derived from this verse that only those consecrated items that are uniquely for the Lord are subject to the halakhot of misuse; but with regard to items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar, e.g., guilt offerings or sin offerings, as they have a portion that belongs to the priests and other items such as peace offerings also have a portion that belongs to the owners, they are not uniquely for the Lord, and therefore the halakhot of misuse do not apply.
תְּנַן: קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לִמְעִילָה! מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yannai. We learned in the mishna: All items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse, which is deriving benefit worth one peruta. Evidently, one is liable for misusing all items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar, not merely burnt offerings. The Gemara answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition that applies by rabbinic law.
קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם – מוֹעֲלִים בָּהֶן! מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara raises a further difficulty with the statement of Rabbi Yannai, from another mishna (2a): In the case of offerings of the most sacred order that were disqualified before their blood was sprinkled on the altar, e.g., if one slaughtered them in the south of the Temple courtyard, rather than in the north as required, one is liable for misusing them. Offerings of the most sacred order include sin offerings and guilt offerings, not merely burnt offerings. Once again, the Gemara answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition by rabbinic law.
תְּנַן: הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִן הַחַטָּאת כְּשֶׁהִיא חַיָּה – לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיִּפְגּוֹם. כְּשֶׁהִיא מֵתָה, כֵּיוָן שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – מָעַל! מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara raises yet another difficulty with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yannai. We learned in a mishna (18a): One who derives benefit from a blemished sin offering while it is alive has not violated the prohibition of misuse until he causes one peruta worth of depletion of its value. Since the blemished animal will be redeemed, one lessens its value by removing wool from it. But when it is dead it will not be redeemed, which means that it cannot be devalued, and therefore once he derives one peruta worth of benefit from a dead sin offering he is liable for misuse. The Gemara again answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition by rabbinic law.
וּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא? וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל חֵלֶב לַה׳״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לִמְעִילָה!
The Gemara asks: And by Torah law is there no liability for misuse of items consecrated for sacrifice on the altar? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states at the conclusion of the passage discussing the sacrifice of a peace offering: “And the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar, it is the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasing aroma; all the fat is the Lord’s” (Leviticus 3:16). The term “all” serves to include the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity as subject to the halakhot of misuse. This is a source from the Torah for the halakha that one is liable for misuse of items consecrated for sacrifice on the altar.
מִדְּרַבָּנַן. וְהָא קְרָא קָא נָסֵיב לַהּ! אַסְמַכְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא.
The Gemara again answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition by rabbinic law. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the tanna cites a verse as the source for this halakha, which indicates that it applies by Torah law. The Gemara answers: The verse is a mere support, but it is not the actual source for the halakha.
וְהָא אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קָדָשִׁים שֶׁמֵּתוּ – יָצְאוּ מִידֵי מְעִילָה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת, אֲפִילּוּ כִּי מֵתוּ נָמֵי, לָא יְהֵא אֶלָּא דְּאַקְדֵּישׁ אַשְׁפָּה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, לָאו אִית בַּהּ מְעִילָה?
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t Ulla say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Sacrificial animals that died without being sacrificed are excluded from the potential of misuse by Torah law? The Gemara clarifies the objection: To what is Rabbi Yoḥanan referring? If we say that he is referring to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, then even when they are dead they are also subject to the halakhot of misuse, as even if you say that this can be considered only like a case where one consecrated a garbage heap to the Temple maintenance, isn’t that also subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property?
אֶלָּא קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ, דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא! מִי אִית בְּהוּ מְעִילָה?
Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan must be referring to dead animals that had been consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, and he is teaching that once they die they are no longer subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. This indicates that while they are alive they are subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. The Gemara states the difficulty: According to Rabbi Yannai, are animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law?
אֶלָּא הָכִי קָא אָמְרִי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: מֵהַאי קְרָא קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת שָׁמְעִין מִינַּהּ, קׇדְשֵׁי מִזְבֵּחַ לָא שָׁמְעִין מִינַּהּ.
Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous version of Rabbi Yannai’s opinion, and states that in fact he maintains that animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar are subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. As the school of Rabbi Yannai says as follows: From this verse: “If anyone commit a misuse, and sin through error, in the sacred items of the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15), we learn that items consecrated for Temple maintenance are subject to the halakhot of misuse. But we do not learn from this verse that animals consecrated for the altar are subject to the halakhot of misuse. Instead, that halakha is derived from the verse: “And if a man eat of the sacred items through error” (Leviticus 22:14), which is referring to all sacred items, or from the verse (Leviticus 3:16): “All the fat is the Lord’s.”
מַתְנִי׳ חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים בָּעוֹלָה מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה: הַבָּשָׂר, וְהַחֵלֶב, וְהַסּוֹלֶת, וְהַיַּיִן, וְהַשֶּׁמֶן. וְשִׁשָּׁה בַּתּוֹדָה: הַבָּשָׂר, וְהַחֵלֶב, וְהַסּוֹלֶת, וְהַיַּיִן, וְהַשֶּׁמֶן וְהַלֶּחֶם.
MISHNA: Five items in the burnt offering and the accompanying meal offering and libation join together to constitute the one peruta measure with regard to liability for misuse, and the olive-bulk measure with regard to liability for piggul, notar, and partaking of sacrificial foods while ritually impure. They are: The flesh; the fat of the burnt offering that is sacrificed on the altar; the fine flour of the accompanying meal offering; the wine of the accompanying libation; and the oil of the accompanying meal offering. And there are six items in the thanks offering that join together: The flesh, the fat, the fine flour, the wine, the oil, and the loaves accompanying the thanks offering.
גְּמָ׳ מַתְנֵי לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא לְרָבָא: ״חֲמִשָּׁה דְּבָרִים בָּעוֹלָם מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה״. אָמַר לֵיהּ: ״בָּעוֹלָם״ קָא אָמְרַתְּ? וְהָא קָתָנֵי בַּתּוֹדָה ״שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹדָה – הַבָּשָׂר וְהַחֵלֶב וְהַסּוֹלֶת וְהַיַּיִן וְהַשֶּׁמֶן וְלַחְמֵי תוֹדָה״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּנִי ״בָּעוֹלָה״.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that five items in the burnt offering [ba’ola] join together. Rav Huna taught Rava the mishna as follows: Five items in the world [ba’olam] join together. Rava said to Rav Huna: Did you say: In the world, i.e., that there are only five items in the world of offerings that join together? But isn’t it taught in the mishna with regard to a thanks offering that there are six items in the thanks offering that join together: The flesh, the fat, the fine flour, the wine, the oil, and the loaves accompanying the thanks offering? Rav Huna said to Rava: One should teach in the mishna: Five items in the burnt offering [ba’ola] join together, not: Five items in the world.
תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: עוֹלוֹת וְאֵימוּרִים מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת לְהַעֲלוֹתָן בַּחוּץ, וּלְחַיֵּיב עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא.
§ The mishna teaches that the flesh and the fat join together. The Gemara notes that we already learned this, as the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita (Tosefta 1:28): The meat of burnt offerings and their sacrificial portions join together to constitute the amount of an olive-bulk that renders one liable for sacrificing them outside the courtyard, and to render one liable for eating them due to piggul, notar, and partaking of them while ritually impure.
קָתָנֵי: בְּעוֹלָה – אִין, בִּשְׁלָמִים – לָא. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְהַעֲלוֹתָן בַּחוּץ, עוֹלָה דְּכָלִיל הִיא – מִצְטָרְפִין, שְׁלָמִים – לָא מִצְטָרְפִין. אֶלָּא לְחַיֵּיב עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא, שְׁלָמִים אַמַּאי לָא מְחַיֵּיב?
The Gemara notes that the baraita teaches that with regard to a burnt offering, yes, this halakha applies, whereas with regard to a peace offering, it does not apply. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Granted, with regard to sacrificing them outside the courtyard, it stands to reason that in the case of a burnt offering, which is entirely consumed upon the altar, everything joins together, whereas with regard to peace offerings, whose meat is not burned on the altar, the meat and sacrificial portions do not join together. But with regard to rendering one liable for piggul, and notar, and partaking of them while ritually impure, in the case of a peace offering as well, why is he not rendered liable?
וְהָתְנַן: כׇּל הַפִּיגּוּלִים מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה, וְכׇל הַנּוֹתָרוֹת מִצְטָרְפוֹת זוֹ עִם זוֹ!
The Gemara elaborates: But didn’t we learn in the mishna below: All the pieces of sacrificial meat that are piggul join together with one another to constitute the olive-bulk measure for liability, and all pieces of sacrificial meat that are notar join together with one another to constitute the olive-bulk measure for liability? The mishna indicates that this is the halakha with regard to all types of offerings.
אֶלָּא אֵימָא: עוֹלָה וְאֵימוּרֶיהָ מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לִכְזַיִת לִיזְרֹק עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַדָּם.
The Gemara answers: Rather, say that the baraita should read as follows: The meat of a burnt offering and its sacrificial portions join together to constitute an olive-bulk in order to permit one to sprinkle the blood for them. If the meat of the burnt offering was lost after it was slaughtered and only an olive-bulk of the meat and sacrificial portions remain, they combine to permit the sprinkling of the blood.
וְכֵיוָן דְּמִצְטָרְפִין לִיזְרֹק אֶת הַדָּם – חַיָּיב וְכוּ׳.
The Gemara further explains: And since they join together to constitute an olive-bulk with regard to sprinkling the blood, once that blood has been sprinkled they join together to constitute the minimum amount of an olive-bulk to render one liable for eating them due to piggul, notar, and partaking of them while ritually impure. By contrast, in the case of a peace offering, the meat and the sacrificial portions do not join together for sprinkling, and as the sprinkling is not valid, they do not subsequently join together to constitute an olive-bulk to render one liable for eating them due to piggul, notar, and partaking of them while ritually impure.
וּמַאן קָתָנֵי לַהּ? רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּיֵּיר מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר וּכְזַיִת חֵלֶב – זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם, כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בָּשָׂר וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת חֵלֶב – אֵינוֹ זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם.
The Gemara adds: And who is the tanna who teaches this baraita? It is Rabbi Yehoshua, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the offerings in the Torah from which there remains an olive-bulk of meat that is fit to be eaten, or an olive-bulk of fat that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar, one sprinkles the blood. If all that remains is half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, one may not sprinkle the blood. Since the meat and fat serve different functions, as the fat is burned on the altar while the meat is eaten by the priests, they do not combine to form the minimum amount that must remain in order to sprinkle the blood.
וּבָעוֹלָה, אֲפִילּוּ כַּחֲצִי זַיִת בָּשָׂר וְכַחֲצִי זַיִת חֵלֶב – זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ כָּלִיל. וּבַמִּנְחָה, אֲפִילּוּ כּוּלָּהּ קַיֶּימֶת – לֹא יִזְרוֹק.
But with regard to a burnt offering, even if all that was left was half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, one sprinkles the blood, because it is all consumed upon the altar. Since both the meat and the fat are sacrificed on the altar, they combine. And in the case of a meal offering, even if all of it remains, one may not sprinkle the blood.
מִנְחָה מַאי עֲבִידְתַּיהּ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מִנְחַת נְסָכִים.
With regard to the last statement, the Gemara asks: What is the relevance of a meal offering to this baraita? A meal offering does not require blood to be sprinkled on the altar. Rav Pappa said: The meal offering under discussion is the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings. The baraita is teaching that if none of the meat of the animal remains, even if all of the accompanying meal offering is intact, the blood of the animal may not be sprinkled.
מַתְנִי׳ הַתְּרוּמָה, וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי, וְהַחַלָּה, וְהַבִּיכּוּרִים – מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה לֶאֱסוֹר וּלְחַיֵּיב עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַחוֹמֶשׁ. כׇּל הַפִּיגּוּלִים – מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה. וְכׇל הַנּוֹתָרִים – מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה.
MISHNA: Teruma, and teruma of the tithe, and teruma of the tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai], and ḥalla, and first fruits all join together with one another to constitute the requisite measure to prohibit a mixture with non-sacred produce, and to form the requisite measure of an olive-bulk that serves to render one obligated for their consumption in payment of an additional one-fifth over and above the principal. All the pieces of sacrificial meat that are piggul join together with one another to constitute the olive-bulk measure for liability, and all sacrificial meat that is notar joins together with one another to constitute the olive-bulk measure for liability.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא? כּוּלְּהוּ אִיקְּרוּ ״תְּרוּמָה״. גַּבֵּי חַלָּה כְּתִיב: ״רֵאשִׁית עֲרִסֹתֵכֶם חַלָּה תָּרִימוּ תְרוּמָה״,
GEMARA: The Gemara asks: What is the reason that all of the foods listed in the mishna join together? The Gemara answers: The reason is that all of them are called teruma in the Torah. The Gemara elaborates: With regard to ḥalla it is written: “Of the first of your dough you shall set apart ḥalla for a teruma; like teruma of the threshing floor, so shall you set it apart” (Numbers 15:20).
גַּבֵּי בִּיכּוּרִים נָמֵי אִיקְּרוּ ״תְּרוּמָה״, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וּתְרוּמַת יָדֶךָ״ – אֵלּוּ בִּיכּוּרִים, אֲבָל אִינָךְ – לָא צְרִיכָא.
With regard to first fruits, they are also called teruma, as it is taught in a baraita that discusses foods that may not be eaten outside Jerusalem: The verse states: “You cannot eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or of your wine or of your oil or the firstlings of your herd or of your flock, or any of your vows that you vow, or your freewill offerings, or the offering of your hand” (Deuteronomy 12:17). “And the offering of your hand”; these are first fruits. But with regard to the other items listed in the mishna, i.e., teruma, teruma of the tithe, and teruma of the tithe of demai, it is not necessary to explain why they join together or to cite a verse, as it is clear that they are called teruma.
מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַנְּבֵילוֹת – מִצְטָרְפִין זוֹ עִם זוֹ. וְכׇל הַשְּׁקָצִים – מִצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה.
MISHNA: All animal carcasses, whose consumption is prohibited and which transmit impurity through contact with them and through carrying, join together with one another to constitute the requisite olive-bulk measure. And all repugnant creatures join together with one another to constitute the requisite olive-bulk measure to render one who consumes it liable to receive lashes. The eight creeping animals enumerated in the Torah join together to constitute the measure of a lentil-bulk, which transmits impurity through contact, and to render one who consumes it liable to receive lashes.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב:
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that all animal carcasses, whose consumption is prohibited and which transmit impurity through contact and through carrying, join together to constitute the requisite olive-bulk measure. Rav says:
