In which cases of a disqualified sacrifice is there potential for one to be obligated in meilah (misuse of consecrated property)? In what cases is there no potential for meilah?
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
English
עברית
0:00
0:00
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
Meilah 2
קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. שְׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם וְקִיבֵּל דָּמָן בַּצָּפוֹן, בַּצָּפוֹן וְקִיבֵּל דָּמָן בַּדָּרוֹם,
MISHNA: 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, and not in the north as required, are subject to the following halakha: One is liable for misusing them, i.e., one who derives benefit from them must bring a guilt offering and pay the principal and an additional one-fifth of their value. If he improperly slaughtered them in the south of the courtyard and properly collected their blood in the north, or even if he properly slaughtered them in the north of the courtyard but improperly collected their blood in the south, although the more significant rite was performed improperly, one is liable for misuse if he derives benefit from the animals.
שָׁחַט בַּיּוֹם וְזָרַק בַּלַּיְלָה, בַּלַּיְלָה וְזָרַק בַּיּוֹם, אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן.
The same halakha that applies if the location of the sacrificial rites was altered likewise applies if the time of those rites was altered. Accordingly, if one properly slaughtered them during the day and improperly sprinkled their blood at night, or if he improperly slaughtered them at night and properly sprinkled their blood during the day, one is liable for misuse if he derives benefit from the animals. Or in a case where one slaughtered them with the intent to partake of their meat or sprinkle their blood beyond its designated time, rendering it piggul, or outside its designated area, disqualifying the offering, he is liable for misusing them if he derives benefit from the animals.
כְּלָל אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: כׇּל שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר לַכֹּהֲנִים – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ, וְכׇל שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר לַכֹּהֲנִים – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ.
Rabbi Yehoshua stated a principle with regard to misuse of disqualified sacrificial animals: With regard to any sacrificial animal that had a period of fitness to the priests before it was disqualified, one is not liable for misusing it. Misuse applies specifically to items consecrated to God, which are not permitted for human consumption at all. Once the offering was permitted for consumption by the priests, it is no longer in that category. And with regard to any sacrificial animal that did not have a period of fitness for the priests before it was disqualified, one is liable for misusing it if he derives benefit from it, as it remained consecrated to God throughout.
אֵיזוֹ הִיא שֶׁהָיָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר לַכֹּהֲנִים? שֶׁלָּנָה, וְשֶׁנִּטְמְאָה, וְשֶׁיָּצְאָה.
Which is the sacrificial animal that had a period of fitness for the priests? This category includes a sacrificial animal whose meat remained overnight after its blood was presented on the altar and therefore came to have the status of notar and was therefore disqualified, and one that was disqualified when it became ritually impure, and one that left the Temple courtyard and was thereby disqualified. All of these disqualifications transpired after consumption of the sacrificial meat was permitted, and therefore one who derives benefit from these offerings is not liable for misuse.
וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הֶיתֵּר לַכֹּהֲנִים? שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ, חוּץ לִמְקוֹמָהּ, וְשֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ אֶת דָּמָה.
And which is the sacrificial animal that did not have a period of fitness for the priests? It is a sacrificial animal that was slaughtered with the intent to partake of it or sprinkle its blood beyond its designated time, or outside its designated area, or one that those unfit for Temple service collected and sprinkled its blood. All of these disqualifications took effect before consumption of the sacrificial meat was permitted. The offerings therefore remain consecrated to God, and one is liable for misuse if he derives benefit from them.
גְּמָ׳ קָתָנֵי: קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. פְּשִׁיטָא, מִשּׁוּם דִּשְׁחִיטָתָן בַּדָּרוֹם אַפֵּיקִינּוּן מִידֵי מְעִילָה?
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: With regard to 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, one who derives benefit from them is liable for misusing them. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious? Just because their slaughter was performed in the south, should we revoke their status as subject to the halakhot of misuse?
אִיצְטְרִיךְ, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קָדָשִׁים שֶׁמֵּתוּ – יָצְאוּ מִידֵּי מְעִילָה דְּבַר תּוֹרָה, הָכִי נָמֵי קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לְגַבֵּי דָרוֹם, כְּמָה דְּחַנְקִינּוּן דָּמֵי.
The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the mishna to mention the case of slaughtering them in the south, as it might enter your mind to say that since Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Sacrificial animals that died without being sacrificed are excluded from being subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law, so too, in the case of offerings of the most sacred order that were improperly slaughtered in the south, they are considered as though they were strangled to death, and therefore they are no longer subject to misuse.
קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: קָדָשִׁים שֶׁמֵּתוּ – לָא חֲזוּ כְּלָל. אֲבָל דָּרוֹם – נְהִי דְּאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לְקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, אֲבָל רָאוּי הוּא לְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים.
Consequently, the mishna teaches us that although they were slaughtered improperly, they are not considered to have the status of sacrificial animals that died, as those are not fit at all. But with regard to slaughtering an animal in the south, although this is not fitting for offerings of the most sacred order, yet the act is still classified as slaughter of sacrificial animals, as slaughter in the south is fitting for offerings of lesser sanctity.
לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵי כׇּל הָנֵי?
§ The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach all of these different cases? It could have mentioned just one case, from which one would have derived the principle that even in a situation where the rite of the offering is not performed in the proper manner, the animal can still be subject to the halakhot of misuse.
צְרִיכִי: אִי תְּנָא שְׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם וְקִיבֵּל דָּמָן בַּצָּפוֹן, הָכָא דְּאִית בְּהוּ מְעִילָה, מִשּׁוּם דְּקַבָּלָה בַּצָּפוֹן הוּא. אֲבָל שְׁחָטָן בַּצָּפוֹן וְקִיבֵּל דָּמָן בַּדָּרוֹם, הוֹאִיל וְקִיבֵּל בַּדָּרוֹם הוּא – נָפֵיק מִידֵי מְעִילָה.
The Gemara explains: All these cases are necessary. If the mishna had taught only the case of one who improperly slaughtered them in the south of the courtyard and properly collected their blood in the north, one might have thought that it is only here, in this case, that the animals are subject to the halakhot of misuse, as the collection of the blood was in the north. But if he slaughtered them in the north and collected their blood in the south, since the collection, which is a more fundamental rite than the slaughter, is in the south, one might think that they are removed from the status of being subject to the halakhot of misuse. Therefore, the mishna mentions that case as well.
וְאִי תְּנָא הַאי, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: יְמָמָא זְמַן הַקְרָבָה הוּא, אֲבָל שְׁחָטָהּ בַּלַּיְלָה וְזָרַק בַּיּוֹם – לַיְלָה לָאו זְמַן הַקְרָבָה, וְהַאי דְּשָׁחֵט בַּלַּיְלָה – דְּנָפֵיק מִידֵי מְעִילָה!
And if the mishna had taught only these aforementioned cases, I would say that only in such situations is the offering subject to the halakhot of misuse, as they were at least sacrificed during the day, which is the appropriate time for sacrifice. But if one slaughtered an offering at night and sprinkled its blood during the day, it would not be subject to the halakhot of misuse, as night is not the appropriate time for sacrifice, and therefore in this case of one who slaughtered at night, the animal is removed from its status of being subject to the halakhot of misuse.
וְאִי תְּנָא שְׁחָטָהּ בַּלַּיְלָה, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְקִבֵּל דָּמָה בַּיּוֹם – אִית בַּהּ מְעִילָה, אֲבָל שְׁחָטָן בַּיּוֹם וְזָרַק דָּמָן בַּלַּיְלָה, הוֹאִיל וְלָאו זְמַן הַקְרָבָה הוּא – כְּמַאן דְּחַנְקִינּוּן דָּמֵי, וְלָא אִית בְּהוּ מְעִילָה, קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
And if the mishna had taught only the case where he slaughtered it at night and collected the blood during the day, I would say: Since he collected the blood during the day, as required, the offering retains its status and is subject to the halakhot of misuse. But if he slaughtered animals during the day and sprinkled their blood, which is the main act of sacrifice, at night, since it is not a time fit for sacrifice, it is considered as though they were strangled, and they are not subject to the halakhot of misuse. Therefore, the mishna teaches us all of these cases.
חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ. לְמַאי חֲזוּ?
§ The mishna teaches: If one slaughtered sacrificial animals with the intent to partake of their meat or sprinkle their blood beyond its designated time, rendering them piggul, or outside its designated area, disqualifying them, he is liable for misusing them if he derives benefit from them. The Gemara asks: For what are these sacrificial animals fit? Since they are unfit for both sacrifice and consumption by the priests, even in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity, why are they considered as consecrated items that are subject to misuse?
הוֹאִיל וּמְרַצִּין לְפִיגּוּלִין.
The Gemara answers: Since sprinkling their blood on the altar renders them accepted in that they receive their status of being subject to piggul, therefore they have still not entirely lost their sanctified status and are subject to misuse. In other words, an offering with regard to which there was an improper intention is rendered piggul only if all its permitting factors, one of which is sprinkling the blood, are performed properly (see Zevaḥim 28b). The fact that its permitting factors are important for the purpose of rendering it subject to piggul shows that the offering has not lost its consecrated status.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: אִי עָלוּ, מַהוּ שֶׁיֵּרְדוּ? רַבָּה אָמַר: אִם עָלוּ – יֵרְדוּ, רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: אִם עָלוּ – לֹא יֵרְדוּ.
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In a case where a rite was performed in the wrong location, e.g., offerings of the most sacred order were slaughtered in the south rather than the north, if the offerings had already ascended the altar, what is the halakha as to whether they descend, i.e., are they removed from the altar or are they sacrificed? Rabba says: If they ascended the altar, they shall descend. Rav Yosef says: If they ascended the altar, they shall not descend.
אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּאִם עָלוּ – יֵרְדוּ. כִּי פְּלִיגִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן.
With regard to this dilemma, the Gemara cites a relevant dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon in a mishna (Zevaḥim 84a). Rabbi Yehuda maintains that in certain cases when an offering became disqualified in the sacred area, i.e., the Temple courtyard, it was removed from the altar. By contrast, Rabbi Shimon rules that any offering that became disqualified once it was already inside the Temple courtyard was not removed from the altar if it ascended there. The Gemara states: In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, you should not raise this dilemma, as everyone, i.e., both Rabba and Rav Yosef, agrees that in the cases of the mishna Rabbi Yehuda would rule that even if the disqualified offerings have ascended the altar, they must descend. They disagree when the dilemma is raised according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
רַב יוֹסֵף כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. רַבָּה אָמַר לָךְ: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אֶלָּא בַּנִּיתָּנִין לְמַטָּה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַעְלָה אוֹ בַּנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַטָּה,
Rav Yosef holds in accordance with a straightforward interpretation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that the offerings listed in the mishna do not descend from the altar, as they became disqualified inside the Temple courtyard. By contrast, Rabba could have said to you: Rabbi Shimon states that the offerings do not descend only with regard to cases such as the bird sin offering, whose blood should be placed below the red line on the altar, which one placed above the red line; or with regard to offerings such as the bird burnt offering, whose blood should be placed above the red line, which one placed below that line.
וּלְעוֹלָם דִּשְׁחָטָן וְקִבֵּל דָּמָן בַּצָּפוֹן, אֲבָל הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דִּשְׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם – כְּמַאן דְּחַנְקִינּוּן דָּמֵי.
And therefore, Rabbi Shimon is actually dealing with cases where one slaughtered the offerings and collected their blood in the north, in accordance with the halakha. But here, in the cases of the mishna, since one slaughtered them in the south, it is considered as though they were strangled to death, and were not slaughtered at all. Consequently, Rabbi Shimon agrees that they should be removed from the altar.
תְּנַן: קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב יוֹסֵף נִיחָא, אֶלָּא לְרַבָּה קַשְׁיָא! מַאי מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן – מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
We learned in the mishna: With regard to offerings of the most sacred order that were disqualified before their blood was sprinkled on the altar, if one slaughtered them in the south of the Temple courtyard, he is liable for misusing them if he derives benefit from them. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Yosef, this halakha works out well. Since they remain consecrated and do not become permitted to the priests, they may remain on the altar. But according to the opinion of Rabba, it is difficult: If these offerings must be removed from the altar, why can one be liable for misusing them? The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the clause: One is liable for misusing them? This means that one is liable for misusing them by rabbinic law, but they are not subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law.
מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לְרַבָּנַן? דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא מְשַׁלְּמִין חוֹמֶשׁ, דְּרַבָּנַן – לָא.
The Gemara inquires: What practical difference is there between misuse by Torah law and misuse by rabbinic law? The Gemara explains that those who misuse by Torah law must pay an additional one-fifth to the Temple treasury, over and above the principal. By contrast, misuse by rabbinic law does not render one obligated to pay the additional one-fifth.
וּמִי אִיכָּא מְעִילָה מִדְּרַבָּנַן? אִין, דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קָדָשִׁים שֶׁמֵּתוּ – יָצְאוּ מִידֵי מְעִילָה, דְּבַר תּוֹרָה. אַלְמָא מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא אִית לְהוֹן, בִּדְרַבָּנַן אִית בְּהוֹן. הָכִי נָמֵי – מִדְּרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara asks: And is there a concept of misuse of consecrated property by rabbinic law? The Gemara answers: Yes there is, as Ulla said that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Sacrificial animals that died have been removed from the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. Evidently, it is by Torah law that the halakhot of misuse do not apply to them, but by rabbinic law they do apply to them. So too in this case, where the animals are slaughtered in the south, they are subject to misuse by rabbinic law.
לֵימָא תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּעוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן! אַף עַל גַּב דִּתְנֵינָא, אִיצְטְרִיךְ דְּעוּלָּא, סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הָכָא לָא בְּדִילִין מִנְּהוֹן,
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If Rabba is correct that the mishna is referring to misuse by rabbinic law, let us say that we already learned in the mishna that which Ulla says that Rabbi Yoḥanan said. Why, then, was it necessary for Ulla to repeat this halakha? The Gemara explains: Even though we already learned it in the mishna, the statement of Ulla was necessary: It might enter your mind to say that here, with regard to offerings slaughtered in the south, people will not distance themselves from them, as they are no different in appearance from animals sacrificed properly, and therefore the Sages decreed that they are subject to misuse by rabbinic law.
אֲבָל קָדָשִׁים שֶׁמֵּתוּ, הוֹאִיל וּבְדִילִין מִנְּהוֹן, אֵימָא: אֲפִילּוּ מְעִילָה מִדְּרַבָּנַן לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
But in the case of sacrificial animals that died, and were never slaughtered at all, since people distance themselves from them, one might say that they are not subject to misuse even by rabbinic law. There-fore, Ulla teaches us that they are nevertheless subject to misuse by rabbinic law.
מֵתוּ – נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִן הַחַטָּאת כְּשֶׁהִיא חַיָּה – לֹא מָעַל עַד שֶׁיִּפְגּוֹם. וּכְשֶׁהִיא מֵתָה, כֵּיוָן דְּנֶהֱנָה כׇּל שֶׁהוּא – מָעַל.
The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Didn’t we also learn in a mishna that sacrificial animals that died are subject to the halakhot of misuse by rabbinic law? As the mishna (18a) teaches: One who derives benefit from a sin offering while it is alive is not liable for misuse until he causes it one peruta worth of damage. But if he derives benefit from it when it is dead, since it will not be redeemed it cannot be damaged. Therefore, once he derives one peruta worth of benefit from it, even without damaging it, he is liable for misuse. This misuse must apply by rabbinic law, as sacrificial animals that have died are not subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. If so, the halakha that these animals are subject to misuse by rabbinic law is already stated in a mishna and therefore there is no reason for Ulla to repeat it.
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ
The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind
Follow
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Avodah Zarah Daf 8-14 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
July 04, 2025 | ח׳ בתמוז תשפ״ה
Zevahim 88: New Clothes, Blood, and No Dry Cleaning
December 11, 2025 | כ״א בכסלו תשפ״ו
Kiddushin: 25 – 31 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time
September 18, 2023 | ג׳ בתשרי תשפ״ד
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.
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Khaya Eisenberg
Jerusalem, Israel
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me.
After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
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.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
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.
Laura Major
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Joanna Rom
Northwest Washington, United States
I graduated college in December 2019 and received a set of shas as a present from my husband. With my long time dream of learning daf yomi, I had no idea that a new cycle was beginning just one month later, in January 2020. I have been learning the daf ever since with Michelle Farber… Through grad school, my first job, my first baby, and all the other incredible journeys over the past few years!
Sigal Spitzer Flamholz
Bronx, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Jodi Gladstone
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
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!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me.
After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, 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!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
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 .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Meilah 2
Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ©ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ β ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ. Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¦ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¦ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ,
MISHNA: 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, and not in the north as required, are subject to the following halakha: One is liable for misusing them, i.e., one who derives benefit from them must bring a guilt offering and pay the principal and an additional one-fifth of their value. If he improperly slaughtered them in the south of the courtyard and properly collected their blood in the north, or even if he properly slaughtered them in the north of the courtyard but improperly collected their blood in the south, although the more significant rite was performed improperly, one is liable for misuse if he derives benefit from the animals.
Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ§ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ§ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ, ΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ©ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΧΦΉ β ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ.
The same halakha that applies if the location of the sacrificial rites was altered likewise applies if the time of those rites was altered. Accordingly, if one properly slaughtered them during the day and improperly sprinkled their blood at night, or if he improperly slaughtered them at night and properly sprinkled their blood during the day, one is liable for misuse if he derives benefit from the animals. Or in a case where one slaughtered them with the intent to partake of their meat or sprinkle their blood beyond its designated time, rendering it piggul, or outside its designated area, disqualifying the offering, he is liable for misusing them if he derives benefit from the animals.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΧΦ»Χ’Φ·: ΧΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΆΧΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΆΧΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ.
Rabbi Yehoshua stated a principle with regard to misuse of disqualified sacrificial animals: With regard to any sacrificial animal that had a period of fitness to the priests before it was disqualified, one is not liable for misusing it. Misuse applies specifically to items consecrated to God, which are not permitted for human consumption at all. Once the offering was permitted for consumption by the priests, it is no longer in that category. And with regard to any sacrificial animal that did not have a period of fitness for the priests before it was disqualified, one is liable for misusing it if he derives benefit from it, as it remained consecrated to God throughout.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΆΧΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ? Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ.
Which is the sacrificial animal that had a period of fitness for the priests? This category includes a sacrificial animal whose meat remained overnight after its blood was presented on the altar and therefore came to have the status of notar and was therefore disqualified, and one that was disqualified when it became ritually impure, and one that left the Temple courtyard and was thereby disqualified. All of these disqualifications transpired after consumption of the sacrificial meat was permitted, and therefore one who derives benefit from these offerings is not liable for misuse.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΆΧΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ? Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧ§ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌ Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ§ΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ.
And which is the sacrificial animal that did not have a period of fitness for the priests? It is a sacrificial animal that was slaughtered with the intent to partake of it or sprinkle its blood beyond its designated time, or outside its designated area, or one that those unfit for Temple service collected and sprinkled its blood. All of these disqualifications took effect before consumption of the sacrificial meat was permitted. The offerings therefore remain consecrated to God, and one is liable for misuse if he derives benefit from them.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ: Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ©ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ β ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ. Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ?
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: With regard to 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, one who derives benefit from them is liable for misusing them. The Gemara asks: Isnβt it obvious? Just because their slaughter was performed in the south, should we revoke their status as subject to the halakhot of misuse?
ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ°, Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅ΧͺΧΦΌ β ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the mishna to mention the case of slaughtering them in the south, as it might enter your mind to say that since Ulla says that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan says: Sacrificial animals that died without being sacrificed are excluded from being subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law, so too, in the case of offerings of the most sacred order that were improperly slaughtered in the south, they are considered as though they were strangled to death, and therefore they are no longer subject to misuse.
Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ: Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅ΧͺΧΦΌ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ β Χ Φ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ.
Consequently, the mishna teaches us that although they were slaughtered improperly, they are not considered to have the status of sacrificial animals that died, as those are not fit at all. But with regard to slaughtering an animal in the south, although this is not fitting for offerings of the most sacred order, yet the act is still classified as slaughter of sacrificial animals, as slaughter in the south is fitting for offerings of lesser sanctity.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ?
Β§ The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach all of these different cases? It could have mentioned just one case, from which one would have derived the principle that even in a situation where the rite of the offering is not performed in the proper manner, the animal can still be subject to the halakhot of misuse.
Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¦ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¦ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ. ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¦ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ β Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ΅ΧΧ§ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara explains: All these cases are necessary. If the mishna had taught only the case of one who improperly slaughtered them in the south of the courtyard and properly collected their blood in the north, one might have thought that it is only here, in this case, that the animals are subject to the halakhot of misuse, as the collection of the blood was in the north. But if he slaughtered them in the north and collected their blood in the south, since the collection, which is a more fundamental rite than the slaughter, is in the south, one might think that they are removed from the status of being subject to the halakhot of misuse. Therefore, the mishna mentions that case as well.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ§ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ΅ΧΧ§ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ!
And if the mishna had taught only these aforementioned cases, I would say that only in such situations is the offering subject to the halakhot of misuse, as they were at least sacrificed during the day, which is the appropriate time for sacrifice. But if one slaughtered an offering at night and sprinkled its blood during the day, it would not be subject to the halakhot of misuse, as night is not the appropriate time for sacrifice, and therefore in this case of one who slaughtered at night, the animal is removed from its status of being subject to the halakhot of misuse.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ§ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ.
And if the mishna had taught only the case where he slaughtered it at night and collected the blood during the day, I would say: Since he collected the blood during the day, as required, the offering retains its status and is subject to the halakhot of misuse. But if he slaughtered animals during the day and sprinkled their blood, which is the main act of sacrifice, at night, since it is not a time fit for sacrifice, it is considered as though they were strangled, and they are not subject to the halakhot of misuse. Therefore, the mishna teaches us all of these cases.
ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΧΦΉ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌ?
Β§ The mishna teaches: If one slaughtered sacrificial animals with the intent to partake of their meat or sprinkle their blood beyond its designated time, rendering them piggul, or outside its designated area, disqualifying them, he is liable for misusing them if he derives benefit from them. The Gemara asks: For what are these sacrificial animals fit? Since they are unfit for both sacrifice and consumption by the priests, even in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity, why are they considered as consecrated items that are subject to misuse?
ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ¦ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
The Gemara answers: Since sprinkling their blood on the altar renders them accepted in that they receive their status of being subject to piggul, therefore they have still not entirely lost their sanctified status and are subject to misuse. In other words, an offering with regard to which there was an improper intention is rendered piggul only if all its permitting factors, one of which is sprinkling the blood, are performed properly (see ZevaαΈ₯im 28b). The fact that its permitting factors are important for the purpose of rendering it subject to piggul shows that the offering has not lost its consecrated status.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΄Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌ? Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΄Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌ, Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΄Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌ.
Β§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: In a case where a rite was performed in the wrong location, e.g., offerings of the most sacred order were slaughtered in the south rather than the north, if the offerings had already ascended the altar, what is the halakha as to whether they descend, i.e., are they removed from the altar or are they sacrificed? Rabba says: If they ascended the altar, they shall descend. Rav Yosef says: If they ascended the altar, they shall not descend.
ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ°Χ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ.
With regard to this dilemma, the Gemara cites a relevant dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon in a mishna (ZevaαΈ₯im 84a). Rabbi Yehuda maintains that in certain cases when an offering became disqualified in the sacred area, i.e., the Temple courtyard, it was removed from the altar. By contrast, Rabbi Shimon rules that any offering that became disqualified once it was already inside the Temple courtyard was not removed from the altar if it ascended there. The Gemara states: In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, you should not raise this dilemma, as everyone, i.e., both Rabba and Rav Yosef, agrees that in the cases of the mishna Rabbi Yehuda would rule that even if the disqualified offerings have ascended the altar, they must descend. They disagree when the dilemma is raised according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ°: Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ,
Rav Yosef holds in accordance with a straightforward interpretation of the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that the offerings listed in the mishna do not descend from the altar, as they became disqualified inside the Temple courtyard. By contrast, Rabba could have said to you: Rabbi Shimon states that the offerings do not descend only with regard to cases such as the bird sin offering, whose blood should be placed below the red line on the altar, which one placed above the red line; or with regard to offerings such as the bird burnt offering, whose blood should be placed above the red line, which one placed below that line.
ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¦ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Φ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
And therefore, Rabbi Shimon is actually dealing with cases where one slaughtered the offerings and collected their blood in the north, in accordance with the halakha. But here, in the cases of the mishna, since one slaughtered them in the south, it is considered as though they were strangled to death, and were not slaughtered at all. Consequently, Rabbi Shimon agrees that they should be removed from the altar.
ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ©ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ β ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ. ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ.
We learned in the mishna: With regard to offerings of the most sacred order that were disqualified before their blood was sprinkled on the altar, if one slaughtered them in the south of the Temple courtyard, he is liable for misusing them if he derives benefit from them. Granted, according to the opinion of Rav Yosef, this halakha works out well. Since they remain consecrated and do not become permitted to the priests, they may remain on the altar. But according to the opinion of Rabba, it is difficult: If these offerings must be removed from the altar, why can one be liable for misusing them? The Gemara explains: What is the meaning of the clause: One is liable for misusing them? This means that one is liable for misusing them by rabbinic law, but they are not subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ? ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ, ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ β ΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara inquires: What practical difference is there between misuse by Torah law and misuse by rabbinic law? The Gemara explains that those who misuse by Torah law must pay an additional one-fifth to the Temple treasury, over and above the principal. By contrast, misuse by rabbinic law does not render one obligated to pay the additional one-fifth.
ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ? ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅ΧͺΧΦΌ β ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ.
The Gemara asks: And is there a concept of misuse of consecrated property by rabbinic law? The Gemara answers: Yes there is, as Ulla said that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan says: Sacrificial animals that died have been removed from the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. Evidently, it is by Torah law that the halakhot of misuse do not apply to them, but by rabbinic law they do apply to them. So too in this case, where the animals are slaughtered in the south, they are subject to misuse by rabbinic law.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ! ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ° ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ, Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ,
The Gemara raises a difficulty: If Rabba is correct that the mishna is referring to misuse by rabbinic law, let us say that we already learned in the mishna that which Ulla says that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan said. Why, then, was it necessary for Ulla to repeat this halakha? The Gemara explains: Even though we already learned it in the mishna, the statement of Ulla was necessary: It might enter your mind to say that here, with regard to offerings slaughtered in the south, people will not distance themselves from them, as they are no different in appearance from animals sacrificed properly, and therefore the Sages decreed that they are subject to misuse by rabbinic law.
ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅ΧͺΧΦΌ, ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ, Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ.
But in the case of sacrificial animals that died, and were never slaughtered at all, since people distance themselves from them, one might say that they are not subject to misuse even by rabbinic law. There-fore, Ulla teaches us that they are nevertheless subject to misuse by rabbinic law.
ΧΦ΅ΧͺΧΦΌ β Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΆΧΦ±Χ ΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ·Χ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΆΧΦ±Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ β ΧΦΈΧ’Φ·Χ.
The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Didnβt we also learn in a mishna that sacrificial animals that died are subject to the halakhot of misuse by rabbinic law? As the mishna (18a) teaches: One who derives benefit from a sin offering while it is alive is not liable for misuse until he causes it one peruta worth of damage. But if he derives benefit from it when it is dead, since it will not be redeemed it cannot be damaged. Therefore, once he derives one peruta worth of benefit from it, even without damaging it, he is liable for misuse. This misuse must apply by rabbinic law, as sacrificial animals that have died are not subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. If so, the halakha that these animals are subject to misuse by rabbinic law is already stated in a mishna and therefore there is no reason for Ulla to repeat it.
Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦ°
The Gemara answers: It might enter your mind
Follow
