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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 26, 2019 | 讻状讜 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Meilah 9

What happens to each type of sacrifice at each stage regarding meilah and other issues? Is the law regarding removing the ashes from the pile on top of the altar considered the final mitzva of the sacrifice or just part of upkeep of the altar? One who benefits (meilah) from sactified items, what is done with the money that is paid back to the temple? There is a debate regarding this issue.


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

讜讛转谞讬讗 诪住诇转讛 讜诪砖诪谞讛 注诇 讻诇 诇讘谞转讛 驻专讟 砖讞住专讛 住诇转讛 讜讞住专讛 砖诪谞讛 讜讞住专讛 诇讘讜谞转讛

but isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall bring it to Aaron鈥檚 sons the priests; and he shall remove his handful of its fine flour, and of its oil, together with all its frankincense; and the priest shall make its memorial part smoke upon the altar, an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 2:2)? This verse excludes those situations where some of its flour was missing, or some of its oil was missing, or some of its frankincense was missing, in which case the priest may not place the meal offering on the fire. This indicates that one must ensure that some of the flour, oil, and frankincense remain.

讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讻转讬讘 讜讛谞讜转专转 拽专讗 讬转讬专讗 讻转讬讘

The Sages said in response to the difficulty of Rav A岣, son of Rava: In general, the terms 鈥渞emainder鈥 or 鈥渓eftover鈥 refer to a situation where there happened to be some of the item remaining. Yet, the case of the meal offering is unique, as there it is written: 鈥淏ut that which is left of the meal offering shall be Aaron鈥檚 and his sons鈥; it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire鈥 (Leviticus 2:3). This part of the verse is superfluous, as it appears in Leviticus 2:10 as well. It is therefore derived from the repetition of this phrase that in the specific case of a meal offering one must ensure that some of the items remain. This requirement does not apply to a bird sin offering.

诪转讬讘 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讞讚 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜讗讞讚 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 砖诪诇拽谉 讜诪讬爪讛 讚诪谉 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪谉 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞谉 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 诪讬爪讛 讚诪谉

Shmuel鈥檚 father raises an objection to Rav Huna from a mishna (Zeva岣m 64b): With regard to both a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering, where the priest pinched their nape or squeezed out their blood with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is to partake of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is to burn it on the altar, outside its designated area, the offering is not valid, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering. If his intent was to eat it or burn it beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the offering, provided that the permitting factor, the blood, was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva. In any event, this mishna teaches: Squeezed out their blood, indicating that failure to squeeze out the blood disqualifies the offering.

讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽转谞讬

Shmuel鈥檚 father raises the objection and he resolves it himself. The tanna of that mishna teaches it disjunctively. In other words, the two clauses of the mishna are referring to two different cases. The halakha of pinching the nape of the neck applies to both the bird sin offering and the bird burnt offering. By contrast, the squeezing out of the blood applies only to a bird burnt offering, whose blood is not sprinkled on the altar. For this reason, the priest鈥檚 intent at the time of squeezing out the blood is significant. In the case of a bird sin offering, it is only an intent at the time of sprinkling that invalidates the offering.

讙讜驻讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖讗诐 谞砖讗专 讘讚诐

The Gemara returns to the matter itself, i.e., the baraita cited above: The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that if any of the blood remains inside the bird it must be squeezed out, but there is no requirement to ensure that blood remains for this purpose. Consequently, even if one does not squeeze out the blood on the side of the altar, the offering is valid.

讜讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛转诐 砖讬专讬讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讬爪讜讬 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The Gemara asks: But the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught there, on Zeva岣m 52a, that failure with regard to the remainder of the blood invalidates the offering, and Rav Pappa said: Both Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva agree that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base does not invalidate the offering. The practical difference between them is whether or not failure to squeeze out the blood from a bird sin offering after sprinkling the blood invalidates the offering. The school of Rabbi Yishmael rules that it does invalidate the offering, and Rabbi Akiva maintains that it does not invalidate the offering. The Gemara answers: There are two tanna鈥檌m and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.

诪转谞讬壮 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讛讜拽讚砖讛 谞诪诇拽讛 讛讜讻砖专讛 诇讬驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诇讬谞讛 诪讬爪讛 讚诪讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 注讚 砖转爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛讚砖谉

MISHNA: One is liable for misusing a bird burnt offering from the moment that it was consecrated. When the nape of its neck was pinched, it was rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed in a ritual bath that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. Once its blood was squeezed out, one is liable to receive karet for eating it, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. And as it may not be eaten, one is liable for its misuse until it leaves to the place of the ashes, where it is burned.

驻专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 讜砖注讬专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讛讜拽讚砖讜 谞砖讞讟讜 讛讜讻砖专讜 诇讬驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诇讬谞讛 讛讜讝讛 讚诪谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讘讘讬转 讛讚砖谉 注讚 砖讬转讬讱 讛讘砖专

One is liable for misuse of bulls that are burned and goats that are burned from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they were slaughtered, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. Once its blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating it, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. And one is liable for its misuse even when it is in the place of the ashes, until the flesh has been completely scorched.

讛注讜诇讛 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讛讜拽讚砖讛 谞砖讞讟讛 讛讜讻砖专讛 诇讬驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诇讬谞讛 诪砖谞讝专拽 讚诪讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘注讜专讜转 讗讘诇 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讘砖专 注讚 砖转爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛讚砖谉

One is liable for misuse of the burnt offering from the moment that it was consecrated. Once it was slaughtered it was rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. Once its blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating it, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. And one is not liable for misuse of the hides, but one is liable for misuse of the flesh until it leaves to the place of the ashes.

讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讜讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讬讘讜专 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讛讜拽讚砖讜 谞砖讞讟讜 讛讜讻砖专讜 诇讬驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诇讬谞讛 谞讝专拽 讚诪谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讘砖专 讗讘诇 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讗讬诪讜专讬讛谉 注讚 砖讬爪讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛讚砖谉

One is liable for misuse of a sin offering, and a guilt offering, and communal peace offerings from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they were slaughtered they were rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. Once their blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating them, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. One is not liable for misuse of the flesh, but one is liable for misuse of their sacrificial portions, i.e., the portions that are to be consumed on the altar, until they leave to the place of the ashes.

砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讛讜拽讚砖讜 拽专诪讜 讘转谞讜专 讛讜讻砖专讜 诇讬驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诇讬谞讛 讜诇讬砖讞讜讟 注诇讬讛谉 讗转 讛讝讘讞 谞讝专拽 讚诪谉 砖诇 讻讘砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪注讬诇讛

One is liable for misuse of the two loaves brought on the festival of Shavuot from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they formed a crust, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight, and they are rendered eligible to slaughter with them the accompanying offering of the two lambs. Once the blood of the lambs is sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating the loaves, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure. And they are not subject to the halakhot of misuse, as at that point their consumption is permitted.

诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讛讜拽讚砖讛 拽专诐 讘转谞讜专 讛讜讻砖专 诇讬驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜诇讛住讚专 注诇 讙讘讬 讛砖讜诇讞谉

One is liable for misuse of the shewbread, which is arranged on the Golden Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, from the moment that it was consecrated. Once it formed a crust in the oven it assumes the status of bread and its halakhic status is like that of offerings of the most sacred order after the animal was slaughtered, in that it was rendered susceptible to disqualification through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and it is rendered eligible for arrangement upon the Table in the Sanctuary.

拽专讘讜 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛

Once the bowls of frankincense brought with the shewbread of the previous week were sacrificed, one is liable to receive karet for eating the loaves due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure. But it is not subject to the halakhot of misuse, as at that point its consumption is permitted.

讛诪谞讞讜转 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讛讜拽讚砖讜 拽讚砖讜 讘讻诇讬 讛讜讻砖专讜 诇讬驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诇讬谞讛

One is liable for misuse of the meal offerings from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they were consecrated through placement of the flour in a service vessel, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight.

拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘砖讬专讬诐 讗讘诇 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘拽讜诪抓 注讚 砖讬爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛讚砖谉

Once the handful taken from the meal offering was sacrificed, one is liable to receive karet for eating the meal offering due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure. And one is not liable for misuse of the remainder of the meal offering, which is eaten by the priests, but one is liable for misuse of the handful that is sacrificed, until it leaves to the place of the ashes.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 讛谞讛谞讛 诪讗驻专 转驻讜讞 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜

GEMARA: It was stated that there is a dispute between amora鈥檌m with regard to one who derives benefit from the ash of the round heap that is on top of the altar. Rav says: One who derives benefit from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, and Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property.

诇驻谞讬 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讗讞专 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉

The Gemara clarifies this dispute: Before the removal of the ashes, everyone agrees that one who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property. The reason is that the mitzva of the removal of the ashes has not yet been completed. When they disagree it is with regard to the halakha after the removal of the ashes, at which point the mitzva has been completed.

专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 讛专讬 谞注砖讛 诪爪讜转讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讘砖 讛讻讛谉 诪讚讜 讘讚 讜讙讜壮 讻讬讜谉 讚爪专讬讱 诇讘讙讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬

Rav says that one who derives benefit from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, as its mitzva has been performed and completed. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says that one is liable for misuse, since it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the ashes to where the fire has consumed the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. And he shall remove his garments, and don other garments, and carry forth the ashes outside the camp鈥 (Leviticus 6:3鈥4). Rabbi Yo岣nan explains: Since taking the ashes outside the Temple also requires the priestly vestments, albeit garments of lesser quality than those used to remove the ashes from the altar, evidently the ash remains in its consecrated state.

转谞谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 注讚 砖转爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛讚砖谉 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 注讚 砖转专讗讛 诇讘讬转 讛讚砖谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty against the opinion of Rav. We learned in the mishna, with regard to the bird burnt offering: One is liable for its misuse until it leaves to the place of the ashes, where it is burned. This indicates that the halakhot of misuse apply while the ashes remain on the altar, even after the removal of ashes, which is difficult for the opinion of Rav. The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: The mishna means that one is liable until the ash is fit to be taken out to the place of ashes, i.e., once it is burned on the altar and has had a shovel of ashes removed from it.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讻讜诇谉 砖驻拽注讜 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讻谉 讙讞诇转 砖驻拽注讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讛讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讬讞讝讬专

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 explanation from a mishna (Zeva岣m 86a): And all of those unfit offerings, with regard to which it was taught that if they ascended to the altar they do not descend, in a case where they were dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore them to the altar. And likewise, with regard to an ember that was dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore it to the altar. It can be inferred from the mishna that if the ember was still on the altar, then the priest must restore it.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 砖讗谞讬 讙讞诇转 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 诪砖砖讗

The Gemara explains the objection: Granted, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan this works out well, as he maintains that even after the shovelful of ashes has been removed, an ember on the pile of ashes still retains its sanctity. But according to Rav this is difficult. The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: An ember is different, as it has substance [meshasha] and is therefore still fit to be burned on the altar.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讱 讙讬住讗 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讞诇转 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 诪砖砖讗 讛讗 讗驻专 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪砖砖讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽砖讬讗

There is a Sage who stated this objection in the opposite manner: The mishna indicates that the reason that the priest must return it to the altar is because it is an ember, and that it has substance. It can be inferred from this that one who derives benefit from ash, which does not have substance, is not liable for misuse of consecrated property even when it is on the top of the altar. Granted, according to Rav this works out well, but according to Rabbi Yo岣nan it is difficult.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讗驻专 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚拽转谞讬 讙讞诇转 拽讗转讬 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讙讞诇转 讚讗讬转 讘讛 诪砖砖讗 讻讬 驻拽注讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you: The same is true that even ash that was dislodged must be returned. And this is the reason that the mishna teaches an ember, and not ash: It is coming to teach us that even in the case of an ember, which has substance, if it is dislodged from upon the altar the priest does not return it.

讗讬转诪专 讛谞讛谞讛 诪讘砖专 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讜讗诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 专讘 讗诪专 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讛 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讬讘讬讗 讚讘专 砖讻讜诇讜 诇诪讝讘讞

搂 One of the halakhot of misuse is that the violator must pay the value of the benefit he derived and add an extra one-fifth. It was stated that there is a dispute between amora鈥檌m with regard to this money: In the case of one who derives benefit from meat of an offering of the most sacred order before the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, or who derives benefit from sacrificial portions, such as the fats of offerings of lesser sanctity, after the sprinkling of the blood, Rav says: The value of that benefit which he derived is allocated for communal gift offerings, and Levi says: One must bring an item that is entirely consumed on the altar, e.g., incense. One does not bring a burnt offering with this money, as the hide of a burnt offering belongs to the priests.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚诇讜讬 诪注讬诇讛 讝讜 诇讛讬讻谉 讛讜诇讻转 讛诇诪讬讚讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讘讬讗 讚讘专 砖讻讜诇讜 诇诪讝讘讞 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 拽讟专转

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Levi: This money paid for misuse of consecrated items, to where does it go? The Rabbis who are called: Those who learn before the Sages, say: One must bring an item that is entirely consumed on the altar, and what is that? Incense, which is burned on the altar in its entirety.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛谞讛谞讛 诪讚诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜诪讚诪讬 讗砖诐 注讚 砖诇讗 拽专讘讛 讞讟讗转讜 讬讜住讬祝 讜讬讘讬讗 讞讟讗转讜 讜注讚 砖诇讗 拽专讘讛 讗砖诪讜 讬讜住讬祝 讜讬讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 拽专讘 讞讟讗转讜 讬诇讻讜 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讻讘专 拽专讘 讗砖诪讜 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛

It is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: In the case of one who derives benefit from money set aside for the purchase of a sin offering or set aside as money set aside for the purchase of a guilt offering, if he pays before his sin offering is sacrificed he must add the amount of the benefit he derived and an additional fifth and bring with that money a more expensive animal as his sin offering. And likewise, if he pays before his guilt offering is sacrificed, he must add the amount of the benefit he derived and an additional fifth and bring with that money a more expensive animal as his guilt offering. If his sin offering has already been sacrificed, the money is cast into the Dead Sea. If his guilt offering has already been sacrificed, the money is allocated for communal gift offerings.

讛谞讛谞讛 诪拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讜讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讛 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 讻诇 拽专讘谞讜转 讛诪讝讘讞 诇诪讝讘讞 拽专讘谞讜转 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 拽专讘谞讜转 爪讘讜专 诇谞讚讘转 爪讘讜专

The baraita continues: One who derives benefit from meat of an offering of the most sacred order before the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, or if he derives benefit from sacrificial portions, such as the fats of offerings of lesser sanctity, after the sprinkling of the blood, the value of that benefit which he derived is allocated for communal gift offerings. The baraita summarizes: The reimbursement for misuse of all offerings which are sacrificed on the altar is used to purchase items for the altar, whereas the reimbursement for misuse of all offerings which are consecrated for Temple maintenance is donated to Temple maintenance. And the reimbursement for misuse of all communal offerings is allocated for communal gift offerings.

讛讗 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬讗 注讚 砖诇讗 拽专讘讛 讞讟讗转讜 讬讜住讬祝 讜讬讘讬讗 讞讟讗转讜 诪砖拽专讘讛 讞讟讗转讜 讬诇讻讜 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讜拽转谞讬 讻诇 拽专讘谞讜转 讛诪讝讘讞 诇诪讝讘讞 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讚讗讬讻驻讜专 讘注诇讬诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讬讻驻讜专

The Gemara notes that this baraita itself is difficult, i.e., it is apparently self-contradictory. In the first clause it teaches that if he pays before his sin offering is sacrificed he must add the amount of the benefit he derived and an additional fifth and bring a more expensive animal as his sin offering, and if his sin offering has already been sacrificed the money is cast into the Dead Sea. But it is taught in the latter clause of the baraita: The reimbursement for misuse of all offerings that are sacrificed on the altar must be used to purchase items for the altar. The Gemara further explains the contradiction: And it can be inferred from this last statement that there is no difference if the owner has already achieved atonement through his sin offering and there is no difference if the owner has not yet achieved atonement through his sin offering.

专讬砖讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讞讟讗转 砖讻讬驻专讜 讘注诇讬讛 转诪讜转

The Gemara answers that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Any sin offering whose owners achieved atonement by means of another animal must be left to die. Therefore, if the owner has achieved atonement, the money for misuse must be cast into the Dead Sea.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Meilah 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Meilah 9

讜讛转谞讬讗 诪住诇转讛 讜诪砖诪谞讛 注诇 讻诇 诇讘谞转讛 驻专讟 砖讞住专讛 住诇转讛 讜讞住专讛 砖诪谞讛 讜讞住专讛 诇讘讜谞转讛

but isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall bring it to Aaron鈥檚 sons the priests; and he shall remove his handful of its fine flour, and of its oil, together with all its frankincense; and the priest shall make its memorial part smoke upon the altar, an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 2:2)? This verse excludes those situations where some of its flour was missing, or some of its oil was missing, or some of its frankincense was missing, in which case the priest may not place the meal offering on the fire. This indicates that one must ensure that some of the flour, oil, and frankincense remain.

讗诪专讬 讛转诐 讻转讬讘 讜讛谞讜转专转 拽专讗 讬转讬专讗 讻转讬讘

The Sages said in response to the difficulty of Rav A岣, son of Rava: In general, the terms 鈥渞emainder鈥 or 鈥渓eftover鈥 refer to a situation where there happened to be some of the item remaining. Yet, the case of the meal offering is unique, as there it is written: 鈥淏ut that which is left of the meal offering shall be Aaron鈥檚 and his sons鈥; it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire鈥 (Leviticus 2:3). This part of the verse is superfluous, as it appears in Leviticus 2:10 as well. It is therefore derived from the repetition of this phrase that in the specific case of a meal offering one must ensure that some of the items remain. This requirement does not apply to a bird sin offering.

诪转讬讘 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讞讚 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜讗讞讚 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 砖诪诇拽谉 讜诪讬爪讛 讚诪谉 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪谉 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞谉 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 诪讬爪讛 讚诪谉

Shmuel鈥檚 father raises an objection to Rav Huna from a mishna (Zeva岣m 64b): With regard to both a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering, where the priest pinched their nape or squeezed out their blood with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is to partake of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is to burn it on the altar, outside its designated area, the offering is not valid, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering. If his intent was to eat it or burn it beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the offering, provided that the permitting factor, the blood, was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva. In any event, this mishna teaches: Squeezed out their blood, indicating that failure to squeeze out the blood disqualifies the offering.

讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 诇爪讚讚讬谉 拽转谞讬

Shmuel鈥檚 father raises the objection and he resolves it himself. The tanna of that mishna teaches it disjunctively. In other words, the two clauses of the mishna are referring to two different cases. The halakha of pinching the nape of the neck applies to both the bird sin offering and the bird burnt offering. By contrast, the squeezing out of the blood applies only to a bird burnt offering, whose blood is not sprinkled on the altar. For this reason, the priest鈥檚 intent at the time of squeezing out the blood is significant. In the case of a bird sin offering, it is only an intent at the time of sprinkling that invalidates the offering.

讙讜驻讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 砖讗诐 谞砖讗专 讘讚诐

The Gemara returns to the matter itself, i.e., the baraita cited above: The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that if any of the blood remains inside the bird it must be squeezed out, but there is no requirement to ensure that blood remains for this purpose. Consequently, even if one does not squeeze out the blood on the side of the altar, the offering is valid.

讜讛讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讛转诐 砖讬专讬讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讜讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪讬爪讜讬 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 转专讬 转谞讗讬 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

The Gemara asks: But the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught there, on Zeva岣m 52a, that failure with regard to the remainder of the blood invalidates the offering, and Rav Pappa said: Both Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva agree that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base does not invalidate the offering. The practical difference between them is whether or not failure to squeeze out the blood from a bird sin offering after sprinkling the blood invalidates the offering. The school of Rabbi Yishmael rules that it does invalidate the offering, and Rabbi Akiva maintains that it does not invalidate the offering. The Gemara answers: There are two tanna鈥檌m and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.

诪转谞讬壮 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讛讜拽讚砖讛 谞诪诇拽讛 讛讜讻砖专讛 诇讬驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诇讬谞讛 诪讬爪讛 讚诪讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 注讚 砖转爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛讚砖谉

MISHNA: One is liable for misusing a bird burnt offering from the moment that it was consecrated. When the nape of its neck was pinched, it was rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed in a ritual bath that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. Once its blood was squeezed out, one is liable to receive karet for eating it, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. And as it may not be eaten, one is liable for its misuse until it leaves to the place of the ashes, where it is burned.

驻专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 讜砖注讬专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讛讜拽讚砖讜 谞砖讞讟讜 讛讜讻砖专讜 诇讬驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诇讬谞讛 讛讜讝讛 讚诪谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讘讘讬转 讛讚砖谉 注讚 砖讬转讬讱 讛讘砖专

One is liable for misuse of bulls that are burned and goats that are burned from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they were slaughtered, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. Once its blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating it, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. And one is liable for its misuse even when it is in the place of the ashes, until the flesh has been completely scorched.

讛注讜诇讛 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讛讜拽讚砖讛 谞砖讞讟讛 讛讜讻砖专讛 诇讬驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诇讬谞讛 诪砖谞讝专拽 讚诪讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘注讜专讜转 讗讘诇 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讘砖专 注讚 砖转爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛讚砖谉

One is liable for misuse of the burnt offering from the moment that it was consecrated. Once it was slaughtered it was rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. Once its blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating it, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. And one is not liable for misuse of the hides, but one is liable for misuse of the flesh until it leaves to the place of the ashes.

讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讜讝讘讞讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讬讘讜专 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讛讜拽讚砖讜 谞砖讞讟讜 讛讜讻砖专讜 诇讬驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诇讬谞讛 谞讝专拽 讚诪谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讘砖专 讗讘诇 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讗讬诪讜专讬讛谉 注讚 砖讬爪讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛讚砖谉

One is liable for misuse of a sin offering, and a guilt offering, and communal peace offerings from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they were slaughtered they were rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. Once their blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating them, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. One is not liable for misuse of the flesh, but one is liable for misuse of their sacrificial portions, i.e., the portions that are to be consumed on the altar, until they leave to the place of the ashes.

砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讛讜拽讚砖讜 拽专诪讜 讘转谞讜专 讛讜讻砖专讜 诇讬驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诇讬谞讛 讜诇讬砖讞讜讟 注诇讬讛谉 讗转 讛讝讘讞 谞讝专拽 讚诪谉 砖诇 讻讘砖讬诐 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 讘讛谉 诪注讬诇讛

One is liable for misuse of the two loaves brought on the festival of Shavuot from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they formed a crust, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight, and they are rendered eligible to slaughter with them the accompanying offering of the two lambs. Once the blood of the lambs is sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating the loaves, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure. And they are not subject to the halakhot of misuse, as at that point their consumption is permitted.

诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 诪砖讛讜拽讚砖讛 拽专诐 讘转谞讜专 讛讜讻砖专 诇讬驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜诇讛住讚专 注诇 讙讘讬 讛砖讜诇讞谉

One is liable for misuse of the shewbread, which is arranged on the Golden Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, from the moment that it was consecrated. Once it formed a crust in the oven it assumes the status of bread and its halakhic status is like that of offerings of the most sacred order after the animal was slaughtered, in that it was rendered susceptible to disqualification through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and it is rendered eligible for arrangement upon the Table in the Sanctuary.

拽专讘讜 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 诪注讬诇讛

Once the bowls of frankincense brought with the shewbread of the previous week were sacrificed, one is liable to receive karet for eating the loaves due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure. But it is not subject to the halakhot of misuse, as at that point its consumption is permitted.

讛诪谞讞讜转 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讛讜拽讚砖讜 拽讚砖讜 讘讻诇讬 讛讜讻砖专讜 诇讬驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诇讬谞讛

One is liable for misuse of the meal offerings from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they were consecrated through placement of the flour in a service vessel, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight.

拽专讘 讛拽讜诪抓 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讜讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘砖讬专讬诐 讗讘诇 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘拽讜诪抓 注讚 砖讬爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛讚砖谉

Once the handful taken from the meal offering was sacrificed, one is liable to receive karet for eating the meal offering due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure. And one is not liable for misuse of the remainder of the meal offering, which is eaten by the priests, but one is liable for misuse of the handful that is sacrificed, until it leaves to the place of the ashes.

讙诪壮 讗讬转诪专 讛谞讛谞讛 诪讗驻专 转驻讜讞 砖注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜

GEMARA: It was stated that there is a dispute between amora鈥檌m with regard to one who derives benefit from the ash of the round heap that is on top of the altar. Rav says: One who derives benefit from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, and Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property.

诇驻谞讬 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉 讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讚诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 诇讗讞专 转专讜诪转 讛讚砖谉

The Gemara clarifies this dispute: Before the removal of the ashes, everyone agrees that one who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property. The reason is that the mitzva of the removal of the ashes has not yet been completed. When they disagree it is with regard to the halakha after the removal of the ashes, at which point the mitzva has been completed.

专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 讛专讬 谞注砖讛 诪爪讜转讜 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜诇讘砖 讛讻讛谉 诪讚讜 讘讚 讜讙讜壮 讻讬讜谉 讚爪专讬讱 诇讘讙讚讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讘拽讚讜砖转讬讛 拽讗讬

Rav says that one who derives benefit from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, as its mitzva has been performed and completed. And Rabbi Yo岣nan says that one is liable for misuse, since it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the ashes to where the fire has consumed the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. And he shall remove his garments, and don other garments, and carry forth the ashes outside the camp鈥 (Leviticus 6:3鈥4). Rabbi Yo岣nan explains: Since taking the ashes outside the Temple also requires the priestly vestments, albeit garments of lesser quality than those used to remove the ashes from the altar, evidently the ash remains in its consecrated state.

转谞谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 注讚 砖转爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛讚砖谉 拽砖讬讗 诇专讘 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 注讚 砖转专讗讛 诇讘讬转 讛讚砖谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty against the opinion of Rav. We learned in the mishna, with regard to the bird burnt offering: One is liable for its misuse until it leaves to the place of the ashes, where it is burned. This indicates that the halakhot of misuse apply while the ashes remain on the altar, even after the removal of ashes, which is difficult for the opinion of Rav. The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: The mishna means that one is liable until the ash is fit to be taken out to the place of ashes, i.e., once it is burned on the altar and has had a shovel of ashes removed from it.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讜讻讜诇谉 砖驻拽注讜 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讻谉 讙讞诇转 砖驻拽注讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讛讗 注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讬讞讝讬专

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav鈥檚 explanation from a mishna (Zeva岣m 86a): And all of those unfit offerings, with regard to which it was taught that if they ascended to the altar they do not descend, in a case where they were dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore them to the altar. And likewise, with regard to an ember that was dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore it to the altar. It can be inferred from the mishna that if the ember was still on the altar, then the priest must restore it.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 砖讗谞讬 讙讞诇转 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 诪砖砖讗

The Gemara explains the objection: Granted, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan this works out well, as he maintains that even after the shovelful of ashes has been removed, an ember on the pile of ashes still retains its sanctity. But according to Rav this is difficult. The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: An ember is different, as it has substance [meshasha] and is therefore still fit to be burned on the altar.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诇讛讱 讙讬住讗 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讙讞诇转 讚讗讬转 讘讬讛 诪砖砖讗 讛讗 讗驻专 讚诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪砖砖讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 谞讬讞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽砖讬讗

There is a Sage who stated this objection in the opposite manner: The mishna indicates that the reason that the priest must return it to the altar is because it is an ember, and that it has substance. It can be inferred from this that one who derives benefit from ash, which does not have substance, is not liable for misuse of consecrated property even when it is on the top of the altar. Granted, according to Rav this works out well, but according to Rabbi Yo岣nan it is difficult.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讗驻专 讜讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚拽转谞讬 讙讞诇转 拽讗转讬 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讙讞诇转 讚讗讬转 讘讛 诪砖砖讗 讻讬 驻拽注讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yo岣nan could have said to you: The same is true that even ash that was dislodged must be returned. And this is the reason that the mishna teaches an ember, and not ash: It is coming to teach us that even in the case of an ember, which has substance, if it is dislodged from upon the altar the priest does not return it.

讗讬转诪专 讛谞讛谞讛 诪讘砖专 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讜讗诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 专讘 讗诪专 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讛 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 讜诇讜讬 讗诪专 讬讘讬讗 讚讘专 砖讻讜诇讜 诇诪讝讘讞

搂 One of the halakhot of misuse is that the violator must pay the value of the benefit he derived and add an extra one-fifth. It was stated that there is a dispute between amora鈥檌m with regard to this money: In the case of one who derives benefit from meat of an offering of the most sacred order before the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, or who derives benefit from sacrificial portions, such as the fats of offerings of lesser sanctity, after the sprinkling of the blood, Rav says: The value of that benefit which he derived is allocated for communal gift offerings, and Levi says: One must bring an item that is entirely consumed on the altar, e.g., incense. One does not bring a burnt offering with this money, as the hide of a burnt offering belongs to the priests.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚诇讜讬 诪注讬诇讛 讝讜 诇讛讬讻谉 讛讜诇讻转 讛诇诪讬讚讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬讘讬讗 讚讘专 砖讻讜诇讜 诇诪讝讘讞 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 拽讟专转

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Levi: This money paid for misuse of consecrated items, to where does it go? The Rabbis who are called: Those who learn before the Sages, say: One must bring an item that is entirely consumed on the altar, and what is that? Incense, which is burned on the altar in its entirety.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讛谞讛谞讛 诪讚诪讬 讞讟讗转 讜诪讚诪讬 讗砖诐 注讚 砖诇讗 拽专讘讛 讞讟讗转讜 讬讜住讬祝 讜讬讘讬讗 讞讟讗转讜 讜注讚 砖诇讗 拽专讘讛 讗砖诪讜 讬讜住讬祝 讜讬讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 拽专讘 讞讟讗转讜 讬诇讻讜 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讻讘专 拽专讘 讗砖诪讜 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛

It is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: In the case of one who derives benefit from money set aside for the purchase of a sin offering or set aside as money set aside for the purchase of a guilt offering, if he pays before his sin offering is sacrificed he must add the amount of the benefit he derived and an additional fifth and bring with that money a more expensive animal as his sin offering. And likewise, if he pays before his guilt offering is sacrificed, he must add the amount of the benefit he derived and an additional fifth and bring with that money a more expensive animal as his guilt offering. If his sin offering has already been sacrificed, the money is cast into the Dead Sea. If his guilt offering has already been sacrificed, the money is allocated for communal gift offerings.

讛谞讛谞讛 诪拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讜讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 诪讛 砖谞讛谞讛 讬驻诇讜 诇谞讚讘讛 讻诇 拽专讘谞讜转 讛诪讝讘讞 诇诪讝讘讞 拽专讘谞讜转 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 拽专讘谞讜转 爪讘讜专 诇谞讚讘转 爪讘讜专

The baraita continues: One who derives benefit from meat of an offering of the most sacred order before the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, or if he derives benefit from sacrificial portions, such as the fats of offerings of lesser sanctity, after the sprinkling of the blood, the value of that benefit which he derived is allocated for communal gift offerings. The baraita summarizes: The reimbursement for misuse of all offerings which are sacrificed on the altar is used to purchase items for the altar, whereas the reimbursement for misuse of all offerings which are consecrated for Temple maintenance is donated to Temple maintenance. And the reimbursement for misuse of all communal offerings is allocated for communal gift offerings.

讛讗 讙讜驻讛 拽砖讬讗 注讚 砖诇讗 拽专讘讛 讞讟讗转讜 讬讜住讬祝 讜讬讘讬讗 讞讟讗转讜 诪砖拽专讘讛 讞讟讗转讜 讬诇讻讜 诇讬诐 讛诪诇讞 讜拽转谞讬 讻诇 拽专讘谞讜转 讛诪讝讘讞 诇诪讝讘讞 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讚讗讬讻驻讜专 讘注诇讬诐 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讗讬讻驻讜专

The Gemara notes that this baraita itself is difficult, i.e., it is apparently self-contradictory. In the first clause it teaches that if he pays before his sin offering is sacrificed he must add the amount of the benefit he derived and an additional fifth and bring a more expensive animal as his sin offering, and if his sin offering has already been sacrificed the money is cast into the Dead Sea. But it is taught in the latter clause of the baraita: The reimbursement for misuse of all offerings that are sacrificed on the altar must be used to purchase items for the altar. The Gemara further explains the contradiction: And it can be inferred from this last statement that there is no difference if the owner has already achieved atonement through his sin offering and there is no difference if the owner has not yet achieved atonement through his sin offering.

专讬砖讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讞讟讗转 砖讻讬驻专讜 讘注诇讬讛 转诪讜转

The Gemara answers that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Any sin offering whose owners achieved atonement by means of another animal must be left to die. Therefore, if the owner has achieved atonement, the money for misuse must be cast into the Dead Sea.

Scroll To Top