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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 18, 2018 | 讬壮 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讟

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

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

Menachot 100

How was it possible for the breads to always be on the table – how was the switch done? Two possibilities are brought and from one of them, the rabbis derive laws relating to Talmud Torah which as it says in Yehushua “the聽torah聽should not depart your mouth and you should contemplate it day and night.” How can that be accomplished? The mishna聽mentions various mistakes that can be made regarding the setting up of the breads and the frankincense or burning of the frankincense and what the laws/solutions would be in each case.


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

讘转讜讻讛 讜砖诪讗 转讗诪专 讻砖诐 砖驻讬讛 爪专 讻讱 讻讜诇讛 爪专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛注诪讬拽 讛专讞讘

within it. And lest you say: Just as the opening of Gehenna is narrow, so too, all of Gehenna is narrow, the verse states: 鈥淔or Gehenna has been arranged of old, it has been prepared even for the king, deep and large, its pile is fire and much wood, the breath of the Lord kindles it like a stream of brimstone鈥 (Isaiah 30:33).

讜砖诪讗 转讗诪专 诇诪诇讱 诇讗 讛讜讻谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讙诐 讛讬讗 诇诪诇讱 讛讜讻谉 讜砖诪讗 转讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讛 注爪讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讚专转讛 讗砖 讜注爪讬诐 讛专讘讛 讜砖诪讗 转讗诪专 讝讛 讛讜讗 砖讻专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞讞转 砖诇讞谞讱 诪诇讗 讚砖谉

And lest you say that Gehenna is prepared only for ordinary people, but it is not prepared for important individuals such as a king, the verse states: 鈥淚t has been prepared even for the king.鈥 And lest you say there is no wood in Gehenna, the verse states: 鈥淚ts pile is fire and much wood.鈥 And lest you say that this, i.e., escaping Gehenna, is the only reward for Torah study, the verse states: 鈥淎nd that which is set on your table is full of fatness鈥 (Job 36:16). This indicates that one who obeys God and turns from the paths of death to the paths of life is not only saved from Gehenna, he also attains tranquility and prosperity.

讞诇 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讘讘诇讬讬诐 讛诐 讗诇讗 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讬诐 讛诐 讜诪转讜讱 砖砖讜谞讗讬谉 讗转 讘讘诇讬讬诐 拽讜专讬谉 讗讜转诐 注诇 砖诐 讘讘诇讬讬诐

搂 The mishna states: If Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat, the loaves are distributed on Saturday night. If Yom Kippur occurs on Friday, the goat sin offering of Yom Kippur is eaten Friday night, on Shabbat. Since there was no possibility of cooking the meat, the Babylonian priests would eat it raw. The Gemara notes: Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: These priests are not actually Babylonians. Rather, they are Alexandrians, i.e., priests who came from Egypt. But since the Jews of Eretz Yisrael hate the Jewish Babylonians, they would call the gluttonous Alexandrians by the name Babylonians.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘讘诇讬讬诐 讛诐 讗诇讗 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讬诐 讛诐 讜诪转讜讱 砖砖讜谞讗讬谉 讗转 讘讘诇讬讬诐 拽讜专讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 注诇 砖诐 讘讘诇讬讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 转谞讜讞 讚注转讱 砖讛谞讞转 讚注转讬

This interpretation of the mishna is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: These priests are not actually Babylonians. Rather, they are Alexandrians. But since the Jews of Eretz Yisrael hate the Babylonians, they would call the gluttonous Alexandrians by the name Babylonians. Rabbi Yehuda, whose family originated from Babylonia, said to Rabbi Yosei, after hearing this explanation: May your mind be at ease, because you have put my mind at ease.

诪转谞讬壮 住讬讚专 讗转 讛诇讞诐 讘砖讘转 讜讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讛拽讟讬专 讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 讘砖讘转 驻住讜诇 讗讬谉 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

MISHNA: If one arranged the bread on the Table on Shabbat but arranged the bowls of frankincense only after Shabbat, then if he subsequently burned the frankincense placed in the bowls on the following Shabbat, the loaves are unfit for consumption, since the frankincense had not been on the Table for the entire week. Since the burning of the frankincense did not render the loaves permitted for consumption, one is not ever liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul or notar, or for partaking of the shewbread when one is ritually impure. One violates these prohibitions only if the frankincense is burned in a manner that permits consumption of the shewbread.

住讬讚专 讗转 讛诇讞诐 讜讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜讛拽讟讬专 讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛砖讘转 驻住讜诇讛 讜讗讬谉 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

If one arranged the bread and the bowls of frankincense on Shabbat but then burned the frankincense that was in the bowls after the following Shabbat, that burning of the frankincense is not valid and the shewbread is unfit for consumption. And since the frankincense was not burned in a manner that permits consumption of the shewbread, one is not ever liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul or notar, or for partaking of the shewbread when one is ritually impure.

住讬讚专 讗转 讛诇讞诐 讜讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讛拽讟讬专 讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 讘砖讘转 驻住讜诇讛 讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讛 讬谞讬讞谞讛 诇砖讘转 讛讘讗讛 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 注诇 讛砖讜诇讞谉 讬诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讻讱 讻诇讜诐

If one arranged the bread and the bowls of frankincense after Shabbat and burned the frankincense that was in the bowls on the subsequent Shabbat, the burning of the frankincense is not valid and the shewbread is unfit for consumption. How should one act to prevent the shewbread from being rendered unfit? One should not remove the shewbread and frankincense from the Table on the subsequent Shabbat. Rather, he should leave it on the Table until the following Shabbat, so that it remains on the Table for a full week from Shabbat to Shabbat. It is permitted to leave the bread and frankincense on the Table beyond seven days, as even if it is on the Table for many days there is nothing wrong with that, i.e., it is not rendered unfit.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛诪诪讜谞讛 爪讗讜 讜专讗讜 讗诐 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讗诐 讛讙讬注 讛专讜讗讛 讗讜诪专 讘专拽讗讬 诪转转讬讗 讘谉 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讗讬专 驻谞讬 讻诇 讛诪讝专讞 注讚 砖讘讞讘专讜谉 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛谉

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there (Yoma 28a) with regard to the Yom Kippur service in the Temple: The appointed priest said to the other priests: Go out and stand on a high point in the Temple and see if it is day and the time for slaughtering the daily offering has arrived, as one may not slaughter offerings at night. If the time has arrived, the observer says: There is light [barkai]. Mattitya ben Shmuel maintained that one should wait until greater light is observed. Therefore, when he was the appointed priest, he would say: Is the entire eastern sky illuminated, even to Hebron? And the observer would say: Yes.

讜诇诪讛 讛讜爪专讻讜 诇讻讱 砖驻注诐 讗讞转 注诇讛 诪讗讜专 讛诇讘谞讛 讜讚讬诪讜 砖讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 砖讞讟讜 讗转 讛转诪讬讚 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜讛讜 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

The mishna asks: And why did they need to institute this, to send someone to observe the first light from a high place? The mishna explains that this was deemed necessary because once, the light of the moon rose and the priests imagined that the eastern sky was illuminated with sunlight. They then slaughtered the daily offering, and when they realized that it had been slaughtered too early they had to take it out to the place designated for burning and burn it. In order to prevent similar errors in the future, the Sages instituted that they should carefully assess the situation and ensure that day has begun before slaughtering the daily offering.

讜讛讜专讬讚讜 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讘讬转 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讛讬讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讻诇 讛诪住讬讱 讗转 专讙诇讬讜 讟注讜谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讜讻诇 讛诪讟讬诇 诪讬诐 讟注讜谉 拽讚讜砖 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐

The mishna continues: Once the daylight was observed on Yom Kippur, the priests led the High Priest down to the Hall of Immersion. The mishna comments: This was the principle in the Temple: Anyone who covers his legs, a euphemism for defecating, requires immersion afterward; and anyone who urinates requires sanctification of hands and feet with water from the Basin afterward.

转谞讬 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 诇讗 讝讜 讘诇讘讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 砖谞诪诇拽讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜诪谞讞讛 砖谞拽诪爪讛 讘诇讬诇讛 转爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

The father of Rabbi Avin teaches a baraita: Not only in this case, with regard to slaughtering the daily offering, did the Sages say that if it is performed at night it is disqualified, but even in the case of a bird burnt offering whose nape was pinched at night, and in the case of a meal offering from which a handful was removed at night, the offering is disqualified and must be taken out to the place designated for burning.

讘砖诇诪讗 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇讗讛讚讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪谞讞讛 讗驻砖专 讚诪讛讚专 拽讜诪抓 诇讚讜讻转讬讛 讜拽诪讬抓 讘讬诪诪讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, a bird burnt offering is disqualified if pinched at night, as it cannot be restored to its former state. But in the case of a meal offering whose handful was removed at night, why is it burned? It is possible to remedy the situation, as the priest can restore the handful to its original place and then remove a handful from the meal offering once again during the day.

讛讜讗 转谞讬 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讻诇讬 砖专转 诪拽讚砖讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞谉

The Gemara replies that the father of Rabbi Avin teaches the baraita and he says its explanation: Service vessels sanctify their contents even when those contents are not placed in the vessel at the appointed time for that service. Once the handful is placed in the service vessel it acquires the sanctity inherent to the handful and the situation can no longer be remedied.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 讛拽专讘 讘讬讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讘讬讜诐 讘诇讬诇讛 拽讚讜砖 讘诇讬诇讛 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讜讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 拽讚讜砖 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讜讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Any offering that is sacrificed during the day is consecrated by a service vessel only during the day, and any offering that is sacrificed at night is consecrated by a service vessel only at night, and any offering that is sacrificed both during the day and at night is consecrated both during the day and at night.

讻诇 讛拽专讘 讘讬讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讘讬讜诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 诇讗 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 诇讬拽专讘 讗讘诇 拽讚讜砖 诇讬驻住诇

The baraita teaches that any offering that is sacrificed during the day is consecrated during the day, from which one can infer that during the day, yes, it is consecrated, but it is not consecrated at night. This indicates that the handful of the meal offering is not consecrated at night, contrary to the explanation of Rabbi Avin鈥檚 father. The Gemara answers: When an offering is placed in a service vessel not at the appointed time, the contents are not sufficiently consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar, but they are sufficiently consecrated to be disqualified.

诪讜转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 住讬讚专 讗转 讛诇讞诐 讜讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 讗讞专 砖讘转 讜讛拽讟讬专 讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 讘砖讘转 驻住讜诇讛 讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讛 讬谞讬讞谞讛 诇砖讘转 讛讘讗讛 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讬诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讻讱 讻诇讜诐

Rabbi Zeira raises an objection from the mishna: If one arranged the bread and the bowls of frankincense after Shabbat and burned the frankincense that was in the bowls on the subsequent Shabbat, the burning of the frankincense is not valid and the shewbread is unfit for consumption. How should one act to prevent the shewbread from being rendered unfit? One should not remove the shewbread on the subsequent Shabbat. Rather, he should leave it on the Table until the following Shabbat, so that it remains on the Table for a full week from Shabbat to Shabbat. It is permitted to leave the bread and frankincense on the Table beyond seven days, as even if it is on the Table for many days there is nothing wrong with that, i.e., it is not rendered unfit.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻诇讬 砖专转 诪拽讚砖讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞谉 (诇讬驻住诇) 诇讬拽讚讜砖 讜诇讬驻住讜诇

Rabbi Zeira explains: And if it enters your mind to say that service vessels sanctify their contents to the extent that those contents are disqualified even when they are not placed in the vessel at the appointed time, then even if the shewbread is arranged after Shabbat it should be sanctified by the Table and subsequently disqualified by being left overnight.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讗谉 讚拽讗 诪讜转讬讘 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪讜转讬讘 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讗 拽讗诪专 拽住讘专 诇讬诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讛讗 讬诪讬诐 诪讞讜住专讬谉 讝诪谉

Rabba said: The one who raises the objection, Rabbi Zeira, raises the objection well. Nevertheless, the father of Rabbi Avin is also stating a baraita, and the difficulty must therefore be resolved. Rabba explains: The tanna of the baraita cited by Rabbi Avin鈥檚 father maintains that in the case of a rite that should be performed during the day, if it is performed during the preceding night it is not considered a rite whose time has not yet arrived, as the night and day are considered a single unit. Therefore, if one places the handful in a service vessel at night the service vessel sanctifies the handful, and since the rite is not valid the offering is disqualified. But if a rite is performed several days earlier it is considered a rite whose time has not yet arrived. Therefore, the Table does not sanctify shewbread that is placed on it on any day except Shabbat.

住讜祝 住讜祝

The Gemara asks: Ultimately,

讻讬 诪讟讬 诇讬诇讬讗 讚讘讬 砖讬诪砖讬 诇讬拽讚讜砖 讜诇讬驻住讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘砖拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽

if a rite performed during the night preceding its appointed time is not considered a rite whose time has not yet arrived, then when the night arrives, i.e., the twilight of Shabbat eve, the arrangement of loaves remaining on the Table should be consecrated and subsequently disqualified by being left overnight. Rava says: The mishna is referring to a case where the priest removed the shewbread from the Table before nightfall on Shabbat eve in order to prevent its consecration, and arranged it again the following day.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘砖诇讗 拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽 讻讬讜谉 讚住讬讚专讜 砖诇讗 讻诪爪讜转讜 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖住讚专讜 讛拽讜祝

Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: Even if you say the mishna is referring to a case where one did not remove the shewbread before nightfall, the loaves are not consecrated by the Table. Since the priest arranged the shewbread at a time that was not in accordance with the procedure dictated by its mitzva, it is considered as though a monkey had arranged the shewbread, and it is not consecrated by the Table.

诪转谞讬壮 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 谞讗讻诇讜转 讗讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讜转专 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讻讬爪讚 谞讗驻讜转 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞讗讻诇讜转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖谞讬诐 讞诇 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讛讬讜转 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 谞讗讻诇讜转 诇砖诇砖讛

MISHNA: The two loaves that are brought on Shavuot are eaten by the priests no less than two days and no more than three days after they were baked. How so? They are generally baked on the eve of the festival of Shavuot and they are eaten on the day of the Festival, which is on the second day. If the Festival occurs after Shabbat, on Sunday, the loaves are baked on Friday, in which case they are eaten on the third day.

诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 谞讗讻诇 讗讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪转砖注讛 讜诇讗 讬讜转专 注诇 讗讞讚 注砖专 讻讬爪讚 谞讗驻讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜谞讗讻诇 讘砖讘转 诇转砖注讛 讞诇 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讛讬讜转 注专讘 砖讘转 谞讗讻诇 诇注砖专讛

The shewbread is eaten no less than nine days and no more than eleven days after it is baked. How so? It is generally baked on Shabbat eve and eaten on the following Shabbat, which is on the ninth day. If a Festival occurs on Shabbat eve the shewbread is baked on the eve of the Festival, on Thursday, in which case it is eaten on the tenth day.

砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 [讟讜讘讬诐] 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 谞讗讻诇 诇讗讞讚 注砖专 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讛住讙谉 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讬讜诐 爪讜诐

If the two festival days of Rosh HaShana occur on Thursday and Friday, the shewbread is baked on Wednesday, in which case it is eaten on the eleventh day. And this is because the preparation of the two loaves and the shewbread overrides neither Shabbat nor a Festival. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy High Priest: Their preparation overrides a Festival but does not override the fast day of Yom Kippur.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讗讬谉 拽专讬讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讬讞讝讗 讞讝讜 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讜 砖诇讗 讬砖讛讗 讗诇讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讝讜

GEMARA: Ravina said: According to the statement of the one who says vow offerings and voluntary offerings may not be sacrificed on a Festival, do not say they are fit to be sacrificed on a Festival by Torah law and it is the Sages who decreed they may not be sacrificed. The Sages might have issued such a decree so that one would not delay sacrificing his offerings until he ascends to Jerusalem for the Festival. Rather, vow offerings and voluntary offerings are unfit to be sacrificed on a Festival also by Torah law.

讚讛讗 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讚讞讜讘转 讛讬讜诐 讛讜讗 讜诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讗 讜拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Ravina explains this may be inferred from the mishna, as the offering of the two loaves is an obligation of the day of Shavuot. It is therefore not possible to say that the Sages decreed they may not be prepared on the Festival lest one delay bringing them. And yet the mishna teaches that baking and preparing the two loaves overrides neither Shabbat nor a Festival. All the more so that vow offerings and voluntary offerings, which do not need to be sacrificed specifically on a Festival, may not be sacrificed on a Festival by Torah law.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪谞讞讜转 讜讛谞住讻讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 注讚 砖诇讗 拽讚砖讜 讘讻诇讬 讬砖 诇讛诐 驻讚讬讜谉 诪砖拽讬讚砖讜 讘讻诇讬 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 驻讚讬讜谉

MISHNA: With regard to the fine flour for meal offerings or the wine for libations that became ritually impure, as long as they have not yet been consecrated in a service vessel and assumed inherent sanctity, their redemption is possible. If they are redeemed, their sanctity will be transferred to the redemption money. Once they have been consecrated in a service vessel and have assumed inherent sanctity, their redemption is no longer possible, and they are burned like any other offerings that became ritually impure.

讛注讜驻讜转 讜讛注爪讬诐 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讻诇讬 砖专转 诪砖谞讟诪讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 驻讚讬讜谉 砖诇讗 谞讗诪专 驻讚讬讜谉 讗诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛

With regard to consecrated birds, wood for the altar, frankincense, and service vessels, once they became ritually impure they have no possibility of redemption, as redemption of items consecrated for the altar was stated only with regard to a consecrated animal that developed a blemish, not with regard to other consecrated items.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 拽讚砖讬 讘讻诇讬 拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 谞驻讚讬谉

GEMARA: According to the mishna, impure meal offerings and libations may be redeemed as long as they have not yet been placed in a service vessel. Shmuel says: Even if they are ritually pure, they also may be redeemed. What is the reason for this? As long as they have not been consecrated in a service vessel, they possess sanctity that inheres only in their value, and items whose sanctity inheres only in their value may be redeemed.

讜讛讗 谞讟诪讗讜 转谞谉 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞讟诪讗讜 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诪讬转谞讗 住讬驻讗 诪砖拽讬讚砖讜 讘讻诇讬 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 驻讚讬讜谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 谞讟诪讗讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 转谞讗 谞诪讬 专讬砖讗 砖谞讟诪讗讜 注讚 砖诇讗 拽讚砖讜 讘讻诇讬

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: The meal offerings and libations that became ritually impure are redeemed? The Gemara answers: The same is true even if they had not become ritually impure. And the tanna mentions a case where they became ritually impure since he wants to teach the latter clause, which states: Once they were consecrated in a service vessel and have assumed inherent sanctity, they have no possibility of redemption, meaning that even when they became ritually impure and are disqualified from use as an offering, they still have no possibility of redemption. Therefore, the tanna also taught the first clause: That became ritually impure before they were consecrated in a service vessel.

驻砖讬讟讗 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 谞讬谞讛讜

With regard to flour or oil that has been consecrated in a service vessel, the Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that they are not redeemed, as they are consecrated with inherent sanctity?

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讗讬拽专讬 讟诪讗 讟诪讗 谞诪讬 讻讘注诇 诪讜诐 讚诪讬 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讚讜砖 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讻讬 谞驻讬诇 讘讬讛 诪讜诐 诪讬驻专讬拽 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讬驻专讜拽 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗讜 讻讬 讛讗讬 讟诪讗 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讘注诇 诪讜诐

The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state that items consecrated in a service vessel cannot be redeemed, as it may enter your mind to say: Since a blemished animal is called impure, as the Gemara will explain shortly, this analogy could be reversed and an impure animal could also have a status similar to that of a blemished animal. And just as in the case of a blemished animal, even though it is consecrated with inherent sanctity, when it develops a blemish it is redeemed, so too these impure items discussed in the mishna may also be redeemed despite their possessing inherent sanctity. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that it is not in this context that the Merciful One called a blemished animal 鈥渋mpure.鈥

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Menachot 100

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 100

讘转讜讻讛 讜砖诪讗 转讗诪专 讻砖诐 砖驻讬讛 爪专 讻讱 讻讜诇讛 爪专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讛注诪讬拽 讛专讞讘

within it. And lest you say: Just as the opening of Gehenna is narrow, so too, all of Gehenna is narrow, the verse states: 鈥淔or Gehenna has been arranged of old, it has been prepared even for the king, deep and large, its pile is fire and much wood, the breath of the Lord kindles it like a stream of brimstone鈥 (Isaiah 30:33).

讜砖诪讗 转讗诪专 诇诪诇讱 诇讗 讛讜讻谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讙诐 讛讬讗 诇诪诇讱 讛讜讻谉 讜砖诪讗 转讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讛 注爪讬诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讚专转讛 讗砖 讜注爪讬诐 讛专讘讛 讜砖诪讗 转讗诪专 讝讛 讛讜讗 砖讻专讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜谞讞转 砖诇讞谞讱 诪诇讗 讚砖谉

And lest you say that Gehenna is prepared only for ordinary people, but it is not prepared for important individuals such as a king, the verse states: 鈥淚t has been prepared even for the king.鈥 And lest you say there is no wood in Gehenna, the verse states: 鈥淚ts pile is fire and much wood.鈥 And lest you say that this, i.e., escaping Gehenna, is the only reward for Torah study, the verse states: 鈥淎nd that which is set on your table is full of fatness鈥 (Job 36:16). This indicates that one who obeys God and turns from the paths of death to the paths of life is not only saved from Gehenna, he also attains tranquility and prosperity.

讞诇 讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 诇讛讬讜转 讘砖讘转 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讘讘诇讬讬诐 讛诐 讗诇讗 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讬诐 讛诐 讜诪转讜讱 砖砖讜谞讗讬谉 讗转 讘讘诇讬讬诐 拽讜专讬谉 讗讜转诐 注诇 砖诐 讘讘诇讬讬诐

搂 The mishna states: If Yom Kippur occurs on Shabbat, the loaves are distributed on Saturday night. If Yom Kippur occurs on Friday, the goat sin offering of Yom Kippur is eaten Friday night, on Shabbat. Since there was no possibility of cooking the meat, the Babylonian priests would eat it raw. The Gemara notes: Rabba bar bar 岣na says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: These priests are not actually Babylonians. Rather, they are Alexandrians, i.e., priests who came from Egypt. But since the Jews of Eretz Yisrael hate the Jewish Babylonians, they would call the gluttonous Alexandrians by the name Babylonians.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讘讘诇讬讬诐 讛诐 讗诇讗 讗诇讻住谞讚专讬讬诐 讛诐 讜诪转讜讱 砖砖讜谞讗讬谉 讗转 讘讘诇讬讬诐 拽讜专讗讬谉 讗讜转谉 注诇 砖诐 讘讘诇讬讬诐 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 转谞讜讞 讚注转讱 砖讛谞讞转 讚注转讬

This interpretation of the mishna is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: These priests are not actually Babylonians. Rather, they are Alexandrians. But since the Jews of Eretz Yisrael hate the Babylonians, they would call the gluttonous Alexandrians by the name Babylonians. Rabbi Yehuda, whose family originated from Babylonia, said to Rabbi Yosei, after hearing this explanation: May your mind be at ease, because you have put my mind at ease.

诪转谞讬壮 住讬讚专 讗转 讛诇讞诐 讘砖讘转 讜讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讛拽讟讬专 讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 讘砖讘转 驻住讜诇 讗讬谉 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

MISHNA: If one arranged the bread on the Table on Shabbat but arranged the bowls of frankincense only after Shabbat, then if he subsequently burned the frankincense placed in the bowls on the following Shabbat, the loaves are unfit for consumption, since the frankincense had not been on the Table for the entire week. Since the burning of the frankincense did not render the loaves permitted for consumption, one is not ever liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul or notar, or for partaking of the shewbread when one is ritually impure. One violates these prohibitions only if the frankincense is burned in a manner that permits consumption of the shewbread.

住讬讚专 讗转 讛诇讞诐 讜讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 讘砖讘转 讜讛拽讟讬专 讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛砖讘转 驻住讜诇讛 讜讗讬谉 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

If one arranged the bread and the bowls of frankincense on Shabbat but then burned the frankincense that was in the bowls after the following Shabbat, that burning of the frankincense is not valid and the shewbread is unfit for consumption. And since the frankincense was not burned in a manner that permits consumption of the shewbread, one is not ever liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul or notar, or for partaking of the shewbread when one is ritually impure.

住讬讚专 讗转 讛诇讞诐 讜讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 诇讗讞专 讛砖讘转 讜讛拽讟讬专 讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 讘砖讘转 驻住讜诇讛 讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讛 讬谞讬讞谞讛 诇砖讘转 讛讘讗讛 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 注诇 讛砖讜诇讞谉 讬诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讻讱 讻诇讜诐

If one arranged the bread and the bowls of frankincense after Shabbat and burned the frankincense that was in the bowls on the subsequent Shabbat, the burning of the frankincense is not valid and the shewbread is unfit for consumption. How should one act to prevent the shewbread from being rendered unfit? One should not remove the shewbread and frankincense from the Table on the subsequent Shabbat. Rather, he should leave it on the Table until the following Shabbat, so that it remains on the Table for a full week from Shabbat to Shabbat. It is permitted to leave the bread and frankincense on the Table beyond seven days, as even if it is on the Table for many days there is nothing wrong with that, i.e., it is not rendered unfit.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讗诪专 诇讛诐 讛诪诪讜谞讛 爪讗讜 讜专讗讜 讗诐 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讗诐 讛讙讬注 讛专讜讗讛 讗讜诪专 讘专拽讗讬 诪转转讬讗 讘谉 砖诪讜讗诇 讗讜诪专 讛讗讬专 驻谞讬 讻诇 讛诪讝专讞 注讚 砖讘讞讘专讜谉 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讛谉

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna there (Yoma 28a) with regard to the Yom Kippur service in the Temple: The appointed priest said to the other priests: Go out and stand on a high point in the Temple and see if it is day and the time for slaughtering the daily offering has arrived, as one may not slaughter offerings at night. If the time has arrived, the observer says: There is light [barkai]. Mattitya ben Shmuel maintained that one should wait until greater light is observed. Therefore, when he was the appointed priest, he would say: Is the entire eastern sky illuminated, even to Hebron? And the observer would say: Yes.

讜诇诪讛 讛讜爪专讻讜 诇讻讱 砖驻注诐 讗讞转 注诇讛 诪讗讜专 讛诇讘谞讛 讜讚讬诪讜 砖讛讗讬专 诪讝专讞 砖讞讟讜 讗转 讛转诪讬讚 讜讛讜爪讬讗讜讛讜 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

The mishna asks: And why did they need to institute this, to send someone to observe the first light from a high place? The mishna explains that this was deemed necessary because once, the light of the moon rose and the priests imagined that the eastern sky was illuminated with sunlight. They then slaughtered the daily offering, and when they realized that it had been slaughtered too early they had to take it out to the place designated for burning and burn it. In order to prevent similar errors in the future, the Sages instituted that they should carefully assess the situation and ensure that day has begun before slaughtering the daily offering.

讜讛讜专讬讚讜 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诇讘讬转 讛讟讘讬诇讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讛讬讛 讘诪拽讚砖 讻诇 讛诪住讬讱 讗转 专讙诇讬讜 讟注讜谉 讟讘讬诇讛 讜讻诇 讛诪讟讬诇 诪讬诐 讟注讜谉 拽讚讜砖 讬讚讬诐 讜专讙诇讬诐

The mishna continues: Once the daylight was observed on Yom Kippur, the priests led the High Priest down to the Hall of Immersion. The mishna comments: This was the principle in the Temple: Anyone who covers his legs, a euphemism for defecating, requires immersion afterward; and anyone who urinates requires sanctification of hands and feet with water from the Basin afterward.

转谞讬 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 诇讗 讝讜 讘诇讘讚 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 砖谞诪诇拽讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜诪谞讞讛 砖谞拽诪爪讛 讘诇讬诇讛 转爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

The father of Rabbi Avin teaches a baraita: Not only in this case, with regard to slaughtering the daily offering, did the Sages say that if it is performed at night it is disqualified, but even in the case of a bird burnt offering whose nape was pinched at night, and in the case of a meal offering from which a handful was removed at night, the offering is disqualified and must be taken out to the place designated for burning.

讘砖诇诪讗 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 诇讗讛讚讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪谞讞讛 讗驻砖专 讚诪讛讚专 拽讜诪抓 诇讚讜讻转讬讛 讜拽诪讬抓 讘讬诪诪讗

The Gemara asks: Granted, a bird burnt offering is disqualified if pinched at night, as it cannot be restored to its former state. But in the case of a meal offering whose handful was removed at night, why is it burned? It is possible to remedy the situation, as the priest can restore the handful to its original place and then remove a handful from the meal offering once again during the day.

讛讜讗 转谞讬 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讻诇讬 砖专转 诪拽讚砖讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞谉

The Gemara replies that the father of Rabbi Avin teaches the baraita and he says its explanation: Service vessels sanctify their contents even when those contents are not placed in the vessel at the appointed time for that service. Once the handful is placed in the service vessel it acquires the sanctity inherent to the handful and the situation can no longer be remedied.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇 讛拽专讘 讘讬讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讘讬讜诐 讘诇讬诇讛 拽讚讜砖 讘诇讬诇讛 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讜讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 拽讚讜砖 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讜讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita. Any offering that is sacrificed during the day is consecrated by a service vessel only during the day, and any offering that is sacrificed at night is consecrated by a service vessel only at night, and any offering that is sacrificed both during the day and at night is consecrated both during the day and at night.

讻诇 讛拽专讘 讘讬讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讘讬讜诐 讘讬讜诐 讗讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 诇讗 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 诇讬拽专讘 讗讘诇 拽讚讜砖 诇讬驻住诇

The baraita teaches that any offering that is sacrificed during the day is consecrated during the day, from which one can infer that during the day, yes, it is consecrated, but it is not consecrated at night. This indicates that the handful of the meal offering is not consecrated at night, contrary to the explanation of Rabbi Avin鈥檚 father. The Gemara answers: When an offering is placed in a service vessel not at the appointed time, the contents are not sufficiently consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar, but they are sufficiently consecrated to be disqualified.

诪讜转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 住讬讚专 讗转 讛诇讞诐 讜讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 讗讞专 砖讘转 讜讛拽讟讬专 讗转 讛讘讝讬讻讬谉 讘砖讘转 驻住讜诇讛 讻讬爪讚 讬注砖讛 讬谞讬讞谞讛 诇砖讘转 讛讘讗讛 砖讗驻讬诇讜 讛讬讗 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讬诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讻讱 讻诇讜诐

Rabbi Zeira raises an objection from the mishna: If one arranged the bread and the bowls of frankincense after Shabbat and burned the frankincense that was in the bowls on the subsequent Shabbat, the burning of the frankincense is not valid and the shewbread is unfit for consumption. How should one act to prevent the shewbread from being rendered unfit? One should not remove the shewbread on the subsequent Shabbat. Rather, he should leave it on the Table until the following Shabbat, so that it remains on the Table for a full week from Shabbat to Shabbat. It is permitted to leave the bread and frankincense on the Table beyond seven days, as even if it is on the Table for many days there is nothing wrong with that, i.e., it is not rendered unfit.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讻诇讬 砖专转 诪拽讚砖讬谉 砖诇讗 讘讝诪谞谉 (诇讬驻住诇) 诇讬拽讚讜砖 讜诇讬驻住讜诇

Rabbi Zeira explains: And if it enters your mind to say that service vessels sanctify their contents to the extent that those contents are disqualified even when they are not placed in the vessel at the appointed time, then even if the shewbread is arranged after Shabbat it should be sanctified by the Table and subsequently disqualified by being left overnight.

讗诪专 专讘讛 诪讗谉 讚拽讗 诪讜转讬讘 砖驻讬专 拽讗 诪讜转讬讘 讗讘讜讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讬谉 谞诪讬 诪转谞讬转讗 拽讗诪专 拽住讘专 诇讬诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讛讗 讬诪讬诐 诪讞讜住专讬谉 讝诪谉

Rabba said: The one who raises the objection, Rabbi Zeira, raises the objection well. Nevertheless, the father of Rabbi Avin is also stating a baraita, and the difficulty must therefore be resolved. Rabba explains: The tanna of the baraita cited by Rabbi Avin鈥檚 father maintains that in the case of a rite that should be performed during the day, if it is performed during the preceding night it is not considered a rite whose time has not yet arrived, as the night and day are considered a single unit. Therefore, if one places the handful in a service vessel at night the service vessel sanctifies the handful, and since the rite is not valid the offering is disqualified. But if a rite is performed several days earlier it is considered a rite whose time has not yet arrived. Therefore, the Table does not sanctify shewbread that is placed on it on any day except Shabbat.

住讜祝 住讜祝

The Gemara asks: Ultimately,

讻讬 诪讟讬 诇讬诇讬讗 讚讘讬 砖讬诪砖讬 诇讬拽讚讜砖 讜诇讬驻住讜诇 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘砖拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽

if a rite performed during the night preceding its appointed time is not considered a rite whose time has not yet arrived, then when the night arrives, i.e., the twilight of Shabbat eve, the arrangement of loaves remaining on the Table should be consecrated and subsequently disqualified by being left overnight. Rava says: The mishna is referring to a case where the priest removed the shewbread from the Table before nightfall on Shabbat eve in order to prevent its consecration, and arranged it again the following day.

诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讘砖诇讗 拽讚诐 讜住讬诇拽 讻讬讜谉 讚住讬讚专讜 砖诇讗 讻诪爪讜转讜 谞注砖讛 讻诪讬 砖住讚专讜 讛拽讜祝

Mar Zutra, and some say Rav Ashi, said: Even if you say the mishna is referring to a case where one did not remove the shewbread before nightfall, the loaves are not consecrated by the Table. Since the priest arranged the shewbread at a time that was not in accordance with the procedure dictated by its mitzva, it is considered as though a monkey had arranged the shewbread, and it is not consecrated by the Table.

诪转谞讬壮 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 谞讗讻诇讜转 讗讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪砖谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讬讜转专 注诇 砖诇砖讛 讻讬爪讚 谞讗驻讜转 诪注专讘 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 谞讗讻诇讜转 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇砖谞讬诐 讞诇 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讛讬讜转 讗讞专 讛砖讘转 谞讗讻诇讜转 诇砖诇砖讛

MISHNA: The two loaves that are brought on Shavuot are eaten by the priests no less than two days and no more than three days after they were baked. How so? They are generally baked on the eve of the festival of Shavuot and they are eaten on the day of the Festival, which is on the second day. If the Festival occurs after Shabbat, on Sunday, the loaves are baked on Friday, in which case they are eaten on the third day.

诇讞诐 讛驻谞讬诐 谞讗讻诇 讗讬谉 驻讞讜转 诪转砖注讛 讜诇讗 讬讜转专 注诇 讗讞讚 注砖专 讻讬爪讚 谞讗驻讛 诪注专讘 砖讘转 讜谞讗讻诇 讘砖讘转 诇转砖注讛 讞诇 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讛讬讜转 注专讘 砖讘转 谞讗讻诇 诇注砖专讛

The shewbread is eaten no less than nine days and no more than eleven days after it is baked. How so? It is generally baked on Shabbat eve and eaten on the following Shabbat, which is on the ninth day. If a Festival occurs on Shabbat eve the shewbread is baked on the eve of the Festival, on Thursday, in which case it is eaten on the tenth day.

砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 [讟讜讘讬诐] 砖诇 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 谞讗讻诇 诇讗讞讚 注砖专 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 专讘谉 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讛住讙谉 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 讗转 讬讜诐 爪讜诐

If the two festival days of Rosh HaShana occur on Thursday and Friday, the shewbread is baked on Wednesday, in which case it is eaten on the eleventh day. And this is because the preparation of the two loaves and the shewbread overrides neither Shabbat nor a Festival. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Shimon, son of the deputy High Priest: Their preparation overrides a Festival but does not override the fast day of Yom Kippur.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 讗讬谉 拽专讬讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讟讜讘 诇讗 转讬诪讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诪讬讞讝讗 讞讝讜 讜专讘谞谉 讛讜讗 讚讙讝专讜 砖诇讗 讬砖讛讗 讗诇讗 诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讝讜

GEMARA: Ravina said: According to the statement of the one who says vow offerings and voluntary offerings may not be sacrificed on a Festival, do not say they are fit to be sacrificed on a Festival by Torah law and it is the Sages who decreed they may not be sacrificed. The Sages might have issued such a decree so that one would not delay sacrificing his offerings until he ascends to Jerusalem for the Festival. Rather, vow offerings and voluntary offerings are unfit to be sacrificed on a Festival also by Torah law.

讚讛讗 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐 讚讞讜讘转 讛讬讜诐 讛讜讗 讜诇讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 砖诪讗 讬砖讛讗 讜拽转谞讬 讗讬谞讜 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗转 讬讜诐 讟讜讘

Ravina explains this may be inferred from the mishna, as the offering of the two loaves is an obligation of the day of Shavuot. It is therefore not possible to say that the Sages decreed they may not be prepared on the Festival lest one delay bringing them. And yet the mishna teaches that baking and preparing the two loaves overrides neither Shabbat nor a Festival. All the more so that vow offerings and voluntary offerings, which do not need to be sacrificed specifically on a Festival, may not be sacrificed on a Festival by Torah law.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 砖转讬 讛诇讞诐

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪谞讞讜转 讜讛谞住讻讬诐 砖谞讟诪讗讜 注讚 砖诇讗 拽讚砖讜 讘讻诇讬 讬砖 诇讛诐 驻讚讬讜谉 诪砖拽讬讚砖讜 讘讻诇讬 讗讬谉 诇讛诐 驻讚讬讜谉

MISHNA: With regard to the fine flour for meal offerings or the wine for libations that became ritually impure, as long as they have not yet been consecrated in a service vessel and assumed inherent sanctity, their redemption is possible. If they are redeemed, their sanctity will be transferred to the redemption money. Once they have been consecrated in a service vessel and have assumed inherent sanctity, their redemption is no longer possible, and they are burned like any other offerings that became ritually impure.

讛注讜驻讜转 讜讛注爪讬诐 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讻诇讬 砖专转 诪砖谞讟诪讗讜 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 驻讚讬讜谉 砖诇讗 谞讗诪专 驻讚讬讜谉 讗诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛

With regard to consecrated birds, wood for the altar, frankincense, and service vessels, once they became ritually impure they have no possibility of redemption, as redemption of items consecrated for the altar was stated only with regard to a consecrated animal that developed a blemish, not with regard to other consecrated items.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 拽讚砖讬 讘讻诇讬 拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讜拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 谞驻讚讬谉

GEMARA: According to the mishna, impure meal offerings and libations may be redeemed as long as they have not yet been placed in a service vessel. Shmuel says: Even if they are ritually pure, they also may be redeemed. What is the reason for this? As long as they have not been consecrated in a service vessel, they possess sanctity that inheres only in their value, and items whose sanctity inheres only in their value may be redeemed.

讜讛讗 谞讟诪讗讜 转谞谉 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 谞讟诪讗讜 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚拽讗 讘注讬 诪讬转谞讗 住讬驻讗 诪砖拽讬讚砖讜 讘讻诇讬 讗讬谉 诇讛谉 驻讚讬讜谉 讚讗驻讬诇讜 谞讟诪讗讜 谞诪讬 诇讗 转谞讗 谞诪讬 专讬砖讗 砖谞讟诪讗讜 注讚 砖诇讗 拽讚砖讜 讘讻诇讬

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: The meal offerings and libations that became ritually impure are redeemed? The Gemara answers: The same is true even if they had not become ritually impure. And the tanna mentions a case where they became ritually impure since he wants to teach the latter clause, which states: Once they were consecrated in a service vessel and have assumed inherent sanctity, they have no possibility of redemption, meaning that even when they became ritually impure and are disqualified from use as an offering, they still have no possibility of redemption. Therefore, the tanna also taught the first clause: That became ritually impure before they were consecrated in a service vessel.

驻砖讬讟讗 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 谞讬谞讛讜

With regard to flour or oil that has been consecrated in a service vessel, the Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 it obvious that they are not redeemed, as they are consecrated with inherent sanctity?

讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讗讬拽专讬 讟诪讗 讟诪讗 谞诪讬 讻讘注诇 诪讜诐 讚诪讬 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讚讜砖 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 讻讬 谞驻讬诇 讘讬讛 诪讜诐 诪讬驻专讬拽 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讬驻专讜拽 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诇讗讜 讻讬 讛讗讬 讟诪讗 拽专讬讬讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讘注诇 诪讜诐

The Gemara answers: It was necessary to state that items consecrated in a service vessel cannot be redeemed, as it may enter your mind to say: Since a blemished animal is called impure, as the Gemara will explain shortly, this analogy could be reversed and an impure animal could also have a status similar to that of a blemished animal. And just as in the case of a blemished animal, even though it is consecrated with inherent sanctity, when it develops a blemish it is redeemed, so too these impure items discussed in the mishna may also be redeemed despite their possessing inherent sanctity. Therefore, the tanna teaches us that it is not in this context that the Merciful One called a blemished animal 鈥渋mpure.鈥

Scroll To Top