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

Daf Yomi

November 19, 2018 | 讬状讗 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

Menachot 101

Can one redeem items whose value is holy if they are still pure (not disqualified)?


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

讚诪讻诇讬 砖专转 诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉 讚诪讬驻专讬拽


One cannot draw the conclusion that these substances can be redeemed, since we do not find a case where an item that has been consecrated in a service vessel is redeemed.


讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讬讻讗 讗讬拽专讬 讟诪讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讗诐 讻诇 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗砖专 诇讗 讬拽专讬讘讜 诪诪谞讛 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 砖谞驻讚讬谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专


The Gemara asks: And where is a blemished animal called 鈥渋mpure鈥 in the Torah? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita with regard to redeeming an offering, that the Torah states: 鈥淎nd if it be any impure animal, of which they may not bring an offering to the Lord, then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it, whether it is good or bad; as you the priest values it, so shall it be. But if he will indeed redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part thereof to your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:11鈥13). The verse is speaking of blemished animals that are redeemed, and they are referred to as impure because they are not fit to serve as offerings.


讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 砖谞驻讚讜 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪诪砖 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗诐 讘讘讛诪讛 讛讟诪讗讛 讜驻讚讛 讘注专讻讱 讛专讬 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗诪讜专讛 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讗诐 讻诇 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 砖谞驻讚讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专


The Gemara clarifies: Do you say that the verse is referring to blemished animals that were redeemed, or is it referring only to an actual non-kosher [tamei] animal, as the plain sense of the verse indicates? The Gemara responds: When the verse states later in that section: 鈥淎nd if it be of an impure [tamei] animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation, and shall add to it the fifth part thereof鈥 (Leviticus 27:27), an actual non-kosher animal is mentioned as being subject to redemption. How do I realize the meaning of the verse: 鈥淎nd if it be any impure [tamei] animal鈥 (Leviticus 27:11)? The verse is speaking of blemished animals that were redeemed, i.e., that have the possibility of being redeemed.


讬讻讜诇 讬驻讚讜 注诇 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讗 讬拽专讬讘讜 诪诪谞讛 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 诪讬 砖讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛 诇讛壮 讻诇 注讬拽专 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛 讛讬讜诐 讜拽专讬讘讛 诇诪讞专


The Gemara continues to discuss this halakha: One might have thought that offerings are redeemed even due to the presence of a temporary blemish. Therefore, the continuation of the verse states: 鈥淥f which they may not bring an offering to the Lord,鈥 which is referring to an animal that is not sacrificed to God at all. The verse serves to exclude this animal with a temporary blemish, which is not sacrificed today, while it remains blemished, but is sacrificed tomorrow, after the blemish disappears.


诪讜转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 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 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 讘砖诇诪讗 注讜驻讜转 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛


Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 raises an objection to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion that even meal offerings and libations that are pure may be redeemed if they have not yet been consecrated in a service vessel. The mishna states: 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 consecrated items is stated only with regard to an animal consecrated for the altar that became blemished. Granted, birds are not redeemed, since they are imbued with inherent sanctity, and the Torah stated that only with regard to blemished animals, not birds, is redemption possible for items of inherent sanctity.


讗诇讗 注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讜讻诇讬 砖专转 诇讬驻专拽讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讟讛讜专讬谉 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉


But with regard to wood, and frankincense that is not consecrated with inherent sanctity until it is placed in a service vessel, and service vessels themselves that became impure, since none of these possess inherent sanctity, let them be redeemed. Rather, is it not that these items are not redeemed because pure sacrificial items in general are not redeemed, even when they do not possess inherent sanctity?


讜讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞讟诪讗讜 讻讟讛讜专讬诐 讚诪讜 讚注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讜谞讛 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讗砖讜讬讬 讗讜讻诇讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讞讬讘转 讛拽讜讚砖 诪砖讜讛 诇讛讜 讗讜讻诇讗


And these items too, i.e., the wood, frankincense, and service vessels, even though they became impure, they are treated like they are pure. Their impurity is incomplete because wood and frankincense are not capable of becoming food, and consequently they should not be susceptible to impurity at all. Rather, the regard for the sanctity of sacred property transforms their status into that of food, which renders them susceptible to ritual impurity.


讚注爪讬诐 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 诪砖驻讬 诇讛讜 诇讙讝讬专讬谉 诇讗 诪讬转讻砖专讬 诇讘讜谞讛 谞诪讬 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 拽讬讚砖讛 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 诇讗 诪讬转讻砖专讛 讻诇讬 砖专转 谞诪讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转 诇讛讜 讟讛专讛 讘诪拽讜讛


With regard to wood, as long as one does not trim it into logs, it does not become susceptible to impurity. With regard to frankincense as well, as long as it is not consecrated in a service vessel, it does not become susceptible to impurity. With regard to service vessels also, since they have the capacity to attain purity in a ritual bath, their impurity is revocable. Apparently, the reason the mishna teaches that these items are not redeemed is because they are in some sense still regarded as pure, and consecrated items that are considered ritually pure are not redeemed, contrary to the opinion of Shmuel.


诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讟讛讜专讬谉 讘注诇诪讗 谞驻讚讬谉 讜讛谞讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讛讜讗


The Gemara responds: No, actually, I will say to you that in general, pure items are redeemed; and these items are not redeemed, despite the fact that they are not imbued with inherent sanctity, because they are not readily available. If these items can be redeemed when they are pure, then they may not be available for the Temple service.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇讘讜谞讛 讜讻诇讬 砖专转 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讗诇讗 注爪讬诐 诪讬砖讻讞 砖讻讬讞讬 注爪讬诐 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 注抓 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讜 转讜诇注转 驻住讜诇 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讛讬诇讻讱 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬


The Gemara challenges: Granted, frankincense and service vessels are not readily available, but wood is readily available. Why, then, may it not be redeemed? The Gemara answers: Wood usable for the Temple service is also difficult to procure. This is apparent since the Master said that any wood in which a worm is found is disqualified for use on the altar. Consequently, wood suitable for the altar is not readily available.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪转驻讬住 转诪讬诪讬诐 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜转谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讝讘讞 砖讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇诪讝讘讞 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 诪讬讚讬 诪讝讘讞 诇注讜诇诐 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讟讛讜专讬诐 讛诐 讛讜讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛


The Gemara continues to discuss the opinion of Shmuel that libations and the flour for meal offerings are redeemed even when pure, as long as they have not been consecrated in a service vessel. Rav Pappa said that if Shmuel had heard that which is taught in the following baraita, he would have retracted his opinion. The baraita teaches: In the case of one who consecrates unblemished animals for Temple maintenance rather than for the altar, they are redeemed only for use on the altar. They may not be redeemed for any other use, in accordance with to the principle that any consecrated item that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar may never leave the altar. And even though these animals possess only sanctity that inheres in their value, they are not redeemed, since they are ritually pure and fit for the altar. Had Shmuel known this baraita, he would have retracted his opinion.


讜诇讗 讛讬讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诇讗讜 讗诪专转 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 诇讗 诪讬驻专拽讬


The Gemara responds: But that is not so; this baraita was heard by him, and he still did not retract his opinion. Rather, he explained it as follows: Didn鈥檛 you say there, i.e., earlier in the discussion of the mishna, that the reason one may not redeem wood, frankincense, and service vessels that were consecrated for Temple maintenance is that since they are not readily available, the Sages decreed that they are not redeemed?


讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讻讬讞讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讚驻住诇讬 讘讘讛诪讛 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 谞诪讬 驻住诇讬 讛讬诇讻讱 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬


Here, too, with regard to an unblemished animal that was consecrated for Temple maintenance, since blemishes that disqualify an animal as an offering are common, as even a blemish as insignificant as one on the cornea of the eye also disqualifies the animal, therefore, unblemished animals that are fit to be sacrificed on the altar are not readily available. That is why the Sages decreed that unblemished animals, even when consecrated for Temple maintenance, may be redeemed only for use as an offering on the altar. By contrast, meal offerings and libations, which were the subject of Shmuel鈥檚 statement, are readily available, and may be redeemed even when they are still pure.


专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讟诪讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讟诪讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讛讜专讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉


搂 After analyzing Shmuel鈥檚 opinion permitting the redemption of meal offerings and libations that are pure and have not yet been consecrated in a service vessel, the Gemara now cites a dissenting opinion: Rav Kahana said that only meal offerings and libations that are impure are redeemed, but those that are pure are not redeemed. And Rabbi Oshaya similarly said that those meal offerings and libations that are impure are redeemed, but those that are pure are not redeemed. There are those who say that Rabbi Oshaya says: Even pure ones are redeemed.


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 讞讜抓 诪注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗


Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to all meal offerings, if they are impure they are redeemed, and if they are pure, they are not redeemed, except for the tenth of an ephah of fine flour of a meal offering of a sinner, which is redeemed even if it is pure.


砖讛专讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诪讞讟讗转讜 注诇 讞讟讗转讜


The reason for this is that the Torah stated with regard to an extremely destitute individual who brings a tenth of an ephah of fine flour: 鈥淎nd the priest shall effect atonement for him for his sin [me岣ttato] that he has sinned of one of these, and it shall be forgiven for him鈥 (Leviticus 5:13). By contrast, with regard to a wealthy person who brings a lamb as a sliding-scale offering, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall effect atonement for him from his sin [al 岣ttato] that he has sinned鈥 (Leviticus 5:6). The word 鈥al,鈥 which can also mean on, indicates that if an extremely destitute individual designates a tenth of an ephah for his meal offering and then becomes wealthy, he redeems his meal offering and adds money on to the original sum in order to purchase an offering that is appropriate for his current financial status. In that case, the meal offering is redeemed even if it is pure.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 砖诪注转讬 驻讬讙诇 讘诪谞讞讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讚转谞谉 讛注专诇讛 讜讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐


搂 The Gemara cites another statement that Rabbi Oshaya says: I heard that according to Rabbi Shimon, when one rendered a meal offering piggul by sacrificing it with the intent to consume it beyond its designated time, it is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food. As we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Okatzin 3:12): Orla, diverse kinds in a vineyard,


讜砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讜注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讜爪驻讜专讬 诪爪讜专注 讜驻讟专 讞诪讜专 讜讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讻讜诇诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉


the flesh of an ox that is stoned, a heifer whose neck is broken,the birds sacrificed by a leper (see Leviticus 14:4鈥7), a firstborn donkey whose neck was broken, and meat cooked together with milk are all susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, despite the fact that they are forbidden for consumption.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻讜诇谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 砖诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专


Rabbi Shimon says: None of them are susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, since they are all items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit, and they are therefore not considered food. And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to meat cooked together with milk that it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food since it, i.e., both the meat and the milk, had a time that it was fit for consumption before it was rendered forbidden.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 拽专讜讬 讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 拽专讜讬 讗讜讻诇


And Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the reason for Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion that an item from which it is prohibited to derive benefit is not susceptible to impurity of food? It is because it is stated: 鈥淎ll food which may be eaten [ha鈥檕khel asher ye鈥檃khel], that on which water comes, shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). The redundancy in the phrase 鈥渇ood which may be eaten鈥 indicates that specifically food that you are able to feed to others, in this case, gentiles, is termed food for the purposes of susceptibility to the impurity of food, but food that you are not able to feed to others is not termed food. Therefore, items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit and which it is therefore prohibited to feed to others are not considered food in this context.


讜讛讗 驻讬讙诇 讘诪谞讞讛 谞诪讬 讗讜讻诇 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讛讜讗


Rabbi Oshaya explains how this can be applied to piggul: A meal offering that one rendered piggul is also food that you are not able to feed to others, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. Consequently, it is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food according to Rabbi Shimon.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讗讜讻诇 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: If so, why doesn鈥檛 he also derive that meat cooked in milk is susceptible to impurity because it is food that you may feed to others, as Rabbi Shimon maintains that it is permitted to derive benefit from meat and milk cooked together?


讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 注诐 拽讚讜砖 讗转讛 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诇讗 转讘砖诇 讙讚讬 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗谞砖讬 拽讚砖 转讛讬讜谉 诇讬 讜讘砖专 讘砖讚讛 讟专驻讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛


As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: With regard to meat cooked in milk, eating it is prohibited and deriving benefit from it is permitted, as it is stated: 鈥淔or you are a holy people to the Lord your God; you shall not cook a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21). And elsewhere the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall be holy men to Me; therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn by animals [tereifa] in the field鈥 (Exodus 22:30). Just as there, with regard to an animal torn by animals, which is forbidden as a tereifa, i.e., an animal possessing a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months, eating it is prohibited but deriving benefit from it is permitted, so too here, with regard to meat cooked in milk, where being a holy people is also mentioned, eating it is forbidden but deriving benefit from it is permitted.


讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 拽讗诪专 讞讚讗 讚讗讜讻诇 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讛讜讗 讜注讜讚 诇讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专


The Gemara answers: The baraita that cites Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion states one reason why meat cooked in milk is susceptible to impurity and adds another. One reason is that it is food that you can feed to others. Therefore, it is called food for the purpose of being susceptible to impurity. And another reason is that even for him, i.e., a Jew, although it is currently prohibited to eat the milk and meat, it had a time when each was fit to be eaten, i.e., before they were cooked together; therefore, they remain susceptible to impurity.


诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬砖 谞讜转专 砖讛讜讗 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讬砖 谞讜转专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉


The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says that there is a case of the leftover of an offering that is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, but there is also a case of the leftover of an offering that is not susceptible to the impurity of food.


讻讬爪讚 诇谉 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉


How so? If it was left overnight before the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, it is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, as it never became fit for consumption. But if it was left overnight after the sprinkling of the blood, it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, since from after the sprinkling of the blood until it was left overnight, it was fit for consumption.


(讜讛讗) 讜驻讬讙讜诇 讘讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 驻讬讙诇 讘诪谞讞讛 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉


The baraita continues: And with regard to piggul, both in cases of offerings of the most sacred order as well as in cases of offerings of lesser sanctity, the meat of the offering is not susceptible to the impurity of food. This is because it was rendered forbidden for consumption at the beginning of the sacrificial rite, and was never fit for consumption. If the priest rendered a meal offering piggul, it is susceptible to the impurity of food, since it did have a period of time when it was acceptable, i.e., when it was still flour before it was consecrated as a meal offering. This ruling contradicts Rabbi Oshaya鈥檚 understanding that according to Rabbi Shimon, a meal offering that became piggul is not susceptible to the impurity of food.


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专


The Gemara answers: That is not difficult, as here, in the baraita where Rabbi Shimon ruled that the meal offering that became piggul is susceptible to the impurity of food, it is referring to a case where it had a time in which it was fit for consumption. There, where it is not susceptible to the impurity of food, it is referring to a case where it did not have a time in which it was fit for consumption.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讚讗拽讚砖讬谞讛讜 讘诪讞讜讘专


The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where it did not have a time in which it was fit for consumption? Before the flour was consecrated as a meal offering, it was certainly permitted for consumption. The Gemara answers: This would occur where he consecrated the wheat while it was still attached to the ground and was therefore not yet susceptible to impurity. Once harvested, it was already prohibited for consumption.


讜诇讬驻专拽讬谞讛讜 讛谞讬讞讗 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讟诪讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 砖驻讬专


The Gemara raises a difficulty: The flour may still have a time in which it was fit. Let him redeem it before it is placed in a service vessel. Why is it regarded as not having a time in which it was fit for consumption? The Gemara qualifies the question: This distinction, between flour that came from wheat that was consecrated before it was harvested and wheat or flour that was consecrated at a later point, works out well according to this version of that which Rabbi Oshaya said: Impure meal offerings and libations that have not been consecrated in a service vessel are redeemed; if they are pure, they are not redeemed. Accordingly, it works out well that the flour does not have a time in which it was fit for consumption when it came from wheat that was consecrated before being harvested. It could not be redeemed and made fit for consumption.


讗诇讗 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讛讜专讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 诇驻专拽讬谞讛讜


But according to this version of what Rabbi Oshaya said: Even pure meal offerings and libations are redeemed, there remains the possibility of letting him redeem the meal offering while it is pure and before is consecrated in a service vessel. Therefore, it should be considered as having a time in which it is fit for consumption.


讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 诇讗 驻专讬拽


The Gemara answers: In any event, now he has not redeemed it. Therefore, it is not considered to have had a time in which it is fit for consumption.


讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬 驻专讬拽 诇讬讛 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇驻讚讜转 讻驻讚讜讬 讚诪讬


The Gemara asks: How can the flour be considered as not having a time in which it is fit for consumption merely because he has not redeemed it, even though he could have redeemed it? Since in a case where if he wants, he may redeem it, don鈥檛 we attribute to Rabbi Shimon that he said that for any item that stands to be redeemed, it is as if it already is redeemed?


讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 驻专讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻专讛 谞驻讚讬转 注诇 讙讘 诪注专讻转讛


The Gemara cites a source for this assertion: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: A red heifer, even if it has been slaughtered and it is therefore prohibited to derive benefit from it, is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, since it had a time in which it was fit. And Reish Lakish said, explaining how it is possible to derive from this halakha that any item that could be redeemed is considered as though it has been redeemed: Rabbi Shimon would say that a red heifer is redeemed with money even when it has already been slaughtered and placed upon its pyre in preparation for being burned. If so, a meal offering that could be redeemed should also be considered fit for consumption, as it is considered as though it has been redeemed.


讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 驻专讛 注讜诪讚转 诇驻讚讜转 讛讬讗 砖讗诐 诪爪讗 讗讞专转 谞讗讛 讛讬诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛 诇驻讚讜转讛 讗诇讗 讛谞讬 诪谞讞讜转 诪爪讜讛 诇驻讚讜转谉


The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? Granted, with regard to the red heifer, it is considered to be an item that stands to be redeemed, since if he found another animal choicer than it, there is a mitzva to redeem the first one and purchase the choicer one with the money. But is there a mitzva to redeem these meal offerings?


讜讛讗 诇谉 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讚诪爪讜讛 诇诪讬讝专拽讬讛 讜讗讬 讘注讬 讝专拽 讜拽转谞讬 讚讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉


The Gemara challenges: But there is a case where sacrificial meat remained overnight before the sprinkling of the blood occurred, where there was a mitzva to sprinkle the blood the day before, and if he had wanted he could have sprinkled it, and the offering would not have been disqualified. And yet, Rabbi Shimon teaches in the baraita that sacrificial meat that remained overnight is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, even though it should have been considered fit for consumption on the day the offering was slaughtered, as the blood stood to be sprinkled and there was a mitzva to sprinkle it.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 诇诪讬讝专拽讬讛


The Gemara answers: Here, we are dealing with a case where there was not sufficient time remaining in the day to sprinkle the blood, as the offering was slaughtered close to sunset. Therefore, the blood did not stand to be sprinkled and the meat was therefore never fit for consumption.


讗讘诇 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 诪讗讬 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉


The Gemara asks: But in a case where the offering was slaughtered when there was sufficient time remaining in the day to sprinkle the blood, what would then be the halakha according to Rabbi Shimon? Would meat left overnight be susceptible to the ritual impurity of food?


讗讚转谞讬 诇谉 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 讗讘诇 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉


If so, rather than Rabbi Shimon teaching the following: Sacrificial meat that was left overnight before the blood was sprinkled is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, but if left overnight after the sprinkling of the blood it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, instead let him distinguish within the case itself: In what case is this statement said? When is sacrificial meat left overnight without the blood of the offering having been sprinkled not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food? It is in a case where there was not sufficient time remaining in the day to sprinkle the blood; but if there was sufficient time remaining in the day to sprinkle the blood, it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 诇谉 拽讜讚诐 砖讬专讗讛 诇讝专讬拽讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诇讗讞专 砖讬专讗讛 诇讝专讬拽讛 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉


The Gemara answers: That is indeed what he is saying in the baraita, that if the offering was left overnight before it was available for sprinkling, i.e., if it was slaughtered so late in the day that there was no time left to sprinkle the blood, it is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food. By contrast, if it was left overnight after it was available for sprinkling, i.e., there was still time to sprinkle the blood, then it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food.


讜讛讗 驻讬讙诇 讘讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诪爪讜讛 诇诪讬讝专拽讬讛


The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Shimon in fact hold that an item that stands to be redeemed is treated as though it has already been redeemed, and is therefore considered to have had a time in which it is fit, even if it was never actually redeemed? But isn鈥檛 it so that when one renders either offerings of the most sacred order or offerings of lesser sanctity piggul, there was a mitzva to sprinkle the blood once the offering was slaughtered,


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.聽

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 101

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 101

讚诪讻诇讬 砖专转 诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉 讚诪讬驻专讬拽


One cannot draw the conclusion that these substances can be redeemed, since we do not find a case where an item that has been consecrated in a service vessel is redeemed.


讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讬讻讗 讗讬拽专讬 讟诪讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讗诐 讻诇 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗砖专 诇讗 讬拽专讬讘讜 诪诪谞讛 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 砖谞驻讚讬谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专


The Gemara asks: And where is a blemished animal called 鈥渋mpure鈥 in the Torah? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita with regard to redeeming an offering, that the Torah states: 鈥淎nd if it be any impure animal, of which they may not bring an offering to the Lord, then he shall set the animal before the priest. And the priest shall value it, whether it is good or bad; as you the priest values it, so shall it be. But if he will indeed redeem it, then he shall add the fifth part thereof to your valuation鈥 (Leviticus 27:11鈥13). The verse is speaking of blemished animals that are redeemed, and they are referred to as impure because they are not fit to serve as offerings.


讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 砖谞驻讚讜 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 诪诪砖 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗诐 讘讘讛诪讛 讛讟诪讗讛 讜驻讚讛 讘注专讻讱 讛专讬 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讗诪讜专讛 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜讗诐 讻诇 讘讛诪讛 讟诪讗讛 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 砖谞驻讚讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专


The Gemara clarifies: Do you say that the verse is referring to blemished animals that were redeemed, or is it referring only to an actual non-kosher [tamei] animal, as the plain sense of the verse indicates? The Gemara responds: When the verse states later in that section: 鈥淎nd if it be of an impure [tamei] animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation, and shall add to it the fifth part thereof鈥 (Leviticus 27:27), an actual non-kosher animal is mentioned as being subject to redemption. How do I realize the meaning of the verse: 鈥淎nd if it be any impure [tamei] animal鈥 (Leviticus 27:11)? The verse is speaking of blemished animals that were redeemed, i.e., that have the possibility of being redeemed.


讬讻讜诇 讬驻讚讜 注诇 诪讜诐 注讜讘专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 诇讗 讬拽专讬讘讜 诪诪谞讛 拽专讘谉 诇讛壮 诪讬 砖讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛 诇讛壮 讻诇 注讬拽专 讬爪转讛 讝讜 砖讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛 讛讬讜诐 讜拽专讬讘讛 诇诪讞专


The Gemara continues to discuss this halakha: One might have thought that offerings are redeemed even due to the presence of a temporary blemish. Therefore, the continuation of the verse states: 鈥淥f which they may not bring an offering to the Lord,鈥 which is referring to an animal that is not sacrificed to God at all. The verse serves to exclude this animal with a temporary blemish, which is not sacrificed today, while it remains blemished, but is sacrificed tomorrow, after the blemish disappears.


诪讜转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 诪谞讜讞 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 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 讘砖诇诪讗 注讜驻讜转 拽讚讜砖转 讛讙讜祝 谞讬谞讛讜 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 讗诇讗 讘讘讛诪讛


Rav Huna bar Manoa岣 raises an objection to Shmuel鈥檚 opinion that even meal offerings and libations that are pure may be redeemed if they have not yet been consecrated in a service vessel. The mishna states: 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 consecrated items is stated only with regard to an animal consecrated for the altar that became blemished. Granted, birds are not redeemed, since they are imbued with inherent sanctity, and the Torah stated that only with regard to blemished animals, not birds, is redemption possible for items of inherent sanctity.


讗诇讗 注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讜谞讛 讜讻诇讬 砖专转 诇讬驻专拽讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讟讛讜专讬谉 讘注诇诪讗 讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉


But with regard to wood, and frankincense that is not consecrated with inherent sanctity until it is placed in a service vessel, and service vessels themselves that became impure, since none of these possess inherent sanctity, let them be redeemed. Rather, is it not that these items are not redeemed because pure sacrificial items in general are not redeemed, even when they do not possess inherent sanctity?


讜讛谞讬 谞诪讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚谞讟诪讗讜 讻讟讛讜专讬诐 讚诪讜 讚注爪讬诐 讜诇讘讜谞讛 诇讗讜 讘谞讬 讗砖讜讬讬 讗讜讻诇讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讞讬讘转 讛拽讜讚砖 诪砖讜讛 诇讛讜 讗讜讻诇讗


And these items too, i.e., the wood, frankincense, and service vessels, even though they became impure, they are treated like they are pure. Their impurity is incomplete because wood and frankincense are not capable of becoming food, and consequently they should not be susceptible to impurity at all. Rather, the regard for the sanctity of sacred property transforms their status into that of food, which renders them susceptible to ritual impurity.


讚注爪讬诐 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 诪砖驻讬 诇讛讜 诇讙讝讬专讬谉 诇讗 诪讬转讻砖专讬 诇讘讜谞讛 谞诪讬 讻诪讛 讚诇讗 拽讬讚砖讛 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 诇讗 诪讬转讻砖专讛 讻诇讬 砖专转 谞诪讬 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转 诇讛讜 讟讛专讛 讘诪拽讜讛


With regard to wood, as long as one does not trim it into logs, it does not become susceptible to impurity. With regard to frankincense as well, as long as it is not consecrated in a service vessel, it does not become susceptible to impurity. With regard to service vessels also, since they have the capacity to attain purity in a ritual bath, their impurity is revocable. Apparently, the reason the mishna teaches that these items are not redeemed is because they are in some sense still regarded as pure, and consecrated items that are considered ritually pure are not redeemed, contrary to the opinion of Shmuel.


诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讟讛讜专讬谉 讘注诇诪讗 谞驻讚讬谉 讜讛谞讬 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讛讜讗


The Gemara responds: No, actually, I will say to you that in general, pure items are redeemed; and these items are not redeemed, despite the fact that they are not imbued with inherent sanctity, because they are not readily available. If these items can be redeemed when they are pure, then they may not be available for the Temple service.


讘砖诇诪讗 诇讘讜谞讛 讜讻诇讬 砖专转 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 讗诇讗 注爪讬诐 诪讬砖讻讞 砖讻讬讞讬 注爪讬诐 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 诪专 讻诇 注抓 砖谞诪爪讗 讘讜 转讜诇注转 驻住讜诇 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讛讬诇讻讱 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬


The Gemara challenges: Granted, frankincense and service vessels are not readily available, but wood is readily available. Why, then, may it not be redeemed? The Gemara answers: Wood usable for the Temple service is also difficult to procure. This is apparent since the Master said that any wood in which a worm is found is disqualified for use on the altar. Consequently, wood suitable for the altar is not readily available.


讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讛诪转驻讬住 转诪讬诪讬诐 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讗讬谉 驻讜讚讬谉 讗讜转谉 讗诇讗 诇诪讝讘讞 砖讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇诪讝讘讞 讗讬谞讜 讬讜爪讗 诪讬讚讬 诪讝讘讞 诇注讜诇诐 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽讚讜砖转 讚诪讬诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讟讛讜专讬诐 讛诐 讛讜讛 讛讚专 讘讬讛


The Gemara continues to discuss the opinion of Shmuel that libations and the flour for meal offerings are redeemed even when pure, as long as they have not been consecrated in a service vessel. Rav Pappa said that if Shmuel had heard that which is taught in the following baraita, he would have retracted his opinion. The baraita teaches: In the case of one who consecrates unblemished animals for Temple maintenance rather than for the altar, they are redeemed only for use on the altar. They may not be redeemed for any other use, in accordance with to the principle that any consecrated item that is fit to be sacrificed on the altar may never leave the altar. And even though these animals possess only sanctity that inheres in their value, they are not redeemed, since they are ritually pure and fit for the altar. Had Shmuel known this baraita, he would have retracted his opinion.


讜诇讗 讛讬讗 砖诪讬注讗 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讛讚专 讘讬讛 诇讗讜 讗诪专转 讛转诐 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬 诇讗 诪讬驻专拽讬


The Gemara responds: But that is not so; this baraita was heard by him, and he still did not retract his opinion. Rather, he explained it as follows: Didn鈥檛 you say there, i.e., earlier in the discussion of the mishna, that the reason one may not redeem wood, frankincense, and service vessels that were consecrated for Temple maintenance is that since they are not readily available, the Sages decreed that they are not redeemed?


讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讻讬讞讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讚驻住诇讬 讘讘讛诪讛 讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 谞诪讬 驻住诇讬 讛讬诇讻讱 诇讗 砖讻讬讞讬


Here, too, with regard to an unblemished animal that was consecrated for Temple maintenance, since blemishes that disqualify an animal as an offering are common, as even a blemish as insignificant as one on the cornea of the eye also disqualifies the animal, therefore, unblemished animals that are fit to be sacrificed on the altar are not readily available. That is why the Sages decreed that unblemished animals, even when consecrated for Temple maintenance, may be redeemed only for use as an offering on the altar. By contrast, meal offerings and libations, which were the subject of Shmuel鈥檚 statement, are readily available, and may be redeemed even when they are still pure.


专讘 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 讟诪讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讟诪讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讛讜专讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉


搂 After analyzing Shmuel鈥檚 opinion permitting the redemption of meal offerings and libations that are pure and have not yet been consecrated in a service vessel, the Gemara now cites a dissenting opinion: Rav Kahana said that only meal offerings and libations that are impure are redeemed, but those that are pure are not redeemed. And Rabbi Oshaya similarly said that those meal offerings and libations that are impure are redeemed, but those that are pure are not redeemed. There are those who say that Rabbi Oshaya says: Even pure ones are redeemed.


专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讻讜诇谉 讟诪讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 讞讜抓 诪注砖讬专讬转 讛讗讬驻讛 砖诇 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗


Rabbi Elazar says: With regard to all meal offerings, if they are impure they are redeemed, and if they are pure, they are not redeemed, except for the tenth of an ephah of fine flour of a meal offering of a sinner, which is redeemed even if it is pure.


砖讛专讬 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诪讞讟讗转讜 注诇 讞讟讗转讜


The reason for this is that the Torah stated with regard to an extremely destitute individual who brings a tenth of an ephah of fine flour: 鈥淎nd the priest shall effect atonement for him for his sin [me岣ttato] that he has sinned of one of these, and it shall be forgiven for him鈥 (Leviticus 5:13). By contrast, with regard to a wealthy person who brings a lamb as a sliding-scale offering, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall effect atonement for him from his sin [al 岣ttato] that he has sinned鈥 (Leviticus 5:6). The word 鈥al,鈥 which can also mean on, indicates that if an extremely destitute individual designates a tenth of an ephah for his meal offering and then becomes wealthy, he redeems his meal offering and adds money on to the original sum in order to purchase an offering that is appropriate for his current financial status. In that case, the meal offering is redeemed even if it is pure.


讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 砖诪注转讬 驻讬讙诇 讘诪谞讞讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讚转谞谉 讛注专诇讛 讜讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐


搂 The Gemara cites another statement that Rabbi Oshaya says: I heard that according to Rabbi Shimon, when one rendered a meal offering piggul by sacrificing it with the intent to consume it beyond its designated time, it is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food. As we learned in a baraita (Tosefta, Okatzin 3:12): Orla, diverse kinds in a vineyard,


讜砖讜专 讛谞住拽诇 讜注讙诇讛 注专讜驻讛 讜爪驻讜专讬 诪爪讜专注 讜驻讟专 讞诪讜专 讜讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讻讜诇诐 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉


the flesh of an ox that is stoned, a heifer whose neck is broken,the birds sacrificed by a leper (see Leviticus 14:4鈥7), a firstborn donkey whose neck was broken, and meat cooked together with milk are all susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, despite the fact that they are forbidden for consumption.


专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻讜诇谉 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 砖诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专


Rabbi Shimon says: None of them are susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, since they are all items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit, and they are therefore not considered food. And Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to meat cooked together with milk that it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food since it, i.e., both the meat and the milk, had a time that it was fit for consumption before it was rendered forbidden.


讜讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讻诇 讛讗讻诇 讗砖专 讬讗讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 拽专讜讬 讗讜讻诇 讗讜讻诇 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 拽专讜讬 讗讜讻诇


And Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: What is the reason for Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion that an item from which it is prohibited to derive benefit is not susceptible to impurity of food? It is because it is stated: 鈥淎ll food which may be eaten [ha鈥檕khel asher ye鈥檃khel], that on which water comes, shall be impure鈥 (Leviticus 11:34). The redundancy in the phrase 鈥渇ood which may be eaten鈥 indicates that specifically food that you are able to feed to others, in this case, gentiles, is termed food for the purposes of susceptibility to the impurity of food, but food that you are not able to feed to others is not termed food. Therefore, items from which it is prohibited to derive benefit and which it is therefore prohibited to feed to others are not considered food in this context.


讜讛讗 驻讬讙诇 讘诪谞讞讛 谞诪讬 讗讜讻诇 砖讗讬 讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讛讜讗


Rabbi Oshaya explains how this can be applied to piggul: A meal offering that one rendered piggul is also food that you are not able to feed to others, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from it. Consequently, it is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food according to Rabbi Shimon.


讗讬 讛讻讬 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 讚讗讜讻诇 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讛讜讗


The Gemara asks: If so, why doesn鈥檛 he also derive that meat cooked in milk is susceptible to impurity because it is food that you may feed to others, as Rabbi Shimon maintains that it is permitted to derive benefit from meat and milk cooked together?


讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘砖专 讘讞诇讘 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 注诐 拽讚讜砖 讗转讛 诇讛壮 讗诇讛讬讱 诇讗 转讘砖诇 讙讚讬 讘讞诇讘 讗诪讜 讜诇讛诇谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗谞砖讬 拽讚砖 转讛讬讜谉 诇讬 讜讘砖专 讘砖讚讛 讟专驻讛 诇讗 转讗讻诇讜 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讜诪讜转专 讘讛谞讗讛


As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: With regard to meat cooked in milk, eating it is prohibited and deriving benefit from it is permitted, as it is stated: 鈥淔or you are a holy people to the Lord your God; you shall not cook a kid in its mother鈥檚 milk鈥 (Deuteronomy 14:21). And elsewhere the verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall be holy men to Me; therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn by animals [tereifa] in the field鈥 (Exodus 22:30). Just as there, with regard to an animal torn by animals, which is forbidden as a tereifa, i.e., an animal possessing a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months, eating it is prohibited but deriving benefit from it is permitted, so too here, with regard to meat cooked in milk, where being a holy people is also mentioned, eating it is forbidden but deriving benefit from it is permitted.


讞讚讗 讜注讜讚 拽讗诪专 讞讚讗 讚讗讜讻诇 砖讗转讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛讗讻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专讬诐 讛讜讗 讜注讜讚 诇讚讬讚讬讛 谞诪讬 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专


The Gemara answers: The baraita that cites Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion states one reason why meat cooked in milk is susceptible to impurity and adds another. One reason is that it is food that you can feed to others. Therefore, it is called food for the purpose of being susceptible to impurity. And another reason is that even for him, i.e., a Jew, although it is currently prohibited to eat the milk and meat, it had a time when each was fit to be eaten, i.e., before they were cooked together; therefore, they remain susceptible to impurity.


诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬砖 谞讜转专 砖讛讜讗 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜讬砖 谞讜转专 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉


The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Oshaya from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says that there is a case of the leftover of an offering that is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, but there is also a case of the leftover of an offering that is not susceptible to the impurity of food.


讻讬爪讚 诇谉 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉


How so? If it was left overnight before the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, it is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, as it never became fit for consumption. But if it was left overnight after the sprinkling of the blood, it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, since from after the sprinkling of the blood until it was left overnight, it was fit for consumption.


(讜讛讗) 讜驻讬讙讜诇 讘讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 驻讬讙诇 讘诪谞讞讛 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉


The baraita continues: And with regard to piggul, both in cases of offerings of the most sacred order as well as in cases of offerings of lesser sanctity, the meat of the offering is not susceptible to the impurity of food. This is because it was rendered forbidden for consumption at the beginning of the sacrificial rite, and was never fit for consumption. If the priest rendered a meal offering piggul, it is susceptible to the impurity of food, since it did have a period of time when it was acceptable, i.e., when it was still flour before it was consecrated as a meal offering. This ruling contradicts Rabbi Oshaya鈥檚 understanding that according to Rabbi Shimon, a meal offering that became piggul is not susceptible to the impurity of food.


诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讻讗谉 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专


The Gemara answers: That is not difficult, as here, in the baraita where Rabbi Shimon ruled that the meal offering that became piggul is susceptible to the impurity of food, it is referring to a case where it had a time in which it was fit for consumption. There, where it is not susceptible to the impurity of food, it is referring to a case where it did not have a time in which it was fit for consumption.


讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讚讗拽讚砖讬谞讛讜 讘诪讞讜讘专


The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances where it did not have a time in which it was fit for consumption? Before the flour was consecrated as a meal offering, it was certainly permitted for consumption. The Gemara answers: This would occur where he consecrated the wheat while it was still attached to the ground and was therefore not yet susceptible to impurity. Once harvested, it was already prohibited for consumption.


讜诇讬驻专拽讬谞讛讜 讛谞讬讞讗 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讜砖注讬讗 讟诪讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 讟讛讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 砖驻讬专


The Gemara raises a difficulty: The flour may still have a time in which it was fit. Let him redeem it before it is placed in a service vessel. Why is it regarded as not having a time in which it was fit for consumption? The Gemara qualifies the question: This distinction, between flour that came from wheat that was consecrated before it was harvested and wheat or flour that was consecrated at a later point, works out well according to this version of that which Rabbi Oshaya said: Impure meal offerings and libations that have not been consecrated in a service vessel are redeemed; if they are pure, they are not redeemed. Accordingly, it works out well that the flour does not have a time in which it was fit for consumption when it came from wheat that was consecrated before being harvested. It could not be redeemed and made fit for consumption.


讗诇讗 诇讛讱 诇讬砖谞讗 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讟讛讜专讬谉 谞驻讚讬谉 诇驻专拽讬谞讛讜


But according to this version of what Rabbi Oshaya said: Even pure meal offerings and libations are redeemed, there remains the possibility of letting him redeem the meal offering while it is pure and before is consecrated in a service vessel. Therefore, it should be considered as having a time in which it is fit for consumption.


讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 诇讗 驻专讬拽


The Gemara answers: In any event, now he has not redeemed it. Therefore, it is not considered to have had a time in which it is fit for consumption.


讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬 讘注讬 驻专讬拽 诇讬讛 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇驻讚讜转 讻驻讚讜讬 讚诪讬


The Gemara asks: How can the flour be considered as not having a time in which it is fit for consumption merely because he has not redeemed it, even though he could have redeemed it? Since in a case where if he wants, he may redeem it, don鈥檛 we attribute to Rabbi Shimon that he said that for any item that stands to be redeemed, it is as if it already is redeemed?


讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 驻专讛 诪讟诪讗讛 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讜讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗讜诪专 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 驻专讛 谞驻讚讬转 注诇 讙讘 诪注专讻转讛


The Gemara cites a source for this assertion: As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: A red heifer, even if it has been slaughtered and it is therefore prohibited to derive benefit from it, is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, since it had a time in which it was fit. And Reish Lakish said, explaining how it is possible to derive from this halakha that any item that could be redeemed is considered as though it has been redeemed: Rabbi Shimon would say that a red heifer is redeemed with money even when it has already been slaughtered and placed upon its pyre in preparation for being burned. If so, a meal offering that could be redeemed should also be considered fit for consumption, as it is considered as though it has been redeemed.


讛讻讬 讛砖转讗 讘砖诇诪讗 驻专讛 注讜诪讚转 诇驻讚讜转 讛讬讗 砖讗诐 诪爪讗 讗讞专转 谞讗讛 讛讬诪谞讛 诪爪讜讛 诇驻讚讜转讛 讗诇讗 讛谞讬 诪谞讞讜转 诪爪讜讛 诇驻讚讜转谉


The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? Granted, with regard to the red heifer, it is considered to be an item that stands to be redeemed, since if he found another animal choicer than it, there is a mitzva to redeem the first one and purchase the choicer one with the money. But is there a mitzva to redeem these meal offerings?


讜讛讗 诇谉 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讚诪爪讜讛 诇诪讬讝专拽讬讛 讜讗讬 讘注讬 讝专拽 讜拽转谞讬 讚讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉


The Gemara challenges: But there is a case where sacrificial meat remained overnight before the sprinkling of the blood occurred, where there was a mitzva to sprinkle the blood the day before, and if he had wanted he could have sprinkled it, and the offering would not have been disqualified. And yet, Rabbi Shimon teaches in the baraita that sacrificial meat that remained overnight is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, even though it should have been considered fit for consumption on the day the offering was slaughtered, as the blood stood to be sprinkled and there was a mitzva to sprinkle it.


讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 诇诪讬讝专拽讬讛


The Gemara answers: Here, we are dealing with a case where there was not sufficient time remaining in the day to sprinkle the blood, as the offering was slaughtered close to sunset. Therefore, the blood did not stand to be sprinkled and the meat was therefore never fit for consumption.


讗讘诇 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 诪讗讬 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉


The Gemara asks: But in a case where the offering was slaughtered when there was sufficient time remaining in the day to sprinkle the blood, what would then be the halakha according to Rabbi Shimon? Would meat left overnight be susceptible to the ritual impurity of food?


讗讚转谞讬 诇谉 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诇讬驻诇讜讙 讘讚讬讚讛 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 讗讘诇 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖讛讜转 讘讬讜诐 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉


If so, rather than Rabbi Shimon teaching the following: Sacrificial meat that was left overnight before the blood was sprinkled is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, but if left overnight after the sprinkling of the blood it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, instead let him distinguish within the case itself: In what case is this statement said? When is sacrificial meat left overnight without the blood of the offering having been sprinkled not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food? It is in a case where there was not sufficient time remaining in the day to sprinkle the blood; but if there was sufficient time remaining in the day to sprinkle the blood, it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food.


讛讻讬 谞诪讬 拽讗诪专 诇谉 拽讜讚诐 砖讬专讗讛 诇讝专讬拽讛 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诇讗讞专 砖讬专讗讛 诇讝专讬拽讛 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉


The Gemara answers: That is indeed what he is saying in the baraita, that if the offering was left overnight before it was available for sprinkling, i.e., if it was slaughtered so late in the day that there was no time left to sprinkle the blood, it is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food. By contrast, if it was left overnight after it was available for sprinkling, i.e., there was still time to sprinkle the blood, then it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food.


讜讛讗 驻讬讙诇 讘讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 诪爪讜讛 诇诪讬讝专拽讬讛


The Gemara asks: Does Rabbi Shimon in fact hold that an item that stands to be redeemed is treated as though it has already been redeemed, and is therefore considered to have had a time in which it is fit, even if it was never actually redeemed? But isn鈥檛 it so that when one renders either offerings of the most sacred order or offerings of lesser sanctity piggul, there was a mitzva to sprinkle the blood once the offering was slaughtered,


Scroll To Top