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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 20, 2018 | 讬状讘 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讟

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Menachot 102

Rabbi Shimon says that聽items that could potentially have been redeemed are viewed as if they were redeemed – Would that hold true also for items that are missing an action like for example if the blood wasn’t sprinkled, we view it as if the blood was sprinkled? If one聽vows to bring a certain type of meal offering or in a particular number of vessels and then proceeds to bring a different type or in a different number of vessels – is it considered that he was fulfilling his obligation but did it wrong or can we assume this offering wasn’t related at all to his vow and he was bringing something else?


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

讜讗讬 讘注讬 讝专讬拽 讜拽转谞讬 讚讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚驻讬讙诇 讘讝专讬拽讛 诇讗 讚驻讬讙诇 讘砖讞讬讟讛

and if he had wanted, he could have sprinkled the blood of these offerings properly? Nevertheless, Rabbi Shimon teaches in the baraita that the meat of an offering that was rendered piggul is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food. What, is it not referring to a case where he rendered it piggul during the rite of sprinkling? If so, since the offering stood to have its blood sprinkled, it is considered as though it has been sprinkled, and the offering was considered fit for consumption before he rendered it piggul; therefore, it should be susceptible to the impurity of food. The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is referring to a case where he rendered it piggul during the rite of slaughtering, and the blood never stood to be sprinkled.

讗讘诇 驻讬讙诇 讘讝专讬拽讛 诪讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: But if he rendered it piggul during the rite of the sprinkling, what is the halakha? Is the halakha that the meat of the offering indeed becomes susceptible to the ritual impurity of food?

讗讚转谞讬 驻讬讙诇 讘诪谞讞讛 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 讚驻讬讙诇 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗讘诇 驻讬讙诇 讘讝专讬拽讛 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉

The Gemara challenges: If so, rather than continuing and teaching that if he rendered the meal offering piggul it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, i.e., instead of contrasting the animal offering case with a case involving an meal offering, let the tanna distinguish within the case of the animal offering itself in the following way: In what case is this statement, that if one renders an offering piggul the meat is not susceptible to the impurity of food, said? It is said in a case where he rendered it piggul during the rite of slaughtering, but if he rendered it piggul during the rite of sprinkling, it is susceptible to the impurity of food.

驻讬讙诇 讘诪谞讞讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚驻讬讙诇 讘拽诪讬爪讛 讚拽讜诪抓 讘诪谞讞讛 讻砖讞讬讟讛 讚诪讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 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 诪注讬拽专讜

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for him to contrast it with a case of one who rendered a meal offering piggul in order to teach that even though he already rendered it piggul at the time of the removal of the handful, and the principle is that the removal of the handful of a meal offering is equivalent to the slaughtering of an animal offering, and an offering that was rendered piggul at the time of slaughtering is not susceptible to the impurity of food, even so, the meal offering is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, since it initially had a time that was fit for consumption, when the flour was not yet consecrated as a meal offering.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专讬转讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诇谉 诪诪砖 讜讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讚驻讬讙诇 讘讝专讬拽讛

Rav Ashi said: I related this discussion in the presence of Rav Na岣an and explained Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion differently: Even if you say that the case in the baraita is one in which the meat was actually left overnight and there was time to sprinkle the blood during the day, and even if you say that he rendered the offering piggul at the time of the sprinkling of the blood rather than during the slaughtering, Rabbi Shimon does not consider those to be cases in which the offering had a time when it was fit for consumption.

讚讗讬 讘注讬 驻专讬拽 讗诪专 讗讬 讘注讬 讛讜讛 讝专讬拽 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

Rabbi Shimon said only that if he had wanted, he would have redeemed it, and therefore an item that stands to be redeemed is treated as if it were already redeemed. Redemption is simple and requires only a verbal statement. According to Rabbi Shimon we do not say that if he had wanted, he would have sprinkled it, i.e., that the sprinkling of the blood and similar actions that stand to take place are treated as having taken place already.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讻诇 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讬转专 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 讜讻诇 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讬转专 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Ashi鈥檚 opinion from a mishna (Me鈥檌la 2a): Rabbi Yehoshua states a principle about the misuse of offerings that became disqualified: With regard to any offering that had a time that it was permitted for consumption by the priests before it became disqualified, one is not liable for misusing it, and with regard to any offering that did not have a time that it was permitted for consumption by the priests before it became disqualified, one is liable for misusing it. Misuse of consecrated property applies only to offerings that are considered fully reserved for God. Once the priests are permitted to partake of the offering it is no longer categorized as consecrated property.

讜讗讬讝讛讜 砖注转 讛讬转专 诇讻讛谞讬诐 砖诇谞讛 讜砖谞讟诪讗转 讜砖讬爪讗讛

Rabbi Yehoshua clarifies: And what is a disqualified offering that had a time that it was permitted for consumption by the priests? Examples of such a situation are as follows: When, after the blood was sprinkled, the meat of the offering was left overnight; or when the meat of an offering became ritually impure; or when an offering left the Temple courtyard. One is not liable for misuse in these cases, since the meat of these offerings became permitted to the priests once the blood was sprinkled and only subsequently was it disqualified.

讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讬转专 诇讻讛谞讬诐 砖谞砖讞讟讛 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讛 讜讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讛 讜砖拽讘诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讝专拽讜 讗转 讚诪讛

And what is a disqualified offering that did not have a time that it was permitted for consumption by the priests? Examples of such a situation are as follows: When, at the time that it was slaughtered, he intended to eat it, sprinkle the blood, or burn the sacrificial potions on the altar beyond its designated time or outside its designated area; or when priests who were disqualified for Temple service collected or sprinkled its blood. In these cases, since there was never a time that it was permitted for the priests to consume the meat of the offering, one is liable for the misuse of consecrated property.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 专讬砖讗 砖诇谞讛 讜砖谞讟诪讗转 讜砖讬爪讗讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇谞讛 诪诪砖 讜讛讻讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讛讜讛 讝专讬拽 讛讜讗 讜拽转谞讬 讚讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉

The Gemara addresses the objection to Rav Ashi鈥檚 opinion: In any event, the first clause teaches that meat of an offering that was left overnight, and meat that became impure, and meat that left the courtyard all had a time when they were permitted to the priests. What, is it not referring to a case where it was actually left overnight, i.e., both the blood and the meat of the offering, and here the case is an instance of: If he had wanted, he could have sprinkled the blood, and for that reason the mishna teaches that one is not liable for misusing it? It is considered as having had a time that it was permitted to the priests since he could have sprinkled the blood during the day, and therefore the offering is treated as if the sprinkling already happened, counter to Rav Ashi鈥檚 claim that such reasoning does not apply with regard to the sprinkling of the blood.

诇讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇爪讗转 讜专讗讜讬讛 诇讟诪讗 讜专讗讜讬讛 诇诇讬谉

The Gemara answers: No, the mishna is referring to cases where the meat left the courtyard at a time when it was fit to leave, and the meat became impure when it was fit to become impure, and was left over when it was fit to be left over, i.e., the mishna is discussing cases where these occurred after the blood was sprinkled, rendering the meat fit to be consumed by the priests. For that reason it was not subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property.

讗讘诇 诇讬谞讛 诪诪砖 诪讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讜注诇讬谉 讛讗讬 讻诇 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讬转专 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜讻诇 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讬转专 诇讻讛谞讬诐

The Gemara again challenges Rav Ashi鈥檚 opinion: But according to this, what is the halakha with regard to a case where the whole offering, including the blood, was actually left overnight? Is that indeed a case where one is liable for misusing consecrated property, as the priests never had a time when it was permitted to consume the meat? If so, those statements in the mishna: Any offering that had a time that it was permitted for consumption by the priests, and any offering that did not have a time that it was permitted for consumption by the priests, are imprecise. They indicate that the critical factor is whether the meat had a time that it was potentially permitted, even if it was ultimately disqualified.

讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖注转 讛讬转专 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 砖注转 讛讬转专 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

Instead, the mishna should have stated: With regard to any offering that has, in actuality, a time that it is permitted for consumption by the priests, one is not liable for misusing it. And, similarly, with regard to any offering that does not have a time that it is permitted for consumption by the priests, one is liable for misusing it.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪注讬诇讛 讗讟讜诪讗讛 拽讗 专诪讬转

It must be that Rav Ashi concedes that the mishna in Me鈥檌la should be understood to include the case where both the blood and the meat were leftover, and that under such circumstances one is not liable for misuse of the offering due to the fact that once the blood could have been sprinkled, the offering is already considered permitted to the priests. Rav Ashi nevertheless claims that this mishna does not pose a difficulty to his understanding of Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion with regard to an offering鈥檚 status as susceptible to the impurity of food. Rather, Rav Ashi says: Are you raising a contradiction between the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property and the halakhot of ritual impurity?

诪注讬诇讛 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖讛 讜诇讗讜 拽讚讜砖讛 讛讬讗 诇讘转专 讚驻拽注讛 诇讛 拽讚讜砖转讬讛 讘诪讗讬 讛讚专讗 专讻讘讗 诇讛

These cannot be compared, as liability for misuse of consecrated property is due to the sanctity or lack of sanctity of an item, i.e., on whether it is classified as fully reserved for God. Therefore, after the sanctity of the offering has lapsed, which occurs when the blood is ready to be sprinkled, as at that point it is already regarded as permitted to the priests, how can it return and be inured in it?

讟讜诪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讻诇讗 讜诇讗讜 (诪砖讜诐) 讗讜讻诇讗 讛讬讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讝专讬拽 诪爪讬 讝专讬拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 讗讜讻诇讗 讜诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 (诪爪讬) 讝专讬拽 诇讗 诪爪讬 讝专讬拽 诇讗 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 讗讜讻诇讗 [讜诇讗] 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉

But with regard to impurity, the offering鈥檚 susceptibility to the impurity of food is due to whether it is considered food or not considered food. Therefore, in any case where if he wants to sprinkle the blood he could sprinkle it, it is only in sprinkling the blood that he grants the meat the status of food, and then it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food. But in a case where if he wants to sprinkle the blood he cannot sprinkle it for some reason, and the offering is subsequently disqualified, he does not grant it the status of food, since it never became permitted to eat and it therefore is not susceptible to the impurity of food.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜谞讜讚注 砖诇讗 讞讟讗 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞砖讞讟 谞讜讚注 诇讜 讬爪讗 讜讬专注讛 讘注讚专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐

The Gemara raises another objection from a mishna (Karetot 23b) to Rav Ashi鈥檚 opinion that with regard to susceptibility to the impurity of food, blood that is ready to be sprinkled is not considered as if it were sprinkled: With regard to one who brings a provisional guilt offering to be sacrificed, because he is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering (see Leviticus 5:17鈥19), and later it becomes known to him that he has not sinned, the status of the offering is as follows: If it became known to him that he had not sinned before the offering was slaughtered, the consecrated ram should go out and graze in the flock as a non-sacred animal, as the consecration was performed in error. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say

讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬拽专讬讘 砖讗诐 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗 讝讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗 讗讞专

it is treated as a guilt offering that was disqualified and it should graze until it becomes blemished, and then it is sold, and its money that is received from the sale is allocated for communal gift offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: It should be sacrificed in its current state, since if it does not come to atone for this sin, it will come for a different sin, as he certainly committed some sin of which he is unaware.

诪砖谞砖讞讟 谞讜讚注 诇讜 讛讚诐 讬砖驻讱 讜讛讘砖专 讬砖专祝

If, after the provisional guilt offering was slaughtered, it became known to him that he had not sinned, the blood collected in a cup to sprinkle on the altar should be spilled into the Temple courtyard drain and the meat should be burned in the place of burning, in accordance with the halakhot of a disqualified offering.

谞讝专拽 讛讚诐 讛讘砖专 讬讗讻诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讚诐 讘讻讜住 讬讝专拽 讜讛讘砖专 讬讗讻诇

If the blood was already sprinkled on the altar when it became known to him that he had not sinned, the meat of the offering is eaten by the priests in the normal manner. And Rabbi Yosei says: Even if he discovered that he had not sinned while the blood was still in the cup, it is sprinkled on the altar and the meat is eaten.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇讝专讜拽 讻讝专讜拽 讚诪讬

And Rava says in explanation of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion: Rabbi Yosei stated this ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that for any blood that stands to be sprinkled on the altar, it is as if it has already been sprinkled. Therefore, once the blood is in the cup and is ready to be sprinkled, the meat is permitted as though the blood already had been sprinkled. This statement contradicts Rav Ashi鈥檚 opinion that with regard to the status of the meat as food, an offering whose blood stands to be sprinkled is not necessarily considered as though it has already been sprinkled.

诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚拽住讘专 讻诇讬 砖专转 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗转 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讬拽专讘

The Gemara responds: Is that the reason for Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion? They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina, that this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei: His reasoning is that he holds that a service vessel sanctifies disqualified offerings to be sacrificed on the altar ab initio, and in this case the blood was already in the service vessel.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇讝专讜拽 讻讝专讜拽 讚诪讬 讻诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇砖专讜祝 谞诪讬 讻砖专讜祝 讚诪讬 谞讜转专 讜驻专讛 讗诪讗讬 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注驻专讗 讘注诇诪讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讘转 讛拽讜讚砖 诪讻砖专转谉

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: Since Rabbi Shimon said that for any blood that stands to be sprinkled on the altar it is as if it has already been sprinkled, and for any item that stands to be burned it is as if it is already burned, why does he hold, as the Gemara mentioned previously (101b), that meat from an offering that is leftover, and the meat of a red heifer that is not yet burned on its pyre, are both susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, since there was a time that they were fit for consumption by the priests? They are merely dust, as they stand to be burned, and therefore should no longer retain the status of food. Rav Kahana said to Rav Ashi in response: Nevertheless, regard for the sanctity of sacred property renders them susceptible to the impurity of food.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 谞讛讬 讚诪讛谞讬讗 诇讛讜 讞讬讘转 讛拽讜讚砖 诇讗讬驻住讜诇讬 讚讙讜驻讬讛 诇讬拽专讜讬讬 讟诪讗 谞诪讬 诇诪讬诪谞讬 讘讬讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Granted that the regard for the sanctity of sacred property is effective in order to disqualify the meat itself if it becomes impure, but is it also considered impure to the extent that one counts first- and second-degree with regard to it, as indicated by the language: Susceptible to the ritual impurity of food? Accordingly, if the meat came into contact with a primary source of impurity, it would have first-degree impurity and it would subsequently transfer second-degree impurity to an item that comes into contact with it.

转驻砖讜讟 讚讘注讬 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 爪专讬讚 砖诇 诪谞讞讜转 诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讗讜 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬

If that were the case, one could resolve the dilemma that Reish Lakish raises: With regard to a dry portion of flour taken from one of the meal offerings that has not come into contact with a liquid and is therefore susceptible to impurity due only to regard for its sanctity, does one count first- and second-degree impurity with it, or does one not count first- and second-degree impurity with it? Since Reish Lakish鈥檚 inquiry is unresolved, presumably the same uncertainty applies here.

讻讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara responds: When Reish Lakish raises the dilemma, it is with regard to the status of the dry mass of the meal offering by Torah law, as consecrated items are burned only when rendered impure by Torah law. When we said that leftover meat and the meat of the red heifer are susceptible to the impurity of food, we were inquiring about the status of the leftover meat and of the red heifer by rabbinic law, and therefore nothing can be derived from the dilemma raised by Reish Lakish.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 讘诪讞讘转 讜讛讘讬讗 讘诪专讞砖转 讘诪专讞砖转 讜讛讘讬讗 讘诪讞讘转 诪讛 砖讛讘讬讗 讛讘讬讗 讜讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 诇讗 讬爪讗

MISHNA: In the case of one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared in a shallow pan, and he brought a meal offering prepared in a deep pan instead; or if he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared in a deep pan, and he brought a meal offering prepared in a shallow pan instead, the meal offering that he brought, he brought as a voluntary meal offering, but he has not fulfilled his obligation that he undertook with his vow and he must therefore bring another meal offering.

讝讜 诇讛讘讬讗 讘诪讞讘转 讜讛讘讬讗 讘诪专讞砖转 讘诪专讞砖转 讜讛讘讬讗 讘诪讞讘转 讛专讬 讝讜 驻住讜诇讛

If he said: This tenth of an ephah of flour is a meal offering to bring in a shallow pan, and he brought it prepared in a deep pan instead; or if he said: This tenth of an ephah of flour is a meal offering to bring in a deep pan, and he brought a meal offering prepared in a shallow pan, this offering is not valid, because he did not fulfill what he had stated concerning that tenth of an ephah of flour.

讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 砖谞讬 注砖专讜谞讜转 诇讛讘讬讗 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讜讛讘讬讗 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 诪讛 砖讛讘讬讗 讛讘讬讗 讜讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 诇讗 讬爪讗

In the case of one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring one meal offering of two tenths of an ephah in one vessel, and he divided it and brought it in two vessels, removing a handful from each; or if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring two tenths of an ephah for two meal offerings in two vessels, and he brought one meal offering of two tenths of an ephah in one vessel and removed one handful from it, then the meal offering that he brought, he brought as a voluntary meal offering, but he has not fulfilled his obligation.

讗诇讜 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讜讛讘讬讗 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讛专讬 讗诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉

If he says: These two tenths of an ephah before me are a meal offering in one vessel, and he divided them and brought them in two vessels, removing a handful from each; or if he says: These tenths of an ephah are two meal offerings in two vessels, and he brought them in one vessel, both of these offerings are not valid, because in both cases he deviated from the number of handfuls that he vowed to remove.

讛专讬 注诇讬 砖谞讬 注砖专讜谞讜转 诇讛讘讬讗 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讜讛讘讬讗 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 谞讚专转 讛拽专讬讘谉 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讻砖专讬谉

In the case of one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of two tenths of an ephah in one vessel, and he divided them and brought them in two vessels, and others said to him: You vowed to bring a meal offering in one vessel, then if he sacrificed the two tenths of an ephah in two vessels they are not valid even as voluntary meal offerings, and he must bring another meal offering to fulfill his obligation. His failure to respond and explain that it was not his intention to fulfill his vow with this offering indicates that he does intend to fulfill his vow with it. Since he deviated from his vow, the offering is not valid. If he sacrificed the two tenths of an ephah in one vessel after he was reminded, it is valid, as he fulfilled his vow.

讛专讬 注诇讬 砖谞讬 注砖专讜谞讜转 诇讛讘讬讗 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 谞讚专转 讛拽专讬讘谉 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讻砖专讬谉 谞转谞讜 诇讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讻砖转讬 诪谞讞讜转 砖谞转注专讘讜

Likewise, in a case where one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring two meal offerings totaling two tenths of an ephah in two vessels, and he brought it all in one vessel, and others said to him: You vowed to bring meal offerings in two vessels, then if he sacrificed the two tenths of an ephah in two vessels as he had originally vowed, they are valid. If he placed it all in one vessel, its halakhic status is like that of two meal offerings that were intermingled prior to removal of the handfuls. Therefore, if one can remove a handful from each meal offering in and of itself, they are valid. If not, they are not valid, as the Gemara explained on 23a.

讙诪壮 讜爪专讬讻讗

GEMARA: The mishna cites cases where one vowed to bring a meal offering prepared in a shallow pan and instead brought one prepared in a deep pan and vice versa, as well as cases where one vowed to bring two tenths of an ephah in one vessel and instead brought them in two vessels and vice versa. In all these cases, the offering is accepted but he has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the mishna to mention both types of changes from the initial vow.

讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 讘诪讞讘转 讜拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 讘诪专讞砖转 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘诪讞讘转 讜讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘诪专讞砖转 讗讬诪讗 讬讚讬 谞讚专讜 谞诪讬 讬爪讗

It is necessary because had the tanna taught us only this first case, one might think that perhaps this individual does not fulfill his obligation because he said: In a shallow pan, and he brought it instead in a deep pan. But here, where he changes the number of offerings but both this, the offering specified in his vow, and that, the offering that he actually brought, are in a shallow pan, or both this and that are in a deep pan, I would say that he has indeed fulfilled his vow, as the difference in number of offerings brought is not significant. Therefore, the tanna taught the second case as well, to teach that the change in the number is in fact significant.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讱 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 驻诇讬讙 诇讛讜 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙 讘讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And conversely, had the tanna taught us only this case, where there was a discrepancy between the number of offerings he vowed to bring and the number he actually brought, one might think that he does not fulfill his obligation only because he divided the two tenths of an ephah that were supposed to be brought together. But there, where he changed the type of pan but did not divide the flour to be used, I would say that it is not a case where he failed to fulfill his obligation. Therefore, it was necessary for the tanna to teach that where he changes the type of pan, he does not, in fact, fulfill his obligation.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讛 砖讛讘讬讗 讛讘讬讗 讜讬讚讬 谞讚专讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讬讚讬 谞讚专讜 谞诪讬 讬爪讗

The Sages taught in a baraita a case similar to that of the mishna: If one brings a meal offering somewhat different from that which he vowed to bring, then the one that he brought, he brought as a voluntary meal offering, but he has not fulfilled his vow. Rabbi Shimon says: He has even fulfilled his vow, as Rabbi Shimon maintains that the type of pan or the number of offerings is not significant.

讝讜 诇讛讘讬讗 讘诪讞讘转 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 诇讗 拽讬讚砖讜诐 讻诇讬 砖专转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽讬讚砖讜诐 诇讬拽专讘 讗讘诇 拽讬讚砖讜诐 诇讬驻住诇

搂 The mishna teaches that if he says: This tenth of an ephah of flour is a meal offering to bring in a shallow pan, and he brought a meal offering prepared in a deep pan instead, it is not valid. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that in this case the service vessel does not consecrate the flour, since he brought it in a different service vessel than he had vowed? Therefore, the meal offering is still non-sacred and can be used. The Gemara answers that the baraita should be understood according to that which Abaye says: Under such circumstances, the service vessel does not sanctify them with regard to being sacrificed on the altar, but it does sanctify them in order to become disqualified.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜

And Abaye says an additional comment about the previous case: The Sages taught in the mishna that in the case of a change in the type of meal offering, the meal offering not valid

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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 102

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 102

讜讗讬 讘注讬 讝专讬拽 讜拽转谞讬 讚讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚驻讬讙诇 讘讝专讬拽讛 诇讗 讚驻讬讙诇 讘砖讞讬讟讛

and if he had wanted, he could have sprinkled the blood of these offerings properly? Nevertheless, Rabbi Shimon teaches in the baraita that the meat of an offering that was rendered piggul is not susceptible to the ritual impurity of food. What, is it not referring to a case where he rendered it piggul during the rite of sprinkling? If so, since the offering stood to have its blood sprinkled, it is considered as though it has been sprinkled, and the offering was considered fit for consumption before he rendered it piggul; therefore, it should be susceptible to the impurity of food. The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is referring to a case where he rendered it piggul during the rite of slaughtering, and the blood never stood to be sprinkled.

讗讘诇 驻讬讙诇 讘讝专讬拽讛 诪讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: But if he rendered it piggul during the rite of the sprinkling, what is the halakha? Is the halakha that the meat of the offering indeed becomes susceptible to the ritual impurity of food?

讗讚转谞讬 驻讬讙诇 讘诪谞讞讛 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 讚驻讬讙诇 讘砖讞讬讟讛 讗讘诇 驻讬讙诇 讘讝专讬拽讛 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉

The Gemara challenges: If so, rather than continuing and teaching that if he rendered the meal offering piggul it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, i.e., instead of contrasting the animal offering case with a case involving an meal offering, let the tanna distinguish within the case of the animal offering itself in the following way: In what case is this statement, that if one renders an offering piggul the meat is not susceptible to the impurity of food, said? It is said in a case where he rendered it piggul during the rite of slaughtering, but if he rendered it piggul during the rite of sprinkling, it is susceptible to the impurity of food.

驻讬讙诇 讘诪谞讞讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚驻讬讙诇 讘拽诪讬爪讛 讚拽讜诪抓 讘诪谞讞讛 讻砖讞讬讟讛 讚诪讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 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 诪注讬拽专讜

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for him to contrast it with a case of one who rendered a meal offering piggul in order to teach that even though he already rendered it piggul at the time of the removal of the handful, and the principle is that the removal of the handful of a meal offering is equivalent to the slaughtering of an animal offering, and an offering that was rendered piggul at the time of slaughtering is not susceptible to the impurity of food, even so, the meal offering is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, since it initially had a time that was fit for consumption, when the flour was not yet consecrated as a meal offering.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专讬转讛 诇砖诪注转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诇谉 诪诪砖 讜讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 讚驻讬讙诇 讘讝专讬拽讛

Rav Ashi said: I related this discussion in the presence of Rav Na岣an and explained Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion differently: Even if you say that the case in the baraita is one in which the meat was actually left overnight and there was time to sprinkle the blood during the day, and even if you say that he rendered the offering piggul at the time of the sprinkling of the blood rather than during the slaughtering, Rabbi Shimon does not consider those to be cases in which the offering had a time when it was fit for consumption.

讚讗讬 讘注讬 驻专讬拽 讗诪专 讗讬 讘注讬 讛讜讛 讝专讬拽 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

Rabbi Shimon said only that if he had wanted, he would have redeemed it, and therefore an item that stands to be redeemed is treated as if it were already redeemed. Redemption is simple and requires only a verbal statement. According to Rabbi Shimon we do not say that if he had wanted, he would have sprinkled it, i.e., that the sprinkling of the blood and similar actions that stand to take place are treated as having taken place already.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讻诇诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讻诇 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讬转专 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 讜讻诇 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讬转专 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Ashi鈥檚 opinion from a mishna (Me鈥檌la 2a): Rabbi Yehoshua states a principle about the misuse of offerings that became disqualified: With regard to any offering that had a time that it was permitted for consumption by the priests before it became disqualified, one is not liable for misusing it, and with regard to any offering that did not have a time that it was permitted for consumption by the priests before it became disqualified, one is liable for misusing it. Misuse of consecrated property applies only to offerings that are considered fully reserved for God. Once the priests are permitted to partake of the offering it is no longer categorized as consecrated property.

讜讗讬讝讛讜 砖注转 讛讬转专 诇讻讛谞讬诐 砖诇谞讛 讜砖谞讟诪讗转 讜砖讬爪讗讛

Rabbi Yehoshua clarifies: And what is a disqualified offering that had a time that it was permitted for consumption by the priests? Examples of such a situation are as follows: When, after the blood was sprinkled, the meat of the offering was left overnight; or when the meat of an offering became ritually impure; or when an offering left the Temple courtyard. One is not liable for misuse in these cases, since the meat of these offerings became permitted to the priests once the blood was sprinkled and only subsequently was it disqualified.

讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讬转专 诇讻讛谞讬诐 砖谞砖讞讟讛 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讛 讜讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讛 讜砖拽讘诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讝专拽讜 讗转 讚诪讛

And what is a disqualified offering that did not have a time that it was permitted for consumption by the priests? Examples of such a situation are as follows: When, at the time that it was slaughtered, he intended to eat it, sprinkle the blood, or burn the sacrificial potions on the altar beyond its designated time or outside its designated area; or when priests who were disqualified for Temple service collected or sprinkled its blood. In these cases, since there was never a time that it was permitted for the priests to consume the meat of the offering, one is liable for the misuse of consecrated property.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 专讬砖讗 砖诇谞讛 讜砖谞讟诪讗转 讜砖讬爪讗讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇谞讛 诪诪砖 讜讛讻讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讛讜讛 讝专讬拽 讛讜讗 讜拽转谞讬 讚讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉

The Gemara addresses the objection to Rav Ashi鈥檚 opinion: In any event, the first clause teaches that meat of an offering that was left overnight, and meat that became impure, and meat that left the courtyard all had a time when they were permitted to the priests. What, is it not referring to a case where it was actually left overnight, i.e., both the blood and the meat of the offering, and here the case is an instance of: If he had wanted, he could have sprinkled the blood, and for that reason the mishna teaches that one is not liable for misusing it? It is considered as having had a time that it was permitted to the priests since he could have sprinkled the blood during the day, and therefore the offering is treated as if the sprinkling already happened, counter to Rav Ashi鈥檚 claim that such reasoning does not apply with regard to the sprinkling of the blood.

诇讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇爪讗转 讜专讗讜讬讛 诇讟诪讗 讜专讗讜讬讛 诇诇讬谉

The Gemara answers: No, the mishna is referring to cases where the meat left the courtyard at a time when it was fit to leave, and the meat became impure when it was fit to become impure, and was left over when it was fit to be left over, i.e., the mishna is discussing cases where these occurred after the blood was sprinkled, rendering the meat fit to be consumed by the priests. For that reason it was not subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property.

讗讘诇 诇讬谞讛 诪诪砖 诪讗讬 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诪讜注诇讬谉 讛讗讬 讻诇 砖讛讬讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讬转专 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讜讻诇 砖诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讬转专 诇讻讛谞讬诐

The Gemara again challenges Rav Ashi鈥檚 opinion: But according to this, what is the halakha with regard to a case where the whole offering, including the blood, was actually left overnight? Is that indeed a case where one is liable for misusing consecrated property, as the priests never had a time when it was permitted to consume the meat? If so, those statements in the mishna: Any offering that had a time that it was permitted for consumption by the priests, and any offering that did not have a time that it was permitted for consumption by the priests, are imprecise. They indicate that the critical factor is whether the meat had a time that it was potentially permitted, even if it was ultimately disqualified.

讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 砖注转 讛讬转专 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 讜讻诇 砖讗讬谉 诇讛 砖注转 讛讬转专 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

Instead, the mishna should have stated: With regard to any offering that has, in actuality, a time that it is permitted for consumption by the priests, one is not liable for misusing it. And, similarly, with regard to any offering that does not have a time that it is permitted for consumption by the priests, one is liable for misusing it.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪注讬诇讛 讗讟讜诪讗讛 拽讗 专诪讬转

It must be that Rav Ashi concedes that the mishna in Me鈥檌la should be understood to include the case where both the blood and the meat were leftover, and that under such circumstances one is not liable for misuse of the offering due to the fact that once the blood could have been sprinkled, the offering is already considered permitted to the priests. Rav Ashi nevertheless claims that this mishna does not pose a difficulty to his understanding of Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion with regard to an offering鈥檚 status as susceptible to the impurity of food. Rather, Rav Ashi says: Are you raising a contradiction between the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property and the halakhot of ritual impurity?

诪注讬诇讛 诪砖讜诐 拽讚讜砖讛 讜诇讗讜 拽讚讜砖讛 讛讬讗 诇讘转专 讚驻拽注讛 诇讛 拽讚讜砖转讬讛 讘诪讗讬 讛讚专讗 专讻讘讗 诇讛

These cannot be compared, as liability for misuse of consecrated property is due to the sanctity or lack of sanctity of an item, i.e., on whether it is classified as fully reserved for God. Therefore, after the sanctity of the offering has lapsed, which occurs when the blood is ready to be sprinkled, as at that point it is already regarded as permitted to the priests, how can it return and be inured in it?

讟讜诪讗讛 诪砖讜诐 讗讜讻诇讗 讜诇讗讜 (诪砖讜诐) 讗讜讻诇讗 讛讬讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 讝专讬拽 诪爪讬 讝专讬拽 诇讬讛 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 讗讜讻诇讗 讜诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讘注讬 (诪爪讬) 讝专讬拽 诇讗 诪爪讬 讝专讬拽 诇讗 诪砖讜讬 诇讬讛 讗讜讻诇讗 [讜诇讗] 诪讟诪讗 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉

But with regard to impurity, the offering鈥檚 susceptibility to the impurity of food is due to whether it is considered food or not considered food. Therefore, in any case where if he wants to sprinkle the blood he could sprinkle it, it is only in sprinkling the blood that he grants the meat the status of food, and then it is susceptible to the ritual impurity of food. But in a case where if he wants to sprinkle the blood he cannot sprinkle it for some reason, and the offering is subsequently disqualified, he does not grant it the status of food, since it never became permitted to eat and it therefore is not susceptible to the impurity of food.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪讘讬讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讜谞讜讚注 砖诇讗 讞讟讗 讗诐 注讚 砖诇讗 谞砖讞讟 谞讜讚注 诇讜 讬爪讗 讜讬专注讛 讘注讚专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐

The Gemara raises another objection from a mishna (Karetot 23b) to Rav Ashi鈥檚 opinion that with regard to susceptibility to the impurity of food, blood that is ready to be sprinkled is not considered as if it were sprinkled: With regard to one who brings a provisional guilt offering to be sacrificed, because he is uncertain as to whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering (see Leviticus 5:17鈥19), and later it becomes known to him that he has not sinned, the status of the offering is as follows: If it became known to him that he had not sinned before the offering was slaughtered, the consecrated ram should go out and graze in the flock as a non-sacred animal, as the consecration was performed in error. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say

讬专注讛 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘 讜讬诪讻专 讜讬驻诇讜 讚诪讬讜 诇谞讚讘讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬拽专讬讘 砖讗诐 讗讬谞讜 讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗 讝讛 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讗 注诇 讞讟讗 讗讞专

it is treated as a guilt offering that was disqualified and it should graze until it becomes blemished, and then it is sold, and its money that is received from the sale is allocated for communal gift offerings. Rabbi Eliezer says: It should be sacrificed in its current state, since if it does not come to atone for this sin, it will come for a different sin, as he certainly committed some sin of which he is unaware.

诪砖谞砖讞讟 谞讜讚注 诇讜 讛讚诐 讬砖驻讱 讜讛讘砖专 讬砖专祝

If, after the provisional guilt offering was slaughtered, it became known to him that he had not sinned, the blood collected in a cup to sprinkle on the altar should be spilled into the Temple courtyard drain and the meat should be burned in the place of burning, in accordance with the halakhot of a disqualified offering.

谞讝专拽 讛讚诐 讛讘砖专 讬讗讻诇 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讚诐 讘讻讜住 讬讝专拽 讜讛讘砖专 讬讗讻诇

If the blood was already sprinkled on the altar when it became known to him that he had not sinned, the meat of the offering is eaten by the priests in the normal manner. And Rabbi Yosei says: Even if he discovered that he had not sinned while the blood was still in the cup, it is sprinkled on the altar and the meat is eaten.

讜讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘砖讬讟转 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专 讚讗诪专 讻诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇讝专讜拽 讻讝专讜拽 讚诪讬

And Rava says in explanation of Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion: Rabbi Yosei stated this ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says that for any blood that stands to be sprinkled on the altar, it is as if it has already been sprinkled. Therefore, once the blood is in the cup and is ready to be sprinkled, the meat is permitted as though the blood already had been sprinkled. This statement contradicts Rav Ashi鈥檚 opinion that with regard to the status of the meat as food, an offering whose blood stands to be sprinkled is not necessarily considered as though it has already been sprinkled.

诪讬讚讬 讛讜讗 讟注诪讗 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚拽住讘专 讻诇讬 砖专转 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗转 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讬拽专讘

The Gemara responds: Is that the reason for Rabbi Yosei鈥檚 opinion? They say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar 岣nina, that this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei: His reasoning is that he holds that a service vessel sanctifies disqualified offerings to be sacrificed on the altar ab initio, and in this case the blood was already in the service vessel.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇讝专讜拽 讻讝专讜拽 讚诪讬 讻诇 讛注讜诪讚 诇砖专讜祝 谞诪讬 讻砖专讜祝 讚诪讬 谞讜转专 讜驻专讛 讗诪讗讬 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讟讜诪讗转 讗讜讻诇讬谉 注驻专讗 讘注诇诪讗 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讞讬讘转 讛拽讜讚砖 诪讻砖专转谉

Rav Ashi said to Rav Kahana: Since Rabbi Shimon said that for any blood that stands to be sprinkled on the altar it is as if it has already been sprinkled, and for any item that stands to be burned it is as if it is already burned, why does he hold, as the Gemara mentioned previously (101b), that meat from an offering that is leftover, and the meat of a red heifer that is not yet burned on its pyre, are both susceptible to the ritual impurity of food, since there was a time that they were fit for consumption by the priests? They are merely dust, as they stand to be burned, and therefore should no longer retain the status of food. Rav Kahana said to Rav Ashi in response: Nevertheless, regard for the sanctity of sacred property renders them susceptible to the impurity of food.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 谞讛讬 讚诪讛谞讬讗 诇讛讜 讞讬讘转 讛拽讜讚砖 诇讗讬驻住讜诇讬 讚讙讜驻讬讛 诇讬拽专讜讬讬 讟诪讗 谞诪讬 诇诪讬诪谞讬 讘讬讛 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: Granted that the regard for the sanctity of sacred property is effective in order to disqualify the meat itself if it becomes impure, but is it also considered impure to the extent that one counts first- and second-degree with regard to it, as indicated by the language: Susceptible to the ritual impurity of food? Accordingly, if the meat came into contact with a primary source of impurity, it would have first-degree impurity and it would subsequently transfer second-degree impurity to an item that comes into contact with it.

转驻砖讜讟 讚讘注讬 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 爪专讬讚 砖诇 诪谞讞讜转 诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬 讗讜 讗讬谉 诪讜谞讬谉 讘讜 专讗砖讜谉 讜砖谞讬

If that were the case, one could resolve the dilemma that Reish Lakish raises: With regard to a dry portion of flour taken from one of the meal offerings that has not come into contact with a liquid and is therefore susceptible to impurity due only to regard for its sanctity, does one count first- and second-degree impurity with it, or does one not count first- and second-degree impurity with it? Since Reish Lakish鈥檚 inquiry is unresolved, presumably the same uncertainty applies here.

讻讬 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉 讚专讘谞谉

The Gemara responds: When Reish Lakish raises the dilemma, it is with regard to the status of the dry mass of the meal offering by Torah law, as consecrated items are burned only when rendered impure by Torah law. When we said that leftover meat and the meat of the red heifer are susceptible to the impurity of food, we were inquiring about the status of the leftover meat and of the red heifer by rabbinic law, and therefore nothing can be derived from the dilemma raised by Reish Lakish.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 讘诪讞讘转 讜讛讘讬讗 讘诪专讞砖转 讘诪专讞砖转 讜讛讘讬讗 讘诪讞讘转 诪讛 砖讛讘讬讗 讛讘讬讗 讜讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 诇讗 讬爪讗

MISHNA: In the case of one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared in a shallow pan, and he brought a meal offering prepared in a deep pan instead; or if he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering prepared in a deep pan, and he brought a meal offering prepared in a shallow pan instead, the meal offering that he brought, he brought as a voluntary meal offering, but he has not fulfilled his obligation that he undertook with his vow and he must therefore bring another meal offering.

讝讜 诇讛讘讬讗 讘诪讞讘转 讜讛讘讬讗 讘诪专讞砖转 讘诪专讞砖转 讜讛讘讬讗 讘诪讞讘转 讛专讬 讝讜 驻住讜诇讛

If he said: This tenth of an ephah of flour is a meal offering to bring in a shallow pan, and he brought it prepared in a deep pan instead; or if he said: This tenth of an ephah of flour is a meal offering to bring in a deep pan, and he brought a meal offering prepared in a shallow pan, this offering is not valid, because he did not fulfill what he had stated concerning that tenth of an ephah of flour.

讛讗讜诪专 讛专讬 注诇讬 砖谞讬 注砖专讜谞讜转 诇讛讘讬讗 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讜讛讘讬讗 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 诪讛 砖讛讘讬讗 讛讘讬讗 讜讬讚讬 讞讜讘转讜 诇讗 讬爪讗

In the case of one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring one meal offering of two tenths of an ephah in one vessel, and he divided it and brought it in two vessels, removing a handful from each; or if he says: It is incumbent upon me to bring two tenths of an ephah for two meal offerings in two vessels, and he brought one meal offering of two tenths of an ephah in one vessel and removed one handful from it, then the meal offering that he brought, he brought as a voluntary meal offering, but he has not fulfilled his obligation.

讗诇讜 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讜讛讘讬讗 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讛专讬 讗诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉

If he says: These two tenths of an ephah before me are a meal offering in one vessel, and he divided them and brought them in two vessels, removing a handful from each; or if he says: These tenths of an ephah are two meal offerings in two vessels, and he brought them in one vessel, both of these offerings are not valid, because in both cases he deviated from the number of handfuls that he vowed to remove.

讛专讬 注诇讬 砖谞讬 注砖专讜谞讜转 诇讛讘讬讗 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讜讛讘讬讗 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 谞讚专转 讛拽专讬讘谉 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讻砖专讬谉

In the case of one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring a meal offering of two tenths of an ephah in one vessel, and he divided them and brought them in two vessels, and others said to him: You vowed to bring a meal offering in one vessel, then if he sacrificed the two tenths of an ephah in two vessels they are not valid even as voluntary meal offerings, and he must bring another meal offering to fulfill his obligation. His failure to respond and explain that it was not his intention to fulfill his vow with this offering indicates that he does intend to fulfill his vow with it. Since he deviated from his vow, the offering is not valid. If he sacrificed the two tenths of an ephah in one vessel after he was reminded, it is valid, as he fulfilled his vow.

讛专讬 注诇讬 砖谞讬 注砖专讜谞讜转 诇讛讘讬讗 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗 讘讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 谞讚专转 讛拽专讬讘谉 讘砖谞讬 讻诇讬诐 讻砖专讬谉 谞转谞讜 诇讻诇讬 讗讞讚 讻砖转讬 诪谞讞讜转 砖谞转注专讘讜

Likewise, in a case where one says: It is incumbent upon me to bring two meal offerings totaling two tenths of an ephah in two vessels, and he brought it all in one vessel, and others said to him: You vowed to bring meal offerings in two vessels, then if he sacrificed the two tenths of an ephah in two vessels as he had originally vowed, they are valid. If he placed it all in one vessel, its halakhic status is like that of two meal offerings that were intermingled prior to removal of the handfuls. Therefore, if one can remove a handful from each meal offering in and of itself, they are valid. If not, they are not valid, as the Gemara explained on 23a.

讙诪壮 讜爪专讬讻讗

GEMARA: The mishna cites cases where one vowed to bring a meal offering prepared in a shallow pan and instead brought one prepared in a deep pan and vice versa, as well as cases where one vowed to bring two tenths of an ephah in one vessel and instead brought them in two vessels and vice versa. In all these cases, the offering is accepted but he has not fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara comments: And it is necessary for the mishna to mention both types of changes from the initial vow.

讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讱 拽诪讬讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 讘诪讞讘转 讜拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 讘诪专讞砖转 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘诪讞讘转 讜讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讘诪专讞砖转 讗讬诪讗 讬讚讬 谞讚专讜 谞诪讬 讬爪讗

It is necessary because had the tanna taught us only this first case, one might think that perhaps this individual does not fulfill his obligation because he said: In a shallow pan, and he brought it instead in a deep pan. But here, where he changes the number of offerings but both this, the offering specified in his vow, and that, the offering that he actually brought, are in a shallow pan, or both this and that are in a deep pan, I would say that he has indeed fulfilled his vow, as the difference in number of offerings brought is not significant. Therefore, the tanna taught the second case as well, to teach that the change in the number is in fact significant.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讱 诪砖讜诐 讚拽讗 驻诇讬讙 诇讛讜 讗讘诇 讛转诐 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙 讘讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And conversely, had the tanna taught us only this case, where there was a discrepancy between the number of offerings he vowed to bring and the number he actually brought, one might think that he does not fulfill his obligation only because he divided the two tenths of an ephah that were supposed to be brought together. But there, where he changed the type of pan but did not divide the flour to be used, I would say that it is not a case where he failed to fulfill his obligation. Therefore, it was necessary for the tanna to teach that where he changes the type of pan, he does not, in fact, fulfill his obligation.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪讛 砖讛讘讬讗 讛讘讬讗 讜讬讚讬 谞讚专讜 诇讗 讬爪讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讬讚讬 谞讚专讜 谞诪讬 讬爪讗

The Sages taught in a baraita a case similar to that of the mishna: If one brings a meal offering somewhat different from that which he vowed to bring, then the one that he brought, he brought as a voluntary meal offering, but he has not fulfilled his vow. Rabbi Shimon says: He has even fulfilled his vow, as Rabbi Shimon maintains that the type of pan or the number of offerings is not significant.

讝讜 诇讛讘讬讗 讘诪讞讘转 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 诇讗 拽讬讚砖讜诐 讻诇讬 砖专转 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 拽讬讚砖讜诐 诇讬拽专讘 讗讘诇 拽讬讚砖讜诐 诇讬驻住诇

搂 The mishna teaches that if he says: This tenth of an ephah of flour is a meal offering to bring in a shallow pan, and he brought a meal offering prepared in a deep pan instead, it is not valid. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that in this case the service vessel does not consecrate the flour, since he brought it in a different service vessel than he had vowed? Therefore, the meal offering is still non-sacred and can be used. The Gemara answers that the baraita should be understood according to that which Abaye says: Under such circumstances, the service vessel does not sanctify them with regard to being sacrificed on the altar, but it does sanctify them in order to become disqualified.

讜讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜

And Abaye says an additional comment about the previous case: The Sages taught in the mishna that in the case of a change in the type of meal offering, the meal offering not valid

Scroll To Top