In offerings that have several parts, i.e. 2 lambs and 2 loaves of bread (Shavuot) or 2 bowls of frankincense and 2 sets of 6 loaves of the showbread, do pigul thoughts regarding part of the bread affect all of the bread? Additionally, since both lambs need to be slaugghtered to permit the bread, would a pigul thought during the slaughter of one of the animals, make the bread pigul or does one need to have the thought during the slaughtering of each of the animals?
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
This month’s learning is sponsored by Beth Balkany in honor of their granddaughter, Devorah Chana Serach Eichel. “May she grow up to be a lifelong learner.”
Menachot 14
אלא אי אמרת תרי גופי נינהו מי מיצטרפי
But if you say that Rabbi Yosei holds that the right and left thighs of an offering are considered two distinct bodies, and therefore piggul intent with regard to one does not render the other piggul, then in the case of the two loaves, would the intentions concerning both loaves combine to render them both piggul?
הא מני רבי היא דתניא השוחט את הכבש לאכול חצי זית מחלה זו וכן חבירו לאכול חצי זית מחלה זו רבי אומר אומר אני שזה כשר
Rav Huna responds: One cannot infer anything from this baraita with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in another baraita: With regard to one who slaughters one of the lambs brought as peace offerings on Shavuot with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from this loaf the next day, and similarly, he slaughtered the other lamb with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from that second loaf the next day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that this offering is valid, as his intentions do not combine.
טעמא דאמר חצי חצי אבל אמר כזית משתיהן מצטרף
Rav Huna continues: It may be inferred that the reason why the priest’s intentions do not combine is that his intent was said with regard to a half and a half, i.e., he slaughtered each lamb with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from one loaf the next day. But if he said during the slaughter of each of the lambs that he is slaughtering it with the intent to consume an olive-bulk from both of them, then the halves combine to render the offering piggul.
ורבי אליבא דמאן אי אליבא דרבנן אפי’ באחת מהן נמי אי אליבא דר’ יוסי הדרא קושיין לדוכתיה
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says that the two loaves are piggul only if he has intent with regard to an amount equal to an olive-bulk from both of them combined, in accordance with whose opinion is his statement? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis of the mishna, who hold that piggul intent with regard to one loaf renders both loaves piggul, then even if his intent was with regard to only one of them, both loaves should be piggul. And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that piggul intent with regard to one loaf does not render the second loaf piggul, then our difficulty returns to its place: If Rabbi Yosei holds that the right and left thighs are considered two distinct bodies, how can intentions with regard to two halves of an olive-bulk combine to render both loaves piggul?
לעולם אליבא דרבנן ולא תימא עד שיפגל בשתיהן אלא [אימא עד שיפגל] בשניהן ואפילו באחת מהן
The Gemara responds: Actually, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And do not say that the baraita states: It is not piggul unless one has the intent of piggul with regard to both of them [bishteihen], in the feminine form, whereby the baraita would be referring to the loaves. Rather, the baraita states: With regard to both of them [bishneihen], in the masculine form, i.e., unless he slaughters both lambs with piggul intent, and in such a case, even if his intent was with regard to only one of the loaves, the offering is piggul.
ולאפוקי מדר’ מאיר דאמר מפגלין בחצי מתיר קמ”ל דלא
The Gemara adds: And this baraita serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says in the mishna on 16a: One renders an offering piggul by means of intent during the sacrifice of half a permitting factor, e.g., if one slaughtered one of the lambs with the intent to consume the two loaves the next day, the loaves are piggul. This baraita teaches us that this is not the halakha.
אי הכי מאי לעולם אי אמרת בשלמא בשתיהן ובשניהן ורבי יוסי היא ולאפוקי מדר”מ ומדרבנן קאתי היינו דקאמר לעולם
The Gemara asks: If so, then what is the meaning of the emphasis in the baraita: There is never liability? Granted, this phrase is understandable if you say that the baraita means that the loaves are not piggul unless he has intent with regard to both of the loaves and both of the lambs, i.e., they are piggul only if he slaughters both lambs with the intention to partake of both loaves the next day. In that case the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and it comes to exclude the statements of both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, and this is the reason that the baraita states: There is never liability, to emphasize that Rabbi Yosei disagrees with both of these opinions.
אלא אי אמרת רבנן ולאפוקי מדר”מ מאי לעולם
But if you say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and that it serves to exclude only the opinion of Rabbi Meir, for what reason does the baraita stress: There is never liability? The tanna would not use such a word to exclude merely one opinion. Rather, it must be that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. If so, then the difficulty raised against Rav Huna, who says that piggul intent concerning the right thigh does not render the left one piggul, remains unresolved.
ועוד הא אמר רב אשי ת”ש רבי אומר משום רבי יוסי פיגל בדבר הנעשה בחוץ פיגל בדבר הנעשה בפנים לא פיגל
And furthermore, didn’t Rav Ashi say: Come and hear a refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says in the name of Rabbi Yosei that if, while performing the sacrificial rites for the bulls or goats which are burned as an offering, the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul with regard to a matter that is performed outside the Sanctuary, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, he has rendered the offering piggul. If his intention was with regard to a matter that is performed inside the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies, he has not rendered the offering piggul.
כיצד היה עומד בחוץ ואמר הריני שוחט ע”מ להזות מדמו למחר לא פיגל שמחשבה בחוץ בדבר הנעשה בפנים היה עומד בפנים ואמר הריני מזה ע”מ להקטיר אימורין למחר ולשפוך שיריים למחר לא פיגל שמחשבה בפנים בדבר הנעשה בחוץ
The baraita elaborates: How so? If he was standing outside when slaughtering the animal and said: I hereby slaughter the animal with the intention of sprinkling its blood tomorrow inside the Sanctuary, he has not rendered the offering piggul. The reason is that when one has an intention outside with regard to a matter that is performed inside, he has not rendered the offering piggul. Likewise, if he was standing inside when sprinkling, and said: I hereby sprinkle the blood of the sin offering in order to burn its sacrificial portions on the external altar tomorrow and to pour out its remainder on the base of the altar tomorrow, he has not rendered the offering piggul, as he had an intention inside with regard to a matter that is performed outside.
היה עומד בחוץ ואמר הריני שוחט ע”מ לשפוך שיריים למחר ולהקטיר אימורין למחר פיגל שמחשבה בחוץ בדבר הנעשה בחוץ
But if he was standing outside and said: I hereby slaughter the animal with the intention to pour out the remainder of its blood tomorrow, or to burn its sacrificial portions tomorrow, he has rendered the offering piggul, as he had an intention outside with regard to a matter that is performed outside.
לשפוך שיריים לאיפגולי מאי אילימא לאיפגולי דם דם מי מיפגל והתנן אלו דברים שאין חייבין עליהן משום פיגול הקומץ והלבונה והקטורת ומנחת כהנים ומנחת נסכים ומנחת כהן משיח והדם
The Gemara analyzes this baraita: With regard to the case where one slaughtered the offering with the intent to pour the remaining blood the next day, what could be rendered piggul? If we say the blood could be rendered piggul, one can ask: Does blood become piggul? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Zevaḥim 42b): These are the items for which one is not liable to receive karet due to the prohibition of piggul: The handful; the frankincense; the incense; the meal offering of priests; the meal offering accompanying the libations brought with an animal offering; the meal offering of the anointed priest; and the blood?
אלא פשיטא לאפגולי בשר השתא ומה התם דלא חשיב ביה בבשר גופיה א”ר יוסי מיפגל הכא דחשיב ביה בזבח גופיה לא כ”ש דפיגל בירך ימין פיגל בירך שמאל
Rather, it is obvious that the baraita means that it is the meat of the offering that could be rendered piggul. Now consider: And if there, in the baraita, where he did not have intent with regard to the meat itself, as his intention was not to partake of the meat the next day but to pour the remaining blood the next day, and yet Rabbi Yosei said that the meat is rendered piggul; then here, where he has intent to partake of the right thigh the next day, which is part of the offering itself, is it not all the more so that if he had intent of piggul with regard to the right thigh, he has rendered the left thigh piggul as well?
ועוד האמר רבינא תא שמע הקומץ את המנחה לאכול שיריה או להקטיר קומצה למחר מודה רבי יוסי בזו שפיגל וחייבין עליו כרת
And furthermore, doesn’t Ravina say: Come and hear a refutation of the statement of Rav Huna from the mishna (13a): In the case of one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder or to burn its handful on the next day, Rabbi Yosei concedes in this instance that he has rendered the offering piggul and he is liable to receive karet for partaking of it.
להקטיר קומצה לאיפגולי מאי אילימא לאיפגולי קומץ קומץ מי מיפגל והתנן אלו דברים שאין חייבין עליהן משום פיגול הקומץ כו’ אלא פשיטא לאיפגולי שיריים השתא ומה התם דלא חשיב בהו בשיריים גופיה
Ravina continues: When one removes the handful with the intent to burn its handful, what could be rendered piggul? If we say that the handful could be rendered piggul, does the handful become piggul? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Zevaḥim 42b): These are the items for which one is not liable to receive karet due to the prohibition of piggul: The handful, etc. Rather, it is obvious that the remainder could be rendered piggul. Now consider: And if there, in the mishna, where he did not have intent with regard to the remainder itself, i.e., to partake of the remainder the next day,
מיפגלי הכא דחשיב בהו בזביחה גופה לא כ”ש
and yet Rabbi Yosei said that the remainder is rendered piggul; then here, where he has intent to partake of the right thigh the next day, which is part of the offering itself, is it not all the more so that both thighs should become piggul?
אלא א”ר יוחנן ה”ט דרבי יוסי הכתוב עשאן גוף אחד והכתוב עשאן שני גופין גוף אחד דמעכבי אהדדי שני גופין דאמר רחמנא הא לחודה עבידא והא לחודה עבידא
Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Yosei holds that intent of piggul with regard to one thigh renders the other thigh piggul as well, as they are of one body. Similarly, with regard to two loaves, Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that if one intends to consume an amount equal to an olive-bulk from both loaves, both loaves are rendered piggul. And as for his statement that intent of piggul with regard to one loaf does not render the other loaf piggul, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei: The verse renders the two loaves one body, and the verse also renders them two bodies. The verse renders them one body in the sense that they preclude one another, i.e., neither loaf is valid without the other. The verse also renders them two bodies, as the Merciful One states: This loaf is prepared alone and that is prepared alone, i.e., the kneading and arrangement of each loaf must be performed separately.
ערבינהו מתערבין דהכתוב עשאן גוף אחד פלגינהו מיפלגי דהכתוב עשאן שני גופין
Therefore, if the priest mixed them together by intending to consume an olive-bulk from both of them, then they are mixed and they are both piggul, as the verse renders them one body. But if he separated them by having intent with regard to only one loaf, in that case they are separated and only that loaf is piggul, as the verse renders them two bodies.
בעי רבי יוחנן פיגל בלחמי תודה מהו במנחת מאפה מהו תנא ליה רב תחליפא ממערבא וכן אתה אומר בלחמי תודה וכן אתה אומר במנחת מאפה
Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: If one had intent of piggul with regard to one type of loaf from the loaves of a thanks offering, what is the halakha concerning the remaining types of loaves, i.e., are they rendered piggul as well? Similarly, if one had intent of piggul with regard to either the loaves or the wafers of baked meal offerings, what is the halakha with regard to the remaining type? Rav Taḥlifa from the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, taught him a baraita that states: And likewise you say with regard to the bread of a thanks offering, and likewise you say with regard to a baked meal offering, that the halakha is a matter of dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis.
ת”ר בשעת שחיטה חישב לאכול חצי זית ובשעת זריקה חישב לאכול חצי זית פיגול מפני ששחיטה וזריקה מצטרפין
§ The Sages taught in a baraita: If at the time of the slaughter of an offering one had intent to consume half an olive-bulk of its meat the next day, and at the time of the sprinkling of the blood he had intent to consume half of another olive-bulk of meat the next day, the offering is piggul, as intentions that occur during the slaughter and sprinkling combine to render an offering piggul.
איכא דאמרי שחיטה וזריקה דתרווייהו מתירין אין קבלה והולכה לא ואיכא דאמרי הנך דמרחקן וכ”ש הני דמקרבן
There is a dispute between amora’im with regard to the halakha of this baraita: Some say that in the case of intentions that occur specifically during the slaughter and sprinkling, as both of them are permitting factors of the offering, yes, the intentions combine. But intentions that occur during the collection of the blood in a service vessel and the conveying of the blood to the altar do not combine, as neither rite is a permitting factor. And some say that if intentions during those rites that are distant from one another, i.e., the slaughter and sprinkling, combine, all the more so intentions during these rites that are close to one another, i.e., collection and conveying, certainly combine.
איני והא תני לוי ארבע עבודות אין מצטרפות לפיגול שחיטה וזריקה קבלה והולכה אמר רבא ל”ק הא רבי הא רבנן
The Gemara asks: Is that so, i.e., that intentions during the slaughter and sprinkling combine? But Levi teaches in a baraita: Intentions that occur during the four sacrificial rites do not combine to render an offering piggul, and those rites are: Slaughter and sprinkling, collection and conveying. Rava said: It is not difficult; this statement of Levi is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whereas that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
דתניא השוחט את הכבש לאכול חצי זית מחלה זו וכן חבירו לאכול חצי זית מחלה זו רבי אומר אומר אני שזה כשר
As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the two loaves and two lambs sacrificed on Shavuot: With regard to one who slaughters one of the lambs brought as peace offerings on Shavuot with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from this loaf the next day, and similarly, he slaughtered the other lamb with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from that second loaf the next day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that this offering is valid. Clearly, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that intentions that occur during the performance of two permitting factors do not combine to render an offering piggul.
א”ל אביי אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי חצי מתיר וחצי אכילה כולו מתיר וחצי אכילה מי שמעת ליה
Abaye said to Rava: You can say that you have heard that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that intentions do not combine to render an offering piggul when each intention is concerning half a permitting factor and half a measure of consumption, i.e., one lamb and half an olive-bulk. But in a case where one had intentions during the performance of an entire permitting factor, i.e., during the slaughter and sprinkling, and concerning half a measure of consumption, did you hear him say that such intentions do not combine?
א”ל רבא בר רב חנן לאביי ואי אית ליה לרבי כולו מתיר וחצי אכילה לגזור חצי מתיר וחצי אכילה אטו כולו מתיר וחצי אכילה דהא רבי יוסי גזר ורבנן גזרי
Rava bar Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye: But if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is of the opinion that intentions during the performance of an entire permitting factor and concerning half a measure of consumption combine to render an offering piggul, why does he rule that when one slaughters each lamb with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from one loaf the next day the offering is entirely valid? Let him decree that intentions during half a permitting factor and concerning half a measure of consumption disqualify an offering, due to the fact that intentions during an entire permitting factor and concerning half a measure of consumption render the offering piggul, as one finds in similar instances that Rabbi Yosei decreed and the Rabbis decreed in this manner.
ר’ יוסי גזר דתנן להקטיר לבונתה למחר רבי יוסי אומר פסול ואין בו כרת וחכ”א פיגול וחייבין עליה כרת
Rava bar Rav Ḥanan elaborates: Rabbi Yosei decreed in such a case, as we learned in a mishna (13a): With regard to one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to burn its handful on the next day, everyone agrees that the meal offering is piggul. But if his intent was to burn its frankincense on the next day, Rabbi Yosei says: The meal offering is unfit, but partaking of it does not include liability to receive karet. And the Rabbis say: It is a case of piggul and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the meal offering. Since one is not liable to receive karet, Rabbi Yosei evidently disqualifies the meal offering as a rabbinic decree due to concern over a case where his intention was to burn the handful the next day.
ורבנן נמי גזרי דתנן פיגל בקומץ ולא בלבונה בלבונה ולא בקומץ ר”מ אומר פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת וחכ”א אין בו כרת עד שיפגל בכל המתיר
And the Rabbis decreed as well, as we learned in a mishna (16a): If one had intent of piggul during the burning of the handful but not during the burning of the frankincense, or if he had such intent during the burning of the frankincense but not during the burning of the handful, Rabbi Meir says: The meal offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption, and the Rabbis say: There is no liability to receive karet for its consumption unless he has intent of piggul during the burning of the entire permitting factor, i.e., both the handful and the frankincense. Since the Rabbis state that there is no liability to receive karet, but they do not rule that the offering is valid, evidently they maintain that the offering is disqualified by rabbinic law, due to concern over a case of piggul intent during the burning of the entire permitting factor.
א”ל הכי השתא בשלמא התם גזר רבי יוסי קומץ דלבונה אטו קומץ דמנחה
Abaye said to Rava bar Rav Ḥanan: How can these cases be compared? Granted there, Rabbi Yosei decreed that the offering is disqualified in a case of intent involving the handful of frankincense due to the concern of intent involving the handful of the meal offering, as the two cases are similar.
רבנן גזרי קומץ אטו קומץ דמנחת חוטא ולבונה אטו לבונה הבאה בבזיכין
Similarly, the Rabbis decreed that the offering is disqualified in a case of intent involving the handful due to a similar case of intent concerning the handful of the meal offering of a sinner. There is no frankincense in the case of a meal offering of a sinner, and consequently the priest’s intent with regard to the handful alone renders the offering piggul, as it is the sole permitting factor. And the Rabbis also decreed in a case of intent with regard to the frankincense due to a similar case of intent concerning the frankincense that comes in the bowls that accompany the shewbread. Here there is no handful, and consequently intent with regard to the frankincense alone renders the shewbread piggul.
כבשים נמי כבש אטו כבש חבירו
In the case of the two lambs that accompany the two loaves brought on Shavuot as well (16a), the Rabbis rule that if one slaughters one of the lambs with the intent to consume both loaves the next day the offering is disqualified, but one is not liable to receive karet for partaking of it. This is a rabbinic decree in a case of intent during the slaughter of one lamb due to the other lamb, as were one to slaughter both lambs with intent of piggul, the loaves would be rendered piggul, since his intent occurred during the slaughter of the entire permitting factor.
בזך אטו בזך חבירו
Similarly, when one burns a single bowl of frankincense from those that accompany the shewbread with the intent to consume both arrangements of shewbread the next day, the Rabbis disqualify the shewbread by rabbinic decree due to the other bowl, i.e., due to the concern over piggul intent during the burning of both bowls, as this intent involves the burning of the entire permitting factor.
אלא הכא מי איכא חצי מתיר וחצי אכילה בעלמא דליקום וליגזר
Abaye concludes: But here, in the case of the baraita where one slaughtered each of the two lambs with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from a different loaf, is there another instance in general where intent during the performance of a rite concerning half a permitting factor and with regard to half a measure of consumption renders an offering piggul, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi will arise and decree that the lambs in this instance are disqualified?
הכי נמי מסתברא דטעמא דרבנן מש”ה הוא דקתני סיפא מודים חכמים לר”מ במנחת חוטא ומנחת קנאות שאם פיגל בקומץ שפיגול וחייבין עליה כרת שהקומץ הוא המתיר
The Gemara notes: So too, it is reasonable that the reasoning of the Rabbis is due to that explanation, i.e., they disqualified the offerings in the aforementioned cases due to the fact that in similar instances the offering is piggul. This is evident from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna (16a): The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir in the case of the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy that if one had intent of piggul during the burning of the handful, the meal offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption, as the handful is the sole permitting factor.
הא למה לי למיתנא כלל פשיטא מי איכא מתיר אחרינא אלא לאו הא קמ”ל דטעמא דקומץ משום דאיכא קומץ דמנחת חוטא דדמי ליה:
The Gemara explains this proof: Why do I need the mishna to teach this last statement at all? Isn’t it obvious that these meal offerings are piggul, as is there another permitting factor aside from the handful? Rather, is it not correct to say that this is what the mishna teaches us, that the reason that the Rabbis disqualified a standard meal offering when only the handful was removed with the intent of piggul is because there is the case of the handful of the meal offering of a sinner, which is similar to it and is rendered piggul due to intent involving the handful alone?
מתני׳ נטמאת אחת מן החלות או אחד מן הסדרים רבי יהודה אומר שניהם יצאו לבית השריפה שאין קרבן ציבור חלוק וחכמים אומרים הטמא בטומאתו והטהור יאכל:
MISHNA: If one of the two loaves of Shavuot or one of the two arrangements of the shewbread became ritually impure, Rabbi Yehuda says: Both must be taken to the place of burning like any other disqualified offering, as no communal offering is divided. That is, it is either fit in its entirety or unfit in its entirety. And the Rabbis say: The impure one remains in its state of impurity and the pure one shall be eaten.
גמ׳ א”ר אלעזר מחלוקת לפני זריקה אבל לאחר זריקה דברי הכל הטמא בטומאתו והטהור יאכל
GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar says: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis applies only to a case where one loaf became ritually impure before the sprinkling of the blood of the lambs, as this is the act that renders the loaves permitted for consumption. Accordingly, they disagree whether the sprinkling is effective in permitting the remaining pure loaf for consumption. But in a case where one loaf was rendered impure after the sprinkling, meaning that both loaves were initially permitted for consumption, everyone agrees that the impure one remains in its state of impurity and the pure one shall be eaten.
ולפני זריקה במאי פליגי אמר רב פפא בציץ מרצה על אכילות קא מיפלגי
The Gemara asks: And in the case where the loaves become impure before the sprinkling of the blood, with regard to what principle do they disagree? Rav Pappa said: They disagree with regard to the frontplate of the High Priest, i.e., whether it effects acceptance only for the impurity of items sacrificed on the altar, or even for the impurity of items that would normally be consumed by the priests.
Follow
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
פיגול- דף משלהן
Rabbanit Shira Marili Mirvis and Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval
10.18.2025 | כ״ו בתשרי תשפ״ו
Zevahim 33: The Heavy Laying on of Hands
Anne Gordon and Yardaena Osband
10.17.2025 | כ״ה בתשרי תשפ״ו
Zevahim 31: It’s a Measure of Time: Half a Loaf of Bread
Anne Gordon and Yardaena Osband
10.16.2025 | כ״ד בתשרי תשפ״ו
Zevahim 32: The Surprising Leniencies and Leeway of Sacrifices
Anne Gordon and Yardaena Osband
10.16.2025 | כ״ד בתשרי תשפ״ו
May a Woman Schecht Sacred Animals? – Gefet
Rabbanit Yael Shimoni
10.16.2025 | כ״ד בתשרי תשפ״ו
Zevahim 30: An Olive’s Measure of Intent
Anne Gordon and Yardaena Osband
10.15.2025 | כ״ג בתשרי תשפ״ו
Zevahim 29: More Ways to Offer Offerings Right
Anne Gordon and Yardaena Osband
10.13.2025 | כ״א בתשרי תשפ״ו
Zevahim 28: Beyond Place, Beyond Time
Anne Gordon and Yardaena Osband
10.12.2025 | כ׳ בתשרי תשפ״ו
Zevahim 27: Hindrances to Atonement
Anne Gordon and Yardaena Osband
10.12.2025 | כ׳ בתשרי תשפ״ו
A Daf Of Their Own –Schita By a Woman
Rabbanit Shira Marili Mirvis and Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval
10.12.2025 | כ׳ בתשרי תשפ״ו
נשים שוחטות- דף משלהן
Rabbanit Shira Marili Mirvis and Rabbanit Hamutal Shoval
10.11.2025 | י״ט בתשרי תשפ״ו
Zevahim 26: When a Father Corrects His Rabbi-Son
Anne Gordon and Yardaena Osband
10.10.2025 | י״ח בתשרי תשפ״ו
Zevahim 25: Knife Technique and Troubleshooting
Anne Gordon and Yardaena Osband
10.09.2025 | י״ז בתשרי תשפ״ו
Zevahim 24: Between the Floor and the Foot
Anne Gordon and Yardaena Osband
10.08.2025 | ט״ז בתשרי תשפ״ו
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Mona Fishbane
Teaneck NJ, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
Lisa Berkelhammer
San Francisco, CA , United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Hannah Lee
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Keren Carter
Brentwood, California, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Caroline Ben-Ari
Karmiel, Israel
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Elisheva Brauner
Jerusalem, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
My first Talmud class experience was a weekly group in 1971 studying Taanit. In 2007 I resumed Talmud study with a weekly group I continue learning with. January 2020, I was inspired to try learning Daf Yomi. A friend introduced me to Daf Yomi for Women and Rabbanit Michelle Farber, I have kept with this program and look forward, G- willing, to complete the entire Shas with Hadran.
Lorri Lewis
Palo Alto, CA, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Miriam Eckstein-Koas
Huntington, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dianne Kuchar
Dover Heights, Australia
A friend mentioned that she was starting Daf Yomi in January 2020. I had heard of it and thought, why not? I decided to try it – go day by day and not think about the seven plus year commitment.
Fast forward today, over two years in and I can’t imagine my life without Daf Yomi. It’s part of my morning ritual. If I have a busy day ahead of me I set my alarm to get up early to finish the day’s daf
Debbie Fitzerman
Ontario, Canada
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, United States
Menachot 14
ืืื ืื ืืืจืช ืชืจื ืืืคื ื ืื ืื ืื ืืืฆืืจืคื
But if you say that Rabbi Yosei holds that the right and left thighs of an offering are considered two distinct bodies, and therefore piggul intent with regard to one does not render the other piggul, then in the case of the two loaves, would the intentions concerning both loaves combine to render them both piggul?
ืื ืื ื ืจืื ืืื ืืชื ืื ืืฉืืื ืืช ืืืืฉ ืืืืื ืืฆื ืืืช ืืืื ืื ืืื ืืืืจื ืืืืื ืืฆื ืืืช ืืืื ืื ืจืื ืืืืจ ืืืืจ ืื ื ืฉืื ืืฉืจ
Rav Huna responds: One cannot infer anything from this baraita with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in another baraita: With regard to one who slaughters one of the lambs brought as peace offerings on Shavuot with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from this loaf the next day, and similarly, he slaughtered the other lamb with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from that second loaf the next day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that this offering is valid, as his intentions do not combine.
ืืขืื ืืืืจ ืืฆื ืืฆื ืืื ืืืจ ืืืืช ืืฉืชืืื ืืฆืืจืฃ
Rav Huna continues: It may be inferred that the reason why the priestโs intentions do not combine is that his intent was said with regard to a half and a half, i.e., he slaughtered each lamb with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from one loaf the next day. But if he said during the slaughter of each of the lambs that he is slaughtering it with the intent to consume an olive-bulk from both of them, then the halves combine to render the offering piggul.
ืืจืื ืืืืื ืืืื ืื ืืืืื ืืจืื ื ืืคื’ ืืืืช ืืื ื ืื ืื ืืืืื ืืจ’ ืืืกื ืืืจื ืงืืฉืืื ืืืืืชืื
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says that the two loaves are piggul only if he has intent with regard to an amount equal to an olive-bulk from both of them combined, in accordance with whose opinion is his statement? If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis of the mishna, who hold that piggul intent with regard to one loaf renders both loaves piggul, then even if his intent was with regard to only one of them, both loaves should be piggul. And if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who holds that piggul intent with regard to one loaf does not render the second loaf piggul, then our difficulty returns to its place: If Rabbi Yosei holds that the right and left thighs are considered two distinct bodies, how can intentions with regard to two halves of an olive-bulk combine to render both loaves piggul?
ืืขืืื ืืืืื ืืจืื ื ืืื ืชืืื ืขื ืฉืืคืื ืืฉืชืืื ืืื [ืืืื ืขื ืฉืืคืื] ืืฉื ืืื ืืืคืืื ืืืืช ืืื
The Gemara responds: Actually, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasiโs statement is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And do not say that the baraita states: It is not piggul unless one has the intent of piggul with regard to both of them [bishteihen], in the feminine form, whereby the baraita would be referring to the loaves. Rather, the baraita states: With regard to both of them [bishneihen], in the masculine form, i.e., unless he slaughters both lambs with piggul intent, and in such a case, even if his intent was with regard to only one of the loaves, the offering is piggul.
ืืืืคืืงื ืืืจ’ ืืืืจ ืืืืจ ืืคืืืื ืืืฆื ืืชืืจ ืงื”ื ืืื
The Gemara adds: And this baraita serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says in the mishna on 16a: One renders an offering piggul by means of intent during the sacrifice of half a permitting factor, e.g., if one slaughtered one of the lambs with the intent to consume the two loaves the next day, the loaves are piggul. This baraita teaches us that this is not the halakha.
ืื ืืื ืืื ืืขืืื ืื ืืืจืช ืืฉืืื ืืฉืชืืื ืืืฉื ืืื ืืจืื ืืืกื ืืื ืืืืคืืงื ืืืจ”ื ืืืืจืื ื ืงืืชื ืืืื ื ืืงืืืจ ืืขืืื
The Gemara asks: If so, then what is the meaning of the emphasis in the baraita: There is never liability? Granted, this phrase is understandable if you say that the baraita means that the loaves are not piggul unless he has intent with regard to both of the loaves and both of the lambs, i.e., they are piggul only if he slaughters both lambs with the intention to partake of both loaves the next day. In that case the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and it comes to exclude the statements of both Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis, and this is the reason that the baraita states: There is never liability, to emphasize that Rabbi Yosei disagrees with both of these opinions.
ืืื ืื ืืืจืช ืจืื ื ืืืืคืืงื ืืืจ”ื ืืื ืืขืืื
But if you say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis and that it serves to exclude only the opinion of Rabbi Meir, for what reason does the baraita stress: There is never liability? The tanna would not use such a word to exclude merely one opinion. Rather, it must be that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. If so, then the difficulty raised against Rav Huna, who says that piggul intent concerning the right thigh does not render the left one piggul, remains unresolved.
ืืขืื ืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืฉื ืช”ืฉ ืจืื ืืืืจ ืืฉืื ืจืื ืืืกื ืคืืื ืืืืจ ืื ืขืฉื ืืืืฅ ืคืืื ืืืืจ ืื ืขืฉื ืืคื ืื ืื ืคืืื
And furthermore, didnโt Rav Ashi say: Come and hear a refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says in the name of Rabbi Yosei that if, while performing the sacrificial rites for the bulls or goats which are burned as an offering, the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul with regard to a matter that is performed outside the Sanctuary, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, he has rendered the offering piggul. If his intention was with regard to a matter that is performed inside the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies, he has not rendered the offering piggul.
ืืืฆื ืืื ืขืืื ืืืืฅ ืืืืจ ืืจืื ื ืฉืืื ืข”ื ืืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืจ ืื ืคืืื ืฉืืืฉืื ืืืืฅ ืืืืจ ืื ืขืฉื ืืคื ืื ืืื ืขืืื ืืคื ืื ืืืืจ ืืจืื ื ืืื ืข”ื ืืืงืืืจ ืืืืืจืื ืืืืจ ืืืฉืคืื ืฉืืจืืื ืืืืจ ืื ืคืืื ืฉืืืฉืื ืืคื ืื ืืืืจ ืื ืขืฉื ืืืืฅ
The baraita elaborates: How so? If he was standing outside when slaughtering the animal and said: I hereby slaughter the animal with the intention of sprinkling its blood tomorrow inside the Sanctuary, he has not rendered the offering piggul. The reason is that when one has an intention outside with regard to a matter that is performed inside, he has not rendered the offering piggul. Likewise, if he was standing inside when sprinkling, and said: I hereby sprinkle the blood of the sin offering in order to burn its sacrificial portions on the external altar tomorrow and to pour out its remainder on the base of the altar tomorrow, he has not rendered the offering piggul, as he had an intention inside with regard to a matter that is performed outside.
ืืื ืขืืื ืืืืฅ ืืืืจ ืืจืื ื ืฉืืื ืข”ื ืืฉืคืื ืฉืืจืืื ืืืืจ ืืืืงืืืจ ืืืืืจืื ืืืืจ ืคืืื ืฉืืืฉืื ืืืืฅ ืืืืจ ืื ืขืฉื ืืืืฅ
But if he was standing outside and said: I hereby slaughter the animal with the intention to pour out the remainder of its blood tomorrow, or to burn its sacrificial portions tomorrow, he has rendered the offering piggul, as he had an intention outside with regard to a matter that is performed outside.
ืืฉืคืื ืฉืืจืืื ืืืืคืืืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืืืืคืืืื ืื ืื ืื ืืืคืื ืืืชื ื ืืื ืืืจืื ืฉืืื ืืืืืื ืขืืืื ืืฉืื ืคืืืื ืืงืืืฅ ืืืืืื ื ืืืงืืืจืช ืืื ืืช ืืื ืื ืืื ืืช ื ืกืืื ืืื ืืช ืืื ืืฉืื ืืืื
The Gemara analyzes this baraita: With regard to the case where one slaughtered the offering with the intent to pour the remaining blood the next day, what could be rendered piggul? If we say the blood could be rendered piggul, one can ask: Does blood become piggul? But didnโt we learn in a mishna (Zevaแธฅim 42b): These are the items for which one is not liable to receive karet due to the prohibition of piggul: The handful; the frankincense; the incense; the meal offering of priests; the meal offering accompanying the libations brought with an animal offering; the meal offering of the anointed priest; and the blood?
ืืื ืคืฉืืื ืืืคืืืื ืืฉืจ ืืฉืชื ืืื ืืชื ืืื ืืฉืื ืืื ืืืฉืจ ืืืคืื ื”ืจ ืืืกื ืืืคืื ืืื ืืืฉืื ืืื ืืืื ืืืคืื ืื ื”ืฉ ืืคืืื ืืืจื ืืืื ืคืืื ืืืจื ืฉืืื
Rather, it is obvious that the baraita means that it is the meat of the offering that could be rendered piggul. Now consider: And if there, in the baraita, where he did not have intent with regard to the meat itself, as his intention was not to partake of the meat the next day but to pour the remaining blood the next day, and yet Rabbi Yosei said that the meat is rendered piggul; then here, where he has intent to partake of the right thigh the next day, which is part of the offering itself, is it not all the more so that if he had intent of piggul with regard to the right thigh, he has rendered the left thigh piggul as well?
ืืขืื ืืืืจ ืจืืื ื ืชื ืฉืืข ืืงืืืฅ ืืช ืืื ืื ืืืืื ืฉืืจืื ืื ืืืงืืืจ ืงืืืฆื ืืืืจ ืืืื ืจืื ืืืกื ืืื ืฉืคืืื ืืืืืืื ืขืืื ืืจืช
And furthermore, doesnโt Ravina say: Come and hear a refutation of the statement of Rav Huna from the mishna (13a): In the case of one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder or to burn its handful on the next day, Rabbi Yosei concedes in this instance that he has rendered the offering piggul and he is liable to receive karet for partaking of it.
ืืืงืืืจ ืงืืืฆื ืืืืคืืืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืืืืคืืืื ืงืืืฅ ืงืืืฅ ืื ืืืคืื ืืืชื ื ืืื ืืืจืื ืฉืืื ืืืืืื ืขืืืื ืืฉืื ืคืืืื ืืงืืืฅ ืื’ ืืื ืคืฉืืื ืืืืคืืืื ืฉืืจืืื ืืฉืชื ืืื ืืชื ืืื ืืฉืื ืืื ืืฉืืจืืื ืืืคืื
Ravina continues: When one removes the handful with the intent to burn its handful, what could be rendered piggul? If we say that the handful could be rendered piggul, does the handful become piggul? But didnโt we learn in a mishna (Zevaแธฅim 42b): These are the items for which one is not liable to receive karet due to the prohibition of piggul: The handful, etc. Rather, it is obvious that the remainder could be rendered piggul. Now consider: And if there, in the mishna, where he did not have intent with regard to the remainder itself, i.e., to partake of the remainder the next day,
ืืืคืืื ืืื ืืืฉืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืืืคื ืื ื”ืฉ
and yet Rabbi Yosei said that the remainder is rendered piggul; then here, where he has intent to partake of the right thigh the next day, which is part of the offering itself, is it not all the more so that both thighs should become piggul?
ืืื ื”ืจ ืืืื ื ื”ื ืืจืื ืืืกื ืืืชืื ืขืฉืื ืืืฃ ืืื ืืืืชืื ืขืฉืื ืฉื ื ืืืคืื ืืืฃ ืืื ืืืขืืื ืืืืื ืฉื ื ืืืคืื ืืืืจ ืจืืื ื ืื ืืืืื ืขืืืื ืืื ืืืืื ืขืืืื
Rather, Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Rabbi Yosei holds that intent of piggul with regard to one thigh renders the other thigh piggul as well, as they are of one body. Similarly, with regard to two loaves, Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that if one intends to consume an amount equal to an olive-bulk from both loaves, both loaves are rendered piggul. And as for his statement that intent of piggul with regard to one loaf does not render the other loaf piggul, this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei: The verse renders the two loaves one body, and the verse also renders them two bodies. The verse renders them one body in the sense that they preclude one another, i.e., neither loaf is valid without the other. The verse also renders them two bodies, as the Merciful One states: This loaf is prepared alone and that is prepared alone, i.e., the kneading and arrangement of each loaf must be performed separately.
ืขืจืืื ืื ืืชืขืจืืื ืืืืชืื ืขืฉืื ืืืฃ ืืื ืคืืืื ืื ืืืคืืื ืืืืชืื ืขืฉืื ืฉื ื ืืืคืื
Therefore, if the priest mixed them together by intending to consume an olive-bulk from both of them, then they are mixed and they are both piggul, as the verse renders them one body. But if he separated them by having intent with regard to only one loaf, in that case they are separated and only that loaf is piggul, as the verse renders them two bodies.
ืืขื ืจืื ืืืื ื ืคืืื ืืืืื ืชืืื ืืื ืืื ืืช ืืืคื ืืื ืชื ื ืืื ืจื ืชืืืืคื ืืืขืจืื ืืื ืืชื ืืืืจ ืืืืื ืชืืื ืืื ืืชื ืืืืจ ืืื ืืช ืืืคื
Rabbi Yoแธฅanan raises a dilemma: If one had intent of piggul with regard to one type of loaf from the loaves of a thanks offering, what is the halakha concerning the remaining types of loaves, i.e., are they rendered piggul as well? Similarly, if one had intent of piggul with regard to either the loaves or the wafers of baked meal offerings, what is the halakha with regard to the remaining type? Rav Taแธฅlifa from the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, taught him a baraita that states: And likewise you say with regard to the bread of a thanks offering, and likewise you say with regard to a baked meal offering, that the halakha is a matter of dispute between Rabbi Yosei and the Rabbis.
ืช”ืจ ืืฉืขืช ืฉืืืื ืืืฉื ืืืืื ืืฆื ืืืช ืืืฉืขืช ืืจืืงื ืืืฉื ืืืืื ืืฆื ืืืช ืคืืืื ืืคื ื ืฉืฉืืืื ืืืจืืงื ืืฆืืจืคืื
ยง The Sages taught in a baraita: If at the time of the slaughter of an offering one had intent to consume half an olive-bulk of its meat the next day, and at the time of the sprinkling of the blood he had intent to consume half of another olive-bulk of meat the next day, the offering is piggul, as intentions that occur during the slaughter and sprinkling combine to render an offering piggul.
ืืืื ืืืืจื ืฉืืืื ืืืจืืงื ืืชืจืืืืืื ืืชืืจืื ืืื ืงืืื ืืืืืื ืื ืืืืื ืืืืจื ืื ื ืืืจืืงื ืื”ืฉ ืื ื ืืืงืจืื
There is a dispute between amoraโim with regard to the halakha of this baraita: Some say that in the case of intentions that occur specifically during the slaughter and sprinkling, as both of them are permitting factors of the offering, yes, the intentions combine. But intentions that occur during the collection of the blood in a service vessel and the conveying of the blood to the altar do not combine, as neither rite is a permitting factor. And some say that if intentions during those rites that are distant from one another, i.e., the slaughter and sprinkling, combine, all the more so intentions during these rites that are close to one another, i.e., collection and conveying, certainly combine.
ืืื ื ืืื ืชื ื ืืื ืืจืืข ืขืืืืืช ืืื ืืฆืืจืคืืช ืืคืืืื ืฉืืืื ืืืจืืงื ืงืืื ืืืืืื ืืืจ ืจืื ื”ืง ืื ืจืื ืื ืจืื ื
The Gemara asks: Is that so, i.e., that intentions during the slaughter and sprinkling combine? But Levi teaches in a baraita: Intentions that occur during the four sacrificial rites do not combine to render an offering piggul, and those rites are: Slaughter and sprinkling, collection and conveying. Rava said: It is not difficult; this statement of Levi is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, whereas that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
ืืชื ืื ืืฉืืื ืืช ืืืืฉ ืืืืื ืืฆื ืืืช ืืืื ืื ืืื ืืืืจื ืืืืื ืืฆื ืืืช ืืืื ืื ืจืื ืืืืจ ืืืืจ ืื ื ืฉืื ืืฉืจ
As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the two loaves and two lambs sacrificed on Shavuot: With regard to one who slaughters one of the lambs brought as peace offerings on Shavuot with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from this loaf the next day, and similarly, he slaughtered the other lamb with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from that second loaf the next day, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: I say that this offering is valid. Clearly, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that intentions that occur during the performance of two permitting factors do not combine to render an offering piggul.
ื”ื ืืืื ืืืืจ ืืฉืืขืช ืืื ืืจืื ืืฆื ืืชืืจ ืืืฆื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืชืืจ ืืืฆื ืืืืื ืื ืฉืืขืช ืืื
Abaye said to Rava: You can say that you have heard that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that intentions do not combine to render an offering piggul when each intention is concerning half a permitting factor and half a measure of consumption, i.e., one lamb and half an olive-bulk. But in a case where one had intentions during the performance of an entire permitting factor, i.e., during the slaughter and sprinkling, and concerning half a measure of consumption, did you hear him say that such intentions do not combine?
ื”ื ืจืื ืืจ ืจื ืื ื ืืืืื ืืื ืืืช ืืื ืืจืื ืืืื ืืชืืจ ืืืฆื ืืืืื ืืืืืจ ืืฆื ืืชืืจ ืืืฆื ืืืืื ืืื ืืืื ืืชืืจ ืืืฆื ืืืืื ืืื ืจืื ืืืกื ืืืจ ืืจืื ื ืืืจื
Rava bar Rav แธคanan said to Abaye: But if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is of the opinion that intentions during the performance of an entire permitting factor and concerning half a measure of consumption combine to render an offering piggul, why does he rule that when one slaughters each lamb with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from one loaf the next day the offering is entirely valid? Let him decree that intentions during half a permitting factor and concerning half a measure of consumption disqualify an offering, due to the fact that intentions during an entire permitting factor and concerning half a measure of consumption render the offering piggul, as one finds in similar instances that Rabbi Yosei decreed and the Rabbis decreed in this manner.
ืจ’ ืืืกื ืืืจ ืืชื ื ืืืงืืืจ ืืืื ืชื ืืืืจ ืจืื ืืืกื ืืืืจ ืคืกืื ืืืื ืื ืืจืช ืืื”ื ืคืืืื ืืืืืืื ืขืืื ืืจืช
Rava bar Rav แธคanan elaborates: Rabbi Yosei decreed in such a case, as we learned in a mishna (13a): With regard to one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to burn its handful on the next day, everyone agrees that the meal offering is piggul. But if his intent was to burn its frankincense on the next day, Rabbi Yosei says: The meal offering is unfit, but partaking of it does not include liability to receive karet. And the Rabbis say: It is a case of piggul and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the meal offering. Since one is not liable to receive karet, Rabbi Yosei evidently disqualifies the meal offering as a rabbinic decree due to concern over a case where his intention was to burn the handful the next day.
ืืจืื ื ื ืื ืืืจื ืืชื ื ืคืืื ืืงืืืฅ ืืื ืืืืื ื ืืืืื ื ืืื ืืงืืืฅ ืจ”ื ืืืืจ ืคืืืื ืืืืืืื ืขืืื ืืจืช ืืื”ื ืืื ืื ืืจืช ืขื ืฉืืคืื ืืื ืืืชืืจ
And the Rabbis decreed as well, as we learned in a mishna (16a): If one had intent of piggul during the burning of the handful but not during the burning of the frankincense, or if he had such intent during the burning of the frankincense but not during the burning of the handful, Rabbi Meir says: The meal offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption, and the Rabbis say: There is no liability to receive karet for its consumption unless he has intent of piggul during the burning of the entire permitting factor, i.e., both the handful and the frankincense. Since the Rabbis state that there is no liability to receive karet, but they do not rule that the offering is valid, evidently they maintain that the offering is disqualified by rabbinic law, due to concern over a case of piggul intent during the burning of the entire permitting factor.
ื”ื ืืื ืืฉืชื ืืฉืืื ืืชื ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืกื ืงืืืฅ ืืืืื ื ืืื ืงืืืฅ ืืื ืื
Abaye said to Rava bar Rav แธคanan: How can these cases be compared? Granted there, Rabbi Yosei decreed that the offering is disqualified in a case of intent involving the handful of frankincense due to the concern of intent involving the handful of the meal offering, as the two cases are similar.
ืจืื ื ืืืจื ืงืืืฅ ืืื ืงืืืฅ ืืื ืืช ืืืื ืืืืื ื ืืื ืืืื ื ืืืื ืืืืืืื
Similarly, the Rabbis decreed that the offering is disqualified in a case of intent involving the handful due to a similar case of intent concerning the handful of the meal offering of a sinner. There is no frankincense in the case of a meal offering of a sinner, and consequently the priestโs intent with regard to the handful alone renders the offering piggul, as it is the sole permitting factor. And the Rabbis also decreed in a case of intent with regard to the frankincense due to a similar case of intent concerning the frankincense that comes in the bowls that accompany the shewbread. Here there is no handful, and consequently intent with regard to the frankincense alone renders the shewbread piggul.
ืืืฉืื ื ืื ืืืฉ ืืื ืืืฉ ืืืืจื
In the case of the two lambs that accompany the two loaves brought on Shavuot as well (16a), the Rabbis rule that if one slaughters one of the lambs with the intent to consume both loaves the next day the offering is disqualified, but one is not liable to receive karet for partaking of it. This is a rabbinic decree in a case of intent during the slaughter of one lamb due to the other lamb, as were one to slaughter both lambs with intent of piggul, the loaves would be rendered piggul, since his intent occurred during the slaughter of the entire permitting factor.
ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืืจื
Similarly, when one burns a single bowl of frankincense from those that accompany the shewbread with the intent to consume both arrangements of shewbread the next day, the Rabbis disqualify the shewbread by rabbinic decree due to the other bowl, i.e., due to the concern over piggul intent during the burning of both bowls, as this intent involves the burning of the entire permitting factor.
ืืื ืืื ืื ืืืื ืืฆื ืืชืืจ ืืืฆื ืืืืื ืืขืืื ืืืืงืื ืืืืืืจ
Abaye concludes: But here, in the case of the baraita where one slaughtered each of the two lambs with the intent to consume half an olive-bulk from a different loaf, is there another instance in general where intent during the performance of a rite concerning half a permitting factor and with regard to half a measure of consumption renders an offering piggul, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi will arise and decree that the lambs in this instance are disqualified?
ืืื ื ืื ืืกืชืืจื ืืืขืื ืืจืื ื ืืฉ”ื ืืื ืืงืชื ื ืกืืคื ืืืืื ืืืืื ืืจ”ื ืืื ืืช ืืืื ืืื ืืช ืงื ืืืช ืฉืื ืคืืื ืืงืืืฅ ืฉืคืืืื ืืืืืืื ืขืืื ืืจืช ืฉืืงืืืฅ ืืื ืืืชืืจ
The Gemara notes: So too, it is reasonable that the reasoning of the Rabbis is due to that explanation, i.e., they disqualified the offerings in the aforementioned cases due to the fact that in similar instances the offering is piggul. This is evident from the fact that it is taught in the latter clause of the mishna (16a): The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Meir in the case of the meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy that if one had intent of piggul during the burning of the handful, the meal offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption, as the handful is the sole permitting factor.
ืื ืืื ืื ืืืืชื ื ืืื ืคืฉืืื ืื ืืืื ืืชืืจ ืืืจืื ื ืืื ืืื ืื ืงื”ื ืืืขืื ืืงืืืฅ ืืฉืื ืืืืื ืงืืืฅ ืืื ืืช ืืืื ืืืื ืืื:
The Gemara explains this proof: Why do I need the mishna to teach this last statement at all? Isnโt it obvious that these meal offerings are piggul, as is there another permitting factor aside from the handful? Rather, is it not correct to say that this is what the mishna teaches us, that the reason that the Rabbis disqualified a standard meal offering when only the handful was removed with the intent of piggul is because there is the case of the handful of the meal offering of a sinner, which is similar to it and is rendered piggul due to intent involving the handful alone?
ืืชื ืืณ ื ืืืืช ืืืช ืื ืืืืืช ืื ืืื ืื ืืกืืจืื ืจืื ืืืืื ืืืืจ ืฉื ืืื ืืฆืื ืืืืช ืืฉืจืืคื ืฉืืื ืงืจืื ืฆืืืืจ ืืืืง ืืืืืื ืืืืจืื ืืืื ืืืืืืชื ืืืืืืจ ืืืื:
MISHNA: If one of the two loaves of Shavuot or one of the two arrangements of the shewbread became ritually impure, Rabbi Yehuda says: Both must be taken to the place of burning like any other disqualified offering, as no communal offering is divided. That is, it is either fit in its entirety or unfit in its entirety. And the Rabbis say: The impure one remains in its state of impurity and the pure one shall be eaten.
ืืืณ ื”ืจ ืืืขืืจ ืืืืืงืช ืืคื ื ืืจืืงื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืจืืงื ืืืจื ืืื ืืืื ืืืืืืชื ืืืืืืจ ืืืื
GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar says: The dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis applies only to a case where one loaf became ritually impure before the sprinkling of the blood of the lambs, as this is the act that renders the loaves permitted for consumption. Accordingly, they disagree whether the sprinkling is effective in permitting the remaining pure loaf for consumption. But in a case where one loaf was rendered impure after the sprinkling, meaning that both loaves were initially permitted for consumption, everyone agrees that the impure one remains in its state of impurity and the pure one shall be eaten.
ืืืคื ื ืืจืืงื ืืืื ืคืืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืคืคื ืืฆืืฅ ืืจืฆื ืขื ืืืืืืช ืงื ืืืคืืื
The Gemara asks: And in the case where the loaves become impure before the sprinkling of the blood, with regard to what principle do they disagree? Rav Pappa said: They disagree with regard to the frontplate of the High Priest, i.e., whether it effects acceptance only for the impurity of items sacrificed on the altar, or even for the impurity of items that would normally be consumed by the priests.
Follow
