This week’s learning is sponsored by Rena Septee Goldstein and Mark Goldstein in loving memory of Moe Septee. “A wonderful man.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Rena Septee Goldstein and Mark Goldstein in loving memory of Moe Septee. “A wonderful man.”
Menachot 48
וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָלוֹת בְּפִדְיוֹן. אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא: הָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי.
and the rest of the loaves are permitted to be eaten through redemption. The Sages said the following before Rav Ḥisda: This baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that the slaughter of the sheep grants the loaves inherent sanctity, and in this case two of the loaves have inherent sanctity but it is not known which ones.
דְּאִי רַבִּי, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר שְׁחִיטָה מְקַדְּשָׁא, דְּפָרֵיק לְהוּ – הֵיכָא?
As, if the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, since he says that the slaughter of the sheep consecrates the loaves with inherent sanctity, when the baraita states that he redeems the loaves, where does he redeem them?
אִי דְּפָרֵיק לְהוּ מֵאַבָּרַאי, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״, אִיפְּסִיל לְהוּ בְּיוֹצֵא. אִי גַּוַּואי, הָא מְעַיֵּיל חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה.
The process of redemption would be to place all four loaves in front of him and state that whichever two of the loaves do not have inherent sanctity are redeemed for money. If he redeems them outside of the Temple courtyard, since it is written: “And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave offering before the Lord, with the two lambs” (Leviticus 23:20), he disqualifies the two loaves that possess inherent sanctity by causing them to leave the courtyard, at which point they are no longer “before the Lord.” Conversely, if he redeems them inside the courtyard, once the two loaves that do not possess inherent sanctity are redeemed, he violates the prohibition against bringing non-sacred items into the Temple courtyard.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב חִסְדָּא: לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבִּי, וּפָרֵיק לְהוּ גַּוַואי, וְחוּלִּין מִמֵּילָא קָא הָוְויָין.
Rav Ḥisda said to them: Actually, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and one redeems the loaves inside the courtyard. Nevertheless, it is not considered to be a violation of the prohibition against bringing non-sacred items into the courtyard because the non-sacred loaves came into the courtyard by themselves, i.e., they were already there when they became non-sacred and were not actively brought into the courtyard in their non-sacred state.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְהָתַנְיָא, כְּשֶׁהוּא פּוֹדָן – אֵין פּוֹדָן אֶלָּא בַּחוּץ.
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to this very case: When he redeems the loaves, he may redeem them only outside of the courtyard? This contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s claim that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi one redeems the loaves inside the courtyard.
הָא וַדַּאי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאִי רַבִּי – הָא אִיפְּסִלוּ לְהוּ בְּיוֹצֵא!
Rav Ashi answered: This baraita is certainly in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, because if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, when he brings the loaves outside the courtyard he thereby disqualifies them by causing them to leave the courtyard.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מִיהָא דְּאִיתְּמַר: תּוֹדָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ עַל שְׁמוֹנִים חַלּוֹת – חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: קָדְשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לֹא קָדְשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים.
§ Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Let us say that the baraita, which states that if the sheep of Shavuot are slaughtered with four loaves instead of two, two of the four are invested with inherent sanctity, is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan that was stated with regard to a thanks offering that one slaughtered accompanied by eighty loaves rather than the required forty. In that case, Ḥizkiyya says: Forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Not even forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated.
וְלָאו מִי אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר ״לִיקְדְּשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים״ דְּקָדְשָׁה, הָכָא נָמֵי דְּאָמַר ״לִיקְדְּשׁוּ תַּרְתֵּי מִתּוֹךְ אַרְבַּע״.
The Gemara answers: Wasn’t it stated with regard to this dispute that Rabbi Zeira says: Everyone, even Rabbi Yoḥanan, concedes that in a case where the individual bringing the offering said: Let forty of the eighty loaves be consecrated, that forty are consecrated? Here too, one can say that the baraita is referring to a case where one said: Let two of the four loaves be consecrated.
תָּנֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא טִירָתָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שָׁחַט אַרְבָּעָה כְּבָשִׂים עַל שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת – מוֹשֵׁךְ שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן, וְזוֹרֵק דָּמָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן.
§ The Gemara cites another discussion concerning the sheep and loaves of Shavuot. Rabbi Ḥanina Tirata taught a baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one slaughtered four sheep for Shavuot, rather than the required two, accompanied by two loaves, he draws two of the sheep out of the four and sprinkles their blood not for the sake of the sheep of Shavuot. He then sprinkles the blood of the other sheep for the sake of the sheep of Shavuot.
שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כָּךְ, הִפְסַדְתָּ אֶת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים.
As, if you do not say to do this, but rather require him to first sprinkle the blood of two of the sheep for their own sake, then you have caused the loss of the latter two sheep. Since they were previously fit to have their blood sprinkled on the altar for the sake of the sheep of Shavuot, and were disqualified from this status when the blood of the other two sheep was sprinkled for that purpose, they are no longer fit to have their blood sprinkled even for the sake of a different offering.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְכִי אוֹמֵר לוֹ לְאָדָם ״עֲמוֹד וַחֲטָא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתִּזְכֶּה״?!
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Ḥanina Tirata: And does the court say to a person: Arise and sin in order that you may gain? Is it proper for the priest to sprinkle the blood of the first pair not for their own sake so that the second pair will remain fit?
וְהָתְנַן: אֵבְרֵי חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בְּאֵבְרֵי עוֹלָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יֻתְּנוּ לְמַעְלָה, וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת בְּשַׂר חַטָּאת לְמַעְלָה כְּאִילּוּ הִיא עֵצִים, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: תְּעוּבַּר צוּרָתָן וְיֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.
But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Zevaḥim 77a) that tanna’im disagree concerning this matter? The mishna teaches: In the case of the limbs of a sin offering, whose flesh is eaten by priests and may not be burned on the altar, that were intermingled with the limbs of a burnt offering, which are burned on the altar, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest shall place all the limbs above, on the altar, and I view the flesh of the limbs of the sin offering above on the altar as though they are pieces of wood burned on the altar, not an offering. And the Rabbis say: One should wait until the form of all the intermingled limbs decays and they will all go out to the place of burning in the Temple courtyard, where all disqualified offerings of the most sacred order are burned.
אַמַּאי? לֵימָא: ״עֲמוֹד וַחֲטָא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתִּזְכֶּה״!
Rabbi Yoḥanan continued: According to your opinion, why do the Rabbis say that the mixture is burned? Let the court say to the priest instead: Arise and sin by burning all the limbs on the altar, including the limbs of the sin offering, in order that you may gain by performing the mitzva of sacrificing the limbs of the burnt offering.
עֲמוֹד וַחֲטָא בְּחַטָּאת בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתִּזְכֶּה בְּחַטָּאת – אָמְרִינַן, עֲמוֹד וַחֲטָא בְּחַטָּאת בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתִּזְכֶּה בְּעוֹלָה – לָא אָמְרִינַן.
Rabbi Ḥanina Tirata answered Rabbi Yoḥanan: We do say: Arise and sin with a sin offering in order that you may gain with regard to a sin offering, since it is the same type of offering. Similarly, one may sin with regard to the sheep of Shavuot in order to gain with regard to the other sheep brought for the same offering. We do not say: Arise and sin with a sin offering in order that you may gain with regard to a burnt offering. Therefore, the Rabbis prohibit burning the limbs of the sin offering on the altar in order to allow for the burning of the limbs of the burnt offering.
וּבַחֲדָא מִילְּתָא מִי אָמַר? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בֵּין לִפְנֵי זְמַנָּן בֵּין לְאַחַר זְמַנָּן – הַדָּם יִזָּרֵק וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל.
Rabbi Yoḥanan asked Rabbi Ḥanina Tirata: And does the court actually say: Arise and sin in order that you may gain in a case where the sin and the gain are with regard to one matter? But isn’t it taught in a baraita concerning a case of the two sheep of Shavuot where one slaughtered them not for their own sake, or where he slaughtered them either before their time, i.e., before Shavuot, or after their time, that the blood shall be sprinkled, although it shall be sprinkled for the sake of a peace offering, and the meat shall be eaten.
וְאִם הָיְתָה שַׁבָּת, לֹא יִזְרוֹק. וְאִם זָרַק – הוּרְצָה לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוּרִין לָעֶרֶב.
Rabbi Yoḥanan continued: And if the Festival was on Shabbat, one may not sprinkle the blood, the sacrificial portions may not be burned on the altar, and the meat may not be eaten. This is because the improper slaughter of the sheep disqualified them as communal offerings, whereas individual offerings may not be sacrificed on Shabbat. But if the priest nevertheless sprinkled the blood of these sheep on Shabbat, the offering is accepted in that it is permitted to burn its sacrificial portions on the altar in the evening, after the conclusion of Shabbat, and then the meat may be eaten.
וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא: ״עֲמוֹד חֲטָא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתִּזְכֶּה״!
Rabbi Yoḥanan concluded his proof: But according to your opinion, why is it not permitted to sprinkle the blood on Shabbat? Let the court say: Arise and sin by sprinkling the blood of these offerings in order that you may gain by being able to burn their sacrificial portions in the evening and then eat their meat.
עֲמוֹד חֲטָא בְּשַׁבָּת כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּזְכֶּה בְּשַׁבָּת – אָמְרִינַן, עֲמוֹד חֲטָא בְּשַׁבָּת כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּזְכֶּה בַּחוֹל – לָא אָמְרִינַן.
Rabbi Ḥanina Tirata answered: We do say: Arise and sin on Shabbat in order that you may gain on Shabbat. We do not say: Arise and sin on Shabbat in order that you may gain on a weekday.
וּבְתַרְתֵּי מִילֵּי לָא אָמַר? וְהָתְנַן: חָבִית שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה בְּגַת הָעֶלְיוֹנָה, וּבַתַּחְתּוֹנָה חוּלִּין טְמֵאִין – מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁאִם יָכוֹל לְהַצִּיל מִמֶּנָּה רְבִיעִית בְּטׇהֳרָה יַצִּיל.
The Gemara asks: And is it so that with regard to two separate matters the court does not say that one should sin with regard to one in order to gain with regard to other? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Terumot 8:9): In the case of a barrel of wine that is teruma that broke in the upper section of a winepress, and in the lower section of the winepress there is non-sacred, impure wine, and the wine that is teruma will flow into the lower press and become impure, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua both concede that if one is able to rescue even a quarter-log of the wine that is teruma in a pure vessel so that it retains its ritual purity, he should rescue it, even if, in the process, the rest of the wine that is teruma will mix with the non-sacred wine. This will cause the owner a financial loss, because the wine that is teruma will become impure, causing the entire mixture to become prohibited for consumption.
וְאִם לָאו, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר:
But if not, i.e., one cannot save any of the wine that is teruma, e.g., if one does not have any pure vessels in which to collect it, Rabbi Eliezer says:
תֵּרֵד וְתִטַּמֵּא, וְאַל יְטַמְּאֶנָּה בַּיָּד, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אַף יְטַמְּאֶנָּה בַּיָּד.
The teruma wine should be allowed to descend and become impure on its own, ruining the non-sacred wine in the lower press, but one should not render it impure through his direct action by catching it in an impure vessel, even though catching it would prevent the wine that is teruma from mixing with his impure, non-sacred wine. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: Since the wine that is teruma will become impure in any event, one may even render it impure through his direct action in order to save his non-sacred wine. This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehoshua it is permitted to sin with regard to one matter, i.e., the wine that is teruma, in order to gain with regard to another matter, i.e., the non-sacred wine.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּלְטוּמְאָה קָא אָזְלָא.
The Gemara responds: It is different there, in the case of the wine, because the wine that is teruma is going to become impure in any event. Consequently, his action is not considered a sin, and this is not a case of sinning with regard to one matter in order to gain in another.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב יִצְחָק, תָּנֵי: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִצְוָתָן – פְּסוּלִין, וּתְעוּבַּר צוּרָתָן, וְיֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.
§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the sheep of Shavuot. When Rav Yitzḥak came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he reported traditions that he learned in Eretz Yisrael, and he taught a baraita: With regard to a case of the two sheep of Shavuot where one slaughtered them not in accordance with their mitzva, e.g., he slaughtered them for the sake of a different offering, they are disqualified; and they should be left overnight until their form decays and they attain the status of leftover sacrificial meat, and then they are brought out to the place designated for burning.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מָר, דְּמַקֵּישׁ לְהוּ לְחַטָּאת – תָּנֵי פְּסוּלִין, תָּנָא דְּבֵי לֵוִי, דְּגָמַר שַׁלְמֵי חוֹבָה מִשַּׁלְמֵי נְדָבָה – תָּנֵי כְּשֵׁרִים.
Rav Naḥman said to Rav Yitzḥak: The Master, i.e., Rav Yitzḥak, who compares the sheep of Shavuot to a sin offering because they are juxtaposed in a verse (see Leviticus 23:19), teaches: The sheep are disqualified, like a sin offering that was slaughtered not for its own sake. By contrast, the tanna of the school of Levi, who derives the halakha with regard to an obligatory peace offering, e.g., the two sheep of Shavuot, from the halakha concerning a voluntary peace offering, teaches that the two sheep remain valid offerings, just as a voluntary peace offering remains valid even if it is slaughtered for the sake of a different offering.
דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: וּשְׁאָר שַׁלְמֵי נָזִיר שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִצְוָתָן – כְּשֵׁרִין, וְלֹא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה, וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה, וְאֵין טְעוּנִין לֹא לֶחֶם וְלֹא זְרוֹעַ.
As Levi teaches: And with regard to the other peace offerings of a nazirite that one slaughtered not in accordance with their mitzva, they are valid offerings like voluntary peace offerings, but they do not satisfy the obligation of the owner to bring the required nazirite peace offerings. And these offerings are eaten for only one day and one night, in accordance with the halakha concerning the peace offerings of nazirite, and not for two days and one night like voluntary peace offerings. They require neither bread nor the foreleg, unlike the required peace offering of a nazirite.
מֵיתִיבִי: אָשָׁם בֶּן שָׁנָה וְהֵבִיא בֶּן שְׁתַּיִם, בֶּן שְׁתַּיִם וְהֵבִיא בֶּן שָׁנָה – פְּסוּלִין, וּתְעוּבַּר צוּרָתָן וְיֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה.
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Yitzḥak from that which was taught in a baraita: In a case where one is obligated to sacrifice as a guilt offering an animal in its first year, which the Torah calls a lamb, and instead he brought an animal in its second year, which is considered a ram; or if he is obligated to sacrifice as a guilt offering an animal in its second year and he brought an animal in its first year; the offerings are disqualified. They are to be left overnight until their form decays, and are brought out to the place designated for burning.
אֲבָל עוֹלַת נָזִיר, וְעוֹלַת יוֹלֶדֶת, וְעוֹלַת מְצוֹרָע, שֶׁהָיוּ בְּנֵי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, וּשְׁחָטָן – כְּשֵׁרִין.
But in the case of the burnt offering of a nazirite, i.e., the lamb that is sacrificed when he completes his naziriteship; or the burnt offering of a woman after childbirth, i.e., the lamb she sacrifices on the forty-first day after giving birth to a son or on the eighty-first day after giving birth to a daughter; or the burnt offering of a leper, i.e., the lamb that is sacrificed after he is purified; in all of these cases if the animals were in their second year instead, and one slaughtered them, the offerings are valid.
כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר: כׇּל הַכָּשֵׁר בְּעוֹלַת נְדָבָה – כָּשֵׁר בְּעוֹלַת חוֹבָה, וְכׇל הַפָּסוּל בְּחַטָּאת – פָּסוּל בְּאָשָׁם, חוּץ מִשֶּׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ.
The baraita concludes: The principle of the matter is: Any animal that is valid as a voluntary burnt offering is also valid as an obligatory burnt offering, and any animal that is disqualified as a sin offering is also disqualified as a guilt offering, except for an offering that was sacrificed not for its own sake, which is disqualified in the case of a sin offering but not a guilt offering. This demonstrates that the halakhot of obligatory burnt offerings are derived from those of voluntary burnt offerings, despite the fact that the burnt offering of a nazirite is juxtaposed to the sin offering of a nazirite (see Numbers 6:14) and the burnt offering of a leper is juxtaposed to the sin offering of a leper (see Leviticus 14:19). Similarly, the halakha pertaining to the sheep of Shavuot, which are obligatory peace offerings, should be derived from the halakha pertaining to voluntary peace offerings, and not from the halakha pertaining to a sin offering as Rav Yitzḥak holds.
הַאי תַּנָּא, תַּנָּא דְּבֵי לֵוִי הוּא.
The Gemara answers: This tanna, who taught this baraita, is the tanna of the school of Levi cited earlier, who holds that if one slaughters a sheep of Shavuot not for its own sake, it is nevertheless valid.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע, שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – כְּשֵׁרִים, וְלֹא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשׁוּם חוֹבָה.
The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who maintains that the tanna of the school of Levi holds that a sheep of Shavuot slaughtered not for its own sake is valid because he derives its halakha from that of a voluntary peace offering. Come and hear what Levi teaches to the contrary, as Levi teaches: The guilt offering of a nazirite, i.e., the lamb he brings on the eighth day after becoming impure through contact with a corpse, and the guilt offering of a leper, i.e., the lamb he brings at the completion of his purification, that one slaughtered not for their sake are valid, but they did not satisfy the obligation of the owner.
שְׁחָטָן מְחוּסַּר זְמַן בִּבְעָלִים, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ בְּנֵי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים וּשְׁחָטָן – פְּסוּלִין.
If one slaughtered them when the time had not yet arrived for their owners to sacrifice these offerings, or they were in their second year instead of their first year and one slaughtered them, they are disqualified.
וְאִם אִיתָא, לִיגְמַר מִשְּׁלָמִים? שְׁלָמִים מִשְּׁלָמִים – גָּמַר, אָשָׁם מִשְּׁלָמִים – לָא גָּמַר.
The Gemara comments: But if it is so that Levi derives the halakhot of an obligatory offering from those of a voluntary one, let him derive the halakha of the guilt offering from that of the peace offering, in which case the guilt offerings should be valid even if they were in their second year. The Gemara answers: Levi derives the halakha concerning an obligatory peace offering from the halakha concerning a voluntary peace offering, but he does not derive the halakha concerning a guilt offering from the halakha concerning a peace offering.
וְאִי גָּמַר שְׁלָמִים מִשְּׁלָמִים, לִיגְמַר נָמֵי אָשָׁם מֵאָשָׁם: אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע מֵאֲשַׁם גְּזֵילוֹת וַאֲשַׁם מְעִילוֹת, אוֹ אֲשַׁם גְּזֵילוֹת וַאֲשַׁם מְעִילוֹת מֵאֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע.
The Gemara further challenges the statement of Rav Naḥman: But if Levi derives the halakha of an obligatory peace offering from that of a voluntary peace offering, let him similarly derive the halakha of one guilt offering from that of another guilt offering. He should derive that the guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper are valid even if the animal is in its second year from the halakha concerning a guilt offering for robbery and a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, which are supposed to be a ram in its second year. Or, if one brought a lamb in its first year as a guilt offering for robbery or a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, Levi should derive that it is valid from the halakha concerning the guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper, which are lambs in their first year.
אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ מִדָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ, וְאֵין דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ מִדָּבָר שֶׁבְּהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: One can derive the halakha with regard to an item that is prepared not in its valid manner, e.g., the sheep of Shavuot that were slaughtered not for their own sake, from the halakha with regard to another item that is prepared not in its valid manner, e.g., a voluntary peace offering slaughtered not for its own sake. But one cannot derive the halakha with regard to an item that is prepared not in its valid manner, e.g., the guilt offering of a nazirite or a leper that is sacrificed when it is in its second year, from the halakha with regard to an item that is prepared in its valid manner, e.g., a guilt offering for robbery or for misuse of consecrated property that is sacrificed when it is in its second year.
וְלָא? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְיוֹצֵא, שֶׁאִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד? שֶׁהֲרֵי יוֹצֵא כָּשֵׁר בְּבָמָה.
The Gemara asks: And can one not derive the halakha with regard to disqualified offerings from the halakha with regard to fit offerings? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to an item that left the Temple courtyard and was thereby disqualified that if it nevertheless ascended upon the altar it shall not descend? It is derived from the fact that an item that left is valid for sacrifice on a private altar. Here, the baraita derives the halakha with regard to a disqualified offering from the halakha with regard to a fit offering.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
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.
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
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.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
Minnesota, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
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!
Jerusalem, Israel
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
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!
San Diego, United States
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 .
Kfar Saba, Israel
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
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.
Karmiel, Israel
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
Menachot 48
וְהַשְּׁאָר נֶאֱכָלוֹת בְּפִדְיוֹן. אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא: הָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי.
and the rest of the loaves are permitted to be eaten through redemption. The Sages said the following before Rav Ḥisda: This baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that the slaughter of the sheep grants the loaves inherent sanctity, and in this case two of the loaves have inherent sanctity but it is not known which ones.
דְּאִי רַבִּי, כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר שְׁחִיטָה מְקַדְּשָׁא, דְּפָרֵיק לְהוּ – הֵיכָא?
As, if the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, since he says that the slaughter of the sheep consecrates the loaves with inherent sanctity, when the baraita states that he redeems the loaves, where does he redeem them?
אִי דְּפָרֵיק לְהוּ מֵאַבָּרַאי, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״, אִיפְּסִיל לְהוּ בְּיוֹצֵא. אִי גַּוַּואי, הָא מְעַיֵּיל חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה.
The process of redemption would be to place all four loaves in front of him and state that whichever two of the loaves do not have inherent sanctity are redeemed for money. If he redeems them outside of the Temple courtyard, since it is written: “And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave offering before the Lord, with the two lambs” (Leviticus 23:20), he disqualifies the two loaves that possess inherent sanctity by causing them to leave the courtyard, at which point they are no longer “before the Lord.” Conversely, if he redeems them inside the courtyard, once the two loaves that do not possess inherent sanctity are redeemed, he violates the prohibition against bringing non-sacred items into the Temple courtyard.
אֲמַר לְהוּ רַב חִסְדָּא: לְעוֹלָם כְּרַבִּי, וּפָרֵיק לְהוּ גַּוַואי, וְחוּלִּין מִמֵּילָא קָא הָוְויָין.
Rav Ḥisda said to them: Actually, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and one redeems the loaves inside the courtyard. Nevertheless, it is not considered to be a violation of the prohibition against bringing non-sacred items into the courtyard because the non-sacred loaves came into the courtyard by themselves, i.e., they were already there when they became non-sacred and were not actively brought into the courtyard in their non-sacred state.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְהָתַנְיָא, כְּשֶׁהוּא פּוֹדָן – אֵין פּוֹדָן אֶלָּא בַּחוּץ.
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to this very case: When he redeems the loaves, he may redeem them only outside of the courtyard? This contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s claim that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi one redeems the loaves inside the courtyard.
הָא וַדַּאי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאִי רַבִּי – הָא אִיפְּסִלוּ לְהוּ בְּיוֹצֵא!
Rav Ashi answered: This baraita is certainly in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, because if it were in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, when he brings the loaves outside the courtyard he thereby disqualifies them by causing them to leave the courtyard.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מִיהָא דְּאִיתְּמַר: תּוֹדָה שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ עַל שְׁמוֹנִים חַלּוֹת – חִזְקִיָּה אָמַר: קָדְשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: לֹא קָדְשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים.
§ Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Let us say that the baraita, which states that if the sheep of Shavuot are slaughtered with four loaves instead of two, two of the four are invested with inherent sanctity, is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan that was stated with regard to a thanks offering that one slaughtered accompanied by eighty loaves rather than the required forty. In that case, Ḥizkiyya says: Forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Not even forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated.
וְלָאו מִי אִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: הַכֹּל מוֹדִים הֵיכָא דְּאָמַר ״לִיקְדְּשׁוּ אַרְבָּעִים מִתּוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים״ דְּקָדְשָׁה, הָכָא נָמֵי דְּאָמַר ״לִיקְדְּשׁוּ תַּרְתֵּי מִתּוֹךְ אַרְבַּע״.
The Gemara answers: Wasn’t it stated with regard to this dispute that Rabbi Zeira says: Everyone, even Rabbi Yoḥanan, concedes that in a case where the individual bringing the offering said: Let forty of the eighty loaves be consecrated, that forty are consecrated? Here too, one can say that the baraita is referring to a case where one said: Let two of the four loaves be consecrated.
תָּנֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא טִירָתָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שָׁחַט אַרְבָּעָה כְּבָשִׂים עַל שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת – מוֹשֵׁךְ שְׁנַיִם מֵהֶן, וְזוֹרֵק דָּמָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן.
§ The Gemara cites another discussion concerning the sheep and loaves of Shavuot. Rabbi Ḥanina Tirata taught a baraita before Rabbi Yoḥanan: If one slaughtered four sheep for Shavuot, rather than the required two, accompanied by two loaves, he draws two of the sheep out of the four and sprinkles their blood not for the sake of the sheep of Shavuot. He then sprinkles the blood of the other sheep for the sake of the sheep of Shavuot.
שֶׁאִם אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כָּךְ, הִפְסַדְתָּ אֶת הָאַחֲרוֹנִים.
As, if you do not say to do this, but rather require him to first sprinkle the blood of two of the sheep for their own sake, then you have caused the loss of the latter two sheep. Since they were previously fit to have their blood sprinkled on the altar for the sake of the sheep of Shavuot, and were disqualified from this status when the blood of the other two sheep was sprinkled for that purpose, they are no longer fit to have their blood sprinkled even for the sake of a different offering.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְכִי אוֹמֵר לוֹ לְאָדָם ״עֲמוֹד וַחֲטָא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתִּזְכֶּה״?!
Rabbi Yoḥanan said to Rabbi Ḥanina Tirata: And does the court say to a person: Arise and sin in order that you may gain? Is it proper for the priest to sprinkle the blood of the first pair not for their own sake so that the second pair will remain fit?
וְהָתְנַן: אֵבְרֵי חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בְּאֵבְרֵי עוֹלָה, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יֻתְּנוּ לְמַעְלָה, וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת בְּשַׂר חַטָּאת לְמַעְלָה כְּאִילּוּ הִיא עֵצִים, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: תְּעוּבַּר צוּרָתָן וְיֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.
But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Zevaḥim 77a) that tanna’im disagree concerning this matter? The mishna teaches: In the case of the limbs of a sin offering, whose flesh is eaten by priests and may not be burned on the altar, that were intermingled with the limbs of a burnt offering, which are burned on the altar, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest shall place all the limbs above, on the altar, and I view the flesh of the limbs of the sin offering above on the altar as though they are pieces of wood burned on the altar, not an offering. And the Rabbis say: One should wait until the form of all the intermingled limbs decays and they will all go out to the place of burning in the Temple courtyard, where all disqualified offerings of the most sacred order are burned.
אַמַּאי? לֵימָא: ״עֲמוֹד וַחֲטָא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתִּזְכֶּה״!
Rabbi Yoḥanan continued: According to your opinion, why do the Rabbis say that the mixture is burned? Let the court say to the priest instead: Arise and sin by burning all the limbs on the altar, including the limbs of the sin offering, in order that you may gain by performing the mitzva of sacrificing the limbs of the burnt offering.
עֲמוֹד וַחֲטָא בְּחַטָּאת בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתִּזְכֶּה בְּחַטָּאת – אָמְרִינַן, עֲמוֹד וַחֲטָא בְּחַטָּאת בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתִּזְכֶּה בְּעוֹלָה – לָא אָמְרִינַן.
Rabbi Ḥanina Tirata answered Rabbi Yoḥanan: We do say: Arise and sin with a sin offering in order that you may gain with regard to a sin offering, since it is the same type of offering. Similarly, one may sin with regard to the sheep of Shavuot in order to gain with regard to the other sheep brought for the same offering. We do not say: Arise and sin with a sin offering in order that you may gain with regard to a burnt offering. Therefore, the Rabbis prohibit burning the limbs of the sin offering on the altar in order to allow for the burning of the limbs of the burnt offering.
וּבַחֲדָא מִילְּתָא מִי אָמַר? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן, אוֹ שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בֵּין לִפְנֵי זְמַנָּן בֵּין לְאַחַר זְמַנָּן – הַדָּם יִזָּרֵק וְהַבָּשָׂר יֵאָכֵל.
Rabbi Yoḥanan asked Rabbi Ḥanina Tirata: And does the court actually say: Arise and sin in order that you may gain in a case where the sin and the gain are with regard to one matter? But isn’t it taught in a baraita concerning a case of the two sheep of Shavuot where one slaughtered them not for their own sake, or where he slaughtered them either before their time, i.e., before Shavuot, or after their time, that the blood shall be sprinkled, although it shall be sprinkled for the sake of a peace offering, and the meat shall be eaten.
וְאִם הָיְתָה שַׁבָּת, לֹא יִזְרוֹק. וְאִם זָרַק – הוּרְצָה לְהַקְטִיר אֵימוּרִין לָעֶרֶב.
Rabbi Yoḥanan continued: And if the Festival was on Shabbat, one may not sprinkle the blood, the sacrificial portions may not be burned on the altar, and the meat may not be eaten. This is because the improper slaughter of the sheep disqualified them as communal offerings, whereas individual offerings may not be sacrificed on Shabbat. But if the priest nevertheless sprinkled the blood of these sheep on Shabbat, the offering is accepted in that it is permitted to burn its sacrificial portions on the altar in the evening, after the conclusion of Shabbat, and then the meat may be eaten.
וְאַמַּאי? לֵימָא: ״עֲמוֹד חֲטָא בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁתִּזְכֶּה״!
Rabbi Yoḥanan concluded his proof: But according to your opinion, why is it not permitted to sprinkle the blood on Shabbat? Let the court say: Arise and sin by sprinkling the blood of these offerings in order that you may gain by being able to burn their sacrificial portions in the evening and then eat their meat.
עֲמוֹד חֲטָא בְּשַׁבָּת כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּזְכֶּה בְּשַׁבָּת – אָמְרִינַן, עֲמוֹד חֲטָא בְּשַׁבָּת כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּזְכֶּה בַּחוֹל – לָא אָמְרִינַן.
Rabbi Ḥanina Tirata answered: We do say: Arise and sin on Shabbat in order that you may gain on Shabbat. We do not say: Arise and sin on Shabbat in order that you may gain on a weekday.
וּבְתַרְתֵּי מִילֵּי לָא אָמַר? וְהָתְנַן: חָבִית שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה שֶׁנִּשְׁבְּרָה בְּגַת הָעֶלְיוֹנָה, וּבַתַּחְתּוֹנָה חוּלִּין טְמֵאִין – מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁאִם יָכוֹל לְהַצִּיל מִמֶּנָּה רְבִיעִית בְּטׇהֳרָה יַצִּיל.
The Gemara asks: And is it so that with regard to two separate matters the court does not say that one should sin with regard to one in order to gain with regard to other? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (Terumot 8:9): In the case of a barrel of wine that is teruma that broke in the upper section of a winepress, and in the lower section of the winepress there is non-sacred, impure wine, and the wine that is teruma will flow into the lower press and become impure, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua both concede that if one is able to rescue even a quarter-log of the wine that is teruma in a pure vessel so that it retains its ritual purity, he should rescue it, even if, in the process, the rest of the wine that is teruma will mix with the non-sacred wine. This will cause the owner a financial loss, because the wine that is teruma will become impure, causing the entire mixture to become prohibited for consumption.
וְאִם לָאו, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר:
But if not, i.e., one cannot save any of the wine that is teruma, e.g., if one does not have any pure vessels in which to collect it, Rabbi Eliezer says:
תֵּרֵד וְתִטַּמֵּא, וְאַל יְטַמְּאֶנָּה בַּיָּד, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אַף יְטַמְּאֶנָּה בַּיָּד.
The teruma wine should be allowed to descend and become impure on its own, ruining the non-sacred wine in the lower press, but one should not render it impure through his direct action by catching it in an impure vessel, even though catching it would prevent the wine that is teruma from mixing with his impure, non-sacred wine. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: Since the wine that is teruma will become impure in any event, one may even render it impure through his direct action in order to save his non-sacred wine. This indicates that according to Rabbi Yehoshua it is permitted to sin with regard to one matter, i.e., the wine that is teruma, in order to gain with regard to another matter, i.e., the non-sacred wine.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּלְטוּמְאָה קָא אָזְלָא.
The Gemara responds: It is different there, in the case of the wine, because the wine that is teruma is going to become impure in any event. Consequently, his action is not considered a sin, and this is not a case of sinning with regard to one matter in order to gain in another.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב יִצְחָק, תָּנֵי: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִצְוָתָן – פְּסוּלִין, וּתְעוּבַּר צוּרָתָן, וְיֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.
§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the sheep of Shavuot. When Rav Yitzḥak came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he reported traditions that he learned in Eretz Yisrael, and he taught a baraita: With regard to a case of the two sheep of Shavuot where one slaughtered them not in accordance with their mitzva, e.g., he slaughtered them for the sake of a different offering, they are disqualified; and they should be left overnight until their form decays and they attain the status of leftover sacrificial meat, and then they are brought out to the place designated for burning.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מָר, דְּמַקֵּישׁ לְהוּ לְחַטָּאת – תָּנֵי פְּסוּלִין, תָּנָא דְּבֵי לֵוִי, דְּגָמַר שַׁלְמֵי חוֹבָה מִשַּׁלְמֵי נְדָבָה – תָּנֵי כְּשֵׁרִים.
Rav Naḥman said to Rav Yitzḥak: The Master, i.e., Rav Yitzḥak, who compares the sheep of Shavuot to a sin offering because they are juxtaposed in a verse (see Leviticus 23:19), teaches: The sheep are disqualified, like a sin offering that was slaughtered not for its own sake. By contrast, the tanna of the school of Levi, who derives the halakha with regard to an obligatory peace offering, e.g., the two sheep of Shavuot, from the halakha concerning a voluntary peace offering, teaches that the two sheep remain valid offerings, just as a voluntary peace offering remains valid even if it is slaughtered for the sake of a different offering.
דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: וּשְׁאָר שַׁלְמֵי נָזִיר שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא כְּמִצְוָתָן – כְּשֵׁרִין, וְלֹא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשֵׁם חוֹבָה, וְנֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה, וְאֵין טְעוּנִין לֹא לֶחֶם וְלֹא זְרוֹעַ.
As Levi teaches: And with regard to the other peace offerings of a nazirite that one slaughtered not in accordance with their mitzva, they are valid offerings like voluntary peace offerings, but they do not satisfy the obligation of the owner to bring the required nazirite peace offerings. And these offerings are eaten for only one day and one night, in accordance with the halakha concerning the peace offerings of nazirite, and not for two days and one night like voluntary peace offerings. They require neither bread nor the foreleg, unlike the required peace offering of a nazirite.
מֵיתִיבִי: אָשָׁם בֶּן שָׁנָה וְהֵבִיא בֶּן שְׁתַּיִם, בֶּן שְׁתַּיִם וְהֵבִיא בֶּן שָׁנָה – פְּסוּלִין, וּתְעוּבַּר צוּרָתָן וְיֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה.
The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Yitzḥak from that which was taught in a baraita: In a case where one is obligated to sacrifice as a guilt offering an animal in its first year, which the Torah calls a lamb, and instead he brought an animal in its second year, which is considered a ram; or if he is obligated to sacrifice as a guilt offering an animal in its second year and he brought an animal in its first year; the offerings are disqualified. They are to be left overnight until their form decays, and are brought out to the place designated for burning.
אֲבָל עוֹלַת נָזִיר, וְעוֹלַת יוֹלֶדֶת, וְעוֹלַת מְצוֹרָע, שֶׁהָיוּ בְּנֵי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, וּשְׁחָטָן – כְּשֵׁרִין.
But in the case of the burnt offering of a nazirite, i.e., the lamb that is sacrificed when he completes his naziriteship; or the burnt offering of a woman after childbirth, i.e., the lamb she sacrifices on the forty-first day after giving birth to a son or on the eighty-first day after giving birth to a daughter; or the burnt offering of a leper, i.e., the lamb that is sacrificed after he is purified; in all of these cases if the animals were in their second year instead, and one slaughtered them, the offerings are valid.
כְּלָלוֹ שֶׁל דָּבָר: כׇּל הַכָּשֵׁר בְּעוֹלַת נְדָבָה – כָּשֵׁר בְּעוֹלַת חוֹבָה, וְכׇל הַפָּסוּל בְּחַטָּאת – פָּסוּל בְּאָשָׁם, חוּץ מִשֶּׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ.
The baraita concludes: The principle of the matter is: Any animal that is valid as a voluntary burnt offering is also valid as an obligatory burnt offering, and any animal that is disqualified as a sin offering is also disqualified as a guilt offering, except for an offering that was sacrificed not for its own sake, which is disqualified in the case of a sin offering but not a guilt offering. This demonstrates that the halakhot of obligatory burnt offerings are derived from those of voluntary burnt offerings, despite the fact that the burnt offering of a nazirite is juxtaposed to the sin offering of a nazirite (see Numbers 6:14) and the burnt offering of a leper is juxtaposed to the sin offering of a leper (see Leviticus 14:19). Similarly, the halakha pertaining to the sheep of Shavuot, which are obligatory peace offerings, should be derived from the halakha pertaining to voluntary peace offerings, and not from the halakha pertaining to a sin offering as Rav Yitzḥak holds.
הַאי תַּנָּא, תַּנָּא דְּבֵי לֵוִי הוּא.
The Gemara answers: This tanna, who taught this baraita, is the tanna of the school of Levi cited earlier, who holds that if one slaughters a sheep of Shavuot not for its own sake, it is nevertheless valid.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע, שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – כְּשֵׁרִים, וְלֹא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשׁוּם חוֹבָה.
The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who maintains that the tanna of the school of Levi holds that a sheep of Shavuot slaughtered not for its own sake is valid because he derives its halakha from that of a voluntary peace offering. Come and hear what Levi teaches to the contrary, as Levi teaches: The guilt offering of a nazirite, i.e., the lamb he brings on the eighth day after becoming impure through contact with a corpse, and the guilt offering of a leper, i.e., the lamb he brings at the completion of his purification, that one slaughtered not for their sake are valid, but they did not satisfy the obligation of the owner.
שְׁחָטָן מְחוּסַּר זְמַן בִּבְעָלִים, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ בְּנֵי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים וּשְׁחָטָן – פְּסוּלִין.
If one slaughtered them when the time had not yet arrived for their owners to sacrifice these offerings, or they were in their second year instead of their first year and one slaughtered them, they are disqualified.
וְאִם אִיתָא, לִיגְמַר מִשְּׁלָמִים? שְׁלָמִים מִשְּׁלָמִים – גָּמַר, אָשָׁם מִשְּׁלָמִים – לָא גָּמַר.
The Gemara comments: But if it is so that Levi derives the halakhot of an obligatory offering from those of a voluntary one, let him derive the halakha of the guilt offering from that of the peace offering, in which case the guilt offerings should be valid even if they were in their second year. The Gemara answers: Levi derives the halakha concerning an obligatory peace offering from the halakha concerning a voluntary peace offering, but he does not derive the halakha concerning a guilt offering from the halakha concerning a peace offering.
וְאִי גָּמַר שְׁלָמִים מִשְּׁלָמִים, לִיגְמַר נָמֵי אָשָׁם מֵאָשָׁם: אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע מֵאֲשַׁם גְּזֵילוֹת וַאֲשַׁם מְעִילוֹת, אוֹ אֲשַׁם גְּזֵילוֹת וַאֲשַׁם מְעִילוֹת מֵאֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע.
The Gemara further challenges the statement of Rav Naḥman: But if Levi derives the halakha of an obligatory peace offering from that of a voluntary peace offering, let him similarly derive the halakha of one guilt offering from that of another guilt offering. He should derive that the guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper are valid even if the animal is in its second year from the halakha concerning a guilt offering for robbery and a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, which are supposed to be a ram in its second year. Or, if one brought a lamb in its first year as a guilt offering for robbery or a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property, Levi should derive that it is valid from the halakha concerning the guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper, which are lambs in their first year.
אָמַר רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ מִדָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ, וְאֵין דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ מִדָּבָר שֶׁבְּהֶכְשֵׁירוֹ.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: One can derive the halakha with regard to an item that is prepared not in its valid manner, e.g., the sheep of Shavuot that were slaughtered not for their own sake, from the halakha with regard to another item that is prepared not in its valid manner, e.g., a voluntary peace offering slaughtered not for its own sake. But one cannot derive the halakha with regard to an item that is prepared not in its valid manner, e.g., the guilt offering of a nazirite or a leper that is sacrificed when it is in its second year, from the halakha with regard to an item that is prepared in its valid manner, e.g., a guilt offering for robbery or for misuse of consecrated property that is sacrificed when it is in its second year.
וְלָא? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לְיוֹצֵא, שֶׁאִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד? שֶׁהֲרֵי יוֹצֵא כָּשֵׁר בְּבָמָה.
The Gemara asks: And can one not derive the halakha with regard to disqualified offerings from the halakha with regard to fit offerings? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to an item that left the Temple courtyard and was thereby disqualified that if it nevertheless ascended upon the altar it shall not descend? It is derived from the fact that an item that left is valid for sacrifice on a private altar. Here, the baraita derives the halakha with regard to a disqualified offering from the halakha with regard to a fit offering.
