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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 28, 2018 | 讬状讟 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Menachot 48b

What is the status of the two lambs (peace offerings brought with the 2 loaves of bread on Shavuot) that are sacrificed with the wrong intent – are they compared to a sin offering as they are obligatory or to a regular peace offering as they are peace offerings? Daily offerings and musaf offerings – failure to sacrifice one doesn’t prevent the sacrifice of the other. The gemara discusses聽what exactly the situation is.


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

讜讛砖讗专 谞讗讻诇讜转 讘驻讚讬讜谉 讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬

and the rest of the loaves are permitted to be eaten through redemption. The Sages said the following before Rav 岣sda: 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.

讚讗讬 专讘讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 诪拽讚砖讗 讚驻专讬拽 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讗

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?

讗讬 讚驻专讬拽 诇讛讜 诪讗讘专讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗讬驻住讬诇 诇讛讜 讘讬讜爪讗 讗讬 讙讜讜讗讬 讛讗 诪注讬讬诇 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave offering before the Lord, with the two lambs鈥 (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 鈥渂efore the Lord.鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘讬 讜驻专讬拽 诇讛讜 讙讜讜讗讬 讜讞讜诇讬谉 诪诪讬诇讗 拽讗 讛讜讜讬讬谉

Rav 岣sda 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻砖讛讜讗 驻讜讚谉 讗讬谉 驻讜讚谉 讗诇讗 讘讞讜抓

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But isn鈥檛 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 岣sda鈥檚 claim that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi one redeems the loaves inside the courtyard.

讛讗 讜讚讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讛讗 讗讬驻住诇讜 诇讛讜 讘讬讜爪讗

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬讛讗 讚讗讬转诪专 转讜讚讛 砖砖讞讟讛 注诇 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讞诇讜转 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽讚砖讜 讗专讘注讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讗 拽讚砖讜 讗专讘注讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖诪讜谞讬诐

Rav A岣, 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 Yo岣nan that was stated with regard to a thanks offering that one slaughtered accompanied by eighty loaves rather than the required forty. In that case, 岣zkiyya says: Forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated, and Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Not even forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated.

讜诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬拽讚砖讜 讗专讘注讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讚拽讚砖讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬拽讚砖讜 转专转讬 诪转讜讱 讗专讘注

The Gemara answers: Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to this dispute that Rabbi Zeira says: Everyone, even Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讟讬专转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讞讟 讗专讘注讛 讻讘砖讬诐 注诇 砖转讬 讞诇讜转 诪讜砖讱 砖谞讬诐 诪讛谉 讜讝讜专拽 讚诪谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉

搂 The Gemara cites another discussion concerning the sheep and loaves of Shavuot. Rabbi 岣nina Tirata taught a baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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.

砖讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻讱 讛驻住讚转 讗转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讬 讗讜诪专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 注诪讜讚 讜讞讟讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讝讻讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rabbi 岣nina 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?

讜讛转谞谉 讗讘专讬 讞讟讗转 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘讗讘专讬 注讜诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬转谞讜 诇诪注诇讛 讜专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讘砖专 讞讟讗转 诇诪注诇讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 注爪讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 转注讜讘专 爪讜专转谉 讜讬爪讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Zeva岣m 77a) that tanna鈥檌m 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.

讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 注诪讜讚 讜讞讟讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讝讻讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

注诪讜讚 讜讞讟讗 讘讞讟讗转 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讝讻讛 讘讞讟讗转 讗诪专讬谞谉 注诪讜讚 讜讞讟讗 讘讞讟讗转 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讝讻讛 讘注讜诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

Rabbi 岣nina Tirata answered Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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.

讜讘讞讚讗 诪讬诇转讗 诪讬 讗诪专 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 砖砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讗讜 砖砖讞讟谉 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞谉 讛讚诐 讬讝专拽 讜讛讘砖专 讬讗讻诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan asked Rabbi 岣nina 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鈥檛 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.

讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讘转 诇讗 讬讝专讜拽 讜讗诐 讝专拽 讛讜专爪讛 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇注专讘

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 注诪讜讚 讞讟讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讝讻讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

注诪讜讚 讞讟讗 讘砖讘转 讻讚讬 砖转讝讻讛 讘砖讘转 讗诪专讬谞谉 注诪讜讚 讞讟讗 讘砖讘转 讻讚讬 砖转讝讻讛 讘讞讜诇 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

Rabbi 岣nina 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.

讜讘转专转讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讜讛转谞谉 讞讘讬转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 讘讙转 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讜讘转讞转讜谞讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇 诪诪谞讛 专讘讬注讬转 讘讟讛专讛 讬爪讬诇

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鈥檛 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.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专

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:

转专讚 讜转讟诪讗 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗谞讛 讘讬讚 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讬讟诪讗谞讛 讘讬讚

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.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诇讟讜诪讗讛 拽讗 讗讝诇讗

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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 转谞讬 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 砖砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 讻诪爪讜转谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜转注讜讘专 爪讜专转谉 讜讬爪讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of the sheep of Shavuot. When Rav Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪专 讚诪拽讬砖 诇讛讜 诇讞讟讗转 转谞讬 驻住讜诇讬谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 诇讜讬 讚讙诪专 砖诇诪讬 讞讜讘讛 诪砖诇诪讬 谞讚讘讛 转谞讬 讻砖专讬诐

Rav Na岣an said to Rav Yitz岣k: The Master, i.e., Rav Yitz岣k, 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.

讚转谞讬 诇讜讬 讜砖讗专 砖诇诪讬 谞讝讬专 砖砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 讻诪爪讜转谉 讻砖专讬谉 讜诇讗 注诇讜 诇讘注诇讬诐 诇砖诐 讞讜讘讛 讜谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讗 诇讞诐 讜诇讗 讝专讜注

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗砖诐 讘谉 砖谞讛 讜讛讘讬讗 讘谉 砖转讬诐 讘谉 砖转讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗 讘谉 砖谞讛 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜转注讜讘专 爪讜专转谉 讜讬爪讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛砖专驻讛

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Yitz岣k 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.

讗讘诇 注讜诇转 谞讝讬专 讜注讜诇转 讬讜诇讚转 讜注讜诇转 诪爪讜专注 砖讛讬讜 讘谞讬 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜砖讞讟谉 讻砖专讬谉

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.

讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讻诇 讛讻砖专 讘注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 讻砖专 讘注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 讜讻诇 讛驻住讜诇 讘讞讟讗转 驻住讜诇 讘讗砖诐 讞讜抓 诪砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜

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 Yitz岣k holds.

讛讗讬 转谞讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 诇讜讬 讛讜讗

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 诇讜讬 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 砖砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讻砖专讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇讜 诇讘注诇讬诐 诇砖讜诐 讞讜讘讛

The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rav Na岣an, 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.

砖讞讟谉 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讘讘注诇讬诐 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 讘谞讬 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜砖讞讟谉 驻住讜诇讬谉

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.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬讙诪专 诪砖诇诪讬诐 砖诇诪讬诐 诪砖诇诪讬诐 讙诪专 讗砖诐 诪砖诇诪讬诐 诇讗 讙诪专

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.

讜讗讬 讙诪专 砖诇诪讬诐 诪砖诇诪讬诐 诇讬讙诪专 谞诪讬 讗砖诐 诪讗砖诐 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 诪讗砖诐 讙讝讬诇讜转 讜讗砖诐 诪注讬诇讜转 讗讜 讗砖诐 讙讝讬诇讜转 讜讗砖诐 诪注讬诇讜转 诪讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注

The Gemara further challenges the statement of Rav Na岣an: 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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讛讻砖讬专讜 诪讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讛讻砖讬专讜 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讛讻砖讬专讜 诪讚讘专 砖讘讛讻砖讬专讜

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.

讜诇讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讬讜爪讗 砖讗诐 注诇讛 诇讗 讬专讚 砖讛专讬 讬讜爪讗 讻砖专 讘讘诪讛

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鈥檛 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 an disqualified offering from the halakha with regard to a fit offering.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Menachot 48b

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 48b

讜讛砖讗专 谞讗讻诇讜转 讘驻讚讬讜谉 讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讛讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬

and the rest of the loaves are permitted to be eaten through redemption. The Sages said the following before Rav 岣sda: 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.

讚讗讬 专讘讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 砖讞讬讟讛 诪拽讚砖讗 讚驻专讬拽 诇讛讜 讛讬讻讗

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?

讗讬 讚驻专讬拽 诇讛讜 诪讗讘专讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚讻转讬讘 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讗讬驻住讬诇 诇讛讜 讘讬讜爪讗 讗讬 讙讜讜讗讬 讛讗 诪注讬讬诇 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave offering before the Lord, with the two lambs鈥 (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 鈥渂efore the Lord.鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 讞住讚讗 诇注讜诇诐 讻专讘讬 讜驻专讬拽 诇讛讜 讙讜讜讗讬 讜讞讜诇讬谉 诪诪讬诇讗 拽讗 讛讜讜讬讬谉

Rav 岣sda 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 讻砖讛讜讗 驻讜讚谉 讗讬谉 驻讜讚谉 讗诇讗 讘讞讜抓

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But isn鈥檛 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 岣sda鈥檚 claim that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi one redeems the loaves inside the courtyard.

讛讗 讜讚讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 专讘讬 讛讗 讗讬驻住诇讜 诇讛讜 讘讬讜爪讗

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诇讬诪讗 转讬讛讜讬 转讬讜讘转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讬讛讗 讚讗讬转诪专 转讜讚讛 砖砖讞讟讛 注诇 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讞诇讜转 讞讝拽讬讛 讗诪专 拽讚砖讜 讗专讘注讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 诇讗 拽讚砖讜 讗专讘注讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖诪讜谞讬诐

Rav A岣, 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 Yo岣nan that was stated with regard to a thanks offering that one slaughtered accompanied by eighty loaves rather than the required forty. In that case, 岣zkiyya says: Forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated, and Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Not even forty of the eighty loaves are consecrated.

讜诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讬转诪专 注诇讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讛讬讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬拽讚砖讜 讗专讘注讬诐 诪转讜讱 砖诪讜谞讬诐 讚拽讚砖讛 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬拽讚砖讜 转专转讬 诪转讜讱 讗专讘注

The Gemara answers: Wasn鈥檛 it stated with regard to this dispute that Rabbi Zeira says: Everyone, even Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.

转谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讟讬专转讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 砖讞讟 讗专讘注讛 讻讘砖讬诐 注诇 砖转讬 讞诇讜转 诪讜砖讱 砖谞讬诐 诪讛谉 讜讝讜专拽 讚诪谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉

搂 The Gemara cites another discussion concerning the sheep and loaves of Shavuot. Rabbi 岣nina Tirata taught a baraita before Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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.

砖讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讻讱 讛驻住讚转 讗转 讛讗讞专讜谞讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讻讬 讗讜诪专 诇讜 诇讗讚诐 注诪讜讚 讜讞讟讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讝讻讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Rabbi 岣nina 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?

讜讛转谞谉 讗讘专讬 讞讟讗转 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘讗讘专讬 注讜诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬转谞讜 诇诪注诇讛 讜专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讘砖专 讞讟讗转 诇诪注诇讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讬讗 注爪讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 转注讜讘专 爪讜专转谉 讜讬爪讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Zeva岣m 77a) that tanna鈥檌m 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.

讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 注诪讜讚 讜讞讟讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讝讻讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

注诪讜讚 讜讞讟讗 讘讞讟讗转 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讝讻讛 讘讞讟讗转 讗诪专讬谞谉 注诪讜讚 讜讞讟讗 讘讞讟讗转 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讝讻讛 讘注讜诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

Rabbi 岣nina Tirata answered Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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.

讜讘讞讚讗 诪讬诇转讗 诪讬 讗诪专 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 砖砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讗讜 砖砖讞讟谉 讘讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讝诪谞谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讞专 讝诪谞谉 讛讚诐 讬讝专拽 讜讛讘砖专 讬讗讻诇

Rabbi Yo岣nan asked Rabbi 岣nina 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鈥檛 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.

讜讗诐 讛讬转讛 砖讘转 诇讗 讬讝专讜拽 讜讗诐 讝专拽 讛讜专爪讛 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇注专讘

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬诪讗 注诪讜讚 讞讟讗 讘砖讘讬诇 砖转讝讻讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

注诪讜讚 讞讟讗 讘砖讘转 讻讚讬 砖转讝讻讛 讘砖讘转 讗诪专讬谞谉 注诪讜讚 讞讟讗 讘砖讘转 讻讚讬 砖转讝讻讛 讘讞讜诇 诇讗 讗诪专讬谞谉

Rabbi 岣nina 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.

讜讘转专转讬 诪讬诇讬 诇讗 讗诪专 讜讛转谞谉 讞讘讬转 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖谞砖讘专讛 讘讙转 讛注诇讬讜谞讛 讜讘转讞转讜谞讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讟诪讗讬谉 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 砖讗诐 讬讻讜诇 诇讛爪讬诇 诪诪谞讛 专讘讬注讬转 讘讟讛专讛 讬爪讬诇

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鈥檛 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.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专

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:

转专讚 讜转讟诪讗 讜讗诇 讬讟诪讗谞讛 讘讬讚 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讬讟诪讗谞讛 讘讬讚

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.

砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚诇讟讜诪讗讛 拽讗 讗讝诇讗

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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 转谞讬 讻讘砖讬 注爪专转 砖砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 讻诪爪讜转谉 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜转注讜讘专 爪讜专转谉 讜讬爪讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

搂 The Gemara continues its discussion of the sheep of Shavuot. When Rav Yitz岣k 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.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪专 讚诪拽讬砖 诇讛讜 诇讞讟讗转 转谞讬 驻住讜诇讬谉 转谞讗 讚讘讬 诇讜讬 讚讙诪专 砖诇诪讬 讞讜讘讛 诪砖诇诪讬 谞讚讘讛 转谞讬 讻砖专讬诐

Rav Na岣an said to Rav Yitz岣k: The Master, i.e., Rav Yitz岣k, 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.

讚转谞讬 诇讜讬 讜砖讗专 砖诇诪讬 谞讝讬专 砖砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 讻诪爪讜转谉 讻砖专讬谉 讜诇讗 注诇讜 诇讘注诇讬诐 诇砖诐 讞讜讘讛 讜谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诇讗 诇讞诐 讜诇讗 讝专讜注

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.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讗砖诐 讘谉 砖谞讛 讜讛讘讬讗 讘谉 砖转讬诐 讘谉 砖转讬诐 讜讛讘讬讗 讘谉 砖谞讛 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜转注讜讘专 爪讜专转谉 讜讬爪讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛砖专驻讛

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Yitz岣k 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.

讗讘诇 注讜诇转 谞讝讬专 讜注讜诇转 讬讜诇讚转 讜注讜诇转 诪爪讜专注 砖讛讬讜 讘谞讬 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜砖讞讟谉 讻砖专讬谉

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.

讻诇诇讜 砖诇 讚讘专 讻诇 讛讻砖专 讘注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 讻砖专 讘注讜诇转 讞讜讘讛 讜讻诇 讛驻住讜诇 讘讞讟讗转 驻住讜诇 讘讗砖诐 讞讜抓 诪砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜

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 Yitz岣k holds.

讛讗讬 转谞讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 诇讜讬 讛讜讗

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讬 诇讜讬 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 砖砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 讻砖专讬诐 讜诇讗 注诇讜 诇讘注诇讬诐 诇砖讜诐 讞讜讘讛

The Gemara discusses the opinion of Rav Na岣an, 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.

砖讞讟谉 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讘讘注诇讬诐 讗讜 砖讛讬讜 讘谞讬 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜砖讞讟谉 驻住讜诇讬谉

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.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬讙诪专 诪砖诇诪讬诐 砖诇诪讬诐 诪砖诇诪讬诐 讙诪专 讗砖诐 诪砖诇诪讬诐 诇讗 讙诪专

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.

讜讗讬 讙诪专 砖诇诪讬诐 诪砖诇诪讬诐 诇讬讙诪专 谞诪讬 讗砖诐 诪讗砖诐 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 诪讗砖诐 讙讝讬诇讜转 讜讗砖诐 诪注讬诇讜转 讗讜 讗砖诐 讙讝讬诇讜转 讜讗砖诐 诪注讬诇讜转 诪讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注

The Gemara further challenges the statement of Rav Na岣an: 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.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讛讻砖讬专讜 诪讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讛讻砖讬专讜 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讛讻砖讬专讜 诪讚讘专 砖讘讛讻砖讬专讜

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.

讜诇讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讬讜爪讗 砖讗诐 注诇讛 诇讗 讬专讚 砖讛专讬 讬讜爪讗 讻砖专 讘讘诪讛

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鈥檛 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 an disqualified offering from the halakha with regard to a fit offering.

Scroll To Top