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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 4, 2018 | 讻状讛 讘转砖专讬 转砖注状讟

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 55

The discussion continues regarding whether we base聽measurements on the present or what its size was in the past. Water is added to the batter of a meal offering and it needs to be watched to prevent form leavening. One who allows it to leaven transgresses a negative commandment. Details regarding what this applies to and聽if the dough was kneaded, arranged and baked, for how many negative transgressions does one receive聽lashes? From where are these laws derived?


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

讜讘诪讞砖讘讛 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讗祝 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛

and by thought. And this comparison also teaches that just as in the case of standard teruma one should give generously, so too, with regard to teruma of the tithe one should give generously. Therefore, one who separates teruma of the tithe from fresh figs for dried figs should do so generously, e.g., ten fresh figs for ninety dried ones, as though the volume of the dried figs was as large as that of fresh ones.

讜诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘讗 讛讬讛 谞讜讟诇 注砖专 讙专讜讙专讜转 砖讘诪拽爪讜注 注诇 转砖注讬诐 砖讘讻诇讻诇讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 讘爪讬专 诇讛讜

The Gemara suggests: And from this statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, one can cite a proof for the opinion that food is to be measured in accordance with its initial size. As Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: Father would set aside ten dried figs that were in a vessel for ninety fresh figs that were in a basket. Granted, if you say that we say one measures food items as they were initially, it is well, as Rabbi Yosei apparently considers the dried figs set aside as tithes as though they were still fresh figs. But if you say that one measures foods as they are in their current state, then in a case where one separates ten dried figs for ninety fresh figs they are less than the requisite amount, as the volume of ten dried figs is less than the volume of ten fresh figs. This indicates that the measure of the food is determined according to its initial state.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讗谞讬 讙专讜讙专讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇砖讜诇拽谉 讜诇讛讞讝讬专谉 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛谉

The Gemara answers that one cannot extrapolate from the example of dried figs to other cases. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Elazar says the following reason for that particular halakha: Dried figs are different, since one can boil dried figs in water and return them to their previous state; in other words, as they were when they were fresh. Consequently, one may separate them for fresh figs as though they too were fresh. One cannot extrapolate from here a principle with regard to other items.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转讜专诪讬谉 转讗谞讬诐 注诇 讛讙专讜讙专讜转 讘诪拽讜诐 砖专讙讬诇讬谉 诇注砖讜转 转讗谞讬诐 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜诇讗 讙专讜讙专讜转 注诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖专讙讬诇讬谉 诇注砖讜转 转讗谞讬诐 讙专讜讙专讜转

搂 The Gemara discusses the possibility of separating fresh figs as teruma for dried ones. The Sages taught in a baraita: One may separate teruma from fresh figs for dried figs by number, e.g., ten fresh figs for ninety dried ones, in a place where they are accustomed to make fresh figs into dried figs, and therefore the fresh figs can be preserved by processing them into dried figs. But one may not set aside teruma from dried figs for fresh figs even in a place where they are accustomed to make fresh figs into dried figs.

讗诪专 诪专 转讜专诪讬谉 转讗谞讬诐 注诇 讛讙专讜讙专讜转 讘诪拽讜诐 砖专讙讬诇讬谉 诇注砖讜转 转讗谞讬诐 讙专讜讙专讜转 讘诪拽讜诐 砖专讙讬诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 专讙讬诇讬谉 诇讗

The Gemara analyzes this baraita. The Master said: One may separate teruma from fresh figs for dried figs in a place where they are accustomed to make fresh figs into dried figs. This indicates that in a place where they are accustomed to make dried figs, yes, one may set aside teruma in this manner. But in a place where they are not accustomed to make dried figs, one may not separate from fresh figs for dried ones, as the fresh figs are liable to spoil before they can be used.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讛谉 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谞讜 专讙讬诇 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讜讛转谞谉 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讻讛谉 转讜专诐 诪谉 讛讬驻讛

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If it is referring to a situation where there is a priest present, and the owner of the produce can give him the teruma without delay, then even in a place where he is not accustomed to make dried figs, why may he not set aside fresh figs for dried ones? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Terumot 2:4): In a place where there is a priest present, the owner of the produce separates teruma from the best-quality produce? In this case, the fresh figs are superior in quality to the dried ones, despite the fact that dried figs last longer.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讻讛谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜诇讗 讙专讜讙专讜转 注诇 讛转讗谞讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖专讙讬诇 诇注砖讜转 转讗谞讬诐 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讻讛谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讜讛转谞谉 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讛谉 转讜专诐 诪谉 讛诪转拽讬讬诐 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讛谉

Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to a situation where there is no priest present, and by the time a priest is found the fresh figs might spoil. If so, say the latter clause of that baraita: But one may not set aside teruma from dried figs for fresh figs even in a place where they are accustomed to make fresh figs into dried figs. And if this is referring to a situation where there is no priest present, why may one not set aside dried figs, which can be preserved for a lengthy period, for fresh ones? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the same mishna (Terumot 2:4): In a place where there is no priest present, the owner of the produce separates teruma from that which will endure, not from the best-quality produce? Rather, it is obvious that this clause is referring to a situation where there is a priest present.

专讬砖讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讻讛谉 住讬驻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讛谉 讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讻讛谉 住讬驻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讛谉

The Gemara challenges: If so, the first clause of the baraita addresses a case where there is no priest present, whereas the latter clause addresses a case where there is a priest present. The Gemara explains: Yes, the first clause of the baraita addresses a case where there is no priest present, and the latter clause addresses a case where there is a priest present.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讞拽讬谞谉 讜诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘转专讬 讟注诪讬 讜诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 讘转专讬 转谞讗讬

Rav Pappa said: Learn from this discussion that we exert ourselves and interpret the mishna according to two reasons, i.e., two different situations in accordance with the opinion of one tanna, but we do not interpret it as being in accordance with the opinions of two tanna鈥檌m. An interpretation that maintains a single authorship of a mishna is preferable even if it requires explaining the mishna as discussing two different situations.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 谞讬诇讜砖讜转 讘驻讜砖专讬谉 讜诪砖诪专谉 砖诇讗 讬讞诪讬爪讜 讜讗诐 讛讞诪讬爪讜 砖讬专讬讛 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讛诪谞讞讛 讗砖专 转拽专讬讘讜 诇讛壮 诇讗 转注砖讛 讞诪抓 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 诇讬砖转讛 讜注诇 注专讬讻转讛 讜注诇 讗驻讬讬转讛

MISHNA: All the meal-offerings that come as matza are to be kneaded with lukewarm water so that the dough will bake well, as only a small amount of oil is added. And one must watch over them to ensure that they do not become leaven while kneading and shaping them, and if a meal offering or even only its remainder becomes leaven, one violates a prohibition, as it is stated: 鈥淣o meal offering that you shall bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven; as you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as an offering made by fire to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 2:11). And one is liable to be flogged for kneading the meal offering, and for shaping it, and for baking it, if the meal offering becomes leaven.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转讗驻讛 讞诪抓 讞诇拽诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇拽诐 诇讗 转讗驻讛 讞诪抓

GEMARA: The mishna states that one who allows the remainder of a meal offering to become leavened violates a prohibition. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Reish Lakish said: The verse states: 鈥淚t shall not be baked with leaven. I have given it as their portion of My offerings made by fire鈥 (Leviticus 6:10). This section of the verse can be read as a single sentence, to indicate: Even their portion of meal offerings, i.e., the remainder eaten by priests after the removal of the handful to be burned on the altar, shall not be baked with leaven.

讜讛讗讬 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗

The Gemara asks: And does this verse come for this purpose? It cannot, as it is necessary as the source for a different halakha, for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淚t shall not

转讗驻讛 讞诪抓 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转注砖讛 讞诪抓 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转注砖讛 讞诪抓 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 注诇 讻讜诇诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讗驻讛

be baked with leaven鈥 (Leviticus 6:10). What is the meaning when the verse states this? Isn鈥檛 this requirement already stated earlier: 鈥淣o meal offering that you shall bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven; as you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as an offering made by fire to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 2:11)? Rather, the phrase 鈥渋t shall not be baked with leaven鈥 serves to teach a different halakha. Since the prohibition concerning leaven is first stated in general terms: Shall not be made with leaven, without specification, one might have thought that one who causes a meal offering to become leaven will be liable to receive only one set of lashes for all of his actions, i.e., kneading, shaping, and baking the dough. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚t shall not be baked with leaven,鈥 which teaches that one who causes a meal offering to become leaven is liable separately for baking it, and for each stage of its preparation.

讗驻讬讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讛讬转讛 诇诪讛 讬爪讗转 诇讛拽讬砖 讗诇讬讛 诪讛 讗驻讬讬讛 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖讛讬讗 诪注砖讛 讬讞讬讚讬 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 诇讬砖转讛 讜注专讬讻转讛

The baraita explains this derivation: Baking leaven was included in the general prohibition incorporating all of the stages involved in preparing the meal offering. Why did it emerge from the generalization to be mentioned explicitly? It emerged in order to compare the other stages to it: Just as the act of baking is notable in that it is a single, i.e., separately defined, action, and one is liable to receive lashes for it by itself if the dough is leaven, so too, I will include the other stages of the preparation of a meal offering, i.e., kneading it and shaping it, and conclude that one is liable separately for each of these actions if the dough is leavened.

讜讻诇 诪注砖讛 讬讞讬讚讬 砖讘讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 拽讬讟讜祝 砖讛讜讗 诪注砖讛 讬讞讬讚讬 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛

And the same applies to any single action involved in the preparation of a meal offering. This statement serves to include the act of smoothing the surface of the dough with water. The reason this act is included is that although it is not a significant stage in the preparation of the dough, it is a single, independent action, and therefore one is liable to receive lashes for it by itself. This baraita demonstrates that one cannot derive the prohibition against allowing the remainder of a meal offering to become leavened from the verse: 鈥淚t shall not be baked with leaven,鈥 as this verse is the source of a different halakha. If so, from where is that prohibition derived?

讗谞谉 诪讞诇拽诐 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: The verse: 鈥淚t shall not be baked with leaven,鈥 is required for the principle stated earlier. We say that the prohibition against allowing the remainder of a meal offering to become leavened is derived from the subsequent phrase: 鈥淚 have given it as their portion of My offerings made by fire鈥 (Leviticus 6:10). The remainder is the portion of the meal offering eaten by the priests.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara challenges: But once it has been determined that the term 鈥渢heir portion鈥 teaches the prohibition against leavening the remainder of a meal offering, one can say this entire section of the verse comes only for this purpose, which would mean that there is no source for the halakha that one is liable separately for each stage of the preparation of a meal offering with leaven.

讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 讞诇拽诐 诇讗 转讗驻讛 讞诪抓 诪讗讬 诇讗 转讗驻讛 讞诪抓 讞诇拽诐 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara answers: One cannot say that this teaches only the prohibition against leavening the remainder of a meal offering, as if so, let the verse write: Their portion shall not be baked with leaven. What is meant by the fact that the verse stated it in a different order: 鈥淪hall not be baked with leaven. I have given it as their portion鈥? This indicates that one should learn from this two halakhot, i.e., that there is a prohibition against leavening the remainder of a meal offering and that one is liable to receive a separate set of lashes for each stage of preparation performed with leavened dough.

讜讗讬诪讗 讗驻讬讬讛 讚驻专讟 讘讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讞讚讗 讗讬谞讱 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讞讚讗 讗讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 讚讘专 砖讛讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讜讬爪讗 诪谉 讛讻诇诇 诇诇诪讚 诇讗 诇诇诪讚 注诇 注爪诪讜 讬爪讗 讗诇讗 诇诇诪讚 注诇 讛讻诇诇 讻讜诇讜 讬爪讗

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But one can say that the act of baking is different, as the Merciful One specified it in the Torah, and therefore one should be liable to receive one set of lashes for baking the dough. As for the other stages in the preparation of a meal offering, i.e., kneading, shaping, and smoothing, which are not explicitly stated in the verse, let him be liable to receive one set of lashes for all of them. The Gemara answers that this cannot be the halakha, because baking is something that was included in a generalization but emerged from the generalization in order to teach a halakha. According to a hermeneutic principle, a case of this kind did not emerge to teach a halakha only about itself, but rather it emerged to teach a halakha about the entire generalization, in this case, about all the other stages in the preparation of a meal offering.

讜讗讬诪讗 诇讗 转注砖讛 讻诇诇 诇讗 转讗驻讛 驻专讟 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 讗驻讬讬讛 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

The Gemara further challenges: But one can say that the phrase: Shall not be made with leaven, is a generalization, as it does not mention any specific acts, and the phrase: 鈥淚t shall not be baked with leaven,鈥 is a detail, as it specifies one particular stage of the preparation; and there is another standard hermeneutic principle: When there is a generalization and a detail, the generalization is referring only to that which is specified in the detail. In this case, that would mean that baking, yes, is included in this prohibition, but other matters, e.g., kneading and shaping, are not included.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗驻讟讜专讬拽讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讛诪专讜讞拽讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讛诪专讜讞拽讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讻诇诇 讜驻专讟

Rabbi Aptoriki said: That hermeneutic principle is not relevant here, because this is a case of a generalization and a detail that appear in the Torah distanced from one another, as the phrase: Shall not be made with leaven (Leviticus 2:11), is far from the expression: 鈥淚t shall not be baked with leaven鈥 (Leviticus 6:10). And for any instance of a generalization and a detail that appear in the Torah distanced from one another, one cannot derive a halakha from them by analyzing them as a generalization and a detail.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讚讬 讜讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讛诪专讜讞拽讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜砖讞讟 讗转讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 讬砖讞讟 讛注诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讞讟讗转 讛讜讗 讛讬讻谉 注讜诇讛 谞砖讞讟转 讘爪驻讜谉 讗祝 讝讛 讘爪驻讜谉

Rav Adda bar Ahava raises an objection, and some say that this objection is unattributed [kedi]: And is it correct that in the case of a generalization and a detail that appear in the Torah distanced from one another, one cannot derive a halakha from them by analyzing them as a generalization and a detail? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to a goat brought by a king as a sin offering: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the goat, and slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering before the Lord; it is a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:24). Where is the burnt offering slaughtered? On the northern side of the Temple courtyard, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 1:11). This sin offering of a king must consequently also be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard.

讜讻讬 讗谞讜 诪讻讗谉 诇诪讬讚讬谉 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 转砖讞讟 讛注诇讛 转砖讞讟 讛讞讟讗转 讛讗 诇诪讛 讝讛 讬爪讗 诇拽讜讘注讜 砖讗诐 诇讗 砖讞讟 讗讜转讜 讘爪驻讜谉 驻住诇讜

The baraita asks: And do you learn this halakha from here? But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淪peak to Aaron and to his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered shall the sin offering be slaughtered before God; it is most holy鈥 (Leviticus 6:18)? If so, to what purpose was this singled out? Why does the Torah state explicitly that the sin offering of the king requires slaughter in the north? The baraita answers: It is to fix a place for it, that this is the only place where a sin offering may be slaughtered, teaching that if he did not slaughter it in the north of the Temple courtyard, he has disqualified it even after the fact.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讻讱 讬爪讗转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讝讛 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖讞讟 讗转 讛讞讟讗转 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 讬砖讞讟 讗转 讛注诇讛 讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 诇讻诇 讞讟讗讜转 砖讟注讜谞讜转 爪驻讜谉

The baraita asks: Do you say that it is singled out for this purpose, to teach that even after the fact a sin offering slaughtered anywhere other than in the north is disqualified? Or perhaps it is only to teach that this goat sin offering requires slaughter in the north, but no other goat sin offering requires slaughter in the north. The baraita answers: The verse states elsewhere: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slaughter the sin offering in the place of burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:29), and this established a paradigm for all sin offerings, that they require slaughter in the north. Therefore, the additional verse stated with regard to the sin offering of a king teaches that if he did not slaughter it in the north it is disqualified.

讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜砖讞讟 讗转 讛讞讟讗转 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 砖讝讛 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The reason that all sin offerings must be slaughtered in the north is that the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淎nd slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering,鈥 from which it can be inferred that if not for this verse I would say that only this sin offering, the male goat brought by a king, requires slaughter in the north, but no other type of sin offering requires slaughter in the north. What is the reason for this? After all, the verse: 鈥淚n the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered shall the sin offering be slaughtered,鈥 appears to be referring to all types of sin offerings.

诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪专讜讞拽讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛 讚谞讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讻诇诇 讜驻专讟

Isn鈥檛 it because this verse is a generalization and a detail, as the verse first generalizes about all sin offerings, and then the verse concerning the sin offering of a king: 鈥淎nd slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering,鈥 is a detail, as it is referring to a specific sin offering? And even though the verse concerning sin offerings and the verse concerning the sin offering of a king are distanced from one another, nevertheless we would derive a halakha from them by means of the principle of a generalization and a detail. This appears to disprove the explanation of Rabbi Aptoriki.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讛讜讗 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讛讜讗 讜谞注砖讛 讻诇诇 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 讛驻专讟 讜讗讬转专讘讬 诇讛讜 讻诇 诪讬诇讬

Rav Ashi objects to this claim raised by Rav Adda bar Ahava: Is this a generalization and a detail? It is in fact a detail and a generalization, as the verse: 鈥淎nd slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:24), appears in the Torah earlier than the verse: 鈥淚n the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered the sin offering shall be slaughtered鈥 (Leviticus 6:18). A hermeneutic principle states that in this case the generalization adds to the detail, and includes all matters.

讗诇讗 转谞讗 讗转讜 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讝讛 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗转讜

Rather, the reason that if not for the specific textual derivation we would have thought that only a sin offering brought by a king requires slaughter in the north is that the word 鈥渋t,鈥 which is an exclusion, is difficult for the tanna of the baraita, as it is unclear what this term serves to exclude. And this is what the baraita is saying: Or perhaps the verse is teaching that only this sin offering requires slaughter in the north, but no other type of sin offering requires slaughter in the north, as the Merciful One writes 鈥渋t,鈥 which is an exclusion. Therefore, the additional verse: 鈥淎nd slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering,鈥 teaches that this halakha applies to all burnt offerings.

讜讛砖转讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讜砖讞讟 讗转 讛讞讟讗转 讗转讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 (谞讞砖讜谉 讜砖讞讟 注讜祝 讘驻住讞 住讬诪谉)

The Gemara asks: And now that the tanna of the baraita derives it from the phrase: 鈥淎nd slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering,鈥 to exclude what does the term 鈥渋t鈥 serve? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude the case that emerges from the following discussion, summarized by the mnemonic: Nahshon; and slaughter; bird; on Passover.

讗讜转讜 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 砖注讬专 谞讞砖讜谉 讘爪驻讜谉

The Gemara explains the first suggestion: It, the goat sin offering of a king, is slaughtered in the north, but the goat offered by Nahshon, prince of the tribe of Judah, was not slaughtered in the north of the Tabernacle. He, along with all the other princes of the tribes, brought offerings to inaugurate the altar and the Tabernacle, as recorded in the Torah (see Numbers, chapter 7). The sin offerings brought at this time were unique because they were not brought to atone for any sin. The term 鈥渋t鈥 teaches that even though they had some characteristics of a sin offering, the offerings of the princes did not require slaughter in the north.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转专讘讬 诇注谞讬谉 住诪讬讻讛 诇讬转专讘讬 谞诪讬 诇注谞讬谉 爪驻讜谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that since the sin offerings of the princes are included in the requirement of placing hands, they are also included in the requirement to be slaughtered in the north. Therefore, the term 鈥渋t鈥 teaches us that there was no requirement of slaughter in the north for the goats brought as sin offerings by Nahshon and the other princes.

讜住诪讬讻讛 讙讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜住诪讱 讬讚讜 注诇 专讗砖 讛砖注讬专 诇专讘讜转 砖注讬专 谞讞砖讜谉 诇住诪讬讻讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that the requirement of placing hands on the head of the animal itself applies to the goats offered by Nahshon and the other princes? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the sin offering of a king: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the goat, and slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering before the Lord; it is a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:24). The verse could have stated: Upon its head. The reason it adds 鈥渙f the goat鈥 is to include the goat brought as a sin offering by Nahshon in the requirement of placing hands on the head of an offering. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 55

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 55

讜讘诪讞砖讘讛 诪讛 转专讜诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛 讗祝 转专讜诪转 诪注砖专 讘注讬谉 讬驻讛

and by thought. And this comparison also teaches that just as in the case of standard teruma one should give generously, so too, with regard to teruma of the tithe one should give generously. Therefore, one who separates teruma of the tithe from fresh figs for dried figs should do so generously, e.g., ten fresh figs for ninety dried ones, as though the volume of the dried figs was as large as that of fresh ones.

讜诪讬谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讘讗 讛讬讛 谞讜讟诇 注砖专 讙专讜讙专讜转 砖讘诪拽爪讜注 注诇 转砖注讬诐 砖讘讻诇讻诇讛 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 讗诪专讬谞谉 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讻诪讜转 砖讛谉 讘爪讬专 诇讛讜

The Gemara suggests: And from this statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, one can cite a proof for the opinion that food is to be measured in accordance with its initial size. As Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: Father would set aside ten dried figs that were in a vessel for ninety fresh figs that were in a basket. Granted, if you say that we say one measures food items as they were initially, it is well, as Rabbi Yosei apparently considers the dried figs set aside as tithes as though they were still fresh figs. But if you say that one measures foods as they are in their current state, then in a case where one separates ten dried figs for ninety fresh figs they are less than the requisite amount, as the volume of ten dried figs is less than the volume of ten fresh figs. This indicates that the measure of the food is determined according to its initial state.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讗谞讬 讙专讜讙专讜转 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬讻讜诇 诇砖讜诇拽谉 讜诇讛讞讝讬专谉 诇讻诪讜转 砖讛谉

The Gemara answers that one cannot extrapolate from the example of dried figs to other cases. When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Elazar says the following reason for that particular halakha: Dried figs are different, since one can boil dried figs in water and return them to their previous state; in other words, as they were when they were fresh. Consequently, one may separate them for fresh figs as though they too were fresh. One cannot extrapolate from here a principle with regard to other items.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 转讜专诪讬谉 转讗谞讬诐 注诇 讛讙专讜讙专讜转 讘诪拽讜诐 砖专讙讬诇讬谉 诇注砖讜转 转讗谞讬诐 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜诇讗 讙专讜讙专讜转 注诇 转讗谞讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖专讙讬诇讬谉 诇注砖讜转 转讗谞讬诐 讙专讜讙专讜转

搂 The Gemara discusses the possibility of separating fresh figs as teruma for dried ones. The Sages taught in a baraita: One may separate teruma from fresh figs for dried figs by number, e.g., ten fresh figs for ninety dried ones, in a place where they are accustomed to make fresh figs into dried figs, and therefore the fresh figs can be preserved by processing them into dried figs. But one may not set aside teruma from dried figs for fresh figs even in a place where they are accustomed to make fresh figs into dried figs.

讗诪专 诪专 转讜专诪讬谉 转讗谞讬诐 注诇 讛讙专讜讙专讜转 讘诪拽讜诐 砖专讙讬诇讬谉 诇注砖讜转 转讗谞讬诐 讙专讜讙专讜转 讘诪拽讜诐 砖专讙讬诇讬谉 讗讬谉 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 专讙讬诇讬谉 诇讗

The Gemara analyzes this baraita. The Master said: One may separate teruma from fresh figs for dried figs in a place where they are accustomed to make fresh figs into dried figs. This indicates that in a place where they are accustomed to make dried figs, yes, one may set aside teruma in this manner. But in a place where they are not accustomed to make dried figs, one may not separate from fresh figs for dried ones, as the fresh figs are liable to spoil before they can be used.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讛谉 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谞讜 专讙讬诇 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讜讛转谞谉 诪拽讜诐 砖讬砖 讻讛谉 转讜专诐 诪谉 讛讬驻讛

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of this case? If it is referring to a situation where there is a priest present, and the owner of the produce can give him the teruma without delay, then even in a place where he is not accustomed to make dried figs, why may he not set aside fresh figs for dried ones? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna (Terumot 2:4): In a place where there is a priest present, the owner of the produce separates teruma from the best-quality produce? In this case, the fresh figs are superior in quality to the dried ones, despite the fact that dried figs last longer.

讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讻讛谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜诇讗 讙专讜讙专讜转 注诇 讛转讗谞讬诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘诪拽讜诐 砖专讙讬诇 诇注砖讜转 转讗谞讬诐 讙专讜讙专讜转 讜讗讬 讚诇讬讻讗 讻讛谉 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讜讛转谞谉 诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讛谉 转讜专诐 诪谉 讛诪转拽讬讬诐 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讛谉

Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to a situation where there is no priest present, and by the time a priest is found the fresh figs might spoil. If so, say the latter clause of that baraita: But one may not set aside teruma from dried figs for fresh figs even in a place where they are accustomed to make fresh figs into dried figs. And if this is referring to a situation where there is no priest present, why may one not set aside dried figs, which can be preserved for a lengthy period, for fresh ones? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the same mishna (Terumot 2:4): In a place where there is no priest present, the owner of the produce separates teruma from that which will endure, not from the best-quality produce? Rather, it is obvious that this clause is referring to a situation where there is a priest present.

专讬砖讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讻讛谉 住讬驻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讛谉 讗讬谉 专讬砖讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讻讛谉 住讬驻讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讻讛谉

The Gemara challenges: If so, the first clause of the baraita addresses a case where there is no priest present, whereas the latter clause addresses a case where there is a priest present. The Gemara explains: Yes, the first clause of the baraita addresses a case where there is no priest present, and the latter clause addresses a case where there is a priest present.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讞拽讬谞谉 讜诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘转专讬 讟注诪讬 讜诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬谞谉 讘转专讬 转谞讗讬

Rav Pappa said: Learn from this discussion that we exert ourselves and interpret the mishna according to two reasons, i.e., two different situations in accordance with the opinion of one tanna, but we do not interpret it as being in accordance with the opinions of two tanna鈥檌m. An interpretation that maintains a single authorship of a mishna is preferable even if it requires explaining the mishna as discussing two different situations.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 谞讬诇讜砖讜转 讘驻讜砖专讬谉 讜诪砖诪专谉 砖诇讗 讬讞诪讬爪讜 讜讗诐 讛讞诪讬爪讜 砖讬专讬讛 注讜讘专 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讛诪谞讞讛 讗砖专 转拽专讬讘讜 诇讛壮 诇讗 转注砖讛 讞诪抓 讜讞讬讬讘 注诇 诇讬砖转讛 讜注诇 注专讬讻转讛 讜注诇 讗驻讬讬转讛

MISHNA: All the meal-offerings that come as matza are to be kneaded with lukewarm water so that the dough will bake well, as only a small amount of oil is added. And one must watch over them to ensure that they do not become leaven while kneading and shaping them, and if a meal offering or even only its remainder becomes leaven, one violates a prohibition, as it is stated: 鈥淣o meal offering that you shall bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven; as you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as an offering made by fire to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 2:11). And one is liable to be flogged for kneading the meal offering, and for shaping it, and for baking it, if the meal offering becomes leaven.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讗 转讗驻讛 讞诪抓 讞诇拽诐 讗驻讬诇讜 讞诇拽诐 诇讗 转讗驻讛 讞诪抓

GEMARA: The mishna states that one who allows the remainder of a meal offering to become leavened violates a prohibition. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Reish Lakish said: The verse states: 鈥淚t shall not be baked with leaven. I have given it as their portion of My offerings made by fire鈥 (Leviticus 6:10). This section of the verse can be read as a single sentence, to indicate: Even their portion of meal offerings, i.e., the remainder eaten by priests after the removal of the handful to be burned on the altar, shall not be baked with leaven.

讜讛讗讬 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 诇讗

The Gemara asks: And does this verse come for this purpose? It cannot, as it is necessary as the source for a different halakha, for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: 鈥淚t shall not

转讗驻讛 讞诪抓 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 诇讗 转注砖讛 讞诪抓 诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 转注砖讛 讞诪抓 讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讞转 注诇 讻讜诇诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讗 转讗驻讛

be baked with leaven鈥 (Leviticus 6:10). What is the meaning when the verse states this? Isn鈥檛 this requirement already stated earlier: 鈥淣o meal offering that you shall bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven; as you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as an offering made by fire to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 2:11)? Rather, the phrase 鈥渋t shall not be baked with leaven鈥 serves to teach a different halakha. Since the prohibition concerning leaven is first stated in general terms: Shall not be made with leaven, without specification, one might have thought that one who causes a meal offering to become leaven will be liable to receive only one set of lashes for all of his actions, i.e., kneading, shaping, and baking the dough. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淚t shall not be baked with leaven,鈥 which teaches that one who causes a meal offering to become leaven is liable separately for baking it, and for each stage of its preparation.

讗驻讬讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讛讬转讛 诇诪讛 讬爪讗转 诇讛拽讬砖 讗诇讬讛 诪讛 讗驻讬讬讛 诪讬讜讞讚转 砖讛讬讗 诪注砖讛 讬讞讬讚讬 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 诇讬砖转讛 讜注专讬讻转讛

The baraita explains this derivation: Baking leaven was included in the general prohibition incorporating all of the stages involved in preparing the meal offering. Why did it emerge from the generalization to be mentioned explicitly? It emerged in order to compare the other stages to it: Just as the act of baking is notable in that it is a single, i.e., separately defined, action, and one is liable to receive lashes for it by itself if the dough is leaven, so too, I will include the other stages of the preparation of a meal offering, i.e., kneading it and shaping it, and conclude that one is liable separately for each of these actions if the dough is leavened.

讜讻诇 诪注砖讛 讬讞讬讚讬 砖讘讛 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 拽讬讟讜祝 砖讛讜讗 诪注砖讛 讬讞讬讚讬 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛

And the same applies to any single action involved in the preparation of a meal offering. This statement serves to include the act of smoothing the surface of the dough with water. The reason this act is included is that although it is not a significant stage in the preparation of the dough, it is a single, independent action, and therefore one is liable to receive lashes for it by itself. This baraita demonstrates that one cannot derive the prohibition against allowing the remainder of a meal offering to become leavened from the verse: 鈥淚t shall not be baked with leaven,鈥 as this verse is the source of a different halakha. If so, from where is that prohibition derived?

讗谞谉 诪讞诇拽诐 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara answers: The verse: 鈥淚t shall not be baked with leaven,鈥 is required for the principle stated earlier. We say that the prohibition against allowing the remainder of a meal offering to become leavened is derived from the subsequent phrase: 鈥淚 have given it as their portion of My offerings made by fire鈥 (Leviticus 6:10). The remainder is the portion of the meal offering eaten by the priests.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻讜诇讬讛 诇讛讻讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara challenges: But once it has been determined that the term 鈥渢heir portion鈥 teaches the prohibition against leavening the remainder of a meal offering, one can say this entire section of the verse comes only for this purpose, which would mean that there is no source for the halakha that one is liable separately for each stage of the preparation of a meal offering with leaven.

讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 讞诇拽诐 诇讗 转讗驻讛 讞诪抓 诪讗讬 诇讗 转讗驻讛 讞诪抓 讞诇拽诐 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 转专转讬

The Gemara answers: One cannot say that this teaches only the prohibition against leavening the remainder of a meal offering, as if so, let the verse write: Their portion shall not be baked with leaven. What is meant by the fact that the verse stated it in a different order: 鈥淪hall not be baked with leaven. I have given it as their portion鈥? This indicates that one should learn from this two halakhot, i.e., that there is a prohibition against leavening the remainder of a meal offering and that one is liable to receive a separate set of lashes for each stage of preparation performed with leavened dough.

讜讗讬诪讗 讗驻讬讬讛 讚驻专讟 讘讛 专讞诪谞讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讞讚讗 讗讬谞讱 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讞讚讗 讗讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 讚讘专 砖讛讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讜讬爪讗 诪谉 讛讻诇诇 诇诇诪讚 诇讗 诇诇诪讚 注诇 注爪诪讜 讬爪讗 讗诇讗 诇诇诪讚 注诇 讛讻诇诇 讻讜诇讜 讬爪讗

The Gemara raises another difficulty: But one can say that the act of baking is different, as the Merciful One specified it in the Torah, and therefore one should be liable to receive one set of lashes for baking the dough. As for the other stages in the preparation of a meal offering, i.e., kneading, shaping, and smoothing, which are not explicitly stated in the verse, let him be liable to receive one set of lashes for all of them. The Gemara answers that this cannot be the halakha, because baking is something that was included in a generalization but emerged from the generalization in order to teach a halakha. According to a hermeneutic principle, a case of this kind did not emerge to teach a halakha only about itself, but rather it emerged to teach a halakha about the entire generalization, in this case, about all the other stages in the preparation of a meal offering.

讜讗讬诪讗 诇讗 转注砖讛 讻诇诇 诇讗 转讗驻讛 驻专讟 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讗讬谉 讘讻诇诇 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖讘驻专讟 讗驻讬讬讛 讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

The Gemara further challenges: But one can say that the phrase: Shall not be made with leaven, is a generalization, as it does not mention any specific acts, and the phrase: 鈥淚t shall not be baked with leaven,鈥 is a detail, as it specifies one particular stage of the preparation; and there is another standard hermeneutic principle: When there is a generalization and a detail, the generalization is referring only to that which is specified in the detail. In this case, that would mean that baking, yes, is included in this prohibition, but other matters, e.g., kneading and shaping, are not included.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗驻讟讜专讬拽讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讛诪专讜讞拽讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛 讜讻诇 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讛诪专讜讞拽讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讻诇诇 讜驻专讟

Rabbi Aptoriki said: That hermeneutic principle is not relevant here, because this is a case of a generalization and a detail that appear in the Torah distanced from one another, as the phrase: Shall not be made with leaven (Leviticus 2:11), is far from the expression: 鈥淚t shall not be baked with leaven鈥 (Leviticus 6:10). And for any instance of a generalization and a detail that appear in the Torah distanced from one another, one cannot derive a halakha from them by analyzing them as a generalization and a detail.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讻讚讬 讜讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讛诪专讜讞拽讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛 讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜砖讞讟 讗转讜 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 讬砖讞讟 讛注诇讛 诇驻谞讬 讛壮 讞讟讗转 讛讜讗 讛讬讻谉 注讜诇讛 谞砖讞讟转 讘爪驻讜谉 讗祝 讝讛 讘爪驻讜谉

Rav Adda bar Ahava raises an objection, and some say that this objection is unattributed [kedi]: And is it correct that in the case of a generalization and a detail that appear in the Torah distanced from one another, one cannot derive a halakha from them by analyzing them as a generalization and a detail? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to a goat brought by a king as a sin offering: The verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the goat, and slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering before the Lord; it is a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:24). Where is the burnt offering slaughtered? On the northern side of the Temple courtyard, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd he shall slaughter it on the side of the altar northward before the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 1:11). This sin offering of a king must consequently also be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard.

讜讻讬 讗谞讜 诪讻讗谉 诇诪讬讚讬谉 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 转砖讞讟 讛注诇讛 转砖讞讟 讛讞讟讗转 讛讗 诇诪讛 讝讛 讬爪讗 诇拽讜讘注讜 砖讗诐 诇讗 砖讞讟 讗讜转讜 讘爪驻讜谉 驻住诇讜

The baraita asks: And do you learn this halakha from here? But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淪peak to Aaron and to his sons, saying: This is the law of the sin offering: In the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered shall the sin offering be slaughtered before God; it is most holy鈥 (Leviticus 6:18)? If so, to what purpose was this singled out? Why does the Torah state explicitly that the sin offering of the king requires slaughter in the north? The baraita answers: It is to fix a place for it, that this is the only place where a sin offering may be slaughtered, teaching that if he did not slaughter it in the north of the Temple courtyard, he has disqualified it even after the fact.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讻讱 讬爪讗转 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讝讛 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜砖讞讟 讗转 讛讞讟讗转 讘诪拽讜诐 讗砖专 讬砖讞讟 讗转 讛注诇讛 讝讛 讘谞讛 讗讘 诇讻诇 讞讟讗讜转 砖讟注讜谞讜转 爪驻讜谉

The baraita asks: Do you say that it is singled out for this purpose, to teach that even after the fact a sin offering slaughtered anywhere other than in the north is disqualified? Or perhaps it is only to teach that this goat sin offering requires slaughter in the north, but no other goat sin offering requires slaughter in the north. The baraita answers: The verse states elsewhere: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the sin offering, and slaughter the sin offering in the place of burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:29), and this established a paradigm for all sin offerings, that they require slaughter in the north. Therefore, the additional verse stated with regard to the sin offering of a king teaches that if he did not slaughter it in the north it is disqualified.

讟注诪讗 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜砖讞讟 讗转 讛讞讟讗转 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 砖讝讛 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The reason that all sin offerings must be slaughtered in the north is that the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淎nd slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering,鈥 from which it can be inferred that if not for this verse I would say that only this sin offering, the male goat brought by a king, requires slaughter in the north, but no other type of sin offering requires slaughter in the north. What is the reason for this? After all, the verse: 鈥淚n the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered shall the sin offering be slaughtered,鈥 appears to be referring to all types of sin offerings.

诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讛 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪专讜讞拽讬谉 讝讛 诪讝讛 讚谞讬谉 讗讜转谉 讘讻诇诇 讜驻专讟

Isn鈥檛 it because this verse is a generalization and a detail, as the verse first generalizes about all sin offerings, and then the verse concerning the sin offering of a king: 鈥淎nd slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering,鈥 is a detail, as it is referring to a specific sin offering? And even though the verse concerning sin offerings and the verse concerning the sin offering of a king are distanced from one another, nevertheless we would derive a halakha from them by means of the principle of a generalization and a detail. This appears to disprove the explanation of Rabbi Aptoriki.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讛讗讬 讻诇诇 讜驻专讟 讛讜讗 驻专讟 讜讻诇诇 讛讜讗 讜谞注砖讛 讻诇诇 诪讜住讬祝 注诇 讛驻专讟 讜讗讬转专讘讬 诇讛讜 讻诇 诪讬诇讬

Rav Ashi objects to this claim raised by Rav Adda bar Ahava: Is this a generalization and a detail? It is in fact a detail and a generalization, as the verse: 鈥淎nd slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:24), appears in the Torah earlier than the verse: 鈥淚n the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered the sin offering shall be slaughtered鈥 (Leviticus 6:18). A hermeneutic principle states that in this case the generalization adds to the detail, and includes all matters.

讗诇讗 转谞讗 讗转讜 拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 砖讝讛 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专 讟注讜谉 爪驻讜谉 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讗转讜

Rather, the reason that if not for the specific textual derivation we would have thought that only a sin offering brought by a king requires slaughter in the north is that the word 鈥渋t,鈥 which is an exclusion, is difficult for the tanna of the baraita, as it is unclear what this term serves to exclude. And this is what the baraita is saying: Or perhaps the verse is teaching that only this sin offering requires slaughter in the north, but no other type of sin offering requires slaughter in the north, as the Merciful One writes 鈥渋t,鈥 which is an exclusion. Therefore, the additional verse: 鈥淎nd slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering,鈥 teaches that this halakha applies to all burnt offerings.

讜讛砖转讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讜砖讞讟 讗转 讛讞讟讗转 讗转讜 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 诇诪注讜讟讬 (谞讞砖讜谉 讜砖讞讟 注讜祝 讘驻住讞 住讬诪谉)

The Gemara asks: And now that the tanna of the baraita derives it from the phrase: 鈥淎nd slaughter the sin offering in the place of the burnt offering,鈥 to exclude what does the term 鈥渋t鈥 serve? The Gemara answers: It serves to exclude the case that emerges from the following discussion, summarized by the mnemonic: Nahshon; and slaughter; bird; on Passover.

讗讜转讜 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讗讬谉 砖注讬专 谞讞砖讜谉 讘爪驻讜谉

The Gemara explains the first suggestion: It, the goat sin offering of a king, is slaughtered in the north, but the goat offered by Nahshon, prince of the tribe of Judah, was not slaughtered in the north of the Tabernacle. He, along with all the other princes of the tribes, brought offerings to inaugurate the altar and the Tabernacle, as recorded in the Torah (see Numbers, chapter 7). The sin offerings brought at this time were unique because they were not brought to atone for any sin. The term 鈥渋t鈥 teaches that even though they had some characteristics of a sin offering, the offerings of the princes did not require slaughter in the north.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转专讘讬 诇注谞讬谉 住诪讬讻讛 诇讬转专讘讬 谞诪讬 诇注谞讬谉 爪驻讜谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that since the sin offerings of the princes are included in the requirement of placing hands, they are also included in the requirement to be slaughtered in the north. Therefore, the term 鈥渋t鈥 teaches us that there was no requirement of slaughter in the north for the goats brought as sin offerings by Nahshon and the other princes.

讜住诪讬讻讛 讙讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讚转谞讬讗 讜住诪讱 讬讚讜 注诇 专讗砖 讛砖注讬专 诇专讘讜转 砖注讬专 谞讞砖讜谉 诇住诪讬讻讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专

The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that the requirement of placing hands on the head of the animal itself applies to the goats offered by Nahshon and the other princes? The Gemara answers: As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to the sin offering of a king: 鈥淎nd he shall place his hand upon the head of the goat, and slaughter it in the place where they slaughter the burnt offering before the Lord; it is a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:24). The verse could have stated: Upon its head. The reason it adds 鈥渙f the goat鈥 is to include the goat brought as a sin offering by Nahshon in the requirement of placing hands on the head of an offering. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says:

Scroll To Top