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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 16, 2018 | 讛壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讞

  • 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 6

Study Guide Menachot 6. How can we learn that a tereifa聽is not allowed to be brought on the altar? Laws regarding a mincha聽that was done by the wrong person, in the wrong聽way, etc. are discussed. Can it be rectified?


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

诪讛 诇讻诇讗讬诐 砖诪爪讜转讜 讘讻讱

What is notable about diverse kinds? It is notable in that its mitzva is in this manner, since the belt of the priestly vestments must be sewn from diverse kinds. By contrast, there is no mitzva to sacrifice specifically a tereifa.

专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛讚专 讚讬谞讗 讜转讬转讬 讘诪讛 讛爪讚 诪讛 诇诪诇讬拽讛 砖讻谉 拽讚讜砖转讛 讗讜住专转讛 讞诇讘 讜讚诐 讬讜讻讬讞讜

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The halakha that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice must be derived from the verse, because it can be said: Let this claim be derived by analogy from the common element of two sources, as follows: With regard to the question of the baraita: What is notable about pinching? It is notable in that its sanctity prohibits it, one can respond: Fat and blood prove that this consideration is not enough to reject the a fortiori inference, as these are prohibited before they are sanctified and are nevertheless permitted for the Most High.

诪讛 诇讞诇讘 讜讚诐 砖讻谉 讘讗讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讛讬转专 诪诇讬拽讛 转讜讻讬讞

Similarly, with regard to the question: What is notable about fat and blood? They are notable in that they come from an item that is generally permitted, i.e., the animal from which they come is itself permitted for consumption, one can reply: Pinching proves that this consideration is insufficient for a rejection of the a fortiori inference, as a bird that was killed by pinching is entirely prohibited for eating, and yet a pinched bird is permitted to the altar.

讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讗住讜专讬谉 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讜诪讜转专讬谉 诇讙讘讜讛 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 讟专驻讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗住讜专讛 诇讛讚讬讜讟 转讛讗 诪讜转专转 诇讙讘讜讛 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 诪爪讜转讛 讘讻讱

Rav Sheisha concludes: And accordingly, the inference has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common element is that they are prohibited for consumption to an ordinary person and are nevertheless permitted for the Most High. Therefore, I will also bring the case of a tereifa and say: Even though is it prohibited for consumption to an ordinary person, it should be permitted for the Most High. It is therefore necessary to derive from a verse that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice. The Gemara rejects this: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that with regard to fat and blood, and pinching, in both cases its mitzva is performed in this manner.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讚讬谞讗 驻专讻讗 诪讛讬讻讗 拽讗 诪讬讬转讬转 诇讛 诪讘注诇 诪讜诐

Rather, Rav Ashi said: It is necessary to derive the halakha of a tereifa from a verse because one can say that the refutation of the a fortiori inference is present from the outset. Rav Ashi elaborates: From where do you wish to derive the halakha that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice? You wish to derive it from an a fortiori inference from the case of a blemished animal, as a blemished animal is permitted for consumption and prohibited for sacrifice. This is problematic.

诪讛 诇讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖讻谉 注砖讛 讘讜 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讻拽专讬讘讬谉

Rav Ashi explains: What is notable about a blemished animal? It is notable in that with regard to blemishes the Torah rendered those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed, i.e., a blemished priest may not sacrifice an offering just as a blemished animal is unfit for sacrifice (see Leviticus, chapter 22). This cannot be said with regard to a tereifa, as a priest with a wound that will cause him to die within twelve months may perform the Temple service. It is therefore necessary to derive from the verse the fact that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 住讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讬讜讻讬讞 砖诇讗 注砖讛 讘讜 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讻拽专讬讘讬谉 讜诪讜转专 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讜讗住讜专 诇讙讘讜讛

Rav A岣 Sava said to Rav Ashi: But an animal born by caesarean section proves that this a fortiori inference cannot be rejected based on that consideration, as with regard to it the Torah did not render those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed, since an animal born by caesarean section is unfit for sacrifice whereas a priest born in such a manner may perform the Temple service. And yet an animal born by caesarean section is permitted for consumption to an ordinary person and prohibited for the Most High. If so, one cannot reject the a fortiori inference because with regard to blemishes the Torah rendered those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed. Why then is a verse necessary in order to derive that a tereifa is unfit?

诪讛 诇讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 砖讻谉 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讘讘讻讜专讛

Rav Ashi responds: What is notable about an animal born by caesarean section? It is notable in that such an animal is not sanctified with firstborn status, whereas a firstborn animal that was born as a tereifa is sanctified. Accordingly, without the verse one might have concluded that a tereifa may be sacrificed.

讘注诇 诪讜诐 讬讜讻讬讞 诪讛 诇讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖讻谉 注砖讛 讘讜 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讻拽专讬讘讬谉 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讬讜讻讬讞

Rav A岣 Sava answers: A blemished animal proves that this is not the decisive consideration, as it does become sanctified with the sanctity of a firstborn, and it too is permitted for consumption and prohibited for the Most High. And if you say: What is notable about a blemished animal? It is notable in that with regard to it the Torah rendered those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed, one can respond: An animal born by caesarean section proves that this consideration is not decisive, as a priest born by caesarean section may perform the Temple service.

讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖诪讜转专讬谉 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讜讗住讜专讬诐 诇讙讘讜讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讟专驻讛 砖讗住讜专讛 诇讛讚讬讜讟 转讛讗 讗住讜专讛 诇讙讘讜讛

Rav A岣 Sava concludes: And therefore, the inference has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common element is that they are permitted for consumption to an ordinary person and prohibited for the Most High. And all the more so a tereifa, which is prohibited to an ordinary person, should be prohibited for the Most High. If so, the derivation from a verse is unnecessary.

诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 诇讗 讛讜转专讜 诪讻诇诇谉 转讗诪专 讘讟专讬驻讛 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛

Rav Ashi refutes the proof of Rav A岣 Sava: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that their general prohibition was not permitted, since blemished animals and those born by caesarean section are never permitted for sacrifice. Will you say that the same applies to a tereifa, whose general prohibition was permitted, as will be explained? Accordingly, it is necessary to derive from the verse that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice.

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 讟专驻讛 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪诇讬拽讛 讚注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 诇讙讘讜讛 讘注诇 诪讜诐 谞诪讬 讘注讜驻讜转 讗砖转专讜讬讬 讗砖转专讬 转诪讜转 讜讝讻专讜转 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜转 讜讝讻专讜转 讘注讜驻讜转

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: This tereifa whose general prohibition was permitted, what is it, i.e., to what case is this referring? If we say that it is referring to the pinching of a bird burnt offering for the Most High, whereby the bird is initially rendered a tereifa at the start of the pinching process, and nevertheless it is sacrificed upon the altar, then the same may be said of a blemished animal as well. As with regard to birds it is permitted to sacrifice a blemished bird. This is in accordance with the halakha that the requirement that an offering must be unblemished and male applies to animal offerings, but there is no requirement that an offering must be unblemished and male in the case of bird offerings.

讗诇讗 诪诇讬拽讛 讚讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讻讛谞讬诐 诪砖讜诇讞谉 讙讘讜讛 拽讗 讝讻讜

Rather, this permitting the general prohibition found in the context of a tereifa is referring to the halakha that the pinching of a bird sin offering renders it permitted to the priests for consumption despite the fact that it was not slaughtered by cutting its neck with a knife. This claim can be refuted as well, as the priests receive their portion from the table of the Most High, i.e., they may partake of the sin offering only because it was permitted for sacrifice upon the altar. Accordingly, there is no difference between a tereifa due to pinching and a blemished bird, as both were released from their general prohibition in this regard, since both are permitted for sacrifice upon the altar and both are therefore permitted for consumption by the priests. Consequently, the a fortiori inference remains valid, and the verse is unnecessary.

讜讗诇讗 驻专讬讱 讛讻讬 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 诪讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 转讗诪专 讘讟专讬驻讛 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 诪讜诪讛 谞讬讻专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗

Rather, refute the a fortiori inference like this: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that with regard to both a blemished animal and one born by caesarean section their blemish is noticeable, as a blemished animal is visibly blemished and it is well known when an animal is born by caesarean section. Will you say that they can serve as the source of the halakha of a tereifa, whose blemish is not necessarily noticeable? Due to that reason, the verse: 鈥淥f the herd鈥 (Leviticus 1:3), was necessary, to teach that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice.

讜讟专讬驻讛 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 诪诪砖拽讛 讬砖专讗诇 诪谉 讛诪讜转专 诇讬砖专讗诇

搂 After trying to prove why a derivation from a verse is necessary, the Gemara questions the very source provided by the baraita on 5b for the disqualification of a tereifa, i.e., the verse: 鈥淥f the herd鈥 (Leviticus 1:3). But is the halakha that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice derived from here? It is derived from there, i.e., from the verse: 鈥淔rom the well-watered pastures of Israel鈥 (Ezekiel 45:15), from which it is derived that an offering may be brought only from that which is permitted to the Jewish people.

诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬注讘讜专 转讞转 讛砖讘讟 谞驻拽讗 驻专讟 诇讟专讬驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注讜讘专转

Alternatively, this halakha can be derived from a verse discussing animal tithe offerings: 鈥淲hatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy for the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:32). This teaches that all animals may be sacrificed as the animal tithe, excluding a tereifa, as it does not pass under the rod on account of its weakness, and the Sages derived from this the halakha that a tereifa is unfit for any type of offering.

爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 诪诪砖拽讛 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注专诇讛 讜讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 讗讘诇 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讗讬诪讗 转转讻砖专 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 讗砖专 讬注讘讜专

The Gemara responds: All of these verses are necessary, because if the disqualification of a tereifa was derived from the verse 鈥渢he well-watered pastures of Israel,鈥 I would say that this verse serves to exclude a tereifa only in a case where it did not have a period of fitness, e.g., if it was born a tereifa and was therefore never fit for sacrifice. This is similar to the case of the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla] and diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, whose disqualification is derived from this verse. But with regard to a tereifa that had a period of fitness, one might say that it should be fit. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淲hatever passes under the rod,鈥 to teach that all animals that do not pass under the rod are unfit for sacrifice, even if they were once fit.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 讗砖专 讬注讘讜专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讬讻讗 讚谞讟专驻讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛拽讚讬砖讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪注砖专 讗讘诇 讛拽讚讬砖讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞讟专驻讛 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗拽讚砖讛 讛讜讛 讞讝讬讗 讗讬诪讗 转转讻砖专 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪谉 讛讘拽专 爪专讬讻讬

The Gemara continues: And if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淲hatever passes under the rod,鈥 I would say that this verse serves to exclude a tereifa only where it was rendered a tereifa and its owner subsequently sanctified it. This is similar to the case of animal tithes, as this verse is teaching that a tereifa cannot be subsequently sanctified as a tithe. But if the owner sanctified it and it was subsequently rendered a tereifa, which means that at the time when it was sanctified it was fit, one might say that it should be fit. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淥f the herd,鈥 to teach that even an animal that became a tereifa after it was already sanctified is unfit for sacrifice. Accordingly, all three verses are necessary.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞讚 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 砖拽诪爪谉 讝专 讗讜谞谉 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 诪讞讜住专 讘讙讚讬诐 诪讞讜住专 讻讬驻讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 专讞抓 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 注专诇 讟诪讗 讬讜砖讘 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬 讻诇讬诐 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 注诇 讙讘讬 专讙诇讬 讞讘讬专讜 驻住讜诇

MISHNA: Both the meal offering of a sinner and all other meal offerings with regard to which the one who removed their handful was a non-priest, or a priest who was an acute mourner, i.e., whose relative died and was not yet buried, or a priest who was ritually impure who immersed that day and was waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, or a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments, or a priest who had not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, or a priest who did not wash his hands and feet from the water in the Basin prior to performing the Temple service, or an uncircumcised priest, or a ritually impure priest, or a priest who removed the handful while sitting, or while standing not on the floor of the Temple but upon vessels, or upon an animal, or upon the feet of another person; in all these cases the meal offerings are unfit for sacrifice.

拽诪抓 讘砖诪讗诇 驻住讜诇 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讬讞讝讬专 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬拽诪讜抓 讘讬诪讬谉

If the priest removed the handful with his left hand the meal offering is unfit. Ben Beteira says: He must return the handful to the vessel that contains the meal offering and again remove the handful, this time with his right hand.

拽诪抓 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 爪专讜专 讗讜 讙专讙专 诪诇讞 讗讜 拽讜专讟 砖诇 诇讘讜谞讛 驻住讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛拽讜诪抓 讛讬转专 讜讛讞住专 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讛讬转专 砖拽诪爪讜 诪讘讜专抓 讜讞住专 砖拽诪爪讜 讘专讗砖讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜

If a priest removed the handful of flour, and a stone, a grain of salt, or a pinch [koret] of frankincense emerged in his hand, the meal offering is unfit due to the fact that the Sages said: The handful that is outsized or that is lacking is unfit. The existence of one of these foreign items in the handful means that the requisite measure of flour is lacking. And which is the outsized handful? It is one where he removed the handful overflowing [mevoratz] in a manner in which his fingers do not hold the flour. And which is the lacking handful? It is one where he removed the handful with the tips of his fingers.

讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪转谞讗 讗讞讚 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 诇讬转谞讬 讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 砖拽诪爪谉 讝专 讜讗讜谞谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach: Both the meal offering of a sinner and all other meal offerings? Let it teach: All the meal offerings with regard to which the one who removed their handful was a non-priest or an acute mourner. Why does the mishna single out the case of the meal offering of a sinner?

诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖转讛讗 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 拽专讘谞讜 诪讛讜讚专 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖转讛讗 讞讟讗转 讞诇讘 讟注讜谞讛 谞住讻讬诐

The Gemara responds: It was necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in this manner in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: By right the meal offering of a sinner should require oil and frankincense like other meal offerings, so that the sinner will not profit. And for what reason does it not require oil and frankincense? So that his offering will not be of superior quality. And likewise, by right the sin offering of forbidden fat, i.e., the offering brought by one who unwittingly ate the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal, should require libations

砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 拽专讘谞讜 诪讛讜讚专 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 拽专讘谞讜 诪讛讜讚专 讻讬 拽诪爪讬 诇讛 驻住讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 转转讻砖专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

so that the sinner will not profit. And for what reason does his offering not require libations? So that his offering will not be of superior quality. Accordingly, it might enter your mind to say that since Rabbi Shimon says: In order that his offering will not be of superior quality, when the handful is removed by one of those unfit for performing the Temple service, the offering should also be valid, as it too is of inferior quality. Therefore, the mishna teaches us the halakha in a manner that emphasizes that even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon the meal offering of a sinner is disqualified when the handful is removed by one who is unfit.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛转诐 谞诪讬 诇讬转谞讬 讗讞讚 讞讟讗转 讞诇讘 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 砖拽讘诇讜 讚诪谉 讝专 讜讗讜谞谉 讜诇讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗爪讟专讬讱

The Gemara asks: If so, then there as well, i.e., with regard to slaughtered offerings, let the mishna (Zeva岣m 15b) teach: Both the sin offering of forbidden fat and all the slaughtered offerings with regard to which the one who collected their blood was a non-priest or a priest who is an acute mourner, are disqualified. And let us say that it was necessary to teach the mishna in this manner in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, to emphasize that although the sin offering is not of superior quality, in that it does not require that libations be brought with it, nevertheless it is disqualified if its blood was collected by one unfit for Temple service. Why then does that mishna teach simply: All the slaughtered offerings with regard to which the one who collected their blood was a non-priest are disqualified?

讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚转谞讗 诇讬讛 讻诇 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讞讜抓 讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖诪注 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚转谞讗 讻诇 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讞讜抓 讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖诪注

The Gemara concludes its question: Apparently, since the tanna teaches that mishna with the term: All, and he does not teach: Except, all offerings are indicated by the general disqualification, and there is no need to emphasize the halakha with regard to a sin offering, even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Here too, with regard to meal offerings, since the tanna teaches the mishna with the term: All, and he does not teach: Except, this means that all of them are indicated, even the meal offering of a sinner. Why then does the mishna specifically mention the meal offering of a sinner?

讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诇专讬砖讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: It was necessary to teach the mishna in this manner as it might enter your mind to say: Since I have established that the first clause, i.e., the mishna on 2a, is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, with regard to the last clause as well, i.e., the mishna here, it may be concluded that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Therefore, the mishna teaches us the halakha in this manner, to emphasize that it is in accordance with his opinion.

讗诪专 专讘 讝专 砖拽诪抓 讬讞讝讬专 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 驻住诇 转谞谉 诪讗讬 驻住诇 驻住诇 注讚 砖讬讞讝讬专

Rav says: In the case of a non-priest who removed a handful, he should return the handful to the meal offering. The Gemara challenges: But we learned in the mishna that a non-priest disqualified the meal offering by removing a handful from it. The Gemara responds: What does the mishna mean when it says: Disqualified? It means that the non-priest has disqualified the meal offering until such time as he returns the handful to the meal offering, whereupon a priest fit for the Temple service should again remove a handful from the meal offering and sacrifice it.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讬 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇拽讜诪抓 讘注讬谞讬讛 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞住专 拽讜诪抓 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讬诪诇讗谞讜 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 住讘专 讬讘讬讗 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讬诪诇讗谞讜

The Gemara challenges: If so, then this is identical to the opinion of ben Beteira in the mishna, who says that if a priest removed a handful with his left hand it is returned to the meal offering whereupon the priest removes a handful from the offering with his right hand. What difference is there between the two opinions in the mishna? The Gemara explains: If the handful that was removed by one unfit for Temple service is in its unadulterated form, then the Rabbis do not disagree with the opinion of ben Beteira, and the handful is returned to the meal offering. They disagree when the handful is lacking. The Rabbis hold: One does not bring flour from within his house and refill the vessel containing the handful, whereas ben Beteira holds that one brings flour from within his house and refills it.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讬讞讝讬专 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬拽诪讜抓 讘讬诪讬谉 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讬讞讝讬专 讜讬讘讬讗 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讬诪诇讗谞讜 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬拽诪讜抓 讘讬诪讬谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if the mishna is referring to a handful that is lacking, then the statement of the mishna: Ben Beteira says he must return the handful to the vessel with the meal offering and again remove a handful with his right hand, is imprecise, as the mishna should have taught: Ben Beteira says he must return the handful to the vessel with the meal offering and bring flour from within his house and refill the missing amount, and again remove a handful with his right hand.

讻讬 拽讗 讗诪专 专讘 诇讘谉 讘转讬专讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪讻砖专 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗诇讗 讘砖诪讗诇 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara therefore suggests a different answer: When Rav said that the handful is returned to the meal offering, he said this only according to the opinion of ben Beteira. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it obvious that this is the opinion of ben Beteira? The Gemara responds: Rav鈥檚 statement is necessary lest you say that ben Beteira deems the meal offering fit only when the handful was removed with one鈥檚 left hand, but with regard to other disqualifications, he does not deem it fit. Therefore, Rav teaches us that with regard to all of the disqualifications cited in the mishna, ben Beteira holds that the handful is returned to the meal offering whereupon a new handful is removed from it and sacrificed upon the altar.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖诪讗诇 讚讗砖讻讞谉 诇讛 讛讻砖讬专讗 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讝专 谞诪讬 讗砖讻讞谉 诇讛 讛讻砖讬专讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛

The Gemara asks: What is different in the case of a handful removed with a priest鈥檚 left hand that one might have thought that ben Beteira鈥檚 opinion applies only in this case? Perhaps the reason is that we find that the Temple service performed with the priest鈥檚 left hand is fit on Yom Kippur, i.e., when the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies holding the vessel containing the incense in his left hand. But with regard to a non-priest as well, we find that the Temple service is fit with regard to slaughter, as an offering may be slaughtered by a non-priest. Why then is it necessary for Rav to teach that the opinion of ben Beteira applies to the case of a non-priest as well?

砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara responds: Slaughter is not considered a sacrificial rite, and it is for that reason that a non-priest may slaughter an offering. Accordingly, without the statement of Rav one would not have concluded that ben Beteira holds that a handful removed by a non-priest may be returned, as the Temple service is never fit when performed by a non-priest.

讜诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讞讬讟转 驻专讛 讘讝专 驻住讜诇讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 注诇讛 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讜拽讛 讻转讬讘 讘讛 砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讚拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: And is slaughter really not considered a sacrificial rite? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Zeira say that Rav says: The slaughter of a red heifer by a non-priest is not valid? And Rav said with regard to this halakha: This is because both the term: 鈥淓lazar the priest鈥 (Numbers 19:3), and the term: 鈥淪tatute鈥 (Numbers 19:2), are written in the Torah鈥檚 description of the slaughter of the red heifer. The term 鈥渟tatute鈥 indicates that if one deviates from any of the details of the service as delineated in the verses, the service is not valid. The Gemara answers: The halakhot of the red heifer are different, as the heifer is considered sanctified for the purpose of Temple maintenance, not for sacrifice upon the altar. Accordingly, one cannot derive from the case of the red heifer that the slaughter of an offering is considered a sacrificial rite.

讜诇讗讜 讻诇 讚讻谉 讛讜讗 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讘注讜 讻讛讜谞讛 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讘注讜 讻讛讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪专讗讜转 谞讙注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讘注讬 讻讛讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: But is it not all the more so? If items sanctified for the purpose of Temple maintenance require that the performance of rites relevant to them be performed by a member of the priesthood, then with regard to items sanctified for sacrifice upon the altar, shouldn鈥檛 they certainly require that their rites be performed by a member of the priesthood? Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said in response: The requirement that the red heifer be slaughtered by a priest is not proof that its slaughter is a sacrificial rite. Rather, that requirement is just as it is in the case of examination of the shades of leprous marks, which is obviously not considered a sacrificial rite, and yet the Torah requires that these marks be examined by a member of the priesthood.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪讘诪讛

The Gemara asks: Nevertheless, why was it necessary for Rav to teach that the removal of a handful by a non-priest does not disqualify the meal offering according to ben Beteira? Let us derive it from the fact that there was a period of fitness for rites performed by a non-priest, as before the construction of the Temple it was permitted for non-priests to sacrifice offerings upon a private altar.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讘诪讛 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 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

And if you would say that we do not derive halakhot of the rites performed in the Temple from those performed on a private altar, one can respond: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to an item, e.g., the limbs of an offering, that emerged from the Temple courtyard and was thereby rendered unfit for sacrifice upon the altar, that if it nevertheless ascended upon the altar it shall not descend? It is derived from the fact that an item that emerged is valid for sacrifice on a private altar. This indicates that one can learn the halakhot of offerings in the Temple from the halakhot of a private altar.

转谞讗 讗讝讗转 转讜专转 讛注诇讛 住诪讬讱 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: The tanna of that baraita relies on the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived that any item that ascends upon the altar shall not descend from it, even if it was disqualified. In other words, the verse is the source for the halakha of the baraita, whereas the case of a private altar is cited merely as a support for this ruling.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚讗砖诪注讬谞谉 专讘 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘砖讗专 驻住讜诇讬谉 驻住诇 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讻砖讬专 讛讬讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讘讻诇 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 讻讜诇谉

The Gemara asks: Rather, the reason it is known that ben Beteira permits the return to the meal offering of a handful removed by a non-priest is that Rav taught us so. Were it not for this, I would say that with regard to other disqualifications, i.e., other than a handful removed with the left hand, ben Beteira invalidates the meal offering. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, both say: Ben Beteira would deem fit in the case of all the other disqualifications listed in the mishna?

讜转谞讬讗 讜拽诪抓 诪砖诐 诪诪拽讜诐 砖专讙诇讬 讛讝专 注讜诪讚讜转

The Gemara continues: And it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall bring it to Aaron鈥檚 sons the priests; and he shall remove from there his handful鈥 (Leviticus 2:2), that this verse indicates that the removal of a handful from a meal offering may be performed from the place where the feet of the non-priest stand, i.e., anywhere within the Temple courtyard.

讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 拽诪抓 讘砖诪讗诇 砖讬讞讝讬专 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬拽诪讜抓 讘讬诪讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜拽诪抓 诪砖诐 诪诪拽讜诐 砖拽诪抓 讻讘专

The baraita continues: Ben Beteira says that the verse should be interpreted as follows: From where is it derived that if one removed a handful with his left hand, that he must return the handful to the vessel with the meal offering and again remove the handful with his right hand? It is derived from that which the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall remove from there,鈥 indicating that the handful is removed from the place where he already removed it, i.e., the handful is returned to the meal offering and thereupon removed from the same meal offering with the right hand. This concludes the baraita.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚拽专讗 住转诪讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛 诪讛 诇讬 砖诪讗诇 讜诪讛 诇讬 砖讗专 讛驻住讜诇讬谉

The Gemara explains the difficulty from the baraita: And since the verse is written in an unspecified manner, i.e., it does not mention which handfuls are returned, what difference is it to me if the handful was removed with the left hand, and what difference is it to me if it was removed by means of one of the other disqualifications?

讗诇讗 讛讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 专讘 拽诪抓 讜讗驻讬诇讜 拽讬讚砖 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讗住讬讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞讞转讜诐 讗诪专讜 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖拽诪抓 讜诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讗讘诇 拽讬讚砖 驻住诇

The Gemara therefore suggests an alternative explanation: Rather, this is what Rav teaches us: Ben Beteira holds that if one unfit for Temple service removed a handful it may be returned to the meal offering even if he sanctified the handful by placing it in a service vessel. And the statement of Rav serves to exclude the opinion of these tanna鈥檌m: As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei ben Yosei ben Yasiyyan and Rabbi Yehuda the baker said: In what case is this statement of ben Beteira said, i.e., in which case does he rule that the handful may be returned to the meal offering? It is in a case where the unfit individual removed a handful and did not sanctify it by placing it inside a service vessel. But if he sanctified it then he has disqualified it, even according to ben Beteira, and it may not be returned to the meal offering.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 拽诪抓 讗讬谉 拽讬讚砖 诇讗 讻诪讗谉 讻讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪转谞讗 拽诪讗

And there are those who say that Rav teaches the opposite, that if an unfit person merely removed a handful, yes, ben Beteira permits such a handful to be returned to the meal offering from which it was removed, but if he already sanctified the handful by placing it inside a service vessel, it may not be returned. In accordance with whose opinion is this explanation? It is in accordance with the opinion of these tanna鈥檌m, i.e., Rabbi Yosei ben Yosei ben Yasiyyan and Rabbi Yehuda the baker, and it is to exclude the opinion of the first tanna in that baraita, who disagrees with the ruling of Rabbi Yosei ben Yosei ben Yasiyyan and Rabbi Yehuda the baker and maintains that a handful may be returned even after it was sanctified by a service vessel.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 拽讗 住讘专讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讗讬 拽诪讬爪转 驻住讜诇讬谉 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪转谉 讻诇讬 讗讬 拽诪讬爪转 驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讻讬 注讘讚 诇讛 诪转谉 讻诇讬 诪讗讬 讛讜讛

Rav Na岣an objects to this: What do these tanna鈥檌m of the baraita hold? If they hold that the removal of a handful by one unfit for Temple service is considered the performance of a sacrificial rite to the extent that it disqualifies the offering, then the meal offering should be disqualified even though he did not perform the stage of the placement of the handful in a vessel. And if they hold that the removal of a handful by an unfit individual is not considered the performance of a rite, then when he performed the stage of its placement in a vessel, what significance was there to this action? He can still return the handful to the meal offering.

讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇注讜诇诐 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讙诪专讛 注讘讜讚转讛 注讚 讚注讘讬讚 诇讛 诪转谉 讻诇讬

Rav Na岣an reconsidered and then said: Actually, those tanna鈥檌m hold that the removal of a handful by one unfit for Temple service is considered the performance of a sacrificial rite, but the rite of the handful is not complete until he performs the stage of its placement in a vessel. Consequently, the meal offering is disqualified only after a person unfit for Temple service places the handful inside a service vessel.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 拽讬讚砖

The Gemara challenges: If so, i.e., if the placement of the handful inside a service vessel completes the rite that begins with the handful鈥檚 removal, then even if the handful was removed by an unfit individual who has not yet sanctified it in the service vessel designated for the handful,

  • 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 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Menachot 6

诪讛 诇讻诇讗讬诐 砖诪爪讜转讜 讘讻讱

What is notable about diverse kinds? It is notable in that its mitzva is in this manner, since the belt of the priestly vestments must be sewn from diverse kinds. By contrast, there is no mitzva to sacrifice specifically a tereifa.

专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诇讬讛讚专 讚讬谞讗 讜转讬转讬 讘诪讛 讛爪讚 诪讛 诇诪诇讬拽讛 砖讻谉 拽讚讜砖转讛 讗讜住专转讛 讞诇讘 讜讚诐 讬讜讻讬讞讜

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The halakha that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice must be derived from the verse, because it can be said: Let this claim be derived by analogy from the common element of two sources, as follows: With regard to the question of the baraita: What is notable about pinching? It is notable in that its sanctity prohibits it, one can respond: Fat and blood prove that this consideration is not enough to reject the a fortiori inference, as these are prohibited before they are sanctified and are nevertheless permitted for the Most High.

诪讛 诇讞诇讘 讜讚诐 砖讻谉 讘讗讬诐 诪讻诇诇 讛讬转专 诪诇讬拽讛 转讜讻讬讞

Similarly, with regard to the question: What is notable about fat and blood? They are notable in that they come from an item that is generally permitted, i.e., the animal from which they come is itself permitted for consumption, one can reply: Pinching proves that this consideration is insufficient for a rejection of the a fortiori inference, as a bird that was killed by pinching is entirely prohibited for eating, and yet a pinched bird is permitted to the altar.

讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讗住讜专讬谉 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讜诪讜转专讬谉 诇讙讘讜讛 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 讟专驻讛 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讗住讜专讛 诇讛讚讬讜讟 转讛讗 诪讜转专转 诇讙讘讜讛 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 诪爪讜转讛 讘讻讱

Rav Sheisha concludes: And accordingly, the inference has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common element is that they are prohibited for consumption to an ordinary person and are nevertheless permitted for the Most High. Therefore, I will also bring the case of a tereifa and say: Even though is it prohibited for consumption to an ordinary person, it should be permitted for the Most High. It is therefore necessary to derive from a verse that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice. The Gemara rejects this: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that with regard to fat and blood, and pinching, in both cases its mitzva is performed in this manner.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讚讬谞讗 驻专讻讗 诪讛讬讻讗 拽讗 诪讬讬转讬转 诇讛 诪讘注诇 诪讜诐

Rather, Rav Ashi said: It is necessary to derive the halakha of a tereifa from a verse because one can say that the refutation of the a fortiori inference is present from the outset. Rav Ashi elaborates: From where do you wish to derive the halakha that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice? You wish to derive it from an a fortiori inference from the case of a blemished animal, as a blemished animal is permitted for consumption and prohibited for sacrifice. This is problematic.

诪讛 诇讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖讻谉 注砖讛 讘讜 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讻拽专讬讘讬谉

Rav Ashi explains: What is notable about a blemished animal? It is notable in that with regard to blemishes the Torah rendered those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed, i.e., a blemished priest may not sacrifice an offering just as a blemished animal is unfit for sacrifice (see Leviticus, chapter 22). This cannot be said with regard to a tereifa, as a priest with a wound that will cause him to die within twelve months may perform the Temple service. It is therefore necessary to derive from the verse the fact that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 住讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讬讜讻讬讞 砖诇讗 注砖讛 讘讜 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讻拽专讬讘讬谉 讜诪讜转专 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讜讗住讜专 诇讙讘讜讛

Rav A岣 Sava said to Rav Ashi: But an animal born by caesarean section proves that this a fortiori inference cannot be rejected based on that consideration, as with regard to it the Torah did not render those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed, since an animal born by caesarean section is unfit for sacrifice whereas a priest born in such a manner may perform the Temple service. And yet an animal born by caesarean section is permitted for consumption to an ordinary person and prohibited for the Most High. If so, one cannot reject the a fortiori inference because with regard to blemishes the Torah rendered those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed. Why then is a verse necessary in order to derive that a tereifa is unfit?

诪讛 诇讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 砖讻谉 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讘讘讻讜专讛

Rav Ashi responds: What is notable about an animal born by caesarean section? It is notable in that such an animal is not sanctified with firstborn status, whereas a firstborn animal that was born as a tereifa is sanctified. Accordingly, without the verse one might have concluded that a tereifa may be sacrificed.

讘注诇 诪讜诐 讬讜讻讬讞 诪讛 诇讘注诇 诪讜诐 砖讻谉 注砖讛 讘讜 诪拽专讬讘讬谉 讻拽专讬讘讬谉 讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讬讜讻讬讞

Rav A岣 Sava answers: A blemished animal proves that this is not the decisive consideration, as it does become sanctified with the sanctity of a firstborn, and it too is permitted for consumption and prohibited for the Most High. And if you say: What is notable about a blemished animal? It is notable in that with regard to it the Torah rendered those who sacrifice like that which is sacrificed, one can respond: An animal born by caesarean section proves that this consideration is not decisive, as a priest born by caesarean section may perform the Temple service.

讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖诪讜转专讬谉 诇讛讚讬讜讟 讜讗住讜专讬诐 诇讙讘讜讛 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讟专驻讛 砖讗住讜专讛 诇讛讚讬讜讟 转讛讗 讗住讜专讛 诇讙讘讜讛

Rav A岣 Sava concludes: And therefore, the inference has reverted to its starting point. The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case; their common element is that they are permitted for consumption to an ordinary person and prohibited for the Most High. And all the more so a tereifa, which is prohibited to an ordinary person, should be prohibited for the Most High. If so, the derivation from a verse is unnecessary.

诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 诇讗 讛讜转专讜 诪讻诇诇谉 转讗诪专 讘讟专讬驻讛 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛

Rav Ashi refutes the proof of Rav A岣 Sava: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that their general prohibition was not permitted, since blemished animals and those born by caesarean section are never permitted for sacrifice. Will you say that the same applies to a tereifa, whose general prohibition was permitted, as will be explained? Accordingly, it is necessary to derive from the verse that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice.

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 讟专驻讛 砖讛讜转专讛 诪讻诇诇讛 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪诇讬拽讛 讚注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 诇讙讘讜讛 讘注诇 诪讜诐 谞诪讬 讘注讜驻讜转 讗砖转专讜讬讬 讗砖转专讬 转诪讜转 讜讝讻专讜转 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜转 讜讝讻专讜转 讘注讜驻讜转

Rav A岣, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: This tereifa whose general prohibition was permitted, what is it, i.e., to what case is this referring? If we say that it is referring to the pinching of a bird burnt offering for the Most High, whereby the bird is initially rendered a tereifa at the start of the pinching process, and nevertheless it is sacrificed upon the altar, then the same may be said of a blemished animal as well. As with regard to birds it is permitted to sacrifice a blemished bird. This is in accordance with the halakha that the requirement that an offering must be unblemished and male applies to animal offerings, but there is no requirement that an offering must be unblemished and male in the case of bird offerings.

讗诇讗 诪诇讬拽讛 讚讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 诇讻讛谞讬诐 讻讛谞讬诐 诪砖讜诇讞谉 讙讘讜讛 拽讗 讝讻讜

Rather, this permitting the general prohibition found in the context of a tereifa is referring to the halakha that the pinching of a bird sin offering renders it permitted to the priests for consumption despite the fact that it was not slaughtered by cutting its neck with a knife. This claim can be refuted as well, as the priests receive their portion from the table of the Most High, i.e., they may partake of the sin offering only because it was permitted for sacrifice upon the altar. Accordingly, there is no difference between a tereifa due to pinching and a blemished bird, as both were released from their general prohibition in this regard, since both are permitted for sacrifice upon the altar and both are therefore permitted for consumption by the priests. Consequently, the a fortiori inference remains valid, and the verse is unnecessary.

讜讗诇讗 驻专讬讱 讛讻讬 诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讻谉 诪讜诪谉 谞讬讻专 转讗诪专 讘讟专讬驻讛 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 诪讜诪讛 谞讬讻专 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 拽专讗

Rather, refute the a fortiori inference like this: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that with regard to both a blemished animal and one born by caesarean section their blemish is noticeable, as a blemished animal is visibly blemished and it is well known when an animal is born by caesarean section. Will you say that they can serve as the source of the halakha of a tereifa, whose blemish is not necessarily noticeable? Due to that reason, the verse: 鈥淥f the herd鈥 (Leviticus 1:3), was necessary, to teach that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice.

讜讟专讬驻讛 诪讛讻讗 谞驻拽讗 诪讛转诐 谞驻拽讗 诪诪砖拽讛 讬砖专讗诇 诪谉 讛诪讜转专 诇讬砖专讗诇

搂 After trying to prove why a derivation from a verse is necessary, the Gemara questions the very source provided by the baraita on 5b for the disqualification of a tereifa, i.e., the verse: 鈥淥f the herd鈥 (Leviticus 1:3). But is the halakha that a tereifa is unfit for sacrifice derived from here? It is derived from there, i.e., from the verse: 鈥淔rom the well-watered pastures of Israel鈥 (Ezekiel 45:15), from which it is derived that an offering may be brought only from that which is permitted to the Jewish people.

诪讻诇 讗砖专 讬注讘讜专 转讞转 讛砖讘讟 谞驻拽讗 驻专讟 诇讟专讬驻讛 砖讗讬谞讛 注讜讘专转

Alternatively, this halakha can be derived from a verse discussing animal tithe offerings: 鈥淲hatever passes under the rod, the tenth shall be holy for the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 27:32). This teaches that all animals may be sacrificed as the animal tithe, excluding a tereifa, as it does not pass under the rod on account of its weakness, and the Sages derived from this the halakha that a tereifa is unfit for any type of offering.

爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 诪诪砖拽讛 讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讚讜诪讬讗 讚注专诇讛 讜讻诇讗讬 讛讻专诐 讗讘诇 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讗讬诪讗 转转讻砖专 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 讗砖专 讬注讘讜专

The Gemara responds: All of these verses are necessary, because if the disqualification of a tereifa was derived from the verse 鈥渢he well-watered pastures of Israel,鈥 I would say that this verse serves to exclude a tereifa only in a case where it did not have a period of fitness, e.g., if it was born a tereifa and was therefore never fit for sacrifice. This is similar to the case of the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla] and diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, whose disqualification is derived from this verse. But with regard to a tereifa that had a period of fitness, one might say that it should be fit. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淲hatever passes under the rod,鈥 to teach that all animals that do not pass under the rod are unfit for sacrifice, even if they were once fit.

讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 讗砖专 讬注讘讜专 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讛讬讻讗 讚谞讟专驻讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 讛拽讚讬砖讛 讚讜诪讬讗 讚诪注砖专 讗讘诇 讛拽讚讬砖讛 讜诇讘住讜祝 谞讟专驻讛 讚讘注讬讚谞讗 讚讗拽讚砖讛 讛讜讛 讞讝讬讗 讗讬诪讗 转转讻砖专 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪谉 讛讘拽专 爪专讬讻讬

The Gemara continues: And if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淲hatever passes under the rod,鈥 I would say that this verse serves to exclude a tereifa only where it was rendered a tereifa and its owner subsequently sanctified it. This is similar to the case of animal tithes, as this verse is teaching that a tereifa cannot be subsequently sanctified as a tithe. But if the owner sanctified it and it was subsequently rendered a tereifa, which means that at the time when it was sanctified it was fit, one might say that it should be fit. Therefore, the Merciful One wrote: 鈥淥f the herd,鈥 to teach that even an animal that became a tereifa after it was already sanctified is unfit for sacrifice. Accordingly, all three verses are necessary.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞讚 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 砖拽诪爪谉 讝专 讗讜谞谉 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 诪讞讜住专 讘讙讚讬诐 诪讞讜住专 讻讬驻讜专讬诐 砖诇讗 专讞抓 讬讚讬讜 讜专讙诇讬讜 注专诇 讟诪讗 讬讜砖讘 注讜诪讚 注诇 讙讘讬 讻诇讬诐 注诇 讙讘讬 讘讛诪讛 注诇 讙讘讬 专讙诇讬 讞讘讬专讜 驻住讜诇

MISHNA: Both the meal offering of a sinner and all other meal offerings with regard to which the one who removed their handful was a non-priest, or a priest who was an acute mourner, i.e., whose relative died and was not yet buried, or a priest who was ritually impure who immersed that day and was waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, or a priest lacking the requisite priestly vestments, or a priest who had not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, or a priest who did not wash his hands and feet from the water in the Basin prior to performing the Temple service, or an uncircumcised priest, or a ritually impure priest, or a priest who removed the handful while sitting, or while standing not on the floor of the Temple but upon vessels, or upon an animal, or upon the feet of another person; in all these cases the meal offerings are unfit for sacrifice.

拽诪抓 讘砖诪讗诇 驻住讜诇 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讬讞讝讬专 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬拽诪讜抓 讘讬诪讬谉

If the priest removed the handful with his left hand the meal offering is unfit. Ben Beteira says: He must return the handful to the vessel that contains the meal offering and again remove the handful, this time with his right hand.

拽诪抓 讜注诇讛 讘讬讚讜 爪专讜专 讗讜 讙专讙专 诪诇讞 讗讜 拽讜专讟 砖诇 诇讘讜谞讛 驻住讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讗诪专讜 讛拽讜诪抓 讛讬转专 讜讛讞住专 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬讝讛讜 讛讬转专 砖拽诪爪讜 诪讘讜专抓 讜讞住专 砖拽诪爪讜 讘专讗砖讬 讗爪讘注讜转讬讜

If a priest removed the handful of flour, and a stone, a grain of salt, or a pinch [koret] of frankincense emerged in his hand, the meal offering is unfit due to the fact that the Sages said: The handful that is outsized or that is lacking is unfit. The existence of one of these foreign items in the handful means that the requisite measure of flour is lacking. And which is the outsized handful? It is one where he removed the handful overflowing [mevoratz] in a manner in which his fingers do not hold the flour. And which is the lacking handful? It is one where he removed the handful with the tips of his fingers.

讙诪壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪转谞讗 讗讞讚 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 诇讬转谞讬 讻诇 讛诪谞讞讜转 砖拽诪爪谉 讝专 讜讗讜谞谉

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach: Both the meal offering of a sinner and all other meal offerings? Let it teach: All the meal offerings with regard to which the one who removed their handful was a non-priest or an acute mourner. Why does the mishna single out the case of the meal offering of a sinner?

诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖转讛讗 诪谞讞转 讞讜讟讗 讟注讜谞讛 砖诪谉 讜诇讘讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 拽专讘谞讜 诪讛讜讚专 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 砖转讛讗 讞讟讗转 讞诇讘 讟注讜谞讛 谞住讻讬诐

The Gemara responds: It was necessary for the mishna to teach this halakha in this manner in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: By right the meal offering of a sinner should require oil and frankincense like other meal offerings, so that the sinner will not profit. And for what reason does it not require oil and frankincense? So that his offering will not be of superior quality. And likewise, by right the sin offering of forbidden fat, i.e., the offering brought by one who unwittingly ate the forbidden fat of a domesticated animal, should require libations

砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讜讟讗 谞砖讻专 讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谞讛 讟注讜谞讛 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 拽专讘谞讜 诪讛讜讚专 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 拽专讘谞讜 诪讛讜讚专 讻讬 拽诪爪讬 诇讛 驻住讜诇讬谉 谞诪讬 转转讻砖专 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

so that the sinner will not profit. And for what reason does his offering not require libations? So that his offering will not be of superior quality. Accordingly, it might enter your mind to say that since Rabbi Shimon says: In order that his offering will not be of superior quality, when the handful is removed by one of those unfit for performing the Temple service, the offering should also be valid, as it too is of inferior quality. Therefore, the mishna teaches us the halakha in a manner that emphasizes that even according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon the meal offering of a sinner is disqualified when the handful is removed by one who is unfit.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛转诐 谞诪讬 诇讬转谞讬 讗讞讚 讞讟讗转 讞诇讘 讜讗讞讚 讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 砖拽讘诇讜 讚诪谉 讝专 讜讗讜谞谉 讜诇讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗爪讟专讬讱

The Gemara asks: If so, then there as well, i.e., with regard to slaughtered offerings, let the mishna (Zeva岣m 15b) teach: Both the sin offering of forbidden fat and all the slaughtered offerings with regard to which the one who collected their blood was a non-priest or a priest who is an acute mourner, are disqualified. And let us say that it was necessary to teach the mishna in this manner in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, to emphasize that although the sin offering is not of superior quality, in that it does not require that libations be brought with it, nevertheless it is disqualified if its blood was collected by one unfit for Temple service. Why then does that mishna teach simply: All the slaughtered offerings with regard to which the one who collected their blood was a non-priest are disqualified?

讗诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚转谞讗 诇讬讛 讻诇 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讞讜抓 讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖诪注 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚转谞讗 讻诇 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 讞讜抓 讻讜诇讛讜 诪砖诪注

The Gemara concludes its question: Apparently, since the tanna teaches that mishna with the term: All, and he does not teach: Except, all offerings are indicated by the general disqualification, and there is no need to emphasize the halakha with regard to a sin offering, even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Here too, with regard to meal offerings, since the tanna teaches the mishna with the term: All, and he does not teach: Except, this means that all of them are indicated, even the meal offering of a sinner. Why then does the mishna specifically mention the meal offering of a sinner?

讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诇专讬砖讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: It was necessary to teach the mishna in this manner as it might enter your mind to say: Since I have established that the first clause, i.e., the mishna on 2a, is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, with regard to the last clause as well, i.e., the mishna here, it may be concluded that it is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. Therefore, the mishna teaches us the halakha in this manner, to emphasize that it is in accordance with his opinion.

讗诪专 专讘 讝专 砖拽诪抓 讬讞讝讬专 讜讛讗 讗谞谉 驻住诇 转谞谉 诪讗讬 驻住诇 驻住诇 注讚 砖讬讞讝讬专

Rav says: In the case of a non-priest who removed a handful, he should return the handful to the meal offering. The Gemara challenges: But we learned in the mishna that a non-priest disqualified the meal offering by removing a handful from it. The Gemara responds: What does the mishna mean when it says: Disqualified? It means that the non-priest has disqualified the meal offering until such time as he returns the handful to the meal offering, whereupon a priest fit for the Temple service should again remove a handful from the meal offering and sacrifice it.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讬 讚讗讬转讬讛 诇拽讜诪抓 讘注讬谞讬讛 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讚讞住专 拽讜诪抓 专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诇讗 讬讘讬讗 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讬诪诇讗谞讜 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 住讘专 讬讘讬讗 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讬诪诇讗谞讜

The Gemara challenges: If so, then this is identical to the opinion of ben Beteira in the mishna, who says that if a priest removed a handful with his left hand it is returned to the meal offering whereupon the priest removes a handful from the offering with his right hand. What difference is there between the two opinions in the mishna? The Gemara explains: If the handful that was removed by one unfit for Temple service is in its unadulterated form, then the Rabbis do not disagree with the opinion of ben Beteira, and the handful is returned to the meal offering. They disagree when the handful is lacking. The Rabbis hold: One does not bring flour from within his house and refill the vessel containing the handful, whereas ben Beteira holds that one brings flour from within his house and refills it.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讬讞讝讬专 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬拽诪讜抓 讘讬诪讬谉 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 讬讞讝讬专 讜讬讘讬讗 诪转讜讱 讘讬转讜 讜讬诪诇讗谞讜 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬拽诪讜抓 讘讬诪讬谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: If so, i.e., if the mishna is referring to a handful that is lacking, then the statement of the mishna: Ben Beteira says he must return the handful to the vessel with the meal offering and again remove a handful with his right hand, is imprecise, as the mishna should have taught: Ben Beteira says he must return the handful to the vessel with the meal offering and bring flour from within his house and refill the missing amount, and again remove a handful with his right hand.

讻讬 拽讗 讗诪专 专讘 诇讘谉 讘转讬专讗 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪讻砖专 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗诇讗 讘砖诪讗诇 讗讘诇 讘砖讗专 驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara therefore suggests a different answer: When Rav said that the handful is returned to the meal offering, he said this only according to the opinion of ben Beteira. The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 it obvious that this is the opinion of ben Beteira? The Gemara responds: Rav鈥檚 statement is necessary lest you say that ben Beteira deems the meal offering fit only when the handful was removed with one鈥檚 left hand, but with regard to other disqualifications, he does not deem it fit. Therefore, Rav teaches us that with regard to all of the disqualifications cited in the mishna, ben Beteira holds that the handful is returned to the meal offering whereupon a new handful is removed from it and sacrificed upon the altar.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖诪讗诇 讚讗砖讻讞谉 诇讛 讛讻砖讬专讗 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讝专 谞诪讬 讗砖讻讞谉 诇讛 讛讻砖讬专讗 讘砖讞讬讟讛

The Gemara asks: What is different in the case of a handful removed with a priest鈥檚 left hand that one might have thought that ben Beteira鈥檚 opinion applies only in this case? Perhaps the reason is that we find that the Temple service performed with the priest鈥檚 left hand is fit on Yom Kippur, i.e., when the High Priest would enter the Holy of Holies holding the vessel containing the incense in his left hand. But with regard to a non-priest as well, we find that the Temple service is fit with regard to slaughter, as an offering may be slaughtered by a non-priest. Why then is it necessary for Rav to teach that the opinion of ben Beteira applies to the case of a non-priest as well?

砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara responds: Slaughter is not considered a sacrificial rite, and it is for that reason that a non-priest may slaughter an offering. Accordingly, without the statement of Rav one would not have concluded that ben Beteira holds that a handful removed by a non-priest may be returned, as the Temple service is never fit when performed by a non-priest.

讜诇讗 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖讞讬讟转 驻专讛 讘讝专 驻住讜诇讛 讜讗诪专 专讘 注诇讛 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讜拽讛 讻转讬讘 讘讛 砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讚拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks: And is slaughter really not considered a sacrificial rite? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Zeira say that Rav says: The slaughter of a red heifer by a non-priest is not valid? And Rav said with regard to this halakha: This is because both the term: 鈥淓lazar the priest鈥 (Numbers 19:3), and the term: 鈥淪tatute鈥 (Numbers 19:2), are written in the Torah鈥檚 description of the slaughter of the red heifer. The term 鈥渟tatute鈥 indicates that if one deviates from any of the details of the service as delineated in the verses, the service is not valid. The Gemara answers: The halakhot of the red heifer are different, as the heifer is considered sanctified for the purpose of Temple maintenance, not for sacrifice upon the altar. Accordingly, one cannot derive from the case of the red heifer that the slaughter of an offering is considered a sacrificial rite.

讜诇讗讜 讻诇 讚讻谉 讛讜讗 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讘注讜 讻讛讜谞讛 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讘注讜 讻讛讜谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪专讗讜转 谞讙注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 谞讬谞讛讜 讜讘注讬 讻讛讜谞讛

The Gemara asks: But is it not all the more so? If items sanctified for the purpose of Temple maintenance require that the performance of rites relevant to them be performed by a member of the priesthood, then with regard to items sanctified for sacrifice upon the altar, shouldn鈥檛 they certainly require that their rites be performed by a member of the priesthood? Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said in response: The requirement that the red heifer be slaughtered by a priest is not proof that its slaughter is a sacrificial rite. Rather, that requirement is just as it is in the case of examination of the shades of leprous marks, which is obviously not considered a sacrificial rite, and yet the Torah requires that these marks be examined by a member of the priesthood.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪讘诪讛

The Gemara asks: Nevertheless, why was it necessary for Rav to teach that the removal of a handful by a non-priest does not disqualify the meal offering according to ben Beteira? Let us derive it from the fact that there was a period of fitness for rites performed by a non-priest, as before the construction of the Temple it was permitted for non-priests to sacrifice offerings upon a private altar.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪讘诪讛 诇讗 讬诇驻讬谞谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 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

And if you would say that we do not derive halakhot of the rites performed in the Temple from those performed on a private altar, one can respond: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to an item, e.g., the limbs of an offering, that emerged from the Temple courtyard and was thereby rendered unfit for sacrifice upon the altar, that if it nevertheless ascended upon the altar it shall not descend? It is derived from the fact that an item that emerged is valid for sacrifice on a private altar. This indicates that one can learn the halakhot of offerings in the Temple from the halakhot of a private altar.

转谞讗 讗讝讗转 转讜专转 讛注诇讛 住诪讬讱 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: The tanna of that baraita relies on the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived that any item that ascends upon the altar shall not descend from it, even if it was disqualified. In other words, the verse is the source for the halakha of the baraita, whereas the case of a private altar is cited merely as a support for this ruling.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讗 讚讗砖诪注讬谞谉 专讘 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘砖讗专 驻住讜诇讬谉 驻住诇 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪讻砖讬专 讛讬讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讘讻诇 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 讻讜诇谉

The Gemara asks: Rather, the reason it is known that ben Beteira permits the return to the meal offering of a handful removed by a non-priest is that Rav taught us so. Were it not for this, I would say that with regard to other disqualifications, i.e., other than a handful removed with the left hand, ben Beteira invalidates the meal offering. But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, both say: Ben Beteira would deem fit in the case of all the other disqualifications listed in the mishna?

讜转谞讬讗 讜拽诪抓 诪砖诐 诪诪拽讜诐 砖专讙诇讬 讛讝专 注讜诪讚讜转

The Gemara continues: And it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall bring it to Aaron鈥檚 sons the priests; and he shall remove from there his handful鈥 (Leviticus 2:2), that this verse indicates that the removal of a handful from a meal offering may be performed from the place where the feet of the non-priest stand, i.e., anywhere within the Temple courtyard.

讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讗讜诪专 诪谞讬谉 砖讗诐 拽诪抓 讘砖诪讗诇 砖讬讞讝讬专 讜讬讞讝讜专 讜讬拽诪讜抓 讘讬诪讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜拽诪抓 诪砖诐 诪诪拽讜诐 砖拽诪抓 讻讘专

The baraita continues: Ben Beteira says that the verse should be interpreted as follows: From where is it derived that if one removed a handful with his left hand, that he must return the handful to the vessel with the meal offering and again remove the handful with his right hand? It is derived from that which the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall remove from there,鈥 indicating that the handful is removed from the place where he already removed it, i.e., the handful is returned to the meal offering and thereupon removed from the same meal offering with the right hand. This concludes the baraita.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚拽专讗 住转诪讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛 诪讛 诇讬 砖诪讗诇 讜诪讛 诇讬 砖讗专 讛驻住讜诇讬谉

The Gemara explains the difficulty from the baraita: And since the verse is written in an unspecified manner, i.e., it does not mention which handfuls are returned, what difference is it to me if the handful was removed with the left hand, and what difference is it to me if it was removed by means of one of the other disqualifications?

讗诇讗 讛讗 拽诪砖诪注 诇谉 专讘 拽诪抓 讜讗驻讬诇讜 拽讬讚砖 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讬讗住讬讬谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛谞讞转讜诐 讗诪专讜 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖拽诪抓 讜诇讗 拽讬讚砖 讗讘诇 拽讬讚砖 驻住诇

The Gemara therefore suggests an alternative explanation: Rather, this is what Rav teaches us: Ben Beteira holds that if one unfit for Temple service removed a handful it may be returned to the meal offering even if he sanctified the handful by placing it in a service vessel. And the statement of Rav serves to exclude the opinion of these tanna鈥檌m: As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei ben Yosei ben Yasiyyan and Rabbi Yehuda the baker said: In what case is this statement of ben Beteira said, i.e., in which case does he rule that the handful may be returned to the meal offering? It is in a case where the unfit individual removed a handful and did not sanctify it by placing it inside a service vessel. But if he sanctified it then he has disqualified it, even according to ben Beteira, and it may not be returned to the meal offering.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 拽诪抓 讗讬谉 拽讬讚砖 诇讗 讻诪讗谉 讻讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讜诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪转谞讗 拽诪讗

And there are those who say that Rav teaches the opposite, that if an unfit person merely removed a handful, yes, ben Beteira permits such a handful to be returned to the meal offering from which it was removed, but if he already sanctified the handful by placing it inside a service vessel, it may not be returned. In accordance with whose opinion is this explanation? It is in accordance with the opinion of these tanna鈥檌m, i.e., Rabbi Yosei ben Yosei ben Yasiyyan and Rabbi Yehuda the baker, and it is to exclude the opinion of the first tanna in that baraita, who disagrees with the ruling of Rabbi Yosei ben Yosei ben Yasiyyan and Rabbi Yehuda the baker and maintains that a handful may be returned even after it was sanctified by a service vessel.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讗讬 拽讗 住讘专讬 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讗讬 拽诪讬爪转 驻住讜诇讬谉 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪转谉 讻诇讬 讗讬 拽诪讬爪转 驻住讜诇讬谉 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讻讬 注讘讚 诇讛 诪转谉 讻诇讬 诪讗讬 讛讜讛

Rav Na岣an objects to this: What do these tanna鈥檌m of the baraita hold? If they hold that the removal of a handful by one unfit for Temple service is considered the performance of a sacrificial rite to the extent that it disqualifies the offering, then the meal offering should be disqualified even though he did not perform the stage of the placement of the handful in a vessel. And if they hold that the removal of a handful by an unfit individual is not considered the performance of a rite, then when he performed the stage of its placement in a vessel, what significance was there to this action? He can still return the handful to the meal offering.

讛讚专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 诇注讜诇诐 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诇讗 讙诪专讛 注讘讜讚转讛 注讚 讚注讘讬讚 诇讛 诪转谉 讻诇讬

Rav Na岣an reconsidered and then said: Actually, those tanna鈥檌m hold that the removal of a handful by one unfit for Temple service is considered the performance of a sacrificial rite, but the rite of the handful is not complete until he performs the stage of its placement in a vessel. Consequently, the meal offering is disqualified only after a person unfit for Temple service places the handful inside a service vessel.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗 拽讬讚砖

The Gemara challenges: If so, i.e., if the placement of the handful inside a service vessel completes the rite that begins with the handful鈥檚 removal, then even if the handful was removed by an unfit individual who has not yet sanctified it in the service vessel designated for the handful,

Scroll To Top