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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 4, 2017 | 讟状讝 讘讻住诇讜 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Shevuot 6

Study Guide Shevuot 6. The mishna in Negaim which is somewhat parallel to our mishna聽regarding the 2 shades of white that are leprous in the Torah and the two that the Rabbis added, and elaborates a little more.聽 The gemara explains that the mishna聽there doesn’t match Rabbi Akiva’s opinion as the mishna聽connects between Avot and Toladot and Rabbi Akiva connects between the order of the shades of white.聽 The mishna then tries to derive from where we know Rabbi Akiva’s opinion.聽 The first attempt is unsuccessful but the second succeeds.聽 The gemara then explains about the different shades of the colors mentioned in the Torah.聽 From where do we know that the verses in the Torah regarding the requirement to bring a sliding scale sin offering for an impure person relate to one who went into the mikdash or ate sacred food?

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讘诇讗 住讬讚 讛讬讻诇 拽专讜诐 讘讬爪讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽专讜诐 讘讬爪讛 诪转转讗讬 讚砖讗转 专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讜诇砖讗转 讜诇住驻讞转 住驻讞转 讟驻讬诇讛 诇砖讗转 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪谞讞转讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讟讜讘讗 讗诇讗 住讬讚 讛讬讻诇 拽砖讬讗 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara answers: What is this comparison? Granted, it would all be well were it not for the difficulty with regard to a mark the color of the lime plaster of the Sanctuary walls, as the difficulty raised with regard to an egg membrane鈥colored mark is not difficult. As even though the shade of an egg membrane is two stages below that of a se鈥檈t, the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd for a se鈥檈t and for a sappa岣t (Leviticus 14:56), which indicates that a sappa岣t is secondary to a se鈥檈t and can combine with it even though a sappa岣t is of a much lower degree of brightness than it. Rabbi Akiva holds that both of the additional shades not explicitly mentioned in the Torah are derived from the word: Sappa岣t, and so both of them can combine with a se鈥檈t. But the difficulty raised with regard to a mark the color of the lime plaster of the Sanctuary walls is indeed difficult. Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

讜讛讬讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜

搂 The Gemara elaborates on Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion: And where have we learned that according to Rabbi Akiva the different shades should be ordered this one above that one, i.e., according to their degrees of brightness, and only two adjacent shades can combine together?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖讗诇 讬讛讜砖注 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 诪专讗讜转 谞讙注讬诐 砖谞讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诪讛 讬讗诪专讜 讬讗诪专讜 诪拽专讜诐 讘讬爪讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 讟诪讗

If we say we learned it from that which is taught in the following baraita, it is difficult. The baraita teaches: Rabbi Yosei said that Yehoshua, son of Rabbi Akiva, asked of Rabbi Akiva: For what reason did the Sages say that the different shades of leprous marks are two types that are four, and proceed to specify their names? Rabbi Akiva said to him: But if not that, what else could they say? Rabbi Yehoshua answered him: Let them say that any mark of a degree of brightness from that of an egg membrane and above is ritually impure.

讗诪专 诇讜 诇讜诪专 砖诪爪讟专驻讬诐 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讜讬讗诪专讜 诪拽专讜诐 讘讬爪讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 讟诪讗 讜诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讬 讘讛谉 讜讘砖诪讜转讬讛谉 讗讬谞讜 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐

Rabbi Akiva said to him: They specified the four different shades in order to say that they combine with each other in that order, i.e., each one with its adjacent shade. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: If so, let them simply say: Any mark of a degree of brightness from that of an egg membrane and above is ritually impure, and they combine with each other. Rabbi Akiva said to him: They specified their names in order to tell you: Any priest who is not an expert in distinguishing between them and in identifying their names is not authorized to inspect the leprous marks and make a decision regarding them.

讜讗讬诇讜 诪住讬讚 讛讬讻诇 讜诇诪注诇讛 诇讗 拽讗诪专

The Gemara explains the difficulty: Rabbi Yehoshua suggested that according to Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion it should be sufficient to say that any mark of a degree of brightness from that of an egg membrane and upward is impure, but he did not say that it would also be necessary to add: And any mark of a degree of brightness from that of the lime plaster of the Sanctuary walls and above is impure. If Rabbi Akiva agrees to the categorization of the mishna, then it would be necessary to state separately each category of marks, in a dual formulation, in order to indicate that only shades that are categorized together can combine.

诪讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讘讛讚讬 砖讗转 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Conclude from the fact that he did not say this to Rabbi Akiva that Rabbi Yehoshua heard of Rabbi Akiva that he says: All the different shades combine with a se鈥檈t. Accordingly, both a snow-white baheret and a lime-colored mark will each combine with a se鈥檈t, as they are adjacent to it when listed in order of their degrees of brightness. An egg membrane鈥揷olored mark will also combine with a se鈥檈t, as it is derived from the word: Sappa岣t, and the Torah indicates that a sappa岣t is secondary to a se鈥檈t.

讜讚诇诪讗 砖讗转 讜转讜诇讚转讛 讘讛专转 讜转讜诇讚转讛

The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps Rabbi Akiva does hold that the only combinations possible are a se鈥檈t and its secondary mark, i.e., an egg membrane鈥揷olored mark; and a baheret and its secondary mark, i.e., a lime-colored mark. And perhaps Rabbi Yehoshua in fact proposed that the Sages should use a dual formulation, but the baraita cites only the first half of his suggestion.

讗诇讗 诪讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪砖诇 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇讗专讘注讛 讻讜住讜转 砖诇 讞诇讘 讗讞讚 谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讻讜 砖转讬 讟讬驻讬谉 砖诇 讚诐 讜讗讞讚 谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讻讜 讗专讘注 讟讬驻讬谉 砖诇 讚诐 讜讗讞讚 谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讻讜 砖诪讜谞讛 讜讗讞讚 谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讻讜 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讟讬驻讬谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 砖砖 注砖专讛 讟讬驻讬谉 砖讻讜诇谉 诪专讗讜转 诇讜讘谉 讛谉 讗诇讗 砖讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讛 讜讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讛

Rather, Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion can be inferred from that which Rabbi 岣nina says, as Rabbi 岣nina says: The following is an analogy to illustrate the opinion of Rabbi Akiva: To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to four cups of milk, and two drops of blood fell into one of them, and four drops of blood fell into another one of them, and eight drops of blood fell into another one, and twelve drops of blood fell into the last one. And some say that sixteen drops fell into the last cup. This is a suitable analogy, as the milk in all of the cups still has a similar shade of white, but the cups can be ordered according to their degrees of brightness, as this one is above this one, and that one is above that one. Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 analogy would appear to portray Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion in the same way it was cited earlier.

讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘驻转讜讱 讘讞诇讜拽 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this. The Torah states that a 鈥渞eddish-white affliction鈥 (Leviticus 13:42), not just a flawless white one, renders a person ritually impure. Therefore, the Gemara suggests: Say that you heard Rabbi Akiva express this opinion with regard to combining different shades of a mark that is mixed [befatukh] with red, which is the case most similar to the analogy offered by Rabbi 岣nina, but with regard to different shades of flawless white, have you heard Rabbi Akiva express this opinion?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讘驻转讜讱 讛讻讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讘讞诇讜拽 讜讘驻转讜讱 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讚诪讚诐 砖讘讝讛 讜砖讘讝讛 讻讬讬谉 讛诪讝讜讙 讘诪讬诐 讗诇讗 砖诇 讘讛专转 注讝讛 讻砖诇讙 讜砖诇 住讬讚 讚讬讛讛 讛讬诪谞讛

And if you would say that just as you heard Rabbi Akiva express this opinion with regard to a mark that is mixed with red, so too, by logical extension, you have effectively heard Rabbi Akiva express this opinion with regard to different shades of flawless white, as what possible reason is there to differentiate between them, this is difficult. And this suggestion is problematic, as in the case of a mixed reddish-white mark itself, did you ever hear him express this opinion? But isn鈥檛 it taught otherwise in a mishna (Nega鈥檌m 1:2): With regard to the various shades of white that are mixed with red, Rabbi Akiva says the reddish variation of this one, i.e., of a baheret, and of that one, i.e., of a lime-colored mark, are like wine diluted in water, except for the following distinction: That the reddish variation of a baheret is still an intense white, like snow, albeit with a somewhat pinkish hue, but the reddish variation of lime is darker than it.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 砖诇 爪诪专 讚讬讛讛 讛讬诪谞讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

And if it is so that Rabbi Akiva lists the different shades in decreasing order of their degree of brightness, then after mentioning the reddish variation of baheret he should have next said: The reddish variation of a wool-white mark is darker than it, not that the reddish variation of lime is darker than it.

讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 砖讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖诇 住讬讚 讚讬讛讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讗诇讗 砖诇 爪诪专 讚讬讛讛 讛讬诪谞讛

They said in response to this: Yes, it is indeed so that Rabbi Akiva continues by referring to the reddish variations of a wool-white mark, and it is taught likewise in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says, referring to that mishna: It is not correct that Rabbi Akiva said: The reddish variation of lime is darker than it; rather, he said that the reddish variation of a wool-white mark is darker than it.

讜诪谞诇谉 讚讘讛专转 注讝讛 讛讬讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诐 讘讛专转 诇讘谞讛 讛讬讗 讛讬讗 诇讘谞讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专转 诇讘谞讛

搂 The Gemara considers the source from which the different shades of marks are derived: And from where do we derive that baheret is an intense white color? Abaye said: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if it is a white baheret (Leviticus 13:4), which indicates that it alone is a bright white and there is no other as white as it.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讛专转 注诪讜拽讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜诪专讗讛 注诪拽 诪谉 讛注讜专 讻诪专讗讛 讞诪讛 讛注诪讜拽讛 诪谉 讛爪诇 砖讗转 讗讬谉 砖讗转 讗诇讗 讙讘讜讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 注诇 讻诇 讛讛专讬诐 讛专诪讬诐 讜注诇 讻诇 讛讙讘注讜转 讛谞砖讗讜转 住驻讞转 讗讬谉 住驻讞转 讗诇讗 讟驻讬诇讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗诪专 住驻讞谞讬 谞讗

The Sages taught in a baraita: The bright shade of a baheret makes it appear deeper than the surrounding skin, and so the verse states: 鈥淎nd its appearance is deeper than the skin鈥 (Leviticus 13:25). This is like the appearance of an area illuminated by the sun, which appears deeper than the area in the shade. The darker shade of a se鈥檈t makes it appear as though it is raised above the surrounding skin; this is indicated by the fact that the word se鈥檈t means nothing other than raised, and so the verse states: 鈥淯pon all the high mountains and upon all the raised up [hanissaot] hills鈥 (Isaiah 2:14). The words hanissaot and se鈥檈t share the same Hebrew root and both refer to something raised up. In the verse: 鈥淔or a se鈥檈t and for a sappa岣t鈥 (Leviticus 14:56), the word sappa岣t means nothing other than secondary, and so the verse states: 鈥淎nd he will say: Append me [sefa岣ni] please to one of the priestly classes to eat a piece of bread鈥 (I聽Samuel 2:36). This teaches that there is a leprous mark that is secondary and appended to a se鈥檈t. This is a mark that is the color of an egg membrane.

讗砖讻讞谉 讟驻讬诇讛 诇砖讗转 讟驻讬诇讛 诇讘讛专转 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 谞讗诪专讛 诇讘谞讛 讘砖讗转 讜谞讗诪专讛 诇讘谞讛 讘讘讛专转 诪讛 诇讘谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖讗转 讬砖 诇讛 讟驻讬诇讛 讗祝 诇讘谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讘讛专转 讬砖 诇讛 讟驻讬诇讛

We found a source for a mark that is secondary to a se鈥檈t; from where do we derive that there is also a mark that is secondary to a baheret? Rabbi Zeira said: 鈥淲hite鈥 (Leviticus 13:10) is stated with regard to a se鈥檈t and 鈥渨hite鈥 (Leviticus 13:4) is stated with regard to a baheret. This teaches that just as the shade of white stated with regard to a se鈥檈t has a secondary mark, i.e., the mark that is the color of an egg membrane, so too, the shade of white stated with regard to a baheret has a secondary mark, i.e., the lime-colored mark.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讛讟讬诇 讛讻转讜讘 诇住驻讞转 讘讬谉 砖讗转 诇讘讛专转 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻砖诐 砖讟驻讬诇讛 诇砖讗转 讻讱 讟驻讬诇讛 诇讘讛专转

A different source for this was taught in a baraita: The verse (see Leviticus 13:2) placed the word sappa岣t between se鈥檈t and baheret, to say to you: Just as there is a shade that is secondary to a se鈥檈t, so too, there is a shade that is secondary to a baheret.

砖讗转 讻爪诪专 诇讘谉 诪讗讬 爪诪专 诇讘谉 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 爪诪专 谞拽讬 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 砖诪讻讘谞讬谉 讘讜 诇诪讬诇转

The mishna in Nega鈥檌m cited above states: A se鈥檈t is like white wool. The Gemara asks: What is meant by white wool? Rav Beivai says that Rav Asi says: It is the color of clean wool from a lamb that is wrapped up [mekhabnin] in a cover when it is one day old in order to protect it from being sullied, so that the wool will be suitable for producing a fine wool garment.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪砖诇 讚专讘谞谉 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇转专讬 诪诇讻讬 讜诇转专讬 讗讬驻专讻讬 诪诇讻讜 砖诇 讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪诪诇讻讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讗讬驻专讻讜 砖诇 讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讗讬驻专讻讜 砖诇 讝讛

搂 In continuation of his statement cited above Rabbi 岣nina says: The following is an analogy to illustrate the opinion of the Rabbis, i.e., the opinion expressed in the mishna in Nega鈥檌m (1:1) that both a baheret and a se鈥檈t have marks that are secondary to them. To what is this matter comparable? To two kings and to two governors [iparkhei] where, with regard to their supremacy, the king of this governor is above the king of that governor, and the governor of this king is above the governor of that king. The two kings are analogous to a baheret and a se鈥檈t and their two governors are, respectively, a lime-colored mark and an egg membrane鈥揷olored mark. Accordingly, the order of supremacy is: Baheret, se鈥檈t, lime-colored mark, egg membrane鈥揷olored mark.

讛讗讬 讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讛 讜讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara questions whether this is a suitable analogy for the opinion of the Rabbis: But this analogy suggests that the shades are ordered, this one above this one and that one above that one, i.e., according to their degrees of brightness. That is Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion, not the opinion of the Rabbis.

讗诇讗 诪诇讻讜 砖诇 讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讗讬驻专讻讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛 讜诪诇讻讜 砖诇 讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讗讬驻专讻讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛

Rather, a suitable analogy is where the king of this governor is above his own governor, and the king of that governor is above his own governor. So too, each secondary mark is subordinate only to its primary mark.

专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 诪诇讻讗 讜讗诇拽驻讟讗 专讜驻讬诇讗 讜专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讛讗讬 讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 诪诇讻讗 讜专讜驻讬诇讗 讜讗诇拽驻讟讗 讜专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗

The Gemara presents a different analogy. Rav Adda bar Abba said: For example: A king, and a chief officer [alkafta], the vizier [rofila], and the Exilarch; each person in the list is more powerful than the subsequent one. The Gemara asks: But this analogy suggests that the shades are ordered, this one above that one, which is Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion. Rather, a suitable analogy is, for example: A king and the vizier; and a chief officer and the Exilarch. This list splits the four into two groups, each group containing one person who is subordinate to the other.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讘讜专 诪诇讻讗 讜拽讬住专

The Gemara presents a different analogy. Rava said: The previous suggestion is not precise because all these positions, apart from the king, are subordinate to the king. A more precise analogy would be, for example: King Shapur, the king of Persia, with his subordinate; and the Roman emperor with his subordinate.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 注讚讬祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讞讜专砖讬讗 拽讗 讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 驻讜拽 讞讝讬 讟讬讘注讗 讚诪讗谉 住讙讬 讘注诇诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜转讗讻诇 讻诇 讗专注讗 讜转讚讜砖谞讛 讜转讚拽谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讜 专讜诪讬 讞讬讬讘转 砖讟讬讘注讛 讬爪讗 讘讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜

Rav Pappa said to Rava: Which of them is greater, King Shapur or the Roman emperor? Rava said to him: Does he eat in the forest, i.e., do you live disconnected and unaware of events in the world at large? Go out and see whose coin circulates throughout the world, which is an indicator of a government鈥檚 influence, as it is written with regard to the fourth empire described in Daniel鈥檚 dream of the future powers of the world: 鈥淚t shall devour the whole earth and tread upon it and break it into pieces鈥 (Daniel 7:23), and Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This is the guilty empire of Rome whose coin circulates throughout the entire world.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讙诇讬诪讗 讚注诪专 讜砖讞拽讬讛 住讚讬谞讗 讚讻讬转谞讗 讜砖讞拽讬讛

The Gemara presents a different analogy. Ravina said: For example, a new white woolen garment and a frayed one; a new linen sheet and a frayed one.

讗转 砖讬砖 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗诇讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜

搂 The mishna (2a) states: In cases of defiling the Temple or its sacrificial foods in which one had awareness at the beginning and awareness at the end, but had a lapse of awareness in between while he actually transgressed, this person is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that the verse that describes the liability for a sliding-scale offering (see Leviticus 5:2鈥4) speaks of nothing other than the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods? While the verse mentions that a violation was committed due to a lapse of awareness of one鈥檚 state of impurity, it does not mention which transgression was violated.

讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讝讛讬专 讜注谞砖 注诇 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讞讬讬讘 拽专讘谉 注诇 讛讟讜诪讗讛 诪讛 讻砖讛讝讛讬专 讜注谞砖 注诇 讛讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讛讝讛讬专 讜注谞砖 讗诇讗 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讗祝 讻砖讞讬讬讘 拽专讘谉 注诇 讛讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜

The Gemara explains: And it is a logical inference: Since the Torah has explicitly prohibited and also prescribed punishment for the intentional defiling of something sacred and has rendered one liable to bring an offering for the unwitting defiling of something sacred, it follows that just as when it prohibited and also prescribed punishment for the defiling of something sacred it prohibited and also prescribed punishment only for the intentional defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods; so too, when it rendered one liable to bring an offering for the defiling of something sacred it rendered one liable to do so only for the unwitting defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

讜讗讬诪讗 转专讜诪讛 砖讛讝讛讬专 讜注谞砖 诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉 注讜谉 诪讬转讛 讚讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉

The Gemara asks: But say instead that the obligation to bring a sliding-scale offering is referring to a ritually impure person who partook of the sacred portion of produce grown in Eretz Yisrael that is designated to be given to a priest [teruma], as the Torah also has explicitly prohibited and prescribed punishment for this. One who partakes of teruma while ritually impure is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven (see Leviticus 22:9). The Gemara answers: It cannot be referring to teruma, because we do not find a sin whose punishment for an intentional violation is death, with regard to which one is liable to bring an offering for its unwitting violation. Sin-offerings, of which the sliding-scale offering is one type, are brought only for transgressions whose intentional violation is punishable by karet.

讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 拽专讘谉 拽讘讜注 讗讘诇

The Gemara asks: But say that this statement applies only to a fixed sin-offering, but

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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!

Shevuot 6

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Shevuot 6

讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讘诇讗 住讬讚 讛讬讻诇 拽专讜诐 讘讬爪讛 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讚讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚拽专讜诐 讘讬爪讛 诪转转讗讬 讚砖讗转 专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 讜诇砖讗转 讜诇住驻讞转 住驻讞转 讟驻讬诇讛 诇砖讗转 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪谞讞转讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讟讜讘讗 讗诇讗 住讬讚 讛讬讻诇 拽砖讬讗 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

The Gemara answers: What is this comparison? Granted, it would all be well were it not for the difficulty with regard to a mark the color of the lime plaster of the Sanctuary walls, as the difficulty raised with regard to an egg membrane鈥colored mark is not difficult. As even though the shade of an egg membrane is two stages below that of a se鈥檈t, the Merciful One states: 鈥淎nd for a se鈥檈t and for a sappa岣t (Leviticus 14:56), which indicates that a sappa岣t is secondary to a se鈥檈t and can combine with it even though a sappa岣t is of a much lower degree of brightness than it. Rabbi Akiva holds that both of the additional shades not explicitly mentioned in the Torah are derived from the word: Sappa岣t, and so both of them can combine with a se鈥檈t. But the difficulty raised with regard to a mark the color of the lime plaster of the Sanctuary walls is indeed difficult. Rather, it is clear that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

讜讛讬讻讗 砖诪注讬谞谉 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讝讜 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讜

搂 The Gemara elaborates on Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion: And where have we learned that according to Rabbi Akiva the different shades should be ordered this one above that one, i.e., according to their degrees of brightness, and only two adjacent shades can combine together?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖讗诇 讬讛讜砖注 讘谞讜 砖诇 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 诪专讗讜转 谞讙注讬诐 砖谞讬诐 砖讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 诪讛 讬讗诪专讜 讬讗诪专讜 诪拽专讜诐 讘讬爪讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 讟诪讗

If we say we learned it from that which is taught in the following baraita, it is difficult. The baraita teaches: Rabbi Yosei said that Yehoshua, son of Rabbi Akiva, asked of Rabbi Akiva: For what reason did the Sages say that the different shades of leprous marks are two types that are four, and proceed to specify their names? Rabbi Akiva said to him: But if not that, what else could they say? Rabbi Yehoshua answered him: Let them say that any mark of a degree of brightness from that of an egg membrane and above is ritually impure.

讗诪专 诇讜 诇讜诪专 砖诪爪讟专驻讬诐 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讗诪专 诇讜 讜讬讗诪专讜 诪拽专讜诐 讘讬爪讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 讟诪讗 讜诪爪讟专驻讬谉 讝讛 注诐 讝讛 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻诇 讻讛谉 砖讗讬谞讜 讘拽讬 讘讛谉 讜讘砖诪讜转讬讛谉 讗讬谞讜 专讜讗讛 讗转 讛谞讙注讬诐

Rabbi Akiva said to him: They specified the four different shades in order to say that they combine with each other in that order, i.e., each one with its adjacent shade. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: If so, let them simply say: Any mark of a degree of brightness from that of an egg membrane and above is ritually impure, and they combine with each other. Rabbi Akiva said to him: They specified their names in order to tell you: Any priest who is not an expert in distinguishing between them and in identifying their names is not authorized to inspect the leprous marks and make a decision regarding them.

讜讗讬诇讜 诪住讬讚 讛讬讻诇 讜诇诪注诇讛 诇讗 拽讗诪专

The Gemara explains the difficulty: Rabbi Yehoshua suggested that according to Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion it should be sufficient to say that any mark of a degree of brightness from that of an egg membrane and upward is impure, but he did not say that it would also be necessary to add: And any mark of a degree of brightness from that of the lime plaster of the Sanctuary walls and above is impure. If Rabbi Akiva agrees to the categorization of the mishna, then it would be necessary to state separately each category of marks, in a dual formulation, in order to indicate that only shades that are categorized together can combine.

诪讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚砖诪讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻讜诇讛讜 诇讘讛讚讬 砖讗转 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Conclude from the fact that he did not say this to Rabbi Akiva that Rabbi Yehoshua heard of Rabbi Akiva that he says: All the different shades combine with a se鈥檈t. Accordingly, both a snow-white baheret and a lime-colored mark will each combine with a se鈥檈t, as they are adjacent to it when listed in order of their degrees of brightness. An egg membrane鈥揷olored mark will also combine with a se鈥檈t, as it is derived from the word: Sappa岣t, and the Torah indicates that a sappa岣t is secondary to a se鈥檈t.

讜讚诇诪讗 砖讗转 讜转讜诇讚转讛 讘讛专转 讜转讜诇讚转讛

The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps Rabbi Akiva does hold that the only combinations possible are a se鈥檈t and its secondary mark, i.e., an egg membrane鈥揷olored mark; and a baheret and its secondary mark, i.e., a lime-colored mark. And perhaps Rabbi Yehoshua in fact proposed that the Sages should use a dual formulation, but the baraita cites only the first half of his suggestion.

讗诇讗 诪讚专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪砖诇 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇讗专讘注讛 讻讜住讜转 砖诇 讞诇讘 讗讞讚 谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讻讜 砖转讬 讟讬驻讬谉 砖诇 讚诐 讜讗讞讚 谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讻讜 讗专讘注 讟讬驻讬谉 砖诇 讚诐 讜讗讞讚 谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讻讜 砖诪讜谞讛 讜讗讞讚 谞驻诇讜 诇转讜讻讜 砖转讬诐 注砖专讛 讟讬驻讬谉 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 砖砖 注砖专讛 讟讬驻讬谉 砖讻讜诇谉 诪专讗讜转 诇讜讘谉 讛谉 讗诇讗 砖讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讛 讜讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讛

Rather, Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion can be inferred from that which Rabbi 岣nina says, as Rabbi 岣nina says: The following is an analogy to illustrate the opinion of Rabbi Akiva: To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to four cups of milk, and two drops of blood fell into one of them, and four drops of blood fell into another one of them, and eight drops of blood fell into another one, and twelve drops of blood fell into the last one. And some say that sixteen drops fell into the last cup. This is a suitable analogy, as the milk in all of the cups still has a similar shade of white, but the cups can be ordered according to their degrees of brightness, as this one is above this one, and that one is above that one. Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 analogy would appear to portray Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion in the same way it was cited earlier.

讗讬诪讜专 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘驻转讜讱 讘讞诇讜拽 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this. The Torah states that a 鈥渞eddish-white affliction鈥 (Leviticus 13:42), not just a flawless white one, renders a person ritually impure. Therefore, the Gemara suggests: Say that you heard Rabbi Akiva express this opinion with regard to combining different shades of a mark that is mixed [befatukh] with red, which is the case most similar to the analogy offered by Rabbi 岣nina, but with regard to different shades of flawless white, have you heard Rabbi Akiva express this opinion?

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讘驻转讜讱 讛讻讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讘讞诇讜拽 讜讘驻转讜讱 讙讜驻讬讛 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讗讚诪讚诐 砖讘讝讛 讜砖讘讝讛 讻讬讬谉 讛诪讝讜讙 讘诪讬诐 讗诇讗 砖诇 讘讛专转 注讝讛 讻砖诇讙 讜砖诇 住讬讚 讚讬讛讛 讛讬诪谞讛

And if you would say that just as you heard Rabbi Akiva express this opinion with regard to a mark that is mixed with red, so too, by logical extension, you have effectively heard Rabbi Akiva express this opinion with regard to different shades of flawless white, as what possible reason is there to differentiate between them, this is difficult. And this suggestion is problematic, as in the case of a mixed reddish-white mark itself, did you ever hear him express this opinion? But isn鈥檛 it taught otherwise in a mishna (Nega鈥檌m 1:2): With regard to the various shades of white that are mixed with red, Rabbi Akiva says the reddish variation of this one, i.e., of a baheret, and of that one, i.e., of a lime-colored mark, are like wine diluted in water, except for the following distinction: That the reddish variation of a baheret is still an intense white, like snow, albeit with a somewhat pinkish hue, but the reddish variation of lime is darker than it.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 砖诇 爪诪专 讚讬讛讛 讛讬诪谞讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

And if it is so that Rabbi Akiva lists the different shades in decreasing order of their degree of brightness, then after mentioning the reddish variation of baheret he should have next said: The reddish variation of a wool-white mark is darker than it, not that the reddish variation of lime is darker than it.

讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 砖讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 砖诇 住讬讚 讚讬讛讛 讛讬诪谞讛 讗诇讗 砖诇 爪诪专 讚讬讛讛 讛讬诪谞讛

They said in response to this: Yes, it is indeed so that Rabbi Akiva continues by referring to the reddish variations of a wool-white mark, and it is taught likewise in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says, referring to that mishna: It is not correct that Rabbi Akiva said: The reddish variation of lime is darker than it; rather, he said that the reddish variation of a wool-white mark is darker than it.

讜诪谞诇谉 讚讘讛专转 注讝讛 讛讬讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 讗诐 讘讛专转 诇讘谞讛 讛讬讗 讛讬讗 诇讘谞讛 讜讗讬谉 讗讞专转 诇讘谞讛

搂 The Gemara considers the source from which the different shades of marks are derived: And from where do we derive that baheret is an intense white color? Abaye said: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if it is a white baheret (Leviticus 13:4), which indicates that it alone is a bright white and there is no other as white as it.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讘讛专转 注诪讜拽讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜诪专讗讛 注诪拽 诪谉 讛注讜专 讻诪专讗讛 讞诪讛 讛注诪讜拽讛 诪谉 讛爪诇 砖讗转 讗讬谉 砖讗转 讗诇讗 讙讘讜讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 注诇 讻诇 讛讛专讬诐 讛专诪讬诐 讜注诇 讻诇 讛讙讘注讜转 讛谞砖讗讜转 住驻讞转 讗讬谉 住驻讞转 讗诇讗 讟驻讬诇讛 讜讻谉 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗诪专 住驻讞谞讬 谞讗

The Sages taught in a baraita: The bright shade of a baheret makes it appear deeper than the surrounding skin, and so the verse states: 鈥淎nd its appearance is deeper than the skin鈥 (Leviticus 13:25). This is like the appearance of an area illuminated by the sun, which appears deeper than the area in the shade. The darker shade of a se鈥檈t makes it appear as though it is raised above the surrounding skin; this is indicated by the fact that the word se鈥檈t means nothing other than raised, and so the verse states: 鈥淯pon all the high mountains and upon all the raised up [hanissaot] hills鈥 (Isaiah 2:14). The words hanissaot and se鈥檈t share the same Hebrew root and both refer to something raised up. In the verse: 鈥淔or a se鈥檈t and for a sappa岣t鈥 (Leviticus 14:56), the word sappa岣t means nothing other than secondary, and so the verse states: 鈥淎nd he will say: Append me [sefa岣ni] please to one of the priestly classes to eat a piece of bread鈥 (I聽Samuel 2:36). This teaches that there is a leprous mark that is secondary and appended to a se鈥檈t. This is a mark that is the color of an egg membrane.

讗砖讻讞谉 讟驻讬诇讛 诇砖讗转 讟驻讬诇讛 诇讘讛专转 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 谞讗诪专讛 诇讘谞讛 讘砖讗转 讜谞讗诪专讛 诇讘谞讛 讘讘讛专转 诪讛 诇讘谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘砖讗转 讬砖 诇讛 讟驻讬诇讛 讗祝 诇讘谞讛 讛讗诪讜专讛 讘讘讛专转 讬砖 诇讛 讟驻讬诇讛

We found a source for a mark that is secondary to a se鈥檈t; from where do we derive that there is also a mark that is secondary to a baheret? Rabbi Zeira said: 鈥淲hite鈥 (Leviticus 13:10) is stated with regard to a se鈥檈t and 鈥渨hite鈥 (Leviticus 13:4) is stated with regard to a baheret. This teaches that just as the shade of white stated with regard to a se鈥檈t has a secondary mark, i.e., the mark that is the color of an egg membrane, so too, the shade of white stated with regard to a baheret has a secondary mark, i.e., the lime-colored mark.

讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讛讟讬诇 讛讻转讜讘 诇住驻讞转 讘讬谉 砖讗转 诇讘讛专转 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讻砖诐 砖讟驻讬诇讛 诇砖讗转 讻讱 讟驻讬诇讛 诇讘讛专转

A different source for this was taught in a baraita: The verse (see Leviticus 13:2) placed the word sappa岣t between se鈥檈t and baheret, to say to you: Just as there is a shade that is secondary to a se鈥檈t, so too, there is a shade that is secondary to a baheret.

砖讗转 讻爪诪专 诇讘谉 诪讗讬 爪诪专 诇讘谉 讗诪专 专讘 讘讬讘讬 讗诪专 专讘 讗住讬 爪诪专 谞拽讬 讘谉 讬讜诪讜 砖诪讻讘谞讬谉 讘讜 诇诪讬诇转

The mishna in Nega鈥檌m cited above states: A se鈥檈t is like white wool. The Gemara asks: What is meant by white wool? Rav Beivai says that Rav Asi says: It is the color of clean wool from a lamb that is wrapped up [mekhabnin] in a cover when it is one day old in order to protect it from being sullied, so that the wool will be suitable for producing a fine wool garment.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪砖诇 讚专讘谞谉 诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇转专讬 诪诇讻讬 讜诇转专讬 讗讬驻专讻讬 诪诇讻讜 砖诇 讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪诪诇讻讜 砖诇 讝讛 讜讗讬驻专讻讜 砖诇 讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讗讬驻专讻讜 砖诇 讝讛

搂 In continuation of his statement cited above Rabbi 岣nina says: The following is an analogy to illustrate the opinion of the Rabbis, i.e., the opinion expressed in the mishna in Nega鈥檌m (1:1) that both a baheret and a se鈥檈t have marks that are secondary to them. To what is this matter comparable? To two kings and to two governors [iparkhei] where, with regard to their supremacy, the king of this governor is above the king of that governor, and the governor of this king is above the governor of that king. The two kings are analogous to a baheret and a se鈥檈t and their two governors are, respectively, a lime-colored mark and an egg membrane鈥揷olored mark. Accordingly, the order of supremacy is: Baheret, se鈥檈t, lime-colored mark, egg membrane鈥揷olored mark.

讛讗讬 讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讛 讜讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara questions whether this is a suitable analogy for the opinion of the Rabbis: But this analogy suggests that the shades are ordered, this one above this one and that one above that one, i.e., according to their degrees of brightness. That is Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion, not the opinion of the Rabbis.

讗诇讗 诪诇讻讜 砖诇 讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讗讬驻专讻讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛 讜诪诇讻讜 砖诇 讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讗讬驻专讻讬讛 讚谞驻砖讬讛

Rather, a suitable analogy is where the king of this governor is above his own governor, and the king of that governor is above his own governor. So too, each secondary mark is subordinate only to its primary mark.

专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 诪诇讻讗 讜讗诇拽驻讟讗 专讜驻讬诇讗 讜专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗 讛讗讬 讝讛 诇诪注诇讛 诪讝讛 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讻讙讜谉 诪诇讻讗 讜专讜驻讬诇讗 讜讗诇拽驻讟讗 讜专讬砖 讙诇讜转讗

The Gemara presents a different analogy. Rav Adda bar Abba said: For example: A king, and a chief officer [alkafta], the vizier [rofila], and the Exilarch; each person in the list is more powerful than the subsequent one. The Gemara asks: But this analogy suggests that the shades are ordered, this one above that one, which is Rabbi Akiva鈥檚 opinion. Rather, a suitable analogy is, for example: A king and the vizier; and a chief officer and the Exilarch. This list splits the four into two groups, each group containing one person who is subordinate to the other.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 砖讘讜专 诪诇讻讗 讜拽讬住专

The Gemara presents a different analogy. Rava said: The previous suggestion is not precise because all these positions, apart from the king, are subordinate to the king. A more precise analogy would be, for example: King Shapur, the king of Persia, with his subordinate; and the Roman emperor with his subordinate.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇专讘讗 讛讬 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 注讚讬祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讞讜专砖讬讗 拽讗 讗讻讬诇 诇讬讛 驻讜拽 讞讝讬 讟讬讘注讗 讚诪讗谉 住讙讬 讘注诇诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜转讗讻诇 讻诇 讗专注讗 讜转讚讜砖谞讛 讜转讚拽谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讝讜 专讜诪讬 讞讬讬讘转 砖讟讬讘注讛 讬爪讗 讘讻诇 讛注讜诇诐 讻讜诇讜

Rav Pappa said to Rava: Which of them is greater, King Shapur or the Roman emperor? Rava said to him: Does he eat in the forest, i.e., do you live disconnected and unaware of events in the world at large? Go out and see whose coin circulates throughout the world, which is an indicator of a government鈥檚 influence, as it is written with regard to the fourth empire described in Daniel鈥檚 dream of the future powers of the world: 鈥淚t shall devour the whole earth and tread upon it and break it into pieces鈥 (Daniel 7:23), and Rabbi Yo岣nan says: This is the guilty empire of Rome whose coin circulates throughout the entire world.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讻讙讜谉 讙诇讬诪讗 讚注诪专 讜砖讞拽讬讛 住讚讬谞讗 讚讻讬转谞讗 讜砖讞拽讬讛

The Gemara presents a different analogy. Ravina said: For example, a new white woolen garment and a frayed one; a new linen sheet and a frayed one.

讗转 砖讬砖 讘讛 讬讚讬注讛 讘转讞诇讛 讜讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗诇讗 讘讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜

搂 The mishna (2a) states: In cases of defiling the Temple or its sacrificial foods in which one had awareness at the beginning and awareness at the end, but had a lapse of awareness in between while he actually transgressed, this person is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that the verse that describes the liability for a sliding-scale offering (see Leviticus 5:2鈥4) speaks of nothing other than the defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods? While the verse mentions that a violation was committed due to a lapse of awareness of one鈥檚 state of impurity, it does not mention which transgression was violated.

讜讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讝讛讬专 讜注谞砖 注诇 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜讞讬讬讘 拽专讘谉 注诇 讛讟讜诪讗讛 诪讛 讻砖讛讝讛讬专 讜注谞砖 注诇 讛讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讛讝讛讬专 讜注谞砖 讗诇讗 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜 讗祝 讻砖讞讬讬讘 拽专讘谉 注诇 讛讟讜诪讗讛 诇讗 讞讬讬讘 讗诇讗 注诇 讟讜诪讗转 诪拽讚砖 讜拽讚砖讬讜

The Gemara explains: And it is a logical inference: Since the Torah has explicitly prohibited and also prescribed punishment for the intentional defiling of something sacred and has rendered one liable to bring an offering for the unwitting defiling of something sacred, it follows that just as when it prohibited and also prescribed punishment for the defiling of something sacred it prohibited and also prescribed punishment only for the intentional defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods; so too, when it rendered one liable to bring an offering for the defiling of something sacred it rendered one liable to do so only for the unwitting defiling of the Temple or its sacrificial foods.

讜讗讬诪讗 转专讜诪讛 砖讛讝讛讬专 讜注谞砖 诇讗 讗砖讻讞谉 注讜谉 诪讬转讛 讚讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛 拽专讘谉

The Gemara asks: But say instead that the obligation to bring a sliding-scale offering is referring to a ritually impure person who partook of the sacred portion of produce grown in Eretz Yisrael that is designated to be given to a priest [teruma], as the Torah also has explicitly prohibited and prescribed punishment for this. One who partakes of teruma while ritually impure is liable to receive death at the hand of Heaven (see Leviticus 22:9). The Gemara answers: It cannot be referring to teruma, because we do not find a sin whose punishment for an intentional violation is death, with regard to which one is liable to bring an offering for its unwitting violation. Sin-offerings, of which the sliding-scale offering is one type, are brought only for transgressions whose intentional violation is punishable by karet.

讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 拽专讘谉 拽讘讜注 讗讘诇

The Gemara asks: But say that this statement applies only to a fixed sin-offering, but

Scroll To Top