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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 2, 2019 | ืืณ ื‘ืื‘ ืชืฉืขืดื˜

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Temurah 14

The mishna lists differences between individual and communal offerings. Can one bring libations at night? Due to a contradiction regarding this halacha, the gemara digresses to discuss the prohibition of writing down the oral Torah. In what circumstances would it be permitted?


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

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื™ืฉ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ื™ืฉ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืชืžื•ืจื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืชืžื•ืจื”

MISHNA: There are halakhot in effect with regard to offerings of an individual that are not in effect with regard to communal offerings; and there are halakhot in effect with regard to communal offerings that are not in effect with regard to offerings of an individual. The mishna elaborates: There are halakhot in effect with regard to offerings of an individual that are not in effect with regard to communal offerings, as offerings of an individual render a non-sacred animal exchanged for the offering a substitute, and communal offerings do not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for the offering a substitute.

ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื ื•ื”ื’ื•ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื–ื›ืจื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ื•ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื ื•ื”ื’ื™ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ื–ื›ืจื™ื ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื•ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื”ื ื•ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื•ืœื ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื”ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื”ืŸ ืžืฉืงืจื‘ ื”ื–ื‘ื—

Offerings of an individual apply to, i.e., can be brought from, both males and females, but communal offerings apply only to males. If offerings of an individual were not brought at the appropriate time, one is obligated to bring their compensation and compensation for their accompanying meal offering and libations at a later date, but if communal offerings were not brought at the appropriate time, one is obligated to bring neither their compensation nor compensation for their accompanying meal offering and libations at a later date. But one is obligated to bring compensation for their accompanying meal offering and libations once the offering is sacrificed.

ื™ืฉ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื“ื•ื—ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืื™ื ืŸ ื“ื•ื—ื•ืช ืœื ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื”

There are halakhot in effect with regard to communal offerings that are not in effect with regard to offerings of an individual, as communal offerings override Shabbat, in that they are sacrificed on Shabbat, and they override ritual impurity, i.e., they are sacrificed even if the priests are impure with impurity imparted by a corpse; and offerings of an individual override neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื”ืœื ื—ื‘ื™ืชื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื•ืคืจ ืฉืœ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ืŸ ื•ื“ื•ื—ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืืœื ืฉื–ืžื ื• ืงื‘ื•ืข

Rabbi Meir said: But arenโ€™t the High Priestโ€™s griddle-cake offerings and the bull of Yom Kippur offerings of an individual, and yet they override Shabbat and ritual impurity. Rather, this is the principle: Any offering, individual or communal, whose time is fixed overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity, whereas any offering, individual or communal, whose time is not fixed overrides neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity.

ื’ืžืณ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ื›ื•ืณ ื•ื›ืœืœื ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ืจื™ ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืงืชื ื™

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that offerings of an individual render a non-sacred animal exchanged for the offering a substitute. The Gemara asks: And is this an established principle? Does every offering of an individual render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute? But what about birds, i.e., a dove or a pigeon, which are brought as an offering of an individual, but they do not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for them a substitute? The Gemara answers: When the mishna teaches that offerings of an individual render a non-sacred animal exchanged for the offering a substitute, it is teaching this only with regard to an animal offering, not a bird offering.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ื•ืœื“ ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื•ืœื“ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื”

The Gemara objects: But what about the offspring of a sanctified animal, which is brought and sacrificed on the altar as an offering of an individual of the same type as its mother, and yet it does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute? The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the offspring of a sanctified animal renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืชืžื•ืจื” ืขืฆืžื” ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืชืžื•ืจื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื‘ืขื™ืงืจ ื–ื™ื‘ื—ื ืงืชื ื™

The Gemara objects: But what about a substitute itself, which is brought and sacrificed on the altar as an offering of an individual, and yet a substitute does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute? The Gemara answers: When the mishna teaches that an offering of an individual renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, it is teaching this only with regard to the primary offering, not a substitute of an offering.

ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืชื™ืช ืœื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ืงืจ ื–ื™ื‘ื—ื ืงืชื ื™

The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this answer, you can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and maintain that the offspring of an offering does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. The reason is that one can explain that the mishna is teaching its halakha only with regard to the primary offering, not the offspring of an offering.

ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื ื•ื”ื’ื•ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื–ื›ืจื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ื•ื›ืœืœื ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ืจื™ ืขื•ืœื” ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ื–ื›ืจ ืืชื™ื ื ืงื‘ื” ืœื ืืชื™ื

ยง The mishna teaches: Offerings of an individual apply to, i.e., can be brought from, both males and females. The Gemara asks: Is this an established principle, that all offerings of an individual may be brought from either a male or female animal? But what about a burnt offering, which is an offering of an individual, and yet it comes as a male animal but does not come as a female animal.

ื”ืื™ื›ื ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืชืžื•ืช ื•ื–ื›ืจื•ืช ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืชืžื•ืช ื•ื–ื›ืจื•ืช ื‘ืขื•ืคื•ืช

The Gemara answers that there is a bird burnt offering, i.e., there is a type of burnt offering that can be either a female or male bird. As it is taught in a baraita: The requirement of unblemished status and the requirement of male status both apply to a sacrificial animal brought as a burnt offering, but the requirement of unblemished status and the requirement of male status do not apply to sacrificial birds brought as burnt offerings.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ื™ื ื•ื ืงื‘ื” ืืชื™ื ื–ื›ืจ ืœื ืืชื™ื ื”ืื™ื›ื ืฉืขื™ืจ ื ืฉื™ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื–ื›ืจ

The Gemara objects: But what about a sin offering, which is an offering of an individual, and yet comes as a female animal but does not come as a male animal. The Gemara explains: Although burnt offerings of an individual must be female, there is the goat sin offering of a king, which is sacrificed by a specific individual and is brought specifically as a male animal.

ื•ื”ืื™ื›ื ืืฉื ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื“ื–ื›ืจ ืืชื™ ื ืงื‘ื” ืœื ืืชื™ ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื“ืฉื•ื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืืฉื ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืื™ืชื™ื” ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืœื™ืชื™ื” ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื›ืœ ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื™ืฉ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืงืชื ื™ ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ืฉืœืžื™ื ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ื ืงื‘ื” ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ื–ื›ืจ ืžื™ื™ืชื™

The Gemara further objects: But there is the individual guilt offering, which comes as a male animal but does not come as a female animal. The Gemara explains: When the Sages stated this halakha in the mishna they were referring only to an offering that is equivalent, i.e., which is brought both as an offering of an individual and as a communal offering, whereas a guilt offering is brought as an offering of an individual but is not brought as a communal offering. And if you wish, say instead an alternative explanation: Does the mishna teach: All offerings may be brought as either male or female? It does not. Rather, the mishna teaches: There are offerings of an individual that may be brought as male or female; and what are they? Peace offerings; and in the case of such an offering, if one wants he brings a female animal and if he wants he brings a male animal.

ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ [ื›ื•ืณ] ืžื ื ืœืŸ

ยง The mishna teaches: If offerings of an individual were not brought at the appropriate time, one is obligated to bring their compensation and compensation for their accompanying meal offering and libations at a later date, whereas if communal offerings were not brought at the appropriate time, one is obligated to bring neither their compensation nor compensation for their accompanying meal offering and libations at a later date. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha, that if a communal offering was not sacrificed at the appropriate time it is not brought at a later stage?

ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื›ืœ ื”ื™ื•ื ื›ืฉืจ ืœืžื•ืกืคื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ืžื• ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืื ืขื‘ืจ ื”ื™ื•ื ื•ืœื ื”ื‘ื™ืืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ

The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states in the section of the Torah dealing with additional offerings: โ€œThese are the appointed seasons of the Lord, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to bring an offering made by fire to the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meal offering, a sacrifice, and libations, each day on its own dayโ€ (Leviticus 23:37). This teaches that the entire day is fit for bringing the additional offerings. The term: โ€œOn its own day,โ€ teaches that if the day has passed and the priests did not bring the additional offerings, one is not obligated to bring their compensation, and the offering cannot be brought at a later date.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื”ื ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืงืจื‘ ื”ื–ื‘ื— ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืžื ื—ืชื ื•ื ืกื›ื™ื”ื ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืžื ื—ืชื ื•ื ืกื›ื™ื”ื ืœืžื—ืจ

The baraita continues: One might have thought that one should not be obligated to bring compensation for their accompanying libations at a later date even if the additional offering has been sacrificed, e.g., if there were no meal offerings or libations available at that time. Therefore, the verse states, in the chapter dealing with the additional offerings of the Festivals: โ€œTheir meal offerings and their libationsโ€ (Numbers 29:37). It is derived from here that the meal offerings and libations which are brought with the additional animal offerings of the Festivals can be sacrificed even in the night after the animal offering. The phrase โ€œtheir meal offerings and their libationsโ€ further teaches that these meal offerings and libations can be sacrificed even on the following day.

ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืžื”ื›ื ืžืœื‘ื“ ืฉื‘ืชื•ืช ื”ืณ

Reish Lakish said that the source is from the following verse: โ€œThese are the appointed seasons of the Lord, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to bring an offering made by fire unto the Lordโ€ฆeach on its own day; beside the Shabbatot of the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 23:37โ€“38). The verse is expounded as speaking of a Festival that occurred on a Sunday, and therefore it is teaching that the meal offerings and libations for the additional offerings of the previous Shabbat may be brought on the following Festival day.

ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืžืœื‘ื“ ืฉื‘ืชืช ื”ืณ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื•ื ืื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืœื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืžื ื—ืชื ื•ื ืกื›ื™ื”ื ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืžื ื—ืชื ื•ื ืกื›ื™ื”ื ื•ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืžืœื‘ื“ ืฉื‘ืชืช ื”ืณ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืžืžื ืœื

And the Gemara notes that both verses are necessary, as if the Merciful One had written only the verse: โ€œBeside the Shabbatot of the Lord,โ€ I would say that on the day following Shabbat, yes, one may bring the offerings, but on the night after Shabbat, no, one may not bring them, just as the offering itself could not have been brought at night. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œAnd their meal offerings and their libations.โ€ And if the Merciful One had written only: โ€œTheir meal offerings and their libations,โ€ and not written: โ€œBeside the Shabbatot of the Lord,โ€ I would say that at night, yes, the offerings may be brought, but on the following day they may not be brought.

ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืœื™ืœื” ื”ื•ืœืš ืื—ืจ ื”ื™ื•ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื™

The Gemara asks: And in what way is the night different from the day, that one might have thought the outstanding meal offerings and libations may be brought only at night but not during the day? The Gemara explains that one might have thought so because with regard to sacrificial animals and offerings the night follows the day. Therefore, the Torah had to teach that the meal offering and libations may be brought even the following day. The Gemara concludes that indeed both verses are necessary.

ื•ื ืกื›ื™ื ืžื™ ืงืจื‘ื™ ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื“ืจื›ืŸ ืœื™ืงืจื‘ ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืื‘ืจื™ื ื•ืคื“ืจื™ื ืฉืžืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžื‘ื•ื ื”ืฉืžืฉ ื•ืžืชืขื›ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื•ืœื›ื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืœื™ืœื” ื›ื•ืœื•

The Gemara asks: And libations, may they be sacrificed at night? Didnโ€™t we learn in a baraita: I have derived only with regard to items that are normally sacrificed at night, for example, the limbs of a burnt offering and the fats of burnt offerings and other offerings, that one sacrifices them after sunset and they are consumed throughout the entire night. This is derived from the verse: โ€œThis is the law of the burnt offering: It is that which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morningโ€ (Leviticus 6:2).

ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื“ืจื›ืŸ ืœื™ืงืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื”ืงื•ืžืฅ ื”ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ื•ืžื ื—ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื ืฉืžืขืœืŸ ืžื‘ื•ื ื”ืฉืžืฉ ืžื‘ื•ื ื”ืฉืžืฉ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื•ื”ืืžืจืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื“ืจื›ืŸ ืœื™ืงืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืืœื ืขื ื‘ื ื”ืฉืžืฉ ืฉืžืชืขื›ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื•ืœื›ื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืœื™ืœื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ืขืœื” ืจื™ื‘ื”

The baraita continues: But with regard to items that are normally sacrificed in the day, for example the handful of the meal offering, and the frankincense, and the meal offering that accompanies the libations, from where is it derived that one may bring them up and burn them after sunset? The Gemara asks: Would it enter your mind that they may be burned after sunset? But didnโ€™t you say that these are items that are normally sacrificed in the day? Rather, the question of the baraita is as follows: From where is it derived that these items may be sacrificed with sunset, i.e., just before sunset, in which case they are consumed throughout the entire night and not during the day? The verse states: โ€œThis is the law of the burnt offeringโ€ (Leviticus 6:2), a phrase that included everything sacrificed on the altar.

ืงืชื ื™ ืžื™ื”ื ื ืกื›ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื ืืžืจ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ืœื™ืงื“ืฉ ื›ืืŸ ืœื™ืงืจื‘

The Gemara reiterates its previous difficulty: In any event, the baraita teaches that the meal offering that accompanies the libations is brought only in the day, not at night. Rami bar แธคama said that this is not difficult. Here, where the verse states: โ€œTheir meal offerings and libations,โ€ it is referring to consecrating the offering if one placed it in a consecrated utensil at night. The offering becomes consecrated and may not be used for non-sacred purposes. There, in the verse cited by the baraita as teaching that it may be brought only in the day and not at night, it is referring to sacrificing the offering on the altar. Even if an offering was consecrated at night, it may not be sacrificed until the following morning.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืื™ ืžื™ืงื“ืฉ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงืจื•ื‘ื™ ืžื™ืงืจื‘ื™ ื•ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ื”ืงืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื•ื ืื™ืŸ ืงื“ื•ืฉ ืืœื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืงืจื‘ ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืกืžื™ ืžื ื—ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื ืžื”ื ืžืชื ื™ืชื

Rava said to Rami bar แธคama: If the meal offering accompanying the libations can be consecrated at night, it should also be fit to be sacrificed at night. No distinction can be made between consecrating and sacrificing, as isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: This is the principle: Any offering that is sacrificed in the day is consecrated only in the day; and any offering that is sacrificed at night is consecrated only at night; and any offering that is sacrificed both in the day and at night is consecrated both in the day and at night. Rather, Rav Yosef said: The meal offering accompanying the libations may be sacrificed at night, and therefore one should delete from this baraita the item: Meal offering that accompanies the libations, from the list of the offerings that may not be brought at night.

ื›ื™ ืกืœื™ืง ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืžื™ ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื“ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื ืกื›ื™ื ื”ื‘ืื™ื ืขื ื”ื–ื‘ื— ืฉืื™ืŸ ืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ื™ื•ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืœื ืกื›ื™ื›ื ื•ืœืฉืœืžื™ื›ื ืžื” ืฉืœืžื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื ืืฃ ื ืกื›ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื

With regard to Rav Yosefโ€™s claim that the item: Meal offering that accompanies the libations, should be removed from the baraita, the Gemara states: When Rav Dimi ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rav Yirmeya sitting and saying in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: From where is it derived that libations that come with an animal offering may be sacrificed only in the day? The verse states: โ€œThese you shall offer to the Lord in your appointed seasons, beside your vows, and your voluntary offerings, and your burnt offerings, and your meal offerings, and your libations, and your peace offeringsโ€ (Numbers 29:39). The juxtaposition of these two items teaches that just as peace offerings may be sacrificed only during the day, so too libations may be sacrificed only during the day.

ืืžืจ ืื™ ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื™ื’ืจืชื ืฉืœื—ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ

Rav Dimi said to Rav Yirmeya: If I find someone who can write this opinion in a letter, I will send it to Rav Yosef in Babylonia,

ื•ืœื ืชื™ืกืžื™ ืžื ื—ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื ืžืžืชื ื™ืชื ื•ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื ืกื›ื™ื ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ื–ื‘ื— ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื ืกื›ื™ื ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขืฆืžืŸ

and in light of this ruling he will not delete the phrase: The meal offering that accompanies the libations, from the baraita. And instead, the apparent contradiction between the baraitot can be explained as follows: It is not difficult; here, the baraita that states that meal offerings accompanying libations are sacrificed only in the day is referring to libations that come with an animal offering, whereas there, the baraita that permits sacrificing a meal offering that accompanies the libations at night is referring to libations that come to be sacrificed by themselves, i.e., which do not accompany the sacrifice of an offering.

ื•ืื™ ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืื™ื’ืจืชื ืžื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœืžื™ืฉืœื—ื ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ื•ืชื‘ื™ ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ื›ืฉื•ืจืฃ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื”ืœืžื“ ืžื”ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืฉื›ืจ

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rav Dimiโ€™s suggestion to write this opinion in a letter. And even if he had someone to write a letter for him, would it have been possible to send it? But didnโ€™t Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba, say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Those who write halakhot are considered like those who burn the Torah, and one who learns from written halakhot does not receive the reward of studying Torah. Evidently, it is prohibited to send halakhot in letters.

ื“ืจืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ืžืชื•ืจื’ืžื ื™ื” ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืชื‘ ืœืš ืืช ื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืืœื” ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื™ ืขืœ ืคื™ ื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืืœื” ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉืขืœ ืคื” ืื™ ืืชื” ืจืฉืื™ ืœืื•ืžืจืŸ ื‘ื›ืชื‘ ื•ืฉื‘ื›ืชื‘ ืื™ ืืชื” ืจืฉืื™ ืœืื•ืžืจืŸ ืขืœ ืคื”

Before resolving the difficulty, the Gemara further discusses the prohibition of writing down the Torah: Rabbi Yehuda bar Naแธฅmani, the disseminator for Reish Lakish, expounded as follows: One verse says: โ€œWrite you these words,โ€ and one verse says, i.e., it states later in that same verse: โ€œFor by the mouth of these wordsโ€ (Exodus 34:27). These phrases serve to say to you: Words that were taught orally you may not recite in writing, and words that are written you may not recite orally, i.e., by heart.

ื•ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื›ืชื‘ ืœืš ืืช ื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืืœื” ืืœื” ืืชื” ื›ื•ืชื‘ ืื‘ืœ ืื™ืŸ ืืชื” ื›ื•ืชื‘ ื”ืœื›ื•ืช

And furthermore, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The word โ€œtheseโ€ in the command โ€œwrite you these wordsโ€ serves to emphasize that these words, i.e., those recorded in the Written Law, you may write, but you may not write halakhot, i.e., the mishnayot and the rest of the Oral Law.

ืืžืจื™ ื“ืœืžื ืžื™ืœืชื ื—ื“ืชื ืฉืื ื™ ื“ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžืขื™ื™ื ื™ ื‘ืกื™ืคืจื ื“ืื’ื“ืชื ื‘ืฉื‘ืชื ื•ื“ืจืฉื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืขืช ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœื”ืณ ื”ืคืจื• ืชื•ืจืชืš ืืžืจื™ ืžื•ื˜ื‘ ืชื™ืขืงืจ ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืืœ ืชืฉืชื›ื— ืชื•ืจื” ืžื™ืฉืจืืœ

They said in response to the question of how Rav Dimi could propose writing down the halakha in a letter: Perhaps with regard to a new matter it is different, i.e., it might be permitted to write down new material so that it not be forgotten. One proof for this suggestion is that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Reish Lakish would read from a scroll of aggada, containing the words of the Sages, on Shabbat. And they did so because they taught as follows: Since one cannot remember the Oral Law without writing it down, it is permitted to violate the halakha, as derived from the verse: โ€œIt is time to work for the Lord; they have made void your Torahโ€ (Psalms 119:126). They said it is better to uproot a single halakha of the Torah, i.e., the prohibition of writing down the Oral Torah, and thereby ensure that the Torah is not forgotten from the Jewish people entirely.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืžืจืช ื ืกื›ื™ื ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขืฆืžืŸ ืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ื ื–ื“ืžื ื• ื ืกื›ื™ื ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืžืงื“ื™ืฉื™ืŸ ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ื•ืžืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ

ยง With regard to Rav Dimiโ€™s differentiation between libations that come with an animal offering and libations that are sacrificed by themselves, Rav Pappa said: Now that you have said that libations that come by themselves are sacrificed even at night, if one happened to have libations of this kind at night, they may be consecrated by placing them in a service vessel at night and they may be sacrificed at night.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืฉืžืขื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ืคืคื ืชื ื™ื ื“ืžืกื™ื™ืข ืœืš ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ื”ืงืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื•ื ืื™ื ื• ืงื“ื•ืฉ ืืœื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืงืจื‘ ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืœื™ืœื”

Rav Yosef, son of Rav Shemaya, said to Rav Pappa: A baraita is taught that supports your opinion. This is the principle: Any offering that is sacrificed in the day is consecrated by being placed in a service vessel only in the day; but any offering that is sacrificed at night is consecrated both in the day and at night.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ื•ืขืœื•ืช ื”ืฉื—ืจ ืคื•ืกืœืช ื‘ื”ืŸ ื›ืื‘ืจื™ืŸ

With regard to the topic of libations sacrificed by themselves, Rav Adda bar Ahava says: And dawn disqualifies them, like the halakha of limbs of offerings that have had their blood sprinkled during the day. Such limbs are left to burn on the altar all night long, but at dawn they are disqualified and may no longer be placed on the altar.

ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ืฆื“ืง ืืœื” ืชืขืฉื• ืœื”ืณ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ื™ื›ื ืืœื• ื—ื•ื‘ื•ืช ื”ื‘ืื•ืช ื—ื•ื‘ื” ื‘ืจื’ืœ

ยง The Gemara returns to discuss the verse: โ€œThese you shall offer to the Lord in your appointed seasons, beside your vows, and your voluntary offerings, and your burnt offerings, and your meal offerings, and your libations, and your peace offeringsโ€ (Numbers 29:39). When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: โ€œThese you shall offer to the Lord in your appointed seasons,โ€ i.e., these are the obligatory offerings that come to be sacrificed as obligatory offerings on the pilgrimage Festival, e.g., the burnt offerings of appearance, the Festival offerings, and the additional offerings.

ืœื‘ื“ ืžื ื“ืจื™ื›ื ื•ื ื“ื‘ืชื™ื›ื ืœื™ืžื“ ืขืœ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ื ื“ื‘ื•ืช ืฉืงืจื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืœื• ืฉืœ ืžื•ืขื“

The verse continues: โ€œBeside your vows and your voluntary offerings.โ€ This teaches with regard to vows and voluntary offerings that they are sacrificed on the intermediate days of a Festival.

ื•ืœืขืœืชื™ื›ื ื‘ืžื” ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืื™ ื‘ืขื•ืœืช ื ื“ืจ ื”ืจื™ ื›ื‘ืจ ืืžื•ืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื›ื ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื•ืœืช ื ื“ื‘ื” ื”ืจื™ ื›ื‘ืจ ืืžื•ืจ ื•ื ื“ื‘ืชื™ื›ื ื”ื ืื™ื ื• ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืืœื ื‘ืขื•ืœืช ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื•ืขื•ืœืช ืžืฆื•ืจืข

The verse further states: โ€œAnd your burnt offerings.โ€ The Gemara inquires: With regard to what case is the verse speaking? If it is referring to a vow burnt offering, the verse already said: โ€œYour vows.โ€ And if it is referring to a voluntary burnt offering, the verse already said: โ€œYour voluntary offerings.โ€ Consequently, it is speaking of nothing other than a burnt offering of a woman who gave birth, i.e., the lamb that she sacrifices on the forty-first day after giving birth to a son or the eighty-first day after giving birth to a daughter, and a burnt offering of a leper, which is the lamb that is sacrificed after a leper is purified. The verse teaches that these obligatory offerings may be sacrificed on the intermediate days of a Festival.

ื•ืœืžื ื—ืชื™ื›ื ื‘ืžื” ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืื™ ื‘ืžื ื—ืช ื ื“ืจ ื”ืจื™ ื›ื‘ืจ ืืžื•ืจ ืื™ ื‘ืžื ื—ืช ื ื“ื‘ื” ื”ืจื™ ื›ื‘ืจ ืืžื•ืจ ื”ื ืื™ื ื• ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืืœื ื‘ืžื ื—ืช ืกื•ื˜ื” ื•ื‘ืžื ื—ืช ืงื ืื•ืช

The verse continues: โ€œAnd your meal offerings.โ€ The Gemara again asks: With regard to what case is the verse speaking? If it is referring to a meal offering brought in fulfillment of a vow, the verse already said: โ€œYour vows.โ€ If it is referring to a voluntary meal offering, the verse already said: โ€œYour voluntary offerings.โ€ Consequently, it is speaking of nothing other than the meal offering of a sota, and that is the meal offering of jealousy.

ื•ืœื ืกื›ื™ื›ื ื•ืœืฉืœืžื™ื›ื ืžืงื™ืฉ ื ืกื›ื™ื ืœืฉืœืžื™ื ืžื” ืฉืœืžื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื ืืฃ ื ืกื›ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื•ืœืฉืœืžื™ื›ื ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉืœืžื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ

The verse further states: โ€œAnd your libations and your peace offerings.โ€ The Torah here juxtaposes libations to peace offerings: Just as peace offerings are sacrificed only during the day, not at night, so too, libations are sacrificed only during the day, not at night. Finally, the verse states: โ€œAnd your peace offerings.โ€ This serves to include the peace offering of a nazirite, which he brings at the completion of his term of naziriteship. This offering may also be sacrificed on the intermediate days of a Festival.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืœื™ืžื ืžืจ ืฉืœืžื™ ืคืกื— ื“ืื™ ืฉืœืžื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื ื™ื“ืจ ื•ื ื™ื“ื‘ ื”ื•ื

With regard to the last halakha, Abaye said to Rav Dimi, when he cited this statement in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: But let the Master say that the phrase โ€œand your peace offeringsโ€ serves to include the peace offering that is brought together with a Paschal offering. This offering is sacrificed on the fourteenth of Nisan by a large group of people when they will not receive enough meat from their Paschal offering to feed them all. The suggested derivation from the verse is that if a peace offering separated for this purpose was not sacrificed on the fourteenth of Nisan, it may be brought during the intermediate days of the Festival. Abaye further adds: It is more reasonable to include this peace offering, as, if the verse is referring to the peace offering of a nazirite, it is already included by the verse in the categories of offerings that are vowed or contributed voluntarily.

ื“ื”ืชื ื™ื ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ื ื™ื“ื‘ ื•ื ื™ื“ืจ ืงืจื‘ ื‘ื‘ืžืช ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืฉืื™ื ื• ื ื™ื“ื‘ ื•ื ื™ื“ืจ ืื™ื ื• ืงืจื‘ ื‘ื‘ืžืช ื™ื—ื™ื“

Abaye elaborates: As isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: This is the principle: Any offering that is vowed or contributed voluntarily, e.g., a burnt offering or a peace offering, is sacrificed on a private altar. And any offering that is not vowed or contributed voluntarily may not be sacrificed on a private altar.

ื•ืชื ืŸ ื”ืžื ื—ื•ืช ื•ื”ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื‘ืžืช ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกืžื™ ืžื›ืืŸ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช

And we learned in another baraita: The meal offerings and the offerings of a nazirite are sacrificed on a private altar; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. It is clear from these baraitot that the peace offering of a nazirite belongs in the category of offerings that are vowed or contributed voluntarily. If so, there is no need for it to be included separately by the verse. Rav Dimi replied to Abaye: Delete the phrase: Offering of a nazirite from here, i.e., from the baraita that considers it an offering that is vowed or contributed voluntarily. Only the nazirite vow itself is classified as voluntary; once the vow has been uttered, the ensuing offerings are obligatory.

ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœืื• ื ื™ื“ืจ ื•ื ื™ื“ื‘ ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืงืฅ ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืฉื ื” ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืื‘ืฉืœื•ื ืืœ ื”ืžืœืš ืืœื›ื” ื ื ื•ืืฉืœื ืืช ื ื“ืจื™ ืืฉืจ ื ื“ืจืชื™ ืœื”ืณ ื‘ื—ื‘ืจื•ืŸ ื›ื™ ื ื“ืจ ื ื“ืจ ืขื‘ื“ืš ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืืงืจื‘ืŸ

The Gemara asks: Is there one who said that the offering of a nazirite is not vowed or contributed voluntarily? But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd it came to pass at the end of forty years, that Absalom said to the king: Please let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron. For your servant vowed a vow while I dwelled at Geshur in Aram, saying: If the Lord shall indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will serve the Lordโ€ (IIย Samuel 15:7โ€“8). The Gemara explains the difficulty: What, is it not the case that Absalom asked his father for permission for him to go to Hebron to sacrifice an offering on a private altar?

ืœื ืืขื™ืงืจ ื ื“ืจื• ืืžืจ ืขื™ืงืจ ื ื“ืจื• ื‘ื—ื‘ืจื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื” ื•ื”ืœื ื‘ื’ืฉื•ืจ ื”ื•ื”

The Gemara answers: No, Absalom did not go to Hebron to sacrifice his nazirite offerings. Rather, Absalom actually said that he undertook the principal vow to be a nazirite when he was in Hebron. The Gemara asks: Was his principal vow to be a nazirite in fact uttered in Hebron? But wasnโ€™t the vow made when Absalom was in Geshur? After all, the verse states explicitly: โ€œFor your servant vowed a vow while I dwelled at Geshur.โ€

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ื”ืœืš ืื‘ืฉืœื•ื ืืœื ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ืžื—ื‘ืจื•ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืื™ ืชื™ืžื ืœืืงืจื•ื‘ื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืื–ื™ืœ ืฉื‘ื™ืง ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ื•ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ื‘ื—ื‘ืจื•ืŸ

Rav Aแธฅa said, and some say that it was Rabba bar Rav แธคanan who said: The verse means that Absalom went to Hebron only in order to bring sheep specifically from there. The Gemara adds that this also stands to reason, as, if you say that Absalom went to Hebron to sacrifice his offering, would he have abandoned Jerusalem and gone to sacrifice in Hebron?

ื•ืืœื ืžืื™ ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ืžื—ื‘ืจื•ืŸ ื”ืื™ ืืฉืจ ื ื“ืจืชื™ ืœื”ืณ ื‘ื—ื‘ืจื•ืŸ ืžื—ื‘ืจื•ืŸ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara rejects Rabba bar Rav แธคananโ€™s answer: But rather, what is our explanation of the verse? That Absalom went to bring sheep from Hebron? If so, this verse that states: โ€œPlease let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebronโ€ (IIย Samuel 15:7), should instead have stated: Which I have vowed to the Lord from Hebron.

ืืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืœืืงืจื•ื‘ื™ ื•ื“ืงื ืงืฉื™ื ืœืš ืืžืื™ ืฉื‘ืง ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื•ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ื‘ื—ื‘ืจื•ืŸ ืชื™ืงืฉื™ ืœืš ื’ื‘ืขื•ืŸ ื“ืžืงื•ื ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ืืœื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ืชืจื• ื”ื‘ืžื•ืช ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืžืงืจื™ื‘

Rather, the Gemara explains that actually Absalom did go to Hebron to sacrifice his peace offering as a nazirite. And that which is difficult for you, i.e., why Absalom abandoned Jerusalem and sacrificed his offering in Hebron, should not pose a difficulty for you; rather, it is the question of why Absalom did not sacrifice his offering in Gibeon that should pose a difficulty for you, as at that time the Tabernacle and the communal altar were in Gibeon, and it was a sanctified place. Why, then, did Absalom go to Hebron rather than Gibeon? Rather, since the private altars were permitted, he was permitted to sacrifice wherever he wished, and he chose to go to Hebron. There was no reason for him to choose to go to Gibeon rather than any private altar.

ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืฉื ื” ืœืžืืŸ ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ื”ื•ืจืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืžืงืฅ ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืฉื ื” ืฉืฉืืœื• ืœื”ื ืžืœืš ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื•ืชื” ืฉื ื” ืฉืฉืืœื• ืœื”ื ืžืœืš ืื•ืชื” ืฉื ื” ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ืฉืœ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื™ืชื”

The verse states that Absalom submitted his request to his father โ€œat the end of forty years.โ€ The Gemara asks: Forty years, according to whose counting, i.e., forty years from when? It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Nehorai says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: The verse is referring to the end of forty years from when the Jewish people requested for themselves a king, in the days of Samuel (see Iย Samuel, chapter 8). As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to that year when they requested for themselves a king, that year was the tenth year of the leadership of Samuel.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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!

Temurah 14

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Temurah 14

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื™ืฉ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื•ื™ืฉ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืชืžื•ืจื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืขื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืชืžื•ืจื”

MISHNA: There are halakhot in effect with regard to offerings of an individual that are not in effect with regard to communal offerings; and there are halakhot in effect with regard to communal offerings that are not in effect with regard to offerings of an individual. The mishna elaborates: There are halakhot in effect with regard to offerings of an individual that are not in effect with regard to communal offerings, as offerings of an individual render a non-sacred animal exchanged for the offering a substitute, and communal offerings do not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for the offering a substitute.

ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื ื•ื”ื’ื•ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื–ื›ืจื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ื•ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื ื•ื”ื’ื™ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ื–ื›ืจื™ื ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื•ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื”ื ื•ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ ื•ืœื ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื”ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื”ืŸ ืžืฉืงืจื‘ ื”ื–ื‘ื—

Offerings of an individual apply to, i.e., can be brought from, both males and females, but communal offerings apply only to males. If offerings of an individual were not brought at the appropriate time, one is obligated to bring their compensation and compensation for their accompanying meal offering and libations at a later date, but if communal offerings were not brought at the appropriate time, one is obligated to bring neither their compensation nor compensation for their accompanying meal offering and libations at a later date. But one is obligated to bring compensation for their accompanying meal offering and libations once the offering is sacrificed.

ื™ืฉ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืžื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืฉืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ื“ื•ื—ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื•ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืื™ื ืŸ ื“ื•ื—ื•ืช ืœื ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืœื ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื”

There are halakhot in effect with regard to communal offerings that are not in effect with regard to offerings of an individual, as communal offerings override Shabbat, in that they are sacrificed on Shabbat, and they override ritual impurity, i.e., they are sacrificed even if the priests are impure with impurity imparted by a corpse; and offerings of an individual override neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื”ืœื ื—ื‘ื™ืชื™ ื›ื”ืŸ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื•ืคืจ ืฉืœ ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ืคื•ืจื™ื ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ืŸ ื•ื“ื•ื—ื™ืŸ ืืช ื”ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืืช ื”ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืืœื ืฉื–ืžื ื• ืงื‘ื•ืข

Rabbi Meir said: But arenโ€™t the High Priestโ€™s griddle-cake offerings and the bull of Yom Kippur offerings of an individual, and yet they override Shabbat and ritual impurity. Rather, this is the principle: Any offering, individual or communal, whose time is fixed overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity, whereas any offering, individual or communal, whose time is not fixed overrides neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity.

ื’ืžืณ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ื›ื•ืณ ื•ื›ืœืœื ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ืจื™ ืขื•ืคื•ืช ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ืงืชื ื™

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that offerings of an individual render a non-sacred animal exchanged for the offering a substitute. The Gemara asks: And is this an established principle? Does every offering of an individual render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute? But what about birds, i.e., a dove or a pigeon, which are brought as an offering of an individual, but they do not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for them a substitute? The Gemara answers: When the mishna teaches that offerings of an individual render a non-sacred animal exchanged for the offering a substitute, it is teaching this only with regard to an animal offering, not a bird offering.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ื•ืœื“ ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ื•ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ื”ื ืžื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื”ื™ื ื“ืืžืจ ื”ื•ืœื“ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื”

The Gemara objects: But what about the offspring of a sanctified animal, which is brought and sacrificed on the altar as an offering of an individual of the same type as its mother, and yet it does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute? The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the offspring of a sanctified animal renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ืชืžื•ืจื” ืขืฆืžื” ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืชืžื•ืจื” ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืžื•ืจื” ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื‘ืขื™ืงืจ ื–ื™ื‘ื—ื ืงืชื ื™

The Gemara objects: But what about a substitute itself, which is brought and sacrificed on the altar as an offering of an individual, and yet a substitute does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute? The Gemara answers: When the mishna teaches that an offering of an individual renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, it is teaching this only with regard to the primary offering, not a substitute of an offering.

ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืชื™ืช ืœื”ื›ื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ืงืจ ื–ื™ื‘ื—ื ืงืชื ื™

The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this answer, you can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and maintain that the offspring of an offering does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. The reason is that one can explain that the mishna is teaching its halakha only with regard to the primary offering, not the offspring of an offering.

ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื ื•ื”ื’ื•ืช ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื–ื›ืจื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื ืงื‘ื•ืช ื•ื›ืœืœื ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ืจื™ ืขื•ืœื” ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ื–ื›ืจ ืืชื™ื ื ืงื‘ื” ืœื ืืชื™ื

ยง The mishna teaches: Offerings of an individual apply to, i.e., can be brought from, both males and females. The Gemara asks: Is this an established principle, that all offerings of an individual may be brought from either a male or female animal? But what about a burnt offering, which is an offering of an individual, and yet it comes as a male animal but does not come as a female animal.

ื”ืื™ื›ื ืขื•ืœืช ื”ืขื•ืฃ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืชืžื•ืช ื•ื–ื›ืจื•ืช ื‘ื‘ื”ืžื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืชืžื•ืช ื•ื–ื›ืจื•ืช ื‘ืขื•ืคื•ืช

The Gemara answers that there is a bird burnt offering, i.e., there is a type of burnt offering that can be either a female or male bird. As it is taught in a baraita: The requirement of unblemished status and the requirement of male status both apply to a sacrificial animal brought as a burnt offering, but the requirement of unblemished status and the requirement of male status do not apply to sacrificial birds brought as burnt offerings.

ื•ื”ืจื™ ื—ื˜ืืช ื“ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื”ื™ื ื•ื ืงื‘ื” ืืชื™ื ื–ื›ืจ ืœื ืืชื™ื ื”ืื™ื›ื ืฉืขื™ืจ ื ืฉื™ื ื“ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื–ื›ืจ

The Gemara objects: But what about a sin offering, which is an offering of an individual, and yet comes as a female animal but does not come as a male animal. The Gemara explains: Although burnt offerings of an individual must be female, there is the goat sin offering of a king, which is sacrificed by a specific individual and is brought specifically as a male animal.

ื•ื”ืื™ื›ื ืืฉื ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื“ื–ื›ืจ ืืชื™ ื ืงื‘ื” ืœื ืืชื™ ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ื“ืฉื•ื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืืฉื ื‘ื™ื—ื™ื“ ืื™ืชื™ื” ื‘ืฆื‘ื•ืจ ืœื™ืชื™ื” ื•ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ืžื™ ืงืชื ื™ ื›ืœ ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื™ืฉ ื‘ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ืงืชื ื™ ื•ืžืื™ ื ื™ื”ื• ืฉืœืžื™ื ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ื ืงื‘ื” ืžื™ื™ืชื™ ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ื–ื›ืจ ืžื™ื™ืชื™

The Gemara further objects: But there is the individual guilt offering, which comes as a male animal but does not come as a female animal. The Gemara explains: When the Sages stated this halakha in the mishna they were referring only to an offering that is equivalent, i.e., which is brought both as an offering of an individual and as a communal offering, whereas a guilt offering is brought as an offering of an individual but is not brought as a communal offering. And if you wish, say instead an alternative explanation: Does the mishna teach: All offerings may be brought as either male or female? It does not. Rather, the mishna teaches: There are offerings of an individual that may be brought as male or female; and what are they? Peace offerings; and in the case of such an offering, if one wants he brings a female animal and if he wants he brings a male animal.

ืงืจื‘ื ื•ืช ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ [ื›ื•ืณ] ืžื ื ืœืŸ

ยง The mishna teaches: If offerings of an individual were not brought at the appropriate time, one is obligated to bring their compensation and compensation for their accompanying meal offering and libations at a later date, whereas if communal offerings were not brought at the appropriate time, one is obligated to bring neither their compensation nor compensation for their accompanying meal offering and libations at a later date. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha, that if a communal offering was not sacrificed at the appropriate time it is not brought at a later stage?

ื“ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ื™ื•ื ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื›ืœ ื”ื™ื•ื ื›ืฉืจ ืœืžื•ืกืคื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ืžื• ืžืœืžื“ ืฉืื ืขื‘ืจ ื”ื™ื•ื ื•ืœื ื”ื‘ื™ืืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืชืŸ

The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states in the section of the Torah dealing with additional offerings: โ€œThese are the appointed seasons of the Lord, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to bring an offering made by fire to the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meal offering, a sacrifice, and libations, each day on its own dayโ€ (Leviticus 23:37). This teaches that the entire day is fit for bringing the additional offerings. The term: โ€œOn its own day,โ€ teaches that if the day has passed and the priests did not bring the additional offerings, one is not obligated to bring their compensation, and the offering cannot be brought at a later date.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ื”ื ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื‘ืื—ืจื™ื•ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื”ื ื•ืืฃ ืขืœ ืคื™ ืฉืงืจื‘ ื”ื–ื‘ื— ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืžื ื—ืชื ื•ื ืกื›ื™ื”ื ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืžื ื—ืชื ื•ื ืกื›ื™ื”ื ืœืžื—ืจ

The baraita continues: One might have thought that one should not be obligated to bring compensation for their accompanying libations at a later date even if the additional offering has been sacrificed, e.g., if there were no meal offerings or libations available at that time. Therefore, the verse states, in the chapter dealing with the additional offerings of the Festivals: โ€œTheir meal offerings and their libationsโ€ (Numbers 29:37). It is derived from here that the meal offerings and libations which are brought with the additional animal offerings of the Festivals can be sacrificed even in the night after the animal offering. The phrase โ€œtheir meal offerings and their libationsโ€ further teaches that these meal offerings and libations can be sacrificed even on the following day.

ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืžื”ื›ื ืžืœื‘ื“ ืฉื‘ืชื•ืช ื”ืณ

Reish Lakish said that the source is from the following verse: โ€œThese are the appointed seasons of the Lord, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to bring an offering made by fire unto the Lordโ€ฆeach on its own day; beside the Shabbatot of the Lordโ€ (Leviticus 23:37โ€“38). The verse is expounded as speaking of a Festival that occurred on a Sunday, and therefore it is teaching that the meal offerings and libations for the additional offerings of the previous Shabbat may be brought on the following Festival day.

ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืžืœื‘ื“ ืฉื‘ืชืช ื”ืณ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื•ื ืื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืœื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืžื ื—ืชื ื•ื ืกื›ื™ื”ื ื•ืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืžื ื—ืชื ื•ื ืกื›ื™ื”ื ื•ืœื ื›ืชื‘ ืžืœื‘ื“ ืฉื‘ืชืช ื”ืณ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืžืžื ืœื

And the Gemara notes that both verses are necessary, as if the Merciful One had written only the verse: โ€œBeside the Shabbatot of the Lord,โ€ I would say that on the day following Shabbat, yes, one may bring the offerings, but on the night after Shabbat, no, one may not bring them, just as the offering itself could not have been brought at night. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œAnd their meal offerings and their libations.โ€ And if the Merciful One had written only: โ€œTheir meal offerings and their libations,โ€ and not written: โ€œBeside the Shabbatot of the Lord,โ€ I would say that at night, yes, the offerings may be brought, but on the following day they may not be brought.

ื•ืžืื™ ืฉื ื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืœื™ืœื” ื”ื•ืœืš ืื—ืจ ื”ื™ื•ื ืฆืจื™ื›ื™

The Gemara asks: And in what way is the night different from the day, that one might have thought the outstanding meal offerings and libations may be brought only at night but not during the day? The Gemara explains that one might have thought so because with regard to sacrificial animals and offerings the night follows the day. Therefore, the Torah had to teach that the meal offering and libations may be brought even the following day. The Gemara concludes that indeed both verses are necessary.

ื•ื ืกื›ื™ื ืžื™ ืงืจื‘ื™ ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืœื™ ืืœื ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื“ืจื›ืŸ ืœื™ืงืจื‘ ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืื‘ืจื™ื ื•ืคื“ืจื™ื ืฉืžืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžื‘ื•ื ื”ืฉืžืฉ ื•ืžืชืขื›ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื•ืœื›ื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืœื™ืœื” ื›ื•ืœื•

The Gemara asks: And libations, may they be sacrificed at night? Didnโ€™t we learn in a baraita: I have derived only with regard to items that are normally sacrificed at night, for example, the limbs of a burnt offering and the fats of burnt offerings and other offerings, that one sacrifices them after sunset and they are consumed throughout the entire night. This is derived from the verse: โ€œThis is the law of the burnt offering: It is that which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morningโ€ (Leviticus 6:2).

ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื“ืจื›ืŸ ืœื™ืงืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื”ืงื•ืžืฅ ื”ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ื•ืžื ื—ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื ืฉืžืขืœืŸ ืžื‘ื•ื ื”ืฉืžืฉ ืžื‘ื•ื ื”ืฉืžืฉ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื•ื”ืืžืจืช ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื“ืจื›ืŸ ืœื™ืงืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื ื™ื ื”ื• ืืœื ืขื ื‘ื ื”ืฉืžืฉ ืฉืžืชืขื›ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื•ืœื›ื™ืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืœื™ืœื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื–ืืช ืชื•ืจืช ื”ืขืœื” ืจื™ื‘ื”

The baraita continues: But with regard to items that are normally sacrificed in the day, for example the handful of the meal offering, and the frankincense, and the meal offering that accompanies the libations, from where is it derived that one may bring them up and burn them after sunset? The Gemara asks: Would it enter your mind that they may be burned after sunset? But didnโ€™t you say that these are items that are normally sacrificed in the day? Rather, the question of the baraita is as follows: From where is it derived that these items may be sacrificed with sunset, i.e., just before sunset, in which case they are consumed throughout the entire night and not during the day? The verse states: โ€œThis is the law of the burnt offeringโ€ (Leviticus 6:2), a phrase that included everything sacrificed on the altar.

ืงืชื ื™ ืžื™ื”ื ื ืกื›ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื ืืžืจ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ืœื™ืงื“ืฉ ื›ืืŸ ืœื™ืงืจื‘

The Gemara reiterates its previous difficulty: In any event, the baraita teaches that the meal offering that accompanies the libations is brought only in the day, not at night. Rami bar แธคama said that this is not difficult. Here, where the verse states: โ€œTheir meal offerings and libations,โ€ it is referring to consecrating the offering if one placed it in a consecrated utensil at night. The offering becomes consecrated and may not be used for non-sacred purposes. There, in the verse cited by the baraita as teaching that it may be brought only in the day and not at night, it is referring to sacrificing the offering on the altar. Even if an offering was consecrated at night, it may not be sacrificed until the following morning.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืื™ ืžื™ืงื“ืฉ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงืจื•ื‘ื™ ืžื™ืงืจื‘ื™ ื•ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ื”ืงืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื•ื ืื™ืŸ ืงื“ื•ืฉ ืืœื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืงืจื‘ ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืกืžื™ ืžื ื—ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื ืžื”ื ืžืชื ื™ืชื

Rava said to Rami bar แธคama: If the meal offering accompanying the libations can be consecrated at night, it should also be fit to be sacrificed at night. No distinction can be made between consecrating and sacrificing, as isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: This is the principle: Any offering that is sacrificed in the day is consecrated only in the day; and any offering that is sacrificed at night is consecrated only at night; and any offering that is sacrificed both in the day and at night is consecrated both in the day and at night. Rather, Rav Yosef said: The meal offering accompanying the libations may be sacrificed at night, and therefore one should delete from this baraita the item: Meal offering that accompanies the libations, from the list of the offerings that may not be brought at night.

ื›ื™ ืกืœื™ืง ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืžื™ ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื“ื™ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืงืืžืจ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ื‘ืŸ ืœื•ื™ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื ืกื›ื™ื ื”ื‘ืื™ื ืขื ื”ื–ื‘ื— ืฉืื™ืŸ ืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืœื ื‘ื™ื•ื ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืœื ืกื›ื™ื›ื ื•ืœืฉืœืžื™ื›ื ืžื” ืฉืœืžื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื ืืฃ ื ืกื›ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื

With regard to Rav Yosefโ€™s claim that the item: Meal offering that accompanies the libations, should be removed from the baraita, the Gemara states: When Rav Dimi ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rav Yirmeya sitting and saying in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: From where is it derived that libations that come with an animal offering may be sacrificed only in the day? The verse states: โ€œThese you shall offer to the Lord in your appointed seasons, beside your vows, and your voluntary offerings, and your burnt offerings, and your meal offerings, and your libations, and your peace offeringsโ€ (Numbers 29:39). The juxtaposition of these two items teaches that just as peace offerings may be sacrificed only during the day, so too libations may be sacrificed only during the day.

ืืžืจ ืื™ ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืื™ื’ืจืชื ืฉืœื—ื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ

Rav Dimi said to Rav Yirmeya: If I find someone who can write this opinion in a letter, I will send it to Rav Yosef in Babylonia,

ื•ืœื ืชื™ืกืžื™ ืžื ื—ืช ื ืกื›ื™ื ืžืžืชื ื™ืชื ื•ืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื ืกื›ื™ื ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืขื ื”ื–ื‘ื— ื›ืืŸ ื‘ื ืกื›ื™ื ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขืฆืžืŸ

and in light of this ruling he will not delete the phrase: The meal offering that accompanies the libations, from the baraita. And instead, the apparent contradiction between the baraitot can be explained as follows: It is not difficult; here, the baraita that states that meal offerings accompanying libations are sacrificed only in the day is referring to libations that come with an animal offering, whereas there, the baraita that permits sacrificing a meal offering that accompanies the libations at night is referring to libations that come to be sacrificed by themselves, i.e., which do not accompany the sacrifice of an offering.

ื•ืื™ ื”ื•ื” ืœื™ื” ืื™ื’ืจืชื ืžื™ ืืคืฉืจ ืœืžื™ืฉืœื—ื ื•ื”ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ื•ืชื‘ื™ ื”ืœื›ื•ืช ื›ืฉื•ืจืฃ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื•ื”ืœืžื“ ืžื”ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืฉื›ืจ

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rav Dimiโ€™s suggestion to write this opinion in a letter. And even if he had someone to write a letter for him, would it have been possible to send it? But didnโ€™t Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba, say that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said: Those who write halakhot are considered like those who burn the Torah, and one who learns from written halakhot does not receive the reward of studying Torah. Evidently, it is prohibited to send halakhot in letters.

ื“ืจืฉ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ืžืชื•ืจื’ืžื ื™ื” ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืชื‘ ืœืš ืืช ื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืืœื” ื•ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืื—ื“ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื™ ืขืœ ืคื™ ื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืืœื” ืœื•ืžืจ ืœืš ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉืขืœ ืคื” ืื™ ืืชื” ืจืฉืื™ ืœืื•ืžืจืŸ ื‘ื›ืชื‘ ื•ืฉื‘ื›ืชื‘ ืื™ ืืชื” ืจืฉืื™ ืœืื•ืžืจืŸ ืขืœ ืคื”

Before resolving the difficulty, the Gemara further discusses the prohibition of writing down the Torah: Rabbi Yehuda bar Naแธฅmani, the disseminator for Reish Lakish, expounded as follows: One verse says: โ€œWrite you these words,โ€ and one verse says, i.e., it states later in that same verse: โ€œFor by the mouth of these wordsโ€ (Exodus 34:27). These phrases serve to say to you: Words that were taught orally you may not recite in writing, and words that are written you may not recite orally, i.e., by heart.

ื•ืชื ื ื“ื‘ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืžืขืืœ ื›ืชื‘ ืœืš ืืช ื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืืœื” ืืœื” ืืชื” ื›ื•ืชื‘ ืื‘ืœ ืื™ืŸ ืืชื” ื›ื•ืชื‘ ื”ืœื›ื•ืช

And furthermore, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The word โ€œtheseโ€ in the command โ€œwrite you these wordsโ€ serves to emphasize that these words, i.e., those recorded in the Written Law, you may write, but you may not write halakhot, i.e., the mishnayot and the rest of the Oral Law.

ืืžืจื™ ื“ืœืžื ืžื™ืœืชื ื—ื“ืชื ืฉืื ื™ ื“ื”ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžืขื™ื™ื ื™ ื‘ืกื™ืคืจื ื“ืื’ื“ืชื ื‘ืฉื‘ืชื ื•ื“ืจืฉื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืขืช ืœืขืฉื•ืช ืœื”ืณ ื”ืคืจื• ืชื•ืจืชืš ืืžืจื™ ืžื•ื˜ื‘ ืชื™ืขืงืจ ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืืœ ืชืฉืชื›ื— ืชื•ืจื” ืžื™ืฉืจืืœ

They said in response to the question of how Rav Dimi could propose writing down the halakha in a letter: Perhaps with regard to a new matter it is different, i.e., it might be permitted to write down new material so that it not be forgotten. One proof for this suggestion is that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan and Reish Lakish would read from a scroll of aggada, containing the words of the Sages, on Shabbat. And they did so because they taught as follows: Since one cannot remember the Oral Law without writing it down, it is permitted to violate the halakha, as derived from the verse: โ€œIt is time to work for the Lord; they have made void your Torahโ€ (Psalms 119:126). They said it is better to uproot a single halakha of the Torah, i.e., the prohibition of writing down the Oral Torah, and thereby ensure that the Torah is not forgotten from the Jewish people entirely.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืคืคื ื”ืฉืชื ื“ืืžืจืช ื ืกื›ื™ื ื”ื‘ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืคื ื™ ืขืฆืžืŸ ืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ื ื–ื“ืžื ื• ื ืกื›ื™ื ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืžืงื“ื™ืฉื™ืŸ ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ื•ืžืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ

ยง With regard to Rav Dimiโ€™s differentiation between libations that come with an animal offering and libations that are sacrificed by themselves, Rav Pappa said: Now that you have said that libations that come by themselves are sacrificed even at night, if one happened to have libations of this kind at night, they may be consecrated by placing them in a service vessel at night and they may be sacrificed at night.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืฉืžืขื™ื” ืœืจื‘ ืคืคื ืชื ื™ื ื“ืžืกื™ื™ืข ืœืš ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ื”ืงืจื‘ ื‘ื™ื•ื ืื™ื ื• ืงื“ื•ืฉ ืืœื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื•ื›ืœ ื”ืงืจื‘ ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืœื™ืœื”

Rav Yosef, son of Rav Shemaya, said to Rav Pappa: A baraita is taught that supports your opinion. This is the principle: Any offering that is sacrificed in the day is consecrated by being placed in a service vessel only in the day; but any offering that is sacrificed at night is consecrated both in the day and at night.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ื•ืขืœื•ืช ื”ืฉื—ืจ ืคื•ืกืœืช ื‘ื”ืŸ ื›ืื‘ืจื™ืŸ

With regard to the topic of libations sacrificed by themselves, Rav Adda bar Ahava says: And dawn disqualifies them, like the halakha of limbs of offerings that have had their blood sprinkled during the day. Such limbs are left to burn on the altar all night long, but at dawn they are disqualified and may no longer be placed on the altar.

ื›ื™ ืืชื ืจื‘ ื“ื™ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื™ื”ื•ืฆื“ืง ืืœื” ืชืขืฉื• ืœื”ืณ ื‘ืžื•ืขื“ื™ื›ื ืืœื• ื—ื•ื‘ื•ืช ื”ื‘ืื•ืช ื—ื•ื‘ื” ื‘ืจื’ืœ

ยง The Gemara returns to discuss the verse: โ€œThese you shall offer to the Lord in your appointed seasons, beside your vows, and your voluntary offerings, and your burnt offerings, and your meal offerings, and your libations, and your peace offeringsโ€ (Numbers 29:39). When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: โ€œThese you shall offer to the Lord in your appointed seasons,โ€ i.e., these are the obligatory offerings that come to be sacrificed as obligatory offerings on the pilgrimage Festival, e.g., the burnt offerings of appearance, the Festival offerings, and the additional offerings.

ืœื‘ื“ ืžื ื“ืจื™ื›ื ื•ื ื“ื‘ืชื™ื›ื ืœื™ืžื“ ืขืœ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื•ื ื“ื‘ื•ืช ืฉืงืจื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื—ื•ืœื• ืฉืœ ืžื•ืขื“

The verse continues: โ€œBeside your vows and your voluntary offerings.โ€ This teaches with regard to vows and voluntary offerings that they are sacrificed on the intermediate days of a Festival.

ื•ืœืขืœืชื™ื›ื ื‘ืžื” ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืื™ ื‘ืขื•ืœืช ื ื“ืจ ื”ืจื™ ื›ื‘ืจ ืืžื•ืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื›ื ื•ืื™ ื‘ืขื•ืœืช ื ื“ื‘ื” ื”ืจื™ ื›ื‘ืจ ืืžื•ืจ ื•ื ื“ื‘ืชื™ื›ื ื”ื ืื™ื ื• ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืืœื ื‘ืขื•ืœืช ื™ื•ืœื“ืช ื•ืขื•ืœืช ืžืฆื•ืจืข

The verse further states: โ€œAnd your burnt offerings.โ€ The Gemara inquires: With regard to what case is the verse speaking? If it is referring to a vow burnt offering, the verse already said: โ€œYour vows.โ€ And if it is referring to a voluntary burnt offering, the verse already said: โ€œYour voluntary offerings.โ€ Consequently, it is speaking of nothing other than a burnt offering of a woman who gave birth, i.e., the lamb that she sacrifices on the forty-first day after giving birth to a son or the eighty-first day after giving birth to a daughter, and a burnt offering of a leper, which is the lamb that is sacrificed after a leper is purified. The verse teaches that these obligatory offerings may be sacrificed on the intermediate days of a Festival.

ื•ืœืžื ื—ืชื™ื›ื ื‘ืžื” ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืื™ ื‘ืžื ื—ืช ื ื“ืจ ื”ืจื™ ื›ื‘ืจ ืืžื•ืจ ืื™ ื‘ืžื ื—ืช ื ื“ื‘ื” ื”ืจื™ ื›ื‘ืจ ืืžื•ืจ ื”ื ืื™ื ื• ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืืœื ื‘ืžื ื—ืช ืกื•ื˜ื” ื•ื‘ืžื ื—ืช ืงื ืื•ืช

The verse continues: โ€œAnd your meal offerings.โ€ The Gemara again asks: With regard to what case is the verse speaking? If it is referring to a meal offering brought in fulfillment of a vow, the verse already said: โ€œYour vows.โ€ If it is referring to a voluntary meal offering, the verse already said: โ€œYour voluntary offerings.โ€ Consequently, it is speaking of nothing other than the meal offering of a sota, and that is the meal offering of jealousy.

ื•ืœื ืกื›ื™ื›ื ื•ืœืฉืœืžื™ื›ื ืžืงื™ืฉ ื ืกื›ื™ื ืœืฉืœืžื™ื ืžื” ืฉืœืžื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื ืืฃ ื ืกื›ื™ื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื•ืœืฉืœืžื™ื›ื ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืฉืœืžื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ

The verse further states: โ€œAnd your libations and your peace offerings.โ€ The Torah here juxtaposes libations to peace offerings: Just as peace offerings are sacrificed only during the day, not at night, so too, libations are sacrificed only during the day, not at night. Finally, the verse states: โ€œAnd your peace offerings.โ€ This serves to include the peace offering of a nazirite, which he brings at the completion of his term of naziriteship. This offering may also be sacrificed on the intermediate days of a Festival.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื•ืœื™ืžื ืžืจ ืฉืœืžื™ ืคืกื— ื“ืื™ ืฉืœืžื™ ื ื–ื™ืจ ื ื™ื“ืจ ื•ื ื™ื“ื‘ ื”ื•ื

With regard to the last halakha, Abaye said to Rav Dimi, when he cited this statement in the name of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: But let the Master say that the phrase โ€œand your peace offeringsโ€ serves to include the peace offering that is brought together with a Paschal offering. This offering is sacrificed on the fourteenth of Nisan by a large group of people when they will not receive enough meat from their Paschal offering to feed them all. The suggested derivation from the verse is that if a peace offering separated for this purpose was not sacrificed on the fourteenth of Nisan, it may be brought during the intermediate days of the Festival. Abaye further adds: It is more reasonable to include this peace offering, as, if the verse is referring to the peace offering of a nazirite, it is already included by the verse in the categories of offerings that are vowed or contributed voluntarily.

ื“ื”ืชื ื™ื ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉื”ื•ื ื ื™ื“ื‘ ื•ื ื™ื“ืจ ืงืจื‘ ื‘ื‘ืžืช ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื•ืฉืื™ื ื• ื ื™ื“ื‘ ื•ื ื™ื“ืจ ืื™ื ื• ืงืจื‘ ื‘ื‘ืžืช ื™ื—ื™ื“

Abaye elaborates: As isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: This is the principle: Any offering that is vowed or contributed voluntarily, e.g., a burnt offering or a peace offering, is sacrificed on a private altar. And any offering that is not vowed or contributed voluntarily may not be sacrificed on a private altar.

ื•ืชื ืŸ ื”ืžื ื—ื•ืช ื•ื”ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืงืจื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื‘ืžืช ื™ื—ื™ื“ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืกืžื™ ืžื›ืืŸ ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช

And we learned in another baraita: The meal offerings and the offerings of a nazirite are sacrificed on a private altar; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. It is clear from these baraitot that the peace offering of a nazirite belongs in the category of offerings that are vowed or contributed voluntarily. If so, there is no need for it to be included separately by the verse. Rav Dimi replied to Abaye: Delete the phrase: Offering of a nazirite from here, i.e., from the baraita that considers it an offering that is vowed or contributed voluntarily. Only the nazirite vow itself is classified as voluntary; once the vow has been uttered, the ensuing offerings are obligatory.

ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื“ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœืื• ื ื™ื“ืจ ื•ื ื™ื“ื‘ ื”ื•ื ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžืงืฅ ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืฉื ื” ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืื‘ืฉืœื•ื ืืœ ื”ืžืœืš ืืœื›ื” ื ื ื•ืืฉืœื ืืช ื ื“ืจื™ ืืฉืจ ื ื“ืจืชื™ ืœื”ืณ ื‘ื—ื‘ืจื•ืŸ ื›ื™ ื ื“ืจ ื ื“ืจ ืขื‘ื“ืš ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ืืงืจื‘ืŸ

The Gemara asks: Is there one who said that the offering of a nazirite is not vowed or contributed voluntarily? But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd it came to pass at the end of forty years, that Absalom said to the king: Please let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron. For your servant vowed a vow while I dwelled at Geshur in Aram, saying: If the Lord shall indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will serve the Lordโ€ (IIย Samuel 15:7โ€“8). The Gemara explains the difficulty: What, is it not the case that Absalom asked his father for permission for him to go to Hebron to sacrifice an offering on a private altar?

ืœื ืืขื™ืงืจ ื ื“ืจื• ืืžืจ ืขื™ืงืจ ื ื“ืจื• ื‘ื—ื‘ืจื•ืŸ ื”ื•ื” ื•ื”ืœื ื‘ื’ืฉื•ืจ ื”ื•ื”

The Gemara answers: No, Absalom did not go to Hebron to sacrifice his nazirite offerings. Rather, Absalom actually said that he undertook the principal vow to be a nazirite when he was in Hebron. The Gemara asks: Was his principal vow to be a nazirite in fact uttered in Hebron? But wasnโ€™t the vow made when Absalom was in Geshur? After all, the verse states explicitly: โ€œFor your servant vowed a vow while I dwelled at Geshur.โ€

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื—ื ื•ืื™ืชื™ืžื ืจื‘ื” ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื ืŸ ืœื ื”ืœืš ืื‘ืฉืœื•ื ืืœื ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ืžื—ื‘ืจื•ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ื“ืื™ ืชื™ืžื ืœืืงืจื•ื‘ื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืื–ื™ืœ ืฉื‘ื™ืง ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื•ืื–ื™ืœ ื•ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ื‘ื—ื‘ืจื•ืŸ

Rav Aแธฅa said, and some say that it was Rabba bar Rav แธคanan who said: The verse means that Absalom went to Hebron only in order to bring sheep specifically from there. The Gemara adds that this also stands to reason, as, if you say that Absalom went to Hebron to sacrifice his offering, would he have abandoned Jerusalem and gone to sacrifice in Hebron?

ื•ืืœื ืžืื™ ืœื”ื‘ื™ื ื›ื‘ืฉื™ื ืžื—ื‘ืจื•ืŸ ื”ืื™ ืืฉืจ ื ื“ืจืชื™ ืœื”ืณ ื‘ื—ื‘ืจื•ืŸ ืžื—ื‘ืจื•ืŸ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara rejects Rabba bar Rav แธคananโ€™s answer: But rather, what is our explanation of the verse? That Absalom went to bring sheep from Hebron? If so, this verse that states: โ€œPlease let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebronโ€ (IIย Samuel 15:7), should instead have stated: Which I have vowed to the Lord from Hebron.

ืืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืœืืงืจื•ื‘ื™ ื•ื“ืงื ืงืฉื™ื ืœืš ืืžืื™ ืฉื‘ืง ื™ืจื•ืฉืœื™ื ื•ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ื‘ื—ื‘ืจื•ืŸ ืชื™ืงืฉื™ ืœืš ื’ื‘ืขื•ืŸ ื“ืžืงื•ื ืงื“ื•ืฉ ื”ื•ื ืืœื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื•ืชืจื• ื”ื‘ืžื•ืช ื›ืœ ื”ื™ื›ื ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืžืงืจื™ื‘

Rather, the Gemara explains that actually Absalom did go to Hebron to sacrifice his peace offering as a nazirite. And that which is difficult for you, i.e., why Absalom abandoned Jerusalem and sacrificed his offering in Hebron, should not pose a difficulty for you; rather, it is the question of why Absalom did not sacrifice his offering in Gibeon that should pose a difficulty for you, as at that time the Tabernacle and the communal altar were in Gibeon, and it was a sanctified place. Why, then, did Absalom go to Hebron rather than Gibeon? Rather, since the private altars were permitted, he was permitted to sacrifice wherever he wished, and he chose to go to Hebron. There was no reason for him to choose to go to Gibeon rather than any private altar.

ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืฉื ื” ืœืžืืŸ ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื ื”ื•ืจืื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืžืงืฅ ืืจื‘ืขื™ื ืฉื ื” ืฉืฉืืœื• ืœื”ื ืžืœืš ื“ืชื ื™ื ืื•ืชื” ืฉื ื” ืฉืฉืืœื• ืœื”ื ืžืœืš ืื•ืชื” ืฉื ื” ืขืฉื™ืจื™ืช ืฉืœ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื™ืชื”

The verse states that Absalom submitted his request to his father โ€œat the end of forty years.โ€ The Gemara asks: Forty years, according to whose counting, i.e., forty years from when? It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Nehorai says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: The verse is referring to the end of forty years from when the Jewish people requested for themselves a king, in the days of Samuel (see Iย Samuel, chapter 8). As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to that year when they requested for themselves a king, that year was the tenth year of the leadership of Samuel.

Scroll To Top