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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 2, 2019 | 讗壮 讘讗讘 转砖注状讟

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

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

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"

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 讘拽专讘谞讜转 讬讞讬讚 砖讗讬谉 讘拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讬讘讜专 讜讬砖 讘拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讬讘讜专 砖讗讬谉 讘拽专讘谞讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 砖拽专讘谞讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛 讜讗讬谉 拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讬讘讜专 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛

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.

拽专讘谞讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘讬谉 讘讝讻专讬诐 讘讬谉 讘谞拽讘讜转 讜拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讬讘讜专 讗讬谉 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讝讻专讬诐 拽专讘谞讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讜讘讗讞专讬讜转 谞住讻讬讛诐 讜拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讬讘讜专 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讜诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转 谞住讻讬讛谉 讗讘诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗讞专讬讜转 谞住讻讬讛谉 诪砖拽专讘 讛讝讘讞

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.

讬砖 讘拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讬讘讜专 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘拽专讘谞讜转 讬讞讬讚 砖拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讬讘讜专 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜拽专讘谞讜转 讬讞讬讚 讗讬谞谉 讚讜讞讜转 诇讗 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讛诇讗 讞讘讬转讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜驻专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 拽专讘谞讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讛谉 讜讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讗 砖讝诪谞讜 拽讘讜注

Rabbi Meir said: But aren鈥檛 the High Priest鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讻讜壮 讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讜讛专讬 注讜驻讜转 讚拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘讘讛诪讛 拽转谞讬

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.

讜讛专讬 讜诇讚 讚拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛

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.

讜讛专讬 转诪讜专讛 注爪诪讛 讚拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专讛 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘注讬拽专 讝讬讘讞讗 拽转谞讬

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.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讘注讬拽专 讝讬讘讞讗 拽转谞讬

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.

拽专讘谞讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘讬谉 讘讝讻专讬诐 讘讬谉 讘谞拽讘讜转 讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讜讛专讬 注讜诇讛 讚拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讜讝讻专 讗转讬讗 谞拽讘讛 诇讗 讗转讬讗

搂 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.

讛讗讬讻讗 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讚转谞讬讗 转诪讜转 讜讝讻专讜转 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜转 讜讝讻专讜转 讘注讜驻讜转

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.

讜讛专讬 讞讟讗转 讚拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讛讬讗 讜谞拽讘讛 讗转讬讗 讝讻专 诇讗 讗转讬讗 讛讗讬讻讗 砖注讬专 谞砖讬讗 讚诪讬讬转讬 讝讻专

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.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 讗砖诐 讬讞讬讚 讚讝讻专 讗转讬 谞拽讘讛 诇讗 讗转讬 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 拽专讘谉 讚砖讜讬 讘讬谉 讘讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讘爪讬讘讜专 讗砖诐 讘讬讞讬讚 讗讬转讬讛 讘爪讘讜专 诇讬转讬讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讻诇 拽专讘谞讜转 讬砖 讘拽专讘谞讜转 拽转谞讬 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讗讬 讘注讬 谞拽讘讛 诪讬讬转讬 讜讗讬 讘注讬 讝讻专 诪讬讬转讬

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.

拽专讘谞讜转 讬讞讬讚 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 [讻讜壮] 诪谞讗 诇谉

搂 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?

讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚讘专 讬讜诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻砖专 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 讘讬讜诪讜 诪诇诪讚 砖讗诐 注讘专 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉

The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states in the section of the Torah dealing with additional offerings: 鈥淭hese 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 day鈥 (Leviticus 23:37). This teaches that the entire day is fit for bringing the additional offerings. The term: 鈥淥n its own day,鈥 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.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转 谞住讻讬讛诐 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖拽专讘 讛讝讘讞 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谞讞转诐 讜谞住讻讬讛诐 讘诇讬诇讛 诪谞讞转诐 讜谞住讻讬讛诐 诇诪讞专

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: 鈥淭heir meal offerings and their libations鈥 (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 鈥渢heir meal offerings and their libations鈥 further teaches that these meal offerings and libations can be sacrificed even on the following day.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 诪诇讘讚 砖讘转讜转 讛壮

Reish Lakish said that the source is from the following verse: 鈥淭hese are the appointed seasons of the Lord, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to bring an offering made by fire unto the Lord鈥ach on its own day; beside the Shabbatot of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 23:37鈥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.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪诇讘讚 砖讘转转 讛壮 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讬讜诐 讗讬谉 讜讘诇讬诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪谞讞转诐 讜谞住讻讬讛诐 讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪谞讞转诐 讜谞住讻讬讛诐 讜诇讗 讻转讘 诪诇讘讚 砖讘转转 讛壮 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讬诪诪讗 诇讗

And the Gemara notes that both verses are necessary, as if the Merciful One had written only the verse: 鈥淏eside the Shabbatot of the Lord,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd their meal offerings and their libations.鈥 And if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淭heir meal offerings and their libations,鈥 and not written: 鈥淏eside the Shabbatot of the Lord,鈥 I would say that at night, yes, the offerings may be brought, but on the following day they may not be brought.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇讬诇讛 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛讬讜诐 爪专讬讻讬

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.

讜谞住讻讬诐 诪讬 拽专讘讬 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 砖讚专讻谉 诇讬拽专讘 讘诇讬诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讗讘专讬诐 讜驻讚专讬诐 砖诪拽专讬讘讬谉 诪讘讜讗 讛砖诪砖 讜诪转注讻诇讬谉 讜讛讜诇讻讬谉 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讻讜诇讜

The Gemara asks: And libations, may they be sacrificed at night? Didn鈥檛 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: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt offering: It is that which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning鈥 (Leviticus 6:2).

讚讘专讬诐 砖讚专讻谉 诇讬拽专讘 讘讬讜诐 讻讙讜谉 讛拽讜诪抓 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 砖诪注诇谉 诪讘讜讗 讛砖诪砖 诪讘讜讗 讛砖诪砖 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讜讛讗诪专转 讚讘专讬诐 砖讚专讻谉 诇讬拽专讘 讘讬讜诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 注诐 讘讗 讛砖诪砖 砖诪转注讻诇讬谉 讜讛讜诇讻讬谉 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛注诇讛 专讬讘讛

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 didn鈥檛 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: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), a phrase that included everything sacrificed on the altar.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 谞住讻讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇讬拽讚砖 讻讗谉 诇讬拽专讘

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 岣ma said that this is not difficult. Here, where the verse states: 鈥淭heir meal offerings and libations,鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬 诪讬拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬 拽专讜讘讬 诪讬拽专讘讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛拽专讘 讘讬讜诐 讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讜讻诇 讛拽专讘 讘诇讬诇讛 拽讚讜砖 讘诇讬诇讛 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 拽讚讜砖 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 住诪讬 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 诪讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗

Rava said to Rami bar 岣ma: 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 isn鈥檛 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.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪谞讬谉 诇谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 注诐 讛讝讘讞 砖讗讬谉 拽专讬讘讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇谞住讻讬讻诐 讜诇砖诇诪讬讻诐 诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗祝 谞住讻讬诐 讘讬讜诐

With regard to Rav Yosef鈥檚 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: 鈥淭hese 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 offerings鈥 (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.

讗诪专 讗讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗讬讙专转讗 砖诇讞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝

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,

讜诇讗 转讬住诪讬 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 诪诪转谞讬转讗 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 注诐 讛讝讘讞 讻讗谉 讘谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉

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.

讜讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗讬讙专转讗 诪讬 讗驻砖专 诇诪讬砖诇讞讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讜转讘讬 讛诇讻讜转 讻砖讜专祝 讛转讜专讛 讜讛诇诪讚 诪讛谉 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 砖讻专

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rav Dimi鈥檚 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 didn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讚专砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 诪转讜专讙诪谞讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讻转讘 诇讱 讗转 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讻讬 注诇 驻讬 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讚讘专讬诐 砖注诇 驻讛 讗讬 讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇讗讜诪专谉 讘讻转讘 讜砖讘讻转讘 讗讬 讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇讗讜诪专谉 注诇 驻讛

Before resolving the difficulty, the Gemara further discusses the prohibition of writing down the Torah: Rabbi Yehuda bar Na岣ani, the disseminator for Reish Lakish, expounded as follows: One verse says: 鈥淲rite you these words,鈥 and one verse says, i.e., it states later in that same verse: 鈥淔or by the mouth of these words鈥 (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.

讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻转讘 诇讱 讗转 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讗诇讛 讗转讛 讻讜转讘 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讗转讛 讻讜转讘 讛诇讻讜转

And furthermore, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The word 鈥渢hese鈥 in the command 鈥渨rite you these words鈥 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.

讗诪专讬 讚诇诪讗 诪讬诇转讗 讞讚转讗 砖讗谞讬 讚讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪注讬讬谞讬 讘住讬驻专讗 讚讗讙讚转讗 讘砖讘转讗 讜讚专砖讬 讛讻讬 注转 诇注砖讜转 诇讛壮 讛驻专讜 转讜专转讱 讗诪专讬 诪讜讟讘 转讬注拽专 转讜专讛 讜讗诇 转砖转讻讞 转讜专讛 诪讬砖专讗诇

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 Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淚t is time to work for the Lord; they have made void your Torah鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 拽专讬讘讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诇讬诇讛 谞讝讚诪谞讜 谞住讻讬诐 讘诇讬诇讛 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讜诪拽专讬讘讬谉

搂 With regard to Rav Dimi鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 砖诪注讬讛 诇专讘 驻驻讗 转谞讬讗 讚诪住讬讬注 诇讱 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛拽专讘 讘讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讜讻诇 讛拽专讘 讘诇讬诇讛 拽讚讜砖 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜注诇讜转 讛砖讞专 驻讜住诇转 讘讛谉 讻讗讘专讬谉

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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 讗诇讛 转注砖讜 诇讛壮 讘诪讜注讚讬讻诐 讗诇讜 讞讜讘讜转 讛讘讗讜转 讞讜讘讛 讘专讙诇

搂 The Gemara returns to discuss the verse: 鈥淭hese 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 offerings鈥 (Numbers 29:39). When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: 鈥淭hese you shall offer to the Lord in your appointed seasons,鈥 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.

诇讘讚 诪谞讚专讬讻诐 讜谞讚讘转讬讻诐 诇讬诪讚 注诇 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 砖拽专讘讬谉 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚

The verse continues: 鈥淏eside your vows and your voluntary offerings.鈥 This teaches with regard to vows and voluntary offerings that they are sacrificed on the intermediate days of a Festival.

讜诇注诇转讬讻诐 讘诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讬 讘注讜诇转 谞讚专 讛专讬 讻讘专 讗诪讜专 谞讚专讬讻诐 讜讗讬 讘注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 讛专讬 讻讘专 讗诪讜专 讜谞讚讘转讬讻诐 讛讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讚讘专 讗诇讗 讘注讜诇转 讬讜诇讚转 讜注讜诇转 诪爪讜专注

The verse further states: 鈥淎nd your burnt offerings.鈥 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: 鈥淵our vows.鈥 And if it is referring to a voluntary burnt offering, the verse already said: 鈥淵our voluntary offerings.鈥 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.

讜诇诪谞讞转讬讻诐 讘诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讬 讘诪谞讞转 谞讚专 讛专讬 讻讘专 讗诪讜专 讗讬 讘诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 讛专讬 讻讘专 讗诪讜专 讛讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讚讘专 讗诇讗 讘诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 讜讘诪谞讞转 拽谞讗讜转

The verse continues: 鈥淎nd your meal offerings.鈥 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: 鈥淵our vows.鈥 If it is referring to a voluntary meal offering, the verse already said: 鈥淵our voluntary offerings.鈥 Consequently, it is speaking of nothing other than the meal offering of a sota, and that is the meal offering of jealousy.

讜诇谞住讻讬讻诐 讜诇砖诇诪讬讻诐 诪拽讬砖 谞住讻讬诐 诇砖诇诪讬诐 诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗祝 谞住讻讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讜诇砖诇诪讬讻诐 诇专讘讜转 砖诇诪讬 谞讝讬专

The verse further states: 鈥淎nd your libations and your peace offerings.鈥 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: 鈥淎nd your peace offerings.鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讬诪讗 诪专 砖诇诪讬 驻住讞 讚讗讬 砖诇诪讬 谞讝讬专 谞讬讚专 讜谞讬讚讘 讛讜讗

With regard to the last halakha, Abaye said to Rav Dimi, when he cited this statement in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: But let the Master say that the phrase 鈥渁nd your peace offerings鈥 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.

讚讛转谞讬讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 谞讬讚讘 讜谞讬讚专 拽专讘 讘讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 讜砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讘 讜谞讬讚专 讗讬谞讜 拽专讘 讘讘诪转 讬讞讬讚

Abaye elaborates: As isn鈥檛 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.

讜转谞谉 讛诪谞讞讜转 讜讛谞讝讬专讜转 拽专讬讘讬谉 讘讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住诪讬 诪讻讗谉 谞讝讬专讜转

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.

诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚谞讝讬专 诇讗讜 谞讬讚专 讜谞讬讚讘 讛讜讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 诪拽抓 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 讜讬讗诪专 讗讘砖诇讜诐 讗诇 讛诪诇讱 讗诇讻讛 谞讗 讜讗砖诇诐 讗转 谞讚专讬 讗砖专 谞讚专转讬 诇讛壮 讘讞讘专讜谉 讻讬 谞讚专 谞讚专 注讘讚讱 讜讙讜壮 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗拽专讘谉

The Gemara asks: Is there one who said that the offering of a nazirite is not vowed or contributed voluntarily? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd 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 Lord鈥 (II聽Samuel 15:7鈥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?

诇讗 讗注讬拽专 谞讚专讜 讗诪专 注讬拽专 谞讚专讜 讘讞讘专讜谉 讛讜讛 讜讛诇讗 讘讙砖讜专 讛讜讛

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 wasn鈥檛 the vow made when Absalom was in Geshur? After all, the verse states explicitly: 鈥淔or your servant vowed a vow while I dwelled at Geshur.鈥

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗 讛诇讱 讗讘砖诇讜诐 讗诇讗 诇讛讘讬讗 讻讘砖讬诐 诪讞讘专讜谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 转讬诪讗 诇讗拽专讜讘讬 讛讜讗 讚讗讝讬诇 砖讘讬拽 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗讝讬诇 讜诪拽专讬讘 讘讞讘专讜谉

Rav A岣 said, and some say that it was Rabba bar Rav 岣nan 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?

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讛讘讬讗 讻讘砖讬诐 诪讞讘专讜谉 讛讗讬 讗砖专 谞讚专转讬 诇讛壮 讘讞讘专讜谉 诪讞讘专讜谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects Rabba bar Rav 岣nan鈥檚 answer: But rather, what is our explanation of the verse? That Absalom went to bring sheep from Hebron? If so, this verse that states: 鈥淧lease let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron鈥 (II聽Samuel 15:7), should instead have stated: Which I have vowed to the Lord from Hebron.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗拽专讜讘讬 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讗诪讗讬 砖讘拽 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜诪拽专讬讘 讘讞讘专讜谉 转讬拽砖讬 诇讱 讙讘注讜谉 讚诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讜转专讜 讛讘诪讜转 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 诪拽专讬讘

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.

讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 诇诪讗谉 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞讛讜专讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪拽抓 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 砖砖讗诇讜 诇讛诐 诪诇讱 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜转讛 砖谞讛 砖砖讗诇讜 诇讛诐 诪诇讱 讗讜转讛 砖谞讛 注砖讬专讬转 砖诇 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬转讛

The verse states that Absalom submitted his request to his father 鈥渁t the end of forty years.鈥 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 I聽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 month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Temurah 14

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Temurah 14

诪转谞讬壮 讬砖 讘拽专讘谞讜转 讬讞讬讚 砖讗讬谉 讘拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讬讘讜专 讜讬砖 讘拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讬讘讜专 砖讗讬谉 讘拽专讘谞讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 砖拽专讘谞讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛 讜讗讬谉 拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讬讘讜专 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛

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.

拽专讘谞讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘讬谉 讘讝讻专讬诐 讘讬谉 讘谞拽讘讜转 讜拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讬讘讜专 讗讬谉 谞讜讛讙讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讝讻专讬诐 拽专讘谞讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讜讘讗讞专讬讜转 谞住讻讬讛诐 讜拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讬讘讜专 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 讜诇讗 讘讗讞专讬讜转 谞住讻讬讛谉 讗讘诇 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗讞专讬讜转 谞住讻讬讛谉 诪砖拽专讘 讛讝讘讞

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.

讬砖 讘拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讬讘讜专 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘拽专讘谞讜转 讬讞讬讚 砖拽专讘谞讜转 讛爪讬讘讜专 讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讜拽专讘谞讜转 讬讞讬讚 讗讬谞谉 讚讜讞讜转 诇讗 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜诇讗 讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讛诇讗 讞讘讬转讬 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 讜驻专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 拽专讘谞讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 讛谉 讜讚讜讞讬谉 讗转 讛砖讘转 讜讗转 讛讟讜诪讗讛 讗诇讗 砖讝诪谞讜 拽讘讜注

Rabbi Meir said: But aren鈥檛 the High Priest鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讻讜壮 讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讜讛专讬 注讜驻讜转 讚拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘讘讛诪讛 拽转谞讬

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.

讜讛专讬 讜诇讚 讚拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讛讜诇讚 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛

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.

讜讛专讬 转诪讜专讛 注爪诪讛 讚拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讛讬讗 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专讛 注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讻讬 拽转谞讬 讘注讬拽专 讝讬讘讞讗 拽转谞讬

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.

讛砖转讗 讚讗转讬转 诇讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讘注讬拽专 讝讬讘讞讗 拽转谞讬

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.

拽专讘谞讜转 讛讬讞讬讚 谞讜讛讙讜转 讘讬谉 讘讝讻专讬诐 讘讬谉 讘谞拽讘讜转 讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讜讛专讬 注讜诇讛 讚拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讜讝讻专 讗转讬讗 谞拽讘讛 诇讗 讗转讬讗

搂 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.

讛讗讬讻讗 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讚转谞讬讗 转诪讜转 讜讝讻专讜转 讘讘讛诪讛 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜转 讜讝讻专讜转 讘注讜驻讜转

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.

讜讛专讬 讞讟讗转 讚拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讛讬讗 讜谞拽讘讛 讗转讬讗 讝讻专 诇讗 讗转讬讗 讛讗讬讻讗 砖注讬专 谞砖讬讗 讚诪讬讬转讬 讝讻专

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.

讜讛讗讬讻讗 讗砖诐 讬讞讬讚 讚讝讻专 讗转讬 谞拽讘讛 诇讗 讗转讬 讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 拽专讘谉 讚砖讜讬 讘讬谉 讘讬讞讬讚 讘讬谉 讘爪讬讘讜专 讗砖诐 讘讬讞讬讚 讗讬转讬讛 讘爪讘讜专 诇讬转讬讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讬 拽转谞讬 讻诇 拽专讘谞讜转 讬砖 讘拽专讘谞讜转 拽转谞讬 讜诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 砖诇诪讬诐 讜讗讬 讘注讬 谞拽讘讛 诪讬讬转讬 讜讗讬 讘注讬 讝讻专 诪讬讬转讬

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.

拽专讘谞讜转 讬讞讬讚 讞讬讬讘讬谉 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉 [讻讜壮] 诪谞讗 诇谉

搂 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?

讚转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讚讘专 讬讜诐 诪诇诪讚 砖讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讻砖专 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 讘讬讜诪讜 诪诇诪讚 砖讗诐 注讘专 讛讬讜诐 讜诇讗 讛讘讬讗谉 讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转谉

The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states in the section of the Torah dealing with additional offerings: 鈥淭hese 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 day鈥 (Leviticus 23:37). This teaches that the entire day is fit for bringing the additional offerings. The term: 鈥淥n its own day,鈥 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.

讬讻讜诇 诇讗 讬讛讗 讞讬讬讘 讘讗讞专讬讜转 谞住讻讬讛诐 讜讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖拽专讘 讛讝讘讞 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪谞讞转诐 讜谞住讻讬讛诐 讘诇讬诇讛 诪谞讞转诐 讜谞住讻讬讛诐 诇诪讞专

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: 鈥淭heir meal offerings and their libations鈥 (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 鈥渢heir meal offerings and their libations鈥 further teaches that these meal offerings and libations can be sacrificed even on the following day.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 诪诇讘讚 砖讘转讜转 讛壮

Reish Lakish said that the source is from the following verse: 鈥淭hese are the appointed seasons of the Lord, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to bring an offering made by fire unto the Lord鈥ach on its own day; beside the Shabbatot of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 23:37鈥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.

讜爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪诇讘讚 砖讘转转 讛壮 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讬讜诐 讗讬谉 讜讘诇讬诇讛 诇讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪谞讞转诐 讜谞住讻讬讛诐 讜讗讬 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诪谞讞转诐 讜谞住讻讬讛诐 讜诇讗 讻转讘 诪诇讘讚 砖讘转转 讛壮 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讬诪诪讗 诇讗

And the Gemara notes that both verses are necessary, as if the Merciful One had written only the verse: 鈥淏eside the Shabbatot of the Lord,鈥 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: 鈥淎nd their meal offerings and their libations.鈥 And if the Merciful One had written only: 鈥淭heir meal offerings and their libations,鈥 and not written: 鈥淏eside the Shabbatot of the Lord,鈥 I would say that at night, yes, the offerings may be brought, but on the following day they may not be brought.

讜诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讘拽讚砖讬诐 诇讬诇讛 讛讜诇讱 讗讞专 讛讬讜诐 爪专讬讻讬

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.

讜谞住讻讬诐 诪讬 拽专讘讬 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讛转谞谉 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讚讘专讬诐 砖讚专讻谉 诇讬拽专讘 讘诇讬诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讗讘专讬诐 讜驻讚专讬诐 砖诪拽专讬讘讬谉 诪讘讜讗 讛砖诪砖 讜诪转注讻诇讬谉 讜讛讜诇讻讬谉 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讻讜诇讜

The Gemara asks: And libations, may they be sacrificed at night? Didn鈥檛 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: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt offering: It is that which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning鈥 (Leviticus 6:2).

讚讘专讬诐 砖讚专讻谉 诇讬拽专讘 讘讬讜诐 讻讙讜谉 讛拽讜诪抓 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 砖诪注诇谉 诪讘讜讗 讛砖诪砖 诪讘讜讗 讛砖诪砖 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讜讛讗诪专转 讚讘专讬诐 砖讚专讻谉 诇讬拽专讘 讘讬讜诐 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 注诐 讘讗 讛砖诪砖 砖诪转注讻诇讬谉 讜讛讜诇讻讬谉 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讗转 转讜专转 讛注诇讛 专讬讘讛

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 didn鈥檛 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: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt offering鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), a phrase that included everything sacrificed on the altar.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 谞住讻讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 诇讬拽讚砖 讻讗谉 诇讬拽专讘

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 岣ma said that this is not difficult. Here, where the verse states: 鈥淭heir meal offerings and libations,鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗讬 诪讬拽讚砖 拽讚砖讬 拽专讜讘讬 诪讬拽专讘讬 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛拽专讘 讘讬讜诐 讗讬谉 拽讚讜砖 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讜讻诇 讛拽专讘 讘诇讬诇讛 拽讚讜砖 讘诇讬诇讛 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 拽讚讜砖 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 住诪讬 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 诪讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗

Rava said to Rami bar 岣ma: 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 isn鈥檛 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.

讻讬 住诇讬拽 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 诇专讘 讬专诪讬讛 讚讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪谞讬谉 诇谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 注诐 讛讝讘讞 砖讗讬谉 拽专讬讘讬谉 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇谞住讻讬讻诐 讜诇砖诇诪讬讻诐 诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗祝 谞住讻讬诐 讘讬讜诐

With regard to Rav Yosef鈥檚 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: 鈥淭hese 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 offerings鈥 (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.

讗诪专 讗讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讗讬讙专转讗 砖诇讞讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讬讜住祝

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,

讜诇讗 转讬住诪讬 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 诪诪转谞讬转讗 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 注诐 讛讝讘讞 讻讗谉 讘谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉

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.

讜讗讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讗讬讙专转讗 诪讬 讗驻砖专 诇诪讬砖诇讞讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讜转讘讬 讛诇讻讜转 讻砖讜专祝 讛转讜专讛 讜讛诇诪讚 诪讛谉 讗讬谞讜 谞讜讟诇 砖讻专

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rav Dimi鈥檚 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 didn鈥檛 Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba, say that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讚专砖 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 诪转讜专讙诪谞讬讛 讚专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讻转讘 诇讱 讗转 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讻讬 注诇 驻讬 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 讚讘专讬诐 砖注诇 驻讛 讗讬 讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇讗讜诪专谉 讘讻转讘 讜砖讘讻转讘 讗讬 讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇讗讜诪专谉 注诇 驻讛

Before resolving the difficulty, the Gemara further discusses the prohibition of writing down the Torah: Rabbi Yehuda bar Na岣ani, the disseminator for Reish Lakish, expounded as follows: One verse says: 鈥淲rite you these words,鈥 and one verse says, i.e., it states later in that same verse: 鈥淔or by the mouth of these words鈥 (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.

讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讻转讘 诇讱 讗转 讛讚讘专讬诐 讛讗诇讛 讗诇讛 讗转讛 讻讜转讘 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讗转讛 讻讜转讘 讛诇讻讜转

And furthermore, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The word 鈥渢hese鈥 in the command 鈥渨rite you these words鈥 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.

讗诪专讬 讚诇诪讗 诪讬诇转讗 讞讚转讗 砖讗谞讬 讚讛讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪注讬讬谞讬 讘住讬驻专讗 讚讗讙讚转讗 讘砖讘转讗 讜讚专砖讬 讛讻讬 注转 诇注砖讜转 诇讛壮 讛驻专讜 转讜专转讱 讗诪专讬 诪讜讟讘 转讬注拽专 转讜专讛 讜讗诇 转砖转讻讞 转讜专讛 诪讬砖专讗诇

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 Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淚t is time to work for the Lord; they have made void your Torah鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专转 谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 拽专讬讘讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘诇讬诇讛 谞讝讚诪谞讜 谞住讻讬诐 讘诇讬诇讛 诪拽讚讬砖讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛 讜诪拽专讬讘讬谉

搂 With regard to Rav Dimi鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 砖诪注讬讛 诇专讘 驻驻讗 转谞讬讗 讚诪住讬讬注 诇讱 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛拽专讘 讘讬讜诐 讗讬谞讜 拽讚讜砖 讗诇讗 讘讬讜诐 讜讻诇 讛拽专讘 讘诇讬诇讛 拽讚讜砖 讘讬谉 讘讬讜诐 讘讬谉 讘诇讬诇讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讜注诇讜转 讛砖讞专 驻讜住诇转 讘讛谉 讻讗讘专讬谉

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.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 讗诇讛 转注砖讜 诇讛壮 讘诪讜注讚讬讻诐 讗诇讜 讞讜讘讜转 讛讘讗讜转 讞讜讘讛 讘专讙诇

搂 The Gemara returns to discuss the verse: 鈥淭hese 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 offerings鈥 (Numbers 29:39). When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: 鈥淭hese you shall offer to the Lord in your appointed seasons,鈥 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.

诇讘讚 诪谞讚专讬讻诐 讜谞讚讘转讬讻诐 诇讬诪讚 注诇 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞讚讘讜转 砖拽专讘讬谉 讘讞讜诇讜 砖诇 诪讜注讚

The verse continues: 鈥淏eside your vows and your voluntary offerings.鈥 This teaches with regard to vows and voluntary offerings that they are sacrificed on the intermediate days of a Festival.

讜诇注诇转讬讻诐 讘诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讬 讘注讜诇转 谞讚专 讛专讬 讻讘专 讗诪讜专 谞讚专讬讻诐 讜讗讬 讘注讜诇转 谞讚讘讛 讛专讬 讻讘专 讗诪讜专 讜谞讚讘转讬讻诐 讛讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讚讘专 讗诇讗 讘注讜诇转 讬讜诇讚转 讜注讜诇转 诪爪讜专注

The verse further states: 鈥淎nd your burnt offerings.鈥 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: 鈥淵our vows.鈥 And if it is referring to a voluntary burnt offering, the verse already said: 鈥淵our voluntary offerings.鈥 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.

讜诇诪谞讞转讬讻诐 讘诪讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讬 讘诪谞讞转 谞讚专 讛专讬 讻讘专 讗诪讜专 讗讬 讘诪谞讞转 谞讚讘讛 讛专讬 讻讘专 讗诪讜专 讛讗 讗讬谞讜 诪讚讘专 讗诇讗 讘诪谞讞转 住讜讟讛 讜讘诪谞讞转 拽谞讗讜转

The verse continues: 鈥淎nd your meal offerings.鈥 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: 鈥淵our vows.鈥 If it is referring to a voluntary meal offering, the verse already said: 鈥淵our voluntary offerings.鈥 Consequently, it is speaking of nothing other than the meal offering of a sota, and that is the meal offering of jealousy.

讜诇谞住讻讬讻诐 讜诇砖诇诪讬讻诐 诪拽讬砖 谞住讻讬诐 诇砖诇诪讬诐 诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讗祝 谞住讻讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讜诇砖诇诪讬讻诐 诇专讘讜转 砖诇诪讬 谞讝讬专

The verse further states: 鈥淎nd your libations and your peace offerings.鈥 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: 鈥淎nd your peace offerings.鈥 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讬诪讗 诪专 砖诇诪讬 驻住讞 讚讗讬 砖诇诪讬 谞讝讬专 谞讬讚专 讜谞讬讚讘 讛讜讗

With regard to the last halakha, Abaye said to Rav Dimi, when he cited this statement in the name of Rabbi Yo岣nan: But let the Master say that the phrase 鈥渁nd your peace offerings鈥 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.

讚讛转谞讬讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 谞讬讚讘 讜谞讬讚专 拽专讘 讘讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 讜砖讗讬谞讜 谞讬讚讘 讜谞讬讚专 讗讬谞讜 拽专讘 讘讘诪转 讬讞讬讚

Abaye elaborates: As isn鈥檛 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.

讜转谞谉 讛诪谞讞讜转 讜讛谞讝讬专讜转 拽专讬讘讬谉 讘讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 住诪讬 诪讻讗谉 谞讝讬专讜转

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.

诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚谞讝讬专 诇讗讜 谞讬讚专 讜谞讬讚讘 讛讜讗 讜讛讻转讬讘 诪拽抓 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 讜讬讗诪专 讗讘砖诇讜诐 讗诇 讛诪诇讱 讗诇讻讛 谞讗 讜讗砖诇诐 讗转 谞讚专讬 讗砖专 谞讚专转讬 诇讛壮 讘讞讘专讜谉 讻讬 谞讚专 谞讚专 注讘讚讱 讜讙讜壮 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讗拽专讘谉

The Gemara asks: Is there one who said that the offering of a nazirite is not vowed or contributed voluntarily? But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淎nd 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 Lord鈥 (II聽Samuel 15:7鈥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?

诇讗 讗注讬拽专 谞讚专讜 讗诪专 注讬拽专 谞讚专讜 讘讞讘专讜谉 讛讜讛 讜讛诇讗 讘讙砖讜专 讛讜讛

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 wasn鈥檛 the vow made when Absalom was in Geshur? After all, the verse states explicitly: 鈥淔or your servant vowed a vow while I dwelled at Geshur.鈥

讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗 讛诇讱 讗讘砖诇讜诐 讗诇讗 诇讛讘讬讗 讻讘砖讬诐 诪讞讘专讜谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讚讗讬 转讬诪讗 诇讗拽专讜讘讬 讛讜讗 讚讗讝讬诇 砖讘讬拽 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜讗讝讬诇 讜诪拽专讬讘 讘讞讘专讜谉

Rav A岣 said, and some say that it was Rabba bar Rav 岣nan 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?

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 诇讛讘讬讗 讻讘砖讬诐 诪讞讘专讜谉 讛讗讬 讗砖专 谞讚专转讬 诇讛壮 讘讞讘专讜谉 诪讞讘专讜谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects Rabba bar Rav 岣nan鈥檚 answer: But rather, what is our explanation of the verse? That Absalom went to bring sheep from Hebron? If so, this verse that states: 鈥淧lease let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron鈥 (II聽Samuel 15:7), should instead have stated: Which I have vowed to the Lord from Hebron.

讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗拽专讜讘讬 讜讚拽讗 拽砖讬讗 诇讱 讗诪讗讬 砖讘拽 讬专讜砖诇讬诐 讜诪拽专讬讘 讘讞讘专讜谉 转讬拽砖讬 诇讱 讙讘注讜谉 讚诪拽讜诐 拽讚讜砖 讛讜讗 讗诇讗 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讜转专讜 讛讘诪讜转 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 诪拽专讬讘

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.

讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 诇诪讗谉 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞讛讜专讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诪拽抓 讗专讘注讬诐 砖谞讛 砖砖讗诇讜 诇讛诐 诪诇讱 讚转谞讬讗 讗讜转讛 砖谞讛 砖砖讗诇讜 诇讛诐 诪诇讱 讗讜转讛 砖谞讛 注砖讬专讬转 砖诇 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬转讛

The verse states that Absalom submitted his request to his father 鈥渁t the end of forty years.鈥 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 I聽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