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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 26, 2019 | 讻状讙 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讟

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.

Temurah 7

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 讛讗讬 诪讬拽讘注 诇砖诐 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谞讻专 砖诐 诇讗 诇拽讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Since it might enter your mind to say that granted, if one does this initially, before the lottery, we do not know if this blemished animal will be designated as the one sacrificed to the Lord or sent to the wilderness. Therefore, the one who consecrated the blemished animal is flogged. But here, since it is already clear that the other animal is to be sacrificed to the Lord, and the one he consecrates will be sent to the wilderness, perhaps he is not flogged for consecrating it. The verse therefore teaches us that this is also a violation of the prohibition and he is flogged.

讗诪专 诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪注讜讱 讜讻转讜转 讜谞转讜拽 讜讻专讜转 讜讙讜壮 讝讜 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐 砖讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Master said above: The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: One who sacrifices a blemished animal violates a prohibition against the collection of the blood as well. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淭hat which has its testicles bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut, you shall not offer unto the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 22:24). The phrase 鈥淵ou shall not offer unto the Lord鈥 is apparently superfluous, as the Torah already stated earlier: 鈥淏ut whatever has a blemish, you shall not offer鈥 (Leviticus 22:20). Rather, this extra phrase is referring to the collection of the blood, for which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said that one is liable.

讜诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讗讬 诇讗 转拽专讬讘讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讜讛讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讗讜专讞讬讛 讚拽专讗 讚诪砖转注讬 讛讻讬

The Gemara asks: And according to the first tanna, who holds that one is not liable for collection of the blood per se, why do I need this phrase: 鈥淵ou shall not offer,鈥 stated with regard to damaged testicles? The Gemara answers: He requires it to teach that one is liable for sprinkling the blood. The Gemara challenges: But he derives this from the phrase: 鈥淯pon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 22:22), which indicates that one may not sacrifice any part of such an animal on the altar, even its blood. The Gemara answers: With regard to that phrase, the first tanna holds that it is simply the normal manner of the verse that it speaks like this. It does not teach any additional halakha.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 讚拽专讗 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讗 讜诪讬讚 讘谉 谞讻专 诇讗 转拽专讬讘讜 讝讜 讛讬讗 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐 砖讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara challenges: But also according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, one may claim that this is the normal manner of the verse. Why does he derive a halakha from this phrase? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. He does not derive liability for sprinkling of the blood from the phrase 鈥渦pon the altar.鈥 Rather, from where does he derive the prohibition against collection of the blood? He derives it from this verse: 鈥淣either from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these, because their corruption is in them; there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you鈥 (Leviticus 22:25). This verse is referring to the collection of the blood when sacrificing a blemished animal, for which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said that one is liable.

讜诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讗讬 诇讗 转拽专讬讘讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 谞爪讟讜讜 讘谞讬 谞讞 讗诇讗 注诇 诪讞讜住专 讗讘专讬诐 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪讝讘讞 讚讬讚讛讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪讝讘讞 讚讬讚谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And according to the first tanna, who holds that one is not liable for collection of the blood, why do I need this phrase: Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer? The Gemara answers: He requires it to teach this halakha: It may enter your mind to say that since the descendants of Noah are commanded only with regard to the sacrifice of an animal lacking limbs but they are permitted to sacrifice animals with minor blemishes, perhaps there is no difference if this is performed on their altar outside the Temple or if it is done on our altar in the Temple. Accordingly, one might claim that a gentile may sacrifice a blemished animal in the Temple in Jerusalem. The verse therefore teaches us that they may not sacrifice a blemished animal in such a manner.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪注讜讱 讜讻转讜转 诇讗 转拽专讬讘讜 讝讜 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐 讜讝专讬拽讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪注诇 讛诪讝讘讞

The Gemara presents an alternative version of the discussion. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One violates a prohibition for the collection of the blood as well. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: As it is written: 鈥淭hat which has its testicles bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut, you shall not offer unto the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 22:24). This verse is referring to the collection of the blood. And he derives the prohibition against sprinkling the blood from the phrase: 鈥淯pon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 22:22).

讜诇专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讛讜 讝专讬拽讛 诪谉 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗诇讗 诇讗 转拽专讬讘讜 讚诪注讜讱 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诇讘诪转 讬讞讬讚

The Gemara objects: And according to the Rabbis as well, who hold that one is not liable for collection of the blood, let them derive liability for sprinkling the blood from the phrase 鈥渦pon the altar.鈥 The Gemara explains that it is indeed so, that they derive it from that phrase. But for what purpose comes the phrase 鈥淵ou shall not offer鈥 with regard to bruised testicles? We learn from this phrase the prohibition of the sacrifice of a blemished animal even on a private altar, where offerings were sacrificed before the construction of the Temple.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 转拽专讬讘讜 讚拽讘诇讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诪讬讚 讘谉 谞讻专 诇讗 转拽专讬讘讜 讝讜 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, how can he then derive the prohibition against collection of the blood of a blemished animal from the phrase 鈥淵ou shall not offer鈥? After all, he requires this phrase to render prohibited sacrifice on a private altar. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. Rather, where does he find another instance of the term 鈥渟hall offer鈥 for prohibiting collection of the blood? From the following verse: 鈥淣either from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these, because their corruption is in them; there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you鈥 (Leviticus 22:25). This verse is referring to the collection of the blood.

讜专讘谞谉 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘谞讬 谞讞 讗讬谉 诪爪讜讜讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 诪讞讜住专 讗讘专 讘讘诪讛 讚诇讛讜谉 讚诇诪讗 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 谞拽讘讬诇 诪讬谞讛讜谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讻诇 讗诇讛 讚诇讗 诪拽讘诇讬谞谉

And the Rabbis maintain that this verse is necessary for a different halakha, as it may enter your mind to say that since the descendants of Noah are commanded only with regard to sacrificing an animal lacking a limb on their private altar but are permitted to sacrifice animals with minor blemishes, perhaps we should accept blemished offerings from them in the Temple as well. Therefore, the verse teaches us by the use of the phrase 鈥渙f any of these鈥 that we do not accept them.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 砖诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘转诐 砖谞注砖讛 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讜注讜讘专 讚讗讬 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讬拽诇讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

搂 The baraita cited earlier stated that one who consecrates a blemished animal violates several prohibitions, but it did not differentiate between animals born with blemishes and those that acquired them during their lives. Reish Lakish objects to this: Perhaps we learned the prohibition only with regard to an unblemished animal that became blemished, and only one who consecrates such an animal transgresses the prohibition. As, if he consecrated an animal that was blemished from the outset, it is akin to consecrating a mere date palm, and his presumed intention is to consecrate its value, with the proceeds from its sale being used to purchase an offering. This would be permitted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 砖专讜注 讜拽诇讜讟 讻转讬讘 讘驻专砖讛 讜讛谞讬 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 谞讬谞讛讜

Rav 岣yya bar Yosef said to Reish Lakish: The blemishes mentioned in the phrase in the verse that states: 鈥淓ither a bull or a lamb that has anything too long or too short鈥 (Leviticus 22:23), are written in the passage that prohibits the sacrifice of blemished animals, and animals such as these are blemished from the outset.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘转诪讜专讛 讚转谞谉 讞讜诪专 讘转诪讜专讛 诪讘讝讘讞 砖讻谉 拽讚讜砖讛 讞诇讛 注诇讬讛 注诇 讘注诇 诪讜诐 拽讘讜注

Reish Lakish said to Rav 岣yya bar Yosef: Perhaps in the case of animals born with blemishes, we learned the prohibition only with regard to substitution, as we learned in a mishna (16b): There is greater stringency with regard to a substitute than there is with regard to the initial consecration of an offering, as, if one substituted a non-sacred animal with a permanent blemish for a consecrated unblemished animal, the blemished animal is imbued with sanctity. But initial consecration of an animal with such a blemish is effective only with regard to its value, so perhaps one who does so is exempt from punishment.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讘讞讘讜专讛 谞诪谞讜 讜讙诪专讜 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讞诪砖讛 砖诪讜转 讜讗讬 讘转诪讜专讛 谞诪讬 砖砖讛 讛讜讜讬讬谉 讚讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 讚转诪讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪注讬拽专讜 讗诪讗讬 诇拽讬 讚讬拽诇讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Reish Lakish: Didn鈥檛 you hear that which Rabbi Yannai says, that when the Sages sat in a group, their opinions were counted and they concluded: One who consecrates blemished animals for sacrifice on the altar violates five separate categories of prohibition. But if the baraita is also referring to a case of substitution, there are six categories, as there is also the prohibition of performing substitution. Reish Lakish responded: Rather, what can you say? Is the baraita speaking of one who consecrated an animal that is blemished from the outset? Why then is he flogged? It is akin to one who consecrates a mere date palm.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬拽诇讗 诇讗讜 讝讬诇讗 诪讬诇转讗 诪讬谉 注爪讬诐 讛讜讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讝讬诇讗 诪讬诇转讗 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讘讬拽 转诪讬诐 讜讗拽讚讬砖 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Reish Lakish: There is a difference between the cases. When one consecrates a date palm, the matter is not disgraceful, as it is a type of wood that one may burn on the altar. Therefore, he is not flogged. By contrast, when one consecrates an animal that is blemished from the outset, the matter is disgraceful. Since he forsook unblemished animals and consecrated blemished animals, he is liable to be flogged.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讘讝讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讚拽诇 诇讬讻讗 讘诪讬谞讜 诇讗 诇拽讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讘诪讬谞讜 诇拽讬

The Gemara presents an alternative version of the previous point. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Reish Lakish: Nevertheless, the matter of consecrating an animal blemished from the outset is disgraceful. For in the case of a date palm, as there is no item of its type that can be sacrificed as an offering, he is not flogged for consecrating it. This is to the exclusion of a blemished animal; since there are items of its type that can be sacrificed as offerings, i.e., unblemished animals, he is flogged for consecrating it.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪讜专 讟注诪讗 讚讘注诇 诪讜诐 讚诇拽讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讝讬讗 诪讬诇转讬讬讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪拽讚讬砖 诇讬讛 诇讚诪讬 谞住讻讬诐 谞诪讬 诇拽讬

Rava said: Now that it has been said that the reason that one who consecrates a blemished animal is flogged is due to the fact that the matter is disgraceful, then even one who consecrates it to be sold and its money used for purchasing libations should be flogged as well, as consecrating a blemished animal is in and of itself a disgraceful act.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗

The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava:

谞讚讘讛 转注砖讛 讗转讜 讝讛 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 谞讚讘讛 谞讚专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇谞讚专

A vow offering differs from a gift offering in that if it dies prematurely, one is liable to replace the former but not the latter. The verse states: 鈥淓ither a bull or a lamb that has anything too long or too short, you may offer it for a gift, and for a vow it shall not be accepted鈥 (Leviticus 22:23). The phrase 鈥淵ou may offer it for a gift鈥 is referring to a blemished animal consecrated for Temple maintenance. And I have derived only that one may consecrate it in the manner of a gift; from where is it derived that one may consecrate it in the manner of a vow as well? The verse states: 鈥淵ou may offer it for a gift and for a vow.鈥

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇谞讚专 诇讗 讬专爪讛 讝讛 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 谞讚专 谞讚讘讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讚讘讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬专爪讛 讘讛专爪讗转 讙讜驻讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

One might have thought that one can consecrate blemished animals even as offerings to be sacrificed on the altar. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd for a vow it shall not be accepted.鈥 This is referring to offerings sacrificed on the altar, for which acceptance is a relevant term. And I have derived only that one may not consecrate such an animal as a vow offering. From where is it derived that one may not do so as a gift offering? The verse states: 鈥淎 gift鈥nd for a vow it shall not be accepted.鈥 Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In employing the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be accepted,鈥 the verse is speaking of consecration that depends upon the acceptance of the animal鈥檚 body, i.e., consecration as an offering. Nevertheless, they may be consecrated for Temple maintenance.

讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗拽讚砖讬讛 诇讚诪讬 谞住讻讬诐 谞诪讬 诇拽讬 讜专讘讬 住讘专 讘讛专爪讗转 讙讜驻讜 谞诪讬 诇拽讬 讗讘诇 讘讚诪讬 谞住讻讬诐 诇讗 诇拽讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is identical to the opinion of the first tanna. What is their dispute? The Gemara suggests: What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this, that the first tanna holds that even if one consecrates it to be sold and its money is used for purchasing libations, he is flogged as well; and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in a case where there is acceptance of the animal鈥檚 body, the one who consecrated it is indeed flogged, but if one consecrates it to be sold and its money is used for purchasing libations, he is not flogged. Learn from the baraita that the first tanna holds that consecration toward libations is equivalent to consecration as an offering, as Rava suggested above.

讜讗诇讗 讗转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 谞讚讘讛 转注砖讛 讗转讜 讗讜转讜 转注砖讛 谞讚讘讛 讜讗讬 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 转诪讬诐 谞讚讘讛 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 诪讬讻谉 讗诪专讜 讛诪拽讚讬砖 转诪讬诪讬诐 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 注讜讘专 讘注砖讛

搂 The Gemara analyzes the wording of Leviticus 22:23: But why do I need the word 鈥渋t,鈥 in the phrase: 鈥淵ou may offer it鈥? What does this serve to exclude? It is required for that which is taught in a baraita: When the verse states: 鈥淵ou may offer it for a gift,鈥 this teaches that you may offer this blemished animal as a gift for Temple maintenance, but you may not offer an unblemished animal as a gift for Temple maintenance. From here the Sages said: One who consecrates unblemished animals for Temple maintenance transgresses a positive mitzva.

讜诪谞讬谉 讗祝 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讚讘专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 诇讗诪专 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛驻专砖讛 砖讛讬讗 讘诇讗讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

And from where is it derived that he has transgressed a prohibition as well? As it is stated at the beginning of that passage: 鈥淎nd the Lord spoke to Moses, saying [lemor]鈥 (Leviticus 22:1). This teaches that every mitzva stated in the passage is considered a prohibition. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诇讘专 拽驻专讗 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗诪专 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘讚讘专讬诐 讘讬 专讘讬 讗诪专讬 诇讗 讗诪讜专

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to bar Kappara: From where may it be inferred that every mitzva stated in the passage is considered a prohibition? Bar Kappara said to him that this is as it is written: As the verse states: Lemor,鈥 the term can be read as though it states: No [lo], an expression of prohibition, is stated [ne鈥檈mar] with regard to the subsequent matters. In the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi they say: The term should be understood to mean that God said to Moses: No [lo] shall you say [emor] to them these matters.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪注诇讛 讗讘专讬 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讗诪专 专讘讗 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜 讻讜诇讜 讜诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜 诪拽爪转讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇 诇讗讜 砖讘讻诇诇讜转

搂 A baraita above (6b) stated that one who sacrifices a blemished animal on the altar transgresses the prohibition 鈥淵ou may not burn all of it,鈥 and if he sacrificed part of it, he transgresses the prohibition 鈥淵ou may not burn part of it.鈥 With regard to this it was stated: In the case of one who brings up the limbs of blemished animals onto the altar, Rava says that he violates both the prohibition of 鈥淵ou may not burn all of it;鈥 and the prohibition of 鈥淵ou may not burn part of it,鈥 and he receives two sets of lashes. Abaye says: One is not flogged twice for violating a general prohibition. Since one verse serves as the source for both prohibitions, one is not flogged twice for its violation.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讞诪砖讛 砖诪讜转 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬

The Gemara raises an objection from the Tosefta (1:10): One who consecrates blemished animals for sacrifice on the altar violates five separate categories of prohibition. The aforementioned baraita enumerated these and included both the prohibition 鈥淵ou may not burn all of it鈥 and the prohibition 鈥淵ou may not burn part of it,鈥 indicating that one is flogged for transgressing each of these prohibitions. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讙讘专讬 拽转谞讬 讗讬 讘讙讘专讬 注讜讘专 注讜讘专讬谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讞讚 讙讘专讗 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬

Abaye said: The baraita is teaching the halakha with regard to different men, one of whom burned an entire animal on the altar, and one of whom burned only part of it. One person cannot be liable for both prohibitions. The Gemara challenges: If it is teaching the halakha of different men, why does it say: Violates, in the third person singular? It should have stated: Violate, in the plural. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to one man, and this is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗驻讬拽 讛拽讟专转 诪拽爪转讜 讜注讬讬诇 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐 拽讘诇转 讚诐 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 拽砖讬讗

Abaye said: From the list of five prohibitions, remove that of burning part of the offering, and insert the collection of the blood, which means that there is only one prohibition for burning the offering, and the number of prohibitions still remains at five. The Gemara raises a difficulty: With regard to the collection of the blood, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, is of the opinion that one transgresses that prohibition, but the first tanna is not of that opinion. How, then, can Abaye contradict the first tanna? The Gemara concludes: It is difficult.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara presents an alternative version of the previous point: But from the fact that the latter clause of the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, it may be inferred that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Abaye is indeed a conclusive refutation.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪诪讬专讬谉 讘砖诇讛谉 讜讬砖专讗诇 诪诪讬专讬谉 讘砖诇讛谉 讗讬谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪诪讬专讬谉 诇讗 讘讞讟讗转 讜诇讗 讘讗砖诐 讜诇讗 讘讘讻讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谉 诪诪讬专讬谉 讘讘讻讜专 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讜讘讻讜专 诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谉 诪讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讗讬谉 诪诪讬专讬谉 讘讜 讗祝 讘讻讜专 讗讬谉 诪诪讬专讬谉 讘讜

MISHNA: The priests substitute for their own offerings and Israelites substitute for their own offerings. The priests substitute neither for a sin offering, nor for a guilt offering, nor for a firstborn offering that they received from an Israelite, as those animals are not their property, and one does not substitute an animal that is not his. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri said: For what reason can priests not substitute for a firstborn offering that they received from an Israelite? Does it not belong to them? Rabbi Akiva said to him: A sin offering and a guilt offering are a gift to the priest, and the firstborn offering is likewise a gift to the priest. Just as in the cases of a sin offering and a guilt offering, priests that receive one of them from an Israelite cannot substitute for it, so too with regard to a firstborn offering, priests that receive it from an Israelite cannot substitute for it.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诪讛 诇讜 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 诪诪讬专 讘讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖讗讬谉 讝讻讬谉 讘讛谉 讘讞讬讬讛谉 转讗诪专 讘讘讻讜专 砖讝讻讬谉 讘讜 讘讞讬讬讜 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讛讜讗 讜转诪讜专转讜 讬讛讬讛 拽讚砖 讛讬讻谉 拽讚讜砖讛 讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 讘讘讬转 讛讘注诇讬诐 讗祝 转诪讜专讛 讘讘讬转 讛讘注诇讬诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri said: What is this comparison for him? If a priest does not substitute for a sin offering and a guilt offering, which priests do not acquire during the animals鈥 lifetimes, will you say the same with regard to a firstborn, which priests do acquire during the animal鈥檚 lifetime? Rabbi Akiva said to him: But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淭hen both it and its substitute shall be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 27:10), which juxtaposes the consecration of the consecrated animal with that of its non-sacred substitute? Where is the consecrated animal imbued with sanctity? It is in the house of the owner. So too, the substitute animal is consecrated in the house of the owner. Therefore, the priest cannot substitute for the firstborn that he received because he is not the owner that initially consecrated it.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讘讻讜专 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讜 转诐 讞讬 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讞讬 讜砖讞讜讟 讜诪拽讚砖讬谉 讘讜 讛讗砖讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讝讻讬讬讛 讘讙讜讜讬讛 (讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬砖 诇讻讛谉 砖讜转驻讜转 讘讜) 讗讘诇 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚转诐 诇讛拽专讘讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗讬 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讜 转诪讬诐 讞讬

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 1:2): With regard to a firstborn offering, one may sell it if it is unblemished only while it is still alive, as after it is slaughtered outside the Temple one may not derive benefit from it, and if it was offered in the Temple, one may not sell sacrificial meat. And if it is blemished, one may sell it while it is alive or after it has been slaughtered. And a priest can betroth a woman with it, as it is his property. Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: They taught this halakha only with regard to the present, when there is no Temple, since the priest has the ability to acquire the firstborn offering. But when the Temple is standing, since the unblemished firstborn animal stands for sacrifice, one may not sell it unblemished while it is alive.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讜 转诪讬诐 讞讬 讞讬 讗讬谉 砖讞讜讟 诇讗 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 转诐 砖讞讜讟 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讜拽转谞讬 谞诪讬 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讜 转诪讬诐 讞讬 (讗诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讝讻讬讬讛 讘讙讜讜讬讛)

Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an: The mishna teaches that one may sell an unblemished firstborn offering while it is alive. One can infer that while it is alive, yes, one may sell it, but once it has been slaughtered, one may not sell it. When is this the halakha? If we say that this mishna is speaking in the present, is there an unblemished, slaughtered, firstborn offering? Offerings are not slaughtered in the present day. Rather, it is obvious that the mishna is speaking of the time when the Temple is standing. And yet, the mishna still teaches that one may sell an unblemished firstborn offering while it is alive, which contradicts the statement of Rav Na岣an.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 诪讬 拽转谞讬 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讜 转诪讬诐 讞讬 讗讬谉 砖讞讜讟 诇讗 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讚讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 谞诪讬 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讜 转诪讬诐 讞讬

Rav Na岣an responds: No; actually the mishna is referring to the halakha in the present. I disagree with the above inference. Does the mishna explicitly teach: One may sell an unblemished firstborn offering while it is alive, yes, but once it has been slaughtered, no? The mishna does not mean to rule out selling a slaughtered animal; rather, it is coming to teach us the matter itself, that even in the present, one may sell it unblemished while it is alive.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen.聽May his memory be blessed.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father, Professor Dov Zlotnick who taught his five girls the love of learning.

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 7

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Temurah 7

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诪注讬拽专讗 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讗讬 讛讗讬 诪讬拽讘注 诇砖诐 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬谞讻专 砖诐 诇讗 诇拽讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Since it might enter your mind to say that granted, if one does this initially, before the lottery, we do not know if this blemished animal will be designated as the one sacrificed to the Lord or sent to the wilderness. Therefore, the one who consecrated the blemished animal is flogged. But here, since it is already clear that the other animal is to be sacrificed to the Lord, and the one he consecrates will be sent to the wilderness, perhaps he is not flogged for consecrating it. The verse therefore teaches us that this is also a violation of the prohibition and he is flogged.

讗诪专 诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗祝 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜诪注讜讱 讜讻转讜转 讜谞转讜拽 讜讻专讜转 讜讙讜壮 讝讜 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐 砖讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Master said above: The Sages said in the name of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: One who sacrifices a blemished animal violates a prohibition against the collection of the blood as well. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: The verse states: 鈥淭hat which has its testicles bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut, you shall not offer unto the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 22:24). The phrase 鈥淵ou shall not offer unto the Lord鈥 is apparently superfluous, as the Torah already stated earlier: 鈥淏ut whatever has a blemish, you shall not offer鈥 (Leviticus 22:20). Rather, this extra phrase is referring to the collection of the blood, for which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said that one is liable.

讜诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讗讬 诇讗 转拽专讬讘讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 讜讛讗 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讗讜专讞讬讛 讚拽专讗 讚诪砖转注讬 讛讻讬

The Gemara asks: And according to the first tanna, who holds that one is not liable for collection of the blood per se, why do I need this phrase: 鈥淵ou shall not offer,鈥 stated with regard to damaged testicles? The Gemara answers: He requires it to teach that one is liable for sprinkling the blood. The Gemara challenges: But he derives this from the phrase: 鈥淯pon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 22:22), which indicates that one may not sacrifice any part of such an animal on the altar, even its blood. The Gemara answers: With regard to that phrase, the first tanna holds that it is simply the normal manner of the verse that it speaks like this. It does not teach any additional halakha.

讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 讗讜专讞讬讛 讚拽专讗 讛讜讗 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讗 讜诪讬讚 讘谉 谞讻专 诇讗 转拽专讬讘讜 讝讜 讛讬讗 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐 砖讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara challenges: But also according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, one may claim that this is the normal manner of the verse. Why does he derive a halakha from this phrase? The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. He does not derive liability for sprinkling of the blood from the phrase 鈥渦pon the altar.鈥 Rather, from where does he derive the prohibition against collection of the blood? He derives it from this verse: 鈥淣either from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these, because their corruption is in them; there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you鈥 (Leviticus 22:25). This verse is referring to the collection of the blood when sacrificing a blemished animal, for which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, said that one is liable.

讜诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讗讬 诇讗 转拽专讬讘讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诇讗 谞爪讟讜讜 讘谞讬 谞讞 讗诇讗 注诇 诪讞讜住专 讗讘专讬诐 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪讝讘讞 讚讬讚讛讜 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪讝讘讞 讚讬讚谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And according to the first tanna, who holds that one is not liable for collection of the blood, why do I need this phrase: Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer? The Gemara answers: He requires it to teach this halakha: It may enter your mind to say that since the descendants of Noah are commanded only with regard to the sacrifice of an animal lacking limbs but they are permitted to sacrifice animals with minor blemishes, perhaps there is no difference if this is performed on their altar outside the Temple or if it is done on our altar in the Temple. Accordingly, one might claim that a gentile may sacrifice a blemished animal in the Temple in Jerusalem. The verse therefore teaches us that they may not sacrifice a blemished animal in such a manner.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗祝 注诇 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪注讜讱 讜讻转讜转 诇讗 转拽专讬讘讜 讝讜 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐 讜讝专讬拽讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪注诇 讛诪讝讘讞

The Gemara presents an alternative version of the discussion. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: One violates a prohibition for the collection of the blood as well. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: As it is written: 鈥淭hat which has its testicles bruised, or crushed, or torn, or cut, you shall not offer unto the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 22:24). This verse is referring to the collection of the blood. And he derives the prohibition against sprinkling the blood from the phrase: 鈥淯pon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 22:22).

讜诇专讘谞谉 谞诪讬 转讬驻讜拽 诇讛讜 讝专讬拽讛 诪谉 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讗诇讗 诇讗 转拽专讬讘讜 讚诪注讜讱 诇诪讗讬 讗转讗 诪驻拽讬谞谉 诇讘诪转 讬讞讬讚

The Gemara objects: And according to the Rabbis as well, who hold that one is not liable for collection of the blood, let them derive liability for sprinkling the blood from the phrase 鈥渦pon the altar.鈥 The Gemara explains that it is indeed so, that they derive it from that phrase. But for what purpose comes the phrase 鈥淵ou shall not offer鈥 with regard to bruised testicles? We learn from this phrase the prohibition of the sacrifice of a blemished animal even on a private altar, where offerings were sacrificed before the construction of the Temple.

讜诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 讗讬谉 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 转拽专讬讘讜 讚拽讘诇讛 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诪讬讚 讘谉 谞讻专 诇讗 转拽专讬讘讜 讝讜 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐

The Gemara asks: But according to Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, how can he then derive the prohibition against collection of the blood of a blemished animal from the phrase 鈥淵ou shall not offer鈥? After all, he requires this phrase to render prohibited sacrifice on a private altar. The Gemara answers: Yes, it is indeed so. Rather, where does he find another instance of the term 鈥渟hall offer鈥 for prohibiting collection of the blood? From the following verse: 鈥淣either from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these, because their corruption is in them; there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you鈥 (Leviticus 22:25). This verse is referring to the collection of the blood.

讜专讘谞谉 讗爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘谞讬 谞讞 讗讬谉 诪爪讜讜讬谉 讗诇讗 注诇 诪讞讜住专 讗讘专 讘讘诪讛 讚诇讛讜谉 讚诇诪讗 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 谞拽讘讬诇 诪讬谞讛讜谉 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诪讻诇 讗诇讛 讚诇讗 诪拽讘诇讬谞谉

And the Rabbis maintain that this verse is necessary for a different halakha, as it may enter your mind to say that since the descendants of Noah are commanded only with regard to sacrificing an animal lacking a limb on their private altar but are permitted to sacrifice animals with minor blemishes, perhaps we should accept blemished offerings from them in the Temple as well. Therefore, the verse teaches us by the use of the phrase 鈥渙f any of these鈥 that we do not accept them.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 砖诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘转诐 砖谞注砖讛 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讜注讜讘专 讚讗讬 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讚讬拽诇讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

搂 The baraita cited earlier stated that one who consecrates a blemished animal violates several prohibitions, but it did not differentiate between animals born with blemishes and those that acquired them during their lives. Reish Lakish objects to this: Perhaps we learned the prohibition only with regard to an unblemished animal that became blemished, and only one who consecrates such an animal transgresses the prohibition. As, if he consecrated an animal that was blemished from the outset, it is akin to consecrating a mere date palm, and his presumed intention is to consecrate its value, with the proceeds from its sale being used to purchase an offering. This would be permitted.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讬讜住祝 砖专讜注 讜拽诇讜讟 讻转讬讘 讘驻专砖讛 讜讛谞讬 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗 谞讬谞讛讜

Rav 岣yya bar Yosef said to Reish Lakish: The blemishes mentioned in the phrase in the verse that states: 鈥淓ither a bull or a lamb that has anything too long or too short鈥 (Leviticus 22:23), are written in the passage that prohibits the sacrifice of blemished animals, and animals such as these are blemished from the outset.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 砖诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘转诪讜专讛 讚转谞谉 讞讜诪专 讘转诪讜专讛 诪讘讝讘讞 砖讻谉 拽讚讜砖讛 讞诇讛 注诇讬讛 注诇 讘注诇 诪讜诐 拽讘讜注

Reish Lakish said to Rav 岣yya bar Yosef: Perhaps in the case of animals born with blemishes, we learned the prohibition only with regard to substitution, as we learned in a mishna (16b): There is greater stringency with regard to a substitute than there is with regard to the initial consecration of an offering, as, if one substituted a non-sacred animal with a permanent blemish for a consecrated unblemished animal, the blemished animal is imbued with sanctity. But initial consecration of an animal with such a blemish is effective only with regard to its value, so perhaps one who does so is exempt from punishment.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讱 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讘讞讘讜专讛 谞诪谞讜 讜讙诪专讜 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讞诪砖讛 砖诪讜转 讜讗讬 讘转诪讜专讛 谞诪讬 砖砖讛 讛讜讜讬讬谉 讚讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 讚转诪讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讘讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪注讬拽专讜 讗诪讗讬 诇拽讬 讚讬拽诇讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Reish Lakish: Didn鈥檛 you hear that which Rabbi Yannai says, that when the Sages sat in a group, their opinions were counted and they concluded: One who consecrates blemished animals for sacrifice on the altar violates five separate categories of prohibition. But if the baraita is also referring to a case of substitution, there are six categories, as there is also the prohibition of performing substitution. Reish Lakish responded: Rather, what can you say? Is the baraita speaking of one who consecrated an animal that is blemished from the outset? Why then is he flogged? It is akin to one who consecrates a mere date palm.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讬拽诇讗 诇讗讜 讝讬诇讗 诪讬诇转讗 诪讬谉 注爪讬诐 讛讜讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐 诪注讬拽专讗 讝讬诇讗 诪讬诇转讗 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讘讬拽 转诪讬诐 讜讗拽讚讬砖 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诪讬讞讬讬讘

Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Reish Lakish: There is a difference between the cases. When one consecrates a date palm, the matter is not disgraceful, as it is a type of wood that one may burn on the altar. Therefore, he is not flogged. By contrast, when one consecrates an animal that is blemished from the outset, the matter is disgraceful. Since he forsook unblemished animals and consecrated blemished animals, he is liable to be flogged.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讘讝讬讗 诪讬诇转讗 讚讚拽诇 诇讬讻讗 讘诪讬谞讜 诇讗 诇拽讬 诇讗驻讜拽讬 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 讘诪讬谞讜 诇拽讬

The Gemara presents an alternative version of the previous point. Rabbi Yo岣nan said to Reish Lakish: Nevertheless, the matter of consecrating an animal blemished from the outset is disgraceful. For in the case of a date palm, as there is no item of its type that can be sacrificed as an offering, he is not flogged for consecrating it. This is to the exclusion of a blemished animal; since there are items of its type that can be sacrificed as offerings, i.e., unblemished animals, he is flogged for consecrating it.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪讜专 讟注诪讗 讚讘注诇 诪讜诐 讚诇拽讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讘讝讬讗 诪讬诇转讬讬讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪拽讚讬砖 诇讬讛 诇讚诪讬 谞住讻讬诐 谞诪讬 诇拽讬

Rava said: Now that it has been said that the reason that one who consecrates a blemished animal is flogged is due to the fact that the matter is disgraceful, then even one who consecrates it to be sold and its money used for purchasing libations should be flogged as well, as consecrating a blemished animal is in and of itself a disgraceful act.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘讗

The Gemara notes: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rava:

谞讚讘讛 转注砖讛 讗转讜 讝讛 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 谞讚讘讛 谞讚专 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇谞讚专

A vow offering differs from a gift offering in that if it dies prematurely, one is liable to replace the former but not the latter. The verse states: 鈥淓ither a bull or a lamb that has anything too long or too short, you may offer it for a gift, and for a vow it shall not be accepted鈥 (Leviticus 22:23). The phrase 鈥淵ou may offer it for a gift鈥 is referring to a blemished animal consecrated for Temple maintenance. And I have derived only that one may consecrate it in the manner of a gift; from where is it derived that one may consecrate it in the manner of a vow as well? The verse states: 鈥淵ou may offer it for a gift and for a vow.鈥

讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜诇谞讚专 诇讗 讬专爪讛 讝讛 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 讜讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 谞讚专 谞讚讘讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 谞讚讘讛 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬专爪讛 讘讛专爪讗转 讙讜驻讜 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

One might have thought that one can consecrate blemished animals even as offerings to be sacrificed on the altar. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd for a vow it shall not be accepted.鈥 This is referring to offerings sacrificed on the altar, for which acceptance is a relevant term. And I have derived only that one may not consecrate such an animal as a vow offering. From where is it derived that one may not do so as a gift offering? The verse states: 鈥淎 gift鈥nd for a vow it shall not be accepted.鈥 Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In employing the phrase 鈥淚t shall not be accepted,鈥 the verse is speaking of consecration that depends upon the acceptance of the animal鈥檚 body, i.e., consecration as an offering. Nevertheless, they may be consecrated for Temple maintenance.

讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘讛讗 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 讗拽讚砖讬讛 诇讚诪讬 谞住讻讬诐 谞诪讬 诇拽讬 讜专讘讬 住讘专 讘讛专爪讗转 讙讜驻讜 谞诪讬 诇拽讬 讗讘诇 讘讚诪讬 谞住讻讬诐 诇讗 诇拽讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara asks: The opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is identical to the opinion of the first tanna. What is their dispute? The Gemara suggests: What, is it not that they disagree with regard to this, that the first tanna holds that even if one consecrates it to be sold and its money is used for purchasing libations, he is flogged as well; and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in a case where there is acceptance of the animal鈥檚 body, the one who consecrated it is indeed flogged, but if one consecrates it to be sold and its money is used for purchasing libations, he is not flogged. Learn from the baraita that the first tanna holds that consecration toward libations is equivalent to consecration as an offering, as Rava suggested above.

讜讗诇讗 讗转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇讻讚转谞讬讗 谞讚讘讛 转注砖讛 讗转讜 讗讜转讜 转注砖讛 谞讚讘讛 讜讗讬 讗转讛 注讜砖讛 转诪讬诐 谞讚讘讛 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 诪讬讻谉 讗诪专讜 讛诪拽讚讬砖 转诪讬诪讬诐 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 注讜讘专 讘注砖讛

搂 The Gemara analyzes the wording of Leviticus 22:23: But why do I need the word 鈥渋t,鈥 in the phrase: 鈥淵ou may offer it鈥? What does this serve to exclude? It is required for that which is taught in a baraita: When the verse states: 鈥淵ou may offer it for a gift,鈥 this teaches that you may offer this blemished animal as a gift for Temple maintenance, but you may not offer an unblemished animal as a gift for Temple maintenance. From here the Sages said: One who consecrates unblemished animals for Temple maintenance transgresses a positive mitzva.

讜诪谞讬谉 讗祝 讘诇讗 转注砖讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讬讚讘专 讛壮 讗诇 诪砖讛 诇讗诪专 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讛驻专砖讛 砖讛讬讗 讘诇讗讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

And from where is it derived that he has transgressed a prohibition as well? As it is stated at the beginning of that passage: 鈥淎nd the Lord spoke to Moses, saying [lemor]鈥 (Leviticus 22:1). This teaches that every mitzva stated in the passage is considered a prohibition. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 诇讘专 拽驻专讗 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 诇讗诪专 诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘讚讘专讬诐 讘讬 专讘讬 讗诪专讬 诇讗 讗诪讜专

The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to bar Kappara: From where may it be inferred that every mitzva stated in the passage is considered a prohibition? Bar Kappara said to him that this is as it is written: As the verse states: Lemor,鈥 the term can be read as though it states: No [lo], an expression of prohibition, is stated [ne鈥檈mar] with regard to the subsequent matters. In the school of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi they say: The term should be understood to mean that God said to Moses: No [lo] shall you say [emor] to them these matters.

讗讬转诪专 讛诪注诇讛 讗讘专讬 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 讗诪专 专讘讗 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜 讻讜诇讜 讜诪砖讜诐 讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜 诪拽爪转讜 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讬谉 注诇 诇讗讜 砖讘讻诇诇讜转

搂 A baraita above (6b) stated that one who sacrifices a blemished animal on the altar transgresses the prohibition 鈥淵ou may not burn all of it,鈥 and if he sacrificed part of it, he transgresses the prohibition 鈥淵ou may not burn part of it.鈥 With regard to this it was stated: In the case of one who brings up the limbs of blemished animals onto the altar, Rava says that he violates both the prohibition of 鈥淵ou may not burn all of it;鈥 and the prohibition of 鈥淵ou may not burn part of it,鈥 and he receives two sets of lashes. Abaye says: One is not flogged twice for violating a general prohibition. Since one verse serves as the source for both prohibitions, one is not flogged twice for its violation.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诪拽讚讬砖 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 注讜讘专 诪砖讜诐 讞诪砖讛 砖诪讜转 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬

The Gemara raises an objection from the Tosefta (1:10): One who consecrates blemished animals for sacrifice on the altar violates five separate categories of prohibition. The aforementioned baraita enumerated these and included both the prohibition 鈥淵ou may not burn all of it鈥 and the prohibition 鈥淵ou may not burn part of it,鈥 indicating that one is flogged for transgressing each of these prohibitions. This is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘讙讘专讬 拽转谞讬 讗讬 讘讙讘专讬 注讜讘专 注讜讘专讬谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讞讚 讙讘专讗 讜转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬

Abaye said: The baraita is teaching the halakha with regard to different men, one of whom burned an entire animal on the altar, and one of whom burned only part of it. One person cannot be liable for both prohibitions. The Gemara challenges: If it is teaching the halakha of different men, why does it say: Violates, in the third person singular? It should have stated: Violate, in the plural. Rather, it is obvious that the baraita is referring to one man, and this is apparently a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Abaye.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗驻讬拽 讛拽讟专转 诪拽爪转讜 讜注讬讬诇 拽讘诇转 讛讚诐 拽讘诇转 讚诐 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 拽砖讬讗

Abaye said: From the list of five prohibitions, remove that of burning part of the offering, and insert the collection of the blood, which means that there is only one prohibition for burning the offering, and the number of prohibitions still remains at five. The Gemara raises a difficulty: With regard to the collection of the blood, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, is of the opinion that one transgresses that prohibition, but the first tanna is not of that opinion. How, then, can Abaye contradict the first tanna? The Gemara concludes: It is difficult.

诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讛讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 专讬砖讗 专讘谞谉 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讗讘讬讬 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara presents an alternative version of the previous point: But from the fact that the latter clause of the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, it may be inferred that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Abaye is indeed a conclusive refutation.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪诪讬专讬谉 讘砖诇讛谉 讜讬砖专讗诇 诪诪讬专讬谉 讘砖诇讛谉 讗讬谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 诪诪讬专讬谉 诇讗 讘讞讟讗转 讜诇讗 讘讗砖诐 讜诇讗 讘讘讻讜专 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谉 诪诪讬专讬谉 讘讘讻讜专 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谉 讜讘讻讜专 诪转谞讛 诇讻讛谉 诪讛 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讗讬谉 诪诪讬专讬谉 讘讜 讗祝 讘讻讜专 讗讬谉 诪诪讬专讬谉 讘讜

MISHNA: The priests substitute for their own offerings and Israelites substitute for their own offerings. The priests substitute neither for a sin offering, nor for a guilt offering, nor for a firstborn offering that they received from an Israelite, as those animals are not their property, and one does not substitute an animal that is not his. Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri said: For what reason can priests not substitute for a firstborn offering that they received from an Israelite? Does it not belong to them? Rabbi Akiva said to him: A sin offering and a guilt offering are a gift to the priest, and the firstborn offering is likewise a gift to the priest. Just as in the cases of a sin offering and a guilt offering, priests that receive one of them from an Israelite cannot substitute for it, so too with regard to a firstborn offering, priests that receive it from an Israelite cannot substitute for it.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 诪讛 诇讜 讗诐 讗讬谞讜 诪诪讬专 讘讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖讗讬谉 讝讻讬谉 讘讛谉 讘讞讬讬讛谉 转讗诪专 讘讘讻讜专 砖讝讻讬谉 讘讜 讘讞讬讬讜 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛诇讗 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讛讬讛 讛讜讗 讜转诪讜专转讜 讬讛讬讛 拽讚砖 讛讬讻谉 拽讚讜砖讛 讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 讘讘讬转 讛讘注诇讬诐 讗祝 转诪讜专讛 讘讘讬转 讛讘注诇讬诐

Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri said: What is this comparison for him? If a priest does not substitute for a sin offering and a guilt offering, which priests do not acquire during the animals鈥 lifetimes, will you say the same with regard to a firstborn, which priests do acquire during the animal鈥檚 lifetime? Rabbi Akiva said to him: But isn鈥檛 it already stated: 鈥淭hen both it and its substitute shall be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 27:10), which juxtaposes the consecration of the consecrated animal with that of its non-sacred substitute? Where is the consecrated animal imbued with sanctity? It is in the house of the owner. So too, the substitute animal is consecrated in the house of the owner. Therefore, the priest cannot substitute for the firstborn that he received because he is not the owner that initially consecrated it.

讙诪壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 讘讻讜专 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讜 转诐 讞讬 讜讘注诇 诪讜诐 讞讬 讜砖讞讜讟 讜诪拽讚砖讬谉 讘讜 讛讗砖讛 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讝讻讬讬讛 讘讙讜讜讬讛 (讛讜讗讬诇 讜讬砖 诇讻讛谉 砖讜转驻讜转 讘讜) 讗讘诇 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讻讬讜谉 讚转诐 诇讛拽专讘讛 讛讜讗 讚拽讗讬 讗讬谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讜 转诪讬诐 讞讬

GEMARA: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 1:2): With regard to a firstborn offering, one may sell it if it is unblemished only while it is still alive, as after it is slaughtered outside the Temple one may not derive benefit from it, and if it was offered in the Temple, one may not sell sacrificial meat. And if it is blemished, one may sell it while it is alive or after it has been slaughtered. And a priest can betroth a woman with it, as it is his property. Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: They taught this halakha only with regard to the present, when there is no Temple, since the priest has the ability to acquire the firstborn offering. But when the Temple is standing, since the unblemished firstborn animal stands for sacrifice, one may not sell it unblemished while it is alive.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讗 诇专讘 谞讞诪谉 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讜 转诪讬诐 讞讬 讞讬 讗讬谉 砖讞讜讟 诇讗 讗讬诪转 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 转诐 砖讞讜讟 讗诇讗 驻砖讬讟讗 讘讝诪谉 砖讘讬转 讛诪拽讚砖 拽讬讬诐 讜拽转谞讬 谞诪讬 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讜 转诪讬诐 讞讬 (讗诇诪讗 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讻讛谉 讝讻讬讬讛 讘讙讜讜讬讛)

Rava raised an objection to Rav Na岣an: The mishna teaches that one may sell an unblemished firstborn offering while it is alive. One can infer that while it is alive, yes, one may sell it, but once it has been slaughtered, one may not sell it. When is this the halakha? If we say that this mishna is speaking in the present, is there an unblemished, slaughtered, firstborn offering? Offerings are not slaughtered in the present day. Rather, it is obvious that the mishna is speaking of the time when the Temple is standing. And yet, the mishna still teaches that one may sell an unblemished firstborn offering while it is alive, which contradicts the statement of Rav Na岣an.

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 诪讬 拽转谞讬 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讜 转诪讬诐 讞讬 讗讬谉 砖讞讜讟 诇讗 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 讚讘讝诪谉 讛讝讛 谞诪讬 诪讜讻专讬谉 讗讜转讜 转诪讬诐 讞讬

Rav Na岣an responds: No; actually the mishna is referring to the halakha in the present. I disagree with the above inference. Does the mishna explicitly teach: One may sell an unblemished firstborn offering while it is alive, yes, but once it has been slaughtered, no? The mishna does not mean to rule out selling a slaughtered animal; rather, it is coming to teach us the matter itself, that even in the present, one may sell it unblemished while it is alive.

Scroll To Top