Zevachim 11
Share this shiur:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The Gemara seeks to find a source for the opinion of the rabbis that the blood of the guilt offering whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary is not disqualified. Why is the guilt offering not treated like the sin offering? After the first attempt by a logical kal v’chomer argument is rejected, they learn it from a drasha from the verse relating to that law.
According to the rabbis’ opinion in our Mishna that a sin offering slaughtered with intent for another offering is disqualified, but a guilt offering is not, one can understand the comparison in a braita of two different types of meal offering – one to a sin offering (will be disqualified is offered for the wrong sacrifice) and one to a guilt offering (will not be disqualified. In the braita, this is derived from a verse, Vayikra 6:10. How does Rabbi Eliezer understand this verse, which differentiates between sin and guilt offerings? To answer the question, they quote a Mishna with a different differentiation. This leads to a further question as both sources quote Rabbi Shimon – how can he derive two different things from the same verse? This question is resolved as well.
Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion in our Mishna was derived from a verse that compared the guilt offering to a sin offering. The rabbis use that verse to derive that a guilt offering also requires smicha, leaning on the animal.
Rabbi Yochanan and Rabba explain that Rabbi Eliezer agrees with Yosef ben Honi’s position in the Mishna that an offering brought for a Pesach (on the 14th of Nissan) is disqualified as well. Rabba points out that he disagrees, though, about an offering brought with the intent of a sin offering and does not hold that it is disqualified. To prove this, a lengthy braita is quoted, featuring a debate between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer, as well as the logical arguments of Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer’s attempts to disprove them. In the course of the discussion, it becomes clear that Rabbi Eliezer does not hold that an offering slaughtered with intent for a sin offering is disqualified.
Shimon ben Azaria holds that an offering brought with the intention of a higher level of sanctity is not disqualified, but one brought with the intention of a lower level is. The source for this is from Vayikra 22:15. Does he disagree on two counts and he holds that it also atones for the owner, or not? This question is left unanswered.
Rabbi Yehoshua and Ben Beteira disagree in the Mishna about a Pesach sacrifice that was slaughtered for the intent of a different sacrifice on the morning of the fourteenth will be disqualified as well. Rabbi Elazar, in the name of Rabbi Oshaya, explains that their disagreement is broader as they also disagree about whether a Pesach sacrificed slaughtered for its own sake will be accepted if it was slaughtered in the morning, meaning, is the morning also a valid time for bringing the Pesach sacrifice.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Zevachim 11
עוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא כָּלִיל, נִכְנַס דָּמָהּ לִפְנִים כְּשֵׁרָה; אָשָׁם שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּלִיל, לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
with regard to a burnt offering, which is totally consumed by the fire on the altar, nevertheless, even if its blood enters into the Sanctuary it is fit, with regard to a guilt offering, which is not entirely consumed on the altar, all the more so is it not clear that even if its blood enters the Sanctuary it remains fit?
מָה לְעוֹלָה, שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ מְכַפֶּרֶת!
The Gemara refutes this inference: What is notable about a burnt offering? It is notable in that it does not atone for a sin. Perhaps this is why its blood is not disqualified if it enters the sanctuary.
מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא תּוֹכִיחַ.
The Gemara responds: The meal offering of a sinner can prove the point, as it is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary, even though it atones for a sin.
וְלֵימָא: חַטַּאת הָעוֹף תּוֹכִיחַ! חַטַּאת הָעוֹף – בַּעְיָא דְּרַבִּי אָבִין הִיא.
The Gemara interjects: But let us say that a bird sin offering can prove the point, as it too atones for a sin but is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary. This case is more similar to that of a guilt offering, as a bird has blood, unlike a meal offering. The Gemara answers: It is not certain that a bird sin offering is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary; this is a dilemma raised by Rabbi Avin.
וְלִפְרוֹךְ: מָה לְמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא, שֶׁכֵּן אֵינָהּ מִין זֶבַח!
The Gemara asks: But let us refute the above response as follows: What is notable about a sinner’s meal offering? It is notable in that it is not a type of slaughtered offering.
עוֹלָה תּוֹכִיחַ. וְחָזַר הַדִּין; לֹא רְאִי זֶה כִרְאִי זֶה, וְלֹא רְאִי זֶה כִּרְאִי זֶה; הַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן: שֶׁהֵן קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וְנִכְנַס (דָּמָן) לִפְנִים – כְּשֵׁרִין; אַף אֲנִי אָבִיא אָשָׁם – שֶׁהוּא קוֹדֶשׁ קֳדָשִׁים, וְנִכְנַס דָּמוֹ לִפְנִים – כָּשֵׁר.
The Gemara answers: If so, a burnt offering can prove the point, since it is a slaughtered offering, and still if its blood enters the Sanctuary, it is not disqualified. And the inference has reverted to its starting point. The halakha is derived from the halakhot of a burnt offering and a sinner’s meal offering: The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case. Their common element is that they are offerings of the most sacred order, and if they enter into the Sanctuary they are still fit. So too, I shall include a guilt offering and infer that since it is also an offering of the most sacred order, if its blood enters into the Sanctuary it is still fit.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא מִבַּרְנִישׁ לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וְלִפְרוֹךְ, מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן – שֶׁכֵּן אֵין לָהֶן קִצְבָה; תֹּאמַר בְּאָשָׁם – שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ קִצְבָה?!
Rava of Barnish said to Rav Ashi: But let us refute this inference: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that neither a burnt offering nor a sinner’s meal offering has a fixed value. Should you say the same halakhot apply to a guilt offering, which has a fixed value?
אֶלָּא הַיְינוּ טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״דָּמָהּ״ – דָּמָהּ שֶׁל זוֹ, וְלָא דָּמָהּ שֶׁל אַחֵר.
Rather, this is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis: As the verse states: “And any sin offering, any of whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23). The term “whose blood” teaches that the blood of this offering, i.e., a sin offering, and not the blood of another offering, is disqualified in this manner.
וְאִידַּךְ – ״דָּמָהּ״ וְלֹא בְּשָׂרָהּ.
And how does the other tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, interpret this term? He derives from it that only its blood is disqualified by entering the Sanctuary, but not its flesh.
וְאִידָּךְ – ״דָּם״–״דָּמָהּ״.
And from where do the other Rabbis derive that the flesh of a sin offering is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary? They maintain that both halakhot are derived from this term, as the verse could have simply stated: Blood, but stated: “Whose blood.” The redundancy excludes not only the flesh, but also other offerings.
וְאִידַּךְ – ״דָּם״–״דָּמָהּ״ לָא דָּרֵישׁ.
And the other tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, does not interpret the redundancy indicated by the change from: Blood, to: “Whose blood,” to be significant. Once the word blood is mentioned, it is grammatically necessary for the verse to state “whose blood.”
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: אָשָׁם שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ – כָּשֵׁר; הַיְינוּ דְּאִיתַּקַּשׁ מִנְחָה לְחַטָּאת, מִנְחָה לְאָשָׁם.
§ The Gemara resumes its discussion of the dispute in the mishna between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. Granted, according to the Rabbis, who say that a guilt offering that one slaughtered not for its sake is fit, that is why a meal offering is juxtaposed with a sin offering, and a meal offering is also juxtaposed with a guilt offering.
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הִוא כַּחַטָּאת וְכָאָשָׁם״ – מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא הֲרֵי הִיא כְּחַטָּאת, לְפִיכָךְ קְמָצָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, פְּסוּלָה; מִנְחַת נְדָבָה הֲרֵי הִיא כְּאָשָׁם, לְפִיכָךְ קְמָצָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ, כְּשֵׁרָה.
This is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: The verse states with regard to a meal offering: “It is most sacred, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offering” (Leviticus 6:10), teaching that a meal offering of a sinner is like a sin offering. Therefore, if one removed its handful not for its sake, it is disqualified. And the verse also teaches that a voluntary meal offering is like a guilt offering. Therefore, if one removed its handful not for its sake, it is still fit. This accords with the opinion of the Rabbis, that a guilt offering slaughtered not for its sake is fit.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא אִיתַּקַּשׁ מִנְחָה לְחַטָּאת וּמִנְחָה לְאָשָׁם?
But according to Rabbi Eliezer, for what halakha is a meal offering juxtaposed with a sin offering, and a meal offering juxtaposed with a guilt offering?
לְכִי אִידַּךְ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דִּתְנַן: שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת – פְּסוּלָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַכְשִׁיר.
The Gemara answers: They are juxtaposed to teach the other halakha derived by Rabbi Shimon from this verse; as we learned in a mishna (Menaḥot 26a): If the handful of a meal offering is conveyed to the altar not in a service vessel, the offering is unfit. And Rabbi Shimon deems it fit.
וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? אָמַר קְרָא: ״קֹדֶשׁ קֳדָשִׁים הִוא כַּחַטָּאת וּכְאָשָׁם״ – בָּא לְעוֹבְדָהּ בַּיָּד, עוֹבְדָהּ בַּיָּמִין כַּחַטָּאת; בִּכְלִי, עוֹבְדָהּ בִּשְׂמֹאל כָּאָשָׁם.
And Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states with regard to a meal offering: “It is most sacred, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offering,” teaching that if a priest comes to perform its sacrificial rites by hand, he must perform them with his right hand, like one performs the rites of a sin offering. And if he performs them with a vessel, he may perform them with his left hand, like one performs the rites of a guilt offering, since Rabbi Shimon maintains this is permitted in the case of a guilt offering.
וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – הַאי קְרָא מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְהָכִי וּמַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְהָכִי?!
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Shimon himself, does he expound this verse for this purpose, concerning one who if one removes its handful not for its sake, and expound it for that purpose, concerning conveying the handful with one’s hand?
עִיקָּר קְרָא – לְכִדְרַב יְהוּדָה בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא הוּא דַּאֲתָא; וּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא דִּפְסוּלָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ [– טַעְמָא אַחֲרִינָא הוּא]: חַטָּאת טַעְמָא מַאי – דִּכְתִיב בַּהּ ״הִיא״; מִנְחַת חוֹטֵא נָמֵי כְּתִיב בַּהּ ״הִיא״.
The Gemara answers: The verse comes mainly to teach that which Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, explained. And the halakha that a meal offering of a sinner whose handful was removed not for its sake is unfit is due to another reason: What is the reason a sin offering sacrificed not for its sake is disqualified? The reason is that the word “it” is written with regard to it in the verse: “It is a sin offering” (Leviticus 4:24). Since the word “it” is also written with regard to the meal offering of a sinner, in the verse: “For it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11), the same applies in that case.
וּלְרַבָּנַן, לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא אִיתַּקַּשׁ אָשָׁם לְחַטָּאת? לוֹמַר לָךְ: מָה חַטָּאת טְעוּנָה סְמִיכָה, אַף אָשָׁם טָעוּן סְמִיכָה.
In the mishna, Rabbi Eliezer cites the verse: “As is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering” (Leviticus 7:7), as a source for his opinion. The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, for what halakha is a guilt offering juxtaposed with a sin offering? The Gemara answers: They are juxtaposed to tell you that just as a sin offering requires placing hands on the head of the offering, so too, a guilt offering requires placing hands on the head of the offering.
יוֹסֵף בֶּן חוֹנִי אוֹמֵר: הַנִּשְׁחָטִין כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יוֹסֵף בֶּן חוֹנִי וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אָמְרוּ דָּבָר אֶחָד.
§ The mishna teaches: Yosef ben Ḥoni says: Other offerings that are slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal offering or a sin offering are unfit. Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Yosef ben Ḥoni and Rabbi Eliezer said the same thing, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer agrees with Yosef ben Ḥoni.
רַבָּה אָמַר: בַּאֲחֵרִים לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת פְּלִיגִי.
Rabba says: Although they agree that other offerings slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal offering are unfit, they disagree with regard to other offerings slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering. Whereas Yosef ben Ḥoni holds that they are unfit, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that they are fit.
דְּתַנְיָא: הַפֶּסַח שֶׁעִבְּרָה שְׁנָתוֹ, וּשְׁחָטוֹ בִּזְמַנּוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ; וְכֵן הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֲחֵרִים לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַכְשִׁיר.
This is as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a Paschal offering whose first year has passed, and it must therefore be sacrificed as a peace offering, and one slaughtered it at its designated time on Passover eve for its own sake as a Paschal offering, and likewise, if one slaughtered other offerings for the sake of a Paschal offering at its designated time, the tanna’im disagree as to the status of the offering. Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, and Rabbi Yehoshua deems it fit.
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אִם בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ – אֲחֵרִים כְּשֵׁרִים לִשְׁמוֹ; בִּזְמַנּוֹ שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּכְשְׁרוּ אֲחֵרִים לִשְׁמוֹ?!
Rabbi Yehoshua said: If, during the rest of the days of the year, when a Paschal offering is not fit if it is slaughtered for its own sake, nevertheless, other offerings that are slaughtered for its sake are fit, then at its designated time, when a Paschal offering is fit if it is slaughtered for its own sake, isn’t it logical that other offerings slaughtered for its sake should be fit?
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אוֹ חִילּוּף הַדְּבָרִים: וּמָה אִם בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה, שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ – כָּשֵׁר הוּא לְשֵׁם אֲחֵרִים; בִּזְמַנּוֹ, שֶׁהוּא כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיּוּכְשַׁר לְשֵׁם אֲחֵרִים?! וְיוּכְשַׁר פֶּסַח בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ!
Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Or conversely, just as during the rest of the days of the year, when a Paschal offering is not fit if it is slaughtered for its own sake, it is fit if slaughtered for the sake of other offerings, so too, at its designated time, when it is fit if slaughtered for its own sake, isn’t it logical that it should be fit if slaughtered for the sake of other offerings? And accordingly, a Paschal offering slaughtered not for its own sake on the fourteenth of Nisan should be deemed fit, which contradicts the halakha. Clearly, this line of reasoning leads to incorrect conclusions.
וְכָךְ אַתָּה אוֹמֵר?! מָה לִי הוּכְשְׁרוּ אֲחֵרִים בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה לִשְׁמוֹ – שֶׁכֵּן הוּא כָּשֵׁר לְשֵׁם אֲחֵרִים; וְיוּכְשְׁרוּ אֲחֵרִים בִּזְמַנּוֹ לִשְׁמוֹ – שֶׁכֵּן הוּא פָּסוּל לְשֵׁם אֲחֵרִים?!
Furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer refuted Rabbi Yehoshua’s logic as follows: And do you say this derivation? What does it matter to me that other offerings slaughtered during the rest of the days of the year for the sake of a Paschal offering are deemed fit? After all, a Paschal offering slaughtered for the sake of other offerings is also fit. But must you say that other offerings slaughtered at its designated time for its sake should be deemed fit? After all, at its designated time, a Paschal offering slaughtered for the sake of other offerings is unfit.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: אִם כֵּן, הוֹרַעְתָּה כֹּחַ פֶּסַח, וְנָתַתָּ כֹּחַ בִּשְׁלָמִים.
Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: If, as you maintain, other offerings slaughtered on Passover eve for the sake of a Paschal offering are disqualified, you have diminished the force of the requirement that a Paschal offering be sacrificed for its own sake, and you have given more force to the requirement that a peace offering be sacrificed for its own sake. A Paschal offering sacrificed at the proper time, i.e., during the rest of the year, for the sake of a peace offering, is fit, whereas a peace offering sacrificed on Passover eve for the sake of a Paschal offering is unfit.
חָזַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְדָנוֹ דִּין אַחֵר: מָצִינוּ מוֹתַר פֶּסַח בָּא שְׁלָמִים, וְאֵין מוֹתַר שְׁלָמִים בָּא פֶּסַח.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer then presented a different logical inference: We find that a leftover Paschal offering, an animal consecrated as a Paschal offering but ultimately not sacrificed on Passover eve, is brought as a peace offering; but a leftover peace offering, one bought with money left over from funds dedicated toward the acquisition of a peace offering, is not brought as a Paschal offering. A Paschal offering is a potential peace offering, but a peace offering is not a potential Paschal offering.
וּמָה פֶּסַח, שֶׁמּוֹתָרוֹ בָּא שְׁלָמִים – שְׁחָטוֹ בִּזְמַנּוֹ לְשׁוּם שְׁלָמִים, פָּסוּל; שְׁלָמִים, שֶׁאֵין מוֹתָרָן בָּא פֶּסַח – אִם שְׁחָטָם לְשֵׁם פֶּסַח בִּזְמַנּוֹ, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיְּהוּ פְּסוּלִין?!
And if so, one may infer a fortiori: Just as with regard to a Paschal offering, whose leftover offering is brought as a peace offering, and nevertheless, if one slaughtered it at its designated time for the sake of a peace offering it is unfit, so too, with regard to a peace offering, whose leftover offering is not brought as a Paschal offering, if one slaughtered it for the sake of a Paschal offering at its designated time, isn’t it logical that it should be unfit?
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מָצִינוּ מוֹתַר חַטָּאת בָּא עוֹלָה, וְאֵין מוֹתַר עוֹלָה בָּא חַטָּאת;
Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: This inference is not valid, as we find that a leftover sin offering, e.g., one bought with money left over from funds dedicated to the acquisition of a sin offering, is brought as a burnt offering, whereas a leftover burnt offering is not brought as a sin offering.
וּמָה חַטָּאת, שֶׁמּוֹתָרָהּ בָּא עוֹלָה – שְׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, פְּסוּלָה; עוֹלָה, שֶׁאֵין מוֹתָרָהּ בָּא חַטָּאת – שְׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתְּהֵא פְּסוּלָה?!
And according to Rabbi Eliezer’s logic, one should derive a fortiori: Just as with regard to a sin offering, whose leftover is brought as a burnt offering, nevertheless, if one slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt offering it is unfit, so too, with regard to a burnt offering, whose leftover is not brought as a sin offering, if one slaughtered it for the sake of a sin offering, isn’t it logical that it should be unfit? Yet, the halakha is that a burnt offering slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering is fit.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּחַטָּאת – שֶׁכֵּן כְּשֵׁרָה לִשְׁמָהּ כׇּל הַשָּׁנָה כּוּלָּהּ, תֹּאמַר בַּפֶּסַח – שֶׁאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ אֶלָּא בִּזְמַנּוֹ?! הוֹאִיל וְהוּא פָּסוּל לִשְׁמוֹ, דִּין הוּא שֶׁיִּפָּסְלוּ אֲחֵרִים לִשְׁמוֹ.
Rabbi Eliezer said to him: No, if you said that this is the halakha with regard to a sin offering, that another offering sacrificed for its sake is fit, this is only because a sin offering is fit when sacrificed for its sake all year long. Shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to a Paschal offering, which is fit when sacrificed for its sake only at its designated time? Since a Paschal offering is unfit when sacrificed for its sake during the rest of the year, it is logical that other offerings should be disqualified when sacrificed for its sake at its designated time.
שִׁמְעוֹן אֲחִי עֲזַרְיָה אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳.
§ The mishna teaches: Shimon, brother of Azarya, says that this is the distinction: With regard to all offerings, if one slaughtered them for the sake of an offering whose sanctity is greater than theirs, they are fit; if one slaughtered them for the sake of an offering whose sanctity is less than theirs, they are unfit.
רַב אָשֵׁי מַתְנֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, וְרַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא מַתְנֵי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּשִׁמְעוֹן אֲחִי עֲזַרְיָה? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קׇדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַה׳״ – בְּמוּרָם מֵהֶן אֵין מִתְחַלְּלִין, בְּנָמוּךְ מֵהֶם מִתְחַלְּלִין.
Rav Ashi teaches in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan, and Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, teaches the same statement in the name of Rabbi Yannai: What is the reason for the opinion of Shimon, brother of Azarya? It is derived from that which the verse states: “And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they will set apart [yarimu] unto the Lord” (Leviticus 22:15). The verse is interpreted not as a prohibition but as a halakhic axiom, teaching that offerings are not profaned, i.e., disqualified, by sacrifice for the sake of offerings whose sanctity is more elevated [muram] than theirs; they are profaned only by sacrifice for the sake of offerings whose sanctity is less than theirs.
וְהַאי לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?! וְהָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לִכְדִשְׁמוּאֵל – דְּאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מִנַּיִן לָאוֹכֵל אֶת הַטֶּבֶל שֶׁהוּא בְּמִיתָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קׇדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֵת אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַה׳״ – בַּעֲתִידִים לִתְרוֹם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
The Gemara asks: And does that verse come to teach this halakha? But isn’t it necessary for Shmuel’s derivation? As Shmuel says: From where is it derived that one who eats untithed produce is liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven? As it is stated: “And they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they will set apart unto the Lord.” The term: “Will set apart,” indicates that the verse is speaking of holy items that are to be set apart in the future, i.e., untithed produce, which includes the portion designated for the priest [teruma].
אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״אֲשֶׁר הוּרְמוּ״; מַאי ״אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ״? שְׁמַע מִינַּיהּ תַּרְתֵּי.
The Gemara answers: If so, if the verse taught only one halakha, the halakha of Shimon, brother of Azarya, it should have written: Which they have set apart. What is the reason the verse states: “Which they will set apart,” in the future tense? Conclude from it that the verse teaches two halakhot: An offering sacrificed for the sake of an offering of greater sanctity is fit, and consumption of untithed produce is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: כְּשֵׁרִין וְאֵין מְרַצִּין – וְכִי פְּלִיג בַּחֲדָא פְּלִיג, אוֹ דִלְמָא כְּשֵׁרִין וּמְרַצִּין – וּבְתַרְתֵּי פְּלִיגִי?
Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: According to Shimon, brother of Azaria, who says that less sacred offerings sacrificed for the sake of more sacred offerings are fit, perhaps they are fit but do not propitiate God, i.e., they do not fulfill the owner’s obligation, as the Rabbis hold. If so, when Shimon, brother of Azaria, disagrees with the first tanna in the mishna, he disagrees only with regard to one matter, i.e., that more sacred offerings sacrificed for the sake of less sacred ones are disqualified altogether. Alternatively, perhaps Shimon, brother of Azaria, holds that if less sacred offerings are sacrificed for the sake of more sacred offerings they are both fit and propitiate God, and they disagree with the Rabbis about two matters.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי זְרִיקָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: הַבְּכוֹר וְהַמַּעֲשֵׂר שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים – כְּשֵׁרִים. שְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לְשֵׁם בְּכוֹר אוֹ לְשֵׁם מַעֲשֵׂר – פְּסוּלִין.
Abaye, and some say Rabbi Zerika, said: Come and hear proof that they do not satisfy the owners’ obligation: Shimon, brother of Azarya, elaborated on his opinion in the mishna: A firstborn animal and the animal tithe that one slaughtered for the sake of peace offerings are fit, as the sanctity of peace offerings is greater. Peace offerings that one slaughtered for the sake of a firstborn animal or for the sake of the animal tithe are unfit.
וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כְּשֵׁרִין וּמְרַצִּין, בְּכוֹר בַּר רַיצּוֹיֵי הוּא?! אֶלָּא כְּשֵׁרִין וְאֵין מְרַצִּין! וּמִדְּסֵיפָא כְּשֵׁרִין וְאֵין מְרַצִּין, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי כְּשֵׁרִין וְאֵין מְרַצִּין!
And if it enters your mind that offerings sacrificed for the sake of offerings of greater sanctity are both fit and propitiate God, is a firstborn an offering that propitiates? Sacrificing a firstborn does not serve to propitiate God; rather, conclude that such offerings are fit but do not propitiate. And one can infer that since in the latter clause they are fit but do not propitiate, in the former clause as well, concerning all offerings of lesser sanctity slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order, they are fit but do not propitiate.
מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ.
The Gemara responds: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. Perhaps Shimon, brother of Azarya, holds that offerings of lesser sanctity slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order propitiate God, but a firstborn animal and animal tithe slaughtered for the sake of peace offerings do not propitiate God.
אֶלָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? גָּבוֹהַּ וְנָמוּךְ קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן?! תְּנֵינָא: כֵּיצַד? קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן לְשֵׁם קֳדָשִׁים קַלִּים כּוּ׳!
The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the latter clause concerning a firstborn and animal tithe teaching us, if not that no offerings of lesser sanctity propitiate God when sacrificed for the sake of offerings of greater sanctity? How is the clause not redundant? Does it teach us an example of offerings of higher sanctity and offerings of lower sanctity? We already learn such an example in the former clause, which teaches: How so? Offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity are unfit; offerings of lesser sanctity slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order are fit.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים הוּא דְּאִיכָּא גָּבוֹהַּ וְנָמוּךְ, אֲבָל קַלִּים וְקַלִּים – לָא.
The Gemara answers: It is stated lest you say that the halakha of offerings of higher sanctity and offerings of lower sanctity applies only when the difference is between offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity, but with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity and other offerings of lesser sanctity this halakha does not apply, as they are all considered to possess the same level of sanctity. Therefore the mishna adds the example of a firstborn animal and animal tithe slaughtered for the sake of peace offerings, to clarify that one can distinguish between different offerings of lesser sanctity as well.
הָא נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: שְׁלָמִים קוֹדְמִים אֶת הַבְּכוֹר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן טְעוּנִין מַתַּן אַרְבַּע, וּסְמִיכָה, וּנְסָכִים, וּתְנוּפַת חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק!
The Gemara raises an objection to this answer: We already learn this as well, in another mishna (89a): The peace offering precedes sacrifice of the firstborn because the peace offering requires placement of its blood twice so as to be visible on four sides of the altar, placing hands on the head of the offering, libations, and waving of the breast and thigh by the priest and the owner, none of which is required for the firstborn.
הָא עִיקָּר, הָהִיא אַגְּרָרָא נַסְבַהּ.
The Gemara answers: The primary mention of the distinction is in this mishna; that mishna cites it incidentally, in discussing the order of precedence of offerings.
מַתְנִי׳ הַפֶּסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שַׁחֲרִית בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ – רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מַכְשִׁיר, כְּאִילּוּ נִשְׁחַט בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה עָשָׂר. בֶּן בְּתִירָא פּוֹסֵל, כְּאִילּוּ נִשְׁחַט בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם.
MISHNA: With regard to the Paschal offering that one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan, the day when the Paschal offering should be slaughtered in the afternoon, if he did so not for its sake, Rabbi Yehoshua deems it fit as though it were slaughtered on the thirteenth of Nisan. An animal consecrated as a Paschal offering that was slaughtered not at its designated time for the sake of a different offering is fit for sacrifice as a peace offering. Ben Beteira deems it unfit as though it were slaughtered in the afternoon of the fourteenth.
אָמַר שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן עַזַּאי: מְקוּבָּל אֲנִי מִפִּי שִׁבְעִים וּשְׁנַיִם זָקֵן בַּיּוֹם שֶׁהוֹשִׁיבוּ אֶת רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בִּישִׁיבָה, שֶׁכׇּל הַזְּבָחִים הַנֶּאֱכָלִין שֶׁנִּזְבְּחוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – כְּשֵׁרִין, אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים מִשּׁוּם חוֹבָה; חוּץ מִן הַפֶּסַח וּמִן הַחַטָּאת. וְלֹא הוֹסִיף בֶּן עַזַּאי אֶלָּא הָעוֹלָה, וְלֹא הוֹדוּ לוֹ חֲכָמִים.
Shimon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from seventy-two elders, as the Sanhedrin deliberated and decided on the day that they installed Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya at the head of the yeshiva and ruled that all the slaughtered offerings that are eaten that were slaughtered not for their sake are fit, but these offerings did not satisfy the obligation of the owner, except for the Paschal offering and the sin offering. Based on that version, ben Azzai added to the halakha cited in the first mishna only the burnt offering, which is not eaten, and the Rabbis disagreed and did not concede to him.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא: מַכְשִׁיר הָיָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא בְּפֶסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ שַׁחֲרִית בְּאַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לִשְׁמוֹ, דְּכוּלֵּיהּ יוֹמָא זִימְנֵיהּ הוּא.
GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: With regard to a Paschal offering that one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan for its sake, ben Beteira would deem it fit, as he held that the entire day, not only the afternoon, is its designated time.
וּמַאי ״כְּאִילּוּ״?
The Gemara asks: And what is the reason the mishna states that according to ben Beteira, a Paschal offering slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth is considered as though it were slaughtered in the afternoon? This language seems to indicate that it does not have the same status as a Paschal offering actually slaughtered in the afternoon.
אַיְּידֵי דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ ״כְּאִילּוּ״, אָמַר אִיהוּ נָמֵי ״כְּאִילּוּ״.
The Gemara responds: Since Rabbi Yehoshua says the term: As though it were slaughtered on the thirteenth, ben Beteira also says the term: As though it were slaughtered in the afternoon. But in fact he maintains that there is no difference between a Paschal offering slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth and one slaughtered in the afternoon.
אִי הָכִי, אַדְּמִיפַּלְגִי בְּשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ – לִיפַּלְגוּ בְּלִשְׁמוֹ!
The Gemara asks: If so, rather than disagreeing in the mishna with regard to a Paschal offering that was slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth not for its sake, let them disagree with regard to one slaughtered for its sake; ben Beteira holds that it is fit, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that it is unfit.
אִי אִיפְּלִגוּ בְּלִשְׁמוֹ, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: אֲבָל בְּשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ – מוֹדֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְבֶן בְּתִירָא, הוֹאִיל וּמִקְצָתוֹ רָאוּי; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara answers: If the mishna were to write only that they disagree with regard to a Paschal offering slaughtered for its sake, I would say: But in a case where it was slaughtered not for its sake, Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to ben Beteira that it is disqualified, even though it was slaughtered in the morning, since at least part of the day, the afternoon, is fit for its sacrifice as a Paschal offering. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that they disagree with regard to this case as well.
וְהָכְתִיב: ״בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם״!
The Gemara asks: How can ben Beteira claim that a Paschal offering may be slaughtered in the morning? But isn’t it written: “And the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon [bein ha’arbayim]” (Exodus 12:6)?
אָמַר עוּלָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב עִילַּאי: בֵּין שְׁנֵי עֲרָבִים.
Ulla, son of Rav Ilai, says: Ben Beteira interprets the phrase bein ha’arbayim literally: Between two evenings, i.e., between the eve of the fourteenth and the night after the fourteenth. Accordingly, the Paschal offering may be sacrificed all day long.
תָּמִיד, דִּכְתִיב בֵּיהּ: ״בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם״ – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּכוּלֵּי יוֹמָא כָּשֵׁר?!
The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the daily offering, concerning which it is written: “The one lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer bein ha’arbayim” (Numbers 28:4), is the entire day fit for sacrifice also?
הָתָם, מִדִּכְתִיב: ״אֶת הַכֶּבֶשׂ אֶחָד תַּעֲשֶׂה בַבֹּקֶר״, מִכְּלָל דְּ״בֵין הָעַרְבָּיִם״ – בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם מַמָּשׁ.
The Gemara answers: There, since it is written: “The one lamb you shall offer in the morning,” by inference, the term bein ha’arbayim is referring to the actual afternoon.
אֵימָא חַד בַּבֹּקֶר, אִידַּךְ כּוּלֵּיהּ יוֹמָא!
The Gemara counters: Say that one of the lambs should be sacrificed in the morning, and the other one can be sacrificed all day. Why is it evident from the requirement that one be sacrificed in the morning that the other must sacrificed in the afternoon?
״אֶחָד… בַּבֹּקֶר״ – וְלֹא שְׁנַיִם בַּבֹּקֶר.
The Gemara answers: The clause “One lamb you shall offer in the morning” indicates that two lambs are not sacrificed in the morning; the other must perforce be sacrificed in the afternoon.
נֵרוֹת, דִּכְתִיב ״בֵּין הָעַרְבַּיִם״ – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּכוּלֵּי יוֹמָא כָּשֵׁר?!
The Gemara asks: With regard to the lamps of the Candelabrum, one should say the same, as it is written: “And when Aaron lights the lamps bein ha’arbayim” (Exodus 30:8). Is the entire day fit for lighting also, according to the opinion of ben Beteira?
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּכְתִיב: ״מֵעֶרֶב וְעַד בֹּקֶר״, וְתַנְיָא: ״מֵעֶרֶב וְעַד בֹּקֶר״ – תֵּן לָהּ מִדָּתָהּ שֶׁתְּהֵא דּוֹלֶקֶת וְהוֹלֶכֶת מֵעֶרֶב וְעַד בֹּקֶר. דָּבָר אַחֵר: אֵין לְךָ עֲבוֹדָה כְּשֵׁרָה מֵעֶרֶב וְעַד בֹּקֶר, אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד.
The Gemara answers: There it is different, as it is written: “To burn from evening to morning” (Exodus 27:21). And it is taught in a baraita: The phrase “from evening to morning” indicates that you must allocate the Candelabrum its measure of oil so that it will burn from evening until morning. Alternatively, the same verse can be interpreted as follows: Only this rite is valid from evening until morning, since all other rites must be performed during the day. Therefore, the Candelabrum is lit only at the end of the day.
קְטוֹרֶת, דִּכְתִיב בָּהּ: ״בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם״ – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּכוּלֵּי יוֹמָא כָּשֵׁר?!
The Gemara asks: With regard to the incense, one should say likewise, as it is written with regard to it: “Bein ha’arbayim he shall burn it” (Exodus 30:8). Is the entire day also fit for burning the incense according to the opinion of ben Beteira?
שָׁאנֵי קְטֹרֶת,
The Gemara answers: The incense is different,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
Berlin, Germany
Palo Alto, CA, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
Zevachim 11
Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ, Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ·Χ‘ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ; ΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ?!
with regard to a burnt offering, which is totally consumed by the fire on the altar, nevertheless, even if its blood enters into the Sanctuary it is fit, with regard to a guilt offering, which is not entirely consumed on the altar, all the more so is it not clear that even if its blood enters the Sanctuary it remains fit?
ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΆΦΌΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ!
The Gemara refutes this inference: What is notable about a burnt offering? It is notable in that it does not atone for a sin. Perhaps this is why its blood is not disqualified if it enters the sanctuary.
ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·.
The Gemara responds: The meal offering of a sinner can prove the point, as it is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary, even though it atones for a sin.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·! ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ β ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
The Gemara interjects: But let us say that a bird sin offering can prove the point, as it too atones for a sin but is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary. This case is more similar to that of a guilt offering, as a bird has blood, unlike a meal offering. The Gemara answers: It is not certain that a bird sin offering is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary; this is a dilemma raised by Rabbi Avin.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ°: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ!
The Gemara asks: But let us refute the above response as follows: What is notable about a sinnerβs meal offering? It is notable in that it is not a type of slaughtered offering.
Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·. ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ; ΧΦΉΧ Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ; ΧΦ·Χ¦Φ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ: Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ·Χ‘ (ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ) ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ; ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ²Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΧΦΌΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ Χ§Φ³ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ·Χ‘ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨.
The Gemara answers: If so, a burnt offering can prove the point, since it is a slaughtered offering, and still if its blood enters the Sanctuary, it is not disqualified. And the inference has reverted to its starting point. The halakha is derived from the halakhot of a burnt offering and a sinnerβs meal offering: The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case. Their common element is that they are offerings of the most sacred order, and if they enter into the Sanctuary they are still fit. So too, I shall include a guilt offering and infer that since it is also an offering of the most sacred order, if its blood enters into the Sanctuary it is still fit.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ: ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ°, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¦Φ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ§Φ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ; ΧͺΦΉΦΌΧΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΧΦΉ Χ§Φ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ?!
Rava of Barnish said to Rav Ashi: But let us refute this inference: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that neither a burnt offering nor a sinnerβs meal offering has a fixed value. Should you say the same halakhot apply to a guilt offering, which has a fixed value?
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨.
Rather, this is the reason for the opinion of the Rabbis: As the verse states: βAnd any sin offering, any of whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eatenβ (Leviticus 6:23). The term βwhose bloodβ teaches that the blood of this offering, i.e., a sin offering, and not the blood of another offering, is disqualified in this manner.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ° β Χ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ.
And how does the other tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, interpret this term? He derives from it that only its blood is disqualified by entering the Sanctuary, but not its flesh.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ° β Χ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄βΧ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄.
And from where do the other Rabbis derive that the flesh of a sin offering is not disqualified by entering the Sanctuary? They maintain that both halakhot are derived from this term, as the verse could have simply stated: Blood, but stated: βWhose blood.β The redundancy excludes not only the flesh, but also other offerings.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ° β Χ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄βΧ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ.
And the other tanna, Rabbi Eliezer, does not interpret the redundancy indicated by the change from: Blood, to: βWhose blood,β to be significant. Once the word blood is mentioned, it is grammatically necessary for the verse to state βwhose blood.β
ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: ΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨; ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ§Φ·ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ, ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ.
Β§ The Gemara resumes its discussion of the dispute in the mishna between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis. Granted, according to the Rabbis, who say that a guilt offering that one slaughtered not for its sake is fit, that is why a meal offering is juxtaposed with a sin offering, and a meal offering is also juxtaposed with a guilt offering.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ΄Χ§ΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ, ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦ° Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ, Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ; ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ, ΧΦ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦ° Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¦ΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ.
This is as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: The verse states with regard to a meal offering: βIt is most sacred, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offeringβ (Leviticus 6:10), teaching that a meal offering of a sinner is like a sin offering. Therefore, if one removed its handful not for its sake, it is disqualified. And the verse also teaches that a voluntary meal offering is like a guilt offering. Therefore, if one removed its handful not for its sake, it is still fit. This accords with the opinion of the Rabbis, that a guilt offering slaughtered not for its sake is fit.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ§Φ·ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ?
But according to Rabbi Eliezer, for what halakha is a meal offering juxtaposed with a sin offering, and a meal offering juxtaposed with a guilt offering?
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ β Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨.
The Gemara answers: They are juxtaposed to teach the other halakha derived by Rabbi Shimon from this verse; as we learned in a mishna (MenaαΈ₯ot 26a): If the handful of a meal offering is conveyed to the altar not in a service vessel, the offering is unfit. And Rabbi Shimon deems it fit.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄Χ§ΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ Χ§Φ³ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ, Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ; ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ, Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ.
And Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi αΈ€iyya, says: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Shimon? The verse states with regard to a meal offering: βIt is most sacred, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offering,β teaching that if a priest comes to perform its sacrificial rites by hand, he must perform them with his right hand, like one performs the rites of a sin offering. And if he performs them with a vessel, he may perform them with his left hand, like one performs the rites of a guilt offering, since Rabbi Shimon maintains this is permitted in the case of a guilt offering.
ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ§ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ€Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ§ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ?!
The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Shimon himself, does he expound this verse for this purpose, concerning one who if one removes its handful not for its sake, and expound it for that purpose, concerning conveying the handful with oneβs hand?
Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ; ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ [β ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ]: ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ β ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΌ Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧ΄; ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΌ Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧ΄.
The Gemara answers: The verse comes mainly to teach that which Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi αΈ€iyya, explained. And the halakha that a meal offering of a sinner whose handful was removed not for its sake is unfit is due to another reason: What is the reason a sin offering sacrificed not for its sake is disqualified? The reason is that the word βitβ is written with regard to it in the verse: βIt is a sin offeringβ (Leviticus 4:24). Since the word βitβ is also written with regard to the meal offering of a sinner, in the verse: βFor it is a sin offeringβ (Leviticus 5:11), the same applies in that case.
ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ§Φ·ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ? ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ°: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.
In the mishna, Rabbi Eliezer cites the verse: βAs is the sin offering, so is the guilt offeringβ (Leviticus 7:7), as a source for his opinion. The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, for what halakha is a guilt offering juxtaposed with a sin offering? The Gemara answers: They are juxtaposed to tell you that just as a sin offering requires placing hands on the head of the offering, so too, a guilt offering requires placing hands on the head of the offering.
ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ΄Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨, ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ.
Β§ The mishna teaches: Yosef ben αΈ€oni says: Other offerings that are slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal offering or a sin offering are unfit. Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan says: Yosef ben αΈ€oni and Rabbi Eliezer said the same thing, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer agrees with Yosef ben αΈ€oni.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ.
Rabba says: Although they agree that other offerings slaughtered for the sake of a Paschal offering are unfit, they disagree with regard to other offerings slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering. Whereas Yosef ben αΈ€oni holds that they are unfit, Rabbi Eliezer maintains that they are fit.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΆΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ, ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ; ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ€ΦΆΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉ β Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨.
This is as it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a Paschal offering whose first year has passed, and it must therefore be sacrificed as a peace offering, and one slaughtered it at its designated time on Passover eve for its own sake as a Paschal offering, and likewise, if one slaughtered other offerings for the sake of a Paschal offering at its designated time, the tannaβim disagree as to the status of the offering. Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, and Rabbi Yehoshua deems it fit.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ·: ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ; ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ?!
Rabbi Yehoshua said: If, during the rest of the days of the year, when a Paschal offering is not fit if it is slaughtered for its own sake, nevertheless, other offerings that are slaughtered for its sake are fit, then at its designated time, when a Paschal offering is fit if it is slaughtered for its own sake, isnβt it logical that other offerings slaughtered for its sake should be fit?
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ£ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ; ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ?! ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧ¨ Χ€ΦΆΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ!
Rabbi Eliezer said to him: Or conversely, just as during the rest of the days of the year, when a Paschal offering is not fit if it is slaughtered for its own sake, it is fit if slaughtered for the sake of other offerings, so too, at its designated time, when it is fit if slaughtered for its own sake, isnβt it logical that it should be fit if slaughtered for the sake of other offerings? And accordingly, a Paschal offering slaughtered not for its own sake on the fourteenth of Nisan should be deemed fit, which contradicts the halakha. Clearly, this line of reasoning leads to incorrect conclusions.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨?! ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ; ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ?!
Furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer refuted Rabbi Yehoshuaβs logic as follows: And do you say this derivation? What does it matter to me that other offerings slaughtered during the rest of the days of the year for the sake of a Paschal offering are deemed fit? After all, a Paschal offering slaughtered for the sake of other offerings is also fit. But must you say that other offerings slaughtered at its designated time for its sake should be deemed fit? After all, at its designated time, a Paschal offering slaughtered for the sake of other offerings is unfit.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ·: ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ, ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ· Χ€ΦΆΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧͺΦ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌ ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: If, as you maintain, other offerings slaughtered on Passover eve for the sake of a Paschal offering are disqualified, you have diminished the force of the requirement that a Paschal offering be sacrificed for its own sake, and you have given more force to the requirement that a peace offering be sacrificed for its own sake. A Paschal offering sacrificed at the proper time, i.e., during the rest of the year, for the sake of a peace offering, is fit, whereas a peace offering sacrificed on Passover eve for the sake of a Paschal offering is unfit.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ·Χ¨ Χ€ΦΆΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΆΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer then presented a different logical inference: We find that a leftover Paschal offering, an animal consecrated as a Paschal offering but ultimately not sacrificed on Passover eve, is brought as a peace offering; but a leftover peace offering, one bought with money left over from funds dedicated toward the acquisition of a peace offering, is not brought as a Paschal offering. A Paschal offering is a potential peace offering, but a peace offering is not a potential Paschal offering.
ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΆΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ β Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ; Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΆΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ β ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ€ΦΆΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ?!
And if so, one may infer a fortiori: Just as with regard to a Paschal offering, whose leftover offering is brought as a peace offering, and nevertheless, if one slaughtered it at its designated time for the sake of a peace offering it is unfit, so too, with regard to a peace offering, whose leftover offering is not brought as a Paschal offering, if one slaughtered it for the sake of a Paschal offering at its designated time, isnβt it logical that it should be unfit?
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ·: ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ·Χ¨ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ;
Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: This inference is not valid, as we find that a leftover sin offering, e.g., one bought with money left over from funds dedicated to the acquisition of a sin offering, is brought as a burnt offering, whereas a leftover burnt offering is not brought as a sin offering.
ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ β Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ; Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ β Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ?!
And according to Rabbi Eliezerβs logic, one should derive a fortiori: Just as with regard to a sin offering, whose leftover is brought as a burnt offering, nevertheless, if one slaughtered it for the sake of a burnt offering it is unfit, so too, with regard to a burnt offering, whose leftover is not brought as a sin offering, if one slaughtered it for the sake of a sin offering, isnβt it logical that it should be unfit? Yet, the halakha is that a burnt offering slaughtered for the sake of a sin offering is fit.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΉ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨: ΧΦΉΧ; ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ, ΧͺΦΉΦΌΧΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ€ΦΆΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉ?! ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ.
Rabbi Eliezer said to him: No, if you said that this is the halakha with regard to a sin offering, that another offering sacrificed for its sake is fit, this is only because a sin offering is fit when sacrificed for its sake all year long. Shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to a Paschal offering, which is fit when sacrificed for its sake only at its designated time? Since a Paschal offering is unfit when sacrificed for its sake during the rest of the year, it is logical that other offerings should be disqualified when sacrificed for its sake at its designated time.
Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³.
Β§ The mishna teaches: Shimon, brother of Azarya, says that this is the distinction: With regard to all offerings, if one slaughtered them for the sake of an offering whose sanctity is greater than theirs, they are fit; if one slaughtered them for the sake of an offering whose sanctity is less than theirs, they are unfit.
Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅Χͺ ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΧ³Χ΄ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
Rav Ashi teaches in the name of Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan, and Rav AαΈ₯a, son of Rava, teaches the same statement in the name of Rabbi Yannai: What is the reason for the opinion of Shimon, brother of Azarya? It is derived from that which the verse states: βAnd they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they will set apart [yarimu] unto the Lordβ (Leviticus 22:15). The verse is interpreted not as a prohibition but as a halakhic axiom, teaching that offerings are not profaned, i.e., disqualified, by sacrifice for the sake of offerings whose sanctity is more elevated [muram] than theirs; they are profaned only by sacrifice for the sake of offerings whose sanctity is less than theirs.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧͺΦΈΧ?! ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈΧ? Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅Χͺ ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΧ³Χ΄ β ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ¨.
The Gemara asks: And does that verse come to teach this halakha? But isnβt it necessary for Shmuelβs derivation? As Shmuel says: From where is it derived that one who eats untithed produce is liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven? As it is stated: βAnd they shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, which they will set apart unto the Lord.β The term: βWill set apart,β indicates that the verse is speaking of holy items that are to be set apart in the future, i.e., untithed produce, which includes the portion designated for the priest [teruma].
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ΄; ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΌΧ΄? Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ.
The Gemara answers: If so, if the verse taught only one halakha, the halakha of Shimon, brother of Azarya, it should have written: Which they have set apart. What is the reason the verse states: βWhich they will set apart,β in the future tense? Conclude from it that the verse teaches two halakhot: An offering sacrificed for the sake of an offering of greater sanctity is fit, and consumption of untithed produce is punishable by death at the hand of Heaven.
ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ¦Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ¦Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ β ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ?
Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: According to Shimon, brother of Azaria, who says that less sacred offerings sacrificed for the sake of more sacred offerings are fit, perhaps they are fit but do not propitiate God, i.e., they do not fulfill the ownerβs obligation, as the Rabbis hold. If so, when Shimon, brother of Azaria, disagrees with the first tanna in the mishna, he disagrees only with regard to one matter, i.e., that more sacred offerings sacrificed for the sake of less sacred ones are disqualified altogether. Alternatively, perhaps Shimon, brother of Azaria, holds that if less sacred offerings are sacrificed for the sake of more sacred offerings they are both fit and propitiate God, and they disagree with the Rabbis about two matters.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ, ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’: ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ. Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ β Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
Abaye, and some say Rabbi Zerika, said: Come and hear proof that they do not satisfy the ownersβ obligation: Shimon, brother of Azarya, elaborated on his opinion in the mishna: A firstborn animal and the animal tithe that one slaughtered for the sake of peace offerings are fit, as the sanctity of peace offerings is greater. Peace offerings that one slaughtered for the sake of a firstborn animal or for the sake of the animal tithe are unfit.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ¦Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΧ¦ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ?! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ¦Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ! ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ¦Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ, Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ¦Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ!
And if it enters your mind that offerings sacrificed for the sake of offerings of greater sanctity are both fit and propitiate God, is a firstborn an offering that propitiates? Sacrificing a firstborn does not serve to propitiate God; rather, conclude that such offerings are fit but do not propitiate. And one can infer that since in the latter clause they are fit but do not propitiate, in the former clause as well, concerning all offerings of lesser sanctity slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order, they are fit but do not propitiate.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ?! ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ·ΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ·ΧΦΌ.
The Gemara responds: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. Perhaps Shimon, brother of Azarya, holds that offerings of lesser sanctity slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order propitiate God, but a firstborn animal and animal tithe slaughtered for the sake of peace offerings do not propitiate God.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ? ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ·ΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦ° Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ?! ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ¦Φ·Χ? Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ§Φ³ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³!
The Gemara asks: Rather, what is the latter clause concerning a firstborn and animal tithe teaching us, if not that no offerings of lesser sanctity propitiate God when sacrificed for the sake of offerings of greater sanctity? How is the clause not redundant? Does it teach us an example of offerings of higher sanctity and offerings of lower sanctity? We already learn such an example in the former clause, which teaches: How so? Offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered for the sake of offerings of lesser sanctity are unfit; offerings of lesser sanctity slaughtered for the sake of offerings of the most sacred order are fit.
ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦ·ΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧΦ°, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ β ΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara answers: It is stated lest you say that the halakha of offerings of higher sanctity and offerings of lower sanctity applies only when the difference is between offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity, but with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity and other offerings of lesser sanctity this halakha does not apply, as they are all considered to possess the same level of sanctity. Therefore the mishna adds the example of a firstborn animal and animal tithe slaughtered for the sake of peace offerings, to clarify that one can distinguish between different offerings of lesser sanctity as well.
ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨, ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’, ΧΦΌΧ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧ Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ ΧΦΌΧ€Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ§!
The Gemara raises an objection to this answer: We already learn this as well, in another mishna (89a): The peace offering precedes sacrifice of the firstborn because the peace offering requires placement of its blood twice so as to be visible on four sides of the altar, placing hands on the head of the offering, libations, and waving of the breast and thigh by the priest and the owner, none of which is required for the firstborn.
ΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨, ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ Φ·Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ.
The Gemara answers: The primary mention of the distinction is in this mishna; that mishna cites it incidentally, in discussing the order of precedence of offerings.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΆΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ β Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΦΈΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨. ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ.
MISHNA: With regard to the Paschal offering that one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan, the day when the Paschal offering should be slaughtered in the afternoon, if he did so not for its sake, Rabbi Yehoshua deems it fit as though it were slaughtered on the thirteenth of Nisan. An animal consecrated as a Paschal offering that was slaughtered not at its designated time for the sake of a different offering is fit for sacrifice as a peace offering. Ben Beteira deems it unfit as though it were slaughtered in the afternoon of the fourteenth.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ: ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ²Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ; ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΆΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ£ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
Shimon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from seventy-two elders, as the Sanhedrin deliberated and decided on the day that they installed Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya at the head of the yeshiva and ruled that all the slaughtered offerings that are eaten that were slaughtered not for their sake are fit, but these offerings did not satisfy the obligation of the owner, except for the Paschal offering and the sin offering. Based on that version, ben Azzai added to the halakha cited in the first mishna only the burnt offering, which is not eaten, and the Rabbis disagreed and did not concede to him.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ·ΧΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ€ΦΆΧ‘Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΌΧ.
GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Oshaya says: With regard to a Paschal offering that one slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan for its sake, ben Beteira would deem it fit, as he held that the entire day, not only the afternoon, is its designated time.
ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ΄?
The Gemara asks: And what is the reason the mishna states that according to ben Beteira, a Paschal offering slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth is considered as though it were slaughtered in the afternoon? This language seems to indicate that it does not have the same status as a Paschal offering actually slaughtered in the afternoon.
ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· Χ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ΄, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ΄.
The Gemara responds: Since Rabbi Yehoshua says the term: As though it were slaughtered on the thirteenth, ben Beteira also says the term: As though it were slaughtered in the afternoon. But in fact he maintains that there is no difference between a Paschal offering slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth and one slaughtered in the afternoon.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ!
The Gemara asks: If so, rather than disagreeing in the mishna with regard to a Paschal offering that was slaughtered on the morning of the fourteenth not for its sake, let them disagree with regard to one slaughtered for its sake; ben Beteira holds that it is fit, and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that it is unfit.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ β ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ; Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ.
The Gemara answers: If the mishna were to write only that they disagree with regard to a Paschal offering slaughtered for its sake, I would say: But in a case where it was slaughtered not for its sake, Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to ben Beteira that it is disqualified, even though it was slaughtered in the morning, since at least part of the day, the afternoon, is fit for its sacrifice as a Paschal offering. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that they disagree with regard to this case as well.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ΄!
The Gemara asks: How can ben Beteira claim that a Paschal offering may be slaughtered in the morning? But isnβt it written: βAnd the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall slaughter it in the afternoon [bein haβarbayim]β (Exodus 12:6)?
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ’ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ: ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅Χ Χ’Φ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
Ulla, son of Rav Ilai, says: Ben Beteira interprets the phrase bein haβarbayim literally: Between two evenings, i.e., between the eve of the fourteenth and the night after the fourteenth. Accordingly, the Paschal offering may be sacrificed all day long.
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ: Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨?!
The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the daily offering, concerning which it is written: βThe one lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the other lamb you shall offer bein haβarbayimβ (Numbers 28:4), is the entire day fit for sacrifice also?
ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧ§ΦΆΧ¨Χ΄, ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ΄ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Χ.
The Gemara answers: There, since it is written: βThe one lamb you shall offer in the morning,β by inference, the term bein haβarbayim is referring to the actual afternoon.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΉΦΌΧ§ΦΆΧ¨, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ!
The Gemara counters: Say that one of the lambs should be sacrificed in the morning, and the other one can be sacrificed all day. Why is it evident from the requirement that one be sacrificed in the morning that the other must sacrificed in the afternoon?
Χ΄ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ… ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΉΦΌΧ§ΦΆΧ¨Χ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΉΦΌΧ§ΦΆΧ¨.
The Gemara answers: The clause βOne lamb you shall offer in the morningβ indicates that two lambs are not sacrificed in the morning; the other must perforce be sacrificed in the afternoon.
Χ Φ΅Χ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨?!
The Gemara asks: With regard to the lamps of the Candelabrum, one should say the same, as it is written: βAnd when Aaron lights the lamps bein haβarbayimβ (Exodus 30:8). Is the entire day fit for lighting also, according to the opinion of ben Beteira?
Χ©ΦΈΧΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ΅Χ’ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΉΦΌΧ§ΦΆΧ¨Χ΄, ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ΅Χ’ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΉΦΌΧ§ΦΆΧ¨Χ΄ β ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ§ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ΅Χ’ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΉΦΌΧ§ΦΆΧ¨. ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΉΦΌΧ§ΦΆΧ¨, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ.
The Gemara answers: There it is different, as it is written: βTo burn from evening to morningβ (Exodus 27:21). And it is taught in a baraita: The phrase βfrom evening to morningβ indicates that you must allocate the Candelabrum its measure of oil so that it will burn from evening until morning. Alternatively, the same verse can be interpreted as follows: Only this rite is valid from evening until morning, since all other rites must be performed during the day. Therefore, the Candelabrum is lit only at the end of the day.
Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ: Χ΄ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ·Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨?!
The Gemara asks: With regard to the incense, one should say likewise, as it is written with regard to it: βBein haβarbayim he shall burn itβ (Exodus 30:8). Is the entire day also fit for burning the incense according to the opinion of ben Beteira?
Χ©ΦΈΧΧΧ Φ΅Χ Χ§Φ°ΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ,
The Gemara answers: The incense is different,
