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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 1, 2018 | 讻壮 讘讗讘 转砖注状讞

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

Zevachim 110

Study Guide Zevachim 110. In what cases do Rabbi Elazar and the rabbis disagree with regards to whether or not one would be obligated on offerings brought outside that are incomplete or less than the required amount, or one part is burned and not the other (in a case where the requirement includes more than one item to be burned), etc.


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

讘诪谞讗 诪专 住讘专 拽讘讬注讜转 诪谞讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

by placing them in a vessel. One Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that the designation of a measure of incense larger than an olive-bulk by placing it in a vessel is a significant matter that renders one obligated to burn all the incense that was placed there. Therefore, one who then burned only an olive-bulk of that incense outside the courtyard is exempt. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that it is nothing and does not render one obligated to burn all the incense that was placed in the vessel. Therefore, one who then burned an olive-bulk of that incense outside the courtyard is liable.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛砖转讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讘讬注讜转讗 讚诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗 拽讘注 砖砖讛 诇驻专 讜诪砖讱 诪讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讜讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 砖专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讗讬诇

Rava said: Now, according to the one who says that designation by placing in a vessel is nothing, if one designated in a vessel six log of wine as a libation to accompany the sacrificing of a bull, which is the required amount, and then removed four log from it and brought those four log as a libation outside the courtyard, he would be liable, as a libation of four log of wine is fit for the sacrificing of a ram (see Numbers 28:14).

拽讘注 讗专讘注讛 诇讗讬诇 讜诪砖讱 诪讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讜讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 砖专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讻讘砖

Similarly, if one designated by placing in a vessel four log of wine for a libation to accompany the sacrificing of a ram and then removed three log of wine from it and brought those three log as a libation outside the courtyard, he would be liable, as three log of wine is a fit libation for the sacrificing of a lamb (see Numbers 28:14).

讞住专讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专

But if those three log were lacking any amount, and one brought them as a libation outside the courtyard, he would be exempt because less than three log of wine is never a fit libation.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 谞讬住讜讱 诪讛拽讟专讛 诇讗 讬诇驻讬 专讘谞谉

Rava inferred from the baraita that the Rabbis do not derive the measure for liability for a rite performed in the outer sanctum, i.e., the pouring of a libation, from one performed in the outer sanctum, i.e., the burning of incense. From that he concluded that the Rabbis would certainly not derive the measure for liability for a rite performed in the inner sanctum from a rite performed in the outer sanctum. This refuted Abaye鈥檚 claim that the Rabbis derive the measure for liability for burning outside the incense of the inner sanctum from the measure for liability for burning outside the incense of the outer sanctum. Rav Ashi said in defense of Abaye鈥檚 opinion: Indeed, as is indicated by the baraita, the Rabbis do not derive the measure for liability for pouring a libation outside the courtyard from the measure for liability for burning incense, which are two different rites performed in the outer sanctum.

讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讞讜抓 诪讞讜抓 诇讗 讬诇驻讬 讛拽讟专讛 诪讛拽讟专讛 讬诇驻讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讞讜抓 诪驻谞讬诐

Rav Ashi continues: Even though the Rabbis do not derive the halakhot of a rite performed in the outer sanctum from a different rite performed in the outer sanctum, they do derive the measure for liability for burning the incense of the outer sanctum from the identical rite of burning of the incense of the inner sanctum, even though it involves deriving the halakhot of a rite performed in the outer sanctum from one performed in the inner sanctum.

讜讻讜诇谉 砖讞住专讜 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讞住专讜谉 讚讞讜抓 砖诪讬讛 讞住专讜谉 讗讜 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讞住专讜谉

搂 After enumerating various items that are burned entirely on the altar, the mishna states: And with regard to any of these offerings that were lacking any amount, if one sacrifices it outside the courtyard, he is exempt. Concerning this ruling, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is a lack that occurs to an offering outside the courtyard considered a lack in order to exempt one who sacrifices the remainder outside the courtyard? Or is it not considered a lack?

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽 讗讬驻住诇讜 诇讛讜 诪讛 诇讬 讞住专 诪讛 诇讬 讬转专 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讬讜爪讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗讬谉 讚诇讬转讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 诇讗

Do we say that once an offering emerges from the courtyard it is in any event disqualified, and yet the Torah deems one liable for offering it there, so what difference is there to me if there is an additional disqualification of being lacking and what difference is there to me if it is still complete? Or perhaps it is only with regard to emerging from the courtyard, where it is still in its original state, that yes, one is liable despite the fact that it was disqualified by emerging from the courtyard, but where it is not in its original state, one would not be liable.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜讟专 注讚 砖讬拽专讬讘 讗转 讻讜诇谉

Abaye said: Come and hear a resolution from the mishna: Rabbi Eliezer deems him exempt unless he sacrifices the whole of any one of these items outside the Temple. It is apparent then that the offering must remain complete.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻砖讬讟 诪专

Rabba bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: Can the Master resolve the dilemma from the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, and hold that one is liable for sacrificing even an olive-bulk, and the dilemma was raised according to their opinion.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 讘讞住专讜谉 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讚讞住专 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 讚讞住专 讘驻谞讬诐

Abaye said to him: I heard explicitly from Rav that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only where the offering is still in its original form, i.e., complete. But where it is lacking, they concede to him that one is not liable. The Gemara attempts to bring a proof from here: Was Rav not referring to a case where it became lacking outside the courtyard? If so, it is evident that even according to the Rabbis a lack that occurs outside is considered a lack. The Gemara rejects this: No, he was referring to a case where it became lacking inside the courtyard. Accordingly, this mishna cannot serve as a proof.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讞住专讜 讜讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 诇讗讜 讚讞住专 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 讚讞住专 讘驻谞讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from the continuation of the mishna: And with regard to any of these offerings that were lacking any amount, if one sacrifices them outside the courtyard, he is exempt. The Gemara attempts to bring a proof from here: Is the mishna not referring to a case where it became lacking outside the courtyard? If so, it is evident that even a lack that occurs outside is considered a lack. The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to a case where it became lacking inside the courtyard. Accordingly, this cannot serve as a proof.

讛诪拽专讬讘 拽讚砖讬诐 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讞爪讬爪讛

搂 The mishna teaches: One who sacrifices sacrificial meat, which is eaten, and sacrificial portions, i.e., those that are to be burned on the altar, outside the courtyard, is liable for the sacrifice of the sacrificial portions, but not for the meat. The Gemara asks: Why is he liable? If the meat is placed directly on the altar鈥檚 fire and then the sacrificial portions are placed upon the meat, isn鈥檛 there an interposition between the altar and the sacrificial portions? Since if they were offered in the Temple in that manner, one would not have fulfilled the obligation, one should not be liable if he offers them up in this manner outside the Temple.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻砖讛驻讻谉

Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a case where he turned them over and the sacrificial portions lay directly on the altar鈥檚 fire.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讛驻讻谉 讜讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛注诇讜 注诇 讛住诇注 讞讬讬讘

Rabbi Yo岣nan said there is another explanation: You may even say that the mishna is referring to a case where they did not turn them over. And in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says (108a) that even if one offered it up on a rock he is liable. According to him, it is clear that in order for one to be liable, the mode of offering up performed outside the Temple does not need to entirely parallel the mode of offering up in the Temple.

专讘 讗诪专 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓

Rav said there is another explanation: Even in the Temple, burning the sacrificial meat and sacrificial portions in this manner would be valid as both items are from the same animal, and a substance in contact with the same type of substance does not interpose.

诪转谞讬壮 诪谞讞讛 砖诇讗 谞拽诪爪讛 讜讛拽专讬讘讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 拽诪爪讛 讜讞讝专 拽讜诪爪讛 诇转讜讻讛 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: If there is a meal offering from which a handful was not removed, and one sacrificed it outside the Temple courtyard, he is exempt from liability, because until the handful is actually removed it is not fit to be burned on the altar inside the Temple. But if a priest took a handful from it and then returned its handful into the remainder of the meal offering, and one sacrificed the entire mixture outside the courtyard, he is liable, as once the handful has been removed it is fit to be burned on the altar inside the Temple, and one is liable for offering it up outside even though it is mixed into the remainder.

讙诪壮 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬讘讟诇讬 砖讬专讬诐 诇拽讜诪抓

GEMARA: The Gemara asks about the final clause: But why is he liable? Let the remainder of the meal offering, which is certainly the majority of the mixture, nullify the handful.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 谞讗诪专讛 讛拽讟专讛 讘拽讜诪抓 讜谞讗诪专讛 讛拽讟专讛 讘砖讬专讬诐 诪讛 讛拽讟专转 拽讜诪抓 讗讬谉 拽讜诪抓 诪讘讟诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗祝 讛拽讟专转 砖讬专讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讬专讬诐 诪讘讟诇讬谉 拽讜诪抓

Rabbi Zeira said: A term of burning is stated with regard to the handful removed from the meal offering, and a term of burning is stated with regard to the remainder of the meal offering. With regard to the handful, referred to by the Torah as 鈥渢he memorial part,鈥 it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall burn the memorial part upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 2:2), and with regard to the remainder of the meal offering it is written: 鈥淒o not burn it as a fire to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 2:11). This provides a verbal analogy that teaches that just as with regard to the burning of the handful, if two handfuls are mixed together one handful does not nullify another, so too, with regard to the burning of the remainder, if the remainder and the handful are mixed together, the remainder does not nullify the handful.

诪转谞讬壮 讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 砖讛拽专讬讘 讗转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜讟专 注讚 砖讬拽专讬讘 讗转 讛砖谞讬 讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: The burning of both the handful and the frankincense permits the consumption of the remainder of the meal offering by the priests. With regard to the handful and the frankincense, in a case where one sacrificed only one of them outside the Temple courtyard, he is liable. Rabbi Eliezer exempts from liability one who burns only one of them until he also sacrifices the second. Since the remainder of the meal offering becomes permitted only once both have been burned, he considers each one alone to be an incomplete offering, and he holds one is not liable for sacrificing only one of them. Rabbi Eliezer concedes that if one sacrificed one inside the courtyard and one outside the courtyard, he is liable.

砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬 诇讘讜谞讛 砖讛拽专讬讘 讗转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜讟专 注讚 砖讬拽专讬讘 讗转 讛砖谞讬 讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

The burning of two bowls of frankincense permits the consumption of the shewbread. With regard to the two bowls of frankincense, in a case where one sacrificed only one of them outside the courtyard, he is liable. Rabbi Eliezer exempts from liability one who burns only one of them until he also sacrifices the second, since the shewbread becomes permitted only once both bowls of frankincense are burned. Rabbi Eliezer concedes that if one sacrificed one inside the courtyard and one outside the courtyard, he is liable.

讙诪壮 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 拽讜诪抓 诪讛讜 砖讬转讬专 讻谞讙讚讜 讘砖讬专讬诐 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬 讗讜 拽诇讜砖讬 诪讬拽诇砖

GEMARA: The mishna is based on the fact that it is permitted for the priests to consume the remainder of the meal offering only once both the handful and the frankincense have been burned. With regard to this, Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 raises a dilemma: If one burned the handful but not the frankincense, what is the halakha with regard to whether this will permit the consumption of the corresponding half of the remainder? Since the burning of both the handful and the frankincense permits the entire remainder, it seems that each one of them affects half of the remainder. Accordingly, it is unclear whether burning one of them will entirely permit half of the remainder, or whether it will merely weaken the prohibition concerning the remainder, and it will still be prohibited to eat any of it.

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 raise this dilemma? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: One can render an offering piggul by having piggul intention during half of two acts that together permit the offering for consumption, i.e., during either one of them, then it should be obvious that the offering of the handful alone should entirely permit half of the remainder. The fact that Rabbi Meir holds that intention during just one of the acts can render the offering piggul demonstrates that he holds that each act alone has the power to permit part of the offering. It is apparent, then, the dilemma was not raised according to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion.

讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 诇讗 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬 讜诇讗 诪拽诇砖 拽诇讬砖

If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: One cannot render an offering piggul by having piggul intention during half of two acts that together permit the offering for consumption; rather, one must have piggul intention during both acts, then it is evident that neither act alone has the power to affect the offering, and so the burning of the handful alone should neither permit any of the remainder nor weaken the prohibition that applies to it. It is apparent, then, the dilemma was not raised according to the Rabbis鈥 opinion.

讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专

Rather, the dilemma was raised in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer as taught in the mishna. Rabbi Eliezer rules that one who sacrifices outside only the handful or the frankincense is not liable. Evidently, he holds that neither of these alone can permit the consumption of the meal offering. The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: One cannot render an offering piggul by having piggul intention during half of two acts that together permit the offering for consumption. Accordingly, he would hold that the offering of only the handful neither permits any of the remainder, nor weakens the prohibition concerning it, and it would not make sense to raise the dilemma according to him.

讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讛讻讗 诪讗讬 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬 讗讜 拽诇讬砖 诪拽诇砖

Rather, it must be that the dilemma was raised in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that is taught here in the mishna. They hold that one is liable even for sacrificing outside only the handful or only the frankincense. Evidently, they hold that each one alone has the power to affect the status of the remainder. Accordingly, Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 asked concerning a case where one of them is burned on the altar in the Temple, what is the halakha? Does it entirely permit half of the remainder, or does it weaken the prohibition concerning the entire remainder?

转讬拽讜

The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讜专拽 诪拽爪转 讚诐 讘讞讜抓

MISHNA: One who sprinkles part of the blood of an offering, e.g., one sprinkling instead of four, outside the Temple courtyard

讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪谞住讱 诪讬 讛讞讙 讘讞讙 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

is liable. Rabbi Elazar says: So too, one who pours as a libation water consecrated for the libation of the festival of Sukkot, during the Festival, outside the courtyard, is liable. Rabbi Ne岣mya says: For the remainder of the blood of an offering that was supposed to be poured at the base of the altar and that instead one sacrificed outside the courtyard, one is liable.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讚诪讬诐

GEMARA: Rava says: Rabbi Elazar generally holds that one is liable for sacrificing outside only when he sacrifices a complete offering, but Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to the sprinkling of the blood of an offering, that one is liable for sprinkling outside even part of the blood, e.g., one sprinkling instead of four. This is clearly the halakha with regard to offerings whose blood is sprinkled on the external altar, as a single sprinkling renders such an offering valid (see 36b), and it can be regarded as a complete offering. Rabbi Elazar concedes that this is the halakha even with regard to offerings whose blood is sprinkled on the inner altar, despite the fact that such offerings are valid only once all the sprinklings have been completed.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪诪拽讜诐 砖驻住拽 讛讜讗 诪转讞讬诇

The fact that Rabbi Elazar concedes this point is apparent from that which is taught in a mishna (Yoma 60a) with regard to the numerous sprinklings of blood performed in the Holy of Holies, upon the Curtain, and on the inner altar, as part of the Yom Kippur Temple service: If during the sprinklings the blood spills and it is necessary to bring the blood of a second animal in order to complete them, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: From the place that the High Priest stopped sprinkling the blood of the first animal, there he begins to sprinkle the blood of the second animal; it is unnecessary to repeat any of the sprinklings that have already been performed. From this ruling it is apparent that each sprinkling is considered an independent and complete act of service, and one will be liable for even a single act of sprinkling done outside the Temple.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪谞住讱 诪讬 讛讞讙 [讘讞讙] 讘讞讜抓 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪谞讞诐 讬讜讚驻讗讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘砖讟转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讜 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讜谞住讻讬讛 讘砖谞讬 谞讬住讜讻讬诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞讚 谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讜讗讞讚 谞讬住讜讱 讛讬讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabbi Elazar says: So too, one who pours as a libation water consecrated for the libation of the festival of Sukkot, during the Festival, outside the courtyard, is liable. Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Mena岣m Yodfa鈥檃: Rabbi Elazar said that halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, his teacher, who says: The water libation on Sukkot is a mitzva by Torah law. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says concerning the verse: 鈥淏eside the daily burnt offering, its meal offering, and its libations鈥 (Numbers 29:31), the fact that the Torah makes reference to 鈥渓ibations鈥 in the plural indicates that the verse is speaking of two types of libations. One is the water libation, which is unique to the festival of Sukkot; and the other one is the wine libation, which always accompanies the daily offering. If the water libation was not a mitzva by Torah law, one would not be liable for pouring it as a libation outside the Temple courtyard.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讬 讛讞讙 拽讗诪专 讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 [讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专] 讘讞讙 拽讗诪专

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: If Rabbi Elazar derives the mitzva of the water libation through the derivation taught by Rabbi Akiva, according to which both the wine libation and water libation are derived from the same word, then he should hold that just as there, with regard to wine, one is liable only if he pours three log, so too here, with regard to water, one should be liable only if he pours three log. But in the mishna, Rabbi Elazar says simply: Water of the festival of Sukkot, which seems to include any amount. Furthermore, he should hold that just as with regard to pouring a libation of wine outside the Temple, one is liable for pouring a libation during the rest of the days of the year and not only on Sukkot, so too, with regard to pouring a libation of water, one should be liable for pouring a libation during the rest of the days of the year. But in the mishna Rabbi Elazar says that one is liable only if he pours the water libation during the Festival. It is apparent that Rabbi Elazar derived the mitzva of the water libation from a different source.

讗讬砖转诪讬讟转讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讗讬砖 讘拽注转 讘讬转 讞讜专转谉 注砖专 谞讟讬注讜转 注专讘讛 讜谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬

That which Rabbi Asi says escaped him, as Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Ne岣nya, a man of the valley of Beit 岣rtan: The halakha of ten saplings, the practice of taking a willow in the Temple during Sukkot, and the obligation to perform the water libation during Sukkot, each of these is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. According to Rabbi Asi, the mitzva of the water libation is not derived from the same source as the wine libation, and it is possible that there will be differences in the halakhot that apply to them.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪谞住讱 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 讘讞讙 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 (讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉) 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪诇讗谉 诇砖诐 讞讙 讞讬讬讘

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who pours as a libation three log of water during the festival of Sukkot outside the courtyard is liable. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: If he filled a service vessel with the three log in order to consecrate them for the sake of the Festival, he is liable.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讘讬砖 砖讬注讜专 讘诪讬诐 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two opinions? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: They disagree with regard to whether there is a precise measure of water that can be consecrated as a libation. The first tanna holds that even if one fills a service vessel with more than three log, the water is thereby consecrated. Therefore, if one then pours at least three log of that water outside the courtyard, he is liable. Rabbi Elazar holds that if one attempts to consecrate more than three log, the consecration of the water is ineffective. Therefore, if one then pours three log of that water as a libation outside the courtyard, he is not liable.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专

Rav Pappa said:

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Zevachim 110

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 110

讘诪谞讗 诪专 住讘专 拽讘讬注讜转 诪谞讗 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗 讜诪专 住讘专 诇讗讜 诪讬诇转讗 讛讬讗

by placing them in a vessel. One Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that the designation of a measure of incense larger than an olive-bulk by placing it in a vessel is a significant matter that renders one obligated to burn all the incense that was placed there. Therefore, one who then burned only an olive-bulk of that incense outside the courtyard is exempt. And one Sage, the Rabbis, holds that it is nothing and does not render one obligated to burn all the incense that was placed in the vessel. Therefore, one who then burned an olive-bulk of that incense outside the courtyard is liable.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛砖转讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讘讬注讜转讗 讚诪谞讗 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 讛讜讗 拽讘注 砖砖讛 诇驻专 讜诪砖讱 诪讛谉 讗专讘注讛 讜讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 砖专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讗讬诇

Rava said: Now, according to the one who says that designation by placing in a vessel is nothing, if one designated in a vessel six log of wine as a libation to accompany the sacrificing of a bull, which is the required amount, and then removed four log from it and brought those four log as a libation outside the courtyard, he would be liable, as a libation of four log of wine is fit for the sacrificing of a ram (see Numbers 28:14).

拽讘注 讗专讘注讛 诇讗讬诇 讜诪砖讱 诪讛谉 砖诇砖讛 讜讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 砖专讗讜讬讬谉 诇讻讘砖

Similarly, if one designated by placing in a vessel four log of wine for a libation to accompany the sacrificing of a ram and then removed three log of wine from it and brought those three log as a libation outside the courtyard, he would be liable, as three log of wine is a fit libation for the sacrificing of a lamb (see Numbers 28:14).

讞住专讜 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 讜讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专

But if those three log were lacking any amount, and one brought them as a libation outside the courtyard, he would be exempt because less than three log of wine is never a fit libation.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 谞讬住讜讱 诪讛拽讟专讛 诇讗 讬诇驻讬 专讘谞谉

Rava inferred from the baraita that the Rabbis do not derive the measure for liability for a rite performed in the outer sanctum, i.e., the pouring of a libation, from one performed in the outer sanctum, i.e., the burning of incense. From that he concluded that the Rabbis would certainly not derive the measure for liability for a rite performed in the inner sanctum from a rite performed in the outer sanctum. This refuted Abaye鈥檚 claim that the Rabbis derive the measure for liability for burning outside the incense of the inner sanctum from the measure for liability for burning outside the incense of the outer sanctum. Rav Ashi said in defense of Abaye鈥檚 opinion: Indeed, as is indicated by the baraita, the Rabbis do not derive the measure for liability for pouring a libation outside the courtyard from the measure for liability for burning incense, which are two different rites performed in the outer sanctum.

讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讞讜抓 诪讞讜抓 诇讗 讬诇驻讬 讛拽讟专讛 诪讛拽讟专讛 讬诇驻讬 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讞讜抓 诪驻谞讬诐

Rav Ashi continues: Even though the Rabbis do not derive the halakhot of a rite performed in the outer sanctum from a different rite performed in the outer sanctum, they do derive the measure for liability for burning the incense of the outer sanctum from the identical rite of burning of the incense of the inner sanctum, even though it involves deriving the halakhot of a rite performed in the outer sanctum from one performed in the inner sanctum.

讜讻讜诇谉 砖讞住专讜 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讞住专讜谉 讚讞讜抓 砖诪讬讛 讞住专讜谉 讗讜 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讞住专讜谉

搂 After enumerating various items that are burned entirely on the altar, the mishna states: And with regard to any of these offerings that were lacking any amount, if one sacrifices it outside the courtyard, he is exempt. Concerning this ruling, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is a lack that occurs to an offering outside the courtyard considered a lack in order to exempt one who sacrifices the remainder outside the courtyard? Or is it not considered a lack?

诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚谞驻拽 讗讬驻住诇讜 诇讛讜 诪讛 诇讬 讞住专 诪讛 诇讬 讬转专 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 讬讜爪讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗讬谉 讚诇讬转讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 诇讗

Do we say that once an offering emerges from the courtyard it is in any event disqualified, and yet the Torah deems one liable for offering it there, so what difference is there to me if there is an additional disqualification of being lacking and what difference is there to me if it is still complete? Or perhaps it is only with regard to emerging from the courtyard, where it is still in its original state, that yes, one is liable despite the fact that it was disqualified by emerging from the courtyard, but where it is not in its original state, one would not be liable.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转讗 砖诪注 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜讟专 注讚 砖讬拽专讬讘 讗转 讻讜诇谉

Abaye said: Come and hear a resolution from the mishna: Rabbi Eliezer deems him exempt unless he sacrifices the whole of any one of these items outside the Temple. It is apparent then that the offering must remain complete.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 诇讗讘讬讬 诪讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻砖讬讟 诪专

Rabba bar Rav 岣nan said to Abaye: Can the Master resolve the dilemma from the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer? The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, and hold that one is liable for sacrificing even an olive-bulk, and the dilemma was raised according to their opinion.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘驻讬专讜砖 砖诪讬注 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 讚讗讬转讬讛 讘注讬谞讬讛 讗讘诇 讘讞住专讜谉 诪讜讚讜 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讚讞住专 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 讚讞住专 讘驻谞讬诐

Abaye said to him: I heard explicitly from Rav that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only where the offering is still in its original form, i.e., complete. But where it is lacking, they concede to him that one is not liable. The Gemara attempts to bring a proof from here: Was Rav not referring to a case where it became lacking outside the courtyard? If so, it is evident that even according to the Rabbis a lack that occurs outside is considered a lack. The Gemara rejects this: No, he was referring to a case where it became lacking inside the courtyard. Accordingly, this mishna cannot serve as a proof.

转讗 砖诪注 讜讻讜诇谉 砖讞住专讜 讜讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 诇讗讜 讚讞住专 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 讚讞住专 讘驻谞讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution from the continuation of the mishna: And with regard to any of these offerings that were lacking any amount, if one sacrifices them outside the courtyard, he is exempt. The Gemara attempts to bring a proof from here: Is the mishna not referring to a case where it became lacking outside the courtyard? If so, it is evident that even a lack that occurs outside is considered a lack. The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to a case where it became lacking inside the courtyard. Accordingly, this cannot serve as a proof.

讛诪拽专讬讘 拽讚砖讬诐 讗诪讗讬 讜讛讗讬讻讗 讞爪讬爪讛

搂 The mishna teaches: One who sacrifices sacrificial meat, which is eaten, and sacrificial portions, i.e., those that are to be burned on the altar, outside the courtyard, is liable for the sacrifice of the sacrificial portions, but not for the meat. The Gemara asks: Why is he liable? If the meat is placed directly on the altar鈥檚 fire and then the sacrificial portions are placed upon the meat, isn鈥檛 there an interposition between the altar and the sacrificial portions? Since if they were offered in the Temple in that manner, one would not have fulfilled the obligation, one should not be liable if he offers them up in this manner outside the Temple.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讻砖讛驻讻谉

Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a case where he turned them over and the sacrificial portions lay directly on the altar鈥檚 fire.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 砖诇讗 讛驻讻谉 讜讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛注诇讜 注诇 讛住诇注 讞讬讬讘

Rabbi Yo岣nan said there is another explanation: You may even say that the mishna is referring to a case where they did not turn them over. And in accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says (108a) that even if one offered it up on a rock he is liable. According to him, it is clear that in order for one to be liable, the mode of offering up performed outside the Temple does not need to entirely parallel the mode of offering up in the Temple.

专讘 讗诪专 诪讬谉 讘诪讬谞讜 讗讬谞讜 讞讜爪抓

Rav said there is another explanation: Even in the Temple, burning the sacrificial meat and sacrificial portions in this manner would be valid as both items are from the same animal, and a substance in contact with the same type of substance does not interpose.

诪转谞讬壮 诪谞讞讛 砖诇讗 谞拽诪爪讛 讜讛拽专讬讘讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 拽诪爪讛 讜讞讝专 拽讜诪爪讛 诇转讜讻讛 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: If there is a meal offering from which a handful was not removed, and one sacrificed it outside the Temple courtyard, he is exempt from liability, because until the handful is actually removed it is not fit to be burned on the altar inside the Temple. But if a priest took a handful from it and then returned its handful into the remainder of the meal offering, and one sacrificed the entire mixture outside the courtyard, he is liable, as once the handful has been removed it is fit to be burned on the altar inside the Temple, and one is liable for offering it up outside even though it is mixed into the remainder.

讙诪壮 讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬讘讟诇讬 砖讬专讬诐 诇拽讜诪抓

GEMARA: The Gemara asks about the final clause: But why is he liable? Let the remainder of the meal offering, which is certainly the majority of the mixture, nullify the handful.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 谞讗诪专讛 讛拽讟专讛 讘拽讜诪抓 讜谞讗诪专讛 讛拽讟专讛 讘砖讬专讬诐 诪讛 讛拽讟专转 拽讜诪抓 讗讬谉 拽讜诪抓 诪讘讟诇 讞讘讬专讜 讗祝 讛拽讟专转 砖讬专讬诐 讗讬谉 砖讬专讬诐 诪讘讟诇讬谉 拽讜诪抓

Rabbi Zeira said: A term of burning is stated with regard to the handful removed from the meal offering, and a term of burning is stated with regard to the remainder of the meal offering. With regard to the handful, referred to by the Torah as 鈥渢he memorial part,鈥 it is written: 鈥淎nd the priest shall burn the memorial part upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 2:2), and with regard to the remainder of the meal offering it is written: 鈥淒o not burn it as a fire to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 2:11). This provides a verbal analogy that teaches that just as with regard to the burning of the handful, if two handfuls are mixed together one handful does not nullify another, so too, with regard to the burning of the remainder, if the remainder and the handful are mixed together, the remainder does not nullify the handful.

诪转谞讬壮 讛拽讜诪抓 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 砖讛拽专讬讘 讗转 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜讟专 注讚 砖讬拽专讬讘 讗转 讛砖谞讬 讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

MISHNA: The burning of both the handful and the frankincense permits the consumption of the remainder of the meal offering by the priests. With regard to the handful and the frankincense, in a case where one sacrificed only one of them outside the Temple courtyard, he is liable. Rabbi Eliezer exempts from liability one who burns only one of them until he also sacrifices the second. Since the remainder of the meal offering becomes permitted only once both have been burned, he considers each one alone to be an incomplete offering, and he holds one is not liable for sacrificing only one of them. Rabbi Eliezer concedes that if one sacrificed one inside the courtyard and one outside the courtyard, he is liable.

砖谞讬 讘讝讬讻讬 诇讘讜谞讛 砖讛拽专讬讘 讗转 讗讞讚 诪讛诐 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜讟专 注讚 砖讬拽专讬讘 讗转 讛砖谞讬 讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

The burning of two bowls of frankincense permits the consumption of the shewbread. With regard to the two bowls of frankincense, in a case where one sacrificed only one of them outside the courtyard, he is liable. Rabbi Eliezer exempts from liability one who burns only one of them until he also sacrifices the second, since the shewbread becomes permitted only once both bowls of frankincense are burned. Rabbi Eliezer concedes that if one sacrificed one inside the courtyard and one outside the courtyard, he is liable.

讙诪壮 讘注讬 专讘讬 讬爪讞拽 谞驻讞讗 拽讜诪抓 诪讛讜 砖讬转讬专 讻谞讙讚讜 讘砖讬专讬诐 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬 讗讜 拽诇讜砖讬 诪讬拽诇砖

GEMARA: The mishna is based on the fact that it is permitted for the priests to consume the remainder of the meal offering only once both the handful and the frankincense have been burned. With regard to this, Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 raises a dilemma: If one burned the handful but not the frankincense, what is the halakha with regard to whether this will permit the consumption of the corresponding half of the remainder? Since the burning of both the handful and the frankincense permits the entire remainder, it seems that each one of them affects half of the remainder. Accordingly, it is unclear whether burning one of them will entirely permit half of the remainder, or whether it will merely weaken the prohibition concerning the remainder, and it will still be prohibited to eat any of it.

讗诇讬讘讗 讚诪讗谉 讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚讗诪专 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬

The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion did Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 raise this dilemma? If it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says: One can render an offering piggul by having piggul intention during half of two acts that together permit the offering for consumption, i.e., during either one of them, then it should be obvious that the offering of the handful alone should entirely permit half of the remainder. The fact that Rabbi Meir holds that intention during just one of the acts can render the offering piggul demonstrates that he holds that each act alone has the power to permit part of the offering. It is apparent, then, the dilemma was not raised according to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion.

讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 诇讗 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬 讜诇讗 诪拽诇砖 拽诇讬砖

If it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: One cannot render an offering piggul by having piggul intention during half of two acts that together permit the offering for consumption; rather, one must have piggul intention during both acts, then it is evident that neither act alone has the power to affect the offering, and so the burning of the handful alone should neither permit any of the remainder nor weaken the prohibition that applies to it. It is apparent, then, the dilemma was not raised according to the Rabbis鈥 opinion.

讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讻专讘谞谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专

Rather, the dilemma was raised in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer as taught in the mishna. Rabbi Eliezer rules that one who sacrifices outside only the handful or the frankincense is not liable. Evidently, he holds that neither of these alone can permit the consumption of the meal offering. The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who say: One cannot render an offering piggul by having piggul intention during half of two acts that together permit the offering for consumption. Accordingly, he would hold that the offering of only the handful neither permits any of the remainder, nor weakens the prohibition concerning it, and it would not make sense to raise the dilemma according to him.

讗诇讗 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘谞谉 讚讛讻讗 诪讗讬 诪讬砖专讗 砖专讬 讗讜 拽诇讬砖 诪拽诇砖

Rather, it must be that the dilemma was raised in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that is taught here in the mishna. They hold that one is liable even for sacrificing outside only the handful or only the frankincense. Evidently, they hold that each one alone has the power to affect the status of the remainder. Accordingly, Rabbi Yitz岣k Nappa岣 asked concerning a case where one of them is burned on the altar in the Temple, what is the halakha? Does it entirely permit half of the remainder, or does it weaken the prohibition concerning the entire remainder?

转讬拽讜

The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讝讜专拽 诪拽爪转 讚诐 讘讞讜抓

MISHNA: One who sprinkles part of the blood of an offering, e.g., one sprinkling instead of four, outside the Temple courtyard

讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪谞住讱 诪讬 讛讞讙 讘讞讙 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

is liable. Rabbi Elazar says: So too, one who pours as a libation water consecrated for the libation of the festival of Sukkot, during the Festival, outside the courtyard, is liable. Rabbi Ne岣mya says: For the remainder of the blood of an offering that was supposed to be poured at the base of the altar and that instead one sacrificed outside the courtyard, one is liable.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘讚诪讬诐

GEMARA: Rava says: Rabbi Elazar generally holds that one is liable for sacrificing outside only when he sacrifices a complete offering, but Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to the sprinkling of the blood of an offering, that one is liable for sprinkling outside even part of the blood, e.g., one sprinkling instead of four. This is clearly the halakha with regard to offerings whose blood is sprinkled on the external altar, as a single sprinkling renders such an offering valid (see 36b), and it can be regarded as a complete offering. Rabbi Elazar concedes that this is the halakha even with regard to offerings whose blood is sprinkled on the inner altar, despite the fact that such offerings are valid only once all the sprinklings have been completed.

讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪诪拽讜诐 砖驻住拽 讛讜讗 诪转讞讬诇

The fact that Rabbi Elazar concedes this point is apparent from that which is taught in a mishna (Yoma 60a) with regard to the numerous sprinklings of blood performed in the Holy of Holies, upon the Curtain, and on the inner altar, as part of the Yom Kippur Temple service: If during the sprinklings the blood spills and it is necessary to bring the blood of a second animal in order to complete them, Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon say: From the place that the High Priest stopped sprinkling the blood of the first animal, there he begins to sprinkle the blood of the second animal; it is unnecessary to repeat any of the sprinklings that have already been performed. From this ruling it is apparent that each sprinkling is considered an independent and complete act of service, and one will be liable for even a single act of sprinkling done outside the Temple.

专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪谞住讱 诪讬 讛讞讙 [讘讞讙] 讘讞讜抓 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 诪谞讞诐 讬讜讚驻讗讛 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘砖讟转 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 专讘讜 讗诪专讛 讚讗诪专 谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讜谞住讻讬讛 讘砖谞讬 谞讬住讜讻讬诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞讚 谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讜讗讞讚 谞讬住讜讱 讛讬讬谉

搂 The mishna teaches: Rabbi Elazar says: So too, one who pours as a libation water consecrated for the libation of the festival of Sukkot, during the Festival, outside the courtyard, is liable. Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Mena岣m Yodfa鈥檃: Rabbi Elazar said that halakha in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, his teacher, who says: The water libation on Sukkot is a mitzva by Torah law. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Akiva says concerning the verse: 鈥淏eside the daily burnt offering, its meal offering, and its libations鈥 (Numbers 29:31), the fact that the Torah makes reference to 鈥渓ibations鈥 in the plural indicates that the verse is speaking of two types of libations. One is the water libation, which is unique to the festival of Sukkot; and the other one is the wine libation, which always accompanies the daily offering. If the water libation was not a mitzva by Torah law, one would not be liable for pouring it as a libation outside the Temple courtyard.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 讜讛讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讬 讛讞讙 拽讗诪专 讗讬 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 [讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专] 讘讞讙 拽讗诪专

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yo岣nan: If Rabbi Elazar derives the mitzva of the water libation through the derivation taught by Rabbi Akiva, according to which both the wine libation and water libation are derived from the same word, then he should hold that just as there, with regard to wine, one is liable only if he pours three log, so too here, with regard to water, one should be liable only if he pours three log. But in the mishna, Rabbi Elazar says simply: Water of the festival of Sukkot, which seems to include any amount. Furthermore, he should hold that just as with regard to pouring a libation of wine outside the Temple, one is liable for pouring a libation during the rest of the days of the year and not only on Sukkot, so too, with regard to pouring a libation of water, one should be liable for pouring a libation during the rest of the days of the year. But in the mishna Rabbi Elazar says that one is liable only if he pours the water libation during the Festival. It is apparent that Rabbi Elazar derived the mitzva of the water libation from a different source.

讗讬砖转诪讬讟转讬讛 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 谞讞讜谞讬讗 讗讬砖 讘拽注转 讘讬转 讞讜专转谉 注砖专 谞讟讬注讜转 注专讘讛 讜谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 讛诇讻讛 诇诪砖讛 诪住讬谞讬

That which Rabbi Asi says escaped him, as Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Ne岣nya, a man of the valley of Beit 岣rtan: The halakha of ten saplings, the practice of taking a willow in the Temple during Sukkot, and the obligation to perform the water libation during Sukkot, each of these is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai. According to Rabbi Asi, the mitzva of the water libation is not derived from the same source as the wine libation, and it is possible that there will be differences in the halakhot that apply to them.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪谞住讱 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 诪讬诐 讘讞讙 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 (讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉) 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪诇讗谉 诇砖诐 讞讙 讞讬讬讘

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who pours as a libation three log of water during the festival of Sukkot outside the courtyard is liable. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: If he filled a service vessel with the three log in order to consecrate them for the sake of the Festival, he is liable.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讘讬砖 砖讬注讜专 讘诪讬诐 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two opinions? Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: They disagree with regard to whether there is a precise measure of water that can be consecrated as a libation. The first tanna holds that even if one fills a service vessel with more than three log, the water is thereby consecrated. Therefore, if one then pours at least three log of that water outside the courtyard, he is liable. Rabbi Elazar holds that if one attempts to consecrate more than three log, the consecration of the water is ineffective. Therefore, if one then pours three log of that water as a libation outside the courtyard, he is not liable.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专

Rav Pappa said:

Scroll To Top