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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 2, 2018 | 讻状讗 讘讗讘 转砖注状讞

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

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

Zevachim 111

Several tannatic debates are brought regarding items offered up outside and the amoraim debate what the actual debate is about. Some of the issues raised include were there libations with sacrifices of individuals in the desert? Is the spilling of the remainder of the blood, a critical聽part of the offering?聽 When is one obligated for offering up the bird outside – if the slaughter/melika聽that was performed outside/inside? All permutations are discussed.


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

讘拽专讘讜 谞住讻讬诐 讘诪讚讘专 驻诇讬讙讬

They disagree with regard to whether one is liable for pouring a libation outside the courtyard that was not first consecrated in a service vessel. This dispute is based on a disagreement with regard to whether wine libations were offered in the Tabernacle in the wilderness before the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara will soon explain the logical connection between the two issues.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘诇诪讚讬谉 谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 诪谞讬住讜讱 讛讬讬谉 驻诇讬讙讬

Ravina said: Everyone agrees that wine libations are valid even if they are not first consecrated in a sacred service vessel. Therefore, one who pours a wine libation outside the courtyard is liable even if it was not first consecrated in a service vessel. They disagree with regard to whether the liability for pouring a water libation can be derived from that of a wine libation. The first tanna holds that it can; Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that it cannot.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪谞住讱 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 讬讬谉 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 讜讛讜讗 砖拽讚砖谉 讘讻诇讬

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who pours as a libation three log of wine outside the courtyard is liable. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: And that is in a case where he first consecrated the wine in a sacred service vessel.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘讬专讜爪讬 诪讬讚讜转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

What is the difference between them? Rav Adda bar Rav Yitz岣k said: The difference between them is with regard to whether the overfill of measuring vessels is also consecrated. Both agree that one is liable for pouring a libation outside the courtyard only if it was first consecrated in a service vessel. The first tanna holds that the liquid that rises above the rim of a vessel is also consecrated, and if one collects three log of that liquid and pours it as a liba-tion outside the courtyard he is liable. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that only the wine within the walls of the vessel itself is consecrated.

专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讗诪专 拽专讘讜 谞住讻讬诐 讘讘诪讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

Rava, son of Rabba, said: The difference between them is with regard to whether one is liable for pouring a libation outside the courtyard that was not first consecrated in a service vessel. This dispute is based on a disagreement as to whether wine libations were offered on private altars.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 谞住讻讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讟注讜谞讛 谞住讻讬诐

He explains: And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: An offering sacrificed on a private altar does not need to be accompanied by wine libations; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: It does require wine libations. Service vessels are not used in the context of private altars. Therefore, if libations are brought on private altars then it is apparent that libations can be valid even if they were not first consecrated in a service vessel. Accordingly, one would be liable for pouring a libation outside the Temple even if it had not first been consecrated in a service vessel. If libations are not brought on private altars, then there is there is no precedent of a libation that was not first consecrated in a service vessel, and one would not be liable for pouring a non-consecrated libation outside the Temple.

讜讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬 转讘讗讜 诇讛讟注讬谞讛 谞住讻讬诐 讘讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

And the opinion of these tanna鈥檌m is like the opinion of those tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: In introducing the mitzva to bring wine libations together with animal offerings, the verse states: 鈥淲hen you come into the land of your dwellings, which I give to you鈥 (Numbers 15:2), which indicates that the mitzva to bring libations began only once the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael. The verse speaks in order to require that libations be brought with animal offerings that are brought upon a great public altar. This assumes libations were not brought on a public altar in the wilderness. Therefore, it is necessary to teach that upon entering Eretz Yisrael they are required.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诇 讗专抓 诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 讗砖专 讗谞讬 谞转谉 诇讻诐 讛专讬 讘讘诪讛 讛谞讜讛讙转 诇讻讜诇讻诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

Do you say that the verse is referring to offerings brought on a great public altar, or is it even referring to offerings brought on a small private altar? Perhaps libations were brought on the public altar in the wilderness, and it is therefore unnecessary to state that after entering Eretz Yisrael libations should continue to be brought on a public altar. Accordingly, the verse must be teaching that after the Jewish people have entered Eretz Yisrael, libations are required even on private altars. This suggestion is rejected: When the verse states: 鈥淚nto the land of your dwellings, which I give to you [lakhem],鈥 using the plural form of the word 鈥測ou,鈥 it is apparent that the verse is speaking of a public altar that is used by everyone; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻讬 转讘讗讜 诇讛讟注讬谞讛 谞住讻讬诐 讘讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

Rabbi Akiva says: Through its introductory clause: 鈥淲hen you come,鈥 the verse speaks in order to require that libations be brought with animal offerings that are brought upon a small private altar. This assumes libations were already brought in the wilderness, and the verse must be teaching that libations are required even on private altars.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诇 讗专抓 诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 讛专讬 讘讘诪讛 讛谞讜讛讙转 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

Do you say that the verse is speaking of a small private altar outside the Temple? Or is it only referring to a great public altar? Perhaps libations were not brought on the public altar in the wilderness and the verse is necessary in order to teach that upon entering Eretz Yisrael they are required. When the verse states: 鈥淚nto the land of your dwellings,鈥 it is apparent that the verse is speaking of an altar that is used in all your dwellings, which certainly must be referring to private altars, as there was only one central public altar.

讻砖转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 拽专讘讜 谞住讻讬诐 讘诪讚讘专 讜诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽专讘讜 谞住讻讬诐 讘诪讚讘专

The Gemara explains: When you analyze the matter you will find that you can say that according to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, libations were not offered in the wilderness. Therefore, it is necessary to teach that upon entering Eretz Yisrael they are required. And according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva libations were offered in the wilderness. Therefore, the verse must be teaching that libations are required even on private altars.

专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 砖讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

搂 The mishna teaches: 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 [转谞讗] 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabbi Ne岣mya taught this halakha in accordance with the statement of the one who says that failure to pour the remainder of the blood at the base of the altar disqualifies the offering.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 砖讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛诇讗 砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 讛诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬讘专讬谉 讜驻讚专讬谉 讬讜讻讬讞讜 砖讛谉 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 讜讛诪拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讗讬讘专讬诐 讜驻讚专讬诐 砖讛谉 转讞诇转 注讘讜讚讛 转讗诪专 讘砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 砖讗讬谞谉 转讞诇转 注讘讜讚讛

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Ne岣mya says that for the remainder of the blood of an offering that one sacrificed outside the courtyard, one is liable. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Isn鈥檛 pouring the remainder of the blood considered a non-essential mitzva, which is not indispensable to the validity of the offering? Accordingly, one should not be liable for sacrificing the blood outside the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Ne岣mya said to him: Sacrificial limbs and fats of a burnt offering will prove the matter, as they are considered a non-essential mitzva, and yet one who sacrifices them outside the courtyard is liable. Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you said that one is liable with regard to the burning of the limbs and fats, which is the start of a sacrificial rite, i.e., burning them is an sacrificial rite in and of itself, shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to the pouring of the remainder of the blood, which is not the start of a sacrificial rite, but is just the conclusion of the sprinkling of the blood?

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诪注讻讘讬 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara explains the challenge from the baraita: And if it is so that Rabbi Ne岣mya holds that that failure to pour the remainder of the blood at the base of the altar disqualifies the offering, let Rabbi Ne岣mya say in response to Rabbi Akiva: These too, i.e., the pouring of the remainder of the blood, are considered to be a sacrificial rite in and of themselves because failure to pour out the remainder disqualifies the offering. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is a conclusive refutation.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讬专讬讬诐 讛驻谞讬诪讬讬诐 讗讘诇 讘砖讬专讬讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 诪注讻讘讬 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讘砖讬专讬讬诐 讛驻谞讬诪讬诐 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘砖讬专讬讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讬诐

The Gemara qualifies its rejection: And now that Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The dispute between the tanna鈥檌m with regard to whether failure to pour the remainder of the blood disqualifies the offering is only with regard to the remainder of blood that was presented on the inner altar, but with regard to the remainder of blood that was presented on the external altar everyone agrees that failure to pour it does not disqualify the offering; the apparent contradiction between Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement and the baraita can therefore be resolved. When Rabbi Ne岣mya says in the mishna that one is liable for sacrificing the remainder of the blood outside the courtyard, he is referring to the remainder of blood that was presented on the inner altar. The pouring of that blood is considered a rite in and of itself, and one is liable for sacrificing it outside the Temple. When that statement of Rabbi Ne岣mya is taught in the baraita, it is referring to the remainder of blood that was presented on the external altar. Concerning such blood, Rabbi Ne岣mya concedes that the pouring is not considered a rite in and of itself.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 讬讚注 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讜讗 住讘专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 砖讬专讬讬诐 讞讬爪讜谞讬诐 讗诪专 讜拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 砖讬专讬讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讬诐 讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇讚讘专讬讜 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽讗诪专

In light of this, the Gemara explains the discussion between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ne岣mya: And Rabbi Akiva did not know what Rabbi Ne岣mya was saying. Rabbi Akiva thought that Rabbi Ne岣mya was stating a ruling about the pouring of the remainder of blood that was presented on the external altar. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva responded to him with a claim relating to the remainder of blood that was presented on the external altar and said that it is a non-essential mitzva. And then Rabbi Ne岣mya answered him by saying a defense of his opinion in accordance with the misconception underlying the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜诇拽 讗转 讛注讜祝 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 诪诇拽 讘讞讜抓 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛注讜祝 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: One who pinches the nape of a bird offering inside the Temple courtyard and then offers it up outside the courtyard is liable. But if one pinched its nape outside the courtyard and then offered it up outside the courtyard he is exempt, as pinching the nape of a bird outside the courtyard is not considered valid pinching. One who slaughters, with a knife, a bird offering inside the courtyard and offers it up outside the courtyard is exempt, as slaughtering a bird offering in the Temple courtyard disqualifies it as an offering.

砖讞讟 讘讞讜抓 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

But if one slaughtered a bird offering outside the courtyard and then offered it up outside, he is liable.

谞诪爪讗 讚专讱 讛讻砖讬专讜 讘驻谞讬诐 驻讟讜专讜 讘讞讜抓 讚专讱 讛讻砖讬专讜 诪讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专讜 讘驻谞讬诐

Evidently, the manner of its preparation inside the courtyard, i.e., pinching, effects its exemption outside the courtyard, and the manner of its preparation outside the courtyard, i.e., slaughter, effects its exemption inside the courtyard.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讘驻谞讬诐 砖讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讘驻谞讬诐 讜诪注诇讛 讘讞讜抓

Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to any act of killing an animal concerning which, when it was performed outside the courtyard, one is liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, one is also liable for having offered the animal up outside the courtyard after performing a similar act of killing inside the courtyard. This is the halakha except with regard to one who slaughters a bird inside the courtyard and offers it up outside the courtyard; he is exempt.

讙诪壮 讛讗讬 讛讻砖讬专讜 讞讬讜讘讜 讛讜讗 转谞讬 讞讬讜讘讜

GEMARA: In summarizing its rulings the mishna states: The manner of its preparation outside the courtyard effects its exemption inside the courtyard. The Gemara comments: This term: The manner of its preparation, is inappropriate when referring to the slaughter of a bird offering, as a bird offering is not prepared by slaughtering; on the contrary, it is disqualified if slaughtered. The slaughter of a bird offering outside the courtyard is the reason for its liability. The Gemara concedes: Emend the mishna and teach: Its liability.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 [讜讻讜壮] 讗讛讬讻讗 拽讗讬

搂 The mishna cites the ruling of Rabbi Shimon: Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to any act of killing an animal concerning which, when it was performed outside the courtyard, one is liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, one is also liable for having offered the animal up outside the courtyard after performing a similar act of killing inside the courtyard. This is the halakha except with regard to one who slaughters a bird inside the courtyard and offers it up outside the courtyard; he is exempt. The Gemara asks: To what does he refer?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讛诪讜诇拽 注讜祝 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 诪诇拽 讘讞讜抓 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚驻谞讬诐 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘讞讜抓 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讗讬 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讞讜抓 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘驻谞讬诐 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

If we say that he is referring to the first clause of the mishna, which states: One who pinches the nape of the bird offering inside and then offers it up outside is liable, but if one pinched its nape outside and then offered it up outside, he is exempt; and it is with the second part of this clause that Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says to the first tanna: Just as one who pinches the nape of a bird offering inside and then offers it up outside is liable, so too one who pinches its nape outside and then offers it up outside is liable, this is difficult. If that is what Rabbi Shimon intended, then instead of saying in the mishna: With regard to any act of killing an animal concerning which, when it was performed outside the courtyard, one is liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, he should have said: With regard to any act of killing an animal concerning which, when it was performed inside the courtyard, one is liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, one is also liable for a similar act of killing done outside the courtyard. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the first tanna on this issue.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讘讞讜抓 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘驻谞讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讛讗讬 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讞讜抓 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

Rather, perhaps Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the first part of the first clause and says to the first tanna: Just as one who pinches the nape of a bird offering outside and then offers it up outside is not liable, so too one who pinches its nape inside and then offers it up outside is not liable. The Gemara rejects this: If that is what Rabbi Shimon intended, then he should have said: With regard to any act of killing an animal concerning which, when it was performed outside the courtyard, one is not liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, one is also not liable for having offered the animal up outside the courtyard after performing a similar act of killing inside the courtyard. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the first tanna on this issue either.

讗诇讗 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讛砖讜讞讟 注讜祝 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 砖讞讟 讘讞讜抓 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讘驻谞讬诐 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘讞讜抓 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讗讬 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

Rather, he is referring to the latter clause of the mishna: One who slaughters a bird offering inside and offers it up outside is exempt, but if one slaughtered a bird offering outside and then offered it up outside, he is liable. And it is with the second part of this clause that Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says to the first tanna: Just as one who slaughters a bird offering inside and then offers it up outside is not liable, so too one who slaughters it outside and then offers it up outside is not liable. The Gemara rejects this: If that is what Rabbi Shimon intended, then he should have said: With regard to any act of killing an animal concerning which, when it was performed inside the courtyard, one is not liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, one is also not liable for having offered the animal up outside the courtyard after performing a similar act of killing outside the courtyard. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the first tanna on this issue.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讘讞讜抓 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘驻谞讬诐 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讗 拽转谞讬 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛诪注诇讛 讘讞讜抓

Rather, perhaps Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the first part of the latter clause and says to the first tanna: Just as one who slaughters a bird offering outside and then offers it up outside is liable, so too one who slaughters it inside and then offers it up outside is liable. The Gemara rejects this: Rabbi Shimon clearly does not hold this, as the mishna teaches that he concludes: This is the halakha except with regard to one who slaughters a bird inside the courtyard and offers it up outside the courtyard; he is exempt.

讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 砖讞讬讟转 讘讛诪讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 [讜讻谉] 讛砖讜讞讟 讘讛诪讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 砖讞讟 讘讞讜抓 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

If Rabbi Shimon is not referring to any of the rulings mentioned in the mishna, he must be disagreeing with the first tanna with regard to another issue. Ze鈥檈iri said: The difference between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon is with regard to the slaughter of an animal offering at night inside the courtyard, and this is what the mishna is saying: The first tanna said: And so too, one who slaughters an animal offering inside the courtyard at night and then offers it up outside is exempt, as by slaughtering the animal at night he caused it to become disqualified. But one who slaughtered an animal outside the courtyard at night and then offered it up outside is liable.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛砖讜讞讟 注讜祝 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓

It is with this ruling that Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says: With regard to any act of killing an animal concerning which, when it was performed outside the courtyard, one is liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, one is also liable for having offered the animal up outside the courtyard after performing a similar act of killing inside the courtyard. This is the halakha except with regard to one who slaughters a bird inside the courtyard and offers it up outside the courtyard; he is exempt.

专讘讗 讗诪专 拽讘诇讛 讘讻诇讬 讞讜诇 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 [讜讻谉] 讛诪拽讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讞讜诇 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讛诪拽讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讞讜诇 讘讞讜抓 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara provides another suggestion: Rava said that the difference between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon is with regard to the collection of the blood of an offering in a non-sacred vessel, and this is what the mishna is saying: The first tanna said: And so too, one who collects the blood of an offering in a non-sacred vessel inside the courtyard and then offers up that offering outside is exempt, as receiving blood in a non-sacred vessel disqualifies the offering. But one who collects the blood of an offering in a non-sacred vessel outside the courtyard and then offers up that offering outside is liable.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讜 讘讞讜抓 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛砖讜讞讟 注讜祝 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讜 讘讞讜抓

It is with this ruling that Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says: With regard to any act done with an animal, i.e., the collecting of its blood, concerning which, when it was performed outside the courtyard, one is liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, one is also liable for having offered the animal up outside the courtyard after performing a similar act inside the courtyard. This is the halakha except with regard to one who slaughters a bird inside the courtyard and offers it up outside the courtyard; he is exempt.

讛砖转讗 讚转谞讬 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讛诪讜诇拽 注讜祝 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讜 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 诪诇拽 讘讞讜抓 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讬讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛转诐 拽讗讬 讜转谞讬 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讞讜抓

The Gemara comments: Now that Shmuel鈥檚 father, son of Rav Yitz岣k, has taught a baraita, another explanation can be provided. The baraita teaches: One who pinches the nape of a bird inside the courtyard and then offers it up outside is liable, but one who pinched the nape of a bird outside and then offered it up outside is exempt. And Rabbi Shimon says that he is liable. It is apparent then that Rabbi Shimon in the mishna is referring to there, i.e., to the first clause of the mishna, and disagreeing with it. Therefore, one should emend the mishna and teach: With regard to any act of killing an animal concerning which, when it was performed inside the courtyard, one is liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, one is also liable for having offered the animal up outside the courtyard after performing a similar act of killing outside the courtyard.

诪转谞讬壮 讞讟讗转 砖拽讘诇 讚诪讛 讘讻讜住 讗讞讚 谞转谉 讘讞讜抓 讜讞讝专 讜谞转谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讞讝专 讜谞转谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 砖讻讜诇讜 专讗讜讬 讘驻谞讬诐

MISHNA: With regard to a sin offering where one collected its blood in one cup, if he first placed its blood on an altar outside the courtyard and then placed the remaining blood on the altar inside the courtyard, or if he first placed its blood on the altar inside the courtyard and then placed the remaining blood on an altar outside the courtyard, in both cases he is liable for placing the blood outside the courtyard, as the blood in its entirety is fit to be placed on the altar inside the courtyard.

拽讘诇 讚诪讛 讘砖转讬 讻讜住讜转 谞转谉 砖谞讬讛诐 讘驻谞讬诐 驻讟讜专 砖谞讬讛诐 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讗讞讚 讘讞讜抓 讜讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讜讛驻谞讬诪讬 诪讻驻专

If one collected its blood in two cups and placed the blood from both of them on the altar inside the courtyard he is exempt as he acted appropriately. If he placed the blood from both of them on an altar outside the courtyard, he is liable, as both are fit to be placed inside. If he first placed the blood from one cup inside and then placed the blood from the other one outside, he is exempt. By using the blood of the first cup to perform the mitzva of placing the blood on the altar, he thereby rendered the blood in the second cup unfit to be placed on the altar; therefore, there is no liability for placing it on an altar outside. If he first placed the blood from one cup outside and then placed the blood from the other one inside, he is liable for the external placement as that blood was fit to be placed inside, and the internal placement atones for the transgression for which the sin offering was brought.

诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇诪驻专讬砖 讞讟讗转讜 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞诪爪讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讛专讬 砖转讬讛谉 注讜诪讚讜转 砖讞讟 砖转讬讛谉 讘驻谞讬诐 驻讟讜专 砖转讬讛谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讗讞转 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗讞转 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讗讞转 讘讞讜抓 讜讗讞转 讘驻谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讜讛驻谞讬诪讬转 诪讻驻专转

To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a case where one separated an animal for his sin offering and it was lost, and he separated another animal in its place, and thereafter, the first animal was found. In that case, both of them stand before him and he must sacrifice one as his sin offering. If he slaughtered both of them inside the courtyard, he is exempt. If he slaughtered both of them outside the courtyard, he is liable, as each was fit to be slaughtered in the courtyard. If he first slaughtered one inside and then slaughtered the other one outside he is exempt from liability for slaughtering the second, as he has already fulfilled his obligation with the first, thereby rendering the second one unfit for sacrifice. If he first slaughtered one outside and then slaughtered the other one inside he is liable for slaughtering the external animal outside the courtyard, as it was fit to be slaughtered inside, and the internal animal atones for the transgression for which the sin offering was brought.

讻砖诐 砖讚诪讛 驻讜讟专 讗转 讘砖专讛 讻讱 讛讬讗 驻讜讟专转 讗转 讘砖专 讞讘讬专转讛

The mishna adds: In a case where one slaughtered both inside the courtyard, just as placing the blood of the first animal exempts one who consumes its meat from liability for misuse of consecrated property, so too, it exempts one who consumes the meat of its counterpart, the second animal, from liability.

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Zevachim 111

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 111

讘拽专讘讜 谞住讻讬诐 讘诪讚讘专 驻诇讬讙讬

They disagree with regard to whether one is liable for pouring a libation outside the courtyard that was not first consecrated in a service vessel. This dispute is based on a disagreement with regard to whether wine libations were offered in the Tabernacle in the wilderness before the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara will soon explain the logical connection between the two issues.

专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讘诇诪讚讬谉 谞讬住讜讱 讛诪讬诐 诪谞讬住讜讱 讛讬讬谉 驻诇讬讙讬

Ravina said: Everyone agrees that wine libations are valid even if they are not first consecrated in a sacred service vessel. Therefore, one who pours a wine libation outside the courtyard is liable even if it was not first consecrated in a service vessel. They disagree with regard to whether the liability for pouring a water libation can be derived from that of a wine libation. The first tanna holds that it can; Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that it cannot.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛诪谞住讱 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 讬讬谉 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 讜讛讜讗 砖拽讚砖谉 讘讻诇讬

The Sages taught in a baraita: One who pours as a libation three log of wine outside the courtyard is liable. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: And that is in a case where he first consecrated the wine in a sacred service vessel.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘讬专讜爪讬 诪讬讚讜转 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

What is the difference between them? Rav Adda bar Rav Yitz岣k said: The difference between them is with regard to whether the overfill of measuring vessels is also consecrated. Both agree that one is liable for pouring a libation outside the courtyard only if it was first consecrated in a service vessel. The first tanna holds that the liquid that rises above the rim of a vessel is also consecrated, and if one collects three log of that liquid and pours it as a liba-tion outside the courtyard he is liable. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that only the wine within the walls of the vessel itself is consecrated.

专讘讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讛 讗诪专 拽专讘讜 谞住讻讬诐 讘讘诪讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

Rava, son of Rabba, said: The difference between them is with regard to whether one is liable for pouring a libation outside the courtyard that was not first consecrated in a service vessel. This dispute is based on a disagreement as to whether wine libations were offered on private altars.

讜讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 谞住讻讬诐 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讟注讜谞讛 谞住讻讬诐

He explains: And they disagree with regard to the issue that is the subject of the dispute between these tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: An offering sacrificed on a private altar does not need to be accompanied by wine libations; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: It does require wine libations. Service vessels are not used in the context of private altars. Therefore, if libations are brought on private altars then it is apparent that libations can be valid even if they were not first consecrated in a service vessel. Accordingly, one would be liable for pouring a libation outside the Temple even if it had not first been consecrated in a service vessel. If libations are not brought on private altars, then there is there is no precedent of a libation that was not first consecrated in a service vessel, and one would not be liable for pouring a non-consecrated libation outside the Temple.

讜讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讻讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚转谞讬讗 讻讬 转讘讗讜 诇讛讟注讬谞讛 谞住讻讬诐 讘讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

And the opinion of these tanna鈥檌m is like the opinion of those tanna鈥檌m, as it is taught in a baraita: In introducing the mitzva to bring wine libations together with animal offerings, the verse states: 鈥淲hen you come into the land of your dwellings, which I give to you鈥 (Numbers 15:2), which indicates that the mitzva to bring libations began only once the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael. The verse speaks in order to require that libations be brought with animal offerings that are brought upon a great public altar. This assumes libations were not brought on a public altar in the wilderness. Therefore, it is necessary to teach that upon entering Eretz Yisrael they are required.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诇 讗专抓 诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 讗砖专 讗谞讬 谞转谉 诇讻诐 讛专讬 讘讘诪讛 讛谞讜讛讙转 诇讻讜诇讻诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇

Do you say that the verse is referring to offerings brought on a great public altar, or is it even referring to offerings brought on a small private altar? Perhaps libations were brought on the public altar in the wilderness, and it is therefore unnecessary to state that after entering Eretz Yisrael libations should continue to be brought on a public altar. Accordingly, the verse must be teaching that after the Jewish people have entered Eretz Yisrael, libations are required even on private altars. This suggestion is rejected: When the verse states: 鈥淚nto the land of your dwellings, which I give to you [lakhem],鈥 using the plural form of the word 鈥測ou,鈥 it is apparent that the verse is speaking of a public altar that is used by everyone; this is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.

专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻讬 转讘讗讜 诇讛讟注讬谞讛 谞住讻讬诐 讘讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

Rabbi Akiva says: Through its introductory clause: 鈥淲hen you come,鈥 the verse speaks in order to require that libations be brought with animal offerings that are brought upon a small private altar. This assumes libations were already brought in the wilderness, and the verse must be teaching that libations are required even on private altars.

讗转讛 讗讜诪专 诇讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讗诇 讗专抓 诪讜砖讘转讬讻诐 讛专讬 讘讘诪讛 讛谞讜讛讙转 讘讻诇 诪讜砖讘讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专

Do you say that the verse is speaking of a small private altar outside the Temple? Or is it only referring to a great public altar? Perhaps libations were not brought on the public altar in the wilderness and the verse is necessary in order to teach that upon entering Eretz Yisrael they are required. When the verse states: 鈥淚nto the land of your dwellings,鈥 it is apparent that the verse is speaking of an altar that is used in all your dwellings, which certainly must be referring to private altars, as there was only one central public altar.

讻砖转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 拽专讘讜 谞住讻讬诐 讘诪讚讘专 讜诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽专讘讜 谞住讻讬诐 讘诪讚讘专

The Gemara explains: When you analyze the matter you will find that you can say that according to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, libations were not offered in the wilderness. Therefore, it is necessary to teach that upon entering Eretz Yisrael they are required. And according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva libations were offered in the wilderness. Therefore, the verse must be teaching that libations are required even on private altars.

专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 砖讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

搂 The mishna teaches: 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 [转谞讗] 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Rabbi Ne岣mya taught this halakha in accordance with the statement of the one who says that failure to pour the remainder of the blood at the base of the altar disqualifies the offering.

诪讬转讬讘讬 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讗讜诪专 砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 砖讛拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讜讛诇讗 砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 讛诐 讗诪专 诇讜 讗讬讘专讬谉 讜驻讚专讬谉 讬讜讻讬讞讜 砖讛谉 砖讬专讬 诪爪讜讛 讜讛诪拽专讬讘谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘讗讬讘专讬诐 讜驻讚专讬诐 砖讛谉 转讞诇转 注讘讜讚讛 转讗诪专 讘砖讬专讬 讛讚诐 砖讗讬谞谉 转讞诇转 注讘讜讚讛

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: Rabbi Ne岣mya says that for the remainder of the blood of an offering that one sacrificed outside the courtyard, one is liable. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Isn鈥檛 pouring the remainder of the blood considered a non-essential mitzva, which is not indispensable to the validity of the offering? Accordingly, one should not be liable for sacrificing the blood outside the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Ne岣mya said to him: Sacrificial limbs and fats of a burnt offering will prove the matter, as they are considered a non-essential mitzva, and yet one who sacrifices them outside the courtyard is liable. Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you said that one is liable with regard to the burning of the limbs and fats, which is the start of a sacrificial rite, i.e., burning them is an sacrificial rite in and of itself, shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to the pouring of the remainder of the blood, which is not the start of a sacrificial rite, but is just the conclusion of the sprinkling of the blood?

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 诇讬诪讗 诇讬讛 讛谞讬 谞诪讬 诪注讻讘讬 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara explains the challenge from the baraita: And if it is so that Rabbi Ne岣mya holds that that failure to pour the remainder of the blood at the base of the altar disqualifies the offering, let Rabbi Ne岣mya say in response to Rabbi Akiva: These too, i.e., the pouring of the remainder of the blood, are considered to be a sacrificial rite in and of themselves because failure to pour out the remainder disqualifies the offering. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is a conclusive refutation.

讜讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘砖讬专讬讬诐 讛驻谞讬诪讬讬诐 讗讘诇 讘砖讬专讬讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讬诐 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诇讗 诪注讻讘讬 讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讘砖讬专讬讬诐 讛驻谞讬诪讬诐 讻讬 转谞讬讗 讛讛讬讗 讘砖讬专讬讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讬诐

The Gemara qualifies its rejection: And now that Rav Adda bar Ahava says: The dispute between the tanna鈥檌m with regard to whether failure to pour the remainder of the blood disqualifies the offering is only with regard to the remainder of blood that was presented on the inner altar, but with regard to the remainder of blood that was presented on the external altar everyone agrees that failure to pour it does not disqualify the offering; the apparent contradiction between Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement and the baraita can therefore be resolved. When Rabbi Ne岣mya says in the mishna that one is liable for sacrificing the remainder of the blood outside the courtyard, he is referring to the remainder of blood that was presented on the inner altar. The pouring of that blood is considered a rite in and of itself, and one is liable for sacrificing it outside the Temple. When that statement of Rabbi Ne岣mya is taught in the baraita, it is referring to the remainder of blood that was presented on the external altar. Concerning such blood, Rabbi Ne岣mya concedes that the pouring is not considered a rite in and of itself.

讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇讗 讬讚注 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 讛讜讗 住讘专 专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 砖讬专讬讬诐 讞讬爪讜谞讬诐 讗诪专 讜拽讗 诪讛讚专 诇讬讛 砖讬专讬讬诐 讛讞讬爪讜谞讬诐 讜专讘讬 谞讞诪讬讛 诇讚讘专讬讜 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 拽讗诪专

In light of this, the Gemara explains the discussion between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ne岣mya: And Rabbi Akiva did not know what Rabbi Ne岣mya was saying. Rabbi Akiva thought that Rabbi Ne岣mya was stating a ruling about the pouring of the remainder of blood that was presented on the external altar. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva responded to him with a claim relating to the remainder of blood that was presented on the external altar and said that it is a non-essential mitzva. And then Rabbi Ne岣mya answered him by saying a defense of his opinion in accordance with the misconception underlying the statement of Rabbi Akiva.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讜诇拽 讗转 讛注讜祝 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 诪诇拽 讘讞讜抓 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛注讜祝 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专

MISHNA: One who pinches the nape of a bird offering inside the Temple courtyard and then offers it up outside the courtyard is liable. But if one pinched its nape outside the courtyard and then offered it up outside the courtyard he is exempt, as pinching the nape of a bird outside the courtyard is not considered valid pinching. One who slaughters, with a knife, a bird offering inside the courtyard and offers it up outside the courtyard is exempt, as slaughtering a bird offering in the Temple courtyard disqualifies it as an offering.

砖讞讟 讘讞讜抓 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

But if one slaughtered a bird offering outside the courtyard and then offered it up outside, he is liable.

谞诪爪讗 讚专讱 讛讻砖讬专讜 讘驻谞讬诐 驻讟讜专讜 讘讞讜抓 讚专讱 讛讻砖讬专讜 诪讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专讜 讘驻谞讬诐

Evidently, the manner of its preparation inside the courtyard, i.e., pinching, effects its exemption outside the courtyard, and the manner of its preparation outside the courtyard, i.e., slaughter, effects its exemption inside the courtyard.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讘驻谞讬诐 砖讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讘驻谞讬诐 讜诪注诇讛 讘讞讜抓

Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to any act of killing an animal concerning which, when it was performed outside the courtyard, one is liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, one is also liable for having offered the animal up outside the courtyard after performing a similar act of killing inside the courtyard. This is the halakha except with regard to one who slaughters a bird inside the courtyard and offers it up outside the courtyard; he is exempt.

讙诪壮 讛讗讬 讛讻砖讬专讜 讞讬讜讘讜 讛讜讗 转谞讬 讞讬讜讘讜

GEMARA: In summarizing its rulings the mishna states: The manner of its preparation outside the courtyard effects its exemption inside the courtyard. The Gemara comments: This term: The manner of its preparation, is inappropriate when referring to the slaughter of a bird offering, as a bird offering is not prepared by slaughtering; on the contrary, it is disqualified if slaughtered. The slaughter of a bird offering outside the courtyard is the reason for its liability. The Gemara concedes: Emend the mishna and teach: Its liability.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 [讜讻讜壮] 讗讛讬讻讗 拽讗讬

搂 The mishna cites the ruling of Rabbi Shimon: Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to any act of killing an animal concerning which, when it was performed outside the courtyard, one is liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, one is also liable for having offered the animal up outside the courtyard after performing a similar act of killing inside the courtyard. This is the halakha except with regard to one who slaughters a bird inside the courtyard and offers it up outside the courtyard; he is exempt. The Gemara asks: To what does he refer?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讬砖讗 拽讗讬 讛诪讜诇拽 注讜祝 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 诪诇拽 讘讞讜抓 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚驻谞讬诐 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘讞讜抓 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讗讬 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讞讜抓 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘驻谞讬诐 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

If we say that he is referring to the first clause of the mishna, which states: One who pinches the nape of the bird offering inside and then offers it up outside is liable, but if one pinched its nape outside and then offered it up outside, he is exempt; and it is with the second part of this clause that Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says to the first tanna: Just as one who pinches the nape of a bird offering inside and then offers it up outside is liable, so too one who pinches its nape outside and then offers it up outside is liable, this is difficult. If that is what Rabbi Shimon intended, then instead of saying in the mishna: With regard to any act of killing an animal concerning which, when it was performed outside the courtyard, one is liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, he should have said: With regard to any act of killing an animal concerning which, when it was performed inside the courtyard, one is liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, one is also liable for a similar act of killing done outside the courtyard. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the first tanna on this issue.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讘讞讜抓 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘驻谞讬诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬讞讬讬讘 讛讗讬 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讞讜抓 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

Rather, perhaps Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the first part of the first clause and says to the first tanna: Just as one who pinches the nape of a bird offering outside and then offers it up outside is not liable, so too one who pinches its nape inside and then offers it up outside is not liable. The Gemara rejects this: If that is what Rabbi Shimon intended, then he should have said: With regard to any act of killing an animal concerning which, when it was performed outside the courtyard, one is not liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, one is also not liable for having offered the animal up outside the courtyard after performing a similar act of killing inside the courtyard. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the first tanna on this issue either.

讗诇讗 讗住讬驻讗 拽讗讬 讛砖讜讞讟 注讜祝 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 砖讞讟 讘讞讜抓 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讘驻谞讬诐 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘讞讜抓 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讗讬 讻诇 砖讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

Rather, he is referring to the latter clause of the mishna: One who slaughters a bird offering inside and offers it up outside is exempt, but if one slaughtered a bird offering outside and then offered it up outside, he is liable. And it is with the second part of this clause that Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says to the first tanna: Just as one who slaughters a bird offering inside and then offers it up outside is not liable, so too one who slaughters it outside and then offers it up outside is not liable. The Gemara rejects this: If that is what Rabbi Shimon intended, then he should have said: With regard to any act of killing an animal concerning which, when it was performed inside the courtyard, one is not liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, one is also not liable for having offered the animal up outside the courtyard after performing a similar act of killing outside the courtyard. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon does not disagree with the first tanna on this issue.

讗诇讗 讻讬 讛讬讻讬 讚讘讞讜抓 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讘驻谞讬诐 谞诪讬 诪讬讞讬讬讘 讛讗 拽转谞讬 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛诪注诇讛 讘讞讜抓

Rather, perhaps Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the first part of the latter clause and says to the first tanna: Just as one who slaughters a bird offering outside and then offers it up outside is liable, so too one who slaughters it inside and then offers it up outside is liable. The Gemara rejects this: Rabbi Shimon clearly does not hold this, as the mishna teaches that he concludes: This is the halakha except with regard to one who slaughters a bird inside the courtyard and offers it up outside the courtyard; he is exempt.

讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 砖讞讬讟转 讘讛诪讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 [讜讻谉] 讛砖讜讞讟 讘讛诪讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 砖讞讟 讘讞讜抓 讘诇讬诇讛 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

If Rabbi Shimon is not referring to any of the rulings mentioned in the mishna, he must be disagreeing with the first tanna with regard to another issue. Ze鈥檈iri said: The difference between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon is with regard to the slaughter of an animal offering at night inside the courtyard, and this is what the mishna is saying: The first tanna said: And so too, one who slaughters an animal offering inside the courtyard at night and then offers it up outside is exempt, as by slaughtering the animal at night he caused it to become disqualified. But one who slaughtered an animal outside the courtyard at night and then offered it up outside is liable.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛砖讜讞讟 注讜祝 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓

It is with this ruling that Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says: With regard to any act of killing an animal concerning which, when it was performed outside the courtyard, one is liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, one is also liable for having offered the animal up outside the courtyard after performing a similar act of killing inside the courtyard. This is the halakha except with regard to one who slaughters a bird inside the courtyard and offers it up outside the courtyard; he is exempt.

专讘讗 讗诪专 拽讘诇讛 讘讻诇讬 讞讜诇 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 [讜讻谉] 讛诪拽讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讞讜诇 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讛诪拽讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讞讜诇 讘讞讜抓 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

The Gemara provides another suggestion: Rava said that the difference between the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon is with regard to the collection of the blood of an offering in a non-sacred vessel, and this is what the mishna is saying: The first tanna said: And so too, one who collects the blood of an offering in a non-sacred vessel inside the courtyard and then offers up that offering outside is exempt, as receiving blood in a non-sacred vessel disqualifies the offering. But one who collects the blood of an offering in a non-sacred vessel outside the courtyard and then offers up that offering outside is liable.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讜 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讜 讘讞讜抓 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛砖讜讞讟 注讜祝 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讜 讘讞讜抓

It is with this ruling that Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says: With regard to any act done with an animal, i.e., the collecting of its blood, concerning which, when it was performed outside the courtyard, one is liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, one is also liable for having offered the animal up outside the courtyard after performing a similar act inside the courtyard. This is the halakha except with regard to one who slaughters a bird inside the courtyard and offers it up outside the courtyard; he is exempt.

讛砖转讗 讚转谞讬 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讛诪讜诇拽 注讜祝 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讜 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 诪诇拽 讘讞讜抓 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪讬讞讬讬讘 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛转诐 拽讗讬 讜转谞讬 讻诇 砖讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讘讞讜抓

The Gemara comments: Now that Shmuel鈥檚 father, son of Rav Yitz岣k, has taught a baraita, another explanation can be provided. The baraita teaches: One who pinches the nape of a bird inside the courtyard and then offers it up outside is liable, but one who pinched the nape of a bird outside and then offered it up outside is exempt. And Rabbi Shimon says that he is liable. It is apparent then that Rabbi Shimon in the mishna is referring to there, i.e., to the first clause of the mishna, and disagreeing with it. Therefore, one should emend the mishna and teach: With regard to any act of killing an animal concerning which, when it was performed inside the courtyard, one is liable for subsequently offering it up outside the courtyard, one is also liable for having offered the animal up outside the courtyard after performing a similar act of killing outside the courtyard.

诪转谞讬壮 讞讟讗转 砖拽讘诇 讚诪讛 讘讻讜住 讗讞讚 谞转谉 讘讞讜抓 讜讞讝专 讜谞转谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讞讝专 讜谞转谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 砖讻讜诇讜 专讗讜讬 讘驻谞讬诐

MISHNA: With regard to a sin offering where one collected its blood in one cup, if he first placed its blood on an altar outside the courtyard and then placed the remaining blood on the altar inside the courtyard, or if he first placed its blood on the altar inside the courtyard and then placed the remaining blood on an altar outside the courtyard, in both cases he is liable for placing the blood outside the courtyard, as the blood in its entirety is fit to be placed on the altar inside the courtyard.

拽讘诇 讚诪讛 讘砖转讬 讻讜住讜转 谞转谉 砖谞讬讛诐 讘驻谞讬诐 驻讟讜专 砖谞讬讛诐 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗讞讚 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讗讞讚 讘讞讜抓 讜讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讜讛驻谞讬诪讬 诪讻驻专

If one collected its blood in two cups and placed the blood from both of them on the altar inside the courtyard he is exempt as he acted appropriately. If he placed the blood from both of them on an altar outside the courtyard, he is liable, as both are fit to be placed inside. If he first placed the blood from one cup inside and then placed the blood from the other one outside, he is exempt. By using the blood of the first cup to perform the mitzva of placing the blood on the altar, he thereby rendered the blood in the second cup unfit to be placed on the altar; therefore, there is no liability for placing it on an altar outside. If he first placed the blood from one cup outside and then placed the blood from the other one inside, he is liable for the external placement as that blood was fit to be placed inside, and the internal placement atones for the transgression for which the sin offering was brought.

诇诪讛 讛讚讘专 讚讜诪讛 诇诪驻专讬砖 讞讟讗转讜 讜讗讘讚讛 讜讛驻专讬砖 讗讞专转 转讞转讬讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 谞诪爪讗转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讛专讬 砖转讬讛谉 注讜诪讚讜转 砖讞讟 砖转讬讛谉 讘驻谞讬诐 驻讟讜专 砖转讬讛谉 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘 讗讞转 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗讞转 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讗讞转 讘讞讜抓 讜讗讞转 讘驻谞讬诐 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讜讛驻谞讬诪讬转 诪讻驻专转

To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a case where one separated an animal for his sin offering and it was lost, and he separated another animal in its place, and thereafter, the first animal was found. In that case, both of them stand before him and he must sacrifice one as his sin offering. If he slaughtered both of them inside the courtyard, he is exempt. If he slaughtered both of them outside the courtyard, he is liable, as each was fit to be slaughtered in the courtyard. If he first slaughtered one inside and then slaughtered the other one outside he is exempt from liability for slaughtering the second, as he has already fulfilled his obligation with the first, thereby rendering the second one unfit for sacrifice. If he first slaughtered one outside and then slaughtered the other one inside he is liable for slaughtering the external animal outside the courtyard, as it was fit to be slaughtered inside, and the internal animal atones for the transgression for which the sin offering was brought.

讻砖诐 砖讚诪讛 驻讜讟专 讗转 讘砖专讛 讻讱 讛讬讗 驻讜讟专转 讗转 讘砖专 讞讘讬专转讛

The mishna adds: In a case where one slaughtered both inside the courtyard, just as placing the blood of the first animal exempts one who consumes its meat from liability for misuse of consecrated property, so too, it exempts one who consumes the meat of its counterpart, the second animal, from liability.

Scroll To Top