Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Before the Tabernacle was erected, even blemished animals or male or female could be offered as sacrifices. This is derived from the juxtaposition of animals to birds in Bereishit 8:20, which describes the offerings Noach brought after the Flood; since blemishes do not disqualify birds and females can be brought as burnt offerings, they likewise did not disqualify blemished animals or females. However, if an animal was missing a limb, it could not be offered. This is learned from Bereishit 6:19, “From all live animals,” implying that only fully intact animals were acceptable. The Gemara asks why this verse is not used to exclude a treifa, and answers by identifying a different source for excluding a treifa.
Only kosher animals could be offered, even before the Tabernacle was built. But since this was before the Torah was given, how could there be a distinction between kosher and non‑kosher animals? Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani explains that the distinction refers to animals that would eventually be considered kosher. Noach brought two of each species into the Ark, but of the kosher species he brought seven of each so that he would have animals available for sacrifice after the Flood. How did Noach know which animals would later be deemed kosher? Either this was revealed miraculously, or the animals entered the Ark on their own, with the kosher species arriving in groups of seven while the non‑kosher species arrived only in pairs.
There is a tannaitic dispute regarding whether, before the Tabernacle was erected, people brought only burnt offerings or also peace offerings. This debate hinges on whether the descendants of Noach were permitted to bring peace offerings, a question derived from Hevel’s sacrifice – specifically the phrase “from the fat thereof” – and from a verse in Shir HaShirim 4:16. A challenge is raised against the opinion that peace offerings were not brought, based on Yitro’s offering of peace offerings. The resolution depends on whether Yitro’s sacrifice occurred before or after the giving of the Torah. Indeed, there is a tannaitic dispute about the timing of Yitro’s arrival, rooted in the question of what he heard that motivated him to come and convert: Israel’s victory over Amalek, the giving of the Torah, or the splitting of the Sea.
Non‑Jews may offer sacrifices anywhere and at any time, since the prohibition against sacrificing outside the Temple applies only to Jews. However, Jews may not serve as their agents in performing the sacrifice. The Gemara relates a story about Ofrah Hermiz, the mother of the Persian king Shapur, who asked him to bring a sacrifice on her behalf. Rava advised her on the matter but arranged for non‑Jews to perform the actual sacrificial act.
In the desert, the Israelites were permitted to eat kodashim kalim anywhere within the camp. Rav Huna stated that they could eat them anywhere that Jews were present. The rabbis sought to clarify his statement, given that the desert encampment clearly consisted of distinct camps, while his words seemed to imply otherwise.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Shifra Atik in loving memory of her husband Tzvi Atik, Tzvi Dov ben HaRav Moshe Noach v’Sara on his 1st yahrzeit.
Zevachim 116
זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת, תְּמִימִין וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין – דְּאָמַר מָר: תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בִּבְהֵמָה, וְאֵין תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בְּעוֹפוֹת.
That which was taught in the baraita: All animals were fit to be sacrificed: Males and females, unblemished and blemished animals, pertains to that which the Master said as a principle concerning the halakhot of sacrifices: The requirements that an offering must have unblemished status and that a burnt offering must have male status apply to animal offerings, but the requirements of unblemished status and male status do not apply to birds.
וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף.
And in the verses that recount Noah’s sacrifices upon exiting the ark, a domesticated animal is juxtaposed with a bird, in the verse: “Of every pure animal, and of every pure fowl” (Genesis 8:20), which teaches that kosher animals had a status identical to that of birds, and could be sacrificed whether male or female, unblemished or blemished.
תְּמִימִין וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין – לְאַפּוֹקֵי מְחוּסַּר אֵבֶר, דְּלָא. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנַּיִן לִמְחוּסַּר אֵבֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱסַר לִבְנֵי נֹחַ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּמִכׇּל הָחַי מִכׇּל בָּשָׂר״ – אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: הָבֵא בְּהֵמָה שֶׁחַיִּין רָאשֵׁי אֵיבָרִין שֶׁלָּהּ.
The Gemara adds: That which was taught in the baraita: Unblemished and blemished animals, serves to exclude animals that are lacking a limb, which were not fit for sacrifice. As Rabbi Elazar says: From where is it derived that an animal that is lacking a limb is forbidden to the descendants of Noah, i.e., gentiles, to be used as a sacrifice? The verse states with regard to Noah: “And of every living being of all flesh, two of every sort shall you bring into the ark” (Genesis 6:19). With regard to the phrase: “And of every living being,” which is superfluous, the Torah stated: Bring an animal whose limbs are all living, not one lacking a limb, as that animal is disqualified from sacrifice.
וְדִילְמָא לְמַעוֹטֵי טְרֵיפָה? הָהוּא מִ״לְּחַיּוֹת זֶרַע״ נָפְקָא.
The Gemara challenges: But perhaps this phrase: “And of every living being,” serves to exclude an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa] from being fit as a sacrifice. The Gemara explains: The disqualification of a tereifa is derived from the phrase: “To keep seed alive” (Genesis 7:3), as a tereifa cannot propagate.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵיפָה אֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵיפָה יוֹלֶדֶת – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? הָאָמַר קְרָא: ״אִתָּךְ״ – בְּדוֹמִין לָךְ.
The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot give birth. In this case the disqualification of the tereifa is derived from the verse: “To keep seed alive,” while the disqualification of the animal lacking a limb is derived from the verse: “And of every living being.” But according to the one who says that a tereifa can give birth, what can be said? According to this opinion, a tereifa cannot be excluded by the phrase: “To keep seed alive.” The Gemara explains: Doesn’t the verse state with regard to the animals that were brought by Noah into the ark: “You shall bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you” (Genesis 6:19)? The term “with you” indicates that the verse is stated with regard to animals that are similar to you, not a tereifa.
וְדִילְמָא נֹחַ גּוּפֵיהּ טְרֵיפָה הֲוָה? ״תָּמִים״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ. וְדִילְמָא תָּמִים בִּדְרָכָיו? ״צַדִּיק״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ.
The Gemara asks: But perhaps Noah himself was a tereifa. If so, one cannot exclude a tereifa from the comparison of animals to Noah. The Gemara answers: It is written about Noah that he was “complete” (Genesis 6:9), which indicates that he was physically whole and unblemished. The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the verse means that his ways were complete, and it is not referring to Noah’s physical attributes. The Gemara explains: It is already written about him that he was “righteous” (Genesis 6:9), which means that his actions were perfect. Consequently, when the verse says that he was also complete, it must be referring to his body.
וְדִילְמָא ״תָּמִים״ – בִּדְרָכָיו, ״צַדִּיק״ – בְּמַעֲשָׂיו? אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ דְּנֹחַ גּוּפֵיהּ טְרֵיפָה הֲוָה, מִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ לְנֹחַ: דִּכְוָותָךְ עַיֵּיל, שְׁלֵמִים לָא תְּעַיֵּיל?!
The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the verse means that Noah was complete in his manner, and he was righteous in his good deeds. Accordingly, the verse would not exclude the possibility that Noah himself was a tereifa. The Gemara responds: If it enters your mind to say that Noah himself was a tereifa, would the Merciful One have said to him: Bring in tereifot like you to the ark, but do not bring in whole and perfect animals? It is not reasonable to say that there would be a preference for him to bring tereifot. Rather, Noah was certainly not a tereifa, and the fact that a tereifa is disqualified for sacrifice is derived from “with you.”
וּמֵאַחַר דְּנָפְקָא לַן מֵ״אִתָּךְ״, ״לְחַיּוֹת זֶרַע״ לְמָה לִי? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: ״אִתָּךְ״ – לְצַוְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא, אֲפִילּוּ זָקֵן אֲפִילּוּ סָרִיס; קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: And once we derive the disqualification of a tereifa from the term “with you,” why do I need the phrase “to keep seed alive”? The Gemara answers: If one could derive only from “with you,” you would say that Noah brought the animals to the ark only for the purpose of companionship, and therefore even an animal that is old or even one who is castrated can come into the ark, provided that it is not a tereifa. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “To keep seed alive,” which teaches us that only animals that can bear offspring were allowed to be brought into the ark.
טְהוֹרִין אֲבָל לֹא טְמֵאִין. וּמִי הֲווֹ טְמֵאִין וּטְהוֹרִין בְּהַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא?! אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מֵאוֹתָן שֶׁלֹּא נֶעֶבְדָה בָּהֶן עֲבֵירָה.
§ The baraita also teaches that before the Tabernacle was constructed, sacrifices were brought from animals and birds that were kosher, but not from non-kosher species. This is based on the verse that describes what Noah sacrificed when he exited the ark: “And he took of every pure animal and of every pure fowl and offered burnt offerings on the altar” (Genesis 8:20). The Gemara asks: And were there pure and impure species at that time, during the period of Noah? The distinction between pure, i.e., kosher species, and impure, i.e., non-kosher species, was introduced only after the Torah was given (see Leviticus, chapter 11). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: The pure animals that Noah took were from those that had not been used in the performance of sin.
מְנָא הֲווֹ יָדְעִי? כִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא. דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הֶעֱבִירָן לִפְנֵי הַתֵּיבָה; כֹּל שֶׁהַתֵּיבָה קוֹלַטְתָּן – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר, אֵין הַתֵּיבָה קוֹלַטְתָּן – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהֵן טְמֵאִין.
The Gemara asks: From where did Noah and his sons know which animals had been used in the performance of a sin, in order to prevent them from entering the ark? The Gemara answers that it is in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda. As Rav Ḥisda says: Noah caused all of the animals to pass before the ark. All animals that the ark accepted, i.e., drew in, was known to be pure; if the ark did not accept them, it was known that they were impure.
רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהַבָּאִים זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה״ – הַבָּאִין מֵאֲלֵיהֶן.
Rabbi Abbahu says there is a different explanation as to how Noah knew which animals were pure or impure. The verse states: “And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh” (Genesis 7:16), which means: Those that went in on their own. Consequently, Noah did not need to distinguish between pure and impure animals, as only the pure ones approached.
אָמַר מָר: וְהַכֹּל קָרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת. עוֹלוֹת אִין, שְׁלָמִים לָא. וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּזְבְּחוּ זְבָחִים שְׁלָמִים לַה׳ פָּרִים״! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הַכֹּל קָרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת [וּשְׁלָמִים].
§ In describing the sacrificial service before the Tabernacle was constructed, the Master said: And all offerings brought before the construction of the Tabernacle were sacrificed as burnt offerings. The Gemara infers: Burnt offerings, yes, were sacrificed, but peace offerings were not sacrificed. The Gemara challenges: But with regard to the offerings that were sacrificed at Mount Sinai at the time of the giving of the Torah, it is written: “And they offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the Lord” (Exodus 24:5). This event occurred prior to the construction of the Tabernacle. Rather, say that the baraita means: All offerings sacrificed were either burnt offerings or peace offerings.
וְהָתַנְיָא: אֲבָל שְׁלָמִים לָא, כִּי אִם עוֹלוֹת. עוֹלוֹת אִין, שְׁלָמִים לָא! כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא קֵרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים בְּנֵי נֹחַ – דְּאִיתְּמַר: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא, חַד אָמַר: קֵרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים בְּנֵי נֹחַ, וְחַד אָמַר: לֹא קֵרְבוּ.
The Gemara challenges: And isn’t it taught in another baraita: But peace offerings were not sacrificed before the construction of the Tabernacle; rather, only burnt offerings were sacrificed? Clearly, burnt offerings, yes, were sacrificed, but peace offerings were not sacrificed. The Gemara answers that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that peace offerings were not sacrificed by the descendants of Noah. As it was stated that there is a dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina with regard to this: One says that the descendants of Noah sacrificed peace offerings, and one says that they did not sacrifice peace offerings.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר קֵרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים בְּנֵי נֹחַ? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהֶבֶל הֵבִיא גַם הוּא מִבְּכוֹרוֹת צֹאנוֹ וּמֵחֶלְבֵהֶן״ – אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁחֶלְבּוֹ קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְאֵין כּוּלּוֹ קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה שְׁלָמִים.
The Gemara explains the two opinions: What is the reasoning of the one who says that the descendants of Noah sacrificed peace offerings? As it is written: “And Abel, he also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of the fat thereof” (Genesis 4:4). Abel, like all gentiles, is categorized as a descendant of Noah. The verse emphasizes that the fat was sacrificed. The Gemara analyzes: What is an item, i.e., an offering, the fat of which is sacrificed upon the altar, but that is not sacrificed in its entirety upon the altar? You must say: This is the peace offering, the meat of which is consumed.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא קֵרְבוּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״עוּרִי צָפוֹן וּבוֹאִי תֵימָן״ – תִּתְנַעֵר אוּמָּה שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂיהָ בַּצָּפוֹן, וְתָבוֹא אוּמָּה שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂיהָ בַּצָּפוֹן וּבַדָּרוֹם.
What is the reasoning of the one who says that they did not sacrifice peace offerings? As it is written: “Awake [uri], O north; and come, south…Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his precious fruits” (Song of Songs 4:16). The Gemara interprets this homiletically: The nation, i.e., the nations of the world, who are the descendants of Noah, whose acts, i.e., sacrifices, are only in the north, i.e., they sacrifice only burnt offerings, which are slaughtered and their blood collected in the north of the Temple courtyard, shall be removed [titna’er], and in its place shall come the Jewish nation, whose acts, i.e., sacrifices, are in the north and in the south, as they sacrifice burnt offerings, whose rites are performed in the north, and peace offerings, whose rites may also be performed in the south, as the entire courtyard is fit for their rites.
וּמָר נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״וּמֵחֶלְבֵיהֶן״! מִשַּׁמִּנֵיהוֹן [דִּידְהוּ].
The Gemara asks: And also according to the Master who holds that the descendants of Noah did not sacrifice peace offerings, isn’t it written: “And of the fat thereof,” from which it may be derived that Abel sacrificed a peace offering? The Gemara answers: “The fat thereof,” does not mean that Abel sacrificed only the fats of his offerings; rather, it means that he sacrificed the fattest of them, i.e., the fattest and choicest of his animals.
וּמָר נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״עוּרִי צָפוֹן״! [הָהוּא] בְּקִיבּוּץ גָּלִיּוֹת הוּא דִּכְתִיב.
The Gemara asks: And also according to the Master who holds that the descendants of Noah did sacrifice peace offerings, isn’t it written: “Awake, O north,” from which it may be derived that the nations of the world do not sacrifice peace offerings? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, that verse is written with regard to the ingathering of the exiles, i.e., the Jewish exiles will come from the north and the south.
וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה גַּם אַתָּה תִּתֵּן בְּיָדֵינוּ זְבָחִים וְעֹלֹת וְעָשִׂינוּ לַה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ״! זְבָחִים לַאֲכִילָה, וְעוֹלוֹת לְהַקְרָבָה.
With regard to the opinion that the descendants of Noah did not sacrifice peace offerings, the Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And Moses said: You must also give into our hand sacrifices [zevaḥim] and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God” (Exodus 10:25)? This indicates that sacrifices [zevaḥim], i.e., peace offerings, were sacrificed before the Torah was given. The Gemara answers: In this context, “zevaḥim” is referring to animals to be used for consumption, as the word zevaḥ can also be translated as an animal for slaughter, and “burnt offerings” is referring to animals to be used for sacrifice.
וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּקַּח יִתְרוֹ [חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה] עוֹלָה וּזְבָחִים״! הַהוּא לְאַחַר מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הוּא דִּכְתִיב.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written before the giving of the Torah: “And Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices [zevaḥim] for God” (Exodus 18:12)? Since the word zevaḥim there is referring to sacrifices, as the verse clearly states that Yitro took them for God, evidently peace offerings were sacrificed before the giving of the Torah. The Gemara answers: That verse was written with regard to the period after the giving of the Torah, when the Jewish people were permitted to sacrifice peace offerings.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: [יִתְרוֹ] אַחַר מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הָיָה; אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: [יִתְרוֹ] קוֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הָיָה – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? דְּאִיתְּמַר: בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי; חַד אָמַר: יִתְרוֹ קוֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הָיָה, וְחַד אָמַר: יִתְרוֹ אַחַר מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הָיָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יִתְרוֹ קוֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הָיָה – קָסָבַר שְׁלָמִים הִקְרִיבוּ בְּנֵי נֹחַ.
The Gemara notes: This works out well according to the one who says that the episode with Yitro was after the giving of the Torah. But according to the one who says that the episode with Yitro was before the giving of the Torah, what can be said? As it was stated: The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi engage in a dispute concerning this issue. One says that the episode with Yitro was before the giving of the Torah, and one says that the episode with Yitro was after the giving of the Torah. The Gemara answers: The one who says that the episode with Yitro was before the giving of the Torah maintains that the descendants of Noah did sacrifice peace offerings.
כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ כֹהֵן מִדְיָן״ – מָה שְׁמוּעָה שָׁמַע, וּבָא וְנִתְגַּיֵּיר? רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: מִלְחֶמֶת עֲמָלֵק שָׁמַע, שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּתִיב בְּצִדּוֹ: ״וַיַּחֲלֹשׁ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת עֲמָלֵק וְאֶת עַמּוֹ לְפִי חָרֶב״.
§ The Gemara notes that the disagreement between amora’im with regard to when Yitro came to Mount Sinai is like a dispute between tanna’im: The Torah states with regard to Yitro, before he came to Mount Sinai: “Now Yitro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel His people, how the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt” (Exodus 18:1). What tiding did he hear that he came and converted? Rabbi Yehoshua says: He heard about the war with Amalek, as it is written adjacent to the verses that state that Yitro came: “And Joshua weakened Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword” (Exodus 17:13).
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַמּוֹדָעִי אוֹמֵר: מַתַּן תּוֹרָה שָׁמַע [וּבָא], שֶׁכְּשֶׁנִּיתְּנָה תּוֹרָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הָיָה קוֹלוֹ הוֹלֵךְ מִסּוֹף הָעוֹלָם וְעַד סוֹפוֹ, וְכׇל [מַלְכֵי] אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם אֲחָזָתַן רְעָדָה בְּהֵיכְלֵיהֶן וְאָמְרוּ שִׁירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבְהֵיכָלוֹ כּוּלּוֹ אוֹמֵר כָּבוֹד״.
Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: He heard about the giving of the Torah and came. As when the Torah was given to the Jewish people, the voice of the Holy One, Blessed be He, went from one end of the world to the other end, and all of the kings of the nations of the world were overcome with trembling in their palaces and recited a song of praise, as it is stated: “The voice of the Lord makes the hinds to calve…and in his palace all say: Glory” (Psalms 29:9), i.e., each king in his own palace recited songs of praise to God.
נִתְקַבְּצוּ כּוּלָּם אֵצֶל בִּלְעָם הָרָשָׁע, וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: מָה קוֹל הֶהָמוֹן אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְנוּ? שֶׁמָּא מַבּוּל בָּא לָעוֹלָם (אָמַר לָהֶם) – ״ה׳ לַמַּבּוּל יָשָׁב״? [אָמַר לָהֶם]: ״וַיֵּשֶׁב ה׳ מֶלֶךְ לְעוֹלָם״ – כְּבָר נִשְׁבַּע הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא מַבּוּל לָעוֹלָם.
At that time, all of the kings gathered around Balaam the wicked, who was the greatest gentile prophet, and said to him: What is the tumultuous sound, i.e., the loud noise, that we have heard? Perhaps a flood is coming to destroy the world, as it is stated: “The Lord sat enthroned at the flood” (Psalms 29:10)? Balaam said to them: “The Lord sits as King forever” (Psalms 29:10), which means that the Holy One, Blessed be He, already took an oath after the flood never to bring a flood to the world, as it is stated: “And the waters shall no more become a flood” (Genesis 9:15).
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מַבּוּל שֶׁל מַיִם אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא, אֲבָל מַבּוּל שֶׁל אֵשׁ מֵבִיא – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי (הִנֵּה) בָּאֵשׁ ה׳ נִשְׁפָּט״. אָמַר לָהֶן: כְּבָר נִשְׁבַּע שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַשְׁחִית כׇּל בָּשָׂר.
The kings said to him: He will not bring a flood of water, as he vowed, but perhaps He will bring a flood of fire, as in the future the Lord will punish the nations with fire, as it is stated: “For by fire will the Lord contend, and by His sword with all flesh; and the slain of the Lord shall be many” (Isaiah 66:16). Balaam said to them: He already took an oath that He will not destroy all flesh in any manner, as it is stated: “To destroy all flesh” (Genesis 9:15). Therefore, there will not be a flood of fire.
וּמֶה קוֹל הֶהָמוֹן הַזֶּה שֶׁשָּׁמַעְנוּ? אָמַר לָהֶם: חֶמְדָּה טוֹבָה יֵשׁ לוֹ בְּבֵית גְּנָזָיו, שֶׁהָיְתָה גְּנוּזָה אֶצְלוֹ תְּשַׁע מֵאוֹת שִׁבְעִים וְאַרְבָּעָה דּוֹרוֹת קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּבְרָא הָעוֹלָם; וּבִיקֵּשׁ לִיתְּנָהּ לְבָנָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״ה׳ עוֹז לְעַמּוֹ יִתֵּן״. [מִיָּד] פָּתְחוּ כּוּלָּם וְאָמְרוּ: ״ה׳ יְבָרֵךְ אֶת עַמּוֹ בַשָּׁלוֹם״.
They asked: And if so, what is this tumultuous sound that we have heard? Balaam said to them: He has a good and precious item in His treasury, that was hidden away with Him for 974 generations before the world was created, and He seeks to give it to his children, as it is stated: “The Lord will give strength to His people” (Psalms 29:11). “Strength” is a reference to the Torah, which is the strength of the Jewish people. Immediately, they all began to say: “The Lord will bless His people with peace” (Psalms 29:11).
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: קְרִיעַת יַם סוּף שָׁמַע וּבָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ כׇּל מַלְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי״. וְאַף רָחָב הַזּוֹנָה אָמְרָה לִשְׁלוּחֵי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: ״כִּי שָׁמַעְנוּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר הוֹבִישׁ ה׳ אֶת מֵי יַם סוּף״.
The Gemara offers another explanation of what Yitro heard: Rabbi Eliezer says: He heard about the splitting of the Red Sea and came, as it is stated in a similar context with regard to the splitting of the Jordan in the days of Joshua: “And it came to pass, when all the kings of the Amorites, that were beyond the Jordan westward, and all the kings of the Canaanites, that were by the sea, heard how that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Jordan from before the children of Israel, until they were passed over, that their heart melted, neither was there spirit in them anymore, because of the children of Israel” (Joshua 5:1). And even Rahab the prostitute said to Joshua’s messengers: “For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea before you” (Joshua 2:10).
מַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם, דַּאֲמַר (לֵיהּ) ״וְלֹא הָיָה בָם עוֹד רוּחַ״; וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא, דְּקָאָמַר: ״וְלֹא קָמָה עוֹד רוּחַ בְּאִישׁ״?
The Gemara asks: What is different there, i.e., with regard to the splitting of the Jordan, where the verse states: “Neither was there spirit in them anymore,” and what is different here, i.e., in the statement of Rahab, where the verse states: “Neither did there remain [kama] any more spirit in any man” (Joshua 2:11)?
דַּאֲפִילּוּ אִקַּשּׁוֹיֵי נָמֵי לָא אִקַּשּׁוּ. וּמְנָא יָדְעָה? דְּאָמַר מָר: אֵין לָךְ כׇּל שַׂר וְנָגִיד שֶׁלֹּא בָּא עַל רָחָב הַזּוֹנָה.
The Gemara replies that Rahab used this phrase euphemistically, to say that their fear was so great that their male organs were not even able to become erect, as “kama” also means rise. The Gemara asks: And how did Rahab know this? The Gemara replies: As the Master said: You do not have any prince or ruler at that time who did not engage in intercourse with Rahab the prostitute.
אָמְרוּ: בַּת עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים הָיְתָה כְּשֶׁיָּצְאוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרַיִם, וְזִנְּתָה [כׇּל] אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר. אַחַר חֲמִישִּׁים שָׁנָה נִתְגַּיְּירָה, אָמְרָה: ״יְהֵא מָחוּל לִי בִּשְׂכַר חֶבֶל חַלּוֹן וּפִשְׁתִּים״.
The Gemara adds that the Sages said with regard to Rahab: She was ten years old when the Jewish people left Egypt, and she engaged in prostitution all forty years that the Jewish people were in the wilderness. After that, when she was fifty years old, she converted when the two spies visited her. She said: May all of my sins of prostitution be forgiven me as a reward for having endangered myself with the rope, window, and flax, by means of which I saved Joshua’s two spies. Rahab first concealed the spies in stalks of flax, and later assisted them in exiting her home by lowering them from the window with a rope (see Joshua 2:6 and 2:15).
אָמַר מָר: וְגוֹיִם בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה רַשָּׁאִין לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְצוּוִין עַל שְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ, וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם מְצוּוִין עַל שְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ.
§ The Master said in the baraita that discussed the sacrifice of offerings before the construction of the Tabernacle: And today gentiles are permitted to do so, i.e., to sacrifice offerings outside the Temple courtyard, despite the fact that this is forbidden for the Jews. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught with regard to the verses that prohibit the slaughter of offerings outside the Temple: “Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel” (Leviticus 17:2). This indicates that only Jews are commanded with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple, but gentiles are not commanded with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple.
לְפִיכָךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד בּוֹנֶה לוֹ בָּמָה לְעַצְמוֹ, וּמַקְרִיב עָלֶיהָ כׇּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה. אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אַחָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אָסוּר לְסַיְּיעָן וְלַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁלִיחוּתָן. אָמַר רַבָּה: וּלְאוֹרֹיִנְהוּ שְׁרֵי.
Therefore, each and every gentile may, if he desires, construct a private altar for himself, and sacrifice upon it whatever he desires. Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa says that Rav Asi says: Although it is permitted for gentiles to sacrifice offerings outside the Temple courtyard, it is prohibited for a Jew to assist them or to fulfill their agency in this matter, as sacrificing in this manner is forbidden for a Jew. Rabba said: But to instruct them how to sacrifice outside the Temple is permitted.
כִּי הָא דְּאִיפְרָא הוֹרְמִיז אִימֵּיהּ דְּשַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא שַׁדַּרָה קוּרְבָּנָא לְרָבָא, שְׁלַחָה לֵיהּ: ״אַסְּקוּהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם״. אֲמַר לְהוּ לְרַב סָפְרָא וּלְרַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא: זִילוּ וּדְבַרוּ תְּרֵי עוּלֵמֵי גּוּלָאֵי, וַחֲזוֹ הֵיכָא דְּמַסְּקָא יַמָּא שִׂירְטוֹן; וּשְׁקֻלוּ צִיבֵי חַדְתֵי, וְאַפִּיקוּ נוּרָא מִמָּרָא חַדְתָּא, וְאַסְּקוּהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם.
This is similar to that incident in which Ifera Hurmiz, the mother of King Shapur of Persia, sent an offering to Rava, with which she sent this message to him: Sacrifice this for me, for the sake of Heaven. Rava said to Rav Safra and to Rav Aḥa bar Huna: Go, take two gentile youths of the same age, i.e., similar to one another, so that the sacrifice will be performed with maximal beauty, and see where the sea currently raises silt [sirton], which is a place that no one has used before. And take new wood and bring out fire from new vessels, and the two youths will sacrifice the offering for her, for the sake of Heaven.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: כְּמַאן – כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ אוֹמֵר: מָה מִזְבֵּחַ – שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ הֶדְיוֹט, אַף עֵצִים – שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן הֶדְיוֹט. וְהָא מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ בְּבָמָה!
Abaye said to Rava: In accordance with whose opinion was the instruction to sacrifice exclusively with new wood? Was it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua? As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says: Just as the altar is a place that is not used by an ordinary person, so too, the wood that will be used must not be used by an ordinary person. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua concede that in the case of a private altar the wood need not be new?
דְּתַנְיָא, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וַיִּתֵּן דָּוִד לְאׇרְנָן בַּמָּקוֹם שִׁקְלֵי זָהָב מִשְׁקָל שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקֶן דָּוִד אֶת הַגֹּרֶן וְאֶת הַבָּקָר בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים חֲמִשִּׁים״; הָא כֵּיצַד?
As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to David’s purchase of the site of the Temple, when he wished to build an altar there at God’s instruction, one verse states: “So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight. And David built there an altar to the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings” (I Chronicles 21:25–26). And it is written elsewhere: “So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver. And David built there an altar to the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings” (II Samuel 24:24–25). How can these texts be reconciled?
גּוֹבֶה מִכׇּל שֵׁבֶט וָשֵׁבֶט חֲמִשִּׁים, שֶׁהֵן שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסְתַּאי: בָּקָר [וְעֵצִים] וּמְקוֹם מִזְבֵּחַ בַּחֲמִשִּׁים, וְכׇל הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ בְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת.
David would collect from each tribe of the twelve tribes fifty shekels, which are a sum of six hundred shekels. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says in the name of Abba Yosei ben Dostai that there is another explanation: David purchased the cattle and the wood and the site of the altar for fifty shekels, and he purchased the site of the entire Temple for six hundred shekels.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ אוֹמֵר: בָּקָר וְעֵצִים וּמְקוֹם מִזְבֵּחַ בַּחֲמִשִּׁים, וְכׇל הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ בְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת; דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֲרַוְנָה אֶל דָּוִד: יִקַּח וְיַעַל אֲדוֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ [הַטּוֹב בְּעֵינָיו], רְאֵה הַבָּקָר לָעֹלָה וְהַמֹּרִגִּים [וּכְלֵי הַבָּקָר] לָעֵצִים״. וְרָבָא אָמַר לָךְ: הָתָם נָמֵי בְּחַדְתֵי.
Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says likewise: David purchased the cattle and the wood and the site of the altar for fifty shekels, and the site of the entire Temple for six hundred shekels, as it is written: “And Araunah said to David: Let my lord the king take and offer that which is good in his eyes; see the cattle for the burnt offering, and the threshing tools, and the implements of the cattle for the wood” (II Samuel 24:22), to which David replied: “No, but I will buy it from you at a price” (II Samuel 24:24). Consequently, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, David purchased the threshing instruments and the furniture of the oxen for use as wood. And Rava could have said to you in response: There too, in the case of David, the verse is dealing with new vessels that had not yet been used.
מַאי מוֹרִיגִּים? אָמַר עוּלָּא: מִטָּה שֶׁל טוּרְבֵּל. מַאי מִטָּה שֶׁל טוּרְבֵּל? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: עִיזָּא דְּקֻרְקְסָא דְּדָיְישָׁן דִּישָׁאֵי. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאי קְרָא? ״הִנֵּה שַׂמְתִּיךְ לְמוֹרַג חָרוּץ חָדָשׁ בַּעַל פִּיפִיּוֹת״.
The Gemara asks: What are “the threshing instruments [morigim]” mentioned in the verse? Ulla said: It is a turbal bed. The Gemara asks: What is a turbal bed? Abaye said: It is a heavy, serrated board [dekurkesa], used for threshing. Abaye said: What is the verse from which the meaning of morigim is derived? “Behold, I have made you a new threshing board [morag] having sharp teeth; you shall thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and shall make the hills as chaff” (Isaiah 41:15). This verse indicates that a morag has grooves and teeth, and is used for threshing.
מַקְרֵי לֵיהּ רָבָא לִבְרֵיהּ, וְרָמֵי לֵיהּ קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי; כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּתֵּן דָּוִד לְאׇרְנָן וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקֶן דָּוִד וְגוֹ׳״; הָא כֵּיצַד? גּוֹבֶה מִכׇּל שֵׁבֶט וָשֵׁבֶט חֲמִשִּׁים, שֶׁהֵן שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת.
With regard to the contradiction between the verses that relate the sum of shekels paid by David, the Gemara says that Rava was teaching these verses to his son, and raised a contradiction between verses: It is written: “So David gave to Ornan…six hundred shekels of gold by weight” (I Chronicles 21:25), and it is written: “So David bought…fifty shekels of silver” (II Samuel 24:24). How can these texts be reconciled? David would collect from each tribe of the twelve tribes fifty shekels, which are a sum of six hundred shekels.
וְאַכַּתִּי קַשְׁיָין אַהֲדָדֵי – הָתָם כֶּסֶף, הָכָא זָהָב! אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: גּוֹבֶה כֶּסֶף בְּמִשְׁקַל שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת זָהָב.
The Gemara asks: But these verses are still difficult, as they contradict one another, since there in the book of Samuel it is stated that David paid silver shekels, while here in Chronicles it is stated that he paid gold shekels. The Gemara replies: Rather, this is what the verses are saying: David would collect from each tribe silver shekels that had the value of fifty gold shekels in weight, so that the value of the final sum was equal to six hundred gold shekels.
קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים נֶאֱכָלִים [בְּכׇל מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל]. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בְּכׇל מְקוֹמוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל מַחֲנֶה לָא הָוֵי.
§ The mishna teaches that once the Tabernacle was established in the wilderness, offerings of lesser sanctity were eaten throughout the camp of Israel. Rav Huna says: This means that offerings of lesser sanctity were eaten in any of the places that an Israelite would be found. But there was no actual camp, outside of which it was prohibited to eat the offerings.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַב הוּנָא: וּמַחֲנוֹת בְּמִדְבָּר לָא הֲוַאי?! וְהָא תַּנְיָא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמַּחֲנֶה בַּמִּדְבָּר, כָּךְ מַחֲנֶה בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם; מִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְהַר הַבַּיִת – מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵהַר הַבַּיִת לְשַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר – מַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה,
Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Rav Huna: And were there not camps when the Jews were in the wilderness? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (see Tosefta, Kelim Bava Kamma 1:12): Just as there was a camp in the wilderness that was divided into different sections, with each section having particular halakhot pertaining to the consumption of offerings and to the ritually impure individuals who were prohibited from entering there, so too, there is a corresponding camp in Jerusalem: The area from the walls of Jerusalem to the Temple Mount has the status of the Israelite camp. The area from the Temple Mount to Nicanor’s Gate at the entrance to the Temple courtyard has the status of the Levite camp.
מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – מַחֲנֵה שְׁכִינָה, וְהֵן הֵן קְלָעִים שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר.
From that point onward, i.e., from the entrance to the Temple courtyard, the area has the status of the camp of the Divine Presence; and the Temple courtyard has the same status as the area within the curtains surrounding the courtyard of the Tabernacle in the wilderness.
אֶלָּא אֵימָא: בְּכׇל מְקוֹם מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִיפְּסִלוּ בְּיוֹצֵא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara replies: Rather, say that Rav Huna meant that when the Tabernacle was in the wilderness, offerings of lesser sanctity could be consumed wherever the Israelite camp was located. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? Wherever the Jews were located in the wilderness was where the Israelite camp was. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that during the periods of travel between encampments the offerings were taken outside the Israelite camp, and were thereby disqualified due to the meat’s leaving the area within the partitions, Rav Huna teaches us that the meat is not disqualified.
וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי! אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנָסַע אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּסַע, אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד הוּא.
The Gemara asks: But why not say that this is indeed so, i.e., that the meat is disqualified because it left the camp? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “Then the Tent of Meeting, with the camp of the Levites, shall travel in the midst of the camps; as they encamp, so shall they travel” (Numbers 2:17), which indicates that although it traveled from its place it is still the Tent of Meeting. Similarly, the Israelite camp retains its status even while traveling.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי אוֹמֵר: עוֹד אַחֶרֶת הָיְתָה, וְחֵיל עֶזְרַת נָשִׁים הִיא, וְלֹא הָיוּ עוֹנְשִׁין עָלֶיהָ. וּבְשִׁילֹה לֹא הָיוּ אֶלָּא שְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת בִּלְבַד.
§ With regard to the division of Jerusalem into three camps, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: There was an additional camp in Jerusalem, within the area of the Temple Mount, and it was the rampart of the women’s courtyard. The Sages rendered it prohibited for certain ritually impure individuals to enter that area, but they would not punish them for entering it, as by Torah law it does not constitute a distinct section of the Temple Mount but has the status of the Levite camp. The baraita adds: And when the Tabernacle was in Shiloh there were only two camps.
הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ לָא הֲוָה? אָמַר רַבָּה: מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה הֲוַאי; דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה לָא הֲוַאי –
The Gemara asks: Which of the three camps that were present in the wilderness was not present in Shiloh? Rabba said: It stands to reason that the Levite camp was present, but the Israelite camp was not. As, if it enters your mind to say that the Levite camp was not present in Shiloh,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Din & Daf: A Breakaway Mikdash in Egypt? Chazal’s take the Temple of Onias
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
Bronx, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Zevachim 116
זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת, תְּמִימִין וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין – דְּאָמַר מָר: תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בִּבְהֵמָה, וְאֵין תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בְּעוֹפוֹת.
That which was taught in the baraita: All animals were fit to be sacrificed: Males and females, unblemished and blemished animals, pertains to that which the Master said as a principle concerning the halakhot of sacrifices: The requirements that an offering must have unblemished status and that a burnt offering must have male status apply to animal offerings, but the requirements of unblemished status and male status do not apply to birds.
וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ בְּהֵמָה לְעוֹף.
And in the verses that recount Noah’s sacrifices upon exiting the ark, a domesticated animal is juxtaposed with a bird, in the verse: “Of every pure animal, and of every pure fowl” (Genesis 8:20), which teaches that kosher animals had a status identical to that of birds, and could be sacrificed whether male or female, unblemished or blemished.
תְּמִימִין וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין – לְאַפּוֹקֵי מְחוּסַּר אֵבֶר, דְּלָא. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנַּיִן לִמְחוּסַּר אֵבֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱסַר לִבְנֵי נֹחַ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וּמִכׇּל הָחַי מִכׇּל בָּשָׂר״ – אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: הָבֵא בְּהֵמָה שֶׁחַיִּין רָאשֵׁי אֵיבָרִין שֶׁלָּהּ.
The Gemara adds: That which was taught in the baraita: Unblemished and blemished animals, serves to exclude animals that are lacking a limb, which were not fit for sacrifice. As Rabbi Elazar says: From where is it derived that an animal that is lacking a limb is forbidden to the descendants of Noah, i.e., gentiles, to be used as a sacrifice? The verse states with regard to Noah: “And of every living being of all flesh, two of every sort shall you bring into the ark” (Genesis 6:19). With regard to the phrase: “And of every living being,” which is superfluous, the Torah stated: Bring an animal whose limbs are all living, not one lacking a limb, as that animal is disqualified from sacrifice.
וְדִילְמָא לְמַעוֹטֵי טְרֵיפָה? הָהוּא מִ״לְּחַיּוֹת זֶרַע״ נָפְקָא.
The Gemara challenges: But perhaps this phrase: “And of every living being,” serves to exclude an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa] from being fit as a sacrifice. The Gemara explains: The disqualification of a tereifa is derived from the phrase: “To keep seed alive” (Genesis 7:3), as a tereifa cannot propagate.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵיפָה אֵינָהּ יוֹלֶדֶת, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר טְרֵיפָה יוֹלֶדֶת – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? הָאָמַר קְרָא: ״אִתָּךְ״ – בְּדוֹמִין לָךְ.
The Gemara challenges: This works out well according to the one who says that a tereifa cannot give birth. In this case the disqualification of the tereifa is derived from the verse: “To keep seed alive,” while the disqualification of the animal lacking a limb is derived from the verse: “And of every living being.” But according to the one who says that a tereifa can give birth, what can be said? According to this opinion, a tereifa cannot be excluded by the phrase: “To keep seed alive.” The Gemara explains: Doesn’t the verse state with regard to the animals that were brought by Noah into the ark: “You shall bring into the ark, to keep them alive with you” (Genesis 6:19)? The term “with you” indicates that the verse is stated with regard to animals that are similar to you, not a tereifa.
וְדִילְמָא נֹחַ גּוּפֵיהּ טְרֵיפָה הֲוָה? ״תָּמִים״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ. וְדִילְמָא תָּמִים בִּדְרָכָיו? ״צַדִּיק״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ.
The Gemara asks: But perhaps Noah himself was a tereifa. If so, one cannot exclude a tereifa from the comparison of animals to Noah. The Gemara answers: It is written about Noah that he was “complete” (Genesis 6:9), which indicates that he was physically whole and unblemished. The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the verse means that his ways were complete, and it is not referring to Noah’s physical attributes. The Gemara explains: It is already written about him that he was “righteous” (Genesis 6:9), which means that his actions were perfect. Consequently, when the verse says that he was also complete, it must be referring to his body.
וְדִילְמָא ״תָּמִים״ – בִּדְרָכָיו, ״צַדִּיק״ – בְּמַעֲשָׂיו? אִי סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ דְּנֹחַ גּוּפֵיהּ טְרֵיפָה הֲוָה, מִי קָאָמַר לֵיהּ לְנֹחַ: דִּכְוָותָךְ עַיֵּיל, שְׁלֵמִים לָא תְּעַיֵּיל?!
The Gemara challenges: But perhaps the verse means that Noah was complete in his manner, and he was righteous in his good deeds. Accordingly, the verse would not exclude the possibility that Noah himself was a tereifa. The Gemara responds: If it enters your mind to say that Noah himself was a tereifa, would the Merciful One have said to him: Bring in tereifot like you to the ark, but do not bring in whole and perfect animals? It is not reasonable to say that there would be a preference for him to bring tereifot. Rather, Noah was certainly not a tereifa, and the fact that a tereifa is disqualified for sacrifice is derived from “with you.”
וּמֵאַחַר דְּנָפְקָא לַן מֵ״אִתָּךְ״, ״לְחַיּוֹת זֶרַע״ לְמָה לִי? מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: ״אִתָּךְ״ – לְצַוְתָּא בְּעָלְמָא, אֲפִילּוּ זָקֵן אֲפִילּוּ סָרִיס; קָמַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: And once we derive the disqualification of a tereifa from the term “with you,” why do I need the phrase “to keep seed alive”? The Gemara answers: If one could derive only from “with you,” you would say that Noah brought the animals to the ark only for the purpose of companionship, and therefore even an animal that is old or even one who is castrated can come into the ark, provided that it is not a tereifa. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “To keep seed alive,” which teaches us that only animals that can bear offspring were allowed to be brought into the ark.
טְהוֹרִין אֲבָל לֹא טְמֵאִין. וּמִי הֲווֹ טְמֵאִין וּטְהוֹרִין בְּהַהִיא שַׁעְתָּא?! אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מֵאוֹתָן שֶׁלֹּא נֶעֶבְדָה בָּהֶן עֲבֵירָה.
§ The baraita also teaches that before the Tabernacle was constructed, sacrifices were brought from animals and birds that were kosher, but not from non-kosher species. This is based on the verse that describes what Noah sacrificed when he exited the ark: “And he took of every pure animal and of every pure fowl and offered burnt offerings on the altar” (Genesis 8:20). The Gemara asks: And were there pure and impure species at that time, during the period of Noah? The distinction between pure, i.e., kosher species, and impure, i.e., non-kosher species, was introduced only after the Torah was given (see Leviticus, chapter 11). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says that Rabbi Yonatan says: The pure animals that Noah took were from those that had not been used in the performance of sin.
מְנָא הֲווֹ יָדְעִי? כִּדְרַב חִסְדָּא. דְּאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: הֶעֱבִירָן לִפְנֵי הַתֵּיבָה; כֹּל שֶׁהַתֵּיבָה קוֹלַטְתָּן – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהוּא טָהוֹר, אֵין הַתֵּיבָה קוֹלַטְתָּן – בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁהֵן טְמֵאִין.
The Gemara asks: From where did Noah and his sons know which animals had been used in the performance of a sin, in order to prevent them from entering the ark? The Gemara answers that it is in accordance with the statement of Rav Ḥisda. As Rav Ḥisda says: Noah caused all of the animals to pass before the ark. All animals that the ark accepted, i.e., drew in, was known to be pure; if the ark did not accept them, it was known that they were impure.
רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהַבָּאִים זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה״ – הַבָּאִין מֵאֲלֵיהֶן.
Rabbi Abbahu says there is a different explanation as to how Noah knew which animals were pure or impure. The verse states: “And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh” (Genesis 7:16), which means: Those that went in on their own. Consequently, Noah did not need to distinguish between pure and impure animals, as only the pure ones approached.
אָמַר מָר: וְהַכֹּל קָרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת. עוֹלוֹת אִין, שְׁלָמִים לָא. וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּזְבְּחוּ זְבָחִים שְׁלָמִים לַה׳ פָּרִים״! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הַכֹּל קָרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת [וּשְׁלָמִים].
§ In describing the sacrificial service before the Tabernacle was constructed, the Master said: And all offerings brought before the construction of the Tabernacle were sacrificed as burnt offerings. The Gemara infers: Burnt offerings, yes, were sacrificed, but peace offerings were not sacrificed. The Gemara challenges: But with regard to the offerings that were sacrificed at Mount Sinai at the time of the giving of the Torah, it is written: “And they offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the Lord” (Exodus 24:5). This event occurred prior to the construction of the Tabernacle. Rather, say that the baraita means: All offerings sacrificed were either burnt offerings or peace offerings.
וְהָתַנְיָא: אֲבָל שְׁלָמִים לָא, כִּי אִם עוֹלוֹת. עוֹלוֹת אִין, שְׁלָמִים לָא! כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא קֵרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים בְּנֵי נֹחַ – דְּאִיתְּמַר: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא, חַד אָמַר: קֵרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים בְּנֵי נֹחַ, וְחַד אָמַר: לֹא קֵרְבוּ.
The Gemara challenges: And isn’t it taught in another baraita: But peace offerings were not sacrificed before the construction of the Tabernacle; rather, only burnt offerings were sacrificed? Clearly, burnt offerings, yes, were sacrificed, but peace offerings were not sacrificed. The Gemara answers that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that peace offerings were not sacrificed by the descendants of Noah. As it was stated that there is a dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina with regard to this: One says that the descendants of Noah sacrificed peace offerings, and one says that they did not sacrifice peace offerings.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר קֵרְבוּ שְׁלָמִים בְּנֵי נֹחַ? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהֶבֶל הֵבִיא גַם הוּא מִבְּכוֹרוֹת צֹאנוֹ וּמֵחֶלְבֵהֶן״ – אֵיזֶהוּ דָּבָר שֶׁחֶלְבּוֹ קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, וְאֵין כּוּלּוֹ קָרֵב לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ? הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר: זֶה שְׁלָמִים.
The Gemara explains the two opinions: What is the reasoning of the one who says that the descendants of Noah sacrificed peace offerings? As it is written: “And Abel, he also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of the fat thereof” (Genesis 4:4). Abel, like all gentiles, is categorized as a descendant of Noah. The verse emphasizes that the fat was sacrificed. The Gemara analyzes: What is an item, i.e., an offering, the fat of which is sacrificed upon the altar, but that is not sacrificed in its entirety upon the altar? You must say: This is the peace offering, the meat of which is consumed.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא קֵרְבוּ? דִּכְתִיב: ״עוּרִי צָפוֹן וּבוֹאִי תֵימָן״ – תִּתְנַעֵר אוּמָּה שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂיהָ בַּצָּפוֹן, וְתָבוֹא אוּמָּה שֶׁמַּעֲשֶׂיהָ בַּצָּפוֹן וּבַדָּרוֹם.
What is the reasoning of the one who says that they did not sacrifice peace offerings? As it is written: “Awake [uri], O north; and come, south…Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his precious fruits” (Song of Songs 4:16). The Gemara interprets this homiletically: The nation, i.e., the nations of the world, who are the descendants of Noah, whose acts, i.e., sacrifices, are only in the north, i.e., they sacrifice only burnt offerings, which are slaughtered and their blood collected in the north of the Temple courtyard, shall be removed [titna’er], and in its place shall come the Jewish nation, whose acts, i.e., sacrifices, are in the north and in the south, as they sacrifice burnt offerings, whose rites are performed in the north, and peace offerings, whose rites may also be performed in the south, as the entire courtyard is fit for their rites.
וּמָר נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״וּמֵחֶלְבֵיהֶן״! מִשַּׁמִּנֵיהוֹן [דִּידְהוּ].
The Gemara asks: And also according to the Master who holds that the descendants of Noah did not sacrifice peace offerings, isn’t it written: “And of the fat thereof,” from which it may be derived that Abel sacrificed a peace offering? The Gemara answers: “The fat thereof,” does not mean that Abel sacrificed only the fats of his offerings; rather, it means that he sacrificed the fattest of them, i.e., the fattest and choicest of his animals.
וּמָר נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב: ״עוּרִי צָפוֹן״! [הָהוּא] בְּקִיבּוּץ גָּלִיּוֹת הוּא דִּכְתִיב.
The Gemara asks: And also according to the Master who holds that the descendants of Noah did sacrifice peace offerings, isn’t it written: “Awake, O north,” from which it may be derived that the nations of the world do not sacrifice peace offerings? The Gemara answers: In his opinion, that verse is written with regard to the ingathering of the exiles, i.e., the Jewish exiles will come from the north and the south.
וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר מֹשֶׁה גַּם אַתָּה תִּתֵּן בְּיָדֵינוּ זְבָחִים וְעֹלֹת וְעָשִׂינוּ לַה׳ אֱלֹהֵינוּ״! זְבָחִים לַאֲכִילָה, וְעוֹלוֹת לְהַקְרָבָה.
With regard to the opinion that the descendants of Noah did not sacrifice peace offerings, the Gemara asks: But isn’t it written: “And Moses said: You must also give into our hand sacrifices [zevaḥim] and burnt offerings, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God” (Exodus 10:25)? This indicates that sacrifices [zevaḥim], i.e., peace offerings, were sacrificed before the Torah was given. The Gemara answers: In this context, “zevaḥim” is referring to animals to be used for consumption, as the word zevaḥ can also be translated as an animal for slaughter, and “burnt offerings” is referring to animals to be used for sacrifice.
וְהָא כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּקַּח יִתְרוֹ [חֹתֵן מֹשֶׁה] עוֹלָה וּזְבָחִים״! הַהוּא לְאַחַר מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הוּא דִּכְתִיב.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t it written before the giving of the Torah: “And Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices [zevaḥim] for God” (Exodus 18:12)? Since the word zevaḥim there is referring to sacrifices, as the verse clearly states that Yitro took them for God, evidently peace offerings were sacrificed before the giving of the Torah. The Gemara answers: That verse was written with regard to the period after the giving of the Torah, when the Jewish people were permitted to sacrifice peace offerings.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: [יִתְרוֹ] אַחַר מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הָיָה; אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: [יִתְרוֹ] קוֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הָיָה – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? דְּאִיתְּמַר: בְּנֵי רַבִּי חִיָּיא וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי; חַד אָמַר: יִתְרוֹ קוֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הָיָה, וְחַד אָמַר: יִתְרוֹ אַחַר מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הָיָה. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר יִתְרוֹ קוֹדֶם מַתַּן תּוֹרָה הָיָה – קָסָבַר שְׁלָמִים הִקְרִיבוּ בְּנֵי נֹחַ.
The Gemara notes: This works out well according to the one who says that the episode with Yitro was after the giving of the Torah. But according to the one who says that the episode with Yitro was before the giving of the Torah, what can be said? As it was stated: The sons of Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi engage in a dispute concerning this issue. One says that the episode with Yitro was before the giving of the Torah, and one says that the episode with Yitro was after the giving of the Torah. The Gemara answers: The one who says that the episode with Yitro was before the giving of the Torah maintains that the descendants of Noah did sacrifice peace offerings.
כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״וַיִּשְׁמַע יִתְרוֹ כֹהֵן מִדְיָן״ – מָה שְׁמוּעָה שָׁמַע, וּבָא וְנִתְגַּיֵּיר? רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: מִלְחֶמֶת עֲמָלֵק שָׁמַע, שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּתִיב בְּצִדּוֹ: ״וַיַּחֲלֹשׁ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת עֲמָלֵק וְאֶת עַמּוֹ לְפִי חָרֶב״.
§ The Gemara notes that the disagreement between amora’im with regard to when Yitro came to Mount Sinai is like a dispute between tanna’im: The Torah states with regard to Yitro, before he came to Mount Sinai: “Now Yitro, the priest of Midian, Moses’ father-in-law, heard of all that God had done for Moses, and for Israel His people, how the Lord had brought Israel out of Egypt” (Exodus 18:1). What tiding did he hear that he came and converted? Rabbi Yehoshua says: He heard about the war with Amalek, as it is written adjacent to the verses that state that Yitro came: “And Joshua weakened Amalek and his people with the edge of the sword” (Exodus 17:13).
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַמּוֹדָעִי אוֹמֵר: מַתַּן תּוֹרָה שָׁמַע [וּבָא], שֶׁכְּשֶׁנִּיתְּנָה תּוֹרָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הָיָה קוֹלוֹ הוֹלֵךְ מִסּוֹף הָעוֹלָם וְעַד סוֹפוֹ, וְכׇל [מַלְכֵי] אוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם אֲחָזָתַן רְעָדָה בְּהֵיכְלֵיהֶן וְאָמְרוּ שִׁירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבְהֵיכָלוֹ כּוּלּוֹ אוֹמֵר כָּבוֹד״.
Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: He heard about the giving of the Torah and came. As when the Torah was given to the Jewish people, the voice of the Holy One, Blessed be He, went from one end of the world to the other end, and all of the kings of the nations of the world were overcome with trembling in their palaces and recited a song of praise, as it is stated: “The voice of the Lord makes the hinds to calve…and in his palace all say: Glory” (Psalms 29:9), i.e., each king in his own palace recited songs of praise to God.
נִתְקַבְּצוּ כּוּלָּם אֵצֶל בִּלְעָם הָרָשָׁע, וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ: מָה קוֹל הֶהָמוֹן אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַעְנוּ? שֶׁמָּא מַבּוּל בָּא לָעוֹלָם (אָמַר לָהֶם) – ״ה׳ לַמַּבּוּל יָשָׁב״? [אָמַר לָהֶם]: ״וַיֵּשֶׁב ה׳ מֶלֶךְ לְעוֹלָם״ – כְּבָר נִשְׁבַּע הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא מַבּוּל לָעוֹלָם.
At that time, all of the kings gathered around Balaam the wicked, who was the greatest gentile prophet, and said to him: What is the tumultuous sound, i.e., the loud noise, that we have heard? Perhaps a flood is coming to destroy the world, as it is stated: “The Lord sat enthroned at the flood” (Psalms 29:10)? Balaam said to them: “The Lord sits as King forever” (Psalms 29:10), which means that the Holy One, Blessed be He, already took an oath after the flood never to bring a flood to the world, as it is stated: “And the waters shall no more become a flood” (Genesis 9:15).
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: מַבּוּל שֶׁל מַיִם אֵינוֹ מֵבִיא, אֲבָל מַבּוּל שֶׁל אֵשׁ מֵבִיא – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי (הִנֵּה) בָּאֵשׁ ה׳ נִשְׁפָּט״. אָמַר לָהֶן: כְּבָר נִשְׁבַּע שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַשְׁחִית כׇּל בָּשָׂר.
The kings said to him: He will not bring a flood of water, as he vowed, but perhaps He will bring a flood of fire, as in the future the Lord will punish the nations with fire, as it is stated: “For by fire will the Lord contend, and by His sword with all flesh; and the slain of the Lord shall be many” (Isaiah 66:16). Balaam said to them: He already took an oath that He will not destroy all flesh in any manner, as it is stated: “To destroy all flesh” (Genesis 9:15). Therefore, there will not be a flood of fire.
וּמֶה קוֹל הֶהָמוֹן הַזֶּה שֶׁשָּׁמַעְנוּ? אָמַר לָהֶם: חֶמְדָּה טוֹבָה יֵשׁ לוֹ בְּבֵית גְּנָזָיו, שֶׁהָיְתָה גְּנוּזָה אֶצְלוֹ תְּשַׁע מֵאוֹת שִׁבְעִים וְאַרְבָּעָה דּוֹרוֹת קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּבְרָא הָעוֹלָם; וּבִיקֵּשׁ לִיתְּנָהּ לְבָנָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״ה׳ עוֹז לְעַמּוֹ יִתֵּן״. [מִיָּד] פָּתְחוּ כּוּלָּם וְאָמְרוּ: ״ה׳ יְבָרֵךְ אֶת עַמּוֹ בַשָּׁלוֹם״.
They asked: And if so, what is this tumultuous sound that we have heard? Balaam said to them: He has a good and precious item in His treasury, that was hidden away with Him for 974 generations before the world was created, and He seeks to give it to his children, as it is stated: “The Lord will give strength to His people” (Psalms 29:11). “Strength” is a reference to the Torah, which is the strength of the Jewish people. Immediately, they all began to say: “The Lord will bless His people with peace” (Psalms 29:11).
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: קְרִיעַת יַם סוּף שָׁמַע וּבָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ כׇּל מַלְכֵי הָאֱמֹרִי״. וְאַף רָחָב הַזּוֹנָה אָמְרָה לִשְׁלוּחֵי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: ״כִּי שָׁמַעְנוּ אֵת אֲשֶׁר הוֹבִישׁ ה׳ אֶת מֵי יַם סוּף״.
The Gemara offers another explanation of what Yitro heard: Rabbi Eliezer says: He heard about the splitting of the Red Sea and came, as it is stated in a similar context with regard to the splitting of the Jordan in the days of Joshua: “And it came to pass, when all the kings of the Amorites, that were beyond the Jordan westward, and all the kings of the Canaanites, that were by the sea, heard how that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Jordan from before the children of Israel, until they were passed over, that their heart melted, neither was there spirit in them anymore, because of the children of Israel” (Joshua 5:1). And even Rahab the prostitute said to Joshua’s messengers: “For we have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea before you” (Joshua 2:10).
מַאי שְׁנָא הָתָם, דַּאֲמַר (לֵיהּ) ״וְלֹא הָיָה בָם עוֹד רוּחַ״; וּמַאי שְׁנָא הָכָא, דְּקָאָמַר: ״וְלֹא קָמָה עוֹד רוּחַ בְּאִישׁ״?
The Gemara asks: What is different there, i.e., with regard to the splitting of the Jordan, where the verse states: “Neither was there spirit in them anymore,” and what is different here, i.e., in the statement of Rahab, where the verse states: “Neither did there remain [kama] any more spirit in any man” (Joshua 2:11)?
דַּאֲפִילּוּ אִקַּשּׁוֹיֵי נָמֵי לָא אִקַּשּׁוּ. וּמְנָא יָדְעָה? דְּאָמַר מָר: אֵין לָךְ כׇּל שַׂר וְנָגִיד שֶׁלֹּא בָּא עַל רָחָב הַזּוֹנָה.
The Gemara replies that Rahab used this phrase euphemistically, to say that their fear was so great that their male organs were not even able to become erect, as “kama” also means rise. The Gemara asks: And how did Rahab know this? The Gemara replies: As the Master said: You do not have any prince or ruler at that time who did not engage in intercourse with Rahab the prostitute.
אָמְרוּ: בַּת עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים הָיְתָה כְּשֶׁיָּצְאוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרַיִם, וְזִנְּתָה [כׇּל] אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה שֶׁהָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר. אַחַר חֲמִישִּׁים שָׁנָה נִתְגַּיְּירָה, אָמְרָה: ״יְהֵא מָחוּל לִי בִּשְׂכַר חֶבֶל חַלּוֹן וּפִשְׁתִּים״.
The Gemara adds that the Sages said with regard to Rahab: She was ten years old when the Jewish people left Egypt, and she engaged in prostitution all forty years that the Jewish people were in the wilderness. After that, when she was fifty years old, she converted when the two spies visited her. She said: May all of my sins of prostitution be forgiven me as a reward for having endangered myself with the rope, window, and flax, by means of which I saved Joshua’s two spies. Rahab first concealed the spies in stalks of flax, and later assisted them in exiting her home by lowering them from the window with a rope (see Joshua 2:6 and 2:15).
אָמַר מָר: וְגוֹיִם בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה רַשָּׁאִין לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל מְצוּוִין עַל שְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ, וְאֵין הַגּוֹיִם מְצוּוִין עַל שְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ.
§ The Master said in the baraita that discussed the sacrifice of offerings before the construction of the Tabernacle: And today gentiles are permitted to do so, i.e., to sacrifice offerings outside the Temple courtyard, despite the fact that this is forbidden for the Jews. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As the Sages taught with regard to the verses that prohibit the slaughter of offerings outside the Temple: “Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel” (Leviticus 17:2). This indicates that only Jews are commanded with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple, but gentiles are not commanded with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple.
לְפִיכָךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד בּוֹנֶה לוֹ בָּמָה לְעַצְמוֹ, וּמַקְרִיב עָלֶיהָ כׇּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצֶה. אָמַר רַבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אַחָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אָסוּר לְסַיְּיעָן וְלַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁלִיחוּתָן. אָמַר רַבָּה: וּלְאוֹרֹיִנְהוּ שְׁרֵי.
Therefore, each and every gentile may, if he desires, construct a private altar for himself, and sacrifice upon it whatever he desires. Rabbi Ya’akov bar Aḥa says that Rav Asi says: Although it is permitted for gentiles to sacrifice offerings outside the Temple courtyard, it is prohibited for a Jew to assist them or to fulfill their agency in this matter, as sacrificing in this manner is forbidden for a Jew. Rabba said: But to instruct them how to sacrifice outside the Temple is permitted.
כִּי הָא דְּאִיפְרָא הוֹרְמִיז אִימֵּיהּ דְּשַׁבּוּר מַלְכָּא שַׁדַּרָה קוּרְבָּנָא לְרָבָא, שְׁלַחָה לֵיהּ: ״אַסְּקוּהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם״. אֲמַר לְהוּ לְרַב סָפְרָא וּלְרַב אַחָא בַּר הוּנָא: זִילוּ וּדְבַרוּ תְּרֵי עוּלֵמֵי גּוּלָאֵי, וַחֲזוֹ הֵיכָא דְּמַסְּקָא יַמָּא שִׂירְטוֹן; וּשְׁקֻלוּ צִיבֵי חַדְתֵי, וְאַפִּיקוּ נוּרָא מִמָּרָא חַדְתָּא, וְאַסְּקוּהּ נִיהֲלֵיהּ לְשֵׁם שָׁמַיִם.
This is similar to that incident in which Ifera Hurmiz, the mother of King Shapur of Persia, sent an offering to Rava, with which she sent this message to him: Sacrifice this for me, for the sake of Heaven. Rava said to Rav Safra and to Rav Aḥa bar Huna: Go, take two gentile youths of the same age, i.e., similar to one another, so that the sacrifice will be performed with maximal beauty, and see where the sea currently raises silt [sirton], which is a place that no one has used before. And take new wood and bring out fire from new vessels, and the two youths will sacrifice the offering for her, for the sake of Heaven.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: כְּמַאן – כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ אוֹמֵר: מָה מִזְבֵּחַ – שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בּוֹ הֶדְיוֹט, אַף עֵצִים – שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן הֶדְיוֹט. וְהָא מוֹדֶה רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ בְּבָמָה!
Abaye said to Rava: In accordance with whose opinion was the instruction to sacrifice exclusively with new wood? Was it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua? As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says: Just as the altar is a place that is not used by an ordinary person, so too, the wood that will be used must not be used by an ordinary person. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua concede that in the case of a private altar the wood need not be new?
דְּתַנְיָא, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וַיִּתֵּן דָּוִד לְאׇרְנָן בַּמָּקוֹם שִׁקְלֵי זָהָב מִשְׁקָל שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקֶן דָּוִד אֶת הַגֹּרֶן וְאֶת הַבָּקָר בְּכֶסֶף שְׁקָלִים חֲמִשִּׁים״; הָא כֵּיצַד?
As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to David’s purchase of the site of the Temple, when he wished to build an altar there at God’s instruction, one verse states: “So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight. And David built there an altar to the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings” (I Chronicles 21:25–26). And it is written elsewhere: “So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver. And David built there an altar to the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings” (II Samuel 24:24–25). How can these texts be reconciled?
גּוֹבֶה מִכׇּל שֵׁבֶט וָשֵׁבֶט חֲמִשִּׁים, שֶׁהֵן שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן דּוֹסְתַּאי: בָּקָר [וְעֵצִים] וּמְקוֹם מִזְבֵּחַ בַּחֲמִשִּׁים, וְכׇל הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ בְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת.
David would collect from each tribe of the twelve tribes fifty shekels, which are a sum of six hundred shekels. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says in the name of Abba Yosei ben Dostai that there is another explanation: David purchased the cattle and the wood and the site of the altar for fifty shekels, and he purchased the site of the entire Temple for six hundred shekels.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן שַׁמּוּעַ אוֹמֵר: בָּקָר וְעֵצִים וּמְקוֹם מִזְבֵּחַ בַּחֲמִשִּׁים, וְכׇל הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ בְּשֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת; דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר אֲרַוְנָה אֶל דָּוִד: יִקַּח וְיַעַל אֲדוֹנִי הַמֶּלֶךְ [הַטּוֹב בְּעֵינָיו], רְאֵה הַבָּקָר לָעֹלָה וְהַמֹּרִגִּים [וּכְלֵי הַבָּקָר] לָעֵצִים״. וְרָבָא אָמַר לָךְ: הָתָם נָמֵי בְּחַדְתֵי.
Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua says likewise: David purchased the cattle and the wood and the site of the altar for fifty shekels, and the site of the entire Temple for six hundred shekels, as it is written: “And Araunah said to David: Let my lord the king take and offer that which is good in his eyes; see the cattle for the burnt offering, and the threshing tools, and the implements of the cattle for the wood” (II Samuel 24:22), to which David replied: “No, but I will buy it from you at a price” (II Samuel 24:24). Consequently, according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua, David purchased the threshing instruments and the furniture of the oxen for use as wood. And Rava could have said to you in response: There too, in the case of David, the verse is dealing with new vessels that had not yet been used.
מַאי מוֹרִיגִּים? אָמַר עוּלָּא: מִטָּה שֶׁל טוּרְבֵּל. מַאי מִטָּה שֶׁל טוּרְבֵּל? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: עִיזָּא דְּקֻרְקְסָא דְּדָיְישָׁן דִּישָׁאֵי. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאי קְרָא? ״הִנֵּה שַׂמְתִּיךְ לְמוֹרַג חָרוּץ חָדָשׁ בַּעַל פִּיפִיּוֹת״.
The Gemara asks: What are “the threshing instruments [morigim]” mentioned in the verse? Ulla said: It is a turbal bed. The Gemara asks: What is a turbal bed? Abaye said: It is a heavy, serrated board [dekurkesa], used for threshing. Abaye said: What is the verse from which the meaning of morigim is derived? “Behold, I have made you a new threshing board [morag] having sharp teeth; you shall thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and shall make the hills as chaff” (Isaiah 41:15). This verse indicates that a morag has grooves and teeth, and is used for threshing.
מַקְרֵי לֵיהּ רָבָא לִבְרֵיהּ, וְרָמֵי לֵיהּ קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי; כְּתִיב: ״וַיִּתֵּן דָּוִד לְאׇרְנָן וְגוֹ׳״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקֶן דָּוִד וְגוֹ׳״; הָא כֵּיצַד? גּוֹבֶה מִכׇּל שֵׁבֶט וָשֵׁבֶט חֲמִשִּׁים, שֶׁהֵן שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת.
With regard to the contradiction between the verses that relate the sum of shekels paid by David, the Gemara says that Rava was teaching these verses to his son, and raised a contradiction between verses: It is written: “So David gave to Ornan…six hundred shekels of gold by weight” (I Chronicles 21:25), and it is written: “So David bought…fifty shekels of silver” (II Samuel 24:24). How can these texts be reconciled? David would collect from each tribe of the twelve tribes fifty shekels, which are a sum of six hundred shekels.
וְאַכַּתִּי קַשְׁיָין אַהֲדָדֵי – הָתָם כֶּסֶף, הָכָא זָהָב! אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: גּוֹבֶה כֶּסֶף בְּמִשְׁקַל שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת זָהָב.
The Gemara asks: But these verses are still difficult, as they contradict one another, since there in the book of Samuel it is stated that David paid silver shekels, while here in Chronicles it is stated that he paid gold shekels. The Gemara replies: Rather, this is what the verses are saying: David would collect from each tribe silver shekels that had the value of fifty gold shekels in weight, so that the value of the final sum was equal to six hundred gold shekels.
קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים נֶאֱכָלִים [בְּכׇל מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל]. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בְּכׇל מְקוֹמוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל מַחֲנֶה לָא הָוֵי.
§ The mishna teaches that once the Tabernacle was established in the wilderness, offerings of lesser sanctity were eaten throughout the camp of Israel. Rav Huna says: This means that offerings of lesser sanctity were eaten in any of the places that an Israelite would be found. But there was no actual camp, outside of which it was prohibited to eat the offerings.
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב נַחְמָן לְרַב הוּנָא: וּמַחֲנוֹת בְּמִדְבָּר לָא הֲוַאי?! וְהָא תַּנְיָא: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמַּחֲנֶה בַּמִּדְבָּר, כָּךְ מַחֲנֶה בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם; מִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְהַר הַבַּיִת – מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל, מֵהַר הַבַּיִת לְשַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר – מַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה,
Rav Naḥman raised an objection to Rav Huna: And were there not camps when the Jews were in the wilderness? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (see Tosefta, Kelim Bava Kamma 1:12): Just as there was a camp in the wilderness that was divided into different sections, with each section having particular halakhot pertaining to the consumption of offerings and to the ritually impure individuals who were prohibited from entering there, so too, there is a corresponding camp in Jerusalem: The area from the walls of Jerusalem to the Temple Mount has the status of the Israelite camp. The area from the Temple Mount to Nicanor’s Gate at the entrance to the Temple courtyard has the status of the Levite camp.
מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ – מַחֲנֵה שְׁכִינָה, וְהֵן הֵן קְלָעִים שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר.
From that point onward, i.e., from the entrance to the Temple courtyard, the area has the status of the camp of the Divine Presence; and the Temple courtyard has the same status as the area within the curtains surrounding the courtyard of the Tabernacle in the wilderness.
אֶלָּא אֵימָא: בְּכׇל מְקוֹם מַחֲנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל. פְּשִׁיטָא! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אִיפְּסִלוּ בְּיוֹצֵא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara replies: Rather, say that Rav Huna meant that when the Tabernacle was in the wilderness, offerings of lesser sanctity could be consumed wherever the Israelite camp was located. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? Wherever the Jews were located in the wilderness was where the Israelite camp was. The Gemara responds: Lest you say that during the periods of travel between encampments the offerings were taken outside the Israelite camp, and were thereby disqualified due to the meat’s leaving the area within the partitions, Rav Huna teaches us that the meat is not disqualified.
וְאֵימָא הָכִי נָמֵי! אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְנָסַע אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנָּסַע, אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד הוּא.
The Gemara asks: But why not say that this is indeed so, i.e., that the meat is disqualified because it left the camp? The Gemara answers that the verse states: “Then the Tent of Meeting, with the camp of the Levites, shall travel in the midst of the camps; as they encamp, so shall they travel” (Numbers 2:17), which indicates that although it traveled from its place it is still the Tent of Meeting. Similarly, the Israelite camp retains its status even while traveling.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַאי אוֹמֵר: עוֹד אַחֶרֶת הָיְתָה, וְחֵיל עֶזְרַת נָשִׁים הִיא, וְלֹא הָיוּ עוֹנְשִׁין עָלֶיהָ. וּבְשִׁילֹה לֹא הָיוּ אֶלָּא שְׁנֵי מַחֲנוֹת בִּלְבַד.
§ With regard to the division of Jerusalem into three camps, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: There was an additional camp in Jerusalem, within the area of the Temple Mount, and it was the rampart of the women’s courtyard. The Sages rendered it prohibited for certain ritually impure individuals to enter that area, but they would not punish them for entering it, as by Torah law it does not constitute a distinct section of the Temple Mount but has the status of the Levite camp. The baraita adds: And when the Tabernacle was in Shiloh there were only two camps.
הֵי מִינַּיְיהוּ לָא הֲוָה? אָמַר רַבָּה: מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה הֲוַאי; דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּה לָא הֲוַאי –
The Gemara asks: Which of the three camps that were present in the wilderness was not present in Shiloh? Rabba said: It stands to reason that the Levite camp was present, but the Israelite camp was not. As, if it enters your mind to say that the Levite camp was not present in Shiloh,
