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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 25, 2018 | 讬壮 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Zevachim 12

What is the status of the 14th of Nissan in the morning – is it considered the time of Pesach or not? Ben BEteira holds it is considered the time of Pesach. Two approaches to his opinion are brought – does he also mean the Korban Pesach can be slaughtered in the morning? A new opinion is brought regarding sacrifices that can be disqualified – Ben Azai says even a burnt offering that is brought with the wrong intent is disqualified.


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

讚讗讬转拽砖 诇谞专讜转

as it is juxtaposed with the lighting of the lamps (see Exodus 30:8). Evidently, it is burned in the afternoon as well.

讛转诐 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 砖诐 转讝讘讞 讗转 讛驻住讞 讘注专讘

The Gemara asks: Just as it is written explicitly that the Candelabrum must be lit in the evening, there too, with regard to a Paschal offering, it is written: 鈥淭here you shall sacrifice the Passover offering at evening鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:6). How can ben Beteira claim that it may be sacrificed all day long?

讛讛讜讗 诇讬讗讜讞专 讚讘专 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讗讜讞专 讚讘专 砖谞讗诪专 讘讜 讘注专讘 讜讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 诇讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara answers: That verse comes to teach a different halakha, that a certain item should be sacrificed after another item. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the order of precedence between the Paschal offering and the daily afternoon offering: An item, i.e., the Paschal offering, with regard to which both the expressions: 鈥淚n the evening,鈥 and: 鈥Bein ha鈥檃rbayim,鈥 are stated, should be sacrificed after an item, the daily afternoon offering, with regard to which only 鈥bein ha鈥檃rbayim鈥 is stated.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬诇讜 砖讞讬讟 诇讬讛 诪爪驻专讗 讗诪专转 讝讬诪谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讻讬 诪讟讬 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讗诪专转 讬讗讜讞专 讚讘专

The Gemara asks: But is there anything comparable to ben Beteira鈥檚 suggestion, that if one slaughters it in the morning, you say that it is its designated time and it is fit; but when afternoon comes, you say that the item should be sacrificed only after the daily afternoon offering?

讗讬谉 讚讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 诪转驻诇诇 砖诇 诪谞讞讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转驻诇诇 砖诇 诪讜住驻讬谉

The Gemara answers: Yes, there is a precedent; as Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one did not recite the additional prayers of Shabbat, the New Moon, or a Festival, which should be recited in the morning, until it is time for the afternoon prayer, the halakha is that he should first recite the afternoon prayer, and recite the additional prayers thereafter.

讜讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讙讘讬 拽讟专转 讜谞专讜转 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: But if the term bein ha鈥檃rbayim is referring to the entire day, as ben Beteira maintains, why do I need those instances of the expression that are written with regard to burning incense and lighting the lamps, which are not performed all day?

讜注讜讚 讛砖讬讘 专讘讬 转讞转 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘砖诇砖讛 注砖专 砖讗讬谉 诪拽爪转讜 专讗讜讬 转讗诪专 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 砖诪拽爪转讜 专讗讜讬

Furthermore, this interpretation of the opinion of ben Beteira is difficult, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi responded on behalf of ben Beteira to the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua that a Paschal offering slaughtered not for its sake on the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan is fit, as though it were slaughtered on the thirteenth: No, if you said that this is the halakha with regard to the thirteenth, as no part of the day is fit for sacrificing the Paschal offering, shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to the fourteenth, part of which is fit for sacrificing the Paschal offering? Since it can be sacrificed in the afternoon of the fourteenth, if it is slaughtered in the morning not for its sake, it is disqualified.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讻讜诇讜 专讗讜讬 讛讜讗

The Gemara concludes: And if it is so that a Paschal offering can be sacrificed throughout the day of the fourteenth, all of it is fit, not only part of it.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻讜住诇 讛讬讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讘驻住讞 砖砖讞讟讜 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 砖讞专讬转 讘讬谉 诇砖诪讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪拽爪转讜 专讗讜讬

Rather, Rabbi Oshaya鈥檚 interpretation of ben Beteira鈥檚 opinion is rejected. Instead, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to a Paschal offering that one slaughtered on the fourteenth in the morning, ben Beteira would deem it unfit, whether it was slaughtered for its sake or not for its sake. It is unfit even if it was slaughtered not for its sake, since part of the day is fit for its sacrifice as a Paschal offering.

诪讙讚祝 讘讛 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诐 讻谉 驻住讞 讻砖专 诇讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗讬 讚讗驻专砖讬讛 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚讞讜讬 诪注讬拽专讜 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讚讗驻专砖讬谞讛讜 诪讗转诪讜诇 谞专讗讛 讜谞讚讞讛 讛讜讗

Rabbi Abbahu ridiculed [megaddef ] this interpretation: If so, how can you find a fit Paschal offering according to ben Beteira? If its owner designated an animal now, on the morning of the fourteenth, as a Paschal offering, it is disqualified from the outset, as it cannot be sacrificed at all, either for its sake or not for its sake. And even if its owner designated it the previous day, when it was fit to be sacrificed not for its sake, it was fit and then disqualified the next morning, when it was no longer fit to be sacrificed until the afternoon. Once an offering is disqualified, it can no longer become fit.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 转讛讗 诇讗讞专 讞爪讜转

Rather, Rabbi Abbahu says: Let the Paschal offering be fit when it is designated on the fourteenth after noon, when it may already be sacrificed as a Paschal offering.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诪爪驻专讗 讗讬谉 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 诇讘讜 讘讬讜诐

Abaye says: You may even say that it is fit if designated in the morning, as an offering is not disqualified due to the fact that it is an offering whose time has not yet arrived if its time will arrive on that same day.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诪讗讜专转讗 诇讬诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讬诇 砖诪讬谞讬 谞讻谞住 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专

Rav Pappa says: You may even say that it is fit if designated from the previous night, as an offering that was designated at night and may be sacrificed the following day is not considered an offering whose time has not yet arrived, as it is taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Although an animal is unfit for sacrifice until its eighth day, on the night before its eighth day it may already enter the den to be tithed.

讜讻讚专讘讬 讗驻讟讜专讬拽讬 讚专讘讬 讗驻讟讜专讬拽讬 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 转讞转 讗诪讜 讛讗 诇讬诇讛 讞讝讬 讜讻转讬讘 讜诪讬讜诐 讛砖诪讬谞讬 讜讛诇讗讛 讬专爪讛 讛讗 诇讬诇讛 诇讗 讞讝讬

And this is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Appetoriki, as Rabbi Appetoriki raises a contradiction: It is written: 鈥淲hen a bull or a sheep or a goat is born, then it shall be seven days with its mother鈥 (Leviticus 22:27); consequently, on the following night, i.e., the night before the eighth day, it is fit for sacrifice. And it is written subsequently in that verse: 鈥淏ut from the eighth day and on it may be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord鈥; consequently, on the previous night, i.e., the night before the eighth day, it is not yet fit.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诇讬诇讛 诇拽讚讜砖讛 讜讬讜诐 诇讛专爪讗讛

How can these texts be reconciled? At night it is fit for consecration, and the following day it is fit for effecting acceptance, i.e., for sacrifice. Apparently, an offering that may be sacrificed the following day can be consecrated the previous night, even though it may not be sacrificed at night, and it is not considered an offering whose time has not yet arrived.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 谞讚讞讬谉

搂 Rabbi Abbahu presumes that an animal consecrated before it may be sacrificed is disqualified. With regard to this, Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu: Shall we say that Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that consecrated animals that cannot be sacrificed at any given moment are disqualified from ever being sacrificed?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讛诪讛 砖诇 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬谉 讛拽讚讬砖 讞爪讬讛 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞 讞爪讬讛 讜讛拽讚讬砖讛 拽讚讜砖讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛

Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Yes, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to an animal belonging to two partners, if one of them consecrated the half of it that belongs to him, and then purchased the other half of it from his partner and consecrated it, it is consecrated, despite the fact that it was consecrated piecemeal. But it may not be sacrificed, since when he first consecrated it, the consecration did not extend to his partner鈥檚 half. Since the animal was not fit to be sacrificed then, it is disqualified permanently.

讜注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讜转诪讜专转讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛

But as it is consecrated now, it can render consecrated as a substitute a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it. If the owner substitutes a non-sacred animal for this one, the second animal becomes consecrated as well. And yet its substitute is like it; it too is consecrated but cannot be sacrificed.

讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 谞讚讞讬谉 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讞讜讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 讚讞讜讬 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

And one can conclude three points from this statement: Conclude from it that animals that cannot be sacrificed are permanently disqualified; and conclude from it that disqualification from the outset, i.e., from the time the offering is consecrated, is permanent disqualification; and conclude from it that

讬砖 讚讞讜讬 讘讚诪讬诐

there is permanent disqualification even in a case where the animal possesses sanctity that inheres in its monetary value, rather than inherent sanctity.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讛驻专讬砖 拽专讘谉 讜谞砖转诪讚 讜讞讝专 讘讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讚讞讛 讬讚讞讛

Ulla says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one ate forbidden fat and designated an offering to atone for the transgression, and then apostatized, thereby disqualifying himself from bringing an offering, and later recanted his apostasy, since the offering was already disqualified, it shall be disqualified permanently.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讛驻专讬砖 拽专讘谉 讜谞砖转讟讛 讜讞讝专 讜谞砖转驻讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讚讞讛 讬讚讞讛

It was also stated that Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one ate forbidden fat and designated an offering to atone for his transgression, and then became an imbecile, who is unfit to bring an offering, and then again became halakhically competent, since the offering was already disqualified, it shall be disqualified permanently.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 拽诪讬讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讗 讚讞讬 谞驻砖讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诪诪讬诇讗 讗讬讚讞讬 讻讬砖谉 讚诪讬

The Gemara notes: And both statements are necessary. As, if Rabbi Yo岣nan had taught us only the first statement, concerning an apostate, one might have reasoned that the offering is permanently disqualified because he disqualified himself by his own action, but here, in the case of one who became an imbecile, where he was disqualified through a process that occurs by itself, when he becomes competent again he may bring his sacrifice, as it is considered as though he were asleep. If one designated an offering and fell asleep, this certainly does not disqualify it.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诇讞讝讜专 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讬砖 讘讬讚讜 诇讞讝讜专 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if Rabbi Yo岣nan had taught us only the statement here, with regard to one who became an imbecile, one might have reasoned that the offering is permanently disqualified because it is not in his power to return to competence, but here, in the case of an apostate, since it is in his power to recant his apostasy, I would say that the offering is not permanently disqualified. Therefore, both statements are necessary.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讛驻专讬砖 拽专讘谉 讜讛讜专讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖讞诇讘 诪讜转专 讜讞讝专讜 讘讛谉 诪讛讜 诪讬 讛讜讬 讚讞讜讬 讗讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 讚讞讜讬

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one ate forbidden fat and designated an offering for the transgression, and then the court ruled that the type of fat he ate is permitted, thereby rendering the offering unnecessary, and the court subsequently retracted its ruling, in this case, what is the halakha? Is the offering permanently disqualified, or is it not permanently disqualified?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讻讬 驻转讞 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讚讞讜讬讬谉 诪讛讗 驻转讞 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛转诐 讙讘专讗 讗讬讚讞讬 拽专讘谉 诇讗 讗讬讚讞讬 讛讻讗 拽专讘谉 谞诪讬 讗讬讚讞讬

A certain elder [hahu sava] said to Rabbi Yirmeya: When Rabbi Yo岣nan introduced the topic of permanently disqualified offerings, he introduced it with this case. What is the reason? There, in the case of one who apostatized or became an imbecile, although the person was disqualified, the offering itself was not disqualified. Consequently, it is less evident that the offering will be disqualified permanently. But here, in a case where the court ruled that the fat is permitted, the offering itself was also disqualified, as it was rendered unnecessary. Therefore, this is a more obvious example.

讗诪专 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 注讝讗讬 诪拽讜讘诇谞讬 诪驻讬 砖讘注讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 讝拽谉 讻讜壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪转谞讗 砖讘注讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 讝拽谉 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讘讞讚讗 砖讬讟转讗 讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬

搂 The mishna teaches: Shimon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from seventy-two elders [zaken] that all slaughtered offerings that are eaten, if slaughtered not for their sake, are fit. The Gemara asks: Why do I need to teach the phrase seventy-two elders using the singular form: Zaken, rather than the plural form: Zekenim? The Gemara answers: Because they all maintained one opinion, i.e., they all agreed with this halakha.

诇讗 讛讜住讬祝 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗诇讗 讛注讜诇讛

The mishna continues: Ben Azzai added only the burnt offering to the sin offering and the Paschal offering, which are mentioned in the first mishna as disqualified when sacrificed not for their sake.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘谉 注讝讗讬 注讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讗砖讛 专讬讞 谞讬讞讞 诇讛壮 讛讬讗 诇砖诪讛 讻砖专讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 驻住讜诇讛

Rav Huna said: What is the reason for the opinion of ben Azzai? The verse states: 鈥淚t is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma unto the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 1:13). The word 鈥渋t鈥 teaches that if it is sacrificed for its sake, it is fit; if sacrificed not for its sake, it is unfit.

讗砖诐 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 the word 鈥渋t鈥 written with regard to a guilt offering as well, in the verse: 鈥淚t is a guilt offering鈥 (Leviticus 7:5)? Nevertheless, a guilt offering sacrificed not for its sake is not disqualified.

讛讛讜讗 诇讗讞专 讛拽讟专转 讗讬诪讜专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara answers: That verse is written after the burning of the sacrificial portions on the altar. Since the offering is fit even if these portions are not burned at all, it is certainly fit if they are burned not for the sake of a guilt offering.

讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讞专 讛拽讟专转 讗讬诪讜专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this mention of the word 鈥渋t鈥 with regard to a burnt offering also written after the burning of the sacrificial portions on the altar?

转专讬 讛讜讗 讻转讬讘讬

The Gemara answers: The word 鈥渋t鈥 is written with regard to a burnt offering in two places, both in Leviticus 1:13 and in Exodus 29:18. Although both are written after the burning of the portions consumed on the altar, one of them is superfluous, and is therefore interpreted in reference to the main sacrificial rites, performed before the burning of the portions. The verse therefore teaches that the offering is fit only if these rites are performed for its sake.

讙讘讬 讗砖诐 谞诪讬 转专讬 讛讜讗 讻转讬讘讬

The Gemara asks: With regard to a guilt offering as well, isn鈥檛 the word 鈥渋t鈥 written in two places, Leviticus 5:9 and Leviticus 7:5?

讗诇讗 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 讜诪讛 讞讟讗转 砖讗讬谞讛 讻诇讬诇 砖讞讟讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 驻住讜诇讛 注讜诇讛 砖讛讬讗 讻诇讬诇 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rather, ben Azzai derives his halakha not from a verse, but by an a fortiori inference: Just as with regard to a sin offering, which is not totally consumed on the altar but partially eaten by priests, if one slaughtered it not for its sake it is disqualified, so too, with regard to a burnt offering, which is treated more strictly in that it is totally consumed on the altar, all the more so is it not clear that if it is slaughtered not for its sake it is disqualified?

诪讛 诇讞讟讗转 砖讻谉 诪讻驻专转

The Gemara rejects this inference: What is notable about a sin offering? It is notable in that it atones for sin, in contrast to a burnt offering, which is not brought for atonement. Therefore, only a sin offering is disqualified when sacrificed not for its sake.

驻住讞 讬讜讻讬讞

The Gemara suggests: A Paschal offering can prove the point, as it is not brought for atonement, yet it is disqualified if sacrificed not for its sake.

诪讛 诇驻住讞 砖讻谉 讝诪谞讜 拽讘讜注

The Gemara rejects this as well: What is notable about a Paschal offering? It is notable in that its time is set at Passover eve, in contrast to a burnt offering, which does not have a designated time.

讞讟讗转 转讜讻讬讞 讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讛谉 拽讚砖讬诐 讜砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 驻住讜诇 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 注讜诇讛 砖讛讬讗 拽讚砖讬诐 讜砖讞讟讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara suggests: If so, a sin offering can prove the point, since it has no set time. And the inference has reverted to its starting point. The halakha is derived from the common element of the two sources: The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case. Their common element is that they are offerings, and if one slaughtered them not for their sake, they are disqualified. So too, I shall include a burnt offering in this halakha, as it is an offering, and therefore if one slaughtered it not for its sake, it is disqualified.

诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 爪讚 讻专转

The Gemara rejects this as well: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that they both have an element of karet. A sin offering is brought for a transgression punishable by karet when committed intentionally, and one who refrains intentionally from bringing a Paschal offering is liable to be punished with karet. A burnt offering does not have an element of karet.

讘谉 注讝讗讬

The Gemara answers: Ben Azzai

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 12

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 12

讚讗讬转拽砖 诇谞专讜转

as it is juxtaposed with the lighting of the lamps (see Exodus 30:8). Evidently, it is burned in the afternoon as well.

讛转诐 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 砖诐 转讝讘讞 讗转 讛驻住讞 讘注专讘

The Gemara asks: Just as it is written explicitly that the Candelabrum must be lit in the evening, there too, with regard to a Paschal offering, it is written: 鈥淭here you shall sacrifice the Passover offering at evening鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:6). How can ben Beteira claim that it may be sacrificed all day long?

讛讛讜讗 诇讬讗讜讞专 讚讘专 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗 讚转谞讬讗 讬讗讜讞专 讚讘专 砖谞讗诪专 讘讜 讘注专讘 讜讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 诇讚讘专 砖诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘讜 讗诇讗 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讘诇讘讚

The Gemara answers: That verse comes to teach a different halakha, that a certain item should be sacrificed after another item. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the order of precedence between the Paschal offering and the daily afternoon offering: An item, i.e., the Paschal offering, with regard to which both the expressions: 鈥淚n the evening,鈥 and: 鈥Bein ha鈥檃rbayim,鈥 are stated, should be sacrificed after an item, the daily afternoon offering, with regard to which only 鈥bein ha鈥檃rbayim鈥 is stated.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚讗讬诇讜 砖讞讬讟 诇讬讛 诪爪驻专讗 讗诪专转 讝讬诪谞讬讛 讛讜讗 讜讻讬 诪讟讬 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讗诪专转 讬讗讜讞专 讚讘专

The Gemara asks: But is there anything comparable to ben Beteira鈥檚 suggestion, that if one slaughters it in the morning, you say that it is its designated time and it is fit; but when afternoon comes, you say that the item should be sacrificed only after the daily afternoon offering?

讗讬谉 讚讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 诪转驻诇诇 砖诇 诪谞讞讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 诪转驻诇诇 砖诇 诪讜住驻讬谉

The Gemara answers: Yes, there is a precedent; as Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one did not recite the additional prayers of Shabbat, the New Moon, or a Festival, which should be recited in the morning, until it is time for the afternoon prayer, the halakha is that he should first recite the afternoon prayer, and recite the additional prayers thereafter.

讜讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 讚讻转讬讘 讙讘讬 拽讟专转 讜谞专讜转 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara asks: But if the term bein ha鈥檃rbayim is referring to the entire day, as ben Beteira maintains, why do I need those instances of the expression that are written with regard to burning incense and lighting the lamps, which are not performed all day?

讜注讜讚 讛砖讬讘 专讘讬 转讞转 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 讗诐 讗诪专转 讘砖诇砖讛 注砖专 砖讗讬谉 诪拽爪转讜 专讗讜讬 转讗诪专 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 砖诪拽爪转讜 专讗讜讬

Furthermore, this interpretation of the opinion of ben Beteira is difficult, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi responded on behalf of ben Beteira to the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua that a Paschal offering slaughtered not for its sake on the morning of the fourteenth of Nisan is fit, as though it were slaughtered on the thirteenth: No, if you said that this is the halakha with regard to the thirteenth, as no part of the day is fit for sacrificing the Paschal offering, shall you also say that this is the halakha with regard to the fourteenth, part of which is fit for sacrificing the Paschal offering? Since it can be sacrificed in the afternoon of the fourteenth, if it is slaughtered in the morning not for its sake, it is disqualified.

讜讗诐 讗讬转讗 讻讜诇讜 专讗讜讬 讛讜讗

The Gemara concludes: And if it is so that a Paschal offering can be sacrificed throughout the day of the fourteenth, all of it is fit, not only part of it.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 驻讜住诇 讛讬讛 讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讘驻住讞 砖砖讞讟讜 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 砖讞专讬转 讘讬谉 诇砖诪讜 讘讬谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪拽爪转讜 专讗讜讬

Rather, Rabbi Oshaya鈥檚 interpretation of ben Beteira鈥檚 opinion is rejected. Instead, Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to a Paschal offering that one slaughtered on the fourteenth in the morning, ben Beteira would deem it unfit, whether it was slaughtered for its sake or not for its sake. It is unfit even if it was slaughtered not for its sake, since part of the day is fit for its sacrifice as a Paschal offering.

诪讙讚祝 讘讛 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诐 讻谉 驻住讞 讻砖专 诇讘谉 讘转讬专讗 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讗讬 讚讗驻专砖讬讛 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讚讞讜讬 诪注讬拽专讜 讛讜讗 讜讗讬 讚讗驻专砖讬谞讛讜 诪讗转诪讜诇 谞专讗讛 讜谞讚讞讛 讛讜讗

Rabbi Abbahu ridiculed [megaddef ] this interpretation: If so, how can you find a fit Paschal offering according to ben Beteira? If its owner designated an animal now, on the morning of the fourteenth, as a Paschal offering, it is disqualified from the outset, as it cannot be sacrificed at all, either for its sake or not for its sake. And even if its owner designated it the previous day, when it was fit to be sacrificed not for its sake, it was fit and then disqualified the next morning, when it was no longer fit to be sacrificed until the afternoon. Once an offering is disqualified, it can no longer become fit.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 转讛讗 诇讗讞专 讞爪讜转

Rather, Rabbi Abbahu says: Let the Paschal offering be fit when it is designated on the fourteenth after noon, when it may already be sacrificed as a Paschal offering.

讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诪爪驻专讗 讗讬谉 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 诇讘讜 讘讬讜诐

Abaye says: You may even say that it is fit if designated in the morning, as an offering is not disqualified due to the fact that it is an offering whose time has not yet arrived if its time will arrive on that same day.

专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 诪讗讜专转讗 诇讬诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讞讜住专 讝诪谉 讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讬诇 砖诪讬谞讬 谞讻谞住 诇讚讬专 诇讛转注砖专

Rav Pappa says: You may even say that it is fit if designated from the previous night, as an offering that was designated at night and may be sacrificed the following day is not considered an offering whose time has not yet arrived, as it is taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Although an animal is unfit for sacrifice until its eighth day, on the night before its eighth day it may already enter the den to be tithed.

讜讻讚专讘讬 讗驻讟讜专讬拽讬 讚专讘讬 讗驻讟讜专讬拽讬 专诪讬 讻转讬讘 讜讛讬讛 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 转讞转 讗诪讜 讛讗 诇讬诇讛 讞讝讬 讜讻转讬讘 讜诪讬讜诐 讛砖诪讬谞讬 讜讛诇讗讛 讬专爪讛 讛讗 诇讬诇讛 诇讗 讞讝讬

And this is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Appetoriki, as Rabbi Appetoriki raises a contradiction: It is written: 鈥淲hen a bull or a sheep or a goat is born, then it shall be seven days with its mother鈥 (Leviticus 22:27); consequently, on the following night, i.e., the night before the eighth day, it is fit for sacrifice. And it is written subsequently in that verse: 鈥淏ut from the eighth day and on it may be accepted for an offering made by fire unto the Lord鈥; consequently, on the previous night, i.e., the night before the eighth day, it is not yet fit.

讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诇讬诇讛 诇拽讚讜砖讛 讜讬讜诐 诇讛专爪讗讛

How can these texts be reconciled? At night it is fit for consecration, and the following day it is fit for effecting acceptance, i.e., for sacrifice. Apparently, an offering that may be sacrificed the following day can be consecrated the previous night, even though it may not be sacrificed at night, and it is not considered an offering whose time has not yet arrived.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 谞讚讞讬谉

搂 Rabbi Abbahu presumes that an animal consecrated before it may be sacrificed is disqualified. With regard to this, Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Abbahu: Shall we say that Rabbi Yo岣nan holds that consecrated animals that cannot be sacrificed at any given moment are disqualified from ever being sacrificed?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讛诪讛 砖诇 砖谞讬 砖讜转驻讬谉 讛拽讚讬砖 讞爪讬讛 讜讞讝专 讜诇拽讞 讞爪讬讛 讜讛拽讚讬砖讛 拽讚讜砖讛 讜讗讬谞讛 拽专讬讘讛

Rabbi Abbahu said to him: Yes, as Rabbi Yo岣nan says: With regard to an animal belonging to two partners, if one of them consecrated the half of it that belongs to him, and then purchased the other half of it from his partner and consecrated it, it is consecrated, despite the fact that it was consecrated piecemeal. But it may not be sacrificed, since when he first consecrated it, the consecration did not extend to his partner鈥檚 half. Since the animal was not fit to be sacrificed then, it is disqualified permanently.

讜注讜砖讛 转诪讜专讛 讜转诪讜专转讛 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛

But as it is consecrated now, it can render consecrated as a substitute a non-sacred animal that is exchanged for it. If the owner substitutes a non-sacred animal for this one, the second animal becomes consecrated as well. And yet its substitute is like it; it too is consecrated but cannot be sacrificed.

讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 转诇转 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 谞讚讞讬谉 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讞讜讬 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讛 讚讞讜讬 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

And one can conclude three points from this statement: Conclude from it that animals that cannot be sacrificed are permanently disqualified; and conclude from it that disqualification from the outset, i.e., from the time the offering is consecrated, is permanent disqualification; and conclude from it that

讬砖 讚讞讜讬 讘讚诪讬诐

there is permanent disqualification even in a case where the animal possesses sanctity that inheres in its monetary value, rather than inherent sanctity.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讛驻专讬砖 拽专讘谉 讜谞砖转诪讚 讜讞讝专 讘讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讚讞讛 讬讚讞讛

Ulla says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one ate forbidden fat and designated an offering to atone for the transgression, and then apostatized, thereby disqualifying himself from bringing an offering, and later recanted his apostasy, since the offering was already disqualified, it shall be disqualified permanently.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讛驻专讬砖 拽专讘谉 讜谞砖转讟讛 讜讞讝专 讜谞砖转驻讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜谞讚讞讛 讬讚讞讛

It was also stated that Rabbi Yirmeya says that Rabbi Abbahu says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If one ate forbidden fat and designated an offering to atone for his transgression, and then became an imbecile, who is unfit to bring an offering, and then again became halakhically competent, since the offering was already disqualified, it shall be disqualified permanently.

讜爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 拽诪讬讬转讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讗 讚讞讬 谞驻砖讬讛 讘讬讚讬诐 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚诪诪讬诇讗 讗讬讚讞讬 讻讬砖谉 讚诪讬

The Gemara notes: And both statements are necessary. As, if Rabbi Yo岣nan had taught us only the first statement, concerning an apostate, one might have reasoned that the offering is permanently disqualified because he disqualified himself by his own action, but here, in the case of one who became an imbecile, where he was disqualified through a process that occurs by itself, when he becomes competent again he may bring his sacrifice, as it is considered as though he were asleep. If one designated an offering and fell asleep, this certainly does not disqualify it.

讜讗讬 讗砖诪注讬谞谉 讛讻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬谉 讘讬讚讜 诇讞讝讜专 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讬砖 讘讬讚讜 诇讞讝讜专 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And if Rabbi Yo岣nan had taught us only the statement here, with regard to one who became an imbecile, one might have reasoned that the offering is permanently disqualified because it is not in his power to return to competence, but here, in the case of an apostate, since it is in his power to recant his apostasy, I would say that the offering is not permanently disqualified. Therefore, both statements are necessary.

讘注讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗讻诇 讞诇讘 讜讛驻专讬砖 拽专讘谉 讜讛讜专讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖讞诇讘 诪讜转专 讜讞讝专讜 讘讛谉 诪讛讜 诪讬 讛讜讬 讚讞讜讬 讗讜 诇讗 讛讜讬 讚讞讜讬

Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one ate forbidden fat and designated an offering for the transgression, and then the court ruled that the type of fat he ate is permitted, thereby rendering the offering unnecessary, and the court subsequently retracted its ruling, in this case, what is the halakha? Is the offering permanently disqualified, or is it not permanently disqualified?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 住讘讗 讻讬 驻转讞 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讚讞讜讬讬谉 诪讛讗 驻转讞 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛转诐 讙讘专讗 讗讬讚讞讬 拽专讘谉 诇讗 讗讬讚讞讬 讛讻讗 拽专讘谉 谞诪讬 讗讬讚讞讬

A certain elder [hahu sava] said to Rabbi Yirmeya: When Rabbi Yo岣nan introduced the topic of permanently disqualified offerings, he introduced it with this case. What is the reason? There, in the case of one who apostatized or became an imbecile, although the person was disqualified, the offering itself was not disqualified. Consequently, it is less evident that the offering will be disqualified permanently. But here, in a case where the court ruled that the fat is permitted, the offering itself was also disqualified, as it was rendered unnecessary. Therefore, this is a more obvious example.

讗诪专 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 注讝讗讬 诪拽讜讘诇谞讬 诪驻讬 砖讘注讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 讝拽谉 讻讜壮 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪转谞讗 砖讘注讬诐 讜砖谞讬诐 讝拽谉 讚讻讜诇讛讜 讘讞讚讗 砖讬讟转讗 讛讜讜 拽讬讬诪讬

搂 The mishna teaches: Shimon ben Azzai said: I received a tradition from seventy-two elders [zaken] that all slaughtered offerings that are eaten, if slaughtered not for their sake, are fit. The Gemara asks: Why do I need to teach the phrase seventy-two elders using the singular form: Zaken, rather than the plural form: Zekenim? The Gemara answers: Because they all maintained one opinion, i.e., they all agreed with this halakha.

诇讗 讛讜住讬祝 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗诇讗 讛注讜诇讛

The mishna continues: Ben Azzai added only the burnt offering to the sin offering and the Paschal offering, which are mentioned in the first mishna as disqualified when sacrificed not for their sake.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讘谉 注讝讗讬 注讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讗砖讛 专讬讞 谞讬讞讞 诇讛壮 讛讬讗 诇砖诪讛 讻砖专讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 驻住讜诇讛

Rav Huna said: What is the reason for the opinion of ben Azzai? The verse states: 鈥淚t is a burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma unto the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 1:13). The word 鈥渋t鈥 teaches that if it is sacrificed for its sake, it is fit; if sacrificed not for its sake, it is unfit.

讗砖诐 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 the word 鈥渋t鈥 written with regard to a guilt offering as well, in the verse: 鈥淚t is a guilt offering鈥 (Leviticus 7:5)? Nevertheless, a guilt offering sacrificed not for its sake is not disqualified.

讛讛讜讗 诇讗讞专 讛拽讟专转 讗讬诪讜专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara answers: That verse is written after the burning of the sacrificial portions on the altar. Since the offering is fit even if these portions are not burned at all, it is certainly fit if they are burned not for the sake of a guilt offering.

讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讞专 讛拽讟专转 讗讬诪讜专讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this mention of the word 鈥渋t鈥 with regard to a burnt offering also written after the burning of the sacrificial portions on the altar?

转专讬 讛讜讗 讻转讬讘讬

The Gemara answers: The word 鈥渋t鈥 is written with regard to a burnt offering in two places, both in Leviticus 1:13 and in Exodus 29:18. Although both are written after the burning of the portions consumed on the altar, one of them is superfluous, and is therefore interpreted in reference to the main sacrificial rites, performed before the burning of the portions. The verse therefore teaches that the offering is fit only if these rites are performed for its sake.

讙讘讬 讗砖诐 谞诪讬 转专讬 讛讜讗 讻转讬讘讬

The Gemara asks: With regard to a guilt offering as well, isn鈥檛 the word 鈥渋t鈥 written in two places, Leviticus 5:9 and Leviticus 7:5?

讗诇讗 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 讜诪讛 讞讟讗转 砖讗讬谞讛 讻诇讬诇 砖讞讟讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 驻住讜诇讛 注讜诇讛 砖讛讬讗 讻诇讬诇 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉

Rather, ben Azzai derives his halakha not from a verse, but by an a fortiori inference: Just as with regard to a sin offering, which is not totally consumed on the altar but partially eaten by priests, if one slaughtered it not for its sake it is disqualified, so too, with regard to a burnt offering, which is treated more strictly in that it is totally consumed on the altar, all the more so is it not clear that if it is slaughtered not for its sake it is disqualified?

诪讛 诇讞讟讗转 砖讻谉 诪讻驻专转

The Gemara rejects this inference: What is notable about a sin offering? It is notable in that it atones for sin, in contrast to a burnt offering, which is not brought for atonement. Therefore, only a sin offering is disqualified when sacrificed not for its sake.

驻住讞 讬讜讻讬讞

The Gemara suggests: A Paschal offering can prove the point, as it is not brought for atonement, yet it is disqualified if sacrificed not for its sake.

诪讛 诇驻住讞 砖讻谉 讝诪谞讜 拽讘讜注

The Gemara rejects this as well: What is notable about a Paschal offering? It is notable in that its time is set at Passover eve, in contrast to a burnt offering, which does not have a designated time.

讞讟讗转 转讜讻讬讞 讜讞讝专 讛讚讬谉 诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讜诇讗 专讗讬 讝讛 讻专讗讬 讝讛 讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讛谉 拽讚砖讬诐 讜砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 驻住讜诇 讗祝 讗谞讬 讗讘讬讗 注讜诇讛 砖讛讬讗 拽讚砖讬诐 讜砖讞讟讛 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讛 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara suggests: If so, a sin offering can prove the point, since it has no set time. And the inference has reverted to its starting point. The halakha is derived from the common element of the two sources: The aspect of this case is not like the aspect of that case and the aspect of that case is not like the aspect of this case. Their common element is that they are offerings, and if one slaughtered them not for their sake, they are disqualified. So too, I shall include a burnt offering in this halakha, as it is an offering, and therefore if one slaughtered it not for its sake, it is disqualified.

诪讛 诇讛爪讚 讛砖讜讛 砖讘讛谉 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 爪讚 讻专转

The Gemara rejects this as well: What is notable about their common element? It is notable in that they both have an element of karet. A sin offering is brought for a transgression punishable by karet when committed intentionally, and one who refrains intentionally from bringing a Paschal offering is liable to be punished with karet. A burnt offering does not have an element of karet.

讘谉 注讝讗讬

The Gemara answers: Ben Azzai

Scroll To Top