Zevachim ends with a comparison between the laws of a small bama and a large bama.
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.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
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.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Zevachim 120
שֶׁהִכְנִיסָהּ לִפְנִים וְהוֹצִיאָהּ לַחוּץ – מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דַּעֲיַילָא – קָלְטָה לַהּ מְחִיצְתָּא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, כֵּיוָן דַּהֲדַר – הֲדַר?
that one brought inside and subsequently took outside, what is the halakha? Does it have the status of a sacrificial item of a public altar? The Gemara clarifies the question: Do we say that once it was brought in the partition has already absorbed it, and all halakhot of sacrificial items of a public altar apply; or perhaps once it returns, i.e., was taken outside again, it returns to its prior status as an offering of a private altar?
לָאו הַיְינוּ פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבָּה וְרַב יוֹסֵף? דִּתְנַן: קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּדָּרוֹם – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, וְאִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t this issue a disagreement between Rabba and Rav Yosef? As we learned in a mishna (Me’ila 2a): With regard to offerings of the most sacred order, e.g., a sin offering or a guilt offering, that were slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard, and not in the north as dictated by halakha, and are therefore disqualified, one who derives benefit from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, and despite the fact that they should not ascend the altar, if they ascended they shall not descend.
וְאִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: יָרְדוּ, מַהוּ שֶׁיַּעֲלוּ? רַבָּה אָמַר: לֹא יַעֲלוּ, וְרַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר: יַעֲלוּ.
And a dilemma was raised before the Sages: If they did descend the altar, what is the halakha with regard to ascending again? Rabba says: They shall not ascend, and Rav Yosef says: They shall ascend. Consequently, they disagree with regard to the issue of whether an item that is not fit to be sacrificed in a consecrated area acquires the sanctity of that area even if it is removed from there.
תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַבָּה, תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף. תִּיבְּעֵי לְרַבָּה: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבָּה – אֶלָּא בְּמִזְבֵּחַ; דַּחֲזֵי לֵיהּ מְקַדֵּשׁ, דְּלָא חֲזֵי לָא מְקַדֵּשׁ; אֲבָל מְחִיצָה, אַף עַל גַּב דְּלָא חֲזֵי לַיהּ – קָלְטָה.
The Gemara responds: The disagreements are not identical, as the dilemma can be raised according to the opinion of Rabba, and the dilemma can be raised according to the opinion of Rav Yosef. The Gemara elaborates: It is possible to raise the dilemma according to the opinion of Rabba, as Rabba says his statement: Offerings of the most sacred order that were slaughtered in the south shall not descend if they ascended, only with regard to the altar, as the altar consecrates that which is fit for it, while it does not consecrate that which is not fit for it. But with regard to the partition of the public altar, even though an offering that was consecrated for a private altar is not fit for that altar, the partition nevertheless absorbs the offering and it is sacrificed there. Consequently, all the halakhot of the public altar apply to that offering, even if it is taken outside.
אוֹ דִלְמָא, אֲפִילּוּ לְרַב יוֹסֵף – עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּחַד מָקוֹם הוּא; אֲבָל הָכָא, דִּתְרֵי מְקוֹמוֹת נִינְהוּ – לָא. אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא? תֵּיקוּ.
Or perhaps the dilemma of the burnt offering of a private altar can be raised even according to the opinion of Rav Yosef. Rav Yosef states his opinion there, that offerings of the most sacred order that were slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard and descended the altar shall ascend again, only because the altar and the offering are both located in one place, i.e., the Temple courtyard. But here in Rabbi Zeira’s case, where the private altar and public altar are two separate places, the halakhot of the public altar do not apply if the offering was taken outside the designated location. Or perhaps there is no difference, and the opinions of Rabba and Rav Yosef in one case are identical to their opinions in the other. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
מִילְּתָא דִּפְשִׁיטָא לֵיהּ לְרַבָּה בְּחַד גִּיסָא, וּלְרַב יוֹסֵף בְּחַד גִּיסָא – מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי יַנַּאי. דְּבָעֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי: אֵבְרֵי עוֹלַת בָּמַת יָחִיד, שֶׁעָלוּ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְיָרְדוּ – מַהוּ? הֵיכָא דְּלֹא מָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר – לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ; כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ – הֵיכָא דְּמָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר. מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
The Gemara notes that a matter that is obvious to Rabba on one side, i.e., that these offerings shall not ascend the altar again, and to Rav Yosef on the other side, i.e., that they shall ascend again, was raised as a dilemma by Rabbi Yannai. As Rabbi Yannai raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the limbs of a burnt offering of a private altar that ascended the altar and descended? The Gemara notes: In a case where the fire has not yet taken hold of them, do not raise the dilemma, as they certainly shall not ascend again. When should you raise the dilemma? Raise it in a case where the fire has taken hold of them: What is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
אִיתְּמַר: שְׁחִיטַת לַיְלָה בְּבָמַת יָחִיד – רַב וּשְׁמוּאֵל; חַד אָמַר: כְּשֵׁרָה, וְחַד אָמַר: פְּסוּלָה. וְקָא מִיפַּלְגִי בִּדְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר;
§ Additionally, with regard to a private altar it was stated: With regard to the slaughter of offerings at night on a private altar, Rav and Shmuel disagree: One says that it is valid, and one says that it is not valid. The Gemara explains: And they disagree with regard to the resolution to a contradiction that was raised by Rabbi Elazar.
דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר רָמֵי קְרָאֵי אַהֲדָדֵי – כְּתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר בְּגַדְתֶּם גֹּלּוּ אֵלַי הַיּוֹם אֶבֶן גְּדוֹלָה״,
As Rabbi Elazar raised a contradiction between two verses: It is written in the context of Saul’s war with the Philistines: “And the people flew upon the spoil and took sheep and cattle and calves and slew them on the ground; and the people ate them with the blood. Then they told Saul, saying: ‘Behold, the people sin against the Lord in that they eat with the blood. And he said: You have dealt treacherously; roll a great stone to me this day” (I Samuel 14:32–33). That stone was made into a private altar upon which offerings could be slaughtered and sacrificed. Evidently, Saul was particular about slaughtering offerings during the day and not at night, despite the fact that it was a private altar and not a public altar.
וּכְתִיב: ״וַיֹּאמֶר שָׁאוּל פֻּצוּ בָעָם וַאֲמַרְתֶּם לָהֶם הַגִּישׁוּ אֵלַי אִישׁ שׁוֹרוֹ וְאִישׁ שְׂיֵהוּ, וּשְׁחַטְתֶּם בָּזֶה וַאֲכַלְתֶּם, וְלֹא תֶחֶטְאוּ לַה׳ לֶאֱכוֹל עַל הַדָּם. וַיַּגִּשׁוּ כׇל הָעָם אִישׁ שׁוֹרוֹ בְיָדוֹ הַלַּיְלָה, וַיִּשְׁחֲטוּ שָׁם״.
And immediately thereafter it is written: “And Saul said: Disperse yourselves among the people and say to them: Bring me here every man his ox and every man his sheep, and slay them here and eat and sin not against the Lord in eating with the blood. And all the people brought every man his ox with him that night, and slew them there” (I Samuel 14:34). This verse states explicitly that the slaughter took place at night and not during the day.
מָר מְשַׁנֵּי: כָּאן בְּחוּלִּין, כָּאן בְּקָדָשִׁים. וּמַר מְשַׁנֵּי: כָּאן בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, כָּאן בְּקׇדְשֵׁי בָּמָה קְטַנָּה.
Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the resolution of this contradiction: One Sage answers that here, i.e., when the slaughter took place at night, it was of non-sacred animals, while there, i.e., when Saul was particular about slaughtering during the day, it was the slaughter of sacrificial animals. According to this opinion, the sacrificial service was performed only during the day, even on a private altar. And the other Sage answers that both verses are referring to the slaughter of offerings: Here, in the verse that states that Saul was particular about slaughtering during the day, it is referring to the sacrificial animals of a great public altar, while there, in the verse that states that the slaughter took place at night, it is referring to sacrificial animals of a small private altar.
אִיתְּמַר: עוֹלַת בָּמַת יָחִיד – רַב אָמַר: אֵין טְעוּנָה הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: טְעוּנָה הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ. וְקָא מִיפַּלְגִי בִּדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי – דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר – אֵין טְעוּנָה הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ; שֶׁאֵין הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ אֶלָּא מֵאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְאֵילָךְ.
§ It was stated that with regard to the burnt offering of a private altar, Rav says: It does not require flaying and cutting into pieces, which the Torah requires of a burnt offering (see Leviticus 1:6), and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: It does require flaying and cutting into pieces. The Gemara explains: And they disagree with regard to the meaning of a statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The burnt offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the wilderness, i.e., at Mount Sinai before the establishment of the Tabernacle, did not require flaying and cutting into pieces, because the requirement of flaying and cutting into pieces applied only from the Tent of Meeting and onward, as this halakha was first taught in the Tent of Meeting.
מָר סָבַר: מֵאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְאֵילָךְ – לָא שְׁנָא בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְלָא שְׁנָא בָּמָה קְטַנָּה. וּמָר סָבַר: בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה אִין, בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה לָא.
One Sage, Rabbi Yoḥanan, holds that from the Tent of Meeting and onward there is a requirement of flaying and cutting into pieces, and there is no difference whether the offering is brought upon a great public altar, and there is no difference whether it is brought upon a small private altar. And one Sage, Rav, holds that with regard to a great public altar, yes, flaying and cutting are required, but with regard to a small private altar they are not.
תַּנְיָא כְּוָתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: דְּבָרִים שֶׁבֵּין בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה לְבָמָה קְטַנָּה – קֶרֶן וְכֶבֶשׁ וִיסוֹד וְרִיבּוּעַ בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְאֵין קֶרֶן וִיסוֹד וְכֶבֶשׁ וְרִיבּוּעַ בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה. כִּיּוֹר וְכַנּוֹ בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְאֵין כִּיּוֹר וְכַנּוֹ בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה. חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה, וְאֵין חָזֶה וָשׁוֹק בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan: What are the matters that are different between a great public altar and a small private altar? The corner of the altar, the ramp, the base of the altar, and the square shape are required in a great public altar, but the corner, the base, the ramp, and the square shape are not required in a small private altar. The Basin and its base are required in a great public altar, but the Basin and its base are not required in a small private altar. The breast and thigh of a peace offering, which are given to a priest, are waved at a great public altar, but the breast and thigh are not waved at a small private altar.
דְּבָרִים שֶׁשָּׁוְותָה בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה לְבָמָה קְטַנָּה: שְׁחִיטָה בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה, הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ בִּגְדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה, דָּם מַתִּיר וּמְפַגֵּל בִּגְדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה, מוּמִין וּזְמַן בִּגְדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה.
And there are other matters in which a great public altar is identical to a small private altar: Slaughter is required at both a great public altar and a small private altar. Flaying a burnt offering and cutting it into pieces is required at both a great public altar and a small private altar. Sprinkling the blood permits the meat to be eaten, and if at that time the priest thought of eating or sacrificing this offering outside its appropriate time, this renders the offering piggul both at a great public altar and at a small private altar. Likewise, the halakha that blemishes disqualify an offering and the halakha that there is a limited time for eating offerings are in effect at both a great public altar and a small private altar.
אֲבָל נוֹתָר וְהַזְּמַן וְהַטָּמֵא – שָׁוִין בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה.
§ Following the detailing of the differences between a communal altar and a private altar, the mishna teaches: But the halakha that portions of the offering left over [notar] beyond the time it is permitted must be burned and that one who eats them incurs karet, and the halakha that intent to sacrifice or partake of the offering beyond its designated time renders the offering piggul, and the prohibition against performing the sacrificial service or eating consecrated meat while ritually impure are equal in this, i.e., a private altar, and that, i.e., a public altar.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן לַעֲשׂוֹת זְמַן בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה כְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה? אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: לָן יִשָּׂרֵף, וּפִיגּוּל יִשָּׂרֵף; מָה פִּיגּוּל – פָּסוּל בְּבָמָה, אַף לָן – פָּסוּל בְּבָמָה.
With regard to this the Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that time, i.e., the halakha that an offering left over beyond its designated time is disqualified, in the case of a small private altar should be made equivalent to the halakha in the case of a great public altar? The Torah stated: An offering that was left overnight must be burned, and likewise the Torah stated that an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul] must be burned. Therefore, another parallel may be drawn between them: Just as piggul is disqualified in the case of a private altar, so too, an offering that was left overnight is disqualified in the case of a private altar.
אוֹ כְּלָךְ לְדֶרֶךְ זוֹ – דְּהָא אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: לָן יִשָּׂרֵף, וְיוֹצֵא יִשָּׂרֵף; מָה יוֹצֵא – כָּשֵׁר בְּבָמָה, אַף לָן – כָּשֵׁר בְּבָמָה. וְלָאו קַל וָחוֹמֶר הוּא מֵעוֹפוֹת:
Or go this way, and say that because the Torah stated: An offering that was left overnight must be burned, and likewise, the Torah stated that an offering that leaves the Temple courtyard must be burned, the following conclusion may be drawn: Just as an offering that leaves the Temple courtyard is valid in the case of a private altar because it has no set perimeter, so too, an offering that was left overnight is valid in the case of a private altar, and it may therefore be concluded that the halakha of time does not apply to offerings on a private altar. The Gemara asks: And is it not an a fortiori inference from the halakha of bird offerings that in the case of a private altar, time should render an offering disqualified?
מָה עוֹפוֹת, שֶׁאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן – זְמַן פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן; קׇדְשֵׁי בָּמָה קְטַנָּה, שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁזְּמַן פּוֹסֵל בָּהֶן?!
If bird offerings, whose halakhot are more lenient in that a blemish does not disqualify them, are nevertheless disqualified by time, then with regard to sacrificial animals of a small private altar, which are disqualified by a blemish, is it not logical that they should be disqualified by time?
מָה לְעוֹפוֹת – שֶׁכֵּן אֵין הַזָּר כָּשֵׁר בָּהֶן; תֹּאמַר בְּבָמָה קְטַנָּה, שֶׁהַזָּר כָּשֵׁר בָּהּ – לֹא יְהֵא זְמַן פָּסוּל בָּהּ?! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְזֹאת תּוֹרַת זֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים״ – לַעֲשׂוֹת זְמַן בָּמָה קְטַנָּה כִּזְמַן בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה.
The Gemara questions the inference: What is notable about bird offerings? They are notable in that a non-priest is not fit to sacrifice them. Shall you say the same with regard to offerings sacrificed on a small private altar, where a non-priest is fit? No, and consequently they should not be disqualified by time. Therefore, the verse states: “And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:11), which equates all peace offerings, to render the halakha of time with regard to a small private altar identical to the halakha of time with regard to a great public altar.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ פָּרַת חַטָּאת, וּסְלִיקָא לַהּ מַסֶּכֶת זְבָחִים
Follow 
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.
Zevahim 81: Like the Sin-Offering, So Too the Guilt-Offering
12.04.2025 | י״ד בכסלו תשפ״ו
Zevahim 74: Mediterranean and Dead Seas: How to Lose a Minority Item
11.28.2025 | ח׳ בכסלו תשפ״ו
Zevahim 70: Geese, Chickens, and the Broken Neck of a Goat
11.23.2025 | ג׳ בכסלו תשפ״ו
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.
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Jeanne Yael Klempner
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Roslyn Jaffe
Florida, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Khaya Eisenberg
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Keren Carter
Brentwood, California, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, 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.
Deborah Dickson
Ra’anana, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Anne Rubin
Elkins Park, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Martha Tarazi
Panama, Panama
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Shoshana Ruerup
Berlin, Germany
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Marian Frankston
Pennsylvania, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, 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.
Patti Evans
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Karena Perry
Los Angeles, United States
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.
Laura Warshawsky
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Phyllis Hecht
Hashmonaim, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
Zevachim 120
Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ β ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΈΧ β Χ§ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ; ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ β ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨?
that one brought inside and subsequently took outside, what is the halakha? Does it have the status of a sacrificial item of a public altar? The Gemara clarifies the question: Do we say that once it was brought in the partition has already absorbed it, and all halakhot of sacrificial items of a public altar apply; or perhaps once it returns, i.e., was taken outside again, it returns to its prior status as an offering of a private altar?
ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£? ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ β ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌ.
The Gemara asks: Isnβt this issue a disagreement between Rabba and Rav Yosef? As we learned in a mishna (Meβila 2a): With regard to offerings of the most sacred order, e.g., a sin offering or a guilt offering, that were slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard, and not in the north as dictated by halakha, and are therefore disqualified, one who derives benefit from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, and despite the fact that they should not ascend the altar, if they ascended they shall not descend.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΧΦΌ? Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΌ.
And a dilemma was raised before the Sages: If they did descend the altar, what is the halakha with regard to ascending again? Rabba says: They shall not ascend, and Rav Yosef says: They shall ascend. Consequently, they disagree with regard to the issue of whether an item that is not fit to be sacrificed in a consecrated area acquires the sanctity of that area even if it is removed from there.
ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£. ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ: Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·; ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ; ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ β Χ§ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara responds: The disagreements are not identical, as the dilemma can be raised according to the opinion of Rabba, and the dilemma can be raised according to the opinion of Rav Yosef. The Gemara elaborates: It is possible to raise the dilemma according to the opinion of Rabba, as Rabba says his statement: Offerings of the most sacred order that were slaughtered in the south shall not descend if they ascended, only with regard to the altar, as the altar consecrates that which is fit for it, while it does not consecrate that which is not fit for it. But with regard to the partition of the public altar, even though an offering that was consecrated for a private altar is not fit for that altar, the partition nevertheless absorbs the offering and it is sacrificed there. Consequently, all the halakhot of the public altar apply to that offering, even if it is taken outside.
ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£ β Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£ ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ; ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΧΦΉΧͺ Χ Φ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧ? ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ§ΧΦΌ.
Or perhaps the dilemma of the burnt offering of a private altar can be raised even according to the opinion of Rav Yosef. Rav Yosef states his opinion there, that offerings of the most sacred order that were slaughtered in the south of the Temple courtyard and descended the altar shall ascend again, only because the altar and the offering are both located in one place, i.e., the Temple courtyard. But here in Rabbi Zeiraβs case, where the private altar and public altar are two separate places, the halakhot of the public altar do not apply if the offering was taken outside the designated location. Or perhaps there is no difference, and the opinions of Rabba and Rav Yosef in one case are identical to their opinions in the other. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ‘ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ‘ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΧ. ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΧ: ΧΦ΅ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧ’ΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°; ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ° β ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨. ΧΦ·ΧΧ? ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ§ΧΦΌ.
The Gemara notes that a matter that is obvious to Rabba on one side, i.e., that these offerings shall not ascend the altar again, and to Rav Yosef on the other side, i.e., that they shall ascend again, was raised as a dilemma by Rabbi Yannai. As Rabbi Yannai raises a dilemma: What is the halakha with regard to the limbs of a burnt offering of a private altar that ascended the altar and descended? The Gemara notes: In a case where the fire has not yet taken hold of them, do not raise the dilemma, as they certainly shall not ascend again. When should you raise the dilemma? Raise it in a case where the fire has taken hold of them: What is the halakha? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ β Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ; ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨;
Β§ Additionally, with regard to a private altar it was stated: With regard to the slaughter of offerings at night on a private altar, Rav and Shmuel disagree: One says that it is valid, and one says that it is not valid. The Gemara explains: And they disagree with regard to the resolution to a contradiction that was raised by Rabbi Elazar.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΧ΄,
As Rabbi Elazar raised a contradiction between two verses: It is written in the context of Saulβs war with the Philistines: βAnd the people flew upon the spoil and took sheep and cattle and calves and slew them on the ground; and the people ate them with the blood. Then they told Saul, saying: βBehold, the people sin against the Lord in that they eat with the blood. And he said: You have dealt treacherously; roll a great stone to me this dayβ (IΒ Samuel 14:32β33). That stone was made into a private altar upon which offerings could be slaughtered and sacrificed. Evidently, Saul was particular about slaughtering offerings during the day and not at night, despite the fact that it was a private altar and not a public altar.
ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΧΦΆΧ¨ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΧΦΌΧ Χ€Φ»ΦΌΧ¦ΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ©ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΆΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦΆΧΦΆΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΧ³ ΧΦΆΧΦ±ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©ΧΧΦΌ ΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΧ΄.
And immediately thereafter it is written: βAnd Saul said: Disperse yourselves among the people and say to them: Bring me here every man his ox and every man his sheep, and slay them here and eat and sin not against the Lord in eating with the blood. And all the people brought every man his ox with him that night, and slew them thereβ (IΒ Samuel 14:34). This verse states explicitly that the slaughter took place at night and not during the day.
ΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧ: ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧ: ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ.
Rav and Shmuel disagree with regard to the resolution of this contradiction: One Sage answers that here, i.e., when the slaughter took place at night, it was of non-sacred animals, while there, i.e., when Saul was particular about slaughtering during the day, it was the slaughter of sacrificial animals. According to this opinion, the sacrificial service was performed only during the day, even on a private altar. And the other Sage answers that both verses are referring to the slaughter of offerings: Here, in the verse that states that Saul was particular about slaughtering during the day, it is referring to the sacrificial animals of a great public altar, while there, in the verse that states that the slaughter took place at night, it is referring to sacrificial animals of a small private altar.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ β Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ·, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ·. ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ·; Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧΦ°.
Β§ It was stated that with regard to the burnt offering of a private altar, Rav says: It does not require flaying and cutting into pieces, which the Torah requires of a burnt offering (see Leviticus 1:6), and Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan says: It does require flaying and cutting into pieces. The Gemara explains: And they disagree with regard to the meaning of a statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The burnt offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the wilderness, i.e., at Mount Sinai before the establishment of the Tabernacle, did not require flaying and cutting into pieces, because the requirement of flaying and cutting into pieces applied only from the Tent of Meeting and onward, as this halakha was first taught in the Tent of Meeting.
ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧΦ° β ΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ.
One Sage, Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan, holds that from the Tent of Meeting and onward there is a requirement of flaying and cutting into pieces, and there is no difference whether the offering is brought upon a great public altar, and there is no difference whether it is brought upon a small private altar. And one Sage, Rav, holds that with regard to a great public altar, yes, flaying and cutting are required, but with regard to a small private altar they are not.
ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ β Χ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ’Φ· ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ’Φ· ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ. ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ. ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ§ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ§ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan: What are the matters that are different between a great public altar and a small private altar? The corner of the altar, the ramp, the base of the altar, and the square shape are required in a great public altar, but the corner, the base, the ramp, and the square shape are not required in a small private altar. The Basin and its base are required in a great public altar, but the Basin and its base are not required in a small private altar. The breast and thigh of a peace offering, which are given to a priest, are waved at a great public altar, but the breast and thigh are not waved at a small private altar.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ: Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ€Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ.
And there are other matters in which a great public altar is identical to a small private altar: Slaughter is required at both a great public altar and a small private altar. Flaying a burnt offering and cutting it into pieces is required at both a great public altar and a small private altar. Sprinkling the blood permits the meat to be eaten, and if at that time the priest thought of eating or sacrificing this offering outside its appropriate time, this renders the offering piggul both at a great public altar and at a small private altar. Likewise, the halakha that blemishes disqualify an offering and the halakha that there is a limited time for eating offerings are in effect at both a great public altar and a small private altar.
ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ β Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ.
Β§ Following the detailing of the differences between a communal altar and a private altar, the mishna teaches: But the halakha that portions of the offering left over [notar] beyond the time it is permitted must be burned and that one who eats them incurs karet, and the halakha that intent to sacrifice or partake of the offering beyond its designated time renders the offering piggul, and the prohibition against performing the sacrificial service or eating consecrated meat while ritually impure are equal in this, i.e., a private altar, and that, i.e., a public altar.
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ¨Φ΅Χ£, ΧΦΌΧ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ¨Φ΅Χ£; ΧΦΈΧ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ β Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΈΧ β Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ.
With regard to this the Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that time, i.e., the halakha that an offering left over beyond its designated time is disqualified, in the case of a small private altar should be made equivalent to the halakha in the case of a great public altar? The Torah stated: An offering that was left overnight must be burned, and likewise the Torah stated that an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time [piggul] must be burned. Therefore, another parallel may be drawn between them: Just as piggul is disqualified in the case of a private altar, so too, an offering that was left overnight is disqualified in the case of a private altar.
ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧΦ° ΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ¨Φ΅Χ£, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ¨Φ΅Χ£; ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΅Χ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧ Χ§Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’ΧΦΉΧ€ΧΦΉΧͺ:
Or go this way, and say that because the Torah stated: An offering that was left overnight must be burned, and likewise, the Torah stated that an offering that leaves the Temple courtyard must be burned, the following conclusion may be drawn: Just as an offering that leaves the Temple courtyard is valid in the case of a private altar because it has no set perimeter, so too, an offering that was left overnight is valid in the case of a private altar, and it may therefore be concluded that the halakha of time does not apply to offerings on a private altar. The Gemara asks: And is it not an a fortiori inference from the halakha of bird offerings that in the case of a private altar, time should render an offering disqualified?
ΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ€ΧΦΉΧͺ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ; Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ?!
If bird offerings, whose halakhot are more lenient in that a blemish does not disqualify them, are nevertheless disqualified by time, then with regard to sacrificial animals of a small private altar, which are disqualified by a blemish, is it not logical that they should be disqualified by time?
ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ€ΧΦΉΧͺ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ; ΧͺΦΉΦΌΧΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ?! ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧΧͺ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΆΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara questions the inference: What is notable about bird offerings? They are notable in that a non-priest is not fit to sacrifice them. Shall you say the same with regard to offerings sacrificed on a small private altar, where a non-priest is fit? No, and consequently they should not be disqualified by time. Therefore, the verse states: βAnd this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offeringsβ (Leviticus 7:11), which equates all peace offerings, to render the halakha of time with regard to a small private altar identical to the halakha of time with regard to a great public altar.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧΦ° Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ‘ΦΌΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ
Follow
