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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 16, 2018 | 讛壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖注状讞

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

Zevachim 120

Zevachim ends with a comparison between the laws of a small bama and a large bama.


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

砖讛讻谞讬住讛 诇驻谞讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗讛 诇讞讜抓 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚注讬讬诇讗 拽诇讟讛 诇讛 诪讞讬爪转讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚专 讛讚专

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?

诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚转谞谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 砖砖讞讟谉 讘讚专讜诐 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讜讗诐 注诇讜 诇讗 讬专讚讜

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this issue a disagreement between Rabba and Rav Yosef? As we learned in a mishna (Me鈥檌la 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.

讜讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讬专讚讜 诪讛讜 砖讬注诇讜 专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讗 讬注诇讜 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讬注诇讜

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.

转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讛 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诇讗 讘诪讝讘讞 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诪拽讚砖 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讗 诪拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诪讞讬爪讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 拽诇讟讛

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.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讞讚 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚转专讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 转讬拽讜

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鈥檚 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.

诪讬诇转讗 讚驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讛 讘讞讚 讙讬住讗 讜诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讞讚 讙讬住讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讚讘注讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗讘专讬 注讜诇转 讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 砖注诇讜 诇诪讝讘讞 讜讬专讚讜 诪讛讜 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪砖诇讛 讘讛谉 讛讗讜专 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讛讬讻讗 讚诪砖诇讛 讘讛谉 讛讗讜专 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

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.

讗讬转诪专 砖讞讬讟转 诇讬诇讛 讘讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚 讗诪专 讻砖专讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 驻住讜诇讛 讜拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

搂 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.

讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 专诪讬 拽专讗讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讘讙讚转诐 讙诇讜 讗诇讬 讛讬讜诐 讗讘谉 讙讚讜诇讛

As Rabbi Elazar raised a contradiction between two verses: It is written in the context of Saul鈥檚 war with the Philistines: 鈥淎nd 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: 鈥楤ehold, 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鈥 (I聽Samuel 14:32鈥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.

讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 砖讗讜诇 驻爪讜 讘注诐 讜讗诪专转诐 诇讛诐 讛讙讬砖讜 讗诇讬 讗讬砖 砖讜专讜 讜讗讬砖 砖讬讛讜 讜砖讞讟转诐 讘讝讛 讜讗讻诇转诐 讜诇讗 转讞讟讗讜 诇讛壮 诇讗讻讜诇 注诇 讛讚诐 讜讬讙砖讜 讻诇 讛注诐 讗讬砖 砖讜专讜 讘讬讚讜 讛诇讬诇讛 讜讬砖讞讟讜 砖诐

And immediately thereafter it is written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (I聽Samuel 14:34). This verse states explicitly that the slaughter took place at night and not during the day.

诪专 诪砖谞讬 讻讗谉 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讻讗谉 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讜诪专 诪砖谞讬 讻讗谉 讘拽讚砖讬 讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讻讗谉 讘拽讚砖讬 讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛

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.

讗讬转诪专 注讜诇转 讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讛 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讟注讜谞讛 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讜拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讛 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 砖讗讬谉 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讗诇讗 诪讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜讗讬诇讱

搂 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 Yo岣nan 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.

诪专 住讘专 诪讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜讗讬诇讱 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讘讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 诇讗

One Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谉 讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诇讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 拽专谉 讜讻讘砖 讜讬住讜讚 讜专讬讘讜注 讘讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讬谉 拽专谉 讜讬住讜讚 讜讻讘砖 讜专讬讘讜注 讘讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讻讬讜专 讜讻谞讜 讘讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讻讬讜专 讜讻谞讜 讘讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讘讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讘讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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.

讚讘专讬诐 砖砖讜讜转讛 讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诇讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讘讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜拽讟谞讛 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讜拽讟谞讛 讚诐 诪转讬专 讜诪驻讙诇 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讜拽讟谞讛 诪讜诪讬谉 讜讝诪谉 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讜拽讟谞讛

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.

讗讘诇 谞讜转专 讜讛讝诪谉 讜讛讟诪讗 砖讜讬谉 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛

搂 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讝诪谉 讘讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讻讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇谉 讬砖专祝 讜驻讬讙讜诇 讬砖专祝 诪讛 驻讬讙讜诇 驻住讜诇 讘讘诪讛 讗祝 诇谉 驻住讜诇 讘讘诪讛

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.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 讚讛讗 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇谉 讬砖专祝 讜讬讜爪讗 讬砖专祝 诪讛 讬讜爪讗 讻砖专 讘讘诪讛 讗祝 诇谉 讻砖专 讘讘诪讛 讜诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 诪注讜驻讜转

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?

诪讛 注讜驻讜转 砖讗讬谉 讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讛谉 讝诪谉 驻讜住诇 讘讛谉 拽讚砖讬 讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 砖讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讛谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讝诪谉 驻讜住诇 讘讛谉

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?

诪讛 诇注讜驻讜转 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 讛讝专 讻砖专 讘讛谉 转讗诪专 讘讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 砖讛讝专 讻砖专 讘讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 讝诪谉 驻住讜诇 讘讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讝讗转 转讜专转 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 诇注砖讜转 讝诪谉 讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讻讝诪谉 讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛

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: 鈥淎nd this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings鈥 (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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 驻专转 讞讟讗转 讜住诇讬拽讗 诇讛 诪住讻转 讝讘讞讬诐

 

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Zevachim 120

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 120

砖讛讻谞讬住讛 诇驻谞讬诐 讜讛讜爪讬讗讛 诇讞讜抓 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚注讬讬诇讗 拽诇讟讛 诇讛 诪讞讬爪转讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讛讚专 讛讚专

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?

诇讗讜 讛讬讬谞讜 驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讛 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讚转谞谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 砖砖讞讟谉 讘讚专讜诐 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讜讗诐 注诇讜 诇讗 讬专讚讜

The Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 this issue a disagreement between Rabba and Rav Yosef? As we learned in a mishna (Me鈥檌la 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.

讜讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讬专讚讜 诪讛讜 砖讬注诇讜 专讘讛 讗诪专 诇讗 讬注诇讜 讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讬注诇讜

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.

转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讛 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 转讬讘注讬 诇专讘讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诇讗 讘诪讝讘讞 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 诪拽讚砖 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讗 诪拽讚砖 讗讘诇 诪讞讬爪讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 拽诇讟讛

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.

讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讞讚 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚转专讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 谞讬谞讛讜 诇讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 转讬拽讜

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鈥檚 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.

诪讬诇转讗 讚驻砖讬讟讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讛 讘讞讚 讙讬住讗 讜诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讘讞讚 讙讬住讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讚讘注讬 专讘讬 讬谞讗讬 讗讘专讬 注讜诇转 讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 砖注诇讜 诇诪讝讘讞 讜讬专讚讜 诪讛讜 讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 诪砖诇讛 讘讛谉 讛讗讜专 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 讛讬讻讗 讚诪砖诇讛 讘讛谉 讛讗讜专 诪讗讬 转讬拽讜

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.

讗讬转诪专 砖讞讬讟转 诇讬诇讛 讘讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 专讘 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讞讚 讗诪专 讻砖专讛 讜讞讚 讗诪专 驻住讜诇讛 讜拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专

搂 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.

讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 专诪讬 拽专讗讬 讗讛讚讚讬 讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讘讙讚转诐 讙诇讜 讗诇讬 讛讬讜诐 讗讘谉 讙讚讜诇讛

As Rabbi Elazar raised a contradiction between two verses: It is written in the context of Saul鈥檚 war with the Philistines: 鈥淎nd 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: 鈥楤ehold, 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鈥 (I聽Samuel 14:32鈥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.

讜讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 砖讗讜诇 驻爪讜 讘注诐 讜讗诪专转诐 诇讛诐 讛讙讬砖讜 讗诇讬 讗讬砖 砖讜专讜 讜讗讬砖 砖讬讛讜 讜砖讞讟转诐 讘讝讛 讜讗讻诇转诐 讜诇讗 转讞讟讗讜 诇讛壮 诇讗讻讜诇 注诇 讛讚诐 讜讬讙砖讜 讻诇 讛注诐 讗讬砖 砖讜专讜 讘讬讚讜 讛诇讬诇讛 讜讬砖讞讟讜 砖诐

And immediately thereafter it is written: 鈥淎nd 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鈥 (I聽Samuel 14:34). This verse states explicitly that the slaughter took place at night and not during the day.

诪专 诪砖谞讬 讻讗谉 讘讞讜诇讬谉 讻讗谉 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讜诪专 诪砖谞讬 讻讗谉 讘拽讚砖讬 讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讻讗谉 讘拽讚砖讬 讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛

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.

讗讬转诪专 注讜诇转 讘诪转 讬讞讬讚 专讘 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讛 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讟注讜谞讛 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讜拽讗 诪讬驻诇讙讬 讘讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 注讜诇讛 砖讛拽专讬讘讜 讬砖专讗诇 讘诪讚讘专 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讛 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 砖讗讬谉 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讗诇讗 诪讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜讗讬诇讱

搂 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 Yo岣nan 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.

诪专 住讘专 诪讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讜讗讬诇讱 诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜诇讗 砖谞讗 讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讜诪专 住讘专 讘讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讘讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 诇讗

One Sage, Rabbi Yo岣nan, 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜转讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谉 讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诇讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 拽专谉 讜讻讘砖 讜讬住讜讚 讜专讬讘讜注 讘讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讬谉 拽专谉 讜讬住讜讚 讜讻讘砖 讜专讬讘讜注 讘讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讻讬讜专 讜讻谞讜 讘讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讻讬讜专 讜讻谞讜 讘讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讘讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜讗讬谉 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽 讘讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: 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.

讚讘专讬诐 砖砖讜讜转讛 讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 诇讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 砖讞讬讟讛 讘讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讜拽讟谞讛 讛驻砖讟 讜谞讬转讜讞 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讜拽讟谞讛 讚诐 诪转讬专 讜诪驻讙诇 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讜拽讟谞讛 诪讜诪讬谉 讜讝诪谉 讘讙讚讜诇讛 讜拽讟谞讛

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.

讗讘诇 谞讜转专 讜讛讝诪谉 讜讛讟诪讗 砖讜讬谉 讘讝讛 讜讘讝讛

搂 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.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇注砖讜转 讝诪谉 讘讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讻讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇谉 讬砖专祝 讜驻讬讙讜诇 讬砖专祝 诪讛 驻讬讙讜诇 驻住讜诇 讘讘诪讛 讗祝 诇谉 驻住讜诇 讘讘诪讛

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.

讗讜 讻诇讱 诇讚专讱 讝讜 讚讛讗 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 诇谉 讬砖专祝 讜讬讜爪讗 讬砖专祝 诪讛 讬讜爪讗 讻砖专 讘讘诪讛 讗祝 诇谉 讻砖专 讘讘诪讛 讜诇讗讜 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讛讜讗 诪注讜驻讜转

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?

诪讛 注讜驻讜转 砖讗讬谉 讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讛谉 讝诪谉 驻讜住诇 讘讛谉 拽讚砖讬 讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 砖讛诪讜诐 驻讜住诇 讘讛谉 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖讝诪谉 驻讜住诇 讘讛谉

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?

诪讛 诇注讜驻讜转 砖讻谉 讗讬谉 讛讝专 讻砖专 讘讛谉 转讗诪专 讘讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 砖讛讝专 讻砖专 讘讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 讝诪谉 驻住讜诇 讘讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讝讗转 转讜专转 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 诇注砖讜转 讝诪谉 讘诪讛 拽讟谞讛 讻讝诪谉 讘诪讛 讙讚讜诇讛

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: 鈥淎nd this is the law of the sacrifice of peace offerings鈥 (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.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 驻专转 讞讟讗转 讜住诇讬拽讗 诇讛 诪住讻转 讝讘讞讬诐

 

Scroll To Top