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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 8, 2018 | ื›ืดื’ ื‘ืื™ื™ืจ ืชืฉืขืดื—

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Zevachim 25

The collection of the blood is discussed. What blood? How was it collected? What happens if it spilled on the floor? Are items that enter the airspaceย above a vessel considered as if they are already in the vessel?ย What if the animal becomes blemished after the slaughtering but before the blood is collected in the vessel or before bringing the blood to the altar or pouring the blood?

ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉ ืงื•ืžืฅ ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉ ืงื•ืžืฅ ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ืื›ืฉื•ืจื™ ืžื›ืฉืจ ื™ื“ ื™ื“ ื“ืจื‘ื ืœืžื” ืœื™

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Shimon, who does not require sanctification of the handful, or according to the one who says that Rabbi Shimon also requires the sanctification of the handful but that he deems the sanctification fit when performed with the left hand, why do I need the verbal analogy of Rava between โ€œhandโ€ and โ€œhandโ€?

ืื™ ืœืงืžื™ืฆื” ืขืฆืžื” ืžื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื ืคืงื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ [ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื] ืงื“ืฉ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื™ื ื›ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ื›ืืฉื

If one suggests that it is necessary to indicate that the removal of the handful itself must be performed with the right hand, this cannot be, since that is derived from the verse cited by Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi แธคiyya. As Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi แธคiyya, says: What is the reason that Rabbi Shimon does not require that the handful be sanctified in a service vessel? As the verse states with regard to the meal offering: โ€œIt is most holy, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offeringโ€ (Leviticus 6:10).

ื‘ื ืœืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื‘ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื›ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ื ืœืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ื›ืืฉื

The verse compares the meal offering to a sin offering and a guilt offering. Therefore, if the priest comes to perform the burning of the handful with his hand, then he performs it with his right hand, like a sin offering, whose blood is sprinkled by hand. And if he comes to perform it with a vessel, i.e., if he first sanctifies the handful in a service vessel, then he may perform it with his left hand, like a guilt offering, whose blood is sprinkled from a vessel. Since the removal of the handful is performed by hand, the verse indicates that it must be performed with the right hand, and the verbal analogy is unnecessary.

ืœื ื ืฆืจื›ื [ืืœื] ืœืงื•ืžืฅ ืžื ื—ืช ื—ื•ื˜ื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืžื”ื•ื“ืจ ื›ื™ ืงืžืฅ ืœื” ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ื ืžื™ ืชื™ืชื›ืฉืจ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara responds: The verbal analogy is necessary only for the handful of a meal offering of a sinner, to teach that it must be removed with the right hand. It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Shimon says that this offering does not require oil and frankincense so that his offering will not be of superior quality, perhaps when he removed the handful with his left hand, which is an inferior manner, it should be fit as well. The verbal analogy therefore teaches us that the handful must always be removed with the right hand, even in the case of the meal offering of a sinner.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ืฉืคืš ื”ื“ื ืขืœ ื”ืจืฆืคื” ื•ืืกืคื• ืคืกื•ืœ

MISHNA: If the blood spilled on the floor before the priest managed to collect it into a vessel, and the priest then collected it from the floor into a vessel, it is disqualified.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืœืงื— ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ืžืฉื™ื— ืžื“ื ื”ืคืจ ืžื“ื ื”ื ืคืฉ ื•ืœื ืžื“ื ื”ืขื•ืจ ื•ืœื ืžื“ื ื”ืชืžืฆื™ืช

GEMARA: The Sages taught: The verse states: โ€œAnd the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bull [middam happar]โ€ (Leviticus 4:5). This means that the priest shall take from the blood of the soul, i.e., the blood that flows from the place of slaughter as the animal dies, but not from the blood of the skin, which bleeds out when the skin is cut before the slaughter, nor from the blood of exudate, i.e., that exudes from the neck of the animal after the initial spurt of its slaughter concludes.

ืžื“ื ื”ืคืจ ื“ื ืžื”ืคืจ ื™ืงื‘ืœื ื• ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืžื“ื ื”ืคืจ ื›ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžื“ื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืงืฆืช ื“ื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉื™ืงื‘ืœ ืืช ื›ืœ ื“ืžื• ืฉืœ ืคืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืืช ื›ืœ ื“ืžื• ื™ืฉืคืš

The baraita continues: When the verse states: โ€œFrom the blood of the bull,โ€ it should be interpreted as if it is written: He shall collect the blood from the bull, i.e., if the blood spills onto the floor before it is collected in a service vessel, it is disqualified. As, if it enters your mind that โ€œfrom the blood of the bullโ€ should be interpreted as it is written, i.e., that โ€œfrom the bloodโ€ means that the priest may collect even only a portion of the blood, that is difficult: But doesnโ€™t Rav say: One who slaughters the offering must collect all the blood of the bull, as it is stated: โ€œAnd all the blood of the bull he shall pour out on the base of the altarโ€ (Leviticus 4:7)? The verse emphasizes that the priest must pour all the blood of the bull, which is possible only if he has collected all of it.

ืืœื ืžื“ื ื”ืคืจ ื“ื ืžื”ืคืจ ื™ืงื‘ืœื ื• ื•ืงืกื‘ืจ ื’ื•ืจืขื™ืŸ ื•ืžื•ืกื™ืคื™ืŸ ื•ื“ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ

Rather, โ€œfrom the blood of the bullโ€ means that the priest shall collect the blood from the bull. And this Sage holds that the Sages subtract and add and interpret homiletically, i.e., one may take a letter from one word, insert it into a second word, and explain the phrase in that manner. In this case, the mem of middam is added to happar, so that the verse is interpreted as though it states: Dam mehappar, meaning: Blood from the bull.

ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉื™ืงื‘ืœ ืืช ื›ืœ ื“ืžื• ืฉืœ ืคืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืืช ื›ืœ ื“ื ื”ืคืจ ื™ืฉืคืš ื•ื”ื ื‘ืฉื™ืจื™ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘

ยง The Gemara turns to the matter itself: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: One who slaughters the offering must collect all the blood of the bull, as it is stated: โ€œAnd all the blood of the bull he shall pour out on the base of the altar.โ€ The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t this verse written with regard to the remainder of the blood that is poured onto the base of the altar after the sprinkling? How, then, can a halakha with regard to the collection of the blood be derived from it?

ืื ืื™ื ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื™ืจื™ื™ื ื“ื”ื ืœื™ืชื™ื” ืœื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื“ื ืชื ื™ื”ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ื‘ืงื‘ืœื”

The Gemara responds: If this verse is not referring to the matter of the remainder of the blood after sprinkling, as not all of the blood is present for that rite since some of it has already been sprinkled, apply it instead to the matter of collection of the blood from the animal.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉื™ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืกื›ื™ืŸ ืœืžืขืœื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืœืงื— ืžื“ื ื”ืคืจ ื•ืœื ืžื“ื ื”ืคืจ ื•ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One who slaughters the offering must hold the knife up after slaughter, so that blood that is on the knife does not fall into the service vessel, as it is stated: โ€œAnd the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bull,โ€ i.e., and not from a mixture of the blood of the bull and something else, such as the blood from the knife.

ื•ื“ื ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžืื™ ืžืงื ื— ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื‘ืฉืคืช ืžื–ืจืง ื›ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืคื•ืจื™ ื–ื”ื‘

The Gemara asks: And with what does he wipe the blood from the knife? Abaye says: He wipes it with the rim of the bowl used to collect the blood, as it is written of the bowls used to collect the blood: โ€œAtoning-bowls [keforei] of goldโ€ (Ezra 1:10). The root kaf, peh, reish can also mean to wipe.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉื™ืชืŸ

Rav แธคisda says that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says: One who slaughters the offering must place

ื•ืจื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœืชื•ืš ื”ื›ืœื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืจื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉื™ืจืื• ืื•ื™ืจ ื›ืœื™

the veins of the offering into the vessel, so that all the blood will empty into it. It was also stated: Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The veins must see the airspace of the vessel.

ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ืžืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื” ืžืงื‘ืœ ื•ื ืคื—ืชื• ืฉื•ืœื™ ืžื–ืจืง ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื”ื’ื™ืข ื“ื ืœืื•ื™ืจ ืžื”ื• ืื•ื™ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืกื•ืคื• ืœื ื•ื— ื›ืžื•ื ื— ื“ืžื™ ืื• ืœื ื›ืžื•ื ื— ื“ืžื™

ยง Rabbi Asi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: If the priest was collecting the blood, and the bottom of the bowl broke before the blood reached the bowlโ€™s airspace, what is the halakha? Is blood that enters the airspace of a bowl that will not ultimately allow it to settle inside nevertheless considered as though it settled inside the vessel, so that when it spills through the break it is considered to have already been collected in the bowl? If so, it remains fit for sprinkling. Or is it not considered as though it settled, but is instead considered to have spilled directly from the animalโ€™s neck onto the floor, and is therefore disqualified?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื™ืชื•ื” ื—ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžื•ื ื—ืช ืชื—ืช ื”ื–ื™ื ื•ืง ืžื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื” ื•ืฉื‘ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœื” ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฆื™ืจืฃ ืคื™ื” ืœื–ื™ื ื•ืง ืžื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื” ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื‘ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœื” ื›ืฉื™ืจื™ืŸ

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: You learned the answer in a baraita: With regard to a barrel that is placed under a pipe to catch water running from it, both the water that has already flowed inside the barrel and that which is still outside it but about to fall in are unfit to be used as water of purification, which purify one who contracts impurity from a corpse. The water of purification must be flowing water, and all of this water is considered to have been collected in the barrel. But if one joined the mouth of the barrel to the pipe, the water that is inside the barrel is unfit, but water that is still outside it is fit, even though it will ultimately fall in, since it is still in the pipe and is not considered to be above the airspace of the barrel. One can infer from the baraita that all liquid that enters the airspace of a vessel is considered to have been collected in it.

ื”ืื™ ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืื•ื™ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืกื•ืคื• ืœื ื•ื— ื•ืงื ืคืฉื˜ ืœื™ื” ืื•ื™ืจ ืฉืกื•ืคื• ืœื ื•ื—

The Gemara rejects this: What is this comparison? Rabbi Asi raises a dilemma before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan with regard to a case where an item enters the airspace of a vessel that will not ultimately allow it to settle inside, and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan resolves the dilemma by citing a case where the item enters the airspace of a vessel that will ultimately allow it to settle inside.

ืชืจืชื™ ืงื ื‘ืขื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื•ื™ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืกื•ืคื• ืœื ื•ื— ืœืื• ื›ืžื•ื ื— ื“ืžื™ ืื•ื™ืจ ืฉืกื•ืคื• ืœื ื•ื— ืžืื™

The Gemara responds: Rabbi Asi raises two dilemmas before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: First, what is the halakha with regard to an item that will not come to rest in the vessel? Second, if you say that an item that enters the airspace of a vessel that will not ultimately allow it to settle inside is not considered as though it settled inside the vessel, what is the halakha with regard to an item that entered the airspace of a vessel that will ultimately allow it to settle inside?

ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžืชื ื™ ื—ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืคืฉื˜ ืœื™ื” ื—ื‘ื™ืช

The Gemara notes: Rav Yosef teaches the exchange in this manner, i.e., as recounted. Rav Kahana teaches it as follows: Rabbi Asi raised the dilemma before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan with regard to a barrel, asking whether the water in its airspace is fit to be used for the water of purification, and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan resolved the dilemma for him by citing the baraita mentioning a barrel, with which he was unfamiliar.

ืจื‘ื” ืžืชื ื™ ื—ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืคืฉื˜ ืœื™ื” ืžื–ืจืง ืื™ ืืชื” ืžื•ื“ื” ื‘ืžื–ืจืง ืฉืื™ ืื™ืคืฉืจ ืœื• ื‘ืœื ื–ื™ื ื•ืง

Rabba teaches the exchange as follows: Rabbi Asi raised the dilemma before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan with regard to a barrel, and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan resolved the dilemma for him by citing the halakha concerning a bowl used to collect the blood in the Temple, saying: Do you not concede with regard to the bowl that it is impossible to collect the blood in it without a stream of blood flowing through the air from animalโ€™s neck? If the air above the bowl is not considered part of the bowl, the blood would be considered to have entered the bowl from the air above rather than directly from the animalโ€™s neck, and all collected blood would be unfit. Therefore, the airspace must be considered part of the bowl, and the same holds for the barrel with regard to the water of purification.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ื ืชืŸ ื™ื“ื• ืื• ืจื’ืœื• ืื• ืขืœื™ ื™ืจืงื•ืช ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืขื‘ืจื• ืžื™ื ืœื—ื‘ื™ืช ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ ืงื ื™ื ื•ืขืœื™ ืื’ื•ื–ื™ื ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžืงื‘ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžืงื‘ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื›ืฉื™ืจื™ืŸ

The Gemara adds: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Para 6:4) with regard to sanctifying the water of purification: If one placed his hand or his foot or vegetable leaves in order to allow flowing water to pass through them to the barrel, the water is disqualified. But if the water passed through leaves of reeds or leaves of nuts, the water remains fit. This is the principle: If the water passes through an item that is susceptible to impurity, it is disqualified; if it passes through an item that is not susceptible to impurity, it is fit.

ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืืš ืžืขื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื•ืจ ืžืงื•ื” ืžื™ื ื™ื”ื™ื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื”ื•ื™ื™ืชืŸ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื˜ื”ืจื” ืชื”ื

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Abba: The verse states: โ€œNevertheless a fountain or a cistern wherein is a gathering of water shall be pureโ€ (Leviticus 11:36). The verse indicates that their being must be by way of purity, i.e., the gathering of the water must not be accomplished by way of items susceptible to impurity.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื–ืืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืื•ื™ืจ ื›ืœื™ ื›ื›ืœื™ ื“ืžื™

Rabbi แธคiyya says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Since this mishna states that water that flows over oneโ€™s hand through the air into the barrel is disqualified, that is to say that the airspace above a vessel is considered as though it were part of the vessel itself. If it were not, the water would not be considered to have flowed directly from the hand to the vessel, but rather from the air above the vessel. Since air is not susceptible to impurity, the water would not be disqualified.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ื‘ืฉื•ืชืช ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชืจื“ื ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืขื‘ืจื• ืžื™ื ืœื—ื‘ื™ืช ืชื ืŸ

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba: But perhaps the mishna is referring to a case where the water flows weakly straight from the hand into the vessel itself, since the hand is situated directly on the edge of the vessel, with no air separating them? Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba said to him: Imbecile, we learned in the mishna: In order to allow flowing water to pass through them to the barrel. This indicates that the water is traveling in a stream and will pass through the air before reaching the barrel.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืขื“ื•ืชื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืฆื“ื•ืง ื ื™ืฉื ื™ืช ืžืฉื ื” ื–ื• ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ืฆื“ื•ืง ืขืœ ื”ื–ื•ื—ืœื™ืŸ ืฉืงื™ืœื—ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืื’ื•ื–ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ืŸ ื›ืฉื™ืจื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื”ื™ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืื•ื”ืœื™ื™ื ื•ื‘ื ืžืขืฉื” ืœืคื ื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื‘ืœืฉื›ืช ื”ื’ื–ื™ืช ื•ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจื•

And Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: This mishna concerning the barrel was taught from the testimony of Rabbi Tzadok, as we learned in a mishna (Eduyyot 7:4): Rabbi Tzadok testified with regard to rivulets that one diverted by way of a pipe made with leaves of nuts that their water is fit to be used as water of purification. This was an incident in the town of Ohalya, and an account of the incident came before the Sages in the Chamber of Hewn Stone in the Temple, and they deemed the water fit.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื”ืฆื•ืจื ืื–ืŸ ื”ืคืจ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืงื™ื‘ืœ ื“ืžื• ืคืกื•ืœ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืœืงื— ืžื“ื ื”ืคืจ ืคืจ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื›ื‘ืจ

ยง Rabbi Zeira says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In the case of one who slits the ear of the bull with the knife after slaughter, creating a blemish, and thereafter collected its blood from the neck, the offering is disqualified, as it is stated: โ€œAnd the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bullโ€ (Leviticus 4:5). By referring to the animal as a bull even after its slaughter, the verse indicates that the bull must be at the time of collection of the blood as it already was before slaughter, without a blemish.

ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืžื ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: We found a source for this halakha with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, since the verse is referring to such an offering; from where do we derive that the same holds for offerings of lesser sanctity?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืชื ื™ื ืฉื” ืชืžื™ื ื–ื›ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืฉื ื” ืฉื™ื”ื ืชืžื™ื ื•ื‘ืŸ ืฉื ื” ื‘ืฉืขืช ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื‘ืงื‘ืœื” ื‘ื”ื•ืœื›ื” ื‘ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื™ื”ื™ื” ื›ืœ ื”ื•ื™ื™ื•ืชื™ื• ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื• ืืœื ืชื ื•ื‘ืŸ ืฉื ื”

Rava says: It is taught in a baraita with regard to the Paschal offering, an offering of lesser sanctity: The verse states: โ€œA lamb without blemish, a male of the first year it shall be for youโ€ (Exodus 12:5), indicating that it shall be unblemished and in its first year at the time of slaughter. From where is it derived that it must also be without blemish at the time of collection of the blood, at the time of conveying the blood to the altar, and at the time of the sprinkling of the blood? The verse states: โ€œIt shall be,โ€ emphasizing that all its happenings shall be only when it is unblemished and in its first year.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื ืฉืชื™ื™ืจ ืžื”ืŸ ื›ื–ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืจ ืื• ื›ื–ื™ืช ื—ืœื‘ ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื

Abaye raised an objection to this from a baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to any of the types of offerings that are mentioned in the Torah from which there remains either an olive-bulk of flesh or an olive-bulk of fat, the halakha is that the priest sprinkles the blood of that offering. Apparently, one may sprinkle the blood even if much of the offering is damaged or missing.

ืชืจื’ื•ืžื ืื‘ืŸ ืฉื ื”

The Gemara responds: Interpret the verse as referring only to the requirement that the animal be in its first year until after the sprinkling. It may have a blemish at the time of sprinkling.

ื•ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื‘ืฉืขืช ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื‘ืŸ ืฉื ื” ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ื•ืœื›ื” ื•ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื‘ืŸ ืฉืชื™ื

The Gemara challenges this: But is there any case where the animal is in its first year at the time of slaughter, but at the time of conveying the blood to the altar and sprinkling the blood it is in its second year?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื–ืืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืฉืขื•ืช ืคื•ืกืœื•ืช ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื

Rava says: That is to say that hours disqualify sacrificial animals, i.e., one measures the age of the offering from the exact time of its birth. It is therefore possible that the animal reaches its second year between its slaughter and the conveying of its blood to the altar.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ื™ื ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื•ืจื’ืœื™ื” ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื—ืชืš ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืฉื—ื˜ ื›ืฉื™ืจื”

ยง Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Elazar says: In a case where the animal is standing inside the Temple courtyard but its legs are planted outside it, if one severed its legs and thereafter slaughtered it, the offering is fit, since all the blood collected in the bowl is from the portion of the animal standing in the courtyard.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

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 25

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 25

ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ื‘ืขื™ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉ ืงื•ืžืฅ ื•ืœืžืืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ืœืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืงื™ื“ื•ืฉ ืงื•ืžืฅ ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ืื›ืฉื•ืจื™ ืžื›ืฉืจ ื™ื“ ื™ื“ ื“ืจื‘ื ืœืžื” ืœื™

The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Shimon, who does not require sanctification of the handful, or according to the one who says that Rabbi Shimon also requires the sanctification of the handful but that he deems the sanctification fit when performed with the left hand, why do I need the verbal analogy of Rava between โ€œhandโ€ and โ€œhandโ€?

ืื™ ืœืงืžื™ืฆื” ืขืฆืžื” ืžื“ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื ืคืงื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ [ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื] ืงื“ืฉ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื™ื ื›ื—ื˜ืืช ื•ื›ืืฉื

If one suggests that it is necessary to indicate that the removal of the handful itself must be performed with the right hand, this cannot be, since that is derived from the verse cited by Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi แธคiyya. As Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi แธคiyya, says: What is the reason that Rabbi Shimon does not require that the handful be sanctified in a service vessel? As the verse states with regard to the meal offering: โ€œIt is most holy, as the sin offering, and as the guilt offeringโ€ (Leviticus 6:10).

ื‘ื ืœืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื‘ื™ืžื™ืŸ ื›ื—ื˜ืืช ื‘ื ืœืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืขื•ื‘ื“ื” ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ื›ืืฉื

The verse compares the meal offering to a sin offering and a guilt offering. Therefore, if the priest comes to perform the burning of the handful with his hand, then he performs it with his right hand, like a sin offering, whose blood is sprinkled by hand. And if he comes to perform it with a vessel, i.e., if he first sanctifies the handful in a service vessel, then he may perform it with his left hand, like a guilt offering, whose blood is sprinkled from a vessel. Since the removal of the handful is performed by hand, the verse indicates that it must be performed with the right hand, and the verbal analogy is unnecessary.

ืœื ื ืฆืจื›ื [ืืœื] ืœืงื•ืžืฅ ืžื ื—ืช ื—ื•ื˜ื ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืืžื™ื ื ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ืงืจื‘ื ื• ืžื”ื•ื“ืจ ื›ื™ ืงืžืฅ ืœื” ื‘ืฉืžืืœ ื ืžื™ ืชื™ืชื›ืฉืจ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

The Gemara responds: The verbal analogy is necessary only for the handful of a meal offering of a sinner, to teach that it must be removed with the right hand. It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Shimon says that this offering does not require oil and frankincense so that his offering will not be of superior quality, perhaps when he removed the handful with his left hand, which is an inferior manner, it should be fit as well. The verbal analogy therefore teaches us that the handful must always be removed with the right hand, even in the case of the meal offering of a sinner.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ืฉืคืš ื”ื“ื ืขืœ ื”ืจืฆืคื” ื•ืืกืคื• ืคืกื•ืœ

MISHNA: If the blood spilled on the floor before the priest managed to collect it into a vessel, and the priest then collected it from the floor into a vessel, it is disqualified.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืœืงื— ื”ื›ื”ืŸ ื”ืžืฉื™ื— ืžื“ื ื”ืคืจ ืžื“ื ื”ื ืคืฉ ื•ืœื ืžื“ื ื”ืขื•ืจ ื•ืœื ืžื“ื ื”ืชืžืฆื™ืช

GEMARA: The Sages taught: The verse states: โ€œAnd the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bull [middam happar]โ€ (Leviticus 4:5). This means that the priest shall take from the blood of the soul, i.e., the blood that flows from the place of slaughter as the animal dies, but not from the blood of the skin, which bleeds out when the skin is cut before the slaughter, nor from the blood of exudate, i.e., that exudes from the neck of the animal after the initial spurt of its slaughter concludes.

ืžื“ื ื”ืคืจ ื“ื ืžื”ืคืจ ื™ืงื‘ืœื ื• ื“ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ืžื“ื ื”ืคืจ ื›ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ืžื“ื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืงืฆืช ื“ื ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉื™ืงื‘ืœ ืืช ื›ืœ ื“ืžื• ืฉืœ ืคืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืืช ื›ืœ ื“ืžื• ื™ืฉืคืš

The baraita continues: When the verse states: โ€œFrom the blood of the bull,โ€ it should be interpreted as if it is written: He shall collect the blood from the bull, i.e., if the blood spills onto the floor before it is collected in a service vessel, it is disqualified. As, if it enters your mind that โ€œfrom the blood of the bullโ€ should be interpreted as it is written, i.e., that โ€œfrom the bloodโ€ means that the priest may collect even only a portion of the blood, that is difficult: But doesnโ€™t Rav say: One who slaughters the offering must collect all the blood of the bull, as it is stated: โ€œAnd all the blood of the bull he shall pour out on the base of the altarโ€ (Leviticus 4:7)? The verse emphasizes that the priest must pour all the blood of the bull, which is possible only if he has collected all of it.

ืืœื ืžื“ื ื”ืคืจ ื“ื ืžื”ืคืจ ื™ืงื‘ืœื ื• ื•ืงืกื‘ืจ ื’ื•ืจืขื™ืŸ ื•ืžื•ืกื™ืคื™ืŸ ื•ื“ื•ืจืฉื™ืŸ

Rather, โ€œfrom the blood of the bullโ€ means that the priest shall collect the blood from the bull. And this Sage holds that the Sages subtract and add and interpret homiletically, i.e., one may take a letter from one word, insert it into a second word, and explain the phrase in that manner. In this case, the mem of middam is added to happar, so that the verse is interpreted as though it states: Dam mehappar, meaning: Blood from the bull.

ื’ื•ืคื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉื™ืงื‘ืœ ืืช ื›ืœ ื“ืžื• ืฉืœ ืคืจ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืืช ื›ืœ ื“ื ื”ืคืจ ื™ืฉืคืš ื•ื”ื ื‘ืฉื™ืจื™ื™ื ื›ืชื™ื‘

ยง The Gemara turns to the matter itself: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: One who slaughters the offering must collect all the blood of the bull, as it is stated: โ€œAnd all the blood of the bull he shall pour out on the base of the altar.โ€ The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t this verse written with regard to the remainder of the blood that is poured onto the base of the altar after the sprinkling? How, then, can a halakha with regard to the collection of the blood be derived from it?

ืื ืื™ื ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื™ืจื™ื™ื ื“ื”ื ืœื™ืชื™ื” ืœื›ื•ืœื™ื” ื“ื ืชื ื™ื”ื• ืขื ื™ืŸ ื‘ืงื‘ืœื”

The Gemara responds: If this verse is not referring to the matter of the remainder of the blood after sprinkling, as not all of the blood is present for that rite since some of it has already been sprinkled, apply it instead to the matter of collection of the blood from the animal.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉื™ื’ื‘ื™ื” ืกื›ื™ืŸ ืœืžืขืœื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืœืงื— ืžื“ื ื”ืคืจ ื•ืœื ืžื“ื ื”ืคืจ ื•ื“ื‘ืจ ืื—ืจ

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: One who slaughters the offering must hold the knife up after slaughter, so that blood that is on the knife does not fall into the service vessel, as it is stated: โ€œAnd the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bull,โ€ i.e., and not from a mixture of the blood of the bull and something else, such as the blood from the knife.

ื•ื“ื ืกื›ื™ืŸ ื‘ืžืื™ ืžืงื ื— ืœื™ื” ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื‘ืฉืคืช ืžื–ืจืง ื›ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื›ืคื•ืจื™ ื–ื”ื‘

The Gemara asks: And with what does he wipe the blood from the knife? Abaye says: He wipes it with the rim of the bowl used to collect the blood, as it is written of the bowls used to collect the blood: โ€œAtoning-bowls [keforei] of goldโ€ (Ezra 1:10). The root kaf, peh, reish can also mean to wipe.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื”ืฉื•ื—ื˜ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉื™ืชืŸ

Rav แธคisda says that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says: One who slaughters the offering must place

ื•ืจื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืœืชื•ืš ื”ื›ืœื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื ืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืกื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื•ืจื™ื“ื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืฉื™ืจืื• ืื•ื™ืจ ื›ืœื™

the veins of the offering into the vessel, so that all the blood will empty into it. It was also stated: Rav Asi says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: The veins must see the airspace of the vessel.

ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืกื™ ืžืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื”ื™ื” ืžืงื‘ืœ ื•ื ืคื—ืชื• ืฉื•ืœื™ ืžื–ืจืง ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื”ื’ื™ืข ื“ื ืœืื•ื™ืจ ืžื”ื• ืื•ื™ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืกื•ืคื• ืœื ื•ื— ื›ืžื•ื ื— ื“ืžื™ ืื• ืœื ื›ืžื•ื ื— ื“ืžื™

ยง Rabbi Asi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: If the priest was collecting the blood, and the bottom of the bowl broke before the blood reached the bowlโ€™s airspace, what is the halakha? Is blood that enters the airspace of a bowl that will not ultimately allow it to settle inside nevertheless considered as though it settled inside the vessel, so that when it spills through the break it is considered to have already been collected in the bowl? If so, it remains fit for sprinkling. Or is it not considered as though it settled, but is instead considered to have spilled directly from the animalโ€™s neck onto the floor, and is therefore disqualified?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชื ื™ืชื•ื” ื—ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžื•ื ื—ืช ืชื—ืช ื”ื–ื™ื ื•ืง ืžื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื” ื•ืฉื‘ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœื” ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืฆื™ืจืฃ ืคื™ื” ืœื–ื™ื ื•ืง ืžื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื•ื›ื” ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ื•ืฉื‘ื—ื•ืฆื” ืœื” ื›ืฉื™ืจื™ืŸ

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: You learned the answer in a baraita: With regard to a barrel that is placed under a pipe to catch water running from it, both the water that has already flowed inside the barrel and that which is still outside it but about to fall in are unfit to be used as water of purification, which purify one who contracts impurity from a corpse. The water of purification must be flowing water, and all of this water is considered to have been collected in the barrel. But if one joined the mouth of the barrel to the pipe, the water that is inside the barrel is unfit, but water that is still outside it is fit, even though it will ultimately fall in, since it is still in the pipe and is not considered to be above the airspace of the barrel. One can infer from the baraita that all liquid that enters the airspace of a vessel is considered to have been collected in it.

ื”ืื™ ืžืื™ ื‘ืขื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืื•ื™ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืกื•ืคื• ืœื ื•ื— ื•ืงื ืคืฉื˜ ืœื™ื” ืื•ื™ืจ ืฉืกื•ืคื• ืœื ื•ื—

The Gemara rejects this: What is this comparison? Rabbi Asi raises a dilemma before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan with regard to a case where an item enters the airspace of a vessel that will not ultimately allow it to settle inside, and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan resolves the dilemma by citing a case where the item enters the airspace of a vessel that will ultimately allow it to settle inside.

ืชืจืชื™ ืงื ื‘ืขื™ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืื ืชื™ืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื•ื™ืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืกื•ืคื• ืœื ื•ื— ืœืื• ื›ืžื•ื ื— ื“ืžื™ ืื•ื™ืจ ืฉืกื•ืคื• ืœื ื•ื— ืžืื™

The Gemara responds: Rabbi Asi raises two dilemmas before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: First, what is the halakha with regard to an item that will not come to rest in the vessel? Second, if you say that an item that enters the airspace of a vessel that will not ultimately allow it to settle inside is not considered as though it settled inside the vessel, what is the halakha with regard to an item that entered the airspace of a vessel that will ultimately allow it to settle inside?

ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ืžืชื ื™ ื—ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืคืฉื˜ ืœื™ื” ื—ื‘ื™ืช

The Gemara notes: Rav Yosef teaches the exchange in this manner, i.e., as recounted. Rav Kahana teaches it as follows: Rabbi Asi raised the dilemma before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan with regard to a barrel, asking whether the water in its airspace is fit to be used for the water of purification, and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan resolved the dilemma for him by citing the baraita mentioning a barrel, with which he was unfamiliar.

ืจื‘ื” ืžืชื ื™ ื—ื‘ื™ืช ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื•ืคืฉื˜ ืœื™ื” ืžื–ืจืง ืื™ ืืชื” ืžื•ื“ื” ื‘ืžื–ืจืง ืฉืื™ ืื™ืคืฉืจ ืœื• ื‘ืœื ื–ื™ื ื•ืง

Rabba teaches the exchange as follows: Rabbi Asi raised the dilemma before Rabbi Yoแธฅanan with regard to a barrel, and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan resolved the dilemma for him by citing the halakha concerning a bowl used to collect the blood in the Temple, saying: Do you not concede with regard to the bowl that it is impossible to collect the blood in it without a stream of blood flowing through the air from animalโ€™s neck? If the air above the bowl is not considered part of the bowl, the blood would be considered to have entered the bowl from the air above rather than directly from the animalโ€™s neck, and all collected blood would be unfit. Therefore, the airspace must be considered part of the bowl, and the same holds for the barrel with regard to the water of purification.

ืชื ืŸ ื”ืชื ื ืชืŸ ื™ื“ื• ืื• ืจื’ืœื• ืื• ืขืœื™ ื™ืจืงื•ืช ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืขื‘ืจื• ืžื™ื ืœื—ื‘ื™ืช ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ ืงื ื™ื ื•ืขืœื™ ืื’ื•ื–ื™ื ื›ืฉื™ืจื” ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื“ื‘ืจ ื”ืžืงื‘ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืคืกื•ืœื™ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉืื™ื ื• ืžืงื‘ืœ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ื›ืฉื™ืจื™ืŸ

The Gemara adds: We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Para 6:4) with regard to sanctifying the water of purification: If one placed his hand or his foot or vegetable leaves in order to allow flowing water to pass through them to the barrel, the water is disqualified. But if the water passed through leaves of reeds or leaves of nuts, the water remains fit. This is the principle: If the water passes through an item that is susceptible to impurity, it is disqualified; if it passes through an item that is not susceptible to impurity, it is fit.

ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื ืืš ืžืขื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื•ืจ ืžืงื•ื” ืžื™ื ื™ื”ื™ื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจ ื”ื•ื™ื™ืชืŸ ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ื˜ื”ืจื” ืชื”ื

The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? As Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says in the name of Rabbi Yosei bar Abba: The verse states: โ€œNevertheless a fountain or a cistern wherein is a gathering of water shall be pureโ€ (Leviticus 11:36). The verse indicates that their being must be by way of purity, i.e., the gathering of the water must not be accomplished by way of items susceptible to impurity.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื–ืืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืื•ื™ืจ ื›ืœื™ ื›ื›ืœื™ ื“ืžื™

Rabbi แธคiyya says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: Since this mishna states that water that flows over oneโ€™s hand through the air into the barrel is disqualified, that is to say that the airspace above a vessel is considered as though it were part of the vessel itself. If it were not, the water would not be considered to have flowed directly from the hand to the vessel, but rather from the air above the vessel. Since air is not susceptible to impurity, the water would not be disqualified.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ื‘ืฉื•ืชืช ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืชืจื“ื ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืขื‘ืจื• ืžื™ื ืœื—ื‘ื™ืช ืชื ืŸ

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba: But perhaps the mishna is referring to a case where the water flows weakly straight from the hand into the vessel itself, since the hand is situated directly on the edge of the vessel, with no air separating them? Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba said to him: Imbecile, we learned in the mishna: In order to allow flowing water to pass through them to the barrel. This indicates that the water is traveling in a stream and will pass through the air before reaching the barrel.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืžืขื“ื•ืชื• ืฉืœ ืจื‘ื™ ืฆื“ื•ืง ื ื™ืฉื ื™ืช ืžืฉื ื” ื–ื• ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืขื™ื“ ืจื‘ื™ ืฆื“ื•ืง ืขืœ ื”ื–ื•ื—ืœื™ืŸ ืฉืงื™ืœื—ืŸ ื‘ืขืœื™ ืื’ื•ื–ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ืŸ ื›ืฉื™ืจื™ืŸ ื–ื” ื”ื™ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืื•ื”ืœื™ื™ื ื•ื‘ื ืžืขืฉื” ืœืคื ื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ื‘ืœืฉื›ืช ื”ื’ื–ื™ืช ื•ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจื•

And Rabbi แธคiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: This mishna concerning the barrel was taught from the testimony of Rabbi Tzadok, as we learned in a mishna (Eduyyot 7:4): Rabbi Tzadok testified with regard to rivulets that one diverted by way of a pipe made with leaves of nuts that their water is fit to be used as water of purification. This was an incident in the town of Ohalya, and an account of the incident came before the Sages in the Chamber of Hewn Stone in the Temple, and they deemed the water fit.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื™ืจื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื”ืฆื•ืจื ืื–ืŸ ื”ืคืจ ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืงื™ื‘ืœ ื“ืžื• ืคืกื•ืœ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื•ืœืงื— ืžื“ื ื”ืคืจ ืคืจ ืฉื”ื™ื” ื›ื‘ืจ

ยง Rabbi Zeira says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: In the case of one who slits the ear of the bull with the knife after slaughter, creating a blemish, and thereafter collected its blood from the neck, the offering is disqualified, as it is stated: โ€œAnd the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bullโ€ (Leviticus 4:5). By referring to the animal as a bull even after its slaughter, the verse indicates that the bull must be at the time of collection of the blood as it already was before slaughter, without a blemish.

ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืžื ืœืŸ

The Gemara asks: We found a source for this halakha with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, since the verse is referring to such an offering; from where do we derive that the same holds for offerings of lesser sanctity?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืชื ื™ื ืฉื” ืชืžื™ื ื–ื›ืจ ื‘ืŸ ืฉื ื” ืฉื™ื”ื ืชืžื™ื ื•ื‘ืŸ ืฉื ื” ื‘ืฉืขืช ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื‘ืงื‘ืœื” ื‘ื”ื•ืœื›ื” ื‘ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืžื ื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื™ื”ื™ื” ื›ืœ ื”ื•ื™ื™ื•ืชื™ื• ืœื ื™ื”ื™ื• ืืœื ืชื ื•ื‘ืŸ ืฉื ื”

Rava says: It is taught in a baraita with regard to the Paschal offering, an offering of lesser sanctity: The verse states: โ€œA lamb without blemish, a male of the first year it shall be for youโ€ (Exodus 12:5), indicating that it shall be unblemished and in its first year at the time of slaughter. From where is it derived that it must also be without blemish at the time of collection of the blood, at the time of conveying the blood to the altar, and at the time of the sprinkling of the blood? The verse states: โ€œIt shall be,โ€ emphasizing that all its happenings shall be only when it is unblemished and in its first year.

ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ืฉื‘ืชื•ืจื” ืฉื ืฉืชื™ื™ืจ ืžื”ืŸ ื›ื–ื™ืช ื‘ืฉืจ ืื• ื›ื–ื™ืช ื—ืœื‘ ื–ื•ืจืง ืืช ื”ื“ื

Abaye raised an objection to this from a baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to any of the types of offerings that are mentioned in the Torah from which there remains either an olive-bulk of flesh or an olive-bulk of fat, the halakha is that the priest sprinkles the blood of that offering. Apparently, one may sprinkle the blood even if much of the offering is damaged or missing.

ืชืจื’ื•ืžื ืื‘ืŸ ืฉื ื”

The Gemara responds: Interpret the verse as referring only to the requirement that the animal be in its first year until after the sprinkling. It may have a blemish at the time of sprinkling.

ื•ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื‘ืฉืขืช ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื‘ืŸ ืฉื ื” ื‘ืฉืขืช ื”ื•ืœื›ื” ื•ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื‘ืŸ ืฉืชื™ื

The Gemara challenges this: But is there any case where the animal is in its first year at the time of slaughter, but at the time of conveying the blood to the altar and sprinkling the blood it is in its second year?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื–ืืช ืื•ืžืจืช ืฉืขื•ืช ืคื•ืกืœื•ืช ื‘ืงื“ืฉื™ื

Rava says: That is to say that hours disqualify sacrificial animals, i.e., one measures the age of the offering from the exact time of its birth. It is therefore possible that the animal reaches its second year between its slaughter and the conveying of its blood to the altar.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื”ื™ื ื‘ืคื ื™ื ื•ืจื’ืœื™ื” ื‘ื—ื•ืฅ ื—ืชืš ื•ืื—ืจ ื›ืš ืฉื—ื˜ ื›ืฉื™ืจื”

ยง Rabbi Ami says that Rabbi Elazar says: In a case where the animal is standing inside the Temple courtyard but its legs are planted outside it, if one severed its legs and thereafter slaughtered it, the offering is fit, since all the blood collected in the bowl is from the portion of the animal standing in the courtyard.

Scroll To Top