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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 9, 2018 | 讻状讚 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讞

  • 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 26

砖讞讟 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讞转讱 驻住讜诇讛

But if he slaughtered the animal and thereafter severed its legs, the offering is disqualified because some of the blood collected is from the legs, which are outside the courtyard.

讞转讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟 讻砖专讛 讘注诇 诪讜诐 拽讗 诪拽专讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 [讞转讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 拽讬讘诇 讻砖专讛] 拽讬讘诇 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讞转讱 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara asks: If he severed its legs and thereafter slaughtered it, is the offering fit? But isn鈥檛 he sacrificing a blemished animal? Rather, say: If one slaughtered the animal while it stood wholly in the courtyard, and afterward its legs moved beyond the edge of the courtyard, and then he severed its legs and thereafter collected the blood, the offering is fit. But if he collected the blood and thereafter severed the animal鈥檚 legs, the offering is disqualified, since the blood from the legs is mixed with the other blood of the animal.

讞转讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 拽讬讘诇 讻砖专讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛爪讜专诐 讗讝谉 讘讘讻讜专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 拽讬讘诇 讚诪讜 驻住讜诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇拽讞 诪讚诐 讛驻专 驻专 砖讛讬讛 讻讘专

The Gemara challenges: If he severed its legs and thereafter collected the blood, is the offering fit? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Zeira say: If one slits the ear of a firstborn animal with the knife after slaughter, creating a blemish, and thereafter collected its blood from the neck, the offering is disqualified, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bull鈥 (Leviticus 4:5)? 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 讞讜转讱 讘讗讘专 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇注爪诐

Rav 岣sda says that Avimi says: Rabbi Ami is not referring to a case where one severs the entire leg. Rather, one cuts the flesh of the limb until he reaches the bone, leaving the bone intact. This is not considered a blemish, and the animal remains fit for sacrifice.

拽讬讘诇 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讞转讱 驻住讜诇讛 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讚诐 讛诪讜讘诇注 讘讗讘专讬诐 讚诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara suggests: Given that if he collected the blood and thereafter severed the animal鈥檚 legs, the offering is disqualified, perhaps you can conclude from it that blood absorbed in the limbs of an animal is considered blood, such that it disqualifies the offering because this blood left the Temple courtyard.

讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 砖诪谞讜谞讬转

The Gemara responds: Perhaps the offering is disqualified because of the animal鈥檚 fat that is mixed with the blood in the legs. This is considered to be like meat of the offering that has left the Temple courtyard, which also disqualifies the offering.

砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讘砖专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讬爪讗 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诐 驻住讜诇

The Gemara suggests: If so, perhaps you can conclude another halakha from it: In the case of meat of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, the offering is disqualified, even though the meat of such offerings may be eaten outside the Temple after the blood has been sprinkled.

讚诇诪讗 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara responds: Perhaps the halakha was stated only with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, whose meat must be eaten inside the Temple courtyard. It proves nothing about offerings of lesser sanctity.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讞讬讟转谉 讘爪驻讜谉 讜拽讘讜诇 讚诪谉 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘爪驻讜谉 注诪讚 讘讚专讜诐 讜讛讜砖讬讟 讬讚讜 诇爪驻讜谉 讜砖讞讟 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 拽讬讘诇 拽讘诇转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讛讻谞讬住 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讻讗讬诇讜 谞讻谞住 讻讜诇讜 驻专讻住讛 讜讬爪转讛 诇讚专讜诐 讜讞讝专讛 讻砖专讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to offerings of the most sacred order, their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard, and collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north. If one stood in the south and extended his hand into the north and slaughtered the offering there, his slaughter is valid. If he collected the blood in a similar manner, his collection is not valid. If he inserted his head and most of his body into the north of the courtyard and collected the blood there, it is as if his entire body entered the north. If he slaughtered the animal and it then convulsed and left the north to the south and then returned to the north, it remains fit.

拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讞讬讟转谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讜拽讬讘讜诇 讚诪谉 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘驻谞讬诐 注诪讚 讘讞讜抓 讜讛讻谞讬住 讬讚讜 诇驻谞讬诐 讜砖讞讟 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 拽讬讘诇 拽讘诇转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讜讛讻谞讬住 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讻谞住 驻专讻住讛 讜讬爪转讛 诇讞讜抓 讜讞讝专讛 驻住讜诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘砖专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讬爪讗 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 驻住讜诇讬诐

The baraita continues: With regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, their slaughter is anywhere inside the Temple courtyard, and collection of their blood in a service vessel is anywhere inside the Temple courtyard. If one stood outside and inserted his hand into the courtyard and slaughtered the offering there, his slaughter is valid. If he collected the blood in a similar manner, his collection is not valid. And if he inserted his head and most of his body into the courtyard and collected the blood, it is as if he had not entered it at all. If he slaughtered the animal and it then convulsed and left to the outside of the courtyard and returned, it is disqualified. The Gemara infers: Conclude from this baraita that in cases of meat of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, the offerings are disqualified.

讚讬诇诪讗 讘讗诇讬讛 讜讬讜转专转 讛讻讘讚 讜砖转讬 讻诇讬讜转

The Gemara responds: Perhaps the baraita is referring to the tail, the diaphragm, and the two kidneys of offerings of lesser sanctity, which are all burned on the altar. Since these portions are never meant to leave the Temple courtyard, they are disqualified if they leave even momentarily. It may still be that the remaining meat of such offerings is not disqualified.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讜专讙诇讬讛 讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜

Shmuel鈥檚 father raised a dilemma before Shmuel: If the offering was standing inside the Temple courtyard and its legs were outside, what is the halakha? May one slaughter it?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讬讗讜诐 诇讛壮 注讚 砖转讛讗 讻讜诇讛 诇驻谞讬诐

Shmuel said to him: It is written: 鈥淭hat they may bring them to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 17:5), indicating that the offering may not be slaughtered unless all of it is inside.

转诇讛 讜砖讞讟 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转讘砖转 讘注讬谞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 注诇 讬专讱 讜诇讬讻讗

His father asked him further: If one suspended the animal in the air and slaughtered it, what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him: It is valid. His father said to him: You are mistaken. We require that the slaughter occur on the side of the altar (see Leviticus 1:11), and this is not considered to fulfill that requirement.

谞转诇讛 讜砖讞讟 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻住讜诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转讘砖转 砖讞讬讟讛 注诇 讬专讱 讜诇讗 砖讜讞讟 注诇 讬专讱

His father asked him further: If the one slaughtering the animal was suspended in the air and slaughtered the offering while it was on the ground, what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him: It is not valid. His father said to him: You are mistaken. We require only that the slaughter occur on the side of the altar, but not that the one who slaughters be on the side of the altar.

谞转诇讛 讜拽讘诇 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转讘砖转 讗讬谉 讚专讱 砖讬专讜转 讘讻讱

His father asked him further: If the priest was suspended in the air and collected the blood of the offering in that position, what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him: It is valid. His father said to him: You are mistaken. This is not a normal manner of ministration.

转诇讛 讜拽讬讘诇 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻住讜诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转讘砖转 砖讞讬讟讛 注诇 讬专讱 讜诇讗 拽讘诇讛 注诇 讬专讱

His father asked him further: If the priest suspended the offering in the air after slaughter and collected its blood, what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him: It is not valid. His father said to him: You are mistaken. We require only that the slaughter occur on the side of the altar, but not that collection of the blood occur on the side of the altar.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讻讜诇谉 驻住讜诇讜转 讘专 诪谞转诇讛 讜砖讞讟 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讻砖专讜转 讘专 诪谉 谞转诇讛 讜拽讬讘诇

Abaye said: With regard to offerings of the most sacred order, in all of those cases the offerings are disqualified, except for the case where one was suspended in the air and slaughtered the animal. With regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, in all of those cases the offerings are fit, except for the case where the priest was suspended in the air and collected the blood.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 转诇讛 讜拽讬讘诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讚讻砖专讛 讚讗讜讬专 驻谞讬诐 讻驻谞讬诐 讚诪讬 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 谞诪讬 讗讜讬专 爪驻讜谉 讻爪驻讜谉 讚诪讬

Rava said: What is different about a case where one suspended the animal and collected the blood of an offering of lesser sanctity, such that the offering is fit? Perhaps it is because the air inside the Temple courtyard is considered to be inside the courtyard for purposes of the service. But if so, then with regard to offerings of the most sacred order as well, let one say that air in the north of the Temple courtyard is considered to be in the north for purposes of the service.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讻砖专讜转 讘专 诪谉 转诇讛 讜砖讞讟 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 谞转诇讛 讜拽讬讘诇 讘讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐

Rather, Rava says: Both with regard to offerings of the most sacred order and with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, they are fit in all of those cases except where one suspended the animal and slaughtered it in the case of offerings of the most sacred order, because the Torah mandates that such offerings be slaughtered on the side of the altar. And the offerings are also disqualified where the priest was suspended in the air and collected the blood, both with regard to offerings of the most sacred order and with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, since this is not a normal manner of ministration.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讜讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讜爪讬爪讬转讜 讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗诪专转 讜讛讘讬讗讜诐 诇讛壮 注讚 砖转讘讗 讻讜诇讛 诇驻谞讬诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讘讜讗诐 讗诇 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讻讜诇讜 诇讗讛诇 诪讜注讚

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: If the priest was inside and his fringes, i.e., his hair, were outside, and he collected the blood, what is the halakha? Rabbi Zeira said to him: Did you not say that the verse: 鈥淭hat they may bring them to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 17:5), indicates that an offering may not be slaughtered unless all of it comes inside? Here, too, the verse states with regard to the priests: 鈥淲hen they go into the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Exodus 28:43), indicating that the priest may not perform rites unless all of him comes into the Tent of Meeting.

诪转谞讬壮 谞转谞讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讻讘砖 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛讬住讜讚 谞转谉 讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讜讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讜讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘讞讜抓 讘驻谞讬诐 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

MISHNA: If the priest placed the blood upon the ramp leading up to the altar, or if he placed it on the wall of the altar in an area that is not opposite the base of the altar, i.e., in those parts of the altar where there is no foundation; or if he placed the blood that is to be placed below the red line that runs along the middle of the altar, e.g., the blood of a burnt offering, above the red line, or if he placed the blood that is to be placed above the red line, e.g., the blood of a sin offering, below the red line; or if he placed the blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary, i.e., on the golden altar or in the Holy of Holies, outside the Sanctuary on the external altar, or if he placed the blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary inside the Sanctuary, in all these cases the offering is disqualified. Nevertheless, there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of these offerings.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 驻住讜诇 讘砖专 讗讘诇 讘注诇讬诐 谞转讻驻专讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗谞讬 谞转转讬讜 诇讻诐 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 诇讻驻专 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讚诐 诇诪讝讘讞 谞转讻驻专讜 讘注诇讬诐

GEMARA: Shmuel says: When the mishna states that the offering is disqualified, it means that the meat is unfit for consumption. But the owner of the offering has achieved atonement through it. What is the reason for this? It is as the verse states with regard to the blood: 鈥淎nd I have given it to you upon the altar to atone for your souls鈥 (Leviticus 17:11), from which it is derived that once the blood reaches any location on the altar, the owner of the offering has achieved atonement.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘砖专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讻驻专 诇讻驻专讛 谞转转讬讜 讜诇讗 诇讚讘专 讗讞专

The Gemara challenges: If so, the meat should be fit for consumption as well. The Gemara responds: The verse states 鈥渢o atone,鈥 emphasizing that I have given it to you for atonement and for nothing else, e.g., consumption of the meat.

讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讻诪拽讜诪讜 讚诪讬 转谞谉 讘讗讬讚讱 驻讬专拽讬谉 谞转谞讜 注诇 讛讻讘砖 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛讬住讜讚 谞转谉 讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讜讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讜讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘讞讜抓 讘驻谞讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 讚诐 讛谞驻砖 讬讞讝讜专 讛讻砖专 讜讬拽讘诇

The Gemara notes: Apparently, Shmuel holds that blood sprinkled not in its proper place is considered as though it were sprinkled in its proper place. But we learned in a mishna in another chapter (32a): If an unfit person placed the blood upon the ramp, or on the wall of the altar that is not opposite the base of the altar; or if he placed the blood that is to be placed below the red line above the red line, or if he placed the blood that is to be placed above the red line below the red line; or if he placed the blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary outside the Sanctuary or the blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary inside the Sanctuary, then if there is blood of the soul that remains in the animal, the priest fit for Temple service should collect the blood again and sprinkle it on the altar.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讻诪拽讜诪讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讬讞讝讜专 讛讻砖专 讜讬拽讘诇 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讛转讬专 讘砖专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讝专讬拽讛 讚诇讗 诪讻驻专转 讜砖专讬讗 讘砖专 讘讗讻讬诇讛

The Gemara continues: And if it would enter your mind to say that blood sprinkled not in its proper place is considered as though it were sprinkled in its proper place, why do I need the fit priest to collect the blood again and sprinkle it? And if you would say that although the first sprinkling already effected atonement, the second sprinkling is necessary to permit the meat of the offering for consumption, is there such a concept as a sprinkling that does not itself effect atonement and yet permits the meat for consumption? Rather, one must conclude that the first sprinkling did not effect atonement at all, since it was not sprinkled in its proper place.

讗讬 讚讬讛讘讬讛 讻砖专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讬讛讘讬讛 驻住讜诇

The Gemara responds: If a fit priest had initially placed the blood improperly, the sprinkling would indeed have effected atonement after the fact and there would not be another sprinkling. But here we are dealing with a case where an unfit person placed the blood, so that it did not effect atonement at all.

讜诇讬讛讜讬 讚讞讜讬 讚转谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 砖拽讬讘诇讜 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讗诐 讬砖 讚诐 讛谞驻砖 讬讞讝讜专 讛讻砖专 讜讬拽讘诇 拽讬讘诇讜 讗讬谉 讝专拽讜 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 讚讞讜讬

The Gemara asks: But if the mishna is dealing with a case where an unfit person placed the blood initially, then the offering should be rejected permanently, as we learned in the same mishna: And with regard to all unfit people who collected the blood with the intent to offer it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, if there is blood of the soul that remains in the animal, the priest fit for Temple service should collect the blood again and sprinkle it on the altar. Since the mishna states this halakha only with regard to collection of the blood, one can infer that specifically if an unfit person collected the blood with improper intent, a fit priest can indeed collect the blood again, but if they sprinkled the blood with improper intent he cannot. What is the reason for this? Is it not because the offering is rejected permanently when an unfit person sprinkles its blood?

诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚驻住讬诇 讘诪讞砖讘讛

The Gemara responds: No, the offering is rejected because it is disqualified by the improper intent of the person sprinkling the blood, not because that person is unfit.

讗讬 讛讻讬 拽讘诇讛 谞诪讬 讜注讜讚 诪讬 驻住诇讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讜注诇转 讗诇讗 讘诪讬 砖专讗讜讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讜讘讚讘专 讛专讗讜讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讜讘诪拽讜诐 讛专讗讜讬 诇注讘讜讚讛

The Gemara challenges: If so, then improper intent with regard to collection of the blood should disqualify the offering as well. And furthermore, does intent disqualify offerings in such cases? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say: Intent is effective to disqualify an offer-ing only when it is expressed by one who is fit for the Temple service, and with regard to an item that is fit for the Temple service, and in a place that is fit for the Temple service? Here, the one collecting the blood is unfit.

诇讗 转讬诪讗 讝专拽讜 诇讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖讞讟讜 诇讗

The Gemara responds: Do not say that one infers from the mishna that if an unfit person sprinkled the blood with improper intent a fit priest cannot collect it again. Rather, say that one infers that if an unfit person slaughtered the offering with improper intent the mistake cannot be rectified. Slaughter is valid if performed by one unfit for the Temple service, and therefore an unfit person鈥檚 improper intent is effective to disqualify the offering. By contrast, collection and sprinkling of the blood must be performed by a fit priest. Consequently, an unfit person鈥檚 intent with regard to those rites does not disqualify the offering.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚驻住诇讛 诪讞砖讘讛 转谞讬谞讗 诇驻讬讻讱 讛谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘诪讞砖讘讛

The Gemara asks: According to this interpretation, what is the mishna teaching us? Can it mean to teach only that improper intent by an unfit person during slaughter disqualifies the offering? We already learn this in the same mishna (31b), which states: With regard to all those who are unfit for Temple service who slaughtered an offering, their slaughter is valid, and therefore, these unfit people disqualify the offering with improper intent.

讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪拽讘诇讛 讜讗讬诇讱 诇讗 驻住诇讛 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讚专讘讗

The Gemara responds: This is what the mishna teaches us: That one who is unfit can disqualify the offering only during its slaughter, but from the rite of collection of the blood onward the intent of an unfit person does not disqualify the offering. What is the reason for this? It is like that which Rava says: Intent is effective to disqualify an offering only when expressed by one who is fit for the service in question.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讞讬砖讘 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 诇讗诇转专 讻砖专 (诇诪讞专 驻住讜诇) 讞讝专 讜讞讬砖讘

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If one slaughtered an offering and had intent to place the blood that is to be placed above the red line below the red line, or to place the blood that is to be placed below the red line above the red line, and he had intent to do so immediately, i.e., on the same day, the offering remains fit. Therefore, if he subsequently had intent when performing the other rites

  • 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 26

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 26

砖讞讟 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讞转讱 驻住讜诇讛

But if he slaughtered the animal and thereafter severed its legs, the offering is disqualified because some of the blood collected is from the legs, which are outside the courtyard.

讞转讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖讞讟 讻砖专讛 讘注诇 诪讜诐 拽讗 诪拽专讬讘 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 [讞转讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 拽讬讘诇 讻砖专讛] 拽讬讘诇 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讞转讱 驻住讜诇讛

The Gemara asks: If he severed its legs and thereafter slaughtered it, is the offering fit? But isn鈥檛 he sacrificing a blemished animal? Rather, say: If one slaughtered the animal while it stood wholly in the courtyard, and afterward its legs moved beyond the edge of the courtyard, and then he severed its legs and thereafter collected the blood, the offering is fit. But if he collected the blood and thereafter severed the animal鈥檚 legs, the offering is disqualified, since the blood from the legs is mixed with the other blood of the animal.

讞转讱 讜讗讞专 讻讱 拽讬讘诇 讻砖专讛 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛爪讜专诐 讗讝谉 讘讘讻讜专 讜讗讞专 讻讱 拽讬讘诇 讚诪讜 驻住讜诇 砖谞讗诪专 讜诇拽讞 诪讚诐 讛驻专 驻专 砖讛讬讛 讻讘专

The Gemara challenges: If he severed its legs and thereafter collected the blood, is the offering fit? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Zeira say: If one slits the ear of a firstborn animal with the knife after slaughter, creating a blemish, and thereafter collected its blood from the neck, the offering is disqualified, as it is stated: 鈥淎nd the anointed priest shall take from the blood of the bull鈥 (Leviticus 4:5)? 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 讞讜转讱 讘讗讘专 注讚 砖诪讙讬注 诇注爪诐

Rav 岣sda says that Avimi says: Rabbi Ami is not referring to a case where one severs the entire leg. Rather, one cuts the flesh of the limb until he reaches the bone, leaving the bone intact. This is not considered a blemish, and the animal remains fit for sacrifice.

拽讬讘诇 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讞转讱 驻住讜诇讛 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讚诐 讛诪讜讘诇注 讘讗讘专讬诐 讚诐 讛讜讗

The Gemara suggests: Given that if he collected the blood and thereafter severed the animal鈥檚 legs, the offering is disqualified, perhaps you can conclude from it that blood absorbed in the limbs of an animal is considered blood, such that it disqualifies the offering because this blood left the Temple courtyard.

讚诇诪讗 诪砖讜诐 砖诪谞讜谞讬转

The Gemara responds: Perhaps the offering is disqualified because of the animal鈥檚 fat that is mixed with the blood in the legs. This is considered to be like meat of the offering that has left the Temple courtyard, which also disqualifies the offering.

砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讘砖专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讬爪讗 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诐 驻住讜诇

The Gemara suggests: If so, perhaps you can conclude another halakha from it: In the case of meat of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, the offering is disqualified, even though the meat of such offerings may be eaten outside the Temple after the blood has been sprinkled.

讚诇诪讗 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara responds: Perhaps the halakha was stated only with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, whose meat must be eaten inside the Temple courtyard. It proves nothing about offerings of lesser sanctity.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 砖讞讬讟转谉 讘爪驻讜谉 讜拽讘讜诇 讚诪谉 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘爪驻讜谉 注诪讚 讘讚专讜诐 讜讛讜砖讬讟 讬讚讜 诇爪驻讜谉 讜砖讞讟 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 拽讬讘诇 拽讘诇转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讛讻谞讬住 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讻讗讬诇讜 谞讻谞住 讻讜诇讜 驻专讻住讛 讜讬爪转讛 诇讚专讜诐 讜讞讝专讛 讻砖专讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to offerings of the most sacred order, their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard, and collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north. If one stood in the south and extended his hand into the north and slaughtered the offering there, his slaughter is valid. If he collected the blood in a similar manner, his collection is not valid. If he inserted his head and most of his body into the north of the courtyard and collected the blood there, it is as if his entire body entered the north. If he slaughtered the animal and it then convulsed and left the north to the south and then returned to the north, it remains fit.

拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讞讬讟转谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讜拽讬讘讜诇 讚诪谉 讘讻诇讬 砖专转 讘驻谞讬诐 注诪讚 讘讞讜抓 讜讛讻谞讬住 讬讚讜 诇驻谞讬诐 讜砖讞讟 砖讞讬讟转讜 讻砖专讛 拽讬讘诇 拽讘诇转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讜讛讻谞讬住 专讗砖讜 讜专讜讘讜 讻讗讬诇讜 诇讗 谞讻谞住 驻专讻住讛 讜讬爪转讛 诇讞讜抓 讜讞讝专讛 驻住讜诇讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘砖专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 砖讬爪讗 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪讬诐 驻住讜诇讬诐

The baraita continues: With regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, their slaughter is anywhere inside the Temple courtyard, and collection of their blood in a service vessel is anywhere inside the Temple courtyard. If one stood outside and inserted his hand into the courtyard and slaughtered the offering there, his slaughter is valid. If he collected the blood in a similar manner, his collection is not valid. And if he inserted his head and most of his body into the courtyard and collected the blood, it is as if he had not entered it at all. If he slaughtered the animal and it then convulsed and left to the outside of the courtyard and returned, it is disqualified. The Gemara infers: Conclude from this baraita that in cases of meat of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, the offerings are disqualified.

讚讬诇诪讗 讘讗诇讬讛 讜讬讜转专转 讛讻讘讚 讜砖转讬 讻诇讬讜转

The Gemara responds: Perhaps the baraita is referring to the tail, the diaphragm, and the two kidneys of offerings of lesser sanctity, which are all burned on the altar. Since these portions are never meant to leave the Temple courtyard, they are disqualified if they leave even momentarily. It may still be that the remaining meat of such offerings is not disqualified.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讘讜讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讜专讙诇讬讛 讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜

Shmuel鈥檚 father raised a dilemma before Shmuel: If the offering was standing inside the Temple courtyard and its legs were outside, what is the halakha? May one slaughter it?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻转讬讘 讜讛讘讬讗讜诐 诇讛壮 注讚 砖转讛讗 讻讜诇讛 诇驻谞讬诐

Shmuel said to him: It is written: 鈥淭hat they may bring them to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 17:5), indicating that the offering may not be slaughtered unless all of it is inside.

转诇讛 讜砖讞讟 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转讘砖转 讘注讬谞谉 砖讞讬讟讛 注诇 讬专讱 讜诇讬讻讗

His father asked him further: If one suspended the animal in the air and slaughtered it, what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him: It is valid. His father said to him: You are mistaken. We require that the slaughter occur on the side of the altar (see Leviticus 1:11), and this is not considered to fulfill that requirement.

谞转诇讛 讜砖讞讟 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻住讜诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转讘砖转 砖讞讬讟讛 注诇 讬专讱 讜诇讗 砖讜讞讟 注诇 讬专讱

His father asked him further: If the one slaughtering the animal was suspended in the air and slaughtered the offering while it was on the ground, what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him: It is not valid. His father said to him: You are mistaken. We require only that the slaughter occur on the side of the altar, but not that the one who slaughters be on the side of the altar.

谞转诇讛 讜拽讘诇 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻砖专讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转讘砖转 讗讬谉 讚专讱 砖讬专讜转 讘讻讱

His father asked him further: If the priest was suspended in the air and collected the blood of the offering in that position, what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him: It is valid. His father said to him: You are mistaken. This is not a normal manner of ministration.

转诇讛 讜拽讬讘诇 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 驻住讜诇讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬砖转讘砖转 砖讞讬讟讛 注诇 讬专讱 讜诇讗 拽讘诇讛 注诇 讬专讱

His father asked him further: If the priest suspended the offering in the air after slaughter and collected its blood, what is the halakha? Shmuel said to him: It is not valid. His father said to him: You are mistaken. We require only that the slaughter occur on the side of the altar, but not that collection of the blood occur on the side of the altar.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讻讜诇谉 驻住讜诇讜转 讘专 诪谞转诇讛 讜砖讞讟 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讻讜诇谉 讻砖专讜转 讘专 诪谉 谞转诇讛 讜拽讬讘诇

Abaye said: With regard to offerings of the most sacred order, in all of those cases the offerings are disqualified, except for the case where one was suspended in the air and slaughtered the animal. With regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, in all of those cases the offerings are fit, except for the case where the priest was suspended in the air and collected the blood.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 转诇讛 讜拽讬讘诇 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讚讻砖专讛 讚讗讜讬专 驻谞讬诐 讻驻谞讬诐 讚诪讬 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 谞诪讬 讗讜讬专 爪驻讜谉 讻爪驻讜谉 讚诪讬

Rava said: What is different about a case where one suspended the animal and collected the blood of an offering of lesser sanctity, such that the offering is fit? Perhaps it is because the air inside the Temple courtyard is considered to be inside the courtyard for purposes of the service. But if so, then with regard to offerings of the most sacred order as well, let one say that air in the north of the Temple courtyard is considered to be in the north for purposes of the service.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讻砖专讜转 讘专 诪谉 转诇讛 讜砖讞讟 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 谞转诇讛 讜拽讬讘诇 讘讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘讬谉 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐

Rather, Rava says: Both with regard to offerings of the most sacred order and with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, they are fit in all of those cases except where one suspended the animal and slaughtered it in the case of offerings of the most sacred order, because the Torah mandates that such offerings be slaughtered on the side of the altar. And the offerings are also disqualified where the priest was suspended in the air and collected the blood, both with regard to offerings of the most sacred order and with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, since this is not a normal manner of ministration.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讜讗 讘驻谞讬诐 讜爪讬爪讬转讜 讘讞讜抓 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讗诪专转 讜讛讘讬讗讜诐 诇讛壮 注讚 砖转讘讗 讻讜诇讛 诇驻谞讬诐 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘讘讜讗诐 讗诇 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 注讚 砖讬讘讗 讻讜诇讜 诇讗讛诇 诪讜注讚

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: If the priest was inside and his fringes, i.e., his hair, were outside, and he collected the blood, what is the halakha? Rabbi Zeira said to him: Did you not say that the verse: 鈥淭hat they may bring them to the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 17:5), indicates that an offering may not be slaughtered unless all of it comes inside? Here, too, the verse states with regard to the priests: 鈥淲hen they go into the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Exodus 28:43), indicating that the priest may not perform rites unless all of him comes into the Tent of Meeting.

诪转谞讬壮 谞转谞讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讻讘砖 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛讬住讜讚 谞转谉 讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讜讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讜讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘讞讜抓 讘驻谞讬诐 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

MISHNA: If the priest placed the blood upon the ramp leading up to the altar, or if he placed it on the wall of the altar in an area that is not opposite the base of the altar, i.e., in those parts of the altar where there is no foundation; or if he placed the blood that is to be placed below the red line that runs along the middle of the altar, e.g., the blood of a burnt offering, above the red line, or if he placed the blood that is to be placed above the red line, e.g., the blood of a sin offering, below the red line; or if he placed the blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary, i.e., on the golden altar or in the Holy of Holies, outside the Sanctuary on the external altar, or if he placed the blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary inside the Sanctuary, in all these cases the offering is disqualified. Nevertheless, there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of these offerings.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 驻住讜诇 讘砖专 讗讘诇 讘注诇讬诐 谞转讻驻专讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗谞讬 谞转转讬讜 诇讻诐 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 诇讻驻专 讻讬讜谉 砖讛讙讬注 讚诐 诇诪讝讘讞 谞转讻驻专讜 讘注诇讬诐

GEMARA: Shmuel says: When the mishna states that the offering is disqualified, it means that the meat is unfit for consumption. But the owner of the offering has achieved atonement through it. What is the reason for this? It is as the verse states with regard to the blood: 鈥淎nd I have given it to you upon the altar to atone for your souls鈥 (Leviticus 17:11), from which it is derived that once the blood reaches any location on the altar, the owner of the offering has achieved atonement.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讘砖专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讻驻专 诇讻驻专讛 谞转转讬讜 讜诇讗 诇讚讘专 讗讞专

The Gemara challenges: If so, the meat should be fit for consumption as well. The Gemara responds: The verse states 鈥渢o atone,鈥 emphasizing that I have given it to you for atonement and for nothing else, e.g., consumption of the meat.

讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讻诪拽讜诪讜 讚诪讬 转谞谉 讘讗讬讚讱 驻讬专拽讬谉 谞转谞讜 注诇 讛讻讘砖 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛讬住讜讚 谞转谉 讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 讜讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讜讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘讞讜抓 讘驻谞讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 讚诐 讛谞驻砖 讬讞讝讜专 讛讻砖专 讜讬拽讘诇

The Gemara notes: Apparently, Shmuel holds that blood sprinkled not in its proper place is considered as though it were sprinkled in its proper place. But we learned in a mishna in another chapter (32a): If an unfit person placed the blood upon the ramp, or on the wall of the altar that is not opposite the base of the altar; or if he placed the blood that is to be placed below the red line above the red line, or if he placed the blood that is to be placed above the red line below the red line; or if he placed the blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary outside the Sanctuary or the blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary inside the Sanctuary, then if there is blood of the soul that remains in the animal, the priest fit for Temple service should collect the blood again and sprinkle it on the altar.

讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讻诪拽讜诪讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讬讞讝讜专 讛讻砖专 讜讬拽讘诇 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诇讛转讬专 讘砖专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪讬 讗讬讻讗 讝专讬拽讛 讚诇讗 诪讻驻专转 讜砖专讬讗 讘砖专 讘讗讻讬诇讛

The Gemara continues: And if it would enter your mind to say that blood sprinkled not in its proper place is considered as though it were sprinkled in its proper place, why do I need the fit priest to collect the blood again and sprinkle it? And if you would say that although the first sprinkling already effected atonement, the second sprinkling is necessary to permit the meat of the offering for consumption, is there such a concept as a sprinkling that does not itself effect atonement and yet permits the meat for consumption? Rather, one must conclude that the first sprinkling did not effect atonement at all, since it was not sprinkled in its proper place.

讗讬 讚讬讛讘讬讛 讻砖专 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讚讬讛讘讬讛 驻住讜诇

The Gemara responds: If a fit priest had initially placed the blood improperly, the sprinkling would indeed have effected atonement after the fact and there would not be another sprinkling. But here we are dealing with a case where an unfit person placed the blood, so that it did not effect atonement at all.

讜诇讬讛讜讬 讚讞讜讬 讚转谞谉 讜讻讜诇谉 砖拽讬讘诇讜 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讗诐 讬砖 讚诐 讛谞驻砖 讬讞讝讜专 讛讻砖专 讜讬拽讘诇 拽讬讘诇讜 讗讬谉 讝专拽讜 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讛讜讬 讚讞讜讬

The Gemara asks: But if the mishna is dealing with a case where an unfit person placed the blood initially, then the offering should be rejected permanently, as we learned in the same mishna: And with regard to all unfit people who collected the blood with the intent to offer it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, if there is blood of the soul that remains in the animal, the priest fit for Temple service should collect the blood again and sprinkle it on the altar. Since the mishna states this halakha only with regard to collection of the blood, one can infer that specifically if an unfit person collected the blood with improper intent, a fit priest can indeed collect the blood again, but if they sprinkled the blood with improper intent he cannot. What is the reason for this? Is it not because the offering is rejected permanently when an unfit person sprinkles its blood?

诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚驻住讬诇 讘诪讞砖讘讛

The Gemara responds: No, the offering is rejected because it is disqualified by the improper intent of the person sprinkling the blood, not because that person is unfit.

讗讬 讛讻讬 拽讘诇讛 谞诪讬 讜注讜讚 诪讬 驻住诇讛 诪讞砖讘讛 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬谉 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讜注诇转 讗诇讗 讘诪讬 砖专讗讜讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讜讘讚讘专 讛专讗讜讬 诇注讘讜讚讛 讜讘诪拽讜诐 讛专讗讜讬 诇注讘讜讚讛

The Gemara challenges: If so, then improper intent with regard to collection of the blood should disqualify the offering as well. And furthermore, does intent disqualify offerings in such cases? But doesn鈥檛 Rava say: Intent is effective to disqualify an offer-ing only when it is expressed by one who is fit for the Temple service, and with regard to an item that is fit for the Temple service, and in a place that is fit for the Temple service? Here, the one collecting the blood is unfit.

诇讗 转讬诪讗 讝专拽讜 诇讗 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 砖讞讟讜 诇讗

The Gemara responds: Do not say that one infers from the mishna that if an unfit person sprinkled the blood with improper intent a fit priest cannot collect it again. Rather, say that one infers that if an unfit person slaughtered the offering with improper intent the mistake cannot be rectified. Slaughter is valid if performed by one unfit for the Temple service, and therefore an unfit person鈥檚 improper intent is effective to disqualify the offering. By contrast, collection and sprinkling of the blood must be performed by a fit priest. Consequently, an unfit person鈥檚 intent with regard to those rites does not disqualify the offering.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚驻住诇讛 诪讞砖讘讛 转谞讬谞讗 诇驻讬讻讱 讛谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘诪讞砖讘讛

The Gemara asks: According to this interpretation, what is the mishna teaching us? Can it mean to teach only that improper intent by an unfit person during slaughter disqualifies the offering? We already learn this in the same mishna (31b), which states: With regard to all those who are unfit for Temple service who slaughtered an offering, their slaughter is valid, and therefore, these unfit people disqualify the offering with improper intent.

讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪拽讘诇讛 讜讗讬诇讱 诇讗 驻住诇讛 诪讞砖讘讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讻讚专讘讗

The Gemara responds: This is what the mishna teaches us: That one who is unfit can disqualify the offering only during its slaughter, but from the rite of collection of the blood onward the intent of an unfit person does not disqualify the offering. What is the reason for this? It is like that which Rava says: Intent is effective to disqualify an offering only when expressed by one who is fit for the service in question.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讞讬砖讘 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 诇讗诇转专 讻砖专 (诇诪讞专 驻住讜诇) 讞讝专 讜讞讬砖讘

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If one slaughtered an offering and had intent to place the blood that is to be placed above the red line below the red line, or to place the blood that is to be placed below the red line above the red line, and he had intent to do so immediately, i.e., on the same day, the offering remains fit. Therefore, if he subsequently had intent when performing the other rites

Scroll To Top