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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 10, 2018 | 讻状讛 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 27

Study Guide Zevachim 27. Three explanations are given for the mishna which disqualifies a sacrifice whose blood was sprinkled in the wrong place on the altar or the wrong altar. Each explanation is analyzed and questions are raised in light of other sources.

讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

to burn or eat the offering or sprinkle its blood outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified, and there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it. But if he had intent to perform one of those actions beyond its designated time, then it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for burning or partaking of it.

诇诪讞专 驻住讜诇 讞讝专 讜讞讬砖讘 讘讬谉 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讘讬谉 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

If he had intent to sprinkle the blood improperly the next day, beyond the permitted time, then the offering is disqualified. Nevertheless, it is not rendered piggul, because he also had intent to sprinkle the blood improperly. Therefore, if he subsequently had intent to sacrifice the offering or consume its meat, whether beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, it is disqualified and there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it, because an offering can be rendered piggul only if it would have otherwise been fit.

讜讗讬 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讻诪拽讜诪讜 讚诪讬 讛讗讬 驻住讜诇 驻讬讙讜诇 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: But if blood sprinkled not in its proper place is considered as though it were sprinkled in its proper place, then in this case above, where he had intent to sprinkle the blood improperly the next day, is the offering merely disqualified? Since it is considered as though he had intent to sprinkle the blood properly the next day, shouldn鈥檛 the offering be rendered piggul?

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讝专讬拽讛 讚砖专讬讗 讘砖专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪讬讬转讗 诇讬讚讬 驻讬讙讜诇 讝专讬拽讛 讚诇讗 砖专讬讗 讘砖专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诇讗 诪讬讬转讗 诇讬讚讬 驻讬讙讜诇

Mar Zutra said: Intent with regard to sprinkling that permits the meat for consumption can cause the offering to become piggul. Intent with regard to sprinkling that does not render the meat permitted for consumption does not cause it to become piggul. Even Shmuel concedes that although the owner achieves atonement, if the blood is sprinkled in an improper place the meat may not be consumed. Accordingly, this offering is not rendered piggul.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪谞讗 诇讱 讛讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 讛讗讻诇 讬讗讻诇 诪讘砖专 讝讘讞 砖诇诪讬讜 驻讙讜诇 讬讛讬讛 诪讬 砖驻讬讙讜诇讜 讙专诐 诇讜 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 驻讬讙讜诇讜 讙专诐 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗讬住讜专 讚讘专 讗讞专 讙专诐 诇讜

Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: From where do you derive this? Mar Zutra replied: I derive it from a verse, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if any of the flesh of his peace offerings be at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to he who offers it, it shall be piggul (Leviticus 7:18). The verse indicates that only an offering whose intent of piggul alone caused it to be disqualified is considered piggul. Excluded is this case, whose intent of piggul alone did not cause it to be disqualified; rather, the prohibition of something else, i.e., the intent to sprinkle the blood in an improper location, caused it to be disqualified.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬驻住讜诇讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬驻住诇

The Gemara challenges: But if so, i.e., if blood applied not in its proper place is considered as though it were applied in its proper place, and the intent to sprinkle the blood the next day does not render the offering piggul, then it should not even be disqualified due to such an intention. Why, then, does the baraita rule that it is disqualified?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪讞砖讘转 讛讬谞讜讞 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: In general, intent to perform the rites of an offering beyond its designated time disqualifies the offering, even when it does not render it piggul, just as is the case with regard to the intent to leave portions of the offering for the next day, as taught in a mishna in the next chapter (35b), and according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda there, that intent to leave the blood until the next day rather than sprinkling it on the altar disqualifies the offering even though it does not render it piggul.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 驻住讜诇 诪诪砖 讜砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讻诪拽讜诪讜 讚诪讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖谞转谉 讘砖转讬拽讛 讻讗谉 砖谞转谉 讘讗诪讬专讛

搂 The Gemara cites additional opinions with regard to the statement of the mishna that blood misapplied on the altar disqualifies the offering. Reish Lakish says: Actually, when the mishna states that the offering is disqualified, this is to be taken literally, i.e., that the owner does not even achieve atonement through it. And nevertheless, blood sprinkled not in its proper place is considered as though it were sprinkled in its proper place, and it effects atonement. And the apparent contradiction between these two claims is not difficult: Here, where misapplication of the blood effects atonement, it is a case where he placed it in silence, i.e., without specific intent; there, in the mishna, it is a case where he placed it with a statement, i.e., intent to consume the offering beyond its appointed time.

转谞谉 讞讬砖讘 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 注讚 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪讞砖讘转 讛讬谞讜讞 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讜壮

Since Reish Lakish agrees with the statement of Shmuel that blood applied not in its proper place is considered as though it were applied in its proper place, the Gemara poses the same difficulties to the statement of Reish Lakish as posed above to Shmuel: We learned in a baraita: If one slaughtered an offering and had intent to place the blood that is to be placed below the red line above the red line, or to place the blood that is to be placed above the red line below the red line, etc., until the response of Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k: Just as is the case with regard to the intent to leave portions of the offering for the next day, and according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, etc.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 砖谞转谉 讘砖转讬拽讛 讜砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪讜 诇讗讜 讻诪拽讜诪讜 讚诪讬 讜讛讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚诐 讛谞驻砖 讛讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚诐 讛谞驻砖

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Both here and there, i.e., in the mishna here as well as in the mishna in the next chapter (32a), it is a case where he placed the blood in silence. And the mishna here rules that the offering is completely disqualified because blood applied not in its proper place is not considered as though it were applied in its proper place. And that mishna in the next chapter, which states that the blood may be collected and sprinkled again, is referring to a case where there is blood of the soul left in the animal to sprinkle again, while this mishna is referring to a case where there is no blood of the soul left.

转谞谉 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

The Gemara challenges: We learned in the mishna that if the blood was misapplied on the altar, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the meat. Granted, according to Reish Lakish, who explains that the mishna is referring to one who expresses intent to sacrifice or consume the offering beyond its designated time, this is the reason that the tanna teaches: Disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it, to stress that although one sprinkled the blood with intent of piggul, since the sprinkling was performed improperly, his intent does not render the offering piggul, and one who partakes of it is not liable to receive karet.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 拽砖讬讗

But according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who explains that the mishna is referring to a case where the blood was sprinkled with no specific intent, of what necessity is the clause: There is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it? Since the offering is disqualified because the blood was placed not in its proper place, and there was no intent of piggul, why would one think that there should be liability for karet? The Gemara responds: Indeed, this clause is difficult for Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 谞转谉 讘诪讞砖讘讛 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

The Gemara asks: And according to Shmuel, of what necessity is the clause: There is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it? The Gemara responds: This is what the mishna is saying: If one placed the blood improperly with intent that would otherwise render the offering piggul, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it, because such sprinkling would not have permitted the meat for consumption.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪讜 诇讗讜 讻诪拽讜诪讜 讚诪讬 诇讬讛讜讬 讻讬 谞砖驻讱 诪谉 讛讻诇讬 注诇 讛专爪驻讛 讜讬讗住驻谞讜

The Gemara challenges: And according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, if blood sprinkled not in its proper place is not considered as though it were sprinkled in its proper place, it should be as if it spilled from the service vessel onto the floor, and let the priest gather it up and sprinkle it again properly. Why, then, does the mishna rule that it is disqualified?

住讘专 诇讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讬讗住驻谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪讟讛 砖诇讗 讻诪爪讜转谉 诇讗 讬讗住驻谞讜 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪注诇讛 砖专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗住驻谞讜 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讗住驻谞讜

The Gemara responds: The tanna of the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who says: He may not gather it up. As Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: All concede with regard to the blood that is to be placed above the red line that if one placed it above the red line, and likewise with regard to the blood that is to be placed below the red line if one placed it below the red line, not in accordance with the procedure dictated by its mitzva, e.g., with the left hand or with improper intent, he may not gather it up again. They disagree only with regard to the blood that is to be placed above the red line that one placed below the red line, and blood that is to be placed below the red line that one placed above the red line, as Rabbi Yosei says: He may not gather it up, and Rabbi Shimon says: He may gather it up.

讜诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗住驻谞讜

And our mishna is in accordance with the statement of the one who says: He may not gather it up.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬谉 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪讟讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪注诇讛 砖诇讗 讬讗住驻谞讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪讟讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讚诪讬诐 讛注诇讬讜谞讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讛谉 讘讗讬谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬诐 砖谞转谞谉 讘讞讜抓 讘讞讜抓 砖谞转谞谉 诇驻谞讬诐 砖专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讗住驻谞讜 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗住驻谞讜

And Rav 岣sda says that Avimi says: Everyone concedes with regard to the blood that is to be placed below the red line that if one placed it above the red line he may not gather it up again. And all the more so with regard to the blood that is to be placed above the red line that one placed below the red line, since the blood placed above the red line will eventually run down the side of the altar and reach below the red line. They disagree only with regard to the blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary that one placed outside on the external altar, or blood that is to be placed outside that one placed inside, as Rabbi Yosei says: He may gather it up, as though it had spilled on the floor, and Rabbi Shimon says: He may not gather it up, because the blood was nevertheless placed on an altar.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讝讗转 讛讬讗 讛注讜诇讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讬注讜讟讬谉 驻专讟 诇谞砖讞讟讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜砖谞砖驻讱 讚诪讛 讜砖讬爪讗 讚诪讛 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 讗诐 注诇转讛 转专讚

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: We learn in a baraita as well that if the blood is misapplied on the altar it may not be gathered, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Rabbi Yehuda says that the verse states: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt offering: It is that which goes up [ha鈥檕la] on the pyre upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived that a disqualified offering that ascended upon the altar shall not descend from it. These terms, i.e., 鈥渢his,鈥 鈥渋t,鈥 and 鈥渢hat,鈥 are three terms of exclusion, which serve to exclude three cases of disqualified offerings from this halakha: An offering that was slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled, and one whose blood emerged outside the curtains, i.e., the Temple courtyard. In these cases, even if the offering ascended upon the altar it shall descend.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 注讜诇讛 讻砖专讛 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 砖谞砖讞讟讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜砖谞砖驻讱 讚诪讛 讜砖讬爪讗 讚诪讛 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 讜讛诇谉 讜讛讬讜爪讗 讜讛讟诪讗 讜砖谞砖讞讟 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜砖拽讬讘诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讝专拽讜 讗转 讚诪讛 讜讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪讟讛 讜讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪讟讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 砖谞转谞谉 讘讞讜抓 讜讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘讞讜抓 砖谞转谞谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛驻住讞 讜讛讞讟讗转 砖砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 诪谞讬谉

Rabbi Shimon says: From the term 鈥渂urnt offering [ola]鈥 I have derived only that a fit burnt offering shall not descend. From where is it derived that the halakha includes an offering that was slaughtered at night, or one whose blood was spilled, or one whose blood emerged outside the curtains, or one that was left overnight, or one that left the courtyard, or one that became impure, or one that was slaughtered with intent to consume it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, or an offering for which an unfit person collected and sprinkled its blood, or a case where one placed the blood that is to be placed above the red line below it, or where one placed the blood that is to be placed below the red line above it, or where one placed the blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary outside on the external altar, or where one placed the blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary inside it, or a Paschal offering or a sin offering that one slaughtered not for their sake? From where is it derived that if these offerings ascended they shall not descend?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讜专转 讛注讜诇讛 专讬讘讛 转讜专讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇 讛注讜诇讬谉 砖讗诐 注诇讜 诇讗 讬专讚讜

The verse states: 鈥淭he law of the burnt offering [ha鈥檕la],鈥 literally: That which goes up. The verse included under one law all items that ascend upon the altar, teaching that if they ascended the altar, they shall not descend.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 讛专讜讘注 讜讛谞专讘注 讜讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛谞注讘讚 讜讛讗转谞谉 讜讛诪讞讬专 讜讛讻诇讗讬诐 讜讛讟专讬驻讛 讜讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讗转

One might have thought that I should include even an animal that copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality, or an animal that was set aside for idol worship, or an animal that was worshipped as a deity, or an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, or an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds, or an animal that is a tereifa, or an animal born by caesarean section. The verse therefore states: 鈥淭his,鈥 to exclude these animals from the halakha.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讗诇讜 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗诇讜 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讗诇讜 砖讛讬讛 驻住讜诇谉 讘拽讜讚砖 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讗诇讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 驻住讜诇谉 讘拽讜讚砖

The Gemara asks: And what did you see as the reason to include the former cases and to exclude the latter ones? The Gemara responds: I include these former cases, whose disqualification occurred in sanctity, i.e., in the course of the Temple service, and I exclude these latter cases, whose disqualification did not occur in sanctity and were disqualified as offerings from the outset.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪讟讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪讟讛 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚拽诇讟讬讛 诪讝讘讞 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讬讗住驻谞讜

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k continues: In any event, the baraita teaches that if one placed the blood that is to be placed below the red line above it, or if one placed the blood that is to be placed above the red line below it, the offering does not descend from the altar. And Rabbi Yehuda does not disagree, even though he holds that if the blood spilled on the ground the offering descends from the altar. What is the reason for this? Is it not because even if the blood was misapplied, the altar has absorbed the blood and it is not considered to have been spilled on the floor? Conclude from it that if blood was misapplied on the altar, the priest may not gather it up again, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬 诪拽讚砖 驻住讜诇讬谉

搂 Pursuant to the discussion of disqualified offerings that do not descend from the external altar, Rabbi Eliezer says: The inner altar, i.e., the golden altar inside the Sanctuary, sanctifies disqualified offerings such that if they ascended onto it, they do not descend.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讜壮

The Gemara asks: What is this statement teaching us? We already learn this in the above baraita: If one placed the blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary outside on the external altar, or if one placed the blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary inside it, on the golden altar, the offering does not descend.

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚诐 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 拽讜诪抓 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara responds: If one were to learn the halakha only from there, I would say: This matter applies only to blood mistakenly placed on the golden altar, as it is fit to be placed on that altar in certain contexts, i.e., the blood of the bull and goat sin offerings on Yom Kippur; but with regard to a handful from a meal offering, which is not fit to be placed on the golden altar in any context, I will say that it is not sanctified when placed on it. Rabbi Eliezer therefore teaches us that even a handful from a meal offering does not descend from it.

诪讬转讬讘讬 拽讟专转 讝专讛 砖注诇讛 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 转专讚 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 诪拽讚砖 驻住讜诇讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讘专讗讜讬 诇讜 讞讬爪讜谉 讗讬谉 驻谞讬诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If strange incense, i.e., incense that it is prohibited to burn on the golden altar, ascended onto the altar, it shall descend, as only the external altar sanctifies disqualified offerings that are suited for it. One can infer that the external altar does sanctify disqualified offerings, but the inner altar does not.

转专讬抓 讛讻讬 拽讟专转 讝专讛 砖注诇转讛 诇诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 转专讚 砖讗讬谉 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 诪拽讚砖 驻住讜诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讛专讗讜讬 诇讜 讜讛驻谞讬诪讬 讘讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讜 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讗讬 专爪驻讛 讜讛讗讬 讻诇讬 砖专转

The Gemara responds: Answer like this: The baraita means that if strange incense ascended onto the external altar, it shall descend, as the external altar sanctifies only disqualified offerings that are suited for it. But the inner altar sanctifies everything, whether it is suited for it or it is not suited for it. What is the reason for this? This, the external altar, is considered part of the floor, since it is fixed to the floor of the Temple, and that, the inner altar, is considered a service vessel with a higher level of sanctity.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讝讘讞 诇讝专讜拽 讚诪讜 讘讞讜抓 讗讜 诪拽爪转 讚诪讜 讘讞讜抓 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬讜 讘讞讜抓 讗讜 诪拽爪转 讗讬诪讜专讬讜 讘讞讜抓 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖专讜 讘讞讜抓 讗讜 讻讝讬转 诪讘砖专讜 讘讞讜抓 讗讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 诪注讜专 讛讗诇讬讛 讘讞讜抓 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

MISHNA: With regard to one who slaughters the offering with intent to sprinkle its blood outside the Temple or to sprinkle part of its blood outside the Temple, to burn its sacrificial portions outside the Temple or to burn part of its sacrificial portions outside the Temple, to partake of its meat outside the Temple or to partake of an olive-bulk of its meat outside the Temple, or to partake of an olive-bulk of the skin of the tail outside the Temple, in all of these cases the offering is disqualified, and there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of it.

诇讝专讜拽 讚诪讜 诇诪讞专 诪拽爪转 讚诪讜 诇诪讞专 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬讜 诇诪讞专 讗讜 诪拽爪转 讗讬诪讜专讬讜 诇诪讞专 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖专讜 诇诪讞专 讗讜 讻讝讬转 诪讘砖专讜 诇诪讞专 讗讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 诪注讜专 讛讗诇讬讛 诇诪讞专 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

But if one had intent to sprinkle its blood the next day or part of its blood the next day, to burn its sacrificial portions the next day or to burn part of its sacrificial portions the next day, to partake of its meat the next day or to partake of an olive-bulk of its meat the next day, or to partake of an olive-bulk of the skin of the tail the next day, the offering is piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for burning or partaking of it.

讙诪壮 住讘专讜讛 注讜专 讗诇讬讛

GEMARA: The students assumed that the skin of the tail

  • 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 27

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 27

讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

to burn or eat the offering or sprinkle its blood outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified, and there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it. But if he had intent to perform one of those actions beyond its designated time, then it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for burning or partaking of it.

诇诪讞专 驻住讜诇 讞讝专 讜讞讬砖讘 讘讬谉 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讘讬谉 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

If he had intent to sprinkle the blood improperly the next day, beyond the permitted time, then the offering is disqualified. Nevertheless, it is not rendered piggul, because he also had intent to sprinkle the blood improperly. Therefore, if he subsequently had intent to sacrifice the offering or consume its meat, whether beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, it is disqualified and there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it, because an offering can be rendered piggul only if it would have otherwise been fit.

讜讗讬 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讻诪拽讜诪讜 讚诪讬 讛讗讬 驻住讜诇 驻讬讙讜诇 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: But if blood sprinkled not in its proper place is considered as though it were sprinkled in its proper place, then in this case above, where he had intent to sprinkle the blood improperly the next day, is the offering merely disqualified? Since it is considered as though he had intent to sprinkle the blood properly the next day, shouldn鈥檛 the offering be rendered piggul?

讗诪专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讝专讬拽讛 讚砖专讬讗 讘砖专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诪讬讬转讗 诇讬讚讬 驻讬讙讜诇 讝专讬拽讛 讚诇讗 砖专讬讗 讘砖专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 诇讗 诪讬讬转讗 诇讬讚讬 驻讬讙讜诇

Mar Zutra said: Intent with regard to sprinkling that permits the meat for consumption can cause the offering to become piggul. Intent with regard to sprinkling that does not render the meat permitted for consumption does not cause it to become piggul. Even Shmuel concedes that although the owner achieves atonement, if the blood is sprinkled in an improper place the meat may not be consumed. Accordingly, this offering is not rendered piggul.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗砖讬 诇诪专 讝讜讟专讗 诪谞讗 诇讱 讛讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 讛讗讻诇 讬讗讻诇 诪讘砖专 讝讘讞 砖诇诪讬讜 驻讙讜诇 讬讛讬讛 诪讬 砖驻讬讙讜诇讜 讙专诐 诇讜 讬爪讗 讝讛 砖讗讬谉 驻讬讙讜诇讜 讙专诐 诇讜 讗诇讗 讗讬住讜专 讚讘专 讗讞专 讙专诐 诇讜

Rav Ashi said to Mar Zutra: From where do you derive this? Mar Zutra replied: I derive it from a verse, as it is written: 鈥淎nd if any of the flesh of his peace offerings be at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be credited to he who offers it, it shall be piggul (Leviticus 7:18). The verse indicates that only an offering whose intent of piggul alone caused it to be disqualified is considered piggul. Excluded is this case, whose intent of piggul alone did not cause it to be disqualified; rather, the prohibition of something else, i.e., the intent to sprinkle the blood in an improper location, caused it to be disqualified.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬驻住讜诇讬 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讬驻住诇

The Gemara challenges: But if so, i.e., if blood applied not in its proper place is considered as though it were applied in its proper place, and the intent to sprinkle the blood the next day does not render the offering piggul, then it should not even be disqualified due to such an intention. Why, then, does the baraita rule that it is disqualified?

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪讞砖讘转 讛讬谞讜讞 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k said: In general, intent to perform the rites of an offering beyond its designated time disqualifies the offering, even when it does not render it piggul, just as is the case with regard to the intent to leave portions of the offering for the next day, as taught in a mishna in the next chapter (35b), and according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda there, that intent to leave the blood until the next day rather than sprinkling it on the altar disqualifies the offering even though it does not render it piggul.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 驻住讜诇 诪诪砖 讜砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪讜 讻诪拽讜诪讜 讚诪讬 讜诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖谞转谉 讘砖转讬拽讛 讻讗谉 砖谞转谉 讘讗诪讬专讛

搂 The Gemara cites additional opinions with regard to the statement of the mishna that blood misapplied on the altar disqualifies the offering. Reish Lakish says: Actually, when the mishna states that the offering is disqualified, this is to be taken literally, i.e., that the owner does not even achieve atonement through it. And nevertheless, blood sprinkled not in its proper place is considered as though it were sprinkled in its proper place, and it effects atonement. And the apparent contradiction between these two claims is not difficult: Here, where misapplication of the blood effects atonement, it is a case where he placed it in silence, i.e., without specific intent; there, in the mishna, it is a case where he placed it with a statement, i.e., intent to consume the offering beyond its appointed time.

转谞谉 讞讬砖讘 诇讬转谉 讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 注讚 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪讞砖讘转 讛讬谞讜讞 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讻讜壮

Since Reish Lakish agrees with the statement of Shmuel that blood applied not in its proper place is considered as though it were applied in its proper place, the Gemara poses the same difficulties to the statement of Reish Lakish as posed above to Shmuel: We learned in a baraita: If one slaughtered an offering and had intent to place the blood that is to be placed below the red line above the red line, or to place the blood that is to be placed above the red line below the red line, etc., until the response of Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k: Just as is the case with regard to the intent to leave portions of the offering for the next day, and according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, etc.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 砖谞转谉 讘砖转讬拽讛 讜砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪讜 诇讗讜 讻诪拽讜诪讜 讚诪讬 讜讛讗 讚讗讬讻讗 讚诐 讛谞驻砖 讛讗 讚诇讬讻讗 讚诐 讛谞驻砖

Rabbi Yo岣nan says: Both here and there, i.e., in the mishna here as well as in the mishna in the next chapter (32a), it is a case where he placed the blood in silence. And the mishna here rules that the offering is completely disqualified because blood applied not in its proper place is not considered as though it were applied in its proper place. And that mishna in the next chapter, which states that the blood may be collected and sprinkled again, is referring to a case where there is blood of the soul left in the animal to sprinkle again, while this mishna is referring to a case where there is no blood of the soul left.

转谞谉 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

The Gemara challenges: We learned in the mishna that if the blood was misapplied on the altar, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the meat. Granted, according to Reish Lakish, who explains that the mishna is referring to one who expresses intent to sacrifice or consume the offering beyond its designated time, this is the reason that the tanna teaches: Disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it, to stress that although one sprinkled the blood with intent of piggul, since the sprinkling was performed improperly, his intent does not render the offering piggul, and one who partakes of it is not liable to receive karet.

讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 拽砖讬讗

But according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who explains that the mishna is referring to a case where the blood was sprinkled with no specific intent, of what necessity is the clause: There is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it? Since the offering is disqualified because the blood was placed not in its proper place, and there was no intent of piggul, why would one think that there should be liability for karet? The Gemara responds: Indeed, this clause is difficult for Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讜诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 谞转谉 讘诪讞砖讘讛 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

The Gemara asks: And according to Shmuel, of what necessity is the clause: There is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it? The Gemara responds: This is what the mishna is saying: If one placed the blood improperly with intent that would otherwise render the offering piggul, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it, because such sprinkling would not have permitted the meat for consumption.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗讬 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诪讜 诇讗讜 讻诪拽讜诪讜 讚诪讬 诇讬讛讜讬 讻讬 谞砖驻讱 诪谉 讛讻诇讬 注诇 讛专爪驻讛 讜讬讗住驻谞讜

The Gemara challenges: And according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, if blood sprinkled not in its proper place is not considered as though it were sprinkled in its proper place, it should be as if it spilled from the service vessel onto the floor, and let the priest gather it up and sprinkle it again properly. Why, then, does the mishna rule that it is disqualified?

住讘专 诇讛 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讬讗住驻谞讜 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬诐 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪注诇讛 诇诪讟讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪讟讛 砖诇讗 讻诪爪讜转谉 诇讗 讬讗住驻谞讜 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪讟讛 诇诪讟讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪注诇讛 砖专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗住驻谞讜 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讬讗住驻谞讜

The Gemara responds: The tanna of the mishna holds in accordance with the opinion of the one who says: He may not gather it up. As Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: All concede with regard to the blood that is to be placed above the red line that if one placed it above the red line, and likewise with regard to the blood that is to be placed below the red line if one placed it below the red line, not in accordance with the procedure dictated by its mitzva, e.g., with the left hand or with improper intent, he may not gather it up again. They disagree only with regard to the blood that is to be placed above the red line that one placed below the red line, and blood that is to be placed below the red line that one placed above the red line, as Rabbi Yosei says: He may not gather it up, and Rabbi Shimon says: He may gather it up.

讜诪砖谞转讬谞讜 讻讚讘专讬 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗住驻谞讜

And our mishna is in accordance with the statement of the one who says: He may not gather it up.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讚讬谉 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪讟讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪注诇讛 砖诇讗 讬讗住驻谞讜 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪讟讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讚诪讬诐 讛注诇讬讜谞讬诐 诇诪讟讛 讛谉 讘讗讬谉 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 讗诇讗 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 诇驻谞讬诐 砖谞转谞谉 讘讞讜抓 讘讞讜抓 砖谞转谞谉 诇驻谞讬诐 砖专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讬讗住驻谞讜 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬讗住驻谞讜

And Rav 岣sda says that Avimi says: Everyone concedes with regard to the blood that is to be placed below the red line that if one placed it above the red line he may not gather it up again. And all the more so with regard to the blood that is to be placed above the red line that one placed below the red line, since the blood placed above the red line will eventually run down the side of the altar and reach below the red line. They disagree only with regard to the blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary that one placed outside on the external altar, or blood that is to be placed outside that one placed inside, as Rabbi Yosei says: He may gather it up, as though it had spilled on the floor, and Rabbi Shimon says: He may not gather it up, because the blood was nevertheless placed on an altar.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讘专 讬爪讞拽 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讝讗转 讛讬讗 讛注讜诇讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 诪讬注讜讟讬谉 驻专讟 诇谞砖讞讟讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜砖谞砖驻讱 讚诪讛 讜砖讬爪讗 讚诪讛 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 讗诐 注诇转讛 转专讚

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k says: We learn in a baraita as well that if the blood is misapplied on the altar it may not be gathered, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan: Rabbi Yehuda says that the verse states: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt offering: It is that which goes up [ha鈥檕la] on the pyre upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived that a disqualified offering that ascended upon the altar shall not descend from it. These terms, i.e., 鈥渢his,鈥 鈥渋t,鈥 and 鈥渢hat,鈥 are three terms of exclusion, which serve to exclude three cases of disqualified offerings from this halakha: An offering that was slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled, and one whose blood emerged outside the curtains, i.e., the Temple courtyard. In these cases, even if the offering ascended upon the altar it shall descend.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注讜诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 注讜诇讛 讻砖专讛 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 砖谞砖讞讟讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜砖谞砖驻讱 讚诪讛 讜砖讬爪讗 讚诪讛 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 讜讛诇谉 讜讛讬讜爪讗 讜讛讟诪讗 讜砖谞砖讞讟 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜砖拽讬讘诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讝专拽讜 讗转 讚诪讛 讜讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪讟讛 讜讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪讟讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 砖谞转谞谉 讘讞讜抓 讜讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘讞讜抓 砖谞转谞谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讛驻住讞 讜讛讞讟讗转 砖砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 诪谞讬谉

Rabbi Shimon says: From the term 鈥渂urnt offering [ola]鈥 I have derived only that a fit burnt offering shall not descend. From where is it derived that the halakha includes an offering that was slaughtered at night, or one whose blood was spilled, or one whose blood emerged outside the curtains, or one that was left overnight, or one that left the courtyard, or one that became impure, or one that was slaughtered with intent to consume it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, or an offering for which an unfit person collected and sprinkled its blood, or a case where one placed the blood that is to be placed above the red line below it, or where one placed the blood that is to be placed below the red line above it, or where one placed the blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary outside on the external altar, or where one placed the blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary inside it, or a Paschal offering or a sin offering that one slaughtered not for their sake? From where is it derived that if these offerings ascended they shall not descend?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讜专转 讛注讜诇讛 专讬讘讛 转讜专讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇 讛注讜诇讬谉 砖讗诐 注诇讜 诇讗 讬专讚讜

The verse states: 鈥淭he law of the burnt offering [ha鈥檕la],鈥 literally: That which goes up. The verse included under one law all items that ascend upon the altar, teaching that if they ascended the altar, they shall not descend.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讗祝 讛专讜讘注 讜讛谞专讘注 讜讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛谞注讘讚 讜讛讗转谞谉 讜讛诪讞讬专 讜讛讻诇讗讬诐 讜讛讟专讬驻讛 讜讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讗转

One might have thought that I should include even an animal that copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality, or an animal that was set aside for idol worship, or an animal that was worshipped as a deity, or an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, or an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds, or an animal that is a tereifa, or an animal born by caesarean section. The verse therefore states: 鈥淭his,鈥 to exclude these animals from the halakha.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讗诇讜 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗诇讜 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讗诇讜 砖讛讬讛 驻住讜诇谉 讘拽讜讚砖 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讗诇讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 驻住讜诇谉 讘拽讜讚砖

The Gemara asks: And what did you see as the reason to include the former cases and to exclude the latter ones? The Gemara responds: I include these former cases, whose disqualification occurred in sanctity, i.e., in the course of the Temple service, and I exclude these latter cases, whose disqualification did not occur in sanctity and were disqualified as offerings from the outset.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪讟讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪讟讛 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚拽诇讟讬讛 诪讝讘讞 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讬讗住驻谞讜

Rav Na岣an bar Yitz岣k continues: In any event, the baraita teaches that if one placed the blood that is to be placed below the red line above it, or if one placed the blood that is to be placed above the red line below it, the offering does not descend from the altar. And Rabbi Yehuda does not disagree, even though he holds that if the blood spilled on the ground the offering descends from the altar. What is the reason for this? Is it not because even if the blood was misapplied, the altar has absorbed the blood and it is not considered to have been spilled on the floor? Conclude from it that if blood was misapplied on the altar, the priest may not gather it up again, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yo岣nan.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讝讘讞 讛驻谞讬诪讬 诪拽讚砖 驻住讜诇讬谉

搂 Pursuant to the discussion of disqualified offerings that do not descend from the external altar, Rabbi Eliezer says: The inner altar, i.e., the golden altar inside the Sanctuary, sanctifies disqualified offerings such that if they ascended onto it, they do not descend.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讻讜壮

The Gemara asks: What is this statement teaching us? We already learn this in the above baraita: If one placed the blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary outside on the external altar, or if one placed the blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary inside it, on the golden altar, the offering does not descend.

讗讬 诪讛转诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚诐 讚讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 拽讜诪抓 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara responds: If one were to learn the halakha only from there, I would say: This matter applies only to blood mistakenly placed on the golden altar, as it is fit to be placed on that altar in certain contexts, i.e., the blood of the bull and goat sin offerings on Yom Kippur; but with regard to a handful from a meal offering, which is not fit to be placed on the golden altar in any context, I will say that it is not sanctified when placed on it. Rabbi Eliezer therefore teaches us that even a handful from a meal offering does not descend from it.

诪讬转讬讘讬 拽讟专转 讝专讛 砖注诇讛 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 转专讚 砖讗讬谉 诇讱 诪拽讚砖 驻住讜诇讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讘专讗讜讬 诇讜 讞讬爪讜谉 讗讬谉 驻谞讬诪讬 诇讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If strange incense, i.e., incense that it is prohibited to burn on the golden altar, ascended onto the altar, it shall descend, as only the external altar sanctifies disqualified offerings that are suited for it. One can infer that the external altar does sanctify disqualified offerings, but the inner altar does not.

转专讬抓 讛讻讬 拽讟专转 讝专讛 砖注诇转讛 诇诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 转专讚 砖讗讬谉 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 诪拽讚砖 驻住讜诇讬谉 讗诇讗 讛专讗讜讬 诇讜 讜讛驻谞讬诪讬 讘讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讜 讘讬谉 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讜 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讛讗讬 专爪驻讛 讜讛讗讬 讻诇讬 砖专转

The Gemara responds: Answer like this: The baraita means that if strange incense ascended onto the external altar, it shall descend, as the external altar sanctifies only disqualified offerings that are suited for it. But the inner altar sanctifies everything, whether it is suited for it or it is not suited for it. What is the reason for this? This, the external altar, is considered part of the floor, since it is fixed to the floor of the Temple, and that, the inner altar, is considered a service vessel with a higher level of sanctity.

诪转谞讬壮 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讝讘讞 诇讝专讜拽 讚诪讜 讘讞讜抓 讗讜 诪拽爪转 讚诪讜 讘讞讜抓 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬讜 讘讞讜抓 讗讜 诪拽爪转 讗讬诪讜专讬讜 讘讞讜抓 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖专讜 讘讞讜抓 讗讜 讻讝讬转 诪讘砖专讜 讘讞讜抓 讗讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 诪注讜专 讛讗诇讬讛 讘讞讜抓 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

MISHNA: With regard to one who slaughters the offering with intent to sprinkle its blood outside the Temple or to sprinkle part of its blood outside the Temple, to burn its sacrificial portions outside the Temple or to burn part of its sacrificial portions outside the Temple, to partake of its meat outside the Temple or to partake of an olive-bulk of its meat outside the Temple, or to partake of an olive-bulk of the skin of the tail outside the Temple, in all of these cases the offering is disqualified, and there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of it.

诇讝专讜拽 讚诪讜 诇诪讞专 诪拽爪转 讚诪讜 诇诪讞专 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬讜 诇诪讞专 讗讜 诪拽爪转 讗讬诪讜专讬讜 诇诪讞专 诇讗讻讜诇 讘砖专讜 诇诪讞专 讗讜 讻讝讬转 诪讘砖专讜 诇诪讞专 讗讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 诪注讜专 讛讗诇讬讛 诇诪讞专 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

But if one had intent to sprinkle its blood the next day or part of its blood the next day, to burn its sacrificial portions the next day or to burn part of its sacrificial portions the next day, to partake of its meat the next day or to partake of an olive-bulk of its meat the next day, or to partake of an olive-bulk of the skin of the tail the next day, the offering is piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for burning or partaking of it.

讙诪壮 住讘专讜讛 注讜专 讗诇讬讛

GEMARA: The students assumed that the skin of the tail

Scroll To Top