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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 11, 2018 | 讻状讜 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Zevachim 28

The mishna discusses the cases of incorrect intention called pigul. Details regarding the skin of the tail is mentioned. Three explanations are brought to explain what the case regarding the tail is referring to. Then the gemara聽struggles to find a source for why pigul聽relating to time is disqualified and the person gets punished by karet聽but if one has intent for the wrong location, it is disqualified but the person doesn’t get karet.


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

讻讗诇讬讛 讚诪讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讞砖讘 诪讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞 诇讗讚诐

is considered as though it were part of the tail itself. The tail of a sheep sacrificed as a peace offering is burned on the altar rather than eaten. But if so, one who slaughters the sheep with intent to consume the skin of its tail the next day has intent to shift its consumption from consumption by the altar, i.e., burning the offering, to consumption by a person. Since intent to consume part of an offering beyond its designated time renders an offering piggul only if that part is intended for human consumption, why does the mishna rule that such an offering is piggul?

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讞砖讘讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞 诇讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 讜诪讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 诇讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞

Shmuel says: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: One can have intent to shift an item鈥檚 consumption from consumption by the altar to consumption by a person, or from consumption by a person to consumption by the altar, and the offering will still be rendered piggul.

讚转谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讝讘讞 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 讻砖专 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇

This is as we learned in a mishna (35a): In a case of one who slaughters the offering with intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not partake of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one does not burn it on the altar, beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, the offering is fit. And Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛砖讜讞讟 讜讛诪拽讘诇 讜讛诪讜诇讬讱 讜讛讝讜专拽 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讛拽讟讬专

The Gemara asks: In accordance with which opinion did you interpret the mishna here? You interpreted it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. But if so, say the latter clause, i.e., the next mishna (29b): This is the principle: Anyone who slaughters the animal, or who collects the blood, or who conveys the blood, or who sprinkles the blood with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, beyond its designated time, renders it piggul.

讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 诇讗 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谞谉 专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜住讬驻讗 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉

One can infer that intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it does render it piggul, while intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not partake of it does not render it piggul. In this clause, we arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis. Can it be that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, while the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? Shmuel said to him: Yes. That is how one must understand the mishna.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 注讜专 讗诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讻讗诇讬讛 讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞诇讘讜 讛讗诇讬讛 讜诇讗 注讜专 讛讗诇讬讛

Rav Huna says: The skin of the tail is not considered as though it were the tail itself. Unlike the tail itself, its skin is consumed. Consequently, both this mishna and the next can be understood in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rava said: What is the reasoning of Rav Huna? As the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall present of the sacrifice of peace offerings an offering made by fire unto the Lord: The fat thereof, the fat tail鈥 (Leviticus 3:9), indicating that the priest must offer the fat of the tail on the altar, but not the skin of the tail.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 注讜专 讛讗诇讬讛 讻讗诇讬讛 讚诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讗诇讬讛 砖诇 讙讚讬

Rav 岣sda says: Actually, the skin of the tail is considered as though it were the tail itself, and it is burned on the altar. And here, in the mishna, we are dealing with the tail of a kid, which is not burned on the altar but is consumed. Accordingly, intent to consume it outside its designated time renders it piggul.

讻讜诇讛讜 讻砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讗诪专讬 专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜住讬驻讗 专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 注讜专 讗诇讬讛 讻讗诇讬讛 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇讛讜

The Gemara notes: All of them, Rav Huna and Rav 岣sda, do not say as Shmuel says, since they do not wish to interpret that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And Shmuel and Rav 岣sda do not say as Rav Huna says, since they heard that the skin of the tail is considered as though it were the tail itself.

讻专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 注讜专 讗诇讬讛 讻讗诇讬讛 讚诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜讗诇讜 砖注讜专讜转讬讛谉 讻讘砖专谉 注讜专 砖转讞转 讛讗诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Shmuel and Rav Huna do not say as Rav 岣sda says, that the mishna is referring to the tail of a kid? The Gemara responds that they reason: According to Rav 岣sda, what is the mishna teaching us by referring specifically to the skin of the tail? Does it mean to teach simply that the skin of the tail is considered edible, like the tail itself? We already learn this in another mishna (岣llin 122a): These are the entities whose skin has a halakhic status like that of their meat, since it is soft and edible: The skin beneath the tail.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚专讻讬讱 诪爪讟专祝 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬诪讗 诇诪砖讞讛 诇讙讚讜诇讛 讻讚专讱 砖讛诪诇讻讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 注讘讬讚讬 诪诇讻讬诐 讚讗讻诇讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And Rav 岣sda, how would he respond? The Gemara answers: The reference here to the skin of the tail was necessary, as given only the mishna in tractate 岣llin, it might enter your mind to say: This matter, the equation between the skin of the tail and the tail itself, applies only with regard to the matter of ritual impurity, as the skin of the tail is soft and edible, and it is therefore counted as part of the tail. But here, with regard to the matter of the Temple service, I will say that the verse states with regard to the gifts to which members of the priesthood are entitled: 鈥淎s a consecrated portion鈥 (Numbers 18:8), to indicate that they must be eaten in greatness, in the way that the kings eat. And since kings do not generally eat the skin of the tail, I will say that it is not considered an eaten portion of the offering. The mishna therefore teaches us that it is nevertheless considered like the tail itself.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛注讜诇讛 诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讝讬转 诪注讜专 砖转讞转 讛讗诇讬讛 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

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who slaughters a burnt offering with intent to burn an olive-bulk of the skin beneath the tail outside its designated area renders the offering disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering. If his intent is to burn it beyond its designated time, it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for eating it. This is the opinion of the Rabbis.

讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 讗讘诇讬诐 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 讻驻专 注讬讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讞讚 注讜专 讘讬转 讛驻专住讜转 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讜讗讞讚 注讜专 讛专讗砖 砖诇 注讙诇 讛专讱 讜讗讞讚 注讜专 砖转讞转 讛讗诇讬讛 讜讻诇 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讙讘讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗诇讜 砖注讜专讜转讬讛谉 讻讘砖专谉 诇讛讘讬讗 注讜专 砖诇 讘讬转 讛讘讜砖转 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

Elazar ben Yehuda of Avelim says in the name of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, and so Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Kefar Ikos would say in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Whether the hide of the hooves of small livestock, or the skin of the head of a young calf, or the skin beneath the tail, or any of the skins that the Sages listed with regard to ritual impurity under the heading: These are the entities whose skin has a halakhic status like that of their meat, which means to include the skin of the womb, if one has intent to burn one of them outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it, and if one鈥檚 intent is to burn it beyond its designated time, he renders it piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for burning or partaking of it.

注讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讝讘讞 诇讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 注讜诇讛 诇讬转谞讬 讝讘讞

One can infer from the baraita that only with regard to a burnt offering, yes, the skin of the tail is burned on the altar like the tail itself. But with regard to another offering, this is not the halakha. Granted, according to Rav Huna, who holds that the skin of the tail of a peace offering is not considered as though it were the tail itself, and it is eaten rather than burned, this is the reason that the tanna teaches about a burnt offering specifically, as all portions of a burnt offering are burned, even those that are eaten in the case of other offerings. But according to Rav 岣sda, who holds that the skin of the tail is burned together with the tail, why does the tanna specifically teach about a burnt offering? If the skin of the tail is always considered as though it were the tail itself, let the tanna teach about any offering.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讗诇讬讛 砖诇 讙讚讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 转谞讬 讝讘讞

Rav 岣sda could have said to you: If you wish, say that the baraita is referring to the tail of a kid, which is never burned on the altar except in the case of a burnt offering. And if you wish, say instead that one should emend the text of the baraita to teach: One who slaughters any offering, etc.

驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬

搂 The mishna states that if one intends to consume the meat or sprinkle the blood outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified, and there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of it. If one intends to do so beyond its designated time, the offering is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for burning or partaking of it. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Shmuel says: Two verses are written.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讝讛讜 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜

The Gemara asks: What are these verses? Rabba said: Shmuel is referring to two phrases from the verse: 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, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 7:18). The Sages taught that this verse is referring not to offerings actually eaten on the third day, but to one who performs one of the sacrificial rites with intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time. Now, when the verse states: 鈥淎nd if any of the flesh鈥e at all eaten on the third day,鈥 this is referring to intent to consume the meat beyond its designated time.

驻讙讜诇 讝讛讜 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜讛谞驻砖 讛讗讜讻诇转 诪诪谞讜 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐 讝讛讜 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜诇诪注讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜

When the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be piggul,鈥 this is referring to one who has intent to consume it outside its designated area. And when the verse states: 鈥淎nd the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity,鈥 i.e., shall be liable to receive karet, 鈥渙f it鈥 indicates that only one of the above disqualifications carries the penalty of karet for one who partakes of it, but not two of them. And this included case is intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time, to the exclusion of intent to consume it outside its designated area, which carries no such penalty.

讜讗讬诪讗 讜讛谞驻砖 讛讗讜讻诇转 诪诪谞讜 讝讛讜 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜诇诪注讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 诪住转讘专讗 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 注讚讬祝 讚驻转讞 讘讬讛 讗讚专讘讛 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 注讚讬祝 讚住诪讬讱 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: But why not say the opposite, that when the verse states: 鈥淎nd the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity,鈥 this is referring to intent to consume the offering outside its designated area, to the exclusion of intent to consume it beyond its designated time? The Gemara responds: It stands to reason that intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time is the preferable candidate to carry the punishment of karet, as the verse opened with it. The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, intent to consume the offering outside its designated area is preferable, as the clause that teaches liability for karet is adjacent to it.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 [讗诪专 专讘] 住诪讬讱 讗讚转谞讬 转谞讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬砖讬 讘驻专砖转 拽讚砖讬诐 转讛讬讜 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讗诐 讛讗讻诇 讬讗讻诇 诪讘砖专 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讛砖诇讬砖讬

Rather, Abaye said: When Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi came, he said that Rav says: Shmuel was actually referring to two separate verses. And he relied on that which the tanna taught: The verse is seemingly redundant when it states: 鈥淎nd if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted鈥 (Leviticus 19:7), in the Torah portion that begins: 鈥淵ou shall be holy鈥 (Leviticus 19:2), as there is no need for the verse to state this, since it is already stated: 鈥淎nd if any of the flesh of his peace offerings be at all eaten on the third day鈥t shall be piggul鈥 (Leviticus 7:18).

讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 转谞讛讜 诇注谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 谞讜转专 讜讗讻诇讬讜 注讜谞讜 讬砖讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜

Therefore, if the verse is not referring to the matter of intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time, apply it to the matter of intent to consume it outside its designated area. And as for the punishment of karet, the Merciful One restricted it to the prohibition of notar, i.e., actually partaking of the offering beyond its designated time, as the verse states: 鈥淏ut whoever eats it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 19:8). This indicates that one is liable to receive karet for partaking of notar, to the exclusion of intent to consume the offering outside its designated area.

讜讗讬诪讗 讜讗讻诇讬讜 注讜谞讜 讬砖讗 讝讛讜 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜诇诪注讜讟讬 谞讜转专 诪讻专转

The Gemara asks: But why not say instead that when the verse states: 鈥淏ut whoever eats it shall bear his iniquity,鈥 this is referring to intent to consume the offering outside its designated area, and the verse serves to exclude notar from the penalty of karet?

诪住转讘专讗 谞讜转专 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜拽诪讬 讘讻专转 诇诪讙诪专 注讜谉 注讜谉 诇讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讘讝讘

The Gemara responds: It stands to reason that notar should be interpreted as carrying the penalty of karet, because this would allow one to derive by way of verbal analogy between 鈥渋niquity鈥 and 鈥渋niquity鈥 stated with regard to the case of intent to consume the meat beyond its designated time, that the punishment of karet applies to the latter as well. The verbal analogy would be apt since one prohibition is similar to the other in that they share features that form the acronym zayin, beit: Both concern the offering鈥檚 designated time [zeman], and both are applicable to an offering sacrificed on a private altar [bama].

讗讚专讘讛 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜拽诪讬 讘讻专转 诇诪讙诪专 注讜谉 注讜谉 诇讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讘诪拽讚砖

The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, intent to consume the offering outside its designated area should be interpreted as carrying the penalty of karet, because this would allow one to derive by way of verbal analogy between 鈥渋niquity鈥 and 鈥渋niquity鈥 stated with regard to the case of intent to consume the meat beyond its designated time, that the punishment of karet applies to the latter as well. The verbal analogy would still be apt since one prohibition is similar to the other in that both share features that form the acronym mikdash: Both concern intent [ma岣shava]; both disqualify the entire offering even if one had intent with regard to only part [ketzat] of it; both occur while collecting or sprinkling the offering鈥檚 blood [dam]; and with regard to both the verse contains an extraneous mention of the third [shelishi] day.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转谞讬 讝讘讚讬 讘专 诇讜讬 讗转讬讗 拽讚砖 拽讚砖 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讗转 拽讚砖 讛壮 讞诇诇 讜谞讻专转讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜砖专驻转 讗转 讛谞讜转专 讘讗砖 讜讙讜壮 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞讜转专 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞讜转专

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan says that Zavdi bar Levi taught: It is derived that the prohibition of notar carries the penalty of karet by way of verbal analogy between 鈥渟acred鈥 and 鈥渟acred.鈥 It is written here: 鈥淏ut whoever eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned the sacred item of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from his people鈥 (Leviticus 19:8). And it is written there: 鈥淎nd if any of the flesh of the consecration, or of the bread, remain until the morning, then you shall burn the remainder [notar] with fire; it shall not be eaten, because it is sacred鈥 (Exodus 29:34). Just as the verse there is referring to notar, so too, there verse here is referring to notar.

讜诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 谞讜转专 讜讗讻诇讬讜 注讜谞讜 讬砖讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 诪讻专转

And consequently, when the Merciful One restricted the penalty of karet to the prohibition of eating notar, as the verse states: 鈥淏ut whoever eats it shall bear his iniquity,鈥 this restriction serves to exclude the case of intent to consume the offering outside its designated area from the penalty of karet.

讜诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚拽专讗 讗专讬讻讗 讘讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜砖诇讬砖讬 讚驻专砖转 拽讚砖讬诐 转讛讬讜 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗

The Gemara returns to the initial assumption that the statement of Shmuel is referring to two verses: And what did you see that led you to conclude that the long verse (Leviticus 7:18) is referring to intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time, and that the verse that mentions the third day (Leviticus 19:7) in the Torah portion that begins: 鈥淵ou shall be holy,鈥 is referring to intent to consume it outside its designated area? I might just as well reverse the two.

诪住转讘专讗 讗专讬讻讗 讘讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讚讙诪专 注讜谉 注讜谉 诪谞讜转专 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讘讝讘

The Gemara responds: It stands to reason that the long verse is referring to intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time, as this allows for one to derive by way of verbal analogy between 鈥渋niquity鈥 and 鈥渋niquity鈥 from notar that an offering sacrificed with such intent carries the penalty of karet. The verbal analogy is apt since one prohibition is similar to the other in that both share the features mentioned above that form the acronym: Zayin, beit.

讗讚专讘讛 讗专讬讻讗 讘讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜砖诇讬砖讬 讚拽讚砖讬诐 转讛讬讜 讘讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 住诪讻讬讛 讜拽讗 诪诪注讟 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, it stands to reason that the long verse is referring to intent to consume the offering outside its designated area, and that the verse that mentions the third day in the Torah portion that begins: 鈥淵ou shall be holy,鈥 is referring to intent to consume it beyond its designated time. This is due to the fact that the latter intent is similar to notar in that both prohibitions share the features mentioned above that form the acronym: Zayin, beit, and it is therefore reasonable that the Torah juxtaposed the two in adjacent verses. And if so, when the verse states with regard to notar: 鈥淏ut whoever eats it shall bear his iniquity,鈥 this excludes intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time from the penalty of karet.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讜诇讛讜 诪拽专讗 讗专讬讻讗 讗转讬讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讛讗讻诇 讬讗讻诇 讘砖转讬 讗讻讬诇讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞讚 讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞

Rather, Rava says: One must accept the original interpretation of Shmuel鈥檚 statement, that all of these halakhot with regard to intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time or outside its designated area are derived from the long verse. As it is written: 鈥淚f 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, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 7:18). When the verse states: 鈥淏e at all eaten [he鈥檃khol ye鈥檃khel],鈥 using a doubled verb, the verse speaks of intent with regard to two consumptions, one consumption by a person, and one consumption by the altar, i.e., burning the offering. Improper intent with regard to either of these acts renders the offering piggul.

诪讘砖专 讝讘讞 砖诇诪讬讜 诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讜诪转驻讙诇讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讜诪转驻讙诇讬谉

The phrase 鈥渁ny of the flesh of his peace offerings鈥 indicates that just as a peace offering possesses that which renders piggul and that which is rendered piggul, i.e., the blood, which renders the offering piggul through one鈥檚 intent with regard to its rites, and the meat, which is rendered piggul through such intent, so too the verse is referring to all offerings that possess that which renders an offering piggul and that which is rendered piggul.

砖诇讬砖讬 讝讛 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜

The term 鈥渙n the third day鈥 indicates that the verse is referring to intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time, as peace offerings may be eaten for only two days.

诇讗 讬专爪讛 讻讛专爪讗转 讻砖专 讻谉 讛专爪讗转 驻住讜诇 讜诪讛 讛专爪讗转 讻砖专 注讚 砖讬拽专讬讘讜 讻诇 诪转讬专讬讜 讗祝 讛专爪讗转 驻住讜诇 注讚 砖讬拽专讬讘讜 讻诇 诪转讬专讬讜

The phrase 鈥渋t shall not be accepted鈥 indicates that an offering is deemed piggul following the stage of the service at which it would have otherwise effected atonement. Therefore, like the acceptance of a fit offering, so is the acceptance of a disqualified offering, and just as the acceptance of a fit offering does not occur until one sacrifices all its permitting factors, i.e., one sprinkles the blood properly, so too the acceptance of a disqualified offering does not occur until one sacrifices all its permitting factors.

讛诪拽专讬讘 讘讛拽专讘讛 讛讜讗 谞驻住诇 讜讗讬谞讜 谞驻住诇 讘砖诇讬砖讬 讗讜转讜 讘讝讘讞 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讚讘专 讘讻讛谉

The term 鈥渉e who offers鈥 indicates that piggul is disqualified at the time of offering, due to improper intent, and it is not disqualified on the third day literally. And when the verse states 鈥渋t,鈥 this indicates that the verse is speaking of a disqualification of the offering only, but it is not speaking of the priest, who is not disqualified from the priesthood through such intent.

诇讗 讬讞砖讘

The phrase 鈥渘either shall it be credited [ye岣shev]鈥

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 28

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 28

讻讗诇讬讛 讚诪讬 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讞砖讘 诪讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞 诇讗讚诐

is considered as though it were part of the tail itself. The tail of a sheep sacrificed as a peace offering is burned on the altar rather than eaten. But if so, one who slaughters the sheep with intent to consume the skin of its tail the next day has intent to shift its consumption from consumption by the altar, i.e., burning the offering, to consumption by a person. Since intent to consume part of an offering beyond its designated time renders an offering piggul only if that part is intended for human consumption, why does the mishna rule that such an offering is piggul?

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诪讞砖讘讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞 诇讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 讜诪讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 诇讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞

Shmuel says: In accordance with whose opinion is this? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: One can have intent to shift an item鈥檚 consumption from consumption by the altar to consumption by a person, or from consumption by a person to consumption by the altar, and the offering will still be rendered piggul.

讚转谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讝讘讞 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 讻砖专 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 驻讜住诇

This is as we learned in a mishna (35a): In a case of one who slaughters the offering with intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not partake of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one does not burn it on the altar, beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, the offering is fit. And Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit.

讘诪讗讬 讗讜拽讬诪转讗 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 讛砖讜讞讟 讜讛诪拽讘诇 讜讛诪讜诇讬讱 讜讛讝讜专拽 诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讛拽讟讬专

The Gemara asks: In accordance with which opinion did you interpret the mishna here? You interpreted it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. But if so, say the latter clause, i.e., the next mishna (29b): This is the principle: Anyone who slaughters the animal, or who collects the blood, or who conveys the blood, or who sprinkles the blood with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, beyond its designated time, renders it piggul.

讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 诇讗 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谞谉 专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜住讬驻讗 专讘谞谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉

One can infer that intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it does render it piggul, while intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not partake of it does not render it piggul. In this clause, we arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis. Can it be that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, while the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? Shmuel said to him: Yes. That is how one must understand the mishna.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 注讜专 讗诇讬讛 诇讗讜 讻讗诇讬讛 讚诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讞诇讘讜 讛讗诇讬讛 讜诇讗 注讜专 讛讗诇讬讛

Rav Huna says: The skin of the tail is not considered as though it were the tail itself. Unlike the tail itself, its skin is consumed. Consequently, both this mishna and the next can be understood in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rava said: What is the reasoning of Rav Huna? As the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall present of the sacrifice of peace offerings an offering made by fire unto the Lord: The fat thereof, the fat tail鈥 (Leviticus 3:9), indicating that the priest must offer the fat of the tail on the altar, but not the skin of the tail.

专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 注讜专 讛讗诇讬讛 讻讗诇讬讛 讚诪讬 讜讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讗诇讬讛 砖诇 讙讚讬

Rav 岣sda says: Actually, the skin of the tail is considered as though it were the tail itself, and it is burned on the altar. And here, in the mishna, we are dealing with the tail of a kid, which is not burned on the altar but is consumed. Accordingly, intent to consume it outside its designated time renders it piggul.

讻讜诇讛讜 讻砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讗诪专讬 专讬砖讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜住讬驻讗 专讘谞谉 诇讗 诪讜拽诪讬 讻专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 注讜专 讗诇讬讛 讻讗诇讬讛 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇讛讜

The Gemara notes: All of them, Rav Huna and Rav 岣sda, do not say as Shmuel says, since they do not wish to interpret that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And Shmuel and Rav 岣sda do not say as Rav Huna says, since they heard that the skin of the tail is considered as though it were the tail itself.

讻专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗诪专讬 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 注讜专 讗诇讬讛 讻讗诇讬讛 讚诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讜讗诇讜 砖注讜专讜转讬讛谉 讻讘砖专谉 注讜专 砖转讞转 讛讗诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: What is the reason that Shmuel and Rav Huna do not say as Rav 岣sda says, that the mishna is referring to the tail of a kid? The Gemara responds that they reason: According to Rav 岣sda, what is the mishna teaching us by referring specifically to the skin of the tail? Does it mean to teach simply that the skin of the tail is considered edible, like the tail itself? We already learn this in another mishna (岣llin 122a): These are the entities whose skin has a halakhic status like that of their meat, since it is soft and edible: The skin beneath the tail.

讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇注谞讬谉 讟讜诪讗讛 讚专讻讬讱 诪爪讟专祝 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讗讬诪讗 诇诪砖讞讛 诇讙讚讜诇讛 讻讚专讱 砖讛诪诇讻讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉 讜诇讗 注讘讬讚讬 诪诇讻讬诐 讚讗讻诇讬 讛讻讬 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara asks: And Rav 岣sda, how would he respond? The Gemara answers: The reference here to the skin of the tail was necessary, as given only the mishna in tractate 岣llin, it might enter your mind to say: This matter, the equation between the skin of the tail and the tail itself, applies only with regard to the matter of ritual impurity, as the skin of the tail is soft and edible, and it is therefore counted as part of the tail. But here, with regard to the matter of the Temple service, I will say that the verse states with regard to the gifts to which members of the priesthood are entitled: 鈥淎s a consecrated portion鈥 (Numbers 18:8), to indicate that they must be eaten in greatness, in the way that the kings eat. And since kings do not generally eat the skin of the tail, I will say that it is not considered an eaten portion of the offering. The mishna therefore teaches us that it is nevertheless considered like the tail itself.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛注讜诇讛 诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讝讬转 诪注讜专 砖转讞转 讛讗诇讬讛 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

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who slaughters a burnt offering with intent to burn an olive-bulk of the skin beneath the tail outside its designated area renders the offering disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering. If his intent is to burn it beyond its designated time, it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for eating it. This is the opinion of the Rabbis.

讗诇注讝专 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 讗讘诇讬诐 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬注拽讘 讜讻谉 讛讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讬砖 讻驻专 注讬讻讜住 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讞讚 注讜专 讘讬转 讛驻专住讜转 讘讛诪讛 讚拽讛 讜讗讞讚 注讜专 讛专讗砖 砖诇 注讙诇 讛专讱 讜讗讞讚 注讜专 砖转讞转 讛讗诇讬讛 讜讻诇 砖诪谞讜 讞讻诪讬诐 讙讘讬 讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗诇讜 砖注讜专讜转讬讛谉 讻讘砖专谉 诇讛讘讬讗 注讜专 砖诇 讘讬转 讛讘讜砖转 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

Elazar ben Yehuda of Avelim says in the name of Rabbi Ya鈥檃kov, and so Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda of Kefar Ikos would say in the name of Rabbi Shimon: Whether the hide of the hooves of small livestock, or the skin of the head of a young calf, or the skin beneath the tail, or any of the skins that the Sages listed with regard to ritual impurity under the heading: These are the entities whose skin has a halakhic status like that of their meat, which means to include the skin of the womb, if one has intent to burn one of them outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it, and if one鈥檚 intent is to burn it beyond its designated time, he renders it piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for burning or partaking of it.

注讜诇讛 讗讬谉 讗讘诇 讝讘讞 诇讗 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讞住讚讗 诪讗讬 讗讬专讬讗 讚转谞讬 注讜诇讛 诇讬转谞讬 讝讘讞

One can infer from the baraita that only with regard to a burnt offering, yes, the skin of the tail is burned on the altar like the tail itself. But with regard to another offering, this is not the halakha. Granted, according to Rav Huna, who holds that the skin of the tail of a peace offering is not considered as though it were the tail itself, and it is eaten rather than burned, this is the reason that the tanna teaches about a burnt offering specifically, as all portions of a burnt offering are burned, even those that are eaten in the case of other offerings. But according to Rav 岣sda, who holds that the skin of the tail is burned together with the tail, why does the tanna specifically teach about a burnt offering? If the skin of the tail is always considered as though it were the tail itself, let the tanna teach about any offering.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讗诇讬讛 砖诇 讙讚讬 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 转谞讬 讝讘讞

Rav 岣sda could have said to you: If you wish, say that the baraita is referring to the tail of a kid, which is never burned on the altar except in the case of a burnt offering. And if you wish, say instead that one should emend the text of the baraita to teach: One who slaughters any offering, etc.

驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讻讜壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讻转讬讘讬

搂 The mishna states that if one intends to consume the meat or sprinkle the blood outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified, and there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of it. If one intends to do so beyond its designated time, the offering is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for burning or partaking of it. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Shmuel says: Two verses are written.

诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讝讛讜 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜

The Gemara asks: What are these verses? Rabba said: Shmuel is referring to two phrases from the verse: 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, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 7:18). The Sages taught that this verse is referring not to offerings actually eaten on the third day, but to one who performs one of the sacrificial rites with intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time. Now, when the verse states: 鈥淎nd if any of the flesh鈥e at all eaten on the third day,鈥 this is referring to intent to consume the meat beyond its designated time.

驻讙讜诇 讝讛讜 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜讛谞驻砖 讛讗讜讻诇转 诪诪谞讜 讗讞讚 讜诇讗 砖谞讬诐 讝讛讜 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜诇诪注讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜

When the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be piggul,鈥 this is referring to one who has intent to consume it outside its designated area. And when the verse states: 鈥淎nd the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity,鈥 i.e., shall be liable to receive karet, 鈥渙f it鈥 indicates that only one of the above disqualifications carries the penalty of karet for one who partakes of it, but not two of them. And this included case is intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time, to the exclusion of intent to consume it outside its designated area, which carries no such penalty.

讜讗讬诪讗 讜讛谞驻砖 讛讗讜讻诇转 诪诪谞讜 讝讛讜 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜诇诪注讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 诪住转讘专讗 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 注讚讬祝 讚驻转讞 讘讬讛 讗讚专讘讛 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 注讚讬祝 讚住诪讬讱 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: But why not say the opposite, that when the verse states: 鈥淎nd the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity,鈥 this is referring to intent to consume the offering outside its designated area, to the exclusion of intent to consume it beyond its designated time? The Gemara responds: It stands to reason that intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time is the preferable candidate to carry the punishment of karet, as the verse opened with it. The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, intent to consume the offering outside its designated area is preferable, as the clause that teaches liability for karet is adjacent to it.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讗讘讚讬诪讬 [讗诪专 专讘] 住诪讬讱 讗讚转谞讬 转谞讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 砖诇讬砖讬 讘驻专砖转 拽讚砖讬诐 转讛讬讜 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖讛专讬 讻讘专 谞讗诪专 讜讗诐 讛讗讻诇 讬讗讻诇 诪讘砖专 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讘讬讜诐 讛砖诇讬砖讬

Rather, Abaye said: When Rav Yitz岣k bar Avdimi came, he said that Rav says: Shmuel was actually referring to two separate verses. And he relied on that which the tanna taught: The verse is seemingly redundant when it states: 鈥淎nd if it be eaten at all on the third day, it is piggul; it shall not be accepted鈥 (Leviticus 19:7), in the Torah portion that begins: 鈥淵ou shall be holy鈥 (Leviticus 19:2), as there is no need for the verse to state this, since it is already stated: 鈥淎nd if any of the flesh of his peace offerings be at all eaten on the third day鈥t shall be piggul鈥 (Leviticus 7:18).

讗诐 讗讬谞讜 注谞讬谉 诇讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 转谞讛讜 诇注谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 谞讜转专 讜讗讻诇讬讜 注讜谞讜 讬砖讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜

Therefore, if the verse is not referring to the matter of intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time, apply it to the matter of intent to consume it outside its designated area. And as for the punishment of karet, the Merciful One restricted it to the prohibition of notar, i.e., actually partaking of the offering beyond its designated time, as the verse states: 鈥淏ut whoever eats it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 19:8). This indicates that one is liable to receive karet for partaking of notar, to the exclusion of intent to consume the offering outside its designated area.

讜讗讬诪讗 讜讗讻诇讬讜 注讜谞讜 讬砖讗 讝讛讜 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜诇诪注讜讟讬 谞讜转专 诪讻专转

The Gemara asks: But why not say instead that when the verse states: 鈥淏ut whoever eats it shall bear his iniquity,鈥 this is referring to intent to consume the offering outside its designated area, and the verse serves to exclude notar from the penalty of karet?

诪住转讘专讗 谞讜转专 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜拽诪讬 讘讻专转 诇诪讙诪专 注讜谉 注讜谉 诇讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讘讝讘

The Gemara responds: It stands to reason that notar should be interpreted as carrying the penalty of karet, because this would allow one to derive by way of verbal analogy between 鈥渋niquity鈥 and 鈥渋niquity鈥 stated with regard to the case of intent to consume the meat beyond its designated time, that the punishment of karet applies to the latter as well. The verbal analogy would be apt since one prohibition is similar to the other in that they share features that form the acronym zayin, beit: Both concern the offering鈥檚 designated time [zeman], and both are applicable to an offering sacrificed on a private altar [bama].

讗讚专讘讛 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇讗讜拽诪讬 讘讻专转 诇诪讙诪专 注讜谉 注讜谉 诇讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讘诪拽讚砖

The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, intent to consume the offering outside its designated area should be interpreted as carrying the penalty of karet, because this would allow one to derive by way of verbal analogy between 鈥渋niquity鈥 and 鈥渋niquity鈥 stated with regard to the case of intent to consume the meat beyond its designated time, that the punishment of karet applies to the latter as well. The verbal analogy would still be apt since one prohibition is similar to the other in that both share features that form the acronym mikdash: Both concern intent [ma岣shava]; both disqualify the entire offering even if one had intent with regard to only part [ketzat] of it; both occur while collecting or sprinkling the offering鈥檚 blood [dam]; and with regard to both the verse contains an extraneous mention of the third [shelishi] day.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 转谞讬 讝讘讚讬 讘专 诇讜讬 讗转讬讗 拽讚砖 拽讚砖 讻转讬讘 讛讻讗 讗转 拽讚砖 讛壮 讞诇诇 讜谞讻专转讛 讜讻转讬讘 讛转诐 讜砖专驻转 讗转 讛谞讜转专 讘讗砖 讜讙讜壮 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 谞讜转专 讗祝 讻讗谉 谞讜转专

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan says that Zavdi bar Levi taught: It is derived that the prohibition of notar carries the penalty of karet by way of verbal analogy between 鈥渟acred鈥 and 鈥渟acred.鈥 It is written here: 鈥淏ut whoever eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned the sacred item of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from his people鈥 (Leviticus 19:8). And it is written there: 鈥淎nd if any of the flesh of the consecration, or of the bread, remain until the morning, then you shall burn the remainder [notar] with fire; it shall not be eaten, because it is sacred鈥 (Exodus 29:34). Just as the verse there is referring to notar, so too, there verse here is referring to notar.

讜诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讙讘讬 谞讜转专 讜讗讻诇讬讜 注讜谞讜 讬砖讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 诪讻专转

And consequently, when the Merciful One restricted the penalty of karet to the prohibition of eating notar, as the verse states: 鈥淏ut whoever eats it shall bear his iniquity,鈥 this restriction serves to exclude the case of intent to consume the offering outside its designated area from the penalty of karet.

讜诪讗讬 讞讝讬转 讚拽专讗 讗专讬讻讗 讘讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜砖诇讬砖讬 讚驻专砖转 拽讚砖讬诐 转讛讬讜 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讗讬驻讜讱 讗谞讗

The Gemara returns to the initial assumption that the statement of Shmuel is referring to two verses: And what did you see that led you to conclude that the long verse (Leviticus 7:18) is referring to intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time, and that the verse that mentions the third day (Leviticus 19:7) in the Torah portion that begins: 鈥淵ou shall be holy,鈥 is referring to intent to consume it outside its designated area? I might just as well reverse the two.

诪住转讘专讗 讗专讬讻讗 讘讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讚讙诪专 注讜谉 注讜谉 诪谞讜转专 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 讘讝讘

The Gemara responds: It stands to reason that the long verse is referring to intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time, as this allows for one to derive by way of verbal analogy between 鈥渋niquity鈥 and 鈥渋niquity鈥 from notar that an offering sacrificed with such intent carries the penalty of karet. The verbal analogy is apt since one prohibition is similar to the other in that both share the features mentioned above that form the acronym: Zayin, beit.

讗讚专讘讛 讗专讬讻讗 讘讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜砖诇讬砖讬 讚拽讚砖讬诐 转讛讬讜 讘讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讚诪讬 诇讬讛 住诪讻讬讛 讜拽讗 诪诪注讟 诇讬讛

The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, it stands to reason that the long verse is referring to intent to consume the offering outside its designated area, and that the verse that mentions the third day in the Torah portion that begins: 鈥淵ou shall be holy,鈥 is referring to intent to consume it beyond its designated time. This is due to the fact that the latter intent is similar to notar in that both prohibitions share the features mentioned above that form the acronym: Zayin, beit, and it is therefore reasonable that the Torah juxtaposed the two in adjacent verses. And if so, when the verse states with regard to notar: 鈥淏ut whoever eats it shall bear his iniquity,鈥 this excludes intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time from the penalty of karet.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讜诇讛讜 诪拽专讗 讗专讬讻讗 讗转讬讬谉 讚讻转讬讘 讛讗讻诇 讬讗讻诇 讘砖转讬 讗讻讬诇讜转 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗讞讚 讗讻讬诇转 讗讚诐 讜讗讞讚 讗讻讬诇转 诪讝讘讞

Rather, Rava says: One must accept the original interpretation of Shmuel鈥檚 statement, that all of these halakhot with regard to intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time or outside its designated area are derived from the long verse. As it is written: 鈥淚f 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, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 7:18). When the verse states: 鈥淏e at all eaten [he鈥檃khol ye鈥檃khel],鈥 using a doubled verb, the verse speaks of intent with regard to two consumptions, one consumption by a person, and one consumption by the altar, i.e., burning the offering. Improper intent with regard to either of these acts renders the offering piggul.

诪讘砖专 讝讘讞 砖诇诪讬讜 诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讜诪转驻讙诇讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讜诪转驻讙诇讬谉

The phrase 鈥渁ny of the flesh of his peace offerings鈥 indicates that just as a peace offering possesses that which renders piggul and that which is rendered piggul, i.e., the blood, which renders the offering piggul through one鈥檚 intent with regard to its rites, and the meat, which is rendered piggul through such intent, so too the verse is referring to all offerings that possess that which renders an offering piggul and that which is rendered piggul.

砖诇讬砖讬 讝讛 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜

The term 鈥渙n the third day鈥 indicates that the verse is referring to intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time, as peace offerings may be eaten for only two days.

诇讗 讬专爪讛 讻讛专爪讗转 讻砖专 讻谉 讛专爪讗转 驻住讜诇 讜诪讛 讛专爪讗转 讻砖专 注讚 砖讬拽专讬讘讜 讻诇 诪转讬专讬讜 讗祝 讛专爪讗转 驻住讜诇 注讚 砖讬拽专讬讘讜 讻诇 诪转讬专讬讜

The phrase 鈥渋t shall not be accepted鈥 indicates that an offering is deemed piggul following the stage of the service at which it would have otherwise effected atonement. Therefore, like the acceptance of a fit offering, so is the acceptance of a disqualified offering, and just as the acceptance of a fit offering does not occur until one sacrifices all its permitting factors, i.e., one sprinkles the blood properly, so too the acceptance of a disqualified offering does not occur until one sacrifices all its permitting factors.

讛诪拽专讬讘 讘讛拽专讘讛 讛讜讗 谞驻住诇 讜讗讬谞讜 谞驻住诇 讘砖诇讬砖讬 讗讜转讜 讘讝讘讞 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讚讘专 讘讻讛谉

The term 鈥渉e who offers鈥 indicates that piggul is disqualified at the time of offering, due to improper intent, and it is not disqualified on the third day literally. And when the verse states 鈥渋t,鈥 this indicates that the verse is speaking of a disqualification of the offering only, but it is not speaking of the priest, who is not disqualified from the priesthood through such intent.

诇讗 讬讞砖讘

The phrase 鈥渘either shall it be credited [ye岣shev]鈥

Scroll To Top