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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 17, 2018 | ื’ืณ ื‘ืกื™ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื—

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

Zevachim 34

Various debates of Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish are brought regarding impurities in the mikdash. How does the mishna allow for some mistakes to be rectified?

ื ื˜ื™ืœืช ื ืฉืžื” ืืฃ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื ื˜ื™ืœืช ื ืฉืžื” ื•ืื™ ื‘ื ื•ื’ืข ื ื˜ื™ืœืช ื ืฉืžื” ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืืœื ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื”

the taking of a life, i.e., karet, so too, the matter pertaining to sacrificial food entails a punishment that involves the taking of a life. The Gemara explains: And if the prohibition is with regard to touching sacrificial food, is there a punishment that entails the taking of a life? Rather, the prohibition is with regard to eating.

ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื˜ืžื ืฉืื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื“ืืชืžืจ ื˜ืžื ืฉืื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื•ืงื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื”

The Gemara asks: But this verse is still necessary for Reish Lakish to teach the halakha of a ritually impure person who ate sacrificial meat before the sprinkling of the blood of the offering on the altar, when the meat is not yet permitted. As it was stated: With regard to an impure individual who ate sacrificial meat before the sprinkling of the blood, Reish Lakish says: He is flogged for doing so, and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: He is not flogged.

ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื•ืงื” ื‘ื›ืœ ืงื“ืฉ ืœื ืชื’ืข ืœื ืฉื ื ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืœืื—ืจ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื” ื›ื“ืชื ื™ ื‘ืจื“ืœื ืืชื™ื ื˜ื•ืžืืชื• ื˜ื•ืžืืชื• ื•ื›ื™ ื›ืชื‘ ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืื—ืจ ื–ืจื™ืงื”

Reish Lakish says: He is flogged, as it is written: โ€œEvery consecrated item she shall not touch,โ€ without limiting the prohibition to a specific time, indicating that it is no different if one eats the sacrificial meat prior to sprinkling the blood, and it is no different if one does so after sprinkling the blood. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: He is not flogged, as the Sage Bardela teaches that the prohibition is derived by means of the verbal analogy cited before, as the verse states โ€œhis impurityโ€ with regard to an impure person who eats sacrificial food, and states โ€œhis impurityโ€ with regard to an impure person entering the Temple. And when โ€œhis impurityโ€ is written, it is with regard to partaking of sacrificial meat after the sprinkling of the blood (see Leviticus 7:20).

ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืงืจื ื‘ืงื“ืฉ ืžืื™ ื‘ื›ืœ ืงื“ืฉ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

The Gemara answers for Reish Lakish: If so, that the verse was referring only to partaking of sacrificial meat after the sprinkling of the blood, let the verse say: A consecrated item she shall not touch. What is the reason for using the phrase โ€œevery consecrated itemโ€? Conclude two conclusions from it, i.e., it also includes not eating sacrificial meat before the sprinkling of the blood.

ื’ื•ืคื ื˜ืžื ืฉืื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื•ืงื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื” ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื‘ืฉืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืœื•ืงื”

ยง The Gemara discusses the matter itself: With regard to an impure individual who ate sacrificial meat before the sprinkling of the blood, Reish Lakish says: He is flogged for doing so, and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: He is not flogged. Abaye says: This dispute applies with regard to a case of impurity of the body of the one who eats the meat, but with regard to impurity of the flesh itself, i.e., if the sacrificial meat was ritually impure, all agree that he is flogged.

ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืขืฆื™ื ื•ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ื“ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ืื›ื™ืœื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื›ื™ ืจื‘ื™ื ื”ื• ืงืจื

This is as the verse states: โ€œAnd the flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire; and the flesh, every one that is pure may eat the fleshโ€ (Leviticus 7:19). The Sages derived that the extra term โ€œand the fleshโ€ serves to include wood and frankincense, which are not fit for consumption, and even so the verse included them as being susceptible to impurity, and one who eats them while he is impure is flogged. Therefore, sacrificial meat before the sprinkling of the blood, which is fit for consumption, is certainly included in the prohibition.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื‘ืฉืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื˜ื•ืžืืชื• ืขืœื™ื• ื•ื ื›ืจืชื” ืœื ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืืฉืจ ื™ื’ืข ื‘ื›ืœ ื˜ืžื ืœื ื™ืื›ืœ

And Rava says: This dispute applies with regard to a case of impurity of the body, but with regard to impurity of the meat all agree that he is not flogged. What is the reason? Since one does not apply to meat before the sprinkling of the blood the verse: โ€œBut the soul that eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings of the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his peopleโ€ (Leviticus 7:20), which is referring to meat after the sprinkling of the blood, so too, one does not apply to it the prohibition: โ€œAnd the flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eatenโ€ (Leviticus 7:19).

ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืขืฆื™ื ื•ืœื‘ื•ื ื”

The Gemara challenges the statement of Rava: But doesnโ€™t the Master say that the term โ€œand the fleshโ€ serves to include wood and frankincense that became impure as items that are forbidden to be eaten, despite the fact that they are not fit for consumption? Certainly, then, sacrificial flesh before the sprinkling of the blood should also be included in the category of items forbidden to be eaten.

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืงื“ืฉื• ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื“ื ืขืฉื” ื›ืžื™ ืฉืงืจื‘ื• ื›ืœ ืžืชื™ืจื™ื•

The Gemara answers: What are we dealing with here, that one would be liable for eating wood and frankincense that are impure? It is a case where the wood and frankincense were sanctified in a vessel, and the reason for the liability is that they are then considered like an item for which all of its permitting factors were sacrificed, such as flesh after the sprinkling of the blood, and only then is one liable for eating it while impure.

ื“ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืžืชื™ืจื™ื ืžืฉืงืจื‘ื• ืžืชื™ืจื™ื• ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืžืชื™ืจื™ืŸ ืžืฉืงื“ืฉ ื‘ื›ืœื™

This is as we learned in a mishna (Meโ€™ila 10a): With regard to anything that has permitting factors, i.e., rites that must be performed or items that must be sacrificed before the meat of the offering may be eaten, such as the meat of an offering that is permitted to be eaten by the sprinkling of the blood; one is liable for eating it while impure from the time that its permitting factors were sacrificed. With regard to anything that does not have permitting factors, such as the handful removed from a meal offering and the frankincense, which themselves render the rest of the meal offering permitted for consumption, one is liable for eating it while impure from the time it is sanctified in a vessel.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ืžืขืœื” ืื‘ืจื™ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื•ืงื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื•ืงื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ืื™ืŸ ื˜ืžืื” ืœื ื•ืœืื• ื”ื‘ื ืžื›ืœืœ ืขืฉื” ืœื•ืงื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœื•ืงื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืœืื• ื”ื‘ื ืžื›ืœืœ ืขืฉื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื•ืงื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื•

ยง It was stated: In the case of one who offers up the limbs of a non-kosher animal upon the altar, Reish Lakish says: He is flogged for doing so, while Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: He is not flogged. The Gemara explains the logic for each opinion: Reish Lakish says that he is flogged, because there is a positive mitzva to sacrifice an offering from the herd and the flock (see Leviticus 1:2), which are kosher animals. Therefore, it can be inferred that a kosher animal, yes, one may sacrifice, but a non-kosher animal one may not sacrifice, and one who transgresses a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is flogged for it. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: One is not flogged for it, as one who transgresses a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is not flogged for it.

ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืืชื” ืชืื›ืœื• ื•ืœื ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืœืื• ื”ื‘ื ืžื›ืœืœ ืขืฉื” ืขืฉื”

Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita cited in Torat Kohanim: โ€œWhatsoever parts the hoof, and is wholly cloven-footed, and chews the cud, among the beasts, that may you eatโ€ (Leviticus 11:3). One can infer: But you may not eat a non-kosher animal; and a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva has the status of a positive mitzva.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื‘ืจ ืชื—ืœื™ืคื ืืกื‘ืจื ืœืš ื‘ืื‘ืจื™ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื—ื™ื” ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ืขืฉื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื

Rabbi Yaโ€™akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taแธฅlifa: I will explain it to you: With regard to one who sacrifices the limbs of a non-kosher animal upon the altar, everyone agrees that he is not flogged, as he violates only a positive mitzva. When they disagree, it is with regard to one who sacrifices a kosher undomesticated animal on the altar, and it was stated like this: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: He transgresses a positive mitzva. Reish Lakish says: He does not transgress anything.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ืขืฉื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื” ืœื ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืžืฆื•ื”

The Gemara explains their reasoning: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: He transgresses a positive mitzva, since the Torah commanded that a domesticated animal, yes, should be sacrificed, from which it can be inferred that an undomesticated animal may not be sacrificed, and a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva has the status of a positive mitzva. Reish Lakish says: He does not transgress anything, since that verse which instructs one to sacrifice offerings from the herd and the flock is referring to the optimal manner of fulfilling the mitzva, but if he sacrificed an undomesticated animal, he has not transgressed the mitzva.

ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื ืื™ืœื• ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืœื”ืณ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื—ื™ื” ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื›ืขื ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื–ืืช ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ืืฉืจ ืชืื›ืœื• ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื” ื›ืฉื‘ื™ื ื•ืฉื” ืขื–ื™ื ืื™ืœ ื•ืฆื‘ื™ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืงืจ ื•ืฆืืŸ ื‘ืงืจ ื•ืฆืืŸ ืืžืจืชื™ ืœืš ื•ืœื ื—ื™ื”

Rava raised an objection from a baraita: Had the verse (Leviticus 1:2) stated only: When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, animals [behema], I would say that even an undomesticated animal is included in the category of an animal [behema], like that which is stated: โ€œThese are the animals [behema] that you may eat: The ox, the sheep, and the goat, the deer, and the gazelle, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the oryx, and the aurochs, and the mountain sheepโ€ (Deuteronomy 14:4โ€“5), and, for example, the deer and gazelle are undomesticated animals. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œFrom animals, from the cattle and from the flockโ€ (Leviticus 1:2), which indicates that God says: I have told you to bring offerings from the cattle and the flock, but not an undomesticated animal.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ื‘ื™ื ื•ืื ื”ื‘ื™ื ื›ืฉืจ ื”ื ืœืžื” ื–ื” ื“ื•ืžื” ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ ืฉืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื• ื”ื‘ื ืœื™ ื—ื˜ื™ื ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ื—ื˜ื™ื ื•ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืฉืื™ื ื• ื›ืžืขื‘ื™ืจ ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืืœื ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ื•ื›ืฉืจ

One might have thought that one should not bring an undomesticated animal ab initio, but if one did bring it, it is valid, and to what is this comparable? To a student whose teacher says to him: Bring me wheat, and the student brought him wheat and barley. In this case, it is not as though the student is disobeying the statement of the teacher; rather, he is merely adding to his statement, and that should be valid.

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืงืจ ื•ืฆืืŸ ื‘ืงืจ ื•ืฆืืŸ ืืžืจืชื™ ืœืš ื•ืœื ื—ื™ื” ื”ื ืœืžื” ื–ื” ื“ื•ืžื” ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ ืฉืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื• ืืœ ืชื‘ื™ื ืœื™ ืืœื ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืฉืื™ื ื• ื›ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืืœื ื›ืžืขื‘ื™ืจ ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื•

Therefore, the verse states again: โ€œFrom the cattleโ€ (Leviticus 1:3), and: โ€œFrom the flockโ€ (Leviticus 1:10), to reiterate that God says: I have told you to bring offerings from the cattle and the flock, but not an undomesticated animal. To what is this comparable? To a student whose teacher told him: Bring me only wheat, and the student brought him wheat and barley. It is not as though the student is adding to the statement of the teacher; rather, it is as though he is disobeying his statement, since his teacher instructed him to bring only wheat. Consequently, one who sacrifices an undomesticated animal does not merely add to a mitzva of the Torah, but also violates a prohibition,

ื•ืคืกื•ืœ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื

and the offering is therefore disqualified. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish is indeed a conclusive refutation.

ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืฉืงื™ื‘ืœื• ื›ื•ืณ ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืขืฉื” ืฉื™ืจื™ื

ยง The mishna teaches: And with regard to all of them, in a case where they 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 again collect the blood and sprinkle it on the altar. Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: If an individual unfit for Temple service presented the blood, what is the halakha with regard to the blood that remains in the animal? Does the fact that he presented some blood render the rest of it a remainder and no longer fit to be presented, or perhaps the presenting performed by an unfit individual is not considered valid, and therefore a priest fit for Temple service may present the blood again?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื” ืฉื™ืจื™ื ืืœื ื—ื•ืฅ ืœื–ืžื ื• ื•ื—ื•ืฅ ืœืžืงื•ืžื• ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืžืจืฆื” ืœืคื™ื’ื•ืœื•

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: A not valid presenting does not render the rest of the blood a remainder unless it is a case where a priest fit for Temple service presented the blood with the intent to offer it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, since it is only in that case that the presenting of the blood effects acceptance, i.e., it is considered a valid presenting, with regard to rendering the offering piggul, i.e., an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time.

ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืžืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ื•ืก ืคืกื•ืœ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืขืฉื” ืฉื™ืจื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืžืื™ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœืš ืื™ ืคืกื•ืœ ืžืฉื•ื™ ืฉื™ืจื™ื ื›ื•ืก ืคืกื•ืœ ื ืžื™ ืžืฉื•ื™ ืฉื™ืจื™ื ืื™ ืคืกื•ืœ ืœื ืžืฉื•ื™ ืฉื™ืจื™ื ื›ื•ืก ืคืกื•ืœ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฉื•ื™ ืฉื™ืจื™ื

Rav Zevid teaches the matter in this way: Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: Concerning a cup of disqualified blood, e.g., one which had been taken out of the Temple courtyard and was then nevertheless presented on the altar, what is the halakha with regard to it rendering the remaining blood a remainder and unfit to be presented? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: In the case of an unfit individual who himself presented the blood, what do you hold to be the halakha? If an unfit individual who presented the blood renders the remaining blood a remainder, then a cup of disqualified blood should also render the remaining blood a remainder. If an unfit individual does not render the remaining blood a remainder, then a cup of disqualified blood should also not render the remaining blood a remainder.

ืจื‘ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืžื“ื™ืคืชื™ ืžืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ (ืžืจื‘ื) [ืžืจื‘ื”] ื›ื•ืก ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืขืฉื” ืืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื“ื—ื•ื™ ืื• ืฉื™ืจื™ื

Rav Yirmeya of Difti teaches the discussion this way: Abaye asked Rabba: If the blood was collected in more than one cup and the presenting of the blood on the corners of the altar was performed with one cup, what is the halakha? Does the cup render the blood of the other cup rejected, and it is therefore poured into the drain running through the Temple courtyard, or does it render it a remainder, which is poured on the base of the altar?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœืžืขืœื” ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืืช ื“ืžื• ื™ืฉืคืš ืœืžื˜ื” ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืืช ื›ืœ ื“ืžื” ื™ืฉืคืš

Rabba said to him: This is a dispute between Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the remainder of the blood of the external sin offering: In the verse above, discussing the sin offering of a Nasi, it states: โ€œAnd he shall pour its blood out at the base of the altar of the burnt offeringโ€ (Leviticus 4:25). In the verse below, discussing the sin offering of an individual, it states: โ€œAnd he shall pour all its blood out at the base of the altarโ€ (Leviticus 4:30).

ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืงื™ื‘ืœ ื“ืžื” ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื” ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ื•ื ืชืŸ ืžืชื ื” ืื—ืช ืžื–ื” ื•ืžืชื ื” ืื—ืช ืžื–ื” ืฉื›ื•ืœืŸ ื ืฉืคื›ื™ืŸ ืœื™ืกื•ื“ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืืช ื›ืœ ื“ืžื” ื™ืฉืคืš

The discrepancy between the first verse and the second verse, which contains the additional term โ€œall,โ€ is explained as follows: From where is it derived with regard to a sin offering which the priest collected its blood in four cups and placed one placement of blood onto the altar from this cup, and one placement of blood from that cup, and likewise for all four corners of the altar, that the remainder of blood from all the cups are poured out onto the base of the altar? The verse states: โ€œAnd he shall pour all its blood.โ€

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื ืชืŸ ืืจื‘ืข ืžืชื ื•ืช ืžื›ื•ืก ืื—ื“ ื™ื”ื• ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื ืฉืคื›ื™ืŸ ืœื™ืกื•ื“ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืืช ื“ืžื• ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื•ื ื ืฉืคืš ืœื™ืกื•ื“ ื•ื”ืŸ ื ืฉืคื›ื™ืŸ ืœืืžื”

One might have thought that if he placed four placements of blood of the sin offering from one cup, the blood in all the rest of the cups should be poured onto the base of the altar. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œAnd he shall pour its blood,โ€ and not all of its blood. How so? Only that blood in the cup from which blood was properly presented on the altar is poured onto the base of the altar, and the rest of the cups of blood are rejected and are poured into the Temple courtyard drain.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืงื™ื‘ืœ ื“ืžื” ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื” ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ื•ื ืชืŸ ืืจื‘ืข ืžืชื ื•ืช ืžื›ื•ืก ืื—ื“ ืฉื›ื•ืœืŸ ื ืฉืคื›ื™ืŸ ืœื™ืกื•ื“ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืืช ื›ืœ ื“ืžื” ื™ืฉืคืš ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืช ื“ืžื• ื™ืฉืคืš ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืฉื™ืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืฆื•ืืจ ื‘ื”ืžื”

The baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: From where is it derived with regard to a sin offering which the priest collected its blood in four cups and then placed four placements from one cup, that the blood from all the cups are poured out onto the base of the altar? The verse states: โ€œAnd he shall pour all its blood.โ€ The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd he shall pour its blood,โ€ which indicates that not all of the blood is poured? Rav Ashi said: That verse serves to exclude the remainder that is in the throat of the animal that was never collected in a vessel to be presented, which is not poured onto the base of the altar but into the Temple courtyard drain.

ืงื™ื‘ืœ ื”ื›ืฉืจ ื•ื ืชืŸ ืœืคืกื•ืœ ื›ื•ืณ

ยง The mishna discussed three similar cases: If the priest fit for Temple service collected the blood in a vessel and gave the vessel to an unfit person, that person should return it to the fit priest. If the priest collected the blood in a vessel in his right hand and moved it to his left hand, he should return it to his right hand. If the priest collected the blood in a sacred vessel and placed it in a non-sacred vessel, he should return the blood to a sacred vessel.

ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืžืื™ ืคืกื•ืœ ื˜ืžื ื“ื—ื–ื™ ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ืช ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืื‘ืœ ืฉืžืืœ ืœื

The Gemara comments: And it was necessary to mention all of these cases, as had the mishna taught us only the case where he gave the blood to an unfit individual, I would say: What does the term: Unfit, mean? It means an impure priest, who is not completely unfit, as he is fit for communal service in the Temple when the priests or the entire community are impure, and that is why the blood is not disqualified; but if the priest moved the blood to his left hand, which under no circumstances may be used to perform the rite of collecting and carrying the blood, it is no longer valid.

ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืฉืžืืœ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ื™ืคื•ืจื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื›ืœื™ ื—ื•ืœ ืœื

And had the mishna taught us only with regard to moving the blood to his left hand that he should return it to his right hand and present it, one would assume that the reason is that the left hand has validity on Yom Kippur, since the High Priest carries the spoon of incense with his left hand, but if he poured the blood into a non-sacred vessel then it is not valid.

ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ื—ื•ืœ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื—ื–ื• ืœืงื“ื•ืฉื™ื ื”ื• ืื‘ืœ ื”ื ืš ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

And had the mishna taught us only with regard to a non-sacred vessel that the blood is not disqualified, one could suggest that perhaps it is because the vessels are suitable to be consecrated, but with regard to these, i.e., an unfit individual and the left hand, which have no possibility of becoming fit for service, say that the blood does not remain valid. Therefore, it is necessary for all of the cases to be mentioned.

ื•ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ ืœื™ื” ื“ื—ื•ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืžื“ื™ืคืชื™ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื”ื ืžื ื™ ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืžืฆืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ

ยง The Gemara questions the actual halakha: But let the blood be considered rejected when placed in the hand of the unfit individual, the left hand, or the non-sacred vessel. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This is what Rav Yirmeya of Difti says in the name of Rava: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of แธคanan the Egyptian, who does not subscribe to the halakha of rejection, but holds that a sacrifice that was rejected temporarily is not rejected entirely.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืžืฆืจื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื“ื ื‘ื›ื•ืก ืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืžื–ื•ื•ื’ ืœื•

This is as it is taught in a baraita: แธคanan the Egyptian says: In the event that the scapegoat of Yom Kippur was lost, even if the blood of its partner that is sacrificed to God has already been collected in the cup, the blood is not rejected, but rather he brings another scapegoat as its counterpart, and pairs it with the goat that has already been slaughtered, and the blood is sprinkled.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ื™ื“ื• ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื“ื—ื•ื™

Rav Ashi says that there is another explanation to the mishna: Anything that is in his power to rectify is not considered rejected, as in these cases where he can simply return the blood to its proper place.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžืืŸ ืฉืžืขืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืชื ืŸ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื ืฉืคืš ื”ื“ื ื™ืžื•ืช ื”ืžืฉืชืœื— ืžืช ื”ืžืฉืชืœื— ื™ืฉืคืš ื”ื“ื

Rav Shaya said: It is reasonable to explain the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi, as whom have you heard who accepts the reasoning of rejection? It is Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna (Yoma 62a): And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: If the blood of the goat sacrificed to God spilled from the cup before it was sprinkled, the scapegoat is left to die. Similarly, if the scapegoat died, the blood of the goat sacrificed to God should be spilled, and two other goats are used. Consequently, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the scapegoat, or in the opposite case, the blood of the goat to be sacrificed to God, is totally rejected.

ื•ืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ื™ื“ื• ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื“ื—ื•ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื•ืก ืื—ื“ ื”ื™ื” ืžืžืœื ืžื“ื ื”ืชืขืจื•ื‘ืช ื•ื–ื•ืจืงื• ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืื—ืช ื›ื ื’ื“ ื”ื™ืกื•ื“ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ื™ื“ื• ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื“ื—ื•ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

And yet, we have heard that Rabbi Yehuda says: Anything that is in his power to rectify is not rejected. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: A priest would fill one cup with blood of the many Paschal offerings brought that day that was now mixed together on the floor and then sprinkle it with a single sprinkling against the base of the altar. Conclude from the baraita that Rabbi Yehuda holds that although the blood originally spilled from the cup, anything that is in his power to rectify is not rejected. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that it is so.

ื’ื•ืคื ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื•ืก ืื—ื“ ื”ื™ื” ืžืžืœื ืžื“ื ื”ืชืขืจื•ื‘ืช ืฉืื ื™ืฉืคืš ืื—ื“ ืžื”ื ื ืžืฆื ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื›ืฉื™ืจื• ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื”ืœื ืœื ื ืชืงื‘ืœ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืžื ื ื™ื“ืขื™ ืืœื ืฉืžื ืœื ื ืชืงื‘ืœ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ

ยง The Gemara discusses the matter itself: It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: A priest would fill one cup with the mixed blood, so that if one of the cups with the collected blood of one of the Paschal offerings were to spill, it would be found that this cup of the mixed blood that was sprinkled would render the sacrifice valid. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: But the mixed blood was not collected in a vessel. The Gemara asks: From where do the Rabbis know that the blood was not collected in a vessel? Perhaps it was collected and it spilled out. Rather, this is what they are saying: Perhaps it was not collected in a vessel. Rabbi Yehuda said to them:

  • 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 34

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 34

ื ื˜ื™ืœืช ื ืฉืžื” ืืฃ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจ ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื• ื ื˜ื™ืœืช ื ืฉืžื” ื•ืื™ ื‘ื ื•ื’ืข ื ื˜ื™ืœืช ื ืฉืžื” ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืืœื ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื”

the taking of a life, i.e., karet, so too, the matter pertaining to sacrificial food entails a punishment that involves the taking of a life. The Gemara explains: And if the prohibition is with regard to touching sacrificial food, is there a punishment that entails the taking of a life? Rather, the prohibition is with regard to eating.

ื•ืื›ืชื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœื˜ืžื ืฉืื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื“ืืชืžืจ ื˜ืžื ืฉืื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื•ืงื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื”

The Gemara asks: But this verse is still necessary for Reish Lakish to teach the halakha of a ritually impure person who ate sacrificial meat before the sprinkling of the blood of the offering on the altar, when the meat is not yet permitted. As it was stated: With regard to an impure individual who ate sacrificial meat before the sprinkling of the blood, Reish Lakish says: He is flogged for doing so, and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: He is not flogged.

ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื•ืงื” ื‘ื›ืœ ืงื“ืฉ ืœื ืชื’ืข ืœื ืฉื ื ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื•ืœื ืฉื ื ืœืื—ืจ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื” ื›ื“ืชื ื™ ื‘ืจื“ืœื ืืชื™ื ื˜ื•ืžืืชื• ื˜ื•ืžืืชื• ื•ื›ื™ ื›ืชื‘ ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืื—ืจ ื–ืจื™ืงื”

Reish Lakish says: He is flogged, as it is written: โ€œEvery consecrated item she shall not touch,โ€ without limiting the prohibition to a specific time, indicating that it is no different if one eats the sacrificial meat prior to sprinkling the blood, and it is no different if one does so after sprinkling the blood. Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: He is not flogged, as the Sage Bardela teaches that the prohibition is derived by means of the verbal analogy cited before, as the verse states โ€œhis impurityโ€ with regard to an impure person who eats sacrificial food, and states โ€œhis impurityโ€ with regard to an impure person entering the Temple. And when โ€œhis impurityโ€ is written, it is with regard to partaking of sacrificial meat after the sprinkling of the blood (see Leviticus 7:20).

ืื ื›ืŸ ืœื™ืžื ืงืจื ื‘ืงื“ืฉ ืžืื™ ื‘ื›ืœ ืงื“ืฉ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืชืจืชื™

The Gemara answers for Reish Lakish: If so, that the verse was referring only to partaking of sacrificial meat after the sprinkling of the blood, let the verse say: A consecrated item she shall not touch. What is the reason for using the phrase โ€œevery consecrated itemโ€? Conclude two conclusions from it, i.e., it also includes not eating sacrificial meat before the sprinkling of the blood.

ื’ื•ืคื ื˜ืžื ืฉืื›ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืœืคื ื™ ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื•ืงื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื” ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื‘ืฉืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืœื•ืงื”

ยง The Gemara discusses the matter itself: With regard to an impure individual who ate sacrificial meat before the sprinkling of the blood, Reish Lakish says: He is flogged for doing so, and Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: He is not flogged. Abaye says: This dispute applies with regard to a case of impurity of the body of the one who eats the meat, but with regard to impurity of the flesh itself, i.e., if the sacrificial meat was ritually impure, all agree that he is flogged.

ื“ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืขืฆื™ื ื•ืœื‘ื•ื ื” ื“ืœืื• ื‘ื ื™ ืื›ื™ืœื” ื ื™ื ื”ื• ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ื”ื›ื™ ืจื‘ื™ื ื”ื• ืงืจื

This is as the verse states: โ€œAnd the flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire; and the flesh, every one that is pure may eat the fleshโ€ (Leviticus 7:19). The Sages derived that the extra term โ€œand the fleshโ€ serves to include wood and frankincense, which are not fit for consumption, and even so the verse included them as being susceptible to impurity, and one who eats them while he is impure is flogged. Therefore, sacrificial meat before the sprinkling of the blood, which is fit for consumption, is certainly included in the prohibition.

ื•ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื”ื’ื•ืฃ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื˜ื•ืžืืช ื‘ืฉืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื” ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื˜ื•ืžืืชื• ืขืœื™ื• ื•ื ื›ืจืชื” ืœื ืงืจื™ื ื ื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืืฉืจ ื™ื’ืข ื‘ื›ืœ ื˜ืžื ืœื ื™ืื›ืœ

And Rava says: This dispute applies with regard to a case of impurity of the body, but with regard to impurity of the meat all agree that he is not flogged. What is the reason? Since one does not apply to meat before the sprinkling of the blood the verse: โ€œBut the soul that eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings of the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his peopleโ€ (Leviticus 7:20), which is referring to meat after the sprinkling of the blood, so too, one does not apply to it the prohibition: โ€œAnd the flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eatenโ€ (Leviticus 7:19).

ื•ื”ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื•ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืจื‘ื•ืช ืขืฆื™ื ื•ืœื‘ื•ื ื”

The Gemara challenges the statement of Rava: But doesnโ€™t the Master say that the term โ€œand the fleshโ€ serves to include wood and frankincense that became impure as items that are forbidden to be eaten, despite the fact that they are not fit for consumption? Certainly, then, sacrificial flesh before the sprinkling of the blood should also be included in the category of items forbidden to be eaten.

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืงื“ืฉื• ื‘ื›ืœื™ ื“ื ืขืฉื” ื›ืžื™ ืฉืงืจื‘ื• ื›ืœ ืžืชื™ืจื™ื•

The Gemara answers: What are we dealing with here, that one would be liable for eating wood and frankincense that are impure? It is a case where the wood and frankincense were sanctified in a vessel, and the reason for the liability is that they are then considered like an item for which all of its permitting factors were sacrificed, such as flesh after the sprinkling of the blood, and only then is one liable for eating it while impure.

ื“ืชื ืŸ ื›ืœ ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืžืชื™ืจื™ื ืžืฉืงืจื‘ื• ืžืชื™ืจื™ื• ื›ืœ ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ืžืชื™ืจื™ืŸ ืžืฉืงื“ืฉ ื‘ื›ืœื™

This is as we learned in a mishna (Meโ€™ila 10a): With regard to anything that has permitting factors, i.e., rites that must be performed or items that must be sacrificed before the meat of the offering may be eaten, such as the meat of an offering that is permitted to be eaten by the sprinkling of the blood; one is liable for eating it while impure from the time that its permitting factors were sacrificed. With regard to anything that does not have permitting factors, such as the handful removed from a meal offering and the frankincense, which themselves render the rest of the meal offering permitted for consumption, one is liable for eating it while impure from the time it is sanctified in a vessel.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ืžืขืœื” ืื‘ืจื™ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ืขืœ ื’ื‘ื™ ื”ืžื–ื‘ื— ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื•ืงื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืœื•ืงื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื•ืงื” ื˜ื”ื•ืจื” ืื™ืŸ ื˜ืžืื” ืœื ื•ืœืื• ื”ื‘ื ืžื›ืœืœ ืขืฉื” ืœื•ืงื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืœื•ืงื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื• ืœืื• ื”ื‘ื ืžื›ืœืœ ืขืฉื” ืื™ืŸ ืœื•ืงื™ืŸ ืขืœื™ื•

ยง It was stated: In the case of one who offers up the limbs of a non-kosher animal upon the altar, Reish Lakish says: He is flogged for doing so, while Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: He is not flogged. The Gemara explains the logic for each opinion: Reish Lakish says that he is flogged, because there is a positive mitzva to sacrifice an offering from the herd and the flock (see Leviticus 1:2), which are kosher animals. Therefore, it can be inferred that a kosher animal, yes, one may sacrifice, but a non-kosher animal one may not sacrifice, and one who transgresses a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is flogged for it. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: One is not flogged for it, as one who transgresses a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is not flogged for it.

ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืืชื” ืชืื›ืœื• ื•ืœื ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ื•ืœืื• ื”ื‘ื ืžื›ืœืœ ืขืฉื” ืขืฉื”

Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection to the opinion of Reish Lakish from a baraita cited in Torat Kohanim: โ€œWhatsoever parts the hoof, and is wholly cloven-footed, and chews the cud, among the beasts, that may you eatโ€ (Leviticus 11:3). One can infer: But you may not eat a non-kosher animal; and a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva has the status of a positive mitzva.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืขืงื‘ ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ื‘ืจ ืชื—ืœื™ืคื ืืกื‘ืจื ืœืš ื‘ืื‘ืจื™ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื˜ืžืื” ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืœื ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื›ื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ื‘ื—ื™ื” ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ืขืฉื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื

Rabbi Yaโ€™akov said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taแธฅlifa: I will explain it to you: With regard to one who sacrifices the limbs of a non-kosher animal upon the altar, everyone agrees that he is not flogged, as he violates only a positive mitzva. When they disagree, it is with regard to one who sacrifices a kosher undomesticated animal on the altar, and it was stated like this: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: He transgresses a positive mitzva. Reish Lakish says: He does not transgress anything.

ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืขื•ื‘ืจ ื‘ืขืฉื” ื‘ื”ืžื” ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื” ืœื ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืืžืจ ืื™ื ื• ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื‘ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืžืฆื•ื”

The Gemara explains their reasoning: Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: He transgresses a positive mitzva, since the Torah commanded that a domesticated animal, yes, should be sacrificed, from which it can be inferred that an undomesticated animal may not be sacrificed, and a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva has the status of a positive mitzva. Reish Lakish says: He does not transgress anything, since that verse which instructs one to sacrifice offerings from the herd and the flock is referring to the optimal manner of fulfilling the mitzva, but if he sacrificed an undomesticated animal, he has not transgressed the mitzva.

ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื ืื™ืœื• ื ืืžืจ ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืœื”ืณ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื—ื™ื” ื‘ื›ืœืœ ื‘ื”ืžื” ื›ืขื ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืืžืจ ื–ืืช ื”ื‘ื”ืžื” ืืฉืจ ืชืื›ืœื• ืฉื•ืจ ืฉื” ื›ืฉื‘ื™ื ื•ืฉื” ืขื–ื™ื ืื™ืœ ื•ืฆื‘ื™ ื•ื’ื•ืณ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืงืจ ื•ืฆืืŸ ื‘ืงืจ ื•ืฆืืŸ ืืžืจืชื™ ืœืš ื•ืœื ื—ื™ื”

Rava raised an objection from a baraita: Had the verse (Leviticus 1:2) stated only: When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, animals [behema], I would say that even an undomesticated animal is included in the category of an animal [behema], like that which is stated: โ€œThese are the animals [behema] that you may eat: The ox, the sheep, and the goat, the deer, and the gazelle, and the fallow deer, and the wild goat, and the oryx, and the aurochs, and the mountain sheepโ€ (Deuteronomy 14:4โ€“5), and, for example, the deer and gazelle are undomesticated animals. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œFrom animals, from the cattle and from the flockโ€ (Leviticus 1:2), which indicates that God says: I have told you to bring offerings from the cattle and the flock, but not an undomesticated animal.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื ื™ื‘ื™ื ื•ืื ื”ื‘ื™ื ื›ืฉืจ ื”ื ืœืžื” ื–ื” ื“ื•ืžื” ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ ืฉืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื• ื”ื‘ื ืœื™ ื—ื˜ื™ื ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ื—ื˜ื™ื ื•ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืฉืื™ื ื• ื›ืžืขื‘ื™ืจ ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืืœื ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ื•ื›ืฉืจ

One might have thought that one should not bring an undomesticated animal ab initio, but if one did bring it, it is valid, and to what is this comparable? To a student whose teacher says to him: Bring me wheat, and the student brought him wheat and barley. In this case, it is not as though the student is disobeying the statement of the teacher; rather, he is merely adding to his statement, and that should be valid.

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืงืจ ื•ืฆืืŸ ื‘ืงืจ ื•ืฆืืŸ ืืžืจืชื™ ืœืš ื•ืœื ื—ื™ื” ื”ื ืœืžื” ื–ื” ื“ื•ืžื” ืœืชืœืžื™ื“ ืฉืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื• ืืœ ืชื‘ื™ื ืœื™ ืืœื ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื‘ื™ื ืœื• ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืขื•ืจื™ื ืฉืื™ื ื• ื›ืžื•ืกื™ืฃ ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื• ืืœื ื›ืžืขื‘ื™ืจ ืขืœ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื•

Therefore, the verse states again: โ€œFrom the cattleโ€ (Leviticus 1:3), and: โ€œFrom the flockโ€ (Leviticus 1:10), to reiterate that God says: I have told you to bring offerings from the cattle and the flock, but not an undomesticated animal. To what is this comparable? To a student whose teacher told him: Bring me only wheat, and the student brought him wheat and barley. It is not as though the student is adding to the statement of the teacher; rather, it is as though he is disobeying his statement, since his teacher instructed him to bring only wheat. Consequently, one who sacrifices an undomesticated animal does not merely add to a mitzva of the Torah, but also violates a prohibition,

ื•ืคืกื•ืœ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื ื“ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื

and the offering is therefore disqualified. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Reish Lakish is indeed a conclusive refutation.

ื•ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืฉืงื™ื‘ืœื• ื›ื•ืณ ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืขืฉื” ืฉื™ืจื™ื

ยง The mishna teaches: And with regard to all of them, in a case where they 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 again collect the blood and sprinkle it on the altar. Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: If an individual unfit for Temple service presented the blood, what is the halakha with regard to the blood that remains in the animal? Does the fact that he presented some blood render the rest of it a remainder and no longer fit to be presented, or perhaps the presenting performed by an unfit individual is not considered valid, and therefore a priest fit for Temple service may present the blood again?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื” ืฉื™ืจื™ื ืืœื ื—ื•ืฅ ืœื–ืžื ื• ื•ื—ื•ืฅ ืœืžืงื•ืžื• ื”ื•ืื™ืœ ื•ืžืจืฆื” ืœืคื™ื’ื•ืœื•

Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: A not valid presenting does not render the rest of the blood a remainder unless it is a case where a priest fit for Temple service presented the blood with the intent to offer it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, since it is only in that case that the presenting of the blood effects acceptance, i.e., it is considered a valid presenting, with regard to rendering the offering piggul, i.e., an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its designated time.

ืจื‘ ื–ื‘ื™ื“ ืžืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืจื™ืฉ ืœืงื™ืฉ ืžืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื›ื•ืก ืคืกื•ืœ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืขืฉื” ืฉื™ืจื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคืกื•ืœ ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืžืื™ ืกื‘ื™ืจื ืœืš ืื™ ืคืกื•ืœ ืžืฉื•ื™ ืฉื™ืจื™ื ื›ื•ืก ืคืกื•ืœ ื ืžื™ ืžืฉื•ื™ ืฉื™ืจื™ื ืื™ ืคืกื•ืœ ืœื ืžืฉื•ื™ ืฉื™ืจื™ื ื›ื•ืก ืคืกื•ืœ ื ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฉื•ื™ ืฉื™ืจื™ื

Rav Zevid teaches the matter in this way: Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: Concerning a cup of disqualified blood, e.g., one which had been taken out of the Temple courtyard and was then nevertheless presented on the altar, what is the halakha with regard to it rendering the remaining blood a remainder and unfit to be presented? Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said to him: In the case of an unfit individual who himself presented the blood, what do you hold to be the halakha? If an unfit individual who presented the blood renders the remaining blood a remainder, then a cup of disqualified blood should also render the remaining blood a remainder. If an unfit individual does not render the remaining blood a remainder, then a cup of disqualified blood should also not render the remaining blood a remainder.

ืจื‘ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืžื“ื™ืคืชื™ ืžืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื‘ืขื ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ (ืžืจื‘ื) [ืžืจื‘ื”] ื›ื•ืก ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืขืฉื” ืืช ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื“ื—ื•ื™ ืื• ืฉื™ืจื™ื

Rav Yirmeya of Difti teaches the discussion this way: Abaye asked Rabba: If the blood was collected in more than one cup and the presenting of the blood on the corners of the altar was performed with one cup, what is the halakha? Does the cup render the blood of the other cup rejected, and it is therefore poured into the drain running through the Temple courtyard, or does it render it a remainder, which is poured on the base of the altar?

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืœืžืขืœื” ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืืช ื“ืžื• ื™ืฉืคืš ืœืžื˜ื” ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื•ืืช ื›ืœ ื“ืžื” ื™ืฉืคืš

Rabba said to him: This is a dispute between Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and the Rabbis. As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the remainder of the blood of the external sin offering: In the verse above, discussing the sin offering of a Nasi, it states: โ€œAnd he shall pour its blood out at the base of the altar of the burnt offeringโ€ (Leviticus 4:25). In the verse below, discussing the sin offering of an individual, it states: โ€œAnd he shall pour all its blood out at the base of the altarโ€ (Leviticus 4:30).

ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืงื™ื‘ืœ ื“ืžื” ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื” ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ื•ื ืชืŸ ืžืชื ื” ืื—ืช ืžื–ื” ื•ืžืชื ื” ืื—ืช ืžื–ื” ืฉื›ื•ืœืŸ ื ืฉืคื›ื™ืŸ ืœื™ืกื•ื“ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืืช ื›ืœ ื“ืžื” ื™ืฉืคืš

The discrepancy between the first verse and the second verse, which contains the additional term โ€œall,โ€ is explained as follows: From where is it derived with regard to a sin offering which the priest collected its blood in four cups and placed one placement of blood onto the altar from this cup, and one placement of blood from that cup, and likewise for all four corners of the altar, that the remainder of blood from all the cups are poured out onto the base of the altar? The verse states: โ€œAnd he shall pour all its blood.โ€

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื ืชืŸ ืืจื‘ืข ืžืชื ื•ืช ืžื›ื•ืก ืื—ื“ ื™ื”ื• ื›ื•ืœืŸ ื ืฉืคื›ื™ืŸ ืœื™ืกื•ื“ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืืช ื“ืžื• ื”ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื•ื ื ืฉืคืš ืœื™ืกื•ื“ ื•ื”ืŸ ื ืฉืคื›ื™ืŸ ืœืืžื”

One might have thought that if he placed four placements of blood of the sin offering from one cup, the blood in all the rest of the cups should be poured onto the base of the altar. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œAnd he shall pour its blood,โ€ and not all of its blood. How so? Only that blood in the cup from which blood was properly presented on the altar is poured onto the base of the altar, and the rest of the cups of blood are rejected and are poured into the Temple courtyard drain.

ืจื‘ื™ ืืœืขื–ืจ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื—ื˜ืืช ืฉืงื™ื‘ืœ ื“ืžื” ื‘ืืจื‘ืขื” ื›ื•ืกื•ืช ื•ื ืชืŸ ืืจื‘ืข ืžืชื ื•ืช ืžื›ื•ืก ืื—ื“ ืฉื›ื•ืœืŸ ื ืฉืคื›ื™ืŸ ืœื™ืกื•ื“ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ืืช ื›ืœ ื“ืžื” ื™ืฉืคืš ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืืช ื“ืžื• ื™ืฉืคืš ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื”ื•ื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืฉื™ืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืฆื•ืืจ ื‘ื”ืžื”

The baraita continues: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: From where is it derived with regard to a sin offering which the priest collected its blood in four cups and then placed four placements from one cup, that the blood from all the cups are poured out onto the base of the altar? The verse states: โ€œAnd he shall pour all its blood.โ€ The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it written: โ€œAnd he shall pour its blood,โ€ which indicates that not all of the blood is poured? Rav Ashi said: That verse serves to exclude the remainder that is in the throat of the animal that was never collected in a vessel to be presented, which is not poured onto the base of the altar but into the Temple courtyard drain.

ืงื™ื‘ืœ ื”ื›ืฉืจ ื•ื ืชืŸ ืœืคืกื•ืœ ื›ื•ืณ

ยง The mishna discussed three similar cases: If the priest fit for Temple service collected the blood in a vessel and gave the vessel to an unfit person, that person should return it to the fit priest. If the priest collected the blood in a vessel in his right hand and moved it to his left hand, he should return it to his right hand. If the priest collected the blood in a sacred vessel and placed it in a non-sacred vessel, he should return the blood to a sacred vessel.

ื•ืฆืจื™ื›ื ื“ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืคืกื•ืœ ื”ื•ื” ืืžื™ื ื ืžืื™ ืคืกื•ืœ ื˜ืžื ื“ื—ื–ื™ ืœืขื‘ื•ื“ืช ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืื‘ืœ ืฉืžืืœ ืœื

The Gemara comments: And it was necessary to mention all of these cases, as had the mishna taught us only the case where he gave the blood to an unfit individual, I would say: What does the term: Unfit, mean? It means an impure priest, who is not completely unfit, as he is fit for communal service in the Temple when the priests or the entire community are impure, and that is why the blood is not disqualified; but if the priest moved the blood to his left hand, which under no circumstances may be used to perform the rite of collecting and carrying the blood, it is no longer valid.

ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืฉืžืืœ ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ืฉื™ืจื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื›ื™ืคื•ืจื™ื ืื‘ืœ ื›ืœื™ ื—ื•ืœ ืœื

And had the mishna taught us only with regard to moving the blood to his left hand that he should return it to his right hand and present it, one would assume that the reason is that the left hand has validity on Yom Kippur, since the High Priest carries the spoon of incense with his left hand, but if he poured the blood into a non-sacred vessel then it is not valid.

ื•ืื™ ืืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ื›ืœื™ ื—ื•ืœ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื—ื–ื• ืœืงื“ื•ืฉื™ื ื”ื• ืื‘ืœ ื”ื ืš ืื™ืžื ืœื ืฆืจื™ื›ื

And had the mishna taught us only with regard to a non-sacred vessel that the blood is not disqualified, one could suggest that perhaps it is because the vessels are suitable to be consecrated, but with regard to these, i.e., an unfit individual and the left hand, which have no possibility of becoming fit for service, say that the blood does not remain valid. Therefore, it is necessary for all of the cases to be mentioned.

ื•ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ ืœื™ื” ื“ื—ื•ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืจืžื™ื” ืžื“ื™ืคืชื™ ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื”ื ืžื ื™ ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืžืฆืจื™ ื”ื•ื ื“ืœื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ

ยง The Gemara questions the actual halakha: But let the blood be considered rejected when placed in the hand of the unfit individual, the left hand, or the non-sacred vessel. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: This is what Rav Yirmeya of Difti says in the name of Rava: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of แธคanan the Egyptian, who does not subscribe to the halakha of rejection, but holds that a sacrifice that was rejected temporarily is not rejected entirely.

ื“ืชื ื™ื ื—ื ืŸ ื”ืžืฆืจื™ ืื•ืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื“ื ื‘ื›ื•ืก ืžื‘ื™ื ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ื•ืžื–ื•ื•ื’ ืœื•

This is as it is taught in a baraita: แธคanan the Egyptian says: In the event that the scapegoat of Yom Kippur was lost, even if the blood of its partner that is sacrificed to God has already been collected in the cup, the blood is not rejected, but rather he brings another scapegoat as its counterpart, and pairs it with the goat that has already been slaughtered, and the blood is sprinkled.

ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ื™ื“ื• ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื“ื—ื•ื™

Rav Ashi says that there is another explanation to the mishna: Anything that is in his power to rectify is not considered rejected, as in these cases where he can simply return the blood to its proper place.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉื™ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืกืชื‘ืจื ืžืืŸ ืฉืžืขืช ืœื™ื” ื“ืื™ืช ืœื™ื” ื“ื—ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืชื ืŸ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื ืฉืคืš ื”ื“ื ื™ืžื•ืช ื”ืžืฉืชืœื— ืžืช ื”ืžืฉืชืœื— ื™ืฉืคืš ื”ื“ื

Rav Shaya said: It is reasonable to explain the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rav Ashi, as whom have you heard who accepts the reasoning of rejection? It is Rabbi Yehuda, as we learned in a mishna (Yoma 62a): And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda said: If the blood of the goat sacrificed to God spilled from the cup before it was sprinkled, the scapegoat is left to die. Similarly, if the scapegoat died, the blood of the goat sacrificed to God should be spilled, and two other goats are used. Consequently, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the scapegoat, or in the opposite case, the blood of the goat to be sacrificed to God, is totally rejected.

ื•ืฉืžืขื™ื ืŸ ืœื™ื” ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ื™ื“ื• ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื“ื—ื•ื™ ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื•ืก ืื—ื“ ื”ื™ื” ืžืžืœื ืžื“ื ื”ืชืขืจื•ื‘ืช ื•ื–ื•ืจืงื• ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืื—ืช ื›ื ื’ื“ ื”ื™ืกื•ื“ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื›ืœ ืฉื‘ื™ื“ื• ืœื ื”ื•ื™ ื“ื—ื•ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

And yet, we have heard that Rabbi Yehuda says: Anything that is in his power to rectify is not rejected. As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: A priest would fill one cup with blood of the many Paschal offerings brought that day that was now mixed together on the floor and then sprinkle it with a single sprinkling against the base of the altar. Conclude from the baraita that Rabbi Yehuda holds that although the blood originally spilled from the cup, anything that is in his power to rectify is not rejected. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from it that it is so.

ื’ื•ืคื ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื•ืก ืื—ื“ ื”ื™ื” ืžืžืœื ืžื“ื ื”ืชืขืจื•ื‘ืช ืฉืื ื™ืฉืคืš ืื—ื“ ืžื”ื ื ืžืฆื ืฉื”ื•ื ืžื›ืฉื™ืจื• ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ื”ืœื ืœื ื ืชืงื‘ืœ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืžื ื ื™ื“ืขื™ ืืœื ืฉืžื ืœื ื ืชืงื‘ืœ ื‘ื›ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ

ยง The Gemara discusses the matter itself: It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: A priest would fill one cup with the mixed blood, so that if one of the cups with the collected blood of one of the Paschal offerings were to spill, it would be found that this cup of the mixed blood that was sprinkled would render the sacrifice valid. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: But the mixed blood was not collected in a vessel. The Gemara asks: From where do the Rabbis know that the blood was not collected in a vessel? Perhaps it was collected and it spilled out. Rather, this is what they are saying: Perhaps it was not collected in a vessel. Rabbi Yehuda said to them:

Scroll To Top