Zevachim 35
Share this shiur:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
During the Paschal sacrifice, the drain in the floor of the Azara was plugged to ensure that any spilled blood would be collected. Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis offer different explanations for this practice. Rabbi Yehuda says the blood was collected and placed on the altar in case some of the blood from the sacrifices had spilled and had not yet been brought to the altar. The rabbis explain that it was to demonstrate the dedication of the kohanim, who stood knee-deep in blood as they performed their service.
Each opinion faces challenges. Regarding Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara asks how the blood could be valid for the altar if it had not been collected in a sanctified vessel. After resolving this, another issue is raised: the dam hatamtzit, the residual internal blood, might nullify the dam hanefesh, the lifeblood that exits during slaughter and is valid for the altar. Regarding the rabbis, the Gemara questions whether the accumulated blood would create a chatzitza, an interposition between the kohanim’s feet and the floor, potentially invalidating their service. It also asks whether the blood-soaked garments would be rendered unfit for priestly service. All these objections are ultimately resolved.
The laws of pigul apply only to parts of the animal designated for consumption or burning on the altar. If a priest has a pigul thought, such as intending to eat or burn a part of the sacrifice beyond its permitted time, it only renders the sacrifice pigul if the thought concerns a part meant to be eaten or burned. Non-edible or non-sacrificial parts, such as the hide, tendons, horns, and similar items, are not subject to pigul. In a female animal, a thought regarding the fetus, placenta, or eggs does not render the sacrifice pigul. If a sacrifice becomes pigul, consuming the milk or eggs does not incur karet.
Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree about whether a pigul thought regarding a non-sacrificial item, such as intending to eat something not meant to be eaten or burn something not meant to be burned, can render the offering pigul. Rabbi Eliezer is more stringent, while the rabbis are lenient. Rabbi Elazar adds that while a thought about a fetus or similar part does not independently render the sacrifice pigul, if the animal itself becomes pigul due to improper intent, then those parts, like the fetus, are also considered pigul.
Three sources, including the Mishna under discussion, are brought to support Rabbi Elazar’s position. Attempts to refute his view are made, but ultimately only an inference from our Mishna stands as a conclusive proof in his favor.
A Mishna in Zevachim 84a records a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis regarding a blemished animal that was mistakenly brought to the altar. Rabbi Akiva holds that if the animal has already been placed on the altar, it is not removed. The rabbis disagree, requiring its removal. The Gemara qualifies Rabbi Akiva’s leniency with three limitations: the ruling applies only to certain types of blemishes; if the blemish was present before the animal was sanctified, it must be removed; and a female animal designated for a burnt offering is also removed. Rabbi Zeira raises a challenge to the third limitation based on a braita previously cited in a discussion concerning Rabbi Eliezer. This challenge is ultimately resolved.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Zevachim 35
אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁנִּתְקַבֵּל בִּכְלִי. וְהוּא גּוּפֵיהּ מְנָא יָדַע? כֹּהֲנִים זְרִיזִין, וְעָבְדִין הַיָּיא וּמִשְׁתַּפְכִין.
I too said that the blood should be sprinkled only when it was collected in a vessel. The Gemara asks: But he, Rabbi Yehuda, himself, from where did he know if the blood was indeed collected? The Gemara answers: He relies on the fact that priests are vigilant, and perform their service properly and collect all of the blood. But they work swiftly, and the blood therefore spills from the cup.
וַהֲלֹא דַּם הַתַּמְצִית מְעוֹרָב בּוֹ! רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: דַּם הַתַּמְצִית קָרוּי דָּם.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t blood of exudate, which is unfit to be sprinkled upon the altar, mixed with the blood of the soul on the floor? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says that blood of exudate is considered blood.
דְּתַנְיָא: דַּם הַתַּמְצִית – בְּאַזְהָרָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּכָרֵת.
This is as it is taught in a baraita: Blood of exudate is subject to a prohibition, and one who consumes it receives lashes. This is not as severe as consuming blood of the soul, the blood that spurts out of an animal as it is being slaughtered, for which one is liable to receive karet. Rabbi Yehuda says: One who consumes blood of exudate is liable to receive karet, as this blood is treated as proper blood.
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְעִנְיַן כַּפָּרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְכַפֵּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ״ –
The Gemara challenges this answer: But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar say that Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to atonement that presenting blood of exudate does not effect atonement, as it is stated: “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the soul” (Leviticus 17:11).
דָּם שֶׁהַנֶּפֶשׁ יוֹצְאָה בּוֹ קָרוּי דָּם, שֶׁאֵין הַנֶּפֶשׁ יוֹצְאָה בּוֹ אֵין קָרוּי דָּם!
This verse indicates that blood with which the soul leaves the animal, i.e., that spurts immediately upon slaughter, is called blood; but blood with which the soul does not leave the animal, i.e., blood of exudate, is not called blood. If so, even according to Rabbi Yehuda, blood of exudate is unfit for presenting upon the altar, and collecting blood from the floor should therefore be ineffective.
אֶלָּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אֵין דָּם מְבַטֵּל דָּם.
Rather, Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says: Blood does not nullify blood. Therefore, the blood in the cup that is fit for sprinkling on the altar is not nullified by the blood of exudate, and the entire mixture may be sprinkled on the altar.
אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לְדִבְרֵיכֶם, לָמָּה פּוֹקְקִין הָעֲזָרָה? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: שֶׁבַח הוּא לִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן שֶׁיְּהַלְּכוּ עַד אַרְכוּבּוֹתֵיהֶן בַּדָּם.
The Gemara cites the continuation of the baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: According to your statement that the mixed blood on the floor may not be used, why do they plug the drain of the Temple courtyard on Passover eve and not allow the blood to flow out through it? The Rabbis said to him: It is a source of praise for the sons of Aaron that they should walk in blood up to their ankles, thereby demonstrating their love for the Temple service.
וְהָא דָּם הָוֵי חֲצִיצָה! לַח הוּא, וְלָא הָוֵי חֲצִיצָה. דִּתְנַן: הַדָּם וְהַדְּיוֹ וְהַדְּבַשׁ וְהֶחָלָב – יְבֵישִׁין חוֹצְצִין, לַחִין אֵין חוֹצְצִין.
The Gemara challenges: But the blood is an interposition between the feet of the priests and the floor of the Temple, and this should invalidate the service. The Gemara explains: The blood is moist and is therefore not an interposition, as we learned in a baraita: With regard to blood, ink, honey, and milk, when they are dry they interpose, but when they are moist they do not interpose.
וְהָא קָא מִיתַּוְּוסִי מָאנַיְיהוּ, וּתְנַן: הָיוּ בְּגָדָיו מְטוּשְׁטָשִׁין וְעָבַד – עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה! וְכִי תֵּימָא דִּמְדַלּוּ לְהוּ, וְהָתַנְיָא: ״מִדּוֹ״ – כְּמִדָּתוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא יְחַסֵּר וְשֶׁלֹּא יוֹתִיר! בְּהוֹלָכַת אֵבָרִים לַכֶּבֶשׁ, דְּלָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא.
The Gemara asks further: But don’t their garments become soiled? And we learned in a baraita: If a priest’s garments were soiled and he performed a Temple rite while wearing them, his rite is disqualified. And if you would say that they raised their garments so that they would stay clean, but isn’t it taught in a baraita: “And the priest shall put on his linen garment [middo vad]” (Leviticus 6:3). The term middo, literally, his measure, teaches that his garment must be according to his measure [kemiddato], i.e., that it should not be too short and that it should not be too long. If the priest raises his garment, it will no longer be exactly his size. The Gemara answers that the priests would walk in the blood only while carrying the sacrificial limbs to the ramp of the altar, which is not actually a rite, but only preparation for a rite.
וְלָא?! וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְהִקְרִיב הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל״ – זוֹ הוֹלָכַת אֵבָרִים לַכֶּבֶשׁ! אֶלָּא בְּהוֹלָכַת עֵצִים לַמַּעֲרָכָה, דְּלָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא. וְלַעֲבוֹדָה הֵיכִי אָזְלִי? אָזְלִי אַאִיצְטְבֵי.
The Gemara asks: And is it not one of the rites? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: “And the priest shall bring it all and burn it upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:13); this is referring to the carrying of the limbs to the ramp? Rather, the priests would walk in the blood only while carrying wood to the arrangement of wood on the altar, which is not a rite. The Gemara asks: But if the floor of the Temple was full of blood; how did they walk to perform the actual rites without soiling their garments? The Gemara answers: They would walk on platforms raised above the floor, so that the blood would not reach their garments.
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר – כָּשֵׁר. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל.
MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an offering with the intent to eat, beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, an item whose typical manner is such that one does not partake of it, e.g., the portions of the offering consumed on the altar, or with the intent to burn, beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, an item whose typical manner is such that one does not burn it on the altar, e.g., the meat of the offering, the offering is fit, and Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit.
לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר – פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת; כָּשֵׁר. לֶאֱכוֹל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת – כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין.
One who slaughters an offering with the intent to eat, beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, an item whose typical manner is such that one does partake of it, or with the intent to burn, beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, an item whose typical manner is such that one does burn it on the altar, but his intent was to partake or burn less than an olive-bulk, the offering is fit. If his intent was to eat half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, the offering is fit, because eating and burning do not join together.
הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת מִן הָעוֹר, וּמִן הָרוֹטֶב, וּמִן הַקֵּיפֶה, וּמִן הָאָלָל, וּמִן הַעֲצָמוֹת, וּמִן הַגִּידִין, וּמִן הַקְּרָנַיִם, וּמִן הַטְּלָפַיִם – חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ; כָּשֵׁר, וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא.
In the case of one who slaughters an offering with the intent to eat, beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, an olive-bulk from the hide, or from the gravy, or from the spices that amass at the bottom of the pot together with small amounts of meat, or from a tendon in the neck, or from the bones, or from the tendons, or from the horns, or from the hooves, the offering is fit and one is not liable to receive karet for it, neither due to the prohibition of piggul, if the sacrificial rites were performed with the intent to partake of the offering beyond its designated time, nor due to the prohibition of leftover meat beyond the designated time, nor due to the prohibition against partaking of the meat while ritually impure.
הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין לֶאֱכוֹל שְׁלִיל אוֹ שִׁילְיָא בַּחוּץ – לֹא פִּיגֵּל. הַמּוֹלֵק אֶת הַתּוֹרִין לֶאֱכוֹל בֵּיצֵיהֶן בַּחוּץ – לֹא פִּיגֵּל.
In the case of one who slaughters sacrificial female animals with the intent to eat the fetus of those animals or their placenta outside the designated area, he has not rendered the offering piggul. Likewise, in the case of one who pinches doves, i.e., slaughters them for sacrifice by cutting the napes of their necks with his fingernail, with the intent to eat their eggs that are still in their bodies outside the designated area, he has not rendered the offering piggul. This is because the fetus, the placenta, and the eggs are not considered part of the body of the animal or the bird.
חֲלֵב מוּקְדָּשִׁין וּבֵיצֵי תוֹרִין – אֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא.
For the same reason, one who consumes the milk of sacrificial female animals or the eggs of doves is not liable to receive karet for it, neither due to the prohibition of piggul, nor due to the prohibition of notar, nor due to the prohibition against partaking of the meat while ritually impure.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: פִּיגֵּל בַּזֶּבַח – נִתְפַּגֵּל הַשְּׁלִיל. בַּשְּׁלִיל – לֹא נִתְפַּגֵּל הַזֶּבַח. פִּיגֵּל בָּאָלָל – נִתְפַּגְּלָה מוּרְאָה. בַּמּוּרְאָה – לֹא נִתְפַּגֵּל אָלָל.
GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar says: If one renders an offering piggul by slaughtering it with the intent to partake of it beyond its designated time, its fetus is rendered piggul as well, and one who eats it is liable to receive karet. But if he intended to partake of the fetus beyond its designated time, the offering has not been rendered piggul. Likewise, if he rendered a bird offering piggul by having intent to partake of a tendon in the neck, which is edible, beyond its designated time, then the crop of the bird is rendered piggul as well, although it is not considered an item that is usually eaten, since there are people who eat it. But if he intended to partake of the crop beyond its designated time, then a tendon in the neck is not rendered piggul.
פִּיגֵּל בָּאֵימוּרִין – נִתְפַּגְּלוּ פָּרִים. בַּפָּרִים – לֹא נִתְפַּגְּלוּ אֵימוּרִים.
If he rendered the offering piggul, i.e., had improper intent by intending to burn the sacrificial portions that are consumed on the altar beyond their designated time, then the rest of the bulls are rendered piggul. Therefore, if one partakes of their meat, he is liable to receive karet due to the prohibition of piggul. But if he intended to partake of the rest of the bulls beyond their designated time, since piggul does not apply to them, as they are not destined to be consumed on the altar or to be eaten, the sacrificial portions that are consumed on the altar are not rendered piggul.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: וְשָׁוִים שֶׁאִם חִישֵּׁב בַּאֲכִילַת פָּרִים וּבִשְׂרֵיפָתָן – לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם. מַאי, לָאו הָא חִישֵּׁב בָּאֵימוּרִים – נִתְפַּגְּלוּ פָּרִים? לָא;
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: And even those who hold that piggul applies to the bulls that are burned agree that if he intended to partake of the bulls or to burn them beyond their designated time he did not do anything. This is because these bulls are not eaten or burned on the altar, and intentions can render an offering piggul only in the cases of offerings that are eaten or burned on the altar. The Gemara infers: What, is it not possible to infer that if he intended with regard to the sacrificial portions of the bulls that are consumed on the altar to burn them beyond their designated time, the bulls are rendered piggul, which is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Elazar? The Gemara rejects this: No,
הָא חִישֵּׁב בָּאֵימוּרִין – נִתְפַּגְּלוּ אֵימוּרִין עַצְמָן.
derive instead as follows: But if he intended, with regard to the sacrificial portions of the bulls, to burn them beyond their designated time, the sacrificial portions themselves are rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for eating them. The flesh of the bulls is never rendered piggul.
תָּא שְׁמַע: פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשׁוּ. נִשְׁחֲטוּ – הוּכְשְׁרוּ לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּיפּוּרִים וּבְלִינָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Me’ila 9a): In the case of the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned, one who derives benefit from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property from the time that they were consecrated. Once they were slaughtered, they are susceptible to being rendered disqualified for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through being left overnight without the requirements of the offering having been fulfilled.
מַאי, לָאו לִינַת בָּשָׂר – וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מִגּוֹ דְּפָסְלָה בְּלִינָה, פָּסְלָה בָּהּ מַחְשָׁבָה?
The Gemara derives: What, is it not referring to the flesh being left overnight, which would render it not valid? And conclude from the mishna that since the flesh is rendered disqualified by being left overnight, the flesh is also rendered disqualified by the intention to burn the sacrificial portions the next day, i.e., it is subject to piggul, which is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Elazar.
לָא; לִינַת אֵימוּרִים. הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כּוּלָּן מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן עַל בֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן עַד שֶׁיּוּתַּךְ הַבָּשָׂר – מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לִינַת בָּשָׂר! מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ; רֵישָׁא אֵימוּרִים, וְסֵיפָא בָּשָׂר.
The Gemara responds: No, it is referring to leaving overnight the sacrificial portions of the offering, not the flesh. Likewise, only the sacrificial portions are rendered piggul by intent to eat them after their designated time. The Gemara asks: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: One who derives benefit from all of them by the place of the ashes where they are burned is liable for misuse of consecrated property until the flesh is completely scorched, it may be inferred that the first clause of the mishna is also referring to the flesh being left overnight. The Gemara answers: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. The first clause is referring to the sacrificial portions that are consumed on the altar, and the latter clause is referring to the flesh.
מוֹתֵיב (רָבָא) [רַבָּה]: וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין מְפַגְּלִין וְאֵין מִתְפַּגְּלִין: צֶמֶר שֶׁבְּרָאשֵׁי כְבָשִׂים, וּשְׂעַר שֶׁבִּזְקַן תְּיָישִׁים, וְהָעוֹר, וְהָרוֹטֶב, וְהַקֵּיפֶה, וְהָאָלָל, וְהַמּוּרְאָה, וְהָעֲצָמוֹת, וְהַגִּידִין, וְהַקְּרָנַיִם, וְהַטְּלָפַיִם, וְהַשְּׁלִיל, וְהַשִּׁילְיָא, וַחֲלֵב הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין, וּבֵיצֵי תוֹרִין.
Rabba raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar from a baraita: And these are portions of the offering that do not render an offering piggul, and they do not become piggul: The wool that is on the head of the lambs, the hair that is in the beard of the goats, the hide, the gravy, the spices that amass at the bottom of the pot together with small amounts of meat, a tendon in the neck, the crop, the bones, the tendons, the horns, the hooves, the fetus, the placenta, the milk of sacrificial animals, and the eggs of doves.
[כּוּלָּן] לֹא מְפַגְּלִין וְלֹא מִתְפַּגְּלִין; וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא; וְהַמַּעֲלֶה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר.
The baraita continues: All of these do not render other items piggul in the case of intent to consume them after their designated time, and they are not rendered piggul, and one is not liable to receive karet for them, neither due to the prohibition of piggul, nor the prohibition of notar, nor the prohibition against partaking of the meat while ritually impure. And one who offers up one of these outside the Temple is exempt, since they are not fit to be sacrificed on the altar.
מַאי, לָאו לֹא מְפַגְּלִין הַזֶּבַח, וְלֹא מִתְפַּגְּלִין מֵחֲמַת זֶבַח?
Rabba explains: What, does the baraita not mean that all of these items do not render the offering piggul if one intends to partake of them beyond the designated time, and they are also not rendered piggul due to the rest of the offering having been rendered piggul? This includes the fetus and placenta, and is therefore not in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Elazar that the rest of the offering does render them piggul.
לָא; לֹא מְפַגְּלִין אֶת הַזֶּבַח, וְלֹא מִתְפַּגְּלִין מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָן. אִי הָכִי, הָא דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כּוּלָּן לֹא מְפַגְּלִין וְלֹא מִתְפַּגְּלִין – הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי?
The Gemara responds: No, it means that they do not render the offering piggul, and they are not rendered piggul due to themselves if one had intent to partake of them beyond the designated time. But such intent with regard to the offering can render them piggul. The Gemara asks: If so, concerning that which is taught in the latter clause: All of these do not render other items piggul and they are not rendered piggul, why do I also need this? Doesn’t it teach that they are not rendered piggul due to the rest of the offering?
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל – הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא אַיְּידֵי דְבָעֵי לְמִיתְנָא נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא, תְּנָא פִּיגּוּל;
The Gemara answers: And according to your reasoning that the additional statement is necessary, then with regard to that which it says a third time: One is not liable to receive karet for them due to the prohibition of piggul, why do I also need this? Rather, the third statement does not teach an additional halakha, but since the tanna wants to teach that one is not liable to receive karet due to violating the prohibition of notar and the prohibition against partaking of the meat while ritually impure, he taught the halakha with regard to piggul as well.
הָכָא נָמֵי, אַיְּידֵי דְבָעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי: הַמַּעֲלֶה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ, תְּנָא נָמֵי: וְכוּלָּן לֹא מְפַגְּלִין וְלֹא מִתְפַּגְּלִין.
Here too, it can be explained similarly: Since the tanna wants to teach the halakha that one who offers up one of these items outside the Temple is exempt, he also taught: And all of these do not render other items piggul and they are not rendered piggul. It may be that the rest of the offering does in fact render them piggul, as Rabbi Elazar stated.
רָבָא אָמַר, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁים לֶאֱכוֹל שְׁלִיל אוֹ שִׁילְיָא בַּחוּץ – לֹא פִּיגֵּל, וְהַמּוֹלֵק אֶת הַתּוֹרִים לֶאֱכוֹל בֵּיצֵיהֶם בַּחוּץ – לֹא פִּיגֵּל;
Rava says: We learn in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Elazar in the mishna as well: One who slaughters sacrificial female animals with the intent to eat the fetus of those animals or their placenta outside their designated area has not rendered the offering piggul. And one who pinches doves, i.e., slaughters them for sacrifice by cutting the napes of their necks with his fingernail, with the intent to eat their eggs that are still in their bodies outside their designated area, has not rendered the offering piggul.
וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: חֲלֵב הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין וּבֵיצֵי תוֹרִים – אֵין חַיָּיב עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא; הָא שְׁלִיל וְשִׁילְיָא – חַיָּיבִים!
And then it is taught: One who consumes the milk of sacrificial female animals or the eggs of doves is not liable to receive karet for it due to the prohibition of piggul, nor due to the prohibition of notar, nor due to the prohibition against partaking of the meat while ritually impure. But it can be inferred that one who partakes of the fetus or placenta, which are not mentioned, is liable to receive karet due to the prohibition of piggul.
אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: כָּאן מֵחֲמַת הַזֶּבַח, כָּאן מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָן? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from the mishna that here, they are rendered piggul due to the offering, and there, due to themselves, i.e., if he had improper intent concerning them, then they are not rendered piggul. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the mishna that it is so.
תְּנַן הָתָם: וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין; רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַכְשִׁיר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִים.
§ The baraita cited by Rabba is now discussed in a different context: We learned in a mishna there (84a) that if disqualified offerings are nevertheless brought upon the altar, they are removed, and blemished animals are also included in this halakha. Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit, and if they were brought upon the altar they are not removed.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא הִכְשִׁיר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֶלָּא בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן, הוֹאִיל וּכְשֵׁירִים בְּעוֹפוֹת. וְהוּא שֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁהּ אֶת מוּמָהּ.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Akiva deemed fit only an animal with a blemish on the cornea of the eye and similar blemishes that are not noticeable, since they are valid in the case of birds. And in addition, this is the halakha provided that its consecration preceded its blemish, i.e., when the animal was consecrated it was still entirely fit.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּעוֹלַת נְקֵבָה, דִּכְמַאן דִּקְדַם מוּמָהּ לְהֶקְדֵּישָׁהּ דָּמֵי.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: And Rabbi Akiva concedes with regard to a female burnt offering that was brought upon the altar that since a burnt offering may be only a male animal, it is comparable to a case where its blemish preceded its consecration, since the disqualifying factor was there from the outset. Therefore, if it was brought upon the altar it must be removed.
מֵתִיב רַבִּי זֵירָא: הַמַּעֲלֶה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. הָא מֵאִימָּן – חַיָּיב; וְהֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? בְּעוֹלַת נְקֵבָה.
Rabbi Zeira raises an objection to this from the baraita cited by Rabba: One who offers up one of these outside the Temple is exempt, as they are not fit to be sacrificed on the altar. But it can be inferred that if he were to sacrifice from the flesh of the mother of one of these outside the Temple, he would be liable. And how can you find these circumstances? It is only in the case of a female burnt offering. This is because with regard to a peace offering, which may also be from a female animal, its flesh is not burned on the altar but is eaten. Therefore, there would be no liability for sacrificing it outside the Temple.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא עוֹלַת נְקֵבָה אִם עָלְתָה לֹא תֵּרֵד, הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אִם עָלְתָה תֵּרֵד, הָא מַנִּי?
Rabbi Zeira explains his objection: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Akiva holds with regard to a female burnt offering that if it ascended onto the altar it does not descend, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is that of Rabbi Akiva. This is because one is liable for sacrificing any offering outside the Temple that may be sacrificed on the altar, including one that was brought upon the altar inappropriately but is not removed. But if you say that with regard to a female burnt offering if it ascended the altar it must descend, and it entirely lacks the status of an offering fit to be sacrificed on the altar, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita?
אֵימָא: הַמַּעֲלֶה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר, הָא מֵאֵימוּרֵי אִימָּן – חַיָּיב.
The Gemara answers: Say that the inference should be as follows: One who offers up one of those items outside the Temple is exempt, but if he sacrificed from the sacrificial portions of the mother of one of these, he is liable. This halakha can apply to both a sin offering and a peace offering, for which a female may be brought and whose sacrificial portions are burned on the altar.
וְהָא ״מֵהֶן״ קָתָנֵי – וְאִימָּן דּוּמְיָא דִּידְהוּ! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הַמַּעֲלֶה מֵאֵימוּרֵיהֶן בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר, הָא מֵאֵימוּרֵי אִימָּן – חַיָּיב.
The Gemara challenges: But the baraita teaches this halakha with the term: Of one of these, indicating that it is referring to one who sacrifices the flesh, and not the sacrificial portions alone. And the case of their mother is similar to that of them, and is therefore referring to sacrificing the flesh of the mother outside the Temple, and not the sacrificial portions. Rather, say as follows: One who offers up part of their sacrificial portions outside the Temple is exempt, but one who offered up some of the sacrificial portions of the mother of one of these is liable.
מַתְנִי׳ שְׁחָטוֹ עַל מְנָת לְהַנִּיחַ אֶת דָּמוֹ אוֹ אֵימוּרָיו לְמָחָר, אוֹ לְהוֹצִיאָן לַחוּץ – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹסֵל וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. עַל מְנָת לִיתְּנָן עַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ; שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַיְסוֹד; וְלִיתֵּן אֶת הַנִּיתָּנִים לְמַעְלָן – לְמַטָּה; וְאֶת הַנִּיתָּנִים לְמַטָּה – לְמַעְלָן; וְאֶת הַנִּיתָּנִים
MISHNA: If one slaughters the animal in order to leave its blood or its sacrificial portions for the next day, or to remove them outside the designated area, but not in order to sacrifice them the next day, Rabbi Yehuda deems the offering unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit. In the case of one who slaughters the animal in order to place the blood upon the ramp or on the wall of the altar that is not opposite the base of the altar, or in order to place the blood that is to be placed above the red line below the red line, or to place the blood that is to be placed below the red line above the red line, or the blood that is to be placed
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Zevachim Daf 30-38 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
Zevahim 35: A Fetus, Eggs, and the Separation of Animals
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
Oceanside NY, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
Minnesota, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
Zevachim 35
אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁנִּתְקַבֵּל בִּכְלִי. וְהוּא גּוּפֵיהּ מְנָא יָדַע? כֹּהֲנִים זְרִיזִין, וְעָבְדִין הַיָּיא וּמִשְׁתַּפְכִין.
I too said that the blood should be sprinkled only when it was collected in a vessel. The Gemara asks: But he, Rabbi Yehuda, himself, from where did he know if the blood was indeed collected? The Gemara answers: He relies on the fact that priests are vigilant, and perform their service properly and collect all of the blood. But they work swiftly, and the blood therefore spills from the cup.
וַהֲלֹא דַּם הַתַּמְצִית מְעוֹרָב בּוֹ! רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: דַּם הַתַּמְצִית קָרוּי דָּם.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t blood of exudate, which is unfit to be sprinkled upon the altar, mixed with the blood of the soul on the floor? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his standard line of reasoning, as he says that blood of exudate is considered blood.
דְּתַנְיָא: דַּם הַתַּמְצִית – בְּאַזְהָרָה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּכָרֵת.
This is as it is taught in a baraita: Blood of exudate is subject to a prohibition, and one who consumes it receives lashes. This is not as severe as consuming blood of the soul, the blood that spurts out of an animal as it is being slaughtered, for which one is liable to receive karet. Rabbi Yehuda says: One who consumes blood of exudate is liable to receive karet, as this blood is treated as proper blood.
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְעִנְיַן כַּפָּרָה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְכַפֵּר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי הַדָּם הוּא הַנָּפֶשׁ״ –
The Gemara challenges this answer: But doesn’t Rabbi Elazar say that Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to atonement that presenting blood of exudate does not effect atonement, as it is stated: “For the soul of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the soul” (Leviticus 17:11).
דָּם שֶׁהַנֶּפֶשׁ יוֹצְאָה בּוֹ קָרוּי דָּם, שֶׁאֵין הַנֶּפֶשׁ יוֹצְאָה בּוֹ אֵין קָרוּי דָּם!
This verse indicates that blood with which the soul leaves the animal, i.e., that spurts immediately upon slaughter, is called blood; but blood with which the soul does not leave the animal, i.e., blood of exudate, is not called blood. If so, even according to Rabbi Yehuda, blood of exudate is unfit for presenting upon the altar, and collecting blood from the floor should therefore be ineffective.
אֶלָּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אֵין דָּם מְבַטֵּל דָּם.
Rather, Rabbi Yehuda conforms to his line of reasoning, as he says: Blood does not nullify blood. Therefore, the blood in the cup that is fit for sprinkling on the altar is not nullified by the blood of exudate, and the entire mixture may be sprinkled on the altar.
אָמַר לָהֶם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לְדִבְרֵיכֶם, לָמָּה פּוֹקְקִין הָעֲזָרָה? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: שֶׁבַח הוּא לִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן שֶׁיְּהַלְּכוּ עַד אַרְכוּבּוֹתֵיהֶן בַּדָּם.
The Gemara cites the continuation of the baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said to the Rabbis: According to your statement that the mixed blood on the floor may not be used, why do they plug the drain of the Temple courtyard on Passover eve and not allow the blood to flow out through it? The Rabbis said to him: It is a source of praise for the sons of Aaron that they should walk in blood up to their ankles, thereby demonstrating their love for the Temple service.
וְהָא דָּם הָוֵי חֲצִיצָה! לַח הוּא, וְלָא הָוֵי חֲצִיצָה. דִּתְנַן: הַדָּם וְהַדְּיוֹ וְהַדְּבַשׁ וְהֶחָלָב – יְבֵישִׁין חוֹצְצִין, לַחִין אֵין חוֹצְצִין.
The Gemara challenges: But the blood is an interposition between the feet of the priests and the floor of the Temple, and this should invalidate the service. The Gemara explains: The blood is moist and is therefore not an interposition, as we learned in a baraita: With regard to blood, ink, honey, and milk, when they are dry they interpose, but when they are moist they do not interpose.
וְהָא קָא מִיתַּוְּוסִי מָאנַיְיהוּ, וּתְנַן: הָיוּ בְּגָדָיו מְטוּשְׁטָשִׁין וְעָבַד – עֲבוֹדָתוֹ פְּסוּלָה! וְכִי תֵּימָא דִּמְדַלּוּ לְהוּ, וְהָתַנְיָא: ״מִדּוֹ״ – כְּמִדָּתוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא יְחַסֵּר וְשֶׁלֹּא יוֹתִיר! בְּהוֹלָכַת אֵבָרִים לַכֶּבֶשׁ, דְּלָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא.
The Gemara asks further: But don’t their garments become soiled? And we learned in a baraita: If a priest’s garments were soiled and he performed a Temple rite while wearing them, his rite is disqualified. And if you would say that they raised their garments so that they would stay clean, but isn’t it taught in a baraita: “And the priest shall put on his linen garment [middo vad]” (Leviticus 6:3). The term middo, literally, his measure, teaches that his garment must be according to his measure [kemiddato], i.e., that it should not be too short and that it should not be too long. If the priest raises his garment, it will no longer be exactly his size. The Gemara answers that the priests would walk in the blood only while carrying the sacrificial limbs to the ramp of the altar, which is not actually a rite, but only preparation for a rite.
וְלָא?! וְהָתַנְיָא: ״וְהִקְרִיב הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל״ – זוֹ הוֹלָכַת אֵבָרִים לַכֶּבֶשׁ! אֶלָּא בְּהוֹלָכַת עֵצִים לַמַּעֲרָכָה, דְּלָאו עֲבוֹדָה הִיא. וְלַעֲבוֹדָה הֵיכִי אָזְלִי? אָזְלִי אַאִיצְטְבֵי.
The Gemara asks: And is it not one of the rites? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: “And the priest shall bring it all and burn it upon the altar” (Leviticus 1:13); this is referring to the carrying of the limbs to the ramp? Rather, the priests would walk in the blood only while carrying wood to the arrangement of wood on the altar, which is not a rite. The Gemara asks: But if the floor of the Temple was full of blood; how did they walk to perform the actual rites without soiling their garments? The Gemara answers: They would walk on platforms raised above the floor, so that the blood would not reach their garments.
מַתְנִי׳ הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר – כָּשֵׁר. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל.
MISHNA: In the case of one who slaughters an offering with the intent to eat, beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, an item whose typical manner is such that one does not partake of it, e.g., the portions of the offering consumed on the altar, or with the intent to burn, beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, an item whose typical manner is such that one does not burn it on the altar, e.g., the meat of the offering, the offering is fit, and Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit.
לֶאֱכוֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל, וּלְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר – פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת; כָּשֵׁר. לֶאֱכוֹל כַּחֲצִי זַיִת וּלְהַקְטִיר כַּחֲצִי זַיִת – כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁאֵין אֲכִילָה וְהַקְטָרָה מִצְטָרְפִין.
One who slaughters an offering with the intent to eat, beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, an item whose typical manner is such that one does partake of it, or with the intent to burn, beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, an item whose typical manner is such that one does burn it on the altar, but his intent was to partake or burn less than an olive-bulk, the offering is fit. If his intent was to eat half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, the offering is fit, because eating and burning do not join together.
הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לֶאֱכוֹל כְּזַיִת מִן הָעוֹר, וּמִן הָרוֹטֶב, וּמִן הַקֵּיפֶה, וּמִן הָאָלָל, וּמִן הַעֲצָמוֹת, וּמִן הַגִּידִין, וּמִן הַקְּרָנַיִם, וּמִן הַטְּלָפַיִם – חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ; כָּשֵׁר, וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא.
In the case of one who slaughters an offering with the intent to eat, beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, an olive-bulk from the hide, or from the gravy, or from the spices that amass at the bottom of the pot together with small amounts of meat, or from a tendon in the neck, or from the bones, or from the tendons, or from the horns, or from the hooves, the offering is fit and one is not liable to receive karet for it, neither due to the prohibition of piggul, if the sacrificial rites were performed with the intent to partake of the offering beyond its designated time, nor due to the prohibition of leftover meat beyond the designated time, nor due to the prohibition against partaking of the meat while ritually impure.
הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין לֶאֱכוֹל שְׁלִיל אוֹ שִׁילְיָא בַּחוּץ – לֹא פִּיגֵּל. הַמּוֹלֵק אֶת הַתּוֹרִין לֶאֱכוֹל בֵּיצֵיהֶן בַּחוּץ – לֹא פִּיגֵּל.
In the case of one who slaughters sacrificial female animals with the intent to eat the fetus of those animals or their placenta outside the designated area, he has not rendered the offering piggul. Likewise, in the case of one who pinches doves, i.e., slaughters them for sacrifice by cutting the napes of their necks with his fingernail, with the intent to eat their eggs that are still in their bodies outside the designated area, he has not rendered the offering piggul. This is because the fetus, the placenta, and the eggs are not considered part of the body of the animal or the bird.
חֲלֵב מוּקְדָּשִׁין וּבֵיצֵי תוֹרִין – אֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא.
For the same reason, one who consumes the milk of sacrificial female animals or the eggs of doves is not liable to receive karet for it, neither due to the prohibition of piggul, nor due to the prohibition of notar, nor due to the prohibition against partaking of the meat while ritually impure.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: פִּיגֵּל בַּזֶּבַח – נִתְפַּגֵּל הַשְּׁלִיל. בַּשְּׁלִיל – לֹא נִתְפַּגֵּל הַזֶּבַח. פִּיגֵּל בָּאָלָל – נִתְפַּגְּלָה מוּרְאָה. בַּמּוּרְאָה – לֹא נִתְפַּגֵּל אָלָל.
GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar says: If one renders an offering piggul by slaughtering it with the intent to partake of it beyond its designated time, its fetus is rendered piggul as well, and one who eats it is liable to receive karet. But if he intended to partake of the fetus beyond its designated time, the offering has not been rendered piggul. Likewise, if he rendered a bird offering piggul by having intent to partake of a tendon in the neck, which is edible, beyond its designated time, then the crop of the bird is rendered piggul as well, although it is not considered an item that is usually eaten, since there are people who eat it. But if he intended to partake of the crop beyond its designated time, then a tendon in the neck is not rendered piggul.
פִּיגֵּל בָּאֵימוּרִין – נִתְפַּגְּלוּ פָּרִים. בַּפָּרִים – לֹא נִתְפַּגְּלוּ אֵימוּרִים.
If he rendered the offering piggul, i.e., had improper intent by intending to burn the sacrificial portions that are consumed on the altar beyond their designated time, then the rest of the bulls are rendered piggul. Therefore, if one partakes of their meat, he is liable to receive karet due to the prohibition of piggul. But if he intended to partake of the rest of the bulls beyond their designated time, since piggul does not apply to them, as they are not destined to be consumed on the altar or to be eaten, the sacrificial portions that are consumed on the altar are not rendered piggul.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: וְשָׁוִים שֶׁאִם חִישֵּׁב בַּאֲכִילַת פָּרִים וּבִשְׂרֵיפָתָן – לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם. מַאי, לָאו הָא חִישֵּׁב בָּאֵימוּרִים – נִתְפַּגְּלוּ פָּרִים? לָא;
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: And even those who hold that piggul applies to the bulls that are burned agree that if he intended to partake of the bulls or to burn them beyond their designated time he did not do anything. This is because these bulls are not eaten or burned on the altar, and intentions can render an offering piggul only in the cases of offerings that are eaten or burned on the altar. The Gemara infers: What, is it not possible to infer that if he intended with regard to the sacrificial portions of the bulls that are consumed on the altar to burn them beyond their designated time, the bulls are rendered piggul, which is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Elazar? The Gemara rejects this: No,
הָא חִישֵּׁב בָּאֵימוּרִין – נִתְפַּגְּלוּ אֵימוּרִין עַצְמָן.
derive instead as follows: But if he intended, with regard to the sacrificial portions of the bulls, to burn them beyond their designated time, the sacrificial portions themselves are rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for eating them. The flesh of the bulls is never rendered piggul.
תָּא שְׁמַע: פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשׁוּ. נִשְׁחֲטוּ – הוּכְשְׁרוּ לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּיפּוּרִים וּבְלִינָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Me’ila 9a): In the case of the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned, one who derives benefit from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property from the time that they were consecrated. Once they were slaughtered, they are susceptible to being rendered disqualified for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through being left overnight without the requirements of the offering having been fulfilled.
מַאי, לָאו לִינַת בָּשָׂר – וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מִגּוֹ דְּפָסְלָה בְּלִינָה, פָּסְלָה בָּהּ מַחְשָׁבָה?
The Gemara derives: What, is it not referring to the flesh being left overnight, which would render it not valid? And conclude from the mishna that since the flesh is rendered disqualified by being left overnight, the flesh is also rendered disqualified by the intention to burn the sacrificial portions the next day, i.e., it is subject to piggul, which is in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Elazar.
לָא; לִינַת אֵימוּרִים. הָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כּוּלָּן מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן עַל בֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן עַד שֶׁיּוּתַּךְ הַבָּשָׂר – מִכְּלָל דְּרֵישָׁא לִינַת בָּשָׂר! מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ; רֵישָׁא אֵימוּרִים, וְסֵיפָא בָּשָׂר.
The Gemara responds: No, it is referring to leaving overnight the sacrificial portions of the offering, not the flesh. Likewise, only the sacrificial portions are rendered piggul by intent to eat them after their designated time. The Gemara asks: But from the fact that the latter clause teaches: One who derives benefit from all of them by the place of the ashes where they are burned is liable for misuse of consecrated property until the flesh is completely scorched, it may be inferred that the first clause of the mishna is also referring to the flesh being left overnight. The Gemara answers: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. The first clause is referring to the sacrificial portions that are consumed on the altar, and the latter clause is referring to the flesh.
מוֹתֵיב (רָבָא) [רַבָּה]: וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין מְפַגְּלִין וְאֵין מִתְפַּגְּלִין: צֶמֶר שֶׁבְּרָאשֵׁי כְבָשִׂים, וּשְׂעַר שֶׁבִּזְקַן תְּיָישִׁים, וְהָעוֹר, וְהָרוֹטֶב, וְהַקֵּיפֶה, וְהָאָלָל, וְהַמּוּרְאָה, וְהָעֲצָמוֹת, וְהַגִּידִין, וְהַקְּרָנַיִם, וְהַטְּלָפַיִם, וְהַשְּׁלִיל, וְהַשִּׁילְיָא, וַחֲלֵב הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין, וּבֵיצֵי תוֹרִין.
Rabba raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar from a baraita: And these are portions of the offering that do not render an offering piggul, and they do not become piggul: The wool that is on the head of the lambs, the hair that is in the beard of the goats, the hide, the gravy, the spices that amass at the bottom of the pot together with small amounts of meat, a tendon in the neck, the crop, the bones, the tendons, the horns, the hooves, the fetus, the placenta, the milk of sacrificial animals, and the eggs of doves.
[כּוּלָּן] לֹא מְפַגְּלִין וְלֹא מִתְפַּגְּלִין; וְאֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא; וְהַמַּעֲלֶה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר.
The baraita continues: All of these do not render other items piggul in the case of intent to consume them after their designated time, and they are not rendered piggul, and one is not liable to receive karet for them, neither due to the prohibition of piggul, nor the prohibition of notar, nor the prohibition against partaking of the meat while ritually impure. And one who offers up one of these outside the Temple is exempt, since they are not fit to be sacrificed on the altar.
מַאי, לָאו לֹא מְפַגְּלִין הַזֶּבַח, וְלֹא מִתְפַּגְּלִין מֵחֲמַת זֶבַח?
Rabba explains: What, does the baraita not mean that all of these items do not render the offering piggul if one intends to partake of them beyond the designated time, and they are also not rendered piggul due to the rest of the offering having been rendered piggul? This includes the fetus and placenta, and is therefore not in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Elazar that the rest of the offering does render them piggul.
לָא; לֹא מְפַגְּלִין אֶת הַזֶּבַח, וְלֹא מִתְפַּגְּלִין מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָן. אִי הָכִי, הָא דְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כּוּלָּן לֹא מְפַגְּלִין וְלֹא מִתְפַּגְּלִין – הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי?
The Gemara responds: No, it means that they do not render the offering piggul, and they are not rendered piggul due to themselves if one had intent to partake of them beyond the designated time. But such intent with regard to the offering can render them piggul. The Gemara asks: If so, concerning that which is taught in the latter clause: All of these do not render other items piggul and they are not rendered piggul, why do I also need this? Doesn’t it teach that they are not rendered piggul due to the rest of the offering?
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל – הָא תּוּ לְמָה לִי? אֶלָּא אַיְּידֵי דְבָעֵי לְמִיתְנָא נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא, תְּנָא פִּיגּוּל;
The Gemara answers: And according to your reasoning that the additional statement is necessary, then with regard to that which it says a third time: One is not liable to receive karet for them due to the prohibition of piggul, why do I also need this? Rather, the third statement does not teach an additional halakha, but since the tanna wants to teach that one is not liable to receive karet due to violating the prohibition of notar and the prohibition against partaking of the meat while ritually impure, he taught the halakha with regard to piggul as well.
הָכָא נָמֵי, אַיְּידֵי דְבָעֵי לְמִיתְנֵי: הַמַּעֲלֶה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ, תְּנָא נָמֵי: וְכוּלָּן לֹא מְפַגְּלִין וְלֹא מִתְפַּגְּלִין.
Here too, it can be explained similarly: Since the tanna wants to teach the halakha that one who offers up one of these items outside the Temple is exempt, he also taught: And all of these do not render other items piggul and they are not rendered piggul. It may be that the rest of the offering does in fact render them piggul, as Rabbi Elazar stated.
רָבָא אָמַר, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁים לֶאֱכוֹל שְׁלִיל אוֹ שִׁילְיָא בַּחוּץ – לֹא פִּיגֵּל, וְהַמּוֹלֵק אֶת הַתּוֹרִים לֶאֱכוֹל בֵּיצֵיהֶם בַּחוּץ – לֹא פִּיגֵּל;
Rava says: We learn in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Elazar in the mishna as well: One who slaughters sacrificial female animals with the intent to eat the fetus of those animals or their placenta outside their designated area has not rendered the offering piggul. And one who pinches doves, i.e., slaughters them for sacrifice by cutting the napes of their necks with his fingernail, with the intent to eat their eggs that are still in their bodies outside their designated area, has not rendered the offering piggul.
וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: חֲלֵב הַמּוּקְדָּשִׁין וּבֵיצֵי תוֹרִים – אֵין חַיָּיב עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא; הָא שְׁלִיל וְשִׁילְיָא – חַיָּיבִים!
And then it is taught: One who consumes the milk of sacrificial female animals or the eggs of doves is not liable to receive karet for it due to the prohibition of piggul, nor due to the prohibition of notar, nor due to the prohibition against partaking of the meat while ritually impure. But it can be inferred that one who partakes of the fetus or placenta, which are not mentioned, is liable to receive karet due to the prohibition of piggul.
אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: כָּאן מֵחֲמַת הַזֶּבַח, כָּאן מֵחֲמַת עַצְמָן? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rather, isn’t it correct to conclude from the mishna that here, they are rendered piggul due to the offering, and there, due to themselves, i.e., if he had improper intent concerning them, then they are not rendered piggul. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the mishna that it is so.
תְּנַן הָתָם: וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין; רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַכְשִׁיר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִים.
§ The baraita cited by Rabba is now discussed in a different context: We learned in a mishna there (84a) that if disqualified offerings are nevertheless brought upon the altar, they are removed, and blemished animals are also included in this halakha. Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit, and if they were brought upon the altar they are not removed.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא הִכְשִׁיר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֶלָּא בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן, הוֹאִיל וּכְשֵׁירִים בְּעוֹפוֹת. וְהוּא שֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּישָׁהּ אֶת מוּמָהּ.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Akiva deemed fit only an animal with a blemish on the cornea of the eye and similar blemishes that are not noticeable, since they are valid in the case of birds. And in addition, this is the halakha provided that its consecration preceded its blemish, i.e., when the animal was consecrated it was still entirely fit.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּעוֹלַת נְקֵבָה, דִּכְמַאן דִּקְדַם מוּמָהּ לְהֶקְדֵּישָׁהּ דָּמֵי.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: And Rabbi Akiva concedes with regard to a female burnt offering that was brought upon the altar that since a burnt offering may be only a male animal, it is comparable to a case where its blemish preceded its consecration, since the disqualifying factor was there from the outset. Therefore, if it was brought upon the altar it must be removed.
מֵתִיב רַבִּי זֵירָא: הַמַּעֲלֶה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. הָא מֵאִימָּן – חַיָּיב; וְהֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? בְּעוֹלַת נְקֵבָה.
Rabbi Zeira raises an objection to this from the baraita cited by Rabba: One who offers up one of these outside the Temple is exempt, as they are not fit to be sacrificed on the altar. But it can be inferred that if he were to sacrifice from the flesh of the mother of one of these outside the Temple, he would be liable. And how can you find these circumstances? It is only in the case of a female burnt offering. This is because with regard to a peace offering, which may also be from a female animal, its flesh is not burned on the altar but is eaten. Therefore, there would be no liability for sacrificing it outside the Temple.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא קָסָבַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא עוֹלַת נְקֵבָה אִם עָלְתָה לֹא תֵּרֵד, הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ אִם עָלְתָה תֵּרֵד, הָא מַנִּי?
Rabbi Zeira explains his objection: Granted, if you say that Rabbi Akiva holds with regard to a female burnt offering that if it ascended onto the altar it does not descend, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is that of Rabbi Akiva. This is because one is liable for sacrificing any offering outside the Temple that may be sacrificed on the altar, including one that was brought upon the altar inappropriately but is not removed. But if you say that with regard to a female burnt offering if it ascended the altar it must descend, and it entirely lacks the status of an offering fit to be sacrificed on the altar, in accordance with whose opinion is this baraita?
אֵימָא: הַמַּעֲלֶה מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר, הָא מֵאֵימוּרֵי אִימָּן – חַיָּיב.
The Gemara answers: Say that the inference should be as follows: One who offers up one of those items outside the Temple is exempt, but if he sacrificed from the sacrificial portions of the mother of one of these, he is liable. This halakha can apply to both a sin offering and a peace offering, for which a female may be brought and whose sacrificial portions are burned on the altar.
וְהָא ״מֵהֶן״ קָתָנֵי – וְאִימָּן דּוּמְיָא דִּידְהוּ! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הַמַּעֲלֶה מֵאֵימוּרֵיהֶן בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר, הָא מֵאֵימוּרֵי אִימָּן – חַיָּיב.
The Gemara challenges: But the baraita teaches this halakha with the term: Of one of these, indicating that it is referring to one who sacrifices the flesh, and not the sacrificial portions alone. And the case of their mother is similar to that of them, and is therefore referring to sacrificing the flesh of the mother outside the Temple, and not the sacrificial portions. Rather, say as follows: One who offers up part of their sacrificial portions outside the Temple is exempt, but one who offered up some of the sacrificial portions of the mother of one of these is liable.
מַתְנִי׳ שְׁחָטוֹ עַל מְנָת לְהַנִּיחַ אֶת דָּמוֹ אוֹ אֵימוּרָיו לְמָחָר, אוֹ לְהוֹצִיאָן לַחוּץ – רַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹסֵל וַחֲכָמִים מַכְשִׁירִין. עַל מְנָת לִיתְּנָן עַל גַּבֵּי הַכֶּבֶשׁ; שֶׁלֹּא כְּנֶגֶד הַיְסוֹד; וְלִיתֵּן אֶת הַנִּיתָּנִים לְמַעְלָן – לְמַטָּה; וְאֶת הַנִּיתָּנִים לְמַטָּה – לְמַעְלָן; וְאֶת הַנִּיתָּנִים
MISHNA: If one slaughters the animal in order to leave its blood or its sacrificial portions for the next day, or to remove them outside the designated area, but not in order to sacrifice them the next day, Rabbi Yehuda deems the offering unfit, and the Rabbis deem it fit. In the case of one who slaughters the animal in order to place the blood upon the ramp or on the wall of the altar that is not opposite the base of the altar, or in order to place the blood that is to be placed above the red line below the red line, or to place the blood that is to be placed below the red line above the red line, or the blood that is to be placed
