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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 18, 2018 | 讚壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Zevachim 35

There is a debate regarding why during the sacrificing of the Pashal sacrifices, the drain was plugged to that the blood would stay in the azara. What parts of the animal are susceptible to pigul? Rabbi Elezar聽says that certain cases where a thought regarding a part of the animal (like a fetus) will not cause the part or the animal’s meat to become pigul but a thought regarding the animal that would render the animals’meat pigul would also render the fetus聽pigul. Several聽sources are brought聽to prove his opinion and also an attempt to contradict his opinion.


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

讗祝 讗谞讬 诇讗 讗诪专转讬 讗诇讗 讻砖谞转拽讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诪谞讗 讬讚注 讻讛谞讬诐 讝专讬讝讬谉 讜注讘讚讬谉 讛讬讬讗 讜诪砖转驻讻讬谉

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.

讜讛诇讗 讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 诪注讜专讘 讘讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 拽专讬 讚诐

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.

讚转谞讬讗 讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 讘讗讝讛专讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讻专转

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.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇注谞讬谉 讻驻专讛 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻驻专 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讛谞驻砖

The Gemara challenges this answer: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say that Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to atonement that presenting blood of exudate does not effect atonement, as it is stated: 鈥淔or 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鈥 (Leviticus 17:11).

讚诐 砖讛谞驻砖 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讜 拽专讜讬 讚诐 砖讗讬谉 讛谞驻砖 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讜 讗讬谉 拽专讜讬 讚诐

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.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讚诐 诪讘讟诇 讚诐

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.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讚讘专讬讻诐 诇诪讛 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讛注讝专讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖讘讞 讛讜讗 诇讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 砖讬讛诇讻讜 注讚 讗专讻讜讘讜转讬讛谉 讘讚诐

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.

讜讛讗 讚诐 讛讜讬 讞爪讬爪讛 诇讞 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讛讜讬 讞爪讬爪讛 讚转谞谉 讛讚诐 讜讛讚讬讜 讜讛讚讘砖 讜讛讞诇讘 讬讘讬砖讬谉 讞讜爪爪讬谉 诇讞讬谉 讗讬谉 讞讜爪爪讬谉

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.

讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讬转讜讜住讬 诪讗谞讬讬讛讜 讜转谞谉 讛讬讜 讘讙讚讬讜 诪讟讜砖讟砖讬谉 讜注讘讚 注讘讜讚转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诪讚诇讜 诇讛讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讚讜 讻诪讚转讜 砖诇讗 讬讞住专 讜砖诇讗 讬讜转讬专 讘讛讜诇讻转 讗讘专讬诐 诇讻讘砖 讚诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks further: But don鈥檛 their garments become soiled? And we learned in a baraita: If a priest鈥檚 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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd the priest shall put on his linen garment [middo vad]鈥 (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.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讛拽专讬讘 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 讝讜 讛讜诇讻转 讗讘专讬诐 诇讻讘砖 讗诇讗 讘讛讜诇讻转 注爪讬诐 诇诪注专讻讛 讚诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诇注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讻讬 讗讝诇讬 讗讝诇讬 讗讗讬爪讟讘讬

The Gemara asks: And is it not one of the rites? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd the priest shall bring it all and burn it upon the altar鈥 (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.

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

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.

诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 讻砖专 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛拽讟专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

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.

讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讝讘讞 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛注讜专 讜诪谉 讛专讜讟讘 讜诪谉 讛拽讬驻讛 讜诪谉 讛讗诇诇 讜诪谉 讛注爪诪讜转 讜诪谉 讛讙讬讚讬谉 讜诪谉 讛拽专谞讬诐 讜诪谉 讛讟诇驻讬诐 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讻砖专 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗

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.

讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 砖诇讬诇 讗讜 砖讬诇讬讗 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 驻讬讙诇 讛诪讜诇拽 讗转 讛转讜专讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讘讬爪讬讛谉 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 驻讬讙诇

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.

讞诇讘 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讜讘讬爪讬 转讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻讬讙诇 讘讝讘讞 谞转驻讙诇 讛砖诇讬诇 讘砖诇讬诇 诇讗 谞转驻讙诇 讛讝讘讞 驻讬讙诇 讘讗诇诇 谞转驻讙诇讛 诪讜专讗讛 讘诪讜专讗讛 诇讗 谞转驻讙诇 讗诇诇

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.

驻讬讙诇 讘讗讬诪讜专讬谉 谞转驻讙诇讜 驻专讬诐 讘驻专讬诐 诇讗 谞转驻讙诇讜 讗讬诪讜专讬诐

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.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讜砖讜讬诐 砖讗诐 讞讬砖讘 讘讗讻讬诇转 驻专讬诐 讜讘砖专讬驻转谉 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 讞讬砖讘 讘讗讬诪讜专讬诐 谞转驻讙诇讜 驻专讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita sup-ports 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,

讛讗 讞讬砖讘 讘讗讬诪讜专讬谉 谞转驻讙诇讜 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 注爪诪谉

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.

转讗 砖诪注 驻专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 讜砖注讬专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讛讜拽讚砖讜 谞砖讞讟讜 讛讜讻砖专讜 诇讬驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诇讬谞讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Me鈥檌la 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讬谞转 讘砖专 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讙讜 讚驻住诇讛 讘诇讬谞讛 驻住诇讛 讘讛 诪讞砖讘讛

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.

诇讗 诇讬谞转 讗讬诪讜专讬诐 讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讻讜诇谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 注诇 讘讬转 讛讚砖谉 注讚 砖讬讜转讱 讛讘砖专 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讬谞转 讘砖专 诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 专讬砖讗 讗讬诪讜专讬诐 讜住讬驻讗 讘砖专

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.

诪讜转讬讘 (专讘讗) [专讘讛] 讜讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪转驻讙诇讬谉 爪诪专 砖讘专讗砖讬 讻讘砖讬诐 讜砖注专 砖讘讝拽谉 转讬讬砖讬诐 讜讛注讜专 讜讛专讜讟讘 讜讛拽讬驻讛 讜讛讗诇诇 讜讛诪讜专讗讛 讜讛注爪诪讜转 讜讛讙讬讚讬谉 讜讛拽专谞讬诐 讜讛讟诇驻讬诐 讜讛砖诇讬诇 讜讛砖讬诇讬讗 讜讞诇讘 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讜讘讬爪讬 转讜专讬谉

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.

[讻讜诇谉] 诇讗 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪转驻讙诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讜讛诪注诇讛 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专

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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讛讝讘讞 讜诇讗 诪转驻讙诇讬谉 诪讞诪转 讝讘讞

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.

诇讗 诇讗 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讗转 讛讝讘讞 讜诇讗 诪转驻讙诇讬谉 诪讞诪转 注爪诪谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讻讜诇谉 诇讗 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪转驻讙诇讬谉 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬

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鈥檛 it teach that they are not rendered piggul due to the rest of the offering?

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 转谞讗 驻讬讙讜诇

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.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 讛诪注诇讛 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 转谞讗 谞诪讬 讜讻讜诇谉 诇讗 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪转驻讙诇讬谉

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗讻讜诇 砖诇讬诇 讗讜 砖讬诇讬讗 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 驻讬讙诇 讜讛诪讜诇拽 讗转 讛转讜专讬诐 诇讗讻讜诇 讘讬爪讬讛诐 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 驻讬讙诇

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.

讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讞诇讘 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讜讘讬爪讬 转讜专讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讛讗 砖诇讬诇 讜砖讬诇讬讗 讞讬讬讘讬诐

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.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗谉 诪讞诪转 讛讝讘讞 讻讗谉 诪讞诪转 注爪诪谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, isn鈥檛 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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讜讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讻砖讬专 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬诐

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讛讻砖讬专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诇讗 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻砖讬专讬诐 讘注讜驻讜转 讜讛讜讗 砖拽讚诐 讛拽讚讬砖讛 讗转 诪讜诪讛

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘注讜诇转 谞拽讘讛 讚讻诪讗谉 讚拽讚诐 诪讜诪讛 诇讛拽讚讬砖讛 讚诪讬

Rabbi 岣yya 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛诪注诇讛 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讛讗 诪讗讬诪谉 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘注讜诇转 谞拽讘讛

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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讜诇转 谞拽讘讛 讗诐 注诇转讛 诇讗 转专讚 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗诐 注诇转讛 转专讚 讛讗 诪谞讬

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?

讗讬诪讗 讛诪注诇讛 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讛讗 诪讗讬诪讜专讬 讗讬诪谉 讞讬讬讘

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.

讜讛讗 诪讛谉 拽转谞讬 讜讗讬诪谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讬讚讛讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛诪注诇讛 诪讗讬诪讜专讬讛谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讛讗 诪讗讬诪讜专讬 讗讬诪谉 讞讬讬讘

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.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讞讟讜 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛谞讬讞 讗转 讚诪讜 讗讜 讗讬诪讜专讬讜 诇诪讞专 讗讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗谉 诇讞讜抓 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜住诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 注诇 诪谞转 诇讬转谞谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讻讘砖 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛讬住讜讚 讜诇讬转谉 讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬诐 诇诪注诇谉 诇诪讟讛 讜讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬诐 诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇谉 讜讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬诐

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

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 35

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 35

讗祝 讗谞讬 诇讗 讗诪专转讬 讗诇讗 讻砖谞转拽讘诇 讘讻诇讬 讜讛讜讗 讙讜驻讬讛 诪谞讗 讬讚注 讻讛谞讬诐 讝专讬讝讬谉 讜注讘讚讬谉 讛讬讬讗 讜诪砖转驻讻讬谉

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.

讜讛诇讗 讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 诪注讜专讘 讘讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 拽专讬 讚诐

The Gemara asks: But isn鈥檛 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.

讚转谞讬讗 讚诐 讛转诪爪讬转 讘讗讝讛专讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讻专转

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.

讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇注谞讬谉 讻驻专讛 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讻驻专 砖谞讗诪专 讻讬 讛讚诐 讛讜讗 讛谞驻砖

The Gemara challenges this answer: But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say that Rabbi Yehuda concedes with regard to atonement that presenting blood of exudate does not effect atonement, as it is stated: 鈥淔or 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鈥 (Leviticus 17:11).

讚诐 砖讛谞驻砖 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讜 拽专讜讬 讚诐 砖讗讬谉 讛谞驻砖 讬讜爪讗讛 讘讜 讗讬谉 拽专讜讬 讚诐

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.

讗诇讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讟注诪讬讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讚诐 诪讘讟诇 讚诐

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.

讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讚讘专讬讻诐 诇诪讛 驻讜拽拽讬谉 讛注讝专讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 砖讘讞 讛讜讗 诇讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 砖讬讛诇讻讜 注讚 讗专讻讜讘讜转讬讛谉 讘讚诐

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.

讜讛讗 讚诐 讛讜讬 讞爪讬爪讛 诇讞 讛讜讗 讜诇讗 讛讜讬 讞爪讬爪讛 讚转谞谉 讛讚诐 讜讛讚讬讜 讜讛讚讘砖 讜讛讞诇讘 讬讘讬砖讬谉 讞讜爪爪讬谉 诇讞讬谉 讗讬谉 讞讜爪爪讬谉

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.

讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讬转讜讜住讬 诪讗谞讬讬讛讜 讜转谞谉 讛讬讜 讘讙讚讬讜 诪讟讜砖讟砖讬谉 讜注讘讚 注讘讜讚转讜 驻住讜诇讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讚诪讚诇讜 诇讛讜 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪讚讜 讻诪讚转讜 砖诇讗 讬讞住专 讜砖诇讗 讬讜转讬专 讘讛讜诇讻转 讗讘专讬诐 诇讻讘砖 讚诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara asks further: But don鈥檛 their garments become soiled? And we learned in a baraita: If a priest鈥檚 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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd the priest shall put on his linen garment [middo vad]鈥 (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.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 讜讛拽专讬讘 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 讝讜 讛讜诇讻转 讗讘专讬诐 诇讻讘砖 讗诇讗 讘讛讜诇讻转 注爪讬诐 诇诪注专讻讛 讚诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜诇注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讻讬 讗讝诇讬 讗讝诇讬 讗讗讬爪讟讘讬

The Gemara asks: And is it not one of the rites? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: 鈥淎nd the priest shall bring it all and burn it upon the altar鈥 (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.

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

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.

诇讗讻讜诇 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讚讘专 砖讚专讻讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 驻讞讜转 诪讻讝讬转 讻砖专 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讜诇讛拽讟讬专 讻讞爪讬 讝讬转 讻砖专 砖讗讬谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛拽讟专讛 诪爪讟专驻讬谉

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.

讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛讝讘讞 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讝讬转 诪谉 讛注讜专 讜诪谉 讛专讜讟讘 讜诪谉 讛拽讬驻讛 讜诪谉 讛讗诇诇 讜诪谉 讛注爪诪讜转 讜诪谉 讛讙讬讚讬谉 讜诪谉 讛拽专谞讬诐 讜诪谉 讛讟诇驻讬诐 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讻砖专 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗

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.

讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 砖诇讬诇 讗讜 砖讬诇讬讗 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 驻讬讙诇 讛诪讜诇拽 讗转 讛转讜专讬谉 诇讗讻讜诇 讘讬爪讬讛谉 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 驻讬讙诇

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.

讞诇讘 诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讜讘讬爪讬 转讜专讬谉 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讜谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻讬讙诇 讘讝讘讞 谞转驻讙诇 讛砖诇讬诇 讘砖诇讬诇 诇讗 谞转驻讙诇 讛讝讘讞 驻讬讙诇 讘讗诇诇 谞转驻讙诇讛 诪讜专讗讛 讘诪讜专讗讛 诇讗 谞转驻讙诇 讗诇诇

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.

驻讬讙诇 讘讗讬诪讜专讬谉 谞转驻讙诇讜 驻专讬诐 讘驻专讬诐 诇讗 谞转驻讙诇讜 讗讬诪讜专讬诐

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.

诇讬诪讗 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 讜砖讜讬诐 砖讗诐 讞讬砖讘 讘讗讻讬诇转 驻专讬诐 讜讘砖专讬驻转谉 诇讗 注砖讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讗 讞讬砖讘 讘讗讬诪讜专讬诐 谞转驻讙诇讜 驻专讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita sup-ports 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,

讛讗 讞讬砖讘 讘讗讬诪讜专讬谉 谞转驻讙诇讜 讗讬诪讜专讬谉 注爪诪谉

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.

转讗 砖诪注 驻专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 讜砖注讬专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诪砖讛讜拽讚砖讜 谞砖讞讟讜 讛讜讻砖专讜 诇讬驻住诇 讘讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讜讘诪讞讜住专 讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讜讘诇讬谞讛

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Me鈥檌la 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讬谞转 讘砖专 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讙讜 讚驻住诇讛 讘诇讬谞讛 驻住诇讛 讘讛 诪讞砖讘讛

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.

诇讗 诇讬谞转 讗讬诪讜专讬诐 讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讻讜诇谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 注诇 讘讬转 讛讚砖谉 注讚 砖讬讜转讱 讛讘砖专 诪讻诇诇 讚专讬砖讗 诇讬谞转 讘砖专 诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 专讬砖讗 讗讬诪讜专讬诐 讜住讬驻讗 讘砖专

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.

诪讜转讬讘 (专讘讗) [专讘讛] 讜讗诇讜 砖讗讬谉 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 诪转驻讙诇讬谉 爪诪专 砖讘专讗砖讬 讻讘砖讬诐 讜砖注专 砖讘讝拽谉 转讬讬砖讬诐 讜讛注讜专 讜讛专讜讟讘 讜讛拽讬驻讛 讜讛讗诇诇 讜讛诪讜专讗讛 讜讛注爪诪讜转 讜讛讙讬讚讬谉 讜讛拽专谞讬诐 讜讛讟诇驻讬诐 讜讛砖诇讬诇 讜讛砖讬诇讬讗 讜讞诇讘 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讜讘讬爪讬 转讜专讬谉

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.

[讻讜诇谉] 诇讗 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪转驻讙诇讬谉 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讜讛诪注诇讛 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专

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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诇讗 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讛讝讘讞 讜诇讗 诪转驻讙诇讬谉 诪讞诪转 讝讘讞

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.

诇讗 诇讗 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讗转 讛讝讘讞 讜诇讗 诪转驻讙诇讬谉 诪讞诪转 注爪诪谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讗 讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讻讜诇谉 诇讗 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪转驻讙诇讬谉 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬

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鈥檛 it teach that they are not rendered piggul due to the rest of the offering?

讜诇讬讟注诪讬讱 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讛讗 转讜 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 转谞讗 驻讬讙讜诇

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.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讘注讬 诇诪讬转谞讬 讛诪注诇讛 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 转谞讗 谞诪讬 讜讻讜诇谉 诇讗 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讜诇讗 诪转驻讙诇讬谉

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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讛砖讜讞讟 讗转 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗讻讜诇 砖诇讬诇 讗讜 砖讬诇讬讗 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 驻讬讙诇 讜讛诪讜诇拽 讗转 讛转讜专讬诐 诇讗讻讜诇 讘讬爪讬讛诐 讘讞讜抓 诇讗 驻讬讙诇

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.

讜讛讚专 转谞讬 讞诇讘 讛诪讜拽讚砖讬谉 讜讘讬爪讬 转讜专讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 谞讜转专 讜讟诪讗 讛讗 砖诇讬诇 讜砖讬诇讬讗 讞讬讬讘讬诐

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.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讻讗谉 诪讞诪转 讛讝讘讞 讻讗谉 诪讞诪转 注爪诪谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rather, isn鈥檛 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.

转谞谉 讛转诐 讜讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讻砖讬专 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬诐

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 讛讻砖讬专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗诇讗 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讻砖讬专讬诐 讘注讜驻讜转 讜讛讜讗 砖拽讚诐 讛拽讚讬砖讛 讗转 诪讜诪讛

Rabbi 岣yya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讘注讜诇转 谞拽讘讛 讚讻诪讗谉 讚拽讚诐 诪讜诪讛 诇讛拽讚讬砖讛 讚诪讬

Rabbi 岣yya 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛诪注诇讛 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讛讗 诪讗讬诪谉 讞讬讬讘 讜讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讘注讜诇转 谞拽讘讛

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.

讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 注讜诇转 谞拽讘讛 讗诐 注诇转讛 诇讗 转专讚 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 讗诐 注诇转讛 转专讚 讛讗 诪谞讬

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?

讗讬诪讗 讛诪注诇讛 诪讛谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讛讗 诪讗讬诪讜专讬 讗讬诪谉 讞讬讬讘

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.

讜讛讗 诪讛谉 拽转谞讬 讜讗讬诪谉 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讬讚讛讜 讗诇讗 讗讬诪讗 讛诪注诇讛 诪讗讬诪讜专讬讛谉 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讛讗 诪讗讬诪讜专讬 讗讬诪谉 讞讬讬讘

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.

诪转谞讬壮 砖讞讟讜 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛谞讬讞 讗转 讚诪讜 讗讜 讗讬诪讜专讬讜 诇诪讞专 讗讜 诇讛讜爪讬讗谉 诇讞讜抓 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 驻讜住诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬谉 注诇 诪谞转 诇讬转谞谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讻讘砖 砖诇讗 讻谞讙讚 讛讬住讜讚 讜诇讬转谉 讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬诐 诇诪注诇谉 诇诪讟讛 讜讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬诐 诇诪讟讛 诇诪注诇谉 讜讗转 讛谞讬转谞讬诐

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

Scroll To Top