Zevachim 37
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.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
A braita is presented that derives from the verse “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured” the principle that if one performs just a single application of blood for each offering brought on the outer altar, they have fulfilled their obligation—supporting the halakha stated in the Mishnah. However, this verse is also used for various other interpretations and halakhot. This raises a question: how does the author of the braita derive this law from the verse if it is already employed for other teachings?
Those who interpret the verse differently derive this law by another method: they learn the rule from the sin offering (in accordance with Beit Hillel) and extend it from there to other offerings.
How do Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel each derive their respective views regarding the sin offering from the biblical verses?
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.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Fred Hochstadter, Ephraim ben Kayla veBaruch on his 18th yahrzeit on ח׳ אלול. “We continue to be inspired by his dedication to daily learning, from the Daf and beyond, to its surrounding philosophical, historical and legal nuances. We miss him greatly and can only strive to emulate his wise, kind and elegant ways.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Daniel and Sara Berelowitz in honor of their newest grandchild Ream Lior, son of Hadar and Eliyahu Berelowitz.
Zevachim 37
מִנַּיִן לְכׇל הַדָּמִים שֶׁטְּעוּנִים מַתַּן דָּם לַיְסוֹד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״. נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּרַבִּי – דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה״ – שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּדָּם״; וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּדָּם״?
From where is it derived that all the blood that is left over from an offering after the requisite placement requires placement of blood on the base of the altar? The verse states: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27). The Gemara answers: The tanna of the first baraita derives this from the verse cited by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says with regard to a verse discussing a bird sin offering: “And the rest of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar; it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:9). As there is no need for the verse to state “of the blood,” because the entire verse is talking about the blood, what is the meaning when the verse states “of the blood”?
לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא לָמַדְנוּ אֶלָּא לַנִּיתָּנִין מַתַּן אַרְבַּע – שֶׁטְּעוּנִין מַתַּן דָּמִים לַיְסוֹד; שְׁאָר דָּמִים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה״ – שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּדָּם״; וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּדָּם״? לִימֵּד עַל כׇּל הַדָּמִים, שֶׁטְּעוּנִין מַתַּן דָּמִים לַיְסוֹד.
The baraita continues: Since we have learned only about those offerings whose blood is placed on the altar with four placements, i.e., outer sin offerings, that they require placement of the leftover blood on the base of the altar, from where is it derived that the same applies to the leftover blood of all the other offerings? The verse states: “And the rest of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar; it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:9). Since there is no need for the verse to state “of the blood,” because the entire verse is talking about the blood, what is the meaning when the verse states “of the blood”? This teaches that all the leftover blood from all the offerings requires placement of blood on the base of the altar.
וְאַכַּתִּי לְהָכִי הוּא דְּאָתָא?! מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לַנִּיתָּנִין בִּזְרִיקָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן בִּשְׁפִיכָה – יָצָא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״.
The Gemara asks: But still, does this verse, Deuteronomy 12:27, come to teach this halakha, that if a priest placed the blood with one placement, he facilitated atonement? That verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to those offerings whose blood is supposed to be placed by means of sprinkling from a certain distance from the altar, that if the priest placed the blood by pouring it from up close he has fulfilled his obligation? The verse states: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27).
סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: לֹא זְרִיקָה בִּכְלַל שְׁפִיכָה, וְלֹא שְׁפִיכָה בִּכְלַל זְרִיקָה.
The Gemara answers that the ruling in this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, while the tanna of the earlier baraita holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: Sprinkling is not included in pouring, and similarly pouring is not included in sprinkling. Rather, these are separate actions performed under different circumstances, and one does not fulfill his obligation to sprinkle the blood by pouring it. Therefore, the verse is available to him to teach that if a priest placed the blood with one placement, he facilitated atonement.
דִּתְנַן: בֵּרַךְ בִּרְכַּת הַפֶּסַח – פָּטַר אֶת שֶׁל זֶבַח.
The Gemara demonstrates that this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva: This is as we learned in a mishna (Pesaḥim 121a): If one recited the blessing over the Paschal offering, which is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to eat the Paschal offering, he has also exempted himself from reciting a blessing over the Festival peace offering, i.e., the peace offering that is eaten together with the Paschal offering. The blessing for the Festival peace offering of the fourteenth of Nisan is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to eat the offering.
שֶׁל זֶבַח – לֹא פָּטַר אֶת הַפֶּסַח. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
If he recited the blessing over the Festival offering, he has not exempted himself from reciting a blessing over the Paschal offering. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Yishmael’s reasoning is based on the halakha that the blood of the Paschal offering is poured, while the blood of the Festival offering is sprinkled. He maintains that sprinkling is included in the more general category of pouring, and therefore the blessing over the Paschal offering includes the Festival offering. Pouring is not included in the more limited category of sprinkling, and therefore reciting the blessing over the Festival offering does not exempt one from reciting a blessing over the Paschal offering.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא זוֹ פּוֹטֶרֶת זוֹ, וְלֹא זוֹ פּוֹטֶרֶת זוֹ.
The mishna continues: Rabbi Akiva says: This blessing does not exempt one from reciting a blessing over that one, and that blessing does not exempt one from reciting a blessing over this one. Sprinkling is not included in pouring, and pouring is not included in sprinkling. Therefore, there is a separate blessing for each offering.
אַכַּתִּי לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?! מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר אוֹ בְכוֹר כֶּשֶׂב אוֹ בְכוֹר עֵז וְגוֹ׳״ – לָמַדְנוּ לִבְכוֹר, שֶׁטָּעוּן מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִים לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ. מַעֲשֵׂר וּפֶסַח מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״.
The Gemara asks: Still, does this verse, Deuteronomy 12:27, come to teach this halakha, that if a priest placed the blood with one placement he facilitated atonement? That verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael says: Since it is stated: “But the firstborn of a bull, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are sacred. You shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar and shall burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Numbers 18:17), we learned with regard to a firstborn animal, which must be given to a priest to be offered on the altar in the Temple, that it requires placement of its blood and sacrificial portions on the altar. From where is it derived that the same applies to an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering? The verse states: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27). This verse teaches that all offerings require placement of their blood on the altar.
סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי.
The Gemara answers that the tanna of the earlier baraita, who derives from Deuteronomy 12:27 the halakha that if a priest placed the blood with one placement he facilitated atonement, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili maintains that the halakha that the blood and sacrificial parts of an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering must be placed on the altar is derived from the aforementioned verse concerning a firstborn animal: “You shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar and shall burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Numbers 18:17).
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: ״דָּמוֹ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״דָּמָם״; ״חֶלְבּוֹ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״חֶלְבָּם״; לִימֵּד עַל בְּכוֹר, מַעֲשֵׂר וּפֶסַח, שֶׁטָּעוּן מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ.
This is as it is taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is not stated in this verse: Its blood, but rather: “Their blood.” Similarly, it is not stated: Its fat, but rather: “Their fat.” The plural form teaches with regard to the firstborn animal, which is mentioned explicitly in the verse, as well as with regard to the animal tithe offering and the Paschal offering, which have a level of sanctity similar to that of a firstborn animal, that each requires placement of the blood and sacrificial portions on the altar.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – הַאי קְרָא, מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְהָכִי וּמַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְהָכִי?! תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yishmael derive one halakha from this verse and then derive another halakha from this same verse? It was stated earlier that Rabbi Yishmael derives from the verse “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured” that sprinkling is included in pouring, and yet here he derives from that same verse that the blood of an animal tithe offering and that of a Paschal offering must be presented on the altar. The Gemara answers: These are the opinions of two tanna’im, each of whom expressed his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּמוֹקֵים לֵהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ בִּבְכוֹר – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָּךְ״.
The Gemara raises a question with regard to the disagreement about the interpretation of Numbers 18:17. Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who interprets the entire verse as referring to a firstborn animal, and according to whom the plural form in the verse is referring to three such firstborns, that of a bull, that of a sheep, and that of a goat, this explains that which is written immediately afterward: “And their meat shall be yours” (Numbers 18:18), in the plural, i.e., the meat of these firstborn animals shall be eaten by the priests.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּמוֹקֵי לֵיהּ נָמֵי בְּמַעֲשֵׂר וָפֶסַח – מַעֲשֵׂר וָפֶסַח בְּעָלִים אָכְלִי לֵיהּ; מַאי ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָּךְ״? אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד בַּעַל מוּם;
But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who interprets this verse as referring also to an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering, there is a difficulty, as an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering are eaten by their owners, not by the priests. If so, what is the meaning of the phrase “and their meat shall be yours”? The Gemara answers that the plural term “their meat,” is referring not to an animal tithe offering or a Paschal offering, but to different types of firstborns, i.e., both an unblemished animal, whose blood is poured on the altar, and a blemished one, which is not brought as an offering on the altar.
לִימֵּד עַל בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם, שֶׁנִּיתָּן לַכֹּהֵן. שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ לוֹ בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ.
This verse teaches that a blemished firstborn is given to a priest as a gift, and that he may eat its meat. This is a novel concept, as we have not found in the entire Torah another halakha similar to it, where a blemished offering is given to the priests for consumption.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״לְּךָ יִהְיֶה״ דְּסֵיפָא.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yishmael, who interprets this verse differently, from where does he derive this halakha that a blemished firstborn is given to a priest? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the phrase: “As the breast of waving and as the right thigh, it shall be yours” (Numbers 18:18), which is the latter clause of that same verse. The repetition of the phrase “shall be yours” serves to teach that even the meat of a blemished firstborn shall be eaten by the priests.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּמוֹקֵי לֵיהּ נָמֵי בְּמַעֲשֵׂר וָפֶסַח; הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תִפְדֶּה כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הֵם״ – הֵם קְרֵיבִין, וְאֵין תְּמוּרָתָן קְרֵיבָה.
§ The Gemara raises another question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who interprets the verse as referring also to an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering, this is as it is written in the same verse: “You shall not redeem; they are sacred” (Numbers 18:17). The word “they” indicates that only they are sacrificed on the altar, but their substitutes are not sacrificed. In general, if one substitutes a non-sacred animal for one designated as an offering, both the original and the substitute are considered to be consecrated, and they are therefore sacrificed. But if one substitutes a non-sacred animal for a firstborn, an animal tithe offering, or a Paschal offering, the substitute is not sacrificed.
דִּתְנַן: תְּמוּרַת בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר – הֵן וּוְלָדָן וּוְלַד וְלָדָן עַד סוֹף כׇּל הָעוֹלָם, הֲרֵי הֵן כִּבְכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר, וְיֹאכְלוּ בְּמוּמָן לַבְּעָלִים.
This is as we learned in a mishna (Temura 21a): With regard to the substitute of a firstborn and of an animal tithe offering, both they, the substitutes themselves, and their offspring, and the offspring of their offspring, forever, i.e., for all future generations, are as the firstborn and the animal tithe offering, respectively, and therefore they are eaten in their blemished state by the owners; but unlike the firstborn and the animal tithe offering themselves, they are not sacrificed on the altar.
וּתְנַן, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁתְּמוּרַת פֶּסַח קְרֵיבָה, וּתְמוּרַת פֶּסַח אֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה, וְאֵין לִי לְפָרֵשׁ.
And likewise with regard to the substitute of a Paschal offering, we learned in a mishna (Pesaḥim 96b) that Rabbi Yehoshua says: I have heard two rulings from my teachers: One ruling was that the substitute of a Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace offering after Passover, and another ruling was that the substitute of a Paschal offering is not offered as a peace offering after Passover; and I cannot explain these apparently contradictory rulings, as I do not remember the circumstances to which each ruling applies. And as will be explained, if the substitution took place after the sacrifice of the Paschal offering, the animal is sacrificed, as it is considered the substitute of a peace offering, whereas if the substitution occurred before the sacrifice of the Paschal offering, it is not sacrificed, as it is the substitute of a Paschal offering. This indicates that the substitute of a Paschal offering is not sacrificed, just like the substitute of a firstborn is not sacrificed.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּמוֹקֵי לֵיהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ בִּבְכוֹר; מַעֲשֵׂר וָפֶסַח דְּלָא קְרֵיבָה תְּמוּרָתָן, מְנָא לֵיהּ? מַעֲשֵׂר גָּמַר ״עֲבָרָה״–״עֲבָרָה״ מִבְּכוֹר.
But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who interprets the entire verse as dealing with a firstborn, from where does he derive the halakha that the substitute of an animal tithe offering and of a Paschal offering are not sacrificed? The Gemara answers: With regard to an animal tithe offering, he derives this by means of a verbal analogy between the terms passing, and passing written with regard to a firstborn. Concerning a firstborn it is stated: “And you shall pass [veha’avarta] to the Lord all that opens the womb” (Exodus 13:12), and concerning an animal tithe it is stated: “Of whatever passes [ya’avor] under the rod” (Leviticus 27:32). From this verbal analogy it may be derived that just as the substitute of a firstborn is not sacrificed, so too, the substitute of an animal tithe offering is not sacrificed.
פֶּסַח – בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִב בֵּיהּ כֶּשֶׂב; מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִם כֶּשֶׂב״ – לְרַבּוֹת תְּמוּרַת הַפֶּסַח אַחַר הַפֶּסַח, שֶׁתִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים. יָכוֹל אַף לִפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הוּא״.
With regard to the Paschal offering, this halakha is not derived through a verbal analogy, but rather this halakha is explicitly written concerning it. The verse referring to peace offerings states: “If he offers a lamb for his offering” (Leviticus 3:7). The Torah could simply have stated: A lamb, and proceed from there to teach the halakhot of a lamb peace offering. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “If he offers a lamb”? This serves to include the substitute of a Paschal offering that was substituted after the sacrifice of the Paschal offering, teaching that it is sacrificed as a peace offering, since the Paschal offering has the status of a peace offering after that time. One might have thought that even before the sacrifice of the Paschal offering the same should apply, i.e., that the substitute of a Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace offering. Therefore, the verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: “It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s Passover” (Exodus 12:27), which indicates that it, the Paschal offering itself, is sacrificed, but its substitute is not sacrificed.
וְכֹל הָנָךְ תַּנָּאֵי דְּמַפְּקִי לֵיהּ לְהַאי ״דַּם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״ לִדְרָשָׁא אַחֲרִינָא – הַאי כׇּל הַנִּיתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן שֶׁנְּתָנָן מַתָּנָה אַחַת שֶׁכִּיפֵּר, מְנָא לְהוּ? סָבְרִי לְהוּ כְּבֵית הִלֵּל, דְּאָמְרִי: אַף חַטָּאת שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ מַתָּנָה אַחַת – כִּיפֵּר; וְיָלְפִינַן כּוּלְּהוּ מֵחַטָּאת.
The Gemara asks: And as for all those tanna’im who derive a different exposition from this verse: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured” (Deuteronomy 12:27), this halakha that is recorded in the mishna, that with regard to all the offerings whose blood is to be placed on the external altar, in a case where the priest placed the blood on the altar with one placement, he facilitated atonement, from where do they derive this? The Gemara answers: Those tanna’im hold in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, who say: Even with regard to a sin offering, in a case where the priest placed the blood with one placement, he facilitated atonement after the fact. And they derive the halakha applying to all the other offerings from that which applies to a sin offering.
וְהַחַטָּאת שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי?
§ The mishna teaches that Beit Shammai maintain that in the case of a sin offering, which requires four placements, at least two placements are necessary to facilitate atonement, whereas Beit Hillel hold that even in the case of a sin offering one placement suffices. Rav Huna said: What is the reasoning for the opinion of Beit Shammai?
״קַרְנוֹת״, ״קַרְנוֹת״, ״קַרְנוֹת״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן שֵׁשׁ; אַרְבָּעָה לְמִצְוָה וּשְׁתַּיִם לְעַכֵּב.
He explains: The verse states: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:25). Subsequently, the verse states: “The priest shall take of its blood with his finger, and put it on the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:30), and an additional verse states: “The priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it on the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:34). As the minimum amount justifying the use of the plural form, i.e., in the word “corners,” is two, one may conclude that there are six references to the corners of the altar here. Four of them are mentioned for a mitzva, meaning that the priest should place the blood on all four corners of the altar ab initio, and the other two are mentioned to invalidate the offering if he did not present the blood on at least two corners.
וּבֵית הִלֵּל: ״קַרְנַת״, ״קַרְנַת״, ״קַרְנוֹת״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע; שָׁלֹשׁ לְמִצְוָה, אַחַת לְעַכֵּב.
The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning for the opinion of Beit Hillel? The Gemara answers: The matter should be understood according to the written consonantal text, i.e., the way in which the words are actually spelled. The word “corners” is written plene, i.e., with a vav, in one of the verses, which means that it must be read in the plural form. In the other two verses, “corners” and “corners” are written deficient, i.e., without a vav, in a way that can be vocalized in the singular form, i.e., as karnat. Therefore, there are four references to corners here. Three of these references are written to indicate the placements of blood are performed only as a mitzva, i.e., they are performed ab initio, and the remaining one is written to indicate that its absence invalidates the offering, i.e., the offering is not valid if the blood was not placed against at least one corner of the altar.
וְאֵימָא כּוּלְּהוּ לְמִצְוָה! כַּפָּרָה בִּכְדִי לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן.
The Gemara asks: But according to this explanation of Beit Hillel, why not say that all of them are written for the mitzva and none are to invalidate, i.e., that the blood must be presented on all four corners ab initio, but the offering atones after the fact even if the blood was not presented at all? The Gemara rejects this possibility: We have not found anywhere in the Torah an example of an offering in which atonement can be achieved with no placement of the blood.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּבֵית הִלֵּל: אַהֲנִי מִקְרָא, וְאַהְנִי מָסוֹרֶת; אַהֲנִי מִקְרָא – לְטַפּוֹיֵי חֲדָא, וְאַהֲנַי מָסוֹרֶת – לְבַצּוֹרֵי חֲדָא.
And if you wish, say instead that this is the reason of Beit Hillel: The vocalized text of the Torah, i.e., the way in which the words of the Torah are pronounced based on the tradition of what vowels the words contain, is effective in determining how the verses are to be expounded. And likewise, the consonantal text of the Torah, i.e., the way in which the words are actually written, is also effective in determining how the verses are to be expounded. The Gemara elaborates: The vocalized text is effective in adding one more corner and the consonantal text is effective in subtracting one corner. Consequently, the verse is interpreted as referring to five corners, four of which are necessary for the mitzva ab initio, and one of which is indispensable after the fact.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״לְטֹטֶפֶת״, ״לְטֹטֶפֶת״, ״לְטוֹטָפוֹת״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע; אַהֲנִי קְרָא וְאַהֲנַי מָסוֹרֶת – חַמְשָׁה בָּתֵּי בָּעֵי לְמִיעְבַּד!
The Gemara asks: But if that is so, that this is the proper manner of expounding the verses, consider the case of the phylacteries of the head, about which it is stated: “And for frontlets [totafot] between your eyes” (Exodus 13:16), and: “They shall be for frontlets [totafot] between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8), and subsequently: “They shall be for frontlets [totafot] between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 11:18). The word totafot is written once in plene form, i.e., with a vav, indicating the plural form, and twice in a deficient form, i.e., without a vav, indicating the singular. Accordingly, there are four frontlets here, and from here the Sages derive that the phylacteries of the head consist of four compartments, which together form a cube. Why not say that the vocalized text, read in the plural, is effective, i.e., that it requires six compartments, and likewise, the consonantal text, read in the singular, is effective, i.e., it requires four compartments, and therefore one should be required to prepare five compartments for the phylacteries of the head?
סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: ״טַט״ בְּכַתְפִּי שְׁתַּיִם, ״פַּת״ בְּאַפְרִיקִי שְׁתַּיִם.
The Gemara answers that Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the requirement to have four compartments in the phylacteries of the head is not derived from the number of times that the word totafot is mentioned, but rather from an exposition of the word totafot itself: Tot in the Katpi language means two, and pat in the Afriki language means two, for a total of four.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״בְּסֻכַּת״, ״בְּסֻכַּת״, ״בַּסּוּכּוֹת״ – אַהֲנִי מִקְרָא וְאַהֲנַי מָסוֹרֶת, חֲמֵשׁ דַּפְנָתָא בָּעֵי לְמִיעְבַּד!
The Gemara raises another objection to this method of exposition: If that is so, consider the case of a sukka, about which it is stated: “In sukkot [basukkot] shall you reside seven days; all that are homeborn in Israel shall reside in sukkot [basukkot]. So that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot [basukkot] when I took them out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 23:42–43). Two instances of the word basukkot are written in a deficient manner, i.e., without a vav, indicating the singular, and one instance is written in plene form, i.e., with a vav, indicating the plural form. The Sages derived from here that a sukka must have four walls. Why not say that the vocalized text, read in the plural, is effective, requiring six walls, and likewise, the consonantal text, read in the singular, is effective, requiring four walls, and therefore one should be required to build a sukka with five walls?
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 37: Different Interpretations: Meaning and Reading
Zevahim 37: Different Interpretations: Meaning and Reading
Din & Daf: Kodshei Kodashim vs. Kodashim Kalim – What’s the Difference?
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.
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
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
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
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
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
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 started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, 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
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
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
Zevachim 37
מִנַּיִן לְכׇל הַדָּמִים שֶׁטְּעוּנִים מַתַּן דָּם לַיְסוֹד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״. נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּרַבִּי – דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה״ – שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּדָּם״; וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּדָּם״?
From where is it derived that all the blood that is left over from an offering after the requisite placement requires placement of blood on the base of the altar? The verse states: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27). The Gemara answers: The tanna of the first baraita derives this from the verse cited by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says with regard to a verse discussing a bird sin offering: “And the rest of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar; it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:9). As there is no need for the verse to state “of the blood,” because the entire verse is talking about the blood, what is the meaning when the verse states “of the blood”?
לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא לָמַדְנוּ אֶלָּא לַנִּיתָּנִין מַתַּן אַרְבַּע – שֶׁטְּעוּנִין מַתַּן דָּמִים לַיְסוֹד; שְׁאָר דָּמִים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה״ – שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּדָּם״; וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּדָּם״? לִימֵּד עַל כׇּל הַדָּמִים, שֶׁטְּעוּנִין מַתַּן דָּמִים לַיְסוֹד.
The baraita continues: Since we have learned only about those offerings whose blood is placed on the altar with four placements, i.e., outer sin offerings, that they require placement of the leftover blood on the base of the altar, from where is it derived that the same applies to the leftover blood of all the other offerings? The verse states: “And the rest of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar; it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:9). Since there is no need for the verse to state “of the blood,” because the entire verse is talking about the blood, what is the meaning when the verse states “of the blood”? This teaches that all the leftover blood from all the offerings requires placement of blood on the base of the altar.
וְאַכַּתִּי לְהָכִי הוּא דְּאָתָא?! מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לַנִּיתָּנִין בִּזְרִיקָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן בִּשְׁפִיכָה – יָצָא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״.
The Gemara asks: But still, does this verse, Deuteronomy 12:27, come to teach this halakha, that if a priest placed the blood with one placement, he facilitated atonement? That verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to those offerings whose blood is supposed to be placed by means of sprinkling from a certain distance from the altar, that if the priest placed the blood by pouring it from up close he has fulfilled his obligation? The verse states: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27).
סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: לֹא זְרִיקָה בִּכְלַל שְׁפִיכָה, וְלֹא שְׁפִיכָה בִּכְלַל זְרִיקָה.
The Gemara answers that the ruling in this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, while the tanna of the earlier baraita holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: Sprinkling is not included in pouring, and similarly pouring is not included in sprinkling. Rather, these are separate actions performed under different circumstances, and one does not fulfill his obligation to sprinkle the blood by pouring it. Therefore, the verse is available to him to teach that if a priest placed the blood with one placement, he facilitated atonement.
דִּתְנַן: בֵּרַךְ בִּרְכַּת הַפֶּסַח – פָּטַר אֶת שֶׁל זֶבַח.
The Gemara demonstrates that this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva: This is as we learned in a mishna (Pesaḥim 121a): If one recited the blessing over the Paschal offering, which is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to eat the Paschal offering, he has also exempted himself from reciting a blessing over the Festival peace offering, i.e., the peace offering that is eaten together with the Paschal offering. The blessing for the Festival peace offering of the fourteenth of Nisan is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to eat the offering.
שֶׁל זֶבַח – לֹא פָּטַר אֶת הַפֶּסַח. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
If he recited the blessing over the Festival offering, he has not exempted himself from reciting a blessing over the Paschal offering. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Yishmael’s reasoning is based on the halakha that the blood of the Paschal offering is poured, while the blood of the Festival offering is sprinkled. He maintains that sprinkling is included in the more general category of pouring, and therefore the blessing over the Paschal offering includes the Festival offering. Pouring is not included in the more limited category of sprinkling, and therefore reciting the blessing over the Festival offering does not exempt one from reciting a blessing over the Paschal offering.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא זוֹ פּוֹטֶרֶת זוֹ, וְלֹא זוֹ פּוֹטֶרֶת זוֹ.
The mishna continues: Rabbi Akiva says: This blessing does not exempt one from reciting a blessing over that one, and that blessing does not exempt one from reciting a blessing over this one. Sprinkling is not included in pouring, and pouring is not included in sprinkling. Therefore, there is a separate blessing for each offering.
אַכַּתִּי לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?! מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר אוֹ בְכוֹר כֶּשֶׂב אוֹ בְכוֹר עֵז וְגוֹ׳״ – לָמַדְנוּ לִבְכוֹר, שֶׁטָּעוּן מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִים לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ. מַעֲשֵׂר וּפֶסַח מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״.
The Gemara asks: Still, does this verse, Deuteronomy 12:27, come to teach this halakha, that if a priest placed the blood with one placement he facilitated atonement? That verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael says: Since it is stated: “But the firstborn of a bull, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are sacred. You shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar and shall burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Numbers 18:17), we learned with regard to a firstborn animal, which must be given to a priest to be offered on the altar in the Temple, that it requires placement of its blood and sacrificial portions on the altar. From where is it derived that the same applies to an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering? The verse states: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27). This verse teaches that all offerings require placement of their blood on the altar.
סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי.
The Gemara answers that the tanna of the earlier baraita, who derives from Deuteronomy 12:27 the halakha that if a priest placed the blood with one placement he facilitated atonement, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili maintains that the halakha that the blood and sacrificial parts of an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering must be placed on the altar is derived from the aforementioned verse concerning a firstborn animal: “You shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar and shall burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Numbers 18:17).
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: ״דָּמוֹ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״דָּמָם״; ״חֶלְבּוֹ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״חֶלְבָּם״; לִימֵּד עַל בְּכוֹר, מַעֲשֵׂר וּפֶסַח, שֶׁטָּעוּן מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ.
This is as it is taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is not stated in this verse: Its blood, but rather: “Their blood.” Similarly, it is not stated: Its fat, but rather: “Their fat.” The plural form teaches with regard to the firstborn animal, which is mentioned explicitly in the verse, as well as with regard to the animal tithe offering and the Paschal offering, which have a level of sanctity similar to that of a firstborn animal, that each requires placement of the blood and sacrificial portions on the altar.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – הַאי קְרָא, מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְהָכִי וּמַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְהָכִי?! תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yishmael derive one halakha from this verse and then derive another halakha from this same verse? It was stated earlier that Rabbi Yishmael derives from the verse “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured” that sprinkling is included in pouring, and yet here he derives from that same verse that the blood of an animal tithe offering and that of a Paschal offering must be presented on the altar. The Gemara answers: These are the opinions of two tanna’im, each of whom expressed his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּמוֹקֵים לֵהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ בִּבְכוֹר – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָּךְ״.
The Gemara raises a question with regard to the disagreement about the interpretation of Numbers 18:17. Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who interprets the entire verse as referring to a firstborn animal, and according to whom the plural form in the verse is referring to three such firstborns, that of a bull, that of a sheep, and that of a goat, this explains that which is written immediately afterward: “And their meat shall be yours” (Numbers 18:18), in the plural, i.e., the meat of these firstborn animals shall be eaten by the priests.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּמוֹקֵי לֵיהּ נָמֵי בְּמַעֲשֵׂר וָפֶסַח – מַעֲשֵׂר וָפֶסַח בְּעָלִים אָכְלִי לֵיהּ; מַאי ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָּךְ״? אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד בַּעַל מוּם;
But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who interprets this verse as referring also to an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering, there is a difficulty, as an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering are eaten by their owners, not by the priests. If so, what is the meaning of the phrase “and their meat shall be yours”? The Gemara answers that the plural term “their meat,” is referring not to an animal tithe offering or a Paschal offering, but to different types of firstborns, i.e., both an unblemished animal, whose blood is poured on the altar, and a blemished one, which is not brought as an offering on the altar.
לִימֵּד עַל בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם, שֶׁנִּיתָּן לַכֹּהֵן. שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ לוֹ בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ.
This verse teaches that a blemished firstborn is given to a priest as a gift, and that he may eat its meat. This is a novel concept, as we have not found in the entire Torah another halakha similar to it, where a blemished offering is given to the priests for consumption.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״לְּךָ יִהְיֶה״ דְּסֵיפָא.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yishmael, who interprets this verse differently, from where does he derive this halakha that a blemished firstborn is given to a priest? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the phrase: “As the breast of waving and as the right thigh, it shall be yours” (Numbers 18:18), which is the latter clause of that same verse. The repetition of the phrase “shall be yours” serves to teach that even the meat of a blemished firstborn shall be eaten by the priests.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּמוֹקֵי לֵיהּ נָמֵי בְּמַעֲשֵׂר וָפֶסַח; הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תִפְדֶּה כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הֵם״ – הֵם קְרֵיבִין, וְאֵין תְּמוּרָתָן קְרֵיבָה.
§ The Gemara raises another question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who interprets the verse as referring also to an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering, this is as it is written in the same verse: “You shall not redeem; they are sacred” (Numbers 18:17). The word “they” indicates that only they are sacrificed on the altar, but their substitutes are not sacrificed. In general, if one substitutes a non-sacred animal for one designated as an offering, both the original and the substitute are considered to be consecrated, and they are therefore sacrificed. But if one substitutes a non-sacred animal for a firstborn, an animal tithe offering, or a Paschal offering, the substitute is not sacrificed.
דִּתְנַן: תְּמוּרַת בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר – הֵן וּוְלָדָן וּוְלַד וְלָדָן עַד סוֹף כׇּל הָעוֹלָם, הֲרֵי הֵן כִּבְכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר, וְיֹאכְלוּ בְּמוּמָן לַבְּעָלִים.
This is as we learned in a mishna (Temura 21a): With regard to the substitute of a firstborn and of an animal tithe offering, both they, the substitutes themselves, and their offspring, and the offspring of their offspring, forever, i.e., for all future generations, are as the firstborn and the animal tithe offering, respectively, and therefore they are eaten in their blemished state by the owners; but unlike the firstborn and the animal tithe offering themselves, they are not sacrificed on the altar.
וּתְנַן, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁתְּמוּרַת פֶּסַח קְרֵיבָה, וּתְמוּרַת פֶּסַח אֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה, וְאֵין לִי לְפָרֵשׁ.
And likewise with regard to the substitute of a Paschal offering, we learned in a mishna (Pesaḥim 96b) that Rabbi Yehoshua says: I have heard two rulings from my teachers: One ruling was that the substitute of a Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace offering after Passover, and another ruling was that the substitute of a Paschal offering is not offered as a peace offering after Passover; and I cannot explain these apparently contradictory rulings, as I do not remember the circumstances to which each ruling applies. And as will be explained, if the substitution took place after the sacrifice of the Paschal offering, the animal is sacrificed, as it is considered the substitute of a peace offering, whereas if the substitution occurred before the sacrifice of the Paschal offering, it is not sacrificed, as it is the substitute of a Paschal offering. This indicates that the substitute of a Paschal offering is not sacrificed, just like the substitute of a firstborn is not sacrificed.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּמוֹקֵי לֵיהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ בִּבְכוֹר; מַעֲשֵׂר וָפֶסַח דְּלָא קְרֵיבָה תְּמוּרָתָן, מְנָא לֵיהּ? מַעֲשֵׂר גָּמַר ״עֲבָרָה״–״עֲבָרָה״ מִבְּכוֹר.
But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who interprets the entire verse as dealing with a firstborn, from where does he derive the halakha that the substitute of an animal tithe offering and of a Paschal offering are not sacrificed? The Gemara answers: With regard to an animal tithe offering, he derives this by means of a verbal analogy between the terms passing, and passing written with regard to a firstborn. Concerning a firstborn it is stated: “And you shall pass [veha’avarta] to the Lord all that opens the womb” (Exodus 13:12), and concerning an animal tithe it is stated: “Of whatever passes [ya’avor] under the rod” (Leviticus 27:32). From this verbal analogy it may be derived that just as the substitute of a firstborn is not sacrificed, so too, the substitute of an animal tithe offering is not sacrificed.
פֶּסַח – בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִב בֵּיהּ כֶּשֶׂב; מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִם כֶּשֶׂב״ – לְרַבּוֹת תְּמוּרַת הַפֶּסַח אַחַר הַפֶּסַח, שֶׁתִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים. יָכוֹל אַף לִפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הוּא״.
With regard to the Paschal offering, this halakha is not derived through a verbal analogy, but rather this halakha is explicitly written concerning it. The verse referring to peace offerings states: “If he offers a lamb for his offering” (Leviticus 3:7). The Torah could simply have stated: A lamb, and proceed from there to teach the halakhot of a lamb peace offering. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “If he offers a lamb”? This serves to include the substitute of a Paschal offering that was substituted after the sacrifice of the Paschal offering, teaching that it is sacrificed as a peace offering, since the Paschal offering has the status of a peace offering after that time. One might have thought that even before the sacrifice of the Paschal offering the same should apply, i.e., that the substitute of a Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace offering. Therefore, the verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: “It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s Passover” (Exodus 12:27), which indicates that it, the Paschal offering itself, is sacrificed, but its substitute is not sacrificed.
וְכֹל הָנָךְ תַּנָּאֵי דְּמַפְּקִי לֵיהּ לְהַאי ״דַּם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״ לִדְרָשָׁא אַחֲרִינָא – הַאי כׇּל הַנִּיתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן שֶׁנְּתָנָן מַתָּנָה אַחַת שֶׁכִּיפֵּר, מְנָא לְהוּ? סָבְרִי לְהוּ כְּבֵית הִלֵּל, דְּאָמְרִי: אַף חַטָּאת שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ מַתָּנָה אַחַת – כִּיפֵּר; וְיָלְפִינַן כּוּלְּהוּ מֵחַטָּאת.
The Gemara asks: And as for all those tanna’im who derive a different exposition from this verse: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured” (Deuteronomy 12:27), this halakha that is recorded in the mishna, that with regard to all the offerings whose blood is to be placed on the external altar, in a case where the priest placed the blood on the altar with one placement, he facilitated atonement, from where do they derive this? The Gemara answers: Those tanna’im hold in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, who say: Even with regard to a sin offering, in a case where the priest placed the blood with one placement, he facilitated atonement after the fact. And they derive the halakha applying to all the other offerings from that which applies to a sin offering.
וְהַחַטָּאת שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי?
§ The mishna teaches that Beit Shammai maintain that in the case of a sin offering, which requires four placements, at least two placements are necessary to facilitate atonement, whereas Beit Hillel hold that even in the case of a sin offering one placement suffices. Rav Huna said: What is the reasoning for the opinion of Beit Shammai?
״קַרְנוֹת״, ״קַרְנוֹת״, ״קַרְנוֹת״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן שֵׁשׁ; אַרְבָּעָה לְמִצְוָה וּשְׁתַּיִם לְעַכֵּב.
He explains: The verse states: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:25). Subsequently, the verse states: “The priest shall take of its blood with his finger, and put it on the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:30), and an additional verse states: “The priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it on the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:34). As the minimum amount justifying the use of the plural form, i.e., in the word “corners,” is two, one may conclude that there are six references to the corners of the altar here. Four of them are mentioned for a mitzva, meaning that the priest should place the blood on all four corners of the altar ab initio, and the other two are mentioned to invalidate the offering if he did not present the blood on at least two corners.
וּבֵית הִלֵּל: ״קַרְנַת״, ״קַרְנַת״, ״קַרְנוֹת״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע; שָׁלֹשׁ לְמִצְוָה, אַחַת לְעַכֵּב.
The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning for the opinion of Beit Hillel? The Gemara answers: The matter should be understood according to the written consonantal text, i.e., the way in which the words are actually spelled. The word “corners” is written plene, i.e., with a vav, in one of the verses, which means that it must be read in the plural form. In the other two verses, “corners” and “corners” are written deficient, i.e., without a vav, in a way that can be vocalized in the singular form, i.e., as karnat. Therefore, there are four references to corners here. Three of these references are written to indicate the placements of blood are performed only as a mitzva, i.e., they are performed ab initio, and the remaining one is written to indicate that its absence invalidates the offering, i.e., the offering is not valid if the blood was not placed against at least one corner of the altar.
וְאֵימָא כּוּלְּהוּ לְמִצְוָה! כַּפָּרָה בִּכְדִי לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן.
The Gemara asks: But according to this explanation of Beit Hillel, why not say that all of them are written for the mitzva and none are to invalidate, i.e., that the blood must be presented on all four corners ab initio, but the offering atones after the fact even if the blood was not presented at all? The Gemara rejects this possibility: We have not found anywhere in the Torah an example of an offering in which atonement can be achieved with no placement of the blood.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּבֵית הִלֵּל: אַהֲנִי מִקְרָא, וְאַהְנִי מָסוֹרֶת; אַהֲנִי מִקְרָא – לְטַפּוֹיֵי חֲדָא, וְאַהֲנַי מָסוֹרֶת – לְבַצּוֹרֵי חֲדָא.
And if you wish, say instead that this is the reason of Beit Hillel: The vocalized text of the Torah, i.e., the way in which the words of the Torah are pronounced based on the tradition of what vowels the words contain, is effective in determining how the verses are to be expounded. And likewise, the consonantal text of the Torah, i.e., the way in which the words are actually written, is also effective in determining how the verses are to be expounded. The Gemara elaborates: The vocalized text is effective in adding one more corner and the consonantal text is effective in subtracting one corner. Consequently, the verse is interpreted as referring to five corners, four of which are necessary for the mitzva ab initio, and one of which is indispensable after the fact.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״לְטֹטֶפֶת״, ״לְטֹטֶפֶת״, ״לְטוֹטָפוֹת״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע; אַהֲנִי קְרָא וְאַהֲנַי מָסוֹרֶת – חַמְשָׁה בָּתֵּי בָּעֵי לְמִיעְבַּד!
The Gemara asks: But if that is so, that this is the proper manner of expounding the verses, consider the case of the phylacteries of the head, about which it is stated: “And for frontlets [totafot] between your eyes” (Exodus 13:16), and: “They shall be for frontlets [totafot] between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8), and subsequently: “They shall be for frontlets [totafot] between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 11:18). The word totafot is written once in plene form, i.e., with a vav, indicating the plural form, and twice in a deficient form, i.e., without a vav, indicating the singular. Accordingly, there are four frontlets here, and from here the Sages derive that the phylacteries of the head consist of four compartments, which together form a cube. Why not say that the vocalized text, read in the plural, is effective, i.e., that it requires six compartments, and likewise, the consonantal text, read in the singular, is effective, i.e., it requires four compartments, and therefore one should be required to prepare five compartments for the phylacteries of the head?
סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: ״טַט״ בְּכַתְפִּי שְׁתַּיִם, ״פַּת״ בְּאַפְרִיקִי שְׁתַּיִם.
The Gemara answers that Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the requirement to have four compartments in the phylacteries of the head is not derived from the number of times that the word totafot is mentioned, but rather from an exposition of the word totafot itself: Tot in the Katpi language means two, and pat in the Afriki language means two, for a total of four.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״בְּסֻכַּת״, ״בְּסֻכַּת״, ״בַּסּוּכּוֹת״ – אַהֲנִי מִקְרָא וְאַהֲנַי מָסוֹרֶת, חֲמֵשׁ דַּפְנָתָא בָּעֵי לְמִיעְבַּד!
The Gemara raises another objection to this method of exposition: If that is so, consider the case of a sukka, about which it is stated: “In sukkot [basukkot] shall you reside seven days; all that are homeborn in Israel shall reside in sukkot [basukkot]. So that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot [basukkot] when I took them out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 23:42–43). Two instances of the word basukkot are written in a deficient manner, i.e., without a vav, indicating the singular, and one instance is written in plene form, i.e., with a vav, indicating the plural form. The Sages derived from here that a sukka must have four walls. Why not say that the vocalized text, read in the plural, is effective, requiring six walls, and likewise, the consonantal text, read in the singular, is effective, requiring four walls, and therefore one should be required to build a sukka with five walls?
