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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 24, 2018 | 讬壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讞

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

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

Zevachim 41

Drashot relating to the various inner sin offerings are discussed and comparisons are made based on various drashot.


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

砖讛讜砖讜讜 诪注砖讬诐 诇诪注砖讬诐

that the actions of sprinkling the blood in one offering are equated with the actions of the blood in the other offering? The blood of the goat of Yom Kippur is sprinkled even inside the Holy of Holies, which is not so concerning the blood of the bull. Nevertheless, with regard to the sprinkling in the Sanctuary, which is common to both, their actions are performed in the same manner, with the blood being sprinkled with a finger on the Curtain and on the corners of the altar.

讜讗转讗 诇讬讛 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 (谞诪讬) 诇讗转 讘讚诐 讜讟讘讬诇讛 诪驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜讗转讬 诇讬讛 砖注讬专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

And by means of this a fortiori inference the case of the bull of Yom Kippur is derived from the case of the bull of an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, with regard to the halakhot summarized by the words et, in the blood, and immersion, as they are both bulls. And likewise, the case of the goat of Yom Kippur is derived from the case of the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, with regard to the halakhot of et, in the blood, and immersion, via this a fortiori inference, as they are both goats.

讜讻讬 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 讞讜讝专 讜诪诇诪讚 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 拽住讘专 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 讞讜讝专 讜诪诇诪讚 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

The Gemara asks: How can the halakhot of the goat of Yom Kippur be derived from the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship? But does a matter derived by juxtaposition, i.e., a halakha that is not written explicitly in the Torah but that is learned by means of a comparison, again teach by a fortiori inference? There is a principle that a halakha derived by juxtaposition with regard to consecrated matters cannot subsequently teach another halakha via an a fortiori inference. The halakhot alluded to by the words et, in the blood, and immersion, are not explicitly stated with regard to the goats of an unwitting communal sin of idol worship. Rather, they are derived from the comparison found in the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall do鈥s he did鈥 (Leviticus 4:20), which alludes to the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship and the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest. Rav Pappa said: The school of Rabbi Yishmael maintains that a matter derived by juxtaposition does again teach by a fortiori inference, even with regard to consecrated matters.

诇驻专 讝讛 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讛讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 讙讜驻讬讛 讻转讬讘 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 讗讙诪讜专讬 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讘讬讜转专转 讜砖转讬 讻诇讬讜转 诇砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The Gemara continues to analyze the statement of Rabbi Yishmael in the baraita: 鈥淲ith the bull鈥; this is the bull for an unwitting communal sin. The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to derive this case by way of an exposition? This verse itself is written in reference to the bull for an unwitting communal sin. Rav Pappa said: The derivation is necessary because Rabbi Yishmael wants the case of the bull for an unwitting communal sin to teach with regard to the burning on the altar of the sacrificial portions, including the diaphragm and the two kidneys, that this obligation applies also to the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, despite the fact that this requirement is not stated with regard to them.

讜驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讘讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛讬拽砖讗 讗转讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇驻专

Rav Pappa continues: And as the obligation to burn the diaphragm and the two kidneys on the altar is not written with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin itself, but rather it is derived by juxtaposition from the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, in which this requirement is explictly stated (see Leviticus 4:8鈥9), it was necessary to include the bull for an unwitting communal sin once again with the term 鈥渨ith the bull.鈥

诇诪讬讛讜讬 讻诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘讙讜驻讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 讞讜讝专 讜诪诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖

The Gemara elaborates: This derivation is required in order that it should be as though this halakha of burning the diaphragm and the two kidneys was written with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin itself. And in this manner the derivation from this case, teaching the halakha in the case of the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, should not be a matter derived by juxtaposition that again teaches by juxtaposition, as such a derivation is not done with regard to consecrated matters.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜注砖讛 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻专

搂 The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa: 鈥淎nd he shall do with the bull, as he did鈥 (Leviticus 4:20); what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淲ith the bull鈥? It is clear that this verse is referring to the bull.

诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛诐 讛讘讬讗讜 讗转 拽专讘谞诐 讗砖讛 诇讛壮 讜讙讜壮 讞讟讗转诐 讗诇讜 砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讙讙转诐 讝讛 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讞讟讗转诐 注诇 砖讙讙转诐 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讞讟讗转诐 讛专讬 讛讬讗 诇讱 讻砖讙讙转诐

The baraita answers: Because it is stated with regard to the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship: 鈥淎nd they have brought their offering, an offering made by fire to the Lord, and their sin offering before the Lord for their error鈥 (Numbers 15:25), and this verse is interpreted as follows: 鈥淭heir sin offering鈥; these are the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, alluded to in that passage. 鈥淭heir error鈥; this is the bull for an unwitting communal sin, which is brought for an inadvertent transgression of the community. The juxtaposition of these offerings in the verse: 鈥淭heir sin offering鈥or their error,鈥 indicates that the Torah means to say: Their sin offering is for you like their error, i.e., all the portions consumed on the altar in the case of the bull for an unwitting communal sin are also burned on the altar in the case of the goats for an unwitting sin of idol worship.

砖讙讙转诐 诪讛讬讻谉 诇诪讚转 诇讗 讘讛讬拽砖讗 讜讻讬 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 讞讜讝专 讜诪诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖

The Gemara asks: With regard to the offering brought for their error, i.e., the bull for an unwitting communal sin, from where did you learn this halakha? Was it not via juxtaposition from the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, as the diaphragm and the two kidneys are not explicitly mentioned with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin? But this is difficult, as does a matter derived via juxtaposition again teach via juxtaposition?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻专 讝讛 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 诇驻专 讝讛 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall do with the bull, as he did with the bull for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:20). With regard to the first instance of 鈥渨ith the bull,鈥 this is the bull for an unwitting communal sin. And with regard to the second instance of 鈥渨ith the bull,鈥 this is the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest. Due to this juxtaposition, it is as though the burning of the diaphragm and the two kidneys was explicitly written with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and therefore the halakha can be taught by juxtaposition with regard to the goats for an unwitting sin of idol worship, as stated by Rav Pappa.

讗诪专 诪专 讞讟讗转诐 讗诇讜 砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪拽专讗 拽诪讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛讞讟讗转 诇专讘讜转 砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讝讗讜转 讚讻转讬讘谉 讘讙讜驻讬讛

The Gemara analyzes the previous baraita. The Master said above: 鈥淭heir sin offering,鈥 these are the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, which are juxtaposed in this verse to the bull for an unwitting communal sin. The Gemara asks: But let the tanna derive this from the earlier verse stated with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin, as the Master said in the baraita cited earlier (39b): 鈥淎 sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:20), this serves to include the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship. Rav Pappa said: This derivation was necessary, as if there were only the juxtaposition from Leviticus 4:20, it would enter your mind to say: This matter applies only to the acts of sprinkling, which are written with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin itself.

讗讘诇 讬讜转专转 讜砖转讬 讻诇讬讜转 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘谉 讘讙讜驻讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

But with regard to the burning of the diaphragm and the two kidneys, which are not written with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin itself, you might say that this halakha should not be derived from it. Therefore, this additional derivation of 鈥渢heir sin offering鈥 teaches us that the two offerings are similar with regard to this detail as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讜讛讗 转谞讗 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇讻诇 诪讛 砖讗诪专 讘注谞讬谉 拽讗诪专 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘 诪专讘讬 讛讻讬 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 诪专讘讬 讛讻讬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: But the tanna said: 鈥淲ith the bull鈥; this serves to include the bull of Yom Kippur for all that is stated in this matter. This statement indicates that all the details applying to the bull for an unwitting communal sin are extended to the bull of Yom Kippur by means of a single derivation. Rav Pappa responded: This issue is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as the tanna of the school of Rav amplifies the halakha through this juxtaposition, whereas the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael does not amplify the halakha through this juxtaposition, but maintains that an additional derivation is necessary with regard to the diaphragm and the two kidneys.

转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 谞讗诪专讜 讬讜转专转 讜砖转讬 讻诇讬讜转 讘驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专讜 讘驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 诪砖诇 诇诪诇讱 讘砖专 讜讚诐 砖讝注诐 注诇 讗讜讛讘讜 讜诪讬注讟 讘住专讞讜谞讜 诪驻谞讬 讞讬讘转讜

搂 The Gemara cites a statement that is related to the above halakhot. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For what reason are the diaphragm and the two kidneys stated with regard to the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, and they are not explicitly stated with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin? This can be explained by a parable: It can be compared to a flesh-and-blood king who grew angry with his beloved servant for his misdeeds, but spoke little of the servant鈥檚 offense due to his great affection for him. Likewise, as the Jewish people are beloved by God, the Torah does not describe their sin offering in detail.

讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 谞讗诪专讛 驻专讻转 讛拽讚砖 讘驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 诪砖诇 诇诪诇讱 讘砖专 讜讚诐 砖住专讞讛 注诇讬讜 诪讚讬谞讛 讗诐 诪讬注讜讟讛 住专讞讛 驻诪诇讬讗 砖诇讜 诪转拽讬讬诪转 讗诐 专讜讘讛 住专讞讛 讗讬谉 驻诪诇讬讗 砖诇讜 诪转拽讬讬诪转

And the school of Rabbi Yishmael further taught: For what reason is it stated: 鈥淏efore the Curtain of the Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 4:6), with regard to the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, and this is not stated with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin, where it merely states: 鈥淏efore the Curtain鈥 (Leviticus 4:17)? This can be explained by a parable: It can be compared to a flesh-and-blood king against whom a province sinned. If a minority of that province sinned, his relationship with his entourage [pamalya] remains, i.e., the king continues to treat his loyal followers in the usual manner. But if the majority of the province sinned, his relationship with his entourage does not remain, and he no longer meets even those who remained devoted to him. Similarly, when the entire people sins, God no longer has the same relationship with them, and it is as though the place where the priest sprinkles the blood is no longer sacred.

诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 谞转谉 讻讜诇谉 讻转讬拽谞谉 讻讜壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 驻讬讙诇 讘拽讜诪抓 讜诇讗 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讜诪抓 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

搂 The mishna teaches that all the placements upon the inner altar are indispensable, and therefore if the High Priest placed all the placements in their proper manner, and one in an improper manner, i.e., with the intent to eat or burn the offering beyond its designated time, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering. The Gemara states that we learned in a mishna there (Mena岣t 16a), with regard to the burning of the handful of a meal offering and the frankincense, both of which render the meal offering permitted for eating: If the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul, and this occurred during the burning of the handful but not during the burning of the frankincense, or during the burning of the frankincense but not during the burning of the handful, i.e., he burned one of them with the intention of eating the remainder of the offering beyond its designated time, Rabbi Meir says: The offering is piggul and one who eats it is liable to receive karet.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 注讚 砖讬驻讙诇 讘讻诇 讛诪转讬专

And the Rabbis say: There is no liability for karet in this case unless he renders the offering piggul during the performance of the entire permitting factor, i.e., the burning of both the handful and the frankincense.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚拽住讘专 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞转谉 讗转 讛拽讜诪抓 讘诪讞砖讘讛 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讘砖转讬拽讛 拽住讘专 讻诇 讛注讜砖讛 注诇 讚注转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Do not say that the reason of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the offering is piggul, is that he holds in general that one renders an offering piggul even if he intended to eat or burn the offering beyond its designated time during the performance of only half a permitting factor. Rather, what are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where he initially placed the handful of the meal offering on the altar, to burn it, with the improper intention to eat the remainder beyond its designated time, and afterward he placed the frankincense on the altar silently, i.e., without any particular intent. Rabbi Meir holds: Anyone who performs an action performs it with his initial intent. Therefore, his action with the frankincense is considered to have been performed with the same improper intention as his action with the handful.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 谞转谉 讻讜诇谉 讻转讬拽谞谉 讜讗讞转 砖诇讗 讻转讬拽谞讛 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讛讗 讗讞转 砖诇讗 讻转讬拽谞讛 讜讻讜诇谉 讻转讬拽谞谉 驻讬讙讜诇

The Gemara asks: From where does Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish learn that this is the case? He learns it from the fact that the mishna teaches: Therefore, if he placed all the placements in their proper manner and one in an improper manner, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet. Consequently it follows that if he initially placed one placement in an improper manner, with the intent to eat or burn the offering beyond its designated time, and all the other placements in the proper manner, the offering is piggul.

诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讗诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara explains: Whose opinion is this? If we say it is the opinion of the Rabbis, don鈥檛 the Rabbis explicitly say that one cannot render an offering piggul with an improper intention in the performance of only half a permitting factor? Here, the priest placed one placement in the proper manner. Rather, it must represent the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that if he had an improper intention with regard to the handful and not the frankincense the offering is piggul.

讜讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讚拽转谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 讻诇 讛注讜砖讛 注诇 讚注转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛

And if Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reason is that he holds in general that one renders an offering piggul even during the performance of only half a permitting factor, even if the priest acted as it taught in the mishna, the offering should also be piggul, as he had an improper intention during half the permitting factor. Rather, is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reason not because he holds that anyone who performs an action performs it with his initial intent? Consequently, if he placed the first placement with an improper intention, the offering is piggul, and if his intention during the first placement was proper, the offering is not piggul.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜诪讗讬 讻转讬拽谞谉 讻转讬拽谞谉 诇驻讬讙讜诇

Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitz岣k says: Actually, it is possible that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that one cannot render an offering piggul with an improper intention during half a permitting factor. And what is the meaning of the term: In their proper manner, in the context of the mishna? It means in their proper manner with regard to piggul, i.e., he placed the blood with an intention that renders the offering piggul. The mishna is teaching that although he placed the first placements with an improper intention, one does not say that the last placement, which was placed without any specific intention, was performed with his initial intent.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 谞转谉 讻讜诇谉 讻转讬拽谞谉 讜讗讞转 砖诇讗 讻转讬拽谞谉 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 诪讻诇诇 讚转讬拽谞讛 诇讛讻砖讬专讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But from the fact that it teaches: Therefore, if he placed all the placements in their proper manner and one in an improper manner, the offering is disqualified but there is no liability for karet, which indicates that the offering is disqualified due to the one placement performed improperly, one can learn by inference that the term: In their proper manner, comes to indicate an intention that renders the offering fit, and not an intention that renders it piggul.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖诇讗 讻转讬拽谞讛 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜

Rava says: It can still be explained that the term: In their proper manner, is referring to an intention that renders the offering piggul; and what is the meaning of: In an improper manner? This is referring to the intent to eat the offering outside its designated area. This intention serves to disqualify the offering, which means that it is not piggul, as not all its rites have been performed in the proper manner. Rav Ashi says: The term: In an improper manner, in the mishna, means that he placed one placement not for the sake of the offering being sacrificed, and in the case of a sin offering an intention of this kind disqualifies the offering; therefore, it is not piggul.

诪讻诇诇 讚讻讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚 诇讛 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 诪讞讬讬讘

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, one can learn by inference that when the priest does not perform the last placement with the intent to eat the offering outside its designated area or not for the sake of the offering, but silently, he becomes liable, as the offering is piggul. This is certainly not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as they maintain that one cannot render an offering piggul with an improper intention during half a permitting factor.

讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

The Gemara answers: The wording of the mishna is imprecise, as in fact, even if he placed the last placement silently the offering is not piggul. But since the tanna of the mishna taught in the first clause, with regard to an offering whose blood is placed on the external altar: If he placed the first placement with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time and the second placement with the intent to eat it outside its designated area, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption, he likewise taught the latter clause, with regard to a sin offering whose blood is placed on the inner altar, in a similar manner, that if he placed the last placement with the intent to eat it outside its designated area or not for the sake of the offering, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for its consumption. One cannot infer from here that if he placed the last placement without intent the offering is piggul.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讚诪讬诐 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish from a baraita: In what case is this statement, that the offering is rendered piggul even when he intends to eat it beyond its designated time only in the first placement, said? In the case of blood that is placed on the external altar, where one placement renders the offering permitted.

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

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 41

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 41

砖讛讜砖讜讜 诪注砖讬诐 诇诪注砖讬诐

that the actions of sprinkling the blood in one offering are equated with the actions of the blood in the other offering? The blood of the goat of Yom Kippur is sprinkled even inside the Holy of Holies, which is not so concerning the blood of the bull. Nevertheless, with regard to the sprinkling in the Sanctuary, which is common to both, their actions are performed in the same manner, with the blood being sprinkled with a finger on the Curtain and on the corners of the altar.

讜讗转讗 诇讬讛 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 (谞诪讬) 诇讗转 讘讚诐 讜讟讘讬诇讛 诪驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜讗转讬 诇讬讛 砖注讬专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诪砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 诪拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

And by means of this a fortiori inference the case of the bull of Yom Kippur is derived from the case of the bull of an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, with regard to the halakhot summarized by the words et, in the blood, and immersion, as they are both bulls. And likewise, the case of the goat of Yom Kippur is derived from the case of the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, with regard to the halakhot of et, in the blood, and immersion, via this a fortiori inference, as they are both goats.

讜讻讬 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 讞讜讝专 讜诪诇诪讚 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 拽住讘专 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 讞讜讝专 讜诪诇诪讚 讘拽诇 讜讞讜诪专

The Gemara asks: How can the halakhot of the goat of Yom Kippur be derived from the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship? But does a matter derived by juxtaposition, i.e., a halakha that is not written explicitly in the Torah but that is learned by means of a comparison, again teach by a fortiori inference? There is a principle that a halakha derived by juxtaposition with regard to consecrated matters cannot subsequently teach another halakha via an a fortiori inference. The halakhot alluded to by the words et, in the blood, and immersion, are not explicitly stated with regard to the goats of an unwitting communal sin of idol worship. Rather, they are derived from the comparison found in the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall do鈥s he did鈥 (Leviticus 4:20), which alludes to the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship and the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest. Rav Pappa said: The school of Rabbi Yishmael maintains that a matter derived by juxtaposition does again teach by a fortiori inference, even with regard to consecrated matters.

诇驻专 讝讛 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讛讗 讘爪讬讘讜专 讙讜驻讬讛 讻转讬讘 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 讗讙诪讜专讬 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讘讬讜转专转 讜砖转讬 讻诇讬讜转 诇砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛

The Gemara continues to analyze the statement of Rabbi Yishmael in the baraita: 鈥淲ith the bull鈥; this is the bull for an unwitting communal sin. The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to derive this case by way of an exposition? This verse itself is written in reference to the bull for an unwitting communal sin. Rav Pappa said: The derivation is necessary because Rabbi Yishmael wants the case of the bull for an unwitting communal sin to teach with regard to the burning on the altar of the sacrificial portions, including the diaphragm and the two kidneys, that this obligation applies also to the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, despite the fact that this requirement is not stated with regard to them.

讜驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讘讙讜驻讬讛 诇讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛讬拽砖讗 讗转讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇驻专

Rav Pappa continues: And as the obligation to burn the diaphragm and the two kidneys on the altar is not written with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin itself, but rather it is derived by juxtaposition from the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, in which this requirement is explictly stated (see Leviticus 4:8鈥9), it was necessary to include the bull for an unwitting communal sin once again with the term 鈥渨ith the bull.鈥

诇诪讬讛讜讬 讻诪讗谉 讚讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讘讙讜驻讬讛 讜诇讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 讞讜讝专 讜诪诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖

The Gemara elaborates: This derivation is required in order that it should be as though this halakha of burning the diaphragm and the two kidneys was written with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin itself. And in this manner the derivation from this case, teaching the halakha in the case of the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, should not be a matter derived by juxtaposition that again teaches by juxtaposition, as such a derivation is not done with regard to consecrated matters.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讜注砖讛 讻讗砖专 注砖讛 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻专

搂 The Gemara comments: It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Pappa: 鈥淎nd he shall do with the bull, as he did鈥 (Leviticus 4:20); what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淲ith the bull鈥? It is clear that this verse is referring to the bull.

诇驻讬 砖谞讗诪专 讜讛诐 讛讘讬讗讜 讗转 拽专讘谞诐 讗砖讛 诇讛壮 讜讙讜壮 讞讟讗转诐 讗诇讜 砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 砖讙讙转诐 讝讛 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 讞讟讗转诐 注诇 砖讙讙转诐 讗诪专讛 转讜专讛 讞讟讗转诐 讛专讬 讛讬讗 诇讱 讻砖讙讙转诐

The baraita answers: Because it is stated with regard to the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship: 鈥淎nd they have brought their offering, an offering made by fire to the Lord, and their sin offering before the Lord for their error鈥 (Numbers 15:25), and this verse is interpreted as follows: 鈥淭heir sin offering鈥; these are the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, alluded to in that passage. 鈥淭heir error鈥; this is the bull for an unwitting communal sin, which is brought for an inadvertent transgression of the community. The juxtaposition of these offerings in the verse: 鈥淭heir sin offering鈥or their error,鈥 indicates that the Torah means to say: Their sin offering is for you like their error, i.e., all the portions consumed on the altar in the case of the bull for an unwitting communal sin are also burned on the altar in the case of the goats for an unwitting sin of idol worship.

砖讙讙转诐 诪讛讬讻谉 诇诪讚转 诇讗 讘讛讬拽砖讗 讜讻讬 讚讘专 讛诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖 讞讜讝专 讜诪诇诪讚 讘讛讬拽砖

The Gemara asks: With regard to the offering brought for their error, i.e., the bull for an unwitting communal sin, from where did you learn this halakha? Was it not via juxtaposition from the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, as the diaphragm and the two kidneys are not explicitly mentioned with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin? But this is difficult, as does a matter derived via juxtaposition again teach via juxtaposition?

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇驻专 讝讛 驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 诇驻专 讝讛 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞

Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淎nd he shall do with the bull, as he did with the bull for a sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:20). With regard to the first instance of 鈥渨ith the bull,鈥 this is the bull for an unwitting communal sin. And with regard to the second instance of 鈥渨ith the bull,鈥 this is the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest. Due to this juxtaposition, it is as though the burning of the diaphragm and the two kidneys was explicitly written with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin, and therefore the halakha can be taught by juxtaposition with regard to the goats for an unwitting sin of idol worship, as stated by Rav Pappa.

讗诪专 诪专 讞讟讗转诐 讗诇讜 砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 转讬驻讜拽 诇讬讛 诪拽专讗 拽诪讗 讚讗诪专 诪专 讛讞讟讗转 诇专讘讜转 砖注讬专讬 注讘讜讚讛 讝专讛 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讝讗讜转 讚讻转讬讘谉 讘讙讜驻讬讛

The Gemara analyzes the previous baraita. The Master said above: 鈥淭heir sin offering,鈥 these are the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, which are juxtaposed in this verse to the bull for an unwitting communal sin. The Gemara asks: But let the tanna derive this from the earlier verse stated with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin, as the Master said in the baraita cited earlier (39b): 鈥淎 sin offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:20), this serves to include the goats for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship. Rav Pappa said: This derivation was necessary, as if there were only the juxtaposition from Leviticus 4:20, it would enter your mind to say: This matter applies only to the acts of sprinkling, which are written with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin itself.

讗讘诇 讬讜转专转 讜砖转讬 讻诇讬讜转 讚诇讗 讻转讬讘谉 讘讙讜驻讬讛 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

But with regard to the burning of the diaphragm and the two kidneys, which are not written with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin itself, you might say that this halakha should not be derived from it. Therefore, this additional derivation of 鈥渢heir sin offering鈥 teaches us that the two offerings are similar with regard to this detail as well.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 讜讛讗 转谞讗 驻专 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 诇讻诇 诪讛 砖讗诪专 讘注谞讬谉 拽讗诪专 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘 诪专讘讬 讛讻讬 转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诇讗 诪专讘讬 讛讻讬

Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: But the tanna said: 鈥淲ith the bull鈥; this serves to include the bull of Yom Kippur for all that is stated in this matter. This statement indicates that all the details applying to the bull for an unwitting communal sin are extended to the bull of Yom Kippur by means of a single derivation. Rav Pappa responded: This issue is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as the tanna of the school of Rav amplifies the halakha through this juxtaposition, whereas the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael does not amplify the halakha through this juxtaposition, but maintains that an additional derivation is necessary with regard to the diaphragm and the two kidneys.

转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 谞讗诪专讜 讬讜转专转 讜砖转讬 讻诇讬讜转 讘驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专讜 讘驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 诪砖诇 诇诪诇讱 讘砖专 讜讚诐 砖讝注诐 注诇 讗讜讛讘讜 讜诪讬注讟 讘住专讞讜谞讜 诪驻谞讬 讞讬讘转讜

搂 The Gemara cites a statement that is related to the above halakhot. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: For what reason are the diaphragm and the two kidneys stated with regard to the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, and they are not explicitly stated with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin? This can be explained by a parable: It can be compared to a flesh-and-blood king who grew angry with his beloved servant for his misdeeds, but spoke little of the servant鈥檚 offense due to his great affection for him. Likewise, as the Jewish people are beloved by God, the Torah does not describe their sin offering in detail.

讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 谞讗诪专讛 驻专讻转 讛拽讚砖 讘驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 讘驻专 讛注诇诐 讚讘专 砖诇 爪讘讜专 诪砖诇 诇诪诇讱 讘砖专 讜讚诐 砖住专讞讛 注诇讬讜 诪讚讬谞讛 讗诐 诪讬注讜讟讛 住专讞讛 驻诪诇讬讗 砖诇讜 诪转拽讬讬诪转 讗诐 专讜讘讛 住专讞讛 讗讬谉 驻诪诇讬讗 砖诇讜 诪转拽讬讬诪转

And the school of Rabbi Yishmael further taught: For what reason is it stated: 鈥淏efore the Curtain of the Sanctuary鈥 (Leviticus 4:6), with regard to the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, and this is not stated with regard to the bull for an unwitting communal sin, where it merely states: 鈥淏efore the Curtain鈥 (Leviticus 4:17)? This can be explained by a parable: It can be compared to a flesh-and-blood king against whom a province sinned. If a minority of that province sinned, his relationship with his entourage [pamalya] remains, i.e., the king continues to treat his loyal followers in the usual manner. But if the majority of the province sinned, his relationship with his entourage does not remain, and he no longer meets even those who remained devoted to him. Similarly, when the entire people sins, God no longer has the same relationship with them, and it is as though the place where the priest sprinkles the blood is no longer sacred.

诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 谞转谉 讻讜诇谉 讻转讬拽谞谉 讻讜壮 转谞谉 讛转诐 驻讬讙诇 讘拽讜诪抓 讜诇讗 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讘诇讘讜谞讛 讜诇讗 讘拽讜诪抓 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转

搂 The mishna teaches that all the placements upon the inner altar are indispensable, and therefore if the High Priest placed all the placements in their proper manner, and one in an improper manner, i.e., with the intent to eat or burn the offering beyond its designated time, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering. The Gemara states that we learned in a mishna there (Mena岣t 16a), with regard to the burning of the handful of a meal offering and the frankincense, both of which render the meal offering permitted for eating: If the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul, and this occurred during the burning of the handful but not during the burning of the frankincense, or during the burning of the frankincense but not during the burning of the handful, i.e., he burned one of them with the intention of eating the remainder of the offering beyond its designated time, Rabbi Meir says: The offering is piggul and one who eats it is liable to receive karet.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 注讚 砖讬驻讙诇 讘讻诇 讛诪转讬专

And the Rabbis say: There is no liability for karet in this case unless he renders the offering piggul during the performance of the entire permitting factor, i.e., the burning of both the handful and the frankincense.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诇拽讬砖 诇讗 转讬诪讗 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讚拽住讘专 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞转谉 讗转 讛拽讜诪抓 讘诪讞砖讘讛 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 讘砖转讬拽讛 拽住讘专 讻诇 讛注讜砖讛 注诇 讚注转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Do not say that the reason of Rabbi Meir, who holds that the offering is piggul, is that he holds in general that one renders an offering piggul even if he intended to eat or burn the offering beyond its designated time during the performance of only half a permitting factor. Rather, what are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where he initially placed the handful of the meal offering on the altar, to burn it, with the improper intention to eat the remainder beyond its designated time, and afterward he placed the frankincense on the altar silently, i.e., without any particular intent. Rabbi Meir holds: Anyone who performs an action performs it with his initial intent. Therefore, his action with the frankincense is considered to have been performed with the same improper intention as his action with the handful.

诪诪讗讬 诪讚拽转谞讬 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 谞转谉 讻讜诇谉 讻转讬拽谞谉 讜讗讞转 砖诇讗 讻转讬拽谞讛 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 讛讗 讗讞转 砖诇讗 讻转讬拽谞讛 讜讻讜诇谉 讻转讬拽谞谉 驻讬讙讜诇

The Gemara asks: From where does Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish learn that this is the case? He learns it from the fact that the mishna teaches: Therefore, if he placed all the placements in their proper manner and one in an improper manner, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet. Consequently it follows that if he initially placed one placement in an improper manner, with the intent to eat or burn the offering beyond its designated time, and all the other placements in the proper manner, the offering is piggul.

诪谞讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讛讗 讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讗讬谉 诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讗诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara explains: Whose opinion is this? If we say it is the opinion of the Rabbis, don鈥檛 the Rabbis explicitly say that one cannot render an offering piggul with an improper intention in the performance of only half a permitting factor? Here, the priest placed one placement in the proper manner. Rather, it must represent the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who says that if he had an improper intention with regard to the handful and not the frankincense the offering is piggul.

讜讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诪砖讜诐 讚诪驻讙诇讬谉 讘讞爪讬 诪转讬专 讛讜讗 讗驻讬诇讜 讻讚拽转谞讬 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚拽住讘专 讻诇 讛注讜砖讛 注诇 讚注转 专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讜讗 注讜砖讛

And if Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reason is that he holds in general that one renders an offering piggul even during the performance of only half a permitting factor, even if the priest acted as it taught in the mishna, the offering should also be piggul, as he had an improper intention during half the permitting factor. Rather, is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 reason not because he holds that anyone who performs an action performs it with his initial intent? Consequently, if he placed the first placement with an improper intention, the offering is piggul, and if his intention during the first placement was proper, the offering is not piggul.

讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇注讜诇诐 专讘谞谉 讛讬讗 讜诪讗讬 讻转讬拽谞谉 讻转讬拽谞谉 诇驻讬讙讜诇

Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitz岣k says: Actually, it is possible that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that one cannot render an offering piggul with an improper intention during half a permitting factor. And what is the meaning of the term: In their proper manner, in the context of the mishna? It means in their proper manner with regard to piggul, i.e., he placed the blood with an intention that renders the offering piggul. The mishna is teaching that although he placed the first placements with an improper intention, one does not say that the last placement, which was placed without any specific intention, was performed with his initial intent.

讜讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 谞转谉 讻讜诇谉 讻转讬拽谞谉 讜讗讞转 砖诇讗 讻转讬拽谞谉 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转 诪讻诇诇 讚转讬拽谞讛 诇讛讻砖讬专讛 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But from the fact that it teaches: Therefore, if he placed all the placements in their proper manner and one in an improper manner, the offering is disqualified but there is no liability for karet, which indicates that the offering is disqualified due to the one placement performed improperly, one can learn by inference that the term: In their proper manner, comes to indicate an intention that renders the offering fit, and not an intention that renders it piggul.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪讗讬 砖诇讗 讻转讬拽谞讛 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜

Rava says: It can still be explained that the term: In their proper manner, is referring to an intention that renders the offering piggul; and what is the meaning of: In an improper manner? This is referring to the intent to eat the offering outside its designated area. This intention serves to disqualify the offering, which means that it is not piggul, as not all its rites have been performed in the proper manner. Rav Ashi says: The term: In an improper manner, in the mishna, means that he placed one placement not for the sake of the offering being sacrificed, and in the case of a sin offering an intention of this kind disqualifies the offering; therefore, it is not piggul.

诪讻诇诇 讚讻讬 诇讗 注讘讬讚 诇讛 讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜砖诇讗 诇砖诪讜 诪讞讬讬讘

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, one can learn by inference that when the priest does not perform the last placement with the intent to eat the offering outside its designated area or not for the sake of the offering, but silently, he becomes liable, as the offering is piggul. This is certainly not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, as they maintain that one cannot render an offering piggul with an improper intention during half a permitting factor.

讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 驻讬讙讜诇 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讻专转 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 驻住讜诇 讜讗讬谉 讘讜 讻专转

The Gemara answers: The wording of the mishna is imprecise, as in fact, even if he placed the last placement silently the offering is not piggul. But since the tanna of the mishna taught in the first clause, with regard to an offering whose blood is placed on the external altar: If he placed the first placement with the intent to eat the offering beyond its designated time and the second placement with the intent to eat it outside its designated area, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption, he likewise taught the latter clause, with regard to a sin offering whose blood is placed on the inner altar, in a similar manner, that if he placed the last placement with the intent to eat it outside its designated area or not for the sake of the offering, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for its consumption. One cannot infer from here that if he placed the last placement without intent the offering is piggul.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讚诪讬诐 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish from a baraita: In what case is this statement, that the offering is rendered piggul even when he intends to eat it beyond its designated time only in the first placement, said? In the case of blood that is placed on the external altar, where one placement renders the offering permitted.

Scroll To Top