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

Today's Daf Yomi

May 27, 2018 | 讬状讙 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 Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Zevachim 44

Study Guide Zevachim 44. A braita is brought showing the derivation of pigul applying to all types of sacrifices even though the verse regarding pigul was stated only by a peace offering (shlamim). However it is only in聽 cases similar to peace offerings where there is something that permits聽either the meat to be eaten or parts to be burned on the altar. Various sections of this braita are analyzed and questioned by the gemara.


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

讗诐 诇讗 谞讗诪专讜 讞诪讜专讜转 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 注诇 讛讞诪讜专讜转 讘诪讬转讛 讛讗 诪讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 拽讗转讬讗 讜讚讬讜 诇讘讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讻谞讚讜谉

If the stringent case of impurity imparted by a corpse were not stated, but only the lenient case of the impurity of a creeping animal, would I say that the punishment in the stringent case is that of death at the hand of Heaven? Rather, the halakha in the case of impurity imparted by a corpse would be derived from the halakha in the case of the impurity of a creeping animal by means of an a fortiori inference, and it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, in this case that one is liable to be flogged for the violation of a prohibition, and no more.

讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 拽诇讜转 讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 讞诪讜专讜转 讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 谞讗诪专 讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 讜谞讗诪专 诪注砖专 讜转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专讛 讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 [拽诇讜转] 注诇 讛拽诇讜转 讘诇讗讜 讜注诇 讛讞诪讜专讜转 讘诪讬转讛

Ze鈥檈iri says: Indeed, the lenient case is referring to the impurity of a creeping animal, and the stringent case is referring to impurity imparted by a corpse. And this is what the baraita is saying: If the impurity of a creeping animal was stated, and it was stated that one who eats second tithe while impure with such impurity has violated a prohibition and one who partakes of teruma in that state is liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven, and the impurity imparted by a corpse was not stated in this context, I would say as follows: The lenient level of impurity, that of a creeping animal, with regard to food with lenient halakhot, second tithe, involves the violation of a prohibition, and with regard to food with stringent halakhot, teruma, it involves liability to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

讜诪讚拽诇讜转 注诇 讛讞诪讜专讜转 讘诪讬转讛 讞诪讜专讜转 谞诪讬 注诇 讛拽诇讜转 讘诪讬转讛 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专讜 讞诪讜专讜转

Ze鈥檈iri continues his explanation of the baraita: And from the fact that the lenient level of impurity, that of a creeping animal, with regard to food with stringent halakhot, teruma, involves liability to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven, it may be inferred that also in the analogous case of the stringent level of impurity, imparted by a corpse, with regard to food with lenient halakhot, there is liability to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven. Therefore, the stringent level of impurity, imparted by a corpse, was stated with regard to second tithe, which has lenient halakhot, to teach that even if one contracted impurity from a corpse, he has violated only a prohibition for eating second tithe, and is not liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to any item that has permitting factors, either for consumption by a person or for burning on the altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul. The Gemara cites a verse and a related baraita. The verse states: 鈥淎nd if any be at all eaten of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed to him who sacrifices it; it shall be piggul, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 7:18). The baraita first demonstrates that the halakha of piggul applies not only to a peace offering, with regard to which it is stated in the Torah, but to all offerings.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 讻讬讜爪讗 讘砖诇诪讬诐 诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 诪讬讜讞讚讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚 讗祝 讻诇 谞讗讻诇 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚

The Sages taught in a baraita: Or perhaps the halakha of piggul extends only to an offering that is similar to peace offerings: Just as peace offerings are notable in that they are eaten for two days and one night, so too, the halakha of piggul applies to any offering that is eaten for two days and one night.

谞讗讻诇 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讘砖专 讻诇 砖砖讬专讬谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 注讜诇讛 砖讗讬谉 砖讬专讬讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讘讞

But as for an offering that is eaten only for one day, i.e., the day the offering is sacrificed, and the following night, e.g., a sin offering, guilt offering, and firstborn offering, from where is it derived that the halakha of piggul applies to this offering as well? The verse states: 鈥淥f the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering,鈥 which teaches that the status of piggul can apply to any offering whose remainder of meat is eaten after its sacrificial portions have been offered on the altar. The baraita asks: With regard to a burnt offering, whose remainder of meat is not eaten, as it is burned in its entirety on the altar, from where is this halakha derived? The verse states: 鈥淪acrifice,鈥 which includes any offering that is slaughtered.

诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讛注讜驻讜转 讜讛诪谞讞讜转 注讚 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讛诐 诪拽讚讬砖讬诐 诇讬

The baraita asks: From where is it derived to include bird offerings, e.g., doves or pigeons, which are not slaughtered but whose napes of their necks are pinched, and meal offerings, until I include even the log of oil that accompanies the guilt offering of a recovered leper? The verse states with regard to the consumption of consecrated food in a state of ritual purity: 鈥淭hat they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they consecrate to Me, and that they do not profane My holy name鈥 (Leviticus 22:2).

讜讗转讬 谞讜转专 讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗转讬 驻讬讙讜诇 注讜谉 注讜谉 诪谞讜转专

The baraita clarifies this derivation: The halakha that the prohibition of notar applies to all these offerings is derived through a verbal analogy of profanation in the context of notar: 鈥淎nd if anything remains until the third day, it shall be burned in fire鈥nd anyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned the sacred item of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 19:6鈥8), and profanation stated in the verse discussing ritual impurity: 鈥淎nd that they do not profane My holy name.鈥 And the halakha that piggul applies to all these offerings is subsequently derived through a verbal analogy of 鈥渋niquity鈥 in the context of piggul and 鈥渋niquity鈥 stated in the verse discussing notar. With regard to piggul, the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be piggul, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 7:18), and with regard to notar, it is stated in the aforementioned verse: 鈥淎nd anyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity.鈥

讜诪讗讞专 砖住讜驻讜 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 砖诇诪讬诐 诪注转讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 诪讬讜讞讚讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇

The baraita asks: And since the verse eventually includes all items, even meal offerings and the log of oil of a leper, now one can ask: Why does the verse state piggul specifically with regard to peace offerings? The baraita answers: This serves to tell you that the offering must be similar to peace offerings in the following way: Just as peace offerings are notable in that they have permitting factors, either for consumption by a person or for burning on the altar, so too, with regard to any item that has permitting factors, either for a person or for the altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul.

讛注讜诇讛 讚诪讛 诪转讬专 讗转 讘砖专讛 诇诪讝讘讞 讜注讜专讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讚诪讛 诪转讬专 讗转 讘砖专讛 诇诪讝讘讞 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讚诪讛 诪转讬专 讗转 讘砖专讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 驻专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 讜砖注讬专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 讚诪诐 诪转讬专 讗转 讗讬诪讜专讬讛谉 诇讬拽专讘

The baraita specifies: With regard to the burnt offering, its blood renders its flesh permitted to be burned on the altar and its hide to be used by the priests. With regard to the bird burnt offering, its blood renders its flesh and its skin permitted to be burned on the altar. With regard to the bird sin offering, its blood renders its flesh permitted for consumption by the priests. With regard to bulls that are burned, e.g., the bull sacrificed for an unwitting communal transgression, and goats that are burned, e.g., the goat sacrificed for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, their blood renders their sacrificial portions permitted to be sacrificed on the altar.

讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讛拽讜诪抓 讜讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛拽讟专转 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讜讛讚诐

And I exclude, via the analogy to peace offerings, the handful of a meal offering, the frankincense, the incense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of the anointed priest, the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings, and the blood. All these do not have an item that renders them permitted either for a person or for the altar.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 诪讬讜讞讚讬谉 砖讬砖 讘讜 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖谞谉 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讬爪讗讜 驻专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 讜砖注讬专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 砖讗讬谉 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讻砖诇诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇

The baraita concludes: Rabbi Shimon says that the fact that the verse specifies peace offerings as the standard case of piggul teaches: Just as peace offerings are notable in that they have a permitting factor that is sacrificed on the external altar, i.e., their blood, and one is liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, so too, with regard to any item that has a permitting factor that is sacrificed on the external altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul. This serves to exclude bulls that are burned and goats that are burned: Since their blood is not presented on the external altar like peace offerings, one is not liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul.

讗诪专 [诪专] 讻讬讜爪讗 讘砖诇诪讬诐 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讘讻讜专 讚谞讗讻诇 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚 讘诪讗讬 讗转讬 讗讬 讘诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: Perhaps the halakha of piggul extends only to an offering that is similar to peace offerings: What is this offering that is similar to a peace offering but not included in the category of peace offerings? The Gemara answers: The reference is to a firstborn offering, which is eaten for two days and one night, as is a peace offering. The Gemara raises a difficulty: By what hermeneutical principle is the halakha of the firstborn offering derived? If it is by the hermeneutical principle of: What do we find with regard to, a principle of inductive reasoning involving a comparison between cases that include similar details, i.e., since the peace offering and firstborn offering are similar with regard to the time designated for their eating, piggul status should apply to each, this can be refuted.

诪讛 诇砖诇诪讬诐 砖讛谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 住诪讬讻讛 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜转谞讜驻转 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽

The Gemara clarifies the refutation: What is notable about peace offerings? They are notable in that they require placing hands on the head of the offering, libations, and waving of the breast and thigh. None of these apply in the case of a firstborn offering.

讗诇讗 诪讗诐 讛讗讻诇 讬讗讻诇

Rather, the halakha that piggul status applies to a firstborn offering is derived through the hermeneutical principle of a generalization and a detail and a generalization, from the following verse: 鈥淎nd if any be at all eaten of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings on the third day, it shall not be accepted鈥 (Leviticus 7:18). The terms: 鈥淎nd if any鈥 and 鈥渂e at all eaten鈥 are generalizations, while the words: 鈥淭he flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering鈥 constitute a detail. According to the hermeneutical principle of a generalization and a detail and a generalization, in such a case one includes any item that is similar to the detail, and therefore one includes the firstborn offering.

讛谞讬 转专讬 讻诇诇讬 讚住诪讬讻讬 讗讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讚讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 砖谞讬 讻诇诇讜转 讛住诪讜讻讬诐 讝讛 诇讝讛 讛讟诇 驻专讟 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜讚讜谞诐 讘讻诇诇 讜驻专讟

The Gemara raises a difficulty: These two phrases are generalizations that are adjacent to one another, which means that this is not an instance of a generalization and a detail and a generalization, as they are not in that order. Rava said: The hermeneutical principle applies even in this case, as they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: In every place that you find two generalizations that are adjacent to one another, cast the detail that is written afterward between them, and interpret them in the manner of a generalization and a detail and a generalization. Consequently, this verse is considered to state a generalization and a detail and a generalization.

注讚 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讜讛讚诐 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谞谉

搂 The baraita teaches: Until I include even the log of oil of a leper. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? The Gemara answers that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the log of oil of the leper, one is liable for consuming it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, if the guilt offering that this oil accompanied became piggul; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Say the latter clause: And I exclude the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings, and the blood, as they do not have a permitting factor. Here we arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis, who dispute the ruling of Rabbi Meir.

讚转谞讬讗 谞住讻讬 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讚诐 讛讝讘讞 诪转讬专谉 诇讬拽专讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讜讛诇讗 讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讝讘讞讬讜 讛讬讜诐 讜谞住讻讬谉 诪讬讻谉 注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗祝 讗谞讬 诇讗 讗诪专转讬 讗诇讗 讘讘讗讬谉 注诐 讛讝讘讞

The Gemara elaborates: As it is taught in another baraita: With regard to the libations of an animal offering, one is liable for consuming them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, as the blood of the offering renders them permitted to be offered on the altar; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Rabbis said to him: But a person may bring his offerings today and the accompanying libations from now until even ten days later. Evidently, then, the blood of the offering does not render the libations permitted. Rabbi Meir said to them: I too spoke only about libations that come to be sacrificed together with the offering. If so, the baraita under discussion represents two conflicting opinions.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 诪转谞讜转讬讜 砖专讜 诇讬讛 讜诪讚诪转谞讜转讬讜 砖专讜 诇讬讛 诪转谞讜转讬讜 诪驻讙诇讬 诇讬讛

Rav Yosef said: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling, that even the log of oil of a leper is included in the prohibition of piggul? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who agrees with the Rabbis that the libations of an animal offering are not permitted by the blood of the offering. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says with regard to the log of oil of a leper that it is not the blood of the guilt offering that renders it permitted; rather, the placements of its oil 鈥渂efore the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 14:16) render the remainder of the oil permitted to be eaten by the priests. And from the fact that the placements of its oil render the oil permitted, by the same token the placements of its oil render it piggul, i.e., if the oil was placed with the intent that the priests should consume its remainder on the following day, one who consumes the oil is liable for consuming piggul.

讚转谞讬讗 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 注讚 砖讬讝专讜拽 讛讚诐 谞讝专拽 讛讚诐 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉

The Gemara cites the source for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the log of oil of a leper, one who derives benefit from it is liable for misusing consecrated property if he derives benefit from it at any point after it has been consecrated in a service vessel, until the blood of the leper鈥檚 guilt offering is sprinkled. At this stage the oil is permitted to the priests, and therefore the prohibition against misusing property consecrated to the Temple no longer applies to it. Once the blood has been sprinkled, one may not derive benefit from the oil ab initio, by rabbinic law, as it must still be placed on the leper鈥檚 right ear, thumb, and big toe. But if one derived benefit from it, he is not liable for misuse.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诪讜注诇讬谉 注讚 砖讬转谉 诪转谞讜转讬讜 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 注讚 砖讬转谉 诪转谉 砖讘注 讜诪转谉 讘讛讜谞讜转

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One who derives benefit from the oil is liable for misusing consecrated property until the priest places its own placements, i.e., until the oil is sprinkled seven times toward the Sanctuary, as these sprinklings render the remainder of the oil permitted to the priests. And the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agree that consumption of the log of oil is prohibited until the priest places the seven placements, i.e., sprinklings, of oil toward the Sanctuary, and performs the placing of the oil on the leper鈥檚 thumb and big toe.

讗诪专讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 讙讘专讗 专讘讗 讻专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讬诪讗 讻讬 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗

They said this statement before Rabbi Yirmeya in Eretz Yisrael, whereupon he said: Would a great man such as Rav Yosef say such a matter, that the sprinkling of the oil renders the rest of the oil piggul?

讛专讬 诇讜讙 [讛讘讗] 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讚诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪转谞讜转讬讜 砖专讜 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪驻讙诇讬谉 诇讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讚诐 诪转讬专讜 诇讘讛讜谞讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

But there is the case of the log of oil that is brought by itself, i.e., where the leper brings it after he has sacrificed his offerings. There everyone agrees that its placements render the remainder of the oil permitted to the priests, and yet they do not render the oil piggul, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the log of oil of a leper, one is liable for consuming it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, as the blood of the offering renders it permitted to be placed on the thumb and big toe of the leper. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讛诇讗 讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 注讻砖讬讜 讜诇讜讙 诪讬讻谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗祝 讗谞讬 诇讗 讗诪专转讬 讗诇讗 讘讘讗 注诐 讛讗砖诐

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: But a person may bring his guilt offering today and the accompanying log of oil from now until even ten days later. Rabbi Meir said to them: I too spoke only about a log of oil that comes with the guilt offering. This indicates that even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it is the blood of the offering that renders the oil piggul.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 谞住讻讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转住诪讬 讜转谞讗 诇讜讙 讛讘讗 注诐 讛讗砖诐 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 注诐 讛讝讘讞 讜讛讚专 转谞讗 谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇诇讜讙 讛讘讗 诇驻谞讬 注爪诪讜

Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya says: Actually, the aforementioned baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and omit the case of the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings from the list of items that are not subject to the halakha of piggul. Abaye says: Actually, do not omit this item from the list, and the baraita can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir as follows: The tanna first taught the halakha with regard to the log of oil that comes with the leper鈥檚 guilt offering, and the same is true of libations that come with an animal offering, as according to Rabbi Meir piggul status applies to both of these. And then the tanna taught that piggul does not apply to libations that come by themselves, and the same is true of a log of oil that comes by itself.

讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讚诪讛 诪转讬专 讗转 讘砖专讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讬 诇讜讬

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to the bird burnt offering, its blood renders its meat and its skin permitted to be eaten by the priests. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that the meat of a bird burnt offering is eaten by the priests, derived? The Gemara cites a baraita that Levi teaches, with regard to a verse that discusses the gifts that are to be presented to the priests: 鈥淭his shall be yours of the most sacred items, from the fire: Every offering of theirs, every meal offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every guilt offering of theirs, which they shall render to Me, shall be most sacred for you and for your sons鈥 (Numbers 18:9).

讻诇 拽专讘谞诐 诇专讘讜转 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪谉 讛讗砖 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讜转专 诪谉 讛讗砖 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The baraita clarifies what is included by the term 鈥渆very鈥 in each of these clauses. The verse states: 鈥淓very offering of theirs,鈥 which serves to include the log of oil of a leper; it too is given to the priests. The Gemara explains why it is necessary to derive from the verse that the oil is a gift to the priesthood: It might enter your mind to say that the oil should not be included, as the Merciful One writes in this same verse: 鈥淔rom the fire,鈥 and this log of oil, notwithstanding its status as an offering, is not reserved from the fire. Only an item concerning which part of it is brought to the altar can be said to be reserved from the fire, and none of the oil is brought to the altar. Therefore, the verse teaches us by the phrase: 鈥淓very offering of theirs,鈥 that the oil goes to the priests.

诇讻诇 诪谞讞转诐 诇专讘讜转 诪谞讞转 注讜诪专 讜诪谞讞转 讛拽谞讗讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讜讗讻诇讜 讗讜转诐 讗砖专 讻驻专 讘讛诐 讜诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 诇讛转讬专 讗转讬讗 讜诪谞讞转 拽谞讗讜转 诇讘专专 注讜谉 拽讗转讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The phrase: 鈥淓very meal offering of theirs,鈥 serves to include the omer meal offering, brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, and the meal offering of jealousy, brought by a sota. The Gemara elaborates: It might enter your mind to say that as the verse states with regard to the consumption of sacrificial food by the priests: 鈥淎nd they shall eat those items with which atonement is achieved鈥 (Exodus 29:33), only those foods that facilitate atonement are given to the priests. And this would exclude the omer meal offering and the meal offering of jealousy, as the omer meal offering comes to permit the consumption of the new crop, and the meal offering of jealousy comes to clarify the transgression of the sota, as part of the ordeal undergone by the woman. Therefore, the verse teaches us by the phrase: 鈥淓very meal offering of theirs,鈥 that even these meal offerings are eaten by the priests.

讜诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 诇专讘讜转 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讘讬诇讛 讛讬讗

The phrase: 鈥淎nd every sin offering of theirs,鈥 serves to include the bird sin offering; its meat too is given to the priests. The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that this meat should not be eaten at all, as it is an unslaughtered animal carcass, since the bird is killed by pinching its nape (see Leviticus 5:8) rather than by slaughtering, which is the manner of ritual slaughter of non-sacred birds. Therefore, the phrase: 鈥淎nd every sin offering of theirs,鈥 teaches that the bird sin offering is eaten by the priests.

诇讻诇 讗砖诪诐 诇专讘讜转 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讻砖讬专 拽讗转讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The phrase: 鈥淓very guilt offering of theirs,鈥 serves to include the guilt offering of a nazirite who contracted ritual impurity, and the guilt offering of a leper. The Gemara elaborates: It might enter your mind to say that these should not be given to the priests to eat, as they come to qualify these individuals, rather than to atone. The guilt offering of a nazirite renders him fit to restart his term of naziriteship, and the guilt offering of a leper qualifies him to eat sacrificial food, whereas the verse states: 鈥淎nd they shall eat those items with which atonement is achieved鈥 (Exodus 29:33). Therefore, the verse teaches us by the phrase: 鈥淓very guilt offering of theirs,鈥 that these offerings as well are eaten by the priests.

讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讻讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注

The Gemara challenges: It is explicitly written with regard to the guilt offering of a leper that it is consumed by the priests: 鈥淔or as the sin offering is the priest鈥檚, so is the guilt offering鈥 (Leviticus 14:13). Why, then, is this derivation necessary? Rather, the baraita means to say that the phrase: 鈥淓very guilt offering of theirs,鈥 serves to include the guilt offering of a nazirite, teaching that it is like the guilt offering of a leper, in that both are eaten by the priests.

讗砖专 讬砖讬讘讜 讝讛 讙讝诇 讛讙专 诇讱 讛讜讗 砖诇讱 讬讛讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讚砖 讘讜 讗转 讛讗砖讛

The baraita continues: With regard to the phrase 鈥渨hich they shall render to Me,鈥 this is referring to an item stolen from a convert. One who robs a convert who then dies with no heirs must give the stolen item and an additional one-fifth to the priests. Finally, the term 鈥渇or you鈥 teaches that it shall be yours, even to betroth a woman with it, i.e., these gifts are considered the priest鈥檚 property in all regards.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 驻讬讙诇 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讬讙诇 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 诇讗 驻讬讙诇

搂 According to the first tanna of the mishna, the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned, the blood of which is presented on the inner altar, are subject to piggul, whereas Rabbi Shimon rules that they are not subject to piggul. It is taught in a baraita that there is a third opinion concerning the matter: Rabbi Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: If in his service of the bulls that are burned or the goats that are burned the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul with regard to a matter that is performed outside the Sanctuary, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, he has rendered the offering piggul. If his intention was with regard to a matter that is performed inside the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies, he has not rendered the offering piggul.

讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘讞讜抓 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 砖讜讞讟 诇讛讝讜转 诪讚诪讜 诇诪讞专 诇讗 驻讬讙诇 砖诪讞砖讘讛 讘讞讜抓 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 诇讗 驻讬讙诇 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 诪讝讛 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬诐 讜诇砖驻讜讱 砖讬专讬诐 诇诪讞专 诇讗 驻讬讙诇 砖诪讞砖讘讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓

The baraita elaborates: How so? If he was standing outside when slaughtering the animal, and said: I hereby slaughter the animal with the intention of sprinkling its blood tomorrow inside the Sanctuary, he has not rendered the offering piggul. The reason is that in the case of an intention outside with regard to a matter that is performed inside, one has not rendered the offering piggul. Likewise, if he was standing inside when sprinkling, and said: I hereby sprinkle the blood of the sin offering in order to burn its sacrificial portions on the external altar and to pour out its remainder on the base of the altar tomorrow, he has not rendered the offering piggul, as this is an intention inside with regard to a matter that is performed outside.

讗讘诇 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘讞讜抓 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 砖讜讞讟 诇砖驻讜讱 砖讬专讬诐 诇诪讞专 讗讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬诐 诇诪讞专 驻讬讙诇 砖诪讞砖讘讛 讘讞讜抓 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓

But if he was standing outside, and said: I hereby slaughter the animal with the intention of pouring out the remainder of its blood tomorrow, or to burn its sacrificial portions tomorrow, he has rendered the offering piggul, as this is an intention outside with regard to a matter that is performed outside.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讻讗砖专 讬讜专诐 诪砖讜专 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讜讻讬 诪讛 诇诪讚谞讜 诪砖讜专 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 诪注转讛

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: What is the verse from which this is derived? The verse states with regard to the sacrificial portions of a bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, which is one of the bulls that are burned: 鈥淎s it is taken off from the bull of the peace offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:10). But what, then, do we learn from the bull of a peace offering? Everything that is specified with regard to a peace offering is stated with regard to this bull as well.

讗诇讗 诪拽讬砖 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 诇砖讜专 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 诪讛 砖讜专 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诪注砖讬讜 讜诪讞砖讘讜转讬讜 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讗祝 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诪讞砖讘讜转讬讜 讜诪注砖讬讜 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉

Rather, the verse juxtaposes the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest with the bull of the peace offering: Just as the bull of the peace offering is not rendered piggul unless the priest鈥檚 actions and intentions relate to the service performed on the external altar, as that is where it is offered, so too, the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest is not rendered piggul unless the priest鈥檚 intentions and actions relate to the service performed on the external altar.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says his ruling in the name of Rabbi Yosei.

讗诪专 专讘讗

Rava said:

  • 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 Shlemah 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 44

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 44

讗诐 诇讗 谞讗诪专讜 讞诪讜专讜转 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 注诇 讛讞诪讜专讜转 讘诪讬转讛 讛讗 诪讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 拽讗转讬讗 讜讚讬讜 诇讘讗 诪谉 讛讚讬谉 诇讛讬讜转 讻谞讚讜谉

If the stringent case of impurity imparted by a corpse were not stated, but only the lenient case of the impurity of a creeping animal, would I say that the punishment in the stringent case is that of death at the hand of Heaven? Rather, the halakha in the case of impurity imparted by a corpse would be derived from the halakha in the case of the impurity of a creeping animal by means of an a fortiori inference, and it is sufficient for the conclusion that emerges from an a fortiori inference to be like its source, in this case that one is liable to be flogged for the violation of a prohibition, and no more.

讗诪专 讝注讬专讬 拽诇讜转 讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 讞诪讜专讜转 讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬诇讜 谞讗诪专 讟讜诪讗转 砖专抓 讜谞讗诪专 诪注砖专 讜转专讜诪讛 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专讛 讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讛讬讬转讬 讗讜诪专 [拽诇讜转] 注诇 讛拽诇讜转 讘诇讗讜 讜注诇 讛讞诪讜专讜转 讘诪讬转讛

Ze鈥檈iri says: Indeed, the lenient case is referring to the impurity of a creeping animal, and the stringent case is referring to impurity imparted by a corpse. And this is what the baraita is saying: If the impurity of a creeping animal was stated, and it was stated that one who eats second tithe while impure with such impurity has violated a prohibition and one who partakes of teruma in that state is liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven, and the impurity imparted by a corpse was not stated in this context, I would say as follows: The lenient level of impurity, that of a creeping animal, with regard to food with lenient halakhot, second tithe, involves the violation of a prohibition, and with regard to food with stringent halakhot, teruma, it involves liability to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

讜诪讚拽诇讜转 注诇 讛讞诪讜专讜转 讘诪讬转讛 讞诪讜专讜转 谞诪讬 注诇 讛拽诇讜转 讘诪讬转讛 诇讻讱 谞讗诪专讜 讞诪讜专讜转

Ze鈥檈iri continues his explanation of the baraita: And from the fact that the lenient level of impurity, that of a creeping animal, with regard to food with stringent halakhot, teruma, involves liability to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven, it may be inferred that also in the analogous case of the stringent level of impurity, imparted by a corpse, with regard to food with lenient halakhot, there is liability to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven. Therefore, the stringent level of impurity, imparted by a corpse, was stated with regard to second tithe, which has lenient halakhot, to teach that even if one contracted impurity from a corpse, he has violated only a prohibition for eating second tithe, and is not liable to be punished with death at the hand of Heaven.

讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to any item that has permitting factors, either for consumption by a person or for burning on the altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul. The Gemara cites a verse and a related baraita. The verse states: 鈥淎nd if any be at all eaten of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed to him who sacrifices it; it shall be piggul, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 7:18). The baraita first demonstrates that the halakha of piggul applies not only to a peace offering, with regard to which it is stated in the Torah, but to all offerings.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讗诇讗 讻讬讜爪讗 讘砖诇诪讬诐 诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 诪讬讜讞讚讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚 讗祝 讻诇 谞讗讻诇 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚

The Sages taught in a baraita: Or perhaps the halakha of piggul extends only to an offering that is similar to peace offerings: Just as peace offerings are notable in that they are eaten for two days and one night, so too, the halakha of piggul applies to any offering that is eaten for two days and one night.

谞讗讻诇 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诪讘砖专 讻诇 砖砖讬专讬谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 注讜诇讛 砖讗讬谉 砖讬专讬讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讘讞

But as for an offering that is eaten only for one day, i.e., the day the offering is sacrificed, and the following night, e.g., a sin offering, guilt offering, and firstborn offering, from where is it derived that the halakha of piggul applies to this offering as well? The verse states: 鈥淥f the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering,鈥 which teaches that the status of piggul can apply to any offering whose remainder of meat is eaten after its sacrificial portions have been offered on the altar. The baraita asks: With regard to a burnt offering, whose remainder of meat is not eaten, as it is burned in its entirety on the altar, from where is this halakha derived? The verse states: 鈥淪acrifice,鈥 which includes any offering that is slaughtered.

诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讛注讜驻讜转 讜讛诪谞讞讜转 注讚 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗砖专 讛诐 诪拽讚讬砖讬诐 诇讬

The baraita asks: From where is it derived to include bird offerings, e.g., doves or pigeons, which are not slaughtered but whose napes of their necks are pinched, and meal offerings, until I include even the log of oil that accompanies the guilt offering of a recovered leper? The verse states with regard to the consumption of consecrated food in a state of ritual purity: 鈥淭hat they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they consecrate to Me, and that they do not profane My holy name鈥 (Leviticus 22:2).

讜讗转讬 谞讜转专 讞讬诇讜诇 讞讬诇讜诇 诪讟讜诪讗讛 讜讗转讬 驻讬讙讜诇 注讜谉 注讜谉 诪谞讜转专

The baraita clarifies this derivation: The halakha that the prohibition of notar applies to all these offerings is derived through a verbal analogy of profanation in the context of notar: 鈥淎nd if anything remains until the third day, it shall be burned in fire鈥nd anyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity, because he has profaned the sacred item of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 19:6鈥8), and profanation stated in the verse discussing ritual impurity: 鈥淎nd that they do not profane My holy name.鈥 And the halakha that piggul applies to all these offerings is subsequently derived through a verbal analogy of 鈥渋niquity鈥 in the context of piggul and 鈥渋niquity鈥 stated in the verse discussing notar. With regard to piggul, the verse states: 鈥淚t shall be piggul, and the soul that eats of it shall bear his iniquity鈥 (Leviticus 7:18), and with regard to notar, it is stated in the aforementioned verse: 鈥淎nd anyone who eats it shall bear his iniquity.鈥

讜诪讗讞专 砖住讜驻讜 诇专讘讜转 讻诇 讚讘专 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 砖诇诪讬诐 诪注转讛 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 诪讬讜讞讚讬诐 砖讬砖 诇讛谉 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖 诇讜 诪转讬专讬谉 讘讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讘讬谉 诇诪讝讘讞 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇

The baraita asks: And since the verse eventually includes all items, even meal offerings and the log of oil of a leper, now one can ask: Why does the verse state piggul specifically with regard to peace offerings? The baraita answers: This serves to tell you that the offering must be similar to peace offerings in the following way: Just as peace offerings are notable in that they have permitting factors, either for consumption by a person or for burning on the altar, so too, with regard to any item that has permitting factors, either for a person or for the altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul.

讛注讜诇讛 讚诪讛 诪转讬专 讗转 讘砖专讛 诇诪讝讘讞 讜注讜专讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讚诪讛 诪转讬专 讗转 讘砖专讛 诇诪讝讘讞 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讚诪讛 诪转讬专 讗转 讘砖专讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 驻专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 讜砖注讬专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 讚诪诐 诪转讬专 讗转 讗讬诪讜专讬讛谉 诇讬拽专讘

The baraita specifies: With regard to the burnt offering, its blood renders its flesh permitted to be burned on the altar and its hide to be used by the priests. With regard to the bird burnt offering, its blood renders its flesh and its skin permitted to be burned on the altar. With regard to the bird sin offering, its blood renders its flesh permitted for consumption by the priests. With regard to bulls that are burned, e.g., the bull sacrificed for an unwitting communal transgression, and goats that are burned, e.g., the goat sacrificed for an unwitting communal sin of idol worship, their blood renders their sacrificial portions permitted to be sacrificed on the altar.

讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讛拽讜诪抓 讜讗转 讛诇讘讜谞讛 讜讛拽讟专转 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 讜诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讜讛讚诐

And I exclude, via the analogy to peace offerings, the handful of a meal offering, the frankincense, the incense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of the anointed priest, the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings, and the blood. All these do not have an item that renders them permitted either for a person or for the altar.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪讛 砖诇诪讬诐 诪讬讜讞讚讬谉 砖讬砖 讘讜 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讜讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 讗祝 讻诇 砖讬砖谞谉 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讬爪讗讜 驻专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 讜砖注讬专讬诐 讛谞砖专驻讬诐 讛讜讗讬诇 砖讗讬谉 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讻砖诇诪讬诐 讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇

The baraita concludes: Rabbi Shimon says that the fact that the verse specifies peace offerings as the standard case of piggul teaches: Just as peace offerings are notable in that they have a permitting factor that is sacrificed on the external altar, i.e., their blood, and one is liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, so too, with regard to any item that has a permitting factor that is sacrificed on the external altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul. This serves to exclude bulls that are burned and goats that are burned: Since their blood is not presented on the external altar like peace offerings, one is not liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul.

讗诪专 [诪专] 讻讬讜爪讗 讘砖诇诪讬诐 诪讗讬 谞讬讛讜 讘讻讜专 讚谞讗讻诇 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讞讚 讘诪讗讬 讗转讬 讗讬 讘诪讛 诪爪讬谞讜 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱

The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: Perhaps the halakha of piggul extends only to an offering that is similar to peace offerings: What is this offering that is similar to a peace offering but not included in the category of peace offerings? The Gemara answers: The reference is to a firstborn offering, which is eaten for two days and one night, as is a peace offering. The Gemara raises a difficulty: By what hermeneutical principle is the halakha of the firstborn offering derived? If it is by the hermeneutical principle of: What do we find with regard to, a principle of inductive reasoning involving a comparison between cases that include similar details, i.e., since the peace offering and firstborn offering are similar with regard to the time designated for their eating, piggul status should apply to each, this can be refuted.

诪讛 诇砖诇诪讬诐 砖讛谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 住诪讬讻讛 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜转谞讜驻转 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽

The Gemara clarifies the refutation: What is notable about peace offerings? They are notable in that they require placing hands on the head of the offering, libations, and waving of the breast and thigh. None of these apply in the case of a firstborn offering.

讗诇讗 诪讗诐 讛讗讻诇 讬讗讻诇

Rather, the halakha that piggul status applies to a firstborn offering is derived through the hermeneutical principle of a generalization and a detail and a generalization, from the following verse: 鈥淎nd if any be at all eaten of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offerings on the third day, it shall not be accepted鈥 (Leviticus 7:18). The terms: 鈥淎nd if any鈥 and 鈥渂e at all eaten鈥 are generalizations, while the words: 鈥淭he flesh of the sacrifice of his peace offering鈥 constitute a detail. According to the hermeneutical principle of a generalization and a detail and a generalization, in such a case one includes any item that is similar to the detail, and therefore one includes the firstborn offering.

讛谞讬 转专讬 讻诇诇讬 讚住诪讬讻讬 讗讛讚讚讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 讻讚讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讻诇 诪拽讜诐 砖讗转讛 诪讜爪讗 砖谞讬 讻诇诇讜转 讛住诪讜讻讬诐 讝讛 诇讝讛 讛讟诇 驻专讟 讘讬谞讬讛诐 讜讚讜谞诐 讘讻诇诇 讜驻专讟

The Gemara raises a difficulty: These two phrases are generalizations that are adjacent to one another, which means that this is not an instance of a generalization and a detail and a generalization, as they are not in that order. Rava said: The hermeneutical principle applies even in this case, as they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: In every place that you find two generalizations that are adjacent to one another, cast the detail that is written afterward between them, and interpret them in the manner of a generalization and a detail and a generalization. Consequently, this verse is considered to state a generalization and a detail and a generalization.

注讚 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讜讛讚诐 讗转讗谉 诇专讘谞谉

搂 The baraita teaches: Until I include even the log of oil of a leper. The Gemara asks: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling? The Gemara answers that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the log of oil of the leper, one is liable for consuming it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, if the guilt offering that this oil accompanied became piggul; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Say the latter clause: And I exclude the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings, and the blood, as they do not have a permitting factor. Here we arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis, who dispute the ruling of Rabbi Meir.

讚转谞讬讗 谞住讻讬 讘讛诪讛 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讛谉 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讚诐 讛讝讘讞 诪转讬专谉 诇讬拽专讘 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讜讛诇讗 讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 讗转 讝讘讞讬讜 讛讬讜诐 讜谞住讻讬谉 诪讬讻谉 注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗祝 讗谞讬 诇讗 讗诪专转讬 讗诇讗 讘讘讗讬谉 注诐 讛讝讘讞

The Gemara elaborates: As it is taught in another baraita: With regard to the libations of an animal offering, one is liable for consuming them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, as the blood of the offering renders them permitted to be offered on the altar; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. The Rabbis said to him: But a person may bring his offerings today and the accompanying libations from now until even ten days later. Evidently, then, the blood of the offering does not render the libations permitted. Rabbi Meir said to them: I too spoke only about libations that come to be sacrificed together with the offering. If so, the baraita under discussion represents two conflicting opinions.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 诪转谞讜转讬讜 砖专讜 诇讬讛 讜诪讚诪转谞讜转讬讜 砖专讜 诇讬讛 诪转谞讜转讬讜 诪驻讙诇讬 诇讬讛

Rav Yosef said: In accordance with whose opinion is this ruling, that even the log of oil of a leper is included in the prohibition of piggul? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who agrees with the Rabbis that the libations of an animal offering are not permitted by the blood of the offering. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says with regard to the log of oil of a leper that it is not the blood of the guilt offering that renders it permitted; rather, the placements of its oil 鈥渂efore the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 14:16) render the remainder of the oil permitted to be eaten by the priests. And from the fact that the placements of its oil render the oil permitted, by the same token the placements of its oil render it piggul, i.e., if the oil was placed with the intent that the priests should consume its remainder on the following day, one who consumes the oil is liable for consuming piggul.

讚转谞讬讗 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讜 注讚 砖讬讝专讜拽 讛讚诐 谞讝专拽 讛讚诐 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉

The Gemara cites the source for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi鈥檚 opinion. As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the log of oil of a leper, one who derives benefit from it is liable for misusing consecrated property if he derives benefit from it at any point after it has been consecrated in a service vessel, until the blood of the leper鈥檚 guilt offering is sprinkled. At this stage the oil is permitted to the priests, and therefore the prohibition against misusing property consecrated to the Temple no longer applies to it. Once the blood has been sprinkled, one may not derive benefit from the oil ab initio, by rabbinic law, as it must still be placed on the leper鈥檚 right ear, thumb, and big toe. But if one derived benefit from it, he is not liable for misuse.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 诪讜注诇讬谉 注讚 砖讬转谉 诪转谞讜转讬讜 讜砖讜讬谉 砖讗住讜专 讘讗讻讬诇讛 注讚 砖讬转谉 诪转谉 砖讘注 讜诪转谉 讘讛讜谞讜转

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One who derives benefit from the oil is liable for misusing consecrated property until the priest places its own placements, i.e., until the oil is sprinkled seven times toward the Sanctuary, as these sprinklings render the remainder of the oil permitted to the priests. And the Rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi agree that consumption of the log of oil is prohibited until the priest places the seven placements, i.e., sprinklings, of oil toward the Sanctuary, and performs the placing of the oil on the leper鈥檚 thumb and big toe.

讗诪专讜讛 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专 讙讘专讗 专讘讗 讻专讘 讬讜住祝 诇讬诪讗 讻讬 讛讗 诪讬诇转讗

They said this statement before Rabbi Yirmeya in Eretz Yisrael, whereupon he said: Would a great man such as Rav Yosef say such a matter, that the sprinkling of the oil renders the rest of the oil piggul?

讛专讬 诇讜讙 [讛讘讗] 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讜 讚诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 诪转谞讜转讬讜 砖专讜 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 诪驻讙诇讬谉 诇讬讛 讚转谞讬讗 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讞讬讬讘讬谉 注诇讬讜 诪砖讜诐 驻讬讙讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖讚诐 诪转讬专讜 诇讘讛讜谞讜转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

But there is the case of the log of oil that is brought by itself, i.e., where the leper brings it after he has sacrificed his offerings. There everyone agrees that its placements render the remainder of the oil permitted to the priests, and yet they do not render the oil piggul, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to the log of oil of a leper, one is liable for consuming it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, as the blood of the offering renders it permitted to be placed on the thumb and big toe of the leper. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜讛诇讗 讗讚诐 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 注讻砖讬讜 讜诇讜讙 诪讬讻谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 讗诪专 诇讛谉 讗祝 讗谞讬 诇讗 讗诪专转讬 讗诇讗 讘讘讗 注诐 讛讗砖诐

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Meir: But a person may bring his guilt offering today and the accompanying log of oil from now until even ten days later. Rabbi Meir said to them: I too spoke only about a log of oil that comes with the guilt offering. This indicates that even according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, it is the blood of the offering that renders the oil piggul.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讬讗 讜住诪讬 诪讬讻谉 谞住讻讬诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗 转住诪讬 讜转谞讗 诇讜讙 讛讘讗 注诐 讛讗砖诐 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 注诐 讛讝讘讞 讜讛讚专 转谞讗 谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇诇讜讙 讛讘讗 诇驻谞讬 注爪诪讜

Rather, Rabbi Yirmeya says: Actually, the aforementioned baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and omit the case of the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings from the list of items that are not subject to the halakha of piggul. Abaye says: Actually, do not omit this item from the list, and the baraita can be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir as follows: The tanna first taught the halakha with regard to the log of oil that comes with the leper鈥檚 guilt offering, and the same is true of libations that come with an animal offering, as according to Rabbi Meir piggul status applies to both of these. And then the tanna taught that piggul does not apply to libations that come by themselves, and the same is true of a log of oil that comes by itself.

讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讚诪讛 诪转讬专 讗转 讘砖专讛 诇讻讛谞讬诐 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚转谞讬 诇讜讬

搂 The mishna teaches: With regard to the bird burnt offering, its blood renders its meat and its skin permitted to be eaten by the priests. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter, that the meat of a bird burnt offering is eaten by the priests, derived? The Gemara cites a baraita that Levi teaches, with regard to a verse that discusses the gifts that are to be presented to the priests: 鈥淭his shall be yours of the most sacred items, from the fire: Every offering of theirs, every meal offering of theirs, and every sin offering of theirs, and every guilt offering of theirs, which they shall render to Me, shall be most sacred for you and for your sons鈥 (Numbers 18:9).

讻诇 拽专讘谞诐 诇专讘讜转 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诪谉 讛讗砖 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讜转专 诪谉 讛讗砖 讛讜讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The baraita clarifies what is included by the term 鈥渆very鈥 in each of these clauses. The verse states: 鈥淓very offering of theirs,鈥 which serves to include the log of oil of a leper; it too is given to the priests. The Gemara explains why it is necessary to derive from the verse that the oil is a gift to the priesthood: It might enter your mind to say that the oil should not be included, as the Merciful One writes in this same verse: 鈥淔rom the fire,鈥 and this log of oil, notwithstanding its status as an offering, is not reserved from the fire. Only an item concerning which part of it is brought to the altar can be said to be reserved from the fire, and none of the oil is brought to the altar. Therefore, the verse teaches us by the phrase: 鈥淓very offering of theirs,鈥 that the oil goes to the priests.

诇讻诇 诪谞讞转诐 诇专讘讜转 诪谞讞转 注讜诪专 讜诪谞讞转 讛拽谞讗讜转 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讜讗讻诇讜 讗讜转诐 讗砖专 讻驻专 讘讛诐 讜诪谞讞转 讛注讜诪专 诇讛转讬专 讗转讬讗 讜诪谞讞转 拽谞讗讜转 诇讘专专 注讜谉 拽讗转讬讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The phrase: 鈥淓very meal offering of theirs,鈥 serves to include the omer meal offering, brought as a communal offering on the sixteenth of Nisan, and the meal offering of jealousy, brought by a sota. The Gemara elaborates: It might enter your mind to say that as the verse states with regard to the consumption of sacrificial food by the priests: 鈥淎nd they shall eat those items with which atonement is achieved鈥 (Exodus 29:33), only those foods that facilitate atonement are given to the priests. And this would exclude the omer meal offering and the meal offering of jealousy, as the omer meal offering comes to permit the consumption of the new crop, and the meal offering of jealousy comes to clarify the transgression of the sota, as part of the ordeal undergone by the woman. Therefore, the verse teaches us by the phrase: 鈥淓very meal offering of theirs,鈥 that even these meal offerings are eaten by the priests.

讜诇讻诇 讞讟讗转诐 诇专讘讜转 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 谞讘讬诇讛 讛讬讗

The phrase: 鈥淎nd every sin offering of theirs,鈥 serves to include the bird sin offering; its meat too is given to the priests. The Gemara explains: It might enter your mind to say that this meat should not be eaten at all, as it is an unslaughtered animal carcass, since the bird is killed by pinching its nape (see Leviticus 5:8) rather than by slaughtering, which is the manner of ritual slaughter of non-sacred birds. Therefore, the phrase: 鈥淎nd every sin offering of theirs,鈥 teaches that the bird sin offering is eaten by the priests.

诇讻诇 讗砖诪诐 诇专讘讜转 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讛讻砖讬专 拽讗转讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The phrase: 鈥淓very guilt offering of theirs,鈥 serves to include the guilt offering of a nazirite who contracted ritual impurity, and the guilt offering of a leper. The Gemara elaborates: It might enter your mind to say that these should not be given to the priests to eat, as they come to qualify these individuals, rather than to atone. The guilt offering of a nazirite renders him fit to restart his term of naziriteship, and the guilt offering of a leper qualifies him to eat sacrificial food, whereas the verse states: 鈥淎nd they shall eat those items with which atonement is achieved鈥 (Exodus 29:33). Therefore, the verse teaches us by the phrase: 鈥淓very guilt offering of theirs,鈥 that these offerings as well are eaten by the priests.

讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讗诇讗 诇专讘讜转 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讻讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注

The Gemara challenges: It is explicitly written with regard to the guilt offering of a leper that it is consumed by the priests: 鈥淔or as the sin offering is the priest鈥檚, so is the guilt offering鈥 (Leviticus 14:13). Why, then, is this derivation necessary? Rather, the baraita means to say that the phrase: 鈥淓very guilt offering of theirs,鈥 serves to include the guilt offering of a nazirite, teaching that it is like the guilt offering of a leper, in that both are eaten by the priests.

讗砖专 讬砖讬讘讜 讝讛 讙讝诇 讛讙专 诇讱 讛讜讗 砖诇讱 讬讛讬讛 讗驻讬诇讜 诇拽讚砖 讘讜 讗转 讛讗砖讛

The baraita continues: With regard to the phrase 鈥渨hich they shall render to Me,鈥 this is referring to an item stolen from a convert. One who robs a convert who then dies with no heirs must give the stolen item and an additional one-fifth to the priests. Finally, the term 鈥渇or you鈥 teaches that it shall be yours, even to betroth a woman with it, i.e., these gifts are considered the priest鈥檚 property in all regards.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 驻讬讙诇 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讬讙诇 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 诇讗 驻讬讙诇

搂 According to the first tanna of the mishna, the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned, the blood of which is presented on the inner altar, are subject to piggul, whereas Rabbi Shimon rules that they are not subject to piggul. It is taught in a baraita that there is a third opinion concerning the matter: Rabbi Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: If in his service of the bulls that are burned or the goats that are burned the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul with regard to a matter that is performed outside the Sanctuary, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, he has rendered the offering piggul. If his intention was with regard to a matter that is performed inside the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies, he has not rendered the offering piggul.

讻讬爪讚 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘讞讜抓 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 砖讜讞讟 诇讛讝讜转 诪讚诪讜 诇诪讞专 诇讗 驻讬讙诇 砖诪讞砖讘讛 讘讞讜抓 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘驻谞讬诐 诇讗 驻讬讙诇 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘驻谞讬诐 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 诪讝讛 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬诐 讜诇砖驻讜讱 砖讬专讬诐 诇诪讞专 诇讗 驻讬讙诇 砖诪讞砖讘讛 讘驻谞讬诐 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓

The baraita elaborates: How so? If he was standing outside when slaughtering the animal, and said: I hereby slaughter the animal with the intention of sprinkling its blood tomorrow inside the Sanctuary, he has not rendered the offering piggul. The reason is that in the case of an intention outside with regard to a matter that is performed inside, one has not rendered the offering piggul. Likewise, if he was standing inside when sprinkling, and said: I hereby sprinkle the blood of the sin offering in order to burn its sacrificial portions on the external altar and to pour out its remainder on the base of the altar tomorrow, he has not rendered the offering piggul, as this is an intention inside with regard to a matter that is performed outside.

讗讘诇 讛讬讛 注讜诪讚 讘讞讜抓 讜讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 砖讜讞讟 诇砖驻讜讱 砖讬专讬诐 诇诪讞专 讗讜 诇讛拽讟讬专 讗讬诪讜专讬诐 诇诪讞专 驻讬讙诇 砖诪讞砖讘讛 讘讞讜抓 讘讚讘专 讛谞注砖讛 讘讞讜抓

But if he was standing outside, and said: I hereby slaughter the animal with the intention of pouring out the remainder of its blood tomorrow, or to burn its sacrificial portions tomorrow, he has rendered the offering piggul, as this is an intention outside with regard to a matter that is performed outside.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪讗讬 拽专讗 讻讗砖专 讬讜专诐 诪砖讜专 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 讜讻讬 诪讛 诇诪讚谞讜 诪砖讜专 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 诪注转讛

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: What is the verse from which this is derived? The verse states with regard to the sacrificial portions of a bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest, which is one of the bulls that are burned: 鈥淎s it is taken off from the bull of the peace offering鈥 (Leviticus 4:10). But what, then, do we learn from the bull of a peace offering? Everything that is specified with regard to a peace offering is stated with regard to this bull as well.

讗诇讗 诪拽讬砖 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 诇砖讜专 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 诪讛 砖讜专 讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诪注砖讬讜 讜诪讞砖讘讜转讬讜 注诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉 讗祝 驻专 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 注讚 砖讬讛讜 诪讞砖讘讜转讬讜 讜诪注砖讬讜 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 讛讞讬爪讜谉

Rather, the verse juxtaposes the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest with the bull of the peace offering: Just as the bull of the peace offering is not rendered piggul unless the priest鈥檚 actions and intentions relate to the service performed on the external altar, as that is where it is offered, so too, the bull for an unwitting sin of the anointed priest is not rendered piggul unless the priest鈥檚 intentions and actions relate to the service performed on the external altar.

讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讗诪专 专讘 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 砖讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says his ruling in the name of Rabbi Yosei.

讗诪专 专讘讗

Rava said:

Scroll To Top