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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 8, 2018 | ื›ืดื” ื‘ืกื™ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืขืดื—

  • 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 56

What are the exact areas of the azara? There are three laws that are specifically done in the azara only – slaughtering kodshimย kalim, kohanim eating kodshaiย kodashim and being obligated if one is impure and enters the area. Are the boundaries of what is considered the azara the same for each of these three laws? If not, why is there a distinction? Laws regarding the cut off point for sprinkling the blood, eating the meat, etc are discussed – also as they relate to pigul. Comparisons are made between meat of the sacrifices that can be eaten for one day and those that can be eaten for two days – and a question is raised regarding the status of theย night after the second day for those that can be eaten for two days.


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

ืื•ืจืš ืžืื” ื•ืฉืžื•ื ื™ื ื•ืฉื‘ืข ืขืœ ืจื•ื—ื‘ ืžืื” ื•ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ

an area whose length is 187 cubits by 135 cubits in width.

ืชื ื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืขื–ืจื” ื”ื™ืชื” ืžืื” ืฉืžื•ื ื™ื ื•ืฉื‘ืข ืขืœ ืจื•ื—ื‘ ืžืื” ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ ืื‘ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื–ื” ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื•ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื˜ื•ืžืื”

A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Naแธฅman: The entire Temple courtyard was 187 cubits in length by 135 cubits in width. Rav Naแธฅman said to the tanna: My father said this to me: In an area such as this, the priests enter there and eat offerings of the most sacred order there, and slaughter offerings of lesser sanctity there, and are liable due to entering in a state of ritual impurity.

ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื—ืœื•ื ื•ืช ื“ืœืชื•ืช ื•ืขื•ื‘ื™ ื”ื—ื•ืžื” ืชื ื™ื ื ื”ื—ืœื•ื ื•ืช ื•ืขื•ื‘ื™ ื”ื—ื•ืžื” ื›ืœืคื ื™ื

The Gemara asks: These specific dimensions serve to exclude what? If we say they are stated to exclude the windows, doors, and thickness of the wall, we learn the opposite in a mishna (Pesaแธฅim 85b): The windows in the wall and the thickness of the wall are considered as though they are inside the Temple courtyard.

ื•ืืœื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืœืฉื›ื•ืช ื•ืื™ ื‘ื ื•ื™ื•ืช ื‘ื—ื•ืœ ื•ืคืชื•ื—ื•ืช ืœืงื“ืฉ ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืชื•ื›ืŸ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ

But rather, they are stated to exclude the chambers in the Temple courtyard. The Gemara asks: And if it is referring to chambers that are built in the non-sacred area, which is outside this designated space, and open to the sacred area, but didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Maโ€™aser Sheni 3:8): The inside of chambers that are built in the sacred area but are open to the non-sacred area is non-sacred, but their roofs are sacred. If they are built in a non-sacred area and open to a sacred area, their interior is sacred and their roofs are non-sacred? The Gemara answers: They have sanctity by rabbinic law.

ื•ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืœื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืœืฉื›ื•ืช ื‘ื ื•ื™ื•ืช ื‘ื—ื•ืœ ื•ืคืชื•ื—ื•ืช ืœืงื“ืฉ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื•ืื•ื›ืœื™ื ืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืฉื™ืจื™ ืžื ื—ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ื—ืฆืจ ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื™ืื›ืœื•ื” ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืจื™ื‘ืชื” ื—ืฆื™ืจื•ืช ื”ืจื‘ื” ืืฆืœ ืื›ื™ืœื” ืื—ืช

The Gemara asks: And do they not have sanctity by Torah law? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: With regard to the chambers that are built in the non-sacred area of the Temple Mount and open to the sacred area, from where is it derived that the priests enter there and eat there offerings of the most sacred order and the remainders of meal offerings? The verse states with regard to a meal offering: โ€œIt shall be eaten without leaven in a holy place; in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it.โ€ (Leviticus 6:9). The verse could have simply stated: โ€œIn a holy place,โ€ which indicates the courtyard. By also stating: โ€œIn the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting,โ€ the Torah amplified many courtyards with one type of eating, i.e., of the meal offering. If the chambers do not have sanctity by Torah law, the Sages would not have permitted the priests to eat offerings of the most sacred order there.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืฉืื ื™

Rava said: The halakha concerning eating is different. The Torah specifically includes these chambers in addition to the Temple courtyard itself for eating offerings of the most sacred order. By contrast, with regard to slaughtering offerings of lesser sanctity and the punishment for entering the courtyard in a state of ritual impurity, these chambers are not considered sacred by Torah law.

ืื‘ืœ ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืœื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืœืฉื›ื•ืช ื”ื‘ื ื•ื™ื•ืช ืœื—ื•ืœ ื•ืคืชื•ื—ื•ืช ืœืงื•ื“ืฉ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื•ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื˜ื•ืžืื”

The Gemara asks: But with regard to ritual impurity, is one not liable to receive karet for entering these chambers? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: With regard to the chambers that are built in the non-sacred area and that open to the sacred area, priests enter there and eat offerings of the most sacred order there, but may not slaughter offerings of lesser sanctity there, and are liable to receive karet due to ritual impurity if they enter there while ritually impure?

ืœืื• ืืžืจืช ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืชื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ

Rava could answer: Did you not say in the baraita that they may not slaughter offerings of lesser sanctity in those chambers? If so, emend the text of the baraita and teach also: They are not liable to receive karet for entering in a state of ritual impurity.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื ื’ื“ ื”ืคืชื— ื•ืœื™ื›ื ืืœื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืื™

The Gemara challenges: Granted, the priests may not slaughter there, because slaughtering an offering requires that it be performed before the entrance of the Temple courtyard, and if he slaughters it inside a chamber, it is not. But why would they not be liable for entering there in a state of ritual impurity?

ื•ืœื™ื˜ืขืžื™ืš ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืžื™ ืœื ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื›ื ื’ื“ ื”ืคืชื— ื“ืื™ ืœื™ื›ื ืœืžืื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืืœื ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืงื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ ื›ื ื’ื“ ื”ืคืชื— ืชื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืชื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ

The Gemara answers: And according to your reasoning, when it teaches that they may not slaughter there, are we not dealing even with a case in which there is an act of slaughter performed before the entrance, i.e., the entrance to the chamber directly faced the entrance of the Temple? As if not, for what purpose was it necessary to teach this at all? Rather, even though he slaughters the offering before the entrance, the baraita teaches that a priest may not slaughter offerings in the chambers because that area is not sacred. If so, teach also that they are not liable to receive karet for entering the chambers in a state of ritual impurity, as they are not sacred.

ื•ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื›ื ื’ื“ ื”ืคืชื— ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื ื™ ืคืฉืคืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื—ืœื™ืคื•ืช ื’ื•ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉืžื•ื ื” ื›ื“ื™ ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ืืช ื”ืขื–ืจื” ืœืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืกืžื™ ืžื›ืืŸ ืื›ื™ืœื”

The Gemara asks: And for eating an offering, do we not require that this take place before the entrance of the Temple courtyard? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: There were two wickets in the Chamber of Knives, and their height was eight cubits; the function of these openings was in order to render fit the entire Temple courtyard for the eating of offerings of the most sacred order, and to render fit all of the Temple courtyard for the slaughter of offerings of lesser sanctity? Ravina said: Remove from here the clause concerning eating. The eating of offerings does not have to take place before the entrance of the Temple courtyard.

ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉืœื• ืืช ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืคืชื— ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ืฉื ืชืื›ืœื• ืื•ืชื• ืงื“ืฉื™ ืฉืขื” ืฉืื ื™

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it written with regard to the offerings brought at the inauguration of the Tabernacle: โ€œAnd Moses said to Aaron and to his sons: Cook the meat at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting; and eat it thereโ€ (Leviticus 8:31). This indicates that the eating of offerings had to be at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. The Gemara answers: Offerings that were sacrificed only one time are different. Since they were specifically commanded for just that time, one cannot derive from there any halakhot with regard to offerings in general.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื“ื™ืžื™ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื“ื ืฉื ืคืกืœ ื‘ืฉืงื™ืขืช ื”ื—ืžื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ื• ืืช ื–ื‘ื—ื• ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ื™ื•ื ืฉืืชื” ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืืชื” ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื•ื ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืื™ ืืชื” ืžืงืจื™ื‘

ยง Rav Yitzแธฅak bar Avudimi says: From where is it derived that the blood of offerings becomes disqualified at sunset and can no longer be presented on the altar? This is as it is stated in the verse: โ€œBut if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a gift offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he sacrifices his offering [zivแธฅo], and on the morrowโ€ (Leviticus 7:16). This means that on the day that you slaughter [zoveโ€™aแธฅ] the offering you sacrifice it on the altar and present its blood. But on the day that you do not slaughter the offering you may not sacrifice it and present its blood.

ื”ืื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara challenges: But he requires this verse

ืœื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื™ืžื ืงืจื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื–ื‘ื—ื• ื™ืื›ืœ ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ื• ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ื™ื•ื ืฉืืชื” ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืืชื” ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื•ื ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืื™ ืืชื” ืžืงืจื™ื‘

for the matter itself, to teach that a peace offering may be eaten for only two days? The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse state: On the day he slaughters it shall it be eaten, and the following day. Why do I need the verse to add the term โ€œthat he sacrifices itโ€? Conclude from the wording of the verse that on the day that you slaughter the offering you sacrifice the blood on the altar, but on a day that you do not slaughter the offering you do not sacrifice the blood on the altar.

ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื™ ืงืจื™ื‘ ื“ื ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ื ื™ืชืื›ื™ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ื•ืœืžื—ืจ ืื™ ืงืจื™ื‘ ื“ื ืœืžื—ืจ ื ื™ืชืื›ื™ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืžื—ืจ ื•ืœื™ื•ืžื ืื•ื—ืจื ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื™ืžื ืงืจื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ื• ื™ืื›ืœ ื–ื‘ื—ื• ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ื™ื•ื ืฉืืชื” ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืืชื” ืžืงืจื™ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืื™ ืืชื” ืžืงืจื™ื‘ื•

The Gemara questions this proof: But perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying: If the blood is sacrificed today, i.e., the day the offering was slaughtered, the meat may be eaten today and tomorrow. If the blood is sacrificed tomorrow, the meat may be eaten tomorrow and the following day. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse state: On the day it is sacrificed it shall be eaten, and the following day. Why do I need the verse to state: โ€œThat he sacrifices his offeringโ€? Conclude from the wording of the verse that on the day that you slaughter the offering you sacrifice the blood on the altar, but on a day that you do not slaughter the offering you do not sacrifice the blood on the altar.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ืžื—ืฉื‘ ืœืื•ืจ ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืืžืจ ื›ืฉืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืคืกื•ืœ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืืžืจ ื›ืฉืจ ื“ื”ื ืœื ืื™ื ืชื™ืง ืœืฉืจื™ืคื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืคืกื•ืœ ื“ื”ื ืื™ื“ื—ื™ ืœื™ื” ืžืื›ื™ืœื”

ยง It was stated: With regard to one who slaughters a peace offer-ing and intends to eat it on the evening preceding the third day, แธคizkiyya says: The offering is valid, and it is not disqualified due to his intention to eat it after its designated time [piggul]. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: It is disqualified. The Gemara explains: แธคizkiyya says that the offering is valid because on the evening preceding the third day, the peace offering has not yet been removed from its previous status and designated for burning. A peace offering is not burned until the third morning, as the verse states: โ€œIt shall be eaten the same day you offer it, and on the following day; and if anything remain until the third day, it shall be burned with fireโ€ (Leviticus 19:6). Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says it is disqualified, because it has been rejected from being eaten.

ื”ืื•ื›ืœ ืœืื•ืจ ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืืžืจ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื“ืœื ืื™ื ืชื™ืง ืœืฉืจื™ืคื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ื”ื ืื™ื“ื—ื™ ืœื™ื” ืžืื›ื™ืœื”

These two amoraโ€™im have the same dispute concerning a similar matter: With regard to one who eats a peace offering on the evening preceding the third day, แธคizkiyya says: He is exempt from karet, because the offering has not yet been removed from its previous status and designated for burning. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: He is liable to receive karet, because it has been rejected from being eaten.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ืžืŸ ืžืฉืชืฉืงืข ื”ื—ืžื” ื•ื‘ื‘ืฉืจืŸ ื•ื‘ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื™ืขืœื” ืขืžื•ื“ ื”ืฉื—ืจ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ื™ืžื™ื ื•ืœื™ืœื” ืื—ืช ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ืžืŸ ืžืฉืชืฉืงืข ื”ื—ืžื” ื•ื‘ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื™ืขืœื” ืขืžื•ื“ ื”ืฉื—ืจ ื•ื‘ื‘ืฉืจืŸ ืžืฉืชืฉืงืข ื”ื—ืžื” ืฉืœ ืฉื ื™ ื™ืžื™ื

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: With regard to sacrificial animals that may be eaten for one day, if one intends to present their blood after sunset, or if one intends to eat their meat or to sacrifice their sacrificial portions after the first rays of dawn, the offering is considered to be piggul and is disqualified. With regard to sacrificial animals that may be eaten for two days and one night, if one intends to present their blood after sunset, or if one intends to sacrifice their sacrificial portions after the first rays of dawn, or if one intends to eat their meat after sunset following the second of the two days, the offering is considered to be piggul and is disqualified.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื• ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœืื•ืจ ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื•ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื•ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ื™ืžื™ื ืžื” ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื”ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ืœื™ืœื” ืื—ืจื™ื”ืŸ ืืฃ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื”ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ื™ืžื™ื ืœื™ืœื” ืื—ืจื™ื”ืŸ

The Gemara cites another baraita on this topic. The Sages taught: One might have thought that peace offerings, which may be eaten for two days, may also be eaten on the evening preceding the third day. And this is the conclusion of a logical inference: Other offerings, e.g., thanks offerings, are eaten for one day, and peace offerings are eaten for two days. Just as with regard to offerings that are eaten for one day, the night follows the previous day, i.e., the offering may be eaten during the day and the subsequent night, so too, with regard to peace offerings that are eaten for two days, say that the night follows the day, and rule that they may be eaten on the night after the second day.

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ื ื•ืชืจ ืขื“ ื™ื•ื ื‘ืขื•ื“ ื™ื•ื ื”ื•ื ื ืื›ืœ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ ืœืื•ืจ ืฉืœื™ืฉื™

To counter this logic, the verse states: โ€œAnd when you sacrifice a peace offering to God, you shall sacrifice it of your own will. It shall be eaten the same day you sacrifice it, and on the next day; and if any remains until the third day, it shall be burned with fireโ€ (Leviticus 19:5โ€“6). This teaches that it may be eaten while it is still daytime, i.e., during the second day, but it may not be eaten on the evening preceding the third day.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ืฉืจืฃ ืžื™ื“ ื•ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื•ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ื™ืžื™ื ืžื” ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื”ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ืชื™ื›ืฃ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืืฃ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื”ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ื™ืžื™ื ืชื™ื›ืฃ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืฉืจื™ืคื”

The baraita continues: If a peace offering may not be eaten beyond the second day, one might have thought that it should be burned immediately after the conclusion of the second day, and this too is the conclusion of a logical inference: Other offerings are eaten for one day, and peace offerings are eaten for two days. Just as with regard to offerings that are eaten for one day, immediately after the conclusion of their permitted time for eating should their burning commence, on the morning of the second day, so too, with regard to peace offerings that are eaten for two days say that immediately after the conclusion of their permitted time for eating should their burning commence, at night after the second day.

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื‘ืืฉ ื™ืฉืจืฃ ื‘ื™ื•ื ืืชื” ืฉื•ืจืคื• ื•ืื™ ืืชื” ืฉื•ืจืคื• ื‘ืœื™ืœื”

To counter this logic, the verse states: โ€œAnd if any remains of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day, it shall be burned with fireโ€ (Leviticus 7:17), meaning: You must burn it during the day, but you may not burn it during the night.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื•ื”ืžืขืฉืจ ื•ื”ืคืกื— ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ื•ื“ืžืŸ ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ืžืชื ื” ืื—ืช ื•ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉื™ืชืŸ ื›ื ื’ื“ ื”ื™ืกื•ื“

MISHNA: The firstborn offering, the animal tithe offering, and the Paschal offering are offerings of lesser sanctity. Their slaughter is anywhere in the Temple courtyard, and their blood requires one placement, provided that the priest places it so that the blood goes on the base of the altar.

ืฉื™ื ื” ื‘ืื›ื™ืœืชืŸ ื”ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื ืื›ืœ ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ื”ืžืขืฉืจ ืœื›ืœ ืื“ื ื•ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืื›ืœ ืœืฉื ื™ ื™ืžื™ื ื•ืœื™ืœื” ืื—ื“ ื”ืคืกื— ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ ืืœื ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ื•ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ ืืœื ืขื“ ื—ืฆื•ืช ื•ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ ืืœื ืœืžื ื•ื™ื• ื•ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ ืืœื ืฆืœื™

The halakha differs with regard to their consumption. The firstborn offering is eaten by the priests, and the animal tithe offer-ing is eaten by any person, i.e., any ritually pure Jew. And they are eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem, prepared in any manner of food preparation, for two days and one night. The Paschal offering is eaten only at night, and it is eaten only until midnight, and it is eaten only by its registrants, i.e., those who registered in advance to partake of the offering, and it is eaten only roasted, not prepared in any other manner.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื—ืœื‘ื• ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืืœื ื—ืœื‘ื ื“ืžื• ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืืœื ื“ืžื ืœื™ืžื“ ืขืœ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื•ืžืขืฉืจ ื•ืคืกื— ืฉื˜ืขื•ื ื™ืŸ ืžืชืŸ ื“ืžื™ื ื•ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœื’ื‘ื™ ืžื–ื‘ื—

GEMARA: Who is the tanna who taught that the blood of these offerings is placed, not poured, so that it goes on the base of the altar? Rav แธคisda says that it is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The verse states: โ€œBut the firstborn of an ox, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are sacred; you shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar and you shall burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a pleasing aroma to the Lordโ€ (Numbers 18:17). It is not stated: Its fat, but rather: โ€œTheir fat.โ€ Similarly, it is not stated: Its blood, but rather: โ€œTheir blood.โ€ This teaches with regard to a firstborn offering, which is mentioned explicitly in the verse, and an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering, which are similar in their sanctity to a firstborn offering, that they all require placement of their blood and the burning of their sacrificial portions on the altar.

ื›ื ื’ื“ ื”ื™ืกื•ื“ ืžื ื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืืชื™ื ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืžืขื•ืœื”

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that their blood must be placed so that it goes on the base of the altar? Rabbi Eliezer says: This is derived by way of a verbal analogy, with the meaning of the word โ€œsprinklingโ€ stated here derived from the meaning of the word โ€œsprinklingโ€ stated with regard to a burnt offering.

  • 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 56

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 56

ืื•ืจืš ืžืื” ื•ืฉืžื•ื ื™ื ื•ืฉื‘ืข ืขืœ ืจื•ื—ื‘ ืžืื” ื•ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ

an area whose length is 187 cubits by 135 cubits in width.

ืชื ื™ ืชื ื ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื›ืœ ื”ืขื–ืจื” ื”ื™ืชื” ืžืื” ืฉืžื•ื ื™ื ื•ืฉื‘ืข ืขืœ ืจื•ื—ื‘ ืžืื” ืฉืœืฉื™ื ื•ื—ืžืฉ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ื”ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ ืื‘ื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื–ื” ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื•ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื˜ื•ืžืื”

A tanna taught a baraita before Rav Naแธฅman: The entire Temple courtyard was 187 cubits in length by 135 cubits in width. Rav Naแธฅman said to the tanna: My father said this to me: In an area such as this, the priests enter there and eat offerings of the most sacred order there, and slaughter offerings of lesser sanctity there, and are liable due to entering in a state of ritual impurity.

ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ื—ืœื•ื ื•ืช ื“ืœืชื•ืช ื•ืขื•ื‘ื™ ื”ื—ื•ืžื” ืชื ื™ื ื ื”ื—ืœื•ื ื•ืช ื•ืขื•ื‘ื™ ื”ื—ื•ืžื” ื›ืœืคื ื™ื

The Gemara asks: These specific dimensions serve to exclude what? If we say they are stated to exclude the windows, doors, and thickness of the wall, we learn the opposite in a mishna (Pesaแธฅim 85b): The windows in the wall and the thickness of the wall are considered as though they are inside the Temple courtyard.

ื•ืืœื ืœืžืขื•ื˜ื™ ืœืฉื›ื•ืช ื•ืื™ ื‘ื ื•ื™ื•ืช ื‘ื—ื•ืœ ื•ืคืชื•ื—ื•ืช ืœืงื“ืฉ ื•ื”ืชื ืŸ ืชื•ื›ืŸ ืงื•ื“ืฉ ืžื“ืจื‘ื ืŸ

But rather, they are stated to exclude the chambers in the Temple courtyard. The Gemara asks: And if it is referring to chambers that are built in the non-sacred area, which is outside this designated space, and open to the sacred area, but didnโ€™t we learn in a mishna (Maโ€™aser Sheni 3:8): The inside of chambers that are built in the sacred area but are open to the non-sacred area is non-sacred, but their roofs are sacred. If they are built in a non-sacred area and open to a sacred area, their interior is sacred and their roofs are non-sacred? The Gemara answers: They have sanctity by rabbinic law.

ื•ื“ืื•ืจื™ื™ืชื ืœื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืœืฉื›ื•ืช ื‘ื ื•ื™ื•ืช ื‘ื—ื•ืœ ื•ืคืชื•ื—ื•ืช ืœืงื“ืฉ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืฉื”ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื•ืื•ื›ืœื™ื ืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืฉื™ืจื™ ืžื ื—ื” ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ื—ืฆืจ ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื™ืื›ืœื•ื” ื”ืชื•ืจื” ืจื™ื‘ืชื” ื—ืฆื™ืจื•ืช ื”ืจื‘ื” ืืฆืœ ืื›ื™ืœื” ืื—ืช

The Gemara asks: And do they not have sanctity by Torah law? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: With regard to the chambers that are built in the non-sacred area of the Temple Mount and open to the sacred area, from where is it derived that the priests enter there and eat there offerings of the most sacred order and the remainders of meal offerings? The verse states with regard to a meal offering: โ€œIt shall be eaten without leaven in a holy place; in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it.โ€ (Leviticus 6:9). The verse could have simply stated: โ€œIn a holy place,โ€ which indicates the courtyard. By also stating: โ€œIn the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting,โ€ the Torah amplified many courtyards with one type of eating, i.e., of the meal offering. If the chambers do not have sanctity by Torah law, the Sages would not have permitted the priests to eat offerings of the most sacred order there.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืฉืื ื™

Rava said: The halakha concerning eating is different. The Torah specifically includes these chambers in addition to the Temple courtyard itself for eating offerings of the most sacred order. By contrast, with regard to slaughtering offerings of lesser sanctity and the punishment for entering the courtyard in a state of ritual impurity, these chambers are not considered sacred by Torah law.

ืื‘ืœ ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ื˜ื•ืžืื” ืœื ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืœืฉื›ื•ืช ื”ื‘ื ื•ื™ื•ืช ืœื—ื•ืœ ื•ืคืชื•ื—ื•ืช ืœืงื•ื“ืฉ ื›ื”ื ื™ื ื ื›ื ืกื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื•ืื•ื›ืœื™ืŸ ืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืฉื ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื˜ื•ืžืื”

The Gemara asks: But with regard to ritual impurity, is one not liable to receive karet for entering these chambers? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: With regard to the chambers that are built in the non-sacred area and that open to the sacred area, priests enter there and eat offerings of the most sacred order there, but may not slaughter offerings of lesser sanctity there, and are liable to receive karet due to ritual impurity if they enter there while ritually impure?

ืœืื• ืืžืจืช ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืชื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ

Rava could answer: Did you not say in the baraita that they may not slaughter offerings of lesser sanctity in those chambers? If so, emend the text of the baraita and teach also: They are not liable to receive karet for entering in a state of ritual impurity.

ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื ื ื ื’ื“ ื”ืคืชื— ื•ืœื™ื›ื ืืœื ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืื™

The Gemara challenges: Granted, the priests may not slaughter there, because slaughtering an offering requires that it be performed before the entrance of the Temple courtyard, and if he slaughters it inside a chamber, it is not. But why would they not be liable for entering there in a state of ritual impurity?

ื•ืœื™ื˜ืขืžื™ืš ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืžื™ ืœื ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ื” ื›ื ื’ื“ ื”ืคืชื— ื“ืื™ ืœื™ื›ื ืœืžืื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืืœื ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืงื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ ื›ื ื’ื“ ื”ืคืชื— ืชื ื™ ืื™ืŸ ืฉื•ื—ื˜ื™ืŸ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืœื ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืชื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ

The Gemara answers: And according to your reasoning, when it teaches that they may not slaughter there, are we not dealing even with a case in which there is an act of slaughter performed before the entrance, i.e., the entrance to the chamber directly faced the entrance of the Temple? As if not, for what purpose was it necessary to teach this at all? Rather, even though he slaughters the offering before the entrance, the baraita teaches that a priest may not slaughter offerings in the chambers because that area is not sacred. If so, teach also that they are not liable to receive karet for entering the chambers in a state of ritual impurity, as they are not sacred.

ื•ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื›ื ื’ื“ ื”ืคืชื— ื•ื”ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ืฉื ื™ ืคืฉืคืฉื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื—ืœื™ืคื•ืช ื’ื•ื‘ื”ืŸ ืฉืžื•ื ื” ื›ื“ื™ ืœื”ื›ืฉื™ืจ ืืช ื”ืขื–ืจื” ืœืื›ื™ืœืช ืงื“ืฉื™ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื•ืœืฉื—ื™ื˜ืช ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืกืžื™ ืžื›ืืŸ ืื›ื™ืœื”

The Gemara asks: And for eating an offering, do we not require that this take place before the entrance of the Temple courtyard? But isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: There were two wickets in the Chamber of Knives, and their height was eight cubits; the function of these openings was in order to render fit the entire Temple courtyard for the eating of offerings of the most sacred order, and to render fit all of the Temple courtyard for the slaughter of offerings of lesser sanctity? Ravina said: Remove from here the clause concerning eating. The eating of offerings does not have to take place before the entrance of the Temple courtyard.

ื•ื”ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื‘ืฉืœื• ืืช ื”ื‘ืฉืจ ืคืชื— ืื”ืœ ืžื•ืขื“ ื•ืฉื ืชืื›ืœื• ืื•ืชื• ืงื“ืฉื™ ืฉืขื” ืฉืื ื™

The Gemara asks: But isnโ€™t it written with regard to the offerings brought at the inauguration of the Tabernacle: โ€œAnd Moses said to Aaron and to his sons: Cook the meat at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting; and eat it thereโ€ (Leviticus 8:31). This indicates that the eating of offerings had to be at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting. The Gemara answers: Offerings that were sacrificed only one time are different. Since they were specifically commanded for just that time, one cannot derive from there any halakhot with regard to offerings in general.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ืฆื—ืง ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื•ื“ื™ืžื™ ืžื ื™ืŸ ืœื“ื ืฉื ืคืกืœ ื‘ืฉืงื™ืขืช ื”ื—ืžื” ืฉื ืืžืจ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ื• ืืช ื–ื‘ื—ื• ื™ืื›ืœ ื‘ื™ื•ื ืฉืืชื” ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืืชื” ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื•ื ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืื™ ืืชื” ืžืงืจื™ื‘

ยง Rav Yitzแธฅak bar Avudimi says: From where is it derived that the blood of offerings becomes disqualified at sunset and can no longer be presented on the altar? This is as it is stated in the verse: โ€œBut if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a gift offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he sacrifices his offering [zivแธฅo], and on the morrowโ€ (Leviticus 7:16). This means that on the day that you slaughter [zoveโ€™aแธฅ] the offering you sacrifice it on the altar and present its blood. But on the day that you do not slaughter the offering you may not sacrifice it and present its blood.

ื”ืื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื”

The Gemara challenges: But he requires this verse

ืœื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื™ืžื ืงืจื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื–ื‘ื—ื• ื™ืื›ืœ ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ื• ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ื™ื•ื ืฉืืชื” ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืืชื” ืžืงืจื™ื‘ ื‘ื™ื•ื ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืื™ ืืชื” ืžืงืจื™ื‘

for the matter itself, to teach that a peace offering may be eaten for only two days? The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse state: On the day he slaughters it shall it be eaten, and the following day. Why do I need the verse to add the term โ€œthat he sacrifices itโ€? Conclude from the wording of the verse that on the day that you slaughter the offering you sacrifice the blood on the altar, but on a day that you do not slaughter the offering you do not sacrifice the blood on the altar.

ื•ื“ื™ืœืžื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืจื—ืžื ื ืื™ ืงืจื™ื‘ ื“ื ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ื ื™ืชืื›ื™ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ื”ืื™ื“ื ื ื•ืœืžื—ืจ ืื™ ืงืจื™ื‘ ื“ื ืœืžื—ืจ ื ื™ืชืื›ื™ืœ ื‘ืฉืจ ืœืžื—ืจ ื•ืœื™ื•ืžื ืื•ื—ืจื ืื ื›ืŸ ื ื™ืžื ืงืจื ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ืงืจื™ื‘ื• ื™ืื›ืœ ื–ื‘ื—ื• ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ื™ื•ื ืฉืืชื” ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืืชื” ืžืงืจื™ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ืฉืื™ ืืชื” ื–ื•ื‘ื— ืื™ ืืชื” ืžืงืจื™ื‘ื•

The Gemara questions this proof: But perhaps this is what the Merciful One is saying: If the blood is sacrificed today, i.e., the day the offering was slaughtered, the meat may be eaten today and tomorrow. If the blood is sacrificed tomorrow, the meat may be eaten tomorrow and the following day. The Gemara answers: If so, let the verse state: On the day it is sacrificed it shall be eaten, and the following day. Why do I need the verse to state: โ€œThat he sacrifices his offeringโ€? Conclude from the wording of the verse that on the day that you slaughter the offering you sacrifice the blood on the altar, but on a day that you do not slaughter the offering you do not sacrifice the blood on the altar.

ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ืžื—ืฉื‘ ืœืื•ืจ ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืืžืจ ื›ืฉืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืคืกื•ืœ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืืžืจ ื›ืฉืจ ื“ื”ื ืœื ืื™ื ืชื™ืง ืœืฉืจื™ืคื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืคืกื•ืœ ื“ื”ื ืื™ื“ื—ื™ ืœื™ื” ืžืื›ื™ืœื”

ยง It was stated: With regard to one who slaughters a peace offer-ing and intends to eat it on the evening preceding the third day, แธคizkiyya says: The offering is valid, and it is not disqualified due to his intention to eat it after its designated time [piggul]. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: It is disqualified. The Gemara explains: แธคizkiyya says that the offering is valid because on the evening preceding the third day, the peace offering has not yet been removed from its previous status and designated for burning. A peace offering is not burned until the third morning, as the verse states: โ€œIt shall be eaten the same day you offer it, and on the following day; and if anything remain until the third day, it shall be burned with fireโ€ (Leviticus 19:6). Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says it is disqualified, because it has been rejected from being eaten.

ื”ืื•ื›ืœ ืœืื•ืจ ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื—ื–ืงื™ื” ืืžืจ ืคื˜ื•ืจ ื“ืœื ืื™ื ืชื™ืง ืœืฉืจื™ืคื” ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ ื“ื”ื ืื™ื“ื—ื™ ืœื™ื” ืžืื›ื™ืœื”

These two amoraโ€™im have the same dispute concerning a similar matter: With regard to one who eats a peace offering on the evening preceding the third day, แธคizkiyya says: He is exempt from karet, because the offering has not yet been removed from its previous status and designated for burning. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan says: He is liable to receive karet, because it has been rejected from being eaten.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ืžืŸ ืžืฉืชืฉืงืข ื”ื—ืžื” ื•ื‘ื‘ืฉืจืŸ ื•ื‘ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื™ืขืœื” ืขืžื•ื“ ื”ืฉื—ืจ ืงื“ืฉื™ื ื”ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ื™ืžื™ื ื•ืœื™ืœื” ืื—ืช ืžื—ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ื“ืžืŸ ืžืฉืชืฉืงืข ื”ื—ืžื” ื•ื‘ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ื”ืŸ ืžืฉื™ืขืœื” ืขืžื•ื“ ื”ืฉื—ืจ ื•ื‘ื‘ืฉืจืŸ ืžืฉืชืฉืงืข ื”ื—ืžื” ืฉืœ ืฉื ื™ ื™ืžื™ื

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoแธฅanan: With regard to sacrificial animals that may be eaten for one day, if one intends to present their blood after sunset, or if one intends to eat their meat or to sacrifice their sacrificial portions after the first rays of dawn, the offering is considered to be piggul and is disqualified. With regard to sacrificial animals that may be eaten for two days and one night, if one intends to present their blood after sunset, or if one intends to sacrifice their sacrificial portions after the first rays of dawn, or if one intends to eat their meat after sunset following the second of the two days, the offering is considered to be piggul and is disqualified.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื• ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœืื•ืจ ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื•ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื•ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ื™ืžื™ื ืžื” ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื”ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ืœื™ืœื” ืื—ืจื™ื”ืŸ ืืฃ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื”ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ื™ืžื™ื ืœื™ืœื” ืื—ืจื™ื”ืŸ

The Gemara cites another baraita on this topic. The Sages taught: One might have thought that peace offerings, which may be eaten for two days, may also be eaten on the evening preceding the third day. And this is the conclusion of a logical inference: Other offerings, e.g., thanks offerings, are eaten for one day, and peace offerings are eaten for two days. Just as with regard to offerings that are eaten for one day, the night follows the previous day, i.e., the offering may be eaten during the day and the subsequent night, so too, with regard to peace offerings that are eaten for two days, say that the night follows the day, and rule that they may be eaten on the night after the second day.

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื•ื”ื ื•ืชืจ ืขื“ ื™ื•ื ื‘ืขื•ื“ ื™ื•ื ื”ื•ื ื ืื›ืœ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ ืœืื•ืจ ืฉืœื™ืฉื™

To counter this logic, the verse states: โ€œAnd when you sacrifice a peace offering to God, you shall sacrifice it of your own will. It shall be eaten the same day you sacrifice it, and on the next day; and if any remains until the third day, it shall be burned with fireโ€ (Leviticus 19:5โ€“6). This teaches that it may be eaten while it is still daytime, i.e., during the second day, but it may not be eaten on the evening preceding the third day.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ืฉืจืฃ ืžื™ื“ ื•ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื•ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ื™ืžื™ื ืžื” ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื”ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ืชื™ื›ืฃ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืฉืจื™ืคื” ืืฃ ื–ื‘ื—ื™ื ื”ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ื™ืžื™ื ืชื™ื›ืฃ ืœืื›ื™ืœื” ืฉืจื™ืคื”

The baraita continues: If a peace offering may not be eaten beyond the second day, one might have thought that it should be burned immediately after the conclusion of the second day, and this too is the conclusion of a logical inference: Other offerings are eaten for one day, and peace offerings are eaten for two days. Just as with regard to offerings that are eaten for one day, immediately after the conclusion of their permitted time for eating should their burning commence, on the morning of the second day, so too, with regard to peace offerings that are eaten for two days say that immediately after the conclusion of their permitted time for eating should their burning commence, at night after the second day.

ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื‘ืืฉ ื™ืฉืจืฃ ื‘ื™ื•ื ืืชื” ืฉื•ืจืคื• ื•ืื™ ืืชื” ืฉื•ืจืคื• ื‘ืœื™ืœื”

To counter this logic, the verse states: โ€œAnd if any remains of the flesh of the sacrifice on the third day, it shall be burned with fireโ€ (Leviticus 7:17), meaning: You must burn it during the day, but you may not burn it during the night.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื•ื”ืžืขืฉืจ ื•ื”ืคืกื— ืงื“ืฉื™ื ืงืœื™ื ืฉื—ื™ื˜ืชืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืงื•ื ื‘ืขื–ืจื” ื•ื“ืžืŸ ื˜ืขื•ืŸ ืžืชื ื” ืื—ืช ื•ื‘ืœื‘ื“ ืฉื™ืชืŸ ื›ื ื’ื“ ื”ื™ืกื•ื“

MISHNA: The firstborn offering, the animal tithe offering, and the Paschal offering are offerings of lesser sanctity. Their slaughter is anywhere in the Temple courtyard, and their blood requires one placement, provided that the priest places it so that the blood goes on the base of the altar.

ืฉื™ื ื” ื‘ืื›ื™ืœืชืŸ ื”ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื ืื›ืœ ืœื›ื”ื ื™ื ื•ื”ืžืขืฉืจ ืœื›ืœ ืื“ื ื•ื ืื›ืœื™ืŸ ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ืขื™ืจ ื‘ื›ืœ ืžืื›ืœ ืœืฉื ื™ ื™ืžื™ื ื•ืœื™ืœื” ืื—ื“ ื”ืคืกื— ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ ืืœื ื‘ืœื™ืœื” ื•ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ ืืœื ืขื“ ื—ืฆื•ืช ื•ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ ืืœื ืœืžื ื•ื™ื• ื•ืื™ื ื• ื ืื›ืœ ืืœื ืฆืœื™

The halakha differs with regard to their consumption. The firstborn offering is eaten by the priests, and the animal tithe offer-ing is eaten by any person, i.e., any ritually pure Jew. And they are eaten throughout the city of Jerusalem, prepared in any manner of food preparation, for two days and one night. The Paschal offering is eaten only at night, and it is eaten only until midnight, and it is eaten only by its registrants, i.e., those who registered in advance to partake of the offering, and it is eaten only roasted, not prepared in any other manner.

ื’ืžืณ ืžืืŸ ืชื ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ื”ื™ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื”ื’ืœื™ืœื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื—ืœื‘ื• ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืืœื ื—ืœื‘ื ื“ืžื• ืœื ื ืืžืจ ืืœื ื“ืžื ืœื™ืžื“ ืขืœ ื‘ื›ื•ืจ ื•ืžืขืฉืจ ื•ืคืกื— ืฉื˜ืขื•ื ื™ืŸ ืžืชืŸ ื“ืžื™ื ื•ืื™ืžื•ืจื™ืŸ ืœื’ื‘ื™ ืžื–ื‘ื—

GEMARA: Who is the tanna who taught that the blood of these offerings is placed, not poured, so that it goes on the base of the altar? Rav แธคisda says that it is Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The verse states: โ€œBut the firstborn of an ox, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are sacred; you shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar and you shall burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for a pleasing aroma to the Lordโ€ (Numbers 18:17). It is not stated: Its fat, but rather: โ€œTheir fat.โ€ Similarly, it is not stated: Its blood, but rather: โ€œTheir blood.โ€ This teaches with regard to a firstborn offering, which is mentioned explicitly in the verse, and an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering, which are similar in their sanctity to a firstborn offering, that they all require placement of their blood and the burning of their sacrificial portions on the altar.

ื›ื ื’ื“ ื”ื™ืกื•ื“ ืžื ื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืืชื™ื ื–ืจื™ืงื” ื–ืจื™ืงื” ืžืขื•ืœื”

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that their blood must be placed so that it goes on the base of the altar? Rabbi Eliezer says: This is derived by way of a verbal analogy, with the meaning of the word โ€œsprinklingโ€ stated here derived from the meaning of the word โ€œsprinklingโ€ stated with regard to a burnt offering.

Scroll To Top