Zevachim 57
Share this shiur:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The bloods of the firstborn, maaser, and Pesach are only sprinkled once on the altar. This is derived from the fact that the word “saviv”–“around” the altar – appears in the context of the burnt, sin, and guilt offerings. One cannot learn from those cases to others, as details that appear two or three times cannot be used to establish a paradigm for a different case.
Rabbi Tarfon taught that the firstborn can be eaten for two days and one night, as it is similar to the peace offering. Rabbi Yosi Hagelili, on his first day in the Beit Midrash in Yavne, raised several difficulties with this comparison and likened it to a guilt and sin offering, which are eaten only for a day and night. When Rabbi Tarfon could no longer respond to the questioning, he left, and Rabbi Akiva took his place and said that in Vayikra 18:18, where the firstborn is compared to the thigh and breast given to the kohen, this is a juxtaposition between the firstborn and the peace offering. Rabbi Yosi Hagellil responded that also the thigh and breast are given to the kohen in a thanksgiving offering which is eaten only for a day and night. Therefore, perhaps the comparison should be made to the thanksgiving offering instead. Rabbi Akiva was convinced by Rabbi Yosi that the comparison should be to the thanksgiving offering, but he found other words in the verse from which to derive an additional day. When Rabbi Yishmael heard about this, he engaged in a lengthy debate with Rabbi Akiva regarding his change of position—that the comparison is to the thanksgiving offering. Rabbi Yishmael argued that the law of the thigh and breast in the thanksgiving offering is derived by juxtaposition (heikesh), and the law about the firstborn is derived from the thigh and breast by juxtaposition, and one cannot derive a law from a juxtaposition on a juxtaposition. However, the Gemara explains that this juxtaposition is not typical: while the law of the thigh and breast is derived by juxtaposition, the time limitation is stated directly. The debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael centers on whether a law derived partially by juxtaposition and partially stated explicitly can serve as the basis for a juxtaposition to another law.
The Gemara raises two difficulties with Rabbi Yishmael’s position—one regarding the number of times the kohen gadol must sprinkle the blood of the bull and goat in the Sanctuary (Heichal) on Yom Kippur, and one regarding the amount of flour required for the loaves of matza that accompany the thanksgiving offering. Each of these laws is derived by means of a juxtaposition on a juxtaposition, along with something explicitly stated or derived by a gezeira shava. Each difficulty is resolved.
The Mishna stated that the Pesach may be eaten only until midnight. This is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, but Rabbi Akiva permits it until dawn. Each derives their opinion from a different verse.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Today’s daf is dedicated in honor of Bezalel Schwartz and Hadar Groushko, and their families, on the occasion of their wedding, which took place last night. Mazel tov!
Zevachim 57
וְעוֹלָה גּוּפַהּ מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה״ – לִמֵּד עַל עוֹלַת חוֹבָה שֶׁטְּעוּנָה יְסוֹד.
The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive the halakha that a burnt offering itself has its blood presented on the altar in a place where there is a base? The Gemara answers: We derive it from a verse, as it is written: “And he shall pour all the blood of the bull at the base of the altar of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 4:7). This teaches that the blood of an obligatory burnt offering requires presentation at the base of the altar, as the verse specifically describes the base of the altar as connected to the burnt offering.
אִי – מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע, אַף כָּאן שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע?!
The Gemara asks: If it is derived from a burnt offering via a verbal analogy, one might think that just as there, a burnt offering requires two placements that are four, so too here, a firstborn offering, an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering should also require two placements that are four, and not just a single placement.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְמָה לִי לְמִכְתַּב ״סָבִיב״ בְּעוֹלָה, ״סָבִיב״ בְּחַטָּאת? הָווּ שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.
Abaye says: Why do I need the Torah to write: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall present the blood, and sprinkle the blood around against the altar” (Leviticus 1:5), with regard to a burnt offering, to teach that the blood must be placed on all four sides of the altar, in addition to writing: “And Moses took the blood, and put it upon the corners of the altar around with his finger” (Leviticus 8:15), with regard to a sin offering? They are two verses that come as one, i.e., they teach the same matter; and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases. Therefore, a firstborn offering, an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering do not require two placements that are four.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מְלַמְּדִין, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְלַמְּדִין מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? הָוֵי אָשָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה וַדַּאי אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect with regard to other cases. But according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach their common aspect with regard to other cases, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Together with the verse stated with regard to a guilt offering, there are three verses, as it is written: “And its blood shall be sprinkled around the altar” (Leviticus 7:2), and three verses which come as one certainly do not teach their common aspect with regard to other cases.
הַבְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן לַבְּכוֹר שֶׁנֶּאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָּךְ כַּחֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה וּכְשׁוֹק הַיָּמִין״ – הִקִּישׁוֹ הַכָּתוּב לְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק שֶׁל שְׁלָמִים; מָה שְׁלָמִים נֶאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד, אַף בְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד.
§ The mishna teaches: The firstborn offering is eaten by the priests, throughout the city of Jerusalem, prepared in any manner of food preparation, for two days and one night. The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to a firstborn offering that it is eaten for two days and the intervening night? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated with regard to a firstborn offering: “And their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh” (Numbers 18:18). The verse juxtaposes the firstborn offering with the breast and thigh of peace offerings. Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too, a firstborn offering is eaten for two days and one night.
וְזוֹ שְׁאֵלָה נִשְׁאֲלָה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים בַּכֶּרֶם בְּיַבְנֶה: בְּכוֹר לְכַמָּה נֶאֱכָל? נַעֲנָה רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְאָמַר: לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד.
The baraita relates: And this question was asked before the Sages in the vineyard, i.e., the academy, in Yavne: For how many days and nights is a firstborn offering eaten? Rabbi Tarfon responded and said: For two days and one night.
הָיָה שָׁם תַּלְמִיד אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים תְּחִלָּה, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי שְׁמוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, מִנַּיִן לָךְ? אָמַר לוֹ: בְּנִי, שְׁלָמִים קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וּבְכוֹר קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים; מָה שְׁלָמִים נֶאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד, אַף בְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד.
There was one student there who came to the study hall before the Sages for the first time, and his name was Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. He said to Rabbi Tarfon: My teacher, from where do you derive this? Rabbi Tarfon said to him: My son, peace offerings are offerings of lesser sanctity, and a firstborn offering is an offering of lesser sanctity. Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too, a firstborn offering is eaten for two days and one night.
אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, בְּכוֹר מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן, וְחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן; מָה חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם לְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה, אַף בְּכוֹר לְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה!
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: My teacher, there is a different comparison that can be made: A firstborn offering is given as a gift to the priest, and a sin offering and a guilt offering are each given as a gift to the priest. Just as a sin offering and a guilt offering are eaten for one day and one night, so too, a firstborn offering should be eaten for one day and one night.
אָמַר לוֹ: נָדוּן דָּבָר מִתּוֹךְ דָּבָר, וְנִלְמַד דָּבָר מִתּוֹךְ דָּבָר; מָה שְׁלָמִים אֵין בָּאִין עַל חֵטְא – אַף בְּכוֹר אֵינוֹ בָּא עַל חֵטְא, מָה שְׁלָמִים נֶאֱכָלִים לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד – אַף בְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד.
Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Let us judge a matter from a matter to which it is most similar, i.e., a firstborn offering is an offering of lesser sanctity, as are peace offerings, and learn a matter from a matter, i.e., there is another comparison to be made: Just as peace offerings do not come as atonement for a sin, so too, a firstborn offering does not come as atonement for a sin. Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too, a firstborn offering is eaten for two days and one night.
אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, נָדוּן דָּבָר מִדָּבָר, יִלְמַד דָּבָר מִדָּבָר; חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן, וּבְכוֹר מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן; מָה חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם אֵין בָּאִין בְּנֶדֶר וּנְדָבָה – אַף בְּכוֹר אֵינוֹ בְּנֶדֶר וּנְדָבָה, מָה חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם נֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד – אַף בְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל לְיוֹם אֶחָד!
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: My teacher, I can answer you in a similar way. Let us judge a matter from a matter to which it is most similar, i.e., a firstborn offering is more similar to a sin offering and a guilt offering, and learn a matter from a matter, i.e., there is another comparison to be made: A sin offering and a guilt offering are each given as a gift to the priest, and a firstborn offering is given as a gift to the priest. Just as a sin offering and a guilt offering do not come as a vow offering or as a gift offering, i.e., they are brought only by one obligated to bring them, so too, a firstborn offering does not come as a vow offering or as a gift offering. Just as a sin offering and a guilt offering are eaten for one day and one night, so too, a firstborn offering should be eaten for one day and one night.
קָפַץ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְנִסְתַּלֵּק רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן. אָמַר לוֹ: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָּךְ״ – הִקִּישָׁן הַכָּתוּב לְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק שֶׁל שְׁלָמִים; מָה שְׁלָמִים נֶאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד, אַף בְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד.
Rabbi Akiva jumped into the discussion, and Rabbi Tarfon left. Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: But the verse states: “And their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh” (Numbers 18:18). The verse juxtaposes firstborn offerings with a breast and thigh of peace offerings. Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too, a firstborn offering is eaten for two days and one night.
אָמַר לוֹ: הִיקַּשְׁתּוֹ לְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק שֶׁל שְׁלָמִים, וַאֲנִי מַקִּישׁוֹ לְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק שֶׁל תּוֹדָה – מָה תּוֹדָה נֶאֱכֶלֶת לְיוֹם וְלַיְלָה, אַף בְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל לְיוֹם וְלַיְלָה!
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to Rabbi Akiva: You juxtaposed it with a breast and thigh of peace offerings. But since the Torah does not specify with which offering the firstborn is juxtaposed, I juxtapose it with a breast and thigh of a thanks offering, which are also given to a priest. Just as a thanks offering is eaten for one day and one night, so too, a firstborn offering should be eaten for one day and one night.
אָמַר לוֹ: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָךְ״ – שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְךָ יִהְיֶה״, וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְךָ יִהְיֶה״? הוֹסִיף הַכָּתוּב הֲוָיָה אַחֶרֶת בַּבְּכוֹר.
Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: I concede that it is possible to juxtapose a firstborn offering with a thanks offering, but the verse states: “And their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh, it shall be yours” (Numbers 18:18). Since there is no need for the verse to state a second time: “It shall be yours,” what is the meaning when the verse states a second time: “It shall be yours”? The verse adds another day on which it is permitted for a firstborn offering to be eaten, i.e., a second day.
וּכְשֶׁנֶּאְמְרוּ דְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אָמַר לָהֶן: צְאוּ וְאִמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: טָעִיתָה. תּוֹדָה מֵהֵיכָן לָמְדָה – מִשְּׁלָמִים; [וְכִי] דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ?! הָא אֵין עָלֶיךָ לִידּוֹן בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֲרוֹן, אֶלָּא בְּלָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן.
The Gemara relates: And when these matters were said before Rabbi Yishmael, he said to his students: Go out and tell Rabbi Akiva: You were mistaken when you conceded to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili that the allotted time for eating a firstborn offering could have been derived from the allotted time for eating a thanks offering. Why? From where is it derived that the breast and thigh of a thanks offering are eaten by priests? It is derived from a juxtaposition with a peace offering. Nowhere is it stated explicitly that the breast and thigh of a thanks offering are eaten only by priests. And in the realm of consecrated matters, can a matter derived via a juxtaposition then teach its halakha via a juxtaposition? The Gemara (49b) demonstrated that it cannot. Consequently, you should not infer from the latter formulation of the verse, from the words “It shall be yours,” but rather, from the first formulation of the verse, as you claimed that the Torah juxtaposes a firstborn offering with the breast and thigh of a peace offering.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, הַאי ״לְךָ יִהְיֶה״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? לִימֵּד עַל בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁהוּא מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן – שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה.
The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yishmael do with this extra phrase: “It shall be yours”? This teaches about a blemished firstborn offering, that it is also given as a gift to the priest, as we have not found it written explicitly anywhere in the entire Torah what should be done with a blemished firstborn.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא יָלֵיף לֵיהּ מִ״בְּשָׂרָם״ – חַד תָּם וְחַד בַּעַל מוּם. וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, מִ״בְּשָׂרָם״ דְּהָנָךְ בְּכוֹרוֹת קָאָמַר.
The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Akiva derive that a blemished firstborn offering is also given as a gift to the priest? He derives it from the term “their flesh,” which is written in the plural. This teaches that both an unblemished firstborn offering and a blemished firstborn offering are given as gifts to the priest. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yishmael understand the plural term? The Gemara answers that he understands it to be saying that the priest receives gifts from the flesh of all these firstborn offerings mentioned in the verse, i.e., the firstborn of cattle, sheep, and goats.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: הֵימֶנּוּ וְדָבָר אַחֵר – הָוֵי הֶיקֵּשׁ; וּמָר סָבַר: לָא הָוֵי הֶיקֵּשׁ.
The Gemara asks: Since Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael both agree that a matter derived via a juxtaposition cannot then teach its halakha via a juxtaposition, with regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, Rabbi Yishmael, holds that a halakha derived both from that juxtaposition and from another principle is considered a juxtaposition. In this case, the specific detail that the breast and thigh of a thanks offering are given to a priest is derived from a juxtaposition with peace offerings. The length of time in which it may be eaten, one day and one night, is written explicitly. Since it is nevertheless considered a juxtaposition, it cannot be used to teach the halakha with regard to a firstborn offering. And one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that such a case is not considered to be a juxtaposition, and therefore it can be used to teach another halakha via a juxtaposition.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לָא הָוֵי הֶיקֵּשׁ, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכֵן יַעֲשֶׂה לְאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ –
The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the one who says that a matter derived via a juxtaposition and another principle is not considered a juxtaposition, this is the reason that it is written with regard to the rites performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur: “And so shall he do for the Tent of Meeting that dwells with them in the midst of their impurity” (Leviticus 16:16).
כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמַּזֶּה לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְשֶׁבַע לְמַטָּה מִדַּם הַפָּר, כָּךְ מַזֶּה בַּהֵיכָל.
The High Priest sprinkles the blood of two offerings, the bull and the goat. He sprinkles their blood between the staves of the Ark and on the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies. In each location he sprinkles their blood once above and seven times below. The verse does not write all of the details of these sprinklings with regard to each offering, and the details of each are derived from what is written explicitly in the other, as follows: Just as the High Priest sprinkles in the innermost sanctum, between the staves of the Ark, once above and seven times below, with the blood of the bull, so he sprinkles on the Curtain in the Sanctuary.
וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁלִּפְנַי וְלִפְנִים אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְשֶׁבַע לְמַטָּה מִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר, כָּךְ מַזֶּה בַּהֵיכָל.
And just as in the innermost sanctum he sprinkles once above and seven times below, with the blood of the goat, so he sprinkles on the Curtain in the Sanctuary. This is an instance of a halakha derived both from a juxtaposition and from another principle, and the stringency that a matter derived via a juxtaposition cannot also teach its halakha via a juxtaposition is not applied in this case.
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הָוֵי הֶיקֵּשׁ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? מְקוֹמוֹת הוּא דְּגָמְרִי מֵהֲדָדֵי.
But according to the one who says that this too is considered a juxtaposition, what can be said? How can these halakhot be derived? The Gemara answers: It is the locations where the blood is sprinkled that are derived from one another in the second juxtaposition. The first juxtaposition teaches one halakha, namely, that the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat are to be compared to one another. The second juxtaposition does not teach a halakha with regard to the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat per se; rather it teaches a comparison between the sprinkling performed in the Holy of Holies and the sprinkling performed in the Sanctuary. These are two unconnected juxtapositions.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: חוּץ מִפְּנִים בְּחַד זִימְנָא גְּמִיר.
The Gemara suggests: And if you wish, say there is a different resolution: The sprinkling outside is derived from the sprinkling inside, all at once. There are not two comparisons here, one derived from the other, but rather a single, complex juxtaposition, from which all of the relevant halakhot are derived.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר [לָא] הָוֵי הֶיקֵּשׁ, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״מִמּוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם תָּבִיאּוּ לֶחֶם תְּנוּפָה״ –
The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the one who says that a matter derived via a juxtaposition and another principle is not a juxtaposition, this is the reason that it is written with regard to the offering brought on Shavuot: “You shall bring out of your dwellings two wave loaves of two-tenths of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour” (Leviticus 23:17).
שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תָּבִיאוּ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תָּבִיאוּ״? כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה מֵבִיא מִמָּקוֹם (לְמָקוֹם) אַחֵר הֲרֵי הוּא כָּזֶה; מַה לְּהַלָּן עִשָּׂרוֹן לְחַלָּה, אַף כָּאן עִשָּׂרוֹן לְחַלָּה.
Since apparently there is no need for the verse to state: “You shall bring,” as it already states: “And you shall present a new meal offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 23:16), why must the verse state: “You shall bring”? It states this to teach that anything that you bring from another place that is similar to this offering, i.e., the leavened bread that accompanies a thanks offering, shall be prepared like this. Just as there, with regard to the two loaves, they must be prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour for each loaf, so too here, each of the ten loaves of leavened bread that accompany a thanks offering must be prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour for each loaf.
אִי – מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנִים, אַף כָּאן שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנִים?! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּהְיֶינָה״.
If they are compared, why not say that just as there, with regard to the two loaves, the total amount of flour is two-tenths of an ephah, so too here, with regard to the ten loaves that accompany a thanks offering, the total amount of flour for all ten should be two-tenths of an ephah? To counter this comparison, the verse states: “They shall be,” to serve as a restriction and teach that only these two loaves amount to a total of two-tenths of an ephah, but the bread accompanying the thanks offering does not amount to two-tenths of an ephah.
וְלָמַדְנוּ עֲשָׂרָה לְחָמֵץ; עֲשָׂרָה לְמַצָּה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַל חַלֹּת לֶחֶם חָמֵץ״ – נֶגֶד חָמֵץ הָבֵא מַצָּה.
The Gemara continues: The ten loaves accompanying a thanks offering must each be a tenth of an ephah, and this has been derived from two sources: A juxtaposition with the offering of Shavuot and another principle, which is that which the verse states concerning the thanks offering, that there must be ten leavened loaves. And we have learned that ten-tenths of an ephah is required for the ten loaves of leavened bread. From where is it derived that ten-tenths of an ephah are required for the matza which also accompanies a thanks offering? After stating that thirty matzot accompany a thanks offering, the verse states: “With cakes of leavened bread” (Leviticus 7:13), to juxtapose the matza with the leavened bread. This teaches that one must bring matza of an amount corresponding to the leavened bread. In any event, this derivation can be employed according to the one who says that a matter derived via a juxtaposition and another principle is not a juxtaposition.
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר (לָא) הָוֵי הֶיקֵּשׁ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? ״תָּבִיאוּ״ – יַתִּירָא הִיא.
But according to the one who says that a matter derived via a juxtaposition and another principle is a juxtaposition, and therefore it cannot then teach its halakha via another juxtaposition, what is there to say? How can the measure of flour for the matza be derived from the measure of flour for the leavened bread? The Gemara answers: The first halakha, connecting the two loaves of Shavuot to the bread accompanying a thanks offering, is not derived via a juxtaposition, but rather via a superfluous word. The term “You shall bring,” written with regard to the two loaves, is extra, and is therefore considered as if it were written explicitly with regard to the leavened bread accompanying the thanks offering. Therefore, it is possible to derive the halakha concerning matza from the halakha concerning leavened bread via a juxtaposition.
הַפֶּסַח אֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר [בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה] אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״בַּלַּיְלָה [הַזֶּה]״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן: ״וְעָבַרְתִּי בְאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה״;
§ The mishna teaches: The Paschal offering is eaten only at night and it is eaten only until midnight. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this mishna? Rav Yosef said that it is Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And they shall eat of the flesh on that night” (Exodus 12:8). Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: It is stated here: “On that night,” without stating when the night ends. And it is stated there, with regard to the plague that afflicted the firstborn Egyptians: “And I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night and I will strike every firstborn in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 12:12). With regard to the death of the firstborns the Torah states: “So said the Lord: At about midnight, I will go out into the midst of Egypt and every firstborn in Egypt shall die” (Exodus 11:4–5).
מַה לְהַלָּן עַד חֲצוֹת, אַף כָּאן עַד חֲצוֹת.
Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya continues: Just as in the verse there, the death of the firstborns occurred until midnight, as stated explicitly in the verse, so too, in the verse here, the mitzva to eat the Paschal offering continues until midnight but not beyond.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וַאֲכַלְתֶּם אוֹתוֹ בְּחִפָּזוֹן״ – עַד שְׁעַת חִפָּזוֹן!
Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: But isn’t it already stated: “And so you shall eat it, with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, your staffs in your hands, and you will eat it in haste, for it is the Paschal offering for the Lord” (Exodus 12:11)? This verse indicates that the Paschal offering may be eaten until the time of haste, i.e., until dawn, as the Jewish people left Egypt hastily the next morning.
אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה״? שֶׁיָּכוֹל יְהֵא כְּכׇל הַקֳּדָשִׁים הַנֶּאֱכָלִים בַּיּוֹם; תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּלַּיְלָה״ – בַּלַּיְלָה יְהֵא נֶאֱכָל, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל בַּיּוֹם.
The Gemara asks: If so, why must the verse state: “On that night,” with regard to eating the Paschal offering? The Gemara explains: This phrase is necessary, as one might have thought that the Paschal offering is like all the other offerings in that it should be eaten during the day, on the day it is sacrificed. To counter this reasoning, the verse states: “On that night,” to emphasize that this particular offering shall be eaten at night, but it shall not be eaten during the day.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּמִמַּאי דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, וּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא? דִּלְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן, וּלְהַרְחִיק מִן הָעֲבֵירָה! אִם כֵּן, מַאי ״אֶלָּא עַד חֲצוֹת״? אֶלָּא כִּי הָתָם – מָה הָתָם דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אַף כָּאן נָמֵי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And from where do you know that the mishna represents the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and is stating that the Paschal offering must be eaten by midnight by Torah law? Perhaps the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and is stating that the Paschal offering must be eaten by midnight by rabbinic law, and the reason for the rabbinic decree was to distance one from a sin. Rav Yosef replied: If so, what does the mishna mean when it says: It is eaten only until midnight? With regard to the other offerings the mishna teaches: Until midnight, without specifying: Only. Rather, one must say that it is like there, with regard to the other halakhot of the Paschal offering stated in the mishna. Just as there, the requirements are by Torah law, so too here, with regard to the final time for eating the meat, the requirement is also by Torah law.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ אֵיזֶהוּ מְקוֹמָן
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Zevahim 55: All Sacrifices Are Holy, But Not to the Same Degree
Din & Daf: Jewish Guilt? What is the big idea behind the Korban Asham?
Zevahim 46: Excluding Blood and Being Cut Off – 3 Lessons and 3 Verses
Din & Daf: The Role of the Mizbeach (altar) and the Identity of the Mikdash
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Berlin, Germany
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
Phoenix, AZ, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
Zevachim 57
וְעוֹלָה גּוּפַהּ מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״אֶל יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעוֹלָה״ – לִמֵּד עַל עוֹלַת חוֹבָה שֶׁטְּעוּנָה יְסוֹד.
The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive the halakha that a burnt offering itself has its blood presented on the altar in a place where there is a base? The Gemara answers: We derive it from a verse, as it is written: “And he shall pour all the blood of the bull at the base of the altar of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 4:7). This teaches that the blood of an obligatory burnt offering requires presentation at the base of the altar, as the verse specifically describes the base of the altar as connected to the burnt offering.
אִי – מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע, אַף כָּאן שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת שֶׁהֵן אַרְבַּע?!
The Gemara asks: If it is derived from a burnt offering via a verbal analogy, one might think that just as there, a burnt offering requires two placements that are four, so too here, a firstborn offering, an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering should also require two placements that are four, and not just a single placement.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: לְמָה לִי לְמִכְתַּב ״סָבִיב״ בְּעוֹלָה, ״סָבִיב״ בְּחַטָּאת? הָווּ שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.
Abaye says: Why do I need the Torah to write: “And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall present the blood, and sprinkle the blood around against the altar” (Leviticus 1:5), with regard to a burnt offering, to teach that the blood must be placed on all four sides of the altar, in addition to writing: “And Moses took the blood, and put it upon the corners of the altar around with his finger” (Leviticus 8:15), with regard to a sin offering? They are two verses that come as one, i.e., they teach the same matter; and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect to apply to other cases. Therefore, a firstborn offering, an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering do not require two placements that are four.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מְלַמְּדִין, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְלַמְּדִין מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? הָוֵי אָשָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה וַדַּאי אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do not teach their common aspect with regard to other cases. But according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach their common aspect with regard to other cases, what is there to say? The Gemara answers: Together with the verse stated with regard to a guilt offering, there are three verses, as it is written: “And its blood shall be sprinkled around the altar” (Leviticus 7:2), and three verses which come as one certainly do not teach their common aspect with regard to other cases.
הַבְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל לַכֹּהֲנִים. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן לַבְּכוֹר שֶׁנֶּאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה? שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָּךְ כַּחֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה וּכְשׁוֹק הַיָּמִין״ – הִקִּישׁוֹ הַכָּתוּב לְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק שֶׁל שְׁלָמִים; מָה שְׁלָמִים נֶאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד, אַף בְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד.
§ The mishna teaches: The firstborn offering is eaten by the priests, throughout the city of Jerusalem, prepared in any manner of food preparation, for two days and one night. The Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to a firstborn offering that it is eaten for two days and the intervening night? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated with regard to a firstborn offering: “And their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh” (Numbers 18:18). The verse juxtaposes the firstborn offering with the breast and thigh of peace offerings. Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too, a firstborn offering is eaten for two days and one night.
וְזוֹ שְׁאֵלָה נִשְׁאֲלָה לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים בַּכֶּרֶם בְּיַבְנֶה: בְּכוֹר לְכַמָּה נֶאֱכָל? נַעֲנָה רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן וְאָמַר: לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד.
The baraita relates: And this question was asked before the Sages in the vineyard, i.e., the academy, in Yavne: For how many days and nights is a firstborn offering eaten? Rabbi Tarfon responded and said: For two days and one night.
הָיָה שָׁם תַּלְמִיד אֶחָד שֶׁבָּא לְבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים תְּחִלָּה, וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי שְׁמוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, מִנַּיִן לָךְ? אָמַר לוֹ: בְּנִי, שְׁלָמִים קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וּבְכוֹר קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים; מָה שְׁלָמִים נֶאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד, אַף בְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד.
There was one student there who came to the study hall before the Sages for the first time, and his name was Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. He said to Rabbi Tarfon: My teacher, from where do you derive this? Rabbi Tarfon said to him: My son, peace offerings are offerings of lesser sanctity, and a firstborn offering is an offering of lesser sanctity. Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too, a firstborn offering is eaten for two days and one night.
אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, בְּכוֹר מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן, וְחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן; מָה חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם לְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה, אַף בְּכוֹר לְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה!
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: My teacher, there is a different comparison that can be made: A firstborn offering is given as a gift to the priest, and a sin offering and a guilt offering are each given as a gift to the priest. Just as a sin offering and a guilt offering are eaten for one day and one night, so too, a firstborn offering should be eaten for one day and one night.
אָמַר לוֹ: נָדוּן דָּבָר מִתּוֹךְ דָּבָר, וְנִלְמַד דָּבָר מִתּוֹךְ דָּבָר; מָה שְׁלָמִים אֵין בָּאִין עַל חֵטְא – אַף בְּכוֹר אֵינוֹ בָּא עַל חֵטְא, מָה שְׁלָמִים נֶאֱכָלִים לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד – אַף בְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד.
Rabbi Tarfon said to him: Let us judge a matter from a matter to which it is most similar, i.e., a firstborn offering is an offering of lesser sanctity, as are peace offerings, and learn a matter from a matter, i.e., there is another comparison to be made: Just as peace offerings do not come as atonement for a sin, so too, a firstborn offering does not come as atonement for a sin. Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too, a firstborn offering is eaten for two days and one night.
אָמַר לוֹ: רַבִּי, נָדוּן דָּבָר מִדָּבָר, יִלְמַד דָּבָר מִדָּבָר; חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן, וּבְכוֹר מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן; מָה חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם אֵין בָּאִין בְּנֶדֶר וּנְדָבָה – אַף בְּכוֹר אֵינוֹ בְּנֶדֶר וּנְדָבָה, מָה חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם נֶאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד – אַף בְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל לְיוֹם אֶחָד!
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to him: My teacher, I can answer you in a similar way. Let us judge a matter from a matter to which it is most similar, i.e., a firstborn offering is more similar to a sin offering and a guilt offering, and learn a matter from a matter, i.e., there is another comparison to be made: A sin offering and a guilt offering are each given as a gift to the priest, and a firstborn offering is given as a gift to the priest. Just as a sin offering and a guilt offering do not come as a vow offering or as a gift offering, i.e., they are brought only by one obligated to bring them, so too, a firstborn offering does not come as a vow offering or as a gift offering. Just as a sin offering and a guilt offering are eaten for one day and one night, so too, a firstborn offering should be eaten for one day and one night.
קָפַץ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וְנִסְתַּלֵּק רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן. אָמַר לוֹ: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָּךְ״ – הִקִּישָׁן הַכָּתוּב לְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק שֶׁל שְׁלָמִים; מָה שְׁלָמִים נֶאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד, אַף בְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה אֶחָד.
Rabbi Akiva jumped into the discussion, and Rabbi Tarfon left. Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: But the verse states: “And their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh” (Numbers 18:18). The verse juxtaposes firstborn offerings with a breast and thigh of peace offerings. Just as peace offerings are eaten for two days and one night, so too, a firstborn offering is eaten for two days and one night.
אָמַר לוֹ: הִיקַּשְׁתּוֹ לְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק שֶׁל שְׁלָמִים, וַאֲנִי מַקִּישׁוֹ לְחָזֶה וָשׁוֹק שֶׁל תּוֹדָה – מָה תּוֹדָה נֶאֱכֶלֶת לְיוֹם וְלַיְלָה, אַף בְּכוֹר נֶאֱכָל לְיוֹם וְלַיְלָה!
Rabbi Yosei HaGelili said to Rabbi Akiva: You juxtaposed it with a breast and thigh of peace offerings. But since the Torah does not specify with which offering the firstborn is juxtaposed, I juxtapose it with a breast and thigh of a thanks offering, which are also given to a priest. Just as a thanks offering is eaten for one day and one night, so too, a firstborn offering should be eaten for one day and one night.
אָמַר לוֹ: הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָךְ״ – שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְךָ יִהְיֶה״, וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְךָ יִהְיֶה״? הוֹסִיף הַכָּתוּב הֲוָיָה אַחֶרֶת בַּבְּכוֹר.
Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: I concede that it is possible to juxtapose a firstborn offering with a thanks offering, but the verse states: “And their flesh shall be yours, as the breast of waving and as the right thigh, it shall be yours” (Numbers 18:18). Since there is no need for the verse to state a second time: “It shall be yours,” what is the meaning when the verse states a second time: “It shall be yours”? The verse adds another day on which it is permitted for a firstborn offering to be eaten, i.e., a second day.
וּכְשֶׁנֶּאְמְרוּ דְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, אָמַר לָהֶן: צְאוּ וְאִמְרוּ לוֹ לְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: טָעִיתָה. תּוֹדָה מֵהֵיכָן לָמְדָה – מִשְּׁלָמִים; [וְכִי] דָּבָר הַלָּמֵד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ חוֹזֵר וּמְלַמֵּד בְּהֶיקֵּשׁ?! הָא אֵין עָלֶיךָ לִידּוֹן בְּלָשׁוֹן אַחֲרוֹן, אֶלָּא בְּלָשׁוֹן רִאשׁוֹן.
The Gemara relates: And when these matters were said before Rabbi Yishmael, he said to his students: Go out and tell Rabbi Akiva: You were mistaken when you conceded to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili that the allotted time for eating a firstborn offering could have been derived from the allotted time for eating a thanks offering. Why? From where is it derived that the breast and thigh of a thanks offering are eaten by priests? It is derived from a juxtaposition with a peace offering. Nowhere is it stated explicitly that the breast and thigh of a thanks offering are eaten only by priests. And in the realm of consecrated matters, can a matter derived via a juxtaposition then teach its halakha via a juxtaposition? The Gemara (49b) demonstrated that it cannot. Consequently, you should not infer from the latter formulation of the verse, from the words “It shall be yours,” but rather, from the first formulation of the verse, as you claimed that the Torah juxtaposes a firstborn offering with the breast and thigh of a peace offering.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, הַאי ״לְךָ יִהְיֶה״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? לִימֵּד עַל בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם שֶׁהוּא מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן – שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה.
The Gemara asks: And what does Rabbi Yishmael do with this extra phrase: “It shall be yours”? This teaches about a blemished firstborn offering, that it is also given as a gift to the priest, as we have not found it written explicitly anywhere in the entire Torah what should be done with a blemished firstborn.
וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא יָלֵיף לֵיהּ מִ״בְּשָׂרָם״ – חַד תָּם וְחַד בַּעַל מוּם. וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, מִ״בְּשָׂרָם״ דְּהָנָךְ בְּכוֹרוֹת קָאָמַר.
The Gemara asks: And from where does Rabbi Akiva derive that a blemished firstborn offering is also given as a gift to the priest? He derives it from the term “their flesh,” which is written in the plural. This teaches that both an unblemished firstborn offering and a blemished firstborn offering are given as gifts to the priest. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Yishmael understand the plural term? The Gemara answers that he understands it to be saying that the priest receives gifts from the flesh of all these firstborn offerings mentioned in the verse, i.e., the firstborn of cattle, sheep, and goats.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: הֵימֶנּוּ וְדָבָר אַחֵר – הָוֵי הֶיקֵּשׁ; וּמָר סָבַר: לָא הָוֵי הֶיקֵּשׁ.
The Gemara asks: Since Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael both agree that a matter derived via a juxtaposition cannot then teach its halakha via a juxtaposition, with regard to what principle do they disagree? The Gemara answers: One Sage, Rabbi Yishmael, holds that a halakha derived both from that juxtaposition and from another principle is considered a juxtaposition. In this case, the specific detail that the breast and thigh of a thanks offering are given to a priest is derived from a juxtaposition with peace offerings. The length of time in which it may be eaten, one day and one night, is written explicitly. Since it is nevertheless considered a juxtaposition, it cannot be used to teach the halakha with regard to a firstborn offering. And one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that such a case is not considered to be a juxtaposition, and therefore it can be used to teach another halakha via a juxtaposition.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לָא הָוֵי הֶיקֵּשׁ, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וְכֵן יַעֲשֶׂה לְאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ –
The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the one who says that a matter derived via a juxtaposition and another principle is not considered a juxtaposition, this is the reason that it is written with regard to the rites performed by the High Priest on Yom Kippur: “And so shall he do for the Tent of Meeting that dwells with them in the midst of their impurity” (Leviticus 16:16).
כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמַּזֶּה לִפְנַי וְלִפְנִים אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְשֶׁבַע לְמַטָּה מִדַּם הַפָּר, כָּךְ מַזֶּה בַּהֵיכָל.
The High Priest sprinkles the blood of two offerings, the bull and the goat. He sprinkles their blood between the staves of the Ark and on the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies. In each location he sprinkles their blood once above and seven times below. The verse does not write all of the details of these sprinklings with regard to each offering, and the details of each are derived from what is written explicitly in the other, as follows: Just as the High Priest sprinkles in the innermost sanctum, between the staves of the Ark, once above and seven times below, with the blood of the bull, so he sprinkles on the Curtain in the Sanctuary.
וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁלִּפְנַי וְלִפְנִים אַחַת לְמַעְלָה וְשֶׁבַע לְמַטָּה מִדַּם הַשָּׂעִיר, כָּךְ מַזֶּה בַּהֵיכָל.
And just as in the innermost sanctum he sprinkles once above and seven times below, with the blood of the goat, so he sprinkles on the Curtain in the Sanctuary. This is an instance of a halakha derived both from a juxtaposition and from another principle, and the stringency that a matter derived via a juxtaposition cannot also teach its halakha via a juxtaposition is not applied in this case.
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר הָוֵי הֶיקֵּשׁ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? מְקוֹמוֹת הוּא דְּגָמְרִי מֵהֲדָדֵי.
But according to the one who says that this too is considered a juxtaposition, what can be said? How can these halakhot be derived? The Gemara answers: It is the locations where the blood is sprinkled that are derived from one another in the second juxtaposition. The first juxtaposition teaches one halakha, namely, that the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat are to be compared to one another. The second juxtaposition does not teach a halakha with regard to the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat per se; rather it teaches a comparison between the sprinkling performed in the Holy of Holies and the sprinkling performed in the Sanctuary. These are two unconnected juxtapositions.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: חוּץ מִפְּנִים בְּחַד זִימְנָא גְּמִיר.
The Gemara suggests: And if you wish, say there is a different resolution: The sprinkling outside is derived from the sprinkling inside, all at once. There are not two comparisons here, one derived from the other, but rather a single, complex juxtaposition, from which all of the relevant halakhot are derived.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר [לָא] הָוֵי הֶיקֵּשׁ, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״מִמּוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם תָּבִיאּוּ לֶחֶם תְּנוּפָה״ –
The Gemara comments: Granted, according to the one who says that a matter derived via a juxtaposition and another principle is not a juxtaposition, this is the reason that it is written with regard to the offering brought on Shavuot: “You shall bring out of your dwellings two wave loaves of two-tenths of an ephah; they shall be of fine flour” (Leviticus 23:17).
שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תָּבִיאוּ״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״תָּבִיאוּ״? כֹּל שֶׁאַתָּה מֵבִיא מִמָּקוֹם (לְמָקוֹם) אַחֵר הֲרֵי הוּא כָּזֶה; מַה לְּהַלָּן עִשָּׂרוֹן לְחַלָּה, אַף כָּאן עִשָּׂרוֹן לְחַלָּה.
Since apparently there is no need for the verse to state: “You shall bring,” as it already states: “And you shall present a new meal offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 23:16), why must the verse state: “You shall bring”? It states this to teach that anything that you bring from another place that is similar to this offering, i.e., the leavened bread that accompanies a thanks offering, shall be prepared like this. Just as there, with regard to the two loaves, they must be prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour for each loaf, so too here, each of the ten loaves of leavened bread that accompany a thanks offering must be prepared from a tenth of an ephah of flour for each loaf.
אִי – מָה לְהַלָּן שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנִים, אַף כָּאן שְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרוֹנִים?! תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תִּהְיֶינָה״.
If they are compared, why not say that just as there, with regard to the two loaves, the total amount of flour is two-tenths of an ephah, so too here, with regard to the ten loaves that accompany a thanks offering, the total amount of flour for all ten should be two-tenths of an ephah? To counter this comparison, the verse states: “They shall be,” to serve as a restriction and teach that only these two loaves amount to a total of two-tenths of an ephah, but the bread accompanying the thanks offering does not amount to two-tenths of an ephah.
וְלָמַדְנוּ עֲשָׂרָה לְחָמֵץ; עֲשָׂרָה לְמַצָּה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַל חַלֹּת לֶחֶם חָמֵץ״ – נֶגֶד חָמֵץ הָבֵא מַצָּה.
The Gemara continues: The ten loaves accompanying a thanks offering must each be a tenth of an ephah, and this has been derived from two sources: A juxtaposition with the offering of Shavuot and another principle, which is that which the verse states concerning the thanks offering, that there must be ten leavened loaves. And we have learned that ten-tenths of an ephah is required for the ten loaves of leavened bread. From where is it derived that ten-tenths of an ephah are required for the matza which also accompanies a thanks offering? After stating that thirty matzot accompany a thanks offering, the verse states: “With cakes of leavened bread” (Leviticus 7:13), to juxtapose the matza with the leavened bread. This teaches that one must bring matza of an amount corresponding to the leavened bread. In any event, this derivation can be employed according to the one who says that a matter derived via a juxtaposition and another principle is not a juxtaposition.
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר (לָא) הָוֵי הֶיקֵּשׁ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? ״תָּבִיאוּ״ – יַתִּירָא הִיא.
But according to the one who says that a matter derived via a juxtaposition and another principle is a juxtaposition, and therefore it cannot then teach its halakha via another juxtaposition, what is there to say? How can the measure of flour for the matza be derived from the measure of flour for the leavened bread? The Gemara answers: The first halakha, connecting the two loaves of Shavuot to the bread accompanying a thanks offering, is not derived via a juxtaposition, but rather via a superfluous word. The term “You shall bring,” written with regard to the two loaves, is extra, and is therefore considered as if it were written explicitly with regard to the leavened bread accompanying the thanks offering. Therefore, it is possible to derive the halakha concerning matza from the halakha concerning leavened bread via a juxtaposition.
הַפֶּסַח אֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל. מַאן תַּנָּא? אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה הִיא. דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר [בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה] אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״בַּלַּיְלָה [הַזֶּה]״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן: ״וְעָבַרְתִּי בְאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה״;
§ The mishna teaches: The Paschal offering is eaten only at night and it is eaten only until midnight. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught this mishna? Rav Yosef said that it is Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And they shall eat of the flesh on that night” (Exodus 12:8). Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: It is stated here: “On that night,” without stating when the night ends. And it is stated there, with regard to the plague that afflicted the firstborn Egyptians: “And I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night and I will strike every firstborn in the land of Egypt” (Exodus 12:12). With regard to the death of the firstborns the Torah states: “So said the Lord: At about midnight, I will go out into the midst of Egypt and every firstborn in Egypt shall die” (Exodus 11:4–5).
מַה לְהַלָּן עַד חֲצוֹת, אַף כָּאן עַד חֲצוֹת.
Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya continues: Just as in the verse there, the death of the firstborns occurred until midnight, as stated explicitly in the verse, so too, in the verse here, the mitzva to eat the Paschal offering continues until midnight but not beyond.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, וַהֲלֹא כְּבָר נֶאֱמַר: ״וַאֲכַלְתֶּם אוֹתוֹ בְּחִפָּזוֹן״ – עַד שְׁעַת חִפָּזוֹן!
Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: But isn’t it already stated: “And so you shall eat it, with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, your staffs in your hands, and you will eat it in haste, for it is the Paschal offering for the Lord” (Exodus 12:11)? This verse indicates that the Paschal offering may be eaten until the time of haste, i.e., until dawn, as the Jewish people left Egypt hastily the next morning.
אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּלַּיְלָה הַזֶּה״? שֶׁיָּכוֹל יְהֵא כְּכׇל הַקֳּדָשִׁים הַנֶּאֱכָלִים בַּיּוֹם; תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּלַּיְלָה״ – בַּלַּיְלָה יְהֵא נֶאֱכָל, וְאֵינוֹ נֶאֱכָל בַּיּוֹם.
The Gemara asks: If so, why must the verse state: “On that night,” with regard to eating the Paschal offering? The Gemara explains: This phrase is necessary, as one might have thought that the Paschal offering is like all the other offerings in that it should be eaten during the day, on the day it is sacrificed. To counter this reasoning, the verse states: “On that night,” to emphasize that this particular offering shall be eaten at night, but it shall not be eaten during the day.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וּמִמַּאי דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן עֲזַרְיָה, וּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא? דִּלְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן, וּלְהַרְחִיק מִן הָעֲבֵירָה! אִם כֵּן, מַאי ״אֶלָּא עַד חֲצוֹת״? אֶלָּא כִּי הָתָם – מָה הָתָם דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, אַף כָּאן נָמֵי דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא.
Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And from where do you know that the mishna represents the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, and is stating that the Paschal offering must be eaten by midnight by Torah law? Perhaps the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, and is stating that the Paschal offering must be eaten by midnight by rabbinic law, and the reason for the rabbinic decree was to distance one from a sin. Rav Yosef replied: If so, what does the mishna mean when it says: It is eaten only until midnight? With regard to the other offerings the mishna teaches: Until midnight, without specifying: Only. Rather, one must say that it is like there, with regard to the other halakhot of the Paschal offering stated in the mishna. Just as there, the requirements are by Torah law, so too here, with regard to the final time for eating the meat, the requirement is also by Torah law.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ אֵיזֶהוּ מְקוֹמָן
