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 to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
This week’s learning is sponsored by the Miller Rotenberg family in loving memory of their daughter Tanielle Miller on her 21st yahrzeit. “We honor and celebrate her memory by continuing the paths she forged, keeping her love of community, chesed, Israel, and learning, alive and vibrant.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Continuing the discussion surrounding Reish Lakish’s response to Rabbi Elazar, the Gemara examines whether heirs acquire the sacrificial offering of someone who dies. Various sources are presented supporting both sides of the debate. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that the heirs do not acquire the offering, though they may receive a limited degree of atonement through it.
Another question arises regarding a sacrifice brought lo lishma, with intent for a different type of offering. If the original sacrifice is still offered, does it fulfill its intended purpose? If not, why is it brought at all? And if it does, why is a second offering required? Rav Ashi clarifies that the first offering is brought due to the power of its original designation, while the second is needed to achieve full atonement.
The Gemara also explores whether a burnt offering can atone for positive commandments that were neglected between the time the animal was designated and the time it was slaughtered, or only for those neglected before its designation. Sources are cited in an attempt to resolve this question.
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 to the refuah shleima of our dear friend, Phyllis Hecht, גיטל פעשא בת מאשה רחל by all her many friends who love and admire her. Phyllis’ emuna, strength, and positivity are an inspiration.
This week’s learning is sponsored by the Miller Rotenberg family in loving memory of their daughter Tanielle Miller on her 21st yahrzeit. “We honor and celebrate her memory by continuing the paths she forged, keeping her love of community, chesed, Israel, and learning, alive and vibrant.”
Zevachim 6
וְשׁוּתָּפִין לָא מָצוּ מְמִירִין. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לָא קַנְיָא לְהוּ – אָמוֹרֵי נָמֵי לִימְרוּ!
and partners cannot effect substitution of other animals for their offering. But if you say that it is not acquired by them, and the animal is the property solely of the deceased father, let them also effect substitution on his behalf, as heirs are able to effect substitution for their deceased parents’ offerings.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אִם הָמֵר יָמִיר״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַיּוֹרֵשׁ; אֶחָד מֵמִיר וְאֵין שְׁנַיִם מְמִירִין.
The Gemara answers: There it is different, as although the verse states: “If he shall at all change [hamer yamir] animal for animal” (Leviticus 27:10), the superfluous word hamer serving to include the heir as one who is able to effect substitution, nevertheless the subject’s singular form teaches that only one heir can effect substitution, but two heirs cannot effect substitution.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יַעֲקֹב מִנְּהַר פְּקוֹד: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאִם גָּאֹל יִגְאַל״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַיּוֹרֵשׁ – הָכִי נָמֵי אֶחָד גּוֹאֵל וְאֵין שְׁנַיִם גּוֹאֲלִין?!
Rav Ya’akov of Nehar Pekod objects to this derivation: If that is so, one should say the same with regard to the redemption of the second tithe, as it is written: “And if a man will redeem [gaol yigal] any of his tithe, he shall add to it the fifth part thereof” (Leviticus 27:31), with the superfluous word gaol serving to include the heir as one who must add the one-fifth. So too, it should be derived from the verb’s singular form that if one heir redeems the tithe, he must add one-fifth of its value, but if two heirs redeem it, they do not need to add one-fifth. In fact, the halakha is that partners must also add one-fifth.
שָׁאנֵי מַעֲשֵׂר, דְּגַבֵּי אֲבוּהוֹן נָמֵי אִיתֵיהּ בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת.
The Gemara answers: Redemption of the tithe is different, as the father had the ability to redeem the tithe even in partnership with another when alive. Therefore, the heirs can do so as well. By contrast, substitution of an offering cannot be effected by partners.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַסִּי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וּמִינַּהּ – אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא קַנְיָא לְהוּ, הַיְינוּ דְּחַד מִיהָא מֵימַר; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לָא קַנְיָא לְהוּ, הֵיכִי מֵימַר?
Rav Asi said to Rav Ashi: But from this halakha itself, that two heirs cannot effect substitution of an offering, it can be proven that they acquire the offering of the deceased. Granted, if you say it is acquired by them, this is the reason that one heir, in any event, can effect substitution of another animal for the offering. But if you say it is not acquired by them, how can even one heir effect substitution?
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ, וּמִתְכַּפֵּר עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה, וְהַתּוֹרֵם מִשֶּׁלּוֹ עַל שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה שֶׁלּוֹ!
But doesn’t Rabbi Abbahu say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one consecrates his own animal to atone for someone else and he then redeems it, he adds one-fifth of its value, as he would for any other offering he owned, but if the one for whom it atones redeems it, he need not add one-fifth, since he is not the owner. Nevertheless, only the one for whom the offering atones can render another animal a substitute for it, as in this respect only he is considered its owner. Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement concludes: And if one separates teruma from his own produce to exempt the produce of another from the obligation to have teruma separated from it, the benefit of discretion is his. Only the one who separated the teruma is entitled to determine which priest receives it. Since an heir is able to effect substitution, apparently the offering atones for his transgression. This supports the claim that the heir acquires the offering.
מִקִּיבְעָא לָא מְכַפְּרָא, מִקּוּפְיָא מְכַפְּרָא.
Rav Ashi responds: The offering does not atone for the transgressions of the heirs by its essence, as it was not consecrated for their atonement, and they do not acquire it. Therefore, two heirs of a meal offering can bring it, as explained above. Yet, it does atone for them incidentally [mikkufeya]. Therefore, an heir can effect substitution of another animal for it.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כִּיפְּרוּ עַל מַה שֶּׁבָּאוּ, אוֹ לֹא כִּיפְּרוּ?
§ With regard to the halakha that offerings slaughtered not for their sake are fit to be sacrificed but do not satisfy the obligations of their owners, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: After these offerings are sacrificed, did they atone for the sins for which they came, or did they not atone for them?
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּלֹא כִּיפְּרוּ; דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כִּיפְּרוּ, שֵׁנִי לָמָה הוּא בָּא?
Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: It stands to reason that they did not atone, as, if it enters your mind that they did atone, for what purpose is the second offering brought? Why is the owner required to bring another offering if the first atoned for his sin?
וְאֶלָּא מַאי, לֹא כִּיפְּרוּ?! לָמָה הוּא קָרֵב?
The Gemara challenges this reasoning: Rather, what is the alternative? That they did not atone? If so, for what purpose is the first offering sacrificed?
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי הָכִי קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לֹא כִּיפְּרוּ – שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ מִכֹּחַ לִשְׁמוֹ קָאָתֵי, וְשֵׁנִי לָמָה הוּא בָּא – לְכַפֵּר; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ כִּיפְּרוּ – שֵׁנִי לָמָה הוּא בָּא?
Rav Ashi said: This is what is difficult for Rav Sheisha, i.e., Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi: Granted, if you say that such an offering did not atone, it is brought even when slaughtered not for its sake on the strength of its prior consecration for its sake. And in that case, for what purpose is the second offering brought? It is brought to atone for the sin. But if you say that offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake atoned for the sin, for what purpose is the second offering brought?
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: אַעֲשֵׂה דִּלְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה – מְכַפְּרָא, אוֹ לָא מְכַפְּרָא?
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When one brings a burnt offering, which atones for violations of positive mitzvot, does it atone even for a violation of a positive mitzva that one committed after designating the animal as an offering, or does it not atone for such a violation?
מִי אָמְרִינַן מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַחַטָּאת; מָה חַטָּאת – דְּקוֹדֶם הַפְרָשָׁה אִין, דִּלְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה לָא; אַף הָכָא נָמֵי – דְּקוֹדֶם הַפְרָשָׁה אִין, לְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה לָא?
The Gemara elaborates: Do we say that the halakha in this case is just as it is with regard to a sin offering, in that just as a sin offering does atone for a sin that one committed before designation of the animal but does not atone for a sin that one committed after designation, here too, a burnt offering does atone for violations that one committed before designation but does not atone for those committed after designation?
אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא דָּמְיָא לְחַטָּאת; דְּחַטָּאת – עַל כׇּל חֵטְא וְחֵטְא בָּעֵי לְאֵיתוֹיֵי חֲדָא חַטָּאת, וְהָכָא – כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא כַּמָּה עֲשֵׂה גַּבֵּיהּ מְכַפְּרָא, אַעֲשֵׂה דִּלְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה נָמֵי מְכַפְּרָא?
Or, perhaps a burnt offering is not similar to a sin offering, as with regard to a sin offering one must bring one sin offering for each and every sin he commits. But here, since a burnt offering atones even for one who has committed several violations of positive mitzvot, one may claim that it also atones even for the violation of a positive mitzva that one committed after designation of the animal.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְסָמַךְ… וְנִרְצָה״ – וְכִי סְמִיכָה מְכַפֶּרֶת?! וַהֲלֹא אֵין כַּפָּרָה אֶלָּא בַּדָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי הַדָּם הוּא בַּנֶּפֶשׁ יְכַפֵּר״! אֶלָּא מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְסָמַךְ… וְנִרְצָה… לְכַפֵּר״? שֶׁאִם עֲשָׂאָהּ לִסְמִיכָה שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה – מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ לֹא כִּיפֵּר, וְכִיפֵּר.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall place his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to atone for him” (Leviticus 1:4). And does placing hands atone for one’s sins? But isn’t atonement achieved only by the sprinkling of the blood, as it is stated: “For it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life” (Leviticus 17:11)? Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: “And he shall place…and it shall be accepted for him to atone”? This teaches that if one deemed the ritual of placing hands to be a non-essential mitzva and consequently failed to perform it, the verse ascribes to him blame as though the offering did not atone for his sins; and nevertheless, the offering atoned for his sins.
מַאי לָאו דְּכִיפֵּר – עֲשֵׂה דְּקוֹדֶם הַפְרָשָׁה, לֹא כִּיפֵּר – אַעֲשֵׂה דִּסְמִיכָה, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ עֲשֵׂה דִּלְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה?
What, does the final clause of the baraita not mean that the offering atoned for the violation of any positive mitzva that the owner committed before designation of the animal, but it did not atone for violation of the positive mitzva of placing hands on the head of the offering, as that constitutes a violation of a positive mitzva after designation of the animal? Apparently, a burnt offering does not atone for the violations committed after the animal’s designation.
אָמַר רָבָא: עֲשֵׂה דִּסְמִיכָה קָאָמְרַתְּ?! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּכֹל כַּמָּה דְּלָא שָׁחֵיט – בַּ״עֲמוֹד וּסְמוֹךְ״ קָאֵי; אֵימַת קָא הָוֵי עֲשֵׂה – לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה; לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן.
Rava said in response: You say that the positive mitzva of placing hands is proof? There it is different, since as long as he does not slaughter the offering, he remains obligated to stand and place his hands on its head. He has not yet violated the mitzva. When does the violation of this positive mitzva occur? It occurs after the slaughter, at which point fulfillment of the mitzva is no longer possible. And with regard to a violation committed after the slaughter, we do not raise the dilemma; clearly a burnt offering does not atone for such a violation.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה לְרָבָא, אֵימָא: כִּיפֵּר – גַּבְרָא,
Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to Rava: Say the baraita means that the offering atoned for the transgression of the person,
לֹא כִּיפֵּר – קַמֵּי שְׁמַיָּא!
but it did not atone for him before Heaven, i.e., it is not accepted by God as a perfect offering.
מִי לָא תְּנַן: ״וְהַנּוֹתָר בַּשֶּׁמֶן אֲשֶׁר עַל כַּף וְגוֹ׳ לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – אִם נָתַן, כִּיפֵּר; וְאִם לֹא נָתַן, לֹא כִּיפֵּר. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן [בֶּן נוּרִי] אוֹמֵר: שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה הֵן; בֵּין נִיתַּן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא נִיתַּן – כִּיפֵּר, וּמַעֲלִין עָלָיו כְּאִילּוּ לֹא כִּיפֵּר.
Didn’t we learn in a mishna with regard to the purification process of a leper (Nega’im 14:10): The verse states: “And the rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall put upon the head of the one that is to be purified, to make atonement for him before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:18). This teaches that if the priest placed the oil on the leper’s head, it atoned for him, and he is purified, but if he did not place the oil on his head, it did not atone for him; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: Placement of the oil on the leper’s head is a non-essential mitzva. Therefore, whether the oil was placed on his head or whether it was not placed on his head, it atoned for him, but the verse ascribes the leper blame as though it did not atone for him.
מַאי ״כְּאִילּוּ לֹא כִּיפֵּר״? אִילֵּימָא דְּמִבְּעֵי לְאֵיתוֹיֵי קׇרְבָּן אַחֲרִינָא, הָאָמְרַתְּ: בֵּין נִיתַּן בֵּין לֹא נִיתַּן כִּיפֵּר! אֶלָּא כִּיפֵּר – גַּבְרָא, לֹא כִּיפֵּר – קַמֵּי שְׁמַיָּא; הָכָא נָמֵי כִּיפֵּר כּוּ׳!
The Gemara comments: What is the meaning of the phrase: As though it did not atone for him? If we say that it is necessary for the leper to bring another offering of oil, didn’t you say that whether the oil was placed on his head or whether it was not placed on his head, it atoned for him? Rather, the meaning of the statement is as follows: It atoned for the person, but did not atone for him before Heaven. Here too, with regard to one who sacrificed an offering without placing hands on its head, the baraita apparently means that the offering atoned for the owner’s transgression, even if it did not atone for him before Heaven.
הָתָם נָמֵי, כִּיפֵּר – מַתַּן בְּהוֹנוֹת, לֹא כִּיפֵּר – מַתְּנוֹת הָרֹאשׁ.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: There too, with regard to the purification process of a leper, one can explain that the oil atoned for one matter and did not atone for another: It atoned; in other words, the placement of oil on the leper’s right thumb and big toe, which was performed, effected its atonement. But it did not atone, i.e., there still needs to be an atonement effected by placement of oil on the leper’s head, and another log of oil must be brought for the performance of that act.
תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת לָמָה הֵן בָּאִין?
The Gemara returns to the matter of atonement for transgressions committed after the offering’s designation. Come and hear another proof from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to the communal peace offering of two lambs that accompanies the two loaves on Shavuot, for what sin are they brought?
כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שְׁלָמִים נִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא שְׂעִירֵי עֲצֶרֶת לָמָה הֵן בָּאִין?
The Gemara interrupts the citation of the baraita: The two lambs sacrificed on Shavuot are not brought for a sin; they are peace offerings brought with the annual public offering of two loaves of new wheat. Rather, the baraita should be emended as follows: For what sin are the goats sacrificed on Shavuot as a sin offering brought?
עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו.
Rabbi Shimon answers: They are brought for the defiling of the Temple, by entering it while ritually impure, or for defiling its sacrificial foods, by partaking of them while ritually impure.
נִזְרַק דָּמוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן, שֵׁנִי לָמָּה קָרֵב? עַל טוּמְאָה שֶׁאוֹרְעָה בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה. אֱמוֹר מֵעַתָּה: רְאוּיִין הָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַקְרִיב קׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן בְּכׇל עֵת וּבְכׇל שָׁעָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁחִיסֵּךְ הַכָּתוּב.
Rabbi Shimon continues: Once the blood of the first goat is sprinkled on the altar, thereby atoning for this defilement, for what sin is the second one sacrificed? It is sacrificed for any incident involving impurity that may have occurred between the sacrifice of that first goat and the sacrifice of this second goat. Based on this, say that the Jewish people should have had to sacrifice their offerings at all times and at every moment, as perhaps they sinned in the interim; but the verse spared them of this obligation.
וְהָא הָכָא דַּעֲשֵׂה דִּלְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה, וְקָא מְכַפְּרָא!
The Gemara infers: And here, where an incident involving impurity occurred between the sacrifice of the two goats, is a case where the positive mitzva of distancing ritually impure people from the Temple was violated after the designation of the offering, as both goats were designated in advance. And nevertheless, the second goat atones for the violation. Evidently, an offering can atone for transgressions committed after its designation.
אִי דְּאַפְרְשִׁינְהוּ בְּבַת אַחַת – הָכִי נָמֵי; הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּאַפְרְשִׁינְהוּ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה.
The Gemara rejects this inference: If both goats were designated simultaneously, this would indeed be evidence to that effect. But here we are dealing with a case where they were designated sequentially, and an incident involving impurity may have occurred between their respective designations.
וְלֵיקוֹ וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ לִקְרָא, דְּכִי כְּתִיבָא – בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה כְּתִיבָא?!
The Gemara challenges this assertion: But shall we stand and say about the verse mandating these two sin offerings that when it is written, it is written specifically with regard to a case where they are designated sequentially?
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: קׇרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר קָאָמְרַתְּ?! שָׁאנֵי קׇרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר – דְּלֵב בֵּית דִּין קָמַתְנֶה עֲלֵיהֶן, כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל; דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: קׇרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר – סַכִּין מוֹשַׁכְתָּן לְמַה שֶּׁהֵן.
Rav Pappa said the inference can be rejected for a different reason: Do you say that evidence can be adduced from communal offerings? Communal offerings are different, as the court makes a non-verbal stipulation about them, in accordance with what Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says. As Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to communal offerings, the slaughtering knife, i.e., the act of slaughter, designates them for what they are. The court stipulates that the second goat be consecrated as it is sacrificed, and it therefore atones for incidents of impurity that occur beforehand. Individual offerings, by contrast, are all designated in advance.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב פָּפָּא: וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֵב בֵּית דִּין מַתְנֶה עֲלֵיהֶן?! הָאָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תְּמִידִין שֶׁלֹּא הוּצְרְכוּ לַצִּבּוּר –
Rav Yosef, son of Rav Shmuel, said to Rav Pappa: But does Rabbi Shimon accept the opinion that the court can make a non-verbal stipulation about communal offerings? Doesn’t Rav Idi bar Avin say that Rav Amram says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to animals designated as daily offerings but which in the end were not necessary for use by the public,
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.
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’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, 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 began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
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
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Berlin, Germany
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
Zevachim 6
וְשׁוּתָּפִין לָא מָצוּ מְמִירִין. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לָא קַנְיָא לְהוּ – אָמוֹרֵי נָמֵי לִימְרוּ!
and partners cannot effect substitution of other animals for their offering. But if you say that it is not acquired by them, and the animal is the property solely of the deceased father, let them also effect substitution on his behalf, as heirs are able to effect substitution for their deceased parents’ offerings.
שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״אִם הָמֵר יָמִיר״ – לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַיּוֹרֵשׁ; אֶחָד מֵמִיר וְאֵין שְׁנַיִם מְמִירִין.
The Gemara answers: There it is different, as although the verse states: “If he shall at all change [hamer yamir] animal for animal” (Leviticus 27:10), the superfluous word hamer serving to include the heir as one who is able to effect substitution, nevertheless the subject’s singular form teaches that only one heir can effect substitution, but two heirs cannot effect substitution.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יַעֲקֹב מִנְּהַר פְּקוֹד: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי מַעֲשֵׂר דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאִם גָּאֹל יִגְאַל״ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַיּוֹרֵשׁ – הָכִי נָמֵי אֶחָד גּוֹאֵל וְאֵין שְׁנַיִם גּוֹאֲלִין?!
Rav Ya’akov of Nehar Pekod objects to this derivation: If that is so, one should say the same with regard to the redemption of the second tithe, as it is written: “And if a man will redeem [gaol yigal] any of his tithe, he shall add to it the fifth part thereof” (Leviticus 27:31), with the superfluous word gaol serving to include the heir as one who must add the one-fifth. So too, it should be derived from the verb’s singular form that if one heir redeems the tithe, he must add one-fifth of its value, but if two heirs redeem it, they do not need to add one-fifth. In fact, the halakha is that partners must also add one-fifth.
שָׁאנֵי מַעֲשֵׂר, דְּגַבֵּי אֲבוּהוֹן נָמֵי אִיתֵיהּ בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת.
The Gemara answers: Redemption of the tithe is different, as the father had the ability to redeem the tithe even in partnership with another when alive. Therefore, the heirs can do so as well. By contrast, substitution of an offering cannot be effected by partners.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַסִּי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: וּמִינַּהּ – אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא קַנְיָא לְהוּ, הַיְינוּ דְּחַד מִיהָא מֵימַר; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לָא קַנְיָא לְהוּ, הֵיכִי מֵימַר?
Rav Asi said to Rav Ashi: But from this halakha itself, that two heirs cannot effect substitution of an offering, it can be proven that they acquire the offering of the deceased. Granted, if you say it is acquired by them, this is the reason that one heir, in any event, can effect substitution of another animal for the offering. But if you say it is not acquired by them, how can even one heir effect substitution?
וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ מוֹסִיף חוֹמֶשׁ, וּמִתְכַּפֵּר עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה, וְהַתּוֹרֵם מִשֶּׁלּוֹ עַל שֶׁל חֲבֵירוֹ – טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה שֶׁלּוֹ!
But doesn’t Rabbi Abbahu say that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one consecrates his own animal to atone for someone else and he then redeems it, he adds one-fifth of its value, as he would for any other offering he owned, but if the one for whom it atones redeems it, he need not add one-fifth, since he is not the owner. Nevertheless, only the one for whom the offering atones can render another animal a substitute for it, as in this respect only he is considered its owner. Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement concludes: And if one separates teruma from his own produce to exempt the produce of another from the obligation to have teruma separated from it, the benefit of discretion is his. Only the one who separated the teruma is entitled to determine which priest receives it. Since an heir is able to effect substitution, apparently the offering atones for his transgression. This supports the claim that the heir acquires the offering.
מִקִּיבְעָא לָא מְכַפְּרָא, מִקּוּפְיָא מְכַפְּרָא.
Rav Ashi responds: The offering does not atone for the transgressions of the heirs by its essence, as it was not consecrated for their atonement, and they do not acquire it. Therefore, two heirs of a meal offering can bring it, as explained above. Yet, it does atone for them incidentally [mikkufeya]. Therefore, an heir can effect substitution of another animal for it.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כִּיפְּרוּ עַל מַה שֶּׁבָּאוּ, אוֹ לֹא כִּיפְּרוּ?
§ With regard to the halakha that offerings slaughtered not for their sake are fit to be sacrificed but do not satisfy the obligations of their owners, a dilemma was raised before the Sages: After these offerings are sacrificed, did they atone for the sins for which they came, or did they not atone for them?
אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי: מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּלֹא כִּיפְּרוּ; דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כִּיפְּרוּ, שֵׁנִי לָמָה הוּא בָּא?
Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: It stands to reason that they did not atone, as, if it enters your mind that they did atone, for what purpose is the second offering brought? Why is the owner required to bring another offering if the first atoned for his sin?
וְאֶלָּא מַאי, לֹא כִּיפְּרוּ?! לָמָה הוּא קָרֵב?
The Gemara challenges this reasoning: Rather, what is the alternative? That they did not atone? If so, for what purpose is the first offering sacrificed?
אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, רַב שִׁישָׁא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִידִי הָכִי קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ: אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא לֹא כִּיפְּרוּ – שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ מִכֹּחַ לִשְׁמוֹ קָאָתֵי, וְשֵׁנִי לָמָה הוּא בָּא – לְכַפֵּר; אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ כִּיפְּרוּ – שֵׁנִי לָמָה הוּא בָּא?
Rav Ashi said: This is what is difficult for Rav Sheisha, i.e., Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi: Granted, if you say that such an offering did not atone, it is brought even when slaughtered not for its sake on the strength of its prior consecration for its sake. And in that case, for what purpose is the second offering brought? It is brought to atone for the sin. But if you say that offerings that were slaughtered not for their sake atoned for the sin, for what purpose is the second offering brought?
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: אַעֲשֵׂה דִּלְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה – מְכַפְּרָא, אוֹ לָא מְכַפְּרָא?
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: When one brings a burnt offering, which atones for violations of positive mitzvot, does it atone even for a violation of a positive mitzva that one committed after designating the animal as an offering, or does it not atone for such a violation?
מִי אָמְרִינַן מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַחַטָּאת; מָה חַטָּאת – דְּקוֹדֶם הַפְרָשָׁה אִין, דִּלְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה לָא; אַף הָכָא נָמֵי – דְּקוֹדֶם הַפְרָשָׁה אִין, לְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה לָא?
The Gemara elaborates: Do we say that the halakha in this case is just as it is with regard to a sin offering, in that just as a sin offering does atone for a sin that one committed before designation of the animal but does not atone for a sin that one committed after designation, here too, a burnt offering does atone for violations that one committed before designation but does not atone for those committed after designation?
אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא דָּמְיָא לְחַטָּאת; דְּחַטָּאת – עַל כׇּל חֵטְא וְחֵטְא בָּעֵי לְאֵיתוֹיֵי חֲדָא חַטָּאת, וְהָכָא – כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא כַּמָּה עֲשֵׂה גַּבֵּיהּ מְכַפְּרָא, אַעֲשֵׂה דִּלְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה נָמֵי מְכַפְּרָא?
Or, perhaps a burnt offering is not similar to a sin offering, as with regard to a sin offering one must bring one sin offering for each and every sin he commits. But here, since a burnt offering atones even for one who has committed several violations of positive mitzvot, one may claim that it also atones even for the violation of a positive mitzva that one committed after designation of the animal.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״וְסָמַךְ… וְנִרְצָה״ – וְכִי סְמִיכָה מְכַפֶּרֶת?! וַהֲלֹא אֵין כַּפָּרָה אֶלָּא בַּדָּם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״כִּי הַדָּם הוּא בַּנֶּפֶשׁ יְכַפֵּר״! אֶלָּא מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְסָמַךְ… וְנִרְצָה… לְכַפֵּר״? שֶׁאִם עֲשָׂאָהּ לִסְמִיכָה שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה – מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ לֹא כִּיפֵּר, וְכִיפֵּר.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall place his hand on the head of the burnt offering, and it shall be accepted for him to atone for him” (Leviticus 1:4). And does placing hands atone for one’s sins? But isn’t atonement achieved only by the sprinkling of the blood, as it is stated: “For it is the blood that makes atonement by reason of the life” (Leviticus 17:11)? Rather, what is the meaning when the verse states: “And he shall place…and it shall be accepted for him to atone”? This teaches that if one deemed the ritual of placing hands to be a non-essential mitzva and consequently failed to perform it, the verse ascribes to him blame as though the offering did not atone for his sins; and nevertheless, the offering atoned for his sins.
מַאי לָאו דְּכִיפֵּר – עֲשֵׂה דְּקוֹדֶם הַפְרָשָׁה, לֹא כִּיפֵּר – אַעֲשֵׂה דִּסְמִיכָה, דְּהָוֵה לֵיהּ עֲשֵׂה דִּלְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה?
What, does the final clause of the baraita not mean that the offering atoned for the violation of any positive mitzva that the owner committed before designation of the animal, but it did not atone for violation of the positive mitzva of placing hands on the head of the offering, as that constitutes a violation of a positive mitzva after designation of the animal? Apparently, a burnt offering does not atone for the violations committed after the animal’s designation.
אָמַר רָבָא: עֲשֵׂה דִּסְמִיכָה קָאָמְרַתְּ?! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דְּכֹל כַּמָּה דְּלָא שָׁחֵיט – בַּ״עֲמוֹד וּסְמוֹךְ״ קָאֵי; אֵימַת קָא הָוֵי עֲשֵׂה – לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה; לְאַחַר שְׁחִיטָה לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן.
Rava said in response: You say that the positive mitzva of placing hands is proof? There it is different, since as long as he does not slaughter the offering, he remains obligated to stand and place his hands on its head. He has not yet violated the mitzva. When does the violation of this positive mitzva occur? It occurs after the slaughter, at which point fulfillment of the mitzva is no longer possible. And with regard to a violation committed after the slaughter, we do not raise the dilemma; clearly a burnt offering does not atone for such a violation.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה לְרָבָא, אֵימָא: כִּיפֵּר – גַּבְרָא,
Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to Rava: Say the baraita means that the offering atoned for the transgression of the person,
לֹא כִּיפֵּר – קַמֵּי שְׁמַיָּא!
but it did not atone for him before Heaven, i.e., it is not accepted by God as a perfect offering.
מִי לָא תְּנַן: ״וְהַנּוֹתָר בַּשֶּׁמֶן אֲשֶׁר עַל כַּף וְגוֹ׳ לְכַפֵּר עָלָיו לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – אִם נָתַן, כִּיפֵּר; וְאִם לֹא נָתַן, לֹא כִּיפֵּר. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן [בֶּן נוּרִי] אוֹמֵר: שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה הֵן; בֵּין נִיתַּן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא נִיתַּן – כִּיפֵּר, וּמַעֲלִין עָלָיו כְּאִילּוּ לֹא כִּיפֵּר.
Didn’t we learn in a mishna with regard to the purification process of a leper (Nega’im 14:10): The verse states: “And the rest of the oil that is in the priest’s hand he shall put upon the head of the one that is to be purified, to make atonement for him before the Lord” (Leviticus 14:18). This teaches that if the priest placed the oil on the leper’s head, it atoned for him, and he is purified, but if he did not place the oil on his head, it did not atone for him; this is the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: Placement of the oil on the leper’s head is a non-essential mitzva. Therefore, whether the oil was placed on his head or whether it was not placed on his head, it atoned for him, but the verse ascribes the leper blame as though it did not atone for him.
מַאי ״כְּאִילּוּ לֹא כִּיפֵּר״? אִילֵּימָא דְּמִבְּעֵי לְאֵיתוֹיֵי קׇרְבָּן אַחֲרִינָא, הָאָמְרַתְּ: בֵּין נִיתַּן בֵּין לֹא נִיתַּן כִּיפֵּר! אֶלָּא כִּיפֵּר – גַּבְרָא, לֹא כִּיפֵּר – קַמֵּי שְׁמַיָּא; הָכָא נָמֵי כִּיפֵּר כּוּ׳!
The Gemara comments: What is the meaning of the phrase: As though it did not atone for him? If we say that it is necessary for the leper to bring another offering of oil, didn’t you say that whether the oil was placed on his head or whether it was not placed on his head, it atoned for him? Rather, the meaning of the statement is as follows: It atoned for the person, but did not atone for him before Heaven. Here too, with regard to one who sacrificed an offering without placing hands on its head, the baraita apparently means that the offering atoned for the owner’s transgression, even if it did not atone for him before Heaven.
הָתָם נָמֵי, כִּיפֵּר – מַתַּן בְּהוֹנוֹת, לֹא כִּיפֵּר – מַתְּנוֹת הָרֹאשׁ.
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: There too, with regard to the purification process of a leper, one can explain that the oil atoned for one matter and did not atone for another: It atoned; in other words, the placement of oil on the leper’s right thumb and big toe, which was performed, effected its atonement. But it did not atone, i.e., there still needs to be an atonement effected by placement of oil on the leper’s head, and another log of oil must be brought for the performance of that act.
תָּא שְׁמַע, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת לָמָה הֵן בָּאִין?
The Gemara returns to the matter of atonement for transgressions committed after the offering’s designation. Come and hear another proof from a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to the communal peace offering of two lambs that accompanies the two loaves on Shavuot, for what sin are they brought?
כִּבְשֵׂי עֲצֶרֶת שְׁלָמִים נִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא שְׂעִירֵי עֲצֶרֶת לָמָה הֵן בָּאִין?
The Gemara interrupts the citation of the baraita: The two lambs sacrificed on Shavuot are not brought for a sin; they are peace offerings brought with the annual public offering of two loaves of new wheat. Rather, the baraita should be emended as follows: For what sin are the goats sacrificed on Shavuot as a sin offering brought?
עַל טוּמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו.
Rabbi Shimon answers: They are brought for the defiling of the Temple, by entering it while ritually impure, or for defiling its sacrificial foods, by partaking of them while ritually impure.
נִזְרַק דָּמוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן, שֵׁנִי לָמָּה קָרֵב? עַל טוּמְאָה שֶׁאוֹרְעָה בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה. אֱמוֹר מֵעַתָּה: רְאוּיִין הָיוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לְהַקְרִיב קׇרְבְּנוֹתֵיהֶן בְּכׇל עֵת וּבְכׇל שָׁעָה, אֶלָּא שֶׁחִיסֵּךְ הַכָּתוּב.
Rabbi Shimon continues: Once the blood of the first goat is sprinkled on the altar, thereby atoning for this defilement, for what sin is the second one sacrificed? It is sacrificed for any incident involving impurity that may have occurred between the sacrifice of that first goat and the sacrifice of this second goat. Based on this, say that the Jewish people should have had to sacrifice their offerings at all times and at every moment, as perhaps they sinned in the interim; but the verse spared them of this obligation.
וְהָא הָכָא דַּעֲשֵׂה דִּלְאַחַר הַפְרָשָׁה, וְקָא מְכַפְּרָא!
The Gemara infers: And here, where an incident involving impurity occurred between the sacrifice of the two goats, is a case where the positive mitzva of distancing ritually impure people from the Temple was violated after the designation of the offering, as both goats were designated in advance. And nevertheless, the second goat atones for the violation. Evidently, an offering can atone for transgressions committed after its designation.
אִי דְּאַפְרְשִׁינְהוּ בְּבַת אַחַת – הָכִי נָמֵי; הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – דְּאַפְרְשִׁינְהוּ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה.
The Gemara rejects this inference: If both goats were designated simultaneously, this would indeed be evidence to that effect. But here we are dealing with a case where they were designated sequentially, and an incident involving impurity may have occurred between their respective designations.
וְלֵיקוֹ וְלֵימָא לֵיהּ לִקְרָא, דְּכִי כְּתִיבָא – בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה כְּתִיבָא?!
The Gemara challenges this assertion: But shall we stand and say about the verse mandating these two sin offerings that when it is written, it is written specifically with regard to a case where they are designated sequentially?
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: קׇרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר קָאָמְרַתְּ?! שָׁאנֵי קׇרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר – דְּלֵב בֵּית דִּין קָמַתְנֶה עֲלֵיהֶן, כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל; דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: קׇרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר – סַכִּין מוֹשַׁכְתָּן לְמַה שֶּׁהֵן.
Rav Pappa said the inference can be rejected for a different reason: Do you say that evidence can be adduced from communal offerings? Communal offerings are different, as the court makes a non-verbal stipulation about them, in accordance with what Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says. As Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: With regard to communal offerings, the slaughtering knife, i.e., the act of slaughter, designates them for what they are. The court stipulates that the second goat be consecrated as it is sacrificed, and it therefore atones for incidents of impurity that occur beforehand. Individual offerings, by contrast, are all designated in advance.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב פָּפָּא: וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֵב בֵּית דִּין מַתְנֶה עֲלֵיהֶן?! הָאָמַר רַב אִידִי בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: תְּמִידִין שֶׁלֹּא הוּצְרְכוּ לַצִּבּוּר –
Rav Yosef, son of Rav Shmuel, said to Rav Pappa: But does Rabbi Shimon accept the opinion that the court can make a non-verbal stipulation about communal offerings? Doesn’t Rav Idi bar Avin say that Rav Amram says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: With regard to animals designated as daily offerings but which in the end were not necessary for use by the public,
