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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 20, 2018 | 讝壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Zevachim 68

Today’s shiur is sponsored by Caroline Musin in honor of the Yeshivat Maharat graduates.

The gemara raises questions on Rav Ada bar Ahava’s understanding of Rabbi Yehoshua and in the end explains Rabbi Yehoshua in a different manner. Depending on how or where the melika is performed, affects whether or not is has the status of a neveila聽of a pure bird and can cause impurities while the person is eating it.

爪专讬讻讛 砖转讘讬讗 注讜讚 讞诪砖 驻专讬讚讬谉 诇诪注诇讛

she must bring another five birds and sacrifice them all above the red line as burnt offerings. Since her commitment was not satisfied, she has not fulfilled even part of her vow. She must therefore bring two burnt offerings of each species to ensure that she fulfills her vow, and she must bring another bird to replace the initial obligatory burnt offering and fulfill her commitment to bring them together.

诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讜诪砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 转讘讬讗 砖砖

This is the halakha only if both pairs that she brought were of the same species. But if they were of two different species, and the priest does not remember which he sacrificed first as the obligatory pair, she must bring six, two of each species to ensure that she fulfills her vow, and one more of each species to ensure that she properly replaces the original burnt offering of the obligatory pair and fulfills her commitment.

谞转谞转谉 诇讻讛谉 讜讗讬谞讛 讬讜讚注转 诪讛 谞转谞讛 讛诇讱 讛讻讛谉 讜注砖讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诪讛 注砖讛 爪专讬讻讛 讗专讘注 驻专讬讚讬谉 诇谞讚专讛 讜砖转讬诐 诇讞讜讘转讛 讜讞讟讗转 讗讞转

If the woman specified the species of bird for her vow but then forgot which species she specified, and she gave two pairs of birds to the priest but does not know now what species she gave, or even if she gave him one or two species of birds, and the priest went and sacrificed the birds but does not know now what he sacrificed where, in this case, she must bring seven birds, as follows: Four birds, two of each species, for her vow; and two more birds, one of each species, for her obligatory burnt offering, in case the priest sacrificed a sin offering of a certain species and the burnt offering must now match that species; and one sin offering of either species, in case the priest sacrificed them all as burnt offerings.

讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转

Ben Azzai says she must bring two sin offerings, one of each species, as he holds that if the priest sacrificed a bird of a certain species specifically as the obligatory burnt offering, the sin offering must now match that species.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讝讛讜 砖讗诪专讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讞讬 拽讜诇讜 讗讞讚 讜讻砖讛讜讗 诪转 拽讜诇讜 砖讘注讛

The mishna concludes: Rabbi Yehoshua said that there is a parable that explains this situation: This is what people say about a sheep: When it is alive it makes one sound, and when it is dead it makes seven sounds. Its two horns become trumpets, its two shinbones become flutes, its skin becomes a drumhead, its large intestines become harp strings, and its small intestines become lyre strings. Here too, because of the uncertainty as to what had occurred, the woman must bring seven extra birds. Since Rabbi Yehoshua summarizes the mishna, the mishnayot in this chapter must be in accordance with his opinion. According to Rav Adda bar Ahava鈥檚 explanation of Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 principle, burnt offerings of birds sacrificed as sin offerings become valid sin offerings. Why then, according to these mishnayot, are they disqualified?

讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗驻讜拽讛 诪讬讚讬 诪注讬诇讛 诇诪讬住拽 诇讬讛 诇讞讜讘讛 诪讬 讗诪专

The Gemara responds: Rav Adda bar Ahava鈥檚 explanation is not at odds with these mishnayot; while it is reasonable to say, i.e., to explain, that Rabbi Yehoshua said that the offering becomes a sin offering insofar as to exclude one who derives benefit from it from liability for misuse of consecrated property, did he say that it becomes a sin offering so expansively as to indicate that it would satisfy the owner鈥檚 obligation? In the cases in the mishnayot in Kinnim, all burnt offerings that were sacrificed as sin offerings are not subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property, but the women must nevertheless bring replacement offerings.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 砖诪诇拽讜 诪诇讬拽转谉 驻住讜诇讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 诪诇拽 讘砖诪讗诇 讗讜 讘诇讬诇讛 砖讞讟 讞讜诇讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讗讬谞谉 诪讟诪讗讜转 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

MISHNA: With regard to any of those people disqualified from performing the Temple service who pinched the nape of a bird offering, their pinching is not valid, but the offering鈥檚 meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat, as would the meat of a kosher bird that was not ritually slaughtered. If a priest pinched it with the thumbnail of his left hand, or if he pinched it at night, or if he slaughtered a non-sacred bird inside the Temple courtyard or a sacrificial bird outside the Temple courtyard, in all these cases, although it is prohibited to consume these birds, they do not render one ritually impure when they are in the throat, as the halakhic status of pinching is like that of slaughtering.

诪诇拽 讘住讻讬谉 诪诇拽 讞讜诇讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓

If he pinched with a knife and not with his thumbnail; or if he pinched a non-sacred bird inside the Temple courtyard or a sacrificial bird outside the Temple courtyard;

转讜专讬谉 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞谉 讜讘谞讬 讬讜谞讛 砖注讘专 讝诪谞谉 砖讬讘砖讛 讙驻讛 砖谞住诪讬转 注讬谞讛 讜砖谞拽讟注讛 专讙诇讛 诪讟诪讗 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

or if he pinched doves whose time of fitness for sacrifice has not yet arrived, as they are too young to be sacrificed; or if he pinched pigeons whose time of fitness has passed, as they are too old; or if he pinched the nape of a fledgling whose wing was withered, or whose eye was blinded, or whose leg was severed; in all these cases, although the bird鈥檚 nape was pinched, it renders one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖驻住讜诇讜 讘拽讜讚砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 驻住讜诇讜 讘拽讜讚砖 诪讟诪讗 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

This is the principle: The meat of any bird that was initially fit for sacrifice and whose disqualification occurred in the course of the service in the sacred Temple courtyard does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat. The meat of any bird whose disqualification did not occur in the sacred area, but rather was disqualified before the service began, renders one ritually impure when it is in the throat.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讗诇 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 讝专 讜住讻讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

GEMARA: Rav says: Pinching with the thumbnail of the left hand and pinching at night do not cause the offering鈥檚 meat to render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat as would the carcass of an unslaughtered bird; but pinching by a non-priest and pinching, i.e., cutting from the nape of the neck, with a knife rather than the fingernail do cause the meat to render one ritually impure when it is in the throat.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖诪讗诇 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讻砖讬专讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讻砖讬专讛 讘讗讬讘专讬诐 讜驻讚专讬诐 讝专 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讻砖讬专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara challenges: What is different about the first two cases that prevents the bird from assuming the status of a carcass? Temple service with the left hand has an instance of validity during the service on Yom Kippur, when the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies holding the spoon of incense in his left hand. And Temple service at night has an instance of validity in the burning of limbs and fats of offerings on the altar, which may be burned throughout the night. But a non-priest also has an instance of validity in the slaughter of animal offerings. Why then does Rav rule that pinching by a non-priest renders the bird a carcass? The Gemara answers: Slaughter is not considered a full-fledged sacrificial rite, and therefore it cannot be compared to pinching.

讜诇讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖讞讬讟转 驻专讛 讘讝专 驻住讜诇讛 讜诪讞讜讬 专讘 注诇讛 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讜拽讛

The Gemara asks: And is it not a full-fledged rite? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Zeira say that the slaughter of a red heifer by a non-priest is not valid, which indicates that it is a full-fledged rite? And Rav showed a source in the Torah for this halakha: The verses concerning the red heifer mention both Elazar the priest as performing the slaughter and the word 鈥渟tatute,鈥 which is mentioned in the verse: 鈥淭his is the statute of the law鈥 (Numbers 19:2), teaching that Elazar鈥檚 involvement was halakhically required.

砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讚拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: The red heifer is different, as it has the halakhic status of an item consecrated for Temple maintenance rather than for sacrifice on the altar. Therefore, its slaughter cannot teach the halakha concerning an actual offering.

讜诇讗 讻诇 讚讻谉 讛讜讗 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讘注讜 讻讛讜谞讛 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara asks: But can it not be inferred a fortiori that slaughter is a sacrificial rite? If animals that have the status of items consecrated for Temple maintenance, which are of lesser sanctity, require slaughter by the priesthood, is it necessary to say that the slaughter of animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, which are of greater sanctity, is a sacrificial rite that should require a priest? Apparently, the fact that non-priests may slaughter offerings proves that certain sacrificial rites apply to them.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪专讗讜转 谞讙注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The slaughter of a red heifer does not constitute Temple service at all, and therefore it cannot be compared to the slaughter of an offering. The halakha is just as it is with regard to the examination of the shades of leprous marks, which does not constitute Temple service but requires a declaration of purity or impurity by the priesthood.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪讘诪讛

The Gemara asks: But let us derive from the halakha of a private altar, which was a valid medium for sacrificing offerings before the Temple was built, where non-priests were permitted to pinch the napes of bird offerings, that there is a circumstance in which pinching by non-priests is valid. Why then does the bird assume the status of a carcass when the pinching is performed by a non-priest?

诪讘诪讛 诇讗 讬诇讬祝

The Gemara answers: One cannot derive the halakhot of the Temple service from the halakhot of a private altar, which was considered non-sacred by comparison.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讬讜爪讗 砖讗诐 注诇讛 诇讗 讬专讚 砖讛专讬 讬讜爪讗 讻砖专 讘讘诪讛

The Gemara asks: And can one not derive the halakhot of the Temple service from the halakhot of a private altar? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to an item, e.g., the limbs of an offering, which emerged from the Temple courtyard and was thereby rendered unfit for sacrifice upon the altar, that if it nevertheless ascended upon the altar it shall not descend? It is derived from the fact that an item that emerged is valid for sacrifice on a private altar. This indicates that one can learn from the halakhot of a private altar with regard to the Temple service.

转谞讗 讗讝讗转 转讜专转 讛注讜诇讛 住诪讬讱 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: The tanna of that baraita relies on the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt offering [ha鈥檕la]鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived that any item that ascends [ola] upon the altar shall not descend from it, even if it was disqualified. In other words, the verse is the actual source for the halakha of the baraita, whereas the case of a private altar is cited merely in support of this ruling.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讝专 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 住讻讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

Until this point the Gemara has discussed the opinion of Rav, who holds that the pinching of a non-priest renders the bird a carcass with regard to ritual impurity. But Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If a non-priest pinched the nape of a bird offering, the meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat; but if a priest pinched it, i.e., cut it from the nape of the neck, with a knife, the meat renders one ritually impure when it is in the throat.

转谞谉 讻诇 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 砖诪诇拽讜 诪诇讬拽转谉 驻住讜诇讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讝专 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讻诇 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara brings proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from that which we learned in the mishna: If any of those disqualified for Temple service pinched the nape of a bird offering, their pinching is not valid, but the meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat. Granted, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, the word: Any, is written to add that even the pinching of a non-priest does not render the bird a carcass. But according to Rav, who holds that it does render the bird a carcass, what is added by the word: Any?

(诇讗讜) 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 砖诪讗诇 讜诇讬诇讛 砖诪讗诇 讜诇讬诇讛 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 转谞讬 讜讛讚专 诪驻专砖

The Gemara answers: It is written to add pinching with the left hand or pinching at night. The Gemara challenges: The word: Any, is unnecessary with regard to teaching the cases of pinching with the left hand and pinching at night, as they are taught in the mishna explicitly. The Gemara answers: According to Rav, the word: Any, is not meant to add a specific case. Rather the mishna teaches the principle and then explains using specific examples.

转讗 砖诪注 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讛讬讛 驻住讜诇讜 讘拽讜讚砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讝专 讗诇讗 诇专讘 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the mishna: This is the principle: The meat of any bird whose disqualification occurred during the course of the service in the sacred Temple courtyard does not render the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when the meat is in the throat. Granted, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, the word: Any, is written to add that even the pinching of a non-priest does not render the bird a carcass. But according to Rav, who holds that it does render the bird a carcass, what is added by the word: Any?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Zevachim 68

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 68

爪专讬讻讛 砖转讘讬讗 注讜讚 讞诪砖 驻专讬讚讬谉 诇诪注诇讛

she must bring another five birds and sacrifice them all above the red line as burnt offerings. Since her commitment was not satisfied, she has not fulfilled even part of her vow. She must therefore bring two burnt offerings of each species to ensure that she fulfills her vow, and she must bring another bird to replace the initial obligatory burnt offering and fulfill her commitment to bring them together.

诪诪讬谉 讗讞讚 讜诪砖谞讬 诪讬谞讬谉 转讘讬讗 砖砖

This is the halakha only if both pairs that she brought were of the same species. But if they were of two different species, and the priest does not remember which he sacrificed first as the obligatory pair, she must bring six, two of each species to ensure that she fulfills her vow, and one more of each species to ensure that she properly replaces the original burnt offering of the obligatory pair and fulfills her commitment.

谞转谞转谉 诇讻讛谉 讜讗讬谞讛 讬讜讚注转 诪讛 谞转谞讛 讛诇讱 讛讻讛谉 讜注砖讛 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 诪讛 注砖讛 爪专讬讻讛 讗专讘注 驻专讬讚讬谉 诇谞讚专讛 讜砖转讬诐 诇讞讜讘转讛 讜讞讟讗转 讗讞转

If the woman specified the species of bird for her vow but then forgot which species she specified, and she gave two pairs of birds to the priest but does not know now what species she gave, or even if she gave him one or two species of birds, and the priest went and sacrificed the birds but does not know now what he sacrificed where, in this case, she must bring seven birds, as follows: Four birds, two of each species, for her vow; and two more birds, one of each species, for her obligatory burnt offering, in case the priest sacrificed a sin offering of a certain species and the burnt offering must now match that species; and one sin offering of either species, in case the priest sacrificed them all as burnt offerings.

讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 砖转讬 讞讟讗讜转

Ben Azzai says she must bring two sin offerings, one of each species, as he holds that if the priest sacrificed a bird of a certain species specifically as the obligatory burnt offering, the sin offering must now match that species.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讝讛讜 砖讗诪专讜 讻砖讛讜讗 讞讬 拽讜诇讜 讗讞讚 讜讻砖讛讜讗 诪转 拽讜诇讜 砖讘注讛

The mishna concludes: Rabbi Yehoshua said that there is a parable that explains this situation: This is what people say about a sheep: When it is alive it makes one sound, and when it is dead it makes seven sounds. Its two horns become trumpets, its two shinbones become flutes, its skin becomes a drumhead, its large intestines become harp strings, and its small intestines become lyre strings. Here too, because of the uncertainty as to what had occurred, the woman must bring seven extra birds. Since Rabbi Yehoshua summarizes the mishna, the mishnayot in this chapter must be in accordance with his opinion. According to Rav Adda bar Ahava鈥檚 explanation of Rabbi Yehoshua鈥檚 principle, burnt offerings of birds sacrificed as sin offerings become valid sin offerings. Why then, according to these mishnayot, are they disqualified?

讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗驻讜拽讛 诪讬讚讬 诪注讬诇讛 诇诪讬住拽 诇讬讛 诇讞讜讘讛 诪讬 讗诪专

The Gemara responds: Rav Adda bar Ahava鈥檚 explanation is not at odds with these mishnayot; while it is reasonable to say, i.e., to explain, that Rabbi Yehoshua said that the offering becomes a sin offering insofar as to exclude one who derives benefit from it from liability for misuse of consecrated property, did he say that it becomes a sin offering so expansively as to indicate that it would satisfy the owner鈥檚 obligation? In the cases in the mishnayot in Kinnim, all burnt offerings that were sacrificed as sin offerings are not subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property, but the women must nevertheless bring replacement offerings.

诪转谞讬壮 讻诇 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 砖诪诇拽讜 诪诇讬拽转谉 驻住讜诇讛 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 诪诇拽 讘砖诪讗诇 讗讜 讘诇讬诇讛 砖讞讟 讞讜诇讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓 讗讬谞谉 诪讟诪讗讜转 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

MISHNA: With regard to any of those people disqualified from performing the Temple service who pinched the nape of a bird offering, their pinching is not valid, but the offering鈥檚 meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat, as would the meat of a kosher bird that was not ritually slaughtered. If a priest pinched it with the thumbnail of his left hand, or if he pinched it at night, or if he slaughtered a non-sacred bird inside the Temple courtyard or a sacrificial bird outside the Temple courtyard, in all these cases, although it is prohibited to consume these birds, they do not render one ritually impure when they are in the throat, as the halakhic status of pinching is like that of slaughtering.

诪诇拽 讘住讻讬谉 诪诇拽 讞讜诇讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 讘讞讜抓

If he pinched with a knife and not with his thumbnail; or if he pinched a non-sacred bird inside the Temple courtyard or a sacrificial bird outside the Temple courtyard;

转讜专讬谉 砖诇讗 讛讙讬注 讝诪谞谉 讜讘谞讬 讬讜谞讛 砖注讘专 讝诪谞谉 砖讬讘砖讛 讙驻讛 砖谞住诪讬转 注讬谞讛 讜砖谞拽讟注讛 专讙诇讛 诪讟诪讗 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

or if he pinched doves whose time of fitness for sacrifice has not yet arrived, as they are too young to be sacrificed; or if he pinched pigeons whose time of fitness has passed, as they are too old; or if he pinched the nape of a fledgling whose wing was withered, or whose eye was blinded, or whose leg was severed; in all these cases, although the bird鈥檚 nape was pinched, it renders one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat.

讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖驻住讜诇讜 讘拽讜讚砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 诇讗 讛讬讛 驻住讜诇讜 讘拽讜讚砖 诪讟诪讗 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

This is the principle: The meat of any bird that was initially fit for sacrifice and whose disqualification occurred in the course of the service in the sacred Temple courtyard does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat. The meat of any bird whose disqualification did not occur in the sacred area, but rather was disqualified before the service began, renders one ritually impure when it is in the throat.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讗诇 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 讝专 讜住讻讬谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

GEMARA: Rav says: Pinching with the thumbnail of the left hand and pinching at night do not cause the offering鈥檚 meat to render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat as would the carcass of an unslaughtered bird; but pinching by a non-priest and pinching, i.e., cutting from the nape of the neck, with a knife rather than the fingernail do cause the meat to render one ritually impure when it is in the throat.

诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖诪讗诇 讚讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讻砖讬专讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讻砖讬专讛 讘讗讬讘专讬诐 讜驻讚专讬诐 讝专 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 讛讻砖讬专讛 讘砖讞讬讟讛 砖讞讬讟讛 诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗

The Gemara challenges: What is different about the first two cases that prevents the bird from assuming the status of a carcass? Temple service with the left hand has an instance of validity during the service on Yom Kippur, when the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies holding the spoon of incense in his left hand. And Temple service at night has an instance of validity in the burning of limbs and fats of offerings on the altar, which may be burned throughout the night. But a non-priest also has an instance of validity in the slaughter of animal offerings. Why then does Rav rule that pinching by a non-priest renders the bird a carcass? The Gemara answers: Slaughter is not considered a full-fledged sacrificial rite, and therefore it cannot be compared to pinching.

讜诇讗 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 砖讞讬讟转 驻专讛 讘讝专 驻住讜诇讛 讜诪讞讜讬 专讘 注诇讛 讗诇注讝专 讜讞讜拽讛

The Gemara asks: And is it not a full-fledged rite? But doesn鈥檛 Rabbi Zeira say that the slaughter of a red heifer by a non-priest is not valid, which indicates that it is a full-fledged rite? And Rav showed a source in the Torah for this halakha: The verses concerning the red heifer mention both Elazar the priest as performing the slaughter and the word 鈥渟tatute,鈥 which is mentioned in the verse: 鈥淭his is the statute of the law鈥 (Numbers 19:2), teaching that Elazar鈥檚 involvement was halakhically required.

砖讗谞讬 驻专讛 讚拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讛讬讗

The Gemara answers: The red heifer is different, as it has the halakhic status of an item consecrated for Temple maintenance rather than for sacrifice on the altar. Therefore, its slaughter cannot teach the halakha concerning an actual offering.

讜诇讗 讻诇 讚讻谉 讛讜讗 拽讚砖讬 讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讘注讜 讻讛讜谞讛 拽讚砖讬 诪讝讘讞 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara asks: But can it not be inferred a fortiori that slaughter is a sacrificial rite? If animals that have the status of items consecrated for Temple maintenance, which are of lesser sanctity, require slaughter by the priesthood, is it necessary to say that the slaughter of animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, which are of greater sanctity, is a sacrificial rite that should require a priest? Apparently, the fact that non-priests may slaughter offerings proves that certain sacrificial rites apply to them.

讗诪专 专讘 砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗诪专讗讜转 谞讙注讬诐 讚诇讗讜 注讘讜讚讛 讛讬讗 讜讘注讬讗 讻讛讜谞讛

Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, said: The slaughter of a red heifer does not constitute Temple service at all, and therefore it cannot be compared to the slaughter of an offering. The halakha is just as it is with regard to the examination of the shades of leprous marks, which does not constitute Temple service but requires a declaration of purity or impurity by the priesthood.

讜谞讬诇祝 诪讘诪讛

The Gemara asks: But let us derive from the halakha of a private altar, which was a valid medium for sacrificing offerings before the Temple was built, where non-priests were permitted to pinch the napes of bird offerings, that there is a circumstance in which pinching by non-priests is valid. Why then does the bird assume the status of a carcass when the pinching is performed by a non-priest?

诪讘诪讛 诇讗 讬诇讬祝

The Gemara answers: One cannot derive the halakhot of the Temple service from the halakhot of a private altar, which was considered non-sacred by comparison.

讜诇讗 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪谞讬谉 诇讬讜爪讗 砖讗诐 注诇讛 诇讗 讬专讚 砖讛专讬 讬讜爪讗 讻砖专 讘讘诪讛

The Gemara asks: And can one not derive the halakhot of the Temple service from the halakhot of a private altar? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to an item, e.g., the limbs of an offering, which emerged from the Temple courtyard and was thereby rendered unfit for sacrifice upon the altar, that if it nevertheless ascended upon the altar it shall not descend? It is derived from the fact that an item that emerged is valid for sacrifice on a private altar. This indicates that one can learn from the halakhot of a private altar with regard to the Temple service.

转谞讗 讗讝讗转 转讜专转 讛注讜诇讛 住诪讬讱 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: The tanna of that baraita relies on the verse: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt offering [ha鈥檕la]鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived that any item that ascends [ola] upon the altar shall not descend from it, even if it was disqualified. In other words, the verse is the actual source for the halakha of the baraita, whereas the case of a private altar is cited merely in support of this ruling.

讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讝专 讗讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 住讻讬谉 诪讟诪讗 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛

Until this point the Gemara has discussed the opinion of Rav, who holds that the pinching of a non-priest renders the bird a carcass with regard to ritual impurity. But Rabbi Yo岣nan says: If a non-priest pinched the nape of a bird offering, the meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat; but if a priest pinched it, i.e., cut it from the nape of the neck, with a knife, the meat renders one ritually impure when it is in the throat.

转谞谉 讻诇 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 砖诪诇拽讜 诪诇讬拽转谉 驻住讜诇讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讝专 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讻诇 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara brings proof for the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from that which we learned in the mishna: If any of those disqualified for Temple service pinched the nape of a bird offering, their pinching is not valid, but the meat does not render one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat. Granted, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, the word: Any, is written to add that even the pinching of a non-priest does not render the bird a carcass. But according to Rav, who holds that it does render the bird a carcass, what is added by the word: Any?

(诇讗讜) 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 砖诪讗诇 讜诇讬诇讛 砖诪讗诇 讜诇讬诇讛 讘讛讚讬讗 拽转谞讬 转谞讬 讜讛讚专 诪驻专砖

The Gemara answers: It is written to add pinching with the left hand or pinching at night. The Gemara challenges: The word: Any, is unnecessary with regard to teaching the cases of pinching with the left hand and pinching at night, as they are taught in the mishna explicitly. The Gemara answers: According to Rav, the word: Any, is not meant to add a specific case. Rather the mishna teaches the principle and then explains using specific examples.

转讗 砖诪注 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖讛讬讛 驻住讜诇讜 讘拽讜讚砖 讗讬谞讜 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐 讗讘讬转 讛讘诇讬注讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 讝专 讗诇讗 诇专讘 诇讗讬转讜讬讬 诪讗讬

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear proof from the continuation of the mishna: This is the principle: The meat of any bird whose disqualification occurred during the course of the service in the sacred Temple courtyard does not render the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when the meat is in the throat. Granted, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, the word: Any, is written to add that even the pinching of a non-priest does not render the bird a carcass. But according to Rav, who holds that it does render the bird a carcass, what is added by the word: Any?

Scroll To Top