Zevachim 72
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.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
After comparing the Mishna in Zevachim with a parallel Mishna in Temurah, the Gemara explains that the Mishna in Zevachim was included to emphasize that even an item prohibited outside the Temple — since it is forbidden for benefit altogether — will not be nullified and must be left to die. This, however, raises a difficulty, as such a principle could seemingly be derived from a Mishna in Avodah Zarah.
The resolution is that the Mishna in Avodah Zarah does not deal with items designated for the altar. Therefore, if only that Mishna existed, one might assume that for sacrificial purposes, the laws of nullification would apply, so as not to destroy offerings. Conversely, if only the Mishna in Zevachim were taught, one might think the stringency applies specifically because these items are inherently despicable and unfit for the altar, whereas in non-Temple contexts, nullification might still be valid.
According to Torah law, when permitted and forbidden items are intermingled, the forbidden items are nullified if the permitted ones form the majority. Yet there are exceptions to this rule. Why, then, is an animal not nullified in the majority here? The Gemara first suggests that animals fall into the category of items sold individually, which are not nullified according to Rabbi Meir. This explanation aligns with Reish Lakish’s reading of Rabbi Meir’s position in Mishna Orlah 3:6–7, which includes items usually sold individually but occasionally sold otherwise. However, it does not fit Rabbi Yochanan’s interpretation of Rabbi Meir, which applies only to items sold exclusively as individuals. This category does not include animals, since they are sometimes sold in flocks.
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.”
Zevachim 72
צְרִיכִי; דְּאִי מֵהָתָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לְהֶדְיוֹט, אֲבָל לְגָבוֹהַּ אֵימָא לָא נַפְסְדִינְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ;
The Gemara explains that both the mishna here and the mishna in Avoda Zara are necessary, as, if this halakha had been learned only from there, the mishna in Avoda Zara, I would say that this applies only if the prohibited animal is intermingled with a non-sacred animal and thereby becomes prohibited to an ordinary person. But if it is intermingled with offerings that are designated to the Most High so a loss to the Temple would ensue, one might say that we should not lose all the valid offerings, and therefore the prohibited animal should be nullified in a simple majority. Accordingly, the ruling of the mishna here was necessary, to teach that the same applies to a mixture involving offerings.
וְאִי מֵהָכָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי קָדָשִׁים – דִּמְאִיס, אֲבָל חוּלִּין דְּלָא מְאִיס – אֵימָא: אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה (לִיבְטְלֵי) [לִיבְטְלוּ] בְּרוּבָּא; צְרִיכָא.
The Gemara continues: And conversely, if this halakha were learned only from here I would say that this statement, that the entire mixture is prohibited, applies specifically to sacrificial animals, as it is repulsive to sacrifice to God an animal from a mixture that includes a prohibited animal. But with regard to deriving benefit from a non-sacred animal from this mixture, which is not a repulsive act, one might say: Let the items from which deriving benefit is prohibited be nullified in a majority. Therefore, the mishna in Avoda Zara is also necessary.
וְנִיבְטְלוּ בְּרוּבָּא! וְכִי תֵּימָא חֲשִׁיבִי וְלָא בָּטְלִי – הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: ״כׇּל שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִימָּנוֹת״ שָׁנִינוּ;
The Gemara questions the ruling of the mishna: But let the prohibited animals be nullified in a majority, as is the halakha concerning other matters, in which the minority items assume the status of the majority. And if you would say in response that animals are significant, as they are counted individually and therefore they are not nullified in a majority, this answer is unsatisfactory. The Gemara elaborates: This suggested answer works out well according to the one who says that we learned in the mishna discussing nullification in a majority (see Orla 3:6–7): Any item whose manner is also to be counted, i.e., that are sometimes sold by unit rather than weight or volume, is considered significant. This definition includes animals, as they are sometimes sold as individual animals, and therefore they would be considered significant.
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: ״אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִימָּנוֹת״ שָׁנִינוּ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ חֲבִילֵי תִּילְתָּן שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם –
But according to the one who says that we learned in that mishna: An item whose manner is exclusively to be counted, i.e., one that is always sold by unit, is considered significant, what can be said? Although animals are often sold by unit, they are occasionally sold as part of a herd, and would therefore not be considered significant. The Gemara cites the mishna in which this dispute appears. As we learned (Orla 3:6–7): With regard to one who had bundles of fenugreek, a type of legume, that were diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit,
יִדָּלְקוּ. נִתְעָרְבוּ בַּאֲחֵרִים (וַאֲחֵרִים בַּאֲחֵרִים) – כּוּלָּן יִדָּלְקוּ. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יַעֲלוּ בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם.
those bundles must be burned. If the bundles were intermingled with others, and those others were intermingled with others, they all must be burned. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They can be nullified when the total is 201 items, i.e., one prohibited item intermingled with two hundred permitted ones.
שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִמָּנוֹת – מְקַדֵּשׁ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ אֶלָּא שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים בִּלְבַד. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: שִׁבְעָה, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: אֱגוֹזֵי פֶרֶךְ, וְרִימּוֹנֵי בָאדָן, וְחָבִיּוֹת סְתוּמוֹת, וְחִילְפֵי תְרָדִין, וְקִילְחֵי כְרוּב, וְדַלַּעַת יְוָנִית. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מוֹסִיף: אַף כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.
The mishna continues: Rabbi Meir holds that they all must be burned, as Rabbi Meir would say: Any item whose manner is to be counted renders its mixture prohibited, as it is considered significant and cannot be nullified. And the Rabbis say: Only six items are sufficiently significant to render their mixture prohibited. Rabbi Akiva says: There are seven. And they are: Nuts with brittle shells, and pomegranates from Badan, and sealed barrels of wine, and beet greens, and cabbage stalks, and Greek gourd. Rabbi Akiva adds: Loaves of a homeowner are also in this category.
הָרָאוּי לְעׇרְלָה – עׇרְלָה, הָרָאוּי לְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם – כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם.
The mishna continues: Different prohibitions apply to these items. That which is fit to be forbidden due to the prohibition against eating the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla], i.e., nuts, pomegranates, and sealed barrels of wine, prohibit their mixture as orla. That which is fit to be forbidden due to diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, i.e., beets, cabbage, and gourd, prohibit their mixture as diverse kinds in a vineyard.
וְאִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִמָּנוֹת״ שָׁנִינוּ, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִמָּנוֹת״ שָׁנִינוּ.
And it was stated that there is a dispute between amora’im with regard to the wording of Rabbi Meir’s opinion in this mishna. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that we learned: Only an item whose manner is exclusively to be counted is significant and cannot be nullified, and it therefore renders its mixture prohibited according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says that we learned: Any item whose manner is also to be counted is significant and cannot be nullified.
הָנִיחָא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַאי תַּנָּא – תַּנָּא דְּלִיטְרָא קְצִיעוֹת הוּא, דְּאָמַר:
The Gemara reiterates its question: This works out well according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, but according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, what can be said? According to his opinion, since animals are not sold exclusively by unit, they are not sufficiently significant. Therefore, a prohibited animal should be nullified in a simple majority. Rav Pappa says: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, this tanna, who says that a prohibited animal cannot be nullified, is the tanna of the halakha concerning a litra of dried figs, who says:
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.
Zevachim Daf 66-73 – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
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.
Palo Alto, CA, 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
Bronx, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Minnesota, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
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 began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
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
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, 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
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
Tel Aviv, Israel
Zevachim 72
צְרִיכִי; דְּאִי מֵהָתָם, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: לְהֶדְיוֹט, אֲבָל לְגָבוֹהַּ אֵימָא לָא נַפְסְדִינְהוּ לְכוּלְּהוּ;
The Gemara explains that both the mishna here and the mishna in Avoda Zara are necessary, as, if this halakha had been learned only from there, the mishna in Avoda Zara, I would say that this applies only if the prohibited animal is intermingled with a non-sacred animal and thereby becomes prohibited to an ordinary person. But if it is intermingled with offerings that are designated to the Most High so a loss to the Temple would ensue, one might say that we should not lose all the valid offerings, and therefore the prohibited animal should be nullified in a simple majority. Accordingly, the ruling of the mishna here was necessary, to teach that the same applies to a mixture involving offerings.
וְאִי מֵהָכָא, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: הָנֵי מִילֵּי קָדָשִׁים – דִּמְאִיס, אֲבָל חוּלִּין דְּלָא מְאִיס – אֵימָא: אִיסּוּרֵי הֲנָאָה (לִיבְטְלֵי) [לִיבְטְלוּ] בְּרוּבָּא; צְרִיכָא.
The Gemara continues: And conversely, if this halakha were learned only from here I would say that this statement, that the entire mixture is prohibited, applies specifically to sacrificial animals, as it is repulsive to sacrifice to God an animal from a mixture that includes a prohibited animal. But with regard to deriving benefit from a non-sacred animal from this mixture, which is not a repulsive act, one might say: Let the items from which deriving benefit is prohibited be nullified in a majority. Therefore, the mishna in Avoda Zara is also necessary.
וְנִיבְטְלוּ בְּרוּבָּא! וְכִי תֵּימָא חֲשִׁיבִי וְלָא בָּטְלִי – הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: ״כׇּל שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִימָּנוֹת״ שָׁנִינוּ;
The Gemara questions the ruling of the mishna: But let the prohibited animals be nullified in a majority, as is the halakha concerning other matters, in which the minority items assume the status of the majority. And if you would say in response that animals are significant, as they are counted individually and therefore they are not nullified in a majority, this answer is unsatisfactory. The Gemara elaborates: This suggested answer works out well according to the one who says that we learned in the mishna discussing nullification in a majority (see Orla 3:6–7): Any item whose manner is also to be counted, i.e., that are sometimes sold by unit rather than weight or volume, is considered significant. This definition includes animals, as they are sometimes sold as individual animals, and therefore they would be considered significant.
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: ״אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִימָּנוֹת״ שָׁנִינוּ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? דִּתְנַן: מִי שֶׁהָיוּ לוֹ חֲבִילֵי תִּילְתָּן שֶׁל כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם –
But according to the one who says that we learned in that mishna: An item whose manner is exclusively to be counted, i.e., one that is always sold by unit, is considered significant, what can be said? Although animals are often sold by unit, they are occasionally sold as part of a herd, and would therefore not be considered significant. The Gemara cites the mishna in which this dispute appears. As we learned (Orla 3:6–7): With regard to one who had bundles of fenugreek, a type of legume, that were diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit,
יִדָּלְקוּ. נִתְעָרְבוּ בַּאֲחֵרִים (וַאֲחֵרִים בַּאֲחֵרִים) – כּוּלָּן יִדָּלְקוּ. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יַעֲלוּ בְּאֶחָד וּמָאתַיִם.
those bundles must be burned. If the bundles were intermingled with others, and those others were intermingled with others, they all must be burned. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: They can be nullified when the total is 201 items, i.e., one prohibited item intermingled with two hundred permitted ones.
שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִמָּנוֹת – מְקַדֵּשׁ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ מְקַדֵּשׁ אֶלָּא שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים בִּלְבַד. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: שִׁבְעָה, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן: אֱגוֹזֵי פֶרֶךְ, וְרִימּוֹנֵי בָאדָן, וְחָבִיּוֹת סְתוּמוֹת, וְחִילְפֵי תְרָדִין, וְקִילְחֵי כְרוּב, וְדַלַּעַת יְוָנִית. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מוֹסִיף: אַף כִּכָּרוֹת שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת.
The mishna continues: Rabbi Meir holds that they all must be burned, as Rabbi Meir would say: Any item whose manner is to be counted renders its mixture prohibited, as it is considered significant and cannot be nullified. And the Rabbis say: Only six items are sufficiently significant to render their mixture prohibited. Rabbi Akiva says: There are seven. And they are: Nuts with brittle shells, and pomegranates from Badan, and sealed barrels of wine, and beet greens, and cabbage stalks, and Greek gourd. Rabbi Akiva adds: Loaves of a homeowner are also in this category.
הָרָאוּי לְעׇרְלָה – עׇרְלָה, הָרָאוּי לְכִלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם – כִּלְאֵי הַכֶּרֶם.
The mishna continues: Different prohibitions apply to these items. That which is fit to be forbidden due to the prohibition against eating the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [orla], i.e., nuts, pomegranates, and sealed barrels of wine, prohibit their mixture as orla. That which is fit to be forbidden due to diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, i.e., beets, cabbage, and gourd, prohibit their mixture as diverse kinds in a vineyard.
וְאִיתְּמַר עֲלַהּ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: ״אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִמָּנוֹת״ שָׁנִינוּ, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לִמָּנוֹת״ שָׁנִינוּ.
And it was stated that there is a dispute between amora’im with regard to the wording of Rabbi Meir’s opinion in this mishna. Rabbi Yoḥanan says that we learned: Only an item whose manner is exclusively to be counted is significant and cannot be nullified, and it therefore renders its mixture prohibited according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says that we learned: Any item whose manner is also to be counted is significant and cannot be nullified.
הָנִיחָא לְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַאי תַּנָּא – תַּנָּא דְּלִיטְרָא קְצִיעוֹת הוּא, דְּאָמַר:
The Gemara reiterates its question: This works out well according to the opinion of Reish Lakish, but according to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, what can be said? According to his opinion, since animals are not sold exclusively by unit, they are not sufficiently significant. Therefore, a prohibited animal should be nullified in a simple majority. Rav Pappa says: According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, this tanna, who says that a prohibited animal cannot be nullified, is the tanna of the halakha concerning a litra of dried figs, who says:
