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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 25, 2018 | 讬状讘 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 73

The gemara provides two answers to the question on the mishna of why the problematic animal is not canceled out in a group of other animals according to Rabbi Yochanan who thinks that only items that are sold exclusively by item are not canceled in a mixture? A suggestion is made regarding laws relating to probabilities – why can’t we separate one animal at a time and claim that each time it emerged from a majority of good animals? A discussion ensues regarding laws of probabilities. Rava claims that since the animal is not canceled out, if any of the animals in the mixture are brought on the altar, they do not provide atonement and a new sacrifice must be brought in its place. This assumption is also questioned.

讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪谞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Any item that is counted, even if it is prohibited by rabbinic law, e.g., teruma of fruit, cannot be nullified, and all the more so items prohibited by Torah law, such as animals that are disqualified for the altar, as in the mishna.

讚转谞讬讗 诇讬讟专讗 拽爪讬注讜转 砖讚专住讛 注诇 驻讬 注讬讙讜诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讜 注讬讙讜诇 讚专住讛 注诇 驻讬 讞讘讬转 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讜 讞讘讬转 讚专住讛 注诇 驻讬 讻讜讜专转 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讜 讻讜讜专转 讚专住讛

This is as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 5:11): The baraita discusses three cases, all of which relate to the tithing of figs, which is an obligation by rabbinic law. The first is the case of a litra of untithed dried figs that were pressed in different vessels and shaped into circles, that one placed into a barrel containing tithed figs, and during the process of producing a circle he pressed the figs onto the opening of one of the circular vessels in which the circles are formed, and he does not know into which circular vessel he pressed it. The second is the case in which he recalls that he pressed it on the opening of a barrel containing tithed figs, but he does not know into which barrel he pressed it. The third case is that he recalls that he pressed it on the opening of a straw receptacle containing tithed figs, but he does not know into which receptacle he pressed it. In all of these cases, there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda as to the details of a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转 讻讗讬诇讜 讛谉 驻专讜讚讜转 讜讛转讞转讜谞讜转 诪注诇讜转 讗转 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转

Rabbi Meir says that Rabbi Eliezer says: One views the upper layers of possibly untithed dried figs as though they are separate pieces, rather than one unit. And the lower ones, which were there beforehand and have certainly been tithed, nullify the upper ones, as there are enough circles of figs to nullify the upper layer. One does not need to tithe the figs at the top of any of the containers.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 诪讗讛 驻讜诪讬谉 讬注诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛驻讜诪讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讛砖讜诇讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉

Rabbi Meir continues: By contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua says: If there are one hundred openings of containers present there, the untithed litra of figs on the opening of one of the containers is nullified in a ratio of one part of untithed figs to one hundred parts of similar, tithed figs. But if not, all of the layers of figs at the openings of the containers are prohibited, i.e., viewed as untithed, as one of them certainly contains an untithed litra that has not been nullified. And the figs on the insides of the vessels are permitted, as the untithed figs certainly did not reach there. This is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 version of the dispute.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 诪讗讛 驻讜诪讬谉 讬注诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛驻讜诪讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讻讜壮

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Eliezer says: If there are one hundred openings of containers with tithed figs present there, in addition to the untithed figs, it is nullified in the one hundred. But if not, all of the layers of figs at the openings of the containers are prohibited, i.e., viewed as untithed, as one of them certainly contains an untithed litra that has not been nullified. And the figs on the insides of the vessels are permitted, as the untithed figs certainly did not reach there.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 砖诐 砖诇砖讛 诪讗讜转 驻讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讬注诇讜

Rabbi Yehuda continues his statement: By contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if there are three hundred openings present there, the layer at the top of the container is not nullified. This litra cannot be nullified in any manner, as Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that even an item occasionally sold by unit, such as a circle of dried figs, can never be nullified.

讚专住讛 讘注讬讙讜诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讛 诪拽讜诐 讘注讬讙讜诇 讚专住讛 讗讜 诇爪驻讜谞讛 讗讜 诇讚专讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讬注诇讜

Rabbi Yehuda continues: But if one pressed the litra of dried figs into a circular vessel along with other dried figs, but does not know onto which place, i.e., which side, of the circular vessel he pressed it, whether, e.g., to its northern side or to its southern side, in this case, as the prohibited litra is not located in a defined place and it cannot be distinguished from the others, it is not considered an item of significance, and everyone agrees that it is nullified. Accordingly, the ruling of the mishna that animals that are disqualified from being sacrificed are not nullified is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua as stated by Rabbi Eliezer, that an item occasionally sold by unit is not nullified. Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement, that only an item whose manner is exclusively to be counted is significant and cannot be nullified, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讞砖讬讘讬 讜诇讗 讘讟诇讬

Rav Ashi says: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Meir, who maintains that an item that is not always counted is nullified in a majority. The reason is that living creatures are significant, and therefore they are not nullified.

讜谞诪砖讜讱 讜谞拽专讘 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜谞讬诪讗 讻诇 讚驻专讬砖 诪专讜讘讗 驻专讬砖 谞诪砖讜讱 讛讜讛 诇讛 拽讘讜注

搂 The Gemara raises a difficulty with the ruling of the mishna that all of the animals are prohibited. And let us draw out and sacrifice one animal from the mixture, and say, i.e., apply the principle: Any item that separates from a group is assumed to have separated from the majority. Accordingly, the animal that was sacrificed is presumed to be fit. One can continue in this manner until only two animals from the mixture remain. The Gemara questions this suggestion: Should we draw out an animal from the mixture? But this is the removal of an item from its fixed place,

讜讻诇 拽讘讜注 讻诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 谞讬讻讘砖讬谞讛讜 讚谞讬讬讚讬 讜谞讬诪讗 讻诇 讚驻专讬砖 诪专讜讘讗 驻专讬砖

and there is a principle that anything fixed is considered as though it was half and half, i.e., equally balanced, and it remains a case of uncertainty. The Gemara clarifies its suggestion: Rather, let us push the intermingled animals so that they all move from their places, which negates the fixed status of the prohibited item. And accordingly, let us say with regard to each animal: Any item that separates from a group is assumed to have separated from the majority.

讗诪专 专讘讗 (讛砖转讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诇讗 谞讬拽专讘) 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讘讗讜 注砖专讛 讻讛谞讬诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜讬拽专讘讜

Rava says: Now that the Sages have said that we do not sacrifice any of them, this is evidently a rabbinic decree, lest ten priests come simultaneously and sacrifice all the animals in the mixture together, not one at a time. Therefore, the fact that there could be a method to permit the animals is immaterial.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诪讙讬住讗 讗住讬专讗

One of the Sages said to Rava: If that is so, do you hold that the large basin [megisa] on which the sacrificial portions of the animal are placed is prohibited? In other words, is it possible that these animals, which were slaughtered when they were initially declared permitted after being separated from their places, could later become prohibited again when their sacrificial portions are ready to be burned on the altar?

诪砖讜诐 砖诪讗 讬讘讗讜 注砖专讛 讻讛谞讬诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜讬拽讞讜 讘注砖专讛 讻讛谞讬诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 诪讬 讗驻砖专 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪砖讜诐 拽讘讜注

Rava responded that he did not mean there is a concern that ten priests would sacrifice their sacrificial portions simultaneously. Rather, the decree is due to the concern lest when the animals move, ten priests will come simultaneously and take them from the mixture. As all or most of the animals were separated simultaneously in this case, it is assumed that the prohibited animal is among those that were separated. The Gemara asks: Is it possible for ten priests to take these scattered animals simultaneously? Rather, Rava says that one may not allow the animals to be sacrificed by moving them due to a decree that if this is allowed, one may, in another circumstance, allow them to be sacrificed even when they are taken from a fixed location.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讗 谞拽专讬讘 讗讬 谞拽专讬讘 诇讗 诪专爪讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讗 讞讟讗转 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘注讜诇讛 讜注讜诇讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘讞讟讗转 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 讘专讬讘讜讗 讬诪讜转讜 讻讜诇谉

Rava said: Now that the Sages say in the mishna that we do not sacrifice any of the animals, if we did sacrifice one of them, the offering does not effect acceptance for the owner. Rav Huna bar Yehuda raised an objection to Rava from a mishna (Kinnim 22b): With regard to a bird sin offering that was intermingled with a bird burnt offering, or a bird burnt offering that was intermingled with a bird sin offering, even if the ratio is one in ten thousand, they all must die, as there is no remedy for these birds. It is not known which is which, and their sacrificial rites are performed differently.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讻讛谉 谞诪诇讱 讗讘诇 讘讻讛谉 砖讗讬谉 谞诪诇讱 注砖讗谉 诇诪注诇讛 诪讞爪讛 讻砖专 讜诪讞爪讛 驻住讜诇

The mishna continues: In what case is this statement said? In the case of a priest who consulted the court to ask how he should proceed. But in the case of a priest who did not consult the court, but sacrificed them of his own accord, if there was an equal number of bird sin offerings and burnt offerings, and he performed all their sacrificial rites above the red line that circumscribes the altar at its midpoint, as required for a burnt offering, half of the birds are fit, as in any event the burnt offerings were sacrificed properly, and half are unfit.

诇诪讟讛 诪讞爪讛 讻砖专 讜诪讞爪讛 驻住讜诇 讗讞转 诇诪讟讛 讜讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞讬讛谉 驻住讜诇讜转 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讞讟讗转 拽专讬讘讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜注讜诇讛 拽专讬讘讛 诇诪讟讛

Likewise, if he performed all of their sacrificial rites below the red line, half are fit, as in any event the sin offerings were sacrificed properly, and half are unfit. If he performed the sacrificial rites of one of the birds below the red line and one of the birds above the red line, they are both unfit, as I say that the sin offering was sacrificed above the red line and the burnt offering was sacrificed below. This mishna proves that an offering that is prohibited to be sacrificed as part of a mixture is fit after the fact, which contradicts the statement of Rava.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 谞讚讞讬谉 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讬讚讞讬谉

Rather, Rava would claim that this matter depends on a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. This statement of Rava is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that living creatures that become disqualified are permanently rejected from being sacrificed on the altar, and this animal was rejected when it was part of the mixture. That ruling of the mishna in Kinnim is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that living creatures are not permanently rejected from the altar. Therefore, if the animal was sacrificed it is fit.

讛专讬 砖讞讜讟讬谉 讚诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 谞讬讚讞讬谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But there is the case of slaughtered offerings that are rejected from the altar, concerning which everyone agrees that these are rejected. Even those who say that living creatures generally are not rejected agree that, in this case, they should be rejected.

  • 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 73

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 73

讻诇 讚讘专 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪谞讬谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讚专讘谞谉 诇讗 讘讟讬诇 讜讻诇 砖讻谉 讘讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

Any item that is counted, even if it is prohibited by rabbinic law, e.g., teruma of fruit, cannot be nullified, and all the more so items prohibited by Torah law, such as animals that are disqualified for the altar, as in the mishna.

讚转谞讬讗 诇讬讟专讗 拽爪讬注讜转 砖讚专住讛 注诇 驻讬 注讬讙讜诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讜 注讬讙讜诇 讚专住讛 注诇 驻讬 讞讘讬转 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讜 讞讘讬转 讚专住讛 注诇 驻讬 讻讜讜专转 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讜 讻讜讜专转 讚专住讛

This is as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 5:11): The baraita discusses three cases, all of which relate to the tithing of figs, which is an obligation by rabbinic law. The first is the case of a litra of untithed dried figs that were pressed in different vessels and shaped into circles, that one placed into a barrel containing tithed figs, and during the process of producing a circle he pressed the figs onto the opening of one of the circular vessels in which the circles are formed, and he does not know into which circular vessel he pressed it. The second is the case in which he recalls that he pressed it on the opening of a barrel containing tithed figs, but he does not know into which barrel he pressed it. The third case is that he recalls that he pressed it on the opening of a straw receptacle containing tithed figs, but he does not know into which receptacle he pressed it. In all of these cases, there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda as to the details of a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转 讻讗讬诇讜 讛谉 驻专讜讚讜转 讜讛转讞转讜谞讜转 诪注诇讜转 讗转 讛注诇讬讜谞讜转

Rabbi Meir says that Rabbi Eliezer says: One views the upper layers of possibly untithed dried figs as though they are separate pieces, rather than one unit. And the lower ones, which were there beforehand and have certainly been tithed, nullify the upper ones, as there are enough circles of figs to nullify the upper layer. One does not need to tithe the figs at the top of any of the containers.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 诪讗讛 驻讜诪讬谉 讬注诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛驻讜诪讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讛砖讜诇讬诐 诪讜转专讬谉

Rabbi Meir continues: By contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua says: If there are one hundred openings of containers present there, the untithed litra of figs on the opening of one of the containers is nullified in a ratio of one part of untithed figs to one hundred parts of similar, tithed figs. But if not, all of the layers of figs at the openings of the containers are prohibited, i.e., viewed as untithed, as one of them certainly contains an untithed litra that has not been nullified. And the figs on the insides of the vessels are permitted, as the untithed figs certainly did not reach there. This is Rabbi Meir鈥檚 version of the dispute.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 讬砖 砖诐 诪讗讛 驻讜诪讬谉 讬注诇讜 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讛驻讜诪讬谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讜讻讜壮

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda says that Rabbi Eliezer says: If there are one hundred openings of containers with tithed figs present there, in addition to the untithed figs, it is nullified in the one hundred. But if not, all of the layers of figs at the openings of the containers are prohibited, i.e., viewed as untithed, as one of them certainly contains an untithed litra that has not been nullified. And the figs on the insides of the vessels are permitted, as the untithed figs certainly did not reach there.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讬砖 砖诐 砖诇砖讛 诪讗讜转 驻讜诪讬谉 诇讗 讬注诇讜

Rabbi Yehuda continues his statement: By contrast, Rabbi Yehoshua says: Even if there are three hundred openings present there, the layer at the top of the container is not nullified. This litra cannot be nullified in any manner, as Rabbi Yehoshua maintains that even an item occasionally sold by unit, such as a circle of dried figs, can never be nullified.

讚专住讛 讘注讬讙讜诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讬讜讚注 讘讗讬讝讛 诪拽讜诐 讘注讬讙讜诇 讚专住讛 讗讜 诇爪驻讜谞讛 讗讜 诇讚专讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讬注诇讜

Rabbi Yehuda continues: But if one pressed the litra of dried figs into a circular vessel along with other dried figs, but does not know onto which place, i.e., which side, of the circular vessel he pressed it, whether, e.g., to its northern side or to its southern side, in this case, as the prohibited litra is not located in a defined place and it cannot be distinguished from the others, it is not considered an item of significance, and everyone agrees that it is nullified. Accordingly, the ruling of the mishna that animals that are disqualified from being sacrificed are not nullified is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua as stated by Rabbi Eliezer, that an item occasionally sold by unit is not nullified. Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 statement, that only an item whose manner is exclusively to be counted is significant and cannot be nullified, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 专讘谞谉 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讞砖讬讘讬 讜诇讗 讘讟诇讬

Rav Ashi says: You may even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, i.e., Rabbi Meir, who maintains that an item that is not always counted is nullified in a majority. The reason is that living creatures are significant, and therefore they are not nullified.

讜谞诪砖讜讱 讜谞拽专讘 讞讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讜谞讬诪讗 讻诇 讚驻专讬砖 诪专讜讘讗 驻专讬砖 谞诪砖讜讱 讛讜讛 诇讛 拽讘讜注

搂 The Gemara raises a difficulty with the ruling of the mishna that all of the animals are prohibited. And let us draw out and sacrifice one animal from the mixture, and say, i.e., apply the principle: Any item that separates from a group is assumed to have separated from the majority. Accordingly, the animal that was sacrificed is presumed to be fit. One can continue in this manner until only two animals from the mixture remain. The Gemara questions this suggestion: Should we draw out an animal from the mixture? But this is the removal of an item from its fixed place,

讜讻诇 拽讘讜注 讻诪讞爪讛 注诇 诪讞爪讛 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 谞讬讻讘砖讬谞讛讜 讚谞讬讬讚讬 讜谞讬诪讗 讻诇 讚驻专讬砖 诪专讜讘讗 驻专讬砖

and there is a principle that anything fixed is considered as though it was half and half, i.e., equally balanced, and it remains a case of uncertainty. The Gemara clarifies its suggestion: Rather, let us push the intermingled animals so that they all move from their places, which negates the fixed status of the prohibited item. And accordingly, let us say with regard to each animal: Any item that separates from a group is assumed to have separated from the majority.

讗诪专 专讘讗 (讛砖转讗 讚讗诪讜专 专讘谞谉 诇讗 谞讬拽专讘) 讙讝讬专讛 砖诪讗 讬讘讗讜 注砖专讛 讻讛谞讬诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜讬拽专讘讜

Rava says: Now that the Sages have said that we do not sacrifice any of them, this is evidently a rabbinic decree, lest ten priests come simultaneously and sacrifice all the animals in the mixture together, not one at a time. Therefore, the fact that there could be a method to permit the animals is immaterial.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 诪专讘谞谉 诇专讘讗 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诪讙讬住讗 讗住讬专讗

One of the Sages said to Rava: If that is so, do you hold that the large basin [megisa] on which the sacrificial portions of the animal are placed is prohibited? In other words, is it possible that these animals, which were slaughtered when they were initially declared permitted after being separated from their places, could later become prohibited again when their sacrificial portions are ready to be burned on the altar?

诪砖讜诐 砖诪讗 讬讘讗讜 注砖专讛 讻讛谞讬诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 讜讬拽讞讜 讘注砖专讛 讻讛谞讬诐 讘讘转 讗讞转 诪讬 讗驻砖专 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 诪砖讜诐 拽讘讜注

Rava responded that he did not mean there is a concern that ten priests would sacrifice their sacrificial portions simultaneously. Rather, the decree is due to the concern lest when the animals move, ten priests will come simultaneously and take them from the mixture. As all or most of the animals were separated simultaneously in this case, it is assumed that the prohibited animal is among those that were separated. The Gemara asks: Is it possible for ten priests to take these scattered animals simultaneously? Rather, Rava says that one may not allow the animals to be sacrificed by moving them due to a decree that if this is allowed, one may, in another circumstance, allow them to be sacrificed even when they are taken from a fixed location.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讛砖转讗 讚讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讗 谞拽专讬讘 讗讬 谞拽专讬讘 诇讗 诪专爪讬 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讗 讞讟讗转 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘注讜诇讛 讜注讜诇讛 砖谞转注专讘讛 讘讞讟讗转 讗驻讬诇讜 讗讞转 讘专讬讘讜讗 讬诪讜转讜 讻讜诇谉

Rava said: Now that the Sages say in the mishna that we do not sacrifice any of the animals, if we did sacrifice one of them, the offering does not effect acceptance for the owner. Rav Huna bar Yehuda raised an objection to Rava from a mishna (Kinnim 22b): With regard to a bird sin offering that was intermingled with a bird burnt offering, or a bird burnt offering that was intermingled with a bird sin offering, even if the ratio is one in ten thousand, they all must die, as there is no remedy for these birds. It is not known which is which, and their sacrificial rites are performed differently.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讘讻讛谉 谞诪诇讱 讗讘诇 讘讻讛谉 砖讗讬谉 谞诪诇讱 注砖讗谉 诇诪注诇讛 诪讞爪讛 讻砖专 讜诪讞爪讛 驻住讜诇

The mishna continues: In what case is this statement said? In the case of a priest who consulted the court to ask how he should proceed. But in the case of a priest who did not consult the court, but sacrificed them of his own accord, if there was an equal number of bird sin offerings and burnt offerings, and he performed all their sacrificial rites above the red line that circumscribes the altar at its midpoint, as required for a burnt offering, half of the birds are fit, as in any event the burnt offerings were sacrificed properly, and half are unfit.

诇诪讟讛 诪讞爪讛 讻砖专 讜诪讞爪讛 驻住讜诇 讗讞转 诇诪讟讛 讜讗讞转 诇诪注诇讛 砖谞讬讛谉 驻住讜诇讜转 砖讗谞讬 讗讜诪专 讞讟讗转 拽专讬讘讛 诇诪注诇讛 讜注讜诇讛 拽专讬讘讛 诇诪讟讛

Likewise, if he performed all of their sacrificial rites below the red line, half are fit, as in any event the sin offerings were sacrificed properly, and half are unfit. If he performed the sacrificial rites of one of the birds below the red line and one of the birds above the red line, they are both unfit, as I say that the sin offering was sacrificed above the red line and the burnt offering was sacrificed below. This mishna proves that an offering that is prohibited to be sacrificed as part of a mixture is fit after the fact, which contradicts the statement of Rava.

讗诇讗 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 谞讚讞讬谉 讛讗 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讘注诇讬 讞讬讬诐 讗讬谞谉 谞讬讚讞讬谉

Rather, Rava would claim that this matter depends on a dispute between tanna鈥檌m. This statement of Rava is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that living creatures that become disqualified are permanently rejected from being sacrificed on the altar, and this animal was rejected when it was part of the mixture. That ruling of the mishna in Kinnim is in accordance with the opinion of the one who says that living creatures are not permanently rejected from the altar. Therefore, if the animal was sacrificed it is fit.

讛专讬 砖讞讜讟讬谉 讚诇讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 谞讬讚讞讬谉

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But there is the case of slaughtered offerings that are rejected from the altar, concerning which everyone agrees that these are rejected. Even those who say that living creatures generally are not rejected agree that, in this case, they should be rejected.

Scroll To Top