Zevachim 73
Share this shiur:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Two additional answers are offered to explain why, in the Mishna, the animal is not nullified among the others if one follows Rabbi Yochanan, who holds that only items sold exclusively by unit are not nullified in a mixture. The first answer is that the Mishna follows Rabbi Yehoshua according to Rabbi Yehuda in the case of a litra of dried figs, teaching that items sometimes sold individually are not nullified. The second answer is that live animals are considered significant and therefore cannot be nullified.
The Gemara continues to ask why animals designated for sacrifices, when intermingled with an animal forbidden for benefit, are all left to die. It suggests resolving the issue through the laws of probability: one could remove an animal at a time and assume each emerged from the majority of permitted animals. The difficulty is that, according to halakhic rules of probability, this only applies once an animal has already been separated, allowing us to presume it came from the majority. But if the animals remain fixed and one is taken directly from the group, the law treats it as either permitted or forbidden (50/50), with no majority to rely upon.
The Gemara further proposes creating a situation where the animals scatter from their fixed location, so they are no longer considered fixed, and each could then be assumed to come from the majority. Rava offers three explanations why this solution fails, the first two of which are rejected. The final answer is that, although theoretically possible, it was prohibited by decree, lest people apply the same reasoning in cases where the animals remain fixed.
Rava concludes that since the animal is not nullified by rabbinic decree, if any of the animals in the mixture are sacrificed on the altar, they do not achieve atonement, and a new sacrifice must be brought. Rav Huna raises a difficulty with this explanation based on two Mishnayot in Kinnim 1:2 and 3:1. The difficulty is resolved by explaining that Rava holds live animals and birds can be rejected from the altar, whereas the Mishna rules that they cannot.
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 sponsored by Jonathan Loring in honor of his wife, Leah Ackner and their children Zev and Meira. “From the first day I met my wife in Hebrew class at JTS to watching her show kindness when we volunteered together to help those in need and even when I had to wait 9 years for a first date, my wife has always been an inspiration to me and everyone she meets. Thank you for these 20 years and B’Ezrat Hashem to many more! I love you wifesy.”
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
Zevachim 73
כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִנְיָן – אֲפִילּוּ בִּדְרַבָּנַן לָא בָּטֵיל, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן בִּדְאוֹרָיְיתָא.
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.
דְּתַנְיָא: לִיטְרָא קְצִיעוֹת שֶׁדְּרָסָהּ עַל פִּי עִיגּוּל, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזוֹ עִיגּוּל דְּרָסָהּ; עַל פִּי חָבִית, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזוֹ חָבִית דְּרָסָהּ; עַל פִּי כַּוֶּורֶת, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזוֹ כַּוֶּורֶת דְּרָסָהּ –
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.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: רוֹאִין אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹנוֹת כְּאִילּוּ הֵן פְּרוּדוֹת, וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנוֹת מַעֲלוֹת אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹנוֹת.
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.
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אִם יֵשׁ מֵאָה פּוּמִּין – יַעֲלוּ, וְאִם לָאו – הַפּוּמִּין אֲסוּרִין וְהַשּׁוּלַיִם מוּתָּרִין.
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’s version of the dispute.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם יֵשׁ שָׁם מֵאָה פּוּמִּין – יַעֲלוּ, וְאִם לָאו – הַפּוּמִּין אֲסוּרִין וְכוּ׳.
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.
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ יֵשׁ שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה מֵאוֹת פּוּמִּין – לֹא יַעֲלוּ.
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.
דְּרָסָהּ בְּעִיגּוּל, וְאֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ בְּאֵיזֶה מְקוֹם בְּעִיגּוּל דְּרָסָהּ – אוֹ לִצְפוֹנָהּ אוֹ לִדְרוֹמָהּ, דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל יַעֲלוּ.
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 Yoḥanan’s 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.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים חֲשִׁיבִי וְלָא בָּטְלִי.
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.
וְנִמְשׁוֹךְ וְנַקְרֵב חַד מִינַּיְיהוּ, וְנֵימָא: כֹּל דְּפָרֵישׁ – מֵרוּבָּא פָּרֵישׁ! נִמְשׁוֹךְ?! הָוֵה לֵיהּ קָבוּעַ,
§ 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,
וְכׇל קָבוּעַ כְּמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה דָּמֵי! אֶלָּא נִיכְבְּשִׁינְהוּ (דְּנָיְידִי) [דְּנִינַיְידָּן], וְנֵימָא: כֹּל דְּפָרֵישׁ – מֵרוּבָּא פָּרֵישׁ!
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.
אָמַר רָבָא: הַשְׁתָּא דַּאֲמוּר רַבָּנַן לָא נִיקְרַב, גְּזֵירָה שֶׁמָּא יָבֹאוּ עֲשָׂרָה כֹּהֲנִים בְּבַת אַחַת וְיַקְרִבוּ.
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.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָהוּא מֵרַבָּנַן לְרָבָא: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, מְגִיסָא אֲסִירָא?!
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?
מִשּׁוּם שֶׁמָּא יָבֹאוּ עֲשָׂרָה כֹּהֲנִים בְּבַת אַחַת וְיִקְחוּ. בַּעֲשָׂרָה כֹּהֲנִים בְּבַת אַחַת מִי אֶפְשָׁר?! אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: מִשּׁוּם קָבוּעַ.
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.
אָמַר רָבָא: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן לָא נַקְרֵיב, אִי (נַקְרֵיב) [מַקְרֵיב] – לָא מְרַצֵּי. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה לְרָבָא: חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּעוֹלָה, וְעוֹלָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבָה בְּחַטָּאת, אֲפִילּוּ אַחַת בְּרִיבּוֹא – יָמוּתוּ כּוּלָּן.
§ 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.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – בְּכֹהֵן נִמְלָךְ; אֲבָל בְּכֹהֵן שֶׁאֵין נִמְלָךְ, עֲשָׂאָן לְמַעְלָה – מֶחֱצָה כָּשֵׁר וּמֶחֱצָה פָּסוּל.
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.
לְמַטָּה – מֶחֱצָה כָּשֵׁר וּמֶחֱצָה פָּסוּל. אַחַת לְמַטָּה וְאַחַת לְמַעְלָה – (שְׁנֵיהֶן) [שְׁתֵּיהֶן] פְּסוּלוֹת, שֶׁאֲנִי אוֹמֵר: חַטָּאת קְרֵיבָה לְמַעְלָה וְעוֹלָה קְרֵיבָה לְמַטָּה.
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.
אֶלָּא הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים נִדְחִין, הָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים אֵינָן נִידְחִין.
Rather, Rava would claim that this matter depends on a dispute between tanna’im. 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.
הֲרֵי שְׁחוּטִין – דִּלְכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא נִידְחִין;
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.
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.
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 to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
Los Angeles, 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
Minnesota, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Palo Alto, CA, United States
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
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
Jerusalem, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Zevachim 73
ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ©Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦΈΧ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧ’ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦΌ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ’Φ· ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΉ Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦΌ; Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ’Φ· ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦΌ; Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΆΦΌΧΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ’Φ· ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΆΦΌΧΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦΌ β
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.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΦΆΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅Χ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΦΆΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ.
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.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ β ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΧ β ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ²Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ.
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 Meirβs version of the dispute.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ β ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΧ β ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ²Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ³.
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.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΉΧͺ Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΌ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ’Φ· ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ€ΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΌ.
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 YoαΈ₯ananβs 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.
Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ, ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ²Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ.
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.
ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ° ΧΦ°Χ Φ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ β ΧΦ΅Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ! Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°?! ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ’Φ·,
Β§ 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,
ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ’Φ· ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ±Χ¦ΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΆΧΦ±Χ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ (ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΧΦ΄Χ) [ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ], ΧΦ°Χ Φ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ β ΧΦ΅Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ!
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΧ§Φ°Χ¨Φ·Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΌ.
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.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ‘Φ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ?!
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?
ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΉΧΧΦΌ Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨?! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ’Φ·.
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.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ Χ Φ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ (Χ Φ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ) [ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ] β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ¦Φ΅ΦΌΧ. ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ, ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ.
Β§ 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.
ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°; ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°, Χ’Φ²Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΆΧΦ±Χ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ±Χ¦ΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ.
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.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦΆΧΦ±Χ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ ΧΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ±Χ¦ΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ β (Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ) [Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΆΧ] Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ²Χ Φ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ.
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.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
Rather, Rava would claim that this matter depends on a dispute between tannaβim. 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.
ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ;
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.
