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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 27, 2018 | 讬状讚 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 75

Questions are raised regarding some of the cases in the mishna. How can there be a case of a treifa mixed in with other animals – wouldn’t the treifa be identifiable? How can聽animals designated to be sacrificed that got mixed up with others be slaughtered, doesn’t smicha聽have to be performed by the owner? A question relating to bechor is raised and an attempt to answer it is brought from our mishna.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 砖谞转注专讘 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讜拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专 砖谞转注专讘 讘拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专 讜拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讜拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专 砖谞转注专讘讜 讝讛 讘讝讛 谞讜转谉 讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 诪讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讜讗诐 谞转谉 诪转谞讛 诪讻诇 讗讞讚 讬爪讗 讜讗诐 谞转谉 讗专讘注 诪讻讜诇谉 讬爪讗

Abaye raised an objection to this from a baraita (Tosefta 8:22): With regard to the offering of an individual that was intermingled with another offering of an individual, and likewise a communal offering that was intermingled with another communal offering, or the offering of an individual and a communal offering that were intermingled with each other, the priest places four placements of blood from each and every one of them on the altar, and in this manner fulfills the obligation of the blood rites of all the offerings. But if he placed one placement from each one, he has fulfilled his obligation. And likewise, if he placed four placements from all of them together, he has fulfilled his obligation.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖谞转注专讘讜 讞讬讬谉 讗讘诇 谞转注专讘讜 砖讞讜讟讬谉 谞讜转谉 讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 诪讻讜诇谉

The baraita continues: In what case is this statement, that he places from the blood of each of the offerings ab initio, said? In a case where the offerings were intermingled when they were still alive, before they were sacrificed, and therefore the priest could perform four placements from the blood of each animal separately. But if slaughtered animals were then intermingled, i.e., their blood became mixed together in one container, the priest places four placements from all of them together, only one set of four.

讜讗诐 谞转谉 诪转谞讛 讗讞转 诪讻讜诇谉 讬爪讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛诪转谞讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛 讻讚讬 诇讝讛 讜讻讚讬 诇讝讛 讻砖专讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇讛

And in any case, if he placed one placement from all of them, he has fulfilled his obligation, as the blood of all these offerings is placed on the outer altar, and with regard to all of them one fulfills the obligation after the fact with a single placement. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One assesses the blood of the placement given from each animal; if there is enough in that blood for a placement of blood for this offering and enough for that one, it is fit, but if not, the offering is disqualified.

拽转谞讬 讬讞讬讚 讚讜诪讬讗 讚爪讬讘讜专 诪讛 爪讬讘讜专 讙讘专讬 讗祝 讬讞讬讚 讙讘专讬

The Gemara explains the difficulty: This baraita indicates that if live offerings became intermingled, each is sacrificed for its owner, despite the fact that these offerings are owned by men and therefore require placing of the hands. It is evident that the baraita is referring to offerings of men, as it teaches the case of the offering of an individual adjacent to, and therefore similar to, the case of a communal offering: Just as a communal offering is sacrificed by men, so too, the offering of an individual that is being discussed here also belongs to men. This presents a difficulty to the explanation of Rav Yosef.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜转住讘专讗 讛讗 诪转专爪转讗 讛讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖谞转注专讘讜 讞讬讬谉 讗讘诇 谞转注专讘讜 砖讞讜讟讬谉 诇讗 诪讛 诇讬 讞讬讬诐 诪讛 诇讬 砖讞讜讟讬谉

Rava says: And can you understand the baraita in this manner? Is this baraita accurate as it stands? There is another difficulty with the baraita, as it teaches: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where these offerings were intermingled when they were still alive. But if slaughtered animals were intermingled it is not said. This is problematic, as what difference is it to me whether the animals are alive or whether they are slaughtered? This is not the decisive factor, as even if the animals were slaughtered, if the blood of each is in a separate vessel the priest should perform separate placements from the blood of each.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖谞转注专讘讜 砖讞讜讟讬谉 讻注讬谉 讞讬讬诐 讘讻讜住讜转 讗讘诇 讘讘讜诇诇 谞讜转谉 讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 诇讻讜诇谉 讜讗诐 谞转谉 诪转谞讛 讗讞转 诇讻讜诇谉 讬爪讗

Rava continues: Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where these offerings were intermingled after they were slaughtered, but they were similar to living animals, i.e., the blood of each animal was in separate cups. But in a situation where the blood of these animals was mixed together in a single cup, the priest places four placements of blood from all of them. And if he placed one placement from all of them, he has fulfilled his obligation. If so, this baraita has no bearing on the issue of offerings that became intermingled while they were still alive, as it deals exclusively with the blood of animals that have been slaughtered.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛诪转谞讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛 讻讚讬 诇讝讛 讜讻讚讬 诇讝讛 讻砖专讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 驻住讜诇讛 讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

搂 The baraita cited teaches that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One assesses the blood of the placement given from each animal; if there is enough in that blood for a placement of blood for this offering and enough for that offering, it is fit, but if not, the offerings are disqualified. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hold in accordance with this line of reasoning, that there must be a minimum amount of blood placed from each offering? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Para 9:5) with regard to the water of purification into which water that is invalid for sprinkling fell that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer,

讛讝讗讛 讻诇 砖讛讬讗 诪讟讛专转 讛讝讗讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讛讝讗讛 诪讞爪讛 讻砖专 讜诪讞爪讛 驻住讜诇

a sprinkling of any amount of the water of purification on someone rendered impure by impurity imparted by a corpse purifies him from his ritual impurity, as sprinkling does not require a minimum measure to purify him. Likewise, a sprinkling of water that is half fit and half unfit for sprinkling serves to purify the individual. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that no minimum amount is required for the sprinkling of the water of purification, and the same should apply to the sprinkling of blood on the altar.

诇讚讘专讬讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽讗诪专 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讝讗讛 诇讞讜讚 讜谞转讬谞讛 诇讞讜讚

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, but he himself does not agree with this opinion. And if you wish, say instead that sprinkling of water of purification is discrete and placement of blood on the altar is discrete, i.e., these are two separate halakhot that have no bearing on each other.

谞转注专讘讜 讘讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讘讻讜专 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 诇谞讚讜转 转诪讜专转讜 诪讛讜

搂 The mishna teaches: In a case where sacrificial animals were intermingled with a firstborn offering or with an animal tithe offering, they shall graze until they become unfit for sacrifice and they shall both be eaten as a firstborn offering or as an animal tithe offering. This means that one may not sell them in the marketplace nor sell their meat by weight, so as not to degrade consecrated animals. Rami bar 岣ma says: With regard to a firstborn offering, according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, who hold (Bekhorot 33a) that even after a firstborn offering develops a blemish the priest may not eat it in a state of ritual impurity, and therefore one may not feed it to menstruating women, what is the halakha with regard to its substitute? That is, if the owner of a firstborn animal stated with regard to a non-sacred animal in his possession: This animal is a substitute for the firstborn offering, is a menstruating woman permitted to eat that substitute after it develops a blemish?

讘讻讜专 讗讬谞讜 谞驻讚讛 转诪讜专转讜 诪讛讜 讘讻讜专 讗讬谞讜 谞砖拽诇 讘诇讬讟专讗 转诪讜专转讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 转谞讬讗 讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 诪砖讛讜诪诪讜 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛 讜转诪讜专转谉 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉

Rami bar 岣ma further asks: A firstborn offering itself may not be redeemed, even after it develops a blemish, but what is the halakha with regard to redeeming its substitute? He likewise inquired: A firstborn offering itself, even after it develops a blemish, may not be weighed and sold by the litra, in the manner that non-sacred meat is sold. What is the halakha of its substitute in this regard? Rava says that an answer to these questions is taught in a baraita: With regard to a firstborn offering or an animal tithe offering, from when they develop a blemish they can be used to render another animal a substitute, and their substitute has the same status as them. Their substitutes have the same halakhot as they do.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛转驻讬住 讘讻讜专 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 诪讛讜 砖讬砖拽讜诇 讘诇讬讟专讗 专讜讜讞讗 讚讛拽讚砖 注讚讬祝 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讝讬诇讜转讗 讚讘讻讜专 注讚讬祝

Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: If the priest who received a firstborn offering dedicated the firstborn offering to the Temple maintenance, i.e., he vowed to give the value of the firstborn offering to the Temple, what is the halakha with regard to the matter that he may weigh its meat by the litra? The Gemara explains the dilemma: In this case, is consideration of the profit of the Temple treasury preferable, or perhaps avoidance of the demeaning of the firstborn offering is preferable. If the profit of the Temple treasury is preferable, the firstborn offering should be weighed in the normal manner so as to increase its price; a buyer will pay more for meat he is able to resell it afterward by exact weight. If avoidance of demeaning the firstborn offering is preferable, it should not be weighed by the litra, even though a loss to the Temple would result.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讝讘讬讚讗 转讗 砖诪注 谞转注专讘讜 讘讘讻讜专 讜讘诪注砖专 讬专注讜 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘讜 讜讬讗讻诇讜 讻讘讻讜专 讜讻诪注砖专 诇讗讜 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讗讬谞讜 谞砖拽诇 讘诇讬讟专讗

Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida says: Come and hear a proof from the ruling of the mishna: In a case where sacrificial animals were intermingled with a firstborn offering or with an animal tithe offering, they shall graze until they become unfit for sacrifice and they shall both be eaten as a firstborn offering or as an animal tithe offering. Is this not meaning to say that the sacrificial animal that became intermingled with a firstborn offering is also not weighed by the litra, despite the fact that this causes a slight loss to the Temple?

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 转诇诪讬讚讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讜砖谞讬 讙讜驻讬谉 讛讻讗 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讜讙讜祝 讗讞讚

Rav Huna and Rabbi 岣zkiyya, the students of Rabbi Yirmeya, say: Are these cases comparable? There, the mishna is referring to two separate sanctities, the sanctity of a firstborn offering and that of another offering, and two separate bodies, i.e., two different animals, and in such a case one may not degrade the sanctity of the firstborn due to the other animal with which it is intermingled. Conversely, here, with regard to one who vows to give the value of a firstborn to the Temple, there are two sanctities, a firstborn offering and the Temple maintenance, but they are both found in one body. In this case, as the sanctity of the Temple maintenance itself is in the firstborn offering, it may be weighed by the litra, because of the profit the Temple will gain.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪讛 讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 讛驻讚讜 诇讬 讘讻讜专 砖讛转驻讬住讜 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讻诇讜诐 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讛驻讚讜 专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 转驻讚讛

Rav Yosei bar Avin objects to this: What would be the halakha if one says: Redeem for me, i.e., I wish to redeem, a firstborn offering that he had previously dedicated as the object of his vow to the Temple maintenance? Does the court listen to him? His request is certainly not granted, as by Torah law a firstborn offering may not be redeemed. Similarly, the fact that he dedicated the value of the firstborn offering to the Temple should not negate the prohibition of weighing it by the litra. The Gemara questions this comparison: One cannot raise a difficulty from a case where someone says: Redeem the firstborn offering for me, as the Merciful One states with regard to a firstborn offering: 鈥淏ut the firstborn of a bull, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are sacred鈥 (Numbers 18:17). But the weighing of the offering by the litra is not prohibited by Torah law.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讻诇讜诐 讛拽谞讛 讝讛 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖拽谞讜 诇讜

Rather, the Gemara suggests a different resolution of Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 dilemma: Rabbi Ami says: Can this priest transfer to the Temple maintenance anything other than that which was transferred to him? In other words, just as the priest who took the vow may not weigh the firstborn by the litra and gain a profit, the same applies to the Temple treasury, the recipient of his vow.

讛讻诇 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讛转注专讘 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讚讛讗讬 讝讻专 讜讛讗讬 谞拽讘讛

搂 The mishna teaches: All offerings can become indistinguishably intermingled with each other, except for a sin offering and a guilt offering. The Gemara asks: What is different about a sin offering and a guilt offering, that they cannot become intermingled? Is the reason that this, a guilt offering, is always a male, and that, a sin offering, is always a female?

讞讟讗转 讜注讜诇讛 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 砖注讬专 谞砖讬讗 讛讗讬 砖讬注专 讜讛讗讬 爪诪专

The Gemara questions this explanation: A sin offering and a burnt offering are also like this, as a sin offering is always female while a burnt offering is always male. The Gemara answers that although the standard sin offering is always female, there is the goat of the Nasi, which is a male sin offering, and therefore it can become intermingled with a male goat burnt offering. And as to the statement of the mishna that a sin offering cannot become intermingled with a guilt offering despite the male sin offering of the Nasi, that is because this goat has straight hair and that guilt offering comes only from sheep or rams, which have wool, and the wool is curly.

驻住讞 讜讗砖诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬注专讘 讛讗讬 讘谉 砖谞讛 讜讛讗讬 讘谉 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讘谉 砖谞讛 讚诪讬讞讝讬 讻讘谉 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬讻讗 讘谉 砖转讬诐 讚诪讬讞讝讬 讻讘谉 砖谞讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: A Paschal offering and a guilt offering also cannot become intermingled, as this Paschal offering is in its first year, and that guilt offering is in its second year. The Gemara answers that there is the guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper, which must be in their first year. And if you wish, say instead that an animal in its first year can become intermingled with an animal in its second year, as there is an animal in its first year that looks like an animal in its second year, and likewise there is an animal in its second year that looks like an animal in its first year.

诪转谞讬壮 讗砖诐 砖谞转注专讘 讘砖诇诪讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬讛诐 讬砖讞讟讜 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讬讗讻诇讜 讻讞诪讜专 砖讘讛谉

MISHNA: In the case of a guilt offering that was intermingled with a peace offering, Rabbi Shimon says: Both of them should be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, as a guilt offering must be slaughtered in the north while a peace offering may be slaughtered anywhere in the courtyard. And they both must be eaten in accordance with the halakha of the more stringent of them, i.e., the guilt offering, with the following halakhot: They may be eaten only in the courtyard rather than throughout Jerusalem; by male priests and not by any ritually pure Jew; and on the day they were sacrificed and the following night, and not on the day they were sacrificed, the following day, and the intervening night.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讘讬转 讛驻住讜诇

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: One may not limit the time of the consumption of an offering, as one may not bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness. According to Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion, the peace offering becomes leftover, notar, the morning after it is sacrificed, and not at the end of that day, as is the halakha concerning peace offerings. Rather, the owner shall wait until these animals become blemished, redeem them, and bring an offering of each type that is worth the monetary value of the higher-quality animal among them.

谞转注专讘讜 讞转讬讻讜转 讘讞转讬讻讜转 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讛谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讬讗讻诇讜 讻讞诪讜专 砖讘讛谉

The mishna adds: Even according to the opinion of the Rabbis, if pieces of the meat of one offering were intermingled with pieces of the meat of another offering, e.g., meat from offerings of the most sacred order with meat from offerings of lesser sanctity; or if pieces of meat from offerings eaten for one day and the following night were intermingled with pieces of meat from offerings eaten for two days and one night, since in that case the remedy with regard to offerings that were intermingled cannot be implemented, they both must be eaten in accordance with the halakha of the more stringent of them.

讙诪壮 转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 讘讚诪讬讛 转专讜诪讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪诪注讟讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇转讛

GEMARA: In connection to the principle cited by the Rabbis in the mishna that one may not bring consecrated animals to the status of unfitness, a tanna taught a baraita (Tosefta, Shevi鈥檌t 6:29) before Rav: With regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year, one may not purchase produce of teruma from a previous year with its money, i.e., money received in its sale, because one thereby reduces the time of eating the teruma. The produce of the Sabbatical Year may be eaten only until the time of the removal of that type of produce from the field, whereas teruma may be consumed at any time.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 (讚专讘讗) [讚专讘讛] 讛讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讘讬转 讛驻住讜诇

The Sages said this baraita before Rabba, and they explained that this baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the mishna. Their reasoning was that if you would say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, doesn鈥檛 he say, as can be inferred from the mishna, that one may bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness? Similarly, one can limit the time allowed for the consumption of the Sabbatical Year produce.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪专讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讬注讘讚 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 讜诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬

Rabba said to them: You may even say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. That statement, that one may bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness, applies only in a case that is after the fact, as in the mishna, where offerings became intermingled. Rabbi Shimon did not permit one to bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness ab initio. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon not permit one to bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness ab initio? Abaye raised an objection to Rabba from a mishna that discusses the manner of eating the meat of offerings (Zevachim 90b):

  • 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 75

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 75

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬 拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 砖谞转注专讘 讘拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讜拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专 砖谞转注专讘 讘拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专 讜拽专讘谉 讬讞讬讚 讜拽专讘谉 爪讬讘讜专 砖谞转注专讘讜 讝讛 讘讝讛 谞讜转谉 讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 诪讻诇 讗讞讚 讜讗讞讚 讜讗诐 谞转谉 诪转谞讛 诪讻诇 讗讞讚 讬爪讗 讜讗诐 谞转谉 讗专讘注 诪讻讜诇谉 讬爪讗

Abaye raised an objection to this from a baraita (Tosefta 8:22): With regard to the offering of an individual that was intermingled with another offering of an individual, and likewise a communal offering that was intermingled with another communal offering, or the offering of an individual and a communal offering that were intermingled with each other, the priest places four placements of blood from each and every one of them on the altar, and in this manner fulfills the obligation of the blood rites of all the offerings. But if he placed one placement from each one, he has fulfilled his obligation. And likewise, if he placed four placements from all of them together, he has fulfilled his obligation.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖谞转注专讘讜 讞讬讬谉 讗讘诇 谞转注专讘讜 砖讞讜讟讬谉 谞讜转谉 讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 诪讻讜诇谉

The baraita continues: In what case is this statement, that he places from the blood of each of the offerings ab initio, said? In a case where the offerings were intermingled when they were still alive, before they were sacrificed, and therefore the priest could perform four placements from the blood of each animal separately. But if slaughtered animals were then intermingled, i.e., their blood became mixed together in one container, the priest places four placements from all of them together, only one set of four.

讜讗诐 谞转谉 诪转谞讛 讗讞转 诪讻讜诇谉 讬爪讗 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛诪转谞讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛 讻讚讬 诇讝讛 讜讻讚讬 诇讝讛 讻砖专讛 讜讗诐 诇讗讜 驻住讜诇讛

And in any case, if he placed one placement from all of them, he has fulfilled his obligation, as the blood of all these offerings is placed on the outer altar, and with regard to all of them one fulfills the obligation after the fact with a single placement. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One assesses the blood of the placement given from each animal; if there is enough in that blood for a placement of blood for this offering and enough for that one, it is fit, but if not, the offering is disqualified.

拽转谞讬 讬讞讬讚 讚讜诪讬讗 讚爪讬讘讜专 诪讛 爪讬讘讜专 讙讘专讬 讗祝 讬讞讬讚 讙讘专讬

The Gemara explains the difficulty: This baraita indicates that if live offerings became intermingled, each is sacrificed for its owner, despite the fact that these offerings are owned by men and therefore require placing of the hands. It is evident that the baraita is referring to offerings of men, as it teaches the case of the offering of an individual adjacent to, and therefore similar to, the case of a communal offering: Just as a communal offering is sacrificed by men, so too, the offering of an individual that is being discussed here also belongs to men. This presents a difficulty to the explanation of Rav Yosef.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜转住讘专讗 讛讗 诪转专爪转讗 讛讬讗 讚拽转谞讬 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 讻砖谞转注专讘讜 讞讬讬谉 讗讘诇 谞转注专讘讜 砖讞讜讟讬谉 诇讗 诪讛 诇讬 讞讬讬诐 诪讛 诇讬 砖讞讜讟讬谉

Rava says: And can you understand the baraita in this manner? Is this baraita accurate as it stands? There is another difficulty with the baraita, as it teaches: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where these offerings were intermingled when they were still alive. But if slaughtered animals were intermingled it is not said. This is problematic, as what difference is it to me whether the animals are alive or whether they are slaughtered? This is not the decisive factor, as even if the animals were slaughtered, if the blood of each is in a separate vessel the priest should perform separate placements from the blood of each.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 砖谞转注专讘讜 砖讞讜讟讬谉 讻注讬谉 讞讬讬诐 讘讻讜住讜转 讗讘诇 讘讘讜诇诇 谞讜转谉 讗专讘注 诪转谞讜转 诇讻讜诇谉 讜讗诐 谞转谉 诪转谞讛 讗讞转 诇讻讜诇谉 讬爪讗

Rava continues: Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: In what case is this statement said? It is said in a case where these offerings were intermingled after they were slaughtered, but they were similar to living animals, i.e., the blood of each animal was in separate cups. But in a situation where the blood of these animals was mixed together in a single cup, the priest places four placements of blood from all of them. And if he placed one placement from all of them, he has fulfilled his obligation. If so, this baraita has no bearing on the issue of offerings that became intermingled while they were still alive, as it deals exclusively with the blood of animals that have been slaughtered.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 专讜讗讬谉 讗转 讛诪转谞讛 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛 讻讚讬 诇讝讛 讜讻讚讬 诇讝讛 讻砖专讛 讜讗诐 诇讗 驻住讜诇讛 讜诪讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讛讗讬 住讘专讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专

搂 The baraita cited teaches that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One assesses the blood of the placement given from each animal; if there is enough in that blood for a placement of blood for this offering and enough for that offering, it is fit, but if not, the offerings are disqualified. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi hold in accordance with this line of reasoning, that there must be a minimum amount of blood placed from each offering? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Para 9:5) with regard to the water of purification into which water that is invalid for sprinkling fell that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: According to the statement of Rabbi Eliezer,

讛讝讗讛 讻诇 砖讛讬讗 诪讟讛专转 讛讝讗讛 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 砖讬注讜专 讛讝讗讛 诪讞爪讛 讻砖专 讜诪讞爪讛 驻住讜诇

a sprinkling of any amount of the water of purification on someone rendered impure by impurity imparted by a corpse purifies him from his ritual impurity, as sprinkling does not require a minimum measure to purify him. Likewise, a sprinkling of water that is half fit and half unfit for sprinkling serves to purify the individual. Evidently, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi maintains that no minimum amount is required for the sprinkling of the water of purification, and the same should apply to the sprinkling of blood on the altar.

诇讚讘专讬讜 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 拽讗诪专 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讝讗讛 诇讞讜讚 讜谞转讬谞讛 诇讞讜讚

The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi stated his opinion in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, but he himself does not agree with this opinion. And if you wish, say instead that sprinkling of water of purification is discrete and placement of blood on the altar is discrete, i.e., these are two separate halakhot that have no bearing on each other.

谞转注专讘讜 讘讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讘讻讜专 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 诇谞讚讜转 转诪讜专转讜 诪讛讜

搂 The mishna teaches: In a case where sacrificial animals were intermingled with a firstborn offering or with an animal tithe offering, they shall graze until they become unfit for sacrifice and they shall both be eaten as a firstborn offering or as an animal tithe offering. This means that one may not sell them in the marketplace nor sell their meat by weight, so as not to degrade consecrated animals. Rami bar 岣ma says: With regard to a firstborn offering, according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, who hold (Bekhorot 33a) that even after a firstborn offering develops a blemish the priest may not eat it in a state of ritual impurity, and therefore one may not feed it to menstruating women, what is the halakha with regard to its substitute? That is, if the owner of a firstborn animal stated with regard to a non-sacred animal in his possession: This animal is a substitute for the firstborn offering, is a menstruating woman permitted to eat that substitute after it develops a blemish?

讘讻讜专 讗讬谞讜 谞驻讚讛 转诪讜专转讜 诪讛讜 讘讻讜专 讗讬谞讜 谞砖拽诇 讘诇讬讟专讗 转诪讜专转讜 诪讛讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 转谞讬讗 讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 诪砖讛讜诪诪讜 注讜砖讬谉 转诪讜专讛 讜转诪讜专转谉 讻讬讜爪讗 讘讛谉

Rami bar 岣ma further asks: A firstborn offering itself may not be redeemed, even after it develops a blemish, but what is the halakha with regard to redeeming its substitute? He likewise inquired: A firstborn offering itself, even after it develops a blemish, may not be weighed and sold by the litra, in the manner that non-sacred meat is sold. What is the halakha of its substitute in this regard? Rava says that an answer to these questions is taught in a baraita: With regard to a firstborn offering or an animal tithe offering, from when they develop a blemish they can be used to render another animal a substitute, and their substitute has the same status as them. Their substitutes have the same halakhot as they do.

讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讛转驻讬住 讘讻讜专 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 诪讛讜 砖讬砖拽讜诇 讘诇讬讟专讗 专讜讜讞讗 讚讛拽讚砖 注讚讬祝 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讝讬诇讜转讗 讚讘讻讜专 注讚讬祝

Rami bar 岣ma raises a dilemma: If the priest who received a firstborn offering dedicated the firstborn offering to the Temple maintenance, i.e., he vowed to give the value of the firstborn offering to the Temple, what is the halakha with regard to the matter that he may weigh its meat by the litra? The Gemara explains the dilemma: In this case, is consideration of the profit of the Temple treasury preferable, or perhaps avoidance of the demeaning of the firstborn offering is preferable. If the profit of the Temple treasury is preferable, the firstborn offering should be weighed in the normal manner so as to increase its price; a buyer will pay more for meat he is able to resell it afterward by exact weight. If avoidance of demeaning the firstborn offering is preferable, it should not be weighed by the litra, even though a loss to the Temple would result.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讝讘讬讚讗 转讗 砖诪注 谞转注专讘讜 讘讘讻讜专 讜讘诪注砖专 讬专注讜 注讚 砖讬住转讗讘讜 讜讬讗讻诇讜 讻讘讻讜专 讜讻诪注砖专 诇讗讜 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚讗讬谞讜 谞砖拽诇 讘诇讬讟专讗

Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida says: Come and hear a proof from the ruling of the mishna: In a case where sacrificial animals were intermingled with a firstborn offering or with an animal tithe offering, they shall graze until they become unfit for sacrifice and they shall both be eaten as a firstborn offering or as an animal tithe offering. Is this not meaning to say that the sacrificial animal that became intermingled with a firstborn offering is also not weighed by the litra, despite the fact that this causes a slight loss to the Temple?

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘讬 讞讝拽讬讛 转诇诪讬讚讬 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讗诪专讬 诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讜砖谞讬 讙讜驻讬谉 讛讻讗 砖转讬 拽讚讜砖讜转 讜讙讜祝 讗讞讚

Rav Huna and Rabbi 岣zkiyya, the students of Rabbi Yirmeya, say: Are these cases comparable? There, the mishna is referring to two separate sanctities, the sanctity of a firstborn offering and that of another offering, and two separate bodies, i.e., two different animals, and in such a case one may not degrade the sanctity of the firstborn due to the other animal with which it is intermingled. Conversely, here, with regard to one who vows to give the value of a firstborn to the Temple, there are two sanctities, a firstborn offering and the Temple maintenance, but they are both found in one body. In this case, as the sanctity of the Temple maintenance itself is in the firstborn offering, it may be weighed by the litra, because of the profit the Temple will gain.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专 讗讘讬谉 诪讛 讗讬诇讜 讗诪专 讛驻讚讜 诇讬 讘讻讜专 砖讛转驻讬住讜 诇讘讚拽 讛讘讬转 讻诇讜诐 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 讛驻讚讜 专讞诪谞讗 讗诪专 诇讗 转驻讚讛

Rav Yosei bar Avin objects to this: What would be the halakha if one says: Redeem for me, i.e., I wish to redeem, a firstborn offering that he had previously dedicated as the object of his vow to the Temple maintenance? Does the court listen to him? His request is certainly not granted, as by Torah law a firstborn offering may not be redeemed. Similarly, the fact that he dedicated the value of the firstborn offering to the Temple should not negate the prohibition of weighing it by the litra. The Gemara questions this comparison: One cannot raise a difficulty from a case where someone says: Redeem the firstborn offering for me, as the Merciful One states with regard to a firstborn offering: 鈥淏ut the firstborn of a bull, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are sacred鈥 (Numbers 18:17). But the weighing of the offering by the litra is not prohibited by Torah law.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讻诇讜诐 讛拽谞讛 讝讛 讗诇讗 诪讛 砖拽谞讜 诇讜

Rather, the Gemara suggests a different resolution of Rami bar 岣ma鈥檚 dilemma: Rabbi Ami says: Can this priest transfer to the Temple maintenance anything other than that which was transferred to him? In other words, just as the priest who took the vow may not weigh the firstborn by the litra and gain a profit, the same applies to the Temple treasury, the recipient of his vow.

讛讻诇 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇讛转注专讘 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讚讛讗讬 讝讻专 讜讛讗讬 谞拽讘讛

搂 The mishna teaches: All offerings can become indistinguishably intermingled with each other, except for a sin offering and a guilt offering. The Gemara asks: What is different about a sin offering and a guilt offering, that they cannot become intermingled? Is the reason that this, a guilt offering, is always a male, and that, a sin offering, is always a female?

讞讟讗转 讜注讜诇讛 谞诪讬 讗讬讻讗 砖注讬专 谞砖讬讗 讛讗讬 砖讬注专 讜讛讗讬 爪诪专

The Gemara questions this explanation: A sin offering and a burnt offering are also like this, as a sin offering is always female while a burnt offering is always male. The Gemara answers that although the standard sin offering is always female, there is the goat of the Nasi, which is a male sin offering, and therefore it can become intermingled with a male goat burnt offering. And as to the statement of the mishna that a sin offering cannot become intermingled with a guilt offering despite the male sin offering of the Nasi, that is because this goat has straight hair and that guilt offering comes only from sheep or rams, which have wool, and the wool is curly.

驻住讞 讜讗砖诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 诪讬注专讘 讛讗讬 讘谉 砖谞讛 讜讛讗讬 讘谉 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讗讬讻讗 讗砖诐 谞讝讬专 讜讗砖诐 诪爪讜专注 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讗讬讻讗 讘谉 砖谞讛 讚诪讬讞讝讬 讻讘谉 砖转讬 砖谞讬诐 讜讗讬讻讗 讘谉 砖转讬诐 讚诪讬讞讝讬 讻讘谉 砖谞讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: A Paschal offering and a guilt offering also cannot become intermingled, as this Paschal offering is in its first year, and that guilt offering is in its second year. The Gemara answers that there is the guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper, which must be in their first year. And if you wish, say instead that an animal in its first year can become intermingled with an animal in its second year, as there is an animal in its first year that looks like an animal in its second year, and likewise there is an animal in its second year that looks like an animal in its first year.

诪转谞讬壮 讗砖诐 砖谞转注专讘 讘砖诇诪讬诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖谞讬讛诐 讬砖讞讟讜 讘爪驻讜谉 讜讬讗讻诇讜 讻讞诪讜专 砖讘讛谉

MISHNA: In the case of a guilt offering that was intermingled with a peace offering, Rabbi Shimon says: Both of them should be slaughtered in the north of the Temple courtyard, as a guilt offering must be slaughtered in the north while a peace offering may be slaughtered anywhere in the courtyard. And they both must be eaten in accordance with the halakha of the more stringent of them, i.e., the guilt offering, with the following halakhot: They may be eaten only in the courtyard rather than throughout Jerusalem; by male priests and not by any ritually pure Jew; and on the day they were sacrificed and the following night, and not on the day they were sacrificed, the following day, and the intervening night.

讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讘讬转 讛驻住讜诇

The Rabbis said to Rabbi Shimon: One may not limit the time of the consumption of an offering, as one may not bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness. According to Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 opinion, the peace offering becomes leftover, notar, the morning after it is sacrificed, and not at the end of that day, as is the halakha concerning peace offerings. Rather, the owner shall wait until these animals become blemished, redeem them, and bring an offering of each type that is worth the monetary value of the higher-quality animal among them.

谞转注专讘讜 讞转讬讻讜转 讘讞转讬讻讜转 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讛谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘谞讗讻诇讬谉 诇砖谞讬 讬诪讬诐 讜诇讬诇讛 讬讗讻诇讜 讻讞诪讜专 砖讘讛谉

The mishna adds: Even according to the opinion of the Rabbis, if pieces of the meat of one offering were intermingled with pieces of the meat of another offering, e.g., meat from offerings of the most sacred order with meat from offerings of lesser sanctity; or if pieces of meat from offerings eaten for one day and the following night were intermingled with pieces of meat from offerings eaten for two days and one night, since in that case the remedy with regard to offerings that were intermingled cannot be implemented, they both must be eaten in accordance with the halakha of the more stringent of them.

讙诪壮 转谞讬 转谞讗 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖讘讬注讬转 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 讘讚诪讬讛 转专讜诪讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪诪注讟讬谉 讘讗讻讬诇转讛

GEMARA: In connection to the principle cited by the Rabbis in the mishna that one may not bring consecrated animals to the status of unfitness, a tanna taught a baraita (Tosefta, Shevi鈥檌t 6:29) before Rav: With regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year, one may not purchase produce of teruma from a previous year with its money, i.e., money received in its sale, because one thereby reduces the time of eating the teruma. The produce of the Sabbatical Year may be eaten only until the time of the removal of that type of produce from the field, whereas teruma may be consumed at any time.

讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 (讚专讘讗) [讚专讘讛] 讛讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚讗讬 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讗诪专 诪讘讬讗讬谉 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讘讬转 讛驻住讜诇

The Sages said this baraita before Rabba, and they explained that this baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon in the mishna. Their reasoning was that if you would say it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, doesn鈥檛 he say, as can be inferred from the mishna, that one may bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness? Similarly, one can limit the time allowed for the consumption of the Sabbatical Year produce.

讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪专讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讚讗讬注讘讚 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 讜诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讗 讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讘讬讬

Rabba said to them: You may even say that the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. That statement, that one may bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness, applies only in a case that is after the fact, as in the mishna, where offerings became intermingled. Rabbi Shimon did not permit one to bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness ab initio. The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon not permit one to bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness ab initio? Abaye raised an objection to Rabba from a mishna that discusses the manner of eating the meat of offerings (Zevachim 90b):

Scroll To Top