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 week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
If sacrifices of the same type become intermingled, the Mishna rules that they are offered for “whichever owner they belong to.” However, in cases where smicha is required, how can the sacrifice be brought, since one cannot perform smicha on another’s offering? Rav Yosef explains that the Mishna must be referring to women, who are not obligated in smicha. Men’s sacrifices, by contrast, would not be offered; instead, they would be left to graze until they developed a blemish and then sold, with new animals purchased for the altar. Abaye raises a difficulty from a braita that discusses public and individual sacrifices that became mixed both before and after slaughter and were nevertheless offered. Since public sacrifices are brought by men, the braita must also be referring to individual sacrifices brought by men. Rava resolves this by reinterpreting the braita, noting a difficulty in its plain reading. He explains that it refers only to a case where the blood of the animals was mixed after slaughter, and not to intermingling of live animals.
In the braita cited by Abaye, Rebbi rules that if the blood of two animals was mixed in one cup, the kohen may combine the sprinkling for both sacrifices, but only if there is enough blood for each. A difficulty is raised against Rebbi from another braita in which he quotes Rabbi Eliezer regarding the red heifer purification waters, where no minimum amount is required for sprinkling. The same should apply to blood. Two answers are offered: either the purification waters differ from blood, or Rebbi was not stating his own view but merely quoting Rabbi Eliezer.
Rami bar Hama poses two questions concerning a firstborn animal that became blemished. Rabbi Yosi bar Zevida attempts to answer from the Mishna about firstborns intermingled with other sacrifices, but his answer is rejected.
The Mishna states that only sin and guilt offerings cannot be intermingled, since their differences are identifiable. The Gemara considers whether other offerings might also fall into this category, but all such suggestions are rejected.
If a guilt offering becomes mixed with a peace offering, they are offered according to the stricter requirements of the two. This could potentially cause sanctified items to be disqualified. Rabbi Shimon does not have an issue with this, but the rabbis disagree and do not allow it. Rava limits Rabbi Shimon’s ruling to a post facto situation and does not permit it ab initio.
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 week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her father, Shragai Cohen, Shraga Feivel ben Avraham Benzion HaLevi on his 23rd yahrzeit. “His mischievous smile, quick humor, dedication of heart and soul to family and Israel (though not always in that order), and amazing wisdom are sorely missed.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Dianne Kuchar. “I’m so happy and grateful being here in Israel learning in real time together with my dafferettes and Rabbanit Michelle. How the years have flown.”
Zevachim 75
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, וְקׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּקׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר, וְקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד וְקׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ זֶה בָּזֶה – נוֹתֵן אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת מִכׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. וְאִם נָתַן מַתָּנָה מִכׇּל אֶחָד – יָצָא, וְאִם נָתַן אַרְבַּע מִכּוּלָּן – יָצָא.
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.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ חַיִּין, אֲבָל נִתְעָרְבוּ שְׁחוּטִין – נוֹתֵן אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת מִכּוּלָּן.
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.
וְאִם נָתַן מַתָּנָה אַחַת מִכּוּלָּן – יָצָא. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: רוֹאִין אֶת הַמַּתָּנָה; אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי לָזֶה וּכְדֵי לָזֶה – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאִם לָאו – פְּסוּלָה.
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.
קָתָנֵי יָחִיד דּוּמְיָא דְּצִיבּוּר – מָה צִיבּוּר גַּבְרֵי, אַף יָחִיד גַּבְרֵי.
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.
אָמַר רָבָא: וְתִסְבְּרָא הָא מְתָרַצְתָּא הִיא?! דְּקָתָנֵי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – כְּשֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ חַיִּין, אֲבָל נִתְעָרְבוּ שְׁחוּטִין – לָא. מָה לִי חַיִּים מָה לִי שְׁחוּטִין?
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.
אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ שְׁחוּטִין כְּעֵין חַיִּים, בְּכוֹסוֹת; אֲבָל בְּבוֹלֵל – נוֹתֵן אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת לְכוּלָּן. וְאִם נָתַן מַתָּנָה אַחַת לְכוּלָּן – יָצָא.
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.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: רוֹאִין אֶת הַמַּתָּנָה; אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי לָזֶה וּכְדֵי לָזֶה – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאִם לָא – פְּסוּלָה. וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי הַאי סְבָרָא?! וְהָא תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר,
§ 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’t 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,
הַזָּאָה כֹּל שֶׁהִיא – מְטַהֶרֶת; הַזָּאָה אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר; הַזָּאָה מֶחֱצָה כָּשֵׁר וּמֶחֱצָה פָּסוּל!
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.
לִדְבָרָיו דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר קָאָמַר. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הַזָּאָה לְחוּד וּנְתִינָה לְחוּד.
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.
נִתְעָרְבוּ בִּבְכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר כּוּ׳. אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: בְּכוֹר לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי – אֵין מַאֲכִילִין לְנִדּוֹת; תְּמוּרָתוֹ מַהוּ?
§ 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 Ḥama 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?
בְּכוֹר אֵינוֹ נִפְדֶּה; תְּמוּרָתוֹ מַהוּ? בְּכוֹר אֵינוֹ נִשְׁקָל בְּלִיטְרָא; תְּמוּרָתוֹ מַהוּ? אָמַר רָבָא, תַּנְיָא: בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר מִשֶּׁהוּמְמוּ – עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, וּתְמוּרָתָן כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהֶן.
Rami bar Ḥama 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.
בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הִתְפִּיס בְּכוֹר לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּשְׁקוֹל בְּלִיטְרָא? רַוְוחָא דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ עֲדִיף, אוֹ דִלְמָא זִילוּתָא דִּבְכוֹר עָדִיף?
Rami bar Ḥama 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 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר זְבִידָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: נִתְעָרְבוּ בִּבְכוֹר וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר – יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיֵאָכְלוּ כִּבְכוֹר וּכְמַעֲשֵׂר. לָאו לְמֵימְרָא דְּאֵינוֹ נִשְׁקָל בְּלִיטְרָא?
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?
רַב הוּנָא וְרַבִּי חִזְקִיָּה תַּלְמִידֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמְרִי: מִי דָּמֵי?! הָתָם שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת וּשְׁנֵי גּוּפִין, הָכָא שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת וְגוּף אֶחָד.
Rav Huna and Rabbi Ḥizkiyya, 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.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין, מָה אִילּוּ אָמַר: ״הַפְדּוּ לִי בְּכוֹר שֶׁהִתְפִּיסוֹ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת״ – כְּלוּם שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ?! ״הַפְדּוּ״?! רַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״לֹא תִפְדֶּה״!
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: “But the firstborn of a bull, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are sacred” (Numbers 18:17). But the weighing of the offering by the litra is not prohibited by Torah law.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: כְּלוּם הִקְנָה זֶה – אֶלָּא מַה (שקנו) [שֶּׁקָּנוּי] לוֹ!
Rather, the Gemara suggests a different resolution of Rami bar Ḥama’s 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.
הַכֹּל יְכוֹלִין לְהִתְעָרֵב כּוּ׳. מַאי שְׁנָא חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם – דְּהַאי זָכָר וְהַאי נְקֵבָה;
§ 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?
חַטָּאת וְעוֹלָה נָמֵי! אִיכָּא שְׂעִיר נָשִׂיא; הַאי שֵׂיעָר וְהַאי צֶמֶר.
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.
פֶּסַח וְאָשָׁם נָמֵי לָא מִיעָרַב – הַאי בֶּן שָׁנָה וְהַאי בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים! אִיכָּא אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִיכָּא בֶּן שָׁנָה דְּמִיחֲזֵי כְּבֶן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, וְאִיכָּא בֶּן שְׁתַּיִם דְּמִיחֲזֵי כְּבֶן שָׁנָה.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בִּשְׁלָמִים – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵיהֶם יִשָּׁחֲטוּ בַּצָּפוֹן, וְיֵאָכְלוּ כֶּחָמוּר שֶׁבָּהֶן.
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.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֵין מְבִיאִין קָדָשִׁים לְבֵית הַפְּסוּל.
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’s 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 Rabbis hold, 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.
נִתְעָרְבוּ חֲתִיכוֹת בַּחֲתִיכוֹת – קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, הַנֶּאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד בְּנֶאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה – יֵאָכְלוּ כֶּחָמוּר שֶׁבָּהֶן.
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.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב: שְׁבִיעִית אֵין לוֹקְחִין בְּדָמֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּמַעֲטִין בַּאֲכִילָתָהּ.
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’it 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.
אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ (דְּרָבָא) [דְּרַבָּה]: הָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן; דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָאָמַר: מְבִיאִין קָדָשִׁים לְבֵית הַפְּסוּל!
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’t 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.
אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימְרוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאִיעֲבַד, לְכִתְחִילָּה לָא. וּלְכִתְחִילָּה לָא?! אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי:
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):
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.
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.
Ontario, Canada
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
Raanana, Israel
Minnesota, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
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
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
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
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, 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
Zevachim 75
אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, וְקׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּקׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר, וְקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד וְקׇרְבַּן צִיבּוּר שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ זֶה בָּזֶה – נוֹתֵן אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת מִכׇּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד. וְאִם נָתַן מַתָּנָה מִכׇּל אֶחָד – יָצָא, וְאִם נָתַן אַרְבַּע מִכּוּלָּן – יָצָא.
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.
בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ חַיִּין, אֲבָל נִתְעָרְבוּ שְׁחוּטִין – נוֹתֵן אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת מִכּוּלָּן.
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.
וְאִם נָתַן מַתָּנָה אַחַת מִכּוּלָּן – יָצָא. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: רוֹאִין אֶת הַמַּתָּנָה; אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי לָזֶה וּכְדֵי לָזֶה – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאִם לָאו – פְּסוּלָה.
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.
קָתָנֵי יָחִיד דּוּמְיָא דְּצִיבּוּר – מָה צִיבּוּר גַּבְרֵי, אַף יָחִיד גַּבְרֵי.
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.
אָמַר רָבָא: וְתִסְבְּרָא הָא מְתָרַצְתָּא הִיא?! דְּקָתָנֵי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – כְּשֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ חַיִּין, אֲבָל נִתְעָרְבוּ שְׁחוּטִין – לָא. מָה לִי חַיִּים מָה לִי שְׁחוּטִין?
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.
אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים – שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ שְׁחוּטִין כְּעֵין חַיִּים, בְּכוֹסוֹת; אֲבָל בְּבוֹלֵל – נוֹתֵן אַרְבַּע מַתָּנוֹת לְכוּלָּן. וְאִם נָתַן מַתָּנָה אַחַת לְכוּלָּן – יָצָא.
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.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: רוֹאִין אֶת הַמַּתָּנָה; אִם יֵשׁ בָּהּ כְּדֵי לָזֶה וּכְדֵי לָזֶה – כְּשֵׁרָה, וְאִם לָא – פְּסוּלָה. וּמִי אִית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי הַאי סְבָרָא?! וְהָא תַּנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר,
§ 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’t 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,
הַזָּאָה כֹּל שֶׁהִיא – מְטַהֶרֶת; הַזָּאָה אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה שִׁיעוּר; הַזָּאָה מֶחֱצָה כָּשֵׁר וּמֶחֱצָה פָּסוּל!
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.
לִדְבָרָיו דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר קָאָמַר. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הַזָּאָה לְחוּד וּנְתִינָה לְחוּד.
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.
נִתְעָרְבוּ בִּבְכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר כּוּ׳. אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: בְּכוֹר לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי – אֵין מַאֲכִילִין לְנִדּוֹת; תְּמוּרָתוֹ מַהוּ?
§ 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 Ḥama 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?
בְּכוֹר אֵינוֹ נִפְדֶּה; תְּמוּרָתוֹ מַהוּ? בְּכוֹר אֵינוֹ נִשְׁקָל בְּלִיטְרָא; תְּמוּרָתוֹ מַהוּ? אָמַר רָבָא, תַּנְיָא: בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר מִשֶּׁהוּמְמוּ – עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, וּתְמוּרָתָן כְּיוֹצֵא בָּהֶן.
Rami bar Ḥama 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.
בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: הִתְפִּיס בְּכוֹר לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת, מַהוּ שֶׁיִּשְׁקוֹל בְּלִיטְרָא? רַוְוחָא דְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ עֲדִיף, אוֹ דִלְמָא זִילוּתָא דִּבְכוֹר עָדִיף?
Rami bar Ḥama 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 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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר זְבִידָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: נִתְעָרְבוּ בִּבְכוֹר וּבְמַעֲשֵׂר – יִרְעוּ עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֲבוּ, וְיֵאָכְלוּ כִּבְכוֹר וּכְמַעֲשֵׂר. לָאו לְמֵימְרָא דְּאֵינוֹ נִשְׁקָל בְּלִיטְרָא?
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?
רַב הוּנָא וְרַבִּי חִזְקִיָּה תַּלְמִידֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמְרִי: מִי דָּמֵי?! הָתָם שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת וּשְׁנֵי גּוּפִין, הָכָא שְׁתֵּי קְדוּשּׁוֹת וְגוּף אֶחָד.
Rav Huna and Rabbi Ḥizkiyya, 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.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין, מָה אִילּוּ אָמַר: ״הַפְדּוּ לִי בְּכוֹר שֶׁהִתְפִּיסוֹ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת״ – כְּלוּם שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ?! ״הַפְדּוּ״?! רַחֲמָנָא אָמַר: ״לֹא תִפְדֶּה״!
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: “But the firstborn of a bull, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are sacred” (Numbers 18:17). But the weighing of the offering by the litra is not prohibited by Torah law.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: כְּלוּם הִקְנָה זֶה – אֶלָּא מַה (שקנו) [שֶּׁקָּנוּי] לוֹ!
Rather, the Gemara suggests a different resolution of Rami bar Ḥama’s 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.
הַכֹּל יְכוֹלִין לְהִתְעָרֵב כּוּ׳. מַאי שְׁנָא חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם – דְּהַאי זָכָר וְהַאי נְקֵבָה;
§ 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?
חַטָּאת וְעוֹלָה נָמֵי! אִיכָּא שְׂעִיר נָשִׂיא; הַאי שֵׂיעָר וְהַאי צֶמֶר.
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.
פֶּסַח וְאָשָׁם נָמֵי לָא מִיעָרַב – הַאי בֶּן שָׁנָה וְהַאי בֶּן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים! אִיכָּא אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אִיכָּא בֶּן שָׁנָה דְּמִיחֲזֵי כְּבֶן שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים, וְאִיכָּא בֶּן שְׁתַּיִם דְּמִיחֲזֵי כְּבֶן שָׁנָה.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בִּשְׁלָמִים – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: שְׁנֵיהֶם יִשָּׁחֲטוּ בַּצָּפוֹן, וְיֵאָכְלוּ כֶּחָמוּר שֶׁבָּהֶן.
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.
אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֵין מְבִיאִין קָדָשִׁים לְבֵית הַפְּסוּל.
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’s 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 Rabbis hold, 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.
נִתְעָרְבוּ חֲתִיכוֹת בַּחֲתִיכוֹת – קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, הַנֶּאֱכָלִין לְיוֹם אֶחָד בְּנֶאֱכָלִין לִשְׁנֵי יָמִים וְלַיְלָה – יֵאָכְלוּ כֶּחָמוּר שֶׁבָּהֶן.
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.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב: שְׁבִיעִית אֵין לוֹקְחִין בְּדָמֶיהָ תְּרוּמָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּמַעֲטִין בַּאֲכִילָתָהּ.
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’it 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.
אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ (דְּרָבָא) [דְּרַבָּה]: הָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן; דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, הָאָמַר: מְבִיאִין קָדָשִׁים לְבֵית הַפְּסוּל!
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’t 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.
אֲמַר לְהוּ: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימְרוּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – הָנֵי מִילֵּי דְּאִיעֲבַד, לְכִתְחִילָּה לָא. וּלְכִתְחִילָּה לָא?! אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי:
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):
