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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 28, 2018 | 讟状讜 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Zevachim 76

If a guilt offering and a peace offering get mixed up, there is a debate whether or not they can be brought and treated as the more stringent of the two regarding time/place requirements or whether they need to be left to graze so as to not create a situation where we are creating a situation in which聽holy items that otherwise would not be disqualified can now potentially be disqualified. Rabbi Shimon’s opinion, which allows this, is questioned. Rava thinks that he only allows in if the situation already exists but not lechatchila. Abaya brings several sources to question this assumption of Rava. Rav Yosef questions Abaye – why he didn’t bring another source against Rava.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讻讜诇谉 专砖讗讬谉 讻讛谞讬诐 诇砖谞讜转 讘讗讻讬诇转谉 诇讗讻诇谉 爪诇讜讬讬谉 砖诇讜拽讬谉 讜诪讘讜砖诇讬谉 讜诇转转 诇转讜讻谉 转讘诇讬 讞讜诇讬谉 讜转讘诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞 诇转专讜诪转 转讘诇讬谉 讚专讘谞谉

And with regard to all of the offerings that are eaten, the priests are permitted to alter the manner of their consumption and eat them as they choose. Therefore, the priests are permitted to eat them roasted, boiled, or cooked, and they are likewise permitted to place non-sacred spices or teruma spices in the cooking pot. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. This indicates that it is permitted to spice offerings with teruma spices ab initio, despite the fact that this reduces the time available to eat the teruma. Rabba said to Abaye: Set aside the halakha of teruma of spices, as this teruma applies by rabbinic law, not by Torah law.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讘讻住祝 诪注砖专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪诪注讟 讘讗讻讬诇转讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讗讬砖转讬拽 诇讬讛

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba from a mishna (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 3:2): One may not purchase teruma with second tithe money, because he thereby limits the circumstances for the eating of the teruma. Teruma may be eaten in any place and even by an acute mourner, i.e., one whose relative died that same day and has not yet been buried, whereas second tithe and food purchased with second tithe money must be eaten in Jerusalem and is prohibited to an acute mourner. And Rabbi Shimon permits one to purchase teruma with second tithe money. This indicates that Rabbi Shimon allows one to bring teruma to the status of unfitness. Rabba was silent in response to his statement, and did not answer Abaye.

讻讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 转讜转讘讬讛 诪讛讗 讗讬谉 诪讘砖诇讬谉 讬专拽 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转 讘砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖诇讗 讬讘讬讗讜 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讘讬转 讛驻住讜诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专

When Abaye came before Rav Yosef and told him of his discussion with Rabba, Rav Yosef said to him: Why didn鈥檛 you raise an objection to Rabba from this mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 8:7): One may not cook vegetables of the Sabbatical Year in teruma oil, so that one does not bring consecrated food, teruma, to the status of unfitness, as the teruma oil would have to be eaten before the time of the removal of the Sabbatical Year produce; and Rabbi Shimon permits one to cook in this manner. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon allows one to bring teruma to the status of unfitness ab initio.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讜转讘讬转讬讛 诪讛讗 讚转讘诇讬谉 讜讗诪专 诇讬 讛谞讞 诇转专讜诪转 转讘诇讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 (转专讜诪讛) 转专讜诪转 讬专拽 讚专讘谞谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬驻讻讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转谞讬 讬专拽 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讘砖诪谉 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And didn鈥檛 I raise an objection to Rabba from that mishna discussing the halakha of teruma spices, and he said to me: Disregard the halakha of teruma of spices, as this teruma applies by rabbinic law. Here too, with regard to vegetables of the Sabbatical Year, he could likewise say that this teruma oil is not olive oil, but oil that is teruma of vegetables, which applies by rabbinic law. Rav Yosef replied: If so, that this mishna is referring to vegetable oil of teruma, it should teach the opposite case, that one may not cook vegetables of teruma in oil of the Sabbatical Year. Since the tanna specifies teruma oil, he must certainly be speaking of teruma by Torah law, i.e., olive oil.

讜诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讜转讘讬转讬讛 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诪转讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讗诪专 诇讬 讚讗讬注专讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讗讬注专讘

Abaye then said to Rav Yosef: And didn鈥檛 I raise an objection to Rabba from the mishna, in which Rabbi Shimon permits one to bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness, and Rabba said to me that Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 ruling applies only after the fact, when the guilt offering and peace offering have become intermingled? Here too, he would say that this ruling is after the fact, that when the teruma oil and the vegetables of the Sabbatical Year have become intermingled one may then cook them together, but he does not permit one to cook them together ab initio.

讗讬 讚讗讬注专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讗砖诐 讜砖诇诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: If this halakha is referring to a case where the foods have already become intermingled, what is the reason of the Rabbis for prohibiting one to cook them together? The Gemara answers: This is just as it is in the case of the mishna with regard to a guilt offering and a peace offering that became intermingled, that even after the offerings are intermingled, one may not bring the flesh of the peace offering to the status of unfitness.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讘专注讬讬讛 讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讘专注讬讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Are these two cases comparable? There, with regard to the offerings, the situation has a remedy by having the offerings graze until they develop a blemish, at which point the owner brings each offering of each type with the monetary value of the higher-quality animal. By contrast, in this case of teruma oil mixed with vegetables of the Sabbatical Year, the situation has no remedy similar to that of having the offerings graze, and therefore if the Rabbis prohibited the mixture the teruma would go to waste.

讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讞转讬讻讛 砖讘讞转讬讻讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 转拽谞转讗 讚讗讜讻诇 讻讞诪讜专 砖讘讛谉

If one wishes to compare this case of oil and vegetables to an intermingling of sacrificial animals, this is comparable only to the other halakha of the mishna, which addresses a piece of the flesh of an offering of the most sacred order that was intermingled with pieces of the flesh of offerings of lesser sanctity. Here the Rabbis concede that since there is no remedy for the intermingled pieces, the halakha is that they both must be eaten in accordance with the halakha of the more stringent among them, but they are not prohibited.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 讞转讬讻讛 砖讘讞转讬讻讜转 诇讬转 诇讛 转拽谞转讗 讻诇诇 讛讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讘住讞讬讟讛

Ravina objects to this comparison: Are these cases comparable? In the case of the piece of sacrificial flesh that is intermingled with the other pieces, it has no remedy at all, whereas this case of teruma oil has a remedy through squeezing the oil from the vegetables. If so, this case of vegetables is in fact comparable to that of an intermingling of a guilt offering and peace offering, which also have a means of remedy, and for this reason the Rabbis prohibited the mixture.

讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讻讬 谞住讞讜讟 谞住讞讜讟 讟讜讘讗 拽讗 诪驻住讬讚 讘砖讘讬注讬转 谞住讞讜讟 驻讜专转讗 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗讬注专讜讘讬 诪讬注专讘

The Gemara asks: And how would Rav Yosef respond to the claim that the Rabbis prohibit this mixture after the fact because there is a remedy available through squeezing it? The Gemara explains that Rav Yosef would respond that squeezing is not in fact a remedy, as how can one squeeze it? If one squeezes the vegetables a lot, he thereby causes a loss of Sabbatical Year produce; if one squeezes the vegetables a little, ultimately the teruma oil and vegetables of the Sabbatical Year will still be intermingled, as this squeezing will be ineffective. If so, Rav Yosef鈥檚 contention that in this case the Rabbis would not have prohibited cooking vegetables of the Sabbatical Year in teruma oil remains valid. Consequently, this must be referring to a case where the vegetables and oil have not yet become mixed, which means that this case does prove that Rabbi Shimon permits one to bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness ab initio, not only after the fact, as claimed by Rabba.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇诪讞专转 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 讜诇讜讙讜 注诪讜 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讛专讬 讝讛 讗砖诪讜 讜讝讛 诇讜讙讜

Rav Yosef raised an objection to the opinion of Rabba from a baraita (Tosefta, Nazir 6:1): How should one whose status as a confirmed leper has not been determined bring his guilt offering and log of oil on the eighth day of his purification? Rabbi Shimon says: On the following day, after his seven days of purification, he brings his guilt offering and his log of oil with it, and says the following stipulation: If this offering is one of a leper, i.e., if I am a confirmed leper, this is his, i.e., my, guilt offering and that is his log of oil.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗砖诐 讝讛 砖诇 砖诇诪讬 谞讚讘讛 讜讗讜转讜 讗砖诐 讟注讜谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讘爪驻讜谉 讜诪转谉 讘讛讜谞讜转 讜住诪讬讻讛 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜转谞讜驻转 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽

And if he is not a leper, this animal that is brought for a guilt offering shall be a voluntary peace offering, because their sacrificial rites are equivalent. And that uncertain guilt offering requires slaughter in the north of the Temple courtyard as a guilt offering, and placement of the blood on the right thumb and big toe and right ear of the leper, as described in Leviticus 14:14, and it requires placing hands on the head of the animal, and the accompanying wine libations and waving of the breast and thigh like a peace offering.

讜谞讗讻诇 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛 转拽讜谞讬 讙讘专讗 砖讗谞讬

And lastly, it is eaten by males of the priesthood on the day it is sacrificed and the following night, in the Temple courtyard, like a guilt offering, not for two days and one night in the manner of a peace offering. This indicates that Rabbi Shimon permits one to bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness even ab initio, not only when the animals became intermingled. The Gemara answers that the remedy of a man is different from the case discussed by Rabba. Since this person has no way of purifying himself from his leprosy other than by bringing the offering, the concern of reducing the time available for its consumption is disregarded.

讛转讬谞讞 讗砖诐 诇讜讙 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讗诪专 诇讜讙 讝讛 讬讛讗 谞讚讘讛 讜讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗讜 诪爪讜专注 讛讜讗 讜讘注讬 诪拽诪抓 讚诪拽诪讬抓

The Gemara asks a question with regard to the resolution suggested by Rabbi Shimon of bringing the offerings and stating a stipulation. This works out well with regard to the guilt offering, but with regard to the log of oil what can be said? A log of oil does not accompany a peace offering. The Gemara explains that the individual bringing the offering says: If I am not a leper, then this log shall be a gift to the Temple, as one can dedicate oil to the Temple. The Gemara questions this resolution: But perhaps he is not in fact a leper, and if so, it is required that a priest remove a handful of the donated oil and sacrifice a handful of it on the altar before the rest of the oil may be consumed by the priests, as is the halakha with regard to oil brought as an offering. The Gemara explains that this is referring to a case where the priest already removed a handful.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 诪爪讜专注 讛讜讗 讜讘注讬 诪转谉 砖讘注 讚讬讛讬讘

The Gemara further questions: But perhaps he is in fact a leper, and he requires the placement of seven sprinklings of oil before the Lord (see Leviticus 14:15鈥16). The Gemara answers that the priest does place these sprinklings.

讜讛讗 讞住专 诇讬讛 讚诪讬讬转讬 驻讜专转讗 讜诪诇讬 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 讞住专 讛诇讜讙 注讚 砖诇讗 讬爪拽 讬诪诇讗谞讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: How can the priest sprinkle the oil? But it is lacking, as a handful has been removed from the oil, and one sprinkles only from a whole log. The Gemara explains that after the handful is removed the priest brings a little more oil to the container and fills it up to a log. This is as we learned in a mishna (Nega鈥檌m 14:10): In a case where the log lacked a full measure, then if it became lacking before the priest poured from it into his palm in order to place it on the right thumb and big toe of the leper, he shall fill it.

讜讛讗 讘注讬 讛拽讟专讛 讚讗拽讟专 诇讬讛

The Gemara poses yet another question: But if he is not a leper, and that log of oil is a gift, that handful removed from the oil requires burning on the altar for the remainder of the oil to be permitted to the priests. The Gemara explains that the priest does in fact burn the handful.

讗讬诪转 讗讬 讘转专 诪转谞讜转 砖讘注 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖讬专讬讬诐 砖讞住专讜 讘讬谉 拽诪讬爪讛 诇讛拽讟专讛 讜讗讬谉 诪拽讟讬专讬谉 讗转 讛拽讜诪抓 注诇讬讛谉

The Gemara asks: When does the priest burn the handful? If he does so after the placement of seven sprinklings for the leper鈥檚 purification, in such a case the log will be lacking due to the sprinklings. That which remains is akin to the remainder of a meal offering that was lacking between the removal of the handful and the burning, and one may not burn the handful for that remainder. Similar to a gift of oil, in a meal offering a handful is removed from the offering and then sacrificed on the altar. If after the handful is removed but before it is sacrificed some of the remainder of the meal offering is separated, the handful may not be sacrificed. The same should apply if some of the oil was sprinkled after the handful was removed.

讗讬 拽讜讚诐 诪转谞讜转 砖讘注 讻诇 砖诪诪谞讜 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜

If, alternatively, the priest burns the handful before the placement of seven sprinklings, once he has burned the handful he may no longer perform the sprinklings, in accordance with the principle: Whatever is partly burned in the fire on the altar is subject to the prohibition of: You may not make as an offering (see Leviticus 2:11). This principle states that if part of an item, such as the blood of an animal offering or the handful of a meal offering, has been sacrificed, one who sacrifices any other part of it that is not designated for sacrifice has violated a prohibition. The sprinkling of the oil is equivalent to sacrifice in this regard.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讚诪住讬拽 诇讛讜 诇砖诐 注爪讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讗讬 讗转讛 诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪注诇讛

Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, says that the priest does not sprinkle the oil as a definite rite but stipulates that if the man is not a leper he is sprinkling it in a manner analogous to other items that one burns for the sake of wood, i.e., as fuel for the altar and not as a sacrificial rite. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The verse states: 鈥淣o meal offering that you shall bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven; for you shall make no leaven, nor any honey, smoke from it as an offering made by fire to the Lord. As an offering of first fruits you may bring them to the Lord; but they shall not come up for a pleasing aroma on the altar鈥 (Leviticus 2:11鈥12). This verse indicates that you may not offer up leaven and honey as a pleasing aroma, an offering. But you may offer up leaven and honey and other substances

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 76

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 76

讜讻讜诇谉 专砖讗讬谉 讻讛谞讬诐 诇砖谞讜转 讘讗讻讬诇转谉 诇讗讻诇谉 爪诇讜讬讬谉 砖诇讜拽讬谉 讜诪讘讜砖诇讬谉 讜诇转转 诇转讜讻谉 转讘诇讬 讞讜诇讬谉 讜转讘诇讬 转专讜诪讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛谞讞 诇转专讜诪转 转讘诇讬谉 讚专讘谞谉

And with regard to all of the offerings that are eaten, the priests are permitted to alter the manner of their consumption and eat them as they choose. Therefore, the priests are permitted to eat them roasted, boiled, or cooked, and they are likewise permitted to place non-sacred spices or teruma spices in the cooking pot. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. This indicates that it is permitted to spice offerings with teruma spices ab initio, despite the fact that this reduces the time available to eat the teruma. Rabba said to Abaye: Set aside the halakha of teruma of spices, as this teruma applies by rabbinic law, not by Torah law.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讜拽讞讬谉 转专讜诪讛 讘讻住祝 诪注砖专 诪驻谞讬 砖诪诪注讟 讘讗讻讬诇转讛 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专 讗讬砖转讬拽 诇讬讛

Abaye raised an objection to Rabba from a mishna (Ma鈥檃ser Sheni 3:2): One may not purchase teruma with second tithe money, because he thereby limits the circumstances for the eating of the teruma. Teruma may be eaten in any place and even by an acute mourner, i.e., one whose relative died that same day and has not yet been buried, whereas second tithe and food purchased with second tithe money must be eaten in Jerusalem and is prohibited to an acute mourner. And Rabbi Shimon permits one to purchase teruma with second tithe money. This indicates that Rabbi Shimon allows one to bring teruma to the status of unfitness. Rabba was silent in response to his statement, and did not answer Abaye.

讻讬 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 转讜转讘讬讛 诪讛讗 讗讬谉 诪讘砖诇讬谉 讬专拽 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转 讘砖诪谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 砖诇讗 讬讘讬讗讜 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讘讬转 讛驻住讜诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诪转讬专

When Abaye came before Rav Yosef and told him of his discussion with Rabba, Rav Yosef said to him: Why didn鈥檛 you raise an objection to Rabba from this mishna (Shevi鈥檌t 8:7): One may not cook vegetables of the Sabbatical Year in teruma oil, so that one does not bring consecrated food, teruma, to the status of unfitness, as the teruma oil would have to be eaten before the time of the removal of the Sabbatical Year produce; and Rabbi Shimon permits one to cook in this manner. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon allows one to bring teruma to the status of unfitness ab initio.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讜转讘讬转讬讛 诪讛讗 讚转讘诇讬谉 讜讗诪专 诇讬 讛谞讞 诇转专讜诪转 转讘诇讬谉 讚专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 (转专讜诪讛) 转专讜诪转 讬专拽 讚专讘谞谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗讬驻讻讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转谞讬 讬专拽 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讘砖诪谉 砖诇 砖讘讬注讬转

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: And didn鈥檛 I raise an objection to Rabba from that mishna discussing the halakha of teruma spices, and he said to me: Disregard the halakha of teruma of spices, as this teruma applies by rabbinic law. Here too, with regard to vegetables of the Sabbatical Year, he could likewise say that this teruma oil is not olive oil, but oil that is teruma of vegetables, which applies by rabbinic law. Rav Yosef replied: If so, that this mishna is referring to vegetable oil of teruma, it should teach the opposite case, that one may not cook vegetables of teruma in oil of the Sabbatical Year. Since the tanna specifies teruma oil, he must certainly be speaking of teruma by Torah law, i.e., olive oil.

讜诇讗讜 诪讬 讗讜转讘讬转讬讛 诪诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诪转讬专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讜讗诪专 诇讬 讚讗讬注专讘 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讗讬注专讘

Abaye then said to Rav Yosef: And didn鈥檛 I raise an objection to Rabba from the mishna, in which Rabbi Shimon permits one to bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness, and Rabba said to me that Rabbi Shimon鈥檚 ruling applies only after the fact, when the guilt offering and peace offering have become intermingled? Here too, he would say that this ruling is after the fact, that when the teruma oil and the vegetables of the Sabbatical Year have become intermingled one may then cook them together, but he does not permit one to cook them together ab initio.

讗讬 讚讗讬注专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讗砖诐 讜砖诇诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: If this halakha is referring to a case where the foods have already become intermingled, what is the reason of the Rabbis for prohibiting one to cook them together? The Gemara answers: This is just as it is in the case of the mishna with regard to a guilt offering and a peace offering that became intermingled, that even after the offerings are intermingled, one may not bring the flesh of the peace offering to the status of unfitness.

诪讬 讚诪讬 讛转诐 讗讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讘专注讬讬讛 讛讗 诇讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讘专注讬讬讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: Are these two cases comparable? There, with regard to the offerings, the situation has a remedy by having the offerings graze until they develop a blemish, at which point the owner brings each offering of each type with the monetary value of the higher-quality animal. By contrast, in this case of teruma oil mixed with vegetables of the Sabbatical Year, the situation has no remedy similar to that of having the offerings graze, and therefore if the Rabbis prohibited the mixture the teruma would go to waste.

讛讗 诇讗 讚诪讬 讗诇讗 诇讞转讬讻讛 砖讘讞转讬讻讜转 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讬转 转拽谞转讗 讚讗讜讻诇 讻讞诪讜专 砖讘讛谉

If one wishes to compare this case of oil and vegetables to an intermingling of sacrificial animals, this is comparable only to the other halakha of the mishna, which addresses a piece of the flesh of an offering of the most sacred order that was intermingled with pieces of the flesh of offerings of lesser sanctity. Here the Rabbis concede that since there is no remedy for the intermingled pieces, the halakha is that they both must be eaten in accordance with the halakha of the more stringent among them, but they are not prohibited.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 诪讬 讚诪讬 讞转讬讻讛 砖讘讞转讬讻讜转 诇讬转 诇讛 转拽谞转讗 讻诇诇 讛讗讬 讗讬转 诇讬讛 转拽谞转讗 讘住讞讬讟讛

Ravina objects to this comparison: Are these cases comparable? In the case of the piece of sacrificial flesh that is intermingled with the other pieces, it has no remedy at all, whereas this case of teruma oil has a remedy through squeezing the oil from the vegetables. If so, this case of vegetables is in fact comparable to that of an intermingling of a guilt offering and peace offering, which also have a means of remedy, and for this reason the Rabbis prohibited the mixture.

讜专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讬讻讬 谞住讞讜讟 谞住讞讜讟 讟讜讘讗 拽讗 诪驻住讬讚 讘砖讘讬注讬转 谞住讞讜讟 驻讜专转讗 住讜祝 住讜祝 讗讬注专讜讘讬 诪讬注专讘

The Gemara asks: And how would Rav Yosef respond to the claim that the Rabbis prohibit this mixture after the fact because there is a remedy available through squeezing it? The Gemara explains that Rav Yosef would respond that squeezing is not in fact a remedy, as how can one squeeze it? If one squeezes the vegetables a lot, he thereby causes a loss of Sabbatical Year produce; if one squeezes the vegetables a little, ultimately the teruma oil and vegetables of the Sabbatical Year will still be intermingled, as this squeezing will be ineffective. If so, Rav Yosef鈥檚 contention that in this case the Rabbis would not have prohibited cooking vegetables of the Sabbatical Year in teruma oil remains valid. Consequently, this must be referring to a case where the vegetables and oil have not yet become mixed, which means that this case does prove that Rabbi Shimon permits one to bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness ab initio, not only after the fact, as claimed by Rabba.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇诪讞专转 诪讘讬讗 讗砖诪讜 讜诇讜讙讜 注诪讜 讜讗讜诪专 讗诐 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 讛专讬 讝讛 讗砖诪讜 讜讝讛 诇讜讙讜

Rav Yosef raised an objection to the opinion of Rabba from a baraita (Tosefta, Nazir 6:1): How should one whose status as a confirmed leper has not been determined bring his guilt offering and log of oil on the eighth day of his purification? Rabbi Shimon says: On the following day, after his seven days of purification, he brings his guilt offering and his log of oil with it, and says the following stipulation: If this offering is one of a leper, i.e., if I am a confirmed leper, this is his, i.e., my, guilt offering and that is his log of oil.

讜讗诐 诇讗讜 讗砖诐 讝讛 砖诇 砖诇诪讬 谞讚讘讛 讜讗讜转讜 讗砖诐 讟注讜谉 砖讞讬讟讛 讘爪驻讜谉 讜诪转谉 讘讛讜谞讜转 讜住诪讬讻讛 讜谞住讻讬诐 讜转谞讜驻转 讞讝讛 讜砖讜拽

And if he is not a leper, this animal that is brought for a guilt offering shall be a voluntary peace offering, because their sacrificial rites are equivalent. And that uncertain guilt offering requires slaughter in the north of the Temple courtyard as a guilt offering, and placement of the blood on the right thumb and big toe and right ear of the leper, as described in Leviticus 14:14, and it requires placing hands on the head of the animal, and the accompanying wine libations and waving of the breast and thigh like a peace offering.

讜谞讗讻诇 诇讬讜诐 讜诇讬诇讛 转拽讜谞讬 讙讘专讗 砖讗谞讬

And lastly, it is eaten by males of the priesthood on the day it is sacrificed and the following night, in the Temple courtyard, like a guilt offering, not for two days and one night in the manner of a peace offering. This indicates that Rabbi Shimon permits one to bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness even ab initio, not only when the animals became intermingled. The Gemara answers that the remedy of a man is different from the case discussed by Rabba. Since this person has no way of purifying himself from his leprosy other than by bringing the offering, the concern of reducing the time available for its consumption is disregarded.

讛转讬谞讞 讗砖诐 诇讜讙 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讗诪专 诇讜讙 讝讛 讬讛讗 谞讚讘讛 讜讚讬诇诪讗 诇讗讜 诪爪讜专注 讛讜讗 讜讘注讬 诪拽诪抓 讚诪拽诪讬抓

The Gemara asks a question with regard to the resolution suggested by Rabbi Shimon of bringing the offerings and stating a stipulation. This works out well with regard to the guilt offering, but with regard to the log of oil what can be said? A log of oil does not accompany a peace offering. The Gemara explains that the individual bringing the offering says: If I am not a leper, then this log shall be a gift to the Temple, as one can dedicate oil to the Temple. The Gemara questions this resolution: But perhaps he is not in fact a leper, and if so, it is required that a priest remove a handful of the donated oil and sacrifice a handful of it on the altar before the rest of the oil may be consumed by the priests, as is the halakha with regard to oil brought as an offering. The Gemara explains that this is referring to a case where the priest already removed a handful.

讜讚讬诇诪讗 诪爪讜专注 讛讜讗 讜讘注讬 诪转谉 砖讘注 讚讬讛讬讘

The Gemara further questions: But perhaps he is in fact a leper, and he requires the placement of seven sprinklings of oil before the Lord (see Leviticus 14:15鈥16). The Gemara answers that the priest does place these sprinklings.

讜讛讗 讞住专 诇讬讛 讚诪讬讬转讬 驻讜专转讗 讜诪诇讬 诇讬讛 讚转谞谉 讞住专 讛诇讜讙 注讚 砖诇讗 讬爪拽 讬诪诇讗谞讜

The Gemara raises a difficulty: How can the priest sprinkle the oil? But it is lacking, as a handful has been removed from the oil, and one sprinkles only from a whole log. The Gemara explains that after the handful is removed the priest brings a little more oil to the container and fills it up to a log. This is as we learned in a mishna (Nega鈥檌m 14:10): In a case where the log lacked a full measure, then if it became lacking before the priest poured from it into his palm in order to place it on the right thumb and big toe of the leper, he shall fill it.

讜讛讗 讘注讬 讛拽讟专讛 讚讗拽讟专 诇讬讛

The Gemara poses yet another question: But if he is not a leper, and that log of oil is a gift, that handful removed from the oil requires burning on the altar for the remainder of the oil to be permitted to the priests. The Gemara explains that the priest does in fact burn the handful.

讗讬诪转 讗讬 讘转专 诪转谞讜转 砖讘注 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖讬专讬讬诐 砖讞住专讜 讘讬谉 拽诪讬爪讛 诇讛拽讟专讛 讜讗讬谉 诪拽讟讬专讬谉 讗转 讛拽讜诪抓 注诇讬讛谉

The Gemara asks: When does the priest burn the handful? If he does so after the placement of seven sprinklings for the leper鈥檚 purification, in such a case the log will be lacking due to the sprinklings. That which remains is akin to the remainder of a meal offering that was lacking between the removal of the handful and the burning, and one may not burn the handful for that remainder. Similar to a gift of oil, in a meal offering a handful is removed from the offering and then sacrificed on the altar. If after the handful is removed but before it is sacrificed some of the remainder of the meal offering is separated, the handful may not be sacrificed. The same should apply if some of the oil was sprinkled after the handful was removed.

讗讬 拽讜讚诐 诪转谞讜转 砖讘注 讻诇 砖诪诪谞讜 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讘讘诇 转拽讟讬专讜

If, alternatively, the priest burns the handful before the placement of seven sprinklings, once he has burned the handful he may no longer perform the sprinklings, in accordance with the principle: Whatever is partly burned in the fire on the altar is subject to the prohibition of: You may not make as an offering (see Leviticus 2:11). This principle states that if part of an item, such as the blood of an animal offering or the handful of a meal offering, has been sacrificed, one who sacrifices any other part of it that is not designated for sacrifice has violated a prohibition. The sprinkling of the oil is equivalent to sacrifice in this regard.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讬讛 讚专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讚诪住讬拽 诇讛讜 诇砖诐 注爪讬诐 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 诇专讬讞 谞讬讞讜讞 讗讬 讗转讛 诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪注诇讛

Rav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, says that the priest does not sprinkle the oil as a definite rite but stipulates that if the man is not a leper he is sprinkling it in a manner analogous to other items that one burns for the sake of wood, i.e., as fuel for the altar and not as a sacrificial rite. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The verse states: 鈥淣o meal offering that you shall bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven; for you shall make no leaven, nor any honey, smoke from it as an offering made by fire to the Lord. As an offering of first fruits you may bring them to the Lord; but they shall not come up for a pleasing aroma on the altar鈥 (Leviticus 2:11鈥12). This verse indicates that you may not offer up leaven and honey as a pleasing aroma, an offering. But you may offer up leaven and honey and other substances

Scroll To Top