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.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
The Gemara concludes its explanation of how, according to Rabbi Shimon, a safek leper may bring the oil for his purification process as either a possible leper’s offering or a possible voluntary oil offering, by resolving the multiple complications inherent in this situation.
Rav Rachuma said to Ravina that Rav Huna bar Tachlifa asked why Rabbi Shimon suggested that the safek leper bring an animal as either a guilt offering or a voluntary peace offering, when he could have instead proposed bringing it as either a guilt offering or a hanging guilt offering, thus avoiding the issue of disqualifying kodashim. Rav Rachuma explains that one can infer from this that Rabbi Shimon must disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, holding that one cannot voluntarily bring a hanging guilt offering. However, Ravina rejects this reasoning, noting that the guilt offering of a leper comes from a one-year-old sheep, whereas a hanging guilt offering requires a two-year-old sheep, also known as a ram.
In the Mishna, there is a debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis regarding a mixture of limbs from sin offerings and burnt offerings: can they be brought on the altar? The Gemara explores the basis of their disagreement, rooted in different interpretations of Vayikra 2:11–12, and then cites a braita quoting Rabbi Yehuda, who preserved a different version of the dispute. According to Rabbi Yehuda, the disagreement applies only to mixtures of limbs from blemished and non-blemished animals. Both sides, however, agree that mixtures of sin and burnt offerings may certainly be brought on the altar, while those from animals that engaged in bestiality may not.
Why did Rabbi Eliezer distinguish between blemished animals and those involved in bestiality? Rav Huna explains that the blemish in question is a mild one, following Rabbi Akiva’s more lenient position. Yet since Rabbi Akiva permitted such blemishes only post facto, Rav Papa qualifies that the case must involve limbs already placed on the ramp. This explanation is rejected, however, because if that were the case, even without being part of a mixture, the offering would be permitted. A new explanation is therefore introduced, deriving Rabbi Eliezer’s permission to sacrifice parts of blemished animals intermingled with regular ones from a drasha on Vayikra 22:25.
The Mishna also records a debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis concerning blemished animals that become intermingled with other animals. Rabbi Eliezer rules that if one is sacrificed inadvertently, the remaining animals are permitted, since we can assume the blemished one was already offered. Rabbi Elazar, however, restricts Rabbi Eliezer’s leniency to cases where the other animal parts are sacrificed in pairs.
The Mishna discusses the issue of blood that becomes mixed with water or other substances, under what circumstances can it still be brought on the altar?
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.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Diana Bloom in loving memory of her Bobe, Ita Rosa Sonabend Marmurek, on her yahrzeit. “She was an active member of the Jewish community in Buenos Aires, holding many leadership roles, a successful businesswoman, a lifelong committed Zionist, and an adoring grandmother. I miss her very much.”
Zevachim 77
לְשֵׁם עֵצִים.
for the sake of wood, not as an offering. Here as well, the priest stipulates that if the man is not a confirmed leper, the sprinkling of the oil should not be viewed as a rite.
וְהָא אִיכָּא שִׁירַיִים דְּבָעֵי (מילינהו) [מֵיכְלִינְהוּ], וְאִיכָּא הָךְ פּוּרְתָּא דְּלָא קָמֵיץ עִילָּוֵיהּ! דְּפָרֵיק לֵיהּ.
The Gemara questions further: But even if the priest removes a handful from the oil and burns it, and also sprinkles from the oil, there is the matter of the remainder of the oil, which must be filled after the removal of the handful so that the priest can perform the sprinkling with a full log, and there is therefore that bit of oil that was added from which the priest did not remove the handful initially. If the one bringing the offering is not a leper, and the log of oil is a gift, it will turn out that there is a small portion of the oil that was not permitted by the removal of the handful. The Gemara explains that the priest redeems it, i.e., after the sprinklings of the oil have been performed, he stipulates that if the person who brought the offering is not a leper then the oil should be desacralized by his giving its value to the Temple treasury.
דְּפָרֵיק לֵיהּ הֵיכָא? אִי גַּוַּואי – קָא מְעַיֵּיל חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה, אִי אַבָּרַאי – אִיפְּסִיל לֵיהּ בְּיוֹצֵא! לְעוֹלָם גַּוַּואי; חוּלִּין מִמֵּילָא הָוְיָין.
The Gemara asks: If you say that he redeems it, where does he redeem it? If he redeems it when the oil is within the walls of the Temple, he would thereby be bringing non-sacred oil into the courtyard. If he redeems the oil outside the courtyard, before he can redeem the oil it would become disqualified due to the prohibition of a consecrated item leaving the courtyard. The Gemara answers: Actually, he redeems the oil when it is within the walls of the Temple. This is permitted because the non-sacred oil is then found in the Temple courtyard by itself, i.e., he did not bring a non-sacred item into the Temple courtyard.
וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן! תַּקּוֹנֵי גַּבְרָא שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara asks a question with regard to the suggested resolution, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that one whose status as a leper is uncertain should bring a log of oil as a gift offering and state a stipulation. But doesn’t Rabbi Shimon say that one may not donate oil as a gift? The Gemara answers, as on 76b: The remedy of a person is different, i.e., Rabbi Shimon concedes that one may donate oil in this instance, as this is the only manner by which this person can undergo ritual purification.
יָתֵיב רַב רְחוּמִי קַמֵּיהּ רָבִינָא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא: וְנֵימָא, אָשָׁם זֶה יְהֵא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי!
The Gemara continues to discuss the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. It was stated above that according to Rabbi Shimon, one whose status as a leper is uncertain may bring a lamb as a gift for a peace offering and state a stipulation with regard to it. The Gemara relates that Rav Reḥumi was sitting before Ravina, and he was sitting and saying the following in the name of Rav Huna bar Taḥlifa: But why can’t he bring a lamb for a guilt offering and say that if he is not a leper then this guilt offering shall be a provisional guilt offering, brought by one who is uncertain whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering? This guilt offering is eaten for one day and night, like the guilt offering of a leper, and therefore he would not be reducing the time for its consumption, unlike when he stipulates that it should be a peace offering.
שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מַאן תַּנָּא דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הוּא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין אָשָׁם תָּלוּי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תּוֹרָה תּוֹרָה! אִימְּרֵי בְּדִיכְרֵי מִיחַלְּפִי לָךְ!
Rav Reḥumi continued: Since this option was not suggested, one can learn from here that who is the tanna who disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that one may donate a provisional guilt offering (Keritut 25a)? It is Rabbi Shimon, who says, by inference from his suggestion here, that one may not donate a provisional guilt offering. Ravina said to Rav Reḥumi: Torah, Torah! That is, where is the Torah of such a great man as yourself? You are confusing lambs with rams. The guilt offering of a leper is a lamb in its first year (see Leviticus 14:10), which cannot be brought as a provisional guilt offering because these must be rams (see Leviticus 5:15), i.e., they must be in their second year.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵיבְרֵי חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בְּאֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִתֵּן לְמַעְלָה, וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת בְּשַׂר הַחַטָּאת מִלְּמַעְלָה כְּאִילּוּ הֵן עֵצִים. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: תְּעוּבַּר צוּרָתָן וְיֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.
MISHNA: In the case of the limbs of a sin offering, which are eaten by priests and may not be burned on the altar, that were intermingled with the limbs of a burnt offering, which are burned on the altar, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest shall place all the limbs above, on the altar, and I view the flesh of the limbs of the sin offering above on the altar as though they are pieces of wood burned on the altar, and not as though they are an offering. And the Rabbis say: One should wait until the form of all the intermingled limbs decays and they will all go out to the place of burning in the Temple courtyard, where all disqualified offerings of the most sacred order are burned.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לֹא יַעֲלוּ לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ״ – לְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ אִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה, אֲבָל אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה לְשֵׁם עֵצִים.
GEMARA: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer for deeming it permitted to burn the limbs of the sin offering on the altar as wood? The Gemara explains: The verse states: “No meal offering that you shall bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven; for you shall make no leaven, nor any honey, smoke 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” (Leviticus 2:11–12). This indicates that you may not offer up leaven and honey as a pleasing aroma, i.e., as an offering. But you may offer up leaven and honey and other substances that are prohibited to be sacrificed upon the altar, such as the limbs of a sin offering, for the sake of wood.
וְרַבָּנַן – מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״אֹתָם״; אוֹתָם הוּא דְּאִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה, אֲבָל אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה לְשֵׁם עֵצִים. אֲבָל מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא.
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, how do they respond to this reasoning? They claim that the Merciful One excludes other cases at the beginning of the verse: “As an offering of first fruits you may bring them.” This indicates that it is with regard to them, i.e., leaven and honey alone, that it is stated: You may not offer up as an offering, but you may offer up leaven and honey for the sake of wood. But with regard to any other substances that are prohibited to be brought on the altar, one may not offer them up to the altar at all.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – אוֹתָם הוּא דְּרַבַּאי לָךְ כֶּבֶשׁ כְּמִזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינֵי – לָא.
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, what does he derive from this term of exclusion “them”? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Eliezer expounds this word as follows: It is only with regard to them, leaven and honey, that the verse includes a prohibition against bringing them up to the ramp of the altar like offering them up on the altar itself. But with regard to any other substances that are prohibited to be sacrificed upon the altar, bringing them up to the ramp is not considered like offering them up on the altar itself.
וְרַבָּנַן – תַּרְתֵּי שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara further asks: And the Rabbis, from where do they derive this halakha? The Gemara answers that the Rabbis learn two halakhot from the word “them.” This term of emphasis teaches that all that is stated in this verse is referring only to leaven and honey, both the halakha that it is permitted to offer them up on the altar as wood, and the ruling that the ramp is considered like the altar with regard to this halakha.
מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא – דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וַחֲכָמִים עַל אֵיבְרֵי חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בְּאֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה – שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ; בְּרוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע – שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרְבוּ.
§ The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:15) that Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis did not disagree with regard to the limbs of a sin offering that were intermingled with the limbs of a burnt offering, as all agree that they shall be sacrificed. Likewise, they agree that if limbs that are fit to be burned on the altar became intermingled with the limbs of an animal that actively copulated with a person, or with the limbs of an animal that was the object of bestiality, which are prohibited to be sacrificed upon the altar, that they shall not be sacrificed, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ? עַל אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה תְּמִימָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בְּאֵיבְרֵי בַּעֲלַת מוּם, שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִקְרְבוּ, וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי לְמַעְלָה כְּאִילּוּ הֵן עֵצִים; וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִקְרְבוּ.
Rabbi Yehuda continues: With regard to which case did Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree? They disagreed with regard to the limbs of an unblemished burnt offering that were intermingled with the limbs of a blemished animal, which is disqualified from the altar. As in this case Rabbi Eliezer says: All the limbs shall be sacrificed, and I consider the flesh of the limbs of the sin offering above, on the altar, as though they are pieces of wood burned on the altar. And the Rabbis say: They shall not be sacrificed.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מַאי שְׁנָא רוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע – דְּלָא חֲזוּ? בַּעֲלַת מוּם נָמֵי לָא חֲזֵי!
The Gemara asks: And concerning the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, what is different about the limbs of an animal that actively copulated with a person, or the limbs of an animal that was the object of bestiality, that they may not be sacrificed? If one says that the reason is that they are not fit for the altar, that cannot be the reason, as a blemished animal is not fit for the altar as well, and there he holds that the limbs are burned.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – דְּאָמַר: אִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ. אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – דְּאִי עֲבַד; לְכַתְּחִלָּה מִי אָמַר?!
Rav Huna says: When Rabbi Eliezer makes reference to a blemished animal, he is speaking of an unobtrusive blemish, e.g., one that is on the cornea of the eye. And his ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that in the case of an offering with such a blemish, if its sacrificial parts ascended the altar, they shall not descend from it, because it is not a disgrace to the altar for the sacrificial parts of such an offering to be burned on it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Say that Rabbi Akiva says this is the halakha after the fact, meaning that if the priest already brought up the limbs of these blemished animals, they do not descend from the altar. Does Rabbi Akiva say that one may burn a mixture of these limbs ab initio?
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁעָלוּ עַל גַּבֵּי כֶּבֶשׁ. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ בְּעֵינַיְיהוּ!
Rav Pappa says: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where all the limbs in the mixture were brought up upon the ramp. Since they have been brought on the ramp and sanctified as offerings, it is considered after the fact. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, i.e., if we are dealing with a case in which the limbs were already carried to the ramp, then even if they were as is, and not intermingled, the limbs of the blemished animal should be burned, as claimed by Rabbi Akiva.
אֶלָּא טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״מוּם בָּם״ – הוּא דְּלֹא יֵרָצוּ, הָא עַל יְדֵי תַּעֲרוֹבֶת – יֵרָצוּ.
Rather, the reason of Rabbi Eliezer is that with regard to the prohibition against sacrificing a blemished animal upon the altar, the Merciful One excludes certain cases. After listing the various disqualifying blemishes, the verse states: “Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these, because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you” (Leviticus 22:25). This teaches that it is only if there is a blemish clearly in them that they shall not be accepted; but if they were sacrificed by means of a mixture they shall be accepted. This exclusion is stated only with regard to blemished animals, not with regard to animals that copulated with people, and consequently the limbs of these animals are not brought up to the altar even if they became intermingled with the limbs of fit offerings.
וְרַבָּנַן – ״מוּם בָּם״ הוּא דְּלֹא יֵרָצוּ, הָא עָבַר מוּם – יֵרָצוּ. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – מִ״בָּם״–״בָּהֶם״, וְרַבָּנַן – ״בָּם״–״בָּהֶם״ לָא דָּרְשִׁי.
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, how do they expound this verse? The Gemara explains that they expound it as follows: It is only if the blemish is still in them that they shall not be accepted; but if their blemish has passed, they shall be accepted. And Rabbi Eliezer derives this halakha from the previous clause in that same verse: “Because their corruption is in them [bahem].” Since the verse could have stated the shorter form of bam, and instead stated “bahem,” one derives from here that if the animal no longer is blemished it is accepted as an offering. And as for the Rabbis, they do not interpret anything from the variation between bam and “bahem”; they do not see this as a significant deviation from the standard language of the verse.
אִי הָכִי, ״רוֹאֶה״?! הָא רַחֲמָנָא אַכְשְׁרֵיהּ! לְדִבְרֵיהֶם קָאָמַר לְהוּ: לְדִידִי – רַחֲמָנָא אַכְשְׁרֵיהּ; לְדִידְכוּ – אוֹדוֹ לִי מִיהָא, בְּשַׂר בַּעֲלַת מוּם – כְּעֵצִים דָּמֵי, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַבְּשַׂר חַטָּאת!
The Gemara asks: If that is so, and Rabbi Eliezer permits the limbs of blemished animals to be sacrificed if they are in a mixture, why is it necessary for him to say: I view the flesh of the limbs of the blemished animals as though they are pieces of wood? After all, the Merciful One permits them as an offering. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Eliezer is speaking to the Rabbis in accordance with their statement, as follows: According to my opinion, the Merciful One permits these limbs to be sacrificed upon the altar. But even according to your opinion, at least agree with me that the flesh of a blemished animal that was intermingled with the flesh of a qualified offering is considered like wood, just as is the halakha of the flesh of a sin offering that became intermingled with the flesh of a burnt offering, as according to this baraita the Rabbis concede that the flesh of these two offerings should be sacrificed together.
וְרַבָּנַן – הָכָא מְאִיסִי, הָתָם לָא מְאִיסִי.
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, how do they respond to this claim of Rabbi Eliezer? The Gemara explains: According to the Rabbis there is a difference between the cases: Here, with regard to a mixture that includes limbs of blemished animals, these limbs are repulsive, and therefore they may not be brought upon the altar, even as wood. Conversely, there, in the case of a mixture of limbs of a sin offering and limbs of a burnt offering, the limbs of the sin offering are not repulsive in and of themselves, and consequently they may be sacrificed upon the altar as wood.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵבָרִין בְּאֵבָרִין בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם קָרַב רֹאשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶן – יִקְרְבוּ כׇּל הָרָאשִׁין. כְּרָעַיִם שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן – יִקְרְבוּ כָּל הַכְּרָעַיִם, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ קָרְבוּ כֻּלָּם חוּץ מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶן – יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.
MISHNA: In a case where limbs of burnt offerings fit for sacrifice were intermingled with limbs of blemished burnt offerings, Rabbi Eliezer says: Although all the limbs are unfit for sacrifice, if the head of one of them was sacrificed all the heads shall be sacrificed, as the head that was sacrificed is assumed to have been that of the unfit animal in the mixture. Likewise, if one sacrificed the legs of one of them all the legs shall be sacrificed. And the Rabbis say: Even if all the limbs were sacrificed except for one of them, there is a concern that the remaining limb is the unfit limb, which may not be sacrificed. Rather, all of the limbs must go out to the place of burning in the Temple courtyard.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא הִכְשִׁיר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם, אֲבָל אֶחָד אֶחָד – לֹא. מֵתִיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ קָרְבוּ כּוּלָּן חוּץ מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶן – יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה!
GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar says: Rabbi Eliezer permitted the sacrificing of all the heads only if they were sacrificed two by two, as at least one of each pair is certainly permitted; but he did not permit them to be sacrificed one by one, in case the priest may be sacrificing the prohibited head by itself. Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection from the mishna, which states: And the Rabbis say: Even if all the limbs were sacrificed except for one of them, all the limbs must go out to the place of burning in the Temple courtyard. This indicates that even in this situation, where only one of the limbs remains, the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis still applies, which means that Rabbi Eliezer permits it to be sacrificed despite the fact that it is only one limb.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא, אַסְבְּרַהּ לָךְ: מַאי אֶחָד – זוּג אֶחָד.
Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa said to Rabbi Yirmeya in response: I will explain the meaning of this statement to you: What does the mishna mean when it states: Except for one of them? It means except for one pair, i.e., two limbs, as even Rabbi Eliezer did not permit one to sacrifice the limbs individually.
מַתְנִי׳ דָּם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמַיִם, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מַרְאִית דָּם – כָּשֵׁר. נִתְעָרֵב בְּיַיִן – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם. נִתְעָרֵב בְּדַם בְּהֵמָה אוֹ בְּדַם הַחַיָּה – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם.
MISHNA: In the case of blood of an offering fit for sacrifice that was mixed with water, if the mixture has the appearance of blood it is fit for sprinkling on the altar, even though the majority of the mixture is water. If the blood was mixed with red wine, one views the wine as though it is water. If that amount of water would leave the mixture with the appearance of blood it is fit for presentation. And likewise if the blood was mixed with the blood of a non-sacred domesticated animal or the blood of a non-sacred undomesticated animal, one considers the non-sacred blood as though it is water.
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.
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, 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
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Zevachim 77
לְשֵׁם עֵצִים.
for the sake of wood, not as an offering. Here as well, the priest stipulates that if the man is not a confirmed leper, the sprinkling of the oil should not be viewed as a rite.
וְהָא אִיכָּא שִׁירַיִים דְּבָעֵי (מילינהו) [מֵיכְלִינְהוּ], וְאִיכָּא הָךְ פּוּרְתָּא דְּלָא קָמֵיץ עִילָּוֵיהּ! דְּפָרֵיק לֵיהּ.
The Gemara questions further: But even if the priest removes a handful from the oil and burns it, and also sprinkles from the oil, there is the matter of the remainder of the oil, which must be filled after the removal of the handful so that the priest can perform the sprinkling with a full log, and there is therefore that bit of oil that was added from which the priest did not remove the handful initially. If the one bringing the offering is not a leper, and the log of oil is a gift, it will turn out that there is a small portion of the oil that was not permitted by the removal of the handful. The Gemara explains that the priest redeems it, i.e., after the sprinklings of the oil have been performed, he stipulates that if the person who brought the offering is not a leper then the oil should be desacralized by his giving its value to the Temple treasury.
דְּפָרֵיק לֵיהּ הֵיכָא? אִי גַּוַּואי – קָא מְעַיֵּיל חוּלִּין לָעֲזָרָה, אִי אַבָּרַאי – אִיפְּסִיל לֵיהּ בְּיוֹצֵא! לְעוֹלָם גַּוַּואי; חוּלִּין מִמֵּילָא הָוְיָין.
The Gemara asks: If you say that he redeems it, where does he redeem it? If he redeems it when the oil is within the walls of the Temple, he would thereby be bringing non-sacred oil into the courtyard. If he redeems the oil outside the courtyard, before he can redeem the oil it would become disqualified due to the prohibition of a consecrated item leaving the courtyard. The Gemara answers: Actually, he redeems the oil when it is within the walls of the Temple. This is permitted because the non-sacred oil is then found in the Temple courtyard by itself, i.e., he did not bring a non-sacred item into the Temple courtyard.
וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן! תַּקּוֹנֵי גַּבְרָא שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara asks a question with regard to the suggested resolution, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that one whose status as a leper is uncertain should bring a log of oil as a gift offering and state a stipulation. But doesn’t Rabbi Shimon say that one may not donate oil as a gift? The Gemara answers, as on 76b: The remedy of a person is different, i.e., Rabbi Shimon concedes that one may donate oil in this instance, as this is the only manner by which this person can undergo ritual purification.
יָתֵיב רַב רְחוּמִי קַמֵּיהּ רָבִינָא, וְיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא: וְנֵימָא, אָשָׁם זֶה יְהֵא אָשָׁם תָּלוּי!
The Gemara continues to discuss the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. It was stated above that according to Rabbi Shimon, one whose status as a leper is uncertain may bring a lamb as a gift for a peace offering and state a stipulation with regard to it. The Gemara relates that Rav Reḥumi was sitting before Ravina, and he was sitting and saying the following in the name of Rav Huna bar Taḥlifa: But why can’t he bring a lamb for a guilt offering and say that if he is not a leper then this guilt offering shall be a provisional guilt offering, brought by one who is uncertain whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering? This guilt offering is eaten for one day and night, like the guilt offering of a leper, and therefore he would not be reducing the time for its consumption, unlike when he stipulates that it should be a peace offering.
שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מַאן תַּנָּא דִּפְלִיג עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הוּא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין אָשָׁם תָּלוּי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תּוֹרָה תּוֹרָה! אִימְּרֵי בְּדִיכְרֵי מִיחַלְּפִי לָךְ!
Rav Reḥumi continued: Since this option was not suggested, one can learn from here that who is the tanna who disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that one may donate a provisional guilt offering (Keritut 25a)? It is Rabbi Shimon, who says, by inference from his suggestion here, that one may not donate a provisional guilt offering. Ravina said to Rav Reḥumi: Torah, Torah! That is, where is the Torah of such a great man as yourself? You are confusing lambs with rams. The guilt offering of a leper is a lamb in its first year (see Leviticus 14:10), which cannot be brought as a provisional guilt offering because these must be rams (see Leviticus 5:15), i.e., they must be in their second year.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵיבְרֵי חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בְּאֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִתֵּן לְמַעְלָה, וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת בְּשַׂר הַחַטָּאת מִלְּמַעְלָה כְּאִילּוּ הֵן עֵצִים. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: תְּעוּבַּר צוּרָתָן וְיֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.
MISHNA: In the case of the limbs of a sin offering, which are eaten by priests and may not be burned on the altar, that were intermingled with the limbs of a burnt offering, which are burned on the altar, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest shall place all the limbs above, on the altar, and I view the flesh of the limbs of the sin offering above on the altar as though they are pieces of wood burned on the altar, and not as though they are an offering. And the Rabbis say: One should wait until the form of all the intermingled limbs decays and they will all go out to the place of burning in the Temple courtyard, where all disqualified offerings of the most sacred order are burned.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לֹא יַעֲלוּ לְרֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ״ – לְרֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ אִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה, אֲבָל אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה לְשֵׁם עֵצִים.
GEMARA: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer for deeming it permitted to burn the limbs of the sin offering on the altar as wood? The Gemara explains: The verse states: “No meal offering that you shall bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven; for you shall make no leaven, nor any honey, smoke 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” (Leviticus 2:11–12). This indicates that you may not offer up leaven and honey as a pleasing aroma, i.e., as an offering. But you may offer up leaven and honey and other substances that are prohibited to be sacrificed upon the altar, such as the limbs of a sin offering, for the sake of wood.
וְרַבָּנַן – מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״אֹתָם״; אוֹתָם הוּא דְּאִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה, אֲבָל אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה לְשֵׁם עֵצִים. אֲבָל מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינָא – לָא.
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, how do they respond to this reasoning? They claim that the Merciful One excludes other cases at the beginning of the verse: “As an offering of first fruits you may bring them.” This indicates that it is with regard to them, i.e., leaven and honey alone, that it is stated: You may not offer up as an offering, but you may offer up leaven and honey for the sake of wood. But with regard to any other substances that are prohibited to be brought on the altar, one may not offer them up to the altar at all.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – אוֹתָם הוּא דְּרַבַּאי לָךְ כֶּבֶשׁ כְּמִזְבֵּחַ, אֲבָל מִידֵּי אַחֲרִינֵי – לָא.
The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, what does he derive from this term of exclusion “them”? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Eliezer expounds this word as follows: It is only with regard to them, leaven and honey, that the verse includes a prohibition against bringing them up to the ramp of the altar like offering them up on the altar itself. But with regard to any other substances that are prohibited to be sacrificed upon the altar, bringing them up to the ramp is not considered like offering them up on the altar itself.
וְרַבָּנַן – תַּרְתֵּי שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara further asks: And the Rabbis, from where do they derive this halakha? The Gemara answers that the Rabbis learn two halakhot from the word “them.” This term of emphasis teaches that all that is stated in this verse is referring only to leaven and honey, both the halakha that it is permitted to offer them up on the altar as wood, and the ruling that the ramp is considered like the altar with regard to this halakha.
מַתְנִיתִין דְּלָא כִּי הַאי תַּנָּא – דְּתַנְיָא, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וַחֲכָמִים עַל אֵיבְרֵי חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בְּאֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה – שֶׁיִּקְרְבוּ; בְּרוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע – שֶׁלֹּא יִקְרְבוּ.
§ The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:15) that Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis did not disagree with regard to the limbs of a sin offering that were intermingled with the limbs of a burnt offering, as all agree that they shall be sacrificed. Likewise, they agree that if limbs that are fit to be burned on the altar became intermingled with the limbs of an animal that actively copulated with a person, or with the limbs of an animal that was the object of bestiality, which are prohibited to be sacrificed upon the altar, that they shall not be sacrificed, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
עַל מָה נֶחְלְקוּ? עַל אֵיבְרֵי עוֹלָה תְּמִימָה שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ בְּאֵיבְרֵי בַּעֲלַת מוּם, שֶׁרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יִקְרְבוּ, וְרוֹאֶה אֲנִי לְמַעְלָה כְּאִילּוּ הֵן עֵצִים; וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִקְרְבוּ.
Rabbi Yehuda continues: With regard to which case did Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree? They disagreed with regard to the limbs of an unblemished burnt offering that were intermingled with the limbs of a blemished animal, which is disqualified from the altar. As in this case Rabbi Eliezer says: All the limbs shall be sacrificed, and I consider the flesh of the limbs of the sin offering above, on the altar, as though they are pieces of wood burned on the altar. And the Rabbis say: They shall not be sacrificed.
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מַאי שְׁנָא רוֹבֵעַ וְנִרְבָּע – דְּלָא חֲזוּ? בַּעֲלַת מוּם נָמֵי לָא חֲזֵי!
The Gemara asks: And concerning the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, what is different about the limbs of an animal that actively copulated with a person, or the limbs of an animal that was the object of bestiality, that they may not be sacrificed? If one says that the reason is that they are not fit for the altar, that cannot be the reason, as a blemished animal is not fit for the altar as well, and there he holds that the limbs are burned.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – דְּאָמַר: אִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ. אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – דְּאִי עֲבַד; לְכַתְּחִלָּה מִי אָמַר?!
Rav Huna says: When Rabbi Eliezer makes reference to a blemished animal, he is speaking of an unobtrusive blemish, e.g., one that is on the cornea of the eye. And his ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that in the case of an offering with such a blemish, if its sacrificial parts ascended the altar, they shall not descend from it, because it is not a disgrace to the altar for the sacrificial parts of such an offering to be burned on it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Say that Rabbi Akiva says this is the halakha after the fact, meaning that if the priest already brought up the limbs of these blemished animals, they do not descend from the altar. Does Rabbi Akiva say that one may burn a mixture of these limbs ab initio?
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁעָלוּ עַל גַּבֵּי כֶּבֶשׁ. אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ בְּעֵינַיְיהוּ!
Rav Pappa says: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where all the limbs in the mixture were brought up upon the ramp. Since they have been brought on the ramp and sanctified as offerings, it is considered after the fact. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, i.e., if we are dealing with a case in which the limbs were already carried to the ramp, then even if they were as is, and not intermingled, the limbs of the blemished animal should be burned, as claimed by Rabbi Akiva.
אֶלָּא טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״מוּם בָּם״ – הוּא דְּלֹא יֵרָצוּ, הָא עַל יְדֵי תַּעֲרוֹבֶת – יֵרָצוּ.
Rather, the reason of Rabbi Eliezer is that with regard to the prohibition against sacrificing a blemished animal upon the altar, the Merciful One excludes certain cases. After listing the various disqualifying blemishes, the verse states: “Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these, because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you” (Leviticus 22:25). This teaches that it is only if there is a blemish clearly in them that they shall not be accepted; but if they were sacrificed by means of a mixture they shall be accepted. This exclusion is stated only with regard to blemished animals, not with regard to animals that copulated with people, and consequently the limbs of these animals are not brought up to the altar even if they became intermingled with the limbs of fit offerings.
וְרַבָּנַן – ״מוּם בָּם״ הוּא דְּלֹא יֵרָצוּ, הָא עָבַר מוּם – יֵרָצוּ. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – מִ״בָּם״–״בָּהֶם״, וְרַבָּנַן – ״בָּם״–״בָּהֶם״ לָא דָּרְשִׁי.
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, how do they expound this verse? The Gemara explains that they expound it as follows: It is only if the blemish is still in them that they shall not be accepted; but if their blemish has passed, they shall be accepted. And Rabbi Eliezer derives this halakha from the previous clause in that same verse: “Because their corruption is in them [bahem].” Since the verse could have stated the shorter form of bam, and instead stated “bahem,” one derives from here that if the animal no longer is blemished it is accepted as an offering. And as for the Rabbis, they do not interpret anything from the variation between bam and “bahem”; they do not see this as a significant deviation from the standard language of the verse.
אִי הָכִי, ״רוֹאֶה״?! הָא רַחֲמָנָא אַכְשְׁרֵיהּ! לְדִבְרֵיהֶם קָאָמַר לְהוּ: לְדִידִי – רַחֲמָנָא אַכְשְׁרֵיהּ; לְדִידְכוּ – אוֹדוֹ לִי מִיהָא, בְּשַׂר בַּעֲלַת מוּם – כְּעֵצִים דָּמֵי, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַבְּשַׂר חַטָּאת!
The Gemara asks: If that is so, and Rabbi Eliezer permits the limbs of blemished animals to be sacrificed if they are in a mixture, why is it necessary for him to say: I view the flesh of the limbs of the blemished animals as though they are pieces of wood? After all, the Merciful One permits them as an offering. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Eliezer is speaking to the Rabbis in accordance with their statement, as follows: According to my opinion, the Merciful One permits these limbs to be sacrificed upon the altar. But even according to your opinion, at least agree with me that the flesh of a blemished animal that was intermingled with the flesh of a qualified offering is considered like wood, just as is the halakha of the flesh of a sin offering that became intermingled with the flesh of a burnt offering, as according to this baraita the Rabbis concede that the flesh of these two offerings should be sacrificed together.
וְרַבָּנַן – הָכָא מְאִיסִי, הָתָם לָא מְאִיסִי.
The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, how do they respond to this claim of Rabbi Eliezer? The Gemara explains: According to the Rabbis there is a difference between the cases: Here, with regard to a mixture that includes limbs of blemished animals, these limbs are repulsive, and therefore they may not be brought upon the altar, even as wood. Conversely, there, in the case of a mixture of limbs of a sin offering and limbs of a burnt offering, the limbs of the sin offering are not repulsive in and of themselves, and consequently they may be sacrificed upon the altar as wood.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵבָרִין בְּאֵבָרִין בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אִם קָרַב רֹאשׁ אֶחָד מֵהֶן – יִקְרְבוּ כׇּל הָרָאשִׁין. כְּרָעַיִם שֶׁל אֶחָד מֵהֶן – יִקְרְבוּ כָּל הַכְּרָעַיִם, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ קָרְבוּ כֻּלָּם חוּץ מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶן – יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.
MISHNA: In a case where limbs of burnt offerings fit for sacrifice were intermingled with limbs of blemished burnt offerings, Rabbi Eliezer says: Although all the limbs are unfit for sacrifice, if the head of one of them was sacrificed all the heads shall be sacrificed, as the head that was sacrificed is assumed to have been that of the unfit animal in the mixture. Likewise, if one sacrificed the legs of one of them all the legs shall be sacrificed. And the Rabbis say: Even if all the limbs were sacrificed except for one of them, there is a concern that the remaining limb is the unfit limb, which may not be sacrificed. Rather, all of the limbs must go out to the place of burning in the Temple courtyard.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: לֹא הִכְשִׁיר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אֶלָּא שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם, אֲבָל אֶחָד אֶחָד – לֹא. מֵתִיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֲפִילּוּ קָרְבוּ כּוּלָּן חוּץ מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶן – יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה!
GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar says: Rabbi Eliezer permitted the sacrificing of all the heads only if they were sacrificed two by two, as at least one of each pair is certainly permitted; but he did not permit them to be sacrificed one by one, in case the priest may be sacrificing the prohibited head by itself. Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection from the mishna, which states: And the Rabbis say: Even if all the limbs were sacrificed except for one of them, all the limbs must go out to the place of burning in the Temple courtyard. This indicates that even in this situation, where only one of the limbs remains, the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis still applies, which means that Rabbi Eliezer permits it to be sacrificed despite the fact that it is only one limb.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא, אַסְבְּרַהּ לָךְ: מַאי אֶחָד – זוּג אֶחָד.
Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa said to Rabbi Yirmeya in response: I will explain the meaning of this statement to you: What does the mishna mean when it states: Except for one of them? It means except for one pair, i.e., two limbs, as even Rabbi Eliezer did not permit one to sacrifice the limbs individually.
מַתְנִי׳ דָּם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בְּמַיִם, אִם יֵשׁ בּוֹ מַרְאִית דָּם – כָּשֵׁר. נִתְעָרֵב בְּיַיִן – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם. נִתְעָרֵב בְּדַם בְּהֵמָה אוֹ בְּדַם הַחַיָּה – רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִילּוּ הוּא מַיִם.
MISHNA: In the case of blood of an offering fit for sacrifice that was mixed with water, if the mixture has the appearance of blood it is fit for sprinkling on the altar, even though the majority of the mixture is water. If the blood was mixed with red wine, one views the wine as though it is water. If that amount of water would leave the mixture with the appearance of blood it is fit for presentation. And likewise if the blood was mixed with the blood of a non-sacred domesticated animal or the blood of a non-sacred undomesticated animal, one considers the non-sacred blood as though it is water.
