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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 29, 2018 | 讟状讝 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 77

There is a debate between Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis regarding a mixture of limbs – can they be brought on the altar? Our mishna聽has one version of which case they argue about and a braita is brought which聽has a different version. If blood is mixed up with water or another substance, can it be presented on the altar?


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

诇砖诐 注爪讬诐

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.

讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 砖讬专讬讬诐 讚讘注讬 诪讬诇讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬讻讗 讛讱 驻讜专转讗 讚诇讗 拽诪讬抓 注讬诇讜讬讛 讚驻专讬拽 诇讬讛

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.

讚驻专讬拽 诇讬讛 讛讬讻讗 讗讬 讙讜讜讗讬 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛 讗讬 讗讘专讗讬 讗讬驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讘讬讜爪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讙讜讜讗讬 讞讜诇讬谉 诪诪讬诇讗 讛讜讬讬谉

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.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 砖诪谉 转拽讜谞讬 讙讘专讗 砖讗谞讬

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鈥檛 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.

讬转讬讘 专讘 专讞讜诪讬 拽诪讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讜谞讬诪讗 讗砖诐 讝讛 讬讛讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬

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 Re岣mi was sitting before Ravina, and he was sitting and saying the following in the name of Rav Huna bar Ta岣ifa: But why can鈥檛 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.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讜专讛 转讜专讛 讗讬诪专讬 讘讚讬讻专讬 诪讬讞诇驻讬 诇讱

Rav Re岣mi 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 Re岣mi: 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬讘专讬 讞讟讗转 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬转谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讘砖专 讛讞讟讗转 诪诇诪注诇讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛谉 注爪讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 转注讜讘专 爪讜专转谉 讜讬爪讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诇 讛诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讬注诇讜 诇专讬讞 谞讬讞讞 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 诇砖诐 注爪讬诐

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: 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 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 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.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讗转诐 讗讜转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 讗转讛 诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪注诇讛 诇砖诐 注爪讬诐 讗讘诇 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

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: 鈥淎s an offering of first fruits you may bring them.鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜转诐 讛讜讗 讚专讘讗讬 诇讱 讻讘砖 讻诪讝讘讞 讗讘诇 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 诇讗

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, what does he derive from this term of exclusion 鈥渢hem鈥? 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.

讜专讘谞谉 转专转讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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 鈥渢hem.鈥 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.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 注诇 讗讬讘专讬 讞讟讗转 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 砖讬拽专讘讜 讘专讜讘注 讜谞专讘注 砖诇讗 讬拽专讘讜

搂 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.

注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 转诪讬诪讛 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘讗讬讘专讬 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬拽专讘讜 讜专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 诇诪注诇讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛谉 注爪讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬拽专讘讜

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.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讜讘注 讜谞专讘注 讚诇讗 讞讝讜 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讝讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗诐 注诇讜 诇讗 讬专讚讜 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗讬 注讘讚 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪讬 讗诪专

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?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖注诇讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讘砖 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜

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.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 诪讜诐 讘诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬专爪讜 讛讗 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘转 讬专爪讜

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: 鈥淣either 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鈥 (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.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讜诐 讘诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬专爪讜 讛讗 注讘专 诪讜诐 讬专爪讜 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讘诐 讘讛诐 讜专讘谞谉 讘诐 讘讛诐 诇讗 讚专砖讬

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: 鈥淏ecause their corruption is in them [bahem].鈥 Since the verse could have stated the shorter form of bam, and instead stated bahem,鈥 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鈥; they do not see this as a significant deviation from the standard language of the verse.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讜讗讛 讛讗 专讞诪谞讗 讗讻砖专讬讛 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 专讞诪谞讗 讗讻砖专讬讛 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛讗 讘砖专 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讻注爪讬诐 讚诪讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讘砖专 讞讟讗转

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.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 诪讗讬住讬 讛转诐 诇讗 诪讗讬住讬

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讘专讬谉 讘讗讘专讬谉 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 拽专讘 专讗砖 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬拽专讘讜 讻诇 讛专讗砖讬谉 讻专注讬诐 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬拽专讘讜 讻诇 讛讻专注讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讘讜 讻诇诐 讞讜抓 诪讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讛讻砖讬专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讞讚 讗讞讚 诇讗 诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讘讜 讻讜诇谉 讞讜抓 诪讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗住讘专讛 诇讱 诪讗讬 讗讞讚 讝讜讙 讗讞讚

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Ta岣ifa 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讚诐 砖谞转注专讘 讘诪讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪专讗讬转 讚诐 讻砖专 谞转注专讘 讘讬讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讬诐 谞转注专讘 讘讚诐 讘讛诪讛 讗讜 讘讚诐 讛讞讬讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讬诐

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.

  • 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 77

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 77

诇砖诐 注爪讬诐

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.

讜讛讗 讗讬讻讗 砖讬专讬讬诐 讚讘注讬 诪讬诇讬谞讛讜 讜讗讬讻讗 讛讱 驻讜专转讗 讚诇讗 拽诪讬抓 注讬诇讜讬讛 讚驻专讬拽 诇讬讛

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.

讚驻专讬拽 诇讬讛 讛讬讻讗 讗讬 讙讜讜讗讬 拽讗 诪注讬讬诇 讞讜诇讬谉 诇注讝专讛 讗讬 讗讘专讗讬 讗讬驻住讬诇 诇讬讛 讘讬讜爪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讙讜讜讗讬 讞讜诇讬谉 诪诪讬诇讗 讛讜讬讬谉

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.

讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讬谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 砖诪谉 转拽讜谞讬 讙讘专讗 砖讗谞讬

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鈥檛 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.

讬转讬讘 专讘 专讞讜诪讬 拽诪讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 讜讬转讬讘 讜拽讗诪专 诪砖诪讬讛 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讜谞讬诪讗 讗砖诐 讝讛 讬讛讗 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬

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 Re岣mi was sitting before Ravina, and he was sitting and saying the following in the name of Rav Huna bar Ta岣ifa: But why can鈥檛 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.

砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚驻诇讬讙 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 讗砖诐 转诇讜讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转讜专讛 转讜专讛 讗讬诪专讬 讘讚讬讻专讬 诪讬讞诇驻讬 诇讱

Rav Re岣mi 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 Re岣mi: 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讬讘专讬 讞讟讗转 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬转谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讘砖专 讛讞讟讗转 诪诇诪注诇讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛谉 注爪讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 转注讜讘专 爪讜专转谉 讜讬爪讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

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.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诇 讛诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讬注诇讜 诇专讬讞 谞讬讞讞 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 诇砖诐 注爪讬诐

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: 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 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 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.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 讗转诐 讗讜转诐 讛讜讗 讚讗讬 讗转讛 诪注诇讛 讗讘诇 讗转讛 诪注诇讛 诇砖诐 注爪讬诐 讗讘诇 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讗 诇讗

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: 鈥淎s an offering of first fruits you may bring them.鈥 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.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜转诐 讛讜讗 讚专讘讗讬 诇讱 讻讘砖 讻诪讝讘讞 讗讘诇 诪讬讚讬 讗讞专讬谞讬 诇讗

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, what does he derive from this term of exclusion 鈥渢hem鈥? 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.

讜专讘谞谉 转专转讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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 鈥渢hem.鈥 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.

诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚诇讗 讻讬 讛讗讬 转谞讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 谞讞诇拽讜 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 注诇 讗讬讘专讬 讞讟讗转 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 砖讬拽专讘讜 讘专讜讘注 讜谞专讘注 砖诇讗 讬拽专讘讜

搂 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.

注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讗讬讘专讬 注讜诇讛 转诪讬诪讛 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘讗讬讘专讬 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 砖专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讬拽专讘讜 讜专讜讗讛 讗谞讬 诇诪注诇讛 讻讗讬诇讜 讛谉 注爪讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬拽专讘讜

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.

讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 专讜讘注 讜谞专讘注 讚诇讗 讞讝讜 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讞讝讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讚讜拽讬谉 砖讘注讬谉 讜讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗诪专 讗诐 注诇讜 诇讗 讬专讚讜 讗讬诪专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讚讗讬 注讘讚 诇讻转讞诇讛 诪讬 讗诪专

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?

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖注诇讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讻讘砖 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讬谞讬讬讛讜

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.

讗诇讗 讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讬注讟 专讞诪谞讗 诪讜诐 讘诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬专爪讜 讛讗 注诇 讬讚讬 转注专讜讘转 讬专爪讜

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: 鈥淣either 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鈥 (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.

讜专讘谞谉 诪讜诐 讘诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 讬专爪讜 讛讗 注讘专 诪讜诐 讬专爪讜 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪讘诐 讘讛诐 讜专讘谞谉 讘诐 讘讛诐 诇讗 讚专砖讬

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: 鈥淏ecause their corruption is in them [bahem].鈥 Since the verse could have stated the shorter form of bam, and instead stated bahem,鈥 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鈥; they do not see this as a significant deviation from the standard language of the verse.

讗讬 讛讻讬 专讜讗讛 讛讗 专讞诪谞讗 讗讻砖专讬讛 诇讚讘专讬讛诐 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 专讞诪谞讗 讗讻砖专讬讛 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 诪讬讛讗 讘砖专 讘注诇转 诪讜诐 讻注爪讬诐 讚诪讬 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讘砖专 讞讟讗转

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.

讜专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 诪讗讬住讬 讛转诐 诇讗 诪讗讬住讬

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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讘专讬谉 讘讗讘专讬谉 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗诐 拽专讘 专讗砖 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬拽专讘讜 讻诇 讛专讗砖讬谉 讻专注讬诐 砖诇 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬拽专讘讜 讻诇 讛讻专注讬诐 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讘讜 讻诇诐 讞讜抓 诪讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 诇讗 讛讻砖讬专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诇讗 砖谞讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讞讚 讗讞讚 诇讗 诪转讬讘 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 拽专讘讜 讻讜诇谉 讞讜抓 诪讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讬爪讗 诇讘讬转 讛砖专讬驻讛

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.

讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘专 转讞诇讬驻讗 讗住讘专讛 诇讱 诪讗讬 讗讞讚 讝讜讙 讗讞讚

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Ta岣ifa 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讚诐 砖谞转注专讘 讘诪讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 讘讜 诪专讗讬转 讚诐 讻砖专 谞转注专讘 讘讬讬谉 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讬诐 谞转注专讘 讘讚诐 讘讛诪讛 讗讜 讘讚诐 讛讞讬讛 专讜讗讬谉 讗讜转讜 讻讗讬诇讜 讛讜讗 诪讬诐

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.

Scroll To Top