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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 3, 2018 | 讻壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Zevachim 81

Rav Ashi’s opinion聽about Rabbi Eliezer in the mishna in Parah didn’t make sense in light of our mishna and on account of that, Rava explains that our mishna is not referring to bloods mixed together in the same cup but cups of blood that got mixed up with each other and we don’t know which cup is from which type of sacrifice. There is a debate between emoraim聽about whether the remainder of the bloods need to be spilled into the flat part on the base of the altar or can it be spilled on the side of the altar? Several sources are brought as questions to one of the opinions.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘谞转注专讘 讘讗讞转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注讜讘专 注诇 讘诇 转讜住讬祝 讛讻讗 讘诇 转讜住讬祝 诪讛讬讻讗

And if you would say that here too, the mishna is discussing a case where the measure of four placements was mixed with precisely the amount of one placement, and therefore the priest certainly placed some blood of both offerings, if so, how would one explain the clause in the mishna that states: Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: According to your opinion, doesn鈥檛 the priest violate the prohibition of: Do not add? From where is the violation of: Do not add, here? After all, the priest places only the measure of one placement from the offering that requires one placement.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讘诇讜诇 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讻讜住讜转 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 专讜讗讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 诇讬转 诇讛讜 专讜讗讬谉

Rather, Rava says: Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis do not disagree with regard to a case of actual blood mixed together. When they disagree it is with regard to a case of cups of blood that were intermingled, and it is unknown which blood is in which cup. The explanation according to Rabbi Eliezer is that he is of the opinion that one views the blood that was not placed properly as though it were water, and therefore it is permitted to present the blood; whereas the explanation according to the Rabbis is that they are not of the opinion that one views the blood that was not placed properly as though it were water, and consequently all of it must be poured into the Temple courtyard drain.

讜讘讘诇讜诇 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 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 讚诐 讞讟讗转 砖谞转注专讘 讘讚诐 注讜诇讛 砖讬拽专讘 讘专讜讘注 讜谞专讘注 砖诇讗 讬拽专讘 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讚诐 转诪讬诪讛 砖谞转注专讘 讘讚诐 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 讘讬谉 讘讘诇讜诇 讘讬谉 讘讻讜住讜转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬拽专讘

The Gemara asks: And do they not disagree with regard to blood mixed together? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis did not disagree in a case of blood of a sin offering that was mixed with blood of a burnt offering that the mixture shall be sacrificed, or in a case of blood that was fit for presentation that was mixed with the blood of an animal that copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality, that it shall not be sacrificed. The baraita continues: With regard to what case did they disagree? With regard to blood of an unblemished animal that was mixed with blood of a blemished animal, as Rabbi Eliezer says that it shall be sacrificed, whether in a case of blood mixed together or in a case of cups intermingled, and the Rabbis say it shall not be sacrificed.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪转谞讬 讘讬谉 讘讘诇讜诇 讘讬谉 讘讻讜住讜转 讜专讘谞谉 讘讻讜住讜转 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, i.e., when Rabbi Yehuda teaches the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, teaches that the dispute applies both in a case of blood mixed together and in a case of intermingled cups, but the Rabbis who taught the mishna maintain that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree only in a case of intermingled cups.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 转讞诇转 讞讟讗转 讜注讜诇讛

搂 The mishna teaches that if the blood of a sin offering, which is to be placed above the red line, was mixed with blood of a burnt offering, which is to be placed below the line, Rabbi Eliezer holds that it shall all be placed above the red line, and one views the blood of the burnt offering placed there as though it is water, and subsequently the priest shall place the blood below the red line. By contrast, the Rabbis rule that all the blood shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain. Concerning this, Abaye says: The mishna taught that according to the opinion of the Rabbis the blood shall be poured into the drain only if the first portion of the blood of a sin offering, i.e., that blood which is to be placed above the red line, and the blood of a burnt offering were mixed.

讗讘诇 住讜祝 讞讟讗转 [讜注讜诇讛] 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪拽讜诐 注讜诇讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讬专讬讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬专讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 讗讬爪讟讘讗

But if the final portion of the blood of a sin offering, i.e., the remainder of the blood that is poured onto the base of the altar (see Leviticus 4:25), and the blood of a burnt offering were mixed, everyone agrees that since the place of the blood of a burnt offering, below the red line, is the same as the place of the remainder of the blood of a sin offering, as the remainder of the blood of a sin offering is poured on the base of the altar, the priest shall place all the blood on the side of the altar below the red line. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: This is what Rav Yehuda says: The places are not the same, as the remainder of blood needs to be placed on the bench, i.e., on the upper horizontal surface of the base itself, and not on the side of the altar as is the case with the blood of a burnt offering.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 转讞诇转 讞讟讗转 讜注讜诇讛 讗讘诇 住讜祝 讞讟讗转 讜注讜诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪拽讜诐 注讜诇讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讬专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪讞诇讜拽转

The Gemara notes that amora鈥檌m of Eretz Yisrael disagreed in the same manner as Abaye and Rav Yosef: And likewise Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The mishna taught that according to the opinion of the Rabbis the blood shall be poured into the drain only if the first portion of the blood of a sin offering and the blood of a burnt offering were mixed. But if the final portion of the blood of a sin offering and the blood of a burnt offering were mixed, everyone agrees that since the place of the blood of a burnt offering is the same as the place of the remainder of the blood of a sin offering, the priest shall place all the blood on the side of the altar below the red line. Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some say it was Rabbi Elazar who says: This case of the remainder of blood of a sin offering that was mixed with the blood of a burnt offering is still included in the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 拽讚砖 讛诐 砖讗诐 谞转注专讘 讘讚诐 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讬拽专讘讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 住讜祝 注讜诇讛 讜讘讻讜专 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪拽讜诐 注讜诇讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讬专讬诐 诇讗 转讞讬诇转 注讜诇讛 讜讘讻讜专

Rav Huna bar Yehuda raises an objection from a baraita: The verse states with regard to firstborn animals: 鈥淭hey are holy鈥 (Numbers 18:17). The emphasis of the term 鈥渢hey鈥 serves to teach that even if the blood of a firstborn offering was mixed with blood of other sacrificial animals, the blood shall be sacrificed, as the blood of firstborn offerings is not nullified. What, is it not referring even to a case of the final portion of the blood of a burnt offering and the blood of a firstborn offering that were mixed, indicating that the priest places the mixture below the red line? And if so, one can learn from this baraita that the place of the blood of a burnt offering, which is also the place of the blood of a firstborn offering, is the same as the place of the remainder of blood of a sin offering. The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is referring to the first part of the blood of a burnt offering and the blood of a firstborn offering.

讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬诐 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讛讗讬 诪讜诇拽讞 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讜诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 谞驻拽讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讬讻讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讻讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讻讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if so, what is this baraita teaching us? Is it teaching that the blood of offerings that ascend to the altar do not nullify one another? This halakha is already derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat鈥 (Leviticus 16:18), from which it is understood that although the blood of the two animals is in the same vessel, they each retain their distinct identity. The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as there is a tanna who derives this halakha from here, and there is a tanna who derives it from there.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讗转 讛讚诐 讜讝专拽讜 讗转 讛讚诐 诪讛

Rava raises an objection from a baraita that discusses a verse describing a burnt offering: 鈥淎nd Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests, shall present the blood and sprinkle the blood鈥 (Leviticus 1:5). The superfluous second mention of the blood teaches that it is still called the blood of a burnt offering even after it was mixed with other blood, and therefore it should be sprinkled in its proper manner. What does it mean when

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讚诐 讚诐 砖讬讻讜诇 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗诇讜 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘转诪讜专转讛 砖讗祝 诪讞讬讬诐 转拽专讘 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 转讜讚讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐

the verse states twice: 鈥淏lood,鈥 鈥渂lood鈥? The baraita explains: If 鈥渂lood鈥 were written only once, one might have thought: I have derived only that this halakha was stated with regard to a case where this, i.e., the blood of a burnt offering, was mixed with the blood of its substitute, as even if these offerings were intermingled when the animals were alive, the burnt offering and its substitute shall be sacrificed. From where is it derived to include even a case of the blood of a thanks offering or a peace offering that was mixed with the blood of a burnt offering, as these offerings are not sacrificed if they became intermingled with a burnt offering while alive?

诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 转讜讚讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 砖讘讗讬谉 讘谞讚专 讜谞讚讘讛 讻诪讜转讛 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讗砖诐

The baraita continues: And even if one says: I include in this first mention of blood the case of the blood of a thanks offering or a peace offering that was mixed with the blood of a burnt offering, as they are similar in that they both come as a vow offering and a gift offering, like a burnt offering, from where is it derived to include even a case of the blood of the guilt offering that was mixed with the blood of a burnt offering, as a guilt offering cannot be brought as a vow offering or a gift offering?

诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讗砖诐 砖讟注讜谉 诪转谉 讗专讘注 讻诪讜转讜 讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 讜驻住讞 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讚诐 讚诐

The baraita continues: And even if one says: I include in this first mention of blood even a case of the blood of the guilt offering that was mixed with the blood of a burnt offering, as they are similar in that a guilt offering requires the placement of two placements that are four, like a burnt offering, from where is it derived that the same applies to the blood of a firstborn offering, and the animal tithe offering, and the Paschal offering, whose blood is placed once on the altar? Therefore, the verse states twice: 鈥淏lood,鈥 鈥渂lood.鈥 This repetition serves to teach that in any case where the blood of a burnt offering became mixed with the blood of another offering that is placed below the red line, this blood is presented.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 住讜祝 注讜诇讛 讜讘讻讜专 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪拽讜诐 注讜诇讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讬专讬诐

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What, is it not referring even to a case of the final portion of the blood of a burnt offering and the blood of a firstborn offering that were mixed? And if so, one can learn from this baraita that the place of the blood of a burnt offering is the same as the place of the remainder of the blood of a firstborn offering.

诇讗 转讞讬诇转 注讜诇讛 讜讘讻讜专 讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 诪讜诇拽讞 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讜诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 谞驻拽讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讬讻讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讻讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讻讗

The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is referring to the first part of the blood of a burnt offering and the blood of a firstborn offering. But if so, what is this baraita teaching us? Is it teaching that the blood of offerings that ascend to the altar do not nullify one another? This halakha is already derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat鈥 (Leviticus 16:18). The Gemara explains: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as there is a tanna who derives this halakha from here, and there is a tanna who derives it from there.

讜讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 诪讜诇拽讞 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讜诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 诇讗 讬诇驻讬 拽住讘专讬 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇拽专谞讜转 诪讚诐 讚诐 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 讚诐 讚诐 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讛讜

搂 The Gemara has cited three different verses as the source for the halakha that the blood of offerings that ascend to the altar do not nullify one another: 鈥淭hey are holy鈥 (Numbers 18:17); 鈥淎nd he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat鈥 (Leviticus 16:18); 鈥淎nd Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests, shall present the blood and sprinkle the blood鈥 (Leviticus 1:5). The Gemara notes: And these other tanna鈥檌m do not derive this principle from the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat,鈥 as they maintain that the High Priest does not mix the blood of the bull with the blood of the goat in order to place the blood on the corners of the golden altar; rather, each type of blood is placed separately. Additionally, these other tanna鈥檌m do not derive this halakha from the repeated mention of: 鈥淏lood,鈥 鈥渂lood,鈥 as they do not learn anything from this repetition.

讗诇讗 诪拽讚砖 讛诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讬诇驻讬 拽住讘专讬 拽讚砖 讛诐 讛诐 拽专讬讘讬谉 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专转谉 拽专讬讘讛

The Gemara asks: But what is the reason that those other tanna鈥檌m do not derive this halakha from the verse: 鈥淭hey are holy鈥 (Numbers 18:17)? The Gemara explains: They hold that the verse should be understood as follows: 鈥淭hey are holy,鈥 i.e., they, the firstborn offerings themselves, are sacrificed, but their substitutes are not sacrificed.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗诐 砖讜专 讗诐 砖讛 诇讛壮 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 拽专讘 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专转讜 拽专讬讘讛

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, i.e., the tanna who derives the halakha that the blood of offerings that ascend to the altar do not nullify one another from the verse: 鈥淭hey are holy鈥 (Numbers 18:17), from where does he learn that the substitute of a firstborn is not sacrificed? The Gemara explains: He derives it from the verse: 鈥淲hether it be ox or sheep, it is the Lord鈥檚鈥 (Leviticus 27:26). The emphasis of 鈥渋t is鈥 teaches that it is sacrificed but its substitute is not sacrificed.

转讗 砖诪注 谞转谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜诇讗 谞诪诇讱 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转谉 诇诪讟讛 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜

搂 The Gemara resumes its discussion of whether the place of the blood of a burnt offering is the same as the place for the remainder of the blood of offerings. Come and hear a baraita: With regard to blood that is to be placed above the red line that was mixed with blood that is to be placed below the line, which according to the Rabbis must be poured into the Temple courtyard drain, if the priest placed the mixed blood above and did not consult the authorities, both these Sages and those Sages, i.e., the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer, concede that he shall again place the blood below the red line, and these placements and those placements count for him.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讬注专讜讘 讞讟讗转 讜注讜诇讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诇诪注诇讛 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖讬专讬诐 讜拽转谞讬 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转谉 诇诪讟讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪拽讜诐 注讜诇讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讬专讬诐

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What, is it not referring to a case where the blood of a sin offering and a burnt offering were mixed? And once the priest placed blood of the sin offering above the red line, that which is left from the blood of the sin offering is considered the remainder of the blood. And yet the baraita teaches: Both these Sages and those Sages concede that he shall again place the blood below the red line. And if so, one can learn from the baraita that the place of the blood of a burnt offering is the same as the place of the remainder of the blood of a sin offering.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬注专讘 讞讟讗转 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讘砖讬专讬诐

The Gemara relates: When Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing not with a mixture of blood of a sin offering and blood of a burnt offering, but with a case where the blood of a sin offering sacrificed on the external altar, which is placed above the red line, was mixed with the remainder of the blood of a sin offering whose blood is presented inside the Sanctuary. This remainder is poured on the base of the external altar. Consequently, once the priest has placed blood from the mixture above the red line, all that remains is a mixture of remainders, which are placed in the same location.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜谞讬诪讗 诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬注专讘 讘砖讬专讬诐 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讬专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讞住专讜 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉

Abaye said to Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef: Why is it necessary to cite the case of the remainder of the blood of a sin offering whose blood is presented inside the Sanctuary? But let the Master say that it is referring to a case where the blood of a sin offering sacrificed on the external altar was mixed with the remainder of the blood of a sin offering sacrificed on the external altar. Perhaps you chose that case to indicate that this is what the baraita teaches us: Even according to the one who says that failure to pour the remainder of the blood of a sin offering whose blood is presented inside the Sanctuary disqualifies the offering, nevertheless, if the remainder was merely lacking, as in this case, as some of the blood had been placed above the red line, this does not disqualify the offering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 转讜住驻讗讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛讗 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讛讛讬讗 讘专讜讘讗 注诇讬讜谞讬诐 讜拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 砖讬注讜专 转讞转讜谞讬诐 讜注讜讚 [讗诪专 诇讬讛] 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 诪住拽谞讗 讘讻讜住讜转 驻诇讬讙讬

Rava Tosfa鈥檃 said to Ravina: How can that baraita be cited as proof for the issue at hand? We already interpreted it (80b) with regard to a mixture of blood that is to be placed above the red line with blood that is to be placed below the red line, which contains a majority of blood that is to be placed above the line, and the priest places above the red line a measure of blood that is to be placed below the line and slightly more. Ravina said to him: That statement applies according to those who said initially that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree with regard to a mixture of blood, and that Rabbi Eliezer holds that there is no mixing. But according to the conclusion, Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree with regard to cups of blood that were intermingled, and therefore the above interpretation of the baraita was rejected.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 讘讞讜抓 讬砖驻讻讜 诇讗诪讛 谞转谉 讘讞讜抓 讜讞讝专 讜谞转谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讻砖专

MISHNA: Blood that is to be placed on three locations inside the Sanctuary, i.e., between the staves, on the Curtain, and on the golden altar, that was mixed with blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary on the external altar in the Temple courtyard, has no remedy, as one may not change the location of the placement of the blood of one to fulfill his obligation with the other type of blood. Therefore, all the blood shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain. If the priest, on his own initiative, placed the mixture of blood outside the Sanctuary and again placed the mixture of blood inside the Sanctuary, the offering is fit.

讘驻谞讬诐 讜讞讝专 讜谞转谉 讘讞讜抓 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 驻讜住诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬诐 砖专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讚诪讬诐 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讻驻专 讘讛讬讻诇 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讟讗转 讘诇讘讚 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛讗砖诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讞讟讗转 讻讗砖诐

If the priest, on his own initiative, placed the mixture of blood inside the Sanctuary and again placed the mixture of blood outside the Sanctuary, Rabbi Akiva deems the blood placed outside disqualified, and the Rabbis deem it fit. As Rabbi Akiva says: Any blood that is to be presented outside that entered to atone in the Sanctuary is disqualified; but the Rabbis say: That is the halakha with regard to the blood of an external sin offering alone, as it is written: 鈥淎nd any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:23). Rabbi Eliezer says: The status of a guilt offering is like that of a sin offering as well, as it is stated: 鈥淎s is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering鈥 (Leviticus 7:7), i.e., there is one halakha for them. That is not the case with regard to the blood of other offerings.

讙诪壮 讜谞讬驻诇讜讙 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讛讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary was mixed with blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary, all the blood should be poured into the Temple courtyard drain, and there is no opposing opinion recorded in the mishna. The Gemara asks: And let Rabbi Eliezer disagree even with regard to this case, just as he disagrees with regard to a mixture of blood that is to be placed above the red line that was mixed with blood that is to be placed below the red line, where he holds that the improperly placed blood is considered as though it were water.

讛讬讻讬 诇讬注讘讬讚 谞讬转讬讘 讘讞讜抓 讜讛讚专 谞讬转讬讘 诇驻谞讬诐 讻砖诐 砖诪爪讜讛 诇讛拽讚讬诐 注诇讬讜谞讬诐 诇转讞转讜谞讬诐 讻讱 诪爪讜讛 诇讛拽讚讬诐 驻谞讬诐 诇讞讜抓

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree in this case, as how should the priest act? If one says that he should first place blood from the mixture on the altar outside the Sanctuary, and again place blood from the mixture inside the Sanctuary, this is not allowed. Just as it is a mitzva to give precedence to the blood that is to be placed above the red line over the blood that is to be placed below the line, e.g., the presentation of the blood of a sin offering precedes the presentation of the blood of a burnt offering, since a sin offering serves to effect atonement, so too is it a mitzva to give precedence to the blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary over blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 81

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 81

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讘谞转注专讘 讘讗讞转 讗讬 讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讜 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讛专讬 讛讜讗 注讜讘专 注诇 讘诇 转讜住讬祝 讛讻讗 讘诇 转讜住讬祝 诪讛讬讻讗

And if you would say that here too, the mishna is discussing a case where the measure of four placements was mixed with precisely the amount of one placement, and therefore the priest certainly placed some blood of both offerings, if so, how would one explain the clause in the mishna that states: Rabbi Yehoshua said to Rabbi Eliezer: According to your opinion, doesn鈥檛 the priest violate the prohibition of: Do not add? From where is the violation of: Do not add, here? After all, the priest places only the measure of one placement from the offering that requires one placement.

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讘诇讜诇 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讻讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讘讻讜住讜转 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讬转 诇讬讛 专讜讗讬谉 诇专讘谞谉 诇讬转 诇讛讜 专讜讗讬谉

Rather, Rava says: Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis do not disagree with regard to a case of actual blood mixed together. When they disagree it is with regard to a case of cups of blood that were intermingled, and it is unknown which blood is in which cup. The explanation according to Rabbi Eliezer is that he is of the opinion that one views the blood that was not placed properly as though it were water, and therefore it is permitted to present the blood; whereas the explanation according to the Rabbis is that they are not of the opinion that one views the blood that was not placed properly as though it were water, and consequently all of it must be poured into the Temple courtyard drain.

讜讘讘诇讜诇 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 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 讚诐 讞讟讗转 砖谞转注专讘 讘讚诐 注讜诇讛 砖讬拽专讘 讘专讜讘注 讜谞专讘注 砖诇讗 讬拽专讘 注诇 诪讛 谞讞诇拽讜 注诇 讚诐 转诪讬诪讛 砖谞转注专讘 讘讚诐 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 讘讬谉 讘讘诇讜诇 讘讬谉 讘讻讜住讜转 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诇讗 讬拽专讘

The Gemara asks: And do they not disagree with regard to blood mixed together? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis did not disagree in a case of blood of a sin offering that was mixed with blood of a burnt offering that the mixture shall be sacrificed, or in a case of blood that was fit for presentation that was mixed with the blood of an animal that copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality, that it shall not be sacrificed. The baraita continues: With regard to what case did they disagree? With regard to blood of an unblemished animal that was mixed with blood of a blemished animal, as Rabbi Eliezer says that it shall be sacrificed, whether in a case of blood mixed together or in a case of cups intermingled, and the Rabbis say it shall not be sacrificed.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诇讬讘讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 诪转谞讬 讘讬谉 讘讘诇讜诇 讘讬谉 讘讻讜住讜转 讜专讘谞谉 讘讻讜住讜转 驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, i.e., when Rabbi Yehuda teaches the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, teaches that the dispute applies both in a case of blood mixed together and in a case of intermingled cups, but the Rabbis who taught the mishna maintain that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree only in a case of intermingled cups.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 转讞诇转 讞讟讗转 讜注讜诇讛

搂 The mishna teaches that if the blood of a sin offering, which is to be placed above the red line, was mixed with blood of a burnt offering, which is to be placed below the line, Rabbi Eliezer holds that it shall all be placed above the red line, and one views the blood of the burnt offering placed there as though it is water, and subsequently the priest shall place the blood below the red line. By contrast, the Rabbis rule that all the blood shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain. Concerning this, Abaye says: The mishna taught that according to the opinion of the Rabbis the blood shall be poured into the drain only if the first portion of the blood of a sin offering, i.e., that blood which is to be placed above the red line, and the blood of a burnt offering were mixed.

讗讘诇 住讜祝 讞讟讗转 [讜注讜诇讛] 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪拽讜诐 注讜诇讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讬专讬讬诐 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬专讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 讗讬爪讟讘讗

But if the final portion of the blood of a sin offering, i.e., the remainder of the blood that is poured onto the base of the altar (see Leviticus 4:25), and the blood of a burnt offering were mixed, everyone agrees that since the place of the blood of a burnt offering, below the red line, is the same as the place of the remainder of the blood of a sin offering, as the remainder of the blood of a sin offering is poured on the base of the altar, the priest shall place all the blood on the side of the altar below the red line. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: This is what Rav Yehuda says: The places are not the same, as the remainder of blood needs to be placed on the bench, i.e., on the upper horizontal surface of the base itself, and not on the side of the altar as is the case with the blood of a burnt offering.

讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 转讞诇转 讞讟讗转 讜注讜诇讛 讗讘诇 住讜祝 讞讟讗转 讜注讜诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪拽讜诐 注讜诇讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讬专讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 注讚讬讬谉 讛讬讗 诪讞诇讜拽转

The Gemara notes that amora鈥檌m of Eretz Yisrael disagreed in the same manner as Abaye and Rav Yosef: And likewise Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The mishna taught that according to the opinion of the Rabbis the blood shall be poured into the drain only if the first portion of the blood of a sin offering and the blood of a burnt offering were mixed. But if the final portion of the blood of a sin offering and the blood of a burnt offering were mixed, everyone agrees that since the place of the blood of a burnt offering is the same as the place of the remainder of the blood of a sin offering, the priest shall place all the blood on the side of the altar below the red line. Rabbi Yo岣nan says, and some say it was Rabbi Elazar who says: This case of the remainder of blood of a sin offering that was mixed with the blood of a burnt offering is still included in the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 拽讚砖 讛诐 砖讗诐 谞转注专讘 讘讚诐 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讞专讬诐 讬拽专讘讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 住讜祝 注讜诇讛 讜讘讻讜专 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪拽讜诐 注讜诇讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讬专讬诐 诇讗 转讞讬诇转 注讜诇讛 讜讘讻讜专

Rav Huna bar Yehuda raises an objection from a baraita: The verse states with regard to firstborn animals: 鈥淭hey are holy鈥 (Numbers 18:17). The emphasis of the term 鈥渢hey鈥 serves to teach that even if the blood of a firstborn offering was mixed with blood of other sacrificial animals, the blood shall be sacrificed, as the blood of firstborn offerings is not nullified. What, is it not referring even to a case of the final portion of the blood of a burnt offering and the blood of a firstborn offering that were mixed, indicating that the priest places the mixture below the red line? And if so, one can learn from this baraita that the place of the blood of a burnt offering, which is also the place of the blood of a firstborn offering, is the same as the place of the remainder of blood of a sin offering. The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is referring to the first part of the blood of a burnt offering and the blood of a firstborn offering.

讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬诐 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 讛讗讬 诪讜诇拽讞 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讜诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 谞驻拽讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讬讻讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讻讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讻讗

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if so, what is this baraita teaching us? Is it teaching that the blood of offerings that ascend to the altar do not nullify one another? This halakha is already derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat鈥 (Leviticus 16:18), from which it is understood that although the blood of the two animals is in the same vessel, they each retain their distinct identity. The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as there is a tanna who derives this halakha from here, and there is a tanna who derives it from there.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讜讛拽专讬讘讜 讘谞讬 讗讛专谉 讗转 讛讚诐 讜讝专拽讜 讗转 讛讚诐 诪讛

Rava raises an objection from a baraita that discusses a verse describing a burnt offering: 鈥淎nd Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests, shall present the blood and sprinkle the blood鈥 (Leviticus 1:5). The superfluous second mention of the blood teaches that it is still called the blood of a burnt offering even after it was mixed with other blood, and therefore it should be sprinkled in its proper manner. What does it mean when

转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讚诐 讚诐 砖讬讻讜诇 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 讗诇讜 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘转诪讜专转讛 砖讗祝 诪讞讬讬诐 转拽专讘 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 转讜讚讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐

the verse states twice: 鈥淏lood,鈥 鈥渂lood鈥? The baraita explains: If 鈥渂lood鈥 were written only once, one might have thought: I have derived only that this halakha was stated with regard to a case where this, i.e., the blood of a burnt offering, was mixed with the blood of its substitute, as even if these offerings were intermingled when the animals were alive, the burnt offering and its substitute shall be sacrificed. From where is it derived to include even a case of the blood of a thanks offering or a peace offering that was mixed with the blood of a burnt offering, as these offerings are not sacrificed if they became intermingled with a burnt offering while alive?

诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 转讜讚讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 砖讘讗讬谉 讘谞讚专 讜谞讚讘讛 讻诪讜转讛 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛讗砖诐

The baraita continues: And even if one says: I include in this first mention of blood the case of the blood of a thanks offering or a peace offering that was mixed with the blood of a burnt offering, as they are similar in that they both come as a vow offering and a gift offering, like a burnt offering, from where is it derived to include even a case of the blood of the guilt offering that was mixed with the blood of a burnt offering, as a guilt offering cannot be brought as a vow offering or a gift offering?

诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛讗砖诐 砖讟注讜谉 诪转谉 讗专讘注 讻诪讜转讜 讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 讜驻住讞 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讚诐 讚诐

The baraita continues: And even if one says: I include in this first mention of blood even a case of the blood of the guilt offering that was mixed with the blood of a burnt offering, as they are similar in that a guilt offering requires the placement of two placements that are four, like a burnt offering, from where is it derived that the same applies to the blood of a firstborn offering, and the animal tithe offering, and the Paschal offering, whose blood is placed once on the altar? Therefore, the verse states twice: 鈥淏lood,鈥 鈥渂lood.鈥 This repetition serves to teach that in any case where the blood of a burnt offering became mixed with the blood of another offering that is placed below the red line, this blood is presented.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 住讜祝 注讜诇讛 讜讘讻讜专 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪拽讜诐 注讜诇讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讬专讬诐

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What, is it not referring even to a case of the final portion of the blood of a burnt offering and the blood of a firstborn offering that were mixed? And if so, one can learn from this baraita that the place of the blood of a burnt offering is the same as the place of the remainder of the blood of a firstborn offering.

诇讗 转讞讬诇转 注讜诇讛 讜讘讻讜专 讜诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗讬谉 注讜诇讬谉 诪讘讟诇讬谉 讝讛 讗转 讝讛 诪讜诇拽讞 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讜诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 谞驻拽讗 转谞讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讬讻讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讻讗 讜讗讬讻讗 讚谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讛讻讗

The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is referring to the first part of the blood of a burnt offering and the blood of a firstborn offering. But if so, what is this baraita teaching us? Is it teaching that the blood of offerings that ascend to the altar do not nullify one another? This halakha is already derived from the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat鈥 (Leviticus 16:18). The Gemara explains: This is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, as there is a tanna who derives this halakha from here, and there is a tanna who derives it from there.

讜讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 诪讜诇拽讞 诪讚诐 讛驻专 讜诪讚诐 讛砖注讬专 诇讗 讬诇驻讬 拽住讘专讬 讗讬谉 诪注专讘讬谉 诇拽专谞讜转 诪讚诐 讚诐 诇讗 讬诇讬祝 讚诐 讚诐 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讛讜

搂 The Gemara has cited three different verses as the source for the halakha that the blood of offerings that ascend to the altar do not nullify one another: 鈥淭hey are holy鈥 (Numbers 18:17); 鈥淎nd he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat鈥 (Leviticus 16:18); 鈥淎nd Aaron鈥檚 sons, the priests, shall present the blood and sprinkle the blood鈥 (Leviticus 1:5). The Gemara notes: And these other tanna鈥檌m do not derive this principle from the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat,鈥 as they maintain that the High Priest does not mix the blood of the bull with the blood of the goat in order to place the blood on the corners of the golden altar; rather, each type of blood is placed separately. Additionally, these other tanna鈥檌m do not derive this halakha from the repeated mention of: 鈥淏lood,鈥 鈥渂lood,鈥 as they do not learn anything from this repetition.

讗诇讗 诪拽讚砖 讛诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讬诇驻讬 拽住讘专讬 拽讚砖 讛诐 讛诐 拽专讬讘讬谉 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专转谉 拽专讬讘讛

The Gemara asks: But what is the reason that those other tanna鈥檌m do not derive this halakha from the verse: 鈥淭hey are holy鈥 (Numbers 18:17)? The Gemara explains: They hold that the verse should be understood as follows: 鈥淭hey are holy,鈥 i.e., they, the firstborn offerings themselves, are sacrificed, but their substitutes are not sacrificed.

讜讗讬讚讱 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗诐 砖讜专 讗诐 砖讛 诇讛壮 讛讜讗 讛讜讗 拽专讘 讜讗讬谉 转诪讜专转讜 拽专讬讘讛

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, i.e., the tanna who derives the halakha that the blood of offerings that ascend to the altar do not nullify one another from the verse: 鈥淭hey are holy鈥 (Numbers 18:17), from where does he learn that the substitute of a firstborn is not sacrificed? The Gemara explains: He derives it from the verse: 鈥淲hether it be ox or sheep, it is the Lord鈥檚鈥 (Leviticus 27:26). The emphasis of 鈥渋t is鈥 teaches that it is sacrificed but its substitute is not sacrificed.

转讗 砖诪注 谞转谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜诇讗 谞诪诇讱 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转谉 诇诪讟讛 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 注讜诇讬谉 诇讜

搂 The Gemara resumes its discussion of whether the place of the blood of a burnt offering is the same as the place for the remainder of the blood of offerings. Come and hear a baraita: With regard to blood that is to be placed above the red line that was mixed with blood that is to be placed below the line, which according to the Rabbis must be poured into the Temple courtyard drain, if the priest placed the mixed blood above and did not consult the authorities, both these Sages and those Sages, i.e., the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer, concede that he shall again place the blood below the red line, and these placements and those placements count for him.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗讬注专讜讘 讞讟讗转 讜注讜诇讛 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讬讛讬讘 诇讬讛 诇诪注诇讛 讛讜讜 诇讛讜 砖讬专讬诐 讜拽转谞讬 讗诇讜 讜讗诇讜 诪讜讚讬诐 砖讬讞讝讜专 讜讬转谉 诇诪讟讛 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪拽讜诐 注讜诇讛 诪拽讜诐 砖讬专讬诐

The Gemara analyzes this baraita: What, is it not referring to a case where the blood of a sin offering and a burnt offering were mixed? And once the priest placed blood of the sin offering above the red line, that which is left from the blood of the sin offering is considered the remainder of the blood. And yet the baraita teaches: Both these Sages and those Sages concede that he shall again place the blood below the red line. And if so, one can learn from the baraita that the place of the blood of a burnt offering is the same as the place of the remainder of the blood of a sin offering.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讬爪讞拽 讘专 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬注专讘 讞讟讗转 讛讞讬爪讜谞讛 讘砖讬专讬诐

The Gemara relates: When Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing not with a mixture of blood of a sin offering and blood of a burnt offering, but with a case where the blood of a sin offering sacrificed on the external altar, which is placed above the red line, was mixed with the remainder of the blood of a sin offering whose blood is presented inside the Sanctuary. This remainder is poured on the base of the external altar. Consequently, once the priest has placed blood from the mixture above the red line, all that remains is a mixture of remainders, which are placed in the same location.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜谞讬诪讗 诪专 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讬注专讘 讘砖讬专讬诐 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 砖讬专讬诐 诪注讻讘讬谉 讞住专讜 讗讬谉 诪注讻讘讬谉

Abaye said to Rav Yitz岣k bar Yosef: Why is it necessary to cite the case of the remainder of the blood of a sin offering whose blood is presented inside the Sanctuary? But let the Master say that it is referring to a case where the blood of a sin offering sacrificed on the external altar was mixed with the remainder of the blood of a sin offering sacrificed on the external altar. Perhaps you chose that case to indicate that this is what the baraita teaches us: Even according to the one who says that failure to pour the remainder of the blood of a sin offering whose blood is presented inside the Sanctuary disqualifies the offering, nevertheless, if the remainder was merely lacking, as in this case, as some of the blood had been placed above the red line, this does not disqualify the offering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 转讜住驻讗讛 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛讗 讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 讛讛讬讗 讘专讜讘讗 注诇讬讜谞讬诐 讜拽讗 讬讛讬讘 诇诪注诇讛 砖讬注讜专 转讞转讜谞讬诐 讜注讜讚 [讗诪专 诇讬讛] 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专讜 诪注讬拽专讗 讗讬谉 讘讬诇讛 诪住拽谞讗 讘讻讜住讜转 驻诇讬讙讬

Rava Tosfa鈥檃 said to Ravina: How can that baraita be cited as proof for the issue at hand? We already interpreted it (80b) with regard to a mixture of blood that is to be placed above the red line with blood that is to be placed below the red line, which contains a majority of blood that is to be placed above the line, and the priest places above the red line a measure of blood that is to be placed below the line and slightly more. Ravina said to him: That statement applies according to those who said initially that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree with regard to a mixture of blood, and that Rabbi Eliezer holds that there is no mixing. But according to the conclusion, Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree with regard to cups of blood that were intermingled, and therefore the above interpretation of the baraita was rejected.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘驻谞讬诐 砖谞转注专讘讜 讘谞讬转谞讬谉 讘讞讜抓 讬砖驻讻讜 诇讗诪讛 谞转谉 讘讞讜抓 讜讞讝专 讜谞转谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讻砖专

MISHNA: Blood that is to be placed on three locations inside the Sanctuary, i.e., between the staves, on the Curtain, and on the golden altar, that was mixed with blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary on the external altar in the Temple courtyard, has no remedy, as one may not change the location of the placement of the blood of one to fulfill his obligation with the other type of blood. Therefore, all the blood shall be poured into the Temple courtyard drain. If the priest, on his own initiative, placed the mixture of blood outside the Sanctuary and again placed the mixture of blood inside the Sanctuary, the offering is fit.

讘驻谞讬诐 讜讞讝专 讜谞转谉 讘讞讜抓 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 驻讜住诇 讜讞讻诪讬诐 诪讻砖讬专讬诐 砖专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讚诪讬诐 砖谞讻谞住讜 诇讻驻专 讘讛讬讻诇 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讞讟讗转 讘诇讘讚 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛讗砖诐 砖谞讗诪专 讻讞讟讗转 讻讗砖诐

If the priest, on his own initiative, placed the mixture of blood inside the Sanctuary and again placed the mixture of blood outside the Sanctuary, Rabbi Akiva deems the blood placed outside disqualified, and the Rabbis deem it fit. As Rabbi Akiva says: Any blood that is to be presented outside that entered to atone in the Sanctuary is disqualified; but the Rabbis say: That is the halakha with regard to the blood of an external sin offering alone, as it is written: 鈥淎nd any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten鈥 (Leviticus 6:23). Rabbi Eliezer says: The status of a guilt offering is like that of a sin offering as well, as it is stated: 鈥淎s is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering鈥 (Leviticus 7:7), i.e., there is one halakha for them. That is not the case with regard to the blood of other offerings.

讙诪壮 讜谞讬驻诇讜讙 谞诪讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讛讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary was mixed with blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary, all the blood should be poured into the Temple courtyard drain, and there is no opposing opinion recorded in the mishna. The Gemara asks: And let Rabbi Eliezer disagree even with regard to this case, just as he disagrees with regard to a mixture of blood that is to be placed above the red line that was mixed with blood that is to be placed below the red line, where he holds that the improperly placed blood is considered as though it were water.

讛讬讻讬 诇讬注讘讬讚 谞讬转讬讘 讘讞讜抓 讜讛讚专 谞讬转讬讘 诇驻谞讬诐 讻砖诐 砖诪爪讜讛 诇讛拽讚讬诐 注诇讬讜谞讬诐 诇转讞转讜谞讬诐 讻讱 诪爪讜讛 诇讛拽讚讬诐 驻谞讬诐 诇讞讜抓

The Gemara explains that Rabbi Eliezer does not disagree in this case, as how should the priest act? If one says that he should first place blood from the mixture on the altar outside the Sanctuary, and again place blood from the mixture inside the Sanctuary, this is not allowed. Just as it is a mitzva to give precedence to the blood that is to be placed above the red line over the blood that is to be placed below the line, e.g., the presentation of the blood of a sin offering precedes the presentation of the blood of a burnt offering, since a sin offering serves to effect atonement, so too is it a mitzva to give precedence to the blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary over blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary.

Scroll To Top