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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 5, 2018 | 讻状讘 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 83

Blood from a sin聽offering is disqualified if brought into the sanctuary. Is the same true聽for sin offering blood聽that was meant to be presented in the sanctuary and was brought into the kodesh hakodashim? The sources are brought for the debate between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon about the prohibition being only if the blood was presenting in the sanctuary or even if it was just brought inside. Rabbi Yehuda exempts blood that was accidentally brought into the sanctuary – but would he say that if it was brought intentionally, would it be disqualified only if it was presented or not? The new chapter starts with a debate regarding what disqualified items are sanctified if they are in any case brought on the altar – such that if they were put on the altar, one does not need to remove them. Five different聽opinions are presented.

讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 诇诪讝讘讞 讜讛讻谞讬住谉 诪讛讜

and then brought out the blood to the golden altar in the Sanctuary and sprinkled the blood there, as required (see Leviticus 16:18), but subsequently brought the remainder of the blood in toward the Curtain dividing the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies, what is the halakha?

讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 讞讚 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 讗讜 [讚讬诇诪讗] 讬爪讬讗讛 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 转讬拽讜

Rava explains the sides of the dilemma: Do we say that here the area of the Curtain and the golden altar is certainly one place, as they are both in the Sanctuary, and therefore the blood should not be disqualified by being brought back toward the Curtain? Or perhaps, since we call the taking of the blood to the golden altar: Going out, in the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall go out unto the altar鈥 (Leviticus 16:18), its return to the Curtain should be considered bringing in, and therefore the blood should be disqualified? No answers were found, and therefore the Gemara states that these dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

谞讻谞住 诇讻驻专 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 诇讻驻专 讘拽讚砖 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讘讘讗讜 诇讻驻专 讘拽讚砖

搂 The mishna teaches that the Sages disagree as to the halakha in a case where the priest carrying the blood of a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar entered the Sanctuary to atone through sprinkling, but in practice the priest did not actually sprinkle the blood. According to Rabbi Eliezer the blood is disqualified, whereas Rabbi Shimon maintains that the blood is disqualified only if the priest sprinkles it in the Sanctuary. Concerning this, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here: 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), and it is stated there, with regard to the service of the High Priest on Yom Kippur: 鈥淎nd there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting when he goes in to atone in the Sanctuary, until he comes out鈥 (Leviticus 16:17).

诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘砖诇讗 讻讬驻专 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘砖诇讗 讻讬驻专

Rabbi Eliezer explains: Just as there, with regard to Yom Kippur, the phrase 鈥渨hen he goes in to atone鈥 is referring to the stage when he has not yet atoned, so too here, with regard to the disqualification of blood brought inside the Sanctuary, the phrase 鈥渢o atone in the Sanctuary鈥 is referring to a situation where the blood enters the Sanctuary at a time when the priest has not yet atoned.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 诇讻驻专 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讜讗转 驻专 讛讞讟讗转 讜讗转 砖注讬专 讛讞讟讗转 讗砖专 讛讜讘讗 讗转 讚诪诐 诇讻驻专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘砖讻讬驻专 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘砖讻讬驻专

Conversely, Rabbi Shimon says: It is stated here: 鈥淭o atone鈥 (Leviticus 6:23), and it is stated there, with regard to the conclusion of the service on Yom Kippur: 鈥淎nd the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to atone in the Sanctuary, shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn in the fire鈥 (Leviticus 16:27). Just as there, the phrase 鈥渢o atone鈥 is referring to the stage when he has already atoned, as the bull and goat of Yom Kippur are burned after their blood has been sprinkled, so too here, the phrase 鈥渢o atone鈥 is referring to a situation where he has already atoned, whereas merely bringing the blood into the Sanctuary does not disqualify it.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讞讜抓 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讘驻谞讬诐

The Gemara inquires: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon disagree? The Gemara explains that one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that one derives a case of outside, i.e., the blood of a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar, which may not be brought inside the Sanctuary, from another prohibition of outside, the prohibition against entering the Sanctuary; but one does not derive a case of outside from the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, whose blood is brought inside the Sanctuary.

讜诪专 住讘专 讚谞讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诪讘讛诪讛 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诪讗讚诐

And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that one derives a halakha involving an animal, i.e., a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar, from another halakha involving an animal, the bull and goat of Yom Kippur; but one does not derive a case of an animal from a prohibition involving a person.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮 讛讗 诪讝讬讚 驻住讜诇 讘砖讻讬驻专 讗讜 讘砖诇讗 讻讬驻专

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: If the priest took the blood into the Sanctuary unwittingly, the blood remains fit for presentation. The Gemara infers: But if his taking of the blood into the Sanctuary was intentional, it is disqualified. The Gemara analyzes this halakha: Is the blood disqualified only in a case where he took the blood into the Sanctuary and atoned, by sprinkling it inside the Sanctuary, as claimed by Rabbi Eliezer in the mishna; or even in a case where he took the blood in and did not yet atone, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗转 驻专 讛讞讟讗转 讜讗转 砖注讬专 讛讞讟讗转 讗砖专 讛讜讘讗 讗转 讚诪诐 (讗诇 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚) 诇讻驻专 讘拽拽讚砖 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛砖专祝

Rabbi Yirmeya said that one can cite a proof from a baraita: From the fact that it is stated with regard to the Yom Kippur service: 鈥淎nd the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to atone in the Sanctuary, shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung; and he who burns them shall wash his clothes鈥 (Leviticus 16:27鈥28), one can ask the following question: Why must the verse state: 鈥淎nd he who burns鈥?

诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛砖专祝 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞讟讗转 讞讟讗转

The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita to question its line of inquiry. Why must the verse state: 鈥淎nd he who burns鈥? One can answer that this term was necessary for itself, to teach that the one who burns the bull and goat of Yom Kippur is thereby rendered ritually impure. Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: Why must the verse state twice: 鈥淪in offering,鈥 鈥渟in offering,鈥 with regard to the bull and the goat? It could have stated merely: And the bull and the goat of the sin offering.

诇驻讬 砖诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 讗诇讗 诇驻专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖谞砖专驻讬谉 讗讘讬转 讛讚砖谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 砖讗专 谞砖专驻讬谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞讟讗转 讞讟讗转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The baraita answers that if the term 鈥渟in offering鈥 had appeared only once, we would have learned only with regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur that are burned in the place of the ashes that they render ritually impure the garments of the one who carries them. From where is it derived that the same applies to other sin offerings that are burned? The verse states: 鈥淪in offering,鈥 鈥渟in offering,鈥 twice, to include all sin offerings that are burned. This the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗转 驻专 讛讞讟讗转 讜讗转 砖注讬专 讛讞讟讗转 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻驻专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻驻专 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讻诇 讛诪转讻驻专讬诐 砖讛砖讜专驻谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐

Rabbi Meir says: This derivation from the repeated mention of sin offering is not necessary. Now consider, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering鈥hall be taken outside the camp.鈥 As there is no need for the verse to state with regard to these offerings: 鈥淲hose blood was brought in to atone in the Sanctuary,鈥 why must the verse nevertheless state: 鈥淭o atone鈥? This teaches with regard to all offerings that atone inside the Sanctuary that one who burns them renders his garments impure.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讻驻专 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yehuda does not learn anything from the term 鈥渢o atone.鈥 What is the reason for this? Is it not because he requires this phrase for a verbal analogy, to derive that the blood of an external sin offering that was taken inside the Sanctuary is disqualified only if the priest sprinkled it, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? This answers the Gemara鈥檚 question, as Rabbi Yehuda evidently follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 砖谞转注专讘讜

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讝讘讞 诪拽讚砖 [讗转] 讛专讗讜讬 诇讜

MISHNA: Certain unfit items, once they have been placed on the altar, are nevertheless sacrificed. The mishna teaches: The altar sanctifies only items that are suited to it. The tanna鈥檌m disagree as to the definition of suited for the altar.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讗诐 注诇讛 诇讗 讬专讚 砖谞讗诪专 讛讬讗 讛注诇讛 注诇 诪讜拽讚讛 诪讛 注讜诇讛 砖讛讬讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讗诐 注诇转讛 诇讗 转专讚 讗祝 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讗讜讬 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讗诐 注诇讛 诇讗 讬专讚

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Any item that is suited to be consumed by the fire on the altar, e.g., burnt offerings and the sacrificial portions of other offerings, which are burned on the altar, if it ascended upon the altar, even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed ab initio, it shall not descend. Since it was sanctified by its ascent upon the altar, it is sacrificed upon it, as it is stated: 鈥淚t is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived: Just as with regard to a burnt offering, which is suited to be consumed by the fire on the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend, so too, with regard to any item that is suited to be consumed by the fire on the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇诪讝讘讞 讗诐 注诇讛 诇讗 讬专讚 砖谞讗诪专 讛讬讗 讛注诇讛 注诇 诪讜拽讚讛 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 诪讛 注讜诇讛 砖讛讬讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇诪讝讘讞 讗诐 注诇转讛 诇讗 转专讚 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 专讗讜讬 诇诪讝讘讞 讗诐 注诇转讛 诇讗 转专讚

Rabban Gamliel says: With regard to any item that is suited to ascend upon the altar, even if it is not typically consumed, if it ascended, it shall not descend, even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed ab initio, as it is stated: 鈥淚t is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar,鈥 from which it is derived: Just as with regard to a burnt offering, which is fit for the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend, so too, any item that is fit for the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend.

讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诇讗 讛讚诐 讜讛谞住讻讬诐 砖专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬专讚讜 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬专讚讜

The mishna comments: The difference between the statement of Rabban Gamliel and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is only with regard to disqualified blood and disqualified libations, which are not consumed by the fire but do ascend upon the altar, as Rabban Gamliel says: They shall not descend, as they are fit to ascend upon the altar, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: They shall descend, as they are not burned on the altar.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讝讘讞 讻砖专 讜谞住讻讬诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 讛谞住讻讬诐 讻砖讬专讬诐 讜讛讝讘讞 驻住讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 驻住讜诇讬谉 讛讝讘讞 诇讗 讬专讚 讜讛谞住讻讬诐 讬专讚讜

Rabbi Shimon says: Whether the offering was fit and the accompanying libations were unfit, e.g., if they became ritually impure or they were brought outside their designated area, or whether the libations were fit and the offering was unfit, rendering the accompanying libations unfit as well, and even if both this and that were unfit, the offering shall not descend, as it was sanctified by the altar, but the libations shall descend.

讙诪壮 专讗讜讬 诇讜 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讜 诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 拽诪爪讬谉 砖诇讗 拽讬讚砖讜 讘讻诇讬

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the altar sanctifies items that are suited to it, from which the Gemara infers: Items suited to the altar, yes, they are sanctified by it, but items that are not suited to the altar, no, they are not sanctified by it and descend from it even after ascending. The Gemara asks: This inference serves to exclude what? Rav Pappa said: It serves to exclude handfuls of flour that were removed from meal offerings by a priest in order to be burned on the altar, and that were not sanctified by being placed in a service vessel before they ascended upon the altar. Those handfuls did not yet become suited for the altar and therefore shall descend.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讚注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬谉 砖讛注诇谉 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪谉 诇讗 讬专讚讜 谞注砖讜 诇讞诪讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞

Ravina objects to Rav Pappa鈥檚 assertion: In what way is this case different from that of Ulla? As Ulla says: Sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up on the altar before the sprinkling of the offering鈥檚 blood, and are therefore not yet suited for the altar, shall not descend, as they have become the bread of the altar, i.e., they have been sanctified such that they must be burned.

讛谞讱 诇讗 诪讬讞住专讜 诪注砖讛 讘讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 讛谞讬 诪讬讞住专讜 诪注砖讛 讘讙讜驻讬讬讛讜

The Gemara responds that there is a difference between the cases: These sacrificial portions described by Ulla do not lack the performance of an action with regard to themselves that will render them fit for the altar; they lack only the sprinkling of the blood, an independent action. By contrast, these handfuls mentioned by Rav Pappa lack the performance of an action with regard to themselves, as they have yet to be sanctified through placement in a service vessel and never became fit for the altar.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讻讜壮 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 注诇讛 注诇 诪讜拽讚讛 讛讛讜讗 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 驻讜拽注讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua says: Any item that is suited to be consumed by the fire on the altar, if it ascended upon the altar it shall not descend, as it is stated: 鈥淚t is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived that any item suited for burning on the altar shall not descend. The Gemara asks: And as for Rabban Gamliel also, who holds that any item suited for the altar, whether it is to be burned or not, shall not descend, isn鈥檛 it written in the verse: 鈥淏urnt offering on the pyre鈥? The Gemara responds: That verse comes to teach the mitzva to restore to the pyre any parts of the offering that were dislodged from the pyre, and is not discussing unfit items at all.

讜讗讬讚讱 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 驻讜拽注讬谉 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗砖专 转讗讻诇 讛讗砖

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua, from where does he derive the requirement to restore to the fire sacrificial portions that were dislodged from it? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the verse: 鈥淭hat the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:3), indicating that items already partially consumed by the fire are restored to it even if they were dislodged from the pyre.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讻讜诇讬 注讜诇讛 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 注讻讜诇讬 拽讟讜专转 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讘专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗砖专 转讗讻诇 讛讗砖 讗转 讛注诇讛 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 注讻讜诇讬 注讜诇讛 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 注讻讜诇讬 拽讟讜专转

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabban Gamliel, what does he derive from that verse? The Gemara responds: Rabban Gamliel requires that verse to derive that you return partially consumed parts of a burnt offering to the altar, but you do not return partially consumed parts of an incense offering that fell from the golden altar. As Rabbi 岣nina bar Minyumi, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, teaches that the verse 鈥渢hat the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar鈥 teaches that you return partially consumed parts of a burnt offering that fell from the pyre, but you do not return partially consumed parts of an incense offering that fell from the pyre.

讜讗讬讚讱 诇讗讜 诪诪讬诇讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讚注讻讜诇讬 注讜诇讛 诪讛讚专讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua, from where does he derive this distinction? The Gemara responds: Can it not be learned by itself from the straightforward meaning of the verse that we restore partially consumed parts of a burnt offering to the altar? Therefore, there is no need for an additional verse, as both halakhot can be derived from the same verse.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 讻讜壮 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 诪讝讘讞 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 (讟注诪讗) 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇诪讜拽讚讛 诪拽讚砖 诪讝讘讞

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabban Gamliel says: With regard to any item that is suited to ascend upon the altar, even if it is not typically consumed, if it ascended, it shall not descend, even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed ab initio, as it is stated: 鈥淚t is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:2). The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehoshua as well, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淯pon the altar,鈥 and not merely: 鈥淥n the pyre鈥? The Gemara responds: That term is required by Rabbi Yehoshua to teach: What is the reason the Merciful One states that any item that is suited for the pyre does not descend from the altar? It is because the altar sanctifies it.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讝讘讞 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗讬讚讱 讞讚 诇讛讬讻讗 讚讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讜讞讚 诇讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabban Gamliel, from where does he derive that the altar sanctifies the items that ascend upon it? The Gemara responds: It is from the fact that the term 鈥渁ltar鈥 is written another time, in the verse: 鈥淲hatever touches the altar shall be sacred鈥 (Exodus 29:37). The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua, why does he require two verses to teach the same halakha, i.e., that the altar sanctifies items that ascend upon it? The Gemara answers: One verse is necessary for a case where an item had a time of fitness for consumption by the fire and was then disqualified, e.g., it became ritually impure; and one verse is necessary for a case where an item did not have a time of fitness, e.g., an offering that became disqualified at the moment of its slaughter.

讜讗讬讚讱 讻讬讜谉 讚驻住讜诇讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜专讘讬谞讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabban Gamliel, why does he not require another verse to teach that even items that had no time of fitness shall not descend from the altar? The Gemara responds: Once there are disqualified items that the Merciful One included in the halakha that they shall not descend from the altar, it is no different if the item had a time of fitness and it is no different if the item did not have a time of fitness.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讝讘讞 讻砖专 讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注诇讛 诪讛 注讜诇讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讙诇诇 注爪诪讛 讗祝 讻诇 讛讘讗讬谉 讘讙诇诇 注爪诪谉 讬爪讗讜 谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讘讙诇诇 讝讘讞

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: Whether the offering was fit and the accompanying libations were unfit, or whether the libations were fit and the offering was unfit, and even if both this and that were unfit, the offering shall not descend, but the libations shall descend. The Gemara elaborates: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: The verse that teaches that fit items shall not descend from the altar states: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:2). From there it is derived: Just as a burnt offering, which is an item that comes upon the altar for its own sake, shall not descend, so too, all items that come upon the altar for their own sake shall not descend. Excluded are libations, which come upon the altar for the sake of the offering, not for their own sake; these shall descend.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 诪转讜讱 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讛谞讙注 讘诪讝讘讞 讬拽讚砖 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讘讬谉 专讗讜讬 讜讘讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讘砖讬诐 诪讛 讻讘砖讬诐 专讗讜讬讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 专讗讜讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 注诇讛 诪讛 注讜诇讛 专讗讜讬讛 讗祝 讻诇 专讗讜讬讛

搂 The Gemara cites another baraita relating to the mishna. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: From that which is stated: 鈥淲hatever touches the altar shall be sacred鈥 (Exodus 29:37), I would derive that the altar sanctifies any item that ascends upon it, whether it is fit for the altar or whether it is unfit. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淣ow this is that which you shall offer upon the altar: Two lambs鈥 (Exodus 29:38), to teach: Just as lambs are fit for the altar and are sanctified by it, so too, all items fit for the altar are sanctified by it. Rabbi Akiva says that the verse states: 鈥淏urnt offering,鈥 to teach: Just as a burnt offering is fit for the altar and is sanctified by it, so too, all items fit for the altar are sanctified by it.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪专 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪注诇讛 讜诪专 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讻讘砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these opinions? Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The case of a disqualified bird burnt offering is the practical difference between them. One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, who cites the halakha from the term 鈥渂urnt offering,鈥 includes a disqualified bird burnt offering in the halakha that the offering shall not descend, as it is a burnt offering. And the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who cites the halakha from the term 鈥渓ambs,鈥 does not include a disqualified bird burnt offering in the halakha, as it is not similar to a lamb.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讻讘砖讬诐 讛讻转讬讘 注诇讛 讗讬 讻转讬讘 讻讘砖讬诐 讜诇讗 讻转讬讘 注诇讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讬讬诐 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who cites the halakha from the term 鈥渓ambs,鈥 isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淏urnt offering鈥? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, if 鈥渓ambs鈥 had been written and 鈥渂urnt offering鈥 had not been written, I would say that even an animal that became disqualified and ascended upon the altar while alive shall not descend. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淏urnt offering,鈥 indicating that this halakha applies only to animals once they are fit to ascend the altar. Live animals are not fit to ascend the altar.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚诪讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 诪注诇讛 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讻讘砖讬诐 讗讬 讻转讬讘 注诇讛 讜诇讗 讻转讬讘 讻讘砖讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讞讛 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讘砖讬诐

The Gemara continues: And according to the one who derives the halakha from 鈥渂urnt offering,鈥 isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淟ambs鈥? The Gemara explains: According to Rabbi Akiva, if 鈥渂urnt offering鈥 had been written and 鈥渓ambs鈥 had not been written, I would say that any item fit to ascend the altar is included in the halakha, even a meal offering. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淟ambs,鈥 indicating that this halakha applies only to animal offerings and bird offerings, not to meal offerings.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 诇讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 拽诪爪讬诐 砖拽讚砖讜 讘讻诇讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇转谞讗讬 讚讬讚谉 诇讗 讬专讚讜 诇转谞讗讬 讚诪转谞讬转讗 讬专讚讜

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the opinions of these tanna鈥檌m, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva, and the opinions of these tanna鈥檌m of the mishna? Rav Pappa said: The difference between them is with regard to handfuls of flour, removed from meal offerings, that were sanctified in a service vessel and were then disqualified. According to our tanna鈥檌m, i.e., those in the mishna here, those handfuls shall not descend, as they are fit for the altar and for consumption by the fire as well. According to the tanna鈥檌m of the baraita, those handfuls shall descend, as those tanna鈥檌m hold that the halakha applies only to animal offerings and bird offerings.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 诇讚讘专讬 讻讜诇谉 诇讗 转专讚 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

Reish Lakish says in summary: With regard to a meal offering that comes by itself and does not accompany another offering, according to the statements of all of the tanna鈥檌m in the mishna, it shall not descend once it ascended, either because it is fit to be consumed by the fire, or because it comes by itself. According to the statements of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva,

  • 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 83

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 83

讜讛讜爪讬讗讜 诇诪讝讘讞 讜讛讻谞讬住谉 诪讛讜

and then brought out the blood to the golden altar in the Sanctuary and sprinkled the blood there, as required (see Leviticus 16:18), but subsequently brought the remainder of the blood in toward the Curtain dividing the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies, what is the halakha?

讛讻讗 讜讚讗讬 讞讚 诪拽讜诐 讛讜讗 讗讜 [讚讬诇诪讗] 讬爪讬讗讛 拽专讬谞讗 讘讬讛 转讬拽讜

Rava explains the sides of the dilemma: Do we say that here the area of the Curtain and the golden altar is certainly one place, as they are both in the Sanctuary, and therefore the blood should not be disqualified by being brought back toward the Curtain? Or perhaps, since we call the taking of the blood to the golden altar: Going out, in the verse: 鈥淎nd he shall go out unto the altar鈥 (Leviticus 16:18), its return to the Curtain should be considered bringing in, and therefore the blood should be disqualified? No answers were found, and therefore the Gemara states that these dilemmas shall stand unresolved.

谞讻谞住 诇讻驻专 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 诇讻驻专 讘拽讚砖 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讜讻诇 讗讚诐 诇讗 讬讛讬讛 讘讗讛诇 诪讜注讚 讘讘讗讜 诇讻驻专 讘拽讚砖

搂 The mishna teaches that the Sages disagree as to the halakha in a case where the priest carrying the blood of a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar entered the Sanctuary to atone through sprinkling, but in practice the priest did not actually sprinkle the blood. According to Rabbi Eliezer the blood is disqualified, whereas Rabbi Shimon maintains that the blood is disqualified only if the priest sprinkles it in the Sanctuary. Concerning this, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here: 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), and it is stated there, with regard to the service of the High Priest on Yom Kippur: 鈥淎nd there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting when he goes in to atone in the Sanctuary, until he comes out鈥 (Leviticus 16:17).

诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘砖诇讗 讻讬驻专 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘砖诇讗 讻讬驻专

Rabbi Eliezer explains: Just as there, with regard to Yom Kippur, the phrase 鈥渨hen he goes in to atone鈥 is referring to the stage when he has not yet atoned, so too here, with regard to the disqualification of blood brought inside the Sanctuary, the phrase 鈥渢o atone in the Sanctuary鈥 is referring to a situation where the blood enters the Sanctuary at a time when the priest has not yet atoned.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 诇讻驻专 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讜讗转 驻专 讛讞讟讗转 讜讗转 砖注讬专 讛讞讟讗转 讗砖专 讛讜讘讗 讗转 讚诪诐 诇讻驻专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讘砖讻讬驻专 讗祝 讻讗谉 讘砖讻讬驻专

Conversely, Rabbi Shimon says: It is stated here: 鈥淭o atone鈥 (Leviticus 6:23), and it is stated there, with regard to the conclusion of the service on Yom Kippur: 鈥淎nd the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to atone in the Sanctuary, shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn in the fire鈥 (Leviticus 16:27). Just as there, the phrase 鈥渢o atone鈥 is referring to the stage when he has already atoned, as the bull and goat of Yom Kippur are burned after their blood has been sprinkled, so too here, the phrase 鈥渢o atone鈥 is referring to a situation where he has already atoned, whereas merely bringing the blood into the Sanctuary does not disqualify it.

讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 诪专 住讘专 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讞讜抓 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讞讜抓 诪讘驻谞讬诐

The Gemara inquires: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon disagree? The Gemara explains that one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that one derives a case of outside, i.e., the blood of a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar, which may not be brought inside the Sanctuary, from another prohibition of outside, the prohibition against entering the Sanctuary; but one does not derive a case of outside from the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, whose blood is brought inside the Sanctuary.

讜诪专 住讘专 讚谞讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诪讘讛诪讛 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讘讛诪讛 诪讗讚诐

And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that one derives a halakha involving an animal, i.e., a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar, from another halakha involving an animal, the bull and goat of Yom Kippur; but one does not derive a case of an animal from a prohibition involving a person.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻讜壮 讛讗 诪讝讬讚 驻住讜诇 讘砖讻讬驻专 讗讜 讘砖诇讗 讻讬驻专

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: If the priest took the blood into the Sanctuary unwittingly, the blood remains fit for presentation. The Gemara infers: But if his taking of the blood into the Sanctuary was intentional, it is disqualified. The Gemara analyzes this halakha: Is the blood disqualified only in a case where he took the blood into the Sanctuary and atoned, by sprinkling it inside the Sanctuary, as claimed by Rabbi Eliezer in the mishna; or even in a case where he took the blood in and did not yet atone, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讜讗转 驻专 讛讞讟讗转 讜讗转 砖注讬专 讛讞讟讗转 讗砖专 讛讜讘讗 讗转 讚诪诐 (讗诇 讗讛诇 诪讜注讚) 诇讻驻专 讘拽拽讚砖 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛砖专祝

Rabbi Yirmeya said that one can cite a proof from a baraita: From the fact that it is stated with regard to the Yom Kippur service: 鈥淎nd the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to atone in the Sanctuary, shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung; and he who burns them shall wash his clothes鈥 (Leviticus 16:27鈥28), one can ask the following question: Why must the verse state: 鈥淎nd he who burns鈥?

诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛砖专祝 诇讙讜驻讬讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讗诇讗 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞讟讗转 讞讟讗转

The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita to question its line of inquiry. Why must the verse state: 鈥淎nd he who burns鈥? One can answer that this term was necessary for itself, to teach that the one who burns the bull and goat of Yom Kippur is thereby rendered ritually impure. Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: Why must the verse state twice: 鈥淪in offering,鈥 鈥渟in offering,鈥 with regard to the bull and the goat? It could have stated merely: And the bull and the goat of the sin offering.

诇驻讬 砖诇讗 诇诪讚谞讜 讗诇讗 诇驻专 讜砖注讬专 砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讻驻讜专讬诐 砖谞砖专驻讬谉 讗讘讬转 讛讚砖谉 诪讟诪讗讬谉 讘讙讚讬诐 砖讗专 谞砖专驻讬谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讞讟讗转 讞讟讗转 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The baraita answers that if the term 鈥渟in offering鈥 had appeared only once, we would have learned only with regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur that are burned in the place of the ashes that they render ritually impure the garments of the one who carries them. From where is it derived that the same applies to other sin offerings that are burned? The verse states: 鈥淪in offering,鈥 鈥渟in offering,鈥 twice, to include all sin offerings that are burned. This the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讜 爪专讬讱 讛专讬 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讗转 驻专 讛讞讟讗转 讜讗转 砖注讬专 讛讞讟讗转 砖讗讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻驻专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 诇讻驻专 诇讬诪讚 注诇 讻诇 讛诪转讻驻专讬诐 砖讛砖讜专驻谉 诪讟诪讗 讘讙讚讬诐

Rabbi Meir says: This derivation from the repeated mention of sin offering is not necessary. Now consider, the verse states: 鈥淎nd the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering鈥hall be taken outside the camp.鈥 As there is no need for the verse to state with regard to these offerings: 鈥淲hose blood was brought in to atone in the Sanctuary,鈥 why must the verse nevertheless state: 鈥淭o atone鈥? This teaches with regard to all offerings that atone inside the Sanctuary that one who burns them renders his garments impure.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讻驻专 诇讗 诪砖诪注 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诇讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yehuda does not learn anything from the term 鈥渢o atone.鈥 What is the reason for this? Is it not because he requires this phrase for a verbal analogy, to derive that the blood of an external sin offering that was taken inside the Sanctuary is disqualified only if the priest sprinkled it, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? This answers the Gemara鈥檚 question, as Rabbi Yehuda evidently follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 讻诇 讛讝讘讞讬诐 砖谞转注专讘讜

 

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讝讘讞 诪拽讚砖 [讗转] 讛专讗讜讬 诇讜

MISHNA: Certain unfit items, once they have been placed on the altar, are nevertheless sacrificed. The mishna teaches: The altar sanctifies only items that are suited to it. The tanna鈥檌m disagree as to the definition of suited for the altar.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讗诐 注诇讛 诇讗 讬专讚 砖谞讗诪专 讛讬讗 讛注诇讛 注诇 诪讜拽讚讛 诪讛 注讜诇讛 砖讛讬讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讗诐 注诇转讛 诇讗 转专讚 讗祝 讻诇 砖讛讜讗 专讗讜讬 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讗诐 注诇讛 诇讗 讬专讚

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Any item that is suited to be consumed by the fire on the altar, e.g., burnt offerings and the sacrificial portions of other offerings, which are burned on the altar, if it ascended upon the altar, even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed ab initio, it shall not descend. Since it was sanctified by its ascent upon the altar, it is sacrificed upon it, as it is stated: 鈥淚t is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived: Just as with regard to a burnt offering, which is suited to be consumed by the fire on the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend, so too, with regard to any item that is suited to be consumed by the fire on the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇诪讝讘讞 讗诐 注诇讛 诇讗 讬专讚 砖谞讗诪专 讛讬讗 讛注诇讛 注诇 诪讜拽讚讛 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 诪讛 注讜诇讛 砖讛讬讗 专讗讜讬讛 诇诪讝讘讞 讗诐 注诇转讛 诇讗 转专讚 讗祝 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讛讜讗 专讗讜讬 诇诪讝讘讞 讗诐 注诇转讛 诇讗 转专讚

Rabban Gamliel says: With regard to any item that is suited to ascend upon the altar, even if it is not typically consumed, if it ascended, it shall not descend, even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed ab initio, as it is stated: 鈥淚t is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar,鈥 from which it is derived: Just as with regard to a burnt offering, which is fit for the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend, so too, any item that is fit for the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend.

讗讬谉 讘讬谉 讚讘专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗诇讗 讛讚诐 讜讛谞住讻讬诐 砖专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬专讚讜 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讬专讚讜

The mishna comments: The difference between the statement of Rabban Gamliel and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is only with regard to disqualified blood and disqualified libations, which are not consumed by the fire but do ascend upon the altar, as Rabban Gamliel says: They shall not descend, as they are fit to ascend upon the altar, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: They shall descend, as they are not burned on the altar.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讝讘讞 讻砖专 讜谞住讻讬诐 驻住讜诇讬谉 讛谞住讻讬诐 讻砖讬专讬诐 讜讛讝讘讞 驻住讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 讝讛 讜讝讛 驻住讜诇讬谉 讛讝讘讞 诇讗 讬专讚 讜讛谞住讻讬诐 讬专讚讜

Rabbi Shimon says: Whether the offering was fit and the accompanying libations were unfit, e.g., if they became ritually impure or they were brought outside their designated area, or whether the libations were fit and the offering was unfit, rendering the accompanying libations unfit as well, and even if both this and that were unfit, the offering shall not descend, as it was sanctified by the altar, but the libations shall descend.

讙诪壮 专讗讜讬 诇讜 讗讬谉 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讜 诇讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 诪讗讬 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 诇诪注讜讟讬 拽诪爪讬谉 砖诇讗 拽讬讚砖讜 讘讻诇讬

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the altar sanctifies items that are suited to it, from which the Gemara infers: Items suited to the altar, yes, they are sanctified by it, but items that are not suited to the altar, no, they are not sanctified by it and descend from it even after ascending. The Gemara asks: This inference serves to exclude what? Rav Pappa said: It serves to exclude handfuls of flour that were removed from meal offerings by a priest in order to be burned on the altar, and that were not sanctified by being placed in a service vessel before they ascended upon the altar. Those handfuls did not yet become suited for the altar and therefore shall descend.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讬谞讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讚注讜诇讗 讚讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讗讬诪讜专讬 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬谉 砖讛注诇谉 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽转 讚诪谉 诇讗 讬专讚讜 谞注砖讜 诇讞诪讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞

Ravina objects to Rav Pappa鈥檚 assertion: In what way is this case different from that of Ulla? As Ulla says: Sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up on the altar before the sprinkling of the offering鈥檚 blood, and are therefore not yet suited for the altar, shall not descend, as they have become the bread of the altar, i.e., they have been sanctified such that they must be burned.

讛谞讱 诇讗 诪讬讞住专讜 诪注砖讛 讘讙讜驻讬讬讛讜 讛谞讬 诪讬讞住专讜 诪注砖讛 讘讙讜驻讬讬讛讜

The Gemara responds that there is a difference between the cases: These sacrificial portions described by Ulla do not lack the performance of an action with regard to themselves that will render them fit for the altar; they lack only the sprinkling of the blood, an independent action. By contrast, these handfuls mentioned by Rav Pappa lack the performance of an action with regard to themselves, as they have yet to be sanctified through placement in a service vessel and never became fit for the altar.

专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讻讜壮 讜专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 注诇讛 注诇 诪讜拽讚讛 讛讛讜讗 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 驻讜拽注讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗转讗

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua says: Any item that is suited to be consumed by the fire on the altar, if it ascended upon the altar it shall not descend, as it is stated: 鈥淚t is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived that any item suited for burning on the altar shall not descend. The Gemara asks: And as for Rabban Gamliel also, who holds that any item suited for the altar, whether it is to be burned or not, shall not descend, isn鈥檛 it written in the verse: 鈥淏urnt offering on the pyre鈥? The Gemara responds: That verse comes to teach the mitzva to restore to the pyre any parts of the offering that were dislodged from the pyre, and is not discussing unfit items at all.

讜讗讬讚讱 诇讗讛讚讜专讬 驻讜拽注讬谉 诪谞讗 诇讬讛 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讗砖专 转讗讻诇 讛讗砖

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua, from where does he derive the requirement to restore to the fire sacrificial portions that were dislodged from it? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the verse: 鈥淭hat the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:3), indicating that items already partially consumed by the fire are restored to it even if they were dislodged from the pyre.

讜讗讬讚讱 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇注讻讜诇讬 注讜诇讛 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 注讻讜诇讬 拽讟讜专转 讚转谞讬 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讘专 诪谞讬讜诪讬 讘专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗砖专 转讗讻诇 讛讗砖 讗转 讛注诇讛 注诇 讛诪讝讘讞 注讻讜诇讬 注讜诇讛 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 注讻讜诇讬 拽讟讜专转

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabban Gamliel, what does he derive from that verse? The Gemara responds: Rabban Gamliel requires that verse to derive that you return partially consumed parts of a burnt offering to the altar, but you do not return partially consumed parts of an incense offering that fell from the golden altar. As Rabbi 岣nina bar Minyumi, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, teaches that the verse 鈥渢hat the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar鈥 teaches that you return partially consumed parts of a burnt offering that fell from the pyre, but you do not return partially consumed parts of an incense offering that fell from the pyre.

讜讗讬讚讱 诇讗讜 诪诪讬诇讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛 讚注讻讜诇讬 注讜诇讛 诪讛讚专讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua, from where does he derive this distinction? The Gemara responds: Can it not be learned by itself from the straightforward meaning of the verse that we restore partially consumed parts of a burnt offering to the altar? Therefore, there is no need for an additional verse, as both halakhot can be derived from the same verse.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 讻讜壮 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 谞诪讬 讛讻转讬讘 诪讝讘讞 讛讛讜讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 (讟注诪讗) 拽讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讻诇 讛专讗讜讬 诇诪讜拽讚讛 诪拽讚砖 诪讝讘讞

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabban Gamliel says: With regard to any item that is suited to ascend upon the altar, even if it is not typically consumed, if it ascended, it shall not descend, even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed ab initio, as it is stated: 鈥淚t is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:2). The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehoshua as well, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淯pon the altar,鈥 and not merely: 鈥淥n the pyre鈥? The Gemara responds: That term is required by Rabbi Yehoshua to teach: What is the reason the Merciful One states that any item that is suited for the pyre does not descend from the altar? It is because the altar sanctifies it.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪讝讘讞 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗讬讚讱 讞讚 诇讛讬讻讗 讚讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 讜讞讚 诇讛讬讻讗 讚诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讛 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabban Gamliel, from where does he derive that the altar sanctifies the items that ascend upon it? The Gemara responds: It is from the fact that the term 鈥渁ltar鈥 is written another time, in the verse: 鈥淲hatever touches the altar shall be sacred鈥 (Exodus 29:37). The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua, why does he require two verses to teach the same halakha, i.e., that the altar sanctifies items that ascend upon it? The Gemara answers: One verse is necessary for a case where an item had a time of fitness for consumption by the fire and was then disqualified, e.g., it became ritually impure; and one verse is necessary for a case where an item did not have a time of fitness, e.g., an offering that became disqualified at the moment of its slaughter.

讜讗讬讚讱 讻讬讜谉 讚驻住讜诇讬谉 谞讬谞讛讜 讜专讘讬谞讛讜 专讞诪谞讗 诇讗 砖谞讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专 诇讗 砖谞讗 诇讗 讛讬转讛 诇讜 砖注转 讛讻讜砖专

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabban Gamliel, why does he not require another verse to teach that even items that had no time of fitness shall not descend from the altar? The Gemara responds: Once there are disqualified items that the Merciful One included in the halakha that they shall not descend from the altar, it is no different if the item had a time of fitness and it is no different if the item did not have a time of fitness.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讛讝讘讞 讻砖专 讻讜壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注诇讛 诪讛 注讜诇讛 讛讘讗讛 讘讙诇诇 注爪诪讛 讗祝 讻诇 讛讘讗讬谉 讘讙诇诇 注爪诪谉 讬爪讗讜 谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讘讙诇诇 讝讘讞

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: Whether the offering was fit and the accompanying libations were unfit, or whether the libations were fit and the offering was unfit, and even if both this and that were unfit, the offering shall not descend, but the libations shall descend. The Gemara elaborates: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: The verse that teaches that fit items shall not descend from the altar states: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar鈥 (Leviticus 6:2). From there it is derived: Just as a burnt offering, which is an item that comes upon the altar for its own sake, shall not descend, so too, all items that come upon the altar for their own sake shall not descend. Excluded are libations, which come upon the altar for the sake of the offering, not for their own sake; these shall descend.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 诪转讜讱 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讛谞讙注 讘诪讝讘讞 讬拽讚砖 砖讜诪注 讗谞讬 讘讬谉 专讗讜讬 讜讘讬谉 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻讘砖讬诐 诪讛 讻讘砖讬诐 专讗讜讬讬谉 讗祝 讻诇 专讗讜讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 注诇讛 诪讛 注讜诇讛 专讗讜讬讛 讗祝 讻诇 专讗讜讬讛

搂 The Gemara cites another baraita relating to the mishna. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: From that which is stated: 鈥淲hatever touches the altar shall be sacred鈥 (Exodus 29:37), I would derive that the altar sanctifies any item that ascends upon it, whether it is fit for the altar or whether it is unfit. Therefore, the verse states: 鈥淣ow this is that which you shall offer upon the altar: Two lambs鈥 (Exodus 29:38), to teach: Just as lambs are fit for the altar and are sanctified by it, so too, all items fit for the altar are sanctified by it. Rabbi Akiva says that the verse states: 鈥淏urnt offering,鈥 to teach: Just as a burnt offering is fit for the altar and is sanctified by it, so too, all items fit for the altar are sanctified by it.

诪讗讬 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 驻住讜诇讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诪专 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪注诇讛 讜诪专 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讻讘砖讬诐

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these opinions? Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The case of a disqualified bird burnt offering is the practical difference between them. One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, who cites the halakha from the term 鈥渂urnt offering,鈥 includes a disqualified bird burnt offering in the halakha that the offering shall not descend, as it is a burnt offering. And the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who cites the halakha from the term 鈥渓ambs,鈥 does not include a disqualified bird burnt offering in the halakha, as it is not similar to a lamb.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讻讘砖讬诐 讛讻转讬讘 注诇讛 讗讬 讻转讬讘 讻讘砖讬诐 讜诇讗 讻转讬讘 注诇讛 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讞讬讬诐 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 注诇讛

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who cites the halakha from the term 鈥渓ambs,鈥 isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淏urnt offering鈥? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, if 鈥渓ambs鈥 had been written and 鈥渂urnt offering鈥 had not been written, I would say that even an animal that became disqualified and ascended upon the altar while alive shall not descend. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淏urnt offering,鈥 indicating that this halakha applies only to animals once they are fit to ascend the altar. Live animals are not fit to ascend the altar.

讜诇诪讗谉 讚诪讬讬转讬 诇讬讛 诪注诇讛 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讻讘砖讬诐 讗讬 讻转讬讘 注诇讛 讜诇讗 讻转讬讘 讻讘砖讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪谞讞讛 讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 讻讘砖讬诐

The Gemara continues: And according to the one who derives the halakha from 鈥渂urnt offering,鈥 isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淟ambs鈥? The Gemara explains: According to Rabbi Akiva, if 鈥渂urnt offering鈥 had been written and 鈥渓ambs鈥 had not been written, I would say that any item fit to ascend the altar is included in the halakha, even a meal offering. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: 鈥淟ambs,鈥 indicating that this halakha applies only to animal offerings and bird offerings, not to meal offerings.

诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谉 讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 诇讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讚诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 拽诪爪讬诐 砖拽讚砖讜 讘讻诇讬 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜 诇转谞讗讬 讚讬讚谉 诇讗 讬专讚讜 诇转谞讗讬 讚诪转谞讬转讗 讬专讚讜

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the opinions of these tanna鈥檌m, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva, and the opinions of these tanna鈥檌m of the mishna? Rav Pappa said: The difference between them is with regard to handfuls of flour, removed from meal offerings, that were sanctified in a service vessel and were then disqualified. According to our tanna鈥檌m, i.e., those in the mishna here, those handfuls shall not descend, as they are fit for the altar and for consumption by the fire as well. According to the tanna鈥檌m of the baraita, those handfuls shall descend, as those tanna鈥檌m hold that the halakha applies only to animal offerings and bird offerings.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 诇讚讘专讬 讻讜诇谉 诇讗 转专讚 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讜专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗

Reish Lakish says in summary: With regard to a meal offering that comes by itself and does not accompany another offering, according to the statements of all of the tanna鈥檌m in the mishna, it shall not descend once it ascended, either because it is fit to be consumed by the fire, or because it comes by itself. According to the statements of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva,

Scroll To Top