Zevachim 84
Share this shiur:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true Baal Chesed who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition, he was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
In the dispute among the five Tannaim regarding which items remain on the altar even if they have become invalid, Reish Lakish points out cases where there is a practical halakhic difference between the various opinions. According to the Gemara, his novelty lies in one specific case, where he wanted to emphasize that Rabbi Shimon still maintains his position in a case of libations that accompany the sacrifice but were not brought on the same day the sacrifice was offered.
There is also a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda regarding which types of disqualifications fall under the rule of “if they have ascended [the altar], they do not descend.” The Gemara cites a braita that explains the textual basis for their respective opinions.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true Baal Chesed who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition, he was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
Zevachim 84
תֵּרֵד. מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַזֶּבַח – לְדִבְרֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לֹא תֵּרֵד, לְדִבְרֵי כּוּלָּן תֵּרֵד.
even that meal offering shall descend, as it is not similar to lambs. With regard to a meal offering that comes with an animal offering, either a burnt offering or peace offering, according to the statements of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua, it shall not descend, as it is meant for consumpion by the fire. According to the statements of everyone else, i.e., Rabbi Shimon and the tannai’im of the baraita, it shall descend, as it is neither offered by itself nor is it an animal.
נְסָכִים הַבָּאִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן – לְדִבְרֵי כּוּלָּן יֵרְדוּ, לְדִבְרֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֹא יֵרְדוּ. נְסָכִין הַבָּאִין עִם הַזֶּבַח – לְדִבְרֵי כּוּלָּן יֵרְדוּ, לְדִבְרֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְחוֹדֵיהּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ.
Reish Lakish continues: With regard to libations that come by themselves, according to the statements of everyone, i.e., Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yehoshua, they shall descend, but according to the statements of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Shimon, they shall not descend. With regard to libations that come with an animal offering, according to the statements of everyone, they shall descend, while according to the statement of Rabban Gamliel alone, they shall not descend.
פְּשִׁיטָא! מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ – וְכִדְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם מִנְחַת נְסָכִים בְּכׇל יוֹם.
The Gemara questions the need for such a summary: Isn’t it obvious? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for him to state the halakha in the case of a meal offering that comes by itself, and this is in accordance with the statement of Rava. As Rava says: A person can volunteer to bring a meal offering that normally accompanies libations, on any day, even without offering the libations and animal offering that it normally accompanies. Although the summary is itself obvious, it is nevertheless stated to indicate that it is possible to offer such a meal offering.
וְנַשְׁמְעִינַן כִּדְרָבָא! נְסָכִים הַבָּאִים עִם הַזֶּבַח אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ – דְּקָא מַקְרֵב לְהוּ לִמְחַר וּלְיוֹמָא חָרָא.
The Gemara asks: If the intent of his summary is to express his agreement with the statement of Rava, then let Reish Lakish teach us explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rava. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the case of libations that come with an animal offering, as the halakha in such a case is that he may sacrifice the libations the next day and on a later [ḥara] day sometime after sacrificing the animal offering that they accompany.
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר מָר: ״מִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״ בַּלַּיְלָה, ״מִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״ לְמָחָר – כִּנְסָכִים הַבָּאִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן דָּמוּ, וּמוֹדֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּלֹא יֵרְדוּ; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Accordingly, it may enter your mind to say that since the Master says that the verse: “And their meal offering and their libations” (Numbers 29:18), indicates that libations may be offered at night, and the phrase “and their meal offering and their libations” indicates that libations may be offered the next day and on a later day, perhaps libations offered on a later date than the animal itself are to be considered as libations which come by themselves, and Rabbi Shimon would concede that they shall not descend. Reish Lakish therefore teaches us the case of libations that accompany an animal offering, to indicate that such libations are still considered as those that accompany an animal offering and that they shall descend from the altar.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ אִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ: הַלָּן, וְהַיּוֹצֵא, וְהַטָּמֵא, וְשֶׁנִּשְׁחַט חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, וְשֶׁקִּבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ אֶת דָּמוֹ.
MISHNA: These are the items that even if they were disqualified, if they ascended the altar they shall not descend: Blood, sacrificial portions, or limbs of a burnt offering, any of which were left overnight off the altar, or that emerge from the Temple courtyard, or that become ritually impure, or that came from an animal that was slaughtered with the intent to sacrifice it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, or an offering that people unfit to perform the Temple service collected and then sprinkled its blood.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בַּלַּיְלָה וְנִשְׁפַּךְ דָּמָהּ וְיָצָא דָּמָהּ חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – אִם עָלְתָה תֵּרֵד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא תֵּרֵד, שֶׁהָיָה פְּסוּלוֹ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ. שֶׁרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁפְּסוּלוֹ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ – הַקֹּדֶשׁ מְקַבְּלוֹ, לֹא הָיָה פְּסוּלוֹ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ – אֵין הַקֹּדֶשׁ מְקַבְּלוֹ.
Rabbi Yehuda says: In the case of a sacrificial animal that was slaughtered at night, or one whose blood was spilled on the floor of the Temple without its being collected in a vessel, or one whose blood emerged outside the curtains, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard: Even if it ascended upon the altar it shall descend. Rabbi Shimon says: In all these cases, if it ascended it shall not descend, because its disqualification occurred in sanctity. As Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to any unfit offering whose disqualification occurred in sanctity, i.e., in the course of the Temple service, the sacred area renders the offering acceptable, and if it ascended onto the altar it shall not descend. But with regard to any offering whose disqualification did not occur in sanctity but rather was unfit initially, the sacred area does not render the offering acceptable.
וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה פְּסוּלָן בַּקֹּדֶשׁ: הָרוֹבֵעַ, וְהַנִּרְבָּע, וְהַמּוּקְצֶה, וְהַנֶּעֱבָד, וְהָאֶתְנַן, וְהַמְּחִיר, וְהַכִּלְאַיִם, וְהַטְּרֵפָה, וְהַיּוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן, וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַכְשִׁיר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹמֵר: דּוֹחֶה הָיָה אַבָּא אֶת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
And these are the offerings whose disqualification did not occur in sanctity: An animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality, and an animal that was set aside for idol worship, and an animal that was worshipped as a deity, and an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, and an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds, and an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], and an animal born by caesarean section, and blemished animals. Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit in the sense that if they ascended they shall not descend. Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: My father would reject blemished animals from upon the altar.
כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ, כָּךְ אִם יֵרְדוּ לֹא יַעֲלוּ. וְכוּלָּן שֶׁעָלוּ חַיִּים לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – יֵרְדוּ. עוֹלָה שֶׁעָלְתָה חַיָּה לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – תֵּרֵד. שְׁחָטָהּ בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – יַפְשִׁיט וִינַתְּחֶהָ בִּמְקוֹמָהּ.
Concerning those animals that, if they ascended, do not descend, just as if they ascended the altar they shall not descend, so too, if they descended they shall not then ascend. And all of them that if they ascend they do not descend, if they ascended to the top of the altar alive they descend, as an animal is fit for the altar only after it is slaughtered. A burnt offering that ascended to the top of the altar alive shall descend, as one does not slaughter an animal atop the altar ab initio. But if one slaughtered the animal at the top of the altar, he should flay it and cut it into pieces in its place, and it is not removed from the altar.
גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״זֹאת״, ״הִיא״, ״הָעֹלָה״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה מִיעוּטִין; פְּרָט לְשֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה בַּלַּיְלָה, וְשֶׁנִּשְׁפַּךְ דָּמָהּ, וְשֶׁיָּצָא דָּמָהּ חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – שֶׁאִם עָלְתָה, תֵּרֵד.
GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The verse from which is derived the halakha that items that ascended upon the altar shall not descend, states: “This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2). These are three terms of exclusion used in the verse: “This,” “it,” and “the,” from which it is derived that three instances are excluded from this halakha: A sacrificial animal that was slaughtered at night, and one whose blood was spilled, and one whose blood emerged outside the curtains, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard. With regard to these cases, the halakha is that if one of them ascended upon the altar it shall descend.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״עֹלָה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹלָה כְּשֵׁרָה; מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה בַּלַּיְלָה, וְשֶׁנִּשְׁפַּךְ דָּמָהּ, וְשֶׁיָּצָא דָּמָהּ חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים, וְהַלָּן, וְהַיּוֹצֵא, וְהַטָּמֵא, וְשֶׁנִּשְׁחַט חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, וְשֶׁקִּבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ אֶת דָּמוֹ,
Rabbi Shimon says: From the usage of the term “burnt offering” I have derived only with regard to a fit burnt offering that it shall not descend. From where is it derived that the verse also includes a sacrificial animal that was disqualified, such as one that was slaughtered at night; or whose blood was spilled; or whose blood emerged outside the curtains, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard; or that was left overnight; or that emerged from the Temple courtyard, or that became ritually impure; or that came from an animal that was slaughtered with the intent to sacrifice it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area; or an offering that people unfit to perform the Temple service collected and then sprinkled its blood?
הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַטָּה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַעְלָה, וּלְמַעְלָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַטָּה, וְהַנִּיתָּנִין בַּחוּץ שֶׁנְּתָנָן בִּפְנִים, בִּפְנִים שֶׁנְּתָנָן בַּחוּץ,
In addition, from where is it derived that the following are also included in this halakha: Those offerings whose blood is to be placed below the red line that divided between the upper and lower halves of the external altar, i.e., a burnt offering, a guilt offering, or a peace offering, but it was placed above the red line; and a sin offering, whose blood is to be placed above the red line, that had its blood placed below the red line; and those offerings whose blood is to be placed outside, on the external altar, that had their blood placed inside, in the Sanctuary; and those offerings whose blood is to be placed inside that had their blood placed outside?
וּפֶסַח וְחַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה״ – רִיבָּה תּוֹרָה אַחַת לְכׇל הָעוֹלִין, שֶׁאִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ.
And in addition, with regard to a Paschal offering or sin offering that were slaughtered not for their sake, from where is it derived that if they ascended upon the altar they shall not descend? The verse states: “The law of the burnt offering,” which included in one law all items that ascend upon the altar, establishing the principle that if they ascended the altar they shall not descend.
יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע, וְהַמּוּקְצֶה וְהַנֶּעֱבָד, וְאֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר, וְכִלְאַיִם וּטְרֵפָה וְיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֹאת״.
One might have thought that I should also include an animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality, and an animal that was set aside for idol worship, and an animal that was worshipped as a deity, and an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, and an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds, and an animal that is a tereifa, and an animal born by caesarean section. Therefore, the verse states: “This,” to exclude these types of disqualifications, which descend even after they have ascended the altar.
וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת אֵלּוּ וּלְהוֹצִיא אֶת אֵלּוּ? אַחַר שֶׁרִיבָּה
The Gemara asks: And what did you see as reason to include those and exclude these? The Gemara answers: After noting that the verse included
הַכָּתוּב וּמִיעֵט, מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ שֶׁהָיָה פְּסוּלָן בַּקֹּדֶשׁ, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה פְּסוּלָן בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ.
and subsequently the verse excluded, I say the following claim with regard to what to include and what to exclude: I will include those whose disqualification was in sanctity, i.e., in the course of Temple service, and rule that if they ascended they shall not descend, and I will exclude these whose disqualification was not in sanctity, and rule that if they ascended they shall descend.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ לָן בַּדָּם כָּשֵׁר –
And as for Rabbi Yehuda, who disagrees with Rabbi Shimon and does not deem it permitted for items whose disqualification occurred in sanctity to remain on the altar, yet agrees that those items listed in the beginning of the mishna, such as sacrificial portions left overnight, shall not descend, he derives it from here, as it is taught in a baraita: For what reason did the Sages say to us that in the case of blood left overnight it is fit, i.e., if blood of an offering had been left overnight and was then placed on the altar it is not removed?
שֶׁהֲרֵי לָן כָּשֵׁר בָּאֵימוּרִין. לָן בָּאֵימוּרִין כָּשֵׁר – שֶׁהֲרֵי לָן כָּשֵׁר בַּבָּשָׂר.
This is as the halakha is in the case of sacrificial portions, which if they are left overnight are fit. From where is it derived that in the case of sacrificial portions that are left overnight, they are fit? This is as the halakha is in the case of meat, which if it is left overnight is fit, because the meat of a peace offering may be eaten for two days and one night.
יוֹצֵא – שֶׁהַיּוֹצֵא כָּשֵׁר בְּבָמָה.
From where is it derived that if an offering that emerges from the Temple courtyard is then placed on the altar it is not removed? This is derived by comparison, since an offering that leaves its area is fit in the case of an offering brought on a private altar, as the entire notion of sacrifice on such an altar is that it may be performed anywhere.
טָמֵא – הוֹאִיל וְהוּתַּר לַעֲבוֹדַת צִיבּוּר.
From where is it derived that if an offering that has become ritually impure is placed on the altar it is not removed? This is derived by comparison, since it is permitted to offer an impure offering in the case of communal rites, i.e., communal offerings. In cases of necessity, the communal offerings may be sacrificed even if they are ritually impure.
חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – הוֹאִיל וּמְרַצֶּה לְפִיגּוּלוֹ.
From where is it derived that if an offering that was disqualified due to the intention of the priest who slaughtered it to consume it beyond its designated time [piggul] was placed on the altar, it is not removed? This is derived by comparison, since the sprinkling of its blood effects acceptance with regard to its status as piggul. The status of piggul takes effect only if the sacrificial rites involving that offering were otherwise performed properly. This indicates that it still has the status of an offering, so it is not removed from the altar.
חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – הוֹאִיל וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ לְחוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ.
From where is it derived that if an offering that was disqualified due to the intention of the priest who slaughtered it to consume it outside its designated area was placed on the altar, it is not removed? This is derived by comparison, since it is juxtaposed to an offering that was slaughtered with intent to consume it beyond its designated time.
שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ אֶת דָּמוֹ – בְּהָנָךְ פְּסוּלֵי דַּחֲזוֹ לַעֲבוֹדַת צִיבּוּר.
From where is it derived that if an offering that people unfit for performing the Temple service collected and then sprinkled its blood was placed on the altar, it is not removed? This is derived from the halakha of these priests who are generally disqualified because they are impure, yet who are fit to perform the communal rites, i.e., to sacrifice communal offerings, in a case when all the priests or the majority of the Jewish people are impure.
וְכִי דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶכְשֵׁרוֹ, מִדָּבָר שֶׁבְּהֶכְשֵׁרוֹ?!
The Gemara questions the derivations of the baraita: But can one deduce the halakha of a matter that is not fit, i.e., sacrificial portions that are disqualified due to having been left overnight, from the halakha of a matter that is fit, i.e., the peace offering, which is permitted for eating for two days and one night? Similarly, how can the baraita derive the halakha of flesh that was removed from the Temple courtyard from the halakha of a private altar, which has no halakhic area surrounding it?
תָּנָּא אַ״זֹּאת תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה״ רִיבָּה סְמִיךְ לֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: The tanna relied on the verse: “Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar all night until the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning there” (Leviticus 6:2), which amplified the application of the halakha stated in the verse, teaching that many types of disqualified offerings may be left upon the altar. The derivations written in the baraita are mere supports for those two halakhot. The explanations cited in the baraita for including these disqualifications are mentioned only to clarify why Rabbi Yehuda does not exclude them based on the terms “this,” “it,” and “that.”
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה בַּלַּיְלָה בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב,
§ With regard to an offering that was slaughtered at night, which Rabbi Yehuda holds shall descend from the altar even if it ascended, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One who slaughters a sacrificial animal at night inside the Temple courtyard, and then offers it up on an altar outside the Temple courtyard, is liable to receive karet, which is the punishment for one who sacrifices an offering outside the Temple courtyard. Although one is normally liable for sacrificing an offering outside the Temple courtyard only if it was fit to be offered on the altar within the Temple, and an animal slaughtered at night is disqualified and shall descend from the altar according to Rabbi Yehuda,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Zevahim 84: The Ups and Downs (But Mainly Ups) of the Altar
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Richmond, CA, United States
Minnesota, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
New York, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this cycle more than 2 years ago, and I have not missed a day or a daf. It’s been challenging and enlightening and even mind-numbing at times, but the learning and the shared experience have all been worth it. If you are open to it, there’s no telling what might come into your life.
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Berlin, Germany
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
Zevachim 84
תֵּרֵד. מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה עִם הַזֶּבַח – לְדִבְרֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לֹא תֵּרֵד, לְדִבְרֵי כּוּלָּן תֵּרֵד.
even that meal offering shall descend, as it is not similar to lambs. With regard to a meal offering that comes with an animal offering, either a burnt offering or peace offering, according to the statements of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua, it shall not descend, as it is meant for consumpion by the fire. According to the statements of everyone else, i.e., Rabbi Shimon and the tannai’im of the baraita, it shall descend, as it is neither offered by itself nor is it an animal.
נְסָכִים הַבָּאִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן – לְדִבְרֵי כּוּלָּן יֵרְדוּ, לְדִבְרֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לֹא יֵרְדוּ. נְסָכִין הַבָּאִין עִם הַזֶּבַח – לְדִבְרֵי כּוּלָּן יֵרְדוּ, לְדִבְרֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְחוֹדֵיהּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ.
Reish Lakish continues: With regard to libations that come by themselves, according to the statements of everyone, i.e., Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yehoshua, they shall descend, but according to the statements of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Shimon, they shall not descend. With regard to libations that come with an animal offering, according to the statements of everyone, they shall descend, while according to the statement of Rabban Gamliel alone, they shall not descend.
פְּשִׁיטָא! מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ – וְכִדְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: מִתְנַדֵּב אָדָם מִנְחַת נְסָכִים בְּכׇל יוֹם.
The Gemara questions the need for such a summary: Isn’t it obvious? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for him to state the halakha in the case of a meal offering that comes by itself, and this is in accordance with the statement of Rava. As Rava says: A person can volunteer to bring a meal offering that normally accompanies libations, on any day, even without offering the libations and animal offering that it normally accompanies. Although the summary is itself obvious, it is nevertheless stated to indicate that it is possible to offer such a meal offering.
וְנַשְׁמְעִינַן כִּדְרָבָא! נְסָכִים הַבָּאִים עִם הַזֶּבַח אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ – דְּקָא מַקְרֵב לְהוּ לִמְחַר וּלְיוֹמָא חָרָא.
The Gemara asks: If the intent of his summary is to express his agreement with the statement of Rava, then let Reish Lakish teach us explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rava. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the case of libations that come with an animal offering, as the halakha in such a case is that he may sacrifice the libations the next day and on a later [ḥara] day sometime after sacrificing the animal offering that they accompany.
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר מָר: ״מִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״ בַּלַּיְלָה, ״מִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״ לְמָחָר – כִּנְסָכִים הַבָּאִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן דָּמוּ, וּמוֹדֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּלֹא יֵרְדוּ; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Accordingly, it may enter your mind to say that since the Master says that the verse: “And their meal offering and their libations” (Numbers 29:18), indicates that libations may be offered at night, and the phrase “and their meal offering and their libations” indicates that libations may be offered the next day and on a later day, perhaps libations offered on a later date than the animal itself are to be considered as libations which come by themselves, and Rabbi Shimon would concede that they shall not descend. Reish Lakish therefore teaches us the case of libations that accompany an animal offering, to indicate that such libations are still considered as those that accompany an animal offering and that they shall descend from the altar.
מַתְנִי׳ אֵלּוּ אִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ: הַלָּן, וְהַיּוֹצֵא, וְהַטָּמֵא, וְשֶׁנִּשְׁחַט חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, וְשֶׁקִּבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ אֶת דָּמוֹ.
MISHNA: These are the items that even if they were disqualified, if they ascended the altar they shall not descend: Blood, sacrificial portions, or limbs of a burnt offering, any of which were left overnight off the altar, or that emerge from the Temple courtyard, or that become ritually impure, or that came from an animal that was slaughtered with the intent to sacrifice it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, or an offering that people unfit to perform the Temple service collected and then sprinkled its blood.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: שֶׁנִּשְׁחַט בַּלַּיְלָה וְנִשְׁפַּךְ דָּמָהּ וְיָצָא דָּמָהּ חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – אִם עָלְתָה תֵּרֵד. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לֹא תֵּרֵד, שֶׁהָיָה פְּסוּלוֹ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ. שֶׁרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: כֹּל שֶׁפְּסוּלוֹ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ – הַקֹּדֶשׁ מְקַבְּלוֹ, לֹא הָיָה פְּסוּלוֹ בַּקֹּדֶשׁ – אֵין הַקֹּדֶשׁ מְקַבְּלוֹ.
Rabbi Yehuda says: In the case of a sacrificial animal that was slaughtered at night, or one whose blood was spilled on the floor of the Temple without its being collected in a vessel, or one whose blood emerged outside the curtains, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard: Even if it ascended upon the altar it shall descend. Rabbi Shimon says: In all these cases, if it ascended it shall not descend, because its disqualification occurred in sanctity. As Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to any unfit offering whose disqualification occurred in sanctity, i.e., in the course of the Temple service, the sacred area renders the offering acceptable, and if it ascended onto the altar it shall not descend. But with regard to any offering whose disqualification did not occur in sanctity but rather was unfit initially, the sacred area does not render the offering acceptable.
וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה פְּסוּלָן בַּקֹּדֶשׁ: הָרוֹבֵעַ, וְהַנִּרְבָּע, וְהַמּוּקְצֶה, וְהַנֶּעֱבָד, וְהָאֶתְנַן, וְהַמְּחִיר, וְהַכִּלְאַיִם, וְהַטְּרֵפָה, וְהַיּוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן, וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַכְשִׁיר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹמֵר: דּוֹחֶה הָיָה אַבָּא אֶת בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
And these are the offerings whose disqualification did not occur in sanctity: An animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality, and an animal that was set aside for idol worship, and an animal that was worshipped as a deity, and an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, and an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds, and an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], and an animal born by caesarean section, and blemished animals. Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit in the sense that if they ascended they shall not descend. Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: My father would reject blemished animals from upon the altar.
כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ, כָּךְ אִם יֵרְדוּ לֹא יַעֲלוּ. וְכוּלָּן שֶׁעָלוּ חַיִּים לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – יֵרְדוּ. עוֹלָה שֶׁעָלְתָה חַיָּה לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – תֵּרֵד. שְׁחָטָהּ בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – יַפְשִׁיט וִינַתְּחֶהָ בִּמְקוֹמָהּ.
Concerning those animals that, if they ascended, do not descend, just as if they ascended the altar they shall not descend, so too, if they descended they shall not then ascend. And all of them that if they ascend they do not descend, if they ascended to the top of the altar alive they descend, as an animal is fit for the altar only after it is slaughtered. A burnt offering that ascended to the top of the altar alive shall descend, as one does not slaughter an animal atop the altar ab initio. But if one slaughtered the animal at the top of the altar, he should flay it and cut it into pieces in its place, and it is not removed from the altar.
גְּמָ׳ תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: ״זֹאת״, ״הִיא״, ״הָעֹלָה״ – הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁלֹשָׁה מִיעוּטִין; פְּרָט לְשֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה בַּלַּיְלָה, וְשֶׁנִּשְׁפַּךְ דָּמָהּ, וְשֶׁיָּצָא דָּמָהּ חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – שֶׁאִם עָלְתָה, תֵּרֵד.
GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The verse from which is derived the halakha that items that ascended upon the altar shall not descend, states: “This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2). These are three terms of exclusion used in the verse: “This,” “it,” and “the,” from which it is derived that three instances are excluded from this halakha: A sacrificial animal that was slaughtered at night, and one whose blood was spilled, and one whose blood emerged outside the curtains, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard. With regard to these cases, the halakha is that if one of them ascended upon the altar it shall descend.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״עֹלָה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹלָה כְּשֵׁרָה; מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה בַּלַּיְלָה, וְשֶׁנִּשְׁפַּךְ דָּמָהּ, וְשֶׁיָּצָא דָּמָהּ חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים, וְהַלָּן, וְהַיּוֹצֵא, וְהַטָּמֵא, וְשֶׁנִּשְׁחַט חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, וְשֶׁקִּבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ אֶת דָּמוֹ,
Rabbi Shimon says: From the usage of the term “burnt offering” I have derived only with regard to a fit burnt offering that it shall not descend. From where is it derived that the verse also includes a sacrificial animal that was disqualified, such as one that was slaughtered at night; or whose blood was spilled; or whose blood emerged outside the curtains, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard; or that was left overnight; or that emerged from the Temple courtyard, or that became ritually impure; or that came from an animal that was slaughtered with the intent to sacrifice it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area; or an offering that people unfit to perform the Temple service collected and then sprinkled its blood?
הַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַטָּה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַעְלָה, וּלְמַעְלָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַטָּה, וְהַנִּיתָּנִין בַּחוּץ שֶׁנְּתָנָן בִּפְנִים, בִּפְנִים שֶׁנְּתָנָן בַּחוּץ,
In addition, from where is it derived that the following are also included in this halakha: Those offerings whose blood is to be placed below the red line that divided between the upper and lower halves of the external altar, i.e., a burnt offering, a guilt offering, or a peace offering, but it was placed above the red line; and a sin offering, whose blood is to be placed above the red line, that had its blood placed below the red line; and those offerings whose blood is to be placed outside, on the external altar, that had their blood placed inside, in the Sanctuary; and those offerings whose blood is to be placed inside that had their blood placed outside?
וּפֶסַח וְחַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה״ – רִיבָּה תּוֹרָה אַחַת לְכׇל הָעוֹלִין, שֶׁאִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ.
And in addition, with regard to a Paschal offering or sin offering that were slaughtered not for their sake, from where is it derived that if they ascended upon the altar they shall not descend? The verse states: “The law of the burnt offering,” which included in one law all items that ascend upon the altar, establishing the principle that if they ascended the altar they shall not descend.
יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע, וְהַמּוּקְצֶה וְהַנֶּעֱבָד, וְאֶתְנַן וּמְחִיר, וְכִלְאַיִם וּטְרֵפָה וְיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֹאת״.
One might have thought that I should also include an animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality, and an animal that was set aside for idol worship, and an animal that was worshipped as a deity, and an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, and an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds, and an animal that is a tereifa, and an animal born by caesarean section. Therefore, the verse states: “This,” to exclude these types of disqualifications, which descend even after they have ascended the altar.
וּמָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת אֵלּוּ וּלְהוֹצִיא אֶת אֵלּוּ? אַחַר שֶׁרִיבָּה
The Gemara asks: And what did you see as reason to include those and exclude these? The Gemara answers: After noting that the verse included
הַכָּתוּב וּמִיעֵט, מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ שֶׁהָיָה פְּסוּלָן בַּקֹּדֶשׁ, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה פְּסוּלָן בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ.
and subsequently the verse excluded, I say the following claim with regard to what to include and what to exclude: I will include those whose disqualification was in sanctity, i.e., in the course of Temple service, and rule that if they ascended they shall not descend, and I will exclude these whose disqualification was not in sanctity, and rule that if they ascended they shall descend.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ לָן בַּדָּם כָּשֵׁר –
And as for Rabbi Yehuda, who disagrees with Rabbi Shimon and does not deem it permitted for items whose disqualification occurred in sanctity to remain on the altar, yet agrees that those items listed in the beginning of the mishna, such as sacrificial portions left overnight, shall not descend, he derives it from here, as it is taught in a baraita: For what reason did the Sages say to us that in the case of blood left overnight it is fit, i.e., if blood of an offering had been left overnight and was then placed on the altar it is not removed?
שֶׁהֲרֵי לָן כָּשֵׁר בָּאֵימוּרִין. לָן בָּאֵימוּרִין כָּשֵׁר – שֶׁהֲרֵי לָן כָּשֵׁר בַּבָּשָׂר.
This is as the halakha is in the case of sacrificial portions, which if they are left overnight are fit. From where is it derived that in the case of sacrificial portions that are left overnight, they are fit? This is as the halakha is in the case of meat, which if it is left overnight is fit, because the meat of a peace offering may be eaten for two days and one night.
יוֹצֵא – שֶׁהַיּוֹצֵא כָּשֵׁר בְּבָמָה.
From where is it derived that if an offering that emerges from the Temple courtyard is then placed on the altar it is not removed? This is derived by comparison, since an offering that leaves its area is fit in the case of an offering brought on a private altar, as the entire notion of sacrifice on such an altar is that it may be performed anywhere.
טָמֵא – הוֹאִיל וְהוּתַּר לַעֲבוֹדַת צִיבּוּר.
From where is it derived that if an offering that has become ritually impure is placed on the altar it is not removed? This is derived by comparison, since it is permitted to offer an impure offering in the case of communal rites, i.e., communal offerings. In cases of necessity, the communal offerings may be sacrificed even if they are ritually impure.
חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – הוֹאִיל וּמְרַצֶּה לְפִיגּוּלוֹ.
From where is it derived that if an offering that was disqualified due to the intention of the priest who slaughtered it to consume it beyond its designated time [piggul] was placed on the altar, it is not removed? This is derived by comparison, since the sprinkling of its blood effects acceptance with regard to its status as piggul. The status of piggul takes effect only if the sacrificial rites involving that offering were otherwise performed properly. This indicates that it still has the status of an offering, so it is not removed from the altar.
חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – הוֹאִיל וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ לְחוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ.
From where is it derived that if an offering that was disqualified due to the intention of the priest who slaughtered it to consume it outside its designated area was placed on the altar, it is not removed? This is derived by comparison, since it is juxtaposed to an offering that was slaughtered with intent to consume it beyond its designated time.
שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ אֶת דָּמוֹ – בְּהָנָךְ פְּסוּלֵי דַּחֲזוֹ לַעֲבוֹדַת צִיבּוּר.
From where is it derived that if an offering that people unfit for performing the Temple service collected and then sprinkled its blood was placed on the altar, it is not removed? This is derived from the halakha of these priests who are generally disqualified because they are impure, yet who are fit to perform the communal rites, i.e., to sacrifice communal offerings, in a case when all the priests or the majority of the Jewish people are impure.
וְכִי דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶכְשֵׁרוֹ, מִדָּבָר שֶׁבְּהֶכְשֵׁרוֹ?!
The Gemara questions the derivations of the baraita: But can one deduce the halakha of a matter that is not fit, i.e., sacrificial portions that are disqualified due to having been left overnight, from the halakha of a matter that is fit, i.e., the peace offering, which is permitted for eating for two days and one night? Similarly, how can the baraita derive the halakha of flesh that was removed from the Temple courtyard from the halakha of a private altar, which has no halakhic area surrounding it?
תָּנָּא אַ״זֹּאת תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה״ רִיבָּה סְמִיךְ לֵיהּ.
The Gemara answers: The tanna relied on the verse: “Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar all night until the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning there” (Leviticus 6:2), which amplified the application of the halakha stated in the verse, teaching that many types of disqualified offerings may be left upon the altar. The derivations written in the baraita are mere supports for those two halakhot. The explanations cited in the baraita for including these disqualifications are mentioned only to clarify why Rabbi Yehuda does not exclude them based on the terms “this,” “it,” and “that.”
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה בַּלַּיְלָה בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב,
§ With regard to an offering that was slaughtered at night, which Rabbi Yehuda holds shall descend from the altar even if it ascended, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One who slaughters a sacrificial animal at night inside the Temple courtyard, and then offers it up on an altar outside the Temple courtyard, is liable to receive karet, which is the punishment for one who sacrifices an offering outside the Temple courtyard. Although one is normally liable for sacrificing an offering outside the Temple courtyard only if it was fit to be offered on the altar within the Temple, and an animal slaughtered at night is disqualified and shall descend from the altar according to Rabbi Yehuda,
