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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 6, 2018 | 讻状讙 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 84

Which types of disqualified items that are put on the altar can stay and which have to be removed. Why? In which cases is there a disagreement?

转专讚 诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诐 讛讝讘讞 诇讚讘专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 转专讚 诇讚讘专讬 讻讜诇谉 转专讚

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鈥檌m of the baraita, it shall descend, as it is neither offered by itself nor is it an animal.

谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 诇讚讘专讬 讻讜诇谉 讬专讚讜 诇讚讘专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 讬专讚讜 谞住讻讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 注诐 讛讝讘讞 诇讚讘专讬 讻讜诇谉 讬专讚讜 诇讚讘专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诇讗 讬专讚讜

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.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讜讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讚讘 讗讚诐 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讘讻诇 讬讜诐

The Gemara questions the need for such a summary: Isn鈥檛 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.

讜谞砖诪注讬谞谉 讻讚专讘讗 谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 注诐 讛讝讘讞 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讚拽讗 诪拽专讘 诇讛讜 诇诪讞专 讜诇讬讜诪讗 讞专讗

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 [岣ra] day sometime after sacrificing the animal offering that they accompany.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 诪专 诪谞讞转诐 讜谞住讻讬讛诐 讘诇讬诇讛 诪谞讞转诐 讜谞住讻讬讛诐 诇诪讞专 讻谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讚诪讜 讜诪讜讚讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚诇讗 讬专讚讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Accordingly, it may enter your mind to say that since the Master says that the verse: 鈥淎nd their meal offering and their liba-tions鈥 (Numbers 29:18), indicates that libations may be offered at night, and the phrase 鈥渁nd their meal offering and their libations鈥 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讗诐 注诇讜 诇讗 讬专讚讜 讛诇谉 讜讛讬讜爪讗 讜讛讟诪讗 讜砖谞砖讞讟 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜砖拽讘诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讝专拽讜 讗转 讚诪讜

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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖谞砖讞讟 讘诇讬诇讛 讜谞砖驻讱 讚诪讛 讜讬爪讗 讚诪讛 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 讗诐 注诇转讛 转专讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转专讚 砖讛讬讛 驻住讜诇讜 讘拽讚砖 砖专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖驻住讜诇讜 讘拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖 诪拽讘诇讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 驻住讜诇讜 讘拽讚砖 讗讬谉 讛拽讚砖 诪拽讘诇讜

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.

讜讗诇讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讜 驻住讜诇谉 讘拽讚砖 讛专讜讘注 讜讛谞专讘注 讜讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛谞注讘讚 讜讛讗转谞谉 讜讛诪讞讬专 讜讛讻诇讗讬诐 讜讛讟专驻讛 讜讛讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讻砖讬专 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗讜诪专 讚讜讞讛 讛讬讛 讗讘讗 讗转 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞

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 岣nina, the deputy High Priest, says: My father would reject blemished animals from upon the altar.

讻砖诐 砖讗诐 注诇讜 诇讗 讬专讚讜 讻讱 讗诐 讬专讚讜 诇讗 讬注诇讜 讜讻讜诇谉 砖注诇讜 讞讬讬诐 诇专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讬专讚讜 注讜诇讛 砖注诇转讛 讞讬讛 诇专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 转专讚 砖讞讟讛 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讬驻砖讬讟 讜讬谞转讞讛 讘诪拽讜诪讛

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讝讗转 讛讬讗 讛注诇讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇砖讛 诪讬注讜讟讬谉 驻专讟 诇砖谞砖讞讟讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜砖谞砖驻讱 讚诪讛 讜砖讬爪讗 讚诪讛 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 砖讗诐 注诇转讛 转专讚

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: 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). These are three terms of exclusion used in the verse: 鈥淭his,鈥 鈥渋t,鈥 and 鈥渢he,鈥 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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 注讜诇讛 讻砖专讛 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 砖谞砖讞讟讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜砖谞砖驻讱 讚诪讛 讜砖讬爪讗 讚诪讛 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 讜讛诇谉 讜讛讬讜爪讗 讜讛讟诪讗 讜砖谞砖讞讟 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜砖拽讘诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讝专拽讜 讗转 讚诪讜

Rabbi Shimon says: From the usage of the term 鈥渂urnt offering鈥 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?

讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪讟讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪讟讛 讜讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘讞讜抓 砖谞转谞谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 砖谞转谞谉 讘讞讜抓

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?

讜驻住讞 讜讞讟讗转 砖砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讜专转 讛注诇讛 专讬讘讛 转讜专讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇 讛注讜诇讬谉 砖讗诐 注诇讜 诇讗 讬专讚讜

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: 鈥淭he law of the burnt offering,鈥 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.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讛专讜讘注 讜讛谞专讘注 讜讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛谞注讘讚 讜讗转谞谉 讜诪讞讬专 讜讻诇讗讬诐 讜讟专驻讛 讜讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讗转

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: 鈥淭his,鈥 to exclude these types of disqualifications, which descend even after they have ascended the altar.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讗诇讜 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗诇讜 讗讞专 砖专讬讘讛

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

讛讻转讜讘 讜诪讬注讟 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讗诇讜 砖讛讬讛 驻住讜诇谉 讘拽讚砖 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讗诇讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 驻住讜诇谉 讘拽讜讚砖

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讛讻讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 诇谉 讘讚诐 讻砖专

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?

砖讛专讬 诇谉 讻砖专 讘讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇谉 讘讗讬诪讜专讬谉 讻砖专 砖讛专讬 诇谉 讻砖专 讘讘砖专

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.

讬讜爪讗 砖讛讬讜爪讗 讻砖专 讘讘诪讛

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.

讟诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜转专 诇注讘讜讚转 爪讬讘讜专

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.

讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪专爪讛 诇驻讬讙讜诇讜

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.

讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转拽砖 诇讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜

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.

砖拽讘诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讝专拽讜 讗转 讚诪讜 讘讛谞讱 驻住讜诇讬 讚讞讝讜 诇注讘讜讚转 爪讬讘讜专

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.

讜讻讬 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讛讻砖专讜 诪讚讘专 砖讘讛讻砖专讜

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?

转谞讗 讗讝讗转 转讜专转 讛注诇讛 专讬讘讛 住诪讬讱 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: The tanna relied on the verse: 鈥淐ommand 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鈥 (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 鈥渢his,鈥 鈥渋t,鈥 and 鈥渢hat.鈥

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讘讛诪讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讘驻谞讬诐 (讛诪注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讘讞讜抓) 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

搂 With regard to an offering that was slaughtered at night, which Rabbi Yehuda holds shall descend from the altar even if it ascended, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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,

  • 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 84

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 84

转专讚 诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 注诐 讛讝讘讞 诇讚讘专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇讗 转专讚 诇讚讘专讬 讻讜诇谉 转专讚

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鈥檌m of the baraita, it shall descend, as it is neither offered by itself nor is it an animal.

谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 诇讚讘专讬 讻讜诇谉 讬专讚讜 诇讚讘专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇讗 讬专讚讜 谞住讻讬谉 讛讘讗讬谉 注诐 讛讝讘讞 诇讚讘专讬 讻讜诇谉 讬专讚讜 诇讚讘专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诇讗 讬专讚讜

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.

驻砖讬讟讗 诪谞讞讛 讛讘讗讛 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪讛 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讜讻讚专讘讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讚讘 讗讚诐 诪谞讞转 谞住讻讬诐 讘讻诇 讬讜诐

The Gemara questions the need for such a summary: Isn鈥檛 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.

讜谞砖诪注讬谞谉 讻讚专讘讗 谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬诐 注诐 讛讝讘讞 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 讚拽讗 诪拽专讘 诇讛讜 诇诪讞专 讜诇讬讜诪讗 讞专讗

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 [岣ra] day sometime after sacrificing the animal offering that they accompany.

住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗诪专 诪专 诪谞讞转诐 讜谞住讻讬讛诐 讘诇讬诇讛 诪谞讞转诐 讜谞住讻讬讛诐 诇诪讞专 讻谞住讻讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 讘驻谞讬 注爪诪谉 讚诪讜 讜诪讜讚讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讚诇讗 讬专讚讜 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Accordingly, it may enter your mind to say that since the Master says that the verse: 鈥淎nd their meal offering and their liba-tions鈥 (Numbers 29:18), indicates that libations may be offered at night, and the phrase 鈥渁nd their meal offering and their libations鈥 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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诇讜 讗诐 注诇讜 诇讗 讬专讚讜 讛诇谉 讜讛讬讜爪讗 讜讛讟诪讗 讜砖谞砖讞讟 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜砖拽讘诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讝专拽讜 讗转 讚诪讜

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.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 砖谞砖讞讟 讘诇讬诇讛 讜谞砖驻讱 讚诪讛 讜讬爪讗 讚诪讛 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 讗诐 注诇转讛 转专讚 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 转专讚 砖讛讬讛 驻住讜诇讜 讘拽讚砖 砖专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讻诇 砖驻住讜诇讜 讘拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖 诪拽讘诇讜 诇讗 讛讬讛 驻住讜诇讜 讘拽讚砖 讗讬谉 讛拽讚砖 诪拽讘诇讜

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.

讜讗诇讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讜 驻住讜诇谉 讘拽讚砖 讛专讜讘注 讜讛谞专讘注 讜讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛谞注讘讚 讜讛讗转谞谉 讜讛诪讞讬专 讜讛讻诇讗讬诐 讜讛讟专驻讛 讜讛讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 讜讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诪讻砖讬专 讘讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 住讙谉 讛讻讛谞讬诐 讗讜诪专 讚讜讞讛 讛讬讛 讗讘讗 讗转 讘注诇讬 诪讜诪讬谉 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞

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 岣nina, the deputy High Priest, says: My father would reject blemished animals from upon the altar.

讻砖诐 砖讗诐 注诇讜 诇讗 讬专讚讜 讻讱 讗诐 讬专讚讜 诇讗 讬注诇讜 讜讻讜诇谉 砖注诇讜 讞讬讬诐 诇专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讬专讚讜 注讜诇讛 砖注诇转讛 讞讬讛 诇专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 转专讚 砖讞讟讛 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讬驻砖讬讟 讜讬谞转讞讛 讘诪拽讜诪讛

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.

讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讝讗转 讛讬讗 讛注诇讛 讛专讬 讗诇讜 砖诇砖讛 诪讬注讜讟讬谉 驻专讟 诇砖谞砖讞讟讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜砖谞砖驻讱 讚诪讛 讜砖讬爪讗 讚诪讛 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 砖讗诐 注诇转讛 转专讚

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: 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). These are three terms of exclusion used in the verse: 鈥淭his,鈥 鈥渋t,鈥 and 鈥渢he,鈥 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.

专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 注诇讛 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 注讜诇讛 讻砖专讛 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 砖谞砖讞讟讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讜砖谞砖驻讱 讚诪讛 讜砖讬爪讗 讚诪讛 讞讜抓 诇拽诇注讬诐 讜讛诇谉 讜讛讬讜爪讗 讜讛讟诪讗 讜砖谞砖讞讟 讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讜讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讜砖拽讘诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讝专拽讜 讗转 讚诪讜

Rabbi Shimon says: From the usage of the term 鈥渂urnt offering鈥 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?

讛谞讬转谞讬谉 诇诪讟讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪注诇讛 讜诇诪注诇讛 砖谞转谞谉 诇诪讟讛 讜讛谞讬转谞讬谉 讘讞讜抓 砖谞转谞谉 讘驻谞讬诐 讘驻谞讬诐 砖谞转谞谉 讘讞讜抓

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?

讜驻住讞 讜讞讟讗转 砖砖讞讟谉 砖诇讗 诇砖诪谉 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 转讜专转 讛注诇讛 专讬讘讛 转讜专讛 讗讞转 诇讻诇 讛注讜诇讬谉 砖讗诐 注诇讜 诇讗 讬专讚讜

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: 鈥淭he law of the burnt offering,鈥 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.

讬讻讜诇 砖讗谞讬 诪专讘讛 讛专讜讘注 讜讛谞专讘注 讜讛诪讜拽爪讛 讜讛谞注讘讚 讜讗转谞谉 讜诪讞讬专 讜讻诇讗讬诐 讜讟专驻讛 讜讬讜爪讗 讚讜驻谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讗转

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: 鈥淭his,鈥 to exclude these types of disqualifications, which descend even after they have ascended the altar.

讜诪讛 专讗讬转 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讗诇讜 讜诇讛讜爪讬讗 讗转 讗诇讜 讗讞专 砖专讬讘讛

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

讛讻转讜讘 讜诪讬注讟 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讗诇讜 砖讛讬讛 驻住讜诇谉 讘拽讚砖 讜诪讜爪讬讗 讗谞讬 讗转 讗诇讜 砖诇讗 讛讬讛 驻住讜诇谉 讘拽讜讚砖

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.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪讛讻讗 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 诇谉 讘讚诐 讻砖专

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?

砖讛专讬 诇谉 讻砖专 讘讗讬诪讜专讬谉 诇谉 讘讗讬诪讜专讬谉 讻砖专 砖讛专讬 诇谉 讻砖专 讘讘砖专

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.

讬讜爪讗 砖讛讬讜爪讗 讻砖专 讘讘诪讛

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.

讟诪讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讛讜转专 诇注讘讜讚转 爪讬讘讜专

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.

讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪专爪讛 诇驻讬讙讜诇讜

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.

讞讜抓 诇诪拽讜诪讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬转拽砖 诇讞讜抓 诇讝诪谞讜

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.

砖拽讘诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讝专拽讜 讗转 讚诪讜 讘讛谞讱 驻住讜诇讬 讚讞讝讜 诇注讘讜讚转 爪讬讘讜专

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.

讜讻讬 讚谞讬谉 讚讘专 砖诇讗 讘讛讻砖专讜 诪讚讘专 砖讘讛讻砖专讜

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?

转谞讗 讗讝讗转 转讜专转 讛注诇讛 专讬讘讛 住诪讬讱 诇讬讛

The Gemara answers: The tanna relied on the verse: 鈥淐ommand 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鈥 (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 鈥渢his,鈥 鈥渋t,鈥 and 鈥渢hat.鈥

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛砖讜讞讟 讘讛诪讛 讘诇讬诇讛 讘驻谞讬诐 (讛诪注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 驻讟讜专 讘讞讜抓) 讜讛注诇讛 讘讞讜抓 讞讬讬讘

搂 With regard to an offering that was slaughtered at night, which Rabbi Yehuda holds shall descend from the altar even if it ascended, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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,

Scroll To Top