What items need to be removed if brought onto the altar? What is the status of items that are connected to the meat but not the meat itself, like bones, hooves, horns, sinews? What items that have fallen of the altar need to be put back on? Does it depend on when they fell off?
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.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
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.”
Zevachim 86
יָכוֹל יַחְלוֹץ גִּידִין וַעֲצָמוֹת, וְיַעֲלֶה בָּשָׂר לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל״. הָא כֵּיצַד? מְחוּבָּרִין – יַעֲלוּ, פֵּירְשׁוּ – אֲפִילּוּ הֵן בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, יֵרְדוּ.
then one might have thought that a priest must first remove the tendons and bones from an offering and then sacrifice the flesh upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar,” including the tendons and bones. How can these texts be reconciled? If they were attached to the flesh, they shall ascend. If they separated from the flesh, then even if they are already at the top of the altar, they shall descend.
מַאן תַּנָּא דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: פֵּירְשׁוּ יָרְדוּ? רַבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת הַעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִין וְהַקְּרָנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם, אֲפִילּוּ פֵּירְשׁוּ.
The Gemara notes: Who is the tanna that you heard that says if they separated they shall descend? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9); the term “the whole” serves to include the bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves, among those items that are offered on the altar, even if they separated from the flesh of the offering.
וְאֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״? לוֹמַר לָךְ: עִיכּוּלֵי עוֹלָה אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר, וְאִי אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר עִיכּוּלֵי גִּידִין וַעֲצָמוֹת.
But if so, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27), which indicates that only the flesh and blood of an offering ascend upon the altar? This verse is necessary to tell you an additional halakha, that you return the consumed flesh of a burnt offering to the fire if it is dislodged from it, but you do not return the consumed tendons and bones if they are dislodged from the fire.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״ – רִיבָּה, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״ – מִיעֵט. הָא כֵּיצַד? מְחוּבָּרִין – יַעֲלוּ, פֵּירְשׁוּ – אֲפִילּוּ הֵן בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, יֵרְדוּ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that one verse states: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar,” which included tendons and bones, and one verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,” which excluded any part other than the flesh and the blood. How can these texts be reconciled? If they were attached to the flesh, they shall ascend. If they separated from the flesh, then even if they are already on top of the altar, they shall descend.
פֵּירְשׁוּ לֹא יַעֲלוּ [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁפֵּירְשׁוּ כְּלַפֵּי מַטָּה, אֲבָל כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה – קָרוֹבֵי הוּא דְּאַקְרִיבוּ לְעִיכּוּל. וַאֲפִילּוּ פֵּירְשׁוּ?!
§ The mishna teaches that items that are not meant for consumption on the altar, such as the bones and tendons, are sacrificed along with the flesh if they are attached to it. But if they separated they shall not ascend. Rabbi Zeira said: The Sages taught that if they separated from the flesh they shall not ascend only when they separated from the offering downward, i.e., away from the altar, whereby they became distanced from the pyre when they were separated. But if they separated from the offering upward, i.e., they became closer to the pyre when they were separated from the offering, they have become closer to consumption and shall ascend. The Gemara asks: And even if they separated, shall they be offered? Doesn’t the mishna state that they shall ascend only if they are still attached to the flesh?
אָמַר רַבָּה, הָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁפֵּירְשׁוּ לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה, אֲבָל פֵּירְשׁוּ קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה – אֲתַאי זְרִיקָה וּשְׁרִיתִינְהוּ, אֲפִילּוּ לְמֶעְבַּד מִינַּיְיהוּ (קתא) [קַתָּתָא] דְּסַכִּינֵי.
Rabba said: This is what Rabbi Zeira is saying: It was necessary for the Sages to teach the halakha, that bones or tendons that separated from the flesh of an offering shall not ascend the altar, only where they separated after the sprinkling of its blood, since at the time that the flesh itself became permitted for the altar through the sprinkling, the bones and tendons were still attached to the flesh and therefore fit to be offered with it. But if they separated from an offering before the sprinkling of its blood they shall certainly not ascend, as they were already separated from the flesh when it became permitted for the altar. Instead, the sprinkling comes and permits them for any use, just as the hide of a burnt offering is permitted to the priests upon the sprinkling of its blood. In fact, one may even use such tendons or bones to fashion the handles of knives from them.
סָבַר לַהּ כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: נֶאֱמַר ״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״ בְּעוֹלָה, וְנֶאֱמַר ״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״ בְּאָשָׁם; מָה אָשָׁם – עַצְמוֹתָיו מוּתָּרִין, אַף עוֹלָה – (עצמות) [עַצְמוֹתֶיהָ] מוּתָּרִין.
The Gemara elaborates: Rabba holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: It is stated: “He shall have the hide of the burnt offering that he has offered” (Leviticus 7:8), with regard to a burnt offering, and it is stated: “The priest that makes atonement, he shall have it” (Leviticus 7:7), with regard to a guilt offering. The following verbal analogy is derived from here: Just as after the blood of a guilt offering is presented its bones become permitted to the priest for any use, since only the portions intended for consumption on the altar are sacrificed whereas the rest of the animal is given to the priests, so too, with regard to a burnt offering, bones that are not attached to the flesh and therefore are not intended for the altar are permitted.
מוּפְנֵי; דְּאִי לָא מוּפְנֵי – אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְאָשָׁם, שֶׁכֵּן בְּשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר לוֹ! ״יִהְיֶה״ יַתִּירָא כְּתִיב.
The Gemara notes: The phrase “He shall have” is free, i.e., superfluous in its context and therefore available for the purpose of establishing a verbal analogy, and there is a principle that such verbal analogies are not refuted. As, if these words were not considered free, the verbal analogy can be refuted by saying: What is notable about a guilt offering? It is notable in that its meat is permitted and its bones are therefore permitted as well, while the flesh of a burnt offering ascends upon the altar in its entirety. If so, halakhot may not be applied to one based on the other. Consequently, the phrase “He shall have” with regard to a burnt offering is considered as having been written superfluously, as it would have sufficed to state: The hide of the burnt offering that he has offered, to the priest.
מֵתִיב רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: עַצְמוֹת קָדָשִׁים, לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן,
Rav Adda bar Ahava raises an objection to the explanation of Rabba from a baraita: With regard to the bones of sacrificial animals, specifically sin offerings or guilt offerings, which are offerings of the most sacred order that are intended for consumption, before the sprinkling of their blood, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, similar to the halakha with regard to the flesh of offerings of the most sacred order before their blood is sprinkled.
לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. וְשֶׁל עוֹלָה – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן לְעוֹלָם!
After the sprinkling of their blood, one who benefits from them is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, as they are not intended for sacrificing upon the altar. But concerning the bones of a burnt offering, one who benefits from them is always liable for misuse of consecrated property. This baraita contradicts the opinion of Rabba, who said that if the bones separated from a burnt offering before the sprinkling of its blood, it is permitted to derive benefit from them.
אֵימָא: וְשֶׁל עוֹלָה, פֵּירְשׁוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן לְעוֹלָם.
The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita meant the following: But concerning the bones of a burnt offering, if they separated before the sprinkling of its blood and its blood was then sprinkled, then one who benefits from them is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. If they separated after the sprinkling of its blood, one who benefits from them is always liable for misuse of consecrated property.
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר; דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: פֵּירְשׁוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶם, לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין.
And Rabba disagrees with Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: If the bones of a burnt offering separated from its flesh before sprinkling, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property. If they separated after sprinkling, the Sages decreed that one may not benefit from them ab initio, but if one benefitted from them after the fact, he is not liable for misuse, since by Torah law they were permitted through the sprinkling of the offering’s blood.
מַתְנִי׳ וְכוּלָּן שֶׁפָּקְעוּ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לֹא יַחְזִיר, וְכֵן גַּחֶלֶת שֶׁפָּקְעָה מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לֹא יַחֲזִיר. אֵיבָרִים שֶׁפָּקְעוּ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת – יַחְזִיר, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן; לְאַחַר חֲצוֹת – לֹא יַחְזִיר, וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶם.
MISHNA: And all of those disqualified offerings with regard to which it was taught (84a) that if they ascended they do not descend, in a case where they were dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore them to the altar. And likewise, with regard to an ember that was dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore it to the altar. As for limbs of a fit burnt offering that were dislodged from upon the altar, if they were dislodged before midnight, the priest should restore them to the altar and one is liable for misusing them. But if they were dislodged after midnight, the priest does not restore them and one is not liable for misusing them, as one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property after it has fulfilled the purpose for which it was designated.
כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת הָרָאוּי לוֹ, כָּךְ הַכֶּבֶשׁ מְקַדֵּשׁ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהַכֶּבֶשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהֶן, כָּךְ הַכֵּלִים מְקַדְּשִׁין.
With regard to unfit items that if they ascended do not descend, just as the altar sanctifies items that are suited to it, so too, the ramp sanctifies items that are suited to it. Just as the altar and the ramp sanctify items that are suited to them, so too, the service vessels sanctify items that are placed in them.
גְּמָ׳ הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאִית בְּהוּ מַמָּשׁ – אֲפִילּוּ לְאַחַר חֲצוֹת נָמֵי! אִי דְּלֵית בְּהוּ מַמָּשׁ – אֲפִילּוּ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת נָמֵי לָא! לָא צְרִיכָא,
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that limbs of a fit burnt offering that were dislodged from upon the altar before midnight are returned to the altar, but that if they were dislodged after midnight they are not returned. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the limbs have substance, i.e., they were not yet consumed in their entirety by the fire, then even if they were dislodged after midnight the priest must return them to the fire. If they do not have substance and have been reduced to ash, then even if they were dislodged before midnight the priest does not return them to the altar. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary
בִּשְׁרִירֵי. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?
with regard to hardened limbs that were dried by the fire but have not yet been reduced to ash. The mishna teaches that before midnight, such limbs should be returned to the altar. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived that midnight determines whether or not they shall be returned?
אָמַר רַב, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה״ וְהִקְטִיר, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה… וְהֵרִים״.
Rav says: One verse states: All night and he shall burn the burnt offering, which indicates that there is a mitzva to burn the limbs of a burnt offering all night, as the verse states: “It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar all night until the morning” (Leviticus 6:2). And one verse states: “All night until the morning…and he shall remove the ashes that the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar” (Leviticus 6:2–3), which indicates that one may remove the ashes at any time during the night, including the limbs of a burnt offering that were already hardened by the fire. How can these texts be reconciled?
חַלְּקֵיהוּ, חֶצְיוֹ לְהַקְטָרָה וְחֶצְיוֹ לַהֲרָמָה.
Rav explains: Divide the night into two parts: Half of the night, i.e., until midnight, is designated for the mitzva of burning, and during this time, that which is dislodged from the altar shall be returned; and half of the night, i.e., after midnight, is designated for removing.
מֵתִיב רַב כָּהֲנָא: בְּכׇל יוֹם תּוֹרֵם אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִקְּרוֹת הַגֶּבֶר, אוֹ סָמוּךְ לוֹ מִלְּפָנָיו [אוֹ] מֵאַחֲרָיו. בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים – בַּחֲצוֹת. בָּרְגָלִים – בָּאַשְׁמוֹרֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מֵחֲצוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, הֵיכִי מַקְדְּמִינַן וְהֵיכִי מְאַחֲרִינַן?
With regard to Rav’s assertion that one may begin to remove the ashes only after midnight, Rav Kahana raises an objection from a mishna (Yoma 20a): Every day the priests would remove the ashes from the altar and place them on the east side of the ramp at the rooster’s crow or close to the time of its crowing, whether before it or after it, as there was no insistence on a precise time. On Yom Kippur they would remove the ashes at midnight. On the Festivals the ashes were removed even earlier, at the end of the first watch. Rav Kahana concludes his objection: And if it enters your mind that the proper time for removing the ashes by Torah law is from midnight, how do we advance the removal of the ashes on the Festivals, and how do we delay their removal the rest of the year?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה״ – אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁעַד הַבֹּקֶר? מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַד בֹּקֶר״? תֵּן בֹּקֶר לְבׇקְרוֹ שֶׁל לַיְלָה.
Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The proper time of the removal of the ashes is based on the following: From the fact that it is stated with regard to the burning of the limbs: “All night” (Leviticus 6:2), don’t I know that he may burn a burnt offering until the morning? If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Until the morning”? It means: Add another morning to the morning of the night. Arise before dawn, as that is the time for the removal of the ashes. Nevertheless, there is no specific hour fixed for performing this removal, and one may remove the ashes from the beginning of the night.
הִלְכָּךְ, כֹּל יוֹמָא – מִקְּרוֹת הַגֶּבֶר סַגִּי. בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים, מִשּׁוּם חוּלְשָׁא דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל – מֵחֲצוֹת. בִּרְגָלִים, דִּנְפִישִׁי קׇרְבָּנוֹת דְּקָדְמִי אָתוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל – מֵאַשְׁמוֹרֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה; כִּדְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: לֹא הָיְתָה קְרִיַּית הַגֶּבֶר מַגַּעַת עַד שֶׁהָיְתָה עֲזָרָה מְלֵאָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.
Therefore, every day, performing the removal at the rooster’s crow is sufficient. On Yom Kippur, due to the weakness of the High Priest, who must perform the entire Temple service on that day, they would hasten to remove the ashes from midnight. On the Festivals, during which there are many offerings on account of the masses of Jewish people in Jerusalem on those days, who, in order to offer their sacrifices, would arrive early at the Temple, they would remove the ashes beginning from the end of the first watch, as the mishna teaches in the latter clause (Yoma 20a): The call of the rooster would not arrive on Festivals until the Temple courtyard was filled with Jews.
אִיתְּמַר: פֵּירְשׁוּ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת וְהֶחְזִירָן אַחַר חֲצוֹת – רַבָּה אָמַר:
§ The Gemara previously explained the mishna as saying that limbs that were hardened by the fire but not entirely consumed are not returned to the altar if they were dislodged from it after midnight, since the mitzva of burning has been performed and the limbs are considered to have been entirely consumed. It was stated that amora’im engage in a dispute concerning the following matter: In the case of limbs that separated from upon the altar before midnight and were returned after midnight, whereby the mitzva of burning was not completed by midnight, Rabba says:
Follow 
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 70: Geese, Chickens, and the Broken Neck of a Goat
11.23.2025 | ג׳ בכסלו תשפ״ו
Zevahim 66: Procedure, Intent, and Consecration – for Bird Offerings
11.19.2025 | כ״ח בחשון תשפ״ו
Spiritual Aspects of Korbanot: The Permission To Eat Meat
11.17.2025 | כ״ו בחשון תשפ״ו
Zevahim 62: The Ashes of Isaac, or Where to Build the Second Temple’s Altar
11.15.2025 | כ״ד בחשון תשפ״ו
Zevahim 61: The Fire Never Left the Altar – Unless It Did?
11.15.2025 | כ״ד בחשון תשפ״ו
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.
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
Vitti Kones
מיתר, ישראל
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Renee Braha
Brooklyn, NY, United States
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ruth Leah Kahan
Ra’anana, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Silke Goldberg
Guildford, United Kingdom
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
Meira Shapiro
NJ, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Rookie Billet
Jerusalem, Israel
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.
Michelle Lewis
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Keren Carter
Brentwood, California, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Sara Averick
Jerusalem, Israel
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Talia Haykin
Denver, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Marsha Wasserman
Jerusalem, Israel
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Debbie Engelen-Eigles
Minnesota, United States
Zevachim 86
יָכוֹל יַחְלוֹץ גִּידִין וַעֲצָמוֹת, וְיַעֲלֶה בָּשָׂר לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל״. הָא כֵּיצַד? מְחוּבָּרִין – יַעֲלוּ, פֵּירְשׁוּ – אֲפִילּוּ הֵן בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, יֵרְדוּ.
then one might have thought that a priest must first remove the tendons and bones from an offering and then sacrifice the flesh upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar,” including the tendons and bones. How can these texts be reconciled? If they were attached to the flesh, they shall ascend. If they separated from the flesh, then even if they are already at the top of the altar, they shall descend.
מַאן תַּנָּא דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: פֵּירְשׁוּ יָרְדוּ? רַבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת הַעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִין וְהַקְּרָנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם, אֲפִילּוּ פֵּירְשׁוּ.
The Gemara notes: Who is the tanna that you heard that says if they separated they shall descend? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9); the term “the whole” serves to include the bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves, among those items that are offered on the altar, even if they separated from the flesh of the offering.
וְאֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״? לוֹמַר לָךְ: עִיכּוּלֵי עוֹלָה אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר, וְאִי אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר עִיכּוּלֵי גִּידִין וַעֲצָמוֹת.
But if so, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27), which indicates that only the flesh and blood of an offering ascend upon the altar? This verse is necessary to tell you an additional halakha, that you return the consumed flesh of a burnt offering to the fire if it is dislodged from it, but you do not return the consumed tendons and bones if they are dislodged from the fire.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״ – רִיבָּה, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״ – מִיעֵט. הָא כֵּיצַד? מְחוּבָּרִין – יַעֲלוּ, פֵּירְשׁוּ – אֲפִילּוּ הֵן בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, יֵרְדוּ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that one verse states: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar,” which included tendons and bones, and one verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,” which excluded any part other than the flesh and the blood. How can these texts be reconciled? If they were attached to the flesh, they shall ascend. If they separated from the flesh, then even if they are already on top of the altar, they shall descend.
פֵּירְשׁוּ לֹא יַעֲלוּ [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁפֵּירְשׁוּ כְּלַפֵּי מַטָּה, אֲבָל כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה – קָרוֹבֵי הוּא דְּאַקְרִיבוּ לְעִיכּוּל. וַאֲפִילּוּ פֵּירְשׁוּ?!
§ The mishna teaches that items that are not meant for consumption on the altar, such as the bones and tendons, are sacrificed along with the flesh if they are attached to it. But if they separated they shall not ascend. Rabbi Zeira said: The Sages taught that if they separated from the flesh they shall not ascend only when they separated from the offering downward, i.e., away from the altar, whereby they became distanced from the pyre when they were separated. But if they separated from the offering upward, i.e., they became closer to the pyre when they were separated from the offering, they have become closer to consumption and shall ascend. The Gemara asks: And even if they separated, shall they be offered? Doesn’t the mishna state that they shall ascend only if they are still attached to the flesh?
אָמַר רַבָּה, הָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁפֵּירְשׁוּ לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה, אֲבָל פֵּירְשׁוּ קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה – אֲתַאי זְרִיקָה וּשְׁרִיתִינְהוּ, אֲפִילּוּ לְמֶעְבַּד מִינַּיְיהוּ (קתא) [קַתָּתָא] דְּסַכִּינֵי.
Rabba said: This is what Rabbi Zeira is saying: It was necessary for the Sages to teach the halakha, that bones or tendons that separated from the flesh of an offering shall not ascend the altar, only where they separated after the sprinkling of its blood, since at the time that the flesh itself became permitted for the altar through the sprinkling, the bones and tendons were still attached to the flesh and therefore fit to be offered with it. But if they separated from an offering before the sprinkling of its blood they shall certainly not ascend, as they were already separated from the flesh when it became permitted for the altar. Instead, the sprinkling comes and permits them for any use, just as the hide of a burnt offering is permitted to the priests upon the sprinkling of its blood. In fact, one may even use such tendons or bones to fashion the handles of knives from them.
סָבַר לַהּ כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: נֶאֱמַר ״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״ בְּעוֹלָה, וְנֶאֱמַר ״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״ בְּאָשָׁם; מָה אָשָׁם – עַצְמוֹתָיו מוּתָּרִין, אַף עוֹלָה – (עצמות) [עַצְמוֹתֶיהָ] מוּתָּרִין.
The Gemara elaborates: Rabba holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: It is stated: “He shall have the hide of the burnt offering that he has offered” (Leviticus 7:8), with regard to a burnt offering, and it is stated: “The priest that makes atonement, he shall have it” (Leviticus 7:7), with regard to a guilt offering. The following verbal analogy is derived from here: Just as after the blood of a guilt offering is presented its bones become permitted to the priest for any use, since only the portions intended for consumption on the altar are sacrificed whereas the rest of the animal is given to the priests, so too, with regard to a burnt offering, bones that are not attached to the flesh and therefore are not intended for the altar are permitted.
מוּפְנֵי; דְּאִי לָא מוּפְנֵי – אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְאָשָׁם, שֶׁכֵּן בְּשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר לוֹ! ״יִהְיֶה״ יַתִּירָא כְּתִיב.
The Gemara notes: The phrase “He shall have” is free, i.e., superfluous in its context and therefore available for the purpose of establishing a verbal analogy, and there is a principle that such verbal analogies are not refuted. As, if these words were not considered free, the verbal analogy can be refuted by saying: What is notable about a guilt offering? It is notable in that its meat is permitted and its bones are therefore permitted as well, while the flesh of a burnt offering ascends upon the altar in its entirety. If so, halakhot may not be applied to one based on the other. Consequently, the phrase “He shall have” with regard to a burnt offering is considered as having been written superfluously, as it would have sufficed to state: The hide of the burnt offering that he has offered, to the priest.
מֵתִיב רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: עַצְמוֹת קָדָשִׁים, לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן,
Rav Adda bar Ahava raises an objection to the explanation of Rabba from a baraita: With regard to the bones of sacrificial animals, specifically sin offerings or guilt offerings, which are offerings of the most sacred order that are intended for consumption, before the sprinkling of their blood, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, similar to the halakha with regard to the flesh of offerings of the most sacred order before their blood is sprinkled.
לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. וְשֶׁל עוֹלָה – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן לְעוֹלָם!
After the sprinkling of their blood, one who benefits from them is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, as they are not intended for sacrificing upon the altar. But concerning the bones of a burnt offering, one who benefits from them is always liable for misuse of consecrated property. This baraita contradicts the opinion of Rabba, who said that if the bones separated from a burnt offering before the sprinkling of its blood, it is permitted to derive benefit from them.
אֵימָא: וְשֶׁל עוֹלָה, פֵּירְשׁוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן לְעוֹלָם.
The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita meant the following: But concerning the bones of a burnt offering, if they separated before the sprinkling of its blood and its blood was then sprinkled, then one who benefits from them is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. If they separated after the sprinkling of its blood, one who benefits from them is always liable for misuse of consecrated property.
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר; דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: פֵּירְשׁוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶם, לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין.
And Rabba disagrees with Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: If the bones of a burnt offering separated from its flesh before sprinkling, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property. If they separated after sprinkling, the Sages decreed that one may not benefit from them ab initio, but if one benefitted from them after the fact, he is not liable for misuse, since by Torah law they were permitted through the sprinkling of the offering’s blood.
מַתְנִי׳ וְכוּלָּן שֶׁפָּקְעוּ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לֹא יַחְזִיר, וְכֵן גַּחֶלֶת שֶׁפָּקְעָה מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לֹא יַחֲזִיר. אֵיבָרִים שֶׁפָּקְעוּ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת – יַחְזִיר, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן; לְאַחַר חֲצוֹת – לֹא יַחְזִיר, וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶם.
MISHNA: And all of those disqualified offerings with regard to which it was taught (84a) that if they ascended they do not descend, in a case where they were dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore them to the altar. And likewise, with regard to an ember that was dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore it to the altar. As for limbs of a fit burnt offering that were dislodged from upon the altar, if they were dislodged before midnight, the priest should restore them to the altar and one is liable for misusing them. But if they were dislodged after midnight, the priest does not restore them and one is not liable for misusing them, as one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property after it has fulfilled the purpose for which it was designated.
כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת הָרָאוּי לוֹ, כָּךְ הַכֶּבֶשׁ מְקַדֵּשׁ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהַכֶּבֶשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהֶן, כָּךְ הַכֵּלִים מְקַדְּשִׁין.
With regard to unfit items that if they ascended do not descend, just as the altar sanctifies items that are suited to it, so too, the ramp sanctifies items that are suited to it. Just as the altar and the ramp sanctify items that are suited to them, so too, the service vessels sanctify items that are placed in them.
גְּמָ׳ הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאִית בְּהוּ מַמָּשׁ – אֲפִילּוּ לְאַחַר חֲצוֹת נָמֵי! אִי דְּלֵית בְּהוּ מַמָּשׁ – אֲפִילּוּ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת נָמֵי לָא! לָא צְרִיכָא,
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that limbs of a fit burnt offering that were dislodged from upon the altar before midnight are returned to the altar, but that if they were dislodged after midnight they are not returned. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the limbs have substance, i.e., they were not yet consumed in their entirety by the fire, then even if they were dislodged after midnight the priest must return them to the fire. If they do not have substance and have been reduced to ash, then even if they were dislodged before midnight the priest does not return them to the altar. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary
בִּשְׁרִירֵי. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?
with regard to hardened limbs that were dried by the fire but have not yet been reduced to ash. The mishna teaches that before midnight, such limbs should be returned to the altar. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived that midnight determines whether or not they shall be returned?
אָמַר רַב, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה״ וְהִקְטִיר, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה… וְהֵרִים״.
Rav says: One verse states: All night and he shall burn the burnt offering, which indicates that there is a mitzva to burn the limbs of a burnt offering all night, as the verse states: “It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar all night until the morning” (Leviticus 6:2). And one verse states: “All night until the morning…and he shall remove the ashes that the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar” (Leviticus 6:2–3), which indicates that one may remove the ashes at any time during the night, including the limbs of a burnt offering that were already hardened by the fire. How can these texts be reconciled?
חַלְּקֵיהוּ, חֶצְיוֹ לְהַקְטָרָה וְחֶצְיוֹ לַהֲרָמָה.
Rav explains: Divide the night into two parts: Half of the night, i.e., until midnight, is designated for the mitzva of burning, and during this time, that which is dislodged from the altar shall be returned; and half of the night, i.e., after midnight, is designated for removing.
מֵתִיב רַב כָּהֲנָא: בְּכׇל יוֹם תּוֹרֵם אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִקְּרוֹת הַגֶּבֶר, אוֹ סָמוּךְ לוֹ מִלְּפָנָיו [אוֹ] מֵאַחֲרָיו. בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים – בַּחֲצוֹת. בָּרְגָלִים – בָּאַשְׁמוֹרֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מֵחֲצוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, הֵיכִי מַקְדְּמִינַן וְהֵיכִי מְאַחֲרִינַן?
With regard to Rav’s assertion that one may begin to remove the ashes only after midnight, Rav Kahana raises an objection from a mishna (Yoma 20a): Every day the priests would remove the ashes from the altar and place them on the east side of the ramp at the rooster’s crow or close to the time of its crowing, whether before it or after it, as there was no insistence on a precise time. On Yom Kippur they would remove the ashes at midnight. On the Festivals the ashes were removed even earlier, at the end of the first watch. Rav Kahana concludes his objection: And if it enters your mind that the proper time for removing the ashes by Torah law is from midnight, how do we advance the removal of the ashes on the Festivals, and how do we delay their removal the rest of the year?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה״ – אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁעַד הַבֹּקֶר? מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַד בֹּקֶר״? תֵּן בֹּקֶר לְבׇקְרוֹ שֶׁל לַיְלָה.
Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The proper time of the removal of the ashes is based on the following: From the fact that it is stated with regard to the burning of the limbs: “All night” (Leviticus 6:2), don’t I know that he may burn a burnt offering until the morning? If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Until the morning”? It means: Add another morning to the morning of the night. Arise before dawn, as that is the time for the removal of the ashes. Nevertheless, there is no specific hour fixed for performing this removal, and one may remove the ashes from the beginning of the night.
הִלְכָּךְ, כֹּל יוֹמָא – מִקְּרוֹת הַגֶּבֶר סַגִּי. בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים, מִשּׁוּם חוּלְשָׁא דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל – מֵחֲצוֹת. בִּרְגָלִים, דִּנְפִישִׁי קׇרְבָּנוֹת דְּקָדְמִי אָתוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל – מֵאַשְׁמוֹרֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה; כִּדְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: לֹא הָיְתָה קְרִיַּית הַגֶּבֶר מַגַּעַת עַד שֶׁהָיְתָה עֲזָרָה מְלֵאָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.
Therefore, every day, performing the removal at the rooster’s crow is sufficient. On Yom Kippur, due to the weakness of the High Priest, who must perform the entire Temple service on that day, they would hasten to remove the ashes from midnight. On the Festivals, during which there are many offerings on account of the masses of Jewish people in Jerusalem on those days, who, in order to offer their sacrifices, would arrive early at the Temple, they would remove the ashes beginning from the end of the first watch, as the mishna teaches in the latter clause (Yoma 20a): The call of the rooster would not arrive on Festivals until the Temple courtyard was filled with Jews.
אִיתְּמַר: פֵּירְשׁוּ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת וְהֶחְזִירָן אַחַר חֲצוֹת – רַבָּה אָמַר:
§ The Gemara previously explained the mishna as saying that limbs that were hardened by the fire but not entirely consumed are not returned to the altar if they were dislodged from it after midnight, since the mitzva of burning has been performed and the limbs are considered to have been entirely consumed. It was stated that amora’im engage in a dispute concerning the following matter: In the case of limbs that separated from upon the altar before midnight and were returned after midnight, whereby the mitzva of burning was not completed by midnight, Rabba says:
Follow
