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 sponsored by Helen Danczak in loving memory of her mother, Lucille Fliegler on her 29th yahrzeit. “The years fly past and still it’s as if it’s been only yesterday since I had a chance to visit. Mommele, may your neshama have an aliya.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Petra, Tova & Orli in honor of their mother, Wendy Proskin. “Happy Mother’s Day!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
According to the Mishna, in a burnt offering, items that are connected to the meat but not the meat itself—such as bones, hooves, horns, and sinews—are left on the altar if they remain attached to the meat. However, if they are detached, they must be removed from the altar. This ruling is derived from two different verses in the Torah: in Vayikra 1:9 it says that everything is burned on the altar, while in Devarim 12:27 it specifies that in burnt offerings, meat and blood are brought on the altar. This opinion in the Mishna is attributed to Rebbi, while another tannaitic view interprets “everything” more broadly to include these parts, with the limiting verse excluding bones, sinews, etc. only once they have already been consumed by the fire and separated from it.
Rabbi Zeira qualifies Rebbi’s opinion, explaining that if these parts became separated from the meat but moved closer to the pyre, they are to remain on the altar. The Gemara rejects this explanation, and Rabba offers a different interpretation of Rabbi Zeira’s qualification. He explains that the qualification was not on Rebbi’s words themselves but on an inference drawn from them—that if they separate, they must be removed from the altar, though they still retain sanctity and cannot be used for personal benefit. Rabba then distinguishes between items that separated before the blood was placed on the altar and those that separated afterward. If they were still attached at the time of the blood sprinkling and later separated, they are considered sanctified items that became disqualified, which are forbidden for benefit. But if they were already detached at the time of sprinkling, they were never destined for the altar and are therefore permitted for the kohanim’s use, as derived from a gezeira shava from the guilt offering.
Rabbi Elazar takes the opposite approach. If they were still attached when the blood was sprinkled, the sprinkling permits them, so there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property, though they remain prohibited by rabbinic law. However, if they were already detached, the sprinkling has no effect on them, and they remain in their original consecrated state, making one liable for misuse of consecrated property.
The Mishna further explains that if any of the disqualified offerings that are meant to remain on the altar (as mentioned in Zevachim 84a) fall off the altar, or if an ember of wood falls off, they do not need to be returned.
The Mishna also rules that if parts of the sacrifice that are to be burned on the altar fall off, they must be put back on if this occurs before midnight. After midnight, however, they do not need to be returned. The Gemara limits this ruling to items that have hardened but not yet reduced to ash. Items not yet consumed to that state must be returned regardless of the time, while items already reduced to ash do not need to be returned.
Rav brings a source for the significance of midnight in this law from a drasha on the verses in Vayikra 6:2–3. Rav Kahana raises a difficulty on this braita from a Mishna in Yoma 20a, and Rabbi Yochanan brings a different drasha to explain the Mishna.
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 sponsored by Helen Danczak in loving memory of her mother, Lucille Fliegler on her 29th yahrzeit. “The years fly past and still it’s as if it’s been only yesterday since I had a chance to visit. Mommele, may your neshama have an aliya.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Petra, Tova & Orli in honor of their mother, Wendy Proskin. “Happy Mother’s Day!”
Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Long Island in honor of the birth of Gitta Neufeld’s great grandson, Moshe Chaim Lapides. “May Gitta have endless nachat from the newest member of her growing, beautiful family.”
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:
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.
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.
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
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.
NJ, United States
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!
Brentwood, California, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
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
Richmond, CA, United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
Philadelphia, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
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!
Guildford, United Kingdom
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:
