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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 8, 2018 | 讻状讛 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讞

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Zevachim 86

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?

讬讻讜诇 讬讞诇讜抓 讙讬讚讬谉 讜注爪诪讜转 讜讬注诇讛 讘砖专 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讬注诇讜 驻讬专砖讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讬专讚讜

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar,鈥 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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 驻讬专砖讜 讬专讚讜 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 讛诪讝讘讞讛 诇专讘讜转 讛注爪诪讜转 讜讛讙讬讚讬谉 讜讛拽专谞讬诐 讜讛讟诇驻讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讬专砖讜

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:9); the term 鈥渢he whole鈥 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.

讜讗诇讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜注砖讬转 注诇转讬讱 讛讘砖专 讜讛讚诐 诇讜诪专 诇讱 注讬讻讜诇讬 注讜诇讛 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 注讬讻讜诇讬 讙讬讚讬谉 讜注爪诪讜转

But if so, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood鈥 (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.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 讛诪讝讘讞讛 专讬讘讛 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讜注砖讬转 注诇转讬讱 讛讘砖专 讜讛讚诐 诪讬注讟 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讬注诇讜 驻讬专砖讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讬专讚讜

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that one verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar,鈥 which included tendons and bones, and one verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,鈥 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.

驻讬专砖讜 诇讗 讬注诇讜 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖驻讬专砖讜 讻诇驻讬 诪讟讛 讗讘诇 讻诇驻讬 诪注诇讛 拽专讜讘讬 讛讜讗 讚讗拽专讬讘讜 诇注讬讻讜诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 驻讬专砖讜

搂 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鈥檛 the mishna state that they shall ascend only if they are still attached to the flesh?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖驻讬专砖讜 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 讗讘诇 驻讬专砖讜 拽讜讚诐 讝专讬拽讛 讗转讗讬 讝专讬拽讛 讜砖专讬转讬谞讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪注讘讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 拽转讗 讚住讻讬谞讬

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.

住讘专 诇讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞讗诪专 诇讜 讬讛讬讛 讘注讜诇讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讜 讬讛讬讛 讘讗砖诐 诪讛 讗砖诐 注爪诪讜转讬讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讗祝 注讜诇讛 注爪诪讜转 诪讜转专讬谉

The Gemara elaborates: Rabba holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: It is stated: 鈥淗e shall have the hide of the burnt offering that he has offered鈥 (Leviticus 7:8), with regard to a burnt offering, and it is stated: 鈥淭he priest that makes atonement, he shall have it鈥 (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.

诪讜驻谞讬 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪讜驻谞讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讗砖诐 砖讻谉 讘砖专讜 诪讜转专 诇讜 讬讛讬讛 讬转讬专讗 讻转讬讘

The Gemara notes: The phrase 鈥淗e shall have鈥 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 鈥淗e shall have鈥 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 注爪诪讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉

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.

诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讜砖诇 注讜诇讛 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诇注讜诇诐

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.

讗讬诪讗 讜砖诇 注讜诇讛 驻讬专砖讜 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诇注讜诇诐

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.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻讬专砖讜 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛诐 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉

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鈥檚 blood.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讻讜诇谉 砖驻拽注讜 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讻谉 讙讞诇转 砖驻拽注讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讗讬讘专讬诐 砖驻拽注讜 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 讬讞讝讬专 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诇讗讞专 讞爪讜转 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛诐

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.

讻砖诐 砖讛诪讝讘讞 诪拽讚砖 讗转 讛专讗讜讬 诇讜 讻讱 讛讻讘砖 诪拽讚砖 讻砖诐 砖讛诪讝讘讞 讜讛讻讘砖 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗转 讛专讗讜讬 诇讛谉 讻讱 讛讻诇讬诐 诪拽讚砖讬谉

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.

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 诪诪砖 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讞爪讜转 谞诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 诪诪砖 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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

讘砖专讬专讬 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

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?

讗诪专 专讘 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讜讛拽讟讬专 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讜讛专讬诐

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: 鈥淚t is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar all night until the morning鈥 (Leviticus 6:2). And one verse states: 鈥淎ll night until the morning鈥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鈥 (Leviticus 6:2鈥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?

讞诇拽讬讛讜 讞爪讬讜 诇讛拽讟专讛 讜讞爪讬讜 诇讛专诪讛

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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 转讜专诐 讗转 讛诪讝讘讞 诪拽专讜转 讛讙讘专 讗讜 住诪讜讱 诇讜 诪诇驻谞讬讜 [讗讜] 诪讗讞专讬讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讘讞爪讜转 讘专讙诇讬诐 讘讗砖诪讜专转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讞爪讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讻讬 诪拽讚诪讬谞谉 讜讛讬讻讬 诪讗讞专讬谞谉

With regard to Rav鈥檚 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鈥檚 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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖注讚 讛讘拽专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚 讘拽专 转谉 讘拽专 诇讘拽专讜 砖诇 诇讬诇讛

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淎ll night鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), don鈥檛 I know that he may burn a burnt offering until the morning? If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淯ntil the morning鈥? 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.

讛诇讻讱 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 诪拽专讜转 讛讙讘专 住讙讬 讘讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讞爪讜转 讘专讙诇讬诐 讚谞驻讬砖讬 拽专讘谞讜转 讚拽讚诪讬 讗转讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗砖诪讜专转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讻讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诇讗 讛讬转讛 拽专讬讬转 讛讙讘专 诪讙注转 注讚 砖讛讬转讛 注讝专讛 诪诇讗讛 诪讬砖专讗诇

Therefore, every day, performing the removal at the rooster鈥檚 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.

讗讬转诪专 驻讬专砖讜 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 讜讛讞讝讬专谉 讗讞专 讞爪讜转 专讘讛 讗诪专

搂 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鈥檌m 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:

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema 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 86

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 86

讬讻讜诇 讬讞诇讜抓 讙讬讚讬谉 讜注爪诪讜转 讜讬注诇讛 讘砖专 诇讙讘讬 诪讝讘讞 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讬注诇讜 驻讬专砖讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讬专讚讜

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar,鈥 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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讚砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 驻讬专砖讜 讬专讚讜 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 讛诪讝讘讞讛 诇专讘讜转 讛注爪诪讜转 讜讛讙讬讚讬谉 讜讛拽专谞讬诐 讜讛讟诇驻讬诐 讗驻讬诇讜 驻讬专砖讜

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: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar鈥 (Leviticus 1:9); the term 鈥渢he whole鈥 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.

讜讗诇讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讜注砖讬转 注诇转讬讱 讛讘砖专 讜讛讚诐 诇讜诪专 诇讱 注讬讻讜诇讬 注讜诇讛 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 讜讗讬 讗转讛 诪讞讝讬专 注讬讻讜诇讬 讙讬讚讬谉 讜注爪诪讜转

But if so, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: 鈥淎nd you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood鈥 (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.

专讘讬 讗讜诪专 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讜讛拽讟讬专 讛讻讛谉 讗转 讛讻诇 讛诪讝讘讞讛 专讬讘讛 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讜注砖讬转 注诇转讬讱 讛讘砖专 讜讛讚诐 诪讬注讟 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪讞讜讘专讬谉 讬注诇讜 驻讬专砖讜 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讬专讚讜

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that one verse states: 鈥淎nd the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar,鈥 which included tendons and bones, and one verse states: 鈥淎nd you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,鈥 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.

驻讬专砖讜 诇讗 讬注诇讜 [讜讻讜壮] 讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖驻讬专砖讜 讻诇驻讬 诪讟讛 讗讘诇 讻诇驻讬 诪注诇讛 拽专讜讘讬 讛讜讗 讚讗拽专讬讘讜 诇注讬讻讜诇 讜讗驻讬诇讜 驻讬专砖讜

搂 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鈥檛 the mishna state that they shall ascend only if they are still attached to the flesh?

讗诪专 专讘讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 砖驻讬专砖讜 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 讗讘诇 驻讬专砖讜 拽讜讚诐 讝专讬拽讛 讗转讗讬 讝专讬拽讛 讜砖专讬转讬谞讛讜 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪注讘讚 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 拽转讗 讚住讻讬谞讬

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.

住讘专 诇讛 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 谞讗诪专 诇讜 讬讛讬讛 讘注讜诇讛 讜谞讗诪专 诇讜 讬讛讬讛 讘讗砖诐 诪讛 讗砖诐 注爪诪讜转讬讜 诪讜转专讬谉 讗祝 注讜诇讛 注爪诪讜转 诪讜转专讬谉

The Gemara elaborates: Rabba holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: It is stated: 鈥淗e shall have the hide of the burnt offering that he has offered鈥 (Leviticus 7:8), with regard to a burnt offering, and it is stated: 鈥淭he priest that makes atonement, he shall have it鈥 (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.

诪讜驻谞讬 讚讗讬 诇讗 诪讜驻谞讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬驻专讱 诪讛 诇讗砖诐 砖讻谉 讘砖专讜 诪讜转专 诇讜 讬讛讬讛 讬转讬专讗 讻转讬讘

The Gemara notes: The phrase 鈥淗e shall have鈥 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 鈥淗e shall have鈥 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 注爪诪讜转 拽讚砖讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉

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.

诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 讜砖诇 注讜诇讛 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诇注讜诇诐

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.

讗讬诪讗 讜砖诇 注讜诇讛 驻讬专砖讜 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诇注讜诇诐

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.

讜驻诇讬讙讗 讚专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 驻讬专砖讜 诇驻谞讬 讝专讬拽讛 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛诐 诇讗讞专 讝专讬拽讛 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉

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鈥檚 blood.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讻讜诇谉 砖驻拽注讜 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讻谉 讙讞诇转 砖驻拽注讛 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讗讬讘专讬诐 砖驻拽注讜 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 讬讞讝讬专 讜诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛谉 诇讗讞专 讞爪讜转 诇讗 讬讞讝讬专 讜讗讬谉 诪讜注诇讬谉 讘讛诐

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.

讻砖诐 砖讛诪讝讘讞 诪拽讚砖 讗转 讛专讗讜讬 诇讜 讻讱 讛讻讘砖 诪拽讚砖 讻砖诐 砖讛诪讝讘讞 讜讛讻讘砖 诪拽讚砖讬谉 讗转 讛专讗讜讬 诇讛谉 讻讱 讛讻诇讬诐 诪拽讚砖讬谉

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.

讙诪壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讬转 讘讛讜 诪诪砖 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 讞爪讜转 谞诪讬 讗讬 讚诇讬转 讘讛讜 诪诪砖 讗驻讬诇讜 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 谞诪讬 诇讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

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

讘砖专讬专讬 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬

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?

讗诪专 专讘 讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讜讛拽讟讬专 讜讻转讜讘 讗讞讚 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讜讛专讬诐

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: 鈥淚t is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar all night until the morning鈥 (Leviticus 6:2). And one verse states: 鈥淎ll night until the morning鈥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鈥 (Leviticus 6:2鈥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?

讞诇拽讬讛讜 讞爪讬讜 诇讛拽讟专讛 讜讞爪讬讜 诇讛专诪讛

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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 转讜专诐 讗转 讛诪讝讘讞 诪拽专讜转 讛讙讘专 讗讜 住诪讜讱 诇讜 诪诇驻谞讬讜 [讗讜] 诪讗讞专讬讜 讘讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 讘讞爪讜转 讘专讙诇讬诐 讘讗砖诪讜专转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讜讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 诪讞爪讜转 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讻讬 诪拽讚诪讬谞谉 讜讛讬讻讬 诪讗讞专讬谞谉

With regard to Rav鈥檚 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鈥檚 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?

讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪诪砖诪注 砖谞讗诪专 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖注讚 讛讘拽专 诪讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 注讚 讘拽专 转谉 讘拽专 诇讘拽专讜 砖诇 诇讬诇讛

Rather, Rabbi Yo岣nan 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: 鈥淎ll night鈥 (Leviticus 6:2), don鈥檛 I know that he may burn a burnt offering until the morning? If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: 鈥淯ntil the morning鈥? 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.

讛诇讻讱 讻诇 讬讜诪讗 诪拽专讜转 讛讙讘专 住讙讬 讘讬讜诐 讛讻讬驻讜专讬诐 诪砖讜诐 讞讜诇砖讗 讚讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪讞爪讜转 讘专讙诇讬诐 讚谞驻讬砖讬 拽专讘谞讜转 讚拽讚诪讬 讗转讜 讬砖专讗诇 诪讗砖诪讜专转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讻讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 诇讗 讛讬转讛 拽专讬讬转 讛讙讘专 诪讙注转 注讚 砖讛讬转讛 注讝专讛 诪诇讗讛 诪讬砖专讗诇

Therefore, every day, performing the removal at the rooster鈥檚 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.

讗讬转诪专 驻讬专砖讜 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 讜讛讞讝讬专谉 讗讞专 讞爪讜转 专讘讛 讗诪专

搂 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鈥檌m 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:

Scroll To Top