Zevachim 87
Share this shiur:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Raba and Rav Chisda disagree on two issues. If items were not completely consumed on the altar, removed before midnight, and returned after midnight, at what point are they considered “consumed” such that they no longer need to be put back on the altar if removed again (assuming they have not yet turned to ash, in which case they would not need to be returned)? Raba rules that they are considered consumed at midnight of the following night, while Rav Chisda holds that the cutoff is dawn. If the items were not returned until after dawn, Raba still maintains that midnight of the next night renders them consumed, whereas Rav Chisda insists they can never be rendered consumed.
Rav Yosef challenges the premise of both opinions, which assume that items not on the altar at midnight cannot be rendered consumed. He argues instead that midnight itself renders all items consumed, even if they were removed before midnight and not yet returned to the altar.
Rava asked Raba: If items remain at the top of the altar all night, does that prevent them from becoming disqualified through lina (remaining overnight)? Raba answered that they are not disqualified, but Rava did not accept this response.
A braita is cited, providing a source in the Torah that the ramp and sanctified vessels also sanctify disqualified items. If such items are placed on the ramp or the altar, they do not need to be removed.
Reish Lakish posed a question to Rabbi Yochanan regarding disqualified items placed in sanctified vessels. Initially, Rabbi Yochanan thought the question was whether they were sanctified to the extent that they could not be redeemed. Reish Lakish clarified that he was asking whether items placed in sanctified vessels could be brought ab initio on the altar. Rabbi Yochanan answered yes, based on the Mishna, but this answer was rejected since the Mishna could be read differently.
The Gemara then asks: Does the airspace of the altar sanctify items? At first, it attempts to prove that the airspace does sanctify from the Mishna’s statement: “Just as the altar sanctifies, so does the ramp.” Items sanctified by the ramp must be carried through the altar’s airspace to reach it. If the airspace does not sanctify, then carrying them would be akin to removing them, and once removed, they could not be returned. However, this proof is rejected, since it is possible to bring them to the altar by dragging rather than lifting.
Rava bar Rav Chanan then attempts to prove the opposite from the case of a bird burnt offering brought at the top of the altar. If the airspace sanctifies, then there could be no case of pigul (disqualification due to improper intent), because as long as the offering remains on the altar, it could be sacrificed even the next day. Thus, a thought to offer it the next day would not constitute pigul. Rav Shimi rejects this argument, explaining that one could still have a pigul thought to remove the offering and then put it back on the altar the next day, which would indeed be disqualifying.
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 month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Helen Danczak in loving memory of Harold Fliegler, Tsvi ben Esther. “Remembering my father on his yahrzeit.”
Zevachim 87
חֲצוֹת שֵׁנִי עוֹכַלְתָּן, רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר עוֹכַלְתָּן.
The second midnight, i.e., midnight of the following night, renders them consumed, and if they were dislodged from the altar thereafter they are not returned. Rav Ḥisda says: Dawn following the first evening renders them consumed, and if they were dislodged from the altar thereafter they are not returned.
אָמְרִי בֵּי רַב: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא? וּמָה חֲצוֹת שֶׁאֵין עוֹשֶׂה לִינָה, עוֹשֶׂה עִיכּוּל; עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה לִינָה, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה עִיכּוּל?
They say in the school of Rav: What is the reasoning of Rav Ḥisda, who says that dawn renders these limbs consumed? It is the following a fortiori inference: And if midnight, which does not cause the disqualification of being left overnight with regard to limbs that were left off the altar until that time, still causes consumption, i.e., limbs burned on the altar until midnight are considered entirely consumed, then certainly with regard to dawn, which causes the disqualification of being left overnight with regard to limbs that were not left off the altar until that time, isn’t it logical that it causes consumption?
פֵּירְשׁוּ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת, וְהֶחְזִירָן לְאַחַר עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר – רַבָּה אָמַר: חֲצוֹת שֵׁנִי עוֹכַלְתָּן, רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: אֵין בָּהֶן עִיכּוּל לְעוֹלָם.
These amora’im also dispute the halakha in a case where the limbs separated from the altar before midnight and were returned to the altar after dawn: Rabba says that the second midnight renders them consumed, and if they separated after this time they are not returned. Rav Ḥisda says: Since these limbs were not returned to the altar by dawn, they are never subject to consumption through the passage of time. Rather, they are returned to the altar and allowed to burn until they are reduced to ash. These two disputes between Rabba and Rav Ḥisda indicate that both agree that limbs not on the altar by midnight are not considered consumed.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: וּמַאן לֵימָא לַן דַּחֲצוֹת בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְשַׁוְּיָא לְהוּ עִיכּוּל? דִּילְמָא כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּמַשְׁכְּחָא לְהוּ מְשַׁוְּיָא לְהוּ עִיכּוּל! שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: הִלְכְתָא כְּרַב יוֹסֵף.
Rav Yosef objects to this: And who shall say to us that midnight, specifically when the limbs are at the top of the altar, effects for them consumption? Perhaps anywhere that the limbs are found, midnight effects for them consumption. The Gemara notes: They sent from there, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef, i.e., the passing of midnight renders all limbs consumed, regardless of their location at that time.
אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: פֵּירְשׁוּ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת וְהֶחְזִירָן אַחַר חֲצוֹת – לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. וְכֵן תָּנָא בַּר קַפָּרָא: פֵּירְשׁוּ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת וְהֶחְזִירָן לְאַחַר חֲצוֹת – יוֹצְאִין מִידֵי מְעִילָה.
It was also stated that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: In the case of limbs that separated from upon the altar before midnight and were returned to the altar after midnight, one may not benefit from them ab initio, but if one benefited from them after the fact he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, since the mitzva of burning is considered fulfilled after midnight has passed. And bar Kappara also taught: If they separated from upon the altar before midnight and were returned to the altar after midnight, the limbs are removed from being subject to liability for misuse of consecrated property.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: וְכִי מֵאַחַר דִּשְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם הִילְכְתָא כְּרַב יוֹסֵף, וְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא וְכֵן תָּנֵי בַּר קַפָּרָא – רַבָּה וְרַב חִסְדָּא בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בִּשְׁמֵנִים.
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And since they sent from there that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef that midnight effects consumption even for those items left off the altar, and Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba says this as well, and bar Kappara also teaches that this is the halakha, then with regard to what do Rabba and Rav Ḥisda disagree? Abaye said to him: They disagree with regard to fatty limbs, whose consumption is delayed due to their surrounding fat, and consequently midnight may not effect consumption for these limbs.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַבָּה: לִינָה מוֹעֶלֶת בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ, אוֹ אֵינָהּ מוֹעֶלֶת בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ? הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּלֹא יָרְדוּ – הַשְׁתָּא לָנוּ בַּעֲזָרָה אָמְרַתְּ דְּלֹא יֵרְדוּ, בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ מִיבַּעְיָא?!
§ Rava raises a dilemma before Rabba: Is the disqualification of being left overnight effective in disqualifying limbs that are situated at the top of the altar at dawn but were not placed on the pyre, or is it not effective in disqualifying limbs that are at the top of the altar but were not placed on the pyre? The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If we say that the limbs have not descended from the altar, then the halakha should be obvious: Now that with regard to limbs that were left overnight in the Temple courtyard, you said in the mishna (84a) that if they ascended upon the altar they shall not descend, then with regard to limbs left on top of the altar, is it necessary to teach that they shall not descend?
וְאֶלָּא דְּיָרְדוּ לְשֻׁלְחָן מְדַמֵּינַן לַהּ; דִּתְנַן: אֲפִילּוּ הֵן עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן יָמִים רַבִּים – אֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם, אוֹ דִילְמָא לְקַרְקַע מְדַמֵּינַן?
But rather, the dilemma is in a case where they were left overnight on top of the altar and descended from it after dawn. Do we compare limbs left overnight on top of the altar to the Table of the shewbread, and they are therefore returned, as we learned in a mishna (Menaḥot 100a): Even if loaves of shewbread, which are supposed to be replaced every Shabbat, remained on the Table many days beyond Shabbat, there is nothing wrong with that, and the loaves are not disqualified by being left overnight. Or perhaps we compare the limbs to flesh left on the ground of the Temple courtyard, which is disqualified when left there until dawn, and they are not returned.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין לִינָה בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ. קִיבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ, אוֹ לָא? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאִיתְּמַר: אֵיבָרִים שֶׁלָּנוּ בָּעֲזָרָה – מְקַטֵּר וְהוֹלֵךְ כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה. לָן בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ – מְקַטֵּר וְהוֹלֵךְ לְעוֹלָם.
Rabba said to him: There is no disqualification of limbs that are left overnight at the top of the altar. The Gemara asks: Did Rava accept this response from Rabba or not? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which was stated: With regard to limbs that were left overnight in the Temple courtyard, the priest may place them upon the altar to burn them all night long provided that they are placed there before dawn. With regard to a limb that was left overnight at the top of the altar, the priest may burn it forever, i.e., no matter how much time has passed.
יָרְדוּ – רַבָּה אָמַר: יַעֲלוּ, רָבָא אָמַר: לֹא יַעֲלוּ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: לָא קַיבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
With regard to limbs that were left overnight on top of the altar and then descended from it, Rabba says that they shall ascend, while Rava says that they shall not ascend. Conclude from it that Rava did not accept the response from Rabba, as he holds here that limbs are disqualified when left overnight on top of the altar. The Gemara confirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.
כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְקַדֵּשׁ כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמִזְבֵּחַ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מִזְבֵּחַ; כֶּבֶשׁ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״. כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהֶם יִקְדָּשׁ״.
§ The mishna teaches: Just as the altar sanctifies items, so too, the ramp and the service vessels sanctify items. With regard to this halakha, the Sages taught: The verse states: “Whatever touches the altar shall be sacred” (Exodus 29:37). From here I have derived only that the altar sanctifies items. From where is it derived that the ramp sanctifies items as well? The verse states: “And you shall anoint…the altar [et hamizbe’aḥ]” (Exodus 40:10), and the addition of the word et serves to include the ramp. With regard to service vessels, from where is it derived that they sanctify items? The verse states with regard to them: “Whatever touches them shall be sacred” (Exodus 30:29).
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת מַהוּ שֶׁיְּקַדְּשׁוּ אֶת הַפְּסוּלִין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהַכֶּבֶשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהֶן, כָּךְ כֵּלִים מְקַדְּשִׁין!
Reish Lakish raises a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan: What is the halakha with regard to whether service vessels sanctify disqualified items? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: You learned in the mishna that just as the altar and the ramp sanctify items that are suited to them even if those items are disqualified, so too, the service vessels sanctify items placed in them.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְכַתְּחִילָּה לִיקְרַב קָמִיבְּעֵי לִי. הָא נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא:
Reish Lakish said to him: The mishna indicates that service vessels sanctify that which is placed in them in the sense that they may no longer be redeemed even if they become disqualified. I raise the dilemma with regard to whether service vessels sanctify disqualified items such that they may be sacrificed ab initio. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: This also we learn in a mishna (84a):
שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ אֶת דָּמוֹ; מַאי, לָאו שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ פְּסוּלִין?
An offering that people unfit for performing the Temple service collected and then sprinkled its blood shall not descend from the altar if it ascended. What, is it not that the mishna means that people unfit for performing the Temple service collected the blood and people unfit for performing the Temple service sprinkled it as well, which disqualifies it from ascending the altar? But if the collection alone was performed by people unfit for performing the Temple service, although the offering becomes disqualified, those fit to perform the Temple service may sprinkle the blood and sacrifice the offering ab initio. The reason, apparently, is that service vessels sanctify disqualified blood such that it may be sprinkled ab initio.
לֹא, שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין. אִי נָמֵי שֶׁזָּרְקוּ פְּסוּלִין.
Reish Lakish rejects this proof: No, the mishna may be referring to two independent cases, i.e., that people unfit for performing the Temple service collected the blood, or that people unfit for performing the Temple service sprinkled the blood after it was collected by people who were fit for performing the Temple service. Accordingly, the mishna teaches only that if such offerings ascended the altar they shall not descend after the fact, but service vessels do not sanctify disqualified items such that they are offered ab initio.
אֲוִיר מִזְבֵּחַ – כְּמִזְבֵּחַ דָּמֵי, אוֹ לָא? תָּא שְׁמַע: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְקַדֵּשׁ, כָּךְ כֶּבֶשׁ מְקַדֵּשׁ.
§ The Gemara raises a dilemma: Is the airspace above the altar considered as the altar itself, whereby items that enter this airspace shall not descend from the altar, or is it not considered like the altar? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the mishna, which states: Just as the altar sanctifies items, so too, the ramp sanctifies items, and if they ascended upon it they shall be sacrificed upon the altar and shall not descend.
וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֲוִיר מִזְבֵּחַ לָאו כַּמִּזְבֵּחַ דָּמֵי – אֲוִיר כֶּבֶשׁ נָמֵי לָאו כְּכֶבֶשׁ דָּמֵי; הֵיכִי מַסֵּיק לֵיהּ מִכֶּבֶשׁ לְמִזְבֵּחַ? הָוֵה לֵיהּ יָרוּד!
And if you say that the airspace above the altar is not considered as the altar itself, then the airspace above the ramp as well should not be considered as the ramp. If so, how can one elevate the disqualified limbs of an offering from the ramp to the altar? The moment one elevates a limb from upon the ramp, it is considered to have descended from the ramp, and all disqualified items that descended shall not be returned.
דְּנָגֵד לֵיהּ. וְהָא אֲוִיר יֵשׁ בֵּין כֶּבֶשׁ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ! רוּבּוֹ לַכֶּבֶשׁ – כַּכֶּבֶשׁ, רוּבּוֹ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – כַּמִּזְבֵּחַ.
The Gemara responds: The mishna is referring to a case where the priest drags the offering up the ramp, but it never enters its airspace. The Gemara challenges: But even if he drags it up the ramp, he must still lift it, as there is a space between the ramp and the altar. The Gemara responds: Since this gap is small, only a minority of the limb of an offering will be located over the gap as it passes from the ramp to the altar. Therefore, when a majority of the limb is on the ramp, the minority situated above the gap is considered as if it is on the ramp. Once a majority of the limb is on the altar, the minority situated above the gap is considered as if it is on the altar.
תִּפְשׁוֹט מֵהָא – הָא דְּבָעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא יֵשׁ חִיבּוּר לְעוֹלִין אוֹ לָא, תִּיפְשׁוֹט דְּיֵשׁ חִיבּוּר! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, תִּיפְשׁוֹט.
The Gemara asks: If so, resolve from this mishna the dilemma that was raised by Rami bar Ḥama: Is there a connection of limbs that ascend upon the altar, i.e., is an offering considered a unit such that even those parts that do not ascend the altar shall be considered as if they are upon it, or is there not, and each part is considered independent? Based on the previous answer, resolve the dilemma by saying that there is a connection of limbs. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as one may indeed resolve Rami bar Ḥama’s dilemma from here.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא בַּר רַב חָנָן: וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֲוִיר מִזְבֵּחַ כַּמִּזְבֵּחַ דָּמֵי, עוֹלַת הָעוֹף דְּפָסְלָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?
Rava bar Rav Ḥanan objects to the assumption that the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar itself: But if you say that the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar itself, then with regard to a bird burnt offering that one disqualified by having the intention to burn it beyond its designated time, i.e., the day after it was pinched, how can you find the circumstances for such a disqualification to take effect?
הָא קַלְטַהּ מִזְבֵּחַ!
One’s intent to burn an offering beyond its designated time disqualifies it only when he intended to burn it during a time that he may not do so. Since a bird burnt offering is pinched in the airspace above the altar, the altar has already accepted it. Therefore, even if one delayed burning it until the next day, it does not descend from the altar, like all other offerings that are disqualified by being left overnight.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: אַלְּמָה לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר: הֲרֵינִי מוֹלְקָהּ עַל מְנָת לְהוֹרִידָהּ לְמָחָר וּלְהַעֲלוֹתָהּ וּלְהַקְטִירָהּ.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi objects to the objection raised by Rava bar Rav Ḥanan: Why is it not possible for a bird burnt offering to be disqualified through the intention to burn it beyond its designated time? You find it in a case where he says: I am hereby pinching it in order to take it down from the altar tomorrow and thereafter sacrifice it and burn it. If he takes it down from the altar the next day, he may not subsequently return it there for burning, as all disqualified items that have descended from the altar shall not be returned to it. Accordingly, even if the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar itself, a bird burnt offering can still be disqualified with such intention.
הָנִיחָא לְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר: לִינָה מוֹעֶלֶת בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ; אֶלָּא לְרַבָּה, דְּאָמַר: אֵין לִינָה מוֹעֶלֶת בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לֵיתָא לְמַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ!
The Gemara questions the objection of Rav Shimi bar Ashi: This works out well according to the opinion of Rava, who says that the disqualification of being left overnight is effective even when the offering is at the top of the altar. Accordingly, if he were to take the bird burnt offering down from the altar the next day, he may not restore it to the altar for burning. But this is difficult according to the opinion of Rabba, who says: The disqualification of being left overnight is not effective when the offering is at the top of the altar, and therefore even if the next day he removed the bird burnt offering from the altar, he must return it there to burn it, as it has not been disqualified. If so, his intention is not significant, i.e., he does not disqualify a bird burnt offering with such intention.
לְרַבָּה נָמֵי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ – כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר: הֲרֵינִי מוֹלְקָהּ עַל מְנָת לְהוֹרִידָהּ קוֹדֵם עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר, וּלְהַעֲלוֹתָהּ לְאַחַר עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi responds: According to the opinion of Rabba as well, you find a case of a bird burnt offering that is disqualified due to one’s intention, such as where he says: I am hereby pinching it in order to take it down from the altar before dawn and to then sacrifice it after dawn. In such a case, where the offering is removed from the altar before dawn, even Rabba would agree that one’s intention renders a bird burnt offering disqualified by being left overnight.
לְהָךְ גִּיסָא מִיהָא תִּיפְשׁוֹט – דַּאֲוִיר מִזְבֵּחַ כְּמִזְבֵּחַ דָּמֵי; דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אֲוִיר מִזְבֵּחַ לָאו כְּמִזְבֵּחַ דָּמֵי,
Rav Shimi bar Ashi adds: Irrespective of the validity of the proof of Rava bar Rav Ḥanan, in any event, resolve the issue to this side, i.e., in favor of the claim that the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar itself. As if it enters your mind that the airspace above the altar is not considered as the altar,
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.
Zevachim Daf 87-93– Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
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 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.
Denver, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
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
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, 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!
Minnesota, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Oceanside NY, United States
Blacksburg, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
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
Tel Aviv, Israel
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, 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!
Brentwood, California, United States
Los Angeles, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
Zevachim 87
חֲצוֹת שֵׁנִי עוֹכַלְתָּן, רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר עוֹכַלְתָּן.
The second midnight, i.e., midnight of the following night, renders them consumed, and if they were dislodged from the altar thereafter they are not returned. Rav Ḥisda says: Dawn following the first evening renders them consumed, and if they were dislodged from the altar thereafter they are not returned.
אָמְרִי בֵּי רַב: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב חִסְדָּא? וּמָה חֲצוֹת שֶׁאֵין עוֹשֶׂה לִינָה, עוֹשֶׂה עִיכּוּל; עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה לִינָה, אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה עִיכּוּל?
They say in the school of Rav: What is the reasoning of Rav Ḥisda, who says that dawn renders these limbs consumed? It is the following a fortiori inference: And if midnight, which does not cause the disqualification of being left overnight with regard to limbs that were left off the altar until that time, still causes consumption, i.e., limbs burned on the altar until midnight are considered entirely consumed, then certainly with regard to dawn, which causes the disqualification of being left overnight with regard to limbs that were not left off the altar until that time, isn’t it logical that it causes consumption?
פֵּירְשׁוּ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת, וְהֶחְזִירָן לְאַחַר עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר – רַבָּה אָמַר: חֲצוֹת שֵׁנִי עוֹכַלְתָּן, רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר: אֵין בָּהֶן עִיכּוּל לְעוֹלָם.
These amora’im also dispute the halakha in a case where the limbs separated from the altar before midnight and were returned to the altar after dawn: Rabba says that the second midnight renders them consumed, and if they separated after this time they are not returned. Rav Ḥisda says: Since these limbs were not returned to the altar by dawn, they are never subject to consumption through the passage of time. Rather, they are returned to the altar and allowed to burn until they are reduced to ash. These two disputes between Rabba and Rav Ḥisda indicate that both agree that limbs not on the altar by midnight are not considered consumed.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב יוֹסֵף: וּמַאן לֵימָא לַן דַּחֲצוֹת בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְשַׁוְּיָא לְהוּ עִיכּוּל? דִּילְמָא כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּמַשְׁכְּחָא לְהוּ מְשַׁוְּיָא לְהוּ עִיכּוּל! שְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם: הִלְכְתָא כְּרַב יוֹסֵף.
Rav Yosef objects to this: And who shall say to us that midnight, specifically when the limbs are at the top of the altar, effects for them consumption? Perhaps anywhere that the limbs are found, midnight effects for them consumption. The Gemara notes: They sent from there, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef, i.e., the passing of midnight renders all limbs consumed, regardless of their location at that time.
אִיתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא: פֵּירְשׁוּ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת וְהֶחְזִירָן אַחַר חֲצוֹת – לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין. וְכֵן תָּנָא בַּר קַפָּרָא: פֵּירְשׁוּ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת וְהֶחְזִירָן לְאַחַר חֲצוֹת – יוֹצְאִין מִידֵי מְעִילָה.
It was also stated that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: In the case of limbs that separated from upon the altar before midnight and were returned to the altar after midnight, one may not benefit from them ab initio, but if one benefited from them after the fact he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, since the mitzva of burning is considered fulfilled after midnight has passed. And bar Kappara also taught: If they separated from upon the altar before midnight and were returned to the altar after midnight, the limbs are removed from being subject to liability for misuse of consecrated property.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: וְכִי מֵאַחַר דִּשְׁלַחוּ מִתָּם הִילְכְתָא כְּרַב יוֹסֵף, וְאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא וְכֵן תָּנֵי בַּר קַפָּרָא – רַבָּה וְרַב חִסְדָּא בְּמַאי פְּלִיגִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בִּשְׁמֵנִים.
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And since they sent from there that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef that midnight effects consumption even for those items left off the altar, and Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba says this as well, and bar Kappara also teaches that this is the halakha, then with regard to what do Rabba and Rav Ḥisda disagree? Abaye said to him: They disagree with regard to fatty limbs, whose consumption is delayed due to their surrounding fat, and consequently midnight may not effect consumption for these limbs.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵרַבָּה: לִינָה מוֹעֶלֶת בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ, אוֹ אֵינָהּ מוֹעֶלֶת בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ? הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִילֵּימָא דְּלֹא יָרְדוּ – הַשְׁתָּא לָנוּ בַּעֲזָרָה אָמְרַתְּ דְּלֹא יֵרְדוּ, בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ מִיבַּעְיָא?!
§ Rava raises a dilemma before Rabba: Is the disqualification of being left overnight effective in disqualifying limbs that are situated at the top of the altar at dawn but were not placed on the pyre, or is it not effective in disqualifying limbs that are at the top of the altar but were not placed on the pyre? The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If we say that the limbs have not descended from the altar, then the halakha should be obvious: Now that with regard to limbs that were left overnight in the Temple courtyard, you said in the mishna (84a) that if they ascended upon the altar they shall not descend, then with regard to limbs left on top of the altar, is it necessary to teach that they shall not descend?
וְאֶלָּא דְּיָרְדוּ לְשֻׁלְחָן מְדַמֵּינַן לַהּ; דִּתְנַן: אֲפִילּוּ הֵן עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן יָמִים רַבִּים – אֵין בְּכָךְ כְּלוּם, אוֹ דִילְמָא לְקַרְקַע מְדַמֵּינַן?
But rather, the dilemma is in a case where they were left overnight on top of the altar and descended from it after dawn. Do we compare limbs left overnight on top of the altar to the Table of the shewbread, and they are therefore returned, as we learned in a mishna (Menaḥot 100a): Even if loaves of shewbread, which are supposed to be replaced every Shabbat, remained on the Table many days beyond Shabbat, there is nothing wrong with that, and the loaves are not disqualified by being left overnight. Or perhaps we compare the limbs to flesh left on the ground of the Temple courtyard, which is disqualified when left there until dawn, and they are not returned.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵין לִינָה בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ. קִיבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ, אוֹ לָא? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאִיתְּמַר: אֵיבָרִים שֶׁלָּנוּ בָּעֲזָרָה – מְקַטֵּר וְהוֹלֵךְ כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה. לָן בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ – מְקַטֵּר וְהוֹלֵךְ לְעוֹלָם.
Rabba said to him: There is no disqualification of limbs that are left overnight at the top of the altar. The Gemara asks: Did Rava accept this response from Rabba or not? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which was stated: With regard to limbs that were left overnight in the Temple courtyard, the priest may place them upon the altar to burn them all night long provided that they are placed there before dawn. With regard to a limb that was left overnight at the top of the altar, the priest may burn it forever, i.e., no matter how much time has passed.
יָרְדוּ – רַבָּה אָמַר: יַעֲלוּ, רָבָא אָמַר: לֹא יַעֲלוּ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: לָא קַיבְּלַהּ מִינֵּיהּ! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
With regard to limbs that were left overnight on top of the altar and then descended from it, Rabba says that they shall ascend, while Rava says that they shall not ascend. Conclude from it that Rava did not accept the response from Rabba, as he holds here that limbs are disqualified when left overnight on top of the altar. The Gemara confirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.
כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְקַדֵּשׁ כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמִזְבֵּחַ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא מִזְבֵּחַ; כֶּבֶשׁ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״. כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת מִנַּיִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״כׇּל הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהֶם יִקְדָּשׁ״.
§ The mishna teaches: Just as the altar sanctifies items, so too, the ramp and the service vessels sanctify items. With regard to this halakha, the Sages taught: The verse states: “Whatever touches the altar shall be sacred” (Exodus 29:37). From here I have derived only that the altar sanctifies items. From where is it derived that the ramp sanctifies items as well? The verse states: “And you shall anoint…the altar [et hamizbe’aḥ]” (Exodus 40:10), and the addition of the word et serves to include the ramp. With regard to service vessels, from where is it derived that they sanctify items? The verse states with regard to them: “Whatever touches them shall be sacred” (Exodus 30:29).
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת מַהוּ שֶׁיְּקַדְּשׁוּ אֶת הַפְּסוּלִין? אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵיתוּהָ: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהַכֶּבֶשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהֶן, כָּךְ כֵּלִים מְקַדְּשִׁין!
Reish Lakish raises a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan: What is the halakha with regard to whether service vessels sanctify disqualified items? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: You learned in the mishna that just as the altar and the ramp sanctify items that are suited to them even if those items are disqualified, so too, the service vessels sanctify items placed in them.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לְכַתְּחִילָּה לִיקְרַב קָמִיבְּעֵי לִי. הָא נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא:
Reish Lakish said to him: The mishna indicates that service vessels sanctify that which is placed in them in the sense that they may no longer be redeemed even if they become disqualified. I raise the dilemma with regard to whether service vessels sanctify disqualified items such that they may be sacrificed ab initio. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: This also we learn in a mishna (84a):
שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ אֶת דָּמוֹ; מַאי, לָאו שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ פְּסוּלִין?
An offering that people unfit for performing the Temple service collected and then sprinkled its blood shall not descend from the altar if it ascended. What, is it not that the mishna means that people unfit for performing the Temple service collected the blood and people unfit for performing the Temple service sprinkled it as well, which disqualifies it from ascending the altar? But if the collection alone was performed by people unfit for performing the Temple service, although the offering becomes disqualified, those fit to perform the Temple service may sprinkle the blood and sacrifice the offering ab initio. The reason, apparently, is that service vessels sanctify disqualified blood such that it may be sprinkled ab initio.
לֹא, שֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין. אִי נָמֵי שֶׁזָּרְקוּ פְּסוּלִין.
Reish Lakish rejects this proof: No, the mishna may be referring to two independent cases, i.e., that people unfit for performing the Temple service collected the blood, or that people unfit for performing the Temple service sprinkled the blood after it was collected by people who were fit for performing the Temple service. Accordingly, the mishna teaches only that if such offerings ascended the altar they shall not descend after the fact, but service vessels do not sanctify disqualified items such that they are offered ab initio.
אֲוִיר מִזְבֵּחַ – כְּמִזְבֵּחַ דָּמֵי, אוֹ לָא? תָּא שְׁמַע: כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְקַדֵּשׁ, כָּךְ כֶּבֶשׁ מְקַדֵּשׁ.
§ The Gemara raises a dilemma: Is the airspace above the altar considered as the altar itself, whereby items that enter this airspace shall not descend from the altar, or is it not considered like the altar? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the mishna, which states: Just as the altar sanctifies items, so too, the ramp sanctifies items, and if they ascended upon it they shall be sacrificed upon the altar and shall not descend.
וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֲוִיר מִזְבֵּחַ לָאו כַּמִּזְבֵּחַ דָּמֵי – אֲוִיר כֶּבֶשׁ נָמֵי לָאו כְּכֶבֶשׁ דָּמֵי; הֵיכִי מַסֵּיק לֵיהּ מִכֶּבֶשׁ לְמִזְבֵּחַ? הָוֵה לֵיהּ יָרוּד!
And if you say that the airspace above the altar is not considered as the altar itself, then the airspace above the ramp as well should not be considered as the ramp. If so, how can one elevate the disqualified limbs of an offering from the ramp to the altar? The moment one elevates a limb from upon the ramp, it is considered to have descended from the ramp, and all disqualified items that descended shall not be returned.
דְּנָגֵד לֵיהּ. וְהָא אֲוִיר יֵשׁ בֵּין כֶּבֶשׁ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ! רוּבּוֹ לַכֶּבֶשׁ – כַּכֶּבֶשׁ, רוּבּוֹ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – כַּמִּזְבֵּחַ.
The Gemara responds: The mishna is referring to a case where the priest drags the offering up the ramp, but it never enters its airspace. The Gemara challenges: But even if he drags it up the ramp, he must still lift it, as there is a space between the ramp and the altar. The Gemara responds: Since this gap is small, only a minority of the limb of an offering will be located over the gap as it passes from the ramp to the altar. Therefore, when a majority of the limb is on the ramp, the minority situated above the gap is considered as if it is on the ramp. Once a majority of the limb is on the altar, the minority situated above the gap is considered as if it is on the altar.
תִּפְשׁוֹט מֵהָא – הָא דְּבָעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא יֵשׁ חִיבּוּר לְעוֹלִין אוֹ לָא, תִּיפְשׁוֹט דְּיֵשׁ חִיבּוּר! הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, תִּיפְשׁוֹט.
The Gemara asks: If so, resolve from this mishna the dilemma that was raised by Rami bar Ḥama: Is there a connection of limbs that ascend upon the altar, i.e., is an offering considered a unit such that even those parts that do not ascend the altar shall be considered as if they are upon it, or is there not, and each part is considered independent? Based on the previous answer, resolve the dilemma by saying that there is a connection of limbs. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as one may indeed resolve Rami bar Ḥama’s dilemma from here.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא בַּר רַב חָנָן: וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֲוִיר מִזְבֵּחַ כַּמִּזְבֵּחַ דָּמֵי, עוֹלַת הָעוֹף דְּפָסְלָה בְּמַחְשָׁבָה הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ?
Rava bar Rav Ḥanan objects to the assumption that the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar itself: But if you say that the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar itself, then with regard to a bird burnt offering that one disqualified by having the intention to burn it beyond its designated time, i.e., the day after it was pinched, how can you find the circumstances for such a disqualification to take effect?
הָא קַלְטַהּ מִזְבֵּחַ!
One’s intent to burn an offering beyond its designated time disqualifies it only when he intended to burn it during a time that he may not do so. Since a bird burnt offering is pinched in the airspace above the altar, the altar has already accepted it. Therefore, even if one delayed burning it until the next day, it does not descend from the altar, like all other offerings that are disqualified by being left overnight.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב שִׁימִי בַּר אָשֵׁי: אַלְּמָה לָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ? כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר: הֲרֵינִי מוֹלְקָהּ עַל מְנָת לְהוֹרִידָהּ לְמָחָר וּלְהַעֲלוֹתָהּ וּלְהַקְטִירָהּ.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi objects to the objection raised by Rava bar Rav Ḥanan: Why is it not possible for a bird burnt offering to be disqualified through the intention to burn it beyond its designated time? You find it in a case where he says: I am hereby pinching it in order to take it down from the altar tomorrow and thereafter sacrifice it and burn it. If he takes it down from the altar the next day, he may not subsequently return it there for burning, as all disqualified items that have descended from the altar shall not be returned to it. Accordingly, even if the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar itself, a bird burnt offering can still be disqualified with such intention.
הָנִיחָא לְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר: לִינָה מוֹעֶלֶת בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ; אֶלָּא לְרַבָּה, דְּאָמַר: אֵין לִינָה מוֹעֶלֶת בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לֵיתָא לְמַחְשַׁבְתּוֹ!
The Gemara questions the objection of Rav Shimi bar Ashi: This works out well according to the opinion of Rava, who says that the disqualification of being left overnight is effective even when the offering is at the top of the altar. Accordingly, if he were to take the bird burnt offering down from the altar the next day, he may not restore it to the altar for burning. But this is difficult according to the opinion of Rabba, who says: The disqualification of being left overnight is not effective when the offering is at the top of the altar, and therefore even if the next day he removed the bird burnt offering from the altar, he must return it there to burn it, as it has not been disqualified. If so, his intention is not significant, i.e., he does not disqualify a bird burnt offering with such intention.
לְרַבָּה נָמֵי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ – כְּגוֹן דְּאָמַר: הֲרֵינִי מוֹלְקָהּ עַל מְנָת לְהוֹרִידָהּ קוֹדֵם עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר, וּלְהַעֲלוֹתָהּ לְאַחַר עַמּוּד הַשַּׁחַר.
Rav Shimi bar Ashi responds: According to the opinion of Rabba as well, you find a case of a bird burnt offering that is disqualified due to one’s intention, such as where he says: I am hereby pinching it in order to take it down from the altar before dawn and to then sacrifice it after dawn. In such a case, where the offering is removed from the altar before dawn, even Rabba would agree that one’s intention renders a bird burnt offering disqualified by being left overnight.
לְהָךְ גִּיסָא מִיהָא תִּיפְשׁוֹט – דַּאֲוִיר מִזְבֵּחַ כְּמִזְבֵּחַ דָּמֵי; דְּאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ אֲוִיר מִזְבֵּחַ לָאו כְּמִזְבֵּחַ דָּמֵי,
Rav Shimi bar Ashi adds: Irrespective of the validity of the proof of Rava bar Rav Ḥanan, in any event, resolve the issue to this side, i.e., in favor of the claim that the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar itself. As if it enters your mind that the airspace above the altar is not considered as the altar,
