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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 9, 2018 | 讻状讜 讘转诪讜讝 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

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

Zevachim 87

What areas cause even disqualified items to become sanctified? The altar, the ramp, the holy vessels. If items remain at the top of the altar all night, does that prevent them from becoming disqulaified聽(lina)? What about the airspace of the altar and the ramp?

讞爪讜转 砖谞讬 注讜讻诇转谉 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专 注讜讻诇转谉

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 岣sda says: Dawn following the first evening renders them consumed, and if they were dislodged from the altar thereafter they are not returned.

讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜诪讛 讞爪讜转 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 诇讬谞讛 注讜砖讛 注讬讻讜诇 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专 砖注讜砖讛 诇讬谞讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖注讜砖讛 注讬讻讜诇

They say in the school of Rav: What is the reasoning of Rav 岣sda, 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鈥檛 it logical that it causes consumption?

驻讬专砖讜 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 讜讛讞讝讬专谉 诇讗讞专 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专 专讘讛 讗诪专 讞爪讜转 砖谞讬 注讜讻诇转谉 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 注讬讻讜诇 诇注讜诇诐

These amora鈥檌m 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 岣sda 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 岣sda indicate that both agree that limbs not on the altar by midnight are not considered consumed.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讞爪讜转 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 诪砖讜讬讗 诇讛讜 注讬讻讜诇 讚讬诇诪讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪砖讻讞讗 诇讛讜 诪砖讜讬讗 诇讛讜 注讬讻讜诇 砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讬讜住祝

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.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 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 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讘专 拽驻专讗 驻讬专砖讜 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 讜讛讞讝讬专谉 诇讗讞专 讞爪讜转 讬讜爪讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 诪注讬诇讛

It was also stated that Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讛讬诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜讻谉 转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 专讘讛 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘砖诪谞讬诐

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 岣yya 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 岣sda 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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘讛 诇讬谞讛 诪讜注诇转 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讜注诇转 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讬专讚讜 讛砖转讗 诇谞讜 讘注讝专讛 讗诪专转 讚诇讗 讬专讚讜 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 诪讬讘注讬讗

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?

讜讗诇讗 讚讬专讚讜 诇砖诇讞谉 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讛 讚转谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讬诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讻讱 讻诇讜诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇拽专拽注 诪讚诪讬谞谉

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 (Mena岣t 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讬谞讛 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗讬转诪专 讗讬讘专讬诐 砖诇谞讜 讘注讝专讛 诪拽讟专 讜讛讜诇讱 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 诇谉 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 诪拽讟专 讜讛讜诇讱 诇注讜诇诐

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.

讬专讚讜 专讘讛 讗诪专 讬注诇讜 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讬注诇讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讻砖诐 砖讛诪讝讘讞 诪拽讚砖 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讙注 讘诪讝讘讞 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪讝讘讞 讻讘砖 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转 讛诪讝讘讞 讻诇讬 砖专转 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞讙注 讘讛诐 讬拽讚砖

搂 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: 鈥淲hatever touches the altar shall be sacred鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd you shall anoint鈥the altar [et hamizbe鈥檃岣]鈥 (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: 鈥淲hatever touches them shall be sacred鈥 (Exodus 30:29).

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇讬 砖专转 诪讛讜 砖讬拽讚砖讜 讗转 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 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 讻诇讬诐 诪拽讚砖讬谉

Reish Lakish raises a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan: What is the halakha with regard to whether service vessels sanctify disqualified items? Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讬拽专讘 拽诪讬讘注讬 诇讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗

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 Yo岣nan said to him: This also we learn in a mishna (84a):

砖拽讬讘诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讝专拽讜 讗转 讚诪讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖拽讬讘诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讝专拽讜 驻住讜诇讬谉

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.

诇讗 砖拽讬讘诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖讝专拽讜 驻住讜诇讬谉

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.

讗讜讬专 诪讝讘讞 讻诪讝讘讞 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻砖诐 砖讛诪讝讘讞 诪拽讚砖 讻讱 讻讘砖 诪拽讚砖

搂 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.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讜讬专 诪讝讘讞 诇讗讜 讻诪讝讘讞 讚诪讬 讗讜讬专 讻讘砖 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 讻讻讘砖 讚诪讬 讛讬讻讬 诪住讬拽 诇讬讛 诪讻讘砖 诇诪讝讘讞 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬专讜讚

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.

讚谞讙讚 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗讜讬专 讬砖 讘讬谉 讻讘砖 诇诪讝讘讞 专讜讘讜 诇讻讘砖 讻讻讘砖 专讜讘讜 诇诪讝讘讞 讻诪讝讘讞

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.

转驻砖讜讟 诪讛讗 讛讗 讚讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讬砖 讞讬讘讜专 诇注讜诇讬谉 讗讜 诇讗 转讬驻砖讜讟 讚讬砖 讞讬讘讜专 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 转讬驻砖讜讟

The Gemara asks: If so, resolve from this mishna the dilemma that was raised by Rami bar 岣ma: 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 岣ma鈥檚 dilemma from here.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讜讬专 诪讝讘讞 讻诪讝讘讞 讚诪讬 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讚驻住诇讛 讘诪讞砖讘讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

Rava bar Rav 岣nan 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?

讛讗 拽诇讟讛 诪讝讘讞

One鈥檚 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诇诪讛 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 诪讜诇拽讛 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讜专讬讚讛 诇诪讞专 讜诇讛注诇讜转讛 讜诇讛拽讟讬专讛

Rav Shimi bar Ashi objects to the objection raised by Rava bar Rav 岣nan: 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.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬谞讛 诪讜注诇转 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讗诇讗 诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬谞讛 诪讜注诇转 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 诇讬转讗 诇诪讞砖讘转讜

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.

诇专讘讛 谞诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 诪讜诇拽讛 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讜专讬讚讛 拽讜讚诐 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专 讜诇讛注诇讜转讛 诇讗讞专 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专

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鈥檚 intention, such as where he says: I am hereby pinch-ing 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鈥檚 intention renders a bird burnt offering disqualified by being left overnight.

诇讛讱 讙讬住讗 诪讬讛讗 转讬驻砖讜讟 讚讗讜讬专 诪讝讘讞 讻诪讝讘讞 讚诪讬 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讜讬专 诪讝讘讞 诇讗讜 讻诪讝讘讞 讚诪讬

Rav Shimi bar Ashi adds: Irrespective of the validity of the proof of Rava bar Rav 岣nan, 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,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua v鈥 Elana Malka. "讛 谞转谉 讜讛 诇拽讞. 讬讛讬 砖诐 讛 诪讘讜专讱"

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Zevachim 87

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 87

讞爪讜转 砖谞讬 注讜讻诇转谉 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专 注讜讻诇转谉

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 岣sda says: Dawn following the first evening renders them consumed, and if they were dislodged from the altar thereafter they are not returned.

讗诪专讬 讘讬 专讘 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 讜诪讛 讞爪讜转 砖讗讬谉 注讜砖讛 诇讬谞讛 注讜砖讛 注讬讻讜诇 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专 砖注讜砖讛 诇讬谞讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖注讜砖讛 注讬讻讜诇

They say in the school of Rav: What is the reasoning of Rav 岣sda, 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鈥檛 it logical that it causes consumption?

驻讬专砖讜 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 讜讛讞讝讬专谉 诇讗讞专 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专 专讘讛 讗诪专 讞爪讜转 砖谞讬 注讜讻诇转谉 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 注讬讻讜诇 诇注讜诇诐

These amora鈥檌m 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 岣sda 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 岣sda indicate that both agree that limbs not on the altar by midnight are not considered consumed.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讬讜住祝 讜诪讗谉 诇讬诪讗 诇谉 讚讞爪讜转 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 诪砖讜讬讗 诇讛讜 注讬讻讜诇 讚讬诇诪讗 讻诇 讛讬讻讗 讚诪砖讻讞讗 诇讛讜 诪砖讜讬讗 诇讛讜 注讬讻讜诇 砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讛诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讬讜住祝

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.

讗讬转诪专 谞诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 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 诇讗 谞讛谞讬谉 讜诇讗 诪讜注诇讬谉 讜讻谉 转谞讗 讘专 拽驻专讗 驻讬专砖讜 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 讜讛讞讝讬专谉 诇讗讞专 讞爪讜转 讬讜爪讗讬谉 诪讬讚讬 诪注讬诇讛

It was also stated that Rabbi 岣yya 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讜讻讬 诪讗讞专 讚砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讛讬诇讻转讗 讻专讘 讬讜住祝 讜讗诪专 专讘讬 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讗 讜讻谉 转谞讬 讘专 拽驻专讗 专讘讛 讜专讘 讞住讚讗 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘砖诪谞讬诐

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 岣yya 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 岣sda 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.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘讛 诇讬谞讛 诪讜注诇转 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 讗讜 讗讬谞讛 诪讜注诇转 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚诇讗 讬专讚讜 讛砖转讗 诇谞讜 讘注讝专讛 讗诪专转 讚诇讗 讬专讚讜 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 诪讬讘注讬讗

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?

讜讗诇讗 讚讬专讚讜 诇砖诇讞谉 诪讚诪讬谞谉 诇讛 讚转谞谉 讗驻讬诇讜 讛谉 注诇 讛砖诇讞谉 讬诪讬诐 专讘讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讻讱 讻诇讜诐 讗讜 讚讬诇诪讗 诇拽专拽注 诪讚诪讬谞谉

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 (Mena岣t 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 诇讬谞讛 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗讬转诪专 讗讬讘专讬诐 砖诇谞讜 讘注讝专讛 诪拽讟专 讜讛讜诇讱 讻诇 讛诇讬诇讛 诇谉 讘专讗砖讜 砖诇 诪讝讘讞 诪拽讟专 讜讛讜诇讱 诇注讜诇诐

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.

讬专讚讜 专讘讛 讗诪专 讬注诇讜 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讬注诇讜 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 拽讬讘诇讛 诪讬谞讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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.

讻砖诐 砖讛诪讝讘讞 诪拽讚砖 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讛谞讙注 讘诪讝讘讞 讗讬谉 诇讬 讗诇讗 诪讝讘讞 讻讘砖 诪谞讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讗转 讛诪讝讘讞 讻诇讬 砖专转 诪谞讬讬谉 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讻诇 讛谞讙注 讘讛诐 讬拽讚砖

搂 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: 鈥淲hatever touches the altar shall be sacred鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd you shall anoint鈥the altar [et hamizbe鈥檃岣]鈥 (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: 鈥淲hatever touches them shall be sacred鈥 (Exodus 30:29).

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻诇讬 砖专转 诪讛讜 砖讬拽讚砖讜 讗转 讛驻住讜诇讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 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 讻诇讬诐 诪拽讚砖讬谉

Reish Lakish raises a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan: What is the halakha with regard to whether service vessels sanctify disqualified items? Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讻转讞讬诇讛 诇讬拽专讘 拽诪讬讘注讬 诇讬 讛讗 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗

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 Yo岣nan said to him: This also we learn in a mishna (84a):

砖拽讬讘诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讝专拽讜 讗转 讚诪讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 砖拽讬讘诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讜讝专拽讜 驻住讜诇讬谉

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.

诇讗 砖拽讬讘诇讜 驻住讜诇讬谉 讗讬 谞诪讬 砖讝专拽讜 驻住讜诇讬谉

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.

讗讜讬专 诪讝讘讞 讻诪讝讘讞 讚诪讬 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻砖诐 砖讛诪讝讘讞 诪拽讚砖 讻讱 讻讘砖 诪拽讚砖

搂 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.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讜讬专 诪讝讘讞 诇讗讜 讻诪讝讘讞 讚诪讬 讗讜讬专 讻讘砖 谞诪讬 诇讗讜 讻讻讘砖 讚诪讬 讛讬讻讬 诪住讬拽 诇讬讛 诪讻讘砖 诇诪讝讘讞 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 讬专讜讚

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.

讚谞讙讚 诇讬讛 讜讛讗 讗讜讬专 讬砖 讘讬谉 讻讘砖 诇诪讝讘讞 专讜讘讜 诇讻讘砖 讻讻讘砖 专讜讘讜 诇诪讝讘讞 讻诪讝讘讞

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.

转驻砖讜讟 诪讛讗 讛讗 讚讘注讬 专诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讬砖 讞讬讘讜专 诇注讜诇讬谉 讗讜 诇讗 转讬驻砖讜讟 讚讬砖 讞讬讘讜专 讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 转讬驻砖讜讟

The Gemara asks: If so, resolve from this mishna the dilemma that was raised by Rami bar 岣ma: 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 岣ma鈥檚 dilemma from here.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘讗 讘专 专讘 讞谞谉 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讜讬专 诪讝讘讞 讻诪讝讘讞 讚诪讬 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讚驻住诇讛 讘诪讞砖讘讛 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛

Rava bar Rav 岣nan 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?

讛讗 拽诇讟讛 诪讝讘讞

One鈥檚 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.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 砖讬诪讬 讘专 讗砖讬 讗诇诪讛 诇讗 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 诪讜诇拽讛 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讜专讬讚讛 诇诪讞专 讜诇讛注诇讜转讛 讜诇讛拽讟讬专讛

Rav Shimi bar Ashi objects to the objection raised by Rava bar Rav 岣nan: 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.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇专讘讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬谞讛 诪讜注诇转 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 讗诇讗 诇专讘讛 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 诇讬谞讛 诪讜注诇转 讘专讗砖 讛诪讝讘讞 诇讬转讗 诇诪讞砖讘转讜

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.

诇专讘讛 谞诪讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 诪讜诇拽讛 注诇 诪谞转 诇讛讜专讬讚讛 拽讜讚诐 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专 讜诇讛注诇讜转讛 诇讗讞专 注诪讜讚 讛砖讞专

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鈥檚 intention, such as where he says: I am hereby pinch-ing 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鈥檚 intention renders a bird burnt offering disqualified by being left overnight.

诇讛讱 讙讬住讗 诪讬讛讗 转讬驻砖讜讟 讚讗讜讬专 诪讝讘讞 讻诪讝讘讞 讚诪讬 讚讗讬 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗讜讬专 诪讝讘讞 诇讗讜 讻诪讝讘讞 讚诪讬

Rav Shimi bar Ashi adds: Irrespective of the validity of the proof of Rava bar Rav 岣nan, 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,

Scroll To Top