Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
If one sacrifice is more frequent (tadir), but another is more sanctified, which takes precedence? Three cases are brought from the first Mishna of the chapter (Zevachim 89) to prove that frequency takes precedence, but each is rejected in the same manner. A Mishna relating to the order of blessings in kiddush and a statement of Rabbi Yochanan are also cited to support the principle of frequency, but these too are rejected. Finally, an inference is drawn from the Mishna in Zevachim 90, which implies that if a peace offering and a guilt or sin offering were before the kohen, and both were from that day, the guilt or sin offering would take precedence – even though peace offerings are more common. To reject this proof, Rava distinguishes between “frequent” and “common.” Rav Huna challenges Rava’s distinction from a source about brit mila and Pesach, where brit mila is considered tadir. His difficulty, however, is resolved in two possible ways.
Another question arises: if a less frequent sacrifice is slaughtered first and then they realize their error, should someone mix the blood (to prevent coagulation) while the more frequent sacrifice is offered first, or should they complete the one already begun? Four sources are brought to address this issue (three of which were also cited earlier), but all attempts are rejected.
In the Mishna, Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Tarfon disagree about whether oil can be offered in the Temple as a voluntary offering. Shmuel explains that according to Rabbi Tarfon, who permits it, only a kmitza (handful) is burned on the altar, while the remainder is given to the kohanim to eat. Rabbi Zeira supports Shmuel’s view from the Mishna, while Abaye presents an alternative opinion: that a voluntary oil offering is burned in its entirety, also citing proof from the Mishna. A Tosefta raises a difficulty for Shmuel, but it is resolved. The Gemara then suggests that this is a tannaitic debate; after an attempt to refute the suggestion, it is upheld.
Regarding wine, there is likewise a debate about whether it can be brought as a voluntary offering. Shmuel explains that according to Rabbi Akiva, it may be offered, with the wine sprinkled on the altar. However, this raises the issue of partially extinguishing the altar’s fire, which is forbidden by Torah law. Others maintain that the wine is poured into the cups at the top of the altar. The Gemara concludes that this debate parallels the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda (usually in the context of melacha on Shabbat) about whether one is liable for an act intended for one purpose that incidentally results in a prohibition – even when one has no interest in the prohibited outcome.
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.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Amy Cohn in memory of her father in law, Arthur Cohn, Asher Michael ben Mordechai, who was just niftar. “He was a wonderfully creative person , with a huge heart, an enormous baal chesed and defender of Zion who loved his family above all!”
Zevachim 91
וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּמוּסָפִין קַדִּישִׁי! אַטּוּ שַׁבָּת לְמוּסָפִין אַהֲנַאי, לִתְמִידִין לָא אַהֲנַאי?!
And even though the additional offerings are of greater sanctity, as they are sacrificed due to the sanctity of Shabbat, the frequent offering precedes the offering of greater sanctity. The Gemara rejects this proof: Is that to say that the sanctity of Shabbat affects the sanctity of the additional offerings but does not affect the daily offerings brought on Shabbat? Rather, the sanctity of Shabbat elevates the sanctity of the daily offerings as well, and as both are of equal sanctity, the frequent daily offering precedes the additional offerings.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּת קוֹדְמִין לְמוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ! אַטּוּ רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ לְמוּסָפִין דִּידֵיהּ אַהֲנִי, לְמוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּת לָא אַהֲנִי?!
The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear the continuation of this mishna: The additional Shabbat offerings precede the additional New Moon offerings because they are more frequent, despite the fact that the New Moon elevates the sanctity of its additional offerings. The Gemara rejects this proof in a similar manner: Is that to say that the sanctity of the New Moon affects the sanctity of its additional offerings but does not affect the additional offerings of Shabbat? These additional offerings are also imbued with the sanctity of the New Moon.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ קוֹדְמִין לְמוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה קַדִּשָׁה! אַטּוּ רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְמוּסְפֵי דִּידֵיהּ אַהֲנִי, לְמוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ לָא אַהֲנִי?!
The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear the continuation of this mishna: The additional New Moon offerings precede the additional New Year offerings because they are more frequent, even though the New Year is of greater sanctity. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: Is that to say that the sanctity of the New Year affects the sanctity of its additional offerings but does not affect the additional offerings of the New Moon?
תָּא שְׁמַע: דָּבָר אַחֵר – בִּרְכַּת הַיַּיִן תְּדִירָה וּבִרְכַּת הַיּוֹם אֵינָהּ תְּדִירָה, וְתָדִיר וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר – תָּדִיר קוֹדֵם. אַף עַל גַּב דְּבִרְכַּת הַיּוֹם קַדִּישָׁה! אַטּוּ שַׁבָּת לְבִרְכַּת הַיּוֹם אַהֲנַאי, לְבִרְכַּת הַיַּיִן לָא אַהֲנַאי?!
The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear a baraita (Tosefta, Berakhot 5:25) that discusses the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to the order of blessings in kiddush. After stating one reason for the opinion of Beit Hillel that one recites the blessing on the wine before the blessing of the sanctity of the day, the Tosefta adds: Alternatively, Beit Hillel say: The blessing over wine is recited frequently, and the blessing over the day is not recited frequently, and there is a principle: When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice clash, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice. This applies even though the blessing of the day is of greater sanctity, as it is recited due to the sanctity of Shabbat. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: Is that to say that the sanctity of Shabbat affects the sanctity of the blessing of the day but does not affect the sanctity of the blessing on the wine?
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה – מִתְפַּלֵּל אָדָם שֶׁל מִנְחָה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ שֶׁל מוּסָפִין! אַטּוּ שַׁבָּת לִתְפִלַּת מוּסָפִין אַהֲנַאי, לִתְפִלַּת מִנְחָה לָא אַהֲנַאי?!
The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one did not recite the additional prayer on Shabbat until the time of the afternoon prayer arrived, the halakha is that a person prays the afternoon prayer and afterward the additional prayer, as the afternoon prayer is more frequent. This ruling applies despite the fact that the additional prayer is of greater sanctity. Once again the Gemara rejects the proof: Is that to say that the sanctity of Shabbat affects the sanctity of the additional prayer but does not affect the sanctity of the afternoon prayer?
תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ, חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם שֶׁל יוֹם – שְׁלָמִים שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ קוֹדְמִין. הָא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דְּיוֹם – חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם קָדְמִי, וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּשְׁלָמִים תְּדִירִי!
The Gemara cites yet another proof. Come and hear the mishna: If one has a peace offering from yesterday and a sin offering or a guilt offering from today, the peace offering from yesterday precedes the others; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. One can infer from this that if both this offering and that offering are from today, the sin offering or guilt offering takes precedence, and this is the halakha even though the peace offering is more frequent, as people sacrifice voluntary peace offerings more often than sin offerings or guilt offerings.
אָמַר רָבָא: מָצוּי קָאָמְרַתְּ?! תָּדִיר קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן, מָצוּי לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן.
Rava said in response: Are you speaking of a common offering? Although peace offerings are sacrificed more often than sin offerings, there is no obligation to sacrifice them at any particular frequency. We raise the dilemma only with regard to a clash between a frequent offering and one of greater sanctity, but we do not raise the dilemma with regard to a common offering.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה לְרָבָא: אַטּוּ מָצוּי לָאו תָּדִיר?! וְהָתַנְיָא: אוֹצִיא אֶת הַפֶּסַח שֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר, וְלֹא אוֹצִיא אֶת הַמִּילָה שֶׁהִיא תְּדִירָה!
Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to Rava: Is that to say that a common obligation is not considered tantamount to a frequent obligation? But isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to positive mitzvot whose intentional neglect results in the punishment of karet but whose unwitting transgression does not entail the sacrifice of a sin offering: I should exclude the neglect of the Paschal offering from the obligation to sacrifice a sin offering, as it is not frequent, and I should not exclude the neglect of the mitzva of circumcision, as it is frequent? Circumcision is considered a frequent mitzva, as it is performed more often than the Paschal offering, despite the fact that there is no obligation to perform circumcisions at any particular frequency.
מַאי תְּדִירָה – תְּדִירָה בְּמִצְוֹת. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִילָה לְגַבֵּי פֶּסַח – כִּי תָדִיר דָּמְיָא.
Rava answers: What is the meaning of frequent in that context? It means that circumcision is frequent in terms of the numerous mitzvot commanded with regard to its fulfillment. And if you wish, say instead that circumcision in relation to the Paschal offering is considered like a frequent obligation, as it occurs far more often, whereas peace offerings are brought only somewhat more often than sin offerings. In sum, one cannot infer from the mishna that an offering of greater sanctity precedes a frequent offering.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: תָּדִיר וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר, וּקְדֵים וּשְׁחַט לְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר, מַאי? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּשַׁחְטֵיהּ – מַקְרֵיב לֵיהּ; אוֹ דִלְמָא, יָהֵיב לְאַחֵר דִּמְמָרֵס בְּדָמוֹ עַד דְּמַקְרֵיב לֵיהּ לְתָדִיר, וַהֲדַר מַקְרֵיב לְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר?
§ An additional dilemma with regard to precedence was raised before the Sages: If the priest had two offerings to sacrifice, a frequent offering and an infrequent offering, and although he should have initially sacrificed the frequent offering he slaughtered the infrequent offering first, what is the halakha? Do we say that since he already slaughtered the infrequent offering he also proceeds to sacrifice it? Or perhaps he does not yet sacrifice it but gives it to another priest, who stirs its blood to prevent it from congealing, until he sacrifices the frequent offering; and then he sacrifices the infrequent offering.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא מִסּוּרָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ, חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם שֶׁל יוֹם – שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ קוֹדֵם לְשֶׁל יוֹם. הָא דְּיוֹם דּוּמְיָא דְּאֶמֶשׁ –
Rav Huna from Sura said: Come and hear an answer from the mishna: If one has a peace offering from yesterday and a sin offering or a guilt offering from today, the peace offering from yesterday precedes the sin offering from today. It can be assumed that the mishna is not discussing a case where none of the offerings have been slaughtered, as the peace offering would not take precedence in this situation. Rather, it is discussing a peace offering from yesterday that was slaughtered but its blood has not yet been presented. One can infer from this that only a peace offering from yesterday takes precedence in this situation, but in the case of a peace offering from today that is similar in other aspects to a peace offering from yesterday, the peace offering does not take precedence.
וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי, דִּקְדֵים שַׁחְטֵיהּ לִשְׁלָמִים – חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם קָדְמִי!
The Gemara explains: And what are the circumstances of this case? This is a situation where one first slaughtered the peace offering from today. In this case the sin offering or guilt offering takes precedence, although the peace offering is already slaughtered, as both of them are of greater sanctity. The same should apply to an infrequent offering that was slaughtered before a frequent offering: The frequent offering is slaughtered before the blood of the infrequent offering is presented.
דִּלְמָא שְׁלָמִים דְּאֶמֶשׁ וְחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם דְּיוֹם הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ – דְּשַׁחְטִינְהוּ לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ; אֲבָל לָא שַׁחְטִינְהוּ לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ – תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ.
The Gemara rejects this answer: Perhaps when the mishna makes reference to a peace offering from yesterday and a sin offering or a guilt offering from today, the circumstances should be understood differently. How can you find these other circumstances? The mishna discusses a case where the priest already slaughtered both of them, the peace offering and the sin or guilt offering, and the blood of both awaits presentation on the altar. But had he not yet slaughtered both of them, but only the peace offering, you can still raise the dilemma of whether the priest should set aside the blood of the peace offering in order to slaughter the sin offering first, due to its greater sanctity.
תָּא שְׁמַע: דָּבָר אַחֵר – בִּרְכַּת הַיַּיִן תְּדִירָה וּבִרְכַּת הַיּוֹם אֵינָהּ תְּדִירָה, וְתָדִיר וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר – תָּדִיר קוֹדֵם!
The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear the aforementioned baraita: Alternatively, Beit Hillel say: With regard to the order of blessings in kiddush, the blessing on wine is recited frequently and the blessing of the day is not recited frequently, and there is a principle: When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice clash, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice. The obligation to recite the blessing of the day is due to the sanctity of Shabbat and applies at the start of Shabbat, before wine is placed on the table. Nevertheless, the blessing on the wine takes precedence due to its frequency. So too, the slaughtering of the frequent offering should take precedence, even if the priest had already commenced the sacrificial rites of the infrequent offering.
הָכָא נָמֵי, דְּכֵיוָן (דְּאָתְיָין) [דַּאֲתָא יַיִן] – כְּמַאן דִּשְׁחִיטִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ דָּמֵי.
The Gemara rejects this proof: Here too, with regard to kiddush, the circumstances are different, since wine is available when one recites kiddush, and therefore the obligation of both blessings come together. This means that it is comparable to a situation where one already slaughtered both animals.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה, מִתְפַּלֵּל אָדָם שֶׁל מִנְחָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ שֶׁל מוּסָפִין! הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּמָטֵי זְמַן תְּפִלַּת מִנְחָה – כְּמַאן דִּשְׁחִיטִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ דָּמֵי.
The Gemara cites yet another proof: Come and hear, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is that a person prays the afternoon prayer and afterward the additional prayer, despite the fact that the obligation of the additional prayer applies first, which is similar to an offering slaughtered first. The Gemara rejects this proof: Here too, since the time of the afternoon prayer has now arrived, one is obligated in both prayers, and again this is comparable to a situation where one already slaughtered both animals.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי לְרָבִינָא: שְׁחָטוֹ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת – פָּסוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם״. קוֹדֶם לַתָּמִיד – כָּשֵׁר, וִיהֵא מְמָרֵס בְּדָמוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּזְרוֹק הַדָּם!
Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina that an answer to this dilemma can be found in a mishna (Pesaḥim 61a): If one slaughtered the Paschal offering before midday it is disqualified, because it is stated in its regard: “In the afternoon” (Exodus 12:6). If he slaughtered it before the daily afternoon offering was slaughtered it is valid, even though the daily offering should be sacrificed first, but someone should stir its blood to prevent it from congealing until he slaughters and sprinkles the blood of the daily offering. Although the infrequent Paschal offering is already slaughtered, the priest first slaughters the frequent daily offering and then sprinkles the blood of the Paschal offering.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן דִּקְדֵים שַׁחְטֵיהּ לְתָמִיד בְּרֵישָׁא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא סָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא – דְּקָתָנֵי ״עַד שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק הַדָּם״ (תָּמִיד), וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט וְיִזְרֹק דָּם״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara rejects this proof as well: Here we are dealing with a case where he gave precedence to the daily offering and slaughtered it first, and then slaughtered the Paschal offering before sprinkling the blood of the daily offering. Since the blood of both offerings requires sprinkling on the altar, the blood of the daily offering takes precedence. Rav Aḥa the Elder said to Rav Ashi that the wording of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Until the blood of the daily offering is sprinkled, and does not teach: Until he slaughters and sprinkles the blood. This indicates that the daily afternoon offering has already been slaughtered. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from its wording that this is the meaning of the mishna.
וּבְכוּלָּן כֹּהֲנִים רַשָּׁאִין כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא ״לְמׇשְׁחָה״ – לִגְדוּלָּה, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַמְּלָכִים אוֹכְלִין.
§ The mishna teaches: And with regard to all of the offerings that are eaten, the priests are permitted to alter the manner of their consumption and eat them as they choose. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this halakha? The Gemara answers: The verse states, with regard to the gifts of the priesthood: “Of all the consecrated items of the children of Israel to you have I given them lemoshḥa” (Numbers 18:8). Targum Onkelos renders this term as: For greatness, indicating that the flesh of the offerings should be eaten in the manner that kings eat their food, i.e., prepared in any way they want.
מַתְנִי׳ אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם רָאִיתָ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁהוּא מִתְחַלֵּק בַּעֲזָרָה – אֵין צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאוֹל מַהוּ; אֶלָּא מוֹתַר רְקִיקֵי מְנָחוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְלוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע.
MISHNA: Rabbi Shimon said: If you saw oil that is being distributed in the Temple courtyard for consumption by the priests and you seek to ascertain its nature, you do not need to ask what it is. Rather, it is left over from the oil of the wafers of the meal offerings of Israelites after they smeared a bit of oil on them, or it is left over from the log of oil of a leper after a small amount of the oil was placed on him.
אִם רָאִיתָ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁהוּא נִיתָּן עַל גַּבֵּי הָאִישִּׁים – אֵין צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאוֹל מַהוּ; אֶלָּא מוֹתַר רְקִיקֵי מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, שֶׁאֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן.
If you saw oil that is placed on the flames of the altar in the manner of an offering, you do not need to ask what it is. Rather, it is left over from the oil of the wafers of the meal offering of priests, or it is the leftover oil from the meal offering of the anointed priest, which requires a great deal of oil and which is burned in its entirety on the altar. The mishna adds: One cannot say that the oil distributed to priests or burned on the altar was brought as a gift offering, as one may not contribute oil as a gift offering. Rabbi Tarfon says: One may contribute oil as a gift offering.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, הַמִּתְנַדֵּב שֶׁמֶן – קוֹמְצוֹ וּשְׁיָרָיו נֶאֱכָלִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״קׇרְבַּן מִנְחָה״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן; וְכִי מִנְחָה – מָה מִנְחָה קוֹמְצָהּ וּשְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין, אַף שֶׁמֶן קוֹמְצוֹ וּשְׁיָרָיו נֶאֱכָלִין.
GEMARA: Shmuel says: According to the statement of Rabbi Tarfon that oil may be sacrificed as a gift offering, in the case of one who contributes oil, a priest removes a handful of the oil and sacrifices it on the altar, and its remainder is eaten by the priests. What is the reason for the ruling of Shmuel? The verse states: “And when one brings a meal offering [korban minḥa]” (Leviticus 2:1). The superfluous word korban teaches that one may contribute oil, and its status is like that of a meal offering: Just as with regard to a meal offering the priest removes a handful and its remainder is eaten, so too with regard to oil, the priest removes a handful and its remainder is eaten.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם רָאִיתָ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁמִּתְחַלֵּק בַּעֲזָרָה – אִי אַתָּה צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאוֹל מַהוּ; אֶלָּא מוֹתַר רְקִיקֵי מִנְחוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע, שֶׁאֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין. מִכְּלָל דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִתְנַדְּבִין – מִתְחַלֵּק.
Rabbi Zeira said that we learn this halakha in the mishna as well: Rabbi Shimon said: If you saw oil that is being distributed in the Temple courtyard, you do not need to ask what it is; rather, it is left over from the oil of the wafers of the meal offerings of Israelites, or it is left over from the log of oil of a leper, as one does not contribute oil as a gift offering. Rabbi Zeira learns by inference from the mishna that according to the one who says that one may contribute oil, it is distributed to the priests for consumption and it is not sacrificed entirely.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אִם רָאִיתָ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁנִּיתָּן עַל גַּבֵּי אִישִּׁים – אִי אַתָּה צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאוֹל מַהוּ; אֶלָּא מוֹתַר רְקִיקֵי מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, שֶׁאֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן. מִכְּלָל דִּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִתְנַדֵּב – כּוּלָּן לָאִישִּׁים. לְאַבָּיֵי קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא, לְרַבִּי זֵירָא קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא!
Abaye said to Rabbi Zeira: Say the last clause of the mishna: If you saw oil that is placed on the flames of the altar, you do not need to ask what it is; rather, it is left over from the oil of the wafers of the meal offering of priests or it is left over from the meal offering of the anointed priest, as one does not contribute oil as a gift offering. Abaye learns by inference from the mishna that according to the one who says that one may contribute oil, it is burned in its entirety in the flames on the altar. This contradicts Shmuel’s statement that according to Rabbi Tarfon only a handful of the oil is burned on the altar. The Gemara comments: For Abaye the inference from the first clause of the mishna is difficult, while for Rabbi Zeira the inference from the last clause is difficult.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי זֵירָא – רֵישָׁא בְּשִׁירַיִם, סֵיפָא בְּקוֹמֶץ. אֶלָּא לְאַבָּיֵי – קַשְׁיָא! תְּנָא רֵישָׁא אַטּוּ סֵיפָא.
The Gemara continues: Granted, according to Rabbi Zeira, the inference from the first clause that the oil is distributed for consumption by the priests can be explained as referring to the remainder of the oil, whereas the inference from the last clause that the oil is burned on the altar is referring to the handful removed from the oil. But according to Abaye, the contradictory inferences pose a difficulty. The Gemara answers: One cannot infer anything from the first clause, as the mishna taught the first clause due to the last clause. That is, as the tanna of the mishna wishes to teach the last clause in a certain manner, he teaches the first clause in a similar style, despite the fact that one might come to an erroneous conclusion from the wording of the first clause.
בִּשְׁלָמָא סֵיפָא – תָּנֵי מִשּׁוּם רֵישָׁא; אֶלָּא רֵישָׁא מִשּׁוּם סֵיפָא מִי תָּנֵי?! אִין; אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: תְּנָא רֵישָׁא מִשּׁוּם סֵיפָא.
The Gemara asks: Granted, a tanna may teach the last clause of a mishna due to the first clause, i.e., a tanna might teach in a similar formulation to one he had already used. But would a tanna teach the first clause of a mishna due to the last clause? The Gemara answers: Yes; they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, that a tanna taught the first clause due to the last clause.
תָּא שְׁמַע: יַיִן כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – לַסְּפָלִים, שֶׁמֶן כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן – לָאִישִּׁים. מַאי, לָאו מִדְּיַיִן כּוּלּוֹ לַסְּפָלִים, שֶׁמֶן כּוּלּוֹ לָאִישִּׁים? מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ.
The Gemara cites a proof: Come and hear a baraita: If one contributes wine, according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva that one may contribute wine, it is poured into the basins adjacent to the corner of the altar. If one contributes oil, according to the statement of Rabbi Tarfon that one may contribute oil, it is burned in the flames of the altar. What, is it not possible to infer from the fact that the wine is poured in its entirety into the basins that the oil is likewise burned in its entirety in the flames of the altar, contrary to Shmuel’s statement? The Gemara rejects this proof: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is and that case is as it is, i.e., the donations of wine and the oil are separate cases, and the two statements of the baraita need not accord with each other.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, כְּתַנָּאֵי: שֶׁמֶן לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִלּוֹג. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ דּוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
Rav Pappa said: Shmuel’s statement is like one side of a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: One who contributes oil should not bring less than a log. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Three log. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagree? The Sages said this before Rav Pappa: They disagree with regard to the nature of an inference by means of verbal analogy or juxtaposition: Is the secondary case equated to the primary case in all aspects, in accordance with the exegetical principle: Infer from it and again from it; or does the comparison extend only to one specific issue derived from the primary case, in accordance with the principle: Infer from it but interpret the halakha according to its own place, i.e., in all other aspects the cases are not equated?
דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מָה מִנְחָה מִתְנַדְּבִין, אַף שֶׁמֶן מִתְנַדְּבִין [וּמִינַּהּ – מָה מִנְחָה לוֹג שֶׁמֶן, אַף כָּאן לוֹג שֶׁמֶן. וּמָה מִנְחָה קוֹמְצָהּ וּשְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין, אַף שֶׁמֶן קוֹמְצוֹ וּשְׁיָרָיו נֶאֱכָלִין].
The Gemara explains that this is the difference between them, as the Rabbis hold by the principle: Infer from it and again from it. The Gemara explains the application of this principle: Just as a meal offering is contributed, so too, oil is contributed, as inferred from the verse addressing the meal offering. And again one infers from this source: Just as a meal offering requires a log of oil, so too here, an offering of oil alone must be a log of oil. And just as with regard to a meal offering the priest removes a handful and its remainder is eaten, so too with regard to oil, the priest removes a handful and its remainder is eaten.
וְאִידַּךְ – מִמִּנְחָה: מָה מִנְחָה מִתְנַדְּבִין, אַף שֶׁמֶן מִתְנַדְּבִין; וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ – כִּנְסָכִים: מָה נְסָכִים שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין [אַף שֶׁמֶן (שלש) [שְׁלֹשָׁה] לוּגִּין, וּמָה נְסָכִים כּוּלָּן לַסְּפָלִין] – אַף שֶׁמֶן (כּוּלָּן) [כּוּלּוֹ] לָאִישִּׁים.
And the other, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds by the principle: Infer from it but interpret the halakha according to its own place. The Gemara explains that here too, one infers from the case of a meal offering: Just as a meal offering is contributed, so too, oil is contributed. But with regard to all other aspects of this halakha, interpret the halakha according to its own place, and its status is like that of wine libations, which are similar to oil in that they are also poured onto the altar: Just as one contributes libations of three log, so too, when one contributes oil one contributes three log; and just as libations are poured in their entirety into the basins, so too, the oil is burned in its entirety in the flames of the altar.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: אִי מִמִּנְחָה מַיְיתֵי לַהּ [רַבִּי], דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ! אֶלָּא רַבִּי מֵ״אֶזְרָח״ גָּמַר לַהּ.
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi cited the source of the gift offering of oil from the verse addressing the meal offering he would not disagree with the Rabbis, as everyone employs the principle of: Infer from it and again from it. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the gift offering of oil from a verse that deals with libations: “All that are homeborn shall do these things after this manner, in presenting an offering made by fire” (Numbers 15:13). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives from here that just as one may contribute wine libations, so too, one may contribute oil. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi compares oil to wine libations: Just as one contributes libations of three log, so too, one contributes three log of oil.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן לְרַב פָּפָּא: מִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ הָכִי?! וְהָתַנְיָא: ״קׇרְבַּן מִנְחָה״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן. וְכַמָּה? שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין. וּמַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין – רַבִּי הִיא; וְקָא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מִ״קׇּרְבָּן״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי תַּנְיָא תַּנְיָא.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: How can you say that, i.e., that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the source of the gift offering of oil is not from the meal offering? But isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And when one brings a meal offering [korban minḥa]” (Leviticus 2:1), that the superfluous word korban teaches that one may contribute oil? The baraita continues: And how much must one contribute? Three log. The Gemara explains the question: And whom did you hear who says the gift offering of oil is three log? This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and yet he cites the source of the gift offering of oil from the word korban, which is referring to a meal offering. Rav Pappa said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught; and I cannot take issue with it.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמִּתְנַדֵּב יַיִן, מֵבִיא וּמְזַלְּפוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הָאִישִּׁים. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְיַיִן תַּקְרִיב לַנֶּסֶךְ חֲצִי הַהִין אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַה׳״. וְהָא קָא מְכַבֵּי! כִּיבּוּי בְּמִקְצָת לָא שְׁמֵיהּ כִּיבּוּי.
§ Shmuel says: One who contributes wine brings it and sprinkles it on the flames of the altar. What is the reason for this? The verse states: “And you shall present for the libation half a hin of wine, for an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Numbers 15:10). The verse indicates that there is a type of wine libation which is an offering made by fire. The Gemara challenges: But he thereby extinguishes the fire on the altar, and the Torah states: “A perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, it shall not go out” (Leviticus 6:6). The Gemara explains: Extinguishing in a partial manner is not called extinguishing; in other words, this act is not included in the prohibition.
אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַמּוֹרִיד גַּחֶלֶת מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְכִיבָּהּ – חַיָּיב, דְּלֵיכָּא אֶלָּא הַאי! אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּיבּוּי דְּמִצְוָה שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Naḥman say that Rabba bar Avuh says: One who takes down a coal from upon the altar and extinguishes it is liable for violating the prohibition: “It shall not go out”? The Gemara answers: This statement is referring to a situation where there is only this coal on the altar, and therefore the fire is entirely extinguished. If you wish, say instead that even if partial extinguishing is prohibited, extinguishing for the sake of a mitzva, as in the case of sprinkling wine on the altar, is different, and is permitted.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: כְּלַפֵּי שֶׁנִּתְּנָה תּוֹרָה לִתְרוֹם, יָכוֹל יְכַבֶּה וְיִתְרוֹם? אָמְרַתְּ: לֹא יְכַבֶּה! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, אֶפְשָׁר דְּיָתֵיב וְנָטַר.
The Gemara challenges: Come and hear a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov teaches: Since the Torah gave a mitzva to remove the ashes of the offerings from the altar, one might have thought that it is permitted to extinguish the coals so that they become ashes and then to remove them. Therefore, you say: He shall not extinguish, in accordance with the verse: “It shall not go out.” Although this is a case of extinguishing for the sake of a mitzva, the baraita deems it prohibited. The Gemara explains: It is different there, as it is possible for the priest to sit and wait until some of the coals become ashes, and then remove them. By contrast, with regard to wine, there is no alternative to sprinkling the wine on the fire, and therefore it is permitted.
תָּא שְׁמַע: יַיִן כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – לַסְּפָלִים, שֶׁמֶן כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן – לָאִישִּׁים! וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא: יַיִן (נסך) – [לְנַסֵּךְ] לַסְּפָלִים. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לָאִישִּׁים? אָמַרְתָּ: לֹא יְכַבֶּה!
The Gemara challenges: Come and hear a baraita that prohibits sprinkling wine on the fire of the altar: If one contributes wine, according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva that one may contribute wine, it is poured into the basins on the altar. If one contributes oil, according to the statement of Rabbi Tarfon that one may contribute oil, it is poured onto the flames of the altar. And it is furthermore taught in a baraita: The wine libation is poured into the basins. The baraita suggests: Or perhaps it is not so; rather, it is poured onto the flames. Therefore, you say: He shall not extinguish.
לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. לְמֵימְרָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ?! וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְכַבִּין גַּחֶלֶת שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא יִזּוֹקוּ בָּהּ רַבִּים.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that even an unintentional action, i.e., a permitted action from which a prohibited action inadvertently ensues, is prohibited; and this statement of Shmuel is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that a permitted action from which a prohibited action inadvertently ensues is permitted. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? But doesn’t Shmuel say: One may extinguish a piece of white-hot metal in a public thoroughfare on Shabbat so that the masses will not be injured by it;
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
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 attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, 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
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
Zevachim 91
וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּמוּסָפִין קַדִּישִׁי! אַטּוּ שַׁבָּת לְמוּסָפִין אַהֲנַאי, לִתְמִידִין לָא אַהֲנַאי?!
And even though the additional offerings are of greater sanctity, as they are sacrificed due to the sanctity of Shabbat, the frequent offering precedes the offering of greater sanctity. The Gemara rejects this proof: Is that to say that the sanctity of Shabbat affects the sanctity of the additional offerings but does not affect the daily offerings brought on Shabbat? Rather, the sanctity of Shabbat elevates the sanctity of the daily offerings as well, and as both are of equal sanctity, the frequent daily offering precedes the additional offerings.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּת קוֹדְמִין לְמוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ! אַטּוּ רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ לְמוּסָפִין דִּידֵיהּ אַהֲנִי, לְמוּסְפֵי שַׁבָּת לָא אַהֲנִי?!
The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear the continuation of this mishna: The additional Shabbat offerings precede the additional New Moon offerings because they are more frequent, despite the fact that the New Moon elevates the sanctity of its additional offerings. The Gemara rejects this proof in a similar manner: Is that to say that the sanctity of the New Moon affects the sanctity of its additional offerings but does not affect the additional offerings of Shabbat? These additional offerings are also imbued with the sanctity of the New Moon.
תָּא שְׁמַע: מוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ קוֹדְמִין לְמוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה. אַף עַל גַּב דְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה קַדִּשָׁה! אַטּוּ רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה לְמוּסְפֵי דִּידֵיהּ אַהֲנִי, לְמוּסְפֵי רֹאשׁ חוֹדֶשׁ לָא אַהֲנִי?!
The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear the continuation of this mishna: The additional New Moon offerings precede the additional New Year offerings because they are more frequent, even though the New Year is of greater sanctity. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: Is that to say that the sanctity of the New Year affects the sanctity of its additional offerings but does not affect the additional offerings of the New Moon?
תָּא שְׁמַע: דָּבָר אַחֵר – בִּרְכַּת הַיַּיִן תְּדִירָה וּבִרְכַּת הַיּוֹם אֵינָהּ תְּדִירָה, וְתָדִיר וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר – תָּדִיר קוֹדֵם. אַף עַל גַּב דְּבִרְכַּת הַיּוֹם קַדִּישָׁה! אַטּוּ שַׁבָּת לְבִרְכַּת הַיּוֹם אַהֲנַאי, לְבִרְכַּת הַיַּיִן לָא אַהֲנַאי?!
The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear a baraita (Tosefta, Berakhot 5:25) that discusses the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel with regard to the order of blessings in kiddush. After stating one reason for the opinion of Beit Hillel that one recites the blessing on the wine before the blessing of the sanctity of the day, the Tosefta adds: Alternatively, Beit Hillel say: The blessing over wine is recited frequently, and the blessing over the day is not recited frequently, and there is a principle: When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice clash, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice. This applies even though the blessing of the day is of greater sanctity, as it is recited due to the sanctity of Shabbat. The Gemara rejects this proof as well: Is that to say that the sanctity of Shabbat affects the sanctity of the blessing of the day but does not affect the sanctity of the blessing on the wine?
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה – מִתְפַּלֵּל אָדָם שֶׁל מִנְחָה, וְאַחַר כָּךְ שֶׁל מוּסָפִין! אַטּוּ שַׁבָּת לִתְפִלַּת מוּסָפִין אַהֲנַאי, לִתְפִלַּת מִנְחָה לָא אַהֲנַאי?!
The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: If one did not recite the additional prayer on Shabbat until the time of the afternoon prayer arrived, the halakha is that a person prays the afternoon prayer and afterward the additional prayer, as the afternoon prayer is more frequent. This ruling applies despite the fact that the additional prayer is of greater sanctity. Once again the Gemara rejects the proof: Is that to say that the sanctity of Shabbat affects the sanctity of the additional prayer but does not affect the sanctity of the afternoon prayer?
תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ, חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם שֶׁל יוֹם – שְׁלָמִים שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ קוֹדְמִין. הָא אִידֵּי וְאִידֵּי דְּיוֹם – חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם קָדְמִי, וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּשְׁלָמִים תְּדִירִי!
The Gemara cites yet another proof. Come and hear the mishna: If one has a peace offering from yesterday and a sin offering or a guilt offering from today, the peace offering from yesterday precedes the others; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. One can infer from this that if both this offering and that offering are from today, the sin offering or guilt offering takes precedence, and this is the halakha even though the peace offering is more frequent, as people sacrifice voluntary peace offerings more often than sin offerings or guilt offerings.
אָמַר רָבָא: מָצוּי קָאָמְרַתְּ?! תָּדִיר קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן, מָצוּי לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לַן.
Rava said in response: Are you speaking of a common offering? Although peace offerings are sacrificed more often than sin offerings, there is no obligation to sacrifice them at any particular frequency. We raise the dilemma only with regard to a clash between a frequent offering and one of greater sanctity, but we do not raise the dilemma with regard to a common offering.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בַּר יְהוּדָה לְרָבָא: אַטּוּ מָצוּי לָאו תָּדִיר?! וְהָתַנְיָא: אוֹצִיא אֶת הַפֶּסַח שֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר, וְלֹא אוֹצִיא אֶת הַמִּילָה שֶׁהִיא תְּדִירָה!
Rav Huna bar Yehuda said to Rava: Is that to say that a common obligation is not considered tantamount to a frequent obligation? But isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to positive mitzvot whose intentional neglect results in the punishment of karet but whose unwitting transgression does not entail the sacrifice of a sin offering: I should exclude the neglect of the Paschal offering from the obligation to sacrifice a sin offering, as it is not frequent, and I should not exclude the neglect of the mitzva of circumcision, as it is frequent? Circumcision is considered a frequent mitzva, as it is performed more often than the Paschal offering, despite the fact that there is no obligation to perform circumcisions at any particular frequency.
מַאי תְּדִירָה – תְּדִירָה בְּמִצְוֹת. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִילָה לְגַבֵּי פֶּסַח – כִּי תָדִיר דָּמְיָא.
Rava answers: What is the meaning of frequent in that context? It means that circumcision is frequent in terms of the numerous mitzvot commanded with regard to its fulfillment. And if you wish, say instead that circumcision in relation to the Paschal offering is considered like a frequent obligation, as it occurs far more often, whereas peace offerings are brought only somewhat more often than sin offerings. In sum, one cannot infer from the mishna that an offering of greater sanctity precedes a frequent offering.
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: תָּדִיר וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר, וּקְדֵים וּשְׁחַט לְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר, מַאי? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּשַׁחְטֵיהּ – מַקְרֵיב לֵיהּ; אוֹ דִלְמָא, יָהֵיב לְאַחֵר דִּמְמָרֵס בְּדָמוֹ עַד דְּמַקְרֵיב לֵיהּ לְתָדִיר, וַהֲדַר מַקְרֵיב לְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר?
§ An additional dilemma with regard to precedence was raised before the Sages: If the priest had two offerings to sacrifice, a frequent offering and an infrequent offering, and although he should have initially sacrificed the frequent offering he slaughtered the infrequent offering first, what is the halakha? Do we say that since he already slaughtered the infrequent offering he also proceeds to sacrifice it? Or perhaps he does not yet sacrifice it but gives it to another priest, who stirs its blood to prevent it from congealing, until he sacrifices the frequent offering; and then he sacrifices the infrequent offering.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא מִסּוּרָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ, חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם שֶׁל יוֹם – שֶׁל אֶמֶשׁ קוֹדֵם לְשֶׁל יוֹם. הָא דְּיוֹם דּוּמְיָא דְּאֶמֶשׁ –
Rav Huna from Sura said: Come and hear an answer from the mishna: If one has a peace offering from yesterday and a sin offering or a guilt offering from today, the peace offering from yesterday precedes the sin offering from today. It can be assumed that the mishna is not discussing a case where none of the offerings have been slaughtered, as the peace offering would not take precedence in this situation. Rather, it is discussing a peace offering from yesterday that was slaughtered but its blood has not yet been presented. One can infer from this that only a peace offering from yesterday takes precedence in this situation, but in the case of a peace offering from today that is similar in other aspects to a peace offering from yesterday, the peace offering does not take precedence.
וְהֵיכִי דָּמֵי, דִּקְדֵים שַׁחְטֵיהּ לִשְׁלָמִים – חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם קָדְמִי!
The Gemara explains: And what are the circumstances of this case? This is a situation where one first slaughtered the peace offering from today. In this case the sin offering or guilt offering takes precedence, although the peace offering is already slaughtered, as both of them are of greater sanctity. The same should apply to an infrequent offering that was slaughtered before a frequent offering: The frequent offering is slaughtered before the blood of the infrequent offering is presented.
דִּלְמָא שְׁלָמִים דְּאֶמֶשׁ וְחַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם דְּיוֹם הֵיכִי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ – דְּשַׁחְטִינְהוּ לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ; אֲבָל לָא שַׁחְטִינְהוּ לְתַרְוַיְיהוּ – תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ.
The Gemara rejects this answer: Perhaps when the mishna makes reference to a peace offering from yesterday and a sin offering or a guilt offering from today, the circumstances should be understood differently. How can you find these other circumstances? The mishna discusses a case where the priest already slaughtered both of them, the peace offering and the sin or guilt offering, and the blood of both awaits presentation on the altar. But had he not yet slaughtered both of them, but only the peace offering, you can still raise the dilemma of whether the priest should set aside the blood of the peace offering in order to slaughter the sin offering first, due to its greater sanctity.
תָּא שְׁמַע: דָּבָר אַחֵר – בִּרְכַּת הַיַּיִן תְּדִירָה וּבִרְכַּת הַיּוֹם אֵינָהּ תְּדִירָה, וְתָדִיר וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ תָּדִיר – תָּדִיר קוֹדֵם!
The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear the aforementioned baraita: Alternatively, Beit Hillel say: With regard to the order of blessings in kiddush, the blessing on wine is recited frequently and the blessing of the day is not recited frequently, and there is a principle: When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice clash, the frequent practice takes precedence over the infrequent practice. The obligation to recite the blessing of the day is due to the sanctity of Shabbat and applies at the start of Shabbat, before wine is placed on the table. Nevertheless, the blessing on the wine takes precedence due to its frequency. So too, the slaughtering of the frequent offering should take precedence, even if the priest had already commenced the sacrificial rites of the infrequent offering.
הָכָא נָמֵי, דְּכֵיוָן (דְּאָתְיָין) [דַּאֲתָא יַיִן] – כְּמַאן דִּשְׁחִיטִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ דָּמֵי.
The Gemara rejects this proof: Here too, with regard to kiddush, the circumstances are different, since wine is available when one recites kiddush, and therefore the obligation of both blessings come together. This means that it is comparable to a situation where one already slaughtered both animals.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה, מִתְפַּלֵּל אָדָם שֶׁל מִנְחָה וְאַחַר כָּךְ שֶׁל מוּסָפִין! הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּמָטֵי זְמַן תְּפִלַּת מִנְחָה – כְּמַאן דִּשְׁחִיטִי תַּרְוַיְיהוּ דָּמֵי.
The Gemara cites yet another proof: Come and hear, as Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is that a person prays the afternoon prayer and afterward the additional prayer, despite the fact that the obligation of the additional prayer applies first, which is similar to an offering slaughtered first. The Gemara rejects this proof: Here too, since the time of the afternoon prayer has now arrived, one is obligated in both prayers, and again this is comparable to a situation where one already slaughtered both animals.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אָשֵׁי לְרָבִינָא: שְׁחָטוֹ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת – פָּסוּל, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ ״בֵּין הָעַרְבָּיִם״. קוֹדֶם לַתָּמִיד – כָּשֵׁר, וִיהֵא מְמָרֵס בְּדָמוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּזְרוֹק הַדָּם!
Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina that an answer to this dilemma can be found in a mishna (Pesaḥim 61a): If one slaughtered the Paschal offering before midday it is disqualified, because it is stated in its regard: “In the afternoon” (Exodus 12:6). If he slaughtered it before the daily afternoon offering was slaughtered it is valid, even though the daily offering should be sacrificed first, but someone should stir its blood to prevent it from congealing until he slaughters and sprinkles the blood of the daily offering. Although the infrequent Paschal offering is already slaughtered, the priest first slaughters the frequent daily offering and then sprinkles the blood of the Paschal offering.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן, כְּגוֹן דִּקְדֵים שַׁחְטֵיהּ לְתָמִיד בְּרֵישָׁא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא סָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מַתְנִיתִין נָמֵי דַּיְקָא – דְּקָתָנֵי ״עַד שֶׁיִּזָּרֵק הַדָּם״ (תָּמִיד), וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁחוֹט וְיִזְרֹק דָּם״. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara rejects this proof as well: Here we are dealing with a case where he gave precedence to the daily offering and slaughtered it first, and then slaughtered the Paschal offering before sprinkling the blood of the daily offering. Since the blood of both offerings requires sprinkling on the altar, the blood of the daily offering takes precedence. Rav Aḥa the Elder said to Rav Ashi that the wording of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Until the blood of the daily offering is sprinkled, and does not teach: Until he slaughters and sprinkles the blood. This indicates that the daily afternoon offering has already been slaughtered. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from its wording that this is the meaning of the mishna.
וּבְכוּלָּן כֹּהֲנִים רַשָּׁאִין כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא ״לְמׇשְׁחָה״ – לִגְדוּלָּה, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַמְּלָכִים אוֹכְלִין.
§ The mishna teaches: And with regard to all of the offerings that are eaten, the priests are permitted to alter the manner of their consumption and eat them as they choose. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this halakha? The Gemara answers: The verse states, with regard to the gifts of the priesthood: “Of all the consecrated items of the children of Israel to you have I given them lemoshḥa” (Numbers 18:8). Targum Onkelos renders this term as: For greatness, indicating that the flesh of the offerings should be eaten in the manner that kings eat their food, i.e., prepared in any way they want.
מַתְנִי׳ אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם רָאִיתָ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁהוּא מִתְחַלֵּק בַּעֲזָרָה – אֵין צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאוֹל מַהוּ; אֶלָּא מוֹתַר רְקִיקֵי מְנָחוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְלוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע.
MISHNA: Rabbi Shimon said: If you saw oil that is being distributed in the Temple courtyard for consumption by the priests and you seek to ascertain its nature, you do not need to ask what it is. Rather, it is left over from the oil of the wafers of the meal offerings of Israelites after they smeared a bit of oil on them, or it is left over from the log of oil of a leper after a small amount of the oil was placed on him.
אִם רָאִיתָ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁהוּא נִיתָּן עַל גַּבֵּי הָאִישִּׁים – אֵין צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאוֹל מַהוּ; אֶלָּא מוֹתַר רְקִיקֵי מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, שֶׁאֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: מִתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן.
If you saw oil that is placed on the flames of the altar in the manner of an offering, you do not need to ask what it is. Rather, it is left over from the oil of the wafers of the meal offering of priests, or it is the leftover oil from the meal offering of the anointed priest, which requires a great deal of oil and which is burned in its entirety on the altar. The mishna adds: One cannot say that the oil distributed to priests or burned on the altar was brought as a gift offering, as one may not contribute oil as a gift offering. Rabbi Tarfon says: One may contribute oil as a gift offering.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, הַמִּתְנַדֵּב שֶׁמֶן – קוֹמְצוֹ וּשְׁיָרָיו נֶאֱכָלִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״קׇרְבַּן מִנְחָה״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן; וְכִי מִנְחָה – מָה מִנְחָה קוֹמְצָהּ וּשְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין, אַף שֶׁמֶן קוֹמְצוֹ וּשְׁיָרָיו נֶאֱכָלִין.
GEMARA: Shmuel says: According to the statement of Rabbi Tarfon that oil may be sacrificed as a gift offering, in the case of one who contributes oil, a priest removes a handful of the oil and sacrifices it on the altar, and its remainder is eaten by the priests. What is the reason for the ruling of Shmuel? The verse states: “And when one brings a meal offering [korban minḥa]” (Leviticus 2:1). The superfluous word korban teaches that one may contribute oil, and its status is like that of a meal offering: Just as with regard to a meal offering the priest removes a handful and its remainder is eaten, so too with regard to oil, the priest removes a handful and its remainder is eaten.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם רָאִיתָ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁמִּתְחַלֵּק בַּעֲזָרָה – אִי אַתָּה צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאוֹל מַהוּ; אֶלָּא מוֹתַר רְקִיקֵי מִנְחוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע, שֶׁאֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין. מִכְּלָל דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִתְנַדְּבִין – מִתְחַלֵּק.
Rabbi Zeira said that we learn this halakha in the mishna as well: Rabbi Shimon said: If you saw oil that is being distributed in the Temple courtyard, you do not need to ask what it is; rather, it is left over from the oil of the wafers of the meal offerings of Israelites, or it is left over from the log of oil of a leper, as one does not contribute oil as a gift offering. Rabbi Zeira learns by inference from the mishna that according to the one who says that one may contribute oil, it is distributed to the priests for consumption and it is not sacrificed entirely.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אִם רָאִיתָ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁנִּיתָּן עַל גַּבֵּי אִישִּׁים – אִי אַתָּה צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאוֹל מַהוּ; אֶלָּא מוֹתַר רְקִיקֵי מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, שֶׁאֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן. מִכְּלָל דִּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִתְנַדֵּב – כּוּלָּן לָאִישִּׁים. לְאַבָּיֵי קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא, לְרַבִּי זֵירָא קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא!
Abaye said to Rabbi Zeira: Say the last clause of the mishna: If you saw oil that is placed on the flames of the altar, you do not need to ask what it is; rather, it is left over from the oil of the wafers of the meal offering of priests or it is left over from the meal offering of the anointed priest, as one does not contribute oil as a gift offering. Abaye learns by inference from the mishna that according to the one who says that one may contribute oil, it is burned in its entirety in the flames on the altar. This contradicts Shmuel’s statement that according to Rabbi Tarfon only a handful of the oil is burned on the altar. The Gemara comments: For Abaye the inference from the first clause of the mishna is difficult, while for Rabbi Zeira the inference from the last clause is difficult.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי זֵירָא – רֵישָׁא בְּשִׁירַיִם, סֵיפָא בְּקוֹמֶץ. אֶלָּא לְאַבָּיֵי – קַשְׁיָא! תְּנָא רֵישָׁא אַטּוּ סֵיפָא.
The Gemara continues: Granted, according to Rabbi Zeira, the inference from the first clause that the oil is distributed for consumption by the priests can be explained as referring to the remainder of the oil, whereas the inference from the last clause that the oil is burned on the altar is referring to the handful removed from the oil. But according to Abaye, the contradictory inferences pose a difficulty. The Gemara answers: One cannot infer anything from the first clause, as the mishna taught the first clause due to the last clause. That is, as the tanna of the mishna wishes to teach the last clause in a certain manner, he teaches the first clause in a similar style, despite the fact that one might come to an erroneous conclusion from the wording of the first clause.
בִּשְׁלָמָא סֵיפָא – תָּנֵי מִשּׁוּם רֵישָׁא; אֶלָּא רֵישָׁא מִשּׁוּם סֵיפָא מִי תָּנֵי?! אִין; אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: תְּנָא רֵישָׁא מִשּׁוּם סֵיפָא.
The Gemara asks: Granted, a tanna may teach the last clause of a mishna due to the first clause, i.e., a tanna might teach in a similar formulation to one he had already used. But would a tanna teach the first clause of a mishna due to the last clause? The Gemara answers: Yes; they say in the West, Eretz Yisrael, that a tanna taught the first clause due to the last clause.
תָּא שְׁמַע: יַיִן כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – לַסְּפָלִים, שֶׁמֶן כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן – לָאִישִּׁים. מַאי, לָאו מִדְּיַיִן כּוּלּוֹ לַסְּפָלִים, שֶׁמֶן כּוּלּוֹ לָאִישִּׁים? מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ.
The Gemara cites a proof: Come and hear a baraita: If one contributes wine, according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva that one may contribute wine, it is poured into the basins adjacent to the corner of the altar. If one contributes oil, according to the statement of Rabbi Tarfon that one may contribute oil, it is burned in the flames of the altar. What, is it not possible to infer from the fact that the wine is poured in its entirety into the basins that the oil is likewise burned in its entirety in the flames of the altar, contrary to Shmuel’s statement? The Gemara rejects this proof: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is and that case is as it is, i.e., the donations of wine and the oil are separate cases, and the two statements of the baraita need not accord with each other.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, כְּתַנָּאֵי: שֶׁמֶן לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִלּוֹג. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ דּוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
Rav Pappa said: Shmuel’s statement is like one side of a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: One who contributes oil should not bring less than a log. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Three log. The Gemara asks: With regard to what principle do the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi disagree? The Sages said this before Rav Pappa: They disagree with regard to the nature of an inference by means of verbal analogy or juxtaposition: Is the secondary case equated to the primary case in all aspects, in accordance with the exegetical principle: Infer from it and again from it; or does the comparison extend only to one specific issue derived from the primary case, in accordance with the principle: Infer from it but interpret the halakha according to its own place, i.e., in all other aspects the cases are not equated?
דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מָה מִנְחָה מִתְנַדְּבִין, אַף שֶׁמֶן מִתְנַדְּבִין [וּמִינַּהּ – מָה מִנְחָה לוֹג שֶׁמֶן, אַף כָּאן לוֹג שֶׁמֶן. וּמָה מִנְחָה קוֹמְצָהּ וּשְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין, אַף שֶׁמֶן קוֹמְצוֹ וּשְׁיָרָיו נֶאֱכָלִין].
The Gemara explains that this is the difference between them, as the Rabbis hold by the principle: Infer from it and again from it. The Gemara explains the application of this principle: Just as a meal offering is contributed, so too, oil is contributed, as inferred from the verse addressing the meal offering. And again one infers from this source: Just as a meal offering requires a log of oil, so too here, an offering of oil alone must be a log of oil. And just as with regard to a meal offering the priest removes a handful and its remainder is eaten, so too with regard to oil, the priest removes a handful and its remainder is eaten.
וְאִידַּךְ – מִמִּנְחָה: מָה מִנְחָה מִתְנַדְּבִין, אַף שֶׁמֶן מִתְנַדְּבִין; וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ – כִּנְסָכִים: מָה נְסָכִים שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין [אַף שֶׁמֶן (שלש) [שְׁלֹשָׁה] לוּגִּין, וּמָה נְסָכִים כּוּלָּן לַסְּפָלִין] – אַף שֶׁמֶן (כּוּלָּן) [כּוּלּוֹ] לָאִישִּׁים.
And the other, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds by the principle: Infer from it but interpret the halakha according to its own place. The Gemara explains that here too, one infers from the case of a meal offering: Just as a meal offering is contributed, so too, oil is contributed. But with regard to all other aspects of this halakha, interpret the halakha according to its own place, and its status is like that of wine libations, which are similar to oil in that they are also poured onto the altar: Just as one contributes libations of three log, so too, when one contributes oil one contributes three log; and just as libations are poured in their entirety into the basins, so too, the oil is burned in its entirety in the flames of the altar.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: אִי מִמִּנְחָה מַיְיתֵי לַהּ [רַבִּי], דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ! אֶלָּא רַבִּי מֵ״אֶזְרָח״ גָּמַר לַהּ.
Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi cited the source of the gift offering of oil from the verse addressing the meal offering he would not disagree with the Rabbis, as everyone employs the principle of: Infer from it and again from it. Rather, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the gift offering of oil from a verse that deals with libations: “All that are homeborn shall do these things after this manner, in presenting an offering made by fire” (Numbers 15:13). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives from here that just as one may contribute wine libations, so too, one may contribute oil. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi compares oil to wine libations: Just as one contributes libations of three log, so too, one contributes three log of oil.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן לְרַב פָּפָּא: מִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ הָכִי?! וְהָתַנְיָא: ״קׇרְבַּן מִנְחָה״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן. וְכַמָּה? שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין. וּמַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין – רַבִּי הִיא; וְקָא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מִ״קׇּרְבָּן״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי תַּנְיָא תַּנְיָא.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: How can you say that, i.e., that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the source of the gift offering of oil is not from the meal offering? But isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And when one brings a meal offering [korban minḥa]” (Leviticus 2:1), that the superfluous word korban teaches that one may contribute oil? The baraita continues: And how much must one contribute? Three log. The Gemara explains the question: And whom did you hear who says the gift offering of oil is three log? This is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and yet he cites the source of the gift offering of oil from the word korban, which is referring to a meal offering. Rav Pappa said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught; and I cannot take issue with it.
אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמִּתְנַדֵּב יַיִן, מֵבִיא וּמְזַלְּפוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הָאִישִּׁים. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְיַיִן תַּקְרִיב לַנֶּסֶךְ חֲצִי הַהִין אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַה׳״. וְהָא קָא מְכַבֵּי! כִּיבּוּי בְּמִקְצָת לָא שְׁמֵיהּ כִּיבּוּי.
§ Shmuel says: One who contributes wine brings it and sprinkles it on the flames of the altar. What is the reason for this? The verse states: “And you shall present for the libation half a hin of wine, for an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Numbers 15:10). The verse indicates that there is a type of wine libation which is an offering made by fire. The Gemara challenges: But he thereby extinguishes the fire on the altar, and the Torah states: “A perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, it shall not go out” (Leviticus 6:6). The Gemara explains: Extinguishing in a partial manner is not called extinguishing; in other words, this act is not included in the prohibition.
אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַמּוֹרִיד גַּחֶלֶת מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְכִיבָּהּ – חַיָּיב, דְּלֵיכָּא אֶלָּא הַאי! אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּיבּוּי דְּמִצְוָה שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Naḥman say that Rabba bar Avuh says: One who takes down a coal from upon the altar and extinguishes it is liable for violating the prohibition: “It shall not go out”? The Gemara answers: This statement is referring to a situation where there is only this coal on the altar, and therefore the fire is entirely extinguished. If you wish, say instead that even if partial extinguishing is prohibited, extinguishing for the sake of a mitzva, as in the case of sprinkling wine on the altar, is different, and is permitted.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: כְּלַפֵּי שֶׁנִּתְּנָה תּוֹרָה לִתְרוֹם, יָכוֹל יְכַבֶּה וְיִתְרוֹם? אָמְרַתְּ: לֹא יְכַבֶּה! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, אֶפְשָׁר דְּיָתֵיב וְנָטַר.
The Gemara challenges: Come and hear a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov teaches: Since the Torah gave a mitzva to remove the ashes of the offerings from the altar, one might have thought that it is permitted to extinguish the coals so that they become ashes and then to remove them. Therefore, you say: He shall not extinguish, in accordance with the verse: “It shall not go out.” Although this is a case of extinguishing for the sake of a mitzva, the baraita deems it prohibited. The Gemara explains: It is different there, as it is possible for the priest to sit and wait until some of the coals become ashes, and then remove them. By contrast, with regard to wine, there is no alternative to sprinkling the wine on the fire, and therefore it is permitted.
תָּא שְׁמַע: יַיִן כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – לַסְּפָלִים, שֶׁמֶן כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן – לָאִישִּׁים! וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא: יַיִן (נסך) – [לְנַסֵּךְ] לַסְּפָלִים. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לָאִישִּׁים? אָמַרְתָּ: לֹא יְכַבֶּה!
The Gemara challenges: Come and hear a baraita that prohibits sprinkling wine on the fire of the altar: If one contributes wine, according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva that one may contribute wine, it is poured into the basins on the altar. If one contributes oil, according to the statement of Rabbi Tarfon that one may contribute oil, it is poured onto the flames of the altar. And it is furthermore taught in a baraita: The wine libation is poured into the basins. The baraita suggests: Or perhaps it is not so; rather, it is poured onto the flames. Therefore, you say: He shall not extinguish.
לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. לְמֵימְרָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ?! וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְכַבִּין גַּחֶלֶת שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא יִזּוֹקוּ בָּהּ רַבִּים.
The Gemara answers: This is not difficult, as that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that even an unintentional action, i.e., a permitted action from which a prohibited action inadvertently ensues, is prohibited; and this statement of Shmuel is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who maintains that a permitted action from which a prohibited action inadvertently ensues is permitted. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? But doesn’t Shmuel say: One may extinguish a piece of white-hot metal in a public thoroughfare on Shabbat so that the masses will not be injured by it;
