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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 13, 2018 | 讗壮 讘讗讘 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Zevachim 91

A few more questions are asked regarding conflicts or complications with laws of precedence. Can one offer wine as a gift? If so, does it get offered entirely or just a kmitza of it and the rest the kohanim can eat? Likewise with a wine offering – there is a debate regarding whether or not is can be brought as a voluntary offering. And if it can be, does it get poured into the cups at the top of the latar or does it get burned on the fire. The gemara聽concludes that this debate connects聽to the debate between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda (|usually regarding melacha on Shabbat) about whether one is obligated for an act that one intends to do one thing but as a result a prohibition is being performed – even though one is not interested in the result of the prohibition. In this case, if one pours the聽wine on the altar, one is also putting out the fire on the altar which is prohibited by Torah law – however since it is not the intent, can one do it?


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讜住驻讬谉 拽讚讬砖讬 讗讟讜 砖讘转 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 讗讛谞讗讬 诇转诪讬讚讬谉 诇讗 讗讛谞讗讬

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讜住驻讬 砖讘转 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诪讜住驻讬 专讗砖 讞讜讚砖 讗讟讜 专讗砖 讞讜讚砖 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讛谞讬 诇诪讜住驻讬 砖讘转 诇讗 讗讛谞讬

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讜住驻讬 专讗砖 讞讜讚砖 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诪讜住驻讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 拽讚砖讛 讗讟讜 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇诪讜住驻讬 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讛谞讬 诇诪讜住驻讬 专讗砖 讞讜讚砖 诇讗 讗讛谞讬

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?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讘专 讗讞专 讘专讻转 讛讬讬谉 转讚讬专讛 讜讘专讻转 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谞讛 转讚讬专讛 讜转讚讬专 讜砖讗讬谞讜 转讚讬专 转讚讬专 拽讜讚诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讘专讻转 讛讬讜诐 拽讚讬砖讛 讗讟讜 砖讘转 诇讘专讻转 讛讬讜诐 讗讛谞讗讬 诇讘专讻转 讛讬讬谉 诇讗 讗讛谞讗讬

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?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 诪转驻诇诇 讗讚诐 砖诇 诪谞讞讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖诇 诪讜住驻讬谉 讗讟讜 砖讘转 诇转驻诇转 诪讜住驻讬谉 讗讛谞讗讬 诇转驻诇转 诪谞讞讛 诇讗 讗讛谞讗讬

The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear, as Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

转讗 砖诪注 砖诇诪讬诐 砖诇 讗诪砖 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖诇 讬讜诐 砖诇诪讬诐 砖诇 讗诪砖 拽讜讚诪讬谉 讛讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚讬讜诐 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 拽讚诪讬 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖诇诪讬诐 转讚讬专讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪爪讜讬 拽讗诪专转 转讚讬专 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 诪爪讜讬 诇讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讗 讗讟讜 诪爪讜讬 诇讗讜 转讚讬专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛驻住讞 砖讗讬谞讜 转讚讬专 讜诇讗 讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 砖讛讬讗 转讚讬专讛

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鈥檛 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.

诪讗讬 转讚讬专讛 转讚讬专讛 讘诪爪讜转 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讬诇讛 诇讙讘讬 驻住讞 讻讬 转讚讬专 讚诪讬讗

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 is 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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 转讚讬专 讜砖讗讬谞讜 转讚讬专 讜拽讚讬诐 讜砖讞讟 诇砖讗讬谞讜 转讚讬专 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讞讟讬讛 诪拽专讬讘 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讗讞专 讚诪诪专住 讘讚诪讜 注讚 讚诪拽专讬讘 诇讬讛 诇转讚讬专 讜讛讚专 诪拽专讬讘 诇砖讗讬谞讜 转讚讬专

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪住讜专讗 转讗 砖诪注 砖诇诪讬诐 砖诇 讗诪砖 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖诇 讬讜诐 砖诇 讗诪砖 拽讜讚诐 诇砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讗 讚讬讜诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讗诪砖

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.

讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚拽讚讬诐 砖讞讟讬讛 诇砖诇诪讬诐 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 拽讚诪讬

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.

讚诇诪讗 砖诇诪讬诐 讚讗诪砖 讜讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讚讬讜诐 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚砖讞讟讬谞讛讜 诇转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 砖讞讟讬谞讛讜 诇转专讜讬讬讛讜 转讬讘注讬 诇讱

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讘专 讗讞专 讘专讻转 讛讬讬谉 转讚讬专讛 讜讘专讻转 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谞讛 转讚讬专讛 讜转讚讬专 讜砖讗讬谞讜 转讚讬专 转讚讬专 拽讜讚诐

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.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗转讬讬谉 讻诪讗谉 讚砖讞讬讟讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讚诪讬

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 诪转驻诇诇 讗讚诐 砖诇 诪谞讞讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖诇 诪讜住驻讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讟讬 讝诪谉 转驻诇转 诪谞讞讛 讻诪讗谉 讚砖讞讬讟讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讚诪讬

The Gemara cites yet another proof: Come and hear, as Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 砖讞讟讜 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 驻住讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖谞讗诪专 讘讜 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇转诪讬讚 讻砖专 讜讬讛讗 诪诪专住 讘讚诪讜 注讚 砖讬讝专讜拽 讛讚诐

Rav A岣, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina that an answer to this dilemma can be found in a mishna (Pesa岣m 61a): If one slaughtered the Paschal offering before midday it is disqualified, because it is stated in its regard: 鈥淚n the afternoon鈥 (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.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讚讬诐 砖讞讟讬讛 诇转诪讬讚 讘专讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 住讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 注讚 砖讬讝专拽 讛讚诐 (转诪讬讚) 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 注讚 砖讬砖讞讜讟 讜讬讝专拽 讚诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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 A岣 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.

讜讘讻讜诇谉 讻讛谞讬诐 专砖讗讬谉 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇诪砖讞讛 诇讙讚讜诇讛 讻讚专讱 砖讛诪诇讻讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉

搂 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: 鈥淥f all the consecrated items of the children of Israel to you have I given them lemosh岣 (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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诐 专讗讬转 砖诪谉 砖讛讜讗 诪转讞诇拽 讘注讝专讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇砖讗讜诇 诪讛讜 讗诇讗 诪讜转专 专拽讬拽讬 诪谞讞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注

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.

讗诐 专讗讬转 砖诪谉 砖讛讜讗 谞讬转谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讗讬砖讬诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇砖讗讜诇 诪讛讜 讗诇讗 诪讜转专 专拽讬拽讬 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 砖讗讬谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 砖诪谉 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 砖诪谉

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 can-not 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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛诪转谞讚讘 砖诪谉 拽讜诪爪讜 讜砖讬专讬讜 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 拽专讘谉 诪谞讞讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪转谞讚讘讬谉 砖诪谉 讜讻讬 诪谞讞讛 诪讛 诪谞讞讛 拽讜诪爪讛 讜砖讬专讬讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讗祝 砖诪谉 拽讜诪爪讜 讜砖讬专讬讜 谞讗讻诇讬谉

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: 鈥淎nd when one brings a meal offering [korban min岣]鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诐 专讗讬转 砖诪谉 砖诪转讞诇拽 讘注讝专讛 讗讬 讗转讛 爪专讬讱 诇砖讗讜诇 诪讛讜 讗诇讗 诪讜转专 专拽讬拽讬 诪谞讞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 砖讗讬谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 诪讻诇诇 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 诪转讞诇拽

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诐 专讗讬转 砖诪谉 砖谞讬转谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讬砖讬诐 讗讬 讗转讛 爪专讬讱 诇砖讗讜诇 诪讛讜 讗诇讗 诪讜转专 专拽讬拽讬 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 砖讗讬谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 砖诪谉 诪讻诇诇 讚诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪转谞讚讘 讻讜诇谉 诇讗讬砖讬诐 诇讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 拽砖讬讗 住讬驻讗

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鈥檚 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 专讬砖讗 讘砖讬专讬诐 住讬驻讗 讘拽讜诪抓 讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬讗 转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讗讟讜 住讬驻讗

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 住讬驻讗 转谞讬 诪砖讜诐 专讬砖讗 讗诇讗 专讬砖讗 诪砖讜诐 住讬驻讗 诪讬 转谞讬 讗讬谉 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 转谞讗 专讬砖讗 诪砖讜诐 住讬驻讗

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讬讬谉 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇住驻诇讬诐 砖诪谉 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇讗讬砖讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讚讬讬谉 讻讜诇讜 诇住驻诇讬诐 砖诪谉 讻讜诇讜 诇讗讬砖讬诐 诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻转谞讗讬 砖诪谉 诇讗 讬驻讞讜转 诪诇讜讙 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜诪讬谞讛 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜讗讜拽讬 讘讗转专讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

Rav Pappa said: Shmuel鈥檚 statement is like one side of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, 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?

讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讛 诪谞讞讛 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 讗祝 砖诪谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 [讜诪讬谞讛 诪讛 诪谞讞讛 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 讜诪讛 诪谞讞讛 拽讜诪爪讛 讜砖讬专讬讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讗祝 砖诪谉 拽讜诪爪讜 讜砖讬专讬讜 谞讗讻诇讬谉

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.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪诪谞讞讛 诪讛 诪谞讞讛 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 讗祝 砖诪谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 讜讗讜拽讬 讘讗转专讛] 讻谞住讻讬诐 诪讛 谞住讻讬诐 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 [讗祝 砖诪谉 砖诇砖 诇讜讙讬谉 讜诪讛 谞住讻讬诐 讻讜诇谉 诇住驻诇讬谉] 讗祝 砖诪谉 讻讜诇谉 诇讗讬砖讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 诪诪谞讞讛 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 [ 专讘讬] 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜诪讬谞讛 讗诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讝专讞 讙诪专 诇讛

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: 鈥淎ll that are homeborn shall do these things after this manner, in presenting an offering made by fire鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 拽专讘谉 诪谞讞讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪转谞讚讘讬谉 砖诪谉 讜讻诪讛 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 讜诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪拽专讘谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 转谞讬讗 转谞讬讗

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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd when one brings a meal offering [korban min岣]鈥 (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.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪转谞讚讘 讬讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讜诪讝诇驻讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讗讬砖讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬讬谉 转拽专讬讘 诇谞住讱 讞爪讬 讛讛讬谉 讗砖讛 专讬讞 谞讬讞讞 诇讛壮 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讻讘讬 讻讬讘讜讬 讘诪拽爪转 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讻讬讘讜讬

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: 鈥淎nd you shall present for the libation half a hin of wine, for an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lord鈥 (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: 鈥淎 perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, it shall not go out鈥 (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.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛诪讜专讬讚 讙讞诇转 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讜讻讬讘讛 讞讬讬讘 讚诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讛讗讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬讘讜讬 讚诪爪讜讛 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an 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: 鈥淚t shall not go out鈥? 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讻诇驻讬 砖谞转谞讛 转讜专讛 诇转专讜诐 讬讻讜诇 讬讻讘讛 讜讬转专讜诐 讗诪专转 诇讗 讬讻讘讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讗驻砖专 讚讬转讬讘 讜谞讟专

The Gemara challenges: Come and hear a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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: 鈥淚t shall not go out.鈥 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讬讬谉 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇住驻诇讬诐 砖诪谉 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诇住驻诇讬诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讗诪专转 诇讗 讬讻讘讛

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.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讻讘讬谉 讙讞诇转 砖诇 诪转讻转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 讬讝讜拽讜 讘讛 专讘讬诐

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鈥檛 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;

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

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 91

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 91

讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚诪讜住驻讬谉 拽讚讬砖讬 讗讟讜 砖讘转 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 讗讛谞讗讬 诇转诪讬讚讬谉 诇讗 讗讛谞讗讬

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讜住驻讬 砖讘转 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诪讜住驻讬 专讗砖 讞讜讚砖 讗讟讜 专讗砖 讞讜讚砖 诇诪讜住驻讬谉 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讛谞讬 诇诪讜住驻讬 砖讘转 诇讗 讗讛谞讬

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.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讜住驻讬 专讗砖 讞讜讚砖 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇诪讜住驻讬 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 拽讚砖讛 讗讟讜 专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 诇诪讜住驻讬 讚讬讚讬讛 讗讛谞讬 诇诪讜住驻讬 专讗砖 讞讜讚砖 诇讗 讗讛谞讬

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?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讘专 讗讞专 讘专讻转 讛讬讬谉 转讚讬专讛 讜讘专讻转 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谞讛 转讚讬专讛 讜转讚讬专 讜砖讗讬谞讜 转讚讬专 转讚讬专 拽讜讚诐 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讘专讻转 讛讬讜诐 拽讚讬砖讛 讗讟讜 砖讘转 诇讘专讻转 讛讬讜诐 讗讛谞讗讬 诇讘专讻转 讛讬讬谉 诇讗 讗讛谞讗讬

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?

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 诪转驻诇诇 讗讚诐 砖诇 诪谞讞讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖诇 诪讜住驻讬谉 讗讟讜 砖讘转 诇转驻诇转 诪讜住驻讬谉 讗讛谞讗讬 诇转驻诇转 诪谞讞讛 诇讗 讗讛谞讗讬

The Gemara cites another proof: Come and hear, as Rabbi Yo岣nan 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?

转讗 砖诪注 砖诇诪讬诐 砖诇 讗诪砖 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖诇 讬讜诐 砖诇诪讬诐 砖诇 讗诪砖 拽讜讚诪讬谉 讛讗 讗讬讚讬 讜讗讬讚讬 讚讬讜诐 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 拽讚诪讬 讜讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚砖诇诪讬诐 转讚讬专讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪爪讜讬 拽讗诪专转 转讚讬专 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 诪爪讜讬 诇讗 拽诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘讗 讗讟讜 诪爪讜讬 诇讗讜 转讚讬专 讜讛转谞讬讗 讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛驻住讞 砖讗讬谞讜 转讚讬专 讜诇讗 讗讜爪讬讗 讗转 讛诪讬诇讛 砖讛讬讗 转讚讬专讛

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鈥檛 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.

诪讗讬 转讚讬专讛 转讚讬专讛 讘诪爪讜转 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讬诇讛 诇讙讘讬 驻住讞 讻讬 转讚讬专 讚诪讬讗

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 is 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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 转讚讬专 讜砖讗讬谞讜 转讚讬专 讜拽讚讬诐 讜砖讞讟 诇砖讗讬谞讜 转讚讬专 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚砖讞讟讬讛 诪拽专讬讘 诇讬讛 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讬讛讬讘 诇讗讞专 讚诪诪专住 讘讚诪讜 注讚 讚诪拽专讬讘 诇讬讛 诇转讚讬专 讜讛讚专 诪拽专讬讘 诇砖讗讬谞讜 转讚讬专

搂 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.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪住讜专讗 转讗 砖诪注 砖诇诪讬诐 砖诇 讗诪砖 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 砖诇 讬讜诐 砖诇 讗诪砖 拽讜讚诐 诇砖诇 讬讜诐 讛讗 讚讬讜诐 讚讜诪讬讗 讚讗诪砖

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.

讜讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讚拽讚讬诐 砖讞讟讬讛 诇砖诇诪讬诐 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 拽讚诪讬

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.

讚诇诪讗 砖诇诪讬诐 讚讗诪砖 讜讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讚讬讜诐 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讚砖讞讟讬谞讛讜 诇转专讜讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 砖讞讟讬谞讛讜 诇转专讜讬讬讛讜 转讬讘注讬 诇讱

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讘专 讗讞专 讘专讻转 讛讬讬谉 转讚讬专讛 讜讘专讻转 讛讬讜诐 讗讬谞讛 转讚讬专讛 讜转讚讬专 讜砖讗讬谞讜 转讚讬专 转讚讬专 拽讜讚诐

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.

讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗转讬讬谉 讻诪讗谉 讚砖讞讬讟讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讚诪讬

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛诇讻讛 诪转驻诇诇 讗讚诐 砖诇 诪谞讞讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 砖诇 诪讜住驻讬谉 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诪讟讬 讝诪谉 转驻诇转 诪谞讞讛 讻诪讗谉 讚砖讞讬讟讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讚诪讬

The Gemara cites yet another proof: Come and hear, as Rabbi Yo岣nan 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗砖讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 砖讞讟讜 拽讜讚诐 讞爪讜转 驻住讜诇 诪驻谞讬 砖谞讗诪专 讘讜 讘讬谉 讛注专讘讬诐 拽讜讚诐 诇转诪讬讚 讻砖专 讜讬讛讗 诪诪专住 讘讚诪讜 注讚 砖讬讝专讜拽 讛讚诐

Rav A岣, son of Rav Ashi, said to Ravina that an answer to this dilemma can be found in a mishna (Pesa岣m 61a): If one slaughtered the Paschal offering before midday it is disqualified, because it is stated in its regard: 鈥淚n the afternoon鈥 (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.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚拽讚讬诐 砖讞讟讬讛 诇转诪讬讚 讘专讬砖讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 住讘讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪转谞讬转讬谉 谞诪讬 讚讬拽讗 讚拽转谞讬 注讚 砖讬讝专拽 讛讚诐 (转诪讬讚) 讜诇讗 拽转谞讬 注讚 砖讬砖讞讜讟 讜讬讝专拽 讚诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

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 A岣 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.

讜讘讻讜诇谉 讻讛谞讬诐 专砖讗讬谉 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇诪砖讞讛 诇讙讚讜诇讛 讻讚专讱 砖讛诪诇讻讬诐 讗讜讻诇讬谉

搂 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: 鈥淥f all the consecrated items of the children of Israel to you have I given them lemosh岣 (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.

诪转谞讬壮 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诐 专讗讬转 砖诪谉 砖讛讜讗 诪转讞诇拽 讘注讝专讛 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇砖讗讜诇 诪讛讜 讗诇讗 诪讜转专 专拽讬拽讬 诪谞讞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注

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.

讗诐 专讗讬转 砖诪谉 砖讛讜讗 谞讬转谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讗讬砖讬诐 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇砖讗讜诇 诪讛讜 讗诇讗 诪讜转专 专拽讬拽讬 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 砖讗讬谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 砖诪谉 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 砖诪谉

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 can-not 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.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讛诪转谞讚讘 砖诪谉 拽讜诪爪讜 讜砖讬专讬讜 谞讗讻诇讬谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 拽专讘谉 诪谞讞讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪转谞讚讘讬谉 砖诪谉 讜讻讬 诪谞讞讛 诪讛 诪谞讞讛 拽讜诪爪讛 讜砖讬专讬讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讗祝 砖诪谉 拽讜诪爪讜 讜砖讬专讬讜 谞讗讻诇讬谉

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: 鈥淎nd when one brings a meal offering [korban min岣]鈥 (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.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诐 专讗讬转 砖诪谉 砖诪转讞诇拽 讘注讝专讛 讗讬 讗转讛 爪专讬讱 诇砖讗讜诇 诪讛讜 讗诇讗 诪讜转专 专拽讬拽讬 诪谞讞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 讜诇讜讙 砖诪谉 砖诇 诪爪讜专注 砖讗讬谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 诪讻诇诇 讚诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 诪转讞诇拽

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诐 专讗讬转 砖诪谉 砖谞讬转谉 注诇 讙讘讬 讗讬砖讬诐 讗讬 讗转讛 爪专讬讱 诇砖讗讜诇 诪讛讜 讗诇讗 诪讜转专 专拽讬拽讬 诪谞讞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讜诪谞讞转 讻讛谉 诪砖讬讞 砖讗讬谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 砖诪谉 诪讻诇诇 讚诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪转谞讚讘 讻讜诇谉 诇讗讬砖讬诐 诇讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬讗 专讬砖讗 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 拽砖讬讗 住讬驻讗

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鈥檚 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.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讝讬专讗 专讬砖讗 讘砖讬专讬诐 住讬驻讗 讘拽讜诪抓 讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讬 拽砖讬讗 转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讗讟讜 住讬驻讗

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.

讘砖诇诪讗 住讬驻讗 转谞讬 诪砖讜诐 专讬砖讗 讗诇讗 专讬砖讗 诪砖讜诐 住讬驻讗 诪讬 转谞讬 讗讬谉 讗诪专讬 讘诪注专讘讗 转谞讗 专讬砖讗 诪砖讜诐 住讬驻讗

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.

转讗 砖诪注 讬讬谉 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇住驻诇讬诐 砖诪谉 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇讗讬砖讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 诪讚讬讬谉 讻讜诇讜 诇住驻诇讬诐 砖诪谉 讻讜诇讜 诇讗讬砖讬诐 诪讬讚讬 讗讬专讬讗 讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗 讜讛讗 讻讚讗讬转讗

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讻转谞讗讬 砖诪谉 诇讗 讬驻讞讜转 诪诇讜讙 专讘讬 讗讜诪专 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 讘诪讗讬 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讗诪专讜讛 专讘谞谉 拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 驻驻讗 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜诪讬谞讛 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜讗讜拽讬 讘讗转专讛 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

Rav Pappa said: Shmuel鈥檚 statement is like one side of a dispute between tanna鈥檌m, 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?

讚专讘谞谉 住讘专讬 诪讛 诪谞讞讛 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 讗祝 砖诪谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 [讜诪讬谞讛 诪讛 诪谞讞讛 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 讗祝 讻讗谉 诇讜讙 砖诪谉 讜诪讛 诪谞讞讛 拽讜诪爪讛 讜砖讬专讬讛 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讗祝 砖诪谉 拽讜诪爪讜 讜砖讬专讬讜 谞讗讻诇讬谉

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.

讜讗讬讚讱 诪诪谞讞讛 诪讛 诪谞讞讛 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 讗祝 砖诪谉 诪转谞讚讘讬谉 讜讗讜拽讬 讘讗转专讛] 讻谞住讻讬诐 诪讛 谞住讻讬诐 砖诇砖转 诇讜讙讬谉 [讗祝 砖诪谉 砖诇砖 诇讜讙讬谉 讜诪讛 谞住讻讬诐 讻讜诇谉 诇住驻诇讬谉] 讗祝 砖诪谉 讻讜诇谉 诇讗讬砖讬诐

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 驻驻讗 诇讗讘讬讬 讗讬 诪诪谞讞讛 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 [ 专讘讬] 讚讻讜诇讬 注诇诪讗 讚讜谉 诪讬谞讛 讜诪讬谞讛 讗诇讗 专讘讬 诪讗讝专讞 讙诪专 诇讛

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: 鈥淎ll that are homeborn shall do these things after this manner, in presenting an offering made by fire鈥 (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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 谞转谉 诇专讘 驻驻讗 诪讬 诪爪讬转 讗诪专转 讛讻讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 拽专讘谉 诪谞讞讛 诪诇诪讚 砖诪转谞讚讘讬谉 砖诪谉 讜讻诪讛 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 讜诪讗谉 砖诪注转 诇讬讛 讚讗诪专 砖诇砖讛 诇讜讙讬谉 专讘讬 讛讬讗 讜拽讗 诪讬讬转讬 诇讛 诪拽专讘谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬 转谞讬讗 转谞讬讗

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鈥檛 it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd when one brings a meal offering [korban min岣]鈥 (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.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诪转谞讚讘 讬讬谉 诪讘讬讗 讜诪讝诇驻讜 注诇 讙讘讬 讛讗讬砖讬诐 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬讬谉 转拽专讬讘 诇谞住讱 讞爪讬 讛讛讬谉 讗砖讛 专讬讞 谞讬讞讞 诇讛壮 讜讛讗 拽讗 诪讻讘讬 讻讬讘讜讬 讘诪拽爪转 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 讻讬讘讜讬

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: 鈥淎nd you shall present for the libation half a hin of wine, for an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lord鈥 (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: 鈥淎 perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, it shall not go out鈥 (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.

讗讬谞讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讛诪讜专讬讚 讙讞诇转 诪注诇 讙讘讬 讛诪讝讘讞 讜讻讬讘讛 讞讬讬讘 讚诇讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讛讗讬 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬讘讜讬 讚诪爪讜讛 砖讗谞讬

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But doesn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an 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: 鈥淚t shall not go out鈥? 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞讗 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讻诇驻讬 砖谞转谞讛 转讜专讛 诇转专讜诐 讬讻讜诇 讬讻讘讛 讜讬转专讜诐 讗诪专转 诇讗 讬讻讘讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讗驻砖专 讚讬转讬讘 讜谞讟专

The Gemara challenges: Come and hear a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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: 鈥淚t shall not go out.鈥 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.

转讗 砖诪注 讬讬谉 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 诇住驻诇讬诐 砖诪谉 讻讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讜注讜讚 转谞讬讗 讬讬谉 谞住讱 诇住驻诇讬诐 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 诇讗讬砖讬诐 讗诪专转 诇讗 讬讻讘讛

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.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 诇诪讬诪专讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讻专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 住讘讬专讗 诇讬讛 讜讛讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讻讘讬谉 讙讞诇转 砖诇 诪转讻转 讘专砖讜转 讛专讘讬诐 讘砖讘讬诇 砖诇讗 讬讝讜拽讜 讘讛 专讘讬诐

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鈥檛 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;

Scroll To Top