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
Shmuel holds that, according to Rabbi Akiva, wine may be brought as a voluntary offering, with the wine sprinkled on the altar. However, a braita records that Rabbi Akiva maintained the wine was poured into cups at the top of the altar, which raises a difficulty for Shmuel’s position. The Gemara resolves this by explaining that Shmuel follows Rabbi Shimon, while the braita reflects Rabbi Yehuda’s view regarding 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 (davar sh’aino mitkaven). In this case, pouring wine on the altar partially extinguishes the fire, which is forbidden by Torah law, though the intention is not to extinguish it.
A further difficulty is raised: Shmuel himself rules like Rabbi Yehuda in prohibiting extinguishing a wood coal found in the public domain. This is resolved by distinguishing between the two cases. Shmuel aligns with Rabbi Shimon regarding davar she’eino mitkaven (an act intended for one purpose that incidentally results in a prohibited action), but with Rabbi Yehuda regarding melacha she’eina tzricha l’gufa (performing a forbidden action not for its typical purpose).
If the blood of a sin offering is sprinkled on a garment before the blood is presented on the altar, that garment requires laundering in the Azara. This applies both to sin offerings brought on the outer altar and those brought on the inner altar, but not to bird sin offerings. This distinction is derived from a drasha on Vayikra 6:18, which both expands and limits the law. Why are bird offerings excluded while inner sin offerings are included? Three answers are given.
Two questions were asked about bird sin offerings. The answer to the second was supplied from a braita related to this topic, but ultimately both questions remain unresolved.
Levi asked whether blood that transferred from one garment to another also requires laundering. Rebbi answers that it does and explains the reasoning.
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 dedicated in memory of the 15 people killed in the tragic shooting in Sydney, Australia yesterday, including two Chabad shlichim, Rabbi Eli Schlanger and Rabbi Yacov Levitan. And for a refuah shleima u’krova to all the injured.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Caroline Bollag l’ilui nishmat Pinchas ben Menashe Peyser.
Today’s daf is sponsored by Natalie Taylor in honor of Dr. Jordana Hyman on her 50th birthday. “Mazal tov! We all love you and admire everything you give to the world. May we celebrate many more birthdays together. Love your fress and frolic friends.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Arthur Gould in loving memory of Carol’s father Louis Robinson, Yehuda Leib ben Moshe, z”l. “Today – the first day of Hanukkah – we mark his 26th yahrzeit. Lou was a devoted family man and active participant in his synagogue. He could fix anything. When one of his girls was on a date, he never went to bed until she was safely home. Lou, Irma and Carol are together in the next world.”
Zevachim 92
אֲבָל לֹא גַּחֶלֶת שֶׁל עֵץ. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, אֲפִילּוּ גַּחֶלֶת שֶׁל עֵץ נָמֵי!
but one may not extinguish a wood coal, because extinguishing it is prohibited by Torah law? And if it enters your mind that Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, it should be permitted to extinguish even a wood coal. Rabbi Shimon maintains that extinguishing a coal is prohibited by Torah law only when one intends to use the extinguished coal. Otherwise, this constitutes a labor performed on Shabbat which is not necessary for its own sake, which is not prohibited by Torah law.
בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין מִתְכַּוֵּין – סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, בִּמְלָאכָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה לְגוּפָהּ – סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The Gemara answers: Shmuel’s statements are not contradictory, as with regard to an unintentional act, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. But with regard to labor not necessary for its own sake, he holds that it is prohibited by Torah law, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: נְסָכִים שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ – עוֹשֶׂה לָהֶן מַעֲרָכָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְשׂוֹרְפָן, מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בַּקֹּדֶשׁ בָּאֵשׁ תִּשָּׂרֵף״. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַדָּם וְהַשֶּׁמֶן וְהַמְּנָחוֹת וְהַנְּסָכִים שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ – עוֹשֶׂה לָהֶן מַעֲרָכָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְשׂוֹרְפָן.
§ Rav Huna says: With regard to wine libations that became ritually impure, one prepares for them an arrangement of wood by themselves and burns them there, without removing them from the Temple courtyard. This is due to the fact that it is stated with regard to a disqualified sin offering: “In the sacred place…it shall be burned with fire” (Leviticus 6:23). This requirement of burning in the sacred place applies to all offerings that are meant to be sacrificed on an altar and became disqualified. This is also taught in a baraita: With regard to the blood, the oil, the meal offerings, and the libations that became ritually impure, one prepares for them an arrangement of wood by themselves and burns them there.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב חָנָא בַּגְדָּתָאָה: אַיְיתִי לִי בֵּי עַשְׂרָה, וְאֵימָא לָךְ קַמַּיְיהוּ: נְסָכִים שֶׁנִּטְמְאוּ, עוֹשֶׂה לָהֶן מַעֲרָכָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן וְשׂוֹרְפָן.
The Gemara relates: Shmuel said to Rav Ḥana of Baghdad: Bring me an assembly of ten men and I will tell you in their presence this halakha that I wish to disseminate: With regard to libations that became ritually impure, one prepares for them an arrangement of wood by themselves and burns them there.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כׇּל הַתָּדִיר
מַתְנִי׳ דַּם חַטָּאת שֶׁנִּתַּז עַל הַבֶּגֶד – הֲרֵי זֶה טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּנֶאֱכָלוֹת – שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ תֵּאָכֵל״. אֶחָד הַנֶּאֱכָלוֹת וְאֶחָד הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת טְעוּנוֹת כִּיבּוּס, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״תּוֹרַת הַחַטָּאת״ – תּוֹרָה אַחַת לְכׇל הַחַטָּאוֹת.
MISHNA: In the case of the blood of a sin offering designated for presentation that was sprayed on a garment, that garment requires laundering, as is stated with regard to a sin offering: “And when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment, you shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled in a sacred place” (Leviticus 6:20). Although the verse is speaking only of sin offerings that are eaten and whose blood is presented on the outer altar, as it is stated: “In a sacred place shall it be eaten” (Leviticus 6:19), the principle is not exclusive to eaten sin offerings. With regard to the blood of both the sin offerings that are eaten and the sin offerings that are wholly burned and not eaten and whose blood is presented on the inner altar, garments sprayed with blood from each of these offerings require laundering. As it is stated at the start of that passage: “This is the law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18), it is understood: There is one law for all the sin offerings.
חַטָּאת פְּסוּלָה – אֵין דָּמָהּ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס, בֵּין שֶׁהָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר וּבֵין שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר. אֵיזוֹ הִיא שֶׁהָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר? שֶׁלָּנָה, וְשֶׁנִּטְמְאָה, וְשֶׁיָּצָאת. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר? שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמָהּ, וְשֶׁקִּיבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין (וְזָרְקוּ) אֶת דָּמָהּ.
That is the halakha with regard to sin offerings fit for sacrifice. With regard to a disqualified sin offering, its blood does not cause a garment to require laundering whether the offering had a period of fitness when its blood was fit for presentation or whether it did not have a period of fitness. Which offering is the disqualified sin offering that had a period of fitness? It is one that was left overnight and then became disqualified; or it is one that became ritually impure; or it is one that emerged from the Temple courtyard. Which offering is the disqualified sin offering that did not have a period of fitness? It is one that was slaughtered with the intent to eat it or present its blood beyond its designated time or outside its designated area; or it is one whose blood was collected by people disqualified for Temple service and they sprinkled its blood.
גְּמָ׳ דַּם חַטָּאת (שֶׁמֵּתָה) [שֶׁנִּתַּז] כּוּ׳. וְאִי תּוֹרָה אַחַת לְכׇל חַטָּאוֹת, אֲפִילּוּ חַטַּאת הָעוֹף נָמֵי! אַלְּמָה תַּנְיָא: יָכוֹל תְּהֵא דַּם חַטַּאת הָעוֹף טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״זֹאת״.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: In the case of the blood of a sin offering that was sprayed on a garment, the garment must be laundered, and this is the halakha concerning the blood of sin offerings that are eaten and sin offerings that are wholly burned, as it is stated: “This is the law of the sin offering”; there is one law for all sin offerings. The Gemara asks: And if there is one law for all sin offerings, even the blood of a bird sin offering should also require laundering. If so, why is it taught in a baraita: One might have thought that the blood of a bird sin offering requires laundering. To counter this, the verse states: “This is the law of the sin offering.” The word “this” teaches that the halakha is to be restricted to the blood of an animal sin offering and it does not apply to the bird sin offering.
אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מִשּׁוּם בַּר קַפָּרָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״תִּשָּׁחֵט״ – בְּנִשְׁחָטוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Kappara: The verse states: “This is the law of the sin offering…shall the sin offering be slaughtered” (Leviticus 6:18). The verse is speaking specifically of sin offerings that are slaughtered and not of bird offerings, which are killed by pinching the nape of the neck, rather than slaughtering with a knife.
וְאֵימָא בְּנֶאֱכָלוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר – כְּדִכְתִיב: ״בְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ תֵּאָכֵל״, אֲבָל פְּנִימִיּוֹת לָא! רַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״תּוֹרַת״.
The Gemara challenges: And I might say that the halakha is to be learned in another manner, and the verse is speaking specifically of sin offerings that are eaten, as it is written: “In a sacred place shall it be eaten” (Leviticus 6:19); but internal sin offerings, which are not eaten, should not be included. The Gemara explains: The Merciful One amplifies the halakha by stating: “This is the law of the sin offering,” which includes all sin offerings, even those that are not eaten.
אִי הָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ חַטַּאת הָעוֹף נָמֵי! מִיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״זֹאת״.
The Gemara suggests: If so, then even the blood of the bird sin offering should be included. The Gemara explains: The Merciful One restricts the halakha by stating: “This is the law,” which excludes bird offerings.
וּמָה רָאִיתָ? מִסְתַּבְּרָא דְּחַטַּאת [בְּהֵמָה] פְּנִימִיּוֹת הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי – שֶׁכֵּן בְּהֵמָה, שְׁחִיטַת צָפוֹן, וְקַבָּלַת כְּלִי,
The Gemara asks: And what did you see that indicated that the verse is to be understood as including internal sin offerings and excluding bird offerings, and not the opposite? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that internal animal sin offerings should have been included by the inclusive language of the verse, as internal sin offerings resemble eaten animal sin offerings in several ways: Each variety is a large animal and not a bird; each variety is subject to slaughter on the north side of the Temple courtyard; and the blood of each requires collection in a vessel;
וְקֶרֶן, וְאֶצְבַּע, וְחוּדָּהּ, וְאִישִּׁים.
and their blood is placed on the corner of the altar; and the blood is placed with a priest’s finger; and the blood is placed on the edge of the corner of the altar; and parts of each are consumed in flames upon the altar. None of these apply to bird sin offerings.
אַדְּרַבָּה, חַטַּאת הָעוֹף הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי – שֶׁכֵּן חוּץ כְּמוֹתָהּ, וַאֲכִילָה כְּמוֹתָהּ! הָנָךְ נְפִישִׁין.
The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, the bird sin offering should have been included and likened to the eaten animal sin offerings, as the blood of bird sin offerings is presented on the outer altar like an animal sin offering that is eaten, and the bird sin offering has portions set aside for eating, like it. The Gemara rejects the reasoning for including bird offerings: Those features that are common to internal sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings are more numerous than the features common to bird sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings.
רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״יֹאכְלֶנָּה״ – לָזוֹ וְלֹא לְאַחֶרֶת; בְּנֶאֱכָלוֹת מִיעֵט הַכָּתוּב.
Rav Yosef said: There is another way to prove that the blood of a bird sin offering is not required to be laundered out if it is sprayed on a garment. With regard to laundering, the verse states: “The priest that offers it for sin shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:19); the obligation described applies to it, i.e., the eaten animal sin offering, and not to another similar sin offering. Consequently, the verse is excluding a case within the broad category of eaten sin offerings, and one is not required to launder out the blood of a bird sin offering.
וְאֶלָּא ״זֹאת״ לְמָה לִי? אִי לָאו ״זֹאת״, הָוֵי אָמֵינָא: ״יֹאכְלֶנָּה״ – אוֹרְחֵיהּ דִּקְרָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: But if the exclusion of bird offerings is derived from this verse, then why do I need the derivation from the verse: “This is the law of the sin offering”? The Gemara answers: If not for the derivation from “this,” I would say that the term “shall eat it” is simply the manner of speech of the verse, so that it does not indicate any exclusion. Therefore, the word “this” teaches us that a sin offering is excluded, and the term “shall eat it,” demonstrates that the excluded sin offering is one that is eaten.
רַבָּה אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה״ – בְּהַזָּאוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
Rabba said that there is a different explanation. Internal sin offerings cannot be excluded from the requirement of laundering sprayed garments, as the verse speaks specifically of internal sin offerings, as the verse states: “It shall be sprinkled” (Leviticus 6:20). The verse is speaking of sin offerings that require sprinklings, and sprinkling is mentioned specifically with regard to internal sin offerings (see Leviticus 4:6), unlike eaten animal sin offerings, with regard to which the Torah uses a term of placing to describe the presenting of its blood (see Leviticus 4:25).
וְהָתַנְיָא: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּנֶאֱכָלוֹת! לְעִנְיַן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן כִּיבּוּס – ״אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה״ כְּתִיב.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Can one say that the passage about laundering applies specifically to internal sin offerings? But isn’t it taught in the mishna: Although the verse is speaking only of sin offerings that are eaten, indicating that the passage certainly applies to sin offerings that are eaten? The Gemara answers: The mishna’s statement pertains to the matter of scouring and rinsing copper vessels in which a sin offering was cooked (see Leviticus 6:21), which is relevant only to sin offerings that are eaten. But in the matter of laundering: “You shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled” (Leviticus 6:20) is written, and the term “it shall be sprinkled” indicates only internal sin offerings. By contrast, eaten sin offerings are included only through the amplification in the verse: “The law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18).
אִי הָכִי, ״אֶחָד הַנֶּאֱכָלוֹת וְאֶחָד הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת״?! ״אֶחָד הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת וְאֶחָד הַנֶּאֱכָלוֹת״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! תְּנִי: ״אֶחָד הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת וְאֶחָד הַנֶּאֱכָלוֹת״.
The Gemara asks: If so, that the verses prescribing laundering are primarily discussing internal sin offerings, and eaten sin offerings are included only through a derivation, then with regard to the statement in the mishna: Both the sin offerings that are eaten and the internal sin offerings, is this statement not misleading? Rather, the tanna should have stated: Both the internal sin offerings and the sin offerings that are eaten, first mentioning the offerings most clearly indicated in the verse. The Gemara answers: Teach it as: Both the internal sin offerings and the sin offerings that are eaten.
אִי הָכִי, חַטַּאת הָעוֹף נָמֵי! מַיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא ״זֹאת״. אִי הָכִי, חִיצוֹנָה נָמֵי לָא! רַבִּי רַחֲמָנָא ״תּוֹרַת״.
If so, that the requirement of laundering applies to those sin offerings with regard to which the Torah uses the term sprinkling, the blood of a bird sin offering should require laundering as well, as sprinkling is also mentioned with regard to it (see Leviticus 5:9). The Gemara answers: The Merciful One excludes bird offerings by stating: “This is the law of the sin offering.” The Gemara challenges: If so, that the function of this verse is to be understood as a restriction, an external sin offering also should not require laundering. The Gemara responds: The Merciful One amplified the halakha to include external sin offerings by stating: “The law of.”
וּמָה רָאִיתָ? מִסְתַּבְּרָא חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי – שֶׁכֵּן בְּהֵמָה, שְׁחִיטַת צָפוֹן, וְקַבָּלַת כְּלִי, וְקֶרֶן, וְאֶצְבַּע, וְחוּדָּהּ, וְאִישִּׁים.
The Gemara asks: And what did you see that convinced you to exclude bird offerings and include external sin offerings? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the eaten animal sin offering should have been included, as the eaten animal sin offering resembles the internal sin offering in several respects: Each is a large animal; each is subject to slaughter on the north side of the courtyard; and the blood of each requires collection in a vessel; and their blood is placed on the corner of the altar; and the blood is placed with a priest’s finger; and the blood is placed on the edge of the corner of the altar; and parts of each are consumed in flames upon the altar. None of these apply to bird sin offerings.
אַדְּרַבָּה, חַטַּאת הָעוֹף הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי – שֶׁכֵּן הַזָּאָה כְּמוֹתָהּ! הָנָךְ נְפִישִׁין.
The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, the bird sin offering should have been included in the requirement for laundering, as the offering of the blood of the bird sin offering is termed sprinkling, just like it is in the case of the internal sin offering. The Gemara answers: Those features common to internal sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings are more numerous than the features common to internal sin offerings and bird sin offerings.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי אָבִין: חַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁהִכְנִיס דָּמָהּ בְּצַוָּארָהּ בִּפְנִים, מַהוּ? צַוָּארָהּ כִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת דָּמֵי, וּמִיפְּסִיל;
§ The Gemara indicated that the blood of the bird sin offering is not received in a vessel, unlike that of animal sin offerings. With regard to this halakha, Rabbi Avin asks: When the blood of an eaten animal sin offering is brought into the Sanctuary in a vessel, this disqualifies it. In the case of a bird sin offering, which is killed by pinching the nape of its neck, whose blood a priest brought inside the Sanctuary in its neck, what is the halakha? Is its neck comparable to a service vessel, since it is from its neck that the blood is presented, and therefore it is disqualified if brought into the Sanctuary this way?
אוֹ דִלְמָא כְּצַוַּאר בְּהֵמָה – ״מִדָּמָהּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְלָא בְּשָׂרָהּ? תָּא שְׁמַע: פִּירְכְּסָה וְנִכְנְסָה לִפְנִים וְחָזְרָה – כְּשֵׁירָה. הָא הִכְנִיסָהּ – פְּסוּלָה!
Or perhaps is its neck comparable to the neck of a large animal offering, about which the Merciful One states in the Torah: “Of whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 6:23), which teaches that its blood is disqualified when brought inside in a service vessel, but the blood is not disqualified when the animal’s flesh is brought inside. What is the status of the bird’s neck? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: If, after its nape is pinched, a bird sin offering convulsed and consequently entered inside the Sanctuary and then it returned to the courtyard, it remains valid; its blood may be sprinkled and its meat eaten. It can be inferred that the bird offering remains valid if it has entered on its own, but if a priest has brought it in, it is disqualified because of the blood in its neck.
וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ, גַּבֵּי קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים דְּקָתָנֵי: פִּירְכְּסָה וְיָצְאָה לַדָּרוֹם וְחָזְרָה – כְּשֵׁרָה; הָא הוֹצִיאָהּ – פְּסוּלָה?!
The Gemara rejects the proof: But according to your reasoning, one might draw a faulty inference from the halakha of a convulsing offering, as follows. With regard to an animal offering of the most sacred order, about which it is taught in a baraita: If, after being slaughtered appropriately on the north side of the courtyard, the animal convulsed, and consequently it went out to the south side of the courtyard and then returned to the north side, it remains valid; should it be inferred: But if a priest took it out to the south side it becomes disqualified? The sacrifice is certainly not disqualified by being taken to the south side of the courtyard, and the inference is incorrect.
אֶלָּא הַאי יָצְתָה לַחוּץ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ; הָכָא נָמֵי יָצְתָה לַחוּץ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.
Rather, it must be assumed that this halakha, that of the convulsing animal that moved from the northern side to the southern side, is taught for another purpose. It was necessary for the baraita to teach this halakha in order to establish a contrast with an animal that went out to the outside beyond the courtyard, which is disqualified even if it goes out by itself. Here, too, with regard to the bird sin offering, the halakha of the convulsing animal that moved into the Sanctuary is taught for another purpose. This halakha was necessary for establishing a contrast with a bird offering that went out to the outside beyond the courtyard, which is disqualified even if it goes out by itself. Accordingly, this may not be used to resolve Rabbi Avin’s dilemma.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי אָבִין: נִשְׁפַּךְ עַל הָרִצְפָּה וַאֲסָפָהּ, מַהוּ?
§ Rabbi Avin asks another question about the blood of a bird offering, which is sprinkled directly from the body of the bird and not collected in a service vessel. With regard to the blood of a large animal, which spills on the floor before it is received in a service vessel, it becomes disqualified for presentation (see 25a), but if it spills after it is received in a vessel, it may be collected from the floor and presented (see 32a). If the blood of a bird offering spilled onto the floor and the priest collected it from the floor in order to sprinkle it, what is the halakha?
אַצְרוֹכֵיה הוּא דְּלָא אַצְרְכֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא כְּלִי שָׁרֵת, וְהִלְכָּךְ אוֹסְפוֹ וְכָשֵׁר; אוֹ דִלְמָא מִיפְסָל פְּסַל בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת, וְהִלְכָּךְ אוֹסְפוֹ וּפָסוּל?
Is it simply that the Merciful One did not require a service vessel for the collection of the bird’s blood, and therefore a priest may collect it from the floor and it remains fit for sprinkling on the altar? Or perhaps the Merciful One rendered a service vessel unfit for sprinkling it in any case, and the blood must be sprinkled directly from the bird’s body, and therefore, if it spills on the floor and the priest collects it, it is unfit for sprinkling.
אָמַר רָבָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: יָכוֹל יְהֵא דַּם חַטַּאת הָעוֹף טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֹאת״. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מִיפְסָל פָּסֵיל בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא, תִּיפּוֹק לִי דְּהָא אִפְּסִיל לֵהּ בַּאֲוִיר כְּלִי!
Rava said: Come and hear a proof, deduced from a baraita: One might have thought that the blood of a bird sin offering would require laundering if sprayed on a garment. Therefore, the verse states: “This is the law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18), which excludes the bird sin offering. But if it enters your mind that the Merciful One rendered a vessel unfit for sprinkling the blood of a bird, this interpretation is unnecessary. I will deduce the halakha that a bird’s blood does not require laundering because the blood becomes disqualified even by merely passing into the airspace of a vessel. Consequently, the blood is disqualified when coming into the airspace of the garment, which is considered a vessel, and, as disqualified blood, it does not subsequently require laundering.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: בְּמַדְבִּיק כְּלִי בְּצַוָּארָהּ.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The baraita provides no decisive proof, as even if a bird’s blood is disqualified by passing into the airspace of a vessel, the word “this” must still be interpreted to exclude the blood of a bird sin offering from the requirement of laundering. The interpretation of the verse accounts for cases in which the blood reaches the vessel without first passing into its airspace, as in a case when the priest affixes a vessel to the bird’s neck. Consequently, no resolution can be derived for Rav Avin’s question.
בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ לֵוִי: נִיתַּז מִבֶּגֶד לְבֶגֶד, מַהוּ? מִבֶּגֶד קַמָּא אִידְּחִי לֵיהּ לְכִיבּוּס, אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא?
§ The Gemara returns to the primary subject of the mishna, the requirement of laundering garments from the sprayed blood of a sin offering. Levi asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If the blood of an offering sprayed from one garment to another garment, what is the halakha? By contact with the first garment, is the blood thereby dismissed with regard to the requirement of laundering, such that a subsequent garment would not require laundering? Or perhaps not.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: זוֹ שְׁאֵלָה! טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס. מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ; אִי אוֹסְפוֹ וְכָשֵׁר – הָא כָּשֵׁר. וְאִי אוֹסְפוֹ וּפָסוּל – אֲנָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סְבִירָא לִי, דְּאָמַר: הָיְתָה (לוֹ) [לָהּ] שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר וְנִפְסְלָה – דָּמָהּ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: This is an excellent question; and the answer is: The garment requires laundering whichever way you look at it. If the halakha is that with regard to blood that sprayed onto a garment the priest may collect it and it is still fit for presentation on the altar, then this blood is also fit. Consequently, even the second garment must be laundered. And if you say that with regard to blood that sprayed onto a garment if he collects it, it is unfit for presentation, I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: If the offering had a period of fitness and then was disqualified, its blood requires laundering. Accordingly, since the blood upon the second garment was initially collected in a service vessel, it too had a period of fitness.
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.
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
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
Minnesota, United States
Ontario, Canada
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
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
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
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
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
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
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
Zevachim 92
ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ’Φ΅Χ₯. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ, ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ’Φ΅Χ₯ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ!
but one may not extinguish a wood coal, because extinguishing it is prohibited by Torah law? And if it enters your mind that Shmuel holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, it should be permitted to extinguish even a wood coal. Rabbi Shimon maintains that extinguishing a coal is prohibited by Torah law only when one intends to use the extinguished coal. Otherwise, this constitutes a labor performed on Shabbat which is not necessary for its own sake, which is not prohibited by Torah law.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ β Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧΦΌ Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧΦΌ β Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara answers: Shmuelβs statements are not contradictory, as with regard to an unintentional act, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. But with regard to labor not necessary for its own sake, he holds that it is prohibited by Torah law, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ β Χ’ΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ§ΦΉΦΌΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ¨Φ΅Χ£Χ΄. ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ β Χ’ΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ€ΦΈΧ.
Β§ Rav Huna says: With regard to wine libations that became ritually impure, one prepares for them an arrangement of wood by themselves and burns them there, without removing them from the Temple courtyard. This is due to the fact that it is stated with regard to a disqualified sin offering: βIn the sacred placeβ¦it shall be burned with fireβ (Leviticus 6:23). This requirement of burning in the sacred place applies to all offerings that are meant to be sacrificed on an altar and became disqualified. This is also taught in a baraita: With regard to the blood, the oil, the meal offerings, and the libations that became ritually impure, one prepares for them an arrangement of wood by themselves and burns them there.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧͺΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ° Χ§Φ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ: Χ Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ, Χ’ΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ€ΦΈΧ.
The Gemara relates: Shmuel said to Rav αΈ€ana of Baghdad: Bring me an assembly of ten men and I will tell you in their presence this halakha that I wish to disseminate: With regard to libations that became ritually impure, one prepares for them an arrangement of wood by themselves and burns them there.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘, ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ΄. ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘, Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺΧ΄ β ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺ.
MISHNA: In the case of the blood of a sin offering designated for presentation that was sprayed on a garment, that garment requires laundering, as is stated with regard to a sin offering: βAnd when any of its blood shall be sprinkled on a garment, you shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled in a sacred placeβ (Leviticus 6:20). Although the verse is speaking only of sin offerings that are eaten and whose blood is presented on the outer altar, as it is stated: βIn a sacred place shall it be eatenβ (Leviticus 6:19), the principle is not exclusive to eaten sin offerings. With regard to the blood of both the sin offerings that are eaten and the sin offerings that are wholly burned and not eaten and whose blood is presented on the inner altar, garments sprayed with blood from each of these offerings require laundering. As it is stated at the start of that passage: βThis is the law of the sin offeringβ (Leviticus 6:18), it is understood: There is one law for all the sin offerings.
ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘, ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧ¨. ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧ¨? Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ¦ΦΈΧΧͺ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧ¨? Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧ§Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ (ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ°Χ§ΧΦΌ) ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ.
That is the halakha with regard to sin offerings fit for sacrifice. With regard to a disqualified sin offering, its blood does not cause a garment to require laundering whether the offering had a period of fitness when its blood was fit for presentation or whether it did not have a period of fitness. Which offering is the disqualified sin offering that had a period of fitness? It is one that was left overnight and then became disqualified; or it is one that became ritually impure; or it is one that emerged from the Temple courtyard. Which offering is the disqualified sin offering that did not have a period of fitness? It is one that was slaughtered with the intent to eat it or present its blood beyond its designated time or outside its designated area; or it is one whose blood was collected by people disqualified for Temple service and they sprinkled its blood.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ (Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ) [Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ] ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ! ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦΉΧΧͺΧ΄.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: In the case of the blood of a sin offering that was sprayed on a garment, the garment must be laundered, and this is the halakha concerning the blood of sin offerings that are eaten and sin offerings that are wholly burned, as it is stated: βThis is the law of the sin offeringβ; there is one law for all sin offerings. The Gemara asks: And if there is one law for all sin offerings, even the blood of a bird sin offering should also require laundering. If so, why is it taught in a baraita: One might have thought that the blood of a bird sin offering requires laundering. To counter this, the verse states: βThis is the law of the sin offering.β The word βthisβ teaches that the halakha is to be restricted to the blood of an animal sin offering and it does not apply to the bird sin offering.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ Χ§Φ·Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ¨.
Reish Lakish said in the name of bar Kappara: The verse states: βThis is the law of the sin offeringβ¦shall the sin offering be slaughteredβ (Leviticus 6:18). The verse is speaking specifically of sin offerings that are slaughtered and not of bird offerings, which are killed by pinching the nape of the neck, rather than slaughtering with a knife.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ¨ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ΄, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ! Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ·ΧͺΧ΄.
The Gemara challenges: And I might say that the halakha is to be learned in another manner, and the verse is speaking specifically of sin offerings that are eaten, as it is written: βIn a sacred place shall it be eatenβ (Leviticus 6:19); but internal sin offerings, which are not eaten, should not be included. The Gemara explains: The Merciful One amplifies the halakha by stating: βThis is the law of the sin offering,β which includes all sin offerings, even those that are not eaten.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ! ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦΉΧΧͺΧ΄.
The Gemara suggests: If so, then even the blood of the bird sin offering should be included. The Gemara explains: The Merciful One restricts the halakha by stating: βThis is the law,β which excludes bird offerings.
ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈ? ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ [ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ] Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ, Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ Χ¦ΦΈΧ€ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ,
The Gemara asks: And what did you see that indicated that the verse is to be understood as including internal sin offerings and excluding bird offerings, and not the opposite? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that internal animal sin offerings should have been included by the inclusive language of the verse, as internal sin offerings resemble eaten animal sin offerings in several ways: Each variety is a large animal and not a bird; each variety is subject to slaughter on the north side of the Temple courtyard; and the blood of each requires collection in a vessel;
ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΧ.
and their blood is placed on the corner of the altar; and the blood is placed with a priestβs finger; and the blood is placed on the edge of the corner of the altar; and parts of each are consumed in flames upon the altar. None of these apply to bird sin offerings.
ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ! ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΦ° Χ Φ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ.
The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, the bird sin offering should have been included and likened to the eaten animal sin offerings, as the blood of bird sin offerings is presented on the outer altar like an animal sin offering that is eaten, and the bird sin offering has portions set aside for eating, like it. The Gemara rejects the reasoning for including bird offerings: Those features that are common to internal sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings are more numerous than the features common to bird sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings.
Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΅Χ£ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΉΧΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄ β ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ; ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΧΦΌΧ.
Rav Yosef said: There is another way to prove that the blood of a bird sin offering is not required to be laundered out if it is sprayed on a garment. With regard to laundering, the verse states: βThe priest that offers it for sin shall eat itβ (Leviticus 6:19); the obligation described applies to it, i.e., the eaten animal sin offering, and not to another similar sin offering. Consequently, the verse is excluding a case within the broad category of eaten sin offerings, and one is not required to launder out the blood of a bird sin offering.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ΄ΧΦΉΧΧͺΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ? ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦΉΧΧͺΧ΄, ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΉΧΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄ β ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ; Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ.
The Gemara asks: But if the exclusion of bird offerings is derived from this verse, then why do I need the derivation from the verse: βThis is the law of the sin offeringβ? The Gemara answers: If not for the derivation from βthis,β I would say that the term βshall eat itβ is simply the manner of speech of the verse, so that it does not indicate any exclusion. Therefore, the word βthisβ teaches us that a sin offering is excluded, and the term βshall eat it,β demonstrates that the excluded sin offering is one that is eaten.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ¨.
Rabba said that there is a different explanation. Internal sin offerings cannot be excluded from the requirement of laundering sprayed garments, as the verse speaks specifically of internal sin offerings, as the verse states: βIt shall be sprinkledβ (Leviticus 6:20). The verse is speaking of sin offerings that require sprinklings, and sprinkling is mentioned specifically with regard to internal sin offerings (see Leviticus 4:6), unlike eaten animal sin offerings, with regard to which the Torah uses a term of placing to describe the presenting of its blood (see Leviticus 4:25).
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ! ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘ β Χ΄ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧΧ΄ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Can one say that the passage about laundering applies specifically to internal sin offerings? But isnβt it taught in the mishna: Although the verse is speaking only of sin offerings that are eaten, indicating that the passage certainly applies to sin offerings that are eaten? The Gemara answers: The mishnaβs statement pertains to the matter of scouring and rinsing copper vessels in which a sin offering was cooked (see Leviticus 6:21), which is relevant only to sin offerings that are eaten. But in the matter of laundering: βYou shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkledβ (Leviticus 6:20) is written, and the term βit shall be sprinkledβ indicates only internal sin offerings. By contrast, eaten sin offerings are included only through the amplification in the verse: βThe law of the sin offeringβ (Leviticus 6:18).
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, Χ΄ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺΧ΄?! Χ΄ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺΧ΄ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ! ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΄Χ: Χ΄ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺΧ΄.
The Gemara asks: If so, that the verses prescribing laundering are primarily discussing internal sin offerings, and eaten sin offerings are included only through a derivation, then with regard to the statement in the mishna: Both the sin offerings that are eaten and the internal sin offerings, is this statement not misleading? Rather, the tanna should have stated: Both the internal sin offerings and the sin offerings that are eaten, first mentioning the offerings most clearly indicated in the verse. The Gemara answers: Teach it as: Both the internal sin offerings and the sin offerings that are eaten.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ! ΧΦ·ΧΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧΦΉΧΧͺΧ΄. ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ! Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ Χ΄ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ¨Φ·ΧͺΧ΄.
If so, that the requirement of laundering applies to those sin offerings with regard to which the Torah uses the term sprinkling, the blood of a bird sin offering should require laundering as well, as sprinkling is also mentioned with regard to it (see Leviticus 5:9). The Gemara answers: The Merciful One excludes bird offerings by stating: βThis is the law of the sin offering.β The Gemara challenges: If so, that the function of this verse is to be understood as a restriction, an external sin offering also should not require laundering. The Gemara responds: The Merciful One amplified the halakha to include external sin offerings by stating: βThe law of.β
ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΈ? ΧΦ΄Χ‘Φ°ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ, Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ Χ¦ΦΈΧ€ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΧ.
The Gemara asks: And what did you see that convinced you to exclude bird offerings and include external sin offerings? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the eaten animal sin offering should have been included, as the eaten animal sin offering resembles the internal sin offering in several respects: Each is a large animal; each is subject to slaughter on the north side of the courtyard; and the blood of each requires collection in a vessel; and their blood is placed on the corner of the altar; and the blood is placed with a priestβs finger; and the blood is placed on the edge of the corner of the altar; and parts of each are consumed in flames upon the altar. None of these apply to bird sin offerings.
ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ! ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧΦ° Χ Φ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ.
The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, the bird sin offering should have been included in the requirement for laundering, as the offering of the blood of the bird sin offering is termed sprinkling, just like it is in the case of the internal sin offering. The Gemara answers: Those features common to internal sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings are more numerous than the features common to internal sin offerings and bird sin offerings.
ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ‘ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¦Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ? Χ¦Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ;
Β§ The Gemara indicated that the blood of the bird sin offering is not received in a vessel, unlike that of animal sin offerings. With regard to this halakha, Rabbi Avin asks: When the blood of an eaten animal sin offering is brought into the Sanctuary in a vessel, this disqualifies it. In the case of a bird sin offering, which is killed by pinching the nape of its neck, whose blood a priest brought inside the Sanctuary in its neck, what is the halakha? Is its neck comparable to a service vessel, since it is from its neck that the blood is presented, and therefore it is disqualified if brought into the Sanctuary this way?
ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¦Φ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ β Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ? ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’: Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΈΧΦΌ β Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ!
Or perhaps is its neck comparable to the neck of a large animal offering, about which the Merciful One states in the Torah: βOf whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meetingβ (Leviticus 6:23), which teaches that its blood is disqualified when brought inside in a service vessel, but the blood is not disqualified when the animalβs flesh is brought inside. What is the status of the birdβs neck? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: If, after its nape is pinched, a bird sin offering convulsed and consequently entered inside the Sanctuary and then it returned to the courtyard, it remains valid; its blood may be sprinkled and its meat eaten. It can be inferred that the bird offering remains valid if it has entered on its own, but if a priest has brought it in, it is disqualified because of the blood in its neck.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦ°, ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ: Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ; ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧΦΌ β Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ?!
The Gemara rejects the proof: But according to your reasoning, one might draw a faulty inference from the halakha of a convulsing offering, as follows. With regard to an animal offering of the most sacred order, about which it is taught in a baraita: If, after being slaughtered appropriately on the north side of the courtyard, the animal convulsed, and consequently it went out to the south side of the courtyard and then returned to the north side, it remains valid; should it be inferred: But if a priest took it out to the south side it becomes disqualified? The sacrifice is certainly not disqualified by being taken to the south side of the courtyard, and the inference is incorrect.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ; ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ.
Rather, it must be assumed that this halakha, that of the convulsing animal that moved from the northern side to the southern side, is taught for another purpose. It was necessary for the baraita to teach this halakha in order to establish a contrast with an animal that went out to the outside beyond the courtyard, which is disqualified even if it goes out by itself. Here, too, with regard to the bird sin offering, the halakha of the convulsing animal that moved into the Sanctuary is taught for another purpose. This halakha was necessary for establishing a contrast with a bird offering that went out to the outside beyond the courtyard, which is disqualified even if it goes out by itself. Accordingly, this may not be used to resolve Rabbi Avinβs dilemma.
ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ° Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ‘ΦΈΧ€ΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ?
Β§ Rabbi Avin asks another question about the blood of a bird offering, which is sprinkled directly from the body of the bird and not collected in a service vessel. With regard to the blood of a large animal, which spills on the floor before it is received in a service vessel, it becomes disqualified for presentation (see 25a), but if it spills after it is received in a vessel, it may be collected from the floor and presented (see 32a). If the blood of a bird offering spilled onto the floor and the priest collected it from the floor in order to sprinkle it, what is the halakha?
ΧΦ·Χ¦Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ° ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ°Χ€ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨; ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ° ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ°Χ€ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ?
Is it simply that the Merciful One did not require a service vessel for the collection of the birdβs blood, and therefore a priest may collect it from the floor and it remains fit for sprinkling on the altar? Or perhaps the Merciful One rendered a service vessel unfit for sprinkling it in any case, and the blood must be sprinkled directly from the birdβs body, and therefore, if it spills on the floor and the priest collects it, it is unfit for sprinkling.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ, ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’: ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦΉΧΧͺΧ΄. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ°Χ‘ΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ€ΦΌΧΦΉΧ§ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ!
Rava said: Come and hear a proof, deduced from a baraita: One might have thought that the blood of a bird sin offering would require laundering if sprayed on a garment. Therefore, the verse states: βThis is the law of the sin offeringβ (Leviticus 6:18), which excludes the bird sin offering. But if it enters your mind that the Merciful One rendered a vessel unfit for sprinkling the blood of a bird, this interpretation is unnecessary. I will deduce the halakha that a birdβs blood does not require laundering because the blood becomes disqualified even by merely passing into the airspace of a vessel. Consequently, the blood is disqualified when coming into the airspace of the garment, which is considered a vessel, and, as disqualified blood, it does not subsequently require laundering.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ·: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ§ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¦Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΦΌ.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The baraita provides no decisive proof, as even if a birdβs blood is disqualified by passing into the airspace of a vessel, the word βthisβ must still be interpreted to exclude the blood of a bird sin offering from the requirement of laundering. The interpretation of the verse accounts for cases in which the blood reaches the vessel without first passing into its airspace, as in a case when the priest affixes a vessel to the birdβs neck. Consequently, no resolution can be derived for Rav Avinβs question.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄Χ: Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘, ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ?
Β§ The Gemara returns to the primary subject of the mishna, the requirement of laundering garments from the sprayed blood of a sin offering. Levi asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If the blood of an offering sprayed from one garment to another garment, what is the halakha? By contact with the first garment, is the blood thereby dismissed with regard to the requirement of laundering, such that a subsequent garment would not require laundering? Or perhaps not.
ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ: ΧΧΦΉ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘. ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ Φ·Χ€Φ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ°; ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ°Χ€ΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ°Χ€ΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ β ΧΦ²Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ (ΧΧΦΉ) [ΧΦΈΧΦΌ] Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄Χ€Φ°Χ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ‘.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: This is an excellent question; and the answer is: The garment requires laundering whichever way you look at it. If the halakha is that with regard to blood that sprayed onto a garment the priest may collect it and it is still fit for presentation on the altar, then this blood is also fit. Consequently, even the second garment must be laundered. And if you say that with regard to blood that sprayed onto a garment if he collects it, it is unfit for presentation, I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: If the offering had a period of fitness and then was disqualified, its blood requires laundering. Accordingly, since the blood upon the second garment was initially collected in a service vessel, it too had a period of fitness.
