Zevachim 92
Share this shiur:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
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.
Zevachim Daf 87-93– Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, 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
Oceanside NY, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
Los Angeles, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
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
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
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.
