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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 19, 2018 | 讝壮 讘讗讘 转砖注状讞

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

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

Zevachim 97

What are the laws regarding mixtures of an offering with another offering of a different status or with non聽sacred food? What if they touched and flavor was transferred?


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

讛砖驻讜讚 讜讛讗住讻诇讗 诪讙注讬诇谉 讘讞诪讬谉

With regard to the spit and the metal grill [askela], one purges them in hot water.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜驻谞讬转 讘讘拽专 讜讛诇讻转 诇讗讛诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗讜 诇讻讜诇谉 讘拽专 讗讞讚

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that Rabbi Tarfon says: If one cooked a sin offering in a vessel from the beginning of the Festival, one may cook in it for the entire Festival without scouring and rinsing the vessel after every use and without being concerned that he is eating forbidden leftover meat. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Tarfon? The Gemara answers: It is as the verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: 鈥淎nd you shall roast and eat it in the place that the Lord your God shall choose; and you shall turn in the morning, and go to your tents鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:7). Although one does not leave Jerusalem on the first morning of Passover, the verse has rendered all of those days over which one remains there equal to one morning.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬 讜讻讬 讗讬谉 驻讬讙讜诇 讘专讙诇 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转专 讘专讙诇

Rav A岣dvoi bar Ami objects to this: Can it be that all of the days of the Festival are considered a single day? But is there no prohibition against bringing an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time [piggul] during a pilgrimage Festival? And is there no prohibition of notar, consuming sacrificial meat beyond its appointed time, during a pilgrimage Festival? Both these prohibitions are based on the premise that each offering may be eaten over a limited time far less than the duration of the entire Festival.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗诇讗 讝讜 讘诇讘讚

And if you would say: Indeed, neither piggul nor notar apply during a Festival, that is difficult: But it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: Rabbi Tarfon said that an entire Festival is considered a single day only with regard to this, the halakhot of scouring and rinsing, alone, and not with regard to other halakhot, including piggul and notar. Evidently, his opinion is not based on the cited verse.

讗诇讗 讻讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讬讜诐 谞注砖讛 讙讬注讜诇 诇讞讘讬专讜

The Gemara continues: Rather, one must explain that Rabbi Tarfon鈥檚 opinion accords with that which Rav Na岣an says citing Rabba bar Avuh. As Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: Scouring and rinsing does not need to be done every day in order to avoid eating the taste of forbidden leftover meat, because while the vessels are used for repeatedly cooking various types of sacrificial meat, the meat of each and every day becomes a purging agent for the other food, that which is already absorbed in the vessel from the prior day. Therefore, only after the Festival, when the vessel is not being used, must the pot be scoured and rinsed.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 讝诪谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪诪转讬谉 诇讛 注讚 讝诪谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛讚专 注讘讬讚 诇讛 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: One may not continue using it in this manner; rather, one must perform scouring and rinsing before the end of the period during which partaking of the particular cooked offering is permitted. What is the mishna saying? Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: One waits for the copper vessel so long as it remains the period of partaking, and then he performs scouring and rinsing on it.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讗讘讗 讻转讬讘 讜诪专拽 讜砖讟祝 讜讻转讬讘 讻诇 讝讻专 讘讻讛谞讬诐 讬讗讻诇 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪诪转讬谉 诇讛 注讚 讝诪谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛讚专 注讘讬讚 诇讛 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛

From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Abba Yosei bar Abba: It is written about a copper vessel in which a sin offering was cooked: 鈥淚t shall be scoured and rinsed in water鈥 (Leviticus 6:21); and it is written in the following verse: 鈥淓very male among the priests may eat it.鈥 How so, i.e., what are the verses teaching through this juxtaposition? One waits with it until the end of the period of partaking and then performs scouring and rinsing on it.

诪专讬拽讛 讻诪专讬拽转 讛讻讜住 砖讟讬驻讛 讻砖讟讬驻转 讛讻讜住 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讘爪讜谞谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪专讬拽讛 讘讞诪讬谉 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讘爪讜谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches: Scouring is like the scouring of a cup, and rinsing is like the rinsing of a cup; and scouring and rinsing are both performed with cold water. The Sages taught in a baraita: Scouring and rinsing are both performed with cold water; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: Scouring is performed with hot water, and rinsing is performed with cold water.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讜专讘讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讙注诇讛 诇讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讚讘转专 讛讙注诇讛

What is the reasoning of the Rabbis? They hold that this halakha is just as it is with regard to purging the used vessels acquired from gentiles, for which purging the forbidden absorptions must be performed with hot water. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could have said to you: I do not say this statement about purging, which must certainly be performed with hot water. Rather, when I say my opinion, it is with regard to the mitzva of scouring and rinsing, which is performed after purging.

讜专讘谞谉 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讗讜 诪专拽 诪专拽 讗讜 砖讟祝 砖讟祝 诪讗讬 讜诪专拽 讜砖讟祝 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪专讬拽讛 讘讞诪讬谉 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讘爪讜谞谉

And the Rabbis could reply: If so, that scouring and rinsing are both performed in the same manner, let the verse write the same verb to describe both processes, namely either: It shall be scoured and scoured in water, or: It shall be rinsed and rinsed in water. What is meant by the formula: 鈥淚t shall be scoured and rinsed in water鈥? Conclude from the use of two verbs that scouring is performed with hot water, and rinsing is performed with cold water.

讜专讘讬 讗讬 讻转讬讘 讜诪专拽 诪专拽 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 诪专拽 讗讜 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 砖讟祝 诇讻讱 讻转讬讘 讜诪专拽 讜砖讟祝 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪专讬拽讛 讻诪专讬拽转 讛讻讜住 砖讟讬驻讛 讻砖讟讬驻转 讛讻讜住

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could reply: If it were written: It shall be scoured and scoured, or: It shall be rinsed and rinsed, I would say that the vessel must be scoured two times, or that it must be rinsed two times. Therefore, it is written: 鈥淚t shall be scoured and rinsed,鈥 to tell you that even if both are performed with cold water, there are two distinct actions: Scouring is like the scouring of the inside of a cup, and rinsing is like the rinsing of the outside of a cup.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬砖诇 讘讜 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讞讜诇讬谉 讗讜 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讛专讬 讛拽诇讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讻讞诪讜专讬谉 砖讘讛谉 讜讗讬谞谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讜讗讬谞谉 驻讜住诇讬诐 讘诪讙注

MISHNA: If one cooked in one vessel sacrificial meat and non-sacred meat, or the meat of offerings of the most sacred order and the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity, the status of the food depends upon the taste of the stringent substance. If there is enough of the more sacred meat to impart flavor to the less sacred or non-sacred meat, then the lenient components of the mixtures must be eaten in accordance with the restrictions of the stringent components therein, insofar as who may partake of them, as well as the time when and the place where they may be eaten. And the copper vessels in which the lenient components were cooked do not require scouring and rinsing, and the lenient components do not disqualify pieces of meat through contact. With regard to these principles, the lenient components do not assume the status of the stringent components.

专拽讬拽 砖谞讙注 讘专拽讬拽 讜讞转讬讻讛 讘讞转讬讻讛 诇讗 讻诇 讛专拽讬拽讬谉 讜诇讗 讻诇 讛讞转讬讻讜转 讗住讜专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讘诇注

In the case of a fit wafer that touched an unfit wafer or a piece of sacrificial meat that touched an unfit piece of sacrificial meat, neither all the wafers nor all the pieces of meat are forbidden. No part is forbidden other than that which is in the place where the item absorbed taste from the unfit wafers or pieces.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讛专讬 讛拽诇讬谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讻讞诪讜专讬谉 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讜驻讜住诇讬谉 讘诪讙注

GEMARA: According to the mishna, if the more sacred meat imparts flavor to the less sacred or non-sacred meat, then the lenient meat is to be treated in the same manner as the more sacred meat. Concurrently, their vessels do not require scouring and rinsing, and the lenient components do not disqualify pieces of meat through contact. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying? Is this not inconsistent? The Gemara answers: The mishna must be understood otherwise: If there is enough of the more sacred meat to impart flavor to the less sacred or non-sacred meat, then the lenient components of the mixtures must be eaten in accordance with the restrictions of the stringent components. Moreover, the copper vessels in which the lenient components were cooked do require scouring and rinsing, and the lenient components do disqualify pieces of meat through contact.

讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讗讬谉 讛拽诇讬谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讻讞诪讜专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘诪讙注

The Gemara continues: If the more sacred meat is not sufficient to impart flavor to the less sacred or non-sacred meat, then the lenient components of the mixtures are not eaten in accordance with the restrictions of the stringent components. Moreover, the copper vessels in which the lenient components were cooked do not require scouring and rinsing, and the lenient components do not disqualify pieces of meat through contact.

谞讛讬 讚拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 讘注讜 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 谞讬讘注讬

The Gemara asks: If the offerings of the most sacred order do not impart taste to the offerings of lesser sanctity, granted, the vessels do not require scouring and rinsing commensurate with vessels used to cook offerings of the most sacred order. But isn鈥檛 it so that the vessels should nevertheless require scouring and rinsing by virtue of having been used for offerings of lesser sanctity?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讚拽讗诪专 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讘诇 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讟注讜谞讬谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛

Abaye said: What is the meaning of: Do not require, which the mishna states? It means only that the vessels do not require scouring and rinsing commensurate with vessels used to cook offerings of the most sacred order, but they do require scouring and rinsing as vessels used to cook offerings of lesser sanctity. Rava said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Vessels used to cook offerings of lesser sanctity do not require scouring and rinsing at all.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讗讜 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讬 转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara analyzes: Granted, according to the opinion of Rava, this explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches: If one cooked in one vessel sacrificial meat and non-sacred meat, or the meat of offerings of the most sacred order and the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity. The mishna provides a second scenario in order to teach that vessels used to cook offerings of lesser sanctity do not require scouring and rinsing, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. But according to Abaye, why do I need two cases to teach the single principle that a substance is nullified if its presence is insufficient to impart flavor?

爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 转谞讗 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诪讘讟诇讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讚诇讗讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: Even according to Abaye, both cases are necessary, in order to teach a halakha with regard to nullification. As, had the mishna taught only the case of sacrificial meat and non-sacred meat, I would say that it is non-sacred meat that can nullify sacrificial meat, as sacrificial meat is not its type. But with regard to offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity, I would say: The offerings of lesser sanctity do not nullify those other offerings, because they are of the same type.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗诇讬诪讬 诇讘讟讜诇讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讘诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And had the mishna taught only the case of offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity, I would say that it is sacrificial meat that is strong enough to nullify other sacrificial meat; but with regard to non-sacred meat, I would say: It is not strong enough to nullify sacrificial meat. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to teach both cases.

专拽讬拽 砖讛讙讬注 讘专拽讬拽 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讗砖专 讬讙注 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘诇注 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讘砖专讛

搂 The mishna teaches: In the case of a fit wafer that reached an unfit wafer or a piece of sacrificial meat that touched an unfit piece of sacrificial meat, neither all the wafers nor all the pieces are forbidden. No part is forbidden other than that which is in the place where the item absorbed taste from the unfit wafers or pieces. In relation to this halakha, the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a sin offering, the verse states: 鈥淲hatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 6:20). One might have thought that this applies to all contact, even if the other piece did not absorb any flavor from the meat of the sin offering. To counter this, the same verse states: 鈥淲ith its flesh [bivsarah]鈥 which can also be translated: In its flesh.

注讚 砖讬讘诇注 讘讘砖专讛

This teaches that this halakha does not apply unless the other food absorbs something of the sin offering into its meat.

讬讻讜诇 谞讙注 讘诪拽爪转 讞转讬讻讛 讬讛讗 讻讜诇讜 驻住讜诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讙注 讛谞讜讙注 驻住讜诇 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讞讜转讱 讗转 诪拽讜诐 砖讘诇注 讘讘砖专讛 讜诇讗 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讜诇讗 讘注爪诪讜转 讜诇讗 讘拽专谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讘讟诇驻讬诐

One might have thought that if the sin offering touched part of a piece of something that absorbed flavor from the sin offering, the entire piece should become disqualified. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淲hatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 6:20), to teach that only the section that touches the sin offering is disqualified. How so? What can be done with an item when a section of it is disqualified? One slices off the section of the piece that absorbed the disqualified matter. Additionally, the verse states: 鈥淲hatever shall touch its flesh,鈥 but an item is not disqualified if it touches the sin offering鈥檚 sinews, nor its bones, nor its horns, nor its hooves.

讬拽讚砖 诇讛讬讜转 讻诪讜讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗诐 驻住讜诇讛 讛讬讗 转驻住诇 [讜讗诐] 讻砖专讛 讛讬讗 转讗讻诇 讻讞诪讜专 砖讘讛

搂 The baraita continues to interpret the same verse. 鈥淲hatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred,鈥 teaches: Whatever touches it becomes like it, with regard to its status. How so? If the sin offering is disqualified, due to any disqualification, whatever touches it becomes disqualified. And if it is fit, whatever touches it must be eaten in accordance with the stringent regulations that apply to the sin offering. Therefore, a piece of meat that touches the meat of a sin offering may be eaten only in accordance with the terms of the consumption of a sin offering, e.g., it may be eaten only by male priests, and only for one day and one night.

讗诪讗讬 讜谞讬转讬 注砖讛 讜诇讬讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: If sacrificial meat touched the meat of a disqualified sin offering, why should the sacrificial meat become forbidden? Should not the positive mitzva of eating the sacrificial meat come and override the prohibition against eating the disqualified substance that was absorbed in it? Rava said: A positive mitzva does not override a prohibition that relates to the Temple.

砖谞讗诪专 讜注爪诐 诇讗 转砖讘专讜 讘讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪讜讞 讜讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪讜讞 讗诪讗讬 谞讬转讬 注砖讛 讜诇讬讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讗诇讗 讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖

Rav鈥檚 opinion relates to that which is taught in a baraita: As it is stated in a verse concerning the Paschal offering: 鈥淣or shall you break a bone of it鈥 (Exodus 12:46). Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Both a bone that contains marrow and a bone that does not contain marrow are included in the prohibition. This statement is analyzed: If one means to break a bone in order to eat its marrow, why would that be prohibited? Should not the positive mitzva of eating the edible parts of the offering, including the marrow, come and override the prohibition of not breaking a bone of the Paschal offering? Rather, it must be that a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition that relates to the Temple.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讬拽讚砖 注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛

Rav Ashi said: If sacrificial meat touches a disqualified sin offering, this is not simply a case of a positive mitzva in conflict with a prohibition. Because the verse states: 鈥淲hatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 6:20), treating the item as consecrated is itself a positive mitzva. Consequently, both a positive mitzva and a prohibition stand in opposition to eating that sacrificial meat, and a positive mitzva does not override both a prohibition and a positive mitzva.

讗砖讻讞谉 讞讟讗转 讚诪转拽讚砖 讘讘诇讜注 砖讗专 拽讚砖讬诐 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讝讗转 讛转讜专讛 诇注诇讛 讜诇诪谞讞讛 讜诇讞讟讗转 讜诇讗砖诐 讜诇诪诇讜讗讬诐 讜诇讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐

搂 With regard to a sin offering, the verse states: 鈥淲hatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred.鈥 The Gemara asks: We found a source teaching that with regard to a sin offering, whatever it touches becomes sanctified through that which is absorbed from the sin offering. From where do we derive that this is also the halakha concerning the rest of the sacred offerings? Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: It is stated: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the inauguration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings鈥 (Leviticus 7:37). This verse connects all of the specified offerings, such that individual aspects of each offering are applicable to all of the offerings.

[诇注诇讛] 讻讬 注讜诇讛 诪讛 注讜诇讛 讟注讜谞讛 讻诇讬 讗祝 讻诇 讟注讜谞讛 讻诇讬 诪讗讬 讻诇讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讝专拽 讘砖诇诪讬 爪讬讘讜专 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讜讬拽讞 诪砖讛 讞爪讬 讛讚诐 讜讬砖诐 讘讗讙谞转

The Gemara details these aspects. The verse states 鈥渙f the burnt offering鈥 to teach that all of the offerings are like a burnt offering in that just as a burnt offering requires a utensil in its preparation, so too do all animal offerings require a utensil. What is the utensil? If we say it is a bowl, a utensil used for collecting the blood, as were used in the burnt offerings that were sacrificed at Mount Sinai, that cannot be correct, since the source for a vessel for collecting blood does not need to be derived from the use of one in a burnt offering. With regard to communal peace offerings it is also written of them: 鈥淎nd they offered burnt offerings, and they sacrificed peace offerings鈥And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins鈥 (Exodus 24:5鈥6).

讗诇讗 讚住讻讬谉 讜注讜诇讛 讙讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬砖诇讞 讗讘专讛诐 讗转 讬讚讜 讜讬拽讞 讗转 讛诪讗讻诇转 讜讛转诐 注讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬注诇讛讜 诇注诇讛 转讞转 讘谞讜

Rather, the term: Utensil, must be stated of a knife, as the slaughtering may be performed only with a knife and not with a sharp stone or reed. The Gemara asks: And with regard to a burnt offering itself, from where do we derive that it must be slaughtered with a knife? This is learned from that which is written: 鈥淎nd Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slaughter his son鈥 (Genesis 22:10); and there, Abraham was offering a burnt offering, as it is written: 鈥淎nd offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son鈥 (Genesis 22:13).

诪谞讞讛 诪讛 诪谞讞讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 讗诇讗 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讗祝 讻诇 讗讬谞诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讻诇 讝讻专 讘讻讛谞讬诐 讬讗讻诇谞讜

The Gemara continues to expound the aforementioned verse (Leviticus 7:37). When the verse mentions a meal offering, it teaches that just as a meal offering is eaten only by males of the priesthood (see Leviticus 6:9鈥11), so too are all of the offerings mentioned in this verse eaten only by males of the priesthood. The Gemara asks: With regard to what offering is it that this halakha must be derived? If one suggests it is with regard to the sin offering and the guilt offering, this halakha is explicitly written of them. With regard to the sin offering, it is stated: 鈥淓very male among the priests may eat it鈥 (Leviticus 6:22); and with regard to the guilt offering, it is stated: 鈥淓very male among the priests may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 7:6).

讜讗讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讬讘讜专 诪专讬讘讜讬讬讗 讚拽专讗 讗转讬 讘拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 转讗讻诇谞讜 讻诇 讝讻专 讬讗讻诇 讗转讜 诇讬诪讚 注诇 砖诇诪讬 爪讬讘讜专 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛

And if one suggests that the halakha must be derived with regard to communal peace offerings, i.e., the two lambs that were sacrificed as communal offerings on Shavuot together with the offering of the two loaves (see Leviticus 23:19), this halakha is derived from the amplification of the verse that is stated with regard to meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings. The verse states: 鈥淚n a most sacred place shall you eat of it; every male may eat it鈥 (Numbers 18:10), and it is taught in a baraita: The verse teaches with regard to communal peace offerings that they are eaten only by males of priestly families.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara explains: It is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Zevachim 97

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 97

讛砖驻讜讚 讜讛讗住讻诇讗 诪讙注讬诇谉 讘讞诪讬谉

With regard to the spit and the metal grill [askela], one purges them in hot water.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜驻谞讬转 讘讘拽专 讜讛诇讻转 诇讗讛诇讱 讛讻转讜讘 注砖讗讜 诇讻讜诇谉 讘拽专 讗讞讚

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that Rabbi Tarfon says: If one cooked a sin offering in a vessel from the beginning of the Festival, one may cook in it for the entire Festival without scouring and rinsing the vessel after every use and without being concerned that he is eating forbidden leftover meat. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Tarfon? The Gemara answers: It is as the verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: 鈥淎nd you shall roast and eat it in the place that the Lord your God shall choose; and you shall turn in the morning, and go to your tents鈥 (Deuteronomy 16:7). Although one does not leave Jerusalem on the first morning of Passover, the verse has rendered all of those days over which one remains there equal to one morning.

诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 讗讞讚讘讜讬 讘专 讗诪讬 讜讻讬 讗讬谉 驻讬讙讜诇 讘专讙诇 讜讗讬谉 谞讜转专 讘专讙诇

Rav A岣dvoi bar Ami objects to this: Can it be that all of the days of the Festival are considered a single day? But is there no prohibition against bringing an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time [piggul] during a pilgrimage Festival? And is there no prohibition of notar, consuming sacrificial meat beyond its appointed time, during a pilgrimage Festival? Both these prohibitions are based on the premise that each offering may be eaten over a limited time far less than the duration of the entire Festival.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 谞转谉 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗诇讗 讝讜 讘诇讘讚

And if you would say: Indeed, neither piggul nor notar apply during a Festival, that is difficult: But it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Natan says: Rabbi Tarfon said that an entire Festival is considered a single day only with regard to this, the halakhot of scouring and rinsing, alone, and not with regard to other halakhot, including piggul and notar. Evidently, his opinion is not based on the cited verse.

讗诇讗 讻讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 讻诇 讬讜诐 讜讬讜诐 谞注砖讛 讙讬注讜诇 诇讞讘讬专讜

The Gemara continues: Rather, one must explain that Rabbi Tarfon鈥檚 opinion accords with that which Rav Na岣an says citing Rabba bar Avuh. As Rav Na岣an says that Rabba bar Avuh says: Scouring and rinsing does not need to be done every day in order to avoid eating the taste of forbidden leftover meat, because while the vessels are used for repeatedly cooking various types of sacrificial meat, the meat of each and every day becomes a purging agent for the other food, that which is already absorbed in the vessel from the prior day. Therefore, only after the Festival, when the vessel is not being used, must the pot be scoured and rinsed.

讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 注讚 讝诪谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讻讜壮 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讗讘讜讛 诪诪转讬谉 诇讛 注讚 讝诪谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛讚专 注讘讬讚 诇讛 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛

搂 The mishna teaches: And the Rabbis say: One may not continue using it in this manner; rather, one must perform scouring and rinsing before the end of the period during which partaking of the particular cooked offering is permitted. What is the mishna saying? Rav Na岣an said that Rabba bar Avuh said: One waits for the copper vessel so long as it remains the period of partaking, and then he performs scouring and rinsing on it.

诪谞讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 讗讘讗 讬讜住讬 讘谉 讗讘讗 讻转讬讘 讜诪专拽 讜砖讟祝 讜讻转讬讘 讻诇 讝讻专 讘讻讛谞讬诐 讬讗讻诇 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 诪诪转讬谉 诇讛 注讚 讝诪谉 讗讻讬诇讛 讜讛讚专 注讘讬讚 诇讛 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛

From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yo岣nan says in the name of Abba Yosei bar Abba: It is written about a copper vessel in which a sin offering was cooked: 鈥淚t shall be scoured and rinsed in water鈥 (Leviticus 6:21); and it is written in the following verse: 鈥淓very male among the priests may eat it.鈥 How so, i.e., what are the verses teaching through this juxtaposition? One waits with it until the end of the period of partaking and then performs scouring and rinsing on it.

诪专讬拽讛 讻诪专讬拽转 讛讻讜住 砖讟讬驻讛 讻砖讟讬驻转 讛讻讜住 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讘爪讜谞谉 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪专讬拽讛 讘讞诪讬谉 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讘爪讜谞谉

搂 The mishna teaches: Scouring is like the scouring of a cup, and rinsing is like the rinsing of a cup; and scouring and rinsing are both performed with cold water. The Sages taught in a baraita: Scouring and rinsing are both performed with cold water; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: Scouring is performed with hot water, and rinsing is performed with cold water.

诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪讬讚讬 讚讛讜讛 讗讙讬注讜诇讬 讙讜讬诐 讜专讘讬 讗诪专 诇讱 讛讙注诇讛 诇讗 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 诇诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讚讘转专 讛讙注诇讛

What is the reasoning of the Rabbis? They hold that this halakha is just as it is with regard to purging the used vessels acquired from gentiles, for which purging the forbidden absorptions must be performed with hot water. And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could have said to you: I do not say this statement about purging, which must certainly be performed with hot water. Rather, when I say my opinion, it is with regard to the mitzva of scouring and rinsing, which is performed after purging.

讜专讘谞谉 讗诐 讻谉 诇讻转讜讘 拽专讗 讗讜 诪专拽 诪专拽 讗讜 砖讟祝 砖讟祝 诪讗讬 讜诪专拽 讜砖讟祝 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪专讬拽讛 讘讞诪讬谉 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讘爪讜谞谉

And the Rabbis could reply: If so, that scouring and rinsing are both performed in the same manner, let the verse write the same verb to describe both processes, namely either: It shall be scoured and scoured in water, or: It shall be rinsed and rinsed in water. What is meant by the formula: 鈥淚t shall be scoured and rinsed in water鈥? Conclude from the use of two verbs that scouring is performed with hot water, and rinsing is performed with cold water.

讜专讘讬 讗讬 讻转讬讘 讜诪专拽 诪专拽 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 诪专拽 讗讜 转专讬 讝讬诪谞讬 砖讟祝 诇讻讱 讻转讬讘 讜诪专拽 讜砖讟祝 诇讜诪专 诇讱 诪专讬拽讛 讻诪专讬拽转 讛讻讜住 砖讟讬驻讛 讻砖讟讬驻转 讛讻讜住

And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi could reply: If it were written: It shall be scoured and scoured, or: It shall be rinsed and rinsed, I would say that the vessel must be scoured two times, or that it must be rinsed two times. Therefore, it is written: 鈥淚t shall be scoured and rinsed,鈥 to tell you that even if both are performed with cold water, there are two distinct actions: Scouring is like the scouring of the inside of a cup, and rinsing is like the rinsing of the outside of a cup.

诪转谞讬壮 讘讬砖诇 讘讜 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讞讜诇讬谉 讗讜 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讛专讬 讛拽诇讬诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讻讞诪讜专讬谉 砖讘讛谉 讜讗讬谞谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讜讗讬谞谉 驻讜住诇讬诐 讘诪讙注

MISHNA: If one cooked in one vessel sacrificial meat and non-sacred meat, or the meat of offerings of the most sacred order and the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity, the status of the food depends upon the taste of the stringent substance. If there is enough of the more sacred meat to impart flavor to the less sacred or non-sacred meat, then the lenient components of the mixtures must be eaten in accordance with the restrictions of the stringent components therein, insofar as who may partake of them, as well as the time when and the place where they may be eaten. And the copper vessels in which the lenient components were cooked do not require scouring and rinsing, and the lenient components do not disqualify pieces of meat through contact. With regard to these principles, the lenient components do not assume the status of the stringent components.

专拽讬拽 砖谞讙注 讘专拽讬拽 讜讞转讬讻讛 讘讞转讬讻讛 诇讗 讻诇 讛专拽讬拽讬谉 讜诇讗 讻诇 讛讞转讬讻讜转 讗住讜专讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讘诇注

In the case of a fit wafer that touched an unfit wafer or a piece of sacrificial meat that touched an unfit piece of sacrificial meat, neither all the wafers nor all the pieces of meat are forbidden. No part is forbidden other than that which is in the place where the item absorbed taste from the unfit wafers or pieces.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 讗诐 讬砖 讘讛谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讛专讬 讛拽诇讬谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讻讞诪讜专讬谉 讜讟注讜谞讬谉 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讜驻讜住诇讬谉 讘诪讙注

GEMARA: According to the mishna, if the more sacred meat imparts flavor to the less sacred or non-sacred meat, then the lenient meat is to be treated in the same manner as the more sacred meat. Concurrently, their vessels do not require scouring and rinsing, and the lenient components do not disqualify pieces of meat through contact. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying? Is this not inconsistent? The Gemara answers: The mishna must be understood otherwise: If there is enough of the more sacred meat to impart flavor to the less sacred or non-sacred meat, then the lenient components of the mixtures must be eaten in accordance with the restrictions of the stringent components. Moreover, the copper vessels in which the lenient components were cooked do require scouring and rinsing, and the lenient components do disqualify pieces of meat through contact.

讗讬谉 讘讛谉 讘谞讜转谉 讟注诐 讗讬谉 讛拽诇讬谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讻讞诪讜专讬诐 讜讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛 讜讗讬谉 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘诪讙注

The Gemara continues: If the more sacred meat is not sufficient to impart flavor to the less sacred or non-sacred meat, then the lenient components of the mixtures are not eaten in accordance with the restrictions of the stringent components. Moreover, the copper vessels in which the lenient components were cooked do not require scouring and rinsing, and the lenient components do not disqualify pieces of meat through contact.

谞讛讬 讚拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 诇讗 讘注讜 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 谞讬讘注讬

The Gemara asks: If the offerings of the most sacred order do not impart taste to the offerings of lesser sanctity, granted, the vessels do not require scouring and rinsing commensurate with vessels used to cook offerings of the most sacred order. But isn鈥檛 it so that the vessels should nevertheless require scouring and rinsing by virtue of having been used for offerings of lesser sanctity?

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 讚拽讗诪专 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讘诇 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讟注讜谞讬谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讛讗 诪谞讬 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讗讬谉 讟注讜谞讬谉 诪专讬拽讛 讜砖讟讬驻讛

Abaye said: What is the meaning of: Do not require, which the mishna states? It means only that the vessels do not require scouring and rinsing commensurate with vessels used to cook offerings of the most sacred order, but they do require scouring and rinsing as vessels used to cook offerings of lesser sanctity. Rava said: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Vessels used to cook offerings of lesser sanctity do not require scouring and rinsing at all.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讗 讛讬讬谞讜 讚拽转谞讬 讗讜 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讗诇讗 诇讗讘讬讬 转专转讬 诇诪讛 诇讬

The Gemara analyzes: Granted, according to the opinion of Rava, this explanation is consistent with that which the mishna teaches: If one cooked in one vessel sacrificial meat and non-sacred meat, or the meat of offerings of the most sacred order and the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity. The mishna provides a second scenario in order to teach that vessels used to cook offerings of lesser sanctity do not require scouring and rinsing, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. But according to Abaye, why do I need two cases to teach the single principle that a substance is nullified if its presence is insufficient to impart flavor?

爪专讬讻讬 讚讗讬 转谞讗 拽讚砖讬诐 讜讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讞讜诇讬谉 讛讜讗 讚诪讘讟诇讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讚诇讗讜 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讗讘诇 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讗

The Gemara answers: Even according to Abaye, both cases are necessary, in order to teach a halakha with regard to nullification. As, had the mishna taught only the case of sacrificial meat and non-sacred meat, I would say that it is non-sacred meat that can nullify sacrificial meat, as sacrificial meat is not its type. But with regard to offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity, I would say: The offerings of lesser sanctity do not nullify those other offerings, because they are of the same type.

讜讗讬 转谞讗 拽讚砖讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讜拽讚砖讬诐 拽诇讬诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 拽讚砖讬诐 讛讜讗 讚讗诇讬诪讬 诇讘讟讜诇讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讗讘诇 讞讜诇讬谉 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗

And had the mishna taught only the case of offerings of the most sacred order and offerings of lesser sanctity, I would say that it is sacrificial meat that is strong enough to nullify other sacrificial meat; but with regard to non-sacred meat, I would say: It is not strong enough to nullify sacrificial meat. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to teach both cases.

专拽讬拽 砖讛讙讬注 讘专拽讬拽 讻讜壮 转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻诇 讗砖专 讬讙注 讬讻讜诇 讗驻讬诇讜 砖诇讗 讘诇注 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讘讘砖专讛

搂 The mishna teaches: In the case of a fit wafer that reached an unfit wafer or a piece of sacrificial meat that touched an unfit piece of sacrificial meat, neither all the wafers nor all the pieces are forbidden. No part is forbidden other than that which is in the place where the item absorbed taste from the unfit wafers or pieces. In relation to this halakha, the Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a sin offering, the verse states: 鈥淲hatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 6:20). One might have thought that this applies to all contact, even if the other piece did not absorb any flavor from the meat of the sin offering. To counter this, the same verse states: 鈥淲ith its flesh [bivsarah]鈥 which can also be translated: In its flesh.

注讚 砖讬讘诇注 讘讘砖专讛

This teaches that this halakha does not apply unless the other food absorbs something of the sin offering into its meat.

讬讻讜诇 谞讙注 讘诪拽爪转 讞转讬讻讛 讬讛讗 讻讜诇讜 驻住讜诇 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讬讙注 讛谞讜讙注 驻住讜诇 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讞讜转讱 讗转 诪拽讜诐 砖讘诇注 讘讘砖专讛 讜诇讗 讘讙讬讚讬谉 讜诇讗 讘注爪诪讜转 讜诇讗 讘拽专谞讬诐 讜诇讗 讘讟诇驻讬诐

One might have thought that if the sin offering touched part of a piece of something that absorbed flavor from the sin offering, the entire piece should become disqualified. To counter this, the verse states: 鈥淲hatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 6:20), to teach that only the section that touches the sin offering is disqualified. How so? What can be done with an item when a section of it is disqualified? One slices off the section of the piece that absorbed the disqualified matter. Additionally, the verse states: 鈥淲hatever shall touch its flesh,鈥 but an item is not disqualified if it touches the sin offering鈥檚 sinews, nor its bones, nor its horns, nor its hooves.

讬拽讚砖 诇讛讬讜转 讻诪讜讛 讛讗 讻讬爪讚 讗诐 驻住讜诇讛 讛讬讗 转驻住诇 [讜讗诐] 讻砖专讛 讛讬讗 转讗讻诇 讻讞诪讜专 砖讘讛

搂 The baraita continues to interpret the same verse. 鈥淲hatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred,鈥 teaches: Whatever touches it becomes like it, with regard to its status. How so? If the sin offering is disqualified, due to any disqualification, whatever touches it becomes disqualified. And if it is fit, whatever touches it must be eaten in accordance with the stringent regulations that apply to the sin offering. Therefore, a piece of meat that touches the meat of a sin offering may be eaten only in accordance with the terms of the consumption of a sin offering, e.g., it may be eaten only by male priests, and only for one day and one night.

讗诪讗讬 讜谞讬转讬 注砖讛 讜诇讬讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖

The Gemara asks: If sacrificial meat touched the meat of a disqualified sin offering, why should the sacrificial meat become forbidden? Should not the positive mitzva of eating the sacrificial meat come and override the prohibition against eating the disqualified substance that was absorbed in it? Rava said: A positive mitzva does not override a prohibition that relates to the Temple.

砖谞讗诪专 讜注爪诐 诇讗 转砖讘专讜 讘讜 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 诪谞住讬讗 讗讜诪专 讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讬砖 讘讜 诪讜讞 讜讗讞讚 注爪诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讜 诪讜讞 讗诪讗讬 谞讬转讬 注砖讛 讜诇讬讚讞讬 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讗诇讗 讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 诇讗 转注砖讛 砖讘诪拽讚砖

Rav鈥檚 opinion relates to that which is taught in a baraita: As it is stated in a verse concerning the Paschal offering: 鈥淣or shall you break a bone of it鈥 (Exodus 12:46). Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Both a bone that contains marrow and a bone that does not contain marrow are included in the prohibition. This statement is analyzed: If one means to break a bone in order to eat its marrow, why would that be prohibited? Should not the positive mitzva of eating the edible parts of the offering, including the marrow, come and override the prohibition of not breaking a bone of the Paschal offering? Rather, it must be that a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition that relates to the Temple.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讬拽讚砖 注砖讛 讛讜讗 讜讗讬谉 注砖讛 讚讜讞讛 讗转 诇讗 转注砖讛 讜注砖讛

Rav Ashi said: If sacrificial meat touches a disqualified sin offering, this is not simply a case of a positive mitzva in conflict with a prohibition. Because the verse states: 鈥淲hatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred鈥 (Leviticus 6:20), treating the item as consecrated is itself a positive mitzva. Consequently, both a positive mitzva and a prohibition stand in opposition to eating that sacrificial meat, and a positive mitzva does not override both a prohibition and a positive mitzva.

讗砖讻讞谉 讞讟讗转 讚诪转拽讚砖 讘讘诇讜注 砖讗专 拽讚砖讬诐 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讝讗转 讛转讜专讛 诇注诇讛 讜诇诪谞讞讛 讜诇讞讟讗转 讜诇讗砖诐 讜诇诪诇讜讗讬诐 讜诇讝讘讞 讛砖诇诪讬诐

搂 With regard to a sin offering, the verse states: 鈥淲hatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred.鈥 The Gemara asks: We found a source teaching that with regard to a sin offering, whatever it touches becomes sanctified through that which is absorbed from the sin offering. From where do we derive that this is also the halakha concerning the rest of the sacred offerings? Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: It is stated: 鈥淭his is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the inauguration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings鈥 (Leviticus 7:37). This verse connects all of the specified offerings, such that individual aspects of each offering are applicable to all of the offerings.

[诇注诇讛] 讻讬 注讜诇讛 诪讛 注讜诇讛 讟注讜谞讛 讻诇讬 讗祝 讻诇 讟注讜谞讛 讻诇讬 诪讗讬 讻诇讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讝专拽 讘砖诇诪讬 爪讬讘讜专 谞诪讬 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讜讬拽讞 诪砖讛 讞爪讬 讛讚诐 讜讬砖诐 讘讗讙谞转

The Gemara details these aspects. The verse states 鈥渙f the burnt offering鈥 to teach that all of the offerings are like a burnt offering in that just as a burnt offering requires a utensil in its preparation, so too do all animal offerings require a utensil. What is the utensil? If we say it is a bowl, a utensil used for collecting the blood, as were used in the burnt offerings that were sacrificed at Mount Sinai, that cannot be correct, since the source for a vessel for collecting blood does not need to be derived from the use of one in a burnt offering. With regard to communal peace offerings it is also written of them: 鈥淎nd they offered burnt offerings, and they sacrificed peace offerings鈥And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins鈥 (Exodus 24:5鈥6).

讗诇讗 讚住讻讬谉 讜注讜诇讛 讙讜驻讛 诪谞诇谉 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬砖诇讞 讗讘专讛诐 讗转 讬讚讜 讜讬拽讞 讗转 讛诪讗讻诇转 讜讛转诐 注讜诇讛 讛讜讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬注诇讛讜 诇注诇讛 转讞转 讘谞讜

Rather, the term: Utensil, must be stated of a knife, as the slaughtering may be performed only with a knife and not with a sharp stone or reed. The Gemara asks: And with regard to a burnt offering itself, from where do we derive that it must be slaughtered with a knife? This is learned from that which is written: 鈥淎nd Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slaughter his son鈥 (Genesis 22:10); and there, Abraham was offering a burnt offering, as it is written: 鈥淎nd offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son鈥 (Genesis 22:13).

诪谞讞讛 诪讛 诪谞讞讛 讗讬谞讛 谞讗讻诇转 讗诇讗 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛 讗祝 讻诇 讗讬谞诐 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讗讬 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘 讘讛讜 讻诇 讝讻专 讘讻讛谞讬诐 讬讗讻诇谞讜

The Gemara continues to expound the aforementioned verse (Leviticus 7:37). When the verse mentions a meal offering, it teaches that just as a meal offering is eaten only by males of the priesthood (see Leviticus 6:9鈥11), so too are all of the offerings mentioned in this verse eaten only by males of the priesthood. The Gemara asks: With regard to what offering is it that this halakha must be derived? If one suggests it is with regard to the sin offering and the guilt offering, this halakha is explicitly written of them. With regard to the sin offering, it is stated: 鈥淓very male among the priests may eat it鈥 (Leviticus 6:22); and with regard to the guilt offering, it is stated: 鈥淓very male among the priests may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 7:6).

讜讗讬 砖诇诪讬 爪讬讘讜专 诪专讬讘讜讬讬讗 讚拽专讗 讗转讬 讘拽讚砖 讛拽讚砖讬诐 转讗讻诇谞讜 讻诇 讝讻专 讬讗讻诇 讗转讜 诇讬诪讚 注诇 砖诇诪讬 爪讬讘讜专 砖讗讬谞谉 谞讗讻诇讬谉 讗诇讗 诇讝讻专讬 讻讛讜谞讛

And if one suggests that the halakha must be derived with regard to communal peace offerings, i.e., the two lambs that were sacrificed as communal offerings on Shavuot together with the offering of the two loaves (see Leviticus 23:19), this halakha is derived from the amplification of the verse that is stated with regard to meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings. The verse states: 鈥淚n a most sacred place shall you eat of it; every male may eat it鈥 (Numbers 18:10), and it is taught in a baraita: The verse teaches with regard to communal peace offerings that they are eaten only by males of priestly families.

转谞讗讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara explains: It is a dispute between tanna鈥檌m.

Scroll To Top