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.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Rabbi Tarfon and the Rabbis disagree about whether merika and shetifa of metal utensils that were used for cooking sacrificial meat are necessary daily during the holidays, or whether on the holidays one also needs to perform it only after the holiday ends. What is the basis of Rabbi Tarfon’s position to be lenient on the holiday?
The time for performing merika and shetifa is after the time for eating the sacrifice has passed. From where is this derived?
Rebbi and the Rabbis disagree about whether merika and shetifa are both done with cold water, or whether merika is with hot water and shetifa with cold. Even according to Rebbi, who holds that both are with cold water, one would still be required beforehand to boil the pot with hot water to remove the taste of the meat that has now become notar, left beyond the time the sacrifice can be eaten.
If mixtures of an offering are cooked together with those of another offering of a different status, or with non-sacred food, the food takes on the status of the more severe offering, as stated in Vayikra 6:20. This law is only applicable if flavor is imparted. The details of this law are analyzed.
A question is asked: why does the positive commandment to eat sacrificial meat not override the negative commandment not to eat disqualified meat? Rava answers that this principle does not apply in the Temple. Rav Ashi answers that there is both a negative and a positive commandment not to eat the meat, which is why the positive commandment to eat it does not override.
The verse relating to this law is mentioned in the context of the sin offering. From the verse in Vayikra 7:37, which mentions various different offerings, the sages learned that the laws of each type apply to all the other types as well. From the sin offering in that verse, they derive that this law applies to all sacrifices. What is derived from the other words in that verse?
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.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Audrey Mondrow in loving memory of Bessie “nanny“ Mauskopf, Bashya Leah bat Tzivia Chaya and Meir Yehudah. “A kind and gentle mother, grandmother and great-grandmother. She embraced Torah learning and the love of Torah. May her מeshama have an Aliya.”
Zevachim 97
הַשַּׁפּוּד וְהָאַסְכָּלָא – מַגְעִילָן בְּחַמִּין.
With regard to the spit and the metal grill [askela], one purges them in hot water.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וּפָנִיתָ בַבֹּקֶר וְהָלַכְתָּ לְאֹהָלֶךָ״ – הַכָּתוּב עֲשָׂאָן לְכוּלָּן בֹּקֶר אֶחָד.
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: “And 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” (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.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָדְבוּי בַּר אַמֵּי: וְכִי אֵין פִּיגּוּל בָּרֶגֶל, וְאֵין נוֹתָר בָּרֶגֶל?!
Rav Aḥadvoi 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.
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי; וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד!
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.
אֶלָּא כִּדְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ – דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: כׇּל יוֹם וָיוֹם נַעֲשֶׂה גִּיעוּל לַחֲבֵירוֹ.
The Gemara continues: Rather, one must explain that Rabbi Tarfon’s opinion accords with that which Rav Naḥman says citing Rabba bar Avuh. As Rav Naḥman 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.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד זְמַן אֲכִילָה כּוּ׳. מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: מַמְתִּין לָהּ עַד זְמַן אֲכִילָה, וַהֲדַר עָבֵיד לַהּ מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה.
§ 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 Naḥman 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.
מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן אַבָּא: כְּתִיב ״וּמֹרַק וְשֻׁטַּף״, וּכְתִיב ״כׇּל זָכָר בַּכֹּהֲנִים יֹאכַל״. הָא כֵּיצַד? מַמְתִּין לָהּ עַד זְמַן אֲכִילָה, וַהֲדַר עָבֵיד לַהּ מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה.
From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Abba Yosei bar Abba: It is written about a copper vessel in which a sin offering was cooked: “It shall be scoured and rinsed in water” (Leviticus 6:21); and it is written in the following verse: “Every male among the priests may eat it.” 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.
מְרִיקָה כִּמְרִיקַת הַכּוֹס, שְׁטִיפָה כִּשְׁטִיפַת הַכּוֹס. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה – בְּצוֹנֵן. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מְרִיקָה בְּחַמִּין, וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן.
§ 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.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַגִּיעוּלֵי גוֹיִם. וְרַבִּי אָמַר לָךְ: הַגְעָלָה לָא קָאָמֵינָא; כִּי קָאָמֵינָא – לִמְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה דְּבָתַר הַגְעָלָה.
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.
וְרַבָּנַן – אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא אוֹ ״מֹרַק מֹרַק״ אוֹ ״שֻׁטַּף שֻׁטַּף״; מַאי ״וּמֹרַק וְשֻׁטַּף״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מְרִיקָה בְּחַמִּין, וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן.
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: “It shall be scoured and rinsed in water”? Conclude from the use of two verbs that scouring is performed with hot water, and rinsing is performed with cold water.
וְרַבִּי – אִי כְּתִיב ״וּמֹרַק מֹרַק״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי ״מֹרַק״, אוֹ תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי ״שֻׁטַּף״; לְכָךְ כְּתִיב ״וּמֹרַק וְשֻׁטַּף״, לוֹמַר לָךְ: מְרִיקָה – כִּמְרִיקַת הַכּוֹס, שְׁטִיפָה – כִּשְׁטִיפַת הַכּוֹס.
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: “It shall be scoured and rinsed,” 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.
מַתְנִי׳ בִּישֵּׁל בּוֹ קָדָשִׁים וְחוּלִּין, אוֹ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים; אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם – הֲרֵי הַקַּלִּים נֶאֱכָלִין כַּחֲמוּרִין שֶׁבָּהֶן, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, וְאֵינָן פּוֹסְלִים בְּמַגָּע.
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.
רָקִיק שֶׁנָּגַע בְּרָקִיק, וַחֲתִיכָה בַּחֲתִיכָה – לֹא כׇּל הָרְקִיקִין וְלֹא כׇּל הַחֲתִיכוֹת אֲסוּרִין; אֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁבָּלַע.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי קָאָמַר? אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם – הֲרֵי הַקַּלִּין נֶאֱכָלִין כַּחֲמוּרִין, וּטְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, וּפוֹסְלִין בְּמַגָּע;
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.
אֵין בָּהֶן בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם – אֵין הַקַּלִּין נֶאֱכָלִין כַּחֲמוּרִים, וְאֵין טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, וְאֵין פּוֹסְלִין בְּמַגָּע.
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.
נְהִי דְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לָא בָּעוּ, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים נִיבְעֵי!
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’t it so that the vessels should nevertheless require scouring and rinsing by virtue of having been used for offerings of lesser sanctity?
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאי ״אֵין טְעוּנִין״ דְּקָאָמַר? קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים. אֲבָל קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים – טְעוּנִין. רָבָא אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים אֵין טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרָבָא, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי: אוֹ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים. אֶלָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, תַּרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי?
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?
צְרִיכִי; דְּאִי תְּנָא קָדָשִׁים וְחוּלִּין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: חוּלִּין הוּא דִּמְבַטְּלִי קָדָשִׁים, דְּלָאו מִינַּיְיהוּ; אֲבָל קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים – אֵימָא לָא.
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.
וְאִי תְּנָא קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: קָדָשִׁים הוּא דְּאַלִּימִי לְבַטּוֹלֵי קָדָשִׁים, אֲבָל חוּלִּין – אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכָא.
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.
רָקִיק שֶׁהִגִּיעַ בְּרָקִיק כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע״ – יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בָּלַע? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ –
§ 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: “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred” (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: “With its flesh [bivsarah]” which can also be translated: In its flesh.
עַד שֶׁיִּבָּלַע בִּבְשָׂרָהּ.
This teaches that this halakha does not apply unless the other food absorbs something of the sin offering into its meat.
יָכוֹל נָגַע בְּמִקְצָת חֲתִיכָה יְהֵא כּוּלּוֹ פָּסוּל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יִגַּע״ – הַנּוֹגֵעַ פָּסוּל. הָא כֵּיצַד? חוֹתֵךְ אֶת מָקוֹם שֶׁבָּלַע. ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ – וְלֹא בַּגִּידִין, וְלֹא בָּעֲצָמוֹת, וְלֹא בַּקַּרְנַיִם, וְלֹא בַּטְּלָפַיִם.
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: “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred” (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: “Whatever shall touch its flesh,” but an item is not disqualified if it touches the sin offering’s sinews, nor its bones, nor its horns, nor its hooves.
״יִקְדָּשׁ״ – לִהְיוֹת כָּמוֹהָ. הָא כֵּיצַד? אִם פְּסוּלָה הִיא – תִּפָּסֵל, [וְאִם] כְּשֵׁרָה הִיא – תֵּאָכֵל כֶּחָמוּר שֶׁבָּהּ.
§ The baraita continues to interpret the same verse. “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred,” 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.
אַמַּאי? וְנֵיתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְלִידְחֵי אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה! אָמַר רָבָא: אֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ,
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.
שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעֶצֶם לֹא תִשְׁבְּרוּ בוֹ״. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד עֶצֶם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מוֹחַ, וְאֶחָד עֶצֶם שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מוֹחַ. אַמַּאי? נֵיתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְלִידְחֵי אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה! אֶלָּא אֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ.
Rav’s opinion relates to that which is taught in a baraita: As it is stated in a verse concerning the Paschal offering: “Nor shall you break a bone of it” (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.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״יִקְדָּשׁ״ עֲשֵׂה הוּא, וְאֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה.
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: “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred” (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.
אַשְׁכְּחַן חַטָּאת דְּמִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּבִלּוּעַ, שְׁאָר קָדָשִׁים מְנָלַן? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: ״זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה לָעֹלָה וְלַמִּנְחָה וְלַחַטָּאת וְלָאָשָׁם וְלַמִּלּוּאִים וּלְזֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים״.
§ With regard to a sin offering, the verse states: “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred.” 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: “This 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” (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.
״לָעֹלָה״ – כִּי עוֹלָה; מָה עוֹלָה טְעוּנָה כְּלִי, אַף כֹּל טְעוּנָה כְּלִי. מַאי כְּלִי? אִילֵימָא מִזְרָק – בְּשַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר נָמֵי כְּתִיב בְּהוּ: ״וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה חֲצִי הַדָּם וַיָּשֶׂם בָּאַגָּנֹת״!
The Gemara details these aspects. The verse states “of the burnt offering” 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 was 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: “And they offered burnt offerings, and they sacrificed peace offerings…And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins” (Exodus 24:5–6).
אֶלָּא דְּסַכִּין. וְעוֹלָה גּוּפַהּ מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּשְׁלַח אַבְרָהָם אֶת יָדוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת הַמַּאֲכֶלֶת״ – וְהָתָם עוֹלָה הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעֲלֵהוּ לְעֹלָה תַּחַת בְּנוֹ״.
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: “And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slaughter his son” (Genesis 22:10); and there, Abraham was offering a burnt offering, as it is written: “And offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son” (Genesis 22:13).
״מִנְחָה״ – מָה מִנְחָה אֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת אֶלָּא לְזִכְרֵי כְהוּנָּה, אַף כֹּל אֵינָם נֶאֱכָלִין אֶלָּא לְזִכְרֵי כְהוּנָּה. מַאי הִיא? אִי חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם – בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ: ״כׇּל זָכָר בַּכֹּהֲנִים יֹאכְלֶנּוּ״!
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 6:9–11), 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: “Every male among the priests may eat it” (Leviticus 6:22); and with regard to the guilt offering, it is stated: “Every male among the priests may eat of it” (Leviticus 7:6).
וְאִי שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר – מֵרִיבּוּיָיא דִּקְרָא אָתֵי: ״בְּקֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ כׇּל זָכָר יֹאכַל אֹתוֹ״ – לִימֵּד עַל שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין אֶלָּא לְזִכְרֵי כְהוּנָּה!
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: “In a most sacred place shall you eat of it; every male may eat it” (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.
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא;
The Gemara explains: It is a dispute between tanna’im.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
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
Bronx, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
Berlin, Germany
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
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
Raanana, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
Zevachim 97
הַשַּׁפּוּד וְהָאַסְכָּלָא – מַגְעִילָן בְּחַמִּין.
With regard to the spit and the metal grill [askela], one purges them in hot water.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי טַרְפוֹן? דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וּפָנִיתָ בַבֹּקֶר וְהָלַכְתָּ לְאֹהָלֶךָ״ – הַכָּתוּב עֲשָׂאָן לְכוּלָּן בֹּקֶר אֶחָד.
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: “And 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” (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.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַב אַחָדְבוּי בַּר אַמֵּי: וְכִי אֵין פִּיגּוּל בָּרֶגֶל, וְאֵין נוֹתָר בָּרֶגֶל?!
Rav Aḥadvoi 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.
וְכִי תֵּימָא הָכִי נָמֵי; וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר: לֹא אָמַר רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אֶלָּא זוֹ בִּלְבַד!
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.
אֶלָּא כִּדְרַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ – דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: כׇּל יוֹם וָיוֹם נַעֲשֶׂה גִּיעוּל לַחֲבֵירוֹ.
The Gemara continues: Rather, one must explain that Rabbi Tarfon’s opinion accords with that which Rav Naḥman says citing Rabba bar Avuh. As Rav Naḥman 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.
וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד זְמַן אֲכִילָה כּוּ׳. מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: מַמְתִּין לָהּ עַד זְמַן אֲכִילָה, וַהֲדַר עָבֵיד לַהּ מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה.
§ 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 Naḥman 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.
מְנָהָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן אַבָּא: כְּתִיב ״וּמֹרַק וְשֻׁטַּף״, וּכְתִיב ״כׇּל זָכָר בַּכֹּהֲנִים יֹאכַל״. הָא כֵּיצַד? מַמְתִּין לָהּ עַד זְמַן אֲכִילָה, וַהֲדַר עָבֵיד לַהּ מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה.
From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Abba Yosei bar Abba: It is written about a copper vessel in which a sin offering was cooked: “It shall be scoured and rinsed in water” (Leviticus 6:21); and it is written in the following verse: “Every male among the priests may eat it.” 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.
מְרִיקָה כִּמְרִיקַת הַכּוֹס, שְׁטִיפָה כִּשְׁטִיפַת הַכּוֹס. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה – בְּצוֹנֵן. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מְרִיקָה בְּחַמִּין, וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן.
§ 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.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבָּנַן? מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַגִּיעוּלֵי גוֹיִם. וְרַבִּי אָמַר לָךְ: הַגְעָלָה לָא קָאָמֵינָא; כִּי קָאָמֵינָא – לִמְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה דְּבָתַר הַגְעָלָה.
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.
וְרַבָּנַן – אִם כֵּן, לִכְתּוֹב קְרָא אוֹ ״מֹרַק מֹרַק״ אוֹ ״שֻׁטַּף שֻׁטַּף״; מַאי ״וּמֹרַק וְשֻׁטַּף״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מְרִיקָה בְּחַמִּין, וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן.
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: “It shall be scoured and rinsed in water”? Conclude from the use of two verbs that scouring is performed with hot water, and rinsing is performed with cold water.
וְרַבִּי – אִי כְּתִיב ״וּמֹרַק מֹרַק״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי ״מֹרַק״, אוֹ תְּרֵי זִימְנֵי ״שֻׁטַּף״; לְכָךְ כְּתִיב ״וּמֹרַק וְשֻׁטַּף״, לוֹמַר לָךְ: מְרִיקָה – כִּמְרִיקַת הַכּוֹס, שְׁטִיפָה – כִּשְׁטִיפַת הַכּוֹס.
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: “It shall be scoured and rinsed,” 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.
מַתְנִי׳ בִּישֵּׁל בּוֹ קָדָשִׁים וְחוּלִּין, אוֹ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים; אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם – הֲרֵי הַקַּלִּים נֶאֱכָלִין כַּחֲמוּרִין שֶׁבָּהֶן, וְאֵינָן טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, וְאֵינָן פּוֹסְלִים בְּמַגָּע.
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.
רָקִיק שֶׁנָּגַע בְּרָקִיק, וַחֲתִיכָה בַּחֲתִיכָה – לֹא כׇּל הָרְקִיקִין וְלֹא כׇּל הַחֲתִיכוֹת אֲסוּרִין; אֵינוֹ אָסוּר אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁבָּלַע.
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.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי קָאָמַר? אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם – הֲרֵי הַקַּלִּין נֶאֱכָלִין כַּחֲמוּרִין, וּטְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, וּפוֹסְלִין בְּמַגָּע;
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.
אֵין בָּהֶן בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם – אֵין הַקַּלִּין נֶאֱכָלִין כַּחֲמוּרִים, וְאֵין טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, וְאֵין פּוֹסְלִין בְּמַגָּע.
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.
נְהִי דְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לָא בָּעוּ, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים נִיבְעֵי!
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’t it so that the vessels should nevertheless require scouring and rinsing by virtue of having been used for offerings of lesser sanctity?
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַאי ״אֵין טְעוּנִין״ דְּקָאָמַר? קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים. אֲבָל קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים – טְעוּנִין. רָבָא אָמַר: הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים אֵין טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה.
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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרָבָא, הַיְינוּ דְּקָתָנֵי: אוֹ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים. אֶלָּא לְאַבָּיֵי, תַּרְתֵּי לְמָה לִי?
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?
צְרִיכִי; דְּאִי תְּנָא קָדָשִׁים וְחוּלִּין, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: חוּלִּין הוּא דִּמְבַטְּלִי קָדָשִׁים, דְּלָאו מִינַּיְיהוּ; אֲבָל קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים – אֵימָא לָא.
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.
וְאִי תְּנָא קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים וְקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: קָדָשִׁים הוּא דְּאַלִּימִי לְבַטּוֹלֵי קָדָשִׁים, אֲבָל חוּלִּין – אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכָא.
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.
רָקִיק שֶׁהִגִּיעַ בְּרָקִיק כּוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע״ – יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא בָּלַע? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ –
§ 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: “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred” (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: “With its flesh [bivsarah]” which can also be translated: In its flesh.
עַד שֶׁיִּבָּלַע בִּבְשָׂרָהּ.
This teaches that this halakha does not apply unless the other food absorbs something of the sin offering into its meat.
יָכוֹל נָגַע בְּמִקְצָת חֲתִיכָה יְהֵא כּוּלּוֹ פָּסוּל? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״יִגַּע״ – הַנּוֹגֵעַ פָּסוּל. הָא כֵּיצַד? חוֹתֵךְ אֶת מָקוֹם שֶׁבָּלַע. ״בִּבְשָׂרָהּ״ – וְלֹא בַּגִּידִין, וְלֹא בָּעֲצָמוֹת, וְלֹא בַּקַּרְנַיִם, וְלֹא בַּטְּלָפַיִם.
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: “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred” (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: “Whatever shall touch its flesh,” but an item is not disqualified if it touches the sin offering’s sinews, nor its bones, nor its horns, nor its hooves.
״יִקְדָּשׁ״ – לִהְיוֹת כָּמוֹהָ. הָא כֵּיצַד? אִם פְּסוּלָה הִיא – תִּפָּסֵל, [וְאִם] כְּשֵׁרָה הִיא – תֵּאָכֵל כֶּחָמוּר שֶׁבָּהּ.
§ The baraita continues to interpret the same verse. “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred,” 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.
אַמַּאי? וְנֵיתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְלִידְחֵי אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה! אָמַר רָבָא: אֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ,
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.
שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעֶצֶם לֹא תִשְׁבְּרוּ בוֹ״. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן מְנַסְיָא אוֹמֵר: אֶחָד עֶצֶם שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מוֹחַ, וְאֶחָד עֶצֶם שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מוֹחַ. אַמַּאי? נֵיתֵי עֲשֵׂה וְלִידְחֵי אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה! אֶלָּא אֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבַּמִּקְדָּשׁ.
Rav’s opinion relates to that which is taught in a baraita: As it is stated in a verse concerning the Paschal offering: “Nor shall you break a bone of it” (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.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: ״יִקְדָּשׁ״ עֲשֵׂה הוּא, וְאֵין עֲשֵׂה דּוֹחֶה אֶת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה וַעֲשֵׂה.
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: “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred” (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.
אַשְׁכְּחַן חַטָּאת דְּמִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּבִלּוּעַ, שְׁאָר קָדָשִׁים מְנָלַן? אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: ״זֹאת הַתּוֹרָה לָעֹלָה וְלַמִּנְחָה וְלַחַטָּאת וְלָאָשָׁם וְלַמִּלּוּאִים וּלְזֶבַח הַשְּׁלָמִים״.
§ With regard to a sin offering, the verse states: “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred.” 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: “This 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” (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.
״לָעֹלָה״ – כִּי עוֹלָה; מָה עוֹלָה טְעוּנָה כְּלִי, אַף כֹּל טְעוּנָה כְּלִי. מַאי כְּלִי? אִילֵימָא מִזְרָק – בְּשַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר נָמֵי כְּתִיב בְּהוּ: ״וַיִּקַּח מֹשֶׁה חֲצִי הַדָּם וַיָּשֶׂם בָּאַגָּנֹת״!
The Gemara details these aspects. The verse states “of the burnt offering” 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 was 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: “And they offered burnt offerings, and they sacrificed peace offerings…And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins” (Exodus 24:5–6).
אֶלָּא דְּסַכִּין. וְעוֹלָה גּוּפַהּ מְנָלַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּשְׁלַח אַבְרָהָם אֶת יָדוֹ וַיִּקַּח אֶת הַמַּאֲכֶלֶת״ – וְהָתָם עוֹלָה הוּא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעֲלֵהוּ לְעֹלָה תַּחַת בְּנוֹ״.
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: “And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slaughter his son” (Genesis 22:10); and there, Abraham was offering a burnt offering, as it is written: “And offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son” (Genesis 22:13).
״מִנְחָה״ – מָה מִנְחָה אֵינָהּ נֶאֱכֶלֶת אֶלָּא לְזִכְרֵי כְהוּנָּה, אַף כֹּל אֵינָם נֶאֱכָלִין אֶלָּא לְזִכְרֵי כְהוּנָּה. מַאי הִיא? אִי חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם – בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִיב בְּהוּ: ״כׇּל זָכָר בַּכֹּהֲנִים יֹאכְלֶנּוּ״!
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 6:9–11), 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: “Every male among the priests may eat it” (Leviticus 6:22); and with regard to the guilt offering, it is stated: “Every male among the priests may eat of it” (Leviticus 7:6).
וְאִי שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר – מֵרִיבּוּיָיא דִּקְרָא אָתֵי: ״בְּקֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ כׇּל זָכָר יֹאכַל אֹתוֹ״ – לִימֵּד עַל שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין אֶלָּא לְזִכְרֵי כְהוּנָּה!
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: “In a most sacred place shall you eat of it; every male may eat it” (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.
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא;
The Gemara explains: It is a dispute between tanna’im.
