Zevachim 97
Share this shiur:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
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 month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
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.
Zevachim Daf 94-101– Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Minnesota, United States
Oceanside NY, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
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
Bronx, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
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
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
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.
