Zevachim 97

השפוד והאסכלא מגעילן בחמין

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

גמ׳ מאי טעמא דרבי טרפון דאמר קרא ופנית בבקר והלכת לאהלך הכתוב עשאו לכולן בקר אחד

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.

מתקיף לה רב אחדבוי בר אמי וכי אין פיגול ברגל ואין נותר ברגל

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.

וכי תימא הכי נמי והתניא רבי נתן אומר לא אמר רבי טרפון אלא זו בלבד

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.

אלא כדרב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה דאמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה כל יום ויום נעשה גיעול לחבירו

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.

וחכמים אומרים עד זמן אכילה כו׳ מאי קאמר אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה ממתין לה עד זמן אכילה והדר עביד לה מריקה ושטיפה

§ 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.

מנהני מילי אמר רבי יוחנן משום אבא יוסי בן אבא כתיב ומרק ושטף וכתיב כל זכר בכהנים יאכל הא כיצד ממתין לה עד זמן אכילה והדר עביד לה מריקה ושטיפה

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.

מריקה כמריקת הכוס שטיפה כשטיפת הכוס תנו רבנן מריקה ושטיפה בצונן דברי רבי וחכמים אומרים מריקה בחמין ושטיפה בצונן

§ 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.

מאי טעמא דרבנן מידי דהוה אגיעולי גוים ורבי אמר לך הגעלה לא קאמינא כי קאמינא למריקה ושטיפה דבתר הגעלה

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.

ורבנן אם כן לכתוב קרא או מרק מרק או שטף שטף מאי ומרק ושטף שמע מינה מריקה בחמין ושטיפה בצונן

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.

ורבי אי כתיב ומרק מרק הוה אמינא תרי זימני מרק או תרי זימני שטף לכך כתיב ומרק ושטף לומר לך מריקה כמריקת הכוס שטיפה כשטיפת הכוס

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.

מתני׳ בישל בו קדשים וחולין או קדשי קדשים וקדשים קלים אם יש בהן בנותן טעם הרי הקלים נאכלין כחמורין שבהן ואינן טעונין מריקה ושטיפה ואינן פוסלים במגע

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.

רקיק שנגע ברקיק וחתיכה בחתיכה לא כל הרקיקין ולא כל החתיכות אסורין אינו אסור אלא במקום שבלע

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.

גמ׳ מאי קאמר אם יש בהן בנותן טעם הרי הקלין נאכלין כחמורין וטעונין מריקה ושטיפה ופוסלין במגע

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.

אין בהן בנותן טעם אין הקלין נאכלין כחמורים ואין טעונין מריקה ושטיפה ואין פוסלין במגע

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.

נהי דקדשי קדשים לא בעו קדשים קלים ניבעי

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?

אמר אביי מאי אין טעונין דקאמר קדשי קדשים אבל קדשים קלים טעונין רבא אמר הא מני רבי שמעון היא דאמר קדשים קלים אין טעונין מריקה ושטיפה

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.

בשלמא לרבא היינו דקתני או קדשי קדשים וקדשים קלים אלא לאביי תרתי למה לי

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?

צריכי דאי תנא קדשים וחולין הוה אמינא חולין הוא דמבטלי קדשים דלאו מינייהו אבל קדשי קדשים וקדשים קלים אימא לא

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.

ואי תנא קדשי קדשים וקדשים קלים הוה אמינא קדשים הוא דאלימי לבטולי קדשים אבל חולין אימא לא צריכא

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.

רקיק שהגיע ברקיק כו׳ תנו רבנן כל אשר יגע יכול אפילו שלא בלע תלמוד לומר בבשרה

§ 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.

עד שיבלע בבשרה

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

יכול נגע במקצת חתיכה יהא כולו פסול תלמוד לומר יגע הנוגע פסול הא כיצד חותך את מקום שבלע בבשרה ולא בגידין ולא בעצמות ולא בקרנים ולא בטלפים

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.

יקדש להיות כמוה הא כיצד אם פסולה היא תפסל [ואם] כשרה היא תאכל כחמור שבה

§ 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.

אמאי וניתי עשה ולידחי את לא תעשה אמר רבא אין עשה דוחה את לא תעשה שבמקדש

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.

שנאמר ועצם לא תשברו בו רבי שמעון בן מנסיא אומר אחד עצם שיש בו מוח ואחד עצם שאין בו מוח אמאי ניתי עשה ולידחי את לא תעשה אלא אין עשה דוחה לא תעשה שבמקדש

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.

רב אשי אמר יקדש עשה הוא ואין עשה דוחה את לא תעשה ועשה

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.

אשכחן חטאת דמתקדש בבלוע שאר קדשים מנלן אמר שמואל משום רבי אליעזר זאת התורה לעלה ולמנחה ולחטאת ולאשם ולמלואים ולזבח השלמים

§ 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.

[לעלה] כי עולה מה עולה טעונה כלי אף כל טעונה כלי מאי כלי אילימא מזרק בשלמי ציבור נמי כתיב בהו ויקח משה חצי הדם וישם באגנת

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 were used in the burnt offerings that were sacrificed at Mount Sinai, that cannot be correct, since the source for a vessel for collecting blood does not need to be derived from the use of one in a burnt offering. With regard to communal peace offerings it is also written of them: “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).

אלא דסכין ועולה גופה מנלן דכתיב וישלח אברהם את ידו ויקח את המאכלת והתם עולה הוא דכתיב ויעלהו לעלה תחת בנו

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).

מנחה מה מנחה אינה נאכלת אלא לזכרי כהונה אף כל אינם נאכלין אלא לזכרי כהונה מאי היא אי חטאת ואשם בהדיא כתיב בהו כל זכר בכהנים יאכלנו

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).

ואי שלמי ציבור מריבוייא דקרא אתי בקדש הקדשים תאכלנו כל זכר יאכל אתו לימד על שלמי ציבור שאינן נאכלין אלא לזכרי כהונה

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.

תנאי היא

The Gemara explains: It is a dispute between tanna’im.