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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 22, 2018 | 讬壮 讘讗讘 转砖注状讞

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

Zevachim 99b

Study Guide Zevachim 99b-100. Can an onen eat kodashim at night? If regular kodashim are not allowed, can one eat the pashal sacrifice? Is aninut聽at night by Torah law or rabbinic law? A few contradictory sources are brought regarding these issues and several answers are brought.


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

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讻讛谉 讛诪讞讟讗 讗转讛 讬讗讻诇谞讛 讻讛谉 讛诪讞讟讗 讬讗讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讟讗 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a priest who is unfit for the Temple service does not receive a share of the sacrificial meat. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Reish Lakish said: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states about a sin offering: 鈥淭he priest who effects atonement shall eat it; in a sacred place shall it be eaten, in the court of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 6:19). This teaches that only a priest who effects atonement by performing the rites of the offering shall partake of its meat, but a priest who does not effect atonement does not partake of its meat.

讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讜讛专讬 诪砖诪专讛 讻讜诇讛 讚讗讬谉 诪讞讟讗讬谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讞讬讟讜讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara challenges: And is this an established principle? But there are all the priests of the priestly watch of that week in the Temple, who do not effect atonement for that offering, because the blood of a specific sin offering is presented by just one priest, and yet they all partake of its meat. The Gemara explains: We mean to say that any priest who is fit for effecting atonement may partake of it, even one who did not participate in the service.

讛专讬 拽讟谉 讚讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讞讬讟讜讬 讜讗讜讻诇 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讬讗讻诇谞讛 讬讞诇拽谞讛 专讗讜讬 诇讞讬讟讜讬 讞讜诇拽 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讞讬讟讜讬 讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽

The Gemara objects: But there is the case of a minor, who is unfit for effecting atonement, and who nevertheless partakes of sacrificial meat. The Gemara explains: Rather, what is meant by the term: 鈥淪hall eat it鈥? It means that he shall receive a share of it. The halakha is therefore that a priest who is fit for effecting atonement receives a share of the meat, but a priest who is unfit for effecting atonement does not receive a share of the meat. Minors do not receive a share, though they may partake of meat given to them by others.

讛专讬 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讚讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讞讬讟讜讬 讜讞讜诇拽 讘注诇 诪讜诐 专讞诪谞讗 专讘讬讬讛 讻诇 讝讻专 讘讻讛谞讬诐 诇专讘讜转 讘注诇 诪讜诐

The Gemara objects: But there is a blemished priest, who is unfit for effecting atonement, and yet he receives a share of its meat. The Gemara replies: The Merciful One included a blemished priest as an exception, as the verse that states: 鈥淓very male among the priests shall eat it鈥 (Leviticus 6:22), serves to include a blemished priest.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻诇 讝讻专 诇专讘讜转 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 诪住转讘专讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 讗讜讻诇

The Gemara suggests: But say that the phrase 鈥渆very male鈥 serves to include one who immersed that day, teaching that he may also receive a share in the sacrificial meat. Why should it be understood as referring specifically to a blemished priest? The Gemara replies: It stands to reason that the Torah should include a blemished priest for receiving his own share of the meat, because he may partake of sacrificial meat in any event. By contrast, one who immersed that day is impure and may not touch or partake of sacrificial meat.

讗讚专讘讛 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 讚诇讗讜专转讗 诪讬讞讝讗 讞讝讬 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬

The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, the Torah should include one who immersed that day, because, unlike a blemished priest, in the evening he will be fit to perform the service. The Gemara replies: Now, in any event, the one who immersed himself is not fit.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诪讻讚讬 诪讗讬 讬讗讻诇谞讛 讬讞诇拽谞讛 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讬讞诇拽谞讛 诪讗讬 讬讗讻诇谞讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讞讜诇拽 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽

Rav Yosef said another explanation: Now what is meant by the term: 鈥淪hall eat it鈥? It means: He shall receive a share of it. But if so, let the Merciful One write: Shall receive a share of it. What is the reason for writing: 鈥淪hall eat it鈥? Learn from it that only a priest who is fit for partaking of sacrificial meat, which includes a blemished priest, receives a share in the meat; but a priest who is not fit for partaking of sacrificial meat, e.g., one who immersed that day, does not receive a share in the meat.

讘注讬 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讜讛讜讗 讟诪讗 诪讛讜 砖讬讞诇拽讜 诇讜 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讜专讞诪谞讗 专讘讬讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪讛 诇讬 讟诪讗 诪讛 诇讬 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讞讜诇拽 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽

Reish Lakish raises a dilemma: If a priest is blemished and he is impure, what is the halakha? Must the other priests give him a share of the meat? Perhaps we say that since he is not fit to perform the rite as a blemished priest and nevertheless the Merciful One included him to receive a share in the meat, there is no difference: What is the difference to me if he is impure, and what is the difference to me if he is only blemished? In any event he is not fit, yet the Torah allows him to receive a share in the meat. Or perhaps he may not receive a share in the meat, because only a priest who is fit for partaking of sacrificial meat receives a share of the meat, but a priest who is not fit for partaking of sacrificial meat does not receive a share of the meat.

讗诪专 专讘讛 转讗 砖诪注 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪拽专讬讘 讗讜谞谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 诇讗讻讜诇 诇注专讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讘注讬谞谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rabba said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita: If a High Priest is serving in the Temple and one of his immediate relatives dies, he sacrifices offerings even as an acute mourner. But he does not partake of sacrificial meat, and he does not receive a share to partake of it in the evening. Conclude from the baraita that in order for the priest to receive a share in sacrificial meat, we require that he be fit for partaking of it, and accordingly, a blemished priest who is impure does not receive a share. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the baraita that this is so.

讘注讬 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讟诪讗 讘拽专讘谞讜转 爪讬讘讜专 诪讛讜 砖讬讞诇拽讜 诇讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛诪讞讟讗 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讞讟讗 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讞讜诇拽 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽

Rav Oshaya raises a dilemma: If a priest is impure, then in a case of communal offerings, which may be offered by an impure priest, what is the halakha? Do the other priests give him a share of the meat, so that he may partake of it in the evening when he becomes pure? Do we say that the Merciful One states: 鈥淭he priest who effects atonement,鈥 and therefore any priest who is fit for effecting atonement receives a share, as derived earlier, and this priest is also one who may effect atonement, since this is a communal offering? Or perhaps he may not, due to the principle that only a priest who is fit for partaking of sacrificial meat receives a share of the meat, but a priest who is unfit for partaking of sacrificial meat does not receive a share.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪拽专讬讘 讗讜谞谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 诇讗讻讜诇 诇注专讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讘注讬谞谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Ravina said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita: If a High Priest is serving in the Temple and one of his relatives dies, he sacrifices offerings even as an acute mourner, but he does not partake of sacrificial meat and he does not receive a share of it to partake in the evening. Conclude from the baraita that in order for a priest to receive a share in sacrificial meat, we require that he be fit for partaking of it at the time of the service, without regard to whether he can perform the service. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the baraita that this is so.

讗讜谞谉 谞讜讙注 讜讗讬谞讜 诪拽专讬讘 讻讜壮 讗讜谞谉 谞讜讙注 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讜谞谉 讜诪讞讜住专 讻讬驻讜专讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 诇拽讜讚砖

搂 The mishna teaches: A priest who is an acute mourner is permitted to touch sacrificial meat, but he may not sacrifice offerings. The Gemara asks: Is it in fact permitted for an acute mourner to touch sacrificial meat? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another mishna (岣giga 21a): An acute mourner and one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, even after their respective disqualifications have expired, require immersion in order to eat sacrificial food. According to that mishna, an acute mourner who did not immerse may not touch sacrificial meat.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讟讘诇 讻讗谉 讘砖诇讗 讟讘诇

Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is not difficult. Here, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a case where the mourner immersed during his day of acute mourning. This is why he is permitted to touch the sacrificial meat. There, the ruling of the mishna in tractate 岣giga is stated with regard to a case where the mourner did not immerse.

讜讻讬 讟讘诇 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讗 讛讚专讗 注诇讬讛 讗谞讬谞讜转 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讜谞谉 砖讟讘诇 讗谞讬谞讜转讜 讞讜讝专转 注诇讬讜

The Gemara asks: And even if he immersed, what of it? But doesn鈥檛 his acute mourning return to him? As Rabba, son of Rav Huna, says: In a case of an acute mourner who immersed during his day of his acute mourning, his acute mourning returns to him.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗住讞 讚注转讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗住讞 讚注转讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. That case, in tractate 岣giga, is one where he was distracted from safeguarding his state of purity, so he may not touch sacrificial meat in the event that he is impure. This case, in the mishna here, is one where he was not distracted.

讛讬住讞 讛讚注转 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖讘讬注讬 讘注讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讟讗讬 讘专讘讬 诪转讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬住讞 讛讚注转 爪专讬讱 讛讝讗讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖讘讬注讬

The Gemara counters: If the mishna in tractate 岣giga is discussing a case of distraction, then his status is like that of one who contracted ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, who requires sprinkling with water of purification on the third and seventh days of his impurity. As Rabbi Yustai, son of Rabbi Matun, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One who experienced a distraction requires sprinkling with water of purification on the third and seventh days.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗住讞 讚注转讬讛 诪讟诪讗 诪转 讛讗 讚讗住讞 讚注转讬讛 诪讟诪讗 砖专抓

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. That statement, that he requires sprinkling, is discussing a case where he was distracted and careless about contracting impurity imparted by a corpse. This mishna in tractate 岣giga, stating that he requires immersion but not sprinkling, is discussing a case where he was distracted and careless about contracting impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal.

讟诪讗 砖专抓 讟诪讗 诪注诇讬讬讗 讛讜讗 讛注专讘 砖诪砖 讘注讬 讜注讜讚 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬

The Gemara counters: One who was careless about becoming impure due to the carcass of a creeping animal is fully impure, and so he requires not only immersion to become pure, but he also requires sunset. And furthermore, if the mishna in tractate 岣giga is discussing this case, the mourner should be prohibited from touching even teruma, not just sacrificial meat. Why does the mishna mention only the latter?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘讗讜诪专 谞砖诪专转讬 诪讚讘专 讛诪讟诪讗谞讬 讜诇讗 谞砖诪专转讬 诪讚讘专 讛驻讜住诇谞讬

Rabbi Yirmeya said: The mishna is discussing a case where he says: I safeguarded myself from anything that would render me impure, so I am certain that I did not contract impurity that requires waiting until sunset; but I did not safeguard my-self from anything that would render me unfit for touching sacrificial meat.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 谞讟讬专讜转讗 诇驻诇讙讗 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 注讜讚讛讜 讛住诇 注诇 专讗砖讜

The Gemara asks: But is there such a concept of partial care, that one can claim to have safeguarded himself from one form of impurity but not another? The Gemara answers: Yes, and it is taught in a baraita: If one was carrying a basket, and the basket was still on his head,

讜诪讙专讬驻讛 讘转讜讻讜 讜讗诪专 诇讘讬 注诇 讛住诇 讜讗讬谉 诇讘讬 注诇 讛诪讙专讬驻讛 讛住诇 讟讛讜专 讜讛诪讙专讬驻讛 讟诪讗讛

and a shovel was in the basket, and he said: I am minding the basket, that it not become impure, but I am not minding the shovel, then the basket is pure, and the shovel is impure.

讜转讟诪讗 诪讙专讬驻讛 诇住诇 讗讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讟诪讗 讻诇讬 讜转讟诪讗 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讜诪专 砖诪专转讬讛 诪讚讘专 讛诪讟诪讗讛 讜诇讗 砖诪专转讬讛 诪讚讘专 讛驻讜住诇讛

The Gemara challenges the ruling of the baraita: But wouldn鈥檛 the shovel render the basket impure? The Gemara answers: There is a principle that a vessel does not render another vessel ritually impure. The Gemara challenges: But wouldn鈥檛 the shovel render that which is in the basket, e.g., figs, impure? Rava said: The case is where he says: I safeguarded it, the shovel, from anything that would allow it to render another item impure, but I did not safeguard it from anything that would render it itself unfit, i.e., impure.

讗讬讙诇讙诇 诪讬诇转讗 讜诪讟讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讗讜讻诇 砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讗住讜专 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诪讜转专 诇讬讙注

The Gemara returns to discuss the contradiction between the mishna, which permits an acute mourner to touch sacrificial meat, and the mishna in tractate 岣giga, which requires him to immerse. The Gemara relates: The matter circulated and came before Rabbi Abba bar Memel. He said to the Sages before him: Have they not heard that which Rabbi Yo岣nan says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One who partakes of teruma that has third-degree impurity, i.e., teruma disqualified through contact with an item with second-degree impurity, is prohibited from partaking of teruma, but permitted to touch teruma.

讗诇诪讗 讘讗讻讬诇讛 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 诪注诇讛 讘谞讙讬注讛 诇讗 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 诪注诇讛

Rabbi Abba bar Memel continued: Apparently, in a case of partaking, the Sages imposed a higher standard, whereas in a case of touching, the Sages did not impose a higher standard. Similarly, in a case of an acute mourner, the Sages require him to immerse before he may partake of sacrificial meat, as taught in tractate 岣giga, but they do not impose this standard for touching the meat, as taught in the mishna here.

讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讜壮 诪讬驻诇讙 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙 讜讻讬 诪讝诪谞讬 诇讬讛 讗讻讬诇

搂 The mishna teaches with regard to an acute mourner: And he does not receive a share of sacrificial meat in order to partake of it in the evening. The Gemara comments: The mishna indicates only that he may not receive a share of the meat, but when other priests invite him to join in their portions, he may partake of them in the evening.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讜谞谉 (讜诪讞讜住专 讻讬驻讜专讬诐) 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讗转 驻住讞讜 诇注专讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Pesa岣m 91b): An acute mourner immerses and partakes of his Paschal offering in the evening, but he may not partake of other sacrificial meat.

讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘驻住讞 讻讗谉 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛

Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: This is not difficult. Here, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to the first night of Passover, whereas there, in tractate Pesa岣m, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to the rest of the days of the year.

讘驻住讞 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗讻讬诇 驻住讞 讗讻讬诇 谞诪讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讗 讞讝讬 讜诪讗讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 砖诇 讻诇 讛砖谞讛

What is the reason for the distinction between the two? On the first night of Passover, since he partakes of the Paschal offering, he may also partake of other sacrificial meat. But on the rest of the days of the year, when he is unfit to partake of sacrificial meat, he is unfit. And what does the mishna in Pesa岣m mean when it states: But he may not partake of other sacrificial meat? It means: But he may not partake of sacrificial meat of all of the rest of the year, other than the first night of Passover.

专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖诪转 诇讜 诪转 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讜拽讘专讜 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讻讗谉 砖诪转 诇讜 诪转 讘砖诇砖讛 注砖专 讜拽讘专讜 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讬讜诐 拽讘讜专讛 诇讗 转驻讬住 诇讬诇讜 诪讚专讘谞谉

Rav Asi said there is a different resolution to the contradiction between the mishnayot: This is not difficult. Here, in the ruling of the mishna in tractate Pesa岣m, which prohibits an acute mourner from partaking of sacrificial meat, it is referring to a case where his relative died on the fourteenth day of Nisan, and he buried him on the fourteenth itself, in which case he is still considered an acute mourner by rabbinic law that evening. There, in the ruling of the mishna in this chapter, it is referring to a case where his relative died on the thirteenth of Nisan, and he buried him on the fourteenth of Nisan. The reason the mourner may partake is that since the day of burial is not the day of death, it does not take hold of its following night by rabbinic law.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗谞讬谞讜转 诇讬诇讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗谞讬谞讜转 诇讬诇讛 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讜谞谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 转讚注 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讗讜谞谉 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讗转 驻住讞讜 诇注专讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara clarifies: Who is the tanna who taught that acute mourning the following night is by rabbinic law, as opposed to by Torah law? This is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: Acute mourning at night is by Torah law; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: His status as an acute mourner at night is not by Torah law, but by rabbinic law. Know that this so, as the Sages said: An acute mourner immerses and partakes of his Paschal offering in the evening, but he may still not partake of other sacrificial meat. If acute mourning at night were by Torah law, he would not be permitted to partake of the Paschal offering.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗谞讬谞讜转 诇讬诇讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讜谞谉 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇讞 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘驻住讞 诇讗 诇讘专 诪驻住讞

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon hold that acute mourning at night is by rabbinic law and that consequently an acute mourner partakes of his Paschal offering in the evening? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: An acute mourner does not send his offerings to the Temple to be sacrificed? What, is it not referring even to a Paschal offering? The Gemara rejects this: No, the baraita is referring to all offerings other than a Paschal offering.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖诇诪讬诐 讻砖讛讜讗 砖诇诐 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛转讜讚讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛转讜讚讛 砖讻谉 谞讗讻诇转 讘砖诪讞讛 讻砖诇诪讬诐

The Gemara counters: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings [shelamim]鈥 (Leviticus 3:1), Rabbi Shimon says: The offering is called shelamim to teach that when a person is whole [shalem], i.e., in a state of contentment, he brings his offering, but he does not bring it when he is an acute mourner. From where is it derived to include that an acute mourner does not bring even a thanks offering? I include the thanks offering because it is consumed in a state of joy, like a peace offering.

诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注讜诇讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛注讜诇讛 砖讻谉 讘讗讛 讘谞讚专 讜讘谞讚讘讛 讻砖诇诪讬诐 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 [讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 讜驻住讞 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬] 讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 讜驻住讞 砖讻谉 讗讬谞谉 讘讗讬谉 注诇 讞讟讗 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讘讞

From where is it derived that the verse also serves to include a burnt offering? I include the burnt offering because it comes as a vow offering and as a gift offering, like a peace offering. From where is it derived that the verse also serves to include a firstborn offering, and an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering, which are not brought voluntarily? I include a firstborn offering, and an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering, because they too, like a peace offering, do not come to atone for a sin. From where is it derived to include a sin offering and a guilt offering, which atone for sins? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if his offering be a sacrifice [zeva岣] of peace offerings,鈥 which teaches that an acute mourner may not sacrifice any slaughtered offering [zeva岣].

诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讛注讜驻讜转 讜讛诪谞讞讜转 讜讛讬讬谉 讜讛注爪讬诐 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖诇诪讬诐 拽专讘谞讜 讻诇 拽专讘谞讜转 砖讛讜讗 诪讘讬讗 讻砖讛讜讗 砖诇诐 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜谞谉

From where is it derived to include even the bird offerings, and the meal offerings, and the wine, and the wood, and the frankincense brought for the Temple service? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings [shelamim korbano],鈥 teaching that for all offerings [korbanot] that a person brings, he brings them when he is whole [shalem], but he does not bring them when he is an acute mourner.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 驻住讞

The Gemara explains: In any event, Rabbi Shimon teaches that it is prohibited for an acute mourner to bring a Paschal offering, even though he will cease to be an acute mourner that night; this contradicts the first baraita.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 驻住讞 讻讚讬 谞住讘讬讛

Rav 岣sda said: The latter baraita mentions a Paschal offering for no purpose. In other words, the halakha that an acute mourner does not bring an offering does not actually apply to a Paschal offering, and the baraita mentions it only out of habit, since a firstborn-animal offering, the animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering are frequently mentioned together.

专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诪讗讬 驻住讞 砖诇诪讬 驻住讞 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 砖诇诪讬诐 转谞讗 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 驻住讞 讜转谞讗 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 注爪诪谉

Rav Sheshet said: What is meant in this baraita by the term: Paschal offering? It is referring to the peace offerings of Passover, i.e., the peace offering that is sacrificed along with the Paschal offering. The Gemara objects: If so, that is the same as a peace offering, which Rabbi Shimon already mentioned. The Gemara answers: He taught the halakha with regard to peace offerings that come on account of the Paschal offering, and he taught separately the halakha with regard to peace offerings that come on their own account.

讚讗讬 诇讗 转谞讗 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 驻住讞 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讞诪转 驻住讞 讗转讬 讻讙讜驻讬讛 讚驻住讞 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Shimon needed to teach both cases explicitly, because if he did not teach the halakha with regard to peace offerings that come on account of the Paschal offering, it would enter your mind to say: Since they come on account of the Paschal offering, they are considered like the Paschal offering itself, and the acute mourner offers them as well. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon teaches us that these peace offerings are also forbidden to an acute mourner.

专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专

Rav Mari said a different resolution to the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Shimon:

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

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

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

Zevachim 99b

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Zevachim 99b

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讛讻讛谉 讛诪讞讟讗 讗转讛 讬讗讻诇谞讛 讻讛谉 讛诪讞讟讗 讬讗讻诇 砖讗讬谞讜 诪讞讟讗 讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that a priest who is unfit for the Temple service does not receive a share of the sacrificial meat. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Reish Lakish said: It is derived from a verse, as the verse states about a sin offering: 鈥淭he priest who effects atonement shall eat it; in a sacred place shall it be eaten, in the court of the Tent of Meeting鈥 (Leviticus 6:19). This teaches that only a priest who effects atonement by performing the rites of the offering shall partake of its meat, but a priest who does not effect atonement does not partake of its meat.

讜讻诇诇讗 讛讜讗 讜讛专讬 诪砖诪专讛 讻讜诇讛 讚讗讬谉 诪讞讟讗讬谉 讜讗讜讻诇讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讞讬讟讜讬 拽讗诪专讬谞谉

The Gemara challenges: And is this an established principle? But there are all the priests of the priestly watch of that week in the Temple, who do not effect atonement for that offering, because the blood of a specific sin offering is presented by just one priest, and yet they all partake of its meat. The Gemara explains: We mean to say that any priest who is fit for effecting atonement may partake of it, even one who did not participate in the service.

讛专讬 拽讟谉 讚讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讞讬讟讜讬 讜讗讜讻诇 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讬讗讻诇谞讛 讬讞诇拽谞讛 专讗讜讬 诇讞讬讟讜讬 讞讜诇拽 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讞讬讟讜讬 讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽

The Gemara objects: But there is the case of a minor, who is unfit for effecting atonement, and who nevertheless partakes of sacrificial meat. The Gemara explains: Rather, what is meant by the term: 鈥淪hall eat it鈥? It means that he shall receive a share of it. The halakha is therefore that a priest who is fit for effecting atonement receives a share of the meat, but a priest who is unfit for effecting atonement does not receive a share of the meat. Minors do not receive a share, though they may partake of meat given to them by others.

讛专讬 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讚讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讞讬讟讜讬 讜讞讜诇拽 讘注诇 诪讜诐 专讞诪谞讗 专讘讬讬讛 讻诇 讝讻专 讘讻讛谞讬诐 诇专讘讜转 讘注诇 诪讜诐

The Gemara objects: But there is a blemished priest, who is unfit for effecting atonement, and yet he receives a share of its meat. The Gemara replies: The Merciful One included a blemished priest as an exception, as the verse that states: 鈥淓very male among the priests shall eat it鈥 (Leviticus 6:22), serves to include a blemished priest.

讜讗讬诪讗 讻诇 讝讻专 诇专讘讜转 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 诪住转讘专讗 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 砖讻谉 讗讜讻诇

The Gemara suggests: But say that the phrase 鈥渆very male鈥 serves to include one who immersed that day, teaching that he may also receive a share in the sacrificial meat. Why should it be understood as referring specifically to a blemished priest? The Gemara replies: It stands to reason that the Torah should include a blemished priest for receiving his own share of the meat, because he may partake of sacrificial meat in any event. By contrast, one who immersed that day is impure and may not touch or partake of sacrificial meat.

讗讚专讘讛 讟讘讜诇 讬讜诐 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘讜讬讬 讚诇讗讜专转讗 诪讬讞讝讗 讞讝讬 讛砖转讗 诪讬讛讗 讛讗 诇讗 讞讝讬

The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, the Torah should include one who immersed that day, because, unlike a blemished priest, in the evening he will be fit to perform the service. The Gemara replies: Now, in any event, the one who immersed himself is not fit.

专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诪讻讚讬 诪讗讬 讬讗讻诇谞讛 讬讞诇拽谞讛 诇讻转讜讘 专讞诪谞讗 讬讞诇拽谞讛 诪讗讬 讬讗讻诇谞讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讞讜诇拽 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽

Rav Yosef said another explanation: Now what is meant by the term: 鈥淪hall eat it鈥? It means: He shall receive a share of it. But if so, let the Merciful One write: Shall receive a share of it. What is the reason for writing: 鈥淪hall eat it鈥? Learn from it that only a priest who is fit for partaking of sacrificial meat, which includes a blemished priest, receives a share in the meat; but a priest who is not fit for partaking of sacrificial meat, e.g., one who immersed that day, does not receive a share in the meat.

讘注讬 专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讜讛讜讗 讟诪讗 诪讛讜 砖讬讞诇拽讜 诇讜 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 讜专讞诪谞讗 专讘讬讬讛 诇讗 砖谞讗 诪讛 诇讬 讟诪讗 诪讛 诇讬 讘注诇 诪讜诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讞讜诇拽 砖讗讬谞讜 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽

Reish Lakish raises a dilemma: If a priest is blemished and he is impure, what is the halakha? Must the other priests give him a share of the meat? Perhaps we say that since he is not fit to perform the rite as a blemished priest and nevertheless the Merciful One included him to receive a share in the meat, there is no difference: What is the difference to me if he is impure, and what is the difference to me if he is only blemished? In any event he is not fit, yet the Torah allows him to receive a share in the meat. Or perhaps he may not receive a share in the meat, because only a priest who is fit for partaking of sacrificial meat receives a share of the meat, but a priest who is not fit for partaking of sacrificial meat does not receive a share of the meat.

讗诪专 专讘讛 转讗 砖诪注 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪拽专讬讘 讗讜谞谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 诇讗讻讜诇 诇注专讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讘注讬谞谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Rabba said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita: If a High Priest is serving in the Temple and one of his immediate relatives dies, he sacrifices offerings even as an acute mourner. But he does not partake of sacrificial meat, and he does not receive a share to partake of it in the evening. Conclude from the baraita that in order for the priest to receive a share in sacrificial meat, we require that he be fit for partaking of it, and accordingly, a blemished priest who is impure does not receive a share. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the baraita that this is so.

讘注讬 专讘 讗讜砖注讬讗 讟诪讗 讘拽专讘谞讜转 爪讬讘讜专 诪讛讜 砖讬讞诇拽讜 诇讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讛诪讞讟讗 讗诪专 专讞诪谞讗 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诪讞讟讗 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讞讜诇拽 砖讗讬谉 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽

Rav Oshaya raises a dilemma: If a priest is impure, then in a case of communal offerings, which may be offered by an impure priest, what is the halakha? Do the other priests give him a share of the meat, so that he may partake of it in the evening when he becomes pure? Do we say that the Merciful One states: 鈥淭he priest who effects atonement,鈥 and therefore any priest who is fit for effecting atonement receives a share, as derived earlier, and this priest is also one who may effect atonement, since this is a communal offering? Or perhaps he may not, due to the principle that only a priest who is fit for partaking of sacrificial meat receives a share of the meat, but a priest who is unfit for partaking of sacrificial meat does not receive a share.

讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 转讗 砖诪注 讻讛谉 讙讚讜诇 诪拽专讬讘 讗讜谞谉 讜讗讬谞讜 讗讜讻诇 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 诇讗讻讜诇 诇注专讘 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 专讗讜讬 诇讗讻讬诇讛 讘注讬谞谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

Ravina said: Come and hear a resolution to this dilemma from a baraita: If a High Priest is serving in the Temple and one of his relatives dies, he sacrifices offerings even as an acute mourner, but he does not partake of sacrificial meat and he does not receive a share of it to partake in the evening. Conclude from the baraita that in order for a priest to receive a share in sacrificial meat, we require that he be fit for partaking of it at the time of the service, without regard to whether he can perform the service. The Gemara affirms: Conclude from the baraita that this is so.

讗讜谞谉 谞讜讙注 讜讗讬谞讜 诪拽专讬讘 讻讜壮 讗讜谞谉 谞讜讙注 讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讜谞谉 讜诪讞讜住专 讻讬驻讜专讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 讟讘讬诇讛 诇拽讜讚砖

搂 The mishna teaches: A priest who is an acute mourner is permitted to touch sacrificial meat, but he may not sacrifice offerings. The Gemara asks: Is it in fact permitted for an acute mourner to touch sacrificial meat? And the Gemara raises a contradiction from another mishna (岣giga 21a): An acute mourner and one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, even after their respective disqualifications have expired, require immersion in order to eat sacrificial food. According to that mishna, an acute mourner who did not immerse may not touch sacrificial meat.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘砖讟讘诇 讻讗谉 讘砖诇讗 讟讘诇

Rabbi Ami said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: This is not difficult. Here, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to a case where the mourner immersed during his day of acute mourning. This is why he is permitted to touch the sacrificial meat. There, the ruling of the mishna in tractate 岣giga is stated with regard to a case where the mourner did not immerse.

讜讻讬 讟讘诇 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛讗 讛讚专讗 注诇讬讛 讗谞讬谞讜转 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讜谞谉 砖讟讘诇 讗谞讬谞讜转讜 讞讜讝专转 注诇讬讜

The Gemara asks: And even if he immersed, what of it? But doesn鈥檛 his acute mourning return to him? As Rabba, son of Rav Huna, says: In a case of an acute mourner who immersed during his day of his acute mourning, his acute mourning returns to him.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗住讞 讚注转讬讛 讛讗 讚诇讗 讗住讞 讚注转讬讛

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. That case, in tractate 岣giga, is one where he was distracted from safeguarding his state of purity, so he may not touch sacrificial meat in the event that he is impure. This case, in the mishna here, is one where he was not distracted.

讛讬住讞 讛讚注转 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖讘讬注讬 讘注讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讟讗讬 讘专讘讬 诪转讜谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讛讬住讞 讛讚注转 爪专讬讱 讛讝讗讛 砖诇讬砖讬 讜砖讘讬注讬

The Gemara counters: If the mishna in tractate 岣giga is discussing a case of distraction, then his status is like that of one who contracted ritual impurity imparted by a corpse, who requires sprinkling with water of purification on the third and seventh days of his impurity. As Rabbi Yustai, son of Rabbi Matun, says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One who experienced a distraction requires sprinkling with water of purification on the third and seventh days.

诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讗 讚讗住讞 讚注转讬讛 诪讟诪讗 诪转 讛讗 讚讗住讞 讚注转讬讛 诪讟诪讗 砖专抓

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult. That statement, that he requires sprinkling, is discussing a case where he was distracted and careless about contracting impurity imparted by a corpse. This mishna in tractate 岣giga, stating that he requires immersion but not sprinkling, is discussing a case where he was distracted and careless about contracting impurity imparted by the carcass of a creeping animal.

讟诪讗 砖专抓 讟诪讗 诪注诇讬讬讗 讛讜讗 讛注专讘 砖诪砖 讘注讬 讜注讜讚 讗驻讬诇讜 转专讜诪讛 谞诪讬

The Gemara counters: One who was careless about becoming impure due to the carcass of a creeping animal is fully impure, and so he requires not only immersion to become pure, but he also requires sunset. And furthermore, if the mishna in tractate 岣giga is discussing this case, the mourner should be prohibited from touching even teruma, not just sacrificial meat. Why does the mishna mention only the latter?

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬专诪讬讛 讘讗讜诪专 谞砖诪专转讬 诪讚讘专 讛诪讟诪讗谞讬 讜诇讗 谞砖诪专转讬 诪讚讘专 讛驻讜住诇谞讬

Rabbi Yirmeya said: The mishna is discussing a case where he says: I safeguarded myself from anything that would render me impure, so I am certain that I did not contract impurity that requires waiting until sunset; but I did not safeguard my-self from anything that would render me unfit for touching sacrificial meat.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 谞讟讬专讜转讗 诇驻诇讙讗 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 注讜讚讛讜 讛住诇 注诇 专讗砖讜

The Gemara asks: But is there such a concept of partial care, that one can claim to have safeguarded himself from one form of impurity but not another? The Gemara answers: Yes, and it is taught in a baraita: If one was carrying a basket, and the basket was still on his head,

讜诪讙专讬驻讛 讘转讜讻讜 讜讗诪专 诇讘讬 注诇 讛住诇 讜讗讬谉 诇讘讬 注诇 讛诪讙专讬驻讛 讛住诇 讟讛讜专 讜讛诪讙专讬驻讛 讟诪讗讛

and a shovel was in the basket, and he said: I am minding the basket, that it not become impure, but I am not minding the shovel, then the basket is pure, and the shovel is impure.

讜转讟诪讗 诪讙专讬驻讛 诇住诇 讗讬谉 讻诇讬 诪讟诪讗 讻诇讬 讜转讟诪讗 诪讛 砖讘转讜讻讜 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讜诪专 砖诪专转讬讛 诪讚讘专 讛诪讟诪讗讛 讜诇讗 砖诪专转讬讛 诪讚讘专 讛驻讜住诇讛

The Gemara challenges the ruling of the baraita: But wouldn鈥檛 the shovel render the basket impure? The Gemara answers: There is a principle that a vessel does not render another vessel ritually impure. The Gemara challenges: But wouldn鈥檛 the shovel render that which is in the basket, e.g., figs, impure? Rava said: The case is where he says: I safeguarded it, the shovel, from anything that would allow it to render another item impure, but I did not safeguard it from anything that would render it itself unfit, i.e., impure.

讗讬讙诇讙诇 诪讬诇转讗 讜诪讟讗讬 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诪诪诇 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 砖诪讬注 诇讛讜 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讛讗讜讻诇 砖诇讬砖讬 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 讗住讜专 诇讗讻讜诇 讜诪讜转专 诇讬讙注

The Gemara returns to discuss the contradiction between the mishna, which permits an acute mourner to touch sacrificial meat, and the mishna in tractate 岣giga, which requires him to immerse. The Gemara relates: The matter circulated and came before Rabbi Abba bar Memel. He said to the Sages before him: Have they not heard that which Rabbi Yo岣nan says that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: One who partakes of teruma that has third-degree impurity, i.e., teruma disqualified through contact with an item with second-degree impurity, is prohibited from partaking of teruma, but permitted to touch teruma.

讗诇诪讗 讘讗讻讬诇讛 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 诪注诇讛 讘谞讙讬注讛 诇讗 注讘讜讚 专讘谞谉 诪注诇讛

Rabbi Abba bar Memel continued: Apparently, in a case of partaking, the Sages imposed a higher standard, whereas in a case of touching, the Sages did not impose a higher standard. Similarly, in a case of an acute mourner, the Sages require him to immerse before he may partake of sacrificial meat, as taught in tractate 岣giga, but they do not impose this standard for touching the meat, as taught in the mishna here.

讜讗讬谞讜 讞讜诇拽 诇讗讻讜诇 讻讜壮 诪讬驻诇讙 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 驻诇讬讙 讜讻讬 诪讝诪谞讬 诇讬讛 讗讻讬诇

搂 The mishna teaches with regard to an acute mourner: And he does not receive a share of sacrificial meat in order to partake of it in the evening. The Gemara comments: The mishna indicates only that he may not receive a share of the meat, but when other priests invite him to join in their portions, he may partake of them in the evening.

讜专诪讬谞讛讬 讗讜谞谉 (讜诪讞讜住专 讻讬驻讜专讬诐) 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讗转 驻住讞讜 诇注专讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐

And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Pesa岣m 91b): An acute mourner immerses and partakes of his Paschal offering in the evening, but he may not partake of other sacrificial meat.

讗诪专 专讘 讬专诪讬讛 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘驻住讞 讻讗谉 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛

Rav Yirmeya of Difti said: This is not difficult. Here, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to the first night of Passover, whereas there, in tractate Pesa岣m, the ruling of the mishna is stated with regard to the rest of the days of the year.

讘驻住讞 讗讬讬讚讬 讚讗讻讬诇 驻住讞 讗讻讬诇 谞诪讬 拽讚砖讬诐 讘砖讗专 讬诪讜转 讛砖谞讛 讚诇讗 讞讝讬 诇讗 讞讝讬 讜诪讗讬 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐 砖诇 讻诇 讛砖谞讛

What is the reason for the distinction between the two? On the first night of Passover, since he partakes of the Paschal offering, he may also partake of other sacrificial meat. But on the rest of the days of the year, when he is unfit to partake of sacrificial meat, he is unfit. And what does the mishna in Pesa岣m mean when it states: But he may not partake of other sacrificial meat? It means: But he may not partake of sacrificial meat of all of the rest of the year, other than the first night of Passover.

专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 砖诪转 诇讜 诪转 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讜拽讘专讜 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讻讗谉 砖诪转 诇讜 诪转 讘砖诇砖讛 注砖专 讜拽讘专讜 讘讗专讘注讛 注砖专 讬讜诐 拽讘讜专讛 诇讗 转驻讬住 诇讬诇讜 诪讚专讘谞谉

Rav Asi said there is a different resolution to the contradiction between the mishnayot: This is not difficult. Here, in the ruling of the mishna in tractate Pesa岣m, which prohibits an acute mourner from partaking of sacrificial meat, it is referring to a case where his relative died on the fourteenth day of Nisan, and he buried him on the fourteenth itself, in which case he is still considered an acute mourner by rabbinic law that evening. There, in the ruling of the mishna in this chapter, it is referring to a case where his relative died on the thirteenth of Nisan, and he buried him on the fourteenth of Nisan. The reason the mourner may partake is that since the day of burial is not the day of death, it does not take hold of its following night by rabbinic law.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讗谞讬谞讜转 诇讬诇讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讛讬讗 讚转谞讬讗 讗谞讬谞讜转 诇讬诇讛 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讜谞谉 讗讬谞讜 诪讚讘专讬 转讜专讛 讗诇讗 诪讚讘专讬 住讜驻专讬诐 转讚注 砖讛专讬 讗诪专讜 讗讜谞谉 讟讜讘诇 讜讗讜讻诇 讗转 驻住讞讜 诇注专讘 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘拽讚砖讬诐

The Gemara clarifies: Who is the tanna who taught that acute mourning the following night is by rabbinic law, as opposed to by Torah law? This is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as it is taught in a baraita: Acute mourning at night is by Torah law; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: His status as an acute mourner at night is not by Torah law, but by rabbinic law. Know that this so, as the Sages said: An acute mourner immerses and partakes of his Paschal offering in the evening, but he may still not partake of other sacrificial meat. If acute mourning at night were by Torah law, he would not be permitted to partake of the Paschal offering.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗谞讬谞讜转 诇讬诇讛 诪讚专讘谞谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗讜谞谉 讗讬谞讜 诪砖诇讞 拽专讘谞讜转讬讜 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讘驻住讞 诇讗 诇讘专 诪驻住讞

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon hold that acute mourning at night is by rabbinic law and that consequently an acute mourner partakes of his Paschal offering in the evening? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon says: An acute mourner does not send his offerings to the Temple to be sacrificed? What, is it not referring even to a Paschal offering? The Gemara rejects this: No, the baraita is referring to all offerings other than a Paschal offering.

讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗讜诪专 砖诇诪讬诐 讻砖讛讜讗 砖诇诐 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜谞谉 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛转讜讚讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛转讜讚讛 砖讻谉 谞讗讻诇转 讘砖诪讞讛 讻砖诇诪讬诐

The Gemara counters: But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: With regard to the verse: 鈥淎nd if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings [shelamim]鈥 (Leviticus 3:1), Rabbi Shimon says: The offering is called shelamim to teach that when a person is whole [shalem], i.e., in a state of contentment, he brings his offering, but he does not bring it when he is an acute mourner. From where is it derived to include that an acute mourner does not bring even a thanks offering? I include the thanks offering because it is consumed in a state of joy, like a peace offering.

诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讗转 讛注讜诇讛 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬 讗转 讛注讜诇讛 砖讻谉 讘讗讛 讘谞讚专 讜讘谞讚讘讛 讻砖诇诪讬诐 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 [讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 讜驻住讞 诪专讘讛 讗谞讬] 讘讻讜专 讜诪注砖专 讜驻住讞 砖讻谉 讗讬谞谉 讘讗讬谉 注诇 讞讟讗 诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讞讟讗转 讜讗砖诐 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讘讞

From where is it derived that the verse also serves to include a burnt offering? I include the burnt offering because it comes as a vow offering and as a gift offering, like a peace offering. From where is it derived that the verse also serves to include a firstborn offering, and an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering, which are not brought voluntarily? I include a firstborn offering, and an animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering, because they too, like a peace offering, do not come to atone for a sin. From where is it derived to include a sin offering and a guilt offering, which atone for sins? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if his offering be a sacrifice [zeva岣] of peace offerings,鈥 which teaches that an acute mourner may not sacrifice any slaughtered offering [zeva岣].

诪谞讬谉 诇专讘讜转 讛注讜驻讜转 讜讛诪谞讞讜转 讜讛讬讬谉 讜讛注爪讬诐 讜讛诇讘讜谞讛 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 砖诇诪讬诐 拽专讘谞讜 讻诇 拽专讘谞讜转 砖讛讜讗 诪讘讬讗 讻砖讛讜讗 砖诇诐 诪讘讬讗 讜讗讬谞讜 诪讘讬讗 讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜谞谉

From where is it derived to include even the bird offerings, and the meal offerings, and the wine, and the wood, and the frankincense brought for the Temple service? The verse states: 鈥淎nd if his offering be a sacrifice of peace offerings [shelamim korbano],鈥 teaching that for all offerings [korbanot] that a person brings, he brings them when he is whole [shalem], but he does not bring them when he is an acute mourner.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛讗 驻住讞

The Gemara explains: In any event, Rabbi Shimon teaches that it is prohibited for an acute mourner to bring a Paschal offering, even though he will cease to be an acute mourner that night; this contradicts the first baraita.

讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 驻住讞 讻讚讬 谞住讘讬讛

Rav 岣sda said: The latter baraita mentions a Paschal offering for no purpose. In other words, the halakha that an acute mourner does not bring an offering does not actually apply to a Paschal offering, and the baraita mentions it only out of habit, since a firstborn-animal offering, the animal tithe offering, and a Paschal offering are frequently mentioned together.

专讘 砖砖转 讗诪专 诪讗讬 驻住讞 砖诇诪讬 驻住讞 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 砖诇诪讬诐 转谞讗 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 驻住讞 讜转谞讗 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 注爪诪谉

Rav Sheshet said: What is meant in this baraita by the term: Paschal offering? It is referring to the peace offerings of Passover, i.e., the peace offering that is sacrificed along with the Paschal offering. The Gemara objects: If so, that is the same as a peace offering, which Rabbi Shimon already mentioned. The Gemara answers: He taught the halakha with regard to peace offerings that come on account of the Paschal offering, and he taught separately the halakha with regard to peace offerings that come on their own account.

讚讗讬 诇讗 转谞讗 砖诇诪讬诐 讛讘讗讬谉 诪讞诪转 驻住讞 住诇拽讗 讚注转讱 讗诪讬谞讗 讛讜讗讬诇 讜诪讞诪转 驻住讞 讗转讬 讻讙讜驻讬讛 讚驻住讞 讚诪讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Shimon needed to teach both cases explicitly, because if he did not teach the halakha with regard to peace offerings that come on account of the Paschal offering, it would enter your mind to say: Since they come on account of the Paschal offering, they are considered like the Paschal offering itself, and the acute mourner offers them as well. Therefore, Rabbi Shimon teaches us that these peace offerings are also forbidden to an acute mourner.

专讘 诪专讬 讗诪专

Rav Mari said a different resolution to the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Shimon:

Scroll To Top