זבחים צח

זבחים צח

אִיכָּא דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵהָכָא, וְאִיכָּא דְּנָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵהָכָא.

There is one tanna who derives it, the halakha that only males of priestly families may eat of the communal peace offering, from here, i.e., the precedent mentioned explicitly with regard to the meal offering; and there is one tanna who derives it from there, i.e., the amplification of the verse stated with regard to meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings.

״חַטָּאת״ – מָה חַטָּאת מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּבָלוּעַ, אַף כֹּל מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּבָלוּעַ.

The Gemara continues expounding the verse: “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.” “Sin offering” teaches: Just as with regard to a sin offering, whatever it touches is sanctified through the substance that becomes absorbed, so too for all offerings mentioned in this verse, whatever they touch is sanctified through the absorbed portions.

״אָשָׁם״ – מָה אָשָׁם אֵין שָׁפִיר וְשִׁלְיָא קָדוֹשׁ בּוֹ, אַף כֹּל אֵין שָׁפִיר וְשִׁלְיָא קָדוֹשׁ בּוֹ. קָסָבַר: וַולְדוֹת קָדָשִׁים בַּהֲוָיָיתָן הֵן קְדוֹשִׁים, וְדָנִין אֶפְשָׁר מִשֶּׁאִי אֶפְשָׁר.

“Guilt offering” teaches: Just as with regard to a guilt offering, a fetal sac and a placenta are not sacred within it, because a guilt offering is always male and as such never holds a fetal sac or a placenta, so too for any of the offerings mentioned in the verse, a fetal sac and a placenta are not sacred if found within it. The Gemara notes: Evidently, this tanna holds that with regard to the offspring of sacrificial animals, they are sanctified only as they are from the moments of their births, but not in utero. And he also holds that one derives the possible from the impossible, so that the halakha of a fetal sac and of a placenta concerning female animals may be derived from the halakha of a male animal.

״מִלּוּאִים״ – מָה מִלּוּאִים מוֹתְרֵיהֶן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, וְאֵין בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים בְּמוֹתְרֵיהֶן; אַף כֹּל – מוֹתְרֵיהֶן בִּשְׂרֵיפָה, וְאֵין בַּעֲלֵי חַיִּים בְּמוֹתְרֵיהֶן.

“Inauguration offering” teaches: Just as with regard to the inauguration offering, the rams and the bread of that offering, which were brought during the seven days of inauguration of the Tabernacle and which the priests ate, their leftovers were disposed of by incineration, as is stated: “And if any of the flesh of the inauguration offering, or of the bread, remain until the morning, then you shall burn the remainder with fire” (Exodus 29:34), and no living animals were among their leftovers designated for incineration; so too for all offerings mentioned, their leftovers are disposed of by incineration, and there are no living animals counted among their leftovers to be incinerated. Accordingly, if one sanctifies two animals so that either one may be brought if the other is lost, when one animal is sacrificed, the surviving animal is not killed and incinerated.

״שְׁלָמִים״ – מָה שְׁלָמִים מְפַגְּלִין וּמִתְפַּגְּלִין, אַף כֹּל מְפַגְּלִין וּמִתְפַּגְּלִין.

“Peace offering” teaches: Just as with regard to the peace offering, its components can render an animal disqualified as an offering that was sacrificed with the intent to consume it after its appointed time [piggul] and can be rendered piggul; so too with regard to all offerings mentioned in this verse, their components render an animal disqualified as piggul and can be rendered piggul.

בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: ״מִנְחָה״ – מָה מִנְחָה מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּבָלוּעַ, אַף כֹּל מִתְקַדֶּשֶׁת בְּבָלוּעַ.

§ With regard to the verse at the center of the prior exchange (Leviticus 7:37), the Gemara states: It was taught in a baraita in the name of Rabbi Akiva: From the term “meal offering,” it is derived: Just as with regard to a meal offering, whatever it touches is sanctified through the substance that becomes absorbed, as it is stated: “Whatever shall touch them shall be sacred” (Leviticus 6:11); so too for all offerings mentioned in this verse, whatever they touch is sanctified through the absorbed portions.

וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב מִנְחָה, וְאִיצְטְרִיךְ לְמִכְתַּב חַטָּאת. דְּאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן מִנְחָה – דְּאַיְּידֵי דְּרַכִּיכָא מִיבַּלְעָא, אֲבָל חַטָּאת אֵימָא לָא; וְאִי אַשְׁמְעִינַן חַטָּאת – מִשּׁוּם דְּקָרִיר, אֲבָל מִנְחָה אֵימָא לָא; צְרִיכָא.

The Gemara notes: And it was necessary to write the halakha of absorption with regard to a meal offering, and it was necessary to write the halakha of absorption with regard to a sin offering. As, had the Torah taught us this halakha only with regard to a meal offering, I would say that since it is soft, it is absorbed and, therefore it sanctifies what it touches. But with regard to the meat of a sin offering, I would say that it does not sanctify what it touches. And had it taught us this halakha only with regard to a sin offering, I would say that because, on account of its fattiness, it oozes into whatever it touches, it sanctifies it. But with regard to a meal offering, I would say that it does not sanctify what it touches. Therefore, it is necessary for the Torah to write both.

״חַטָּאת״ – מָה חַטָּאת אֵינָהּ בָּאָה אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין, וּבַיּוֹם, וּבְיָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית; אַף כֹּל אֵינָהּ בָּאָה אֶלָּא מִן הַחוּלִּין, וּבַיּוֹם, וּבְיָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית. וְחַטָּאת מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְהִקְרִיב אַהֲרֹן אֶת פַּר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר לוֹ״ – מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל צִיבּוּר וְלֹא מִשֶּׁל מַעֲשֵׂר.

The cited baraita continues: “Sin offering” teaches: Just as a sin offering is brought only from non-sacred animals and is sacrificed specifically in the daytime, and its service must be performed with the priest’s right hand; so too all offerings mentioned are brought only from non-sacred animals, and are sacrificed specifically in the daytime, and each one’s service must be performed with the priest’s right hand. And with regard to a sin offering, from where do we derive that it is brought only from non-sacred animals? Rav Ḥisda said: The verse states: “And Aaron shall present the bull of the sin offering, which is his” (Leviticus 16:11). This teaches that the animal must come from his cattle, and not from communal property, and not from money upon which the second tithe has been redeemed.

בַּיּוֹם – מִ״בְּיוֹם צַוֹּתוֹ״ נָפְקָא! כְּדִי נַסְבַהּ.

The Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to derive from the halakha of a sin offering that an offering is sacrificed in the daytime? Is this principle not derived from the conspicuous expression: “On the day of His commanding” (Leviticus 7:38), which is understood to be referring to all offerings? The Gemara answers: Indeed, the baraita cited the principle from the model of a sin offering for no reason [kedi], and it was mentioned here on account of the other principles.

בְּיָדוֹ הַיְמָנִית – מִדְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה נָפְקָא, דְּאָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֶצְבַּע וּכְהוּנָּה – אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא יָמִין! כְּדִי נַסְבַהּ.

The Gemara asks: Why must the baraita teach that halakha of the sin offering teaches that the rites of an offering must be performed with the priest’s right hand? Is this not derived from the statement of Rabba bar bar Ḥana? As Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Reish Lakish says: In any place in the Torah that it is stated that an action is performed with a finger, or that it is performed by priesthood, the halakha is that the rite is performed only with the right hand. This is derived from the Torah’s statement with regard to the leper: “And the priest shall dip his right finger” (Leviticus 14:16). The Gemara answers: The baraita cited the principle from the model of a sin offering for no reason, since it is actually derived from Rabba bar bar Ḥana’s statement.

וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: אֶצְבַּע – לָא בָּעֲיָא כְּהוּנָּה, כְּהוּנָּה – בָּעֲיָא אֶצְבַּע.

The Gemara suggest: And if you wish, say that the tanna of the baraita holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Where the verse mentions a finger, it is not necessary for the verse to mention priesthood; but where it mentions priesthood, it is necessary for the verse to mention a finger, in order to teach that the rite must be performed with the right hand, which is not self-evident. With regard to the assorted offerings itemized in the verse (Leviticus 7:37), the Torah does not mention a finger; therefore, they must be derived from the halakha of a sin offering.

״אָשָׁם״ – מָה אָשָׁם עַצְמוֹתָיו מוּתָּרִין, אַף כֹּל עַצְמוֹתָיו מוּתָּרִין.

The cited baraita continues: “Guilt offering” teaches: Just as with regard to a guilt offering, its bones have no sanctity and are permitted for any use, so too with regard to any mentioned offering, its bones are permitted.

אָמַר רָבָא: פְּשִׁיטָא לִי –

§ Rava said: It is obvious to me that

דַּם חַטָּאת לְמַטָּה וְדַם עוֹלָה לְמַעְלָה, טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס.

when the blood of a sin offering is below and the blood of a burnt offering is above, in a case in which the blood of a burnt offering is sprayed as a second layer on top of the blood of a sin offering that has already been sprayed and absorbed into a garment, the garment requires laundering.

בָּעֵי רָבָא: דַּם עוֹלָה לְמַטָּה וְדַם חַטָּאת לְמַעְלָה, מַהוּ? מִשּׁוּם נוֹגֵעַ הוּא – וְהָא נוֹגֵעַ; אוֹ דִלְמָא מִשּׁוּם בָּלוּעַ הוּא – וְהָא לָא בָּלַע (הוּא)? הֲדַר פַּשְׁטַהּ, דְּאֵין טְעוּנִין כִּיבּוּס.

Rava asks: When the blood of a burnt offering is below and the blood of a sin offering is above, what is the halakha? Is one required to launder a garment to remove the blood of a sin offering because the blood touches his garment, and in this case, this blood is touching the garment? Or perhaps is one required to launder it because of the absorption of the blood into the garment, and, in this case, since the garment has already absorbed the other blood, this garment did not absorb the blood? Rava then resolves his dilemma, ruling that such garments do not require laundering.

אָמַר רָבָא: פְּשִׁיטָא לִי, דָּם עַל בִּגְדּוֹ – חוֹצֵץ, וְאִם טַבָּח הוּא – אֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ. רְבָב עַל בִּגְדּוֹ – חוֹצֵץ, וְאִם מוֹכֵר רְבָב הוּא – אֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ. בָּעֵי רָבָא: דָּם וּרְבָב עַל בִּגְדּוֹ, מַהוּ?

§ In a similar manner, with regard to the immersion of a garment that has become impure, Rava said: It is obvious to me that if there is blood on one’s garment, it interposes between the water of immersion and the garment, such that the immersion is ineffective. But if he is a butcher, used to having blood on his garments, a bloodstain does not interpose, and the immersion is effective, since a substance is not considered an interposition if the one immersing is not particular about it. Similarly, if there is a stain of fat [revav] on one’s garment, it interposes. But if he is a fat seller, such a stain does not interpose. Rava asks: If there is both blood and fat on one’s garment when he immerses it, what is the halakha?

אִם טַבָּח הוּא, תִּיפּוֹק לִי מִשּׁוּם רְבָב! וְאִי מוֹכֵר רְבָב הוּא, תִּיפּוֹק לִי מִשּׁוּם דָּם! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּעָבֵיד הָא וְהָא. אַחֲדָא לָא קָפֵיד, אַתַּרְתֵּי קָפֵיד; אוֹ דִּלְמָא אַתַּרְתֵּי נָמֵי לָא קָפֵיד? תֵּיקוּ.

The Gemara challenges the question: If he is a butcher, let me derive that the stain interposes due to the fat that he is not used to having on his garments; and conversely, if he is a fat seller, let me derive that the stain interposes due to the stain of blood that he is not used to having on his garments. The Gemara explains: No, this question is not superfluous; it is necessary with regard to a person who works both as this, a butcher, and as that, a fat seller. In such a case, the question is: Is it that he is not particular with regard to one stain, but he is particular with regard to two stains, so that the immersion is ineffective? Or, perhaps, is it that he is not particular even with regard to two stains, as neither is unusual for him? The Gemara provides no answer, and the question shall stand unresolved.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ דַּם חַטָּאת

מַתְנִי׳ טְבוּל יוֹם וּמְחוּסַּר כִּיפּוּרִים – אֵינָן חוֹלְקִין בַּקֳּדָשִׁים לֶאֱכוֹל לָעֶרֶב.

MISHNA: A priest who was ritually impure who immersed that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, and a priest who has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete the purification process, e.g., a zav and a leper who did not bring their requisite atonement offerings, who are not yet permitted to partake of sacrificial meat, do not receive a share of sacrificial meat along with the other members of the patrilineal priestly family serving in the Temple that day, in order to partake of it in the evening after the offerings were sacrificed, even though after nightfall he would be permitted to partake of the offerings.

אוֹנֵן – (אֵינוֹ) נוֹגֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מַקְרִיב, וְאֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק לֶאֱכוֹל לָעֶרֶב.

A priest who is an acute mourner, i.e., if one of his relatives for whom he is obligated to mourn died that day, is permitted to touch sacrificial meat, as he is not ritually impure. But he may not sacrifice offerings, and he does not receive a share of sacrificial meat in order to partake of it in the evening.

בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין, בֵּין בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין עוֹבְרִין בֵּין בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין קְבוּעִין – חוֹלְקִין וְאוֹכְלִין, אֲבָל לֹא מַקְרִיבִין.

Blemished priests, whether they are temporarily blemished or whether they are permanently blemished, receive a share and partake of the offerings with their priestly brethren, but do not sacrifice the offerings.

כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לַעֲבוֹדָה – אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק בַּבָּשָׂר. וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בַּבָּשָׂר – אֵין לוֹ בָּעוֹרוֹת.

The principle is: Any priest who is unfit for the service that specific day does not receive a share of the sacrificial meat, and anyone who has no share of the meat has no share in the hides of the animals, to which the priests are entitled as well.

אֲפִילּוּ טָמֵא בִּשְׁעַת זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, וְטָהוֹר בִּשְׁעַת הֶקְטֵר חֲלָבִים – אֵינוֹ חוֹלֵק בַּבָּשָׂר; שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הַמַּקְרִיב אֶת דַּם הַשְּׁלָמִים [וְאֶת הַחֵלֶב מִבְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן] – לוֹ (יִהְיֶה) [תִהְיֶה שׁוֹק הַיָּמִין לְמָנָה]״.

Even if the priest was ritually impure only at the time of the sprinkling of the blood of the offering and he was pure at the time of the burning of the fats of that offering, he still does not receive a share of the meat, as it is stated: “He that sacrifices the blood of the peace offerings and the fat, from among the sons of Aaron, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). One who cannot sprinkle the blood does not receive a share in the meat.