Cases are brought regarding a palgas (a lamb/ram aged one year and a month – exactly in between a lamb and a ram) and seor (in between unleavened and leavened dough) – are they cases of doubt or do they stand in their own independent category. Differences are brought between the red heifer and the heifer whose neck is broken.
Chullin 23
December 20, 2018 | י״ב בטבת תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Chullin 23
כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי נִרְבָּע וְנֶעֱבָד.
The Gemara rejects that proof: When the phrase in the verse “of doves or of young pigeons” was necessary, it was to exclude a bird that was the object of bestiality or a bird that was worshipped as a deity.
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״כִּי מׇשְׁחָתָם בָּהֶם מוּם בָּם״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הַשְׁחָתָה, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה; דְּבַר עֶרְוָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי הִשְׁחִית כׇּל בָּשָׂר אֶת דַּרְכּוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ״;
As it could enter your mind to say: Since it is written with regard to the halakhot of disqualified offerings: “Because their corruption [moshḥatam] is in them, there is a blemish in them” (Leviticus 22:25), referring to two types of disqualifications: Corruption and blemish, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that the term corruption [hashḥata] is stated, it is referring to nothing other than a matter of licentiousness and idol worship. The Gemara cites proofs for this claim: Corruption is referring to matters of licentiousness, as it is written: “For all flesh had corrupted [hishḥit] their way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12); the word “way” alludes to sexual intercourse.
עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״פֶּן תַּשְׁחִתוּן וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לָכֶם פֶּסֶל״, כֹּל שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בּוֹ – דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה פּוֹסְלִין בּוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בּוֹ – אֵין דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה פּוֹסְלִין בּוֹ. וְהָנֵי עוֹפוֹת, הוֹאִיל וְלָא פָּסֵיל בְּהוּ מוּמָא, דְּאָמַר מָר: תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בִּבְהֵמָה וְאֵין תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בְּעוֹפוֹת, אֵימָא דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נָמֵי לָא לִפְסוֹל בְּהוּ – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Corruption is also referring to idol worship, as it is written: “Lest you deal corruptly [tashḥitun], and make you a graven image” (Deuteronomy 4:16); one might have thought: Any type of offering that a blemish disqualifies, matters of licentiousness and idol worship disqualify it, and any type of offering that a blemish does not disqualify, matters of licentiousness and idol worship do not disqualify it. And with regard to these birds, since blemishes do not disqualify them, as the Master says: There is a requirement of an unblemished state and male gender in a sacrificial animal and there is no requirement of an unblemished state and male gender in sacrificial birds, say that matters of licentiousness and idol worship should also not disqualify the birds. Therefore, the tanna teaches us from the phrase in the verse “of doves or of young pigeons” that a bird that was the object of bestiality and a bird that was worshipped as a deity are disqualified.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה מִן הָאַיִל אוֹ מִן הַכֶּבֶשׂ״, וְהֵבִיא פַּלְגָּס, מַהוּ?
§ Apropos the discussion of the beginning of the yellowing of the neck plumage, the Gemara cites another matter where there is uncertainty as to whether an animal of a particular age is of uncertain status or an entity in and of itself. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an animal burnt offering of a ram, which is a sheep that is at least thirteen months old, or of a lamb, which is up to one year old, and he brought a palges, which is between one year and thirteen months old, what is the halakha?
אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּאָמַר בְּרִיָּה הָוֵי, דִּתְנַן: הִקְרִיבוֹ – מֵבִיא עָלָיו נִסְכֵּי אַיִל, וְאֵין עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִזִּבְחוֹ.
The Gemara elaborates: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, do not raise a dilemma, as he says that a palges is an entity in and of itself, as we learned in a mishna (Para 1:3): If one was obligated to bring a ram or lamb as an offering, and he sacrificed a palges, he brings with it the meal offering and the libations of a ram offering, namely, a meal offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mingled with four log of oil, and a libation of four log of wine, but it does not fulfill his obligation to bring his offering.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אוֹ לָאַיִל״, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַפַּלְגָּס.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the requirement to bring the meal offering and libations of a ram offering is derived from the verse in the portion of the libations: “Or for a ram, you shall prepare for a meal offering two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with one-third of a hin of oil” (Numbers 15:6); that serves to include the palges, whose meal offering and libations are like that of a ram. Based on that derivation, there is no uncertainty with regard to the status of the palges.
כִּי תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּבַר פְּדָא,
When you raise a dilemma, it is according to the opinion of bar Padda, who holds that it is a case of uncertainty,
דְּאָמַר מַיְיתֵי וּמַתְנֵי.
as he says that one who sacrifices a palges brings the meal offering and the libation of a ram and stipulates: If it is a ram, this is its meal offering and libation, and if it is a lamb, whose meal offering and libation are less than that of the ram, then the remainder will be a gift offering.
מִי אָמְרִינַן: אַיִל וָכֶבֶשׂ מַתְנֵה, בִּבְרִיָּה לָא מַתְנֵה, אוֹ דִלְמָא בִּבְרִיָּה נָמֵי מַתְנֵה, דְּאָמַר: אִי בְּרִיָּה הָוֵה – לֶיהֱוֵי כּוּלֵּיהּ נְדָבָה? תֵּיקוּ.
The dilemma is: Do we say that he stipulates only if it is a ram or if it is a lamb, but he does not stipulate the possibility that it is an entity in and of itself, as bar Padda does not accept such a possibility? If so, bar Padda holds that one who vowed to bring a ram or a lamb can fulfill his obligation by bringing a palges and stipulating accordingly. Or perhaps bar Padda holds that he also stipulates the possibility that it is an entity in and of itself, and in that case he says: If it is an entity, let the entire libation be a gift offering. According to that possibility, even according to bar Padda, if one vowed to bring a ram or a lamb and brought a palges, due to the uncertainty he does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה מִן הֶחָמֵץ אוֹ מִן הַמַּצָּה״, וְהֵבִיא שִׂיאוּר, מַהוּ?
§ The concept of an entity in and of itself is mentioned with regard to a thanks offering, with which one must bring twenty tenths of an ephah for the accompanying loaves: Ten tenths of an ephah for matza and ten for leavened bread. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering of leavened bread or of matza, and he brought leavening dough [siur], what is the halakha?
שִׂיאוּר דְּמַאן? אִי שִׂיאוּר דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר – לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַצָּה מְעַלַּיְיתָא הִיא.
The Gemara asks: Siur according to whose opinion? If the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Meir, who says that it is dough at the stage when its surface pales, according to Rabbi Yehuda it is not leavened bread at all; it is full-fledged matza and one fulfills his vow to bring matza.
אִי דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – חָמֵץ הוּא.
If the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is dough at the stage when it has cracks that look like the antennae of locusts and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Meir holds that it is full-fledged leavened bread, and one fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread.
וְאִי דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מִדְּלָקֵי עֲלֵיהּ – חָמֵץ הוּא.
And if the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Meir and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, although one is not liable to receive karet for eating it on Passover, from the halakha that one is flogged for eating it on Passover it is clearly leavened bread, with which one fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread.
אֶלָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מַאי? סְפֵיקָא הָוֵי, וְנָפֵיק מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ, אוֹ דִלְמָא בְּרִיָּה הוּא, וְלָא נָפֵיק?
Rather, the dilemma is with regard to the siur of Rabbi Yehuda and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that although one is obligated to destroy it before Passover, one is not liable to receive lashes for eating it on Passover. It is unclear whether this is due to uncertainty or due to siur having a unique status. Therefore, Rabbi Zeira raises the dilemma: What is its status? Is it a case of uncertainty, and consequently one who vowed to bring loaves of matza or leavened bread and brings siur fulfills his obligation whichever way you look at it, because if it is matza, he fulfills his vow to bring matza, and if it is leavened bread, he fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread? Or perhaps siur is an entity in and of itself, neither matza nor leavened bread, and he does not fulfill his obligation at all.
וְהָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה״ – מֵבִיא תּוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ, וְכֵיוָן דְּאִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ בְּתוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ, הָא לָא יָדַע הַאי גַּבְרָא אִי חָמֵץ הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי מַצָּה, אִי מַצָּה הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי חָמֵץ!
The Gemara asks: Even if it is a case of uncertainty, how can a person fulfill his vow with that siur? But doesn’t Rav Huna say that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering, is obligated to bring a thanks offering and all its loaves, twenty tenths of an ephah, ten for matza and ten for leavened bread? And since he is obligated to bring a thanks offering and all its loaves, but this man does not know whether the siur that he brought is leavened bread so that he will bring matza, or whether the siur that he brought is matza so that he will bring leavened bread, so how can he fulfill his vow? In any case, the only way that he could fulfill his vow would be to bring an additional twenty tenths of an ephah.
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי חַלָּה לִפְטוֹר תּוֹדָתוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״.
The Gemara answers: No, the dilemma of Rabbi Zeira is necessary only in a case where one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring the loaf element of the thanks offering to exempt the thanks offering of so-and-so from the obligation to bring loaves, as in that case he can fulfill his vow because he did not obligate himself to bring a thanks offering.
סוֹף סוֹף הָא לָא יָדַע הַאי גַּבְרָא, אִי חָמֵץ הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי מַצָּה, אִי מַצָּה הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי חָמֵץ! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּלָא אָמַר ״לִפְטוֹר״, מִיפָּק גַּבְרָא יְדֵי נִדְרוֹ נָפֵיק אוֹ לָא נָפֵיק? תֵּיקוּ.
The Gemara objects: Ultimately, this man who brings the thanks offering does not know whether the siur that the other contributed is leavened bread so that he will bring matza, or whether the siur that the other contributed is matza so that he will bring leavened bread. Therefore, the man bringing the thanks offering must bring both matza and unleavened bread in addition to the siur, and the one who vowed has then not exempted him from any obligation by contributing the siur. The Gemara responds: No, the dilemma of Rabbi Zeira is necessary only in a case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of leavened bread or matza for the thanks offering of so-and-so, but did not say: To exempt his thanks offering. In that case, he is not obligated to fulfill the other’s obligation, and the dilemma is: Does the man fulfill his vow by bringing the loaves of siur or does he not fulfill his vow? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
מַתְנִי׳ כָּשֵׁר בַּפָּרָה – פָּסוּל בָּעֶגְלָה, כָּשֵׁר בָּעֶגְלָה – פָּסוּל בַּפָּרָה.
MISHNA: That which is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken; that which is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פָּרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה, בַּעֲרִיפָה פְּסוּלָה; עֶגְלָה בַּעֲרִיפָה כְּשֵׁרָה, בִּשְׁחִיטָה פְּסוּלָה; (נמצאת) [נִמְצָא] כָּשֵׁר בַּפָּרָה – פָּסוּל בָּעֶגְלָה, כָּשֵׁר בָּעֶגְלָה – פָּסוּל בַּפָּרָה.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita in explanation of the mishna: With regard to the red heifer, with slaughter it is fit; with breaking the neck it is unfit. With regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, with breaking the neck it is fit; with slaughter it is unfit. Consequently, that which is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken; that which is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer.
וּתְהֵא פָּרָה כְּשֵׁרָה בַּעֲרִיפָה מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה עֶגְלָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה – הוּכְשְׁרָה בַּעֲרִיפָה, פָּרָה שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה – אֵינָהּ דִּין שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרָה בַּעֲרִיפָה?
The Gemara asks: And let it be derived that the red heifer is fit with breaking the neck by means of an a fortiori inference: If a heifer whose neck is broken, which is not rendered fit with slaughter, is rendered fit with breaking the neck, then with regard to a red heifer, which is rendered fit with slaughter, isn’t it logical that it is rendered fit with breaking the neck?
Follow 
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.
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Denise Neapolitan
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
Miriam Tannenbaum
אפרת, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Miriam Pollack
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Julie Mendelsohn
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Shoshana Ruerup
Berlin, Germany
The start of my journey is not so exceptional. I was between jobs and wanted to be sure to get out every day (this was before corona). Well, I was hooked after about a month and from then on only looked for work-from-home jobs so I could continue learning the Daf. Daf has been a constant in my life, though hurricanes, death, illness/injury, weddings. My new friends are Rav, Shmuel, Ruth, Joanna.
Judi Felber
Raanana, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
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.
Medinah Korn
בית שמש, 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!
Anne Mirsky
Maale Adumim, Israel
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Sara Averick
Jerusalem, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, 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!
Batsheva Pava
Hashmonaim, Israel
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
I learned Talmud as a student in Yeshivat Ramaz and felt at the time that Talmud wasn’t for me. After reading Ilana Kurshan’s book I was intrigued and after watching the great siyum in Yerushalayim it ignited the spark to begin this journey. It has been a transformative life experience for me as a wife, mother, Savta and member of Klal Yisrael.
Elana Storch
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Deborah Dickson
Ra’anana, Israel
Chullin 23
כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ קְרָא לְמַעוֹטֵי נִרְבָּע וְנֶעֱבָד.
The Gemara rejects that proof: When the phrase in the verse “of doves or of young pigeons” was necessary, it was to exclude a bird that was the object of bestiality or a bird that was worshipped as a deity.
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב ״כִּי מׇשְׁחָתָם בָּהֶם מוּם בָּם״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר הַשְׁחָתָה, אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה; דְּבַר עֶרְוָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״כִּי הִשְׁחִית כׇּל בָּשָׂר אֶת דַּרְכּוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ״;
As it could enter your mind to say: Since it is written with regard to the halakhot of disqualified offerings: “Because their corruption [moshḥatam] is in them, there is a blemish in them” (Leviticus 22:25), referring to two types of disqualifications: Corruption and blemish, and the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: Anywhere that the term corruption [hashḥata] is stated, it is referring to nothing other than a matter of licentiousness and idol worship. The Gemara cites proofs for this claim: Corruption is referring to matters of licentiousness, as it is written: “For all flesh had corrupted [hishḥit] their way upon the earth” (Genesis 6:12); the word “way” alludes to sexual intercourse.
עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, דִּכְתִיב: ״פֶּן תַּשְׁחִתוּן וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לָכֶם פֶּסֶל״, כֹּל שֶׁהַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בּוֹ – דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה פּוֹסְלִין בּוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין הַמּוּם פּוֹסֵל בּוֹ – אֵין דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה פּוֹסְלִין בּוֹ. וְהָנֵי עוֹפוֹת, הוֹאִיל וְלָא פָּסֵיל בְּהוּ מוּמָא, דְּאָמַר מָר: תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בִּבְהֵמָה וְאֵין תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בְּעוֹפוֹת, אֵימָא דְּבַר עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נָמֵי לָא לִפְסוֹל בְּהוּ – קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Corruption is also referring to idol worship, as it is written: “Lest you deal corruptly [tashḥitun], and make you a graven image” (Deuteronomy 4:16); one might have thought: Any type of offering that a blemish disqualifies, matters of licentiousness and idol worship disqualify it, and any type of offering that a blemish does not disqualify, matters of licentiousness and idol worship do not disqualify it. And with regard to these birds, since blemishes do not disqualify them, as the Master says: There is a requirement of an unblemished state and male gender in a sacrificial animal and there is no requirement of an unblemished state and male gender in sacrificial birds, say that matters of licentiousness and idol worship should also not disqualify the birds. Therefore, the tanna teaches us from the phrase in the verse “of doves or of young pigeons” that a bird that was the object of bestiality and a bird that was worshipped as a deity are disqualified.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה מִן הָאַיִל אוֹ מִן הַכֶּבֶשׂ״, וְהֵבִיא פַּלְגָּס, מַהוּ?
§ Apropos the discussion of the beginning of the yellowing of the neck plumage, the Gemara cites another matter where there is uncertainty as to whether an animal of a particular age is of uncertain status or an entity in and of itself. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an animal burnt offering of a ram, which is a sheep that is at least thirteen months old, or of a lamb, which is up to one year old, and he brought a palges, which is between one year and thirteen months old, what is the halakha?
אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לָא תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ, דְּאָמַר בְּרִיָּה הָוֵי, דִּתְנַן: הִקְרִיבוֹ – מֵבִיא עָלָיו נִסְכֵּי אַיִל, וְאֵין עוֹלֶה לוֹ מִזִּבְחוֹ.
The Gemara elaborates: According to the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, do not raise a dilemma, as he says that a palges is an entity in and of itself, as we learned in a mishna (Para 1:3): If one was obligated to bring a ram or lamb as an offering, and he sacrificed a palges, he brings with it the meal offering and the libations of a ram offering, namely, a meal offering of two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mingled with four log of oil, and a libation of four log of wine, but it does not fulfill his obligation to bring his offering.
וְאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: ״אוֹ לָאַיִל״, לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַפַּלְגָּס.
And Rabbi Yoḥanan says that the requirement to bring the meal offering and libations of a ram offering is derived from the verse in the portion of the libations: “Or for a ram, you shall prepare for a meal offering two-tenths of an ephah of fine flour mixed with one-third of a hin of oil” (Numbers 15:6); that serves to include the palges, whose meal offering and libations are like that of a ram. Based on that derivation, there is no uncertainty with regard to the status of the palges.
כִּי תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ אַלִּיבָּא דְּבַר פְּדָא,
When you raise a dilemma, it is according to the opinion of bar Padda, who holds that it is a case of uncertainty,
דְּאָמַר מַיְיתֵי וּמַתְנֵי.
as he says that one who sacrifices a palges brings the meal offering and the libation of a ram and stipulates: If it is a ram, this is its meal offering and libation, and if it is a lamb, whose meal offering and libation are less than that of the ram, then the remainder will be a gift offering.
מִי אָמְרִינַן: אַיִל וָכֶבֶשׂ מַתְנֵה, בִּבְרִיָּה לָא מַתְנֵה, אוֹ דִלְמָא בִּבְרִיָּה נָמֵי מַתְנֵה, דְּאָמַר: אִי בְּרִיָּה הָוֵה – לֶיהֱוֵי כּוּלֵּיהּ נְדָבָה? תֵּיקוּ.
The dilemma is: Do we say that he stipulates only if it is a ram or if it is a lamb, but he does not stipulate the possibility that it is an entity in and of itself, as bar Padda does not accept such a possibility? If so, bar Padda holds that one who vowed to bring a ram or a lamb can fulfill his obligation by bringing a palges and stipulating accordingly. Or perhaps bar Padda holds that he also stipulates the possibility that it is an entity in and of itself, and in that case he says: If it is an entity, let the entire libation be a gift offering. According to that possibility, even according to bar Padda, if one vowed to bring a ram or a lamb and brought a palges, due to the uncertainty he does not fulfill his obligation. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי זֵירָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה מִן הֶחָמֵץ אוֹ מִן הַמַּצָּה״, וְהֵבִיא שִׂיאוּר, מַהוּ?
§ The concept of an entity in and of itself is mentioned with regard to a thanks offering, with which one must bring twenty tenths of an ephah for the accompanying loaves: Ten tenths of an ephah for matza and ten for leavened bread. Rabbi Zeira raises a dilemma: With regard to one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering of leavened bread or of matza, and he brought leavening dough [siur], what is the halakha?
שִׂיאוּר דְּמַאן? אִי שִׂיאוּר דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר – לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַצָּה מְעַלַּיְיתָא הִיא.
The Gemara asks: Siur according to whose opinion? If the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Meir, who says that it is dough at the stage when its surface pales, according to Rabbi Yehuda it is not leavened bread at all; it is full-fledged matza and one fulfills his vow to bring matza.
אִי דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר – חָמֵץ הוּא.
If the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that it is dough at the stage when it has cracks that look like the antennae of locusts and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, Rabbi Meir holds that it is full-fledged leavened bread, and one fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread.
וְאִי דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, מִדְּלָקֵי עֲלֵיהּ – חָמֵץ הוּא.
And if the reference is to the siur of Rabbi Meir and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, although one is not liable to receive karet for eating it on Passover, from the halakha that one is flogged for eating it on Passover it is clearly leavened bread, with which one fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread.
אֶלָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה, מַאי? סְפֵיקָא הָוֵי, וְנָפֵיק מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ, אוֹ דִלְמָא בְּרִיָּה הוּא, וְלָא נָפֵיק?
Rather, the dilemma is with regard to the siur of Rabbi Yehuda and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that although one is obligated to destroy it before Passover, one is not liable to receive lashes for eating it on Passover. It is unclear whether this is due to uncertainty or due to siur having a unique status. Therefore, Rabbi Zeira raises the dilemma: What is its status? Is it a case of uncertainty, and consequently one who vowed to bring loaves of matza or leavened bread and brings siur fulfills his obligation whichever way you look at it, because if it is matza, he fulfills his vow to bring matza, and if it is leavened bread, he fulfills his vow to bring leavened bread? Or perhaps siur is an entity in and of itself, neither matza nor leavened bread, and he does not fulfill his obligation at all.
וְהָאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: הָאוֹמֵר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי לַחְמֵי תוֹדָה״ – מֵבִיא תּוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ, וְכֵיוָן דְּאִיחַיַּיב לֵיהּ בְּתוֹדָה וְלַחְמָהּ, הָא לָא יָדַע הַאי גַּבְרָא אִי חָמֵץ הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי מַצָּה, אִי מַצָּה הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי חָמֵץ!
The Gemara asks: Even if it is a case of uncertainty, how can a person fulfill his vow with that siur? But doesn’t Rav Huna say that one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of a thanks offering, is obligated to bring a thanks offering and all its loaves, twenty tenths of an ephah, ten for matza and ten for leavened bread? And since he is obligated to bring a thanks offering and all its loaves, but this man does not know whether the siur that he brought is leavened bread so that he will bring matza, or whether the siur that he brought is matza so that he will bring leavened bread, so how can he fulfill his vow? In any case, the only way that he could fulfill his vow would be to bring an additional twenty tenths of an ephah.
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי חַלָּה לִפְטוֹר תּוֹדָתוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי״.
The Gemara answers: No, the dilemma of Rabbi Zeira is necessary only in a case where one said: It is incumbent upon me to bring the loaf element of the thanks offering to exempt the thanks offering of so-and-so from the obligation to bring loaves, as in that case he can fulfill his vow because he did not obligate himself to bring a thanks offering.
סוֹף סוֹף הָא לָא יָדַע הַאי גַּבְרָא, אִי חָמֵץ הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי מַצָּה, אִי מַצָּה הוּא דְּלַיְתֵי חָמֵץ! לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּלָא אָמַר ״לִפְטוֹר״, מִיפָּק גַּבְרָא יְדֵי נִדְרוֹ נָפֵיק אוֹ לָא נָפֵיק? תֵּיקוּ.
The Gemara objects: Ultimately, this man who brings the thanks offering does not know whether the siur that the other contributed is leavened bread so that he will bring matza, or whether the siur that the other contributed is matza so that he will bring leavened bread. Therefore, the man bringing the thanks offering must bring both matza and unleavened bread in addition to the siur, and the one who vowed has then not exempted him from any obligation by contributing the siur. The Gemara responds: No, the dilemma of Rabbi Zeira is necessary only in a case where he said: It is incumbent upon me to bring loaves of leavened bread or matza for the thanks offering of so-and-so, but did not say: To exempt his thanks offering. In that case, he is not obligated to fulfill the other’s obligation, and the dilemma is: Does the man fulfill his vow by bringing the loaves of siur or does he not fulfill his vow? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma shall stand unresolved.
מַתְנִי׳ כָּשֵׁר בַּפָּרָה – פָּסוּל בָּעֶגְלָה, כָּשֵׁר בָּעֶגְלָה – פָּסוּל בַּפָּרָה.
MISHNA: That which is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken; that which is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: פָּרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה כְּשֵׁרָה, בַּעֲרִיפָה פְּסוּלָה; עֶגְלָה בַּעֲרִיפָה כְּשֵׁרָה, בִּשְׁחִיטָה פְּסוּלָה; (נמצאת) [נִמְצָא] כָּשֵׁר בַּפָּרָה – פָּסוּל בָּעֶגְלָה, כָּשֵׁר בָּעֶגְלָה – פָּסוּל בַּפָּרָה.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita in explanation of the mishna: With regard to the red heifer, with slaughter it is fit; with breaking the neck it is unfit. With regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, with breaking the neck it is fit; with slaughter it is unfit. Consequently, that which is fit in a red heifer is unfit in a heifer whose neck is broken; that which is fit in a heifer whose neck is broken is unfit in a red heifer.
וּתְהֵא פָּרָה כְּשֵׁרָה בַּעֲרִיפָה מִקַּל וְחוֹמֶר: וּמָה עֶגְלָה שֶׁלֹּא הוּכְשְׁרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה – הוּכְשְׁרָה בַּעֲרִיפָה, פָּרָה שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרָה בִּשְׁחִיטָה – אֵינָהּ דִּין שֶׁהוּכְשְׁרָה בַּעֲרִיפָה?
The Gemara asks: And let it be derived that the red heifer is fit with breaking the neck by means of an a fortiori inference: If a heifer whose neck is broken, which is not rendered fit with slaughter, is rendered fit with breaking the neck, then with regard to a red heifer, which is rendered fit with slaughter, isn’t it logical that it is rendered fit with breaking the neck?
Follow
