What happens to each type of sacrifice at each stage regarding meilah and other issues? Is the law regarding removing the ashes from the pile on top of the altar considered the final mitzva of the sacrifice or just part of upkeep of the altar? One who benefits (meilah) from sactified items, what is done with the money that is paid back to the temple? There is a debate regarding this issue.
Meilah 9
09.26.2019 | כ״ו באלול תשע״ט
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Meilah 9
וְהָתַנְיָא: ״מִסׇּלְתָּהּ וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ עַל כׇּל לְבֹנָתָהּ״ – פְּרָט שֶׁחָסְרָה סׇלְתָּהּ וְחָסְרָה שַׁמְנָהּ וְחָסְרָה לְבוֹנָתָהּ!
but isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons the priests; and he shall remove his handful of its fine flour, and of its oil, together with all its frankincense; and the priest shall make its memorial part smoke upon the altar, an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:2)? This verse excludes those situations where some of its flour was missing, or some of its oil was missing, or some of its frankincense was missing, in which case the priest may not place the meal offering on the fire. This indicates that one must ensure that some of the flour, oil, and frankincense remain.
אָמְרִי: הָתָם כְּתִיב ״וְהַנּוֹתֶרֶת״, קְרָא יַתִּירָא כְּתִיב.
The Sages said in response to the difficulty of Rav Aḥa, son of Rava: In general, the terms “remainder” or “leftover” refer to a situation where there happened to be some of the item remaining. Yet, the case of the meal offering is unique, as there it is written: “But that which is left of the meal offering shall be Aaron’s and his sons’; it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fire” (Leviticus 2:3). This part of the verse is superfluous, as it appears in Leviticus 2:10 as well. It is therefore derived from the repetition of this phrase that in the specific case of a meal offering one must ensure that some of the items remain. This requirement does not apply to a bird sin offering.
מֵתִיב אֲבוּהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל לְרַב הוּנָא: אֶחָד חַטַּאת הָעוֹף וְאֶחָד עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁמְּלָקָן וּמִיצָּה דָּמָן חוּץ לִמְקוֹמָן – פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָּרֵת. חוּץ לִזְמַנָּן – פִּיגּוּל וְחַיָּיבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. קָתָנֵי מִיהַת מִיצָּה דָּמָן!
Shmuel’s father raises an objection to Rav Huna from a mishna (Zevaḥim 64b): With regard to both a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering, where the priest pinched their nape or squeezed out their blood with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is to partake of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is to burn it on the altar, outside its designated area, the offering is not valid, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering. If his intent was to eat it or burn it beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the offering, provided that the permitting factor, the blood, was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva. In any event, this mishna teaches: Squeezed out their blood, indicating that failure to squeeze out the blood disqualifies the offering.
הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ: לִצְדָדִין קָתָנֵי.
Shmuel’s father raises the objection and he resolves it himself. The tanna of that mishna teaches it disjunctively. In other words, the two clauses of the mishna are referring to two different cases. The halakha of pinching the nape of the neck applies to both the bird sin offering and the bird burnt offering. By contrast, the squeezing out of the blood applies only to a bird burnt offering, whose blood is not sprinkled on the altar. For this reason, the priest’s intent at the time of squeezing out the blood is significant. In the case of a bird sin offering, it is only an intent at the time of sprinkling that invalidates the offering.
גּוּפָא, תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: שֶׁאִם נִשְׁאַר בַּדָּם.
The Gemara returns to the matter itself, i.e., the baraita cited above: The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that if any of the blood remains inside the bird it must be squeezed out, but there is no requirement to ensure that blood remains for this purpose. Consequently, even if one does not squeeze out the blood on the side of the altar, the offering is valid.
וְהָא תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הָתָם: שִׁירַיִים מְעַכְּבִין, וְאָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מִיצּוּי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ! תְּרֵי תַנָּאֵי, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
The Gemara asks: But the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught there, on Zevaḥim 52a, that failure with regard to the remainder of the blood invalidates the offering, and Rav Pappa said: Both Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva agree that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base does not invalidate the offering. The practical difference between them is whether or not failure to squeeze out the blood from a bird sin offering after sprinkling the blood invalidates the offering. The school of Rabbi Yishmael rules that it does invalidate the offering, and Rabbi Akiva maintains that it does not invalidate the offering. The Gemara answers: There are two tanna’im and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.
מַתְנִי׳ עוֹלַת הָעוֹף – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשָׁה. נִמְלְקָה – הוּכְשְׁרָה לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וּבְלִינָה. מִיצָה דָּמָהּ – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא. וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא לְבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן.
MISHNA: One is liable for misusing a bird burnt offering from the moment that it was consecrated. When the nape of its neck was pinched, it was rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed in a ritual bath that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. Once its blood was squeezed out, one is liable to receive karet for eating it, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. And as it may not be eaten, one is liable for its misuse until it leaves to the place of the ashes, where it is burned.
פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים, וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשׁוּ. נִשְׁחֲטוּ – הוּכְשְׁרוּ לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וּבְלִינָה. הוּזָּה דָּמָן – חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן בְּבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן עַד שֶׁיַּתִּיךְ הַבָּשָׂר.
One is liable for misuse of bulls that are burned and goats that are burned from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they were slaughtered, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. Once its blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating it, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. And one is liable for its misuse even when it is in the place of the ashes, until the flesh has been completely scorched.
הָעוֹלָה – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשָׁה. נִשְׁחֲטָה – הוּכְשְׁרָה לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וּבְלִינָה. מִשֶּׁנִּזְרַק דָּמָהּ – חַיָּיבִין עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא. וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּעוֹרוֹת, אֲבָל מוֹעֲלִין בַּבָּשָׂר עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא לְבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן.
One is liable for misuse of the burnt offering from the moment that it was consecrated. Once it was slaughtered it was rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. Once its blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating it, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. And one is not liable for misuse of the hides, but one is liable for misuse of the flesh until it leaves to the place of the ashes.
חַטָּאת, וְאָשָׁם, וְזִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשׁוּ. נִשְׁחֲטוּ – הוּכְשְׁרוּ לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וּבְלִינָה. נִזְרַק דָּמָן – חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא. אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בַּבָּשָׂר, אֲבָל מוֹעֲלִין בְּאֵימוּרֵיהֶן עַד שֶׁיֵּצְאוּ לְבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן.
One is liable for misuse of a sin offering, and a guilt offering, and communal peace offerings from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they were slaughtered they were rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. Once their blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating them, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. One is not liable for misuse of the flesh, but one is liable for misuse of their sacrificial portions, i.e., the portions that are to be consumed on the altar, until they leave to the place of the ashes.
שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשׁוּ. קָרְמוּ בַּתַּנּוּר – הוּכְשְׁרוּ לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וּבְלִינָה, וְלִישְׁחוֹט עֲלֵיהֶן אֶת הַזֶּבַח. נִזְרַק דָּמָן שֶׁל כְּבָשִׂים – חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא, וְאֵין בָּהֶן מְעִילָה.
One is liable for misuse of the two loaves brought on the festival of Shavuot from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they formed a crust, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through it being left overnight, and they are rendered eligible to slaughter with them the accompanying offering of the two lambs. Once the blood of the lambs is sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating the loaves, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure. And they are not subject to the halakhot of misuse, as at that point their consumption is permitted.
לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים – מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשָׁה. קָרַם בַּתַּנּוּר – הוּכְשַׁר לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וּלְהִסָּדֵר עַל גַּבֵּי הַשּׁוּלְחָן.
One is liable for misuse of the shewbread, which is arranged on the Golden Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, from the moment that it was consecrated. Once it formed a crust in the oven it assumes the status of bread and its halakhic status is like that of offerings of the most sacred order after the animal was slaughtered, in that it was rendered susceptible to disqualification through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and it is rendered eligible for arrangement upon the Table in the Sanctuary.
קָרְבוּ הַבָּזִיכִּין – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא, וְאֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה.
Once the bowls of frankincense brought with the shewbread of the previous week were sacrificed, one is liable to receive karet for eating the loaves due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure. But it is not subject to the halakhot of misuse, as at that point its consumption is permitted.
הַמְּנָחוֹת – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשׁוּ. קָדְשׁוּ בִּכְלִי – הוּכְשְׁרוּ לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם, וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּפּוּרִים, וּבְלִינָה.
One is liable for misuse of the meal offerings from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they were consecrated through placement of the flour in a service vessel, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight.
קָרַב הַקּוֹמֶץ – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, נוֹתָר, וְטָמֵא. וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בַּשִּׁירַיִם, אֲבָל מוֹעֲלִין בַּקּוֹמֶץ עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא לְבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן.
Once the handful taken from the meal offering was sacrificed, one is liable to receive karet for eating the meal offering due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure. And one is not liable for misuse of the remainder of the meal offering, which is eaten by the priests, but one is liable for misuse of the handful that is sacrificed, until it leaves to the place of the ashes.
גְּמָ׳ אִיתְּמַר, הַנֶּהֱנֶה מֵאֵפֶר תַּפּוּחַ שֶׁעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, רַב אָמַר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ.
GEMARA: It was stated that there is a dispute between amora’im with regard to one who derives benefit from the ash of the round heap that is on top of the altar. Rav says: One who derives benefit from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property.
לִפְנֵי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי דְּמוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ. כִּי פְּלִיגִי – לְאַחַר תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן.
The Gemara clarifies this dispute: Before the removal of the ashes, everyone agrees that one who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property. The reason is that the mitzva of the removal of the ashes has not yet been completed. When they disagree it is with regard to the halakha after the removal of the ashes, at which point the mitzva has been completed.
רַב אָמַר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ – הֲרֵי נַעֲשָׂה מִצְוָתוֹ. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלָבַשׁ הַכֹּהֵן מִדּוֹ בַד וְגוֹ׳״ – כֵּיוָן דִּצְרִיךְ לְבִגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה, בִּקְדוּשְּׁתֵיהּ קָאֵי.
Rav says that one who derives benefit from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, as its mitzva has been performed and completed. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says that one is liable for misuse, since it is written: “And the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the ashes to where the fire has consumed the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. And he shall remove his garments, and don other garments, and carry forth the ashes outside the camp” (Leviticus 6:3–4). Rabbi Yoḥanan explains: Since taking the ashes outside the Temple also requires the priestly vestments, albeit garments of lesser quality than those used to remove the ashes from the altar, evidently the ash remains in its consecrated state.
תְּנַן: מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁתֵּצֵא לְבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן, קַשְׁיָא לְרַב! אָמַר לְךָ רַב: עַד שֶׁתֵּרָאֶה לְבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן.
The Gemara raises a difficulty against the opinion of Rav. We learned in the mishna, with regard to the bird burnt offering: One is liable for its misuse until it leaves to the place of the ashes, where it is burned. This indicates that the halakhot of misuse apply while the ashes remain on the altar, even after the removal of ashes, which is difficult for the opinion of Rav. The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: The mishna means that one is liable until the ash is fit to be taken out to the place of ashes, i.e., once it is burned on the altar and has had a shovel of ashes removed from it.
מֵיתִיבִי: וְכוּלָּן, שֶׁפָּקְעוּ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לֹא יַחֲזִיר, וְכֵן גַּחֶלֶת שֶׁפָּקְעָה מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לֹא יַחֲזִיר. הָא עַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – יַחֲזִיר.
The Gemara raises an objection to Rav’s explanation from a mishna (Zevaḥim 86a): And all of those unfit offerings, with regard to which it was taught that if they ascended to the altar they do not descend, in a case where they were dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore them to the altar. And likewise, with regard to an ember that was dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore it to the altar. It can be inferred from the mishna that if the ember was still on the altar, then the priest must restore it.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, נִיחָא, אֶלָּא לְרַב, קַשְׁיָא! אָמַר לְךָ רַב: שָׁאנֵי גַּחֶלֶת, דְּאִית בַּיהּ מְשָׁשָׁא.
The Gemara explains the objection: Granted, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan this works out well, as he maintains that even after the shovelful of ashes has been removed, an ember on the pile of ashes still retains its sanctity. But according to Rav this is difficult. The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: An ember is different, as it has substance [meshasha] and is therefore still fit to be burned on the altar.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמַר לַהּ לְהָךְ גִּיסָא: טַעְמָא מִשּׁוּם גַּחֶלֶת, דְּאִית בַּיהּ מְשָׁשָׁא, הָא אֵפֶר דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ מְשָׁשָׁא, אֲפִילּוּ לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב, נִיחָא, אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, קַשְׁיָא!
There is a Sage who stated this objection in the opposite manner: The mishna indicates that the reason that the priest must return it to the altar is because it is an ember, and that it has substance. It can be inferred from this that one who derives benefit from ash, which does not have substance, is not liable for misuse of consecrated property even when it is on the top of the altar. Granted, according to Rav this works out well, but according to Rabbi Yoḥanan it is difficult.
אָמַר לָךְ רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ אֵפֶר, וְהַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּקָתָנֵי גַּחֶלֶת – קָאָתֵי לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן דַּאֲפִילּוּ גַּחֶלֶת, דְּאִית בַּהּ מְשָׁשָׁא, כִּי פָּקְעָה מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לֹא יַחֲזִיר.
The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥanan could have said to you: The same is true that even ash that was dislodged must be returned. And this is the reason that the mishna teaches an ember, and not ash: It is coming to teach us that even in the case of an ember, which has substance, if it is dislodged from upon the altar the priest does not return it.
אִיתְּמַר: הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִבְּשַׂר קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, וְאֵמוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לְאַחַר זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, רַב אָמַר: מַה שֶׁנֶּהֱנָה – יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. וְלֵוִי אָמַר: יָבִיא דָּבָר שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
§ One of the halakhot of misuse is that the violator must pay the value of the benefit he derived and add an extra one-fifth. It was stated that there is a dispute between amora’im with regard to this money: In the case of one who derives benefit from meat of an offering of the most sacred order before the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, or who derives benefit from sacrificial portions, such as the fats of offerings of lesser sanctity, after the sprinkling of the blood, Rav says: The value of that benefit which he derived is allocated for communal gift offerings, and Levi says: One must bring an item that is entirely consumed on the altar, e.g., incense. One does not bring a burnt offering with this money, as the hide of a burnt offering belongs to the priests.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּלֵוִי: מְעִילָה זוֹ לְהֵיכָן הוֹלֶכֶת? הַלְּמֵידִין לִפְנֵי חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: יָבִיא דָּבָר שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. מַאי נִיהוּ? קְטֹרֶת.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Levi: This money paid for misuse of consecrated items, to where does it go? The Rabbis who are called: Those who learn before the Sages, say: One must bring an item that is entirely consumed on the altar, and what is that? Incense, which is burned on the altar in its entirety.
תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַב: הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִדְּמֵי חַטָּאת וּמִדְּמֵי אָשָׁם, עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרְבָה חַטָּאתוֹ – יוֹסִיף וְיָבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ. וְעַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרְבָה אֲשָׁמוֹ – יוֹסִיף וְיָבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ. קָרַב חַטָּאתוֹ – יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. כְּבָר קָרַב אֲשָׁמוֹ – יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה.
It is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: In the case of one who derives benefit from money set aside for the purchase of a sin offering or set aside as money set aside for the purchase of a guilt offering, if he pays before his sin offering is sacrificed he must add the amount of the benefit he derived and an additional fifth and bring with that money a more expensive animal as his sin offering. And likewise, if he pays before his guilt offering is sacrificed, he must add the amount of the benefit he derived and an additional fifth and bring with that money a more expensive animal as his guilt offering. If his sin offering has already been sacrificed, the money is cast into the Dead Sea. If his guilt offering has already been sacrificed, the money is allocated for communal gift offerings.
הַנֶּהֱנֶה מִקׇּדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמִים, וְאֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לְאַחַר זְרִיקַת דָּמִים – מַה שֶּׁנֶּהֱנָה יִפְּלוּ לִנְדָבָה. כׇּל קׇרְבְּנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לַמִּזְבֵּחַ. קׇרְבְּנוֹת קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת – לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. קׇרְבְּנוֹת צִבּוּר – לְנִדְבַת צִבּוּר.
The baraita continues: One who derives benefit from meat of an offering of the most sacred order before the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, or if he derives benefit from sacrificial portions, such as the fats of offerings of lesser sanctity, after the sprinkling of the blood, the value of that benefit which he derived is allocated for communal gift offerings. The baraita summarizes: The reimbursement for misuse of all offerings which are sacrificed on the altar is used to purchase items for the altar, whereas the reimbursement for misuse of all offerings which are consecrated for Temple maintenance is donated to Temple maintenance. And the reimbursement for misuse of all communal offerings is allocated for communal gift offerings.
הָא גּוּפַהּ קַשְׁיָא, עַד שֶׁלֹּא קָרְבָה חַטָּאתוֹ – יוֹסִיף וְיָבִיא חַטָּאתוֹ, מִשֶּׁקָּרְבָה חַטָּאתוֹ – יֵלְכוּ לְיָם הַמֶּלַח. וְקָתָנֵי כׇּל קׇרְבְּנוֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, וְלָא שְׁנָא דְּאִיכַּפּוּר בְּעָלִים, וְלָא שְׁנָא הֵיכָא דְּלָא אִיכַּפּוּר!
The Gemara notes that this baraita itself is difficult, i.e., it is apparently self-contradictory. In the first clause it teaches that if he pays before his sin offering is sacrificed he must add the amount of the benefit he derived and an additional fifth and bring a more expensive animal as his sin offering, and if his sin offering has already been sacrificed the money is cast into the Dead Sea. But it is taught in the latter clause of the baraita: The reimbursement for misuse of all offerings that are sacrificed on the altar must be used to purchase items for the altar. The Gemara further explains the contradiction: And it can be inferred from this last statement that there is no difference if the owner has already achieved atonement through his sin offering and there is no difference if the owner has not yet achieved atonement through his sin offering.
רֵישָׁא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: כׇּל חַטָּאת שֶׁכִּיפְּרוּ בְּעָלֶיהָ – תָּמוּת.
The Gemara answers that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Any sin offering whose owners achieved atonement by means of another animal must be left to die. Therefore, if the owner has achieved atonement, the money for misuse must be cast into the Dead Sea.
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.
I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
I saw an elderly man at the shul kiddush in early March 2020, celebrating the siyyum of masechet brachot which he had been learning with a young yeshiva student. I thought, if he can do it, I can do it! I began to learn masechet Shabbat the next day, Making up masechet brachot myself, which I had missed. I haven’t missed a day since, thanks to the ease of listening to Hadran’s podcast!
Judith Shapiro
Minnesota, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Elisheva Brauner
Jerusalem, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Barbara Goldschlag
Silver Spring, MD, United States
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
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
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
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Jenifer Nech
Houston, United States
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, 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 had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Sandrine Simons
Atlanta, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dianne Kuchar
Dover Heights, Australia
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 my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Mona Fishbane
Teaneck NJ, United States
Meilah 9
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ‘ΦΌΧΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦΌ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌΧ΄ β Χ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ Χ‘ΧΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ‘Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ!
but isnβt it taught in a baraita: The verse states: βAnd he shall bring it to Aaronβs sons the priests; and he shall remove his handful of its fine flour, and of its oil, together with all its frankincense; and the priest shall make its memorial part smoke upon the altar, an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lordβ (Leviticus 2:2)? This verse excludes those situations where some of its flour was missing, or some of its oil was missing, or some of its frankincense was missing, in which case the priest may not place the meal offering on the fire. This indicates that one must ensure that some of the flour, oil, and frankincense remain.
ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉΧͺΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧͺΧ΄, Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ.
The Sages said in response to the difficulty of Rav AαΈ₯a, son of Rava: In general, the terms βremainderβ or βleftoverβ refer to a situation where there happened to be some of the item remaining. Yet, the case of the meal offering is unique, as there it is written: βBut that which is left of the meal offering shall be Aaronβs and his sonsβ; it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the Lord made by fireβ (Leviticus 2:3). This part of the verse is superfluous, as it appears in Leviticus 2:10 as well. It is therefore derived from the repetition of this phrase that in the specific case of a meal offering one must ensure that some of the items remain. This requirement does not apply to a bird sin offering.
ΧΦ΅ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ β Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ. ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧ β Χ€ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χͺ. Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ!
Shmuelβs father raises an objection to Rav Huna from a mishna (ZevaαΈ₯im 64b): With regard to both a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering, where the priest pinched their nape or squeezed out their blood with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is to partake of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is to burn it on the altar, outside its designated area, the offering is not valid, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering. If his intent was to eat it or burn it beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the offering, provided that the permitting factor, the blood, was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva. In any event, this mishna teaches: Squeezed out their blood, indicating that failure to squeeze out the blood disqualifies the offering.
ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ§ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ: ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ.
Shmuelβs father raises the objection and he resolves it himself. The tanna of that mishna teaches it disjunctively. In other words, the two clauses of the mishna are referring to two different cases. The halakha of pinching the nape of the neck applies to both the bird sin offering and the bird burnt offering. By contrast, the squeezing out of the blood applies only to a bird burnt offering, whose blood is not sprinkled on the altar. For this reason, the priestβs intent at the time of squeezing out the blood is significant. In the case of a bird sin offering, it is only an intent at the time of sprinkling that invalidates the offering.
ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ, ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ: Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦ΄Χ Χ Φ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ.
The Gemara returns to the matter itself, i.e., the baraita cited above: The tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that if any of the blood remains inside the bird it must be squeezed out, but there is no requirement to ensure that blood remains for this purpose. Consequently, even if one does not squeeze out the blood on the side of the altar, the offering is valid.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ: Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΌΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΧΧΦΌ! ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧͺΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ.
The Gemara asks: But the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught there, on ZevaαΈ₯im 52a, that failure with regard to the remainder of the blood invalidates the offering, and Rav Pappa said: Both Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva agree that failure to pour the remainder of the blood on the base does not invalidate the offering. The practical difference between them is whether or not failure to squeeze out the blood from a bird sin offering after sprinkling the blood invalidates the offering. The school of Rabbi Yishmael rules that it does invalidate the offering, and Rabbi Akiva maintains that it does not invalidate the offering. The Gemara answers: There are two tannaβim and they disagree with regard to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ β ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ. Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ β ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ, Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ. ΧΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ©ΧΦΆΧ.
MISHNA: One is liable for misusing a bird burnt offering from the moment that it was consecrated. When the nape of its neck was pinched, it was rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed in a ritual bath that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. Once its blood was squeezed out, one is liable to receive karet for eating it, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. And as it may not be eaten, one is liable for its misuse until it leaves to the place of the ashes, where it is burned.
Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌ. Χ Φ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌ β ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ. ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ, Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ©ΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ¨.
One is liable for misuse of bulls that are burned and goats that are burned from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they were slaughtered, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. Once its blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating it, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. And one is liable for its misuse even when it is in the place of the ashes, until the flesh has been completely scorched.
ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ β ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ. Χ Φ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ§ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΌ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ, Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ©ΧΦΆΧ.
One is liable for misuse of the burnt offering from the moment that it was consecrated. Once it was slaughtered it was rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. Once its blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating it, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. And one is not liable for misuse of the hides, but one is liable for misuse of the flesh until it leaves to the place of the ashes.
ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ©ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ β ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌ. Χ Φ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌ β ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ. Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ§ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ, Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ. ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ©ΧΦΆΧ.
One is liable for misuse of a sin offering, and a guilt offering, and communal peace offerings from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they were slaughtered they were rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. Once their blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating them, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. One is not liable for misuse of the flesh, but one is liable for misuse of their sacrificial portions, i.e., the portions that are to be consumed on the altar, until they leave to the place of the ashes.
Χ©ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦΆΧ β ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌ. Χ§ΦΈΧ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ β ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦ·Χ. Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ§ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ, Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.
One is liable for misuse of the two loaves brought on the festival of Shavuot from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they formed a crust, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through it being left overnight, and they are rendered eligible to slaughter with them the accompanying offering of the two lambs. Once the blood of the lambs is sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating the loaves, due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure. And they are not subject to the halakhot of misuse, as at that point their consumption is permitted.
ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ. Χ§ΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ β ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ‘ΦΌΦΈΧΦ΅Χ¨ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ.
One is liable for misuse of the shewbread, which is arranged on the Golden Table in the Sanctuary each Shabbat, from the moment that it was consecrated. Once it formed a crust in the oven it assumes the status of bread and its halakhic status is like that of offerings of the most sacred order after the animal was slaughtered, in that it was rendered susceptible to disqualification through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and it is rendered eligible for arrangement upon the Table in the Sanctuary.
Χ§ΦΈΧ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ, Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.
Once the bowls of frankincense brought with the shewbread of the previous week were sacrificed, one is liable to receive karet for eating the loaves due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure. But it is not subject to the halakhot of misuse, as at that point its consumption is permitted.
ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ β ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌ. Χ§ΦΈΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘ΦΌΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ.
One is liable for misuse of the meal offerings from the moment that they were consecrated. Once they were consecrated through placement of the flour in a service vessel, they were rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight.
Χ§ΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·Χ§ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ, Χ ΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·Χ§ΦΌΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ₯ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΅Χ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ©ΧΦΆΧ.
Once the handful taken from the meal offering was sacrificed, one is liable to receive karet for eating the meal offering due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of consecrated food while ritually impure. And one is not liable for misuse of the remainder of the meal offering, which is eaten by the priests, but one is liable for misuse of the handful that is sacrificed, until it leaves to the place of the ashes.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨, ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΆΧΦ±Χ ΦΆΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΅Χ€ΦΆΧ¨ ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ· Χ©ΧΦΆΧ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ·, Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ, ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ.
GEMARA: It was stated that there is a dispute between amoraβim with regard to one who derives benefit from the ash of the round heap that is on top of the altar. Rav says: One who derives benefit from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, and Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan says: One who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property.
ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ©ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΦ΅Χ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ. ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ©ΧΦΆΧ.
The Gemara clarifies this dispute: Before the removal of the ashes, everyone agrees that one who derives benefit from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property. The reason is that the mitzva of the removal of the ashes has not yet been completed. When they disagree it is with regard to the halakha after the removal of the ashes, at which point the mitzva has been completed.
Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ β ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ. ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ³Χ΄ β ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ° ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΌΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦΌΦ°ΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
Rav says that one who derives benefit from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, as its mitzva has been performed and completed. And Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan says that one is liable for misuse, since it is written: βAnd the priest shall put on his linen garment, and his linen breeches shall he put upon his flesh; and he shall take up the ashes to where the fire has consumed the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar. And he shall remove his garments, and don other garments, and carry forth the ashes outside the campβ (Leviticus 6:3β4). Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan explains: Since taking the ashes outside the Temple also requires the priestly vestments, albeit garments of lesser quality than those used to remove the ashes from the altar, evidently the ash remains in its consecrated state.
ΧͺΦΌΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΆΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ©ΧΦΆΧ, Χ§Φ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ! ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ Χ¨Φ·Χ: Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧͺΦΌΦ΅Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧ©ΧΦΆΧ.
The Gemara raises a difficulty against the opinion of Rav. We learned in the mishna, with regard to the bird burnt offering: One is liable for its misuse until it leaves to the place of the ashes, where it is burned. This indicates that the halakhot of misuse apply while the ashes remain on the altar, even after the removal of ashes, which is difficult for the opinion of Rav. The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: The mishna means that one is liable until the ash is fit to be taken out to the place of ashes, i.e., once it is burned on the altar and has had a shovel of ashes removed from it.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΦΈΧ, Χ©ΧΦΆΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ§Φ°Χ’ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ· β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ€ΦΌΦΈΧ§Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ· β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨. ΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ· β ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨.
The Gemara raises an objection to Ravβs explanation from a mishna (ZevaαΈ₯im 86a): And all of those unfit offerings, with regard to which it was taught that if they ascended to the altar they do not descend, in a case where they were dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore them to the altar. And likewise, with regard to an ember that was dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore it to the altar. It can be inferred from the mishna that if the ember was still on the altar, then the priest must restore it.
ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ, Χ§Φ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ! ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ Χ¨Φ·Χ: Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara explains the objection: Granted, according to Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan this works out well, as he maintains that even after the shovelful of ashes has been removed, an ember on the pile of ashes still retains its sanctity. But according to Rav this is difficult. The Gemara answers that Rav could have said to you: An ember is different, as it has substance [meshasha] and is therefore still fit to be burned on the altar.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ€ΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ· β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ. ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ, Χ Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ, Χ§Φ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ!
There is a Sage who stated this objection in the opposite manner: The mishna indicates that the reason that the priest must return it to the altar is because it is an ember, and that it has substance. It can be inferred from this that one who derives benefit from ash, which does not have substance, is not liable for misuse of consecrated property even when it is on the top of the altar. Granted, according to Rav this works out well, but according to Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan it is difficult.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ° Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅Χ€ΦΆΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ β Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧͺΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ€ΦΌΦΈΧ§Φ°Χ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ· β ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨.
The Gemara answers that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan could have said to you: The same is true that even ash that was dislodged must be returned. And this is the reason that the mishna teaches an ember, and not ash: It is coming to teach us that even in the case of an ember, which has substance, if it is dislodged from upon the altar the priest does not return it.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧͺΦΌΦ°ΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΆΧΦ±Χ ΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°Χ©ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΆΧΦ±Χ ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ·.
Β§ One of the halakhot of misuse is that the violator must pay the value of the benefit he derived and add an extra one-fifth. It was stated that there is a dispute between amoraβim with regard to this money: In the case of one who derives benefit from meat of an offering of the most sacred order before the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, or who derives benefit from sacrificial portions, such as the fats of offerings of lesser sanctity, after the sprinkling of the blood, Rav says: The value of that benefit which he derived is allocated for communal gift offerings, and Levi says: One must bring an item that is entirely consumed on the altar, e.g., incense. One does not bring a burnt offering with this money, as the hide of a burnt offering belongs to the priests.
ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄Χ: ΧΦ°Χ’Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧΦΆΧͺ? ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ: ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ·. ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΌ? Χ§Φ°ΧΦΉΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ.
It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Levi: This money paid for misuse of consecrated items, to where does it go? The Rabbis who are called: Those who learn before the Sages, say: One must bring an item that is entirely consumed on the altar, and what is that? Incense, which is burned on the altar in its entirety.
ΧͺΦΌΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ: ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΆΧΦ±Χ ΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦΈΧ, Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺΧΦΉ β ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ£ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺΧΦΉ. ΧΦ°Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ β ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ£ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ. Χ§ΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺΧΦΉ β ΧΦ΅ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦ·Χ. ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ¨ Χ§ΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦ²Χ©ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ β ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ.
It is taught in another baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: In the case of one who derives benefit from money set aside for the purchase of a sin offering or set aside as money set aside for the purchase of a guilt offering, if he pays before his sin offering is sacrificed he must add the amount of the benefit he derived and an additional fifth and bring with that money a more expensive animal as his sin offering. And likewise, if he pays before his guilt offering is sacrificed, he must add the amount of the benefit he derived and an additional fifth and bring with that money a more expensive animal as his guilt offering. If his sin offering has already been sacrificed, the money is cast into the Dead Sea. If his guilt offering has already been sacrificed, the money is allocated for communal gift offerings.
ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΦΆΧΦ±Χ ΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ§ΦΌΧΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΌΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΌΦΆΧ ΦΌΦΆΧΦ±Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ€ΦΌΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ· β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ·. Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ β ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΆΧ§ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦ΄Χͺ. Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΧΦΉΧͺ Χ¦Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ β ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χͺ Χ¦Φ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨.
The baraita continues: One who derives benefit from meat of an offering of the most sacred order before the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, or if he derives benefit from sacrificial portions, such as the fats of offerings of lesser sanctity, after the sprinkling of the blood, the value of that benefit which he derived is allocated for communal gift offerings. The baraita summarizes: The reimbursement for misuse of all offerings which are sacrificed on the altar is used to purchase items for the altar, whereas the reimbursement for misuse of all offerings which are consecrated for Temple maintenance is donated to Temple maintenance. And the reimbursement for misuse of all communal offerings is allocated for communal gift offerings.
ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ€Φ·ΧΦΌ Χ§Φ·Χ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺΧΦΉ β ΧΧΦΉΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ£ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺΧΦΉ, ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΌΧΦΆΧ§ΦΌΦΈΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺΧΦΉ β ΧΦ΅ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΆΧΦ·Χ. ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΧ Χ§ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΌΦ°Χ ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ· β ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ·, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΦ·Χ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨!
The Gemara notes that this baraita itself is difficult, i.e., it is apparently self-contradictory. In the first clause it teaches that if he pays before his sin offering is sacrificed he must add the amount of the benefit he derived and an additional fifth and bring a more expensive animal as his sin offering, and if his sin offering has already been sacrificed the money is cast into the Dead Sea. But it is taught in the latter clause of the baraita: The reimbursement for misuse of all offerings that are sacrificed on the altar must be used to purchase items for the altar. The Gemara further explains the contradiction: And it can be inferred from this last statement that there is no difference if the owner has already achieved atonement through his sin offering and there is no difference if the owner has not yet achieved atonement through his sin offering.
Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΧΦΈΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΦ΄Χ Χ©ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΈΧΧͺ Χ©ΧΦΆΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΌΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ β ΧͺΦΌΦΈΧΧΦΌΧͺ.
The Gemara answers that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Any sin offering whose owners achieved atonement by means of another animal must be left to die. Therefore, if the owner has achieved atonement, the money for misuse must be cast into the Dead Sea.
Follow
