Zevachim 37
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Zevachim 37
מִנַּיִן לְכׇל הַדָּמִים שֶׁטְּעוּנִים מַתַּן דָּם לַיְסוֹד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״. נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּרַבִּי – דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה״ – שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּדָּם״; וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּדָּם״?
From where is it derived that all the blood that is left over from an offering after the requisite placement requires placement of blood on the base of the altar? The verse states: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27). The Gemara answers: The tanna of the first baraita derives this from the verse cited by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says with regard to a verse discussing a bird sin offering: “And the rest of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar; it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:9). As there is no need for the verse to state “of the blood,” because the entire verse is talking about the blood, what is the meaning when the verse states “of the blood”?
לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא לָמַדְנוּ אֶלָּא לַנִּיתָּנִין מַתַּן אַרְבַּע – שֶׁטְּעוּנִין מַתַּן דָּמִים לַיְסוֹד; שְׁאָר דָּמִים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה״ – שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּדָּם״; וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּדָּם״? לִימֵּד עַל כׇּל הַדָּמִים, שֶׁטְּעוּנִין מַתַּן דָּמִים לַיְסוֹד.
The baraita continues: Since we have learned only about those offerings whose blood is placed on the altar with four placements, i.e., outer sin offerings, that they require placement of the leftover blood on the base of the altar, from where is it derived that the same applies to the leftover blood of all the other offerings? The verse states: “And the rest of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar; it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:9). Since there is no need for the verse to state “of the blood,” because the entire verse is talking about the blood, what is the meaning when the verse states “of the blood”? This teaches that all the leftover blood from all the offerings requires placement of blood on the base of the altar.
וְאַכַּתִּי לְהָכִי הוּא דְּאָתָא?! מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לַנִּיתָּנִין בִּזְרִיקָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן בִּשְׁפִיכָה – יָצָא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״.
The Gemara asks: But still, does this verse, Deuteronomy 12:27, come to teach this halakha, that if a priest placed the blood with one placement, he facilitated atonement? That verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to those offerings whose blood is supposed to be placed by means of sprinkling from a certain distance from the altar, that if the priest placed the blood by pouring it from up close he has fulfilled his obligation? The verse states: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27).
סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: לֹא זְרִיקָה בִּכְלַל שְׁפִיכָה, וְלֹא שְׁפִיכָה בִּכְלַל זְרִיקָה.
The Gemara answers that the ruling in this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, while the tanna of the earlier baraita holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: Sprinkling is not included in pouring, and similarly pouring is not included in sprinkling. Rather, these are separate actions performed under different circumstances, and one does not fulfill his obligation to sprinkle the blood by pouring it. Therefore, the verse is available to him to teach that if a priest placed the blood with one placement, he facilitated atonement.
דִּתְנַן: בֵּרַךְ בִּרְכַּת הַפֶּסַח – פָּטַר אֶת שֶׁל זֶבַח.
The Gemara demonstrates that this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva: This is as we learned in a mishna (Pesaḥim 121a): If one recited the blessing over the Paschal offering, which is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to eat the Paschal offering, he has also exempted himself from reciting a blessing over the Festival peace offering, i.e., the peace offering that is eaten together with the Paschal offering. The blessing for the Festival peace offering of the fourteenth of Nisan is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to eat the offering.
שֶׁל זֶבַח – לֹא פָּטַר אֶת הַפֶּסַח. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
If he recited the blessing over the Festival offering, he has not exempted himself from reciting a blessing over the Paschal offering. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Yishmael’s reasoning is based on the halakha that the blood of the Paschal offering is poured, while the blood of the Festival offering is sprinkled. He maintains that sprinkling is included in the more general category of pouring, and therefore the blessing over the Paschal offering includes the Festival offering. Pouring is not included in the more limited category of sprinkling, and therefore reciting the blessing over the Festival offering does not exempt one from reciting a blessing over the Paschal offering.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא זוֹ פּוֹטֶרֶת זוֹ, וְלֹא זוֹ פּוֹטֶרֶת זוֹ.
The mishna continues: Rabbi Akiva says: This blessing does not exempt one from reciting a blessing over that one, and that blessing does not exempt one from reciting a blessing over this one. Sprinkling is not included in pouring, and pouring is not included in sprinkling. Therefore, there is a separate blessing for each offering.
אַכַּתִּי לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?! מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר אוֹ בְכוֹר כֶּשֶׂב אוֹ בְכוֹר עֵז וְגוֹ׳״ – לָמַדְנוּ לִבְכוֹר, שֶׁטָּעוּן מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִים לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ. מַעֲשֵׂר וּפֶסַח מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״.
The Gemara asks: Still, does this verse, Deuteronomy 12:27, come to teach this halakha, that if a priest placed the blood with one placement he facilitated atonement? That verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael says: Since it is stated: “But the firstborn of a bull, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are sacred. You shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar and shall burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Numbers 18:17), we learned with regard to a firstborn animal, which must be given to a priest to be offered on the altar in the Temple, that it requires placement of its blood and sacrificial portions on the altar. From where is it derived that the same applies to an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering? The verse states: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27). This verse teaches that all offerings require placement of their blood on the altar.
סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי.
The Gemara answers that the tanna of the earlier baraita, who derives from Deuteronomy 12:27 the halakha that if a priest placed the blood with one placement he facilitated atonement, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili maintains that the halakha that the blood and sacrificial parts of an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering must be placed on the altar is derived from the aforementioned verse concerning a firstborn animal: “You shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar and shall burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Numbers 18:17).
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: ״דָּמוֹ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״דָּמָם״; ״חֶלְבּוֹ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״חֶלְבָּם״; לִימֵּד עַל בְּכוֹר, מַעֲשֵׂר וּפֶסַח, שֶׁטָּעוּן מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ.
This is as it is taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is not stated in this verse: Its blood, but rather: “Their blood.” Similarly, it is not stated: Its fat, but rather: “Their fat.” The plural form teaches with regard to the firstborn animal, which is mentioned explicitly in the verse, as well as with regard to the animal tithe offering and the Paschal offering, which have a level of sanctity similar to that of a firstborn animal, that each requires placement of the blood and sacrificial portions on the altar.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – הַאי קְרָא, מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְהָכִי וּמַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְהָכִי?! תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yishmael derive one halakha from this verse and then derive another halakha from this same verse? It was stated earlier that Rabbi Yishmael derives from the verse “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured” that sprinkling is included in pouring, and yet here he derives from that same verse that the blood of an animal tithe offering and that of a Paschal offering must be presented on the altar. The Gemara answers: These are the opinions of two tanna’im, each of whom expressed his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּמוֹקֵים לֵהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ בִּבְכוֹר – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָּךְ״.
The Gemara raises a question with regard to the disagreement about the interpretation of Numbers 18:17. Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who interprets the entire verse as referring to a firstborn animal, and according to whom the plural form in the verse is referring to three such firstborns, that of a bull, that of a sheep, and that of a goat, this explains that which is written immediately afterward: “And their meat shall be yours” (Numbers 18:18), in the plural, i.e., the meat of these firstborn animals shall be eaten by the priests.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּמוֹקֵי לֵיהּ נָמֵי בְּמַעֲשֵׂר וָפֶסַח – מַעֲשֵׂר וָפֶסַח בְּעָלִים אָכְלִי לֵיהּ; מַאי ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָּךְ״? אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד בַּעַל מוּם;
But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who interprets this verse as referring also to an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering, there is a difficulty, as an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering are eaten by their owners, not by the priests. If so, what is the meaning of the phrase “and their meat shall be yours”? The Gemara answers that the plural term “their meat,” is referring not to an animal tithe offering or a Paschal offering, but to different types of firstborns, i.e., both an unblemished animal, whose blood is poured on the altar, and a blemished one, which is not brought as an offering on the altar.
לִימֵּד עַל בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם, שֶׁנִּיתָּן לַכֹּהֵן. שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ לוֹ בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ.
This verse teaches that a blemished firstborn is given to a priest as a gift, and that he may eat its meat. This is a novel concept, as we have not found in the entire Torah another halakha similar to it, where a blemished offering is given to the priests for consumption.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״לְּךָ יִהְיֶה״ דְּסֵיפָא.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yishmael, who interprets this verse differently, from where does he derive this halakha that a blemished firstborn is given to a priest? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the phrase: “As the breast of waving and as the right thigh, it shall be yours” (Numbers 18:18), which is the latter clause of that same verse. The repetition of the phrase “shall be yours” serves to teach that even the meat of a blemished firstborn shall be eaten by the priests.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּמוֹקֵי לֵיהּ נָמֵי בְּמַעֲשֵׂר וָפֶסַח; הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תִפְדֶּה כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הֵם״ – הֵם קְרֵיבִין, וְאֵין תְּמוּרָתָן קְרֵיבָה.
§ The Gemara raises another question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who interprets the verse as referring also to an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering, this is as it is written in the same verse: “You shall not redeem; they are sacred” (Numbers 18:17). The word “they” indicates that only they are sacrificed on the altar, but their substitutes are not sacrificed. In general, if one substitutes a non-sacred animal for one designated as an offering, both the original and the substitute are considered to be consecrated, and they are therefore sacrificed. But if one substitutes a non-sacred animal for a firstborn, an animal tithe offering, or a Paschal offering, the substitute is not sacrificed.
דִּתְנַן: תְּמוּרַת בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר – הֵן וּוְלָדָן וּוְלַד וְלָדָן עַד סוֹף כׇּל הָעוֹלָם, הֲרֵי הֵן כִּבְכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר, וְיֹאכְלוּ בְּמוּמָן לַבְּעָלִים.
This is as we learned in a mishna (Temura 21a): With regard to the substitute of a firstborn and of an animal tithe offering, both they, the substitutes themselves, and their offspring, and the offspring of their offspring, forever, i.e., for all future generations, are as the firstborn and the animal tithe offering, respectively, and therefore they are eaten in their blemished state by the owners; but unlike the firstborn and the animal tithe offering themselves, they are not sacrificed on the altar.
וּתְנַן, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁתְּמוּרַת פֶּסַח קְרֵיבָה, וּתְמוּרַת פֶּסַח אֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה, וְאֵין לִי לְפָרֵשׁ.
And likewise with regard to the substitute of a Paschal offering, we learned in a mishna (Pesaḥim 96b) that Rabbi Yehoshua says: I have heard two rulings from my teachers: One ruling was that the substitute of a Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace offering after Passover, and another ruling was that the substitute of a Paschal offering is not offered as a peace offering after Passover; and I cannot explain these apparently contradictory rulings, as I do not remember the circumstances to which each ruling applies. And as will be explained, if the substitution took place after the sacrifice of the Paschal offering, the animal is sacrificed, as it is considered the substitute of a peace offering, whereas if the substitution occurred before the sacrifice of the Paschal offering, it is not sacrificed, as it is the substitute of a Paschal offering. This indicates that the substitute of a Paschal offering is not sacrificed, just like the substitute of a firstborn is not sacrificed.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּמוֹקֵי לֵיהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ בִּבְכוֹר; מַעֲשֵׂר וָפֶסַח דְּלָא קְרֵיבָה תְּמוּרָתָן, מְנָא לֵיהּ? מַעֲשֵׂר גָּמַר ״עֲבָרָה״–״עֲבָרָה״ מִבְּכוֹר.
But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who interprets the entire verse as dealing with a firstborn, from where does he derive the halakha that the substitute of an animal tithe offering and of a Paschal offering are not sacrificed? The Gemara answers: With regard to an animal tithe offering, he derives this by means of a verbal analogy between the terms passing, and passing written with regard to a firstborn. Concerning a firstborn it is stated: “And you shall pass [veha’avarta] to the Lord all that opens the womb” (Exodus 13:12), and concerning an animal tithe it is stated: “Of whatever passes [ya’avor] under the rod” (Leviticus 27:32). From this verbal analogy it may be derived that just as the substitute of a firstborn is not sacrificed, so too, the substitute of an animal tithe offering is not sacrificed.
פֶּסַח – בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִב בֵּיהּ כֶּשֶׂב; מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִם כֶּשֶׂב״ – לְרַבּוֹת תְּמוּרַת הַפֶּסַח אַחַר הַפֶּסַח, שֶׁתִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים. יָכוֹל אַף לִפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הוּא״.
With regard to the Paschal offering, this halakha is not derived through a verbal analogy, but rather this halakha is explicitly written concerning it. The verse referring to peace offerings states: “If he offers a lamb for his offering” (Leviticus 3:7). The Torah could simply have stated: A lamb, and proceed from there to teach the halakhot of a lamb peace offering. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “If he offers a lamb”? This serves to include the substitute of a Paschal offering that was substituted after the sacrifice of the Paschal offering, teaching that it is sacrificed as a peace offering, since the Paschal offering has the status of a peace offering after that time. One might have thought that even before the sacrifice of the Paschal offering the same should apply, i.e., that the substitute of a Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace offering. Therefore, the verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: “It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s Passover” (Exodus 12:27), which indicates that it, the Paschal offering itself, is sacrificed, but its substitute is not sacrificed.
וְכֹל הָנָךְ תַּנָּאֵי דְּמַפְּקִי לֵיהּ לְהַאי ״דַּם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״ לִדְרָשָׁא אַחֲרִינָא – הַאי כׇּל הַנִּיתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן שֶׁנְּתָנָן מַתָּנָה אַחַת שֶׁכִּיפֵּר, מְנָא לְהוּ? סָבְרִי לְהוּ כְּבֵית הִלֵּל, דְּאָמְרִי: אַף חַטָּאת שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ מַתָּנָה אַחַת – כִּיפֵּר; וְיָלְפִינַן כּוּלְּהוּ מֵחַטָּאת.
The Gemara asks: And as for all those tanna’im who derive a different exposition from this verse: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured” (Deuteronomy 12:27), this halakha that is recorded in the mishna, that with regard to all the offerings whose blood is to be placed on the external altar, in a case where the priest placed the blood on the altar with one placement, he facilitated atonement, from where do they derive this? The Gemara answers: Those tanna’im hold in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, who say: Even with regard to a sin offering, in a case where the priest placed the blood with one placement, he facilitated atonement after the fact. And they derive the halakha applying to all the other offerings from that which applies to a sin offering.
וְהַחַטָּאת שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי?
§ The mishna teaches that Beit Shammai maintain that in the case of a sin offering, which requires four placements, at least two placements are necessary to facilitate atonement, whereas Beit Hillel hold that even in the case of a sin offering one placement suffices. Rav Huna said: What is the reasoning for the opinion of Beit Shammai?
״קַרְנוֹת״, ״קַרְנוֹת״, ״קַרְנוֹת״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן שֵׁשׁ; אַרְבָּעָה לְמִצְוָה וּשְׁתַּיִם לְעַכֵּב.
He explains: The verse states: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:25). Subsequently, the verse states: “The priest shall take of its blood with his finger, and put it on the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:30), and an additional verse states: “The priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it on the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:34). As the minimum amount justifying the use of the plural form, i.e., in the word “corners,” is two, one may conclude that there are six references to the corners of the altar here. Four of them are mentioned for a mitzva, meaning that the priest should place the blood on all four corners of the altar ab initio, and the other two are mentioned to invalidate the offering if he did not present the blood on at least two corners.
וּבֵית הִלֵּל: ״קַרְנַת״, ״קַרְנַת״, ״קַרְנוֹת״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע; שָׁלֹשׁ לְמִצְוָה, אַחַת לְעַכֵּב.
The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning for the opinion of Beit Hillel? The Gemara answers: The matter should be understood according to the written consonantal text, i.e., the way in which the words are actually spelled. The word “corners” is written plene, i.e., with a vav, in one of the verses, which means that it must be read in the plural form. In the other two verses, “corners” and “corners” are written deficient, i.e., without a vav, in a way that can be vocalized in the singular form, i.e., as karnat. Therefore, there are four references to corners here. Three of these references are written to indicate the placements of blood are performed only as a mitzva, i.e., they are performed ab initio, and the remaining one is written to indicate that its absence invalidates the offering, i.e., the offering is not valid if the blood was not placed against at least one corner of the altar.
וְאֵימָא כּוּלְּהוּ לְמִצְוָה! כַּפָּרָה בִּכְדִי לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן.
The Gemara asks: But according to this explanation of Beit Hillel, why not say that all of them are written for the mitzva and none are to invalidate, i.e., that the blood must be presented on all four corners ab initio, but the offering atones after the fact even if the blood was not presented at all? The Gemara rejects this possibility: We have not found anywhere in the Torah an example of an offering in which atonement can be achieved with no placement of the blood.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּבֵית הִלֵּל: אַהֲנִי מִקְרָא, וְאַהְנִי מָסוֹרֶת; אַהֲנִי מִקְרָא – לְטַפּוֹיֵי חֲדָא, וְאַהֲנַי מָסוֹרֶת – לְבַצּוֹרֵי חֲדָא.
And if you wish, say instead that this is the reason of Beit Hillel: The vocalized text of the Torah, i.e., the way in which the words of the Torah are pronounced based on the tradition of what vowels the words contain, is effective in determining how the verses are to be expounded. And likewise, the consonantal text of the Torah, i.e., the way in which the words are actually written, is also effective in determining how the verses are to be expounded. The Gemara elaborates: The vocalized text is effective in adding one more corner and the consonantal text is effective in subtracting one corner. Consequently, the verse is interpreted as referring to five corners, four of which are necessary for the mitzva ab initio, and one of which is indispensable after the fact.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״לְטֹטֶפֶת״, ״לְטֹטֶפֶת״, ״לְטוֹטָפוֹת״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע; אַהֲנִי קְרָא וְאַהֲנַי מָסוֹרֶת – חַמְשָׁה בָּתֵּי בָּעֵי לְמִיעְבַּד!
The Gemara asks: But if that is so, that this is the proper manner of expounding the verses, consider the case of the phylacteries of the head, about which it is stated: “And for frontlets [totafot] between your eyes” (Exodus 13:16), and: “They shall be for frontlets [totafot] between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8), and subsequently: “They shall be for frontlets [totafot] between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 11:18). The word totafot is written once in plene form, i.e., with a vav, indicating the plural form, and twice in a deficient form, i.e., without a vav, indicating the singular. Accordingly, there are four frontlets here, and from here the Sages derive that the phylacteries of the head consist of four compartments, which together form a cube. Why not say that the vocalized text, read in the plural, is effective, i.e., that it requires six compartments, and likewise, the consonantal text, read in the singular, is effective, i.e., it requires four compartments, and therefore one should be required to prepare five compartments for the phylacteries of the head?
סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: ״טַט״ בְּכַתְפִּי שְׁתַּיִם, ״פַּת״ בְּאַפְרִיקִי שְׁתַּיִם.
The Gemara answers that Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the requirement to have four compartments in the phylacteries of the head is not derived from the number of times that the word totafot is mentioned, but rather from an exposition of the word totafot itself: Tot in the Katpi language means two, and pat in the Afriki language means two, for a total of four.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״בְּסֻכַּת״, ״בְּסֻכַּת״, ״בַּסּוּכּוֹת״ – אַהֲנִי מִקְרָא וְאַהֲנַי מָסוֹרֶת, חֲמֵשׁ דַּפְנָתָא בָּעֵי לְמִיעְבַּד!
The Gemara raises another objection to this method of exposition: If that is so, consider the case of a sukka, about which it is stated: “In sukkot [basukkot] shall you reside seven days; all that are homeborn in Israel shall reside in sukkot [basukkot]. So that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot [basukkot] when I took them out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 23:42–43). Two instances of the word basukkot are written in a deficient manner, i.e., without a vav, indicating the singular, and one instance is written in plene form, i.e., with a vav, indicating the plural form. The Sages derived from here that a sukka must have four walls. Why not say that the vocalized text, read in the plural, is effective, requiring six walls, and likewise, the consonantal text, read in the singular, is effective, requiring four walls, and therefore one should be required to build a sukka with five walls?
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.
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Blacksburg, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
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.
בית שמש, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
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.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
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.
Ra’anana, 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!
Maale Adumim, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, 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
Cambridge, United Kingdom
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, 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.
Zichron Yakov, 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!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Jerusalem, 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.
בית שמש, Israel
Tel Aviv, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
Zevachim 37
מִנַּיִן לְכׇל הַדָּמִים שֶׁטְּעוּנִים מַתַּן דָּם לַיְסוֹד? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״. נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִדְּרַבִּי – דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה״ – שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּדָּם״; וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּדָּם״?
From where is it derived that all the blood that is left over from an offering after the requisite placement requires placement of blood on the base of the altar? The verse states: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27). The Gemara answers: The tanna of the first baraita derives this from the verse cited by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says with regard to a verse discussing a bird sin offering: “And the rest of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar; it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:9). As there is no need for the verse to state “of the blood,” because the entire verse is talking about the blood, what is the meaning when the verse states “of the blood”?
לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא לָמַדְנוּ אֶלָּא לַנִּיתָּנִין מַתַּן אַרְבַּע – שֶׁטְּעוּנִין מַתַּן דָּמִים לַיְסוֹד; שְׁאָר דָּמִים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה״ – שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּדָּם״; וּמָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״בַּדָּם״? לִימֵּד עַל כׇּל הַדָּמִים, שֶׁטְּעוּנִין מַתַּן דָּמִים לַיְסוֹד.
The baraita continues: Since we have learned only about those offerings whose blood is placed on the altar with four placements, i.e., outer sin offerings, that they require placement of the leftover blood on the base of the altar, from where is it derived that the same applies to the leftover blood of all the other offerings? The verse states: “And the rest of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar; it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:9). Since there is no need for the verse to state “of the blood,” because the entire verse is talking about the blood, what is the meaning when the verse states “of the blood”? This teaches that all the leftover blood from all the offerings requires placement of blood on the base of the altar.
וְאַכַּתִּי לְהָכִי הוּא דְּאָתָא?! מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא: מִנַּיִן לַנִּיתָּנִין בִּזְרִיקָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן בִּשְׁפִיכָה – יָצָא? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״.
The Gemara asks: But still, does this verse, Deuteronomy 12:27, come to teach this halakha, that if a priest placed the blood with one placement, he facilitated atonement? That verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: From where is it derived with regard to those offerings whose blood is supposed to be placed by means of sprinkling from a certain distance from the altar, that if the priest placed the blood by pouring it from up close he has fulfilled his obligation? The verse states: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27).
סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: לֹא זְרִיקָה בִּכְלַל שְׁפִיכָה, וְלֹא שְׁפִיכָה בִּכְלַל זְרִיקָה.
The Gemara answers that the ruling in this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, while the tanna of the earlier baraita holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: Sprinkling is not included in pouring, and similarly pouring is not included in sprinkling. Rather, these are separate actions performed under different circumstances, and one does not fulfill his obligation to sprinkle the blood by pouring it. Therefore, the verse is available to him to teach that if a priest placed the blood with one placement, he facilitated atonement.
דִּתְנַן: בֵּרַךְ בִּרְכַּת הַפֶּסַח – פָּטַר אֶת שֶׁל זֶבַח.
The Gemara demonstrates that this is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva: This is as we learned in a mishna (Pesaḥim 121a): If one recited the blessing over the Paschal offering, which is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to eat the Paschal offering, he has also exempted himself from reciting a blessing over the Festival peace offering, i.e., the peace offering that is eaten together with the Paschal offering. The blessing for the Festival peace offering of the fourteenth of Nisan is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to eat the offering.
שֶׁל זֶבַח – לֹא פָּטַר אֶת הַפֶּסַח. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
If he recited the blessing over the Festival offering, he has not exempted himself from reciting a blessing over the Paschal offering. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Yishmael’s reasoning is based on the halakha that the blood of the Paschal offering is poured, while the blood of the Festival offering is sprinkled. He maintains that sprinkling is included in the more general category of pouring, and therefore the blessing over the Paschal offering includes the Festival offering. Pouring is not included in the more limited category of sprinkling, and therefore reciting the blessing over the Festival offering does not exempt one from reciting a blessing over the Paschal offering.
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא זוֹ פּוֹטֶרֶת זוֹ, וְלֹא זוֹ פּוֹטֶרֶת זוֹ.
The mishna continues: Rabbi Akiva says: This blessing does not exempt one from reciting a blessing over that one, and that blessing does not exempt one from reciting a blessing over this one. Sprinkling is not included in pouring, and pouring is not included in sprinkling. Therefore, there is a separate blessing for each offering.
אַכַּתִּי לְהָכִי הוּא דַּאֲתָא?! מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״אַךְ בְּכוֹר שׁוֹר אוֹ בְכוֹר כֶּשֶׂב אוֹ בְכוֹר עֵז וְגוֹ׳״ – לָמַדְנוּ לִבְכוֹר, שֶׁטָּעוּן מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִים לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ. מַעֲשֵׂר וּפֶסַח מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״.
The Gemara asks: Still, does this verse, Deuteronomy 12:27, come to teach this halakha, that if a priest placed the blood with one placement he facilitated atonement? That verse is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael says: Since it is stated: “But the firstborn of a bull, or the firstborn of a sheep, or the firstborn of a goat, you shall not redeem; they are sacred. You shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar and shall burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Numbers 18:17), we learned with regard to a firstborn animal, which must be given to a priest to be offered on the altar in the Temple, that it requires placement of its blood and sacrificial portions on the altar. From where is it derived that the same applies to an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering? The verse states: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27). This verse teaches that all offerings require placement of their blood on the altar.
סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי.
The Gemara answers that the tanna of the earlier baraita, who derives from Deuteronomy 12:27 the halakha that if a priest placed the blood with one placement he facilitated atonement, holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili maintains that the halakha that the blood and sacrificial parts of an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering must be placed on the altar is derived from the aforementioned verse concerning a firstborn animal: “You shall sprinkle their blood upon the altar and shall burn their fat for an offering made by fire, for an aroma pleasing to the Lord” (Numbers 18:17).
דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: ״דָּמוֹ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״דָּמָם״; ״חֶלְבּוֹ״ לֹא נֶאֱמַר, אֶלָּא ״חֶלְבָּם״; לִימֵּד עַל בְּכוֹר, מַעֲשֵׂר וּפֶסַח, שֶׁטָּעוּן מַתַּן דָּמִים וְאֵימוּרִין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ.
This is as it is taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: It is not stated in this verse: Its blood, but rather: “Their blood.” Similarly, it is not stated: Its fat, but rather: “Their fat.” The plural form teaches with regard to the firstborn animal, which is mentioned explicitly in the verse, as well as with regard to the animal tithe offering and the Paschal offering, which have a level of sanctity similar to that of a firstborn animal, that each requires placement of the blood and sacrificial portions on the altar.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – הַאי קְרָא, מַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְהָכִי וּמַפֵּיק לֵיהּ לְהָכִי?! תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.
The Gemara asks: But does Rabbi Yishmael derive one halakha from this verse and then derive another halakha from this same verse? It was stated earlier that Rabbi Yishmael derives from the verse “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured” that sprinkling is included in pouring, and yet here he derives from that same verse that the blood of an animal tithe offering and that of a Paschal offering must be presented on the altar. The Gemara answers: These are the opinions of two tanna’im, each of whom expressed his opinion in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּמוֹקֵים לֵהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ בִּבְכוֹר – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָּךְ״.
The Gemara raises a question with regard to the disagreement about the interpretation of Numbers 18:17. Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who interprets the entire verse as referring to a firstborn animal, and according to whom the plural form in the verse is referring to three such firstborns, that of a bull, that of a sheep, and that of a goat, this explains that which is written immediately afterward: “And their meat shall be yours” (Numbers 18:18), in the plural, i.e., the meat of these firstborn animals shall be eaten by the priests.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּמוֹקֵי לֵיהּ נָמֵי בְּמַעֲשֵׂר וָפֶסַח – מַעֲשֵׂר וָפֶסַח בְּעָלִים אָכְלִי לֵיהּ; מַאי ״וּבְשָׂרָם יִהְיֶה לָּךְ״? אֶחָד תָּם וְאֶחָד בַּעַל מוּם;
But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who interprets this verse as referring also to an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering, there is a difficulty, as an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering are eaten by their owners, not by the priests. If so, what is the meaning of the phrase “and their meat shall be yours”? The Gemara answers that the plural term “their meat,” is referring not to an animal tithe offering or a Paschal offering, but to different types of firstborns, i.e., both an unblemished animal, whose blood is poured on the altar, and a blemished one, which is not brought as an offering on the altar.
לִימֵּד עַל בְּכוֹר בַּעַל מוּם, שֶׁנִּיתָּן לַכֹּהֵן. שֶׁלֹּא מָצִינוּ לוֹ בְּכׇל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ.
This verse teaches that a blemished firstborn is given to a priest as a gift, and that he may eat its meat. This is a novel concept, as we have not found in the entire Torah another halakha similar to it, where a blemished offering is given to the priests for consumption.
וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מִ״לְּךָ יִהְיֶה״ דְּסֵיפָא.
The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yishmael, who interprets this verse differently, from where does he derive this halakha that a blemished firstborn is given to a priest? The Gemara answers: He derives it from the phrase: “As the breast of waving and as the right thigh, it shall be yours” (Numbers 18:18), which is the latter clause of that same verse. The repetition of the phrase “shall be yours” serves to teach that even the meat of a blemished firstborn shall be eaten by the priests.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי, דְּמוֹקֵי לֵיהּ נָמֵי בְּמַעֲשֵׂר וָפֶסַח; הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא תִפְדֶּה כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הֵם״ – הֵם קְרֵיבִין, וְאֵין תְּמוּרָתָן קְרֵיבָה.
§ The Gemara raises another question: Granted, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who interprets the verse as referring also to an animal tithe offering and a Paschal offering, this is as it is written in the same verse: “You shall not redeem; they are sacred” (Numbers 18:17). The word “they” indicates that only they are sacrificed on the altar, but their substitutes are not sacrificed. In general, if one substitutes a non-sacred animal for one designated as an offering, both the original and the substitute are considered to be consecrated, and they are therefore sacrificed. But if one substitutes a non-sacred animal for a firstborn, an animal tithe offering, or a Paschal offering, the substitute is not sacrificed.
דִּתְנַן: תְּמוּרַת בְּכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר – הֵן וּוְלָדָן וּוְלַד וְלָדָן עַד סוֹף כׇּל הָעוֹלָם, הֲרֵי הֵן כִּבְכוֹר וּמַעֲשֵׂר, וְיֹאכְלוּ בְּמוּמָן לַבְּעָלִים.
This is as we learned in a mishna (Temura 21a): With regard to the substitute of a firstborn and of an animal tithe offering, both they, the substitutes themselves, and their offspring, and the offspring of their offspring, forever, i.e., for all future generations, are as the firstborn and the animal tithe offering, respectively, and therefore they are eaten in their blemished state by the owners; but unlike the firstborn and the animal tithe offering themselves, they are not sacrificed on the altar.
וּתְנַן, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁתְּמוּרַת פֶּסַח קְרֵיבָה, וּתְמוּרַת פֶּסַח אֵינָהּ קְרֵיבָה, וְאֵין לִי לְפָרֵשׁ.
And likewise with regard to the substitute of a Paschal offering, we learned in a mishna (Pesaḥim 96b) that Rabbi Yehoshua says: I have heard two rulings from my teachers: One ruling was that the substitute of a Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace offering after Passover, and another ruling was that the substitute of a Paschal offering is not offered as a peace offering after Passover; and I cannot explain these apparently contradictory rulings, as I do not remember the circumstances to which each ruling applies. And as will be explained, if the substitution took place after the sacrifice of the Paschal offering, the animal is sacrificed, as it is considered the substitute of a peace offering, whereas if the substitution occurred before the sacrifice of the Paschal offering, it is not sacrificed, as it is the substitute of a Paschal offering. This indicates that the substitute of a Paschal offering is not sacrificed, just like the substitute of a firstborn is not sacrificed.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, דְּמוֹקֵי לֵיהּ כּוּלֵּיהּ בִּבְכוֹר; מַעֲשֵׂר וָפֶסַח דְּלָא קְרֵיבָה תְּמוּרָתָן, מְנָא לֵיהּ? מַעֲשֵׂר גָּמַר ״עֲבָרָה״–״עֲבָרָה״ מִבְּכוֹר.
But according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who interprets the entire verse as dealing with a firstborn, from where does he derive the halakha that the substitute of an animal tithe offering and of a Paschal offering are not sacrificed? The Gemara answers: With regard to an animal tithe offering, he derives this by means of a verbal analogy between the terms passing, and passing written with regard to a firstborn. Concerning a firstborn it is stated: “And you shall pass [veha’avarta] to the Lord all that opens the womb” (Exodus 13:12), and concerning an animal tithe it is stated: “Of whatever passes [ya’avor] under the rod” (Leviticus 27:32). From this verbal analogy it may be derived that just as the substitute of a firstborn is not sacrificed, so too, the substitute of an animal tithe offering is not sacrificed.
פֶּסַח – בְּהֶדְיָא כְּתִב בֵּיהּ כֶּשֶׂב; מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִם כֶּשֶׂב״ – לְרַבּוֹת תְּמוּרַת הַפֶּסַח אַחַר הַפֶּסַח, שֶׁתִּקְרַב שְׁלָמִים. יָכוֹל אַף לִפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח כֵּן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״הוּא״.
With regard to the Paschal offering, this halakha is not derived through a verbal analogy, but rather this halakha is explicitly written concerning it. The verse referring to peace offerings states: “If he offers a lamb for his offering” (Leviticus 3:7). The Torah could simply have stated: A lamb, and proceed from there to teach the halakhot of a lamb peace offering. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “If he offers a lamb”? This serves to include the substitute of a Paschal offering that was substituted after the sacrifice of the Paschal offering, teaching that it is sacrificed as a peace offering, since the Paschal offering has the status of a peace offering after that time. One might have thought that even before the sacrifice of the Paschal offering the same should apply, i.e., that the substitute of a Paschal offering is sacrificed as a peace offering. Therefore, the verse states with regard to the Paschal offering: “It is the sacrifice of the Lord’s Passover” (Exodus 12:27), which indicates that it, the Paschal offering itself, is sacrificed, but its substitute is not sacrificed.
וְכֹל הָנָךְ תַּנָּאֵי דְּמַפְּקִי לֵיהּ לְהַאי ״דַּם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״ לִדְרָשָׁא אַחֲרִינָא – הַאי כׇּל הַנִּיתָּנִין עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן שֶׁנְּתָנָן מַתָּנָה אַחַת שֶׁכִּיפֵּר, מְנָא לְהוּ? סָבְרִי לְהוּ כְּבֵית הִלֵּל, דְּאָמְרִי: אַף חַטָּאת שֶׁנְּתָנָהּ מַתָּנָה אַחַת – כִּיפֵּר; וְיָלְפִינַן כּוּלְּהוּ מֵחַטָּאת.
The Gemara asks: And as for all those tanna’im who derive a different exposition from this verse: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured” (Deuteronomy 12:27), this halakha that is recorded in the mishna, that with regard to all the offerings whose blood is to be placed on the external altar, in a case where the priest placed the blood on the altar with one placement, he facilitated atonement, from where do they derive this? The Gemara answers: Those tanna’im hold in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, who say: Even with regard to a sin offering, in a case where the priest placed the blood with one placement, he facilitated atonement after the fact. And they derive the halakha applying to all the other offerings from that which applies to a sin offering.
וְהַחַטָּאת שְׁתֵּי מַתָּנוֹת. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי?
§ The mishna teaches that Beit Shammai maintain that in the case of a sin offering, which requires four placements, at least two placements are necessary to facilitate atonement, whereas Beit Hillel hold that even in the case of a sin offering one placement suffices. Rav Huna said: What is the reasoning for the opinion of Beit Shammai?
״קַרְנוֹת״, ״קַרְנוֹת״, ״קַרְנוֹת״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן שֵׁשׁ; אַרְבָּעָה לְמִצְוָה וּשְׁתַּיִם לְעַכֵּב.
He explains: The verse states: “And the priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it upon the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:25). Subsequently, the verse states: “The priest shall take of its blood with his finger, and put it on the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:30), and an additional verse states: “The priest shall take of the blood of the sin offering with his finger, and put it on the corners of the altar” (Leviticus 4:34). As the minimum amount justifying the use of the plural form, i.e., in the word “corners,” is two, one may conclude that there are six references to the corners of the altar here. Four of them are mentioned for a mitzva, meaning that the priest should place the blood on all four corners of the altar ab initio, and the other two are mentioned to invalidate the offering if he did not present the blood on at least two corners.
וּבֵית הִלֵּל: ״קַרְנַת״, ״קַרְנַת״, ״קַרְנוֹת״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע; שָׁלֹשׁ לְמִצְוָה, אַחַת לְעַכֵּב.
The Gemara asks: And what is the reasoning for the opinion of Beit Hillel? The Gemara answers: The matter should be understood according to the written consonantal text, i.e., the way in which the words are actually spelled. The word “corners” is written plene, i.e., with a vav, in one of the verses, which means that it must be read in the plural form. In the other two verses, “corners” and “corners” are written deficient, i.e., without a vav, in a way that can be vocalized in the singular form, i.e., as karnat. Therefore, there are four references to corners here. Three of these references are written to indicate the placements of blood are performed only as a mitzva, i.e., they are performed ab initio, and the remaining one is written to indicate that its absence invalidates the offering, i.e., the offering is not valid if the blood was not placed against at least one corner of the altar.
וְאֵימָא כּוּלְּהוּ לְמִצְוָה! כַּפָּרָה בִּכְדִי לָא אַשְׁכְּחַן.
The Gemara asks: But according to this explanation of Beit Hillel, why not say that all of them are written for the mitzva and none are to invalidate, i.e., that the blood must be presented on all four corners ab initio, but the offering atones after the fact even if the blood was not presented at all? The Gemara rejects this possibility: We have not found anywhere in the Torah an example of an offering in which atonement can be achieved with no placement of the blood.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא דְּבֵית הִלֵּל: אַהֲנִי מִקְרָא, וְאַהְנִי מָסוֹרֶת; אַהֲנִי מִקְרָא – לְטַפּוֹיֵי חֲדָא, וְאַהֲנַי מָסוֹרֶת – לְבַצּוֹרֵי חֲדָא.
And if you wish, say instead that this is the reason of Beit Hillel: The vocalized text of the Torah, i.e., the way in which the words of the Torah are pronounced based on the tradition of what vowels the words contain, is effective in determining how the verses are to be expounded. And likewise, the consonantal text of the Torah, i.e., the way in which the words are actually written, is also effective in determining how the verses are to be expounded. The Gemara elaborates: The vocalized text is effective in adding one more corner and the consonantal text is effective in subtracting one corner. Consequently, the verse is interpreted as referring to five corners, four of which are necessary for the mitzva ab initio, and one of which is indispensable after the fact.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״לְטֹטֶפֶת״, ״לְטֹטֶפֶת״, ״לְטוֹטָפוֹת״ – הֲרֵי כָּאן אַרְבַּע; אַהֲנִי קְרָא וְאַהֲנַי מָסוֹרֶת – חַמְשָׁה בָּתֵּי בָּעֵי לְמִיעְבַּד!
The Gemara asks: But if that is so, that this is the proper manner of expounding the verses, consider the case of the phylacteries of the head, about which it is stated: “And for frontlets [totafot] between your eyes” (Exodus 13:16), and: “They shall be for frontlets [totafot] between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 6:8), and subsequently: “They shall be for frontlets [totafot] between your eyes” (Deuteronomy 11:18). The word totafot is written once in plene form, i.e., with a vav, indicating the plural form, and twice in a deficient form, i.e., without a vav, indicating the singular. Accordingly, there are four frontlets here, and from here the Sages derive that the phylacteries of the head consist of four compartments, which together form a cube. Why not say that the vocalized text, read in the plural, is effective, i.e., that it requires six compartments, and likewise, the consonantal text, read in the singular, is effective, i.e., it requires four compartments, and therefore one should be required to prepare five compartments for the phylacteries of the head?
סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: ״טַט״ בְּכַתְפִּי שְׁתַּיִם, ״פַּת״ בְּאַפְרִיקִי שְׁתַּיִם.
The Gemara answers that Beit Hillel hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the requirement to have four compartments in the phylacteries of the head is not derived from the number of times that the word totafot is mentioned, but rather from an exposition of the word totafot itself: Tot in the Katpi language means two, and pat in the Afriki language means two, for a total of four.
אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״בְּסֻכַּת״, ״בְּסֻכַּת״, ״בַּסּוּכּוֹת״ – אַהֲנִי מִקְרָא וְאַהֲנַי מָסוֹרֶת, חֲמֵשׁ דַּפְנָתָא בָּעֵי לְמִיעְבַּד!
The Gemara raises another objection to this method of exposition: If that is so, consider the case of a sukka, about which it is stated: “In sukkot [basukkot] shall you reside seven days; all that are homeborn in Israel shall reside in sukkot [basukkot]. So that your future generations will know that I caused the children of Israel to reside in sukkot [basukkot] when I took them out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God” (Leviticus 23:42–43). Two instances of the word basukkot are written in a deficient manner, i.e., without a vav, indicating the singular, and one instance is written in plene form, i.e., with a vav, indicating the plural form. The Sages derived from here that a sukka must have four walls. Why not say that the vocalized text, read in the plural, is effective, requiring six walls, and likewise, the consonantal text, read in the singular, is effective, requiring four walls, and therefore one should be required to build a sukka with five walls?
