Zevachim 46
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Zevachim 46
בִּשְׁנֵי חִילּוּלִין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר; אֶחָד פְּסוּל נוֹתָר, וְאֶחָד פְּסוּל טוּמְאָה.
The verse is speaking here of two profanations; one is the disqualification of notar and one is the disqualification of ritual impurity. This teaches that like impurity, notar applies even to an item that does not have a permitting factor.
חוּץ מִן הַדָּם כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו לָכֶם״ – שֶׁלָּכֶם יְהֵא.
§ The mishna teaches: Even with regard to the items for which one is not liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, one is, nevertheless, liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of notar, and due to violation of the prohibition against eating consecrated food while ritually impure, except for the blood. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Before answering this question, the Gemara cites another discussion as to why the halakha of misuse of consecrated property does not apply to blood. Ulla says: The verse states with regard to blood: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls” (Leviticus 17:11). “To you” indicates that it shall be yours; it is not the property of the Temple, so it is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.
דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לְכַפֵּר״ – לְכַפָּרָה נְתַתִּיו, וְלֹא לִמְעִילָה.
The school of Rabbi Yishmael similarly taught: The verse states: “To make atonement,” teaching that God is saying: I gave it for atonement, and not for the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא״ – הוּא לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה כִּלְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה; מָה אַחַר כַּפָּרָה אֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה, אַף לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה אֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says that this halakha is derived from the latter part of the verse, which states: “For it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11). The term “it is” teaches that the status of the blood remains as it is, i.e., it is before atonement as it is after atonement. As the Gemara will state, there is a principle that once the mitzva involving a consecrated item has been performed, the item is no longer subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. Accordingly, the term “it is” teaches that just as after atonement, i.e., after the blood has been presented on the altar, it is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, as the mitzva has already been performed, so too, before atonement, i.e., before the blood has been presented on the altar, it is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.
אֵימָא לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה כְּלִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה – מָה לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה, אַף לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה! אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית מִצְוָתוֹ וּמוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ.
The Gemara asks: But if the term “it is” teaches that the status of the blood remains the same before and after atonement, one can say just the opposite: It is after atonement as it is before atonement. Just as before atonement the blood is subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, so too after atonement it is subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara rejects this: This cannot be the case, as there is a principle: There is no item whose mitzva has been performed that is still subject to the prohibition of misusing consecrated property.
וְלָא?! וַהֲרֵי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן!
The Gemara asks: And is there no such case? But there is the mitzva of the removal of the ashes of offerings burned on the altar. Any benefit derived from them between their removal and their required burial constitutes misuse of consecrated property, despite the fact that their mitzva has already been performed.
מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן וּבִגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.
The Gemara answers: The principle does not apply in that case, because the matter of the removal of the ashes and the matter of the priestly vestments, the four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, are both subject to the halakha that misuse of consecrated property applies to them even after their mitzva has been performed. Consequently, they are two verses that come as one, i.e., they share a unique halakha not found elsewhere. And there is a principle: Any two verses that come as one do not teach their common element to apply to other cases. Instead, they are considered exceptional instances that cannot serve as models for other cases.
הָנִיחָא לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי ״וְהִנִּיחָם שָׁם״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנִין גְּנִיזָה.
The Gemara raises a further difficulty: This works out well according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the verse: “And he shall take off the linen garments, which he wore when he went into the Sanctuary, and shall leave them there” (Leviticus 16:23), teaches that the four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur are not fit for further use, and they require interment.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי דּוֹסָא, דְּאָמַר: מוּתָּרוֹת הֵן לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אַחֵר – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
But according to the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, who says that these priestly vestments are fit for an ordinary priest and do not require interment, provided that a High Priest does not use them on Yom Kippur in a different year, one does not misuse consecrated property by using them after their mitzva has been performed, and therefore what is there to say? In his opinion, the halakha of misuse of consecrated property after the performance of a mitzva applies only to the removal of ashes from the altar, not to the priestly vestments, which means it is stated in only a single case. Why, then, does this case not serve as a paradigm for other instances in the Torah?
מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.
The Gemara responds: It is because the cases of the removal of the ashes and the halakha of the heifer whose neck is broken are two verses that come as one, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from either of them even after their mitzva is completed, and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common element to apply to other cases.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מְלַמְּדִין, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְלַמְּדִין מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara challenges this from a different angle: This works out well according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do not teach their common element to apply to other cases, but according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach their common element to apply to other cases, what is there to say?
תְּרֵי מִיעוּטֵי כְּתִיבִי; הָכָא כְּתִיב: ״הָעֲרוּפָה״, וְהָתָם כְּתִיב: ״וְשָׂמוֹ״.
The Gemara answers: Two exclusions are written in these two cases, which indicate that this halakha applies to them alone. Here, with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, it is written: “Whose neck was broken” (Deuteronomy 21:6), and this superfluous description teaches that this halakha, that the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property is in effect even after the performance of a mitzva, applies solely to this case and should not be extended to others. And there, with regard to the removal of ashes, it is written: “And he shall put it” (Leviticus 6:3), indicating that this halakha applies to “it,” and nothing else.
וּתְלָתָא קְרָאֵי בְּדָם לְמָה לִי?
The Gemara asks: And why do I need these three verses stated with regard to blood, from which it is derived that the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property does not apply to blood? The reference is to the three terms specified earlier, in the expositions of Ulla, the school of Rabbi Yishmael, and Rabbi Yoḥanan, from the verse: “I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11).
לְמַעוֹטֵי מִמְּעִילָה, מִנּוֹתָר וּמִטּוּמְאָה.
The Gemara answers: One of those terms serves to exclude the blood from the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. Another phrase serves to exclude blood from the prohibition of notar. If one consumed leftover blood, he is not liable for consuming notar. Rather, he is liable for violating only the prohibition against consuming blood. And the last phrase serves to exclude it from the prohibition of ritual impurity. If one consumed this blood in a state of ritual impurity, he is liable only for consuming blood, but not on account of consuming consecrated food while ritually impure.
אֲבָל פִּיגּוּל לָא צְרִיךְ קְרָא, דִּתְנַן: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין, בֵּין לָאָדָם בֵּין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל. וְדָם גּוּפֵיהּ מַתִּיר הוּא.
But no verse is required to exclude this blood from the halakha of piggul, because this is already derived from another source, as we learned in the mishna (43a): With regard to any item that has permitting factors, either for consumption by a person or for burning on the altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul. The permitting factor itself is not subject to piggul. And consequently, piggul does not apply to blood itself, as it renders the offering permitted for human consumption or for the altar.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁלֹשָׁה כָּרֵיתוֹת בִּשְׁלָמִים לָמָּה?
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Why do I need three mentions of karet with regard to one who eats peace offerings in a state of ritual impurity? The three verses are: “But the soul that eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that pertain to the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off [venikhreta] from his people” (Leviticus 7:20); “And when anyone shall touch any impure item, whether it is the impurity of man, or an impure animal, or any unclean detestable thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that pertain to the Lord, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:21); and: “Whoever he is of all your seed among your generations that approaches the sacred items, which the children of Israel consecrate to the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me; I am the Lord” (Leviticus 22:3).
אַחַת לִכְלָל, וְאַחַת לִפְרָט, וְאַחַת לִדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין.
One mention of karet in the verse: “That approaches the sacred items,” is for a generalization, and one mention in the verse: “Of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings,” is for a detail. This detail serves to include all items consecrated to the altar, in accordance with the hermeneutical principle that any matter that was included in a generalization but was explicitly specified to teach a certain halakha was intended to teach not just about itself but about the entire generalization. And one mention of karet in the verse: “And when anyone shall touch any impure item,” serves to include items whose typical manner is such that they are not to be eaten, e.g., wood and frankincense, and teaches that one who eats even these items is liable to receive karet.
וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱכָלִין – אֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה, לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵיתוֹיֵי חַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת.
The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says in the mishna with regard to items whose typical manner is such that they are not to be eaten, that one is not liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition against eating consecrated items in a state of ritual impurity, what does this last mention of karet serve to include? The Gemara answers that it serves to include the sin offerings whose blood is presented inside the Sanctuary.
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן כִּשְׁלָמִים – אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה נָמֵי לָא לִיחַיַּיב; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara explains why this inclusion is necessary. It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Shimon says that concerning any offering whose blood is not presented on the external altar like that of a peace offering, one is not liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, one should likewise not be liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of ritual impurity. Therefore, the additional mention of karet teaches us that one who is impure is in fact liable for eating these sin offerings brought inside the Sanctuary.
נוּמִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְחַיֵּיב אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל כּוּ׳. אִיתְּמַר: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא – חַד מֵהַאי זוּזָא וְחַד מֵהַאי זוּזָא;
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon stated a ruling in which he deems one liable for eating in a state of ritual impurity an item whose typical manner is such that one eats it, but not for eating the wood, the frankincense, or the incense, whose typical manner is such that one does not eat it. The Rabbis disagree and deem him liable in all these cases. It was stated that two pairs of amora’im disagreed with regard to this issue; one pair is Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, and the other pair is Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina. The two different opinions that follow were respectively stated by one of this pair and one of that pair.
חַד אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּטוּמְאַת בָּשָׂר, אֲבָל בְּטוּמְאַת הַגּוּף – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה.
One says: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon is with regard to the impurity of meat, i.e., the item that is eaten is impure. The Rabbis maintain that one who eats impure wood or frankincense is flogged, as derived from the two mentions of flesh in the verse: “And the meat that touches any impure item shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire. And as for the meat, everyone who is pure may eat of it” (Leviticus 7:19). But if one ate wood or frankincense in a state of impurity of the body, everyone agrees that he is not flogged.
וְחַד אָמַר: כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּקָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״וְהַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכׇל טָמֵא״, קָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״וְטֻמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו״.
And one says: As there is a dispute with regard to this case, when the item eaten is impure, so is there a dispute with regard to that case, when the one eating the wood or frankincense is impure. What is the reason for this opinion? Since one reads with regard to these inedible items: “And the flesh that touches any impure item” (Leviticus 7:19), as this phrase serves to include even items such as wood and frankincense in the prohibition against eating them when they are impure, one likewise reads with regard to them the next verse: “But the person that eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings…having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:20), which discusses one in a state of impurity who eats consecrated items.
רַב טָבְיוֹמֵי מַתְנֵי הָכִי; רַב כָּהֲנָא מַתְנֵי הָכִי: חַד מֵהַאי זוּזָא וְחַד מֵהַאי זוּזָא אַסֵּיפָא – חַד אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּטוּמְאַת הַגּוּף, אֲבָל בְּטוּמְאַת בָּשָׂר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לוֹקֶה; וְחַד אָמַר: כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ.
The Gemara notes: Rav Tavyumei teaches the discussion in this preceding manner, whereas Rav Kahana teaches it in this alternative manner: One of this pair of amora’im and one of that pair disagreed with regard to the latter clause in the mishna, i.e., the meaning of Rabbi Shimon’s statement. One says that Rabbi Shimon’s dispute with the Rabbis is with regard to the impurity of the body, as he maintains that an impure individual who eats wood or frankincense is exempt. But with regard to the impurity of flesh, i.e., these items themselves, everyone agrees that one is flogged. And one says: As there is a dispute with regard to this case, so is there a dispute with regard to that case, i.e., Rabbi Shimon holds that one is exempt in both cases.
אָמַר רָבָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּלָא קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״וְטֻמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו וְנִכְרְתָה״, לָא קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״וְהַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכׇל טָמֵא לֹא יֵאָכֵל״.
Rava said: It stands to reason that the correct interpretation is like the one who says: As there is a dispute with regard to this case, so is there a dispute with regard to that case. What is the reason? Since one does not read with regard to these inedible items: “Having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off,” as according to both alternative explanations Rabbi Shimon deems exempt one who eats these items when he is in a state of impurity, similarly one does not read with regard to them the previous verse: “And the flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten.”
וְהָאָמַר מָר: ״וְהַבָּשָׂר״ – לְרַבּוֹת עֵצִים וּלְבוֹנָה! (לְפוֹסְלָהּ) [לִפְסוּלָא] בְּעָלְמָא.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn’t the Master say that the term: “And as for the flesh,” in the same verse, serves to include wood and frankincense? This indicates that even these items can become ritually impure, and the prohibition against eating consecrated items that are impure applies to them. The Gemara answers: This is referring merely to disqualification, i.e., this inclusion applies by rabbinic law, and the verse is cited in mere support.
מַתְנִי׳ לְשֵׁם שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים הַזֶּבַח נִזְבָּח: לְשֵׁם זֶבַח, לְשֵׁם זוֹבֵחַ, לְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁם, לְשֵׁם אִשִּׁים, לְשֵׁם רֵיחַ, לְשֵׁם נִיחוֹחַ. וְהַחַטָּאת וְהָאָשָׁם – לְשֵׁם חֵטְא.
MISHNA: The slaughtered offering is slaughtered for the sake of six matters, and one must have all of these matters in mind: For the sake of the particular type of offering being sacrificed; for the sake of the one who sacrifices the offering; for the sake of God; for the sake of consumption by the fires of the altar; for the sake of the aroma; for the sake of the pleasing of God, i.e., in fulfillment of God’s will; and, in the cases of a sin offering and a guilt offering, for the sake of atonement for the sin.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אַף מִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּלִבּוֹ לְשֵׁם אֶחָד מִכׇּל אֵלּוּ – כָּשֵׁר; שֶׁהוּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין, שֶׁאֵין הַמַּחְשָׁבָה הוֹלֶכֶת אֶלָּא אַחַר הָעוֹבֵד.
Rabbi Yosei says: Even in the case of one who did not have in mind to slaughter the offering for the sake of any one of these, the offering is valid, as it is a stipulation of the court that he should not state any intent ab initio. This is necessary because the intent follows only the one performing the sacrificial rite, and therefore if the one who slaughters the animal is not careful and states the wrong intent, the offering would be disqualified through his improper intent.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: ״עוֹלָה״ – לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, לְאַפּוֹקֵי לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים דְּלָא. ״אִשִּׁים״ – לְשֵׁם אִשִּׁים, לְאַפּוֹקֵי כְּבָבָא דְּלָא.
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says with regard to the verse: “A burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:9), the term “a burnt offering” means that one must intend that it be for the sake of a burnt offering, to the exclusion of one who sacrifices a burnt offering for the sake of a peace offering, which one may not do. The mention of fires, i.e., the term “an offering made by fire,” teaches that the offering must be sacrificed for the sake of complete consumption by the fires of the altar, to the exclusion of one who intends that its portions should only be roasted on the fire, as one may not do so.
״רֵיחַ״ – לְשֵׁם רֵיחַ, לְאַפּוֹקֵי אֵבָרִים שֶׁצְּלָאָן וְהֶעֱלָן – דְּלָא. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אֵבָרִים שֶׁצְּלָאָן וְהֶעֱלָן – אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם רֵיחַ.
Rav continues to expound the verse. The term “aroma” indicates that the offering must be sacrificed for the sake of the aroma, to the exclusion of limbs that one first roasted and afterward took them up to the altar, which he may not do. As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to limbs that one first roasted and afterward took them up to the altar, they do not constitute fulfillment of the requirement that the offering must be sacrificed for the sake of the aroma.
״נִיחוֹחַ״ – לְשֵׁם הֲנָחַת רוּחַ. ״לַה׳״ – לְשֵׁם מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם.
The term “pleasing” means for the sake of pleasing God’s spirit, i.e., that the offering should be accepted by God. Finally, the expression “to the Lord” indicates that it should be for the sake of the One Who spoke and the world came into being.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה – פְּסוּלָה. לְשֵׁם חוּלִּין – כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב? ״וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קׇדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – קֳדָשִׁים מְחַלְּלִין קֳדָשִׁים, וְאֵין חוּלִּין מְחַלְּלִין קֳדָשִׁים.
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to a sin offering that one slaughtered with intent that the slaughter be for the sake of a burnt offering, it is disqualified. As explained (2a), a sin offering that was slaughtered for the sake of another offering is entirely disqualified. But if he intended the slaughter to be for the sake of a non-sacred animal, it is valid. Rabbi Elazar says: What is the reason of Rav? The verse states: “And they shall not profane the sacred items of the children of Israel” (Leviticus 22:15). This teaches that consecrated items, i.e., the intent to slaughter an offering for the sake of another type of offering, profane consecrated items, but the intent to slaughter an offering for the sake of a non-sacred animal does not profane consecrated items.
מֵתִיב רַבָּה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אַף מִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּלִבּוֹ לְשֵׁם אֶחָד מִכׇּל אֵלּוּ – כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁהוּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין. טַעְמָא שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּלִבּוֹ כְּלָל, הָא הָיָה בְּלִבּוֹ לְשֵׁם חוּלִּין – פָּסוּל!
Rabba raises an objection from the mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: Even in the case of one who did not have in mind to slaughter the offering for the sake of any one of these, the offering is fit, as it is a stipulation of the court that one not state any intent ab initio. Rabba infers from this that the reason the offering is valid and it effects acceptance is that he did not have in mind any intent at all. But if he had in mind to slaughter the offering for the sake of a non-sacred animal, it is disqualified.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: דִּלְמָא לֹא הָיָה כְּלָל – כָּשֵׁר וּמְרַצֶּה, הָא הָיָה בְּלִבּוֹ לְשֵׁם חוּלִּין – כָּשֵׁר וְאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה.
Abaye said to Rabba: Perhaps Rabbi Yosei means the following: If he did not have in mind any intent at all, the offering is valid and it effects acceptance, but if he had in mind to slaughter the offering for the sake of a non-sacred animal, the offering is valid, but it does not effect acceptance, as it is a flawed offering. Rav’s statement can be understood in a similar fashion.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם חוּלִּין – כְּשֵׁרָה. מִשּׁוּם חוּלִּין – פְּסוּלָה. כְּדִבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל מֵרַב הוּנָא:
Rabbi Elazar says: Indeed, a sin offering that one intentionally slaughtered for the sake of a non-sacred animal is valid, as stated by Rav. But if he slaughtered it as a non-sacred animal, actually thinking that it was non-sacred, it is disqualified, as when he slaughtered it, he did not intend to perform a sacrificial rite. This is like the dilemma that Shmuel raised before Rav Huna:
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 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
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, 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
Atlanta, United States
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
Jerusalem, Israel
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.
Pennsylvania, United States
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.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
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.
Minneapolis, United States
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.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Minnesota, 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
Zevachim 46
בִּשְׁנֵי חִילּוּלִין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר; אֶחָד פְּסוּל נוֹתָר, וְאֶחָד פְּסוּל טוּמְאָה.
The verse is speaking here of two profanations; one is the disqualification of notar and one is the disqualification of ritual impurity. This teaches that like impurity, notar applies even to an item that does not have a permitting factor.
חוּץ מִן הַדָּם כּוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר עוּלָּא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו לָכֶם״ – שֶׁלָּכֶם יְהֵא.
§ The mishna teaches: Even with regard to the items for which one is not liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, one is, nevertheless, liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of notar, and due to violation of the prohibition against eating consecrated food while ritually impure, except for the blood. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Before answering this question, the Gemara cites another discussion as to why the halakha of misuse of consecrated property does not apply to blood. Ulla says: The verse states with regard to blood: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls” (Leviticus 17:11). “To you” indicates that it shall be yours; it is not the property of the Temple, so it is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.
דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לְכַפֵּר״ – לְכַפָּרָה נְתַתִּיו, וְלֹא לִמְעִילָה.
The school of Rabbi Yishmael similarly taught: The verse states: “To make atonement,” teaching that God is saying: I gave it for atonement, and not for the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.
רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״הוּא״ – הוּא לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה כִּלְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה; מָה אַחַר כַּפָּרָה אֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה, אַף לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה אֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says that this halakha is derived from the latter part of the verse, which states: “For it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11). The term “it is” teaches that the status of the blood remains as it is, i.e., it is before atonement as it is after atonement. As the Gemara will state, there is a principle that once the mitzva involving a consecrated item has been performed, the item is no longer subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. Accordingly, the term “it is” teaches that just as after atonement, i.e., after the blood has been presented on the altar, it is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, as the mitzva has already been performed, so too, before atonement, i.e., before the blood has been presented on the altar, it is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.
אֵימָא לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה כְּלִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה – מָה לִפְנֵי כַּפָּרָה יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה, אַף לְאַחַר כַּפָּרָה יֵשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה! אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁנַּעֲשֵׂית מִצְוָתוֹ וּמוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ.
The Gemara asks: But if the term “it is” teaches that the status of the blood remains the same before and after atonement, one can say just the opposite: It is after atonement as it is before atonement. Just as before atonement the blood is subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, so too after atonement it is subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. The Gemara rejects this: This cannot be the case, as there is a principle: There is no item whose mitzva has been performed that is still subject to the prohibition of misusing consecrated property.
וְלָא?! וַהֲרֵי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן!
The Gemara asks: And is there no such case? But there is the mitzva of the removal of the ashes of offerings burned on the altar. Any benefit derived from them between their removal and their required burial constitutes misuse of consecrated property, despite the fact that their mitzva has already been performed.
מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן וּבִגְדֵי כְהוּנָּה שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְתוּבִים הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.
The Gemara answers: The principle does not apply in that case, because the matter of the removal of the ashes and the matter of the priestly vestments, the four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur, are both subject to the halakha that misuse of consecrated property applies to them even after their mitzva has been performed. Consequently, they are two verses that come as one, i.e., they share a unique halakha not found elsewhere. And there is a principle: Any two verses that come as one do not teach their common element to apply to other cases. Instead, they are considered exceptional instances that cannot serve as models for other cases.
הָנִיחָא לְרַבָּנַן דְּאָמְרִי ״וְהִנִּיחָם שָׁם״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁטְּעוּנִין גְּנִיזָה.
The Gemara raises a further difficulty: This works out well according to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the verse: “And he shall take off the linen garments, which he wore when he went into the Sanctuary, and shall leave them there” (Leviticus 16:23), teaches that the four white garments worn by the High Priest on Yom Kippur are not fit for further use, and they require interment.
אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי דּוֹסָא, דְּאָמַר: מוּתָּרוֹת הֵן לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן לְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אַחֵר – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
But according to the opinion of Rabbi Dosa, who says that these priestly vestments are fit for an ordinary priest and do not require interment, provided that a High Priest does not use them on Yom Kippur in a different year, one does not misuse consecrated property by using them after their mitzva has been performed, and therefore what is there to say? In his opinion, the halakha of misuse of consecrated property after the performance of a mitzva applies only to the removal of ashes from the altar, not to the priestly vestments, which means it is stated in only a single case. Why, then, does this case not serve as a paradigm for other instances in the Torah?
מִשּׁוּם דְּהָוֵי תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן וְעֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד, וְכׇל שְׁנֵי כְּתוּבִין הַבָּאִין כְּאֶחָד אֵין מְלַמְּדִין.
The Gemara responds: It is because the cases of the removal of the ashes and the halakha of the heifer whose neck is broken are two verses that come as one, as it is prohibited to derive benefit from either of them even after their mitzva is completed, and any two verses that come as one do not teach their common element to apply to other cases.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין מְלַמְּדִין, אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מְלַמְּדִין מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara challenges this from a different angle: This works out well according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do not teach their common element to apply to other cases, but according to the one who says that two verses that come as one do teach their common element to apply to other cases, what is there to say?
תְּרֵי מִיעוּטֵי כְּתִיבִי; הָכָא כְּתִיב: ״הָעֲרוּפָה״, וְהָתָם כְּתִיב: ״וְשָׂמוֹ״.
The Gemara answers: Two exclusions are written in these two cases, which indicate that this halakha applies to them alone. Here, with regard to the heifer whose neck is broken, it is written: “Whose neck was broken” (Deuteronomy 21:6), and this superfluous description teaches that this halakha, that the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property is in effect even after the performance of a mitzva, applies solely to this case and should not be extended to others. And there, with regard to the removal of ashes, it is written: “And he shall put it” (Leviticus 6:3), indicating that this halakha applies to “it,” and nothing else.
וּתְלָתָא קְרָאֵי בְּדָם לְמָה לִי?
The Gemara asks: And why do I need these three verses stated with regard to blood, from which it is derived that the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property does not apply to blood? The reference is to the three terms specified earlier, in the expositions of Ulla, the school of Rabbi Yishmael, and Rabbi Yoḥanan, from the verse: “I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11).
לְמַעוֹטֵי מִמְּעִילָה, מִנּוֹתָר וּמִטּוּמְאָה.
The Gemara answers: One of those terms serves to exclude the blood from the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. Another phrase serves to exclude blood from the prohibition of notar. If one consumed leftover blood, he is not liable for consuming notar. Rather, he is liable for violating only the prohibition against consuming blood. And the last phrase serves to exclude it from the prohibition of ritual impurity. If one consumed this blood in a state of ritual impurity, he is liable only for consuming blood, but not on account of consuming consecrated food while ritually impure.
אֲבָל פִּיגּוּל לָא צְרִיךְ קְרָא, דִּתְנַן: כֹּל שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ מַתִּירִין, בֵּין לָאָדָם בֵּין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל. וְדָם גּוּפֵיהּ מַתִּיר הוּא.
But no verse is required to exclude this blood from the halakha of piggul, because this is already derived from another source, as we learned in the mishna (43a): With regard to any item that has permitting factors, either for consumption by a person or for burning on the altar, one is liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul. The permitting factor itself is not subject to piggul. And consequently, piggul does not apply to blood itself, as it renders the offering permitted for human consumption or for the altar.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁלֹשָׁה כָּרֵיתוֹת בִּשְׁלָמִים לָמָּה?
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Why do I need three mentions of karet with regard to one who eats peace offerings in a state of ritual impurity? The three verses are: “But the soul that eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that pertain to the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off [venikhreta] from his people” (Leviticus 7:20); “And when anyone shall touch any impure item, whether it is the impurity of man, or an impure animal, or any unclean detestable thing, and eat of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings, that pertain to the Lord, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:21); and: “Whoever he is of all your seed among your generations that approaches the sacred items, which the children of Israel consecrate to the Lord, having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me; I am the Lord” (Leviticus 22:3).
אַחַת לִכְלָל, וְאַחַת לִפְרָט, וְאַחַת לִדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵינָן נֶאֱכָלִין.
One mention of karet in the verse: “That approaches the sacred items,” is for a generalization, and one mention in the verse: “Of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings,” is for a detail. This detail serves to include all items consecrated to the altar, in accordance with the hermeneutical principle that any matter that was included in a generalization but was explicitly specified to teach a certain halakha was intended to teach not just about itself but about the entire generalization. And one mention of karet in the verse: “And when anyone shall touch any impure item,” serves to include items whose typical manner is such that they are not to be eaten, e.g., wood and frankincense, and teaches that one who eats even these items is liable to receive karet.
וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן דְּאָמַר: דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין נֶאֱכָלִין – אֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה, לְאֵיתוֹיֵי מַאי? לְאֵיתוֹיֵי חַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת.
The Gemara asks: And according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says in the mishna with regard to items whose typical manner is such that they are not to be eaten, that one is not liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition against eating consecrated items in a state of ritual impurity, what does this last mention of karet serve to include? The Gemara answers that it serves to include the sin offerings whose blood is presented inside the Sanctuary.
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וְאָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ עַל מִזְבֵּחַ הַחִיצוֹן כִּשְׁלָמִים – אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל, מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה נָמֵי לָא לִיחַיַּיב; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara explains why this inclusion is necessary. It might enter your mind to say: Since Rabbi Shimon says that concerning any offering whose blood is not presented on the external altar like that of a peace offering, one is not liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, one should likewise not be liable for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of ritual impurity. Therefore, the additional mention of karet teaches us that one who is impure is in fact liable for eating these sin offerings brought inside the Sanctuary.
נוּמִי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מְחַיֵּיב אֶת שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכוֹל כּוּ׳. אִיתְּמַר: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא – חַד מֵהַאי זוּזָא וְחַד מֵהַאי זוּזָא;
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon stated a ruling in which he deems one liable for eating in a state of ritual impurity an item whose typical manner is such that one eats it, but not for eating the wood, the frankincense, or the incense, whose typical manner is such that one does not eat it. The Rabbis disagree and deem him liable in all these cases. It was stated that two pairs of amora’im disagreed with regard to this issue; one pair is Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish, and the other pair is Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina. The two different opinions that follow were respectively stated by one of this pair and one of that pair.
חַד אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּטוּמְאַת בָּשָׂר, אֲבָל בְּטוּמְאַת הַגּוּף – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינוֹ לוֹקֶה.
One says: The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon is with regard to the impurity of meat, i.e., the item that is eaten is impure. The Rabbis maintain that one who eats impure wood or frankincense is flogged, as derived from the two mentions of flesh in the verse: “And the meat that touches any impure item shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire. And as for the meat, everyone who is pure may eat of it” (Leviticus 7:19). But if one ate wood or frankincense in a state of impurity of the body, everyone agrees that he is not flogged.
וְחַד אָמַר: כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּקָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״וְהַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכׇל טָמֵא״, קָרֵינַן בֵּיהּ ״וְטֻמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו״.
And one says: As there is a dispute with regard to this case, when the item eaten is impure, so is there a dispute with regard to that case, when the one eating the wood or frankincense is impure. What is the reason for this opinion? Since one reads with regard to these inedible items: “And the flesh that touches any impure item” (Leviticus 7:19), as this phrase serves to include even items such as wood and frankincense in the prohibition against eating them when they are impure, one likewise reads with regard to them the next verse: “But the person that eats of the flesh of the sacrifice of peace offerings…having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 7:20), which discusses one in a state of impurity who eats consecrated items.
רַב טָבְיוֹמֵי מַתְנֵי הָכִי; רַב כָּהֲנָא מַתְנֵי הָכִי: חַד מֵהַאי זוּזָא וְחַד מֵהַאי זוּזָא אַסֵּיפָא – חַד אָמַר: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּטוּמְאַת הַגּוּף, אֲבָל בְּטוּמְאַת בָּשָׂר דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לוֹקֶה; וְחַד אָמַר: כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ.
The Gemara notes: Rav Tavyumei teaches the discussion in this preceding manner, whereas Rav Kahana teaches it in this alternative manner: One of this pair of amora’im and one of that pair disagreed with regard to the latter clause in the mishna, i.e., the meaning of Rabbi Shimon’s statement. One says that Rabbi Shimon’s dispute with the Rabbis is with regard to the impurity of the body, as he maintains that an impure individual who eats wood or frankincense is exempt. But with regard to the impurity of flesh, i.e., these items themselves, everyone agrees that one is flogged. And one says: As there is a dispute with regard to this case, so is there a dispute with regard to that case, i.e., Rabbi Shimon holds that one is exempt in both cases.
אָמַר רָבָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר כְּמַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ כָּךְ מַחְלוֹקֶת בָּזוֹ. מַאי טַעְמָא? כֵּיוָן דְּלָא קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״וְטֻמְאָתוֹ עָלָיו וְנִכְרְתָה״, לָא קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ ״וְהַבָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר יִגַּע בְּכׇל טָמֵא לֹא יֵאָכֵל״.
Rava said: It stands to reason that the correct interpretation is like the one who says: As there is a dispute with regard to this case, so is there a dispute with regard to that case. What is the reason? Since one does not read with regard to these inedible items: “Having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off,” as according to both alternative explanations Rabbi Shimon deems exempt one who eats these items when he is in a state of impurity, similarly one does not read with regard to them the previous verse: “And the flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten.”
וְהָאָמַר מָר: ״וְהַבָּשָׂר״ – לְרַבּוֹת עֵצִים וּלְבוֹנָה! (לְפוֹסְלָהּ) [לִפְסוּלָא] בְּעָלְמָא.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn’t the Master say that the term: “And as for the flesh,” in the same verse, serves to include wood and frankincense? This indicates that even these items can become ritually impure, and the prohibition against eating consecrated items that are impure applies to them. The Gemara answers: This is referring merely to disqualification, i.e., this inclusion applies by rabbinic law, and the verse is cited in mere support.
מַתְנִי׳ לְשֵׁם שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים הַזֶּבַח נִזְבָּח: לְשֵׁם זֶבַח, לְשֵׁם זוֹבֵחַ, לְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁם, לְשֵׁם אִשִּׁים, לְשֵׁם רֵיחַ, לְשֵׁם נִיחוֹחַ. וְהַחַטָּאת וְהָאָשָׁם – לְשֵׁם חֵטְא.
MISHNA: The slaughtered offering is slaughtered for the sake of six matters, and one must have all of these matters in mind: For the sake of the particular type of offering being sacrificed; for the sake of the one who sacrifices the offering; for the sake of God; for the sake of consumption by the fires of the altar; for the sake of the aroma; for the sake of the pleasing of God, i.e., in fulfillment of God’s will; and, in the cases of a sin offering and a guilt offering, for the sake of atonement for the sin.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אַף מִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּלִבּוֹ לְשֵׁם אֶחָד מִכׇּל אֵלּוּ – כָּשֵׁר; שֶׁהוּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין, שֶׁאֵין הַמַּחְשָׁבָה הוֹלֶכֶת אֶלָּא אַחַר הָעוֹבֵד.
Rabbi Yosei says: Even in the case of one who did not have in mind to slaughter the offering for the sake of any one of these, the offering is valid, as it is a stipulation of the court that he should not state any intent ab initio. This is necessary because the intent follows only the one performing the sacrificial rite, and therefore if the one who slaughters the animal is not careful and states the wrong intent, the offering would be disqualified through his improper intent.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: ״עוֹלָה״ – לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, לְאַפּוֹקֵי לְשֵׁם שְׁלָמִים דְּלָא. ״אִשִּׁים״ – לְשֵׁם אִשִּׁים, לְאַפּוֹקֵי כְּבָבָא דְּלָא.
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda says that Rav says with regard to the verse: “A burnt offering, an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lord” (Leviticus 1:9), the term “a burnt offering” means that one must intend that it be for the sake of a burnt offering, to the exclusion of one who sacrifices a burnt offering for the sake of a peace offering, which one may not do. The mention of fires, i.e., the term “an offering made by fire,” teaches that the offering must be sacrificed for the sake of complete consumption by the fires of the altar, to the exclusion of one who intends that its portions should only be roasted on the fire, as one may not do so.
״רֵיחַ״ – לְשֵׁם רֵיחַ, לְאַפּוֹקֵי אֵבָרִים שֶׁצְּלָאָן וְהֶעֱלָן – דְּלָא. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אֵבָרִים שֶׁצְּלָאָן וְהֶעֱלָן – אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם רֵיחַ.
Rav continues to expound the verse. The term “aroma” indicates that the offering must be sacrificed for the sake of the aroma, to the exclusion of limbs that one first roasted and afterward took them up to the altar, which he may not do. As Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to limbs that one first roasted and afterward took them up to the altar, they do not constitute fulfillment of the requirement that the offering must be sacrificed for the sake of the aroma.
״נִיחוֹחַ״ – לְשֵׁם הֲנָחַת רוּחַ. ״לַה׳״ – לְשֵׁם מִי שֶׁאָמַר וְהָיָה הָעוֹלָם.
The term “pleasing” means for the sake of pleasing God’s spirit, i.e., that the offering should be accepted by God. Finally, the expression “to the Lord” indicates that it should be for the sake of the One Who spoke and the world came into being.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה – פְּסוּלָה. לְשֵׁם חוּלִּין – כְּשֵׁרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַב? ״וְלֹא יְחַלְּלוּ אֶת קׇדְשֵׁי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – קֳדָשִׁים מְחַלְּלִין קֳדָשִׁים, וְאֵין חוּלִּין מְחַלְּלִין קֳדָשִׁים.
Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: With regard to a sin offering that one slaughtered with intent that the slaughter be for the sake of a burnt offering, it is disqualified. As explained (2a), a sin offering that was slaughtered for the sake of another offering is entirely disqualified. But if he intended the slaughter to be for the sake of a non-sacred animal, it is valid. Rabbi Elazar says: What is the reason of Rav? The verse states: “And they shall not profane the sacred items of the children of Israel” (Leviticus 22:15). This teaches that consecrated items, i.e., the intent to slaughter an offering for the sake of another type of offering, profane consecrated items, but the intent to slaughter an offering for the sake of a non-sacred animal does not profane consecrated items.
מֵתִיב רַבָּה, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אַף מִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּלִבּוֹ לְשֵׁם אֶחָד מִכׇּל אֵלּוּ – כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁהוּא תְּנַאי בֵּית דִּין. טַעְמָא שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְּלִבּוֹ כְּלָל, הָא הָיָה בְּלִבּוֹ לְשֵׁם חוּלִּין – פָּסוּל!
Rabba raises an objection from the mishna: Rabbi Yosei says: Even in the case of one who did not have in mind to slaughter the offering for the sake of any one of these, the offering is fit, as it is a stipulation of the court that one not state any intent ab initio. Rabba infers from this that the reason the offering is valid and it effects acceptance is that he did not have in mind any intent at all. But if he had in mind to slaughter the offering for the sake of a non-sacred animal, it is disqualified.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: דִּלְמָא לֹא הָיָה כְּלָל – כָּשֵׁר וּמְרַצֶּה, הָא הָיָה בְּלִבּוֹ לְשֵׁם חוּלִּין – כָּשֵׁר וְאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה.
Abaye said to Rabba: Perhaps Rabbi Yosei means the following: If he did not have in mind any intent at all, the offering is valid and it effects acceptance, but if he had in mind to slaughter the offering for the sake of a non-sacred animal, the offering is valid, but it does not effect acceptance, as it is a flawed offering. Rav’s statement can be understood in a similar fashion.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: חַטָּאת שֶׁשְּׁחָטָהּ לְשֵׁם חוּלִּין – כְּשֵׁרָה. מִשּׁוּם חוּלִּין – פְּסוּלָה. כְּדִבְעָא מִינֵּיהּ שְׁמוּאֵל מֵרַב הוּנָא:
Rabbi Elazar says: Indeed, a sin offering that one intentionally slaughtered for the sake of a non-sacred animal is valid, as stated by Rav. But if he slaughtered it as a non-sacred animal, actually thinking that it was non-sacred, it is disqualified, as when he slaughtered it, he did not intend to perform a sacrificial rite. This is like the dilemma that Shmuel raised before Rav Huna:
