There were two small ramps alongside the big ramp – what were they for? Where were the meal offerings brought? Six things were done on the southwest corner of the altar – 3 on the bottom half (from the floor) and 3 from above the midpoint of the height of the altar. The derivations for the three below are brought.
Zevachim 63
06.15.2018 | ב׳ בתמוז תשע״ח
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Zevachim 63
אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: כׇּל כִּבְשֵׁי כְּבָשִׁים – שָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת לְאַמָּה, חוּץ מִכִּבְשׁוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ – שֶׁהָיָה שָׁלֹשׁ אַמּוֹת וּמֶחֱצָה וְאֶצְבַּע וּשְׁלִישׁ אֶצְבַּע בְּזַכְרוּתָא.
Rami bar Ḥama says: The slope of each of the minor ramps, was one cubit of rise per three cubits of run; this was true aside from the main ramp of the altar, which rose one cubit in three and a half cubits and one fingerbreadth and one-third of a fingerbreadth, measured by the tip of the thumb. The slope of the main ramp of the altar was slightly less than that of the minor ramps in order to make it easier for the priests to ascend the ramp while holding the sacrificial portions.
מַתְנִי׳ מְנָחוֹת הָיוּ נִקְמָצוֹת בְּכׇל מָקוֹם בָּעֲזָרָה, וְנֶאֱכָלוֹת לִפְנִים מִן הַקְּלָעִים – לְזִכְרֵי כְהוּנָּה, בְּכׇל מַאֲכָל, לְיוֹם וָלַיְלָה עַד חֲצוֹת.
MISHNA: Handfuls were removed from the meal offerings in any place in the Temple courtyard and were consumed within the area enclosed by the curtains by males of the priesthood, prepared in any form of food preparation that he chooses, e.g., roasted or boiled, for one day and night, until midnight.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: מִנְחָה שֶׁנִּקְמְצָה בַּהֵיכָל – כְּשֵׁירָה, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְּסִילּוּק בָּזִיכִין.
GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar says: A meal offering that had its handful removed in the Sanctuary is valid, as we found with regard to the removal of the two bowls of frankincense that were placed beside the shewbread on the Table, which was located in the Sanctuary. On Shabbat, these bowls of frankincense were removed and burned on the altar, which allowed the shewbread to be eaten. Removal of the bowls of frankincense paralleled the process of removing a handful from a meal offering; just as the removal of the bowls took place in the Sanctuary, so could the removal of a handful of the meal offering be done in the Sanctuary.
מֵתִיב רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: ״וְקָמַץ מִשָּׁם״ – מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁרַגְלֵי הַזָּר עוֹמְדוֹת.
Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection from a baraita: The verse states with regard to the meal offerings: “And he shall bring it to Aaron’s sons, the priests; and he shall take from there his handful” (Leviticus 2:2). The term “from there” indicates that the handful must be taken from a place where the feet of the non-priest who brought the meal offering may stand, i.e., the Temple courtyard, but not the Sanctuary, in direct contradiction to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.
בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם קָמַץ בִּשְׂמֹאל – שֶׁיַּחֲזִיר וְיִקְמוֹץ בְּיָמִין? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״מִשָּׁם״ – מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁקָּמַץ כְּבָר.
The baraita continues: Ben Beteira says there is a different explanation of the verse. From where is it derived that if the priest removed a handful with his left hand, that he should return the handful to the vessel and then remove another handful with his right hand? The verse states: “And he shall take from there his handful,” indicating that he may take it from the place where he already removed a handful.
אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ; אִיכָּא דְאָמְרִי: אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לְרַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר תַּחְלִיפָא, אַסְבְּרַהּ לָךְ: לֹא נִצְרְכָא אֶלָּא לְהַכְשִׁיר כׇּל הָעֲזָרָה כּוּלָּהּ.
The Gemara answers: There are those who say that Rabbi Yirmeya raises the objection and he resolves it, and there are those who say that Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa: I will explain to you the solution. The verse that indicates that the handful is taken from a place where non-priests may stand is necessary only to render the entire Temple courtyard valid for removing the handful, but not to indicate that one may not take the handful in the Sanctuary.
סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא: הוֹאִיל וְעוֹלָה קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וּמִנְחָה קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים; מָה עוֹלָה טְעוּנָה צָפוֹן, אַף מִנְחָה טְעוּנָה צָפוֹן.
This was necessary because it might enter your mind to say that since a burnt offering is one of the offerings of the most sacred order, and a meal offering is also one of the offerings of the most sacred order, just as a burnt offering requires slaughter specifically in the north side of the Temple courtyard, so too, a meal offering requires the taking of the handful specifically in the north side of the Temple courtyard.
מָה לְעוֹלָה, שֶׁכֵּן כָּלִיל!
The Gemara responds: What is notable about a burnt offering? It is notable in that it is completely burned upon the altar. Therefore, one would not have derived that just as a burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north side of the Temple courtyard, the handful must be taken from a meal offering in the north side of the Temple courtyard.
מֵחַטָּאת. מָה לְחַטָּאת, שֶׁכֵּן מְכַפֶּרֶת עַל חַיָּיבֵי כָרֵיתוֹת!
And if one would attempt to derive that the handful of a meal offering must be taken in the north side of the Temple courtyard from the halakha pertaining to a sin offering, which is an offering of the most sacred order whose slaughtering must take place in the north side, yet is not completely consumed upon the altar, this too can be refuted: What is notable about a sin offering? It is notable in that it atones for those liable to receive karet.
מֵאָשָׁם. מָה לְאָשָׁם, שֶׁכֵּן מִינֵי דָמִים!
And if one would attempt to derive that the handful of a meal-offering must be taken in the north side of the Temple courtyard from the halakha pertaining to a guilt offering, which is an offering of the most sacred order that must be slaughtered in the north, and that does not share the unique characteristics of the burnt offering or sin offering, this too can be refuted: What is notable about a guilt offering? It is notable in that it is one of the types of offerings whose sacrificial rites are performed with their blood, which is not so with regard to a meal offering.
מִכּוּלְּהוּ. מָה לְכוּלְּהוּ, שֶׁכֵּן מִינֵי דָמִים!
The Gemara adds: It also cannot be suggested to draw an analogy from the common element shared by all of the offerings mentioned above. What is notable about all of them? They are notable in that they are all types of offerings whose sacrificial rites are performed with their blood.
אֶלָּא אִיצְטְרִיךְ; סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ אָמֵינָא, הוֹאִיל וּכְתִיב: ״וְהִגִּישָׁהּ אֶל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״, ״וְהֵרִים מִמֶּנּוּ בְּקֻמְצוֹ״ –
The Gemara presents a different answer: Rather, it was necessary for the baraita to teach that the handful may be taken from the meal offering anywhere in the Temple courtyard because it may enter your mind to say that since it is written: “And he shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8), and then it states: “And he shall take up from there his handful” (Leviticus 6:8), indicating that the handful must be taken from the vessel in which the meal offering was brought near the altar, that the verses also indicate that the handful must be taken in the place where the vessel is brought near the altar.
מָה הַגָּשָׁה בְּקֶרֶן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית, אַף קְמִיצָה בְּקֶרֶן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
Therefore, just as one must bring the meal offering to the southwest corner of the altar, so too, the removal of its handful must take place at the southwest corner of the altar. To counter this, the baraita teaches us that the removal of the handful may take place anywhere in the Temple courtyard.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: שְׁלָמִים שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן בַּהֵיכָל – כְּשֵׁרִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וּשְׁחָטוֹ (אוֹתוֹ) פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ – וְלֹא יְהֵא טָפֵל חָמוּר מִן הָעִיקָּר.
§ Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Peace offerings that one slaughtered in the Sanctuary are valid, as it is stated: “And he shall slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 3:2), i.e., in the courtyard; and the courtyard, which is of secondary sanctity, should not be weightier than the place of primary sanctity. Accordingly, as the offering is valid if it was slaughtered in the courtyard, it is certainly valid if it was slaughtered in the Sanctuary.
מֵיתִיבִי: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּתִירָה אוֹמֵר, מִנַּיִן שֶׁאִם הִקִּיפוּ גּוֹיִם אֶת כׇּל הָעֲזָרָה – שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים נִכְנָסִין לְשָׁם וְאוֹכְלִין שָׁם קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בְּקֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים תֹּאכְלֶנּוּ״.
The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement from a baraita: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that if gentiles surrounded the entire Temple courtyard and were attacking, making it impossible for the priests to remain there, the priests may enter that area, i.e., the Sanctuary, and eat the offerings of the most sacred order there? The verse states: “In a most holy place shall you eat it” (Numbers 18:10).
וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא: ״בְּחָצֵר אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד יֹאכְלוּהָ״ – וְלֹא יְהֵא טָפֵל חָמוּר מִן הָעִיקָּר!
The Gemara asks: But why is there a need to derive the halakha from this source? Let us say that it can be derived from the verse: “In the court of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:9), and the place of secondary sanctity should not be weightier than the place of primary sanctity. Therefore, similar to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement, if the sacrificial food can be eaten in the courtyard, it can certainly be eaten in the Sanctuary. The fact that the baraita requires another source indicates that Rabbi Yoḥanan’s method of derivation is not valid.
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם עֲבוֹדָה – דְּאָדָם עוֹבֵד בִּמְקוֹם רַבּוֹ, אָמְרִינַן: לֹא יְהֵא טָפֵל חָמוּר מִן הָעִיקָּר. אֲכִילָה – דְּאֵין אָדָם אוֹכֵל בִּמְקוֹם רַבּוֹ, לֹא יְהֵא טָפֵל חָמוּר מִן הָעִיקָּר – לָא אָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to slaughtering offerings, the act of slaughter is a sacrificial rite, and a person serves in the presence of his master. Therefore, we say that the place of secondary sanctity should not be weightier than the place of primary sanctity, and if one can slaughter an offering in the courtyard, he can certainly do so in the Sanctuary. By contrast, in the case of eating sacrificial food, which is different because a person does not eat in the presence of his master, we do not say the rationale that the place of secondary sanctity should not be weightier than the place of primary sanctity. Therefore, a verse was required to teach that the priest may partake of the offerings in the Sanctuary.
מַתְנִי׳ חַטַּאת הָעוֹף הָיְתָה נַעֲשֵׂית עַל קֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מַעֲרָבִית; וּבְכׇל מָקוֹם הָיְתָה כְּשֵׁירָה, אֶלָּא זֶה הָיְתָה מְקוֹמָהּ. וּשְׁלֹשָׁה דְּבָרִים הָיְתָה אוֹתָהּ קֶרֶן מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת מִלְּמַטָּה, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה מִלְּמַעְלָה. מִלְּמַטָּה: חַטַּאת הָעוֹף, וְהַגָּשׁוֹת, וּשְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם.
MISHNA: The sacrificial rite of a bird sin offering would be performed at the southwest corner of the altar. And if its sacrificial rite was performed in any place on the altar, the offering was deemed valid; but that corner was its designated place. And there were three matters for which the portion of that corner below the red line that served as the demarcation between the upper and lower portions of the altar served as the proper location, and there were three matters for which the portion of that corner above the red line served as their proper location. The following rites were performed below the red line: Sacrificing a bird sin offering, and bringing meal offerings near the altar before removal of the handful, and pouring out the remaining blood.
וּמִלְּמַעְלָן: נִיסּוּךְ הַיַּיִן, וְהַמַּיִם, וְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף כְּשֶׁהִיא רַבָּה בַּמִּזְרָח.
And the following rites were performed above the red line: The wine libation that is brought together with animal offerings or as an offering by itself, and the water libation on the festival of Sukkot, and sacrificing a bird burnt offering when they were numerous and it was impossible to perform the rite in the east, i.e., the southeastern corner where the bird burnt offering was sacrificed.
כׇּל הָעוֹלִין לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – עוֹלִין דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין,
All those who ascend the ramp to the altar ascend via the right side of the ramp toward the southeast corner
וּמַקִּיפִין וְיוֹרְדִין דֶּרֶךְ שְׂמֹאל; חוּץ מִן הָעוֹלֶה לִשְׁלֹשָׁה אֵלּוּ – שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹלִין וְיוֹרְדִין עַל הֶעָקֵב.
and circle the altar until reaching the southwest corner and descend via the left side of the ramp, except for one who ascends for one of these three matters, where they would ascend directly to the southwest corner of the altar, and descend by turning on their heels and retracing the path by which they ascended rather than circling the altar.
גְּמָ׳ מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, אָמַר קְרָא: ״לֹא יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא יִתֵּן עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה כִּי חַטָּאת הִיא״ – חַטָּאת קְרוּיָה מִנְחָה, וּמִנְחָה קְרוּיָה חַטָּאת;
GEMARA: The Gemara asks a question about the mishna’s statement that the sacrificial rite of a bird sin offering is performed at the southwest corner of the altar: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yehoshua says: The verse states with regard to the sin offering of a destitute sinner, which is a meal offering brought in lieu of an animal or bird: “He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense on it; for it is a sin offering” (Leviticus 5:11). From this verse it is evident that a sin offering is called a meal offering and a meal offering is called a sin offering, so that their halakhot may be compared.
מָה חַטָּאת טְעוּנָה צָפוֹן – אַף מִנְחָה טְעוּנָה צָפוֹן, וּמָה מִנְחָה בְּקֶרֶן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית – אַף חַטָּאת בְּקֶרֶן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית.
Just as a sin offering requires slaughtering in the north section of the Temple courtyard, so too, the handful of a meal offering requires sanctification in a service vessel in the north. And just as a meal offering is brought near to the southwest corner of the altar, so too, the blood of a sin offering is sprinkled on the southwest corner of the altar.
וּמִנְחָה גּוּפַהּ מְנָלַן? דְּתַנְיָא: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״ – יָכוֹל בַּמַּעֲרָב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״.
The Gemara asks: And with regard to a meal offering itself, from where do we derive that it must be brought near the altar at the southwest corner? As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “And this is the law of the meal offering…before the Lord, in front of the altar” (Leviticus 6:7). From the phrase: “Before the Lord,” one might have thought that the rite of bringing the meal offering near the altar must be performed at the west side of the altar, which faces the Sanctuary. Therefore, the verse states: “In front of the altar,” which is its south side, from where the priests ascend the ramp.
אִי ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – יָכוֹל בַּדָּרוֹם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״. הָא כֵּיצַד? מַגִּישָׁהּ בְּקֶרֶן מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית כְּנֶגֶד חוּדָּהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן, וְדַיּוֹ.
The baraita continues: If the verse merely stated: “In front of the altar,” one might have thought that the practice of bringing the meal offering near the altar must be performed at the south side of the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “Before the Lord,” which indicates the west side. How can these texts be reconciled? The priest brings it near at the southwest corner of the altar, opposite the edge of the corner of the altar, and that is sufficient.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָכוֹל יַגִּישֶׁנָּה לְמַעֲרָבָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן אוֹ לִדְרוֹמָהּ שֶׁל קֶרֶן? אָמַרְתָּ: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא שְׁנֵי מִקְרָאוֹת, אֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים חֲבֵירוֹ, וְאֶחָד מְקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל חֲבֵירוֹ – מַנִּיחִין זֶה שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְבַטֵּל חֲבֵירוֹ, וְתוֹפְשִׂין אֶת שֶׁמְּקַיֵּים עַצְמוֹ וּמְקַיֵּים חֲבֵירוֹ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer says: One might have thought that the priest may bring it near the altar to the west of the southwest corner or to the south of the southwest corner. You must say: Anywhere you find two verses, and acting in accordance with one of them fulfills itself, i.e., the requirement stated in that verse, and fulfills the requirement stated in the other verse, whereas acting in accordance with the other one of them fulfills itself and negates the requirement stated in the other verse, one leaves the verse that fulfills itself and negates the other, and seizes the verse that fulfills itself and fulfills the other verse as well.
כְּשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״אֶל פְּנֵי ה׳״ בַּמַּעֲרָב, הֵיכָן קִיַּימְתָּ ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״? וּכְשֶׁאַתָּה אוֹמֵר ״אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ בַּדָּרוֹם, קִיַּימְתָּ ״לִפְנֵי ה׳״.
The Gemara explains: In this context, when you say: “Before the Lord,” which indicates that the meal offering should be brought near the altar at the west side of the altar, how have you fulfilled the other part of the verse: “In front of the altar,” which indicates the south side? But when you say: “In front of the altar,” and bring it near the altar at the south side, you have also fulfilled the phrase: “Before the Lord.” Consequently, the meal offering must be brought near the south side of the altar.
בַּדָּרוֹם הֵיכָן קִיַּימְתָּ? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: קָסָבַר הַאי תַּנָּא, כּוּלֵּיהּ מִזְבֵּחַ בַּצָּפוֹן קָאֵי.
The Gemara asks: If one brought the meal offering near the altar at the south side, how have you fulfilled the phrase: “Before the Lord”? Rav Ashi says: This tanna holds that the entire altar stood in the north section of the Temple courtyard. The southern side of the altar was directly aligned with the midpoint of the Temple courtyard, directly opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary, and therefore it is considered “before the Lord.”
בְּכׇל מָקוֹם הָיְתָה כְּשֵׁירָה [וְכוּ׳]. מַאי קָאָמַר? אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, הָכִי קָאָמַר: בְּכׇל מָקוֹם הָיְתָה כְּשֵׁירָה לִמְלִיקָתָהּ, אֶלָּא זֶה הָיָה מְקוֹמָהּ לְהַזָּאָתָהּ.
§ The mishna teaches that if the sacrificial rite of a bird sin offering was performed in any place on the altar, the offering is valid, but the southwest corner was its designated place. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying when it states that the southwest corner was its designated place? The mishna already stated that the sacrificial rite of a bird sin offering should be performed at the southwest corner. Rav Ashi said: This is what the mishna is saying: Any place was valid for its pinching, but the southwest corner was the place for the sprinkling of its blood.
תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: מְלָקָהּ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ – כְּשֵׁירָה. הִיזָּה דָּמָהּ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם – כְּשֵׁירָה, הִיזָּה וְלֹא מִיצָּה – כְּשֵׁירָה; וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּתֵּן מִחוּט הַסִּיקְרָא וּלְמַטָּה מִדַּם הַנֶּפֶשׁ.
The Gemara notes: We learn in this mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita with regard to a bird sin offering: If the priest pinched its nape in any place on the altar, it is valid. If he sprinkled its blood in any place on the altar, it is valid. If he sprinkled the blood, but did not squeeze out the remaining blood upon the lower part of the wall of the altar, in accordance with the verse: “And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altar” (Leviticus 5:9), it is nevertheless valid, provided that he places some of the blood of the soul anywhere on the altar from the red line and below.
מַאי קָאָמַר? הָכִי קָאָמַר: מְלָקָהּ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ – כְּשֵׁירָה. מִיצָּה דָּמָהּ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ – כְּשֵׁירָה,
The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? It first states that the offering is valid no matter where on the altar its blood is sprinkled, and it then states that blood must be placed specifically below the red line. The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita is saying: If he pinched its nape in any place on the altar, it is valid. If he squeezed out its blood in any place on the altar, it is valid,
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Jenifer Nech
Houston, United States
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.
Jodi Gladstone
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Shira Eliaser
Skokie, IL, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Stacey Goodstein Ashtamker
Modi’in, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Marian Frankston
Pennsylvania, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Far Rockaway, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Khaya Eisenberg
Jerusalem, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
Vitti Kones
מיתר, ישראל
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Hannah Lee
Pennsylvania, United States
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Julie Landau
Karmiel, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
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.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, 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.
Leah Goldford
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I started with Ze Kollel in Berlin, directed by Jeremy Borowitz for Hillel Deutschland. We read Masechet Megillah chapter 4 and each participant wrote his commentary on a Sugia that particularly impressed him. I wrote six poems about different Sugiot! Fascinated by the discussions on Talmud I continued to learn with Rabanit Michelle Farber and am currently taking part in the Tikun Olam course.
Yael Merlini
Berlin, Germany
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!
Keren Carter
Brentwood, California, 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
Marsha Wasserman
Jerusalem, Israel
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Terri Krivosha
Minneapolis, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Roslyn Jaffe
Florida, United States
Zevachim 63
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ β Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ· β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΌΧΦΆΧΦ±Χ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΆΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ.
Rami bar αΈ€ama says: The slope of each of the minor ramps, was one cubit of rise per three cubits of run; this was true aside from the main ramp of the altar, which rose one cubit in three and a half cubits and one fingerbreadth and one-third of a fingerbreadth, measured by the tip of the thumb. The slope of the main ramp of the altar was slightly less than that of the minor ramps in order to make it easier for the priests to ascend the ramp while holding the sacrificial portions.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ Χ Φ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΦΈΧ¦ΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°Χ ΦΆΧΦ±ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ²Χ¦ΧΦΉΧͺ.
MISHNA: Handfuls were removed from the meal offerings in any place in the Temple courtyard and were consumed within the area enclosed by the curtains by males of the priesthood, prepared in any form of food preparation that he chooses, e.g., roasted or boiled, for one day and night, until midnight.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨: ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ§ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar says: A meal offering that had its handful removed in the Sanctuary is valid, as we found with regard to the removal of the two bowls of frankincense that were placed beside the shewbread on the Table, which was located in the Sanctuary. On Shabbat, these bowls of frankincense were removed and burned on the altar, which allowed the shewbread to be eaten. Removal of the bowls of frankincense paralleled the process of removing a handful from a meal offering; just as the removal of the bowls took place in the Sanctuary, so could the removal of a handful of the meal offering be done in the Sanctuary.
ΧΦ΅ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·Χ₯ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧͺ.
Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection from a baraita: The verse states with regard to the meal offerings: βAnd he shall bring it to Aaronβs sons, the priests; and he shall take from there his handfulβ (Leviticus 2:2). The term βfrom thereβ indicates that the handful must be taken from a place where the feet of the non-priest who brought the meal offering may stand, i.e., the Temple courtyard, but not the Sanctuary, in direct contradiction to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar.
ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ·Χ₯ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΧ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ₯ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧΦ·Χ₯ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨.
The baraita continues: Ben Beteira says there is a different explanation of the verse. From where is it derived that if the priest removed a handful with his left hand, that he should return the handful to the vessel and then remove another handful with his right hand? The verse states: βAnd he shall take from there his handful,β indicating that he may take it from the place where he already removed a handful.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ€ΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ§ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ; ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄Χ: ΧΦ²ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦ°: ΧΦΉΧ Χ Φ΄Χ¦Φ°Χ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ.
The Gemara answers: There are those who say that Rabbi Yirmeya raises the objection and he resolves it, and there are those who say that Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yirmeya bar TaαΈ₯lifa: I will explain to you the solution. The verse that indicates that the handful is taken from a place where non-priests may stand is necessary only to render the entire Temple courtyard valid for removing the handful, but not to indicate that one may not take the handful in the Sanctuary.
Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ; ΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ Χ¦ΦΈΧ€ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ Χ¦ΦΈΧ€ΧΦΉΧ.
This was necessary because it might enter your mind to say that since a burnt offering is one of the offerings of the most sacred order, and a meal offering is also one of the offerings of the most sacred order, just as a burnt offering requires slaughter specifically in the north side of the Temple courtyard, so too, a meal offering requires the taking of the handful specifically in the north side of the Temple courtyard.
ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ!
The Gemara responds: What is notable about a burnt offering? It is notable in that it is completely burned upon the altar. Therefore, one would not have derived that just as a burnt offering must be slaughtered in the north side of the Temple courtyard, the handful must be taken from a meal offering in the north side of the Temple courtyard.
ΧΦ΅ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ. ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ€ΦΆΦΌΧ¨ΦΆΧͺ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧͺΧΦΉΧͺ!
And if one would attempt to derive that the handful of a meal offering must be taken in the north side of the Temple courtyard from the halakha pertaining to a sin offering, which is an offering of the most sacred order whose slaughtering must take place in the north side, yet is not completely consumed upon the altar, this too can be refuted: What is notable about a sin offering? It is notable in that it atones for those liable to receive karet.
ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ. ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ!
And if one would attempt to derive that the handful of a meal-offering must be taken in the north side of the Temple courtyard from the halakha pertaining to a guilt offering, which is an offering of the most sacred order that must be slaughtered in the north, and that does not share the unique characteristics of the burnt offering or sin offering, this too can be refuted: What is notable about a guilt offering? It is notable in that it is one of the types of offerings whose sacrificial rites are performed with their blood, which is not so with regard to a meal offering.
ΧΦ΄ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ!
The Gemara adds: It also cannot be suggested to draw an analogy from the common element shared by all of the offerings mentioned above. What is notable about all of them? They are notable in that they are all types of offerings whose sacrificial rites are performed with their blood.
ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦Φ°ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧΦ°; Χ‘ΦΈΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·Χ΄, Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§Φ»ΧΦ°Χ¦ΧΦΉΧ΄ β
The Gemara presents a different answer: Rather, it was necessary for the baraita to teach that the handful may be taken from the meal offering anywhere in the Temple courtyard because it may enter your mind to say that since it is written: βAnd he shall bring it to the altarβ (Leviticus 2:8), and then it states: βAnd he shall take up from there his handfulβ (Leviticus 6:8), indicating that the handful must be taken from the vessel in which the meal offering was brought near the altar, that the verses also indicate that the handful must be taken in the place where the vessel is brought near the altar.
ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ, ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ§Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ; Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ.
Therefore, just as one must bring the meal offering to the southwest corner of the altar, so too, the removal of its handful must take place at the southwest corner of the altar. To counter this, the baraita teaches us that the removal of the handful may take place anywhere in the Temple courtyard.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©Φ°ΦΌΧΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦΌΧ©ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉ (ΧΧΦΉΧͺΧΦΉ) Χ€ΦΆΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ΅ΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ€Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨.
Β§ Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan says: Peace offerings that one slaughtered in the Sanctuary are valid, as it is stated: βAnd he shall slaughter it at the entrance of the Tent of Meetingβ (Leviticus 3:2), i.e., in the courtyard; and the courtyard, which is of secondary sanctity, should not be weightier than the place of primary sanctity. Accordingly, as the offering is valid if it was slaughtered in the courtyard, it is certainly valid if it was slaughtered in the Sanctuary.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧͺΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ: Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨, ΧΦ΄Χ Φ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ€ΧΦΌ ΧΦΌΧΦΉΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ‘Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΉΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ³ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧͺΦΉΦΌΧΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΧΦΌΧ΄.
The Gemara raises an objection to Rabbi YoαΈ₯ananβs statement from a baraita: Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan ben Beteira says: From where is it derived that if gentiles surrounded the entire Temple courtyard and were attacking, making it impossible for the priests to remain there, the priests may enter that area, i.e., the Sanctuary, and eat the offerings of the most sacred order there? The verse states: βIn a most holy place shall you eat itβ (Numbers 18:10).
ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧ? Χ Φ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ΅Χ ΧΦΉΧΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ΄ β ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ€Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨!
The Gemara asks: But why is there a need to derive the halakha from this source? Let us say that it can be derived from the verse: βIn the court of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat itβ (Leviticus 6:9), and the place of secondary sanctity should not be weightier than the place of primary sanctity. Therefore, similar to Rabbi YoαΈ₯ananβs statement, if the sacrificial food can be eaten in the courtyard, it can certainly be eaten in the Sanctuary. The fact that the baraita requires another source indicates that Rabbi YoαΈ₯ananβs method of derivation is not valid.
ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ?! ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Χ’Φ²ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉ, ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ€Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨. ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉ, ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ€Φ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΦΌΧ¨ β ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ.
The Gemara answers: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to slaughtering offerings, the act of slaughter is a sacrificial rite, and a person serves in the presence of his master. Therefore, we say that the place of secondary sanctity should not be weightier than the place of primary sanctity, and if one can slaughter an offering in the courtyard, he can certainly do so in the Sanctuary. By contrast, in the case of eating sacrificial food, which is different because a person does not eat in the presence of his master, we do not say the rationale that the place of secondary sanctity should not be weightier than the place of primary sanctity. Therefore, a verse was required to teach that the priest may partake of the offerings in the Sanctuary.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ Χ Φ·Χ’Φ²Χ©Φ΅ΧΧΧͺ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ; ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΦΌ. ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ Χ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦΆΦΌΧ©ΦΆΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ.
MISHNA: The sacrificial rite of a bird sin offering would be performed at the southwest corner of the altar. And if its sacrificial rite was performed in any place on the altar, the offering was deemed valid; but that corner was its designated place. And there were three matters for which the portion of that corner below the red line that served as the demarcation between the upper and lower portions of the altar served as the proper location, and there were three matters for which the portion of that corner above the red line served as their proper location. The following rites were performed below the red line: Sacrificing a bird sin offering, and bringing meal offerings near the altar before removal of the handful, and pouring out the remaining blood.
ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ Φ΄ΧΧ‘ΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ, ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ£ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ.
And the following rites were performed above the red line: The wine libation that is brought together with animal offerings or as an offering by itself, and the water libation on the festival of Sukkot, and sacrificing a bird burnt offering when they were numerous and it was impossible to perform the rite in the east, i.e., the southeastern corner where the bird burnt offering was sacrificed.
ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΌΦ΅ΧΦ· β Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ¨ΦΆΧΦ° ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ,
All those who ascend the ramp to the altar ascend via the right side of the ramp toward the southeast corner
ΧΦΌΧΦ·Χ§Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧ¨ΦΆΧΦ° Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧΧ; ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌΧΦΌ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ Χ’ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΆΧ’ΦΈΧ§Φ΅Χ.
and circle the altar until reaching the southwest corner and descend via the left side of the ramp, except for one who ascends for one of these three matters, where they would ascend directly to the southwest corner of the altar, and descend by turning on their heels and retracing the path by which they ascended rather than circling the altar.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ·, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΧ΄ β ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ;
GEMARA: The Gemara asks a question about the mishnaβs statement that the sacrificial rite of a bird sin offering is performed at the southwest corner of the altar: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Yehoshua says: The verse states with regard to the sin offering of a destitute sinner, which is a meal offering brought in lieu of an animal or bird: βHe shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense on it; for it is a sin offeringβ (Leviticus 5:11). From this verse it is evident that a sin offering is called a meal offering and a meal offering is called a sin offering, so that their halakhot may be compared.
ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ Χ¦ΦΈΧ€ΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΌΧ ΦΈΧ Χ¦ΦΈΧ€ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ β ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ.
Just as a sin offering requires slaughtering in the north section of the Temple courtyard, so too, the handful of a meal offering requires sanctification in a service vessel in the north. And just as a meal offering is brought near to the southwest corner of the altar, so too, the blood of a sin offering is sprinkled on the southwest corner of the altar.
ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ€Φ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧΦ·Χ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ: Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΧ³Χ΄ β ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΦ·ΧΦΌΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ¨ΦΈΧ? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦΆΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·Χ΄.
The Gemara asks: And with regard to a meal offering itself, from where do we derive that it must be brought near the altar at the southwest corner? As it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: βAnd this is the law of the meal offeringβ¦before the Lord, in front of the altarβ (Leviticus 6:7). From the phrase: βBefore the Lord,β one might have thought that the rite of bringing the meal offering near the altar must be performed at the west side of the altar, which faces the Sanctuary. Therefore, the verse states: βIn front of the altar,β which is its south side, from where the priests ascend the ramp.
ΧΦ΄Χ Χ΄ΧΦΆΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·Χ΄ β ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ? ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΧ³Χ΄. ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ¦Φ·Χ? ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧΦ΄ΧΧͺ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ ΦΆΧΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΧΦΉ.
The baraita continues: If the verse merely stated: βIn front of the altar,β one might have thought that the practice of bringing the meal offering near the altar must be performed at the south side of the altar. Therefore, the verse states: βBefore the Lord,β which indicates the west side. How can these texts be reconciled? The priest brings it near at the southwest corner of the altar, opposite the edge of the corner of the altar, and that is sufficient.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ’Φ²Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ§ΦΆΧ¨ΦΆΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨Φ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌ: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΅Χ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄Χ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧͺ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ β ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ, ΧΦ°ΧͺΧΦΉΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer says: One might have thought that the priest may bring it near the altar to the west of the southwest corner or to the south of the southwest corner. You must say: Anywhere you find two verses, and acting in accordance with one of them fulfills itself, i.e., the requirement stated in that verse, and fulfills the requirement stated in the other verse, whereas acting in accordance with the other one of them fulfills itself and negates the requirement stated in the other verse, one leaves the verse that fulfills itself and negates the other, and seizes the verse that fulfills itself and fulfills the other verse as well.
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦΆΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΧ³Χ΄ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²Χ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌ Χ΄ΧΦΆΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·Χ΄? ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ Χ΄ΧΦΆΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·Χ΄ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ, Χ§Φ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌ Χ΄ΧΦ΄Χ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΧ³Χ΄.
The Gemara explains: In this context, when you say: βBefore the Lord,β which indicates that the meal offering should be brought near the altar at the west side of the altar, how have you fulfilled the other part of the verse: βIn front of the altar,β which indicates the south side? But when you say: βIn front of the altar,β and bring it near the altar at the south side, you have also fulfilled the phrase: βBefore the Lord.β Consequently, the meal offering must be brought near the south side of the altar.
ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ§Φ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ: Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧ ΦΈΦΌΧ, ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ· ΧΦΌΦ·Χ¦ΦΌΦΈΧ€ΧΦΉΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ.
The Gemara asks: If one brought the meal offering near the altar at the south side, how have you fulfilled the phrase: βBefore the Lordβ? Rav Ashi says: This tanna holds that the entire altar stood in the north section of the Temple courtyard. The southern side of the altar was directly aligned with the midpoint of the Temple courtyard, directly opposite the entrance of the Sanctuary, and therefore it is considered βbefore the Lord.β
ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ [ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ³]. ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ©Φ΅ΧΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ, ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧΦΌ.
Β§ The mishna teaches that if the sacrificial rite of a bird sin offering was performed in any place on the altar, the offering is valid, but the southwest corner was its designated place. The Gemara asks: What is the mishna saying when it states that the southwest corner was its designated place? The mishna already stated that the sacrificial rite of a bird sin offering should be performed at the southwest corner. Rav Ashi said: This is what the mishna is saying: Any place was valid for its pinching, but the southwest corner was the place for the sprinkling of its blood.
ΧͺΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ· β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ; ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ‘Φ΄ΦΌΧΧ§Φ°Χ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·Χ ΦΆΦΌΧ€ΦΆΧ©Χ.
The Gemara notes: We learn in this mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita with regard to a bird sin offering: If the priest pinched its nape in any place on the altar, it is valid. If he sprinkled its blood in any place on the altar, it is valid. If he sprinkled the blood, but did not squeeze out the remaining blood upon the lower part of the wall of the altar, in accordance with the verse: βAnd he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be squeezed out at the base of the altarβ (Leviticus 5:9), it is nevertheless valid, provided that he places some of the blood of the soul anywhere on the altar from the red line and below.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨? ΧΦΈΧΦ΄Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ§ΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ· β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¦ΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΈΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ· β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΅ΧΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ,
The Gemara asks: What is the baraita saying? It first states that the offering is valid no matter where on the altar its blood is sprinkled, and it then states that blood must be placed specifically below the red line. The Gemara answers: This is what the baraita is saying: If he pinched its nape in any place on the altar, it is valid. If he squeezed out its blood in any place on the altar, it is valid,
Follow
