What items need to be removed if brought onto the altar? What is the status of items that are connected to the meat but not the meat itself, like bones, hooves, horns, sinews? What items that have fallen of the altar need to be put back on? Does it depend on when they fell off?
Zevachim 86
07.08.2018 | כ״ה בתמוז תשע״ח
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Zevachim 86
יָכוֹל יַחְלוֹץ גִּידִין וַעֲצָמוֹת, וְיַעֲלֶה בָּשָׂר לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל״. הָא כֵּיצַד? מְחוּבָּרִין – יַעֲלוּ, פֵּירְשׁוּ – אֲפִילּוּ הֵן בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, יֵרְדוּ.
then one might have thought that a priest must first remove the tendons and bones from an offering and then sacrifice the flesh upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar,” including the tendons and bones. How can these texts be reconciled? If they were attached to the flesh, they shall ascend. If they separated from the flesh, then even if they are already at the top of the altar, they shall descend.
מַאן תַּנָּא דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: פֵּירְשׁוּ יָרְדוּ? רַבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת הַעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִין וְהַקְּרָנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם, אֲפִילּוּ פֵּירְשׁוּ.
The Gemara notes: Who is the tanna that you heard that says if they separated they shall descend? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9); the term “the whole” serves to include the bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves, among those items that are offered on the altar, even if they separated from the flesh of the offering.
וְאֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״? לוֹמַר לָךְ: עִיכּוּלֵי עוֹלָה אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר, וְאִי אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר עִיכּוּלֵי גִּידִין וַעֲצָמוֹת.
But if so, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27), which indicates that only the flesh and blood of an offering ascend upon the altar? This verse is necessary to tell you an additional halakha, that you return the consumed flesh of a burnt offering to the fire if it is dislodged from it, but you do not return the consumed tendons and bones if they are dislodged from the fire.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״ – רִיבָּה, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״ – מִיעֵט. הָא כֵּיצַד? מְחוּבָּרִין – יַעֲלוּ, פֵּירְשׁוּ – אֲפִילּוּ הֵן בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, יֵרְדוּ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that one verse states: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar,” which included tendons and bones, and one verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,” which excluded any part other than the flesh and the blood. How can these texts be reconciled? If they were attached to the flesh, they shall ascend. If they separated from the flesh, then even if they are already on top of the altar, they shall descend.
פֵּירְשׁוּ לֹא יַעֲלוּ [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁפֵּירְשׁוּ כְּלַפֵּי מַטָּה, אֲבָל כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה – קָרוֹבֵי הוּא דְּאַקְרִיבוּ לְעִיכּוּל. וַאֲפִילּוּ פֵּירְשׁוּ?!
§ The mishna teaches that items that are not meant for consumption on the altar, such as the bones and tendons, are sacrificed along with the flesh if they are attached to it. But if they separated they shall not ascend. Rabbi Zeira said: The Sages taught that if they separated from the flesh they shall not ascend only when they separated from the offering downward, i.e., away from the altar, whereby they became distanced from the pyre when they were separated. But if they separated from the offering upward, i.e., they became closer to the pyre when they were separated from the offering, they have become closer to consumption and shall ascend. The Gemara asks: And even if they separated, shall they be offered? Doesn’t the mishna state that they shall ascend only if they are still attached to the flesh?
אָמַר רַבָּה, הָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁפֵּירְשׁוּ לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה, אֲבָל פֵּירְשׁוּ קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה – אֲתַאי זְרִיקָה וּשְׁרִיתִינְהוּ, אֲפִילּוּ לְמֶעְבַּד מִינַּיְיהוּ (קתא) [קַתָּתָא] דְּסַכִּינֵי.
Rabba said: This is what Rabbi Zeira is saying: It was necessary for the Sages to teach the halakha, that bones or tendons that separated from the flesh of an offering shall not ascend the altar, only where they separated after the sprinkling of its blood, since at the time that the flesh itself became permitted for the altar through the sprinkling, the bones and tendons were still attached to the flesh and therefore fit to be offered with it. But if they separated from an offering before the sprinkling of its blood they shall certainly not ascend, as they were already separated from the flesh when it became permitted for the altar. Instead, the sprinkling comes and permits them for any use, just as the hide of a burnt offering is permitted to the priests upon the sprinkling of its blood. In fact, one may even use such tendons or bones to fashion the handles of knives from them.
סָבַר לַהּ כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: נֶאֱמַר ״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״ בְּעוֹלָה, וְנֶאֱמַר ״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״ בְּאָשָׁם; מָה אָשָׁם – עַצְמוֹתָיו מוּתָּרִין, אַף עוֹלָה – (עצמות) [עַצְמוֹתֶיהָ] מוּתָּרִין.
The Gemara elaborates: Rabba holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: It is stated: “He shall have the hide of the burnt offering that he has offered” (Leviticus 7:8), with regard to a burnt offering, and it is stated: “The priest that makes atonement, he shall have it” (Leviticus 7:7), with regard to a guilt offering. The following verbal analogy is derived from here: Just as after the blood of a guilt offering is presented its bones become permitted to the priest for any use, since only the portions intended for consumption on the altar are sacrificed whereas the rest of the animal is given to the priests, so too, with regard to a burnt offering, bones that are not attached to the flesh and therefore are not intended for the altar are permitted.
מוּפְנֵי; דְּאִי לָא מוּפְנֵי – אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְאָשָׁם, שֶׁכֵּן בְּשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר! ״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״ יַתִּירָא כְּתִיב.
The Gemara notes: The phrase “He shall have” is free, i.e., superfluous in its context and therefore available for the purpose of establishing a verbal analogy, and there is a principle that such verbal analogies are not refuted. As, if these words were not considered free, the verbal analogy can be refuted by saying: What is notable about a guilt offering? It is notable in that its meat is permitted and its bones are therefore permitted as well, while the flesh of a burnt offering ascends upon the altar in its entirety. If so, halakhot may not be applied to one based on the other. Consequently, the phrase “He shall have” with regard to a burnt offering is considered as having been written superfluously, as it would have sufficed to state: The hide of the burnt offering that he has offered, to the priest.
מֵתִיב רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: עַצְמוֹת קָדָשִׁים, לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן,
Rav Adda bar Ahava raises an objection to the explanation of Rabba from a baraita: With regard to the bones of sacrificial animals, specifically sin offerings or guilt offerings, which are offerings of the most sacred order that are intended for consumption, before the sprinkling of their blood, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, similar to the halakha with regard to the flesh of offerings of the most sacred order before their blood is sprinkled.
לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. וְשֶׁל עוֹלָה – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן לְעוֹלָם!
After the sprinkling of their blood, one who benefits from them is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, as they are not intended for sacrificing upon the altar. But concerning the bones of a burnt offering, one who benefits from them is always liable for misuse of consecrated property. This baraita contradicts the opinion of Rabba, who said that if the bones separated from a burnt offering before the sprinkling of its blood, it is permitted to derive benefit from them.
אֵימָא: וְשֶׁל עוֹלָה, פֵּירְשׁוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן לְעוֹלָם.
The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita meant the following: But concerning the bones of a burnt offering, if they separated before the sprinkling of its blood and its blood was then sprinkled, then one who benefits from them is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. If they separated after the sprinkling of its blood, one who benefits from them is always liable for misuse of consecrated property.
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר; דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: פֵּירְשׁוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶם, לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין.
And Rabba disagrees with Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: If the bones of a burnt offering separated from its flesh before sprinkling, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property. If they separated after sprinkling, the Sages decreed that one may not benefit from them ab initio, but if one benefitted from them after the fact, he is not liable for misuse, since by Torah law they were permitted through the sprinkling of the offering’s blood.
מַתְנִי׳ וְכוּלָּן שֶׁפָּקְעוּ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לֹא יַחְזִיר, וְכֵן גַּחֶלֶת שֶׁפָּקְעָה מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לֹא יַחֲזִיר. אֵיבָרִים שֶׁפָּקְעוּ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת – יַחְזִיר, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן; לְאַחַר חֲצוֹת – לֹא יַחְזִיר, וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶם.
MISHNA: And all of those disqualified offerings with regard to which it was taught (84a) that if they ascended they do not descend, in a case where they were dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore them to the altar. And likewise, with regard to an ember that was dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore it to the altar. As for limbs of a fit burnt offering that were dislodged from upon the altar, if they were dislodged before midnight, the priest should restore them to the altar and one is liable for misusing them. But if they were dislodged after midnight, the priest does not restore them and one is not liable for misusing them, as one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property after it has fulfilled the purpose for which it was designated.
כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת הָרָאוּי לוֹ, כָּךְ הַכֶּבֶשׁ מְקַדֵּשׁ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהַכֶּבֶשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהֶן, כָּךְ הַכֵּלִים מְקַדְּשִׁין.
With regard to unfit items that if they ascended do not descend, just as the altar sanctifies items that are suited to it, so too, the ramp sanctifies items that are suited to it. Just as the altar and the ramp sanctify items that are suited to them, so too, the service vessels sanctify items that are placed in them.
גְּמָ׳ הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאִית בְּהוּ מַמָּשׁ – אֲפִילּוּ לְאַחַר חֲצוֹת נָמֵי! אִי דְּלֵית בְּהוּ מַמָּשׁ – אֲפִילּוּ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת נָמֵי לָא! לָא צְרִיכָא,
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that limbs of a fit burnt offering that were dislodged from upon the altar before midnight are returned to the altar, but that if they were dislodged after midnight they are not returned. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the limbs have substance, i.e., they were not yet consumed in their entirety by the fire, then even if they were dislodged after midnight the priest must return them to the fire. If they do not have substance and have been reduced to ash, then even if they were dislodged before midnight the priest does not return them to the altar. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary
בִּשְׁרִירֵי. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?
with regard to hardened limbs that were dried by the fire but have not yet been reduced to ash. The mishna teaches that before midnight, such limbs should be returned to the altar. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived that midnight determines whether or not they shall be returned?
אָמַר רַב, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה״ וְהִקְטִיר, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה… וְהֵרִים״.
Rav says: One verse states: All night and he shall burn the burnt offering, which indicates that there is a mitzva to burn the limbs of a burnt offering all night, as the verse states: “It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar all night until the morning” (Leviticus 6:2). And one verse states: “All night until the morning…and he shall remove the ashes that the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar” (Leviticus 6:2–3), which indicates that one may remove the ashes at any time during the night, including the limbs of a burnt offering that were already hardened by the fire. How can these texts be reconciled?
חַלְּקֵיהוּ, חֶצְיוֹ לְהַקְטָרָה וְחֶצְיוֹ לַהֲרָמָה.
Rav explains: Divide the night into two parts: Half of the night, i.e., until midnight, is designated for the mitzva of burning, and during this time, that which is dislodged from the altar shall be returned; and half of the night, i.e., after midnight, is designated for removing.
מֵתִיב רַב כָּהֲנָא: בְּכׇל יוֹם תּוֹרֵם אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִקְּרוֹת הַגֶּבֶר, אוֹ סָמוּךְ לוֹ מִלְּפָנָיו [אוֹ] מֵאַחֲרָיו. בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים – בַּחֲצוֹת. בָּרְגָלִים – בָּאַשְׁמוֹרֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מֵחֲצוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, הֵיכִי מַקְדְּמִינַן וְהֵיכִי מְאַחֲרִינַן?
With regard to Rav’s assertion that one may begin to remove the ashes only after midnight, Rav Kahana raises an objection from a mishna (Yoma 20a): Every day the priests would remove the ashes from the altar and place them on the east side of the ramp at the rooster’s crow or close to the time of its crowing, whether before it or after it, as there was no insistence on a precise time. On Yom Kippur they would remove the ashes at midnight. On the Festivals the ashes were removed even earlier, at the end of the first watch. Rav Kahana concludes his objection: And if it enters your mind that the proper time for removing the ashes by Torah law is from midnight, how do we advance the removal of the ashes on the Festivals, and how do we delay their removal the rest of the year?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה״ – אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁעַד הַבֹּקֶר? מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַד בֹּקֶר״? תֵּן בֹּקֶר לְבׇקְרוֹ שֶׁל לַיְלָה.
Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The proper time of the removal of the ashes is based on the following: From the fact that it is stated with regard to the burning of the limbs: “All night” (Leviticus 6:2), don’t I know that he may burn a burnt offering until the morning? If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Until the morning”? It means: Add another morning to the morning of the night. Arise before dawn, as that is the time for the removal of the ashes. Nevertheless, there is no specific hour fixed for performing this removal, and one may remove the ashes from the beginning of the night.
הִלְכָּךְ, כֹּל יוֹמָא – מִקְּרוֹת הַגֶּבֶר סַגִּי. בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים, מִשּׁוּם חוּלְשָׁא דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל – מֵחֲצוֹת. בִּרְגָלִים, דִּנְפִישִׁי קׇרְבָּנוֹת דְּקָדְמִי אָתוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל – מֵאַשְׁמוֹרֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה; כִּדְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: לֹא הָיְתָה קְרִיַּית הַגֶּבֶר מַגַּעַת עַד שֶׁהָיְתָה עֲזָרָה מְלֵאָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.
Therefore, every day, performing the removal at the rooster’s crow is sufficient. On Yom Kippur, due to the weakness of the High Priest, who must perform the entire Temple service on that day, they would hasten to remove the ashes from midnight. On the Festivals, during which there are many offerings on account of the masses of Jewish people in Jerusalem on those days, who, in order to offer their sacrifices, would arrive early at the Temple, they would remove the ashes beginning from the end of the first watch, as the mishna teaches in the latter clause (Yoma 20a): The call of the rooster would not arrive on Festivals until the Temple courtyard was filled with Jews.
אִיתְּמַר: פֵּירְשׁוּ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת וְהֶחְזִירָן אַחַר חֲצוֹת – רַבָּה אָמַר:
§ The Gemara previously explained the mishna as saying that limbs that were hardened by the fire but not entirely consumed are not returned to the altar if they were dislodged from it after midnight, since the mitzva of burning has been performed and the limbs are considered to have been entirely consumed. It was stated that amora’im engage in a dispute concerning the following matter: In the case of limbs that separated from upon the altar before midnight and were returned after midnight, whereby the mitzva of burning was not completed by midnight, Rabba says:
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.
See video
Susan Fisher
Raanana, Israel
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Pamela Elisheva
Bakersfield, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
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…
Miriam Eckstein-Koas
Huntington, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Lisa S. Malik
Wynnewood, United States
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Sarene Shanus
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Silke Goldberg
Guildford, United Kingdom
Having never learned Talmud before, I started Daf Yomi in hopes of connecting to the Rabbinic tradition, sharing a daily idea on Instagram (@dafyomiadventures). With Hadran and Sefaria, I slowly gained confidence in my skills and understanding. Now, part of the Pardes Jewish Educators Program, I can’t wait to bring this love of learning with me as I continue to pass it on to my future students.
Hannah Greenberg
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Naomi Niederhoffer
Toronto, Canada
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Anne Rubin
Elkins Park, 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!
Lisa Kolodny
Raanana, Israel
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Beth Elster
Irvine, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Caroline Levison
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
Robin Zeiger
Tel Aviv, Israel
Zevachim 86
יָכוֹל יַחְלוֹץ גִּידִין וַעֲצָמוֹת, וְיַעֲלֶה בָּשָׂר לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל״. הָא כֵּיצַד? מְחוּבָּרִין – יַעֲלוּ, פֵּירְשׁוּ – אֲפִילּוּ הֵן בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, יֵרְדוּ.
then one might have thought that a priest must first remove the tendons and bones from an offering and then sacrifice the flesh upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar,” including the tendons and bones. How can these texts be reconciled? If they were attached to the flesh, they shall ascend. If they separated from the flesh, then even if they are already at the top of the altar, they shall descend.
מַאן תַּנָּא דְּשָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר: פֵּירְשׁוּ יָרְדוּ? רַבִּי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת הַעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִין וְהַקְּרָנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם, אֲפִילּוּ פֵּירְשׁוּ.
The Gemara notes: Who is the tanna that you heard that says if they separated they shall descend? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9); the term “the whole” serves to include the bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves, among those items that are offered on the altar, even if they separated from the flesh of the offering.
וְאֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״? לוֹמַר לָךְ: עִיכּוּלֵי עוֹלָה אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר, וְאִי אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר עִיכּוּלֵי גִּידִין וַעֲצָמוֹת.
But if so, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27), which indicates that only the flesh and blood of an offering ascend upon the altar? This verse is necessary to tell you an additional halakha, that you return the consumed flesh of a burnt offering to the fire if it is dislodged from it, but you do not return the consumed tendons and bones if they are dislodged from the fire.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״ – רִיבָּה, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״ – מִיעֵט. הָא כֵּיצַד? מְחוּבָּרִין – יַעֲלוּ, פֵּירְשׁוּ – אֲפִילּוּ הֵן בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, יֵרְדוּ.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that one verse states: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar,” which included tendons and bones, and one verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,” which excluded any part other than the flesh and the blood. How can these texts be reconciled? If they were attached to the flesh, they shall ascend. If they separated from the flesh, then even if they are already on top of the altar, they shall descend.
פֵּירְשׁוּ לֹא יַעֲלוּ [וְכוּ׳]. אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁפֵּירְשׁוּ כְּלַפֵּי מַטָּה, אֲבָל כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה – קָרוֹבֵי הוּא דְּאַקְרִיבוּ לְעִיכּוּל. וַאֲפִילּוּ פֵּירְשׁוּ?!
§ The mishna teaches that items that are not meant for consumption on the altar, such as the bones and tendons, are sacrificed along with the flesh if they are attached to it. But if they separated they shall not ascend. Rabbi Zeira said: The Sages taught that if they separated from the flesh they shall not ascend only when they separated from the offering downward, i.e., away from the altar, whereby they became distanced from the pyre when they were separated. But if they separated from the offering upward, i.e., they became closer to the pyre when they were separated from the offering, they have become closer to consumption and shall ascend. The Gemara asks: And even if they separated, shall they be offered? Doesn’t the mishna state that they shall ascend only if they are still attached to the flesh?
אָמַר רַבָּה, הָכִי קָאָמַר: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁפֵּירְשׁוּ לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה, אֲבָל פֵּירְשׁוּ קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה – אֲתַאי זְרִיקָה וּשְׁרִיתִינְהוּ, אֲפִילּוּ לְמֶעְבַּד מִינַּיְיהוּ (קתא) [קַתָּתָא] דְּסַכִּינֵי.
Rabba said: This is what Rabbi Zeira is saying: It was necessary for the Sages to teach the halakha, that bones or tendons that separated from the flesh of an offering shall not ascend the altar, only where they separated after the sprinkling of its blood, since at the time that the flesh itself became permitted for the altar through the sprinkling, the bones and tendons were still attached to the flesh and therefore fit to be offered with it. But if they separated from an offering before the sprinkling of its blood they shall certainly not ascend, as they were already separated from the flesh when it became permitted for the altar. Instead, the sprinkling comes and permits them for any use, just as the hide of a burnt offering is permitted to the priests upon the sprinkling of its blood. In fact, one may even use such tendons or bones to fashion the handles of knives from them.
סָבַר לַהּ כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: נֶאֱמַר ״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״ בְּעוֹלָה, וְנֶאֱמַר ״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״ בְּאָשָׁם; מָה אָשָׁם – עַצְמוֹתָיו מוּתָּרִין, אַף עוֹלָה – (עצמות) [עַצְמוֹתֶיהָ] מוּתָּרִין.
The Gemara elaborates: Rabba holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: It is stated: “He shall have the hide of the burnt offering that he has offered” (Leviticus 7:8), with regard to a burnt offering, and it is stated: “The priest that makes atonement, he shall have it” (Leviticus 7:7), with regard to a guilt offering. The following verbal analogy is derived from here: Just as after the blood of a guilt offering is presented its bones become permitted to the priest for any use, since only the portions intended for consumption on the altar are sacrificed whereas the rest of the animal is given to the priests, so too, with regard to a burnt offering, bones that are not attached to the flesh and therefore are not intended for the altar are permitted.
מוּפְנֵי; דְּאִי לָא מוּפְנֵי – אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְאָשָׁם, שֶׁכֵּן בְּשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר! ״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״ יַתִּירָא כְּתִיב.
The Gemara notes: The phrase “He shall have” is free, i.e., superfluous in its context and therefore available for the purpose of establishing a verbal analogy, and there is a principle that such verbal analogies are not refuted. As, if these words were not considered free, the verbal analogy can be refuted by saying: What is notable about a guilt offering? It is notable in that its meat is permitted and its bones are therefore permitted as well, while the flesh of a burnt offering ascends upon the altar in its entirety. If so, halakhot may not be applied to one based on the other. Consequently, the phrase “He shall have” with regard to a burnt offering is considered as having been written superfluously, as it would have sufficed to state: The hide of the burnt offering that he has offered, to the priest.
מֵתִיב רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: עַצְמוֹת קָדָשִׁים, לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן,
Rav Adda bar Ahava raises an objection to the explanation of Rabba from a baraita: With regard to the bones of sacrificial animals, specifically sin offerings or guilt offerings, which are offerings of the most sacred order that are intended for consumption, before the sprinkling of their blood, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, similar to the halakha with regard to the flesh of offerings of the most sacred order before their blood is sprinkled.
לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן. וְשֶׁל עוֹלָה – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן לְעוֹלָם!
After the sprinkling of their blood, one who benefits from them is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, as they are not intended for sacrificing upon the altar. But concerning the bones of a burnt offering, one who benefits from them is always liable for misuse of consecrated property. This baraita contradicts the opinion of Rabba, who said that if the bones separated from a burnt offering before the sprinkling of its blood, it is permitted to derive benefit from them.
אֵימָא: וְשֶׁל עוֹלָה, פֵּירְשׁוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן, לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן לְעוֹלָם.
The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita meant the following: But concerning the bones of a burnt offering, if they separated before the sprinkling of its blood and its blood was then sprinkled, then one who benefits from them is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. If they separated after the sprinkling of its blood, one who benefits from them is always liable for misuse of consecrated property.
וּפְלִיגָא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר; דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: פֵּירְשׁוּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶם, לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – לֹא נֶהֱנִין וְלֹא מוֹעֲלִין.
And Rabba disagrees with Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: If the bones of a burnt offering separated from its flesh before sprinkling, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property. If they separated after sprinkling, the Sages decreed that one may not benefit from them ab initio, but if one benefitted from them after the fact, he is not liable for misuse, since by Torah law they were permitted through the sprinkling of the offering’s blood.
מַתְנִי׳ וְכוּלָּן שֶׁפָּקְעוּ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לֹא יַחְזִיר, וְכֵן גַּחֶלֶת שֶׁפָּקְעָה מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – לֹא יַחֲזִיר. אֵיבָרִים שֶׁפָּקְעוּ מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת – יַחְזִיר, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן; לְאַחַר חֲצוֹת – לֹא יַחְזִיר, וְאֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶם.
MISHNA: And all of those disqualified offerings with regard to which it was taught (84a) that if they ascended they do not descend, in a case where they were dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore them to the altar. And likewise, with regard to an ember that was dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore it to the altar. As for limbs of a fit burnt offering that were dislodged from upon the altar, if they were dislodged before midnight, the priest should restore them to the altar and one is liable for misusing them. But if they were dislodged after midnight, the priest does not restore them and one is not liable for misusing them, as one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property after it has fulfilled the purpose for which it was designated.
כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת הָרָאוּי לוֹ, כָּךְ הַכֶּבֶשׁ מְקַדֵּשׁ. כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהַכֶּבֶשׁ מְקַדְּשִׁין אֶת הָרָאוּי לָהֶן, כָּךְ הַכֵּלִים מְקַדְּשִׁין.
With regard to unfit items that if they ascended do not descend, just as the altar sanctifies items that are suited to it, so too, the ramp sanctifies items that are suited to it. Just as the altar and the ramp sanctify items that are suited to them, so too, the service vessels sanctify items that are placed in them.
גְּמָ׳ הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִי דְּאִית בְּהוּ מַמָּשׁ – אֲפִילּוּ לְאַחַר חֲצוֹת נָמֵי! אִי דְּלֵית בְּהוּ מַמָּשׁ – אֲפִילּוּ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת נָמֵי לָא! לָא צְרִיכָא,
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that limbs of a fit burnt offering that were dislodged from upon the altar before midnight are returned to the altar, but that if they were dislodged after midnight they are not returned. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the limbs have substance, i.e., they were not yet consumed in their entirety by the fire, then even if they were dislodged after midnight the priest must return them to the fire. If they do not have substance and have been reduced to ash, then even if they were dislodged before midnight the priest does not return them to the altar. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary
בִּשְׁרִירֵי. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי?
with regard to hardened limbs that were dried by the fire but have not yet been reduced to ash. The mishna teaches that before midnight, such limbs should be returned to the altar. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived that midnight determines whether or not they shall be returned?
אָמַר רַב, כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה״ וְהִקְטִיר, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה… וְהֵרִים״.
Rav says: One verse states: All night and he shall burn the burnt offering, which indicates that there is a mitzva to burn the limbs of a burnt offering all night, as the verse states: “It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar all night until the morning” (Leviticus 6:2). And one verse states: “All night until the morning…and he shall remove the ashes that the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar” (Leviticus 6:2–3), which indicates that one may remove the ashes at any time during the night, including the limbs of a burnt offering that were already hardened by the fire. How can these texts be reconciled?
חַלְּקֵיהוּ, חֶצְיוֹ לְהַקְטָרָה וְחֶצְיוֹ לַהֲרָמָה.
Rav explains: Divide the night into two parts: Half of the night, i.e., until midnight, is designated for the mitzva of burning, and during this time, that which is dislodged from the altar shall be returned; and half of the night, i.e., after midnight, is designated for removing.
מֵתִיב רַב כָּהֲנָא: בְּכׇל יוֹם תּוֹרֵם אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מִקְּרוֹת הַגֶּבֶר, אוֹ סָמוּךְ לוֹ מִלְּפָנָיו [אוֹ] מֵאַחֲרָיו. בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים – בַּחֲצוֹת. בָּרְגָלִים – בָּאַשְׁמוֹרֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מֵחֲצוֹת דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, הֵיכִי מַקְדְּמִינַן וְהֵיכִי מְאַחֲרִינַן?
With regard to Rav’s assertion that one may begin to remove the ashes only after midnight, Rav Kahana raises an objection from a mishna (Yoma 20a): Every day the priests would remove the ashes from the altar and place them on the east side of the ramp at the rooster’s crow or close to the time of its crowing, whether before it or after it, as there was no insistence on a precise time. On Yom Kippur they would remove the ashes at midnight. On the Festivals the ashes were removed even earlier, at the end of the first watch. Rav Kahana concludes his objection: And if it enters your mind that the proper time for removing the ashes by Torah law is from midnight, how do we advance the removal of the ashes on the Festivals, and how do we delay their removal the rest of the year?
אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה״ – אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁעַד הַבֹּקֶר? מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עַד בֹּקֶר״? תֵּן בֹּקֶר לְבׇקְרוֹ שֶׁל לַיְלָה.
Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The proper time of the removal of the ashes is based on the following: From the fact that it is stated with regard to the burning of the limbs: “All night” (Leviticus 6:2), don’t I know that he may burn a burnt offering until the morning? If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Until the morning”? It means: Add another morning to the morning of the night. Arise before dawn, as that is the time for the removal of the ashes. Nevertheless, there is no specific hour fixed for performing this removal, and one may remove the ashes from the beginning of the night.
הִלְכָּךְ, כֹּל יוֹמָא – מִקְּרוֹת הַגֶּבֶר סַגִּי. בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים, מִשּׁוּם חוּלְשָׁא דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל – מֵחֲצוֹת. בִּרְגָלִים, דִּנְפִישִׁי קׇרְבָּנוֹת דְּקָדְמִי אָתוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל – מֵאַשְׁמוֹרֶת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה; כִּדְקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: לֹא הָיְתָה קְרִיַּית הַגֶּבֶר מַגַּעַת עַד שֶׁהָיְתָה עֲזָרָה מְלֵאָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.
Therefore, every day, performing the removal at the rooster’s crow is sufficient. On Yom Kippur, due to the weakness of the High Priest, who must perform the entire Temple service on that day, they would hasten to remove the ashes from midnight. On the Festivals, during which there are many offerings on account of the masses of Jewish people in Jerusalem on those days, who, in order to offer their sacrifices, would arrive early at the Temple, they would remove the ashes beginning from the end of the first watch, as the mishna teaches in the latter clause (Yoma 20a): The call of the rooster would not arrive on Festivals until the Temple courtyard was filled with Jews.
אִיתְּמַר: פֵּירְשׁוּ קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת וְהֶחְזִירָן אַחַר חֲצוֹת – רַבָּה אָמַר:
§ The Gemara previously explained the mishna as saying that limbs that were hardened by the fire but not entirely consumed are not returned to the altar if they were dislodged from it after midnight, since the mitzva of burning has been performed and the limbs are considered to have been entirely consumed. It was stated that amora’im engage in a dispute concerning the following matter: In the case of limbs that separated from upon the altar before midnight and were returned after midnight, whereby the mitzva of burning was not completed by midnight, Rabba says:
Follow
