Why was the oven in the mikdash made of metal? In what ways are the laws of merika and shetifa similar different from laundering blood from a sin offering? How was merika and shetifa performed?
Zevachim 96
07.18.2018 | ו׳ באב תשע״ח
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Zevachim 96
אֶלָּא קְדֵירוֹת שֶׁל מִקְדָּשׁ, אַמַּאי אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא יִשָּׁבְרוּ? נַהְדְּרִינְהוּ לְכִבְשׁוֹנוֹת! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין כִּבְשׁוֹנוֹת בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.
The Gemara challenges: But according to the opinion that earthenware vessels can be cleansed of their absorbed substances by the process of kindling, with regard to pots used in the Temple, why does the Merciful One state in the Torah that they should be broken? Let us simply return them to the kilns in which pots are made to be sure that the pots will be cleansed by the extreme heat of the kilns. Rabbi Zeira said: The pots cannot be returned to kilns because, as taught in a baraita (see Bava Kamma 82b), kilns are not built in Jerusalem because of the great quantity of smoke they produce.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וְכִי עוֹשִׂין אַשְׁפַּתּוֹת בָּעֲזָרָה?! אִישְׁתְּמִיטְתֵּיהּ הָא דְּתָנֵי שְׁמַעְיָה בְּקַלְנְבוֹ: שִׁבְרֵי כְּלֵי חֶרֶס נִבְלָעִין בִּמְקוֹמָן.
The Gemara presents an objection to Rabbi Zeira’s answer. Abaye said: But if, as the baraita teaches, there are no kilns in Jerusalem, are scrap heaps of earthenware assembled in the Temple courtyard? The same baraita also teaches that there are no scrap heaps in Jerusalem. What, then, is done with the shards of earthenware vessels that must be broken in the courtyard? The Gemara dismisses the question: Abaye raised that objection only because that which Shemaya taught in Kalnevo escaped him; Shemaya taught there: In the Temple, shards of earthenware vessels were miraculously absorbed in their place.
אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: תַּנּוּר שֶׁל מִקְדָּשׁ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת הֲוָה – נֶעְבֵּיד דְּחֶרֶס, דְּהֶסֵּיקוֹ מִבְּפָנִים הוּא!
The Gemara returns to the topic of kindling earthenware vessels and asks: But if kindling from within cleanses everything absorbed in an earthenware oven, what is the reason for that which Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The oven in the Temple was fashioned of metal? Let us fashion it of earthenware, as an oven’s kindling is from the inside, and, accordingly, it would be possible to cleanse it?
דְּכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים – דַּאֲפִיָּיתָן בְּתַנּוּר וּקְדוּשָּׁתָן בְּתַנּוּר; הָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּלִי שָׁרֵת, וּכְלִי שָׁרֵת דְּחֶרֶס לָא עָבְדִינַן.
The Gemara answers: The reason the oven must be fashioned of metal is because there are the two loaves, i.e., the public offering on Shavuot of two loaves from the new wheat, and the shewbread, i.e., the bread baked each week in a special form and displayed for the duration of one whole week on the table in the Sanctuary, whose baking is done in the oven, and also whose sanctification occurs in the oven. Because these offerings are not kneaded in a service vessel, they are sanctified only by being placed in the oven, and therefore the oven is a service vessel; and we do not make a service vessel of earthenware.
וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא דְּעֵץ, אֲבָל דְּחֶרֶס לָא.
And even Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says only that a service vessel may be fashioned of wood, which is a somewhat significant material, but with regard to a service vessel fashioned of earthenware, he holds that this is not valid.
רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יְהוּדָה הֲוָה רְגִיל קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא, שַׁבְקֵיהּ וַאֲזַל לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת. יוֹמָא חַד פְּגַע בֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַלְקַפְטָא נַקְטַן, רֵיחָא אָתֵי לַהּ לְיָד?! מִשּׁוּם דְּאָזְלַתְּ לָךְ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת, הָוֵית לָךְ כִּי רַב שֵׁשֶׁת?!
§ The Gemara relates an incident related to the halakha of scouring and rinsing. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda was initially accustomed to study Torah before Rami bar Ḥama. After some time, he left him and went to study before Rav Sheshet. One day Rami bar Ḥama met him and said to him colloquially: Did you assume, as many do, that when the chief of taxes [alkafta] grasped me by the hand, the fragrance of his hand came to my hand? Do you think that because you went away from me in order to study before Rav Sheshet, have you become like Rav Sheshet merely by association?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו מִשּׁוּם הָכִי; מָר – כִּי בָּעֵינָא מִילְּתָא, פָּשֵׁיט לִי מִסְּבָרָא; כִּי מַשְׁכַּחְנָא מַתְנִיתָא – פָּרְכָא לַהּ. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת – כִּי בָּעֵינָא מִילְּתָא מִינֵּיהּ, פָּשֵׁיט לִי מִמַּתְנִיתָא; דְּכִי נָמֵי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ מַתְנִיתָא וּפָרְכָא – מַתְנִיתָא וּמַתְנִיתָא הִיא.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda said to him: It is not due to that reason that I went to study before Rav Sheshet, but for another reason. As for you, Master, when I ask with regard to any matter, Master resolves the question for me through reasoning. Consequently, when I find a mishna that opposes that reasoning, it refutes Master’s proposed resolution. As for Rav Sheshet, when I ask of him a question concerning any matter, he resolves the question for me by citing a mishna. Consequently, when I also find a mishna, and that mishna refutes the proposed resolution, it is a dispute between one mishna and another mishna, which does not necessarily refute the mishna that he cited.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּעִי מִינַּי מִילְּתָא, דְּאִיפְשִׁיט לָךְ כִּי מַתְנִיתָא. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ: בִּישֵּׁל בְּמִקְצָת כְּלִי – טָעוּן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, אוֹ אֵין טָעוּן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵינוֹ טָעוּן, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַהַזָּאָה.
Rami bar Ḥama said to him: Ask me about a matter, which I will resolve for you in accordance with a mishna. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda asked him: If one cooked a sin offering in only part of a vessel, does the entire vessel require scouring and rinsing, or does it not require scouring and rinsing? Rami bar Ḥama said to him: The entire vessel does not require scouring and rinsing, just as it is taught concerning sprinkling the blood of a sin offering upon a garment. In the latter case, the mishna teaches (93b) that one must launder only the part of the garment on which the blood sprayed.
וְהָא לָא תְּנָא הָכִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּבֶגֶד – מָה בֶּגֶד אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס אֶלָּא מְקוֹם הַדָּם, אַף כְּלִי אֵינוֹ טָעוּן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם בִּישּׁוּל.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda replied: But the tanna does not teach this explicitly. Rami bar Ḥama said to him: Nevertheless, it stands to reason that the scouring and rinsing of a vessel in which sacred meat was cooked should be like the laundering of a garment, as follows: Just as a garment requires laundering only in the place where the blood was sprayed, so too, it must be that a vessel requires scouring and rinsing only in the place where the meat underwent the process of cooking.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי דָּמֵי?! דָּם לָא מְפַעְפַּע, בִּישּׁוּל מְפַעְפַּע! וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: חוֹמֶר בְּהַזָּאָה מִמְּרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, וְחוֹמֶר בִּמְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה מִבְּהַזָּאָה:
Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda said to him: Are the situations comparable? Blood does not spread and penetrate all parts of the garment, but in the case of cooking, the flavor of the meat spreads throughout the entire vessel. Additionally, your reasoning opposes that which is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 10:15): A certain stringency applies to sprinkling more than it applies to scouring and rinsing; and a certain stringency applies to scouring and rinsing more than it applies to sprinkling.
חוֹמֶר בְּהַזָּאָה – שֶׁהַזָּאָה יֶשְׁנָהּ בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת וּבְחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת, וְיֶשְׁנָהּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה; מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּמְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה.
The baraita continues: The stringency that applies to sprinkling is that the halakha of the sprinkling of blood on a garment applies to external sin offerings, brought on the altar in the Temple courtyard, and to internal sin offerings, whose blood is sprinkled on the altar in the Sanctuary; and the halakha of blood sprayed onto a garment applies if it sprays before the required sprinkling of the offering’s blood on the altar; which is not so in the case of scouring and rinsing. Scouring and rinsing are required only for external sin offerings, whose meat is eaten and therefore cooked; and it applies only after the sprinkling of blood on the altar, after which the meat may be eaten.
חוֹמֶר בִּמְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה – שֶׁהַמְּרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה נוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים בֵּין בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, בִּישֵּׁל בְּמִקְצָת הַכְּלִי – טָעוּן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה כָּל הַכְּלִי; מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּהַזָּאָה.
The baraita continues: The stringency that applies to scouring and rinsing is that the scouring and rinsing of vessels is practiced both for offerings of the most sacred order and for offerings of lesser sanctity; and even if one cooked in only part of the vessel, the entire vessel requires scouring and rinsing, which is not so in the case of errantly sprinkling blood onto a garment, for which one must launder only the place on which the blood sprayed.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי תַּנְיָא תַּנְיָא. וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם בִּכְלִי נְחֹשֶׁת בֻּשָּׁלָה״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּמִקְצָת כְּלִי.
Rami bar Ḥama said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot take issue with it. The Gemara then clarifies: And what is the reason that an entire vessel requires scouring and rinsing even if one cooked the meat of an offering in only part of the vessel? The reason is that the verse states: “And if it be cooked in a copper vessel, it shall be scoured and rinsed in water” (Leviticus 6:21). From the phrase “in a copper vessel” it is derived that even if the meat is cooked in only part of a vessel, the entire vessel must be scoured and rinsed.
אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״חַטָּאת״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חַטָּאת, כׇּל קָדָשִׁים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הִיא״.
§ The mishna teaches: Whether the meat is from offerings of the most sacred order or whether it is from offerings of lesser sanctity, the vessels in which it is cooked must be scoured and rinsed. The Gemara cites a related baraita: The Sages taught: The Torah introduces the mitzva of scouring and rinsing with the qualifying statement: “This is the law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18). From this verse I have derived only that the halakha with regard to scouring and rinsing applies to vessels in which a sin offering was cooked. From where do I derive that this halakha applies to vessels used for all sacrificial meat? The verse states: “Every male among the priests may eat of it; it is most sacred” (Leviticus 6:22), to teach that this halakha applies to vessels used for all of the sacrificial meat that the priests eat.
יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹתָהּ״ – פְּרָט לִתְרוּמָה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים אֵינָן טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה. דִּכְתִיב: ״קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים״ – קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים אֵין, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לָא.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that I should include vessels used for cooking teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, as well, as it is also sacred and may be eaten only by a priest (see Leviticus 22:14). To counter this, the verse states: “Every male among the priests may eat of it; it is most sacred” (Leviticus 6:22). The emphatic qualifier “of it” excludes teruma; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: Offerings of the most sacred order require scouring and rinsing, but offerings of lesser sanctity do not require scouring and rinsing, as it is written: “Most sacred.” Accordingly, with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, yes, scouring and rinsing is required; but for offerings of lesser sanctity, no, it is not required.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? מִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ ״אוֹתָהּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי תְּרוּמָה, מִכְּלָל דְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר לָךְ: ״אוֹתָהּ״ כִּדְאָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara asks: The baraita explains Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning; what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: Since the qualifying term “of it” was necessary to exclude teruma, by inference, it must be that vessels used for offerings of lesser sanctity require scouring and rinsing. If even offerings of lesser sanctity are excluded from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, it would be self-evident that the vessel used for teruma is exempt from scouring and rinsing. Accordingly, the direct exclusion of teruma indicates that the vessels used for offerings of lesser sanctity are not excluded. And Rabbi Shimon could have said to you: The term “of it” teaches a different halakha and excludes a disqualified sin offering from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, as we say earlier in this chapter (93a).
וּתְרוּמָה לָא בָּעֲיָא שְׁטִיפָה וּמְרִיקָה?! וְהָתַנְיָא: קְדֵרָה שֶׁבִּישֵּׁל בָּהּ בָּשָׂר לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בָּהּ חָלָב, וְאִם בִּישֵּׁל – בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. תְּרוּמָה לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בָּהּ חוּלִּין, וְאִם בִּישֵּׁל – בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם!
The Gemara asks: And is it correct that with regard to a copper vessel used to cook teruma, it does not require rinsing and scouring? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 8:16): With regard to a pot in which one cooked meat, one may not cook milk in it; and if one cooked milk in it, the meat absorbed in the pot renders the milk forbidden if it imparts flavor to it. Similarly, if one cooked teruma in a pot, one may not cook non-sacred food in it; and if one cooked non-sacred food in it, the absorbed teruma renders the mixture sacred if it imparts flavor to it. Therefore, a pot requires purging with boiling liquid in order to expel the flavor of teruma from it.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא לִדְאָמַר מָר: בִּישֵּׁל בְּמִקְצָת כְּלִי – טָעוּן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה כָּל הַכְּלִי. הָא תְּרוּמָה – לָא צְרִיךְ אֶלָּא מְקוֹם בִּישּׁוּל.
Three amora’im address the apparent inconsistency that while the Torah excludes vessels used for teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, the baraita teaches that these vessels must be purged. Abaye said: When the verse excludes teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, this is necessary only for that which the Master said: If one cooked in only part of the vessel, the entire vessel requires scouring and rinsing. By contrast, in this case, if teruma was cooked in only part of a vessel, one must perform scouring and rinsing only in the place of the cooking, and not in the whole vessel.
רָבָא אָמַר, לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא לִדְאָמַר מָר: ״בַּמָּיִם״ – וְלֹא בְּיַיִן, ״בַּמָּיִם״ – וְלֹא בְּמָזוּג. הָא – אֲפִילּוּ בְּיַיִן וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּמָזוּג.
Rava said: When the verse excludes teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, that is necessary only for that which the Master said: The verse specifies: “It shall be scoured and rinsed in water” (Leviticus 6:21), but the vessel is not to be scoured and rinsed in wine. It must be scoured and rinsed “in water,” but not in diluted wine. By contrast, in this case, i.e., the vessel in which teruma was cooked, it may be scoured and rinsed even in wine, and even in diluted wine.
רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא אָמַר, לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא לִדְאָמַר מָר: מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן. הָא – אֲפִילּוּ בְּחַמִּין.
Rabba bar Ulla said: When the verse excludes teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, this is necessary only for that which the Master said: One must perform scouring and rinsing with cold water, in addition to purging a vessel of its absorbed flavors with boiling water. By contrast, in this case, i.e., with regard to the vessel in which teruma was cooked, one may cleanse the vessel even by performing only the purging with boiling water, which removes the residue of the forbidden food, and omitting the cold water processes entirely.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן; אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מְרִיקָה בְּחַמִּין וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? שְׁטִיפָה יַתִּירְתָּא.
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that scouring and rinsing are performed with cold water; but according to the one who says that scouring is done by purging with hot water, and rinsing is a different procedure performed with cold water, what can be said? According to this opinion, the verse is also referring to purging; and if the verse excludes vessels used for teruma, how does the baraita teach that such vessels must be purged? The Gemara answers: According to the opinion that differentiates scouring, which is done with boiling water, from rinsing, which is done with cold water, the Torah excludes vessels used for teruma only from the additional rinsing that the Torah requires after the scouring.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: בִּישֵּׁל מִתְּחִילַּת הָרֶגֶל – יְבַשֵּׁל בּוֹ כָּל הָרֶגֶל. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד זְמַן אֲכִילָה. מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה – מְרִיקָה כִּמְרִיקַת הַכּוֹס, וּשְׁטִיפָה כִּשְׁטִיפַת הַכּוֹס. מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן.
MISHNA: Rabbi Tarfon says: If one cooked a sin offering in a copper vessel from the beginning of the pilgrimage Festival, one may cook in it for the entire pilgrimage Festival; he need not scour and rinse the vessel after every use. And the Rabbis say: One may not continue using it in this manner; rather, one must perform scouring and rinsing before the end of the period during which partaking of the particular cooked offering is permitted. Scouring is like the scouring of the inside of a cup, the cleaning done when wine sticks to the cup, and rinsing is like the rinsing of the outside of a cup. Scouring and rinsing are both performed with cold water.
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 learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Shoshana Ruerup
Berlin, Germany
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Laura Shechter
Lexington, MA, 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.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Shira Krebs
Minnesota, United States
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Judith Weil
Raanana, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Yafit Fishbach
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Sharona Guggenheim Plumb
Givat Shmuel, Israel
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 heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Martha Tarazi
Panama, Panama
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
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
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
Medinah Korn
בית שמש, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dianne Kuchar
Dover Heights, Australia
My family recently made Aliyah, because we believe the next chapter in the story of the Jewish people is being written here, and we want to be a part of it. Daf Yomi, on the other hand, connects me BACK, to those who wrote earlier chapters thousands of years ago. So, I feel like I’m living in the middle of this epic story. I’m learning how it all began, and looking ahead to see where it goes!
Tina Lamm
Jerusalem, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Caroline Ben-Ari
Karmiel, Israel
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 began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Barbara Goldschlag
Silver Spring, MD, United States
I 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
Zevachim 96
אֶלָּא קְדֵירוֹת שֶׁל מִקְדָּשׁ, אַמַּאי אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא יִשָּׁבְרוּ? נַהְדְּרִינְהוּ לְכִבְשׁוֹנוֹת! אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לְפִי שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין כִּבְשׁוֹנוֹת בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם.
The Gemara challenges: But according to the opinion that earthenware vessels can be cleansed of their absorbed substances by the process of kindling, with regard to pots used in the Temple, why does the Merciful One state in the Torah that they should be broken? Let us simply return them to the kilns in which pots are made to be sure that the pots will be cleansed by the extreme heat of the kilns. Rabbi Zeira said: The pots cannot be returned to kilns because, as taught in a baraita (see Bava Kamma 82b), kilns are not built in Jerusalem because of the great quantity of smoke they produce.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: וְכִי עוֹשִׂין אַשְׁפַּתּוֹת בָּעֲזָרָה?! אִישְׁתְּמִיטְתֵּיהּ הָא דְּתָנֵי שְׁמַעְיָה בְּקַלְנְבוֹ: שִׁבְרֵי כְּלֵי חֶרֶס נִבְלָעִין בִּמְקוֹמָן.
The Gemara presents an objection to Rabbi Zeira’s answer. Abaye said: But if, as the baraita teaches, there are no kilns in Jerusalem, are scrap heaps of earthenware assembled in the Temple courtyard? The same baraita also teaches that there are no scrap heaps in Jerusalem. What, then, is done with the shards of earthenware vessels that must be broken in the courtyard? The Gemara dismisses the question: Abaye raised that objection only because that which Shemaya taught in Kalnevo escaped him; Shemaya taught there: In the Temple, shards of earthenware vessels were miraculously absorbed in their place.
אֶלָּא הָא דְּאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: תַּנּוּר שֶׁל מִקְדָּשׁ שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת הֲוָה – נֶעְבֵּיד דְּחֶרֶס, דְּהֶסֵּיקוֹ מִבְּפָנִים הוּא!
The Gemara returns to the topic of kindling earthenware vessels and asks: But if kindling from within cleanses everything absorbed in an earthenware oven, what is the reason for that which Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: The oven in the Temple was fashioned of metal? Let us fashion it of earthenware, as an oven’s kindling is from the inside, and, accordingly, it would be possible to cleanse it?
דְּכֵיוָן דְּאִיכָּא שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים – דַּאֲפִיָּיתָן בְּתַנּוּר וּקְדוּשָּׁתָן בְּתַנּוּר; הָוֵה לֵיהּ כְּלִי שָׁרֵת, וּכְלִי שָׁרֵת דְּחֶרֶס לָא עָבְדִינַן.
The Gemara answers: The reason the oven must be fashioned of metal is because there are the two loaves, i.e., the public offering on Shavuot of two loaves from the new wheat, and the shewbread, i.e., the bread baked each week in a special form and displayed for the duration of one whole week on the table in the Sanctuary, whose baking is done in the oven, and also whose sanctification occurs in the oven. Because these offerings are not kneaded in a service vessel, they are sanctified only by being placed in the oven, and therefore the oven is a service vessel; and we do not make a service vessel of earthenware.
וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה לָא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא דְּעֵץ, אֲבָל דְּחֶרֶס לָא.
And even Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says only that a service vessel may be fashioned of wood, which is a somewhat significant material, but with regard to a service vessel fashioned of earthenware, he holds that this is not valid.
רַב יִצְחָק בַּר יְהוּדָה הֲוָה רְגִיל קַמֵּיהּ דְּרָמֵי בַּר חָמָא, שַׁבְקֵיהּ וַאֲזַל לְרַב שֵׁשֶׁת. יוֹמָא חַד פְּגַע בֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַלְקַפְטָא נַקְטַן, רֵיחָא אָתֵי לַהּ לְיָד?! מִשּׁוּם דְּאָזְלַתְּ לָךְ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת, הָוֵית לָךְ כִּי רַב שֵׁשֶׁת?!
§ The Gemara relates an incident related to the halakha of scouring and rinsing. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda was initially accustomed to study Torah before Rami bar Ḥama. After some time, he left him and went to study before Rav Sheshet. One day Rami bar Ḥama met him and said to him colloquially: Did you assume, as many do, that when the chief of taxes [alkafta] grasped me by the hand, the fragrance of his hand came to my hand? Do you think that because you went away from me in order to study before Rav Sheshet, have you become like Rav Sheshet merely by association?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָאו מִשּׁוּם הָכִי; מָר – כִּי בָּעֵינָא מִילְּתָא, פָּשֵׁיט לִי מִסְּבָרָא; כִּי מַשְׁכַּחְנָא מַתְנִיתָא – פָּרְכָא לַהּ. רַב שֵׁשֶׁת – כִּי בָּעֵינָא מִילְּתָא מִינֵּיהּ, פָּשֵׁיט לִי מִמַּתְנִיתָא; דְּכִי נָמֵי מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ מַתְנִיתָא וּפָרְכָא – מַתְנִיתָא וּמַתְנִיתָא הִיא.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda said to him: It is not due to that reason that I went to study before Rav Sheshet, but for another reason. As for you, Master, when I ask with regard to any matter, Master resolves the question for me through reasoning. Consequently, when I find a mishna that opposes that reasoning, it refutes Master’s proposed resolution. As for Rav Sheshet, when I ask of him a question concerning any matter, he resolves the question for me by citing a mishna. Consequently, when I also find a mishna, and that mishna refutes the proposed resolution, it is a dispute between one mishna and another mishna, which does not necessarily refute the mishna that he cited.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בְּעִי מִינַּי מִילְּתָא, דְּאִיפְשִׁיט לָךְ כִּי מַתְנִיתָא. בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ: בִּישֵּׁל בְּמִקְצָת כְּלִי – טָעוּן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, אוֹ אֵין טָעוּן? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֵינוֹ טָעוּן, מִידֵּי דְּהָוֵה אַהַזָּאָה.
Rami bar Ḥama said to him: Ask me about a matter, which I will resolve for you in accordance with a mishna. Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda asked him: If one cooked a sin offering in only part of a vessel, does the entire vessel require scouring and rinsing, or does it not require scouring and rinsing? Rami bar Ḥama said to him: The entire vessel does not require scouring and rinsing, just as it is taught concerning sprinkling the blood of a sin offering upon a garment. In the latter case, the mishna teaches (93b) that one must launder only the part of the garment on which the blood sprayed.
וְהָא לָא תְּנָא הָכִי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִסְתַּבְּרָא כְּבֶגֶד – מָה בֶּגֶד אֵינוֹ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס אֶלָּא מְקוֹם הַדָּם, אַף כְּלִי אֵינוֹ טָעוּן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה אֶלָּא בִּמְקוֹם בִּישּׁוּל.
Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda replied: But the tanna does not teach this explicitly. Rami bar Ḥama said to him: Nevertheless, it stands to reason that the scouring and rinsing of a vessel in which sacred meat was cooked should be like the laundering of a garment, as follows: Just as a garment requires laundering only in the place where the blood was sprayed, so too, it must be that a vessel requires scouring and rinsing only in the place where the meat underwent the process of cooking.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מִי דָּמֵי?! דָּם לָא מְפַעְפַּע, בִּישּׁוּל מְפַעְפַּע! וְעוֹד, תַּנְיָא: חוֹמֶר בְּהַזָּאָה מִמְּרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, וְחוֹמֶר בִּמְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה מִבְּהַזָּאָה:
Rav Yitzḥak bar Yehuda said to him: Are the situations comparable? Blood does not spread and penetrate all parts of the garment, but in the case of cooking, the flavor of the meat spreads throughout the entire vessel. Additionally, your reasoning opposes that which is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 10:15): A certain stringency applies to sprinkling more than it applies to scouring and rinsing; and a certain stringency applies to scouring and rinsing more than it applies to sprinkling.
חוֹמֶר בְּהַזָּאָה – שֶׁהַזָּאָה יֶשְׁנָהּ בְּחַטָּאוֹת הַחִיצוֹנוֹת וּבְחַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת, וְיֶשְׁנָהּ לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה; מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בִּמְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה.
The baraita continues: The stringency that applies to sprinkling is that the halakha of the sprinkling of blood on a garment applies to external sin offerings, brought on the altar in the Temple courtyard, and to internal sin offerings, whose blood is sprinkled on the altar in the Sanctuary; and the halakha of blood sprayed onto a garment applies if it sprays before the required sprinkling of the offering’s blood on the altar; which is not so in the case of scouring and rinsing. Scouring and rinsing are required only for external sin offerings, whose meat is eaten and therefore cooked; and it applies only after the sprinkling of blood on the altar, after which the meat may be eaten.
חוֹמֶר בִּמְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה – שֶׁהַמְּרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה נוֹהֶגֶת בֵּין בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים בֵּין בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, בִּישֵּׁל בְּמִקְצָת הַכְּלִי – טָעוּן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה כָּל הַכְּלִי; מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בְּהַזָּאָה.
The baraita continues: The stringency that applies to scouring and rinsing is that the scouring and rinsing of vessels is practiced both for offerings of the most sacred order and for offerings of lesser sanctity; and even if one cooked in only part of the vessel, the entire vessel requires scouring and rinsing, which is not so in the case of errantly sprinkling blood onto a garment, for which one must launder only the place on which the blood sprayed.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי תַּנְיָא תַּנְיָא. וְטַעְמָא מַאי? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם בִּכְלִי נְחֹשֶׁת בֻּשָּׁלָה״ – וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּמִקְצָת כְּלִי.
Rami bar Ḥama said to him: If this baraita is taught, it is taught, and I cannot take issue with it. The Gemara then clarifies: And what is the reason that an entire vessel requires scouring and rinsing even if one cooked the meat of an offering in only part of the vessel? The reason is that the verse states: “And if it be cooked in a copper vessel, it shall be scoured and rinsed in water” (Leviticus 6:21). From the phrase “in a copper vessel” it is derived that even if the meat is cooked in only part of a vessel, the entire vessel must be scoured and rinsed.
אֶחָד קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים וְכוּ׳. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״חַטָּאת״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא חַטָּאת, כׇּל קָדָשִׁים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הִיא״.
§ The mishna teaches: Whether the meat is from offerings of the most sacred order or whether it is from offerings of lesser sanctity, the vessels in which it is cooked must be scoured and rinsed. The Gemara cites a related baraita: The Sages taught: The Torah introduces the mitzva of scouring and rinsing with the qualifying statement: “This is the law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18). From this verse I have derived only that the halakha with regard to scouring and rinsing applies to vessels in which a sin offering was cooked. From where do I derive that this halakha applies to vessels used for all sacrificial meat? The verse states: “Every male among the priests may eat of it; it is most sacred” (Leviticus 6:22), to teach that this halakha applies to vessels used for all of the sacrificial meat that the priests eat.
יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אֶת הַתְּרוּמָה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹתָהּ״ – פְּרָט לִתְרוּמָה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים אֵינָן טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה. דִּכְתִיב: ״קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים״ – קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים אֵין, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לָא.
The baraita continues: One might have thought that I should include vessels used for cooking teruma, the portion of the produce designated for the priest, as well, as it is also sacred and may be eaten only by a priest (see Leviticus 22:14). To counter this, the verse states: “Every male among the priests may eat of it; it is most sacred” (Leviticus 6:22). The emphatic qualifier “of it” excludes teruma; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Shimon says: Offerings of the most sacred order require scouring and rinsing, but offerings of lesser sanctity do not require scouring and rinsing, as it is written: “Most sacred.” Accordingly, with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, yes, scouring and rinsing is required; but for offerings of lesser sanctity, no, it is not required.
מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה? מִדְּאִיצְטְרִיךְ ״אוֹתָהּ״ לְמַעוֹטֵי תְּרוּמָה, מִכְּלָל דְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים טְעוּנִין מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה. וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר לָךְ: ״אוֹתָהּ״ כִּדְאָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara asks: The baraita explains Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning; what is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? The Gemara answers: Since the qualifying term “of it” was necessary to exclude teruma, by inference, it must be that vessels used for offerings of lesser sanctity require scouring and rinsing. If even offerings of lesser sanctity are excluded from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, it would be self-evident that the vessel used for teruma is exempt from scouring and rinsing. Accordingly, the direct exclusion of teruma indicates that the vessels used for offerings of lesser sanctity are not excluded. And Rabbi Shimon could have said to you: The term “of it” teaches a different halakha and excludes a disqualified sin offering from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, as we say earlier in this chapter (93a).
וּתְרוּמָה לָא בָּעֲיָא שְׁטִיפָה וּמְרִיקָה?! וְהָתַנְיָא: קְדֵרָה שֶׁבִּישֵּׁל בָּהּ בָּשָׂר לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בָּהּ חָלָב, וְאִם בִּישֵּׁל – בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם. תְּרוּמָה לֹא יְבַשֵּׁל בָּהּ חוּלִּין, וְאִם בִּישֵּׁל – בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם!
The Gemara asks: And is it correct that with regard to a copper vessel used to cook teruma, it does not require rinsing and scouring? But isn’t it taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Terumot 8:16): With regard to a pot in which one cooked meat, one may not cook milk in it; and if one cooked milk in it, the meat absorbed in the pot renders the milk forbidden if it imparts flavor to it. Similarly, if one cooked teruma in a pot, one may not cook non-sacred food in it; and if one cooked non-sacred food in it, the absorbed teruma renders the mixture sacred if it imparts flavor to it. Therefore, a pot requires purging with boiling liquid in order to expel the flavor of teruma from it.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא לִדְאָמַר מָר: בִּישֵּׁל בְּמִקְצָת כְּלִי – טָעוּן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה כָּל הַכְּלִי. הָא תְּרוּמָה – לָא צְרִיךְ אֶלָּא מְקוֹם בִּישּׁוּל.
Three amora’im address the apparent inconsistency that while the Torah excludes vessels used for teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, the baraita teaches that these vessels must be purged. Abaye said: When the verse excludes teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, this is necessary only for that which the Master said: If one cooked in only part of the vessel, the entire vessel requires scouring and rinsing. By contrast, in this case, if teruma was cooked in only part of a vessel, one must perform scouring and rinsing only in the place of the cooking, and not in the whole vessel.
רָבָא אָמַר, לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא לִדְאָמַר מָר: ״בַּמָּיִם״ – וְלֹא בְּיַיִן, ״בַּמָּיִם״ – וְלֹא בְּמָזוּג. הָא – אֲפִילּוּ בְּיַיִן וַאֲפִילּוּ בְּמָזוּג.
Rava said: When the verse excludes teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, that is necessary only for that which the Master said: The verse specifies: “It shall be scoured and rinsed in water” (Leviticus 6:21), but the vessel is not to be scoured and rinsed in wine. It must be scoured and rinsed “in water,” but not in diluted wine. By contrast, in this case, i.e., the vessel in which teruma was cooked, it may be scoured and rinsed even in wine, and even in diluted wine.
רַבָּה בַּר עוּלָּא אָמַר, לָא צְרִיכָא אֶלָּא לִדְאָמַר מָר: מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן. הָא – אֲפִילּוּ בְּחַמִּין.
Rabba bar Ulla said: When the verse excludes teruma from the halakha of scouring and rinsing, this is necessary only for that which the Master said: One must perform scouring and rinsing with cold water, in addition to purging a vessel of its absorbed flavors with boiling water. By contrast, in this case, i.e., with regard to the vessel in which teruma was cooked, one may cleanse the vessel even by performing only the purging with boiling water, which removes the residue of the forbidden food, and omitting the cold water processes entirely.
הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן; אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מְרִיקָה בְּחַמִּין וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? שְׁטִיפָה יַתִּירְתָּא.
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that scouring and rinsing are performed with cold water; but according to the one who says that scouring is done by purging with hot water, and rinsing is a different procedure performed with cold water, what can be said? According to this opinion, the verse is also referring to purging; and if the verse excludes vessels used for teruma, how does the baraita teach that such vessels must be purged? The Gemara answers: According to the opinion that differentiates scouring, which is done with boiling water, from rinsing, which is done with cold water, the Torah excludes vessels used for teruma only from the additional rinsing that the Torah requires after the scouring.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: בִּישֵּׁל מִתְּחִילַּת הָרֶגֶל – יְבַשֵּׁל בּוֹ כָּל הָרֶגֶל. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: עַד זְמַן אֲכִילָה. מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה – מְרִיקָה כִּמְרִיקַת הַכּוֹס, וּשְׁטִיפָה כִּשְׁטִיפַת הַכּוֹס. מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן.
MISHNA: Rabbi Tarfon says: If one cooked a sin offering in a copper vessel from the beginning of the pilgrimage Festival, one may cook in it for the entire pilgrimage Festival; he need not scour and rinse the vessel after every use. And the Rabbis say: One may not continue using it in this manner; rather, one must perform scouring and rinsing before the end of the period during which partaking of the particular cooked offering is permitted. Scouring is like the scouring of the inside of a cup, the cleaning done when wine sticks to the cup, and rinsing is like the rinsing of the outside of a cup. Scouring and rinsing are both performed with cold water.
Follow
