תמורה יד

תמורה יד

מַתְנִי׳ יֵשׁ בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹת יָחִיד שֶׁאֵין בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּיבּוּר, וְיֵשׁ בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּיבּוּר שֶׁאֵין בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד, שֶׁקׇּרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה, וְאֵין קׇרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּיבּוּר עוֹשִׂין תְּמוּרָה.

MISHNA: There are halakhot in effect with regard to offerings of an individual that are not in effect with regard to communal offerings; and there are halakhot in effect with regard to communal offerings that are not in effect with regard to offerings of an individual. The mishna elaborates: There are halakhot in effect with regard to offerings of an individual that are not in effect with regard to communal offerings, as offerings of an individual render a non-sacred animal exchanged for the offering a substitute, and communal offerings do not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for the offering a substitute.

קׇרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד נוֹהֲגוֹת בֵּין בִּזְכָרִים בֵּין בִּנְקֵבוֹת, וְקׇרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּיבּוּר אֵין נוֹהֲגִין אֶלָּא בִּזְכָרִים. קׇרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד חַיָּיבִין בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן וּבְאַחְרָיוּת נִסְכֵּיהֶם, וְקׇרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּיבּוּר אֵין חַיָּיבִין בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן וְלֹא בְּאַחְרָיוּת נִסְכֵּיהֶן, אֲבָל חַיָּיבִין בְּאַחְרָיוּת נִסְכֵּיהֶן מִשֶּׁקָּרַב הַזֶּבַח.

Offerings of an individual apply to, i.e., can be brought from, both males and females, but communal offerings apply only to males. If offerings of an individual were not brought at the appropriate time, one is obligated to bring their compensation and compensation for their accompanying meal offering and libations at a later date, but if communal offerings were not brought at the appropriate time, one is obligated to bring neither their compensation nor compensation for their accompanying meal offering and libations at a later date. But one is obligated to bring compensation for their accompanying meal offering and libations once the offering is sacrificed.

יֵשׁ בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּיבּוּר מַה שֶּׁאֵין בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹת יָחִיד, שֶׁקׇּרְבְּנוֹת הַצִּיבּוּר דּוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְאֶת הַטּוּמְאָה, וְקׇרְבְּנוֹת יָחִיד אֵינָן דּוֹחוֹת לֹא אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְלֹא אֶת הַטּוּמְאָה.

There are halakhot in effect with regard to communal offerings that are not in effect with regard to offerings of an individual, as communal offerings override Shabbat, in that they are sacrificed on Shabbat, and they override ritual impurity, i.e., they are sacrificed even if the priests are impure with impurity imparted by a corpse; and offerings of an individual override neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity.

אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: וַהֲלֹא חֲבִיתֵּי כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וּפַר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, קׇרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד הֵן, וְדוֹחִין אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת וְאֶת הַטּוּמְאָה! אֶלָּא שֶׁזְּמַנּוֹ קָבוּעַ.

Rabbi Meir said: But aren’t the High Priest’s griddle-cake offerings and the bull of Yom Kippur offerings of an individual, and yet they override Shabbat and ritual impurity. Rather, this is the principle: Any offering, individual or communal, whose time is fixed overrides Shabbat and ritual impurity, whereas any offering, individual or communal, whose time is not fixed overrides neither Shabbat nor ritual impurity.

גְּמָ׳ קׇרְבַּן יָחִיד עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה כּוּ׳. וּכְלָלָא הוּא? וַהֲרֵי עוֹפוֹת דְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, וְאֵין עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה! כִּי קָתָנֵי — בִּבְהֵמָה קָתָנֵי.

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that offerings of an individual render a non-sacred animal exchanged for the offering a substitute. The Gemara asks: And is this an established principle? Does every offering of an individual render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute? But what about birds, i.e., a dove or a pigeon, which are brought as an offering of an individual, but they do not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for them a substitute? The Gemara answers: When the mishna teaches that offerings of an individual render a non-sacred animal exchanged for the offering a substitute, it is teaching this only with regard to an animal offering, not a bird offering.

וַהֲרֵי וָלָד דְּקָרְבַּן יָחִיד הוּא, וְאֵין עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה! הָא מַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: הַוָּלָד עוֹשֶׂה תְּמוּרָה.

The Gemara objects: But what about the offspring of a sanctified animal, which is brought and sacrificed on the altar as an offering of an individual of the same type as its mother, and yet it does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute? The Gemara explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this mishna? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said that the offspring of a sanctified animal renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute.

וַהֲרֵי תְּמוּרָה עַצְמָהּ, דְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד הִיא, וְאֵין תְּמוּרָה עוֹשָׂה תְּמוּרָה! כִּי קָתָנֵי — בְּעִיקַּר זִיבְחָא קָתָנֵי.

The Gemara objects: But what about a substitute itself, which is brought and sacrificed on the altar as an offering of an individual, and yet a substitute does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute? The Gemara answers: When the mishna teaches that an offering of an individual renders a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute, it is teaching this only with regard to the primary offering, not a substitute of an offering.

הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָתֵית לְהָכִי, אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, בְּעִיקַּר זִיבְחָא קָתָנֵי.

The Gemara comments: Now that you have arrived at this answer, you can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda and maintain that the offspring of an offering does not render a non-sacred animal exchanged for it a substitute. The reason is that one can explain that the mishna is teaching its halakha only with regard to the primary offering, not the offspring of an offering.

קׇרְבְּנוֹת הַיָּחִיד נוֹהֲגוֹת בֵּין בִּזְכָרִים בֵּין בִּנְקֵבוֹת. וּכְלָלָא הוּא? וַהֲרֵי עוֹלָה, דְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד, וְזָכָר אָתְיָא, נְקֵבָה לָא אָתְיָא!

§ The mishna teaches: Offerings of an individual apply to, i.e., can be brought from, both males and females. The Gemara asks: Is this an established principle, that all offerings of an individual may be brought from either a male or female animal? But what about a burnt offering, which is an offering of an individual, and yet it comes as a male animal but does not come as a female animal.

הָאִיכָּא עוֹלַת הָעוֹף, דְּתַנְיָא: תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בִּבְהֵמָה, וְאֵין תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בָּעוֹפוֹת.

The Gemara answers that there is a bird burnt offering, i.e., there is a type of burnt offering that can be either a female or male bird. As it is taught in a baraita: The requirement of unblemished status and the requirement of male status both apply to a sacrificial animal brought as a burnt offering, but the requirement of unblemished status and the requirement of male status do not apply to sacrificial birds brought as burnt offerings.

וַהֲרֵי חַטָּאת, דְּקׇרְבַּן יָחִיד הִיא, וּנְקֵבָה אָתְיָא, זָכָר לָא אָתְיָא? הַאִיכָּא שְׂעִיר נָשִׂיא, דְּמַיְיתֵי זָכָר.

The Gemara objects: But what about a sin offering, which is an offering of an individual, and yet comes as a female animal but does not come as a male animal. The Gemara explains: Although burnt offerings of an individual must be female, there is the goat sin offering of a king, which is sacrificed by a specific individual and is brought specifically as a male animal.

וְהָאִיכָּא אֲשַׁם יָחִיד, דְּזָכָר אָתֵי, נְקֵבָה לָא אָתֵי? כִּי קָאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן קׇרְבָּן דְּשָׁוֵי בֵּין בְּיָחִיד בֵּין בְּצִיבּוּר — אָשָׁם בְּיָחִיד אִיתֵיהּ, בְּצִבּוּר לֵיתֵיהּ. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִי קָתָנֵי ״כׇּל קׇרְבְּנוֹת״? ״יֵשׁ בְּקׇרְבְּנוֹת״ קָתָנֵי, וּמַאי נִיהוּ — שְׁלָמִים, וְאִי בָּעֵי נְקֵבָה מַיְיתֵי, וְאִי בָּעֵי זָכָר מַיְיתֵי.

The Gemara further objects: But there is the individual guilt offering, which comes as a male animal but does not come as a female animal. The Gemara explains: When the Sages stated this halakha in the mishna they were referring only to an offering that is equivalent, i.e., which is brought both as an offering of an individual and as a communal offering, whereas a guilt offering is brought as an offering of an individual but is not brought as a communal offering. And if you wish, say instead an alternative explanation: Does the mishna teach: All offerings may be brought as either male or female? It does not. Rather, the mishna teaches: There are offerings of an individual that may be brought as male or female; and what are they? Peace offerings; and in the case of such an offering, if one wants he brings a female animal and if he wants he brings a male animal.

קׇרְבְּנוֹת יָחִיד חַיָּיבִין בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן [כּוּ׳]. מְנָא לַן?

§ The mishna teaches: If offerings of an individual were not brought at the appropriate time, one is obligated to bring their compensation and compensation for their accompanying meal offering and libations at a later date, whereas if communal offerings were not brought at the appropriate time, one is obligated to bring neither their compensation nor compensation for their accompanying meal offering and libations at a later date. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha, that if a communal offering was not sacrificed at the appropriate time it is not brought at a later stage?

דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״דְּבַר יוֹם״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכׇּל הַיּוֹם כָּשֵׁר לְמוּסָפִין, ״בְּיוֹמוֹ״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאִם עָבַר הַיּוֹם וְלֹא הֱבִיאָן אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּתָן.

The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states in the section of the Torah dealing with additional offerings: “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to bring an offering made by fire to the Lord, a burnt offering, and a meal offering, a sacrifice, and libations, each day on its own day” (Leviticus 23:37). This teaches that the entire day is fit for bringing the additional offerings. The term: “On its own day,” teaches that if the day has passed and the priests did not bring the additional offerings, one is not obligated to bring their compensation, and the offering cannot be brought at a later date.

יָכוֹל לֹא יְהֵא חַיָּיב בְּאַחְרָיוּת נִסְכֵּיהֶם, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁקָּרַב הַזֶּבַח? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״מִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״ בַּלַּיְלָה, ״מִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״ לְמָחָר.

The baraita continues: One might have thought that one should not be obligated to bring compensation for their accompanying libations at a later date even if the additional offering has been sacrificed, e.g., if there were no meal offerings or libations available at that time. Therefore, the verse states, in the chapter dealing with the additional offerings of the Festivals: “Their meal offerings and their libations” (Numbers 29:37). It is derived from here that the meal offerings and libations which are brought with the additional animal offerings of the Festivals can be sacrificed even in the night after the animal offering. The phrase “their meal offerings and their libations” further teaches that these meal offerings and libations can be sacrificed even on the following day.

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״מִלְּבַד שַׁבָּתוֹת ה׳״.

Reish Lakish said that the source is from the following verse: “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, which you shall proclaim to be holy convocations, to bring an offering made by fire unto the Lord…each on its own day; beside the Shabbatot of the Lord” (Leviticus 23:37–38). The verse is expounded as speaking of a Festival that occurred on a Sunday, and therefore it is teaching that the meal offerings and libations for the additional offerings of the previous Shabbat may be brought on the following Festival day.

וּצְרִיכָא, דְּאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מִלְּבַד שַׁבְּתוֹת ה׳״ — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: בַּיּוֹם — אִין, וּבַלַּיְלָה — לָא. אָמַר קְרָא ״וּמִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״. וְאִי כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״מִנְחָתָם וְנִסְכֵּיהֶם״ וְלָא כְּתַב ״מִלְּבַד שַׁבְּתוֹת ה׳״ — הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: (בלילה) [בְּלֵילְיָה] — אִין, בִּימָמָא — לָא.

And the Gemara notes that both verses are necessary, as if the Merciful One had written only the verse: “Beside the Shabbatot of the Lord,” I would say that on the day following Shabbat, yes, one may bring the offerings, but on the night after Shabbat, no, one may not bring them, just as the offering itself could not have been brought at night. Therefore, the verse states: “And their meal offerings and their libations.” And if the Merciful One had written only: “Their meal offerings and their libations,” and not written: “Beside the Shabbatot of the Lord,” I would say that at night, yes, the offerings may be brought, but on the following day they may not be brought.

וּמַאי שְׁנָא? מִשּׁוּם דִּבְקָדָשִׁים לַיְלָה הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַיּוֹם, צְרִיכִי.

The Gemara asks: And in what way is the night different from the day, that one might have thought the outstanding meal offerings and libations may be brought only at night but not during the day? The Gemara explains that one might have thought so because with regard to sacrificial animals and offerings the night follows the day. Therefore, the Torah had to teach that the meal offering and libations may be brought even the following day. The Gemara concludes that indeed both verses are necessary.

וּנְסָכִים מִי קָרְבִי בַּלַּיְלָה? וְהָתְנַן: אֵין לִי אֶלָּא דְּבָרִים שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִיקְרַב בַּלַּיְלָה, כְּגוֹן אֵבָרִים וּפְדָרִים, שֶׁמַּקְרִיבִין מִבּוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ וּמִתְעַכְּלִין וְהוֹלְכִין כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה כּוּלּוֹ.

The Gemara asks: And libations, may they be sacrificed at night? Didn’t we learn in a baraita: I have derived only with regard to items that are normally sacrificed at night, for example, the limbs of a burnt offering and the fats of burnt offerings and other offerings, that one sacrifices them after sunset and they are consumed throughout the entire night. This is derived from the verse: “This is the law of the burnt offering: It is that which goes up on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning” (Leviticus 6:2).

דְּבָרִים שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִיקְרַב בַּיּוֹם, כְּגוֹן הַקּוֹמֶץ, הַלְּבוֹנָה, וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים, שֶׁמַּעֲלָן מִבּוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ. מִבּוֹא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ סָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ?! וְהָאָמְרַתְּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לִיקְרַב בַּיּוֹם נִינְהוּ! אֶלָּא עִם בֹּא הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, שֶׁמִּתְעַכְּלִין וְהוֹלְכִין כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֹאת תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה״ — רִיבָּה.

The baraita continues: But with regard to items that are normally sacrificed in the day, for example the handful of the meal offering, and the frankincense, and the meal offering that accompanies the libations, from where is it derived that one may bring them up and burn them after sunset? The Gemara asks: Would it enter your mind that they may be burned after sunset? But didn’t you say that these are items that are normally sacrificed in the day? Rather, the question of the baraita is as follows: From where is it derived that these items may be sacrificed with sunset, i.e., just before sunset, in which case they are consumed throughout the entire night and not during the day? The verse states: “This is the law of the burnt offering” (Leviticus 6:2), a phrase that included everything sacrificed on the altar.

קָתָנֵי מִיהָא נְסָכִים בַּיּוֹם! אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא — כָּאן לִיקְדַּשׁ, כָּאן לִיקְרַב.

The Gemara reiterates its previous difficulty: In any event, the baraita teaches that the meal offering that accompanies the libations is brought only in the day, not at night. Rami bar Ḥama said that this is not difficult. Here, where the verse states: “Their meal offerings and libations,” it is referring to consecrating the offering if one placed it in a consecrated utensil at night. The offering becomes consecrated and may not be used for non-sacred purposes. There, in the verse cited by the baraita as teaching that it may be brought only in the day and not at night, it is referring to sacrificing the offering on the altar. Even if an offering was consecrated at night, it may not be sacrificed until the following morning.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אִי מִיקְדָּשׁ קָדְשִׁי קָרוֹבֵי מִיקָּרְבִי, וְהָא תַּנְיָא: זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל הַקָּרֵב בַּיּוֹם — אֵין קָדוֹשׁ אֶלָּא בַּיּוֹם, וְכׇל הַקָּרֵב בַּלַּיְלָה — קָדוֹשׁ בַּלַּיְלָה, בֵּין בַּיּוֹם בֵּין בְּלַיְלָה — קָדוֹשׁ בֵּין בַּיּוֹם בֵּין בַּלַּיְלָה! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: סְמִי ״מִנְחַת נְסָכִים״ מֵהָא מַתְנִיתָא.

Rava said to Rami bar Ḥama: If the meal offering accompanying the libations can be consecrated at night, it should also be fit to be sacrificed at night. No distinction can be made between consecrating and sacrificing, as isn’t it taught in a baraita: This is the principle: Any offering that is sacrificed in the day is consecrated only in the day; and any offering that is sacrificed at night is consecrated only at night; and any offering that is sacrificed both in the day and at night is consecrated both in the day and at night. Rather, Rav Yosef said: The meal offering accompanying the libations may be sacrificed at night, and therefore one should delete from this baraita the item: Meal offering that accompanies the libations, from the list of the offerings that may not be brought at night.

כִּי סְלֵיק רַב דִּימִי, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַב יִרְמְיָה דְּיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: מִנַּיִן לִנְסָכִים הַבָּאִים עִם הַזֶּבַח שֶׁאֵין קְרֵיבִין אֶלָּא בַּיּוֹם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וּלְנִסְכֵּיכֶם וּלְשַׁלְמֵיכֶם״ — מָה שְׁלָמִים בַּיּוֹם, אַף נְסָכִים בַּיּוֹם.

With regard to Rav Yosef’s claim that the item: Meal offering that accompanies the libations, should be removed from the baraita, the Gemara states: When Rav Dimi ascended from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael, he found Rav Yirmeya sitting and saying in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: From where is it derived that libations that come with an animal offering may be sacrificed only in the day? The verse states: “These you shall offer to the Lord in your appointed seasons, beside your vows, and your voluntary offerings, and your burnt offerings, and your meal offerings, and your libations, and your peace offerings” (Numbers 29:39). The juxtaposition of these two items teaches that just as peace offerings may be sacrificed only during the day, so too libations may be sacrificed only during the day.

אָמַר: אִי אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ דְּכָתֵיב אִיגַּרְתָּא, שְׁלַחִי לֵיהּ לְרַב יוֹסֵף,

Rav Dimi said to Rav Yirmeya: If I find someone who can write this opinion in a letter, I will send it to Rav Yosef in Babylonia,

וְלָא תִּיסְמֵי ״מִנְחַת נְסָכִים״ מִמַּתְנִיתָא. וְלָא קַשְׁיָא — כָּאן בִּנְסָכִים הַבָּאִין עִם הַזֶּבַח, כָּאן בִּנְסָכִים הַבָּאִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן.

and in light of this ruling he will not delete the phrase: The meal offering that accompanies the libations, from the baraita. And instead, the apparent contradiction between the baraitot can be explained as follows: It is not difficult; here, the baraita that states that meal offerings accompanying libations are sacrificed only in the day is referring to libations that come with an animal offering, whereas there, the baraita that permits sacrificing a meal offering that accompanies the libations at night is referring to libations that come to be sacrificed by themselves, i.e., which do not accompany the sacrifice of an offering.

וְאִי הֲוָה לֵיהּ אִיגַּרְתָּא, מִי אֶפְשָׁר לְמִישְׁלְחַהּ? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כּוֹתְבֵי הֲלָכוֹת (כְּשׂוֹרֵף) [כְּשׂוֹרְפֵי] תוֹרָה, וְהַלָּמֵד מֵהֶן אֵינוֹ נוֹטֵל שָׂכָר.

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rav Dimi’s suggestion to write this opinion in a letter. And even if he had someone to write a letter for him, would it have been possible to send it? But didn’t Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Those who write halakhot are considered like those who burn the Torah, and one who learns from written halakhot does not receive the reward of studying Torah. Evidently, it is prohibited to send halakhot in letters.

דָּרֵשׁ רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר נַחְמָנִי מְתוּרְגְּמָנֵיהּ דְּרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״כְּתׇב לְךָ אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה״, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר ״כִּי עַל פִּי הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה״ — לוֹמַר לָךְ: דְּבָרִים שֶׁעַל פֶּה אִי אַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לְאוֹמְרָן בִּכְתָב, וְשֶׁבִּכְתָב אִי אַתָּה רַשַּׁאי לְאוֹמְרָן עַל פֶּה.

Before resolving the difficulty, the Gemara further discusses the prohibition of writing down the Torah: Rabbi Yehuda bar Naḥmani, the disseminator for Reish Lakish, expounded as follows: One verse says: “Write you these words,” and one verse says, i.e., it states later in that same verse: “For by the mouth of these words” (Exodus 34:27). These phrases serve to say to you: Words that were taught orally you may not recite in writing, and words that are written you may not recite orally, i.e., by heart.

וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״כְּתׇב לְךָ אֶת הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה״ — אֵלֶּה אַתָּה כּוֹתֵב, אֲבָל אֵין אַתָּה כּוֹתֵב הֲלָכוֹת!

And furthermore, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The word “these” in the command “write you these words” serves to emphasize that these words, i.e., those recorded in the Written Law, you may write, but you may not write halakhot, i.e., the mishnayot and the rest of the Oral Law.

אָמְרִי: דִּלְמָא מִילְּתָא חַדְתָּא שָׁאנֵי, דְּהָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מְעַיְּינִי בְּסִיפְרָא דְּאַגַּדְתָּא בְּשַׁבְּתָא, וְדָרְשִׁי הָכִי: ״עֵת לַעֲשׂוֹת לַה׳ הֵפֵרוּ תּוֹרָתֶךָ״, אָמְרִי: מוּטָב תֵּיעָקֵר תּוֹרָה, וְאַל תִּשְׁתַּכַּח תּוֹרָה מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל.

They said in response to the question of how Rav Dimi could propose writing down the halakha in a letter: Perhaps with regard to a new matter it is different, i.e., it might be permitted to write down new material so that it not be forgotten. One proof for this suggestion is that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish would read from a scroll of aggada, containing the words of the Sages, on Shabbat. And they did so because they taught as follows: Since one cannot remember the Oral Law without writing it down, it is permitted to violate the halakha, as derived from the verse: “It is time to work for the Lord; they have made void your Torah” (Psalms 119:126). They said it is better to uproot a single halakha of the Torah, i.e., the prohibition of writing down the Oral Torah, and thereby ensure that the Torah is not forgotten from the Jewish people entirely.

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמְרַתְּ נְסָכִים הַבָּאִין בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָן קְרֵיבִין אֲפִילּוּ בַּלַּיְלָה, נִזְדַּמְּנוּ נְסָכִים בַּלַּיְלָה — מַקְדִּישִׁין בַּלַּיְלָה וּמַקְרִיבִין.

§ With regard to Rav Dimi’s differentiation between libations that come with an animal offering and libations that are sacrificed by themselves, Rav Pappa said: Now that you have said that libations that come by themselves are sacrificed even at night, if one happened to have libations of this kind at night, they may be consecrated by placing them in a service vessel at night and they may be sacrificed at night.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב שְׁמַעְיָה לְרַב פָּפָּא: תַּנְיָא דִּמְסַיַּיע לָךְ, ״זֶה הַכְּלָל: כׇּל הַקָּרֵב בַּיּוֹם — אֵינוֹ קָדוֹשׁ אֶלָּא בַּיּוֹם, וְכׇל הַקָּרֵב בַּלַּיְלָה — קָדוֹשׁ בֵּין בַּיּוֹם בֵּין בַּלַּיְלָה״.

Rav Yosef, son of Rav Shemaya, said to Rav Pappa: A baraita is taught that supports your opinion. This is the principle: Any offering that is sacrificed in the day is consecrated by being placed in a service vessel only in the day; but any offering that is sacrificed at night is consecrated both in the day and at night.

אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: וַעֲלוֹת הַשַּׁחַר פּוֹסֶלֶת בָּהֶן, כְּאֵבָרִין.

With regard to the topic of libations sacrificed by themselves, Rav Adda bar Ahava says: And dawn disqualifies them, like the halakha of limbs of offerings that have had their blood sprinkled during the day. Such limbs are left to burn on the altar all night long, but at dawn they are disqualified and may no longer be placed on the altar.

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק: ״אֵלֶּה תַּעֲשׂוּ לַה׳ בְּמוֹעֲדֵיכֶם״ — אֵלּוּ חוֹבוֹת הַבָּאוֹת חוֹבָה בָּרֶגֶל.

§ The Gemara returns to discuss the verse: “These you shall offer to the Lord in your appointed seasons, beside your vows, and your voluntary offerings, and your burnt offerings, and your meal offerings, and your libations, and your peace offerings” (Numbers 29:39). When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: “These you shall offer to the Lord in your appointed seasons,” i.e., these are the obligatory offerings that come to be sacrificed as obligatory offerings on the pilgrimage Festival, e.g., the burnt offerings of appearance, the Festival offerings, and the additional offerings.

״לְבַד מִנִּדְרֵיכֶם וְנִדְבוֹתֵיכֶם״ — לִימֵּד עַל נְדָרִים וּנְדָבוֹת שֶׁקְּרֵבִין בְּחוּלּוֹ שֶׁל מוֹעֵד.

The verse continues: “Beside your vows and your voluntary offerings.” This teaches with regard to vows and voluntary offerings that they are sacrificed on the intermediate days of a Festival.

״וּלְעוֹלוֹתֵיכֶם״ — בְּמָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר? אִי בְּעוֹלַת נֶדֶר — הֲרֵי כְּבָר אָמוּר ״נִדְרֵיכֶם״, וְאִי בְּעוֹלַת נְדָבָה — הֲרֵי כְּבָר אָמוּר ״וְנִדְבוֹתֵיכֶם״! הָא אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּעוֹלַת יוֹלֶדֶת וְעוֹלַת מְצוֹרָע.

The verse further states: “And your burnt offerings.” The Gemara inquires: With regard to what case is the verse speaking? If it is referring to a vow burnt offering, the verse already said: “Your vows.” And if it is referring to a voluntary burnt offering, the verse already said: “Your voluntary offerings.” Consequently, it is speaking of nothing other than a burnt offering of a woman who gave birth, i.e., the lamb that she sacrifices on the forty-first day after giving birth to a son or the eighty-first day after giving birth to a daughter, and a burnt offering of a leper, which is the lamb that is sacrificed after a leper is purified. The verse teaches that these obligatory offerings may be sacrificed on the intermediate days of a Festival.

״וּלְמִנְחוֹתֵיכֶם״ — בְּמָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר? אִי בְּמִנְחַת נֶדֶר — הֲרֵי כְּבָר אָמוּר, אִי בְּמִנְחַת נְדָבָה — הֲרֵי כְּבָר אָמוּר! הָא אֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּמִנְחַת סוֹטָה וּבְמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת.

The verse continues: “And your meal offerings.” The Gemara again asks: With regard to what case is the verse speaking? If it is referring to a meal offering brought in fulfillment of a vow, the verse already said: “Your vows.” If it is referring to a voluntary meal offering, the verse already said: “Your voluntary offerings.” Consequently, it is speaking of nothing other than the meal offering of a sota, and that is the meal offering of jealousy.

״וּלְנִסְכֵּיכֶם וּלְשַׁלְמֵיכֶם״ — מַקִּישׁ נְסָכִים לִשְׁלָמִים: מָה שְׁלָמִים בַּיּוֹם, אַף נְסָכִים בַּיּוֹם. ״וּלְשַׁלְמֵיכֶם״ — לְרַבּוֹת שַׁלְמֵי נָזִיר.

The verse further states: “And your libations and your peace offerings.” The Torah here juxtaposes libations to peace offerings: Just as peace offerings are sacrificed only during the day, not at night, so too, libations are sacrificed only during the day, not at night. Finally, the verse states: “And your peace offerings.” This serves to include the peace offering of a nazirite, which he brings at the completion of his term of naziriteship. This offering may also be sacrificed on the intermediate days of a Festival.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְלֵימָא מָר שַׁלְמֵי פֶסַח, דְּאִי שַׁלְמֵי נָזִיר — נִידָּר וְנִידָּב הוּא.

With regard to the last halakha, Abaye said to Rav Dimi, when he cited this statement in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: But let the Master say that the phrase “and your peace offerings” serves to include the peace offering that is brought together with a Paschal offering. This offering is sacrificed on the fourteenth of Nisan by a large group of people when they will not receive enough meat from their Paschal offering to feed them all. The suggested derivation from the verse is that if a peace offering separated for this purpose was not sacrificed on the fourteenth of Nisan, it may be brought during the intermediate days of the Festival. Abaye further adds: It is more reasonable to include this peace offering, as, if the verse is referring to the peace offering of a nazirite, it is already included by the verse in the categories of offerings that are vowed or contributed voluntarily.

דְּהָתַנְיָא זֶה הַכְּלָל: כֹּל שֶׁהוּא נִידָּב וְנִידָּר — קָרֵב בְּבָמַת יָחִיד, וְשֶׁאֵינוֹ נִידָּב וְנִידָּר — אֵינוֹ קָרֵב בְּבָמַת יָחִיד.

Abaye elaborates: As isn’t it taught in a baraita: This is the principle: Any offering that is vowed or contributed voluntarily, e.g., a burnt offering or a peace offering, is sacrificed on a private altar. And any offering that is not vowed or contributed voluntarily may not be sacrificed on a private altar.

וּתְנַן: הַמְּנָחוֹת וְהַנְּזִירוֹת קְרֵיבִין בְּבָמַת יָחִיד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר! סְמִי מִכָּאן ״נְזִירוֹת״.

And we learned in another baraita: The meal offerings and the offerings of a nazirite are sacrificed on a private altar; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. It is clear from these baraitot that the peace offering of a nazirite belongs in the category of offerings that are vowed or contributed voluntarily. If so, there is no need for it to be included separately by the verse. Rav Dimi replied to Abaye: Delete the phrase: Offering of a nazirite from here, i.e., from the baraita that considers it an offering that is vowed or contributed voluntarily. Only the nazirite vow itself is classified as voluntary; once the vow has been uttered, the ensuing offerings are obligatory.

מִי אִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר דְּנָזִיר לָאו נִידָּר וְנִידָּב הוּא? וְהָכְתִיב: ״מִקֵּץ אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְשָׁלוֹם אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵלְכָה נָּא וַאֲשַׁלֵּם אֶת נִדְרִי אֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתִּי לַה׳ בְּחֶבְרוֹן כִּי נֵדֶר נָדַר עַבְדְּךָ וְגוֹ׳״, מַאי לָאו אַקׇּרְבָּן?

The Gemara asks: Is there one who said that the offering of a nazirite is not vowed or contributed voluntarily? But isn’t it written: “And it came to pass at the end of forty years, that Absalom said to the king: Please let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron. For your servant vowed a vow while I dwelled at Geshur in Aram, saying: If the Lord shall indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will serve the Lord” (II Samuel 15:7–8). The Gemara explains the difficulty: What, is it not the case that Absalom asked his father for permission for him to go to Hebron to sacrifice an offering on a private altar?

לָא, אַעִיקַּר נִדְרוֹ אָמְרִי. עִיקַּר נִדְרוֹ בְּחֶבְרוֹן הֲוָה? וַהֲלֹא בִּגְשׁוּר הֲוָה!

The Gemara answers: No, Absalom did not go to Hebron to sacrifice his nazirite offerings. Rather, Absalom actually said that he undertook the principal vow to be a nazirite when he was in Hebron. The Gemara asks: Was his principal vow to be a nazirite in fact uttered in Hebron? But wasn’t the vow made when Absalom was in Geshur? After all, the verse states explicitly: “For your servant vowed a vow while I dwelled at Geshur.”

אָמַר רַב אַחָא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבָּה בַּר רַב חָנָן: לֹא הָלַךְ אַבְשָׁלוֹם אֶלָּא לְהָבִיא כְּבָשִׂים מֵחֶבְרוֹן. הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּאִי תֵּימָא לְאַקְרוֹבֵי הוּא דְּאָזֵיל — שָׁבֵיק יְרוּשָׁלַיִם וְאָזֵיל וּמַקְרֵיב בְּחֶבְרוֹן?

Rav Aḥa said, and some say that it was Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan who said: The verse means that Absalom went to Hebron only in order to bring sheep specifically from there. The Gemara adds that this also stands to reason, as, if you say that Absalom went to Hebron to sacrifice his offering, would he have abandoned Jerusalem and gone to sacrifice in Hebron?

וְאֶלָּא מַאי? לְהָבִיא כְּבָשִׂים מֵחֶבְרוֹן? הַאי ״אֲשֶׁר נָדַרְתִּי לַה׳ בְּחֶבְרוֹן״, ״מֵחֶבְרוֹן״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ!

The Gemara rejects Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan’s answer: But rather, what is our explanation of the verse? That Absalom went to bring sheep from Hebron? If so, this verse that states: “Please let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron” (II Samuel 15:7), should instead have stated: Which I have vowed to the Lord from Hebron.

אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם לְאַקְרוֹבֵי, וּדְקָא קַשְׁיָא לָךְ: אַמַּאי שָׁבֵק יְרוּשָׁלַיִם וּמַקְרֵיב בְּחֶבְרוֹן? תִּיקְשֵׁי לָךְ גִּבְעוֹן, דְּמָקוֹם קָדוֹשׁ הוּא! אֶלָּא, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּתְּרוּ הַבָּמוֹת — כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּבָעֵי מַקְרֵיב.

Rather, the Gemara explains that actually Absalom did go to Hebron to sacrifice his peace offering as a nazirite. And that which is difficult for you, i.e., why Absalom abandoned Jerusalem and sacrificed his offering in Hebron, should not pose a difficulty for you; rather, it is the question of why Absalom did not sacrifice his offering in Gibeon that should pose a difficulty for you, as at that time the Tabernacle and the communal altar were in Gibeon, and it was a sanctified place. Why, then, did Absalom go to Hebron rather than Gibeon? Rather, since the private altars were permitted, he was permitted to sacrifice wherever he wished, and he chose to go to Hebron. There was no reason for him to choose to go to Gibeon rather than any private altar.

אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה, לְמַאן? תַּנְיָא: רַבִּי נְהוֹרַאי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: ״מִקֵּץ אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה״ שֶׁשָּׁאֲלוּ לָהֶם מֶלֶךְ, דְּתַנְיָא: אוֹתָהּ שָׁנָה שֶׁשָּׁאֲלוּ לָהֶם מֶלֶךְ, אוֹתָהּ שָׁנָה עֲשִׂירִית שֶׁל שְׁמוּאֵל הָיְתָה.

The verse states that Absalom submitted his request to his father “at the end of forty years.” The Gemara asks: Forty years, according to whose counting, i.e., forty years from when? It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Nehorai says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua: The verse is referring to the end of forty years from when the Jewish people requested for themselves a king, in the days of Samuel (see I Samuel, chapter 8). As it is taught in a baraita: With regard to that year when they requested for themselves a king, that year was the tenth year of the leadership of Samuel.