Perek VI Daf 73 Amud A

Perek VI Daf 73 Amud a

NOTES I have given you the priesthood as a service of gift ; and the“ ֲ״ﬠ ַבוֹדת ַמ ָּת ָנה ֶא ֵּתן ֶאת ְּכ ֻה ַּנ ְת ֶכם ְו ַהָזּר ֵּכ ָיון ְ ּד ָה ָתם ָּפ ּסול ָה ָכא – stranger that comes near shall be put to death” (Numbers Since there it is invalid, here he is liable In the Jerusalem Talmud it is discussed that there is not : ַח ָיּיב ַה ָּקֵרב ּיו ָמת״ – ָﬠ ׂש ּו ֲא ִכ ַילת ְּת ּרו ָמה Th is verse is found in the context of the priestly gift s, in- always a clear correlation between these two halakhot, for in .(: ַּב ְּג ּבו ִלין ַּכ ֲﬠ ַבוֹדת ֵּבית ַה ִּמ ְקָ ּד ׁש. cluding teruma, and comes to teach us that they made the eat- certain situations one is exempt from bringing a sin-offering ing of teruma in the outlying areas, i.e., outside the Temple, for having slaughtered the offering, but the offering is never- like the service of the Temple. theless invalid. -Tosafot and other commen : ַמה ִּת ֵּיקן – What has he improved We learned in our mishna that if one unwitt ingly slaughtered taries posit that for the purposes of the halakhot of Shabbat, it is ׁ ְ״ש ָחטוֹ ׁ ֶש ּלֹא ְל ְאוֹכ ָליו״. ְּפ ׁ ִש ָיטא, ֵּכ ָיון the Paschal lamb on Shabbat for those who cannot eat it or for not necessary for the constructive element of the action to be ְ ּד ָה ָתם ָּפ ּסול ָה ָכא ַח ָיּיב! ִמ ּׁש ּום ְ ּד ָת ָנא as significant as the destructive element. Indeed, on Shabbat, as -those who did not register for it, he is liable to bring a sin ֵס ָיפא ָּפ ּטור – ָּת ָנא ֵר ׁ ָישא ַח ָיּיב. off ering. Th e Gemara asks: It is obvious. Since there, with re- long as there is some constructive effect, it is enough to define gard to the slaughter itself, it is invalid, here, with regard to the action as planned, thoughtful, and creative labor [melekhet maĥshevet], for which one is liable. Shabbat, he is liable,N for it turns out that he performed a prohibited labor that was not necessary for sacrifi cing an off ering. One who slaughtered it for those who cannot eat it…what -Some of the com : ׁ ֶש ּלֹא ְל ְאוֹכ ָליו… ַמה ִּת ֵּיקן – Th e Gemara answers: Since the latt er clause of the mishna has he improved mentaries ask: What has he improved when he slaughtered taught cases in which he is exempt from bringing a sin-off ering, the Paschal lamb for the purpose of a different offering? The the fi rst clause taught cases in which he is liable, even though Maharsha answers that he has prevented it from attaining the it does not really teach us anything new. status of leftover sacrificial meat. The Sefat Emet clarifies the Maharsha’s answer: Since he slaughtered it as a peace-offering Th e Gemara asks: But this also is obvious, since there, the of- rather than as a Paschal lamb, he may keep the meat for an ְו ָהא ַנ ִמי ְּפ ׁ ִש ָיטא – ִמ ּׁש ּום ְ ּד ָה ָתם ָּכ ׁ ֵשר fering is valid, here with regard to Shabbat he is exempt, as the additional day, like a regular peace-offering, rather than having .to finish it in one night like a Paschal lamb ָה ָכא ָּפ ּטור! ֶא ָּלא: ַא ְיּ ֵידי ְ ּד ָת ָנא ׁ ְש ָחטוֹ ,slaughter did not involve a desecration of Shabbat. Rather ׁ ֶש ּלֹא ִל ׁ ְשמוֹ ַּב ַּׁש ָּבת, ָּת ָנא ַנ ִמי ׁ ֶש ּלֹא : ִּת ֵּיקן ְּב ּדו ִּקין ׁ ֶש ָּב ַﬠִין – since the mishna taught the case of one who slaughtered the He has improved it if it was on the eyelid ְל ְאוֹכ ָליו. ְו ִהיא ּג ּו ָפא ָל ָּמה ִלי? ִמ ּׁש ּום Paschal lamb for a diff erent purpose on Shabbat, it also taught All blemishes mentioned in the Torah are treated alike with regard to the prohibition against offering a blemished animal, .the case of one who slaughtered it for those who cannot eat it ְ ּד ָק ָב ֵﬠי ְל ִא ְיפ ֵלוֹגי ַר ִּבי ֱא ִל ֶיﬠֶזר ְוַר ִּבי but nevertheless Rabbi Akiva distinguishes between blemishes ְי ׁ ֻהוֹשﬠ. Th e Gemara asks further: And it itself, the case of slaughtering that disqualify a bird from being sacrificed as an offering and the Paschal off ering for a diff erent purpose, why do I need it? those that do not. A bird is disqualified only if it is missing a limb. Th e halakha there is also obvious. Th e Gemara answers: Since Smaller blemishes disqualify an animal, but the disqualification the mishna wished to teach the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer is not absolute. Therefore, if the sacrificial parts of an animal that and Rabbi Yehoshua, it taught all these other halakhot as well. has a small blemish ascended to the top of the altar, they do not descend from it. :Th e Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Ĥinnana said to his son ָא ַמר ֵל ּיה ַרב ּהו ָנא ַּבר ִח ָּינ ָנא ִל ְבֵר ּיה: ִּכי When you go before Rabbi Zerika, ask him: According to the ָאְז ַל ְּת ְל ַק ֵּמ ּיה ְ ּדַר ִּבי ְזִר ָיקא ְּב ֵﬠי ִמ ֵּינ ּיה: opinion that says that one who infl icts a destructive wound ְלִד ְבֵרי ָה ֵאוֹמר ְמ ַק ְל ֵקל ְּב ַח ּב ּוָרה ָּפ ּטור, is exempt, i.e., that one who causes a wound on Shabbat that ׁ ְש ָחטוֹ ׁ ֶש ּלֹא ְל ְאוֹכ ָליו ַח ָיּיב. ַמה ִּת ֵּיקן? has no constructive eff ect but rather is purely destructive in nature has not performed a prohibited labor and is therefore exempt from bringing a sin-off ering, how are we to understand the mishna’s ruling that one who slaughtered the Paschal lamb for those who cannot eat it is liable? Since the slaughter is invalid, he should be seen as having wounded the animal in a way that brings no benefi t and is simply destructive. What has he improvedN through the slaughter that he should be liable for having performed a prohibited labor?N

Th e Gemara answers: He has improved it in that if the sacrifi cial ִּת ֵּיקן, ִאם ָﬠ ּלו – לֹא ֵיְר ּדו. parts of the off ering ascended to the top of the altar, they do not descend. Th e halakha is that if the sacrifi cial parts of a disqualifi ed off ering are inadvertently brought up to the top of the altar, they need not be removed and they may be burned on the altar. Th us, the slaughter had some constructive eff ect.

Th e Gemara asks further: We learned in the mishna that if one ׁ ְש ָחטוֹ ְו ִנ ְמ ָצא ַּב ַﬠל ּמום – ַח ָיּיב. ַמה -slaughtered the Paschal lamb and it was found to have a blem ִּת ֵּיקן? ִּת ֵּיקן ְּב ּדו ִּקין ׁ ֶש ָּב ַﬠִין, ְו ַא ִּל ָּיבא :ish, he is liable to bring a sin-off ering. Here too, it may be asked ְ ּדַר ִּבי ֲﬠ ִק ָיבא, ְ ּד ָא ַמר: ִאם ָﬠ ּלו – לֹא What has he improved through the slaughter, so that he should ֵיְר ּדו. be liable? Th e Gemara answers: He has improved it if the blemish was small, e.g., if it was on the animal’s eyelid,N and in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who said that in the case of an off ering with such a small blemish, if its sacrifi cial parts ascended to the top of the altar, they do not descend from it, because it is not a disgrace to the altar for the sacrifi cial parts of such an off ering to be burned on it. Perek VI . 73a 49 . פרק ו׳ דף עג. HALAKHA We learned in the next clause of our mishna that if one slaughtered ׁ ְש ָחטוֹ ְו ִנ ְמ ָצא ְטֵר ָיפה ְּב ֵס ֶתר – ָּפ ּטור, If one slaughtered it and it was found to be a tereifa – the Paschal lamb and it was found to have a hidden condition that ָהא ְּב ָג ּלוי – ַח ָיּיב. ַמה ִּת ֵּיקן? ִּת ֵּיקן If one slaughtered a Paschal lamb on : ׁ ְש ָחטוֹ ְו ִנ ְמ ָצא ְטֵר ָיפה would cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], he is exempt H ְל ִהוֹציא ִמ ֵידי ְנ ֵב ָילה. -Shabbat and it was found to have an externally vis ible condition that would cause it to die within twelve from bringing a sin-off ering. Th e mishna’s wording indicates that if months [tereifa], he is liable to bring a sin-offering, be- the animal’s condition is visible, its owner is liable.It may be asked: cause he should have examined the animal beforehand What has he improved by slaughtering an animal with a such a con- (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Shegagot 2:10). dition? Th e Gemara answers: He has improved it in that he removed A sin-offering on Shabbat outside the Temple for it from the category of an animal carcass [neveila], i.e., an animal If one unwit- that died of natural causes or as the result of an improperly carried : ַח ָּטאת ַּב ַּׁש ָּבת ַּב ּחוץ ַל ֲﬠ ָבוֹדה ָזָרה – idolatry tingly slaughtered a sin-offering on Shabbat outside of out act of ritual slaughter. Had the animal died on its own it would the Temple for the purpose of idolatry and he said that have been treated as a neveila, which is a primary source of ritual im- his intention was to worship with the animal at the time purity, rendering those who touch or carry it ritually impure. Proper of the completion of the slaughter, he is liable to bring three sin-offerings (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot slaughter of the animal prevents it from falling into that category and Shegagot 4:1). imparting ritual impurity. Ravina strongly objects to this: With regard to that which was ַמ ְת ִקיף ָל ּה ָר ִב ָינא, ָהא ְ ּד ַת ְנָיא: ַה ּׁש ֵוֹחט A guilt-offering whose owner has died or whose ָא ׁ ָשם ׁ ֶש ֵמ ּתו ְּב ָﬠ ָליו אוֹ – owner has achieved atonement taught elsewhere in a baraita, that one who unwitt ingly slaughters a ַח ָּטאת ַּב ַּׁש ָּבת ַּב ּחוץ ַל ֲﬠ ָבוֹדה ָזָרה – ּ A guilt-offering whose owners have died sin-off ering on Shabbat outside the Temple for the sake of idolatryH : ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַּכ ְּפ ּרו ְּב ָﬠ ָליו ַח ָיּיב ָﬠ ֶל ָיה ׁ ָשלֹ ׁש ַח ָּטאוֹת, ַמה ִּת ֵּיקן? or achieved atonement through a different offering is left to graze until it develops a blemish. It is then sold and the is liable to bring three sin-off erings for it: For desecrating Shabbat, proceeds are used to purchase a free-will burnt-offering for slaughtering an off ering outside the Temple, and for practicing (Rambam Sefer Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 4:14). idolatry; here too, the question may be raised: What has he improved by slaughtering the animal? Here we cannot answer that he removed NOTES it from the category of an animal carcass and prevented it from becom- From the category of limbs from a living creature – ing a primary source of ritual impurity, because any animal that was Rashi and others understand that the used as an idolatrous off ering imparts ritual impurity. Th erefore, it : ִמ ֵידי ֵא ֶבר ִמן ַה ַחי improvement brought about by slaughtering the animal would seem that the slaughter served no constructive purpose. is that the prohibition against eating the limb of a living Rav Avira said: Even here he has improved it in that he removed it ָא ַמר ַרב ֲﬠִו ָירא: ׁ ֶש ּמ ִוֹציאוֹ ִמ ֵידי ֵא ֶבר creature that governs even gentiles no longer applies N from the category of limbs from a living creature. Even a gentile is ִמן ַה ַחי. -to this animal. Others explain that there is a practical dif ference for Jews as well: The prohibition against eating liable if he eats meat taken from a living animal,N but once the animal the limb of a living creature applies to even a minimal amount, less than an olive-bulk. On the other hand, the is slaughtered there is no longer any liability. Accordingly, even this prohibition against eating meat dedicated to idolatry act of slaughter has achieved a productive result. applies only when one consumes an olive-sized piece of We learned in the mishna that if one slaughtered the Paschal lamb ׁ ְ״ש ָחטוֹ ְו ַנוֹדע וכו׳״. ָא ַמר ַרב ּהו ָנא .(meat (Rabbeinu Ĥananel; Me’iri -and it became known aft erward that the owners had died, he is ex ָא ַמר ַרב: ָא ׁ ָשם ׁ ֶש ִּנ ַּיתק ִלְר ִﬠָיּה ּו ׁ ְש ָחטוֹ :The prohibition empt from bringing a sin-off ering. Rav Huna said that Rav said : ֵא ֶבר ִמן ַה ַחי – A limb from a living animal ְס ָתם – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר ְל ָעוֹלה. ַא ְל ָמא ָק ָס ַבר: against eating flesh taken from a living animal is one of Regarding a guilt-off ering that was consigned to grazing: If the ָלא ָּב ֵﬠי ֲﬠ ִק ָירה. the seven Noahide commandments that are universal laws binding on all mankind. They are the prohibition owner of a guilt-off ering dies or achieves atonement through a diff er- against idolatry, the prohibition against murder, the ent guilt-off ering, the animal is sent out to graze in the fi eld until it prohibition against incest and adultery, the prohibition develops a blemish, at which point it can be sold. Th e money from against robbery and kidnapping, the prohibition against the sale is used to purchase a burnt-off ering. And if, before it devel- blasphemy, the prohibition against eating a limb from a oped a blemish, someone slaughtered it without specifying its pur- living animal, and the obligation to establish courts of law. pose, it is valid as a burnt-off ering. Th e Gemara concludes that Rav A gentile who disobeys one of these commandments is liable to receive the death penalty. apparently holds that it does not require uprooting. Th ere is no need for an explicit declaration in order to change the status of the When an animal be- off ering; even if it is slaughtered without its purpose specifi ed it is : ִמ ָיתה ּוְר ִﬠָיּה – Death and grazing comes disqualified from being sacrificed as an offering, the disqualification is sometimes so severe that the ani- valid. ּ mal must be removed from the world. Actively killing the Th e Gemara asks: If so, even when it has not yet been consigned to ִאי ָה ִכי, ִּכי לֹא ִנ ַּיתק ַנ ִמי! ְגֵז ָירה ְל ַא ַחר -animal is prohibited, as one may not cause a consecrat grazing, it should also be valid, for any guilt-off ering whose owner has ַּכ ָּפָרה ַא ּט ּו ִל ְפ ֵני ַּכ ָּפָרה. ed animal to acquire a blemish. The animal is therefore locked away in a sealed area without food until it dies on achieved atonement through a diff erent off ering is presumably going its own. If the disqualification is less severe, the animal is to be brought as a free-will burnt-off ering. Th e Gemara answers: Th is left to graze in the field until it develops a blemish. At that invalidation stems from a rabbinic decree with regard to a guilt- point, the animal may be sold, and the proceeds from the off ering aft er its owner achieved atonement with a diff erent off ering sale are used to buy an offering of the same type or of a due to concern about a guilt-off ering before its owner achieved different type, depending on the circumstances. atonement with a diff erent off ering. Before the owner achieves atonement the animal is certainly considered a guilt-off ering; it is only aft er the owner achieves atonement that the off ering becomes valid for use as a burnt-off ering, and then by strict halakha it is immediately valid for that purpose, even before the animal develops a blemish. From where do you say that this is the case? As we learned elsewhere ּו ְמ ָנא ֵּת ְימָרא – ִ ּד ְת ַנן: ָא ׁ ָשם ׁ ֶש ֵּמ ּתו -in a mishna: A guilt-off ering whose owner has died or whose own ְּב ָﬠ ָליו אוֹ ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְת ַּכ ְּפ ּרו ְּב ָﬠ ָליו – ִיְר ֶﬠה ַﬠד H er has achieved atonement through a diff erent guilt-off ering grazes ׁ ֶשִיּ ְס ָּת ֵאב, ְו ִי ָּמ ֵכר ְו ִי ְּפ ּלו ָ ּד ָמיו ִל ְנָד ָבה. until it becomes unfi t, whereupon it is sold and its money is used ַר ִּבי ֱא ִל ֶיﬠֶזר ֵאוֹמר: ָי ּמות. ַר ִּבי ְי ׁ ֻהוֹשﬠ for a communal free-will burnt-off ering. Rabbi Eliezer says: Th is guilt-off ering is made to die on its own.N Rabbi Yehoshua says: When ֵאוֹמר: ִי ָּמ ֵכר, ְו ָי ִביא ְּבָד ָמיו ָעוֹלה. it develops a blemish, it is sold, and he brings a burnt-off ering for himself with its money. פרק ו׳ דף עג. . Perek VI . 73a 50 Th is indicates that according to Rabbi Yehoshua, as soon as the owner ְּבָד ָמיו – ִאין, ֲא ָבל ּג ּופוֹ – ָלא, ְ ּדָגַזר achieves atonement, his animal loses its status as a guilt-off ering and ְל ַא ַחר ַּכ ָּפָרה ַא ּט ּו ִל ְפ ֵני ַּכ ָּפָרה, ׁ ְש ַמע it becomes a burnt-off ering. Nevertheless, even he says that the animal ִמ ָּינ ּה. that is bought with its money may indeed be brought as a burnt- off ering, but the guilt-off ering itself must not be sacrifi ced as a burnt- off ering. Undoubtedly, his reason must be that the Sages issued a decree with regard to a guilt-off ering aft er its owner achieved atonement with a diff erent off ering, due to concern about a guilt-off ering before its owner achieved atonement with a diff erent off ering. Th e Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from it that this is correct. Rav Ĥisda raised an objection to Rav Huna with regard to his opinion ֵא ִית ֵיב ּיה ַרב ִח ְסָ ּדא ְלַרב ּהו ָנא: ” ׁ ְש ָחטוֹ about uprooting the status of an off ering from what we learned in our ְו ַנוֹדע ׁ ֶש ָּמ ׁ ְש ּכו ְּב ָﬠ ִלים ֶאת ָי ָדם וכו׳”. mishna: If one slaughtered a Paschal lamb on Shabbat and aft erward it became known that the owners had withdrawn from it and regis- tered for a diff erent one, or that they had died or become ritually impure, he is exempt from bringing a sin-off ering, because he slaughtered with permission.

Perek VI Daf 73 Amud b

HALAKHA And it was taught in a baraita with regard to this mishna that on ְו ָת ֵני ֲﬠ ָל ּה: ַּבחוֹל ִּכי ַהאי ַּגְו ָנא – On a weekday it should be burned immediately – a weekday, in a case like this, where it turns out that there is no one ִי ָּׂשֵרף ִמ ָיּד. ִאי ָא ְמַר ְּת ִּב ׁ ְש ָל ָמא ָּב ֵﬠי If a Paschal lamb was slaughtered after : ַּבחוֹל… ִי ָּׂשֵרף ִמ ָיּד H to eat the Paschal off ering, it should be burned immediately. Grant- it was known that its owners had died or withdrawn ֲﬠ ִק ָירה – ַהאי ֶּפ ַסח ּהוא, ְו ֵכ ָיון ְ ּד ֵלית ed, if you say that an off ering that has no owner requires uprooting their participation, it should be burned immediately ֵל ּיה ְּב ָﬠ ִלים – ֲהָוה ֵל ּיה ְּפ ּסולוֹ ְּב ּגופוֹ, from its previous status in order for its status to change and in the (Rambam Sefer Korbanot, Hilkhot Korban Pesaĥ 4:3). absence of explicit uprooting it retains its original status, here too it ַא ְּמ ּטו ְל ָה ִכי ִי ָּׂשֵרף ִמ ָיּד. can be argued that this is still a Paschal off ering. And since it has no owners, its disqualifi cation is in the body of the off ering itself, because it was sacrifi ced for no purpose, and therefore it should be burned immediately. ,But if you say that an off ering such as this does not require uprooting ֶא ָּלא ִאי ָא ְמַר ְּת ָלא ָּב ֵﬠי ֲﬠ ִק ָירה – but rather its original status is automatically void upon the death of its ֵמֵר ׁ ָישא ֲהָוה ֵל ּיה ׁ ְש ָל ִמים. ְּפ ּסולוֹ ִמ ּׁש ּום owner, and it was a peace-off ering from the beginning, as a Paschal ַמאי – ִמ ּׁש ּום ָ ּד ָבר ַא ֵחר, ְ ּד ָקא ׁ ָש ֵחיט off ering whose status has been revoked is considered a peace-off ering, ֵל ּיה ַא ַחר ָּת ִמיד ׁ ֶשל ֵּבין ָה ַﬠְר ַּבִים, ִﬠ ּיב ּור due to what then is its disqualifi cation? Due to something else, i.e., that he slaughtered it aft er the daily aft ernoon off ering, which is the ּצוָרה ָּב ֵﬠי! proper time to slaughter the Paschal lamb. But a peace-off ering that is slaughtered then is disqualifi ed. In that case, however, it should require that it be left overnight until its form decays,N thus att aining the status of left over sacrifi cial meat, and only then should it be burned. As it was taught in a baraita: Th is is the principle: Any off ering whose ְ ּד ַת ְנָיא, ֶזה ַה ְּכ ָלל: ָּכל ׁ ֶש ְּפ ּסולוֹ ְּב ּגופוֹ – disqualifi cation is in the body of the off ering itself should be burned ִי ָּׂשֵרף ִמ ָיּד, ַּבָ ּדם ּו ַב ְּב ָﬠ ִלים – ְּת ּעו ַּבר immediately and without delay. But if the disqualifi cation is in the ּצוָרתוֹ, ְו ֵי ֵצא ְל ֵבית ַה ְּׂשֵר ָיפה. blood of the off ering or in the owners, the meat must be kept overnight, so that its form is allowed to decay, and only then should it be taken out to the place of burning.N Th us, the baraita that says that a Paschal lamb that was slaughtered on a weekday, and aft erward it became known that the owners had died, should be burned immediately proves, against the opinion of Rav Huna, that an off ering that has no owners still requires explicit uprooting from its previous status for its status to change.N NOTES -Rashi explains that decay of form was situated to the southeast of the altar. It was to here that to a guilt-offering. The relationship between these two offer : ִﬠ ּיב ּור ּצוָרה – Its form decays means that the meat of the offering is left overnight past its nor- the ashes were first removed from the altar every day, and ings is based on a particular similarity between the unique mal time limit, at which point it acquires the status of leftover where the ashes from the candelabrum were placed as well. halakhot that apply to each. In general, an animal that is con- sacrificial meat and should be burned. Rabbeinu Ĥananel and In addition, there were two other places where the ashes were secrated as a particular offering retains its status indefinitely. A the Rambam appear to have understood the phrase literally: deposited. One was on the Temple Mount, where sacrificial guilt-offering is unique in that if it becomes disqualified, the The disqualified meat is left until it rots or decays and no longer bulls and goats that had become disqualified were burned, animal is redeemed and the money is used to bring a burnt- looks like regular meat. while the other was outside Jerusalem, where the ashes from offering. The Paschal lamb is governed by a similar halakha: If offerings of bulls and goats that were burned according to their The place of burning it is not sacrificed at its proper time, it automatically becomes : ֵּבית ַה ְּׂשֵר ָיפה – The place of burning sacrificial requirements were brought. includes the three places where consecrated objects that re- a peace-offering. It is due to this unique similarity that the The details pertaining to how and when a Paschal lamb becomes : ֶּפ ַסח ְו ָא ׁ ָשם – quired burning were set on fire. It is also where the ashes from The Paschal offering and the guilt-offering the Temple were brought. An alternative name for it is the place Gemara’s question is based upon a comparison between the a peace-offering are relevant to the halakhot that apply to a of the ashes. In the Temple courtyard the place of burning halakhot pertaining to a Paschal offering and those pertaining guilt-offering.

Perek VI . 73b 51 . פרק ו׳ דף עג: HALAKHA -Rather, do not say that Rav said that a guilt-off ering that one slaugh ֶא ָּלא: ָלא ֵּת ָימא ׁ ְש ָחטוֹ ְס ָתם ָּכ ׁ ֵשר If one slaughtered a guilt-offering consigned to tered without specifi cation is valid as a burnt-off ering. Say rather that ְל ׁש ּום ָעוֹלה, ֶא ָּלא ֵא ָימא: ׁ ְש ָחטוֹ ְל ׁש ּום ׁ ְש ָחטוֹ ְל ׁש ּום – grazing as a burnt-offering, it is valid he said that if one took a guilt-off ering whose owner had already achieved ָעוֹלה – ָּכ ׁ ֵשר. ַא ְל ָמא: ָּב ֵﬠי ֲﬠ ִק ָירה. If a guilt-offering that was consigned to : ָעוֹלה ָּכ ׁ ֵשר grazing was slaughtered as a burnt-offering, it is atonement through a diff erent animal and he explicitly slaughtered it as H valid. However, it is not offered as a burnt-offering a burnt-off ering, it is valid. And conclude from this that Rav appar- ab initio due to a decree lest some guilt-offerings ently holds that changing the status of an off ering requires explicit up- be offered as burnt-offerings even before their rooting. owners have achieved atonement (Rambam Sefer Th e Gemara asks: A diffi culty arises according to Rabbi Ĥiyya bar ּו ְלַר ִּבי ִח ָיּיא ַּבר ַּג ְמָ ּדא ְ ּד ָא ַמר: ִנְזְר ָקה ִמ ִּפי .(Avoda, Hilkhot Pesulei HaMukdashin 4:15 Gamda, who dealt with the question whether a Paschal lamb requires ֲח ּבוָרה ְו ָא ְמִרי ְּכגוֹן ׁ ֶש ָה ּיו ְּב ָﬠ ִלים ְט ֵמ ֵאי uprooting and said that it was thrown out from the group of scholars ֵמ ִתים ְו ִנְד ִחין ְל ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵש ִני. NOTES who were studying the issue, and they all said as follows: Uprooting is The policy of reject- required in a case where the owners of the off ering were ritually impure : ִנְר ֶאה ְו ִנְד ֶחה – Fit and rejected ing animals or objects that were from the outset with impurity imparted by a corpse during the fi rst Pesaĥ and they were unfit for their intended purpose or that were origi- pushed off to the second Pesaĥ, for in that case, they presumably want nally fit and later became unfit applies not only to the halakhot of offerings but to other areas of ha- to sacrifi ce this animal as their Paschal off ering on the second Pesaĥ, and lakha as well in which an object is designated for a therefore its status does not change unless it is explicitly uprooted. particular mitzva. The essential difference between Th e Gemara infers from this that it is only this off ering that requires ַהאי ּהוא ְ ּד ָב ֵﬠי ֲﬠ ִק ָירה, ָהא ְּב ָﬠ ְל ָמא something that was rejected from the start and explicit uprooting, because it is reasonable to assume that its owners still ָלא ָּב ֵﬠי ֲﬠ ִק ָירה, ַמאי ִא ָּיכא ְל ֵמ ַימר?! something that was fit and then rejected is that with regard to something that was unfit from the intend to use it for its original purpose, but in general it does not require start, since the full level of sanctity never applied uprooting. According to this opinion, what is there to say, as it would to it, its disqualification is also not complete. In seem that our mishna indicates that explicit uprooting is necessary? contrast, something that was originally fit acquires -Rather, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: With what are we deal ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַרב ּהו ָנא ְּבֵר ּיה ְ ּדַרב ְי ׁ ֻהוֹשﬠ: ,sanctity, and when it later becomes disqualified -ing here in our mishna? We are dealing with a case where they desig ָה ָכא ְּב ַמאי ָﬠ ְס ִק ַינן – ְּכגוֹן ׁ ֶש ִה ְפִר ׁיש ּו that amounts to a disqualification of the sanctity itself. Therefore, even if it becomes fit once again, nated the animal to be sacrifi ced as their Paschal off ering before midday, ֶקוֹדם ֲחצוֹת, ּו ֵמ ּתו ְּב ָﬠ ִלים ַא ַחר ֲחצוֹת, .there are situations in which it remains disqualified and midday came and it was fi rmly established as their Paschal off ering, ַ ּד ֲהָוה ֵל ּיה ִנְר ֶאה ְו ִנְד ֶחה. ְו ָכל ַה ִּנְר ֶאה -and the owners died aft er midday, such that the off ering was fi rst con :ִ ּד ּיחוי ְּב ַב ֲﬠ ֵלי ַח ִיּים – Rejection of living creatures sidered fi t and then rejected: It was originally fi t to be sacrifi ced as either ְו ִנְד ֶחה – ׁש ּוב ֵאינוֹ ֵחוֹזר ְו ִנְר ֶאה. -That which is stated here, that living creatures can not be permanently rejected, does not mean that a Paschal off ering or a peace-off ering, and then it was rejected as a peace- there is no disqualification that applies to living creatures. Animals that have a blemish, that have off ering when it was fi rmly established as a Paschal off ering, and rejected been given as a gift to a prostitute, that have been as a Paschal off ering when its owners died. And the principle is that N used to pay for a dog, or that have been used by anything that was fi rst fi t and aft erward rejected does not return to human beings for sexual relations are all disquali- being fi t. Th e off ering is therefore disqualifi ed and burned immediately, fied for use as offerings even while they are alive. as it can never be brought as a Paschal off ering or as a peace-off ering. Rather, the intent is that as long as an animal that Th e Gemara rejects this answer: Is this reason necessary for anyone but ִמ ֵ ּידי ּהוא ַט ְﬠ ָמא ֶא ָּלא ְלַרב, ָהא ָא ַמר had been consecrated as an offering is inherently Rav, who holds that explicit uprooting is not required? But Rav himself ַרב: ַּב ֲﬠ ֵלי ַח ִיּים ֵא ָינם ִנְד ִחים! fit for that purpose, temporary disqualifications do not make it permanently unfit. Therefore, if the said that living creatures cannot be permanently rejected.N Th e halakha temporary disqualification is removed, the animal can be sacrificed as an offering. of rejection applies only to animals that were already slaughtered, but living creatures cannot be permanently rejected from their sanctifi ed status or eligibility for a mitzva. -Rather, Rav Pappa said: In accordance with whose opinion is this ba ֶא ָּלא ָא ַמר ַרב ַּפ ָּפא: ָהא ַמ ִּני – ַר ִּבי raita that adds to the mishna the detail that on a weekday the disqualifi ed ֱא ִל ֶיﬠֶזר ִהיא, ְ ּד ָא ַמר: ְו ֵכן ַה ּׁש ֵוֹחט off ering is immediately burned? It is in accordance with the opinion of ֲא ֵחִרים ְל ׁ ֵשם ֶּפ ַסח ָּפ ּסול, ַ ּד ֲהָוה ֵל ּיה Rabbi Eliezer, who said: And similarly, if one slaughtered another ְּפ ּסולוֹ ְּב ּגופוֹ. off ering, such as a peace-off ering, for the purpose of a Paschal off ering, it is disqualifi ed. If so, its disqualifi cation is in the body of the off ering itself, and so it should be burned immediately. Th e Gemara asks: But if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi ְו ִאי ַר ִּבי ֱא ִל ֶיﬠֶזר ִהיא – ַח ָּטאת ַנ ִמי -Eliezer, he would deem him liable also to bring a sin-off ering for hav ְמ ַח ֵיּיב, ְ ּד ָהא ֵלית ֵל ּיה ְלַר ִּבי ֱא ִל ֶיﬠֶזר ing slaughtered an invalid off ering on Shabbat, for Rabbi Eliezer does ֶטוֹﬠה ִּבְד ַבר ִמ ְצָוה ָּפ ּטור! not accept the position that one who errs in regard to a mitzva is exempt from bringing a sin-off ering. Th is explanation must, therefore, be rejected. Rather, Rav Yosef, son of Rav Salla the Ĥasid, explained before Rav ֶא ָּלא ַּתְרְּג ָמא ַרב ֵיוֹסף ְּבֵר ּיה ְ ּדַרב ַס ָּלא Pappa as follows: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It ֲח ִס ָידא ַק ֵּמ ּיה ְ ּדַרב ַּפ ָּפא: ָהא ַמ ִּני – ֵיוֹסף is in accordance with the opinion of Yosef ben Ĥonai. As we learned in ֶּבן ַחוֹנאי ִהיא. ִ ּד ְת ַנן, ֵיוֹסף ֶּבן ַחוֹנאי a mishna that Yosef ben Ĥonai says: Other off erings that are slaugh- ֵאוֹמר: ַה ִּנ ׁ ְש ָח ִטים ְל ׁ ֵשם ֶּפ ַסח ּו ְל ׁ ֵשם tered for the purpose of a Paschal off ering or for the purpose of a sin-off ering are disqualifi ed, as he agrees with Rabbi Eliezer in this ַח ָּטאת – ְּפ ּסו ִלים. ַא ְל ָמא: ְּפ ּסולוֹ ְּב ּגופוֹ -regard. It is apparent that its disqualifi cation is in the body of the off er ִהיא, ּו ִמ ּׁש ּום ָה ִכי ִי ָּׂשֵרף ִמ ָיּד, ּו ִב ְפ ּטוֵרי ing itself and therefore it should be burned immediately. But with ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכַר ִּבי ְי ׁ ֻהוֹשﬠ. regard to exemptions from sin-off erings in cases of unintentional desecration of Shabbat, he holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that one who errs in regard to a mitzva is exempt. פרק ו׳ דף עג: . Perek VI . 73b 52 Rav Ashi said a diff erent answer to this question: Rav said his ruling ַרב ַא ׁ ִשי ָא ַמר: ַרב ְ ּד ָא ַמר ְּכַר ִּבי ִי ׁ ְש ָמ ֵﬠאל with regard to a guilt-off ering in accordance with the opinion of ְּבנוֹ ׁ ֶשל ַר ִּבי ָיוֹח ָנן ֶּבן ְּב ָרוֹקה. ְ ּד ַת ְנָיא, ַר ִּבי Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben Beroka. As it was ִי ׁ ְש ָמ ֵﬠאל ְּבנוֹ ׁ ֶשל ַר ִּבי ָיוֹח ָנן ֶּבן ְּב ָרוֹקה taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yoĥanan ben ֵאוֹמר: ִאם ֵי ׁש ׁ ָש ּהות ַּביּוֹם ֵל ַידע ִאם Beroka, says: If one slaughtering the Paschal off ering on Shabbat still has time in the day to clarify whether the owners withdrew ָמ ׁ ְש ּכו ְּב ָﬠ ִלים ֶאת ְיֵד ֶיהם, אוֹ ׁ ֶש ֵּמ ּתו אוֹ -or died or became ritually impure, he is liable to bring a sin ׁ ֶש ִּנ ְט ְמ ּאו – ַח ָיּיב, ּו ְת ּעו ַּבר ּצוָרתוֹ ְו ֵיוֹצא off ering for having slaughtered on Shabbat, and the meat must be ְל ֵבית ַה ְּׂשֵר ָיפה. ַמאי ַט ְﬠ ָמא – ָלאו kept overnight so that its form be allowed to decay, and then it ִמ ּׁש ּום ְ ּד ָלא ָּב ֵﬠי ֲﬠ ִק ָירה? should be taken out to the place of burning. What is the reason that its form must be allowed to decay? Is it not because he holds that it does not require uprooting? And for that reason the disqualifi cation is not inherent in the off ering, and so it must be left overnight to att ain the status of left over sacrifi cial meat before being burned. Th e Gemara rejects this argument: From where is this known to be ִמ ַּמאי?! ִ ּד ְיל ָמא ִמ ּׁש ּום ְ ּד ָס ַבר ָל ּה ְּכ ַת ָּנא correct? Perhaps it requires uprooting and the disqualifi cation is ְ ּד ֵבי ַר ָּבה ַּבר ֲא ּבו ּה. ְ ּד ָא ַמר: ֲא ִפ ּיל ּו ִּפ ּיג ּול inherent. And the fact that he requires decay of form is because he ַנ ִמי ָּב ֵﬠי ִﬠ ּיב ּור ּצוָרה, ְ ּד ָי ֵליף ָﬠוֹן ָﬠוֹן agrees with the tanna of the school of Rabba bar Avuh, who said ִמ ּנ ָוֹתר. that even piggul, an off ering disqualifi ed by improper intent, which is considered an inherent disqualifi cation, also requires decay of form, for he derived this requirement by way of a verbal analogy between the word “iniquity” (Leviticus :) stated in relation to an off ering disqualifi ed by improper intent and the word “iniquity” (Leviticus :) stated with regard to left over sacrifi cial meat. -For if you do not say so, i.e., that the baraita was taught in accor ְ ּד ִאי ָלא ֵּת ָימא ָה ִכי – ִנ ְט ְמ ּאו ְּב ָﬠ ִלים dance with this opinion, then in a case in which the owners became ַמאי ִא ָּיכא ְל ֵמ ַימר? ָהא ַו ַ ּדאי ָּב ֵﬠי -ritually impure, what is there to say? In that case it certainly re ֲﬠ ִק ָירה! ְ ּד ָא ַמר ַר ִּבי ִח ָיּיא ַּבר ַּג ְמ ָ ּדא, quires uprooting, for Rabbi Ĥiyya bar Gamda said that it was ִנְזְר ָקה ִמ ִּפי ֲח ּבוָרה: ְּכגוֹן ׁ ֶש ָה ּיו ְּב ָﬠ ִלים thrown out from the group of scholars who were studying the is- -sue: Uprooting is required in a case where the owners of the off er ְט ֵמ ֵאי ֵמת, ְו ִנְד ּחו ְל ֶפ ַסח ׁ ֵש ִני. ing were ritually impure with impurity imparted by a corpse during the fi rst Pesaĥ and they were pushed off to the second Pesaĥ. Since their off ering is presumably set to be used on the second Pesaĥ, explicit change of the off ering’s status is required. Rather, it is clear that it is as he answered at the beginning, that ֶא ָּלא ְמ ַחַּו ְור ָּתא ִּכְד ׁ ָש ֵני ֵמ ִﬠ ָּיקָרא: ֵיוֹסף .our mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Yosef ben Ĥonai ֶּבן ַחוֹנאי ִהיא. Th erefore, on weekdays the off ering is burned immediately, and on Shabbat, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, one .does not become liable to bring a sin-off ering הדרן עלך אלו דברים

Perek VI . 73b 53 . פרק ו׳ דף עג: