Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran

Public and individual sin offerings are categorized as kodshei kodashim . Public offerings include the goat offerings on Rosh Chodesh and the holidays. They are slaughtered and blood is accepted in the North of the Azara. The blood is sprinkled on the top of the altar. The kohen goes onto the sovev , a ledge of the altar, one cubit wide and five cubits off the ground that extends across the length...

The braita in Zevachim 51 extrapolates from the third mention (by the nasi ) of the base of the altar that for all sacrifices on the outer altar the remainder of the blood is poured on the base, the yesod . The braita then raises a question: perhaps the extrapolation should be different — that the sprinkling of sacrificial blood on the outer altar must be performed only on the sides where there is...

Study Guide After suggesting that one can learn from Rabbi Meir's opinion about melika of a bird that is a treifa , that one can learn a binyan av from a kal va'chomer in kodashim , sacrificial items , the Gemara rejects this explanation because it is derived from chulin , not kodashim . Can one derive a law through a binyan av and then use another method of hermeneutics to derive something else?...

Study Guide The Gemara explores various hermeneutical methods used to derive halakhic laws - juxtaposition ( hekesh ), gezeira shava (verbal analogy), kal va'chomer (a fortiori reasoning), and binyan av (paradigm from precedent). It raises the question: can a law derived through one method serve as the basis for further derivation, either by the same method or a different one? They systematically...

From where do we derive that the law regarding slaughtering of the burnt offering must be in the North, and that if not, it is disqualified? Since the sin offering is invalid if not slaughtered and its blood received in the North, and this requirement is derived from the burnt offering, a logical argument is made that the same requirement must apply to the burnt offering itself: how can a secondar...

Why does the Mishna begin with the bull offering of Yom Kippur as its first example? Given that the primary halakha regarding slaughtering in the northern part of the Azara (Temple courtyard) is derived from the burnt offering, one might expect that to be the opening case. Why would the inner sin offerings appear before regular sin offerings? The verse that establishes the requirement of slaughter...

A sin offering that is slaughtered for the sake of a non-sacred animal, the sacrifice is valid. However, if the owner slaughtered it thinking that the animal was not sacred, it is disqualified. The second category is called mitasek , one who did not at all intend to do the act. The source for this disqualification is brought from two verses, as two are necessary to prove that the intention for the...

What is the source in the Mishna for the halakha that one is not liable for the laws of notar and impurity when eating blood? Rabbi Shimon and the rabbis disagree about whether one is liable for eating items that are not fit for consumption while in a state of impurity. Is their dispute limited to items that themselves became impure, or does it also apply to a person who is impure and eats sacrifi...

The hala kh a was decided according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar in the name of Rabbi Shimon regarding pigul in the inner sin offerings. Rava (and some say Rav Yosef) wondered: Why is halacha being decided on a matter that is no longer relevant in our times? To this, Abaye responded: "Expound and receive reward." Is there a difference between offerings brought by non-Jews and those brought by Je...

Study Guide Zeiri explains a very complicated braita referring to leniencies and stringencies regarding an impure person eating consecrated items and why each needed to be mentioned explicitly in the Torah. A braita is brought to explain the source of the law that one receives karet for eating part of a sacrifice that became pigul only if there is an action that permits it to be eaten or burned on...

Study Guide The Mishna enumerates items that cannot become pigul - meaning that even if the offering is rendered pigul due to improper intent during the sacrificial process, consuming these items does not incur the punishment of karet . This is because pigul applies only to items that are permitted through another action. For example, sacrificial meat becomes permitted only after the imurim (the p...

Study Guide This week's learning is sponsored by Aunt Elayne, Fredjs, Hageges, Somers, Greenstones, and Pilichowskis in honor of Lana Kerzner's birthday. "We admire so much how you continue the Greenstone family legacy of intellectual curiosity coupled with daily dedication to learning and Judaism." Reish Lakish interprets Rabbi Meir's position in a Mishna in Menachot as holding that an offering b...

Study Guide Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (Rebbi) interprets the first mention of "bull" in Vayikra 4:20 as referring to the bull offering of Yom Kippur, even though the verse's context concerns the communal sin offering. According to Rebbi, this verse teaches that the Yom Kippur bull is comparable to the bull brought by the  kohen gadol  who sins,   referenced by the second mention of "bull" in the same ve...

Study Guide   The Gemara cites a braita to locate the source for the halakha that all placements of the sin-offering blood performed in the inner sanctuary are essential. The braita's author treats the seven sprinklings as essential because they are treated as essential elsewhere - this statement is explained as referring to seven sprinklings in the rituals of the red heifer and the purification o...

Rav Papa cites a proof based on an inference from a Mishna in Zevachim 93a: if blood splashes onto one's clothing from the blood designated for placement on the altar , specifically from the three sprinklings following the initial one , then the garments must be laundered in the Azara (Temple courtyard), a process known as kibus . This inference is challenged, as the Gemara suggest s that the Mish...

The Gemara brings a  b raita in which a  Tanna  offers an alternative interpretation to explain Beit Hillel's reasoning  -  that one application of blood in the sin offering is sufficient to fulfill the obligation, rather than two. Two objections are raised against this interpretation, and in the second objection, an alternative  drasha  is proposed. However, both objections are ultimately resolve...

Study Guide A braita is presented that derives from the verse "And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured" the principle that if one performs just a single application of blood for each offering brought on the outer altar, they have fulfilled their obligation—supporting the halakha stated in the Mishnah. However, this verse is also used for various other interpretations and halakhot. This ra...

This month's learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z"l, on the occasion of his first yahrzeit. Rabbi Harari was my first Gemara teacher and the one who sparked my love for learning Gemara. Over the course of his distinguished career as an educator, as principal of the Yeshiva of Flatbush, and as community rabbi, he inspired thousands of students with his wisdom, warmth, and u...

During the Paschal sacrifice, the drain in the floor of the Azara was plugged to ensure that any spilled blood would be collected. Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis offer different explanations for this practice. Rabbi Yehuda says the blood was collected and placed on the altar in case some of the blood from the sacrifices had spilled and had not yet been brought to the altar. The rabbis explain that it...

How can the verse "do not touch kodesh " be used by Reish Lakish to teach that one cannot eat sacrificial meat in a state of impurity, when that verse is needed to derive the prohibition for an impure person to eat sacrificial meat before the blood is sprinkled? To resolve the difficulty, the Gemara explains how both can be derived from the same verse.  There is a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and...

Study Guide Ulla said in the name of Reish Lakish that even if an impure person inserts only a small part of their body into the Azara (Temple courtyard), it is forbidden. Rav Hoshaya challenges this ruling based on a case involving a leper who experienced a seminal emission on the eve of Passover. Despite his impurity, he is permitted to proceed with the purification process, which requires parti...

Who is permitted to slaughter an animal for a sacrifice? The Mishna presents the matter in a way that suggests slaughter by a non-priest is only valid post facto. However, this seems to contradict another source that explicitly permits such slaughter ab initio. Upon further analysis, this apparent contradiction is resolved: non-priests are indeed permitted to slaughter sacrificial animals from the...

Study Guide Various cases are examined involving combinations of "outside of time" and "outside of location" thoughts , with the central question being whether they incur the punishment of karet . The Mishna's statement , that a thought about eating and burning does not combine , is analyzed to address questions raised by Rav Ashi and Rava, and to highlight an apparent contradiction within the Mis...

I lfa and Rabbi Yochanan debate whether the disagreement between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis applies only when the two improper thoughts occur in separate sacrificial rites, or even when they occur within the same rite. A difficulty is raised against each one. The one against Rabbi Yochanan is resolved, but the one against Ilfa is left unresolved. A debate in Masechet Temurah 25b between Rabbi Mei...

Rava explains the Torah source for cases of improper intent ( machshava ) that disqualify sacrifices - specifically, when one intends to sprinkle the blood, burn the sacrificial parts, or eat the meat "outside its time" or "outside its location." The intent of outside its time renders the sacrifice pigul and incurs the punishment of karet for one who eats the meat, whereas outside its location doe...