Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

@YisroelKatz posted on Wed May 18, 174 days ago

Report this


בס״ד
GEMARA Now it was thought that the skin of the fat-tail is as the fat-tail 1 [then the difficulty arises] surely he intends for man what is for the altar's consumption 2 - Said Samuel (Shmuel) The author of this is Rabbi Eliezer, who maintains that you can intend [with effect] for human consumption what is meant for the altar's consumption, and for the altar's consumption what is meant for human consumption 3 For we learnt - If one slaughters a sacrifice [intending] to eat what is not normally eaten 4 or to burn [on the altar] what is not normally burnt it is fit 5 but Rabbi Eliezer invalidates [the sacrifice] 6 How have you explained it - as agreeing with Rabbi
Eliezer - Then consider the sequel 7 This is the general rule - Whoever slaughters, receives, carries, and sprinkles [intending] to eat what is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] what is normally burnt [after time etc.] . . . . thus, only what is normally eaten, but not what is not normally eaten, which agrees with the Rabbis - Thus the first clause agrees with Rabbi Eliezer and the final clause with the Rabbis - Even so, he answered him -
RAB HUNA SAID THE SKIN OF THE FAT-TAIL IS NOT AS THE FAT-TAIL 8 RABBAH (RAVA) OBSERVED WHAT IS RAB HUNA'S REASON - THE FAT THEREOF [IS] THE FAT-TAIL [ENTIRE] 9 BUT NOT THE SKIN OF THE FAT-TAIL
RAB HISDA SAID IN TRUTH THE SKIN OF THE FAT-TAIL IS AS THE FAT-TAIL BUT WE TREAT HERE [IN THE MISHNAH] OF THE FAT-TAIL OF A GOAT 10
Now, all these [scholars] did not say as Samuel (Shmuel) [because] they would not make the first clause agree with Rabbi Eliezer and the second clause with the Rabbis - They did not say as Rab Huna, because they hold that the skin of the fat-tail is as the fat-tail [But] why do they not say as Rab Hisda - Because what does [the Tanna of the Mishnah] inform us [on this view] -[Presumably] that the skin of the fat-tail is as the fat-tail 11 Surely we have learnt it - The skin of the following is as their flesh - the skin under the fat-tail 12 And Rab Hisda 13 - It is necessary - You might think that only in respect of uncleanness does it combine, because it is soft 14 but as for here, I would say [Scripture writes] [Even all the hallowed things of the children of Israel unto thee have I given them] for a consecrated portion,15 which means, as a symbol of greatness, [so that they must be eaten] just as kings eat and kings do not eat thus 16 [Hence] I would say [that it is] not [as the flesh] therefore he informs us [that it is] An objection is raised - if one slaughters a burnt-offering [intending] to burn 17 as much as an olive of the skin under the fat-tail out of bounds, it is invalid, but does not involve kareth - after time, it is piggul, and involves kareth - Eleazar ben Judah (Yehudah) of Avlas (Avelim) said on the authority of Rabbi Jacob (Yaakov), and thus also did Rabbi Simeon (Shimon) ben Judah (Yehudah) of Kefar ‘Iccum (Ikos) say on the authority of Rabbi Simeon (Shimon) - The skin of the legs of small cattle, the skin of the head of a young calf, and the skin under the fat-tail, and all cases which the Sages enumerated of the skin being the same as the flesh, which includes the skin of the Pudenda [if he intended eating or burning these] out of bounds [the sacrifice] is invalid, and does not involve kareth - after time, it is piggul, and involves kareth 18 Thus [this is taught] only [of] the burnt-offering 19 but not [of] a sacrifice 20 As for Rab Huna, it is well - it is right that he specifies a burnt-offering 21 But according to Rab Hisda 22 why does he particularly teach "burnt-offering" let him teach "sacrifice" - Rab Hisda can answer you - I can explain this as referring to the fat-tail of a goat 23 alternatively I can answer - Read "sacrifice" 24
(1) Even in respect of burning on the altar, so that in the case of lamb peace-offerings, the skin of the fat-tail, just as the fat-tail itself, is burnt on the altar "entire"
(v Leviticus (Vayikra) 3 9)
AND HE SHALL PRESENT OF THE SACRIFICE OF PEACE-OFFERINGS AN OFFERING MADE BY FIRE TO HASHEM THE FAT THEREOF THE FAT ENTIRE WHICH HE SHALL TAKE AWAY HARD BY THE RUMP-BONE AND THE FAT THAT COVERS THE INWARDS AND ALL THE FAT THAT IS UPON THE INWARDS
ויקרא ג ט
והקריב מזבח השלמים אשה לה׳ חלבו האליה תמימה לעמת העצה יסירנה ואת החלב המכסה את הקרב ואת כל החלב אשר על הקרב
(2) Which intention should not count at all
(3) I.e., the intention counts
(4) E.g., the emurim, which are burnt on the altar - He intended eating these after time or out of bounds
(5) Because such an illegitimate intention concerning time or place does not count, seeing that the things could not be eaten or burnt at all
(6) Infra 35a
(7) The end of the present Mishnah, infra 29b
(8) IT IS EATEN AND NOT BURNT ON THE ALTAR - THE DIFFICULTY THEREFORE DOES NOT ARISE
(9) LEVITICUS (VAYIKRA) 3 9
AND HE SHALL PRESENT OF THE SACRIFICE OF PEACE-OFFERINGS AN OFFERING MADE BY FIRE TO HASHEM THE FAT THEREOF THE FAT ENTIRE WHICH HE SHALL TAKE AWAY HARD BY THE RUMP-BONE AND THE FAT THAT COVERS THE INWARDS AND ALL THE FAT THAT IS UPON THE INWARDS
ויקרא ג ט
והקריב מזבח השלמים אשה לה׳ חלבו האליה תמימה לעמת העצה יסירנה ואת החלב המכסה את הקרב ואת כל החלב אשר על הקרב
(10) WHICH WAS NOT BURNT ON THE ALTAR
V SUPRA 9A
(11) If the Mishnah treats of the fat-tail of a lamb, then on Samuel's interpretation we are informed that you can intend for human consumption what is meant for the altar's consumption - while on Rab Huna's interpretation the Tanna informs us that the skin of the fat-tail is not as the fat-tail - But if it treats of the fat-tail of a goat, then the only thing that the Tanna can inform us is that its skin is regarded as itself in the sense that it is edible, because it is soft, and therefore counts as ordinary flesh
(12) There must be at least as much as an olive of flesh before it can be defiled, and at least as much as the size of an egg before it can defile as nebelah
(carrion. v. Leviticus (Vayikra) 11 39f)
And if any beast of which ye may eat die he that touches the carcass thereof shall be unclean until the even
ויקרא יא לט
וכי ימות מן הבהמה אשר היא לכם לאכלה הנגע בנבלתה יטמא עד הערב
If there is less than these standards, it can be made up by the skin under the fat-tail
(Hullin 122a) Thus this teaches that this skin is as the fat-tail itself, and so the present teaching on Rab Hisda's interpretation is superfluous
(13) How does he answer this
(14) And edible
(15) Numbers (Bamidbar) 18 8
And HASHEM spoke to Aaron, "And I, behold, I have given thee the charge of My heave-offerings even of all the hallowed things of the Children of Israel to thee have I given them for a consecrated portion, and to thy sons, as a due forever
במדבר יח ח
וידבר ה׳ אל אהרן ואני הנה נתתי לך את משמרת תרומתי לכל קדשי בני ישראל לך נתתים למשחה ולבניך לחק עולם
(16) Though the skin is edible, yet kings would not eat it
(17) Heb. rhyevk which generally refers to the burning of these parts (the emurim) which are always burnt on the altar, even in the case of peace-offerings
(18) V. Hul. (Sonc. ed.) 132a, q.v. notes
(19) Only there does an illegitimate intention in respect of the skin of the fat-tail disqualify the sacrifice, since the whole sacrifice is burnt
(20) Unspecified, which would include peace-offerings
(21) According to Rab Huna, Scripture definitely teaches that the skin of the fat-tail is not counted as emurim - But there is no such teaching in respect of a burnt-offering - hence the present ruling can apply to a burnt-offering but not to other sacrifices
(22) Who maintains that the skin of the fat-tail of all sacrifices is burnt along with it as emurim
(23) In which case the reference is to an intention of eating it out of bounds or after time, not to burning it on the altar
(24) Instead of burnt-offering
ZEVACHIM 28
DAF YOMI
GEMARA The students assumed that the skin of the tail is considered as though it were part of the tail itself - The tail of a sheep sacrificed as a peace offering is burned on the altar rather than eaten - But if so, one who slaughters the sheep with intent to consume the skin of its tail the next day has intent to shift its consumption from consumption by the altar, i.e., burning the offering, to consumption by a person - Since intent to consume part of an offering beyond its designated time renders an offering piggul only if that part is intended for human consumption, why does the Mishna rule that such an offering is piggul - Samuel (Shmuel) says - In accordance with whose opinion is this - It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says - One can have intent to shift an item’s consumption from consumption by the altar to consumption by a person, or from consumption by a person to consumption by the altar, and the offering will still be rendered piggul - This is as we learned in a Mishna (35a) In a case of one who slaughters the offering with intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not partake of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one does not burn it on the altar, beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, the offering is fit - And Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit - The Gemara asks - In accordance with which opinion did you interpret the Mishna here - You interpreted it in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer -But if so, say the latter clause, i.e. the next Mishna (29b) This is the principle - Anyone who slaughters the animal, or who collects the blood, or who conveys the blood, or who sprinkles the blood with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, beyond its designated time, renders it piggul - One can infer that intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it does render it piggul, while intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one does not partake of it does not render it piggul - In this clause, we arrive at the opinion of the Rabbis - Can it be that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, while the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis - Samuel (Shmuel) said to him - Yes - That is how one must understand the Mishna -
RAV HUNA SAYS THE SKIN OF THE TAIL IS NOT CONSIDERED AS THOUGH IT WERE THE TAIL ITSELF UNLIKE THE TAIL ITSELF ITS SKIN IS CONSUMED CONSEQUENTLY BOTH THIS MISHNA AND THE NEXT CAN BE UNDERSTOOD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPINION OF THE RABBIS RABBAH (RAVA) SAID WHAT IS THE REASONING OF RAV HUNA - AS THE VERSE STATES "AND HE SHALL PRESENT OF THE SACRIFICE OF PEACE OFFERINGS AN OFFERING MADE BY FIRE TO HASHEM THE FAT THEREOF THE FAT TAIL"
INDICATING THAT THE KOHEN MUST OFFER THE FAT OF THE TAIL ON THE ALTAR BUT NOT THE SKIN OF THE TAIL -
RAV CHISDA SAYS ACTUALLY THE SKIN OF THE TAIL IS CONSIDERED AS THOUGH IT WERE THE TAIL ITSELF AND IT IS BURNED ON THE ALTAR - AND HERE IN THE MISHNA WE ARE DEALING WITH THE TAIL OF - A KID WHICH IS NOT BURNED ON THE ALTAR BUT IS CONSUMED - ACCORDINGLY INTENT TO CONSUME IT OUTSIDE ITS DESIGNATED TIME RENDERS IT PIGGUL -
The Gemara notes - All of them, Rav Huna and Rav Chisda, do not say as Samuel (Shmuel) says, since they do not wish to interpret that the first clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis - And Samuel (Shmuel) and Rav Chisda do not say as Rav Huna says, since they heard that the skin of the tail is considered as though it were the tail itself - The Gemara asks - What is the reason that Samuel (Shmuel) and Rav Huna do not say as Rav Chisda says, that the Mishna is referring to the tail of a kid - The Gemara responds that they reason - According to Rav Chisda, what is the Mishna teaching us by referring specifically to the skin of the tail - Does it mean to teach simply that the skin of the tail is considered edible, like the tail itself - We already learn this in another Mishna (Chullin 122a) These are the entities whose skin has a halakhic status like that of their meat, since it is soft and edible - The skin beneath the tail - The Gemara asks - And Rav Chisda, how would he respond - The Gemara answers - The reference here to the skin of the tail was necessary, as given only the Mishna in tractate Chullin, it might enter your mind to say - This matter, the equation between the skin of the tail and the tail itself, applies only with regard to the matter of ritual impurity, as the skin of the tail is soft and edible, and it is therefore counted as part of the tail - But here, with regard to the matter of the Temple service, I will say that the verse states with regard to the gifts to which members of the priesthood (kohanim) are entitled, “As a consecrated portion” to indicate that they must be eaten in greatness, in the way that the kings eat - And since kings do not generally eat the skin of the tail, I will say that it is not considered an eaten portion of the offering - The Mishna therefore teaches us that it is nevertheless considered like the tail itself - The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita - One who slaughters a burnt offering with intent to burn an olive-bulk of the skin beneath the tail outside its designated area renders the offering disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for one who partakes of the offering - If his intent is to burn it beyond its designated time, it is rendered piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for eating it - This is the opinion of the Rabbis - Elazar ben Yehudah (Judah) of Avelim (Avlas) says in the name of Rabbi Ya’akov (Jacob), and so Rabbi Shimon (Simeon) ben Yehudah (Judah) of Kefar Ikos (‘Iccum) would say in the name of Rabbi Shimon (Simeon) - Whether the hide of the hooves of small livestock, or the skin of the head of a young calf, or the skin beneath the tail, or any of the skins that the Sages listed with regard to ritual impurity under the heading - These are the entities whose skin has a halakhic status like that of their meat, which means to include the skin of the womb, if one has intent to burn one of them outside its designated area, the offering is disqualified, but there is no liability for karet for burning or partaking of it, and if one’s intent is to burn it beyond its designated time, he renders it piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for burning or partaking of it - One can infer from the baraita that only with regard to a burnt offering, yes, the skin of the tail is burned on the altar like the tail itself - But with regard to another offering, this is not the halakha -Granted, according to Rav Huna, who holds that the skin of the tail of a peace offering is not considered as though it were the tail itself, and it is eaten rather than burned, this is the reason that the tanna teaches about a burnt offering specifically, as all portions of a burnt offering are burned, even those that are eaten in the case of other offerings - But according to Rav Chisda, who holds that the skin of the tail is burned together with the tail, why does the tanna specifically teach about a burnt offering - If the skin of the tail is always considered as though it were the tail itself, let the tanna teach about any offering - Rav Chisda could have said to you - If you wish, say that the baraisa is referring to the tail of a kid, which is never burned on the altar except in the case of a burnt offering - And if you wish, say instead that one should emend the text of the baraisa to teach - One who slaughters any offering, etc.
ויקרא ג ט
והקריב מזבח השלמים אשה לה׳ חלבו האליה תמימה לעמת העצה יסירנה ואת החלב המכסה את הקרב ואת כל החלב אשר על הקרב
LEVITICUS (VAYIKRA) 3 9
AND HE SHALL PRESENT OF THE SACRIFICE OF PEACE-OFFERINGS AN OFFERING MADE BY FIRE TO HASHEM THE FAT THEREOF THE FAT ENTIRE WHICH HE SHALL TAKE AWAY HARD BY THE RUMP-BONE AND THE FAT THAT COVERS THE INWARDS AND ALL THE FAT THAT IS UPON THE INWARDS
Numbers (Bamidbar) 18 8
And HASHEM spoke to Aaron, "And I, behold, I have given thee the charge of My heave-offerings even of all the hallowed things of the Children of Israel to thee have I given them for a consecrated portion, and to thy sons, as a due forever
במדבר יח ח
וידבר ה׳ אל אהרן ואני הנה נתתי לך את משמרת תרומתי לכל קדשי בני ישראל לך נתתים למשחה ולבניך לחק עולם
ZEVACHIM 28
DAF YOMI
גמ׳ סברוה עור אליה כאליה דמי והא קא מחשב מאכילת מזבח לאדם אמר שמואל הא מני ר׳ אליעזר היא דאמר מחשבין מאכילת מזבח לאכילת אדם ומאכילת אדם לאכילת מזבח דתנן השוחט את הזבח לאכול דבר שאין דרכו לאכול להקטיר דבר שאין דרכו להקטיר כשר ור״א פוסל במאי אוקימתא כר״א אימא סיפא זה הכלל כל השוחט והמקבל והמוליך והזורק לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול ולהקטיר דבר שדרכו להקטיר דבר שדרכו לאכול אין שאין דרכו לאכול לא אתאן לרבנן רישא ר׳ אליעזר וסיפא רבנן אמר ליה אין
רב הונא אמר עור אליה לאו כאליה דמי אמר רבא מ״ט דרב הונא חלבו האליה ולא עור האליה
רב חסדא אמר לעולם עור האליה כאליה דמי והכא במאי עסקינן באליה של גדי
כולהו כשמואל לא אמרי רישא ר״א וסיפא רבנן לא מוקמי כרב הונא לא אמרי עור אליה כאליה דמי קא משמע להו
כרב חסדא מאי טעמא לא אמרי מאי קמ״ל עור אליה כאליה דמי תנינא ואלו שעורותיהן כבשרן עור שתחת האליה
ורב חסדא איצטריך סד״א ה״מ לענין טומאה דרכיך מצטרף אבל הכא אימא למשחה לגדולה כדרך שהמלכים אוכלין ולא עבידי מלכים דאכלי הכי אימא לא קמ״ל מיתיבי השוחט את העולה להקטיר כזית מעור שתחת האליה חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת חוץ לזמנו פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת אלעזר בן יהודה איש אבלי׳ אומר משום רבי יעקב וכן היה רבי שמעון בן יהודה איש כפר עיכוס אומר משום ר׳ שמעון אחד עור בית הפרסות בהמה דקה ואחד עור הראש של עגל הרך ואחד עור שתחת האליה וכל שמנו חכמים גבי טומאה ואלו שעורותיהן כבשרן להביא עור של בית הבושת חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת חוץ לזמנו פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת עולה אין אבל זבח לא בשלמא לרב הונא היינו דקתני עולה אלא לרב חסדא מאי איריא דתני עולה ליתני זבח אמר לך רב חסדא איבעית אימא באליה של גדי ואיבעית אימא תני זבח
ויקרא ג ט
והקריב מזבח השלמים אשה לה׳ חלבו האליה תמימה לעמת העצה יסירנה ואת החלב המכסה את הקרב ואת כל החלב אשר על הקרב
במדבר יח ח
וידבר ה׳ אל אהרן ואני הנה נתתי לך את משמרת תרומתי לכל קדשי בני ישראל לך נתתים למשחה ולבניך לחק עולם
זבחים כח
הדף היומי

Feeling kind?

Buy Me A Coffee at Ko-Fi.com