Zevachim 76: הֲרֵי זֶה אֲשָׁמוֹ וְזֶה לוּגּוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 76

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Abaye asked on Rava from the following braisa: Rabbi Shimon said [concerning one who is uncertain if he is obligated in the metzora sacrifices for he was a confirmed metzora who has now recovered, or was he merely confined and he is not required in any sacrifices]: On the next morning he brings his asham offering together with the log of oil and stipulates, “If this is a metzora’s offering, this is his (my) asham and this is its log, but if not, then this asham should be a donated shelamim.”

That asham must be slaughtered in the north (like an asham) and requires sprinkling of its blood on the thumbs (like a metzora’s asham), and semichah, libations and the waving of the breast and the thigh (like a shelamim); and it is eaten one day and one night (like an asham). [Evidently, Rabbi Shimon is not concerned about shortening the amount of time that the korban may be eaten!?] The Gemora answers: A person’s remedy is different (in order for him to become tahor).

We explore the log shemen (measured portion of oil) in the metzora purification ritual of Leviticus 14, situating this biblical practice within the broader ancient Near Eastern context of ritual oil use and its metapsychological functions.

Zevachim 75: אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּתְעָרֵב בִּשְׁלָמִים

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 75

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf deals with animals that were consecrated for different sacrifices – an asham (a guilt offering) and a shelamim (a peace offering). In this case, however, the sacrificial service of these sacrifices, while not identical, parallels one another.

For example, the placement of the blood on the altar – which is the central part of the atonement process – is exactly the same, “two sprinklings that are four,” that is, the blood is poured on the corners of the sides of the altar.

We explore The Halakhic and Theological Parameters of the Asham Offering.

Zevachim 74: סְפֵק עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה אֲסוּרָה

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 74

To download, click/tap here: PDF

More cases of mixtures that include a forbidden item are discussed on our daf.

Rav Naḥman quoted Rava bar Avuh in the name of Rav as teaching that in a case of a signet ring of avoda zara that was mixed with others so that the entire collection was forbidden, if a single ring falls into the Yam HaGadol we will assume that it was the forbidden ring that fell, and all of the others are permitted.

We explore the sugya and the differences between sacred secular and profane.

Zevachim 73: וְכׇל קָבוּעַ כְּמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה דָּמֵי

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 73

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned on yesterday’s daf, the rule that when permitted and forbidden items become mixed together, the forbidden items can become batel (nullified) does not always apply. When items retain their unique, independent status, it becomes much more difficult to view them as becoming batel.

Another situation that may cause items to be viewed as unique and preclude nullification in the ordinary manner, is when the items are a davar she-be-minyan – when they are things that are counted and sold by number rather than by weight.

We continue our exploration of kavua.

Zevachim 72: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מִנְיָן

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 72

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Ordinarily, when permitted and forbidden items become mixed together, depending on circumstances, the forbidden items can become batel (nullified) be-rov – when the majority of the items are permitted – or be-shishim – when the amount of permitted items is such that in a mixture the forbidden items could not be tasted, which is determined by the Sages to be when there is sixty times as much permitted material as there is forbidden material.

The Gemara on our daf discusses an exception to that rule, specifically that when certain objects are considered to have unique importance they cannot become nullified. We follow the opinion of Rabbi Akiva who enumerates seven such objects:

We explore the mystical interpretations of bittul…

Zevachim 71: אֲבָל לְגָבוֹהַּ אֵימָא לָא

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 71

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned on yesterday’s daf the eighth perek of Massekhet Zevaḥim focuses on mixtures, and specifically on animals that are mixed together in the Temple.

One example from the first Mishna that appears on our daf is where animals that have been consecrated by two different people for the same korban are mixed up and we do not know which animal belongs to whom. In this case the Mishna rules that the kohen should sacrifice each animal for one of the owners. Rashi teaches that this means that the kohen should announce “this animal is being brought for its owner” without offering any specifics.

We explore Sanctity in Mixture: and Holiness, Boundaries, and the Theology of Sacred Contamination?

Zevachim 70: מָלַק וְנִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 70

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabbi Yehudah has said that if a Kohen did a melikah to a bird and then the bird was found to be a "trefah" - possessing a defect that would surely cause its death anyway - that bird imparts ritual impurity. Why does he say so? After all, Rabbi Meir compared this to the slaughter of animals, where the slaughter does remove the impurity.

We explore the notion of intentionality in Halacha and the scholarship of Chaim Saiman.

Zevachim 69: עוֹף מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 69

To download, click/tap here: PDF

“This is the law of the beast, and of the fowl” (Leviticus 11:46), indicating that the two are somehow equated. But with regard to what law is a beast equal to a fowl and a fowlequal to a beast?

The halakhot of ritual impurity governing animals and birds are not comparable; an animal transmits impurity by touching and by carrying, whereas a bird does not transmit impurity by touching or by carrying. Furthermore, a bird renders thegarments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat; an animal does not render the garments of one who swallows it ritually impure when it is in the throat.

Rabbi Yehudah says: It does contaminate with tumah through the throat. [They also argue regarding the shechitah of an unconsecrated animal which was found to be a tereifah.]

Rabbi Meir explains his viewpoint based upon the following kal vachomer: If the neveilah of an animal, which transmits tumah by contact or carrying, its shechitah purifies a tereifah from its tumah; then, the neveilah of a bird, which does not transmit tumah by contact or carrying, its shechitah should definitely purify a tereifah from its tumah!

And just as we find that its shechitah renders it fit for consumption and purifies a tereifah, so also shall the melikah, which renders it fit for consumption, purifies a tereifah from its tumah.

We explore Tum'at Beit ha-Beli’ah from a halachic perspective as well as the metaphor of the throat and swallowing in literature and analysis.

Zevachim 68: שָׁאנֵי פָּרָה, דְּקׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת הִיא

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 68

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf challenges: What is different about the first two cases in the new Mishnah that prevents the bird from assuming the status of a carcass? Temple service with the left hand has an instance of validity during the service on Yom Kippur, when the High Priest enters the Holy of Holies holding the spoon of incense in his left hand. And Temple service at night has an instance of validity in the burning of limbs and fats of offerings on the altar, which may be burned throughout the night. But a non-priest also has an instance of validity in the slaughter of animal offerings.

Why then does Rav rule that pinching by a non-priest renders the bird a carcass? The Gemara answers: Slaughter is not considered a full-fledged sacrificial rite, and therefore it cannot be compared to pinching.

The Gemara asks: And is it not a full-fledged rite? But doesn’t Rabbi Zeira say that the slaughter of a red heifer by a non-priest is not valid, which indicates that it is a full-fledged rite? And Rav showed a source in the Torah for this halakha: The verses concerning the red heifer mention both Elazar the priest as performing the slaughter and the word “statute,” which is mentioned in the verse:

“This is the statute of the law” (Numbers 19:2), teaching that Elazar’s involvement was halakhically required.

The Gemara answers: The red heifer is different, as it has the halakhic status of an item consecrated for Temple maintenance rather than for sacrifice on the altar. Therefore, its slaughter cannot teach the halakha concerning an actual offering.

We explore the ritual and laws regarding the Red Heifer.

Zevachim 67: אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 67

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah which began on 66b brought a case of a bird-olah which was inadvertently brought on the lower part of the Altar, using the procedure of a chattas, and it was brought with the intention of it being a chattas.

R’ Eliezer ruled that it retains the law of being an olah, to which the laws of me’ilah apply. R’ Yehoshua disagrees and contends that with the position, procedure and intent being that of a chattas, this offering reverts to being a chattas. Therefore, now that it is a chattas, after its blood has been applied to the Altar, the laws of me’ilah no longer apply.

The Mishnah presents an extensive exchange between the Tannaim, each defending his position. The Gemara points out that at one point, R’ Eliezer realized the true reasoning behind R’ Yehoshua’s view, and R’ Eliezer therefore desisted from arguing further. This reason was detailed by R’ Adda b. Ahava.

As the kohen takes the bird-olah to the lower part of the Altar, as soon as he performs melikah and cuts one of the pipes (esophagus or trachea), the offering is transformed into a chattas.

We examine the halachot of melikha as well as the controversial custom of kapparot.

Zevachim 66: לָא; דְּשַׁנִּי בְּהַזָּאָה

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 66

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The first Mishna of the seventh perek begins on our daf, and it opens by teaching that a ḥatat ha-of that was done properly, on the bottom part of the altar with the proper intention, is valid. This stands in contrast with a ḥatat ha-of that is brought in the wrong place (e.g. on the upper part of the altar) or with the wrong intention (e.g. with the intention of bringing it as a burnt-offering), which would be invalid as a sacrifice.

We explore the differences between animal vs bird korbanot and the allegorical comparison with the suffering of the Schechina as a dove.

Zevachim 65: כֵּיצַד מוֹלְקִין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 65

To download, click/tap here: PDF

On yesterday’s daf we learned that birds brought as sacrifices were not slaughtered in the ordinary manner, but were killed by means of melika – a unique method where the kohen would hold the bird in his hand and kill it with his thumbnail.

The Gemara on our daf quotes a baraita that derives these requirements from the passage in Sefer Vayikra (1:15) where the Torah emphasizes that this unique slaughtering must be done by a kohen and cannot be done with a knife as is the case with ordinary slaughtering.

We explore this unique form of sacrifice and compare it with Schechita and other ancient forms of barehanded ritual sacrifice.

Zevachim 64: קִיַּימְתָּ ״לִפְנֵי ה׳

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 64

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara describes the process of Melikah, the slaughtering of the bird-offering by hand. The Beraisa concludes that this is the most difficult Avodah to perform in the Beis ha'Mikdash. The Gemara asks that there are other Avodos which are more difficult, such as the Avodos of Kemitzah and Chafinah (see Yoma 47b and 49b).

The Gemara answers that the Beraisa does not mean that Melikah is the most difficult Avodah, but rather that it is among the most difficult Avodos in the Beis ha'Mikdash (see RASHI, DH Avodah Kashah).

Midrash Rabba Vayikra Rabba 3:5 focused on bird sacrifices, where both the meal offering and the bird offering are sacrifices typically given by the poor who could not afford the more expensive animal sacrifices.

Zevachim 63: אֶל פְּנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 63

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Torah, the kohanim cannot climb up to the altar using steps, since that would allow the possibility of “uncovered nakedness,” given the way the uniforms are worn by the kohanim (see Shemot 20:22). To avoid this problem, the kohanim climbed to the altar by means of a kevesh – a ramp that led to the top of the mizbe’aḥ.

The Gemara on our daf offers some details regarding the kevesh. Rami bar Ḥama taught that all kivshei kevashim were three amot in length for every amah in height, while the main kevesh was a little more than three-and-a-half amot for every amah in height.

We explore the new Mishnah with The Bird Sacrifices: Ritual, Symbolism, and Difference in Halakhic Logic.

Zevachim 62: ״בְּנֵי קְטוּרָה״

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 62

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabba bar bar Chanah said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, "When the Jews came back from Babylon to Israel, three prophets (Chaggai, Zechariah, and Malachi) came with them. One testified about the size of the Altar, another - about the position of the Altar, and the third one testified that they may offer sacrifices on the Altar, even though the Temple was not built yet.”

Ultimately, Rabba bar bar Ḥana quotes Rabbi Yoḥanan as teaching that there were three prophets who returned with the exiles and testified about three things related to the Temple:

One described the form, shape and size of the altar

One testified about its place in the Temple

One brought the ruling that allowed the sacrificial service to begin on the altar even before the Temple was completed.

According to Rashi, the prophets mentioned here are Ḥaggai, Zekharya and Malakhi whose Second Temple period prophecies are recorded in the book of Trei Asar.

It was taught in a baraita cited above that the measurement of the altar’s length, and the measurement of its width, and the measurement of its height are not indispensable. Rav Yosef said to Abaye: The Master, i.e., Abaye, who is a great man, knows what I mean to say. Rav Yosef read, i.e., applied, the following verse to those who mocked him:

“The children of Keturah” (Genesis 25:4). Although Keturah’s children were children of Abraham, they were not of the same caliber as Isaac. Similarly, Rav Yosef was saying that his other students were not of the caliber of Abaye.

We explore Keturah as Mirror: The Making of a Mythical Figure Through Interpretive Projection reflected in painters from Rembrandt to William Blake.

Zevachim 61: מִזְבֵּחַ שֶׁל שִׁילֹה – שֶׁל אֲבָנִים הָיָה

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 61

To download, click/tap here: PDF

While traveling through the desert, the Children of Israel were commanded to build a collapsible Tabernacle complete with implements for sacrifice. Upon entering the Land of Israel they were commanded to build a Temple – a permanent structure where sacrifices would be brought – although this mitzva was not fulfilled until the time of King Solomon, hundreds of years after the land was settled. During the interim, the altar was set up on a semi-permanent basis in places like Shiloh, Nov and Giv’on.

According to Sefer Yehoshua (18:1), the first established resting place for the Tabernacle was Shiloh, where it stood until the war with the Pelishtim during the time of Eli the High Priest, as described in Sefer Shmuel (I, Chapter 4).

We explore the Mishkan at Shiloh from literary and archeological viewpoints.

Zevachim 60: אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּיִת

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 60

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Ma’aser sheni – “the second tithe” – is separated after the first tithes have been set aside for the kohen and the levi. This produce is taken by the owner and eaten in Jerusalem. In the event that there is too much for him to bring, he can redeem the fruit and purchase food in Jerusalem that he will eat there.

Does the requirement to set aside ma’aser sheni remain even when the Temple is no longer standing?

While the Gemara first attempts to answer this question by drawing a comparison to the laws of bekhor – a first born animal that is brought to the Temple – ultimately the Gemara suggests that it is dependent on the question whether kedusha rishona kidshah le-sha’atah ve-kidshah le-atid la-vo – does the holiness of the Temple remain in place even after its destruction. If there is no longer any holiness, then what would the purpose be to set aside ma’aser sheni?

We explore the notion of sacrifices in the future as well as the significance of korbanot after the destruction.

Zevachim 59: פְּלוֹנִי נַנָּס הוּא

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 59

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav says that if the altar was cracked, all sacrifices slaughtered are invalid. Rav says that there was a verse to prove this, but we forgot it. When Rav Kahana went up to Eretz Yisroel, he found Rabbi Shimon b’Rebbi, who quoted Rabbi Yishmael beRabbi Yossi who said that this is learned from the verse which states that you should slaughter on it (i.e., the altar) es olosecha v'es shlamecha – your ola and shlamim sacrifices.

The verse cannot be literal, since the sacrifices are not slaughtered on the altar.

We explore the broken altar as a typology as well as the Rambam's view of sacrifices.

Zevachim 58: שְׁנֵיהֶם מִקְרָא אֶחָד דָּרְשׁוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 58

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have already learned that kodashei kodashim – the holiest of sacrifices – must be slaughtered and prepared in the northern part of the Temple courtyard, while kodashim kalim – sacrifices that are on a lower level of holiness – can be slaughtered and prepared anywhere in the Temple courtyard.

In the Mishna on our daf, Rabbi Yosei teaches that if kodashei kodashim were slaughtered on the altar itself, that would be permissible, while Rabbi Yosei b’Rabbi Yehuda rules that only the northern half of the altar would be acceptable; the southern part is not considered “north” and only kodashim kalim could be slaughtered there.

We explore the exposition of Exodus 21:23 by the Netziv as well as the inner psychological dimensions of the altar from a chassidic perspective.

Zevachim 57: מַה לְהַלָּן עַד חֲצוֹת, אַף כָּאן עַד חֲצוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 57

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna had stated: The pesach offering is only eaten at night etc. The Gemora asks: Who is the author of this Mishna? Rav Yosef answers: This must be Rabbi Elozar ben Azaryah.

This is as the braisa states: Rabbi Elozar ben Azaryah says that the verse states, on this night (regarding pesach) and I will pass through the land of Egypt on this night (regarding makkas bechoros). Just as makkas bechoros was until (i.e. at, and not after) midnight, so too the pesach offering can only be eaten at midnight.

We explore the hermeneutics of “that night” as well as chassidic and Jungian archetypes.