Zevachim 15: מָה לְהַצַּד הַשָּׁוֶה שֶׁבָּהֶן, שֶׁכֵּן לֹא הוּתְּרוּ בְּבָמָה

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 15

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our second Perek begins as follows:

All sacrifices whose blood was received by a non-Kohen, an onein (one whose close relative passed away and has not been buried yet), a tevul yom (one who was tamei, but has immersed himself in a mikvah; he is considered a tevul yom until nightfall), a mechusar kippurim (one who was tamei, but has immersed himself in a mikvah, and has waited until nightfall; he is just lacking atonement until he brings his offerings the next day), one who lacked the priestly vestments, one who did not wash his hands or feet, one who is uncircumcised, one who is tamei, someone who is sitting, someone who either is standing on vessels, an animal, or the feet of his friend, the sacrifice is invalid. If he received the blood with his left hand, it is invalid. Rabbi Shimon says it is valid.

We explore the blemished priest and how the talmud privileges the Talmud Chacham over the cultic.

Zevachim 14: מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בְּהוֹלָכַת חַטָּאוֹת הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 14

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We learned on yesterday’s daf that according to Rabbi Shimon, holakha – carrying the blood – is not an essential avoda. The argument that he made was that the sacrifice cannot be brought without slaughtering the animal, collecting its blood or sprinkling its blood. Nevertheless if the sacrifice is slaughtered next to the altar, near the ulam (the hall leading to the Temple), then carrying the blood may not be necessary since the sprinkling can be done from there.

Reish Lakish points out on our daf that Rabbi Shimon would admit that in cases of sin-offerings that must have their blood sprinkled on the inner altar, holakha is an essential avoda. Since the animal cannot be slaughtered inside the Temple itself, the act of carrying the blood inside cannot be done in any other way.

We examine the complex relationship between temporal consciousness and ritual validity in rabbinic sacrificial discourse, focusing on a passage from Tractate Zevachim concerning piggul(ritual abomination) and temporal transgressions.

Zevachim 13: אֲקַפֵּחַ אֶת בָּנַיי, אִם לֹא שָׁמַעְתִּי לְהַבְחִין הֶפְרֵשׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 13

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A recurring theme throughout the first perek of Massekhet Zevaḥim has been that some sacrifices will become invalid if there are improper thoughts at the time that they are brought, while other sacrifices will remain valid korbanot, although they will not count towards their purpose and if their owner was obligated to bring that sacrifice, he will have to bring another.

During which activities will improper thoughts affect the sacrifice?

The Mishna on our daf mentions four parts of the avoda – of the sacrificial service – where proper intent is essential .

Zevachim 12: לֹא אֲמָרָהּ אֶלָּא לְחַדֵּד בָּהּ תַּלְמִידָיו

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 12

To download, click/tap here: PDF

This article examines the contemporary challenges and opportunities facing Judaism as it navigates the complexities of the 21st century. Drawing on recent warnings from public intellectuals like Yuval Noah Harari about a potential "spiritual catastrophe" in Judaism, this study integrates perspectives from modern Jewish philosophy, mystical theology, demographic trends, and emerging forms of Jewish identity. The analysis reveals that Judaism stands at a critical juncture where traditional categories of belonging are being redefined while core ethical and spiritual commitments face both internal and external pressures. Through examination of diaspora-sovereignty tensions, technological disruption, generational shifts, and theological innovation, this article argues that Judaism's future depends on its capacity to maintain creative tension between tradition and transformation, presence and absence, particularity and universality. A special addendum examines the crisis of moral injury among Israeli soldiers in contemporary warfare, analyzing how this phenomenon both reflects and contributes to Judaism's broader spiritual challenges.

Zevachim 11: הַפָּסַח שֶׁשְּׁחָטוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 11

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishnah discusses whether or not the pascal lamb is permitted if it was not brought at the right time. It might be valid because it is like another offering that was kosher even though it was brought at the wrong time. Another argument is that the pascal lamb must be offered at a very specific time to be permitted. We continue to think about what is permitted and what is not permitted before the official start of Pesach.

Is the daily afternoon offering in the afternoon allowed to be offered any time during the day as well? This is successfully challenged, again by considering other practices that might be dependent on a particular period of time - an example is the menorah, where the lighting actually lasts for the day.

We discuss the two Talmuds and their differences.

Zevachim 10: חוֹזְרַנִי חֲלִילָה

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 10

To download, click/tap here: PDF

On our daf, a baraita is brought where we find an expanded version of this argument. Rabbi Yehoshua responds to Rabbi Eliezer that a korban ḥattat and a korban asham are not similar and cannot be compared, since the blood from the sin-offering is sprinkled on the upper part of the altar.

The altar was divided into two – an upper half and a lower half. As Rashi explains, in the mishkan the altar had a ledge halfway up (see Shemot 27:5) while in the Temple the altar was divided by ḥut ha-sikra – a red line that was drawn in order to divide the top half of the altar from the bottom half in order to show where the blood of the different sacrifices had to be sprinkled.

We explore the Asham sacrifice and Milgrom’s analysis.

Zevachim 9: אֵין כַּפָּרָה לְמֵתִים

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 9

To download, click/tap here: PDF

If a sin-offering is brought for the purpose of being a ḥattat Naḥshon – i.e. to be like one of the sin-offerings brought by the princes on the occasion of the consecration of the Tabernacle in the desert (see Sefer Bamidbar chapter 7) – it remains a valid sacrifice that serves its original purpose. Rashi explains that since the sacrifice was not brought in order to affect atonement for anyone (the original sin-offerings at the consecration of the Tabernacle were more of a gift than an ordinary sin-offering), we view them as a standard ḥattat that remains valid.

We explore the literary figure of Nachshon and how that operated Midrashically and the fascinating paradox how Nachshon's offering creates a unique typological framework that challenges conventional understandings of sacrificial efficacy, particularly regarding the relationship between death, atonement, and the classificatory boundaries of different korbanot.