Zevachim 100: כָּאן שֶׁמֵּת קוֹדֶם חֲצוֹת, כָּאן שֶׁמֵּת לְאַחַר חֲצוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 100

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In the context of discussing kohanim who were not permitted to partake in the Temple service for a variety of reasons enumerated in the Mishna (daf 98b), the Gemara discusses the laws of an onen – a mourner on the day of death of a close relative – and mourning practices generally.

The Gemara on our daf quotes a baraita that teaches that the day a person is first informed of the death of a close relative will be considered like the day of burial with regard to the laws of shiva – the week of severe mourning following burial – and shloshim – the thirty days after burial when the severe mourning is over, but the mourner still refrains from cutting his hair and so forth. With regard to the laws of the korban Pesaḥ, however, it is only considered to be like the day of likkut atzamot – the day that the bones of a dead ancestor are collected – which would allow him to eat the Passover sacrifice in the evening (see Massekhet Pesaḥim daf 92)

We explore the notion of compelling impurity and coercion.

Zevachim 99: אֲנִינוּת לַיְלָה מִדִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 99

To download, click/tap here: PDF

On our daf Reish Lakish raises the following question: What is the status of a ba’al mum who is tameh – ritually defiled? Should we say that the Torah included a ba’al mum under all circumstances, even if he cannot actually eat from the sacrifice at this moment, or, perhaps, the fact that he is ritually defiled and cannot eat will preclude him from receiving a portion?

Rabba clarifies this issue by quoting a baraita that teaches that in the case of the High Priest who is allowed to perform the Temple service even when he is in acute mourning for a parent, nevertheless he cannot partake from the meat of that sacrifice.

We explore the ritual psychological and neuro-biology of acute grief and mourning.

Zevachim 98: בַּעַל מוּם רַחֲמָנָא רַבְּיֵיהּ

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 98

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A tevul yom (one who was tamei but has immersed himself in a mikvah; he is considered a tevul yom until nightfall) and 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) do not receive a share in the sacrifices to eat in the evening (even though they will be tahor by then).

An onein (one whose close relative passed away and has not been buried yet) may touch the sacrifices but does not offer them and does not receive a share to eat in the evening.

Those who have a blemish, whether a permanent blemish or a temporary one, receive a share and eat, but do not offer. The Mishna states a general rule: Whoever is unfit to perform the service does not receive a share in the meat. And he who has no share in the meat, has no share in the hide.

Zevachim 97: אִם יֵשׁ בָּהֶן בְּנוֹתֵן טַעַם

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 97

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our new Mishnah states "If one cooked sacrifices and chullin in it, or meat of kodshei kodashim with meat of kodashim kalim; if they were sufficient to impart their flavor (into the other one), the less stringent must be eaten like the more stringent of them (if shelamim and chullin were cooked together, the chullin must be eaten inside Yerushalayim, and for two days only; if meat of kodshei kodashim was cooked together with meat of kodashim kalim, the kodashim kalim must be eaten in the Courtyard, on the same day, and by male Kohanim only); but they do not require purging and rinsing (which will be explained in the Gemora); and they do not disqualify through contact (which will also be explained). If an disqualified wafer minchah came into contact with a qualified wafer, or an disqualified piece of meat came into contact with a qualified piece of meat - not the entire wafer or the entire piece of meat is forbidden; only the part that absorbed (from the disqualified one) is forbidden.”

We explore the spiritual dynamics of purging utensils as a metaphor comparing the 3 major religions in their approach to inner purification.

Zevachim 96: מְרִיקָה בְּחַמִּין, וּשְׁטִיפָה בְּצוֹנֵן

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 96

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Any vessel in which meat of the sacrifices was cooked requires purging - if the utensil is made of metal, and breaking, if it is made of earthenware. This is true regardless of whether the meat was cooked directly in this pot, or if the broth was poured into it from another pot taken off the flame. Even though the Torah gives this requirement when talking about most holy offerings, such as a sin-offering, it is nevertheless true in regard to regular holy offerings, such as a peace-offering. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says that regular holy offerings do not require purging or breaking of the pots.

Zevachim 95: תַּנּוּר שֶׁל מִקְדָּשׁ

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 95

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The earthen vessel is broken and the copper vessel scoured and rinsed if sacrifices were cooked in them. Our mishnah continues to deal with this law. We should note that again a mishnah concerning sacrificial law later becomes halakhically significant by being applied to other areas. The laws concerning cleansing the vessel in which a sacrifice is cooked are eventually used as a source for laws for how vessels are “kashered.”

We explore the halachot of imparting taste.

Zevachim 94: דְּמַבְלַע לְהוּ בַּהֲדֵי שִׁבְעָה סַמְמָנִין

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 94

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara on our daf asks how the law requiring cleansing would apply to leather. Does leather absorb blood in an ordinary fashion? Can it be cleaned of the blood in the same way that a garment is cleaned?

The basis for the Gemara’s question are the laws of Shabbat that prohibit washing fabrics, where we find a Mishna that teaches that if clothing became soiled with lashleshet (Arukh: chicken excrement; Rashi: something disgusting like saliva or excrement) it can be removed by means of a dry cloth, but if the garment was made of leather then water can be poured on it until it becomes clean.

We explore the use of detergents in talmud and late antique period.

Zevachim 93: אֶחָד הַבֶּגֶד וְאֶחָד הַשַּׂק וְאֶחָד הָעוֹר

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 93

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned on yesterday’s daf if sacrificial blood is absorbed by another object, the laws pertaining to the sacrifice are transferred to the object unless the blood is removed. Therefore, clothing that was stained by blood had to be washed in the Temple courtyard, metal vessels that absorbed blood could be heated until the blood is removed, but earthenware vessels, which retain anything that they absorb, must be destroyed.

The Mishnayot on our daf offer a number of limitations to that rule –

First, this law does not apply to all sacrificial blood; it is limited to blood that was collected by a kohen in a keli sharet – in the appropriate Temple service vessel – and is valid for sprinkling on the altar. Therefore, if the blood was sprayed directly from the neck of the animal, or if the clothing came directly in contact with blood after the blood had already been applied to the altar, there would be no need to wash it out.

Zevachim 92: תּוֹרָה אַחַת לְכל הַחַטָאוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 92

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the Torah (see Sefer Vayikra 6:20-21), in the context of discussing a korban ḥatat – a sin offering – “Whatsoever shall touch the flesh thereof shall be holy; and when there is sprinkled of the blood upon any garment, thou shalt wash that whereon it was sprinkled in a holy place. But the earthen vessel wherein it is cooked shall be broken; and if it be cooked in a brazen vessel, it shall be scoured and rinsed in water.”

The first Mishna in our new Perek 7 teaches that this law is limited to blood that could be sprinkled on the altar. Thus, if the korban was disqualified for some reason, and the blood could not be sprinkled, or if it had been collected by someone who was unfit to participate in the sacrificial service (see above, daf 15) it also would not need to be cleaned from the priestly clothing.

Similarly, if the sprinkling of the blood had already been done by the kohanim, the remnants of the blood would no longer require washing.

Perhaps the most technically intricate section of the Talmudic discussion concerns the quantity of blood necessary to create a laundering obligation. The Mishnah had already indicated that the blood must be "fit for spattering," but what quantity of blood satisfies this condition? The Talmud introduces the concept of nitza (literally, "spattering" or "staining") as a technical threshold .

Zevachim 91: ״קרְבַּן מִנְחָה״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 91

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabbi Zeira said that we learn this halakha in the mishna as well: Rabbi Shimon said: If you saw oil that is being distributed in the Temple courtyard, you do not need to ask what it is; rather, it is left over from the oil of the wafers of the meal offerings of Israelites, or it is left over from the log of oil of a leper, as one does not contribute oil as a gift offering. Rabbi Zeira learns by inference from the mishna that according to the one who says that one may contribute oil, it is distributed to the priests for consumption and it is not sacrificed entirely.

Zevachim 90: בִּרְכַּת הַיַּיִן תְּדִירָה וּבִרְכַּת הַיּוֹם אֵינָהּ תְּדִירָה

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 90

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara on our daf raises the question of what to do when these two sets of priorities come into conflict. Should the constant sacrifice be brought first or should the holier sacrifice be brought first?

The Gemara brings a number of proofs in an attempt to clarify this question. For example, on Shabbat the korban tamid is brought before the korban musaf even though the korban musaf is on a higher level of holiness (the korban musaf is unique to Shabbat). Ultimately, the Gemara rejects this proof, as well as all of the other similar proofs, by arguing that on Shabbat even the korban tamid has enhanced holiness due to the fact that it is brought on Shabbat.

Zevachim 89: כׇּל הַמְקוּדָּשׁ מֵחֲבֵירוֹ – קוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 89

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The tenth perek of Massekhet Zevaḥim, which begins on today’s daf is called Kol HaTadir – “Whatever is more frequent.” The focus of this perek is the order in which the sacrifices must be brought in the Temple.

In any organization with operations as complex as those in the Temple there is a need to set a schedule and clear and consistent priorities. In the Temple there are many situations where the requirements of communal sacrifices are such that different korbanot must be brought, e.g. when Rosh HaShana falls out on Shabbat and there are three separate “sacrifices of the day.”

The first Mishna opens with the general statement that kol ha-tadir meḥaveiro kodem et ḥaveiro – whatever is more frequent than another has precedence over the other. That is to say that the more frequently a sacrifice is brought the greater its precedence in the order of korbanot.

We explore this operations logistic and refer to Halbertal’s appropriation of the korban metaphor in his political theology.

Zevachim 88: אַבְנֵט – מְכַפֵּר עַל הִרְהוּר הַלֵּב

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 88

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The end of our Perek discusses the purpose of the Bigdei Kehunah. The tunic atones for bloodshed; the pants atoned for immorality; the turban atoned for arrogance, for let something that is high on the head atone for haughtiness; the belt atoned for impure thoughts of the heart, for that is where it was worn; the breastplate atoned for miscarriage of civil laws; the ephod atoned for idolatry; the robe atoned for lashon hara (slander), for let an article that emits sound (through its bells ringing) come and atone for an evil sound; the headplate atoned for brazenness.

The Gemora asks: But is that so, for surely Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: For two things we find no atonement through sacrifices, but find atonement for them through something else, and they are bloodshed and lashon hara. Bloodshed has atonement through the eglah arufah while lashon hara is atoned for by the burning of the incense.

We explore the transition from the biblical model to the talmudic and metaphoric representation of the Priest's Vestments.

Zevachim 87: אֲוִיר מִזְבֵּחַ – כְּמִזְבֵּחַ דָּמֵ

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 87

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we have learned (on daf 83, and on yesterday’s daf, as well) animals that are appropriate for sacrifice will become fully sanctified if they are brought onto the altar – or onto the ramp leading up to the altar – even if there is a problem that would, ordinarily, cause them to be disqualified for sacrifice.

The Gemara on our daf raises the following question: Does that rule apply to the air above the altar? If an animal that is disqualified from sacrifice is placed above the altar, does it also become sanctified to the extent that it cannot be removed from the altar and must be sacrificed?

The rabbinic notion of avir ha-mizbeach—the "airspace of the altar"—forms one of the most nuanced and conceptually daring discussions in all of Zevachim. The sugya our daf (Zevachim 87a–88a) asks a seemingly technical halakhic question: yet beneath this question lies a complex hermeneutical, architectural, and metaphysical meditation on sanctity, proximity, liminality, and the nature of sacrificial space.

Zevachim 86: מִשּׁוּם חוּלְשָׁא דְּכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 86

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The priest clears these ashes (terumas hadeshen) not to erase what was, but to make space for what will be. It is an act that belongs neither fully to the old day nor to the new. It happens in the in-between, in the dawning recognition that renewal is possible only after the remnants of the past have been gently lifted away.

Our Daf (Zevahim 86b) interprets a seemingly conflicting verses “burn it all night until morning” (Lev 6:2) and “remove the ashes in the morning” (Lev 6:3). If burning continues all night, when exactly does “morning” begin? Rabbi Yoḥanan’s answer is both elegant and profound: “Give a morning to the morning of the night.” In other words, “morning” is not sunrise but the earliest natural signal of its approach. Halakhically, that signal is the rooster’s cry. Thus, a humble animal becomes the hermeneutical key by which the rabbis reconcile Scripture. Nature becomes commentary; creation itself becomes a witness to Torah.

We explore this liminal space in time as well as the significance of the rooster and its crow.

Zevachim 85: ״הַקְרִיבֵהוּ נָא לְפֶחָתֶךָ הֲיִרְצְךָ אוֹ הֲיִשָּׂא פָנֶיךָ״

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 85

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara relates that it is necessary to wash the innards of an Olah before offering them on the altar.

The basis of this ruling is the pasuk that states (Malachi 1:8), “Offer it, if you please, to your governor, will he show you favor, or will he turn his countenance to you?”

Rashi asserts that the same verse is the basis of the disqualification of using an animal that it a tereifah as a korban. Rambam as well writes that an animal that becomes a tereifah may not be offered as a korban since one would not offer such an animal to his governor.

We explore the RAMCHAL’s use of this verse in the pursuit of authentic practice.

Zevachim 84: מָה רָאִיתָ לְרַבּוֹת אֶת אֵלּוּ וּלְהוֹצִיא אֶת אֵלּוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 84

To download, click/tap here: PDF

This essay traces the conception of wisdom (chochmah) as arising from bodily organs other than the brain—particularly the kidneys, heart, and viscera—across biblical, rabbinic, Kabbalistic, and contemporary theological frameworks. Beginning with the biblical anthropology that locates conscience and moral discernment in the kidneys (kelayot), we follow this embodied epistemology through its midrashic amplification in the figure of Abraham, whose kidneys "flowed with Torah," into the Kabbalistic reframing that positions the kidneys within the sefirotic architecture of divine emanation. Drawing extensively on the scholarly apparatus assembled by Natan Slifkin in his monograph "The Question of the Kidneys' Counsel," this study examines how medieval authorities from Rashi to Ramban to the Italian Renaissance grappled with the apparent conflict between rabbinic physiology and emerging medical science. The analysis then connects this ancient wisdom tradition to the contemporary framework of embodied theology, demonstrating how the therapeutic encounter becomes a site where somatic wisdom emerges through the dynamics of tzimtzum, Shekhinah consciousness, and hermeneutic medicine. Against Cartesian dualism and biomedical reductionism, this essay argues for a return to the biblical intuition that the body itself is a knowing subject, capable of generating revelation from its hidden depths.

Zevachim 83: אִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 83

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The various responsibilities of the kohanim who were working in the Temple would invariably lead to mistakes and confusion on occasion (see above daf 70). Having completed the examination of the laws regarding sacrifices that became mixed up with one another, the ninth perek of Massekhet Zevaḥim, which begins on today’s daf, focuses on a different question – what should be done with invalid sacrifices that somehow make their way to the altar.

From the passage in Sefer Shemot (29:37) that teaches that “anything that touches the altar will become holy” the Sages derive that animals that are appropriate for sacrifice will become fully sanctified if they are brought onto the altar, even if there is a problem that would, ordinarily, cause them to be invalid for sacrifice. In the language of the Mishna, keivan she-alu, shuv lo yerdu -once they were elevated onto the altar, they cannot be brought down, and they will be sacrificed.

Zevachim 82: אֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ פְּנִימָה

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 82

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah discusses a dispute between the Chachamim and Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili with regard to the blood of a Korban that was brought into the Heichal before the Zerikah was performed on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon. The Chachamim maintain that such a Korban is Pasul, and even the blood that remains in the Azarah (that was not brought into the Heichal) may no longer be used for the Zerikah. Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili maintains that the remaining blood may be used. According to the Chachamim, what is supposed to be done with the Korban that is Pasul?

We explore sacred boundaries liminal spaces and Rav Elchanan Samet’s discussion of the role of the Mishkan in different books of the Bible.

Zevachim 81: לְתַלְמִיד שֶׁמָּזַג לְרַבּוֹ בְּחַמִּין

For the source text click/tap here: Zevachim 81

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishnah states If blood that requires sprinkling inside became mixed up with that which requires sprinkling outside - it must be poured out into the canal. If he sprinkled outside and then sprinkled inside, it is valid. If he applied it inside and then outside, Rabbi Akiva rules that it is invalid, but the Sages rule that it’s valid, for Rabbi Akiva used to say: Any blood that was brought into the Sanctuary to make atonement is invalid. But the Sages say: Only the chatas.

Rav Yehuda introduces Shmuel's parable with a question: how does Rabbi Akiva derive his expansive principle from a verse that explicitly mentions only sin offerings? The answer arrives in narrative form:

To what is this matter comparable? To a student who mixed wine with hot water for his teacher. And the teacher said to him: Mix another drink for me. The student said to him: With what should I mix the wine, hot or cold water? The teacher said to him: Aren't we dealing with hot water? Now that I requested that you mix me another cup, I mean that you should mix it either in hot water or in cold. Otherwise, the teacher would not have needed to say anything.

We explore the use of the Mashal as a hermeneutic gateway so when Rav Yehuda quotes Shmuel's mashal comparing scriptural interpretation to a student mixing wine for his teacher, he introduces not merely an illustrative analogy but a complete hermeneutical theory compressed into narrative form.