Zevachim Daf 115 (זבחים דף קט״ו)
Daf: 115 | Amudim: 115a – 115b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (115a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא — Continuation of Sugya
Addressing the Paschal offering as a counterexample
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלֹא?! וַהֲרֵי פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה – דְּאֵינוֹ כָּשֵׁר לִשְׁמוֹ, וְכָשֵׁר שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ! פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה – שְׁלָמִים נִינְהוּ.
English Translation:
The Gemara challenges: And is there no such case? There is the Paschal offering during the rest of the days of the year, i.e., not on the fourteenth of Nisan after midday, when it is fit to be sacrificed, which is not fit if it was sacrificed for its sake, but is fit if it was sacrificed not for its sake. The Gemara responds: The Paschal offering during the rest of the days of the year is considered to be a peace offering, not a Paschal offering that was slaughtered not for its sake.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges the previous discussion by suggesting that the Paschal offering outside its proper time (the fourteenth of Nisan) provides an example of an offering that is disqualified when sacrificed “for its sake” but is valid when sacrificed “not for its sake.” However, the Gemara deflects this challenge by explaining that outside its designated time, the Paschal offering has the legal status of a peace offering (שלמים), not a Paschal offering sacrificed with different intent. This is a fundamental principle: the Paschal lamb’s identity is so tied to its proper time that outside that window, it transforms into a completely different category of offering.
Key Terms:
- פֶּסַח בִּשְׁאָר יְמוֹת הַשָּׁנָה = Paschal offering outside of Passover
- שְׁלָמִים = Peace offerings
- לִשְׁמוֹ / שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ = For its sake / Not for its sake
Segment 2
TYPE: גמרא — Attempting to Support Rabbi Ḥilkiya
Citing a baraita regarding offerings before their time
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מוֹצִיא אַף עוֹלַת מְחוּסַּר זְמַן בִּבְעָלִים, וַאֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע?
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports the opinion of Rabbi Ḥilkiya, who holds that one who slaughters a guilt offering whose time has not yet arrived, outside the courtyard, not for its own sake, is liable: One might have thought that I exclude from the category of those who are liable for slaughtering outside the courtyard even one who slaughters a burnt offering whose time has not yet arrived due to its being premature for its owner, e.g., a woman after childbirth whose term of impurity is not yet finished, and one who slaughters the guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper before they are fit to sacrifice their offerings.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara attempts to find support for Rabbi Ḥilkiya’s position (that one is liable for slaughtering certain premature offerings outside the Temple courtyard when done “not for their sake”). The baraita addresses cases where the owner’s time has not yet arrived—such as a zav, zavah, or leper—who slaughter their offerings prematurely. This is a critical distinction: “premature for the owner” (מחוסר זמן בבעלים) differs from an offering that is intrinsically premature (like an animal less than eight days old).
Key Terms:
- מְחוּסַּר זְמַן בִּבְעָלִים = Time not yet arrived for the owner
- אֲשַׁם נָזִיר = Guilt offering of a nazirite
- אֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע = Guilt offering of a leper
Segment 3
TYPE: דרשה — Biblical Derivation
Deriving liability from “ox,” “lamb,” and “goat”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״שׁוֹר״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, ״כֶּשֶׂב״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, ״עֵז״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. וְאִילּוּ חַטָּאת – שַׁיְּירַהּ;
English Translation:
To counter this, the verse states with regard to slaughter outside the courtyard: “Whatever person there be of the house of Israel that slaughters an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that slaughters it outside the camp” (Leviticus 17:3). “Ox” indicates in any case of an ox, “lamb” indicates in any case of a lamb, and “goat” indicates in any case of a goat, that one is liable for slaughtering them outside the courtyard; while a sin offering was omitted from the cases in the baraita where one who slaughters the offering outside the courtyard is liable.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita derives from Leviticus 17:3 (“ox, lamb, or goat”) that one is liable for slaughtering these animals outside the courtyard in virtually any circumstance. The emphasis “in any case” (מכל מקום) expands the scope of liability to include even premature offerings. However, the sin offering is notably omitted from the list, implying different rules apply to it. This sets up the central question: why would guilt offerings be included but sin offerings excluded?
Key Terms:
- שׁוֹר, כֶּשֶׂב, עֵז = Ox, lamb, goat (the three animals mentioned in Leviticus 17:3)
- מִכׇּל מָקוֹם = In any case
Segment 4
TYPE: בירור — Clarification
Determining the case discussed in the baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא בִּזְמַנּוֹ – מַאי אִירְיָא אָשָׁם? אֲפִילּוּ חַטָּאת נָמֵי! אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא לִזְמַנּוֹ.
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies: What are we dealing with in this baraita when it discusses the guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper? If we say that it is dealing with a guilt offering that was slaughtered outside the courtyard at its proper time, why state that one is liable specifically for a guilt offering? One would be liable for slaughtering a sin offering outside the courtyard at its time as well. Rather, it is discussing a guilt offering that was slaughtered not at its time, i.e., when the nazirite or leper’s time had not yet arrived.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara engages in logical analysis to determine the precise scenario the baraita addresses. If the baraita were discussing offerings at their proper time, there would be no need to single out guilt offerings since sin offerings would also be liable. Therefore, the baraita must be addressing premature offerings (not at their time). This is a classic Talmudic move: examining why a particular case is mentioned to derive information about the unstated circumstances.
Key Terms:
- בִּזְמַנּוֹ = At its proper time
- שֶׁלֹּא לִזְמַנּוֹ = Not at its proper time
Segment 5
TYPE: בירור — Further Clarification
Distinguishing between “for its sake” and “not for its sake”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּבְמַאי? אִילֵימָא לִשְׁמוֹ – אָשָׁם אַמַּאי חַיָּיב? אֶלָּא לָאו שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ? לְעוֹלָם בִּזְמַנּוֹ וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ;
English Translation:
The Gemara explains: And what is the baraita dealing with? If we say that it is dealing with one who slaughtered it for its sake, why would he be liable for a guilt offering that was slaughtered outside the courtyard if it is not fit for sacrifice? Rather, is the baraita not dealing with one who slaughtered it not for its sake, and the baraita states that one would be liable, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥilkiya? The Gemara rejects this: Actually, the baraita is dealing with one who slaughtered a guilt offering outside the courtyard at its proper time and not for its sake.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara continues to refine its understanding. If the premature offering was slaughtered “for its sake,” it would be disqualified (and thus no liability for outside slaughter). Therefore, the case must involve slaughter “not for its sake,” which could potentially make it fit and thus subject to liability—supporting Rabbi Ḥilkiya. However, the Gemara offers an alternative interpretation: perhaps the baraita discusses slaughter at the proper time but with wrong intent.
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ — Resolution
Attributing the baraita to Rabbi Eliezer
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא, דְּאָמַר: מַקְּשִׁינַן אָשָׁם לְחַטָּאת.
English Translation:
And although there is ostensibly no need for an additional verse from which to derive the halakha in this case, as a guilt offering that was slaughtered not for its sake inside the courtyard is fit for sacrifice, the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says: We juxtapose a guilt offering with a sin offering in the verse: “As is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering; there is one law for them” (Leviticus 7:7), from which it may be derived that they have equivalent halakhic status. Therefore, a guilt offering that was slaughtered not for its sake is disqualified, and consequently one might say that one who slaughters a guilt offering not for its sake outside the Temple courtyard is exempt, as it is not fit for sacrifice. Therefore, the derivation from the verse is necessary.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara attributes the baraita to Rabbi Eliezer, who derives from Leviticus 7:7 (“As is the sin offering, so is the guilt offering”) that guilt offerings and sin offerings share the same halakhic status regarding intent. According to Rabbi Eliezer, a guilt offering slaughtered not for its sake is disqualified like a sin offering, necessitating the biblical derivation for liability. This is a key example of how different tannaitic opinions about biblical interpretation lead to different practical conclusions.
Key Terms:
- מַקְּשִׁינַן אָשָׁם לְחַטָּאת = We juxtapose a guilt offering with a sin offering
Segment 7
TYPE: כלל — Principle
Explaining the baraita’s structure
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּתְנָא טָפֵל, וְהוּא הַדִּין עִיקָּר.
English Translation:
And the tanna of the baraita taught: Guilt offering, which, in this context, is secondary to the sin offering, as it is derived from the latter. But the same is true of the primary, i.e., the sin offering: One who slaughters it outside the courtyard not for its sake is liable.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explains a common Talmudic principle: sometimes a baraita states a secondary case (טפל), and the same rule applies a fortiori to the primary case (עיקר). The guilt offering is “secondary” because its disqualification when slaughtered not for its sake is derived from the sin offering. By mentioning the derived case, the baraita implicitly teaches that the primary case (sin offering) is certainly included.
Key Terms:
- טָפֵל = Secondary case (derived from another)
- עִיקָּר = Primary case (the source)
Segment 8
TYPE: גמרא — Additional Proof Attempt
Another baraita about premature offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה עוֹלַת מְחוּסַּר זְמַן – בְּגוּפָהּ, וְחַטָּאת – בֵּין בְּגוּפָהּ בֵּין בִּבְעָלִים?
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita in support of Rabbi Ḥilkiya: One might have thought that I include in liability even one who slaughters a burnt offering whose time has not yet arrived because it is intrinsically lacking, i.e., eight days have not yet passed; and one who slaughters a sin offering whose time has not yet arrived, whether because it is intrinsically lacking or because it is premature for the owner.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara brings another baraita that distinguishes between two types of “premature” offerings: intrinsically premature (בגופה)—like an animal less than eight days old—and premature due to the owner (בבעלים)—where the animal is fine but the owner hasn’t completed their purification period. This distinction is crucial for understanding when liability applies.
Key Terms:
- מְחוּסַּר זְמַן בְּגוּפָהּ = Intrinsically premature (the animal itself)
- מְחוּסַּר זְמַן בִּבְעָלִים = Premature for the owner
Segment 9
TYPE: דרשה — Biblical Derivation
Exemption from “entrance of the Tent of Meeting”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ – כֹּל שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי לָבֹא בְּפֶתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, אֵין חַיָּיבִין עֲלֵיהֶן. וְאִילּוּ אָשָׁם – שַׁיְּירֵהּ;
English Translation:
To counter this, the verse states with regard to one who slaughters outside the courtyard: “And has not brought it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:4), which teaches that for any sacrifice that is unfit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, one is not liable for slaughtering it outside the courtyard. But a guilt offering whose time has not yet arrived was omitted by the tanna, from which it can be inferred that one who slaughters a guilt offering outside the courtyard is liable.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita brings another verse—“to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”—to teach that liability for outside slaughter applies only to offerings that could validly be brought inside. An intrinsically premature offering cannot be brought inside, so there’s no liability. The omission of guilt offerings from this exclusion suggests they might be treated differently—potentially supporting Rabbi Ḥilkiya.
Key Terms:
- פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד = Entrance of the Tent of Meeting
- רָאוּי לָבֹא = Fit to be brought
Segment 10
TYPE: בירור — Analysis of the Baraita
Determining the precise case
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן? אִילֵימָא לִשְׁמוֹ – אָשָׁם נָמֵי לִיפְטְרֵיהּ! אֶלָּא לָאו שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ?
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: What are we dealing with? If we say that the baraita is dealing with a case where one slaughtered a sin offering whose time has not yet arrived, outside the courtyard for its sake, then one who slaughters a guilt offering should also be exempt, as it is an offering whose time has not yet arrived. Rather, is it not dealing with a case of one who slaughtered a sin offering whose time has not yet arrived, outside the courtyard not for its sake? In this case, one would be exempt for slaughtering it outside the courtyard, as if it is slaughtered inside the courtyard not for its sake it is disqualified. But in the case of a guilt offering whose time has not yet arrived one would be liable, since it is fit for sacrifice, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥilkiya.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara continues its careful analysis. If the case involves slaughter “for its sake,” both sin and guilt offerings should be exempt. Therefore, the baraita must deal with slaughter “not for its sake”—and the difference between sin offerings (disqualified, hence exempt from outside liability) and guilt offerings (potentially valid, hence liable) would support Rabbi Ḥilkiya’s position.
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ — Alternative Resolution
Attributing to Rabbi Eliezer again
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לְעוֹלָם שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ, וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר הִיא – דְּמַקֵּישׁ אָשָׁם לְחַטָּאת. תְּנָא עִיקָּר, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן לְטָפֵל.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: Actually, the baraita is dealing with one who slaughtered a sin offering whose time has not yet arrived, outside the courtyard not for its sake. And nevertheless, it may not be inferred that in the case of a guilt offering one would be liable, as this baraita may be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who juxtaposes a guilt offering with a sin offering; and one who slaughters a guilt offering is also exempt. The tanna of the baraita omitted mention of a guilt offering because he taught: Sin offering, which is the primary case of the disqualification of an offering slaughtered not for its sake, and all the more so it applies to the secondary case, i.e., the guilt offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara offers an alternative: even if the baraita discusses “not for its sake,” it could follow Rabbi Eliezer, who equates guilt offerings with sin offerings. According to this view, guilt offerings are also disqualified when slaughtered with wrong intent, so both would be exempt from outside liability. The baraita mentions only the primary case (sin offering), and the secondary case (guilt offering) is understood by implication.
Segment 12
TYPE: גמרא — Rav Dimi’s Teaching
Transmission from Eretz Yisrael
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תָּא שְׁמַע: דְּכִי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי אָמַר, תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי לֵיוַאי: יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מוֹצִיא אַף עוֹלַת מְחוּסַּר זְמַן בִּבְעָלִים, אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע; מִנַּיִן? וְנָסֵיב לְהוּ תַּלְמוּדָא לְחִיּוּבָא, וְלָא יָדַעְנָא מַאי הִיא.
English Translation:
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear another proof for the opinion of Rabbi Ḥilkiya, as when Rav Dimi came to Babylonia from Eretz Yisrael he said that the school of Rabbi Livai taught a baraita: One might have thought that I exclude from the category of those who are liable for slaughtering offerings outside the Temple courtyard even one who slaughters a burnt offering whose time has not yet arrived due to its being premature for its owner, or who slaughters a guilt offering of a nazirite or the guilt offering of a leper whose time has not yet arrived due to its being premature for its owner. From where is it derived that one is liable for doing so? Rav Dimi added: And the Sages brought a derivation from a verse to prove that one is liable, but I do not know what the derivation is.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Dimi transmits a teaching from the school of Rabbi Livai in Eretz Yisrael. This baraita explicitly states that there is liability for premature guilt offerings of a nazirite or leper slaughtered outside—directly supporting Rabbi Ḥilkiya. Rav Dimi’s admission that he doesn’t recall the specific biblical derivation adds authenticity to the transmission while leaving a gap in the argument.
Key Terms:
- כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי = When Rav Dimi came (standard phrase for traditions brought from Eretz Yisrael)
- תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי לֵיוַאי = The school of Rabbi Livai taught
Segment 13
TYPE: גמרא — Identifying the Derivation
Ravina provides the source
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רָבִינָא: ״שׁוֹר״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, ״כֶּשֶׂב״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם, ״עֵז״ – מִכׇּל מָקוֹם. הָא מַאי רוּמְיָא? כִּדְאָמְרַתְּ!
English Translation:
The Gemara clarifies: What is the biblical derivation? Ravina said that it is derived from the verse cited above with regard to offerings that are slaughtered outside the courtyard, where “ox” indicates in any case of an ox, “lamb” indicates in any case of a lamb, and “goat” indicates in any case of a goat. This supports the opinion of Rabbi Ḥilkiya, as the baraita is discussing a guilt offering whose time has not yet arrived that is slaughtered not for its sake, and contradicts the opinion of Rav Huna. The Gemara asks: What contradiction is this? It can be resolved as you stated earlier: That the baraita is dealing with a guilt offering that was slaughtered not for its sake at the proper time, and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.
קלאוד על הדף:
Ravina supplies the missing derivation—the same one from Leviticus 17:3 about “ox, lamb, and goat” indicating liability “in any case.” The Gemara then raises the possibility that this still doesn’t prove Rabbi Ḥilkiya’s position, as the earlier resolution (attributing it to Rabbi Eliezer at the proper time) could still apply.
Segment 14
TYPE: גמרא — Rav Naḥman’s Contradiction
Raising a conflict between baraitot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: מִשּׁוּם דְּרָמֵי דְּתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי לֵיוַאי אַדְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: אֲשַׁם נָזִיר וַאֲשַׁם מְצוֹרָע שֶׁשְּׁחָטָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן – כְּשֵׁירִין, וְלֹא עָלוּ לַבְּעָלִים לְשׁוּם חוֹבָה.
English Translation:
Rav Naḥman said that according to the opinion of Rav Dimi, the baraita cannot be interpreted as dealing with a guilt offering that was slaughtered at its proper time, because he raises a contradiction between the baraita that the school of Rabbi Livai taught and a baraita that Levi taught: The guilt offering of a nazirite and the guilt offering of a leper that one slaughtered not for their sakes are fit, but they do not satisfy the obligation of the owner.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Naḥman explains why Rav Dimi’s transmission is significant: it creates a contradiction with a baraita taught by Levi himself. Levi’s baraita states that nazirite and leper guilt offerings slaughtered “not for their sake” are valid (though they don’t fulfill the owner’s obligation). This seems to contradict the idea that such offerings are disqualified.
Segment 15
TYPE: גמרא — The Contradiction Continued
Levi’s baraita on premature offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
שְׁחָטָן מְחוּסַּר זְמַן בִּבְעָלִים, אוֹ שֶׁהָיוּ בְנֵי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים וּשְׁחָטָן – פְּסוּלִין.
English Translation:
If one slaughtered them in a case where the offering was premature due to its owner, or if the lambs were in their second year when one slaughtered them, and not in their first year as required, they are disqualified, and one who slaughters them outside the Temple courtyard is not liable. This contradicts the baraita taught by the school of Rabbi Livai.
קלאוד על הדף:
Levi’s baraita adds that if these guilt offerings are slaughtered when premature for the owner, or if the lambs are too old (second year instead of first), they are disqualified. This creates a direct contradiction: the school of Rabbi Livai taught liability for premature guilt offerings, while Levi taught exemption.
Key Terms:
- בְנֵי שְׁתֵּי שָׁנִים = In their second year (when only first-year lambs are valid)
Segment 16
TYPE: תירוץ — Rav Dimi’s Resolution
Distinguishing based on intent
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּמְשַׁנֵּי רַב דִּימִי: לָא קַשְׁיָא; כָּאן לִשְׁמוֹ, כָּאן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ.
English Translation:
And Rav Dimi answers: This is not difficult. Here, in the baraita that states that one who slaughters outside the courtyard is exempt, it is referring to a case where the animal whose time has not yet arrived was slaughtered for its sake; there, in the baraita that teaches that one who slaughters outside the courtyard is liable, it is referring to a case where the offering was slaughtered not for its sake.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Dimi resolves the contradiction elegantly: the two baraitot discuss different cases. When a premature guilt offering is slaughtered “for its sake,” it’s disqualified and there’s no liability for outside slaughter. When slaughtered “not for its sake,” it becomes valid (as a different offering) and thus subject to liability. This resolution directly supports Rabbi Ḥilkiya’s position.
Segment 17
TYPE: גמרא — Rav Ashi’s Parallel Resolution
Resolving the mishna and baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַב אָשֵׁי רָמֵי מַתְנִיתִין אַבָּרַיְיתָא, וּמְשַׁנֵּי: כָּאן לִשְׁמוֹ, וְכָאן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמוֹ.
English Translation:
Likewise, Rav Ashi raises a contradiction between the mishna, which teaches that one who slaughters a guilt offering whose time has not yet arrived outside the courtyard is exempt, and the baraita, which teaches that one who does so is liable. And Rav Ashi answers: Here, the mishna that teaches that one is exempt is referring to a case where the offering was slaughtered for its sake. And there, the baraita that teaches that one is liable is referring to a case where the offering was slaughtered not for its sake, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ḥilkiya.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Ashi independently arrives at the same resolution, applying it to harmonize the mishna (which implies exemption) with the baraita (which implies liability). The consistency of this resolution—offered by both Rav Dimi and Rav Ashi—strengthens Rabbi Ḥilkiya’s position.
Segment 18
TYPE: שאלה — Challenge to Rav Huna
Questioning whether this refutes Rav Huna
Hebrew/Aramaic:
לֵימָא תֶּיהְוֵי תְּיוּבְתֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא?
English Translation:
The Gemara says: If so, shall we say that this is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna, who holds that one who slaughters a guilt offering whose time has not yet arrived not for its sake outside the courtyard is exempt?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks the critical question: does the resolution of Rav Dimi and Rav Ashi conclusively refute Rav Huna’s opposing view? If the baraitot clearly support Rabbi Ḥilkiya, Rav Huna’s position would be untenable.
Key Terms:
- תְּיוּבְתָא = A conclusive refutation
Segment 19
TYPE: תירוץ — Rav Huna’s Defense
An alternative interpretation to save Rav Huna’s view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר לְךָ רַב הוּנָא: הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי אֲשָׁמוֹת לְאַחְרָיוּת, דְּחַד מִינַּיְיהוּ מֵעִיקָּרָא עוֹלָה הִיא;
English Translation:
The Gemara replies that Rav Huna could have said to you: What are we dealing with here, in the baraita that deems one liable for a guilt offering that was slaughtered not for its sake? We are dealing with a case where one separated two guilt offerings as a guarantee, so that atonement would be achieved through the sacrifice of the second if the first was lost, but before the proper time arrived he slaughtered one of them as a burnt offering rather than as a guilt offering. In this case there would be liability for slaughtering outside the courtyard, as is the case with one who slaughters a burnt offering outside the courtyard, since one of them, i.e., the one that will not effect atonement, is a burnt offering from the outset.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara saves Rav Huna’s position with a creative interpretation: the baraita discusses a special case where someone designated two guilt offerings as insurance. Since ultimately only one will be used for atonement, the other was always destined to become a burnt offering. When slaughtered “not for its sake” (i.e., as the burnt offering it truly is), liability for outside slaughter applies—not because of Rabbi Ḥilkiya’s principle, but because it’s actually a burnt offering.
Key Terms:
- שְׁתֵּי אֲשָׁמוֹת לְאַחְרָיוּת = Two guilt offerings as a guarantee/insurance
Amud Bet (115b)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא — Rav Huna’s Supporting Source
Citing Rav Huna’s teaching about guilt offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב. דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּיתַּק לִרְעִיָּה, וּשְׁחָטוֹ סְתָם – כָּשֵׁר לָעוֹלָה.
English Translation:
This is in accordance with the statement that Rav Huna says that Rav says. As Rav Huna says that Rav says: With regard to a guilt offering whose owner died or achieved atonement through a different guilt offering and which was consigned to grazing in the field until it develops a blemish, and prior to its being consigned one slaughtered it without specification of its purpose, it is fit as a burnt offering.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara connects Rav Huna’s defense to a teaching from Rav himself. When a guilt offering’s owner dies or achieves atonement through another animal, the designated animal is “consigned to grazing” (ניתק לרעייה)—it must graze until blemished, then be sold with proceeds going toward burnt offerings. If slaughtered before this process, it can become a burnt offering. This principle supports interpreting the baraita as discussing a case where the guilt offering was always destined to become a burnt offering.
Key Terms:
- נִיתַּק לִרְעִיָּה = Consigned to grazing (until it develops a blemish)
- סְתָם = Without specification of purpose
Segment 2
TYPE: משנה — New Topic
Exemption for offering meat portions outside
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הַמַּעֲלֶה מִבְּשַׂר חַטָּאת [וְכוּ׳]. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: מִנַּיִן לַמַּעֲלֶה מִבְּשַׂר חַטָּאת, וּמִבְּשַׂר אָשָׁם, וּמִבְּשַׂר קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וּמִבְּשַׂר קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וּמִמּוֹתַר הָעוֹמֶר, וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וּשְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת – שֶׁפָּטוּר?
English Translation:
The mishna teaches: One who offers up outside the Temple courtyard a portion of the meat of a sin offering that is eaten, or who offers up a portion of several other items, is exempt. With regard to the reasoning behind this halakha, the Sages taught in a baraita: From where is it derived that one who offers up outside the Temple courtyard a portion of the meat of a sin offering, or a portion of the meat of a guilt offering, or a portion of the meat of offerings of the most sacred order, or a portion of the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity, or a portion of the surplus of the omer offering, or the two loaves, or the shewbread, or the remainder of meal offerings is exempt, as all these are eaten by the priests and not sacrificed on the altar?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara shifts to a new topic from the mishna: exemption from liability for offering certain items outside the courtyard. These include edible portions of various offerings that are meant to be eaten by priests, not offered on the altar. The question is: what is the biblical source for this exemption?
Key Terms:
- קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים = Offerings of the most sacred order (sin, guilt, burnt offerings)
- קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים = Offerings of lesser sanctity (peace, thanksgiving offerings)
- מוֹתַר הָעוֹמֶר = Surplus of the omer offering
- שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם = The two loaves (brought on Shavuot)
- לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים = Shewbread
- שְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת = Remainder of meal offerings
Segment 3
TYPE: דרשה — Biblical Derivation
Deriving exemption from “burnt offering”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עוֹלָה״ – מָה עוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לְהַעֲלָאָה, אַף כֹּל שֶׁרְאוּיָה לְהַעֲלָאָה.
English Translation:
The verse states with regard to the prohibition against sacrificing outside the Temple courtyard: “Whatever man…that sacrifices a burnt offering or sacrifice, and brings it not to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to sacrifice it to the Lord, that man shall be cut off from his people” (Leviticus 17:8–9). The term “burnt offering” teaches: Just as a burnt offering is fit for offering up upon the altar, so too, anything that is fit for offering up is included in the prohibition. All of the offerings listed in the baraita are not sacrificed upon the altar but given to the priests.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara derives the principle that liability for offering outside applies only to items that are meant to be offered on the altar. The verse mentions “burnt offering” (עולה), which is entirely consumed on the altar. This serves as the paradigm: just as the burnt offering goes entirely on the altar, liability applies only to items fit for altar offering. Edible portions like meat of sin offerings are not altar-bound and thus exempt.
Key Terms:
- רְאוּיָה לְהַעֲלָאָה = Fit for offering up (on the altar)
Segment 4
TYPE: גמרא — Extending the Exemption
Exemption for preliminary sacrificial rites
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִנַּיִן שֶׁאַף הַיּוֹצֵק, וְהַבּוֹלֵל, וְהַפּוֹתֵת, וְהַמּוֹלֵחַ, וְהַמֵּנִיף, וְהַמַּגִּישׁ, וְהַמְסַדֵּר הַשֻּׁלְחָן, וְהַמֵּטִיב אֶת הַנֵּרוֹת, וְהַקּוֹמֵץ, וְהַמְקַבֵּל בַּחוּץ – שֶׁפָּטוּר?
English Translation:
From where is it derived that even with regard to one who pours oil onto the meal offering, and one who mixes the oil into the flour of the meal offering, and one who breaks the loaves of the meal offering into pieces, and one who salts the meal offering or other offerings, and one who waves the meal offering, and one who brings the meal offering to the corner of an altar that he constructs outside the courtyard, and one who arranges the shewbread on the table outside the Sanctuary, and one who removes the ashes from the lamps of the Candelabrum, and one who removes a handful from a meal offering, and one who collects the blood of an offering in a vessel, if he did so outside the Temple courtyard he is exempt.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara extends the exemption to various preliminary sacrificial rites performed outside the courtyard. These include pouring oil, mixing flour, breaking bread, salting, waving, bringing to the altar corner, arranging shewbread, removing lamp ashes, taking the handful from meal offerings, and collecting blood. All these are preparatory steps, not the final altar service.
Key Terms:
- יּוֹצֵק = One who pours (oil)
- בּוֹלֵל = One who mixes
- פּוֹתֵת = One who breaks into pieces
- מּוֹלֵחַ = One who salts
- מֵּנִיף = One who waves
- מַּגִּישׁ = One who brings near (to the altar)
- קּוֹמֵץ = One who removes a handful
- מְקַבֵּל = One who collects (blood)
Segment 5
TYPE: דרשה — Biblical Derivation
Deriving from “conclusion of service”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֲשֶׁר יַעֲלֶה עוֹלָה אוֹ זָבַח״ – מָה הַעֲלָאָה שֶׁהִיא גְּמַר עֲבוֹדָה, אַף כֹּל שֶׁהוּא גְּמַר עֲבוֹדָה.
English Translation:
The verse states: “That sacrifices a burnt offering or sacrifice” (Leviticus 17:8). Just as sacrificing is the conclusion of the sacrificial service, so too, any rite that is the conclusion of a sacrificial service is included. All of these are excluded from the prohibition, as there are rites that follow them.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara derives that liability applies only to acts that are the גמר עבודה (conclusion of the sacrificial service). The verse uses “that sacrifices” (יעלה), referring to the final offering on the altar. Preliminary acts like mixing oil, breaking bread, or collecting blood are not final acts and thus do not incur liability when performed outside.
Key Terms:
- גְּמַר עֲבוֹדָה = Conclusion of the sacrificial service
- הַעֲלָאָה = Offering up (the final altar service)
Segment 6
TYPE: אגדתא — Aggadic Section
The firstborn performed the service before the Tabernacle
Hebrew/Aramaic:
עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן [וְכוּ׳]. יָתֵיב רַב הוּנָא בַּר רַב קַטִּינָא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא, וְקָא קָרֵי: ״וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶת נַעֲרֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״. אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי: קָרְבוּ וּפָסְקוּ.
English Translation:
The mishna teaches: Until the Tabernacle was established, private altars were permitted and the sacrificial service was performed by the firstborn. The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Rav Ketina was sitting before Rav Ḥisda and was reading this verse with regard to the revelation at Sinai: “And he sent the young men of the children of Israel, who offered burnt offerings and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen to the Lord” (Exodus 24:5). The young men referred to in the verse were the firstborn of the Jewish people. Rav Ḥisda said to him: This is what Rabbi Asi said: They sacrificed the offerings and then ceased to serve; after that day, the firstborn no longer performed the sacrificial service.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara transitions to discussing the mishna about the era before the Tabernacle was established. Rav Huna bar Rav Ketina was studying Exodus 24:5, which describes “the young men of Israel” offering sacrifices at Sinai. These “young men” were the firstborn. Rabbi Asi’s teaching suggests that the firstborn’s service was limited to that one day at Sinai—they “sacrificed and ceased.”
Key Terms:
- נַעֲרֵי בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל = The young men of the children of Israel (= the firstborn)
- בְּכוֹרוֹת = Firstborn (who performed the service before the Tabernacle)
- קָרְבוּ וּפָסְקוּ = They sacrificed and ceased
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא — Rav Huna’s Challenge
Preparing to challenge from a baraita
Hebrew/Aramaic:
סְבַר לְאוֹתוֹבֵיהּ מִמַּתְנִיתִין; שַׁמְעֵיהּ דְּקָאָמַר מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: עוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר – אֵינָהּ טְעוּנָה הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ; אוֹתְבֵיהּ בָּרַיְיתָא דְּשָׁוְיָא בְּכוּלְּהוּ.
English Translation:
Rav Huna thought to raise a contradiction from the mishna, which states that the firstborn performed not only the sacrificial service on that day, but also did so until the Tabernacle was established the following year. In the meanwhile, he heard Rav Ḥisda say in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava that the burnt offering that the children of Israel sacrificed in the wilderness before the establishment of the Tabernacle did not require flaying of the skin and cutting into pieces; it was sacrificed as it was. He therefore raised the contradiction from a baraita that is equal with regard to both of them, i.e., from which Rav Huna could raise a contradiction to both of Rav Ḥisda’s statements.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Huna bar Rav Ketina wanted to challenge Rabbi Asi’s statement (that the firstborn ceased after Sinai) from the mishna, which implies they served until the Tabernacle was built. But then he heard Rav Ḥisda cite another teaching: that wilderness burnt offerings didn’t require flaying and cutting. This gave him a baraita that could challenge both points at once.
Key Terms:
- הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ = Flaying and cutting into pieces
Segment 8
TYPE: ברייתא — Rules Before the Tabernacle
Detailed baraita about pre-Tabernacle offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דְּתַנְיָא: עַד שֶׁלֹּא הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן – הַבָּמוֹת מוּתָּרוֹת, וַעֲבוֹדָה בִּבְכוֹרוֹת, וְהַכֹּל כְּשֵׁירִין לְהִקָּרֵיב; בְּהֵמָה, חַיָּה וָעוֹף, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת, תְּמִימִין וּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין, טְהוֹרִין אֲבָל לֹא טְמֵאִין.
English Translation:
As it is taught in a baraita: Until the Tabernacle was established, private altars were permitted, the sacrificial service was performed by the firstborn, and all animals were fit to be sacrificed: A domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird; males and females; unblemished and blemished animals. All animal sacrifices were brought from animals and birds that were kosher, but not from non-kosher species.
קלאוד על הדף:
This comprehensive baraita outlines the rules before the Tabernacle was erected. The system was remarkably flexible: private altars were permitted anywhere, the firstborn (not Levites) performed the service, and virtually all kosher animals could be offered—including wild animals (חיה), females, and even blemished animals. Only non-kosher species were excluded. This contrasts sharply with the strict Temple regulations that came later.
Key Terms:
- בָּמוֹת = Private altars
- בְּהֵמָה = Domesticated animal
- חַיָּה = Undomesticated/wild animal
- תְּמִימִין = Unblemished
- בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין = Blemished
- טְהוֹרִין / טְמֵאִין = Kosher / Non-kosher species
Segment 9
TYPE: ברייתא — Continuation
All offerings were burnt offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַכֹּל קָרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת. וְעוֹלָה שֶׁהִקְרִיבוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּמִּדְבָּר – טְעוּנָה הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ. וְגוֹיִם בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה רַשָּׁאִין לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן.
English Translation:
And all offerings brought before the construction of the Tabernacle were sacrificed as burnt offerings. And the burnt offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the wilderness before the Tabernacle was established required flaying of the skin and cutting into pieces. And today, gentiles are permitted to sacrifice offerings on private altars. The baraita states explicitly that until the Tabernacle was constructed, the sacrificial service was performed by the firstborn, and the burnt offering required flaying and cutting.
קלאוד על הדף:
The baraita continues with three more points: (1) All pre-Tabernacle offerings were burnt offerings (עולות)—no peace offerings, sin offerings, etc. (2) These burnt offerings required flaying and cutting—contradicting Rav Adda bar Ahava. (3) Gentiles today are still permitted to offer on private altars—a remarkable halakhic note showing that some pre-Tabernacle rules persist for non-Jews.
Key Terms:
- עוֹלוֹת = Burnt offerings (entirely consumed on the altar)
- הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִיתּוּחַ = Flaying and cutting
Segment 10
TYPE: מחלוקת — Tannaitic Dispute
Whether the firstborn ceased serving at Sinai
Hebrew/Aramaic:
תַּנָּאֵי הִיא; דְּתַנְיָא: ״וְגַם הַכֹּהֲנִים הַנִּגָּשִׁים אֶל ה׳ יִתְקַדָּשׁוּ״ – רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קׇרְחָה אוֹמֵר: זוֹ פְּרִישׁוּת בְּכוֹרוֹת. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: זוֹ פְּרִישׁוּת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא.
English Translation:
Rav Ḥisda replied that with regard to the firstborn, it is a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita: God said to Moses on Mount Sinai: “And let the priests also that come near to the Lord sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them” (Exodus 19:22). In other words, they should separate themselves and not approach the mountain. This command was given one day after the burnt offerings and peace offerings were sacrificed in anticipation of the revelation at Sinai. With regard to this command, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: This command is a reference to the separation of the firstborn, as they functioned as priests. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: This command is a reference to the separation of Nadav and Avihu, who were priests.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara resolves the contradiction about the firstborn by identifying it as a tannaitic dispute. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa interprets Exodus 19:22 (“let the priests sanctify themselves”) as referring to the firstborn separating from service—supporting Rabbi Asi. Rebbi (Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi) interprets it as a warning to Nadav and Avihu before their eventual death—implying the firstborn continued serving.
Key Terms:
- פְּרִישׁוּת בְּכוֹרוֹת = Separation of the firstborn (from service)
- פְּרִישׁוּת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא = Separation/warning of Nadav and Avihu
Segment 11
TYPE: אגדתא — Understanding “Through those near to Me”
The meaning of God being sanctified through Nadav and Avihu
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זוֹ פְּרִישׁוּת נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״הוּא אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר ה׳ לֵאמֹר בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ״.
English Translation:
The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that the command for the priests to sanctify themselves is referring to the separation of Nadav and Avihu, this is the meaning of that which is written after their death on the eighth day of the inauguration of the Tabernacle: “Then Moses said to Aaron: This is it that the Lord spoke, saying: Through them that are near to Me I will be sanctified…and Aaron held his peace” (Leviticus 10:3). Nadav and Avihu had already been warned not to draw too close: “Lest the Lord break forth upon them.”
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara explores the implications of each view. According to Rebbi, Moses’s words after Nadav and Avihu’s death—“Through those near to Me I will be sanctified”—refer back to the warning at Sinai. They were forewarned that drawing too close would result in God’s “breaking forth.” Their death fulfilled this warning and sanctified God’s Name.
Key Terms:
- בִּקְרֹבַי אֶקָּדֵשׁ = Through those near to Me I will be sanctified
Segment 12
TYPE: אגדתא — The Hint According to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa
Finding the allusion about Nadav and Avihu
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר זוֹ פְּרִישׁוּת בְּכוֹרוֹת – הֵיכָא רְמִיזָא? דִּכְתִיב: ״וְנֹעַדְתִּי שָׁמָּה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנִקְדַּשׁ בִּכְבֹדִי״ – אַל תִּקְרֵי ״בִּכְבוֹדִי״, אֶלָּא ״(בִּמְכוּבָּדַיי) [בִּכְבוּדַיי]״.
English Translation:
But according to the one who says that the command for the priests to sanctify themselves is referring to the separation of the firstborn, where is the allusion to the fact that God would be sanctified through Nadav and Avihu? The Gemara replies: As it is written: “And there I will meet with the children of Israel; and it shall be sanctified by My glory” (Exodus 29:43). Do not read it as “by My glory [bikhvodi]”; rather, read it as: By My honored ones [bimekhubadai]. God will be sanctified by those considered honored by God when He reveals Himself in the Tabernacle.
קלאוד על הדף:
According to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa (who says the Sinai warning was about the firstborn), where is the hint about Nadav and Avihu? The Gemara finds it in Exodus 29:43: “it shall be sanctified by My glory” (בכבודי). Through a wordplay, read it as “by My honored ones” (במכובדיי)—meaning God will be sanctified through the death of those He honors most.
Key Terms:
- בִּכְבוֹדִי / בִּמְכוּבָּדַיי = By My glory / By My honored ones (wordplay)
Segment 13
TYPE: אגדתא — Moses and Aaron’s Understanding
The meaning of Aaron’s silence
Hebrew/Aramaic:
דָּבָר זֶה אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה וְלֹא יָדְעוּ, עַד שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן. כֵּיוָן שֶׁמֵּתוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן, אָמַר לוֹ: אַהֲרֹן אָחִי, לֹא מֵתוּ בָּנֶיךָ אֶלָּא לְהַקְדִּישׁ שְׁמוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. כֵּיוָן שֶׁיָּדַע אַהֲרֹן שֶׁבָּנָיו יְדוּעֵי מָקוֹם הֵן, שָׁתַק וְקִבֵּל שָׂכָר; שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיִּדֹּם אַהֲרֹן״.
English Translation:
The Holy One, Blessed be He, said this statement to Moses, but Moses did not know its meaning until the sons of Aaron died. Once the sons of Aaron died, Moses said to him: Aaron, my brother, your sons died only to sanctify the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He. When Aaron knew that his sons were beloved by the Omnipresent, he was silent and received a reward, as it is stated: “And Aaron held his peace [vayidom].”
קלאוד על הדף:
This deeply moving aggadic passage explains the profound meaning of Aaron’s silence after his sons’ death. God had hinted that the Tabernacle would be sanctified through His “honored ones,” but Moses didn’t understand who this meant until Nadav and Avihu died. When Moses told Aaron that his sons died to sanctify God’s Name, Aaron recognized their greatness—they were so beloved by God that their deaths brought holiness. Knowing this, Aaron accepted the decree in silence. For this remarkable acceptance, he was rewarded.
Key Terms:
- וַיִּדֹּם אַהֲרֹן = And Aaron was silent (held his peace)
- יְדוּעֵי מָקוֹם = Beloved by the Omnipresent (literally: “known to the Place”)
Segment 14
TYPE: אגדתא — Verses About Silence
Biblical support for the value of silence
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְכֵן בְּדָוִד הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״דּוֹם לַה׳ וְהִתְחוֹלֵל לוֹ״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמַּפִּיל לְךָ חֲלָלִים חֲלָלִים, אַתְּ שְׁתוֹק. וְכֵן בִּשְׁלֹמֹה הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״עֵת לַחֲשׁוֹת וְעֵת לְדַבֵּר״ – פְּעָמִים שֶׁשּׁוֹתֵק וּמְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר עַל הַשְּׁתִיקָה, פְּעָמִים מְדַבֵּר וּמְקַבֵּל שָׂכָר עַל הַדִּבּוּר.
English Translation:
And likewise in a verse written by David it states: “Resign yourself [dom] to the Lord, and wait patiently [vehitḥolel] for Him” (Psalms 37:7). Although He strikes down many corpses [ḥalalim] around you, you be silent and do not complain. And likewise in a verse written by Solomon it states: “A time to keep silence, and a time to speak” (Ecclesiastes 3:7). There are times that one is silent and receives reward for the silence, and at times one speaks and receives reward for the speech.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara brings supporting verses for the value of silence in the face of tragedy. David’s Psalm 37:7 uses the word “dom” (be silent) and connects it to “ḥalalim” (corpses)—even when loved ones fall, remain silent before God. Solomon’s Ecclesiastes teaches that there’s a proper time for silence and a proper time for speech—and reward comes for knowing the difference.
Key Terms:
- דּוֹם לַה׳ = Be silent before the Lord
- עֵת לַחֲשׁוֹת וְעֵת לְדַבֵּר = A time to be silent and a time to speak
Segment 15
TYPE: אגדתא — Aaron’s Reward
God is awesome through His holy ones
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְהַיְינוּ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, מַאי דִּכְתִיב: ״נוֹרָא אֱלֹהִים מִמִּקְדָּשֶׁךָ״? אַל תִּיקְרֵי ״מִמִּקְדָּשֶׁךָ״ אֶלָּא ״מִמְּקוּדָּשֶׁיךָ״ – בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא דִּין בִּקְדוֹשָׁיו, מִתְיָירֵא וּמִתְעַלֶּה וּמִתְהַלֵּל.
English Translation:
And this is what Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Awesome is God out of your holy places [mimikdashekha]” (Psalms 68:36)? Do not read it as: “From your holy places [mimikdashekha]”; rather, read it as: From your holy ones [mimekudashekha]. When the Holy One, Blessed be He, carries out judgment upon His holy ones, He is feared, and exalted, and praised by all. In any event, there is no contradiction from the baraita which teaches that the first-born performed the sacrificial service before the Tabernacle was established, as this matter is the subject of a dispute between tanna’im.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches the profound principle underlying Nadav and Avihu’s death: when God executes judgment on the righteous, He becomes more feared and exalted. The verse “Awesome is God from your holy places” is reread as “from your holy ones”—God’s awesomeness is demonstrated through His judgment of the righteous. The Gemara then notes that the contradiction about the firstborn is resolved as a tannaitic dispute.
Key Terms:
- מִמִּקְדָּשֶׁךָ / מִמְּקוּדָּשֶׁיךָ = From your holy places / From your holy ones (wordplay)
- עוֹשֶׂה דִּין בִּקְדוֹשָׁיו = Executes judgment upon His holy ones
Segment 16
TYPE: מחלוקת — General vs. Detailed at Sinai
Rabbi Yishmael’s view
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא עוֹלָה! תְּרֵי תַּנָּאֵי הִיא; דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: כְּלָלוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּסִינַי, וּפְרָטוֹת בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד.
English Translation:
But there is still a difficulty with regard to the burnt offering, as it was stated in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava that the burnt offering that the Jewish people sacrificed in the wilderness did not require flaying of the skin or cutting into pieces, while the baraita states that it did. The Gemara replies: This is a dispute between the opinions of two tanna’im. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael says: The general statements, i.e., the principles of the Torah, were said at Sinai, and the details of the mitzvot that are explicated in Leviticus were said to Moses in the Tent of Meeting. This includes the halakha that the burnt offering must be flayed and cut into pieces. Consequently, it could not have been in effect before the construction of the Tabernacle.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara addresses the remaining contradiction about flaying and cutting. The baraita says wilderness burnt offerings required these procedures; Rav Adda bar Ahava said they didn’t. This is resolved as another tannaitic dispute. Rabbi Yishmael holds that only general principles were given at Sinai; details (including flaying and cutting) came later at the Tent of Meeting. According to him, pre-Tabernacle offerings didn’t require these details.
Key Terms:
- כְּלָלוֹת = General statements / principles
- פְּרָטוֹת = Details
Segment 17
TYPE: מחלוקת — Rabbi Akiva’s View
Everything was given at Sinai
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: כְּלָלוֹת וּפְרָטוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ בְּסִינַי, וְנִשְׁנוּ בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, וְנִשְׁתַּלְּשׁוּ בְּעַרְבוֹת מוֹאָב.
English Translation:
Rabbi Akiva says: Both general statements and the details of mitzvot were said at Sinai and later taught again in the Tent of Meeting, and taught a third time by Moses to the Jewish people in the plains of Moab, when he taught the Torah to the people (see Deuteronomy 1:1). According to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion, the halakha of flaying and cutting into pieces was in effect when the Torah was given, even before the construction of the Tabernacle.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Akiva disagrees: both general principles and specific details were given at Sinai, then repeated at the Tent of Meeting, and again in the plains of Moab (Deuteronomy). According to Rabbi Akiva, flaying and cutting applied from the very beginning—supporting the baraita that wilderness burnt offerings required these procedures.
Key Terms:
- עַרְבוֹת מוֹאָב = Plains of Moab (where Deuteronomy was given)
- נִשְׁנוּ = Were taught again (repeated)
- נִשְׁתַּלְּשׁוּ = Were taught a third time
Segment 18
TYPE: דרשה — Source for All Animals Being Fit
Deriving from Noah’s sacrifice
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁירִין לְהַקְרִיב. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַב הוּנָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״וַיִּבֶן נֹחַ מִזְבֵּחַ לַה׳ וַיִּקַּח מִכֹּל הַבְּהֵמָה הַטְּהוֹרָה וּמִכׇּל עוֹף הַטָּהוֹר״; בְּהֵמָה – כְּמַשְׁמָעוֹ. חַיָּה – בִּכְלַל בְּהֵמָה.
English Translation:
The Master said in the baraita: Before the Tabernacle was established, all animals were fit to be sacrificed: A domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Huna said: As the verse states with regard to the offering that was sacrificed after the flood: “And Noah built an altar to the Lord, and took of every pure animal, and of every pure fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar” (Genesis 8:20). The Gemara explains: “Animal [behema],” is understood in accordance with its plain meaning, a domesticated animal, and the same is true of fowl; an undomesticated animal [ḥayya] is included in the term “behema” that is stated in the verse.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara asks for the source that all kosher animals were fit for sacrifice before the Tabernacle. Rav Huna derives it from Noah’s post-flood sacrifice (Genesis 8:20): “from every pure animal and from every pure fowl.” The broad language—“every pure animal”—includes domesticated animals, wild animals (which are included in the term “behema”), and birds. This shows the original sacrificial system was far more flexible than the later Temple regulations.
Key Terms:
- בְּהֵמָה = Animal (includes both domesticated and wild in this context)
- חַיָּה = Wild/undomesticated animal
- עוֹף = Bird/fowl