סקר
עם סיום מסכת עירובין






 

Steinsaltz

MISHNA: All items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse of consecrated property, which is deriving benefit equivalent to one peruta. And they join together to constitute an olive-bulk, which is the measure that renders one liable due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul, or notar, or partaking of the item while ritually impure. All items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse. Both items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: Now that one says that the mishna teaches in the latter clause: Both items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar and items consecrated for Temple maintenance join together, which is a case where this one, i.e., items consecrated for the altar, have inherent sanctity and that one, i.e., items consecrated for Temple maintenance, have sanctity that inheres in its value, and even so the mishna teaches that they join together for misuse, if so, is it necessary for the mishna to teach in the first clause that items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together with other items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar?

The Gemara answers: It is necessary for the tanna to teach the first clause, because he teaches with regard to that case: They join together to render one liable due to violation of the prohibitions of piggul, or notar, or of partaking of the item while ritually impure. With regard to these matters, only items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together, not items consecrated for Temple maintenance, as these halakhot do not apply to items consecrated for Temple maintenance. The concepts of piggul, notar, and ritual impurity are relevant only to items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar. It is due to that reason that the tanna divides the first clause from the latter clause.

§ The mishna teaches that items consecrated for Temple maintenance are subject to the halakhot of misuse. Rabbi Yannai said: It is clear that one is liable for misuse by Torah law only for items consecrated for Temple maintenance and a burnt offering alone. What is the reason? The reason is that the verse states: “If anyone commit a misuse, and sin through error, in the sacred items of the Lord, then he shall bring his guilt offering to the Lord, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to your valuation in silver by shekels, after the shekel of the Sanctuary, for a guilt offering” (Leviticus 5:15).

Rabbi Yannai explains that it is derived from this verse that only those consecrated items that are uniquely for the Lord are subject to the halakhot of misuse; but with regard to items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar, e.g., guilt offerings or sin offerings, as they have a portion that belongs to the priests and other items such as peace offerings also have a portion that belongs to the owners, they are not uniquely for the Lord, and therefore the halakhot of misuse do not apply.

The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yannai. We learned in the mishna: All items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar join together to constitute the measure with regard to liability for misuse, which is deriving benefit worth one peruta. Evidently, one is liable for misusing all items consecrated to be sacrificed on the altar, not merely burnt offerings. The Gemara answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition that applies by rabbinic law.

The Gemara raises a further difficulty with the statement of Rabbi Yannai, from another mishna (2a): In the case of offerings of the most sacred order that were disqualified before their blood was sprinkled on the altar, e.g., if one slaughtered them in the south of the Temple courtyard, rather than in the north as required, one is liable for misusing them. Offerings of the most sacred order include sin offerings and guilt offerings, not merely burnt offerings. Once again, the Gemara answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition by rabbinic law.

The Gemara raises yet another difficulty with regard to the statement of Rabbi Yannai. We learned in a mishna (18a): One who derives benefit from a blemished sin offering while it is alive has not violated the prohibition of misuse until he causes one peruta worth of depletion of its value. Since the blemished animal will be redeemed, one lessens its value by removing wool from it. But when it is dead it will not be redeemed, which means that it cannot be devalued, and therefore once he derives one peruta worth of benefit from a dead sin offering he is liable for misuse. The Gemara again answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition by rabbinic law.

The Gemara asks: And by Torah law is there no liability for misuse of items consecrated for sacrifice on the altar? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The verse states at the conclusion of the passage discussing the sacrifice of a peace offering: “And the priest shall make them smoke upon the altar, it is the food of the offering made by fire, for a pleasing aroma; all the fat is the Lord’s” (Leviticus 3:16). The term “all” serves to include the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity as subject to the halakhot of misuse. This is a source from the Torah for the halakha that one is liable for misuse of items consecrated for sacrifice on the altar.

The Gemara again answers that the mishna is referring to a prohibition by rabbinic law. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the tanna cites a verse as the source for this halakha, which indicates that it applies by Torah law. The Gemara answers: The verse is a mere support, but it is not the actual source for the halakha.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But didn’t Ulla say that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Sacrificial animals that died without being sacrificed are excluded from the potential of misuse by Torah law? The Gemara clarifies the objection: To what is Rabbi Yoḥanan referring? If we say that he is referring to items consecrated for Temple maintenance, then even when they are dead they are also subject to the halakhot of misuse, as even if you say that this can be considered only like a case where one consecrated a garbage heap to the Temple maintenance, isn’t that also subject to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property?

Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan must be referring to dead animals that had been consecrated for sacrifice on the altar, and he is teaching that once they die they are no longer subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. This indicates that while they are alive they are subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. The Gemara states the difficulty: According to Rabbi Yannai, are animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law?

Rather, the Gemara rejects the previous version of Rabbi Yannai’s opinion, and states that in fact he maintains that animals consecrated for sacrifice on the altar are subject to the halakhot of misuse by Torah law. As the school of Rabbi Yannai says as follows: From this verse: “If anyone commit a misuse, and sin through error, in the sacred items of the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15), we learn that items consecrated for Temple maintenance are subject to the halakhot of misuse. But we do not learn from this verse that animals consecrated for the altar are subject to the halakhot of misuse. Instead, that halakha is derived from the verse: “And if a man eat of the sacred items through error” (Leviticus 22:14), which is referring to all sacred items, or from the verse (Leviticus 3:16): “All the fat is the Lord’s.”

Talmud - Bavli - The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren No=C3=A9 Talmud
with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0)
אדם סלומון
© כל הזכויות שמורות לפורטל הדף היומי | אודות | צור קשר | הוספת תכנים | רשימת תפוצה | הקדשה | תרומות | תנאי שימוש באתר | מפת האתר