סקר
כמה לומדי דף יומי יש במשפחתך הקרובה?






 

Steinsaltz

[22a] Rabbi Elazar says: Flesh from offerings of the most sacred order that became ritually impure from a primary source of ritual impurity, whether it became so inside the courtyard or outside, is burned outside. Since its ritual impurity is of the most stringent type, it is not to be brought into the courtyard, or allowed to remain there. However, an item that became ritually impure from a secondary source of ritual impurity, whether it became ritually impure outside or inside, is burned inside. Since its ritual impurity is of a lenient type, it can be brought into the courtyard in order to be burned. Rabbi Akiva says: The place of its impurity is where its burning should occur. Therefore, regardless of whether the source is primary or secondary, such flesh is burned wherever it presently is.

GEMARA: The opinions in the mishna, with the exception of that of Rabbi Akiva, distinguish between impurity conferred by a primary source and that conferred by a secondary source. The Gemara presents a dispute as to the nature of this distinction. Bar Kappara said: The primary source of ritual impurity mentioned in the mishna is referring to a scenario where the flesh of the offering became impure by Torah law, and the secondary source of ritual impurity mentioned in the mishna is referring to impurity by rabbinic ordinance. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Both this and that, both the primary and secondary sources of ritual impurity mentioned, refer to cases of impurity by Torah law.

The Gemara asks: And there is a difficulty with Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion that arises from Beit Shammai’s opinion in the mishna. It was taught in the mishna that Beit Shammai say: It all should be burned inside the courtyard of the Temple, except for that which became impure from a primary source of impurity outside. In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is the distinction between a primary source of impurity outside and a secondary source of impurity outside? After all, are not this and that, both the flesh that became impure from the primary source and that which became impure from the secondary source, impure by Torah law?

And is this not difficult even according to the opinion of Beit Hillel? As the mishna stated that Beit Hillel said: It all should be burned outside the courtyard of the Temple, except for what became ritually impure by a secondary source of impurity inside. In accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan, what is the distinction between consecrated flesh that became ritually impure from a secondary source of impurity inside and consecrated flesh that became ritually impure from a primary source of impurity inside? Are not this and that Torah law, and shouldn’t the principle be the same?

The Gemara proceeds to ignore these questions with regard to Rabbi Yoḥanan’s opinion, explaining that the Sages did not discuss the mishna except in accordance with the opinion of bar Kappara. And there is also a difficulty in accordance with the opinion of bar Kappara with the statement of Beit Shammai. For it was taught in the mishna that Beit Shammai say: It all should be burned inside the courtyard of the Temple, except for that which became impure from a primary source of ritual impurity outside. In accordance with the opinion of bar Kappara, what is the distinction, with regard to flesh that became impure by a primary source of impurity, between whether it occurred outside the Temple courtyard or inside? In accordance with the opinion of bar Kappara, are not this and that Torah law and shouldn’t the rule be the same? Accordingly, why distinguish between them with regard to where the flesh must be burned?

The Gemara answers: The reason that Beit Shammai distinguish between impurity that occurred inside the Temple courtyard and that which occurred outside is because they accepted the reasoning of Rabbi Akiva, who said in the mishna: The place of its impurity is where its burning should occur. Beit Shammai, however, do not completely agree with Rabbi Akiva. With regard to items that became impure by Torah law, their opinion is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, meaning that the items should be burned wherever they are. However, if an item became impure by rabbinic ordinance, Beit Shammai maintain, against the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, that it is brought into the courtyard to be burned.

The Gemara continues to question the opinion of bar Kappara: And is this not difficult even according to the opinion of Beit Hillel? As the mishna stated that Beit Hillel said: It all should be burned outside the courtyard of the Temple, except for that which became ritually impure by a secondary source of impurity inside. According to bar Kappara what is between, why is there a distinction, with regard to flesh that became impure by a secondary source of impurity between whether it occurred outside the Temple courtyard or inside? Aren’t both this and that instances where the impurity is by rabbinic ordinance?

The Gemara answers: Beit Hillel distinguish between impurity that occurred inside the Temple courtyard and impurity that occurred outside due to that which Rabbi Shimon said: The food and drink of a leper is banished from all three of the camps in which the Children of Israel lived in the desert. These are the camp of the Divine Presence, i.e., the Tabernacle; the camp of the Levites, who were encamped around the Tabernacle; and the camp of Israel, where the rest of the nation lived. Once food and drink has become impure through contact with a leper, it is banned from all three camps, like the leper himself. If it became impure outside the camps, it should not be brought inside. Beit Hillel follow the same rationale, that an item rendered impure outside, even if by rabbinic ordinance, may not be brought into the Temple even for the purpose of burning it.

Halakha 4 · MISHNA The limbs of the daily offering were not placed directly on the altar fire. Instead, after cutting up the offering, its limbs were placed first on the ramp of the altar, from the halfway point and below, on the lower sixteen cubits of the ramp, on its western side. Limbs of the additional offerings of the Shabbat and Festivals were placed on the ramp from the halfway point and below on its eastern side. Additional New Moon offerings were placed on top of the upper part of the edge [karkov] of the altar.

Another law: The obligation to give half-shekels each year and to offer the first fruits is practiced only in the presence of the Temple,as fulfillment of these mitzvot is only possible then. But the mitzvot of produce tithes and grain tithes and of animal tithes and of the sanctified firstborn animals are practiced whether one is in the presence of the Temple, or one is not in the presence of the Temple. Although animal tithes and firstborn cannot be sacrificed without a Temple, once they develop a blemish, they may be eaten by their owners. If, in the present time when there is no Temple, one consecrates shekels for the mitzva of the half-shekel or fruits for the mitzva of first fruits, they are consecrated, and it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. Rabbi Shimon says: One who declared first fruits to be consecrated, in the present time, does not give them that status and they are not consecrated.

GEMARA: The mishna states that additional New Moon offerings were placed on the karkov. What is the karkov of the altar? It is the cubit-wide area between one horn and the other on the top surface of the altar, and the place allocated for the priests’ passage when they move about the altar performing their duties.

While on the topic, the Gemara asks: When the New Moon falls on Shabbat and both the additional Shabbat offerings and the additional New Moon offerings must be offered, which of them takes precedence? Rabbi Yirmeya thought to say that when additional Shabbat offerings and additional New Moon offerings are both sacrificed, the additional New Moon offerings take precedence and are offered first. The Gemara comments: The strength of, or support for, Rabbi Yirmeya’s opinion comes from that which was taught in a baraita: When the New Moon falls on Shabbat, the song sung by the Levites in the Temple of Shabbat and the song of the New Moon both need to be sung; the song of the New Moon takes precedence, and likewise, the additional offering of the New Moon is offered first.

Rabbi Yosei said: The halakha is different there in the case of the Levites’ song, as Rabbi Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: The reason that the song of the New Moon takes precedence over the song of Shabbat is in order to publicize the occasion and to inform everyone that it is the New Moon. Since the New Moon originally depended upon the Sanhedrin establishing its exact date, there was a need to publicize which day was the first of the month.

How precisely would it be done? When would they sing the song for the New Moon, while preserving the precedence of the additional Shabbat offerings? The priest would slaughter the additional Shabbat offerings and the Levites would then sing the song for the New Moon. However [beram] here, with regard to the additional Shabbat offerings and the additional New Moon offerings rather than the songs, the additional Shabbat offerings take precedence, following the principle: When a frequent practice and an infrequent practice clash, the frequent practice takes precedence over the other, the infrequent, practice. Therefore, the Sages said to slaughter the additional Shabbat offering before the additional New Moon offering.

§ The mishna stated that the obligation to give half-shekels each year and to offer the first fruits is only practiced in the presence of the Temple. However, if one consecrates shekels or first fruits in the present day, they are consecrated, and it is prohibited to derive benefit from them. Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says such an attempt to consecrate the first fruits would not be effective. The Gemara points out: Even according to Rabbi Shimon, this indicates that shekels would be consecrated if one did so in the present day. Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda in the name of Rabbi Shimon says, contrary to this implication: Both these, first fruits, and those, shekels, are not consecrated.

The Gemara continues with a discussion of consecrated items in the present day, in the absence of the Temple. It was taught in a baraita: A convert who converts in the present day is obligated to set aside, in lieu of his pair of doves, a quarter-dinar of silver, for that is the cheapest price at which one can purchase them. A convert at the time of the Temple was obligated to offer two doves or pigeons as the conclusion of the conversion process. Rabbi Shimon said: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai voided that obligation due to the potential for a mishap, since that money would be consecrated and there is a high risk that it would be misused.

What is meant by: Due to the potential for a mishap? Where can it be seen that the Sages were concerned about the possibility of such mishaps? Like that which was taught in a baraita: One may not consecrate an item, or take a valuation vow, i.e., vow that one’s value is dedicated to the Temple, or consecrate objects for use by the priests or the Temple, or separate terumot or tithes in the present day when there is no Temple, lest there be a mishap and one derive prohibited benefit from any of those items.

And if he violated this rule, and consecrated an item, or took a valuation vow, or consecrated an object for use by the priests or the Temple, or separated terumot or tithes, the clothing that was consecrated is burnt, the animal is destroyed. How is it destroyed? The door of its stall is locked in front of it and it dies by itself, of hunger, as it is prohibited to actively destroy consecrated items. And the money that was consecrated goes to the Dead Sea, i.e., is abandoned where no one will ever find it.

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai voided the convert’s obligation to set aside money for a pair of doves. The Gemara asks: If the convert transgressed and ignored the instructions of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai and consecrated money for a pair of doves, is it effective? The answer to this question can be inferred from that which Rabbi Shimon said in that same baraita: Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Zakkai voided that obligation due to the potential for a mishap. That is to say, from the fact that the potential for a mishap exists, one can infer that if one transgressed and consecrated the money, it is nevertheless consecrated.

Rabbi Yodeh Antodarya asked in the presence of Rabbi Yosei: Here in the baraita you [22b] say that the money has been consecrated; and here, in the baraita mentioned before, you say that Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon that if one consecrates shekels in the present day, they are not consecrated. He said to him: There, regarding the shekels, one does not consecrate ab initio because the mitzva is to bring the communal offerings each year from the new collection of half-shekels, those collected for that year, and these shekels, those consecrated in the present day, will necessarily be from the old collection, whenever the Temple is rebuilt, and as such have no use. For this reason, even if he consecrated shekels, they remain non-sacred.

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