Or set your preferences to change how Hebrew/Aramaic is displayed.
דף י,א גמרא
??? Rabbi ??? and the end of the teaching is the rabbis. Rav said ??? of the academy of ??? to Rav Ashi thus Abayye said: The beginning of the teaching is Rabbi Shimon, and the end of the teaching is the rabbis. Rabba said: Everyone acknowledges that if he benefits from the flesh of the holiest of holy offerings that became tamei prior to sprinkling, or from the offal of simple holy offerings after they were put up on the altar this he is exempt from punishment although his action was improper This is obvious! What does it come to ??? What would you have said? The flesh of The holiest of holy offerings that became tamei, it has a commandment to be burned by the priests. The offal of simple holy offerings that it is possible a commandment ??? That is what he was teaching us that Rabba did not say it. And hey, what you already said, ??? A sin-offering shall go to the Sea of Salt These words are specific to the case ??? for him in the presence of atonement But: after atonement ??? What is the reason? yes. they separate from the beginning being lost
דף י,א משנה
The fistful of a meal-offering the frankincense the incense the meal-offering of the priests the meal-offering of the anointed priest and the meal-offering associated with a libation they are subject to the laws of misappropriation from the moment of their being declared holy. Once they become holy by being placed in a vessel, they are subject to disqualification by contact with a tevul yom one who has already immersed in a mikveh but remains tamei until nightfall or one who lacks atonement, or by sitting overnight, but we are guilty on its account due to notar but due to tamei and pigul there is no guilt there. This is the general rule: Anything that has a process that grants permission for it to be used by the priests or placed on the altar we are not guilty on its account due to pigul, notar, and tamei until the process has been performed that grants permission. And anything that does not have a process that grants such permission immediately when it becomes holy by being placed in a vessel we are guilty on its account due to notar and tamei But pigul does not apply
דף י,ב גמרא
??? It is possible yes. they are obligated It is because of this: ??? except In the matter in which there is to him permit It would be a logical inference for just as an invalidating act nevertheless that he was ??? One and its sacrifice ??? and not ??? yes. they are obligated except on a thing in which there is to him permit ??? that it ??? and its sacrifice an elevation-offering and descends ??? is it not logical that it should not be he is liable except on a thing in which there is to him permit Therefore, scripture states: (Lev. 22) say ??? all a man who ??? from all ??? etc. in all ??? is what the scripture says. It is possible ??? we are guilty on its account immediately Therefore, scripture states: who ??? Rabbi Eliezer said And so there are ??? that he was he is liable How so? any thing in which there is to him permit he is not liable until ??? permit and any thing thing that do not to him permit he is not liable until ??? in a vessel
דף י,ב משנה
The offspring of a sin-offering The substitute for a sin-offering and a sin-offering whose owner has died it shall be left to die of natural causes A sin-offering which has passed its year and is too old to offer or which was lost, and then found with a disqualifying blemish, if their owners have already atoned, they shall be allowed to die of natural causes And they do not make a substitute And even though they may not benefit from it It is not subject to the laws of misappropriation.
Copyright © 2012 Andrew Marc Greene. All rights reserved.