Or set your preferences to change how Hebrew/Aramaic is displayed.
דף ג,א גמרא
to say: A sin-offering Because its purpose is for atonement people will not distance themselves from it so there is a fear that they may misappropriate its meat But: holy offerings Because it is not intended for atonement people will distance themselves from it and the laws of misappropriation don't apply to them. Come and learn from this.
For a sin-offering that dies Who says that the laws of misappropriation do apply? For it was taught in a mishna: Sin-offerings that are designated to die of natural causes and money that is designated to be thrown into the Sea of Salt i.e., the Dead Sea, to corrode into oblivion --- benefit may not be derived from them, and the laws of misappropriation do not apply. You might say in response Sin-offerings that are designated to die of natural causes during their lifetimes, people distance themselves from them. But it is the opposite here in this case For regarding ordinary sin-offerings during their lifetimes, people do not distance themselves from them. Rav Yosef refuted Rabbah deriving a learning about one mishna from one mishna and again one third mishna from one the second mishna. Here is the first mishna, from Zevachim 66a and all of them do not render clothing tamei when worn by one who swallows the meat of such an invalid sacrifice but the laws of misappropriation apply to them, except for a sin-offering of a bird which was performed below Soncino explains: "below the red line", but I don't understand this. ??? (in the way that one offers a sin-offering of a bird) for the sake of a sin-offering. And we have learned regarding this: any offering that became invalid in the Sanctuary through invalid process does not render clothing tamei when worn by one who swallows the meat of such an invalid sacrifice And anything that was not invalid for sanctification renders clothing tamei when worn by one who swallows the meat of such an invalid sacrifice And we have learned all offerings that became invalid in the Sanctuary through invalid process If they had gone up onto the altar, they did not have to take it down This decisively refutes the position of Rabbah, and he is refuted! And hey, this was a dispute between Rabbah and Rav Yosef; but it is obvious, according to R' Eliezer For Rabbi Eliezer said: An elevation-offering intended to be sacrificed on a private /bameh/ when those were permitted that enters the precincts of the Temple
דף ג,ב גמרא
become subject to the restrictions that apply to Temple sacrifices in every matter. R' Eliezer asked: Regarding an elevation-offering designated for a private /bameh/ that enters the Temple precincts and that then becomes invalid for some reason if they put it up on the altar Is it the case that they bring it down? ??? for him ??? from this general principle it would follow ??? This is obvious to him. Whether you interpret it like Rabbah or whether you interpret it like Rav Yosef. deriving a learning about one mishna from one mishna ??? for him Up to this point, he does not come to say i.e., what he really means is not: Rabbah there i.e., in another mishna If they ascended, they were permitted to descend a partition ??? that which was not according to the correct process No. ??? or, perhaps, even According to Rav Yosef who said: if is credited lit, rises No. ??? a partition ??? that which was not according to the correct process No. ??? The question remains suspended and cannot be answered. Rav Gidel said that Rav said A sprinkling of blood that is compromised ??? does not remove the sacrifice from being subject to lit: from the hands of the laws of misappropriation in the case of the holiest of holy offerings and it does not subject it to the laws of misappropriation in the case of simple-holiness offerings. ??? Abaye and he said to it about this teaching ??? Rav ??? The thangkgiving-offering within and to the sun except ??? No. and that which was sanctified for Temple use ??? it was slaughtered with the intent of consuming it before it was even the case that ??? and even ??? all of them except ??? from them No. nevertheless, the slaughtering of the offering is sufficient to render holy the bread associated with the sacrifice it was slaughtered with the intent of consuming it outside its designated time or outside its designated place nevertheless, the slaughtering of the offering is sufficient to render holy the bread associated with the sacrifice Perhaps, an invalidating act nevertheless brings it in to the jurisdiction of the laws of misappropriation! He was silent. When he came before Rabbi Abba He said to him: Through the sprinkling of blood did the bread become sanctified Rav Ashi said to Rava: Hey, isn't it the case that Ulla said the accompanying handful of flour if it is offered in a way that is invalid, that was placed upon the top of the altar, its invalidity was removed from it. And the taking of a handful from a meal-offering is the equivalent act, for our purposes to the slaughtering of an animal offering. He said to him: a prohibition brings it into the status lit: hands of piggul.
Copyright © 2012 Andrew Marc Greene. All rights reserved.