Or set your preferences to change how Hebrew/Aramaic is displayed.
דף ח,א גמרא
but as regard to eating, it does not make it acceptable.
דף ח,א משנה
=== CHAPTER II === A sin-offering of a bird: We do apply the laws of misappropriation to it. from the time that it becomes holy. Once its neck has been wrung it becomes subject to the laws of disqualifiction by contact with a tevul yom one who has already immersed in a mikveh but remains tamei until nightfall or one lacking in atonement or by sitting overnight. Once its blood has been sprinkled, we are guilty on its account due to i.e., in cases of pigul, notar, and tamei And it is not subject to the laws of misappropriation.
דף ח,א גמרא
The tanna teaches: it becomes subject to the laws of disqualifiction from 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, How do we understand this? Subject to disqualification, yes. But: to become tamei, No. Our mishna --- with whom does it agree? It is the rabbis' position for it was taught: Abba Shaul says: A tevul yom
דף ח,ב גמרא
is considered to be tamei at the outset i.e., in the first degree for purposes of holy things. Rabbi Meir says: he causes the holy things to become tamei and he causes the terumah to become invalid. but the sages say just as he renders invalid potables of terumah and edibles of terumah thus in the same way he renders invalid potables of holy things and edibles of holy things.
Rabba said: according to Abba Shaul, they created a higher standard regarding holy things The rabbis established for a tevul yom that he is like someone in the first degree According to Rabbi Meir, he is like food in the second degree According to the sages, since he has immersed his tumah is weakened he renders things invalid but he does not render things tamei.
Once its blood has been sprinkled, we are guilty.... The laws of misappropriation do not apply to it, But a prohibition does apply to it. But why? Is it not a possession of the priests? Rabbi Chanina said: It was taken out of the Courtyard And the mishna's view is that of Rabbi Akiva who said: sprinkling is effective on an offering that is taken out of the Courtyard. which is not a place of eating. ??? NOT IN SONCINO Rav Huna said Rav said The draining of the blood of A sin-offering of a bird: is not essential. For Rav learned: Once its blood has been sprinkled, Rav Adda bar Ahavah said that ??? Rav said The draining of the blood of A sin-offering of a bird: is essential. For Rav learned: Once its blood has been drained. Come and hear: (Lev. 5) and the remainder of the blood shall be drained at base the altar; it is a sin-offering. This is satisfactory according to Rav Adda bar Ahavah, it is written "and the remainder of the blood shall be drained ... It is a sin-offering" But, to Rav Huna, who does not agree with this derivation, What do we learn from "and the remainder..."? It is like that which was taught in the academy of R' Yishmael that if there remained any blood, then it must be drained, but if there is no blood to drain, then the act of draining is not an essential component of the offering. But how does Rav Huna explain the phrase (Lev. 5) "It is a sin-offering" He interprets it as referring to the earlier text Rav Acha the son of Rabba said to Rav Ashi Rather: From here, regarding a meal-offering where it is written (Lev. 2) "and the remainder" Here, too, do you understand it to mean "if there is a remainder"? And if you say Here, too, that it does mean that,
Copyright © 2012 Andrew Marc Greene. All rights reserved.