(1) 
וְקֶרֶן וְאֶצְבַּע וְחוּדָּהּ וְאִישִּׁים.
וְקֶרֶן וְאֶצְבַּע וְחוּדָּהּ וְאִישִּׁים.and their blood is placed on the corner of the altar; and the blood is placed with a priest’s finger; and the blood is placed on the edge of the corner of the altar; and parts of each are consumed in flames upon the altar. None of these apply to bird sin offerings.
ומזה מדמן על קרן המזבח, ובאצבע הכהן, וההזאה נעשית על חודה של קרן המזבח, ואלו ואלו אימוריהן ניתנים על האישים. מה שאין כן בחטאת העוף.
and their blood is placed on the corner of the altar; and the blood is placed with a priest’s finger; and the blood is placed on the edge of the corner of the altar; and parts of each are consumed in flames upon the altar. None of these apply to bird sin offerings.
הכל
(2) אַדְּרַבָּה חַטַּאת הָעוֹף הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי שֶׁכֵּן חוּץ כְּמוֹתָהּ וַאֲכִילָה כְּמוֹתָהּ הָנָךְ נְפִישִׁין.
The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, the bird sin offering should have been included and likened to the eaten animal sin offerings, as the blood of bird sin offerings is presented on the outer altar like an animal sin offering that is eaten, and the bird sin offering has portions set aside for eating, like it. The Gemara rejects the reasoning for including bird offerings: Those features that are common to internal sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings are more numerous than the features common to bird sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings.
The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, the bird sin offering should have been included and likened to the eaten animal sin offerings, as the blood of bird sin offerings is presented on the outer altar like an animal sin offering that is eaten, and the bird sin offering has portions set aside for eating, like it. The Gemara rejects the reasoning for including bird offerings: Those features that are common to internal sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings are more numerous than the features common to bird sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings.
ומקשים: אדרבה [להיפך], נאמר שדווקא את חטאת העוף הוה ליה לרבויי [היה לו לרבות], ולהשוות דינה לחטאת הנאכלת, שכן היא נעשית בחוץ (במזבח החיצון) כמותה, ויש בה אכילה כמותה! ודוחים: הנך נפישין [אלה, של החטאות הפנימיות, מרובים יותר].
The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, the bird sin offering should have been included and likened to the eaten animal sin offerings, as the blood of bird sin offerings is presented on the outer altar like an animal sin offering that is eaten, and the bird sin offering has portions set aside for eating, like it. The Gemara rejects the reasoning for including bird offerings: Those features that are common to internal sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings are more numerous than the features common to bird sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings.
הכל
(3) רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר אָמַר קְרָא {ויקרא ו׳:י״א,י״ט} יֹאכְלֶנָּה לָזוֹ וְלֹא לְאַחֶרֶת בְּנֶאֱכָלוֹת מִיעֵט הַכָּתוּב.
Rav Yosef said: There is another way to prove that the blood of a bird sin offering is not required to be laundered out if it is sprayed on a garment. With regard to laundering, the verse states: “The priest that offers it for sin shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:19); the obligation described applies to it, i.e., the eaten animal sin offering, and not to another similar sin offering. Consequently, the verse is excluding a case within the broad category of eaten sin offerings, and one is not required to launder out the blood of a bird sin offering.
Rav Yosef said: There is another way to prove that the blood of a bird sin offering is not required to be laundered out if it is sprayed on a garment. With regard to laundering, the verse states: “The priest that offers it for sin shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:19); the obligation described applies to it, i.e., the eaten animal sin offering, and not to another similar sin offering. Consequently, the verse is excluding a case within the broad category of eaten sin offerings, and one is not required to launder out the blood of a bird sin offering.
יאכלנה לזו ולא לאחרת – יאכלנה חדא משמע לומר באחת מן הנאכלות כתבתי לך הענין הזה ולא בכל הנאכלות נתמעטה חטאת העוף שהוא נאכלת מדברים האמורים בענין ומה אמור בענין כיבוס מריקה ושטיפה.
רב יוסף אמר: יש ראיה אחרת למעט דם חטאת העוף מכלל דין כיבוס, שכן אמר קרא [המקרא] בפרשה העוסקת בענין זה של כיבוס: ״הכהן המחטא אותה יאכלנה״ (ויקרא ו, יט), ויש בכך לשון הדגשה: דווקא לזו ולא לאחרת, ומכאן למדנו כי בתוך החטאות הנאכלות מיעט הכתוב, שבאחת מהן אין הלכות אלו נוגעות, והיא חטאת העוף.
Rav Yosef said: There is another way to prove that the blood of a bird sin offering is not required to be laundered out if it is sprayed on a garment. With regard to laundering, the verse states: “The priest that offers it for sin shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:19); the obligation described applies to it, i.e., the eaten animal sin offering, and not to another similar sin offering. Consequently, the verse is excluding a case within the broad category of eaten sin offerings, and one is not required to launder out the blood of a bird sin offering.
הכל
(4) וְאֶלָּא זֹאת ל״ל לְמָה לִי אִי לָאו זֹאת הָוֵי אָמֵינָא יֹאכְלֶנָּה אוֹרְחֵיהּ דִּקְרָא קמ״ל קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן .
The Gemara asks: But if the exclusion of bird offerings is derived from this verse, then why do I need the derivation from the verse: “This is the law of the sin offering”? The Gemara answers: If not for the derivation from “this,” I would say that the term “shall eat it” is simply the manner of speech of the verse, so that it does not indicate any exclusion. Therefore, the word “this” teaches us that a sin offering is excluded, and the term “shall eat it,” demonstrates that the excluded sin offering is one that is eaten.
The Gemara asks: But if the exclusion of bird offerings is derived from this verse, then why do I need the derivation from the verse: “This is the law of the sin offering”? The Gemara answers: If not for the derivation from “this,” I would say that the term “shall eat it” is simply the manner of speech of the verse, so that it does not indicate any exclusion. Therefore, the word “this” teaches us that a sin offering is excluded, and the term “shall eat it,” demonstrates that the excluded sin offering is one that is eaten.
ערך שלם
שלם – א(גיטין סב.) שלמא עלייכו מלכי שלמא עלייכו מלכי ומנין דרבנן איקרו מלכי שנאמר בי מלכים ימלכו ומנא לן דכפלינן שלמא למלכי וכו׳ (זבחים צב:) שלמים יקריבנו כל קרבנות שהוא מביא כשהוא שלם מביא ואינו מביא כשהוא אונן (בספרא ואם זבח שלמים) שהכל שלמים בהן הדם והאימורין למזבח החזה והשוק לכהנים העור והבשר לבעלים (בראשית רבה סו ויתן לך) השולמית שמסיים בה שלום בכל יום שנאמר וישם לך שלום וכו׳ (בספרי וישם לך שלום) בכניסתך שלום וביציאתך שלום. (בויקרא רבה בצו פ׳ זובח) גדול שלום שכל הברכות כלולות בו שלומית בת דברי כבר פי׳ בערך דבר.
א. [פריעד. פאללקאממענהייט.]
ושואלים: ואלא, אם מכאן למדים, המיעוט של חטאת העוף מ״זאת תורת החטאת״ (ויקרא ו, יח) למה לי? ומשיבים: אי לאו [אם לא היה כתוב] ״זאת״, הוי אמינא [הייתי אומר]: ״יאכלנה״ אורחיה דקרא [דרכו של המקרא] הוא זה, ואין כאן הדגשה שזו ולא אחרת, קא משמע לן [משמיע לנו] ״זאת״ שיש למעט, והכתוב ״יאכלנה״ מלמדנו שהמיעוט הוא בין החטאות הנאכלות דווקא.
The Gemara asks: But if the exclusion of bird offerings is derived from this verse, then why do I need the derivation from the verse: “This is the law of the sin offering”? The Gemara answers: If not for the derivation from “this,” I would say that the term “shall eat it” is simply the manner of speech of the verse, so that it does not indicate any exclusion. Therefore, the word “this” teaches us that a sin offering is excluded, and the term “shall eat it,” demonstrates that the excluded sin offering is one that is eaten.
הכל
(5) רַבָּה אָמַר אָמַר קְרָא {ויקרא ו׳:כ׳} אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה בְּהַזָּאוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.
Rabba said that there is a different explanation. Internal sin offerings cannot be excluded from the requirement of laundering sprayed garments, as the verse speaks specifically of internal sin offerings, as the verse states: “It shall be sprinkled” (Leviticus 6:20). The verse is speaking of sin offerings that require sprinklings, and sprinkling is mentioned specifically with regard to internal sin offerings (see Leviticus 4:6), unlike eaten animal sin offerings, with regard to which the Torah uses a term of placing to describe the presenting of its blood (see Leviticus 4:25).
Rabba said that there is a different explanation. Internal sin offerings cannot be excluded from the requirement of laundering sprayed garments, as the verse speaks specifically of internal sin offerings, as the verse states: “It shall be sprinkled” (Leviticus 6:20). The verse is speaking of sin offerings that require sprinklings, and sprinkling is mentioned specifically with regard to internal sin offerings (see Leviticus 4:6), unlike eaten animal sin offerings, with regard to which the Torah uses a term of placing to describe the presenting of its blood (see Leviticus 4:25).
רבה אמר – האי פירכא דפרכת דלמא פנימיות נתמעטו ממיעוטא דזאת עיקר כיבוס בפנימיות כתיב דאשר יזה בניזאות הכתוב מדבר והיינו בפנימיות כתיב בהן הזאה על הפרכת אבל בחיצונות אין כתיב הזאה וחיצונות הוא דאיתרבו מתורת.
רבה אמר הסבר אחר: אין למעט חטאות הפנימיות מדין כיבוס, משום שאדרבה, דווקא בהן עוסק הכתוב, שאמר קרא [המקרא] בפרשה זו: ״אשר יזה מדמה״ (ויקרא ו, כ), והרי זה מורה שבחטאות שיש בהן הזאות הכתוב מדבר, ולשון הזאה נזכרת דווקא בחטאות הפנימיות (ויקרא ו, ד, ה ועוד), ואילו בחיצוניות נזכרה לשון ״ונתן״ (ויקרא ו, כה).
Rabba said that there is a different explanation. Internal sin offerings cannot be excluded from the requirement of laundering sprayed garments, as the verse speaks specifically of internal sin offerings, as the verse states: “It shall be sprinkled” (Leviticus 6:20). The verse is speaking of sin offerings that require sprinklings, and sprinkling is mentioned specifically with regard to internal sin offerings (see Leviticus 4:6), unlike eaten animal sin offerings, with regard to which the Torah uses a term of placing to describe the presenting of its blood (see Leviticus 4:25).
הכל
(6) וְהָתַנְיָא אע״פ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר אֶלָּא בְּנֶאֱכָלוֹת לְעִנְיַן מְרִיקָה וּשְׁטִיפָה אֲבָל לְעִנְיַן כִּיבּוּס אֲשֶׁר יִזֶּה כְּתִיב.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Can one say that the passage about laundering applies specifically to internal sin offerings? But isn’t it taught in the mishna: Although the verse is speaking only of sin offerings that are eaten, indicating that the passage certainly applies to sin offerings that are eaten? The Gemara answers: The mishna’s statement pertains to the matter of scouring and rinsing copper vessels in which a sin offering was cooked (see Leviticus 6:21), which is relevant only to sin offerings that are eaten. But in the matter of laundering: “You shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled” (Leviticus 6:20) is written, and the term “it shall be sprinkled” indicates only internal sin offerings. By contrast, eaten sin offerings are included only through the amplification in the verse: “The law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18).
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Can one say that the passage about laundering applies specifically to internal sin offerings? But isn’t it taught in the mishna: Although the verse is speaking only of sin offerings that are eaten, indicating that the passage certainly applies to sin offerings that are eaten? The Gemara answers: The mishna’s statement pertains to the matter of scouring and rinsing copper vessels in which a sin offering was cooked (see Leviticus 6:21), which is relevant only to sin offerings that are eaten. But in the matter of laundering: “You shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled” (Leviticus 6:20) is written, and the term “it shall be sprinkled” indicates only internal sin offerings. By contrast, eaten sin offerings are included only through the amplification in the verse: “The law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18).
ומקשים: כיצד יכול אתה לפרש שבהן דווקא עוסק הכתוב? והתניא [והרי שנויה משנתנו]: אף על פי שאין הכתוב מדבר אלא בנאכלות! ומשיבים: דברים אלה נאמרו רק לענין דין מריקה ושטיפה של כלי נחושת שהתבשלה בו חטאת (ויקרא ו, כא), שהוא אכן שייך רק בחטאות הנאכלות, שמבשלים את בשרן, אבל לענין כיבוס דם החטאת מן הבגד — ״אשר יזה עליה תכבס״ כתיב [כתוב], ובפנימיות מדובר, ואין הנאכלות נלמדות אלא מן הריבוי ״תורת החטאת״.
The Gemara raises a difficulty: Can one say that the passage about laundering applies specifically to internal sin offerings? But isn’t it taught in the mishna: Although the verse is speaking only of sin offerings that are eaten, indicating that the passage certainly applies to sin offerings that are eaten? The Gemara answers: The mishna’s statement pertains to the matter of scouring and rinsing copper vessels in which a sin offering was cooked (see Leviticus 6:21), which is relevant only to sin offerings that are eaten. But in the matter of laundering: “You shall launder that on which it shall be sprinkled” (Leviticus 6:20) is written, and the term “it shall be sprinkled” indicates only internal sin offerings. By contrast, eaten sin offerings are included only through the amplification in the verse: “The law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18).
הכל
(7) אִי הָכִי אֶחָד הַנֶּאֱכָלוֹת וְאֶחָד הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת אֶחָד הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת וְאֶחָד הַנֶּאֱכָלוֹת מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ תְּנִי אֶחָד הַפְּנִימִיּוֹת וְאֶחָד הַנֶּאֱכָלוֹת.
The Gemara asks: If so, that the verses prescribing laundering are primarily discussing internal sin offerings, and eaten sin offerings are included only through a derivation, then with regard to the statement in the mishna: Both the sin offerings that are eaten and the internal sin offerings, is this statement not misleading? Rather, the tanna should have stated: Both the internal sin offerings and the sin offerings that are eaten, first mentioning the offerings most clearly indicated in the verse. The Gemara answers: Teach it as: Both the internal sin offerings and the sin offerings that are eaten.
The Gemara asks: If so, that the verses prescribing laundering are primarily discussing internal sin offerings, and eaten sin offerings are included only through a derivation, then with regard to the statement in the mishna: Both the sin offerings that are eaten and the internal sin offerings, is this statement not misleading? Rather, the tanna should have stated: Both the internal sin offerings and the sin offerings that are eaten, first mentioning the offerings most clearly indicated in the verse. The Gemara answers: Teach it as: Both the internal sin offerings and the sin offerings that are eaten.
והא תנא דמתני׳ אע״פ שאין הכתוב מדבר אלא בנאכלות קאמר – אלמא עיקר קרא בחיצונות הוא דכתיב ופנימיות מתורת איתרבו.
ה״ק אף על פי שיש דברים בענין שאינו מדבר אלא בנאכלות ומאי ניהו מריקה ושטיפה דההיא דוקא בנאכלות דסמיך ליה כל זכר בכהנים יאכל אותה מיהו לענין כיבוס אחד הנאכלות ואחד הפנימיות והפנימיות עיקר דאשר יזה כתיב בהו וחיצונות מזאת תורת החטאת.
אי הכי אחד הנאכלות ואחד הפנימיות אחד הפנימיות ואחד הנאכלות מיבעי ליה – שהפשוט יותר יש לו להזכיר תחלה ובפ״ק דסוכה (דף כ.) גריס רש״י במשנה אחת קטנה ואחת גדולה ופריך בגמרא אחת גדולה ואחת קטנה מיבעי ליה דהכי משמע אחת היא הגדולה ואחת היא הקטנה כלומר כמוה היא ואינה חלוקה לדין שני וכן דרך תנאים בכל מקום דההיא דפשיטא ליה תני ברישא ואותו השני כשבא להשמיענו ששוה לו שונה אחריו כדאמר בר״ה (דף כט:) אחד יבנה ואחד כל מקום שיש שם ב״ד ובב״ק (דף נ:) אחד החופר בור ואחד החופר שיח ומערה ובמסכת סוטה (דף מג.) אחד הבונה ואחד הלוקח ואחד היורש וטובא תנן התם גבי מערכי המלחמה הכי וקשה מההיא דפ׳ ב׳ דכתובות (כתובות כ:) דאחד חדשות ואחד ישנות וישנות פשוט לטומאה יותר מחדשות ובפ׳ החולץ (יבמות מא.) אחד בתולות ואחד בעולות אלמא דנקט שאינו פשוט תחילה ויש לחלק דהיכא דקאי אקרא או בפלוגתא דלעיל התם הוא דרגיל למתני הפשוט תחילה והא דתנן (סנהדרין לב, א) אחד דיני ממונות ואחד דיני נפשות בדרישה ובחקירה אע״ג דקאי אקרא איידי דאיירי בפרקא דלעיל בדיני ממונות נקט נמי דיני ממונות ברישא וה״ר שמעון הקשה מההיא דמנחות פרק רבי ישמעאל (מנחות סג, ב) דקתני וחכ״א אחד חול ואחד שבת משלש היה בא וה״ל למיתני שבת ברישא ובסיפא וחכ״א אחד שבת וא׳ חול בשלש קופות ובשלש מגלות וה״ל למינקט חול ברישא.
ומקשים: אי הכי [אם כך], שעיקר דין כיבוס נאמר בחטאות הפנימיות, מה ששנינו במשנתנו: ״אחד הנאכלות ואחד הפנימיות טעונות כיבוס״ אינו מדוייק, שהרי משמע מכך שהנאכלות הן העיקר, ונוספו עליהן הפנימיות מריבוי הכתוב. אלא ״אחד הפנימיות ואחד הנאכלות״ מיבעי ליה [צריך היה לו לומר]! ומשיבים: אכן, תני [שנה] כך: ״אחד הפנימיות ואחד הנאכלות״.
The Gemara asks: If so, that the verses prescribing laundering are primarily discussing internal sin offerings, and eaten sin offerings are included only through a derivation, then with regard to the statement in the mishna: Both the sin offerings that are eaten and the internal sin offerings, is this statement not misleading? Rather, the tanna should have stated: Both the internal sin offerings and the sin offerings that are eaten, first mentioning the offerings most clearly indicated in the verse. The Gemara answers: Teach it as: Both the internal sin offerings and the sin offerings that are eaten.
הכל
(8) אִי הָכִי חַטַּאת הָעוֹף נָמֵי מַיעֵט רַחֲמָנָא זֹאת אִי הָכִי חִיצוֹנָה נָמֵי לָא ריבה רַחֲמָנָא תּוֹרַת.
If so, that the requirement of laundering applies to those sin offerings with regard to which the Torah uses the term sprinkling, the blood of a bird sin offering should require laundering as well, as sprinkling is also mentioned with regard to it (see Leviticus 5:9). The Gemara answers: The Merciful One excludes bird offerings by stating: “This is the law of the sin offering.” The Gemara challenges: If so, that the function of this verse is to be under-stood as a restriction, an external sin offering also should not require laundering. The Gemara responds: The Merciful One amplified the halakha to include external sin offerings by stating: “The law of.”
If so, that the requirement of laundering applies to those sin offerings with regard to which the Torah uses the term sprinkling, the blood of a bird sin offering should require laundering as well, as sprinkling is also mentioned with regard to it (see Leviticus 5:9). The Gemara answers: The Merciful One excludes bird offerings by stating: “This is the law of the sin offering.” The Gemara challenges: If so, that the function of this verse is to be under-stood as a restriction, an external sin offering also should not require laundering. The Gemara responds: The Merciful One amplified the halakha to include external sin offerings by stating: “The law of.”
אי הכי – דעיקר בפנימיות כתיב אמאי תנא אחד הנאכלות ואחד הפנימיות דמשמע האמורה בנאכלות נוהגת אף בפנימיות דהכי משמע האמור בנאכלות הוא הדין האמור בפנימיות אלמא נאכלות במשמעותא אתו ופנימיות מריבויא.
אי הכי חטאת העוף נמי – תיתי ממשמעותא שהרי אף היא מן הניזאות דכתיב והזה (מן) החטאת וגו׳ (ויקרא ה).
ומקשים: אי הכי [אם כך], שדין כיבוס שבכתוב נאמר בחטאות שנאמרה בהן הזאה, אם כן חטאת העוף נמי [גם כן] בכלל זה, שהרי נאמרה בה לשון הזאה (ויקרא ה, ט)! ומשיבים: מיעט רחמנא [מיעטה התורה אותן] על ידי המלה ״זאת תורת החטאת״ (ויקרא ו, יח). ומקשים: אי הכי [אם כך], שיש מיעוט, חטאת חיצונה נמי [גם כן] לא! ומשיבים: ריבה רחמנא [ריבתה התורה] ״תורת״.
If so, that the requirement of laundering applies to those sin offerings with regard to which the Torah uses the term sprinkling, the blood of a bird sin offering should require laundering as well, as sprinkling is also mentioned with regard to it (see Leviticus 5:9). The Gemara answers: The Merciful One excludes bird offerings by stating: “This is the law of the sin offering.” The Gemara challenges: If so, that the function of this verse is to be under-stood as a restriction, an external sin offering also should not require laundering. The Gemara responds: The Merciful One amplified the halakha to include external sin offerings by stating: “The law of.”
הכל
(9) וּמָה רָאִיתָ מִסְתַּבְּרָא חַטַּאת בְּהֵמָה הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי שֶׁכֵּן בְּהֵמָה שְׁחִיטַת צָפוֹן וְקַבָּלַת כְּלִי וְקֶרֶן וְאֶצְבַּע וְחוּדָּהּ וְאִישִּׁים.
The Gemara asks: And what did you see that convinced you to exclude bird offerings and include external sin offerings? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the eaten animal sin offering should have been included, as the eaten animal sin offering resembles the internal sin offering in several respects: Each is a large animal; each is subject to slaughter on the north side of the courtyard; and the blood of each requires collection in a vessel; and their blood is placed on the corner of the altar; and the blood is placed with a priest’s finger; and the blood is placed on the edge of the corner of the altar; and parts of each are consumed in flames upon the altar. None of these apply to bird sin offerings.
The Gemara asks: And what did you see that convinced you to exclude bird offerings and include external sin offerings? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the eaten animal sin offering should have been included, as the eaten animal sin offering resembles the internal sin offering in several respects: Each is a large animal; each is subject to slaughter on the north side of the courtyard; and the blood of each requires collection in a vessel; and their blood is placed on the corner of the altar; and the blood is placed with a priest’s finger; and the blood is placed on the edge of the corner of the altar; and parts of each are consumed in flames upon the altar. None of these apply to bird sin offerings.
ושואלים: ומה ראית למעט חטאת העוף ולרבות חטאת חיצונה? ומשיבים: מסתברא [מסתבר] חטאת בהמה הוה ליה לרבויי [היה לו לרבות], שכן יש בה צדדים רבים של דמיון לחטאת הפנימית: שהיא בהמה כמותה, וטעונה שחיטת צפון, וקבלת דמה בכלי, ומתן דם על קרן, ונתינת הדם באצבע, ומתן דם על חודה של הקרן, והקטרת האימורים על אישים, מה שאין כן בעוף.
The Gemara asks: And what did you see that convinced you to exclude bird offerings and include external sin offerings? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that the eaten animal sin offering should have been included, as the eaten animal sin offering resembles the internal sin offering in several respects: Each is a large animal; each is subject to slaughter on the north side of the courtyard; and the blood of each requires collection in a vessel; and their blood is placed on the corner of the altar; and the blood is placed with a priest’s finger; and the blood is placed on the edge of the corner of the altar; and parts of each are consumed in flames upon the altar. None of these apply to bird sin offerings.
הכל
(10) אַדְּרַבָּה חַטַּאת הָעוֹף הו״ל הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְרַבּוֹיֵי שֶׁכֵּן הַזָּאָה כְּמוֹתָהּ הָנָךְ נְפִישִׁין.
The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, the bird sin offering should have been included in the requirement for laundering, as the offering of the blood of the bird sin offering is termed sprinkling, just like it is in the case of the internal sin offering. The Gemara answers: Those features common to internal sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings are more numerous than the features common to internal sin offerings and bird sin offerings.
The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, the bird sin offering should have been included in the requirement for laundering, as the offering of the blood of the bird sin offering is termed sprinkling, just like it is in the case of the internal sin offering. The Gemara answers: Those features common to internal sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings are more numerous than the features common to internal sin offerings and bird sin offerings.
ומקשים: אדרבה [להיפך], חטאת העוף הוה ליה לרבויי [היה לו לרבות], שכן יש בה הזאה כמותה! ומשיבים: הנך נפישין [אלה, צדדי הדמיון לחטאת חיצונה, מרובים] יותר.
The Gemara raises an objection: On the contrary, the bird sin offering should have been included in the requirement for laundering, as the offering of the blood of the bird sin offering is termed sprinkling, just like it is in the case of the internal sin offering. The Gemara answers: Those features common to internal sin offerings and eaten animal sin offerings are more numerous than the features common to internal sin offerings and bird sin offerings.
הכל
(11) בָּעֵי רַבִּי אָבִין אחַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁהִכְנִיס דָּמָהּ בְּצַוָּארָהּ בִּפְנִים מַהוּ צַוָּארָהּ כִּכְלִי שָׁרֵת דָּמֵי וּמִיפְּסִיל.
§ The Gemara indicated that the blood of the bird sin offering is not received in a vessel, unlike that of animal sin offerings. With regard to this halakha, Rabbi Avin asks: When the blood of an eaten animal sin offering is brought into the Sanctuary in a vessel, this disqualifies it. In the case of a bird sin offering, which is killed by pinching the nape of its neck, whose blood a priest brought inside the Sanctuary in its neck, what is the halakha? Is its neck comparable to a service vessel, since it is from its neck that the blood is presented, and therefore it is disqualified if brought into the Sanctuary this way?
§ The Gemara indicated that the blood of the bird sin offering is not received in a vessel, unlike that of animal sin offerings. With regard to this halakha, Rabbi Avin asks: When the blood of an eaten animal sin offering is brought into the Sanctuary in a vessel, this disqualifies it. In the case of a bird sin offering, which is killed by pinching the nape of its neck, whose blood a priest brought inside the Sanctuary in its neck, what is the halakha? Is its neck comparable to a service vessel, since it is from its neck that the blood is presented, and therefore it is disqualified if brought into the Sanctuary this way?
חטאת העוף שהכניס דמה בצוארה בפנים – בין מליקה להזייה מהו שתיפסל משום וכל חטאת אשר יובא.
ככלי שרת דמי – שהרי לא הוזקקה בקבלת כלי וזהו כלייה ומיפסל בהכנסת הדם שהכניסה בכלי להיכל.
א אגב שהוזכר דינו של דם חטאת העוף, שאינו צריך קבלה בכלי, אלא מזה בגוף העוף, בעי [שאל] ר׳ אבין: הלכה היא שדם חטאת החיצונה שהוכנס בכלי שרת להיכל, הריהו נפסל בכך (לעיל פא,ב). ואולם חטאת העוף שנמלקה והכניס דמה כשהוא נתון בצוארה בפנים, מהו דינו? וצדדי השאלה: האם צוארה של חטאת העוף ככלי שרת דמי [נחשב], שהרי כך הוא מזה מדמה, ולכן מיפסיל [נפסל] אם נכנס להיכל.
§ The Gemara indicated that the blood of the bird sin offering is not received in a vessel, unlike that of animal sin offerings. With regard to this halakha, Rabbi Avin asks: When the blood of an eaten animal sin offering is brought into the Sanctuary in a vessel, this disqualifies it. In the case of a bird sin offering, which is killed by pinching the nape of its neck, whose blood a priest brought inside the Sanctuary in its neck, what is the halakha? Is its neck comparable to a service vessel, since it is from its neck that the blood is presented, and therefore it is disqualified if brought into the Sanctuary this way?
הכל
(12) אוֹ דִלְמָא כְּצַוַּאר בְּהֵמָה מִדָּמָהּ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא וְלָא בְּשָׂרָהּ ת״ש תָּא שְׁמַע בפִּירְכְּסָה וְנִכְנְסָה לִפְנִים וְחָזְרָה כְּשֵׁירָה הָא הִכְנִיסָהּ פְּסוּלָה.
Or perhaps is its neck comparable to the neck of a large animal offering, about which the Merciful One states in the Torah: “Of whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 6:23), which teaches that its blood is disqualified when brought inside in a service vessel, but the blood is not disqualified when the animal’s flesh is brought inside. What is the status of the bird’s neck? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: If, after its nape is pinched, a bird sin offering convulsed and consequently entered inside the Sanctuary and then it returned to the courtyard, it remains valid; its blood may be sprinkled and its meat eaten. It can be inferred that the bird offering remains valid if it has entered on its own, but if a priest has brought it in, it is disqualified because of the blood in its neck.
Or perhaps is its neck comparable to the neck of a large animal offering, about which the Merciful One states in the Torah: “Of whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 6:23), which teaches that its blood is disqualified when brought inside in a service vessel, but the blood is not disqualified when the animal’s flesh is brought inside. What is the status of the bird’s neck? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: If, after its nape is pinched, a bird sin offering convulsed and consequently entered inside the Sanctuary and then it returned to the courtyard, it remains valid; its blood may be sprinkled and its meat eaten. It can be inferred that the bird offering remains valid if it has entered on its own, but if a priest has brought it in, it is disqualified because of the blood in its neck.
או דלמא כו׳ – ובהמה שהכניסה לפנים משנשחטה והוציאה וקיבל דמה לא מיפסלא דמדמה אמר רחמנא ולא שהכניסו עם בשרה.
פרכסה ונכנסה לפנים – בחטאת העוף קתני לה כשרה וקס״ד משום דמאליה נכנסה ולא הכניסה הוא ע״מ לכפר וקרא כתיב לכפר בקדש.
או דלמא [שמא] דין הדם שבצואר העוף כדין הדם שבצואר בהמה, ובענין זה ״אשר יובא מדמה אל אוהל מועד״ (ויקרא ו, כג) אמר רחמנא [אמרה תורה], שדמה נפסל כשהוא בכלי שרת לעצמו, ולא כשהוא בבשרה? ומציעים: תא שמע [בוא ושמע] פתרון לשאלה זו, ממה ששנינו בברייתא: פירכסה חטאת העוף לאחר שנמלקה, ובתוך כך נכנסה לפנים (להיכל) וחזרה שוב אל העזרה — לא נפסלה בכך, והריהי כשירה להזות מדמה ולאכול מבשרה. ונדייק מכאן: דווקא שנכנסה מעצמה אל ההיכל אין היא נפסלת בכך, הא [אבל] אם הכניסה הכהן מדעתו — פסולה, בגלל הדם שבצוארה!
Or perhaps is its neck comparable to the neck of a large animal offering, about which the Merciful One states in the Torah: “Of whose blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 6:23), which teaches that its blood is disqualified when brought inside in a service vessel, but the blood is not disqualified when the animal’s flesh is brought inside. What is the status of the bird’s neck? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a baraita: If, after its nape is pinched, a bird sin offering convulsed and consequently entered inside the Sanctuary and then it returned to the courtyard, it remains valid; its blood may be sprinkled and its meat eaten. It can be inferred that the bird offering remains valid if it has entered on its own, but if a priest has brought it in, it is disqualified because of the blood in its neck.
הכל
(13) וְלִיטַעְמָיךְ גַּבֵּי קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים דְּקָתָנֵי גפִּירְכְּסָה וְיָצְאָה לַדָּרוֹם וְחָזְרָה כְּשֵׁרָה הָא הוֹצִיאָהּ פְּסוּלָה.
The Gemara rejects the proof: But according to your reasoning, one might draw a faulty inference from the halakha of a convulsing offering, as follows. With regard to an animal offering of the most sacred order, about which it is taught in a baraita: If, after being slaughtered appropriately on the north side of the courtyard, the animal convulsed, and consequently it went out to the south side of the courtyard and then returned to the north side, it remains valid; should it be inferred: But if a priest took it out to the south side it becomes disqualified? The sacrifice is certainly not disqualified by being taken to the south side of the courtyard, and the inference is incorrect.
The Gemara rejects the proof: But according to your reasoning, one might draw a faulty inference from the halakha of a convulsing offering, as follows. With regard to an animal offering of the most sacred order, about which it is taught in a baraita: If, after being slaughtered appropriately on the north side of the courtyard, the animal convulsed, and consequently it went out to the south side of the courtyard and then returned to the north side, it remains valid; should it be inferred: But if a priest took it out to the south side it becomes disqualified? The sacrifice is certainly not disqualified by being taken to the south side of the courtyard, and the inference is incorrect.
ויצתה לדרום וחזרה – לאו דוקא נקט וחזרה אלא משום דקתני בה בההיא פרכסה ויצתה לחוץ וחזרה פסולה דדוקא נקט לאשמועינן רבותא דאע״ג דחזרה פסולה נקט נמי גבי כשרה וחזרה.
הא הוציאה הוא פסולה – בתמיה וכי יש מחיצה בצפון ובדרום ליפסל ביוצא אלא הא דתני פרכסה יצאת לחוץ איצטריכא ליה דקתני בה בההיא פרכסה ויצאת לחוץ חוץ לעזרה וחזרה פסולה ואפילו פרכסה ויצאת מאליה דנפסלה ביוצא ובפ׳ שני (לעיל כו.) מייתי לה בגמרא.
ודוחים: וליטעמיך [ולטעמך, לשיטתך], שיש לדייק כך מלשון זו, גבי [אצל] בהמת קדשי קדשים דקתני [ששנינו]: פירכסה לאחר שנשחטה בצפון העזרה, כדינה, ויצאה לדרום, וחזרה שוב לצפון העזרה — כשרה, האם נדייק ונאמר: הא [אבל] אם הוציאה הכהן בעצמו לדרום — פסולה? והרי אין כלל פסול יציאה מצפון העזרה לדרומה!
The Gemara rejects the proof: But according to your reasoning, one might draw a faulty inference from the halakha of a convulsing offering, as follows. With regard to an animal offering of the most sacred order, about which it is taught in a baraita: If, after being slaughtered appropriately on the north side of the courtyard, the animal convulsed, and consequently it went out to the south side of the courtyard and then returned to the north side, it remains valid; should it be inferred: But if a priest took it out to the south side it becomes disqualified? The sacrifice is certainly not disqualified by being taken to the south side of the courtyard, and the inference is incorrect.
הכל
(14) אֶלָּא הַאי יָצְתָה לַחוּץ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ ה״נ הָכָא נָמֵי יָצְתָה לַחוּץ אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ.
Rather, it must be assumed that this halakha, that of the convulsing animal that moved from the northern side to the southern side, is taught for another purpose. It was necessary for the baraita to teach this halakha in order to establish a contrast with an animal that went out to the outside beyond the courtyard, which is disqualified even if it goes out by itself. Here, too, with regard to the bird sin offering, the halakha of the convulsing animal that moved into the Sanctuary is taught for another purpose. This halakha was necessary for establishing a contrast with a bird offering that went out to the outside beyond the courtyard, which is disqualified even if it goes out by itself. Accordingly, this may not be used to resolve Rabbi Avin’s dilemma.
Rather, it must be assumed that this halakha, that of the convulsing animal that moved from the northern side to the southern side, is taught for another purpose. It was necessary for the baraita to teach this halakha in order to establish a contrast with an animal that went out to the outside beyond the courtyard, which is disqualified even if it goes out by itself. Here, too, with regard to the bird sin offering, the halakha of the convulsing animal that moved into the Sanctuary is taught for another purpose. This halakha was necessary for establishing a contrast with a bird offering that went out to the outside beyond the courtyard, which is disqualified even if it goes out by itself. Accordingly, this may not be used to resolve Rabbi Avin’s dilemma.
אלא יש לומר כי האי [לשון זו] ״ויצאה״, שהוזכרה שם — לענין בהמה שיצתה (יצאה) לחוץ איצטריכא ליה [הוצרכה לו] באותה ברייתא, ולהשמיענו כי היא נפסלת בכך, אף אם יצתה מאליה. ואגב כך הוזכרה לשון ״יצאה״ גם בדין זה. הכא נמי [כאן גם כן], לשון ״נכנסה״ לענין חטאת העוף, לענין יצתה לחוץ הוא דאיצטריכא ליה [שהוצרכה לו], ללמד שגם אם יצאה מאליה פסולה, ואגב כך הוזכרה לענין כניסה לפנים. ואין איפוא מכאן פתרון לשאלת ר׳ אבין.
Rather, it must be assumed that this halakha, that of the convulsing animal that moved from the northern side to the southern side, is taught for another purpose. It was necessary for the baraita to teach this halakha in order to establish a contrast with an animal that went out to the outside beyond the courtyard, which is disqualified even if it goes out by itself. Here, too, with regard to the bird sin offering, the halakha of the convulsing animal that moved into the Sanctuary is taught for another purpose. This halakha was necessary for establishing a contrast with a bird offering that went out to the outside beyond the courtyard, which is disqualified even if it goes out by itself. Accordingly, this may not be used to resolve Rabbi Avin’s dilemma.
הכל
(15) בָּעֵי רַבִּי אָבִין דנִשְׁפַּךְ עַל הָרִצְפָּה וַאֲסָפֹה מַהוּ.
§ Rabbi Avin asks another question about the blood of a bird offering, which is sprinkled directly from the body of the bird and not collected in a service vessel. With regard to the blood of a large animal, which spills on the floor before it is received in a service vessel, it becomes disqualified for presentation (see 25a), but if it spills after it is received in a vessel, it may be collected from the floor and presented (see 32a). If the blood of a bird offering spilled onto the floor and the priest collected it from the floor in order to sprinkle it, what is the halakha?
§ Rabbi Avin asks another question about the blood of a bird offering, which is sprinkled directly from the body of the bird and not collected in a service vessel. With regard to the blood of a large animal, which spills on the floor before it is received in a service vessel, it becomes disqualified for presentation (see 25a), but if it spills after it is received in a vessel, it may be collected from the floor and presented (see 32a). If the blood of a bird offering spilled onto the floor and the priest collected it from the floor in order to sprinkle it, what is the halakha?
§ Rabbi Avin asks another question about the blood of a bird offering, which is sprinkled directly from the body of the bird and not collected in a service vessel. With regard to the blood of a large animal, which spills on the floor before it is received in a service vessel, it becomes disqualified for presentation (see 25a), but if it spills after it is received in a vessel, it may be collected from the floor and presented (see 32a). If the blood of a bird offering spilled onto the floor and the priest collected it from the floor in order to sprinkle it, what is the halakha?
הכל
(16) אַצְרוֹכֵיה הוּא דְּלָא אַצְרְכֵיהּ רַחֲמָנָא כְּלִי שָׁרֵת וְהִלְכָּךְ אוֹסְפוֹ וְכָשֵׁר אוֹ דִלְמָא מִיפְסָל פְּסַל בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא כְּלֵי שָׁרֵת וְהִלְכָּךְ אוֹסְפוֹ וּפָסוּל.
Is it simply that the Merciful One did not require a service vessel for the collection of the bird’s blood, and therefore a priest may collect it from the floor and it remains fit for sprinkling on the altar? Or perhaps the Merciful One rendered a service vessel unfit for sprinkling it in any case, and the blood must be sprinkled directly from the bird’s body, and therefore, if it spills on the floor and the priest collects it, it is unfit for sprinkling.
Is it simply that the Merciful One did not require a service vessel for the collection of the bird’s blood, and therefore a priest may collect it from the floor and it remains fit for sprinkling on the altar? Or perhaps the Merciful One rendered a service vessel unfit for sprinkling it in any case, and the blood must be sprinkled directly from the bird’s body, and therefore, if it spills on the floor and the priest collects it, it is unfit for sprinkling.
אצרוכי הוא דלא אצרכיה רחמנא כלי שרת – וצואר דידיה הוא במקום כלי שרת והלכך לאוספו כשר ולהזותו למזבח דה״ל כנשפך מן הכלי על הרצפה ואספו דכשר.
או דלמא מיפסיל פסיל ביה רחמנא כלי שרת – דדוקא שייר ולא כתב ביה קבלה משום דבעי להזותו מן העוף עצמו למזבח וכ״ש דרצפה פוסלתו.
וצדדי השאלה: האם דם העוף, אצרוכיה הוא שלא אצרכיה רחמנא [הצריכה אותו התורה] כלי שרת, והלכך אם נשפך — אוספו מן הרצפה וכשר. או דלמא [שמא] נאמר: מיפסל פסל ביה רחמנא [פסלה בו התורה, בעוף] כלי שרת, משום שצריך להזות דווקא מגוף העוף ישירות על המזבח, והלכך גם אם נשפך על הרצפה — אוספו ופסול?
Is it simply that the Merciful One did not require a service vessel for the collection of the bird’s blood, and therefore a priest may collect it from the floor and it remains fit for sprinkling on the altar? Or perhaps the Merciful One rendered a service vessel unfit for sprinkling it in any case, and the blood must be sprinkled directly from the bird’s body, and therefore, if it spills on the floor and the priest collects it, it is unfit for sprinkling.
הכל
(17) אָמַר רָבָא ת״ש תָּא שְׁמַע יָכוֹל יְהֵא דַּם חַטַּאת הָעוֹף טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר זֹאת וְאִי ס״ד סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ מִיפְסָל פָּסֵיל בֵּיהּ רַחֲמָנָא תִּיפּוֹק לִי דְּהָא אִפְּסִיל לֵהּ בַּאֲוִיר כְּלִי.
Rava said: Come and hear a proof, deduced from a baraita: One might have thought that the blood of a bird sin offering would require laundering if sprayed on a garment. Therefore, the verse states: “This is the law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18), which excludes the bird sin offering. But if it enters your mind that the Merciful One rendered a vessel unfit for sprinkling the blood of a bird, this interpretation is unnecessary. I will deduce the halakha that a bird’s blood does not require laundering because the blood becomes disqualified even by merely passing into the airspace of a vessel. Consequently, the blood is disqualified when coming into the airspace of the garment, which is considered a vessel, and, as disqualified blood, it does not subsequently require laundering.
Rava said: Come and hear a proof, deduced from a baraita: One might have thought that the blood of a bird sin offering would require laundering if sprayed on a garment. Therefore, the verse states: “This is the law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18), which excludes the bird sin offering. But if it enters your mind that the Merciful One rendered a vessel unfit for sprinkling the blood of a bird, this interpretation is unnecessary. I will deduce the halakha that a bird’s blood does not require laundering because the blood becomes disqualified even by merely passing into the airspace of a vessel. Consequently, the blood is disqualified when coming into the airspace of the garment, which is considered a vessel, and, as disqualified blood, it does not subsequently require laundering.
תיפוק לי – דלא בעי כיבוס בלאו מיעוטא דזאת דהא איפסיל ליה דם מכי מטא לאויר הבגד ואנן ראוי להזאה בעינן ואויר כלי ככלי דמי.
אמר רבא, תא שמע [בוא ושמע] פתרון ממה ששנינו בברייתא: יכול יהא דם חטאת העוף שניתז על הבגד טעון כיבוס? תלמוד לומר: ״זאת״. ואי סלקא דעתך [ואם עולה על דעתך] כי מיפסל פסיל ביה רחמנא [פסלה אותו התורה] את דם העוף, אם לא הוזה ישירות על המזבח, תיפוק [תצא] לי הלכה זו, שדם העוף אינו טעון כיבוס, גם בלא הלימוד מ״זאת״, דהא אפסיל לה [שהרי כבר נפסל] משעה שהוא נמצא באויר הכלי (הבגד), עוד קודם שנגע בכלי עצמו, ודם פסול אינו טעון כיבוס!
Rava said: Come and hear a proof, deduced from a baraita: One might have thought that the blood of a bird sin offering would require laundering if sprayed on a garment. Therefore, the verse states: “This is the law of the sin offering” (Leviticus 6:18), which excludes the bird sin offering. But if it enters your mind that the Merciful One rendered a vessel unfit for sprinkling the blood of a bird, this interpretation is unnecessary. I will deduce the halakha that a bird’s blood does not require laundering because the blood becomes disqualified even by merely passing into the airspace of a vessel. Consequently, the blood is disqualified when coming into the airspace of the garment, which is considered a vessel, and, as disqualified blood, it does not subsequently require laundering.
הכל
(18) אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּמַדְבִּיק כְּלִי בְּצַוָּארָהּ.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The baraita provides no decisive proof, as even if a bird’s blood is disqualified by passing into the airspace of a vessel, the word “this” must still be interpreted to exclude the blood of a bird sin offering from the requirement of laundering. The interpretation of the verse accounts for cases in which the blood reaches the vessel without first passing into its airspace, as in a case when the priest affixes a vessel to the bird’s neck. Consequently, no resolution can be derived for Rav Avin’s question.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The baraita provides no decisive proof, as even if a bird’s blood is disqualified by passing into the airspace of a vessel, the word “this” must still be interpreted to exclude the blood of a bird sin offering from the requirement of laundering. The interpretation of the verse accounts for cases in which the blood reaches the vessel without first passing into its airspace, as in a case when the priest affixes a vessel to the bird’s neck. Consequently, no resolution can be derived for Rav Avin’s question.
אמר רב הונא בריה [בנו] של רב יהושע: אין מכאן ראיה, שכן גם דם העוף נפסל באויר הבגד, עדיין יש צורך במיעוט ״זאת״, למקרים שדם העוף אינו נפסל תחילה באויר הכלי, כגון במדביק כלי בצוארה של העוף. ולא נפשטה, איפוא, שאלתו של ר׳ אבין.
Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The baraita provides no decisive proof, as even if a bird’s blood is disqualified by passing into the airspace of a vessel, the word “this” must still be interpreted to exclude the blood of a bird sin offering from the requirement of laundering. The interpretation of the verse accounts for cases in which the blood reaches the vessel without first passing into its airspace, as in a case when the priest affixes a vessel to the bird’s neck. Consequently, no resolution can be derived for Rav Avin’s question.
הכל
(19) בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ לֵוִי נִיתַּז מִבֶּגֶד לְבֶגֶד מַהוּ המִבֶּגֶד קַמָּא אִידְּחִי לֵיהּ לְכִיבּוּס אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא.
§ The Gemara returns to the primary subject of the mishna, the requirement of laundering garments from the sprayed blood of a sin offering. Levi asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If the blood of an offering sprayed from one garment to another garment, what is the halakha? By contact with the first garment, is the blood thereby dismissed with regard to the requirement of laundering, such that a subsequent garment would not require laundering? Or perhaps not.
§ The Gemara returns to the primary subject of the mishna, the requirement of laundering garments from the sprayed blood of a sin offering. Levi asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If the blood of an offering sprayed from one garment to another garment, what is the halakha? By contact with the first garment, is the blood thereby dismissed with regard to the requirement of laundering, such that a subsequent garment would not require laundering? Or perhaps not.
ניתז מבגד לבגד – בדם בהמה קמיירי.
אידחי ליה לכיבוס – וגרע ליה מנשפך מן כלי על הרצפה ואספו ואחר כך ניתז על הבגד דהתם כיון דכשר לזריקה ראוי להזאה קרינא ביה אבל על הבגד דאיזקוקי איזקיק לכיבוס אדחי מתורת הזאה ולא קרינא ביה ראוי להזאה ולא בעי כיבוס האי אחרון.
ג ושבים לעיקר דין משנתנו, בדין דם חטאת בהמה שטעון כיבוס. בעא מיניה [שאל אותו] לוי מר׳ יהודה הנשיא: ניתז דם חטאת מבגד לבגד, מהו? מבגד קמא אידחי ליה לכיבוס [האם משעה שנפל מן הבגד הראשון נדחה מן הדם דין כיבוס], או דלמא [שמא] לא?
§ The Gemara returns to the primary subject of the mishna, the requirement of laundering garments from the sprayed blood of a sin offering. Levi asked Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: If the blood of an offering sprayed from one garment to another garment, what is the halakha? By contact with the first garment, is the blood thereby dismissed with regard to the requirement of laundering, such that a subsequent garment would not require laundering? Or perhaps not.
הכל
(20) א״ל אֲמַר לֵיהּ זוֹ שְׁאֵלָה טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס מִמָּה נַפְשָׁךְ אִי אוֹסְפוֹ וְכָשֵׁר הָא כָּשֵׁר וְאִי אוֹסְפוֹ וּפָסוּל אֲנָא כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא ס״ל סְבִירָא לִי דְּאָמַר הָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר וְנִפְסְלָה דָּמָהּ טָעוּן כִּיבּוּס
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: This is an excellent question; and the answer is: The garment requires laundering whichever way you look at it. If the halakha is that with regard to blood that sprayed onto a garment the priest may collect it and it is still fit for presentation on the altar, then this blood is also fit. Consequently, even the second garment must be laundered. And if you say that with regard to blood that sprayed onto a garment if he collects it, it is unfit for presentation, I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: If the offering had a period of fitness and then was disqualified, its blood requires laundering. Accordingly, since the blood upon the second garment was initially collected in a service vessel, it too had a period of fitness.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: This is an excellent question; and the answer is: The garment requires laundering whichever way you look at it. If the halakha is that with regard to blood that sprayed onto a garment the priest may collect it and it is still fit for presentation on the altar, then this blood is also fit. Consequently, even the second garment must be laundered. And if you say that with regard to blood that sprayed onto a garment if he collects it, it is unfit for presentation, I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: If the offering had a period of fitness and then was disqualified, its blood requires laundering. Accordingly, since the blood upon the second garment was initially collected in a service vessel, it too had a period of fitness.
זו שאלה – בניחותא יפה שאלת ואשיבך עליה.
אוספו וכשר – ואע״ג דאיזדקיק לכיבוס לא בטל מתורת דם כל זמן שלא כיבסו וה״ל כנשפך מן הכלי על הרצפה.
הא כשר – וטעון האחרון כיבוס.
ואם תימצי לומר שאם אוספו מן הראשון פסול – כדקא ס״ד משום דהוזקק לכיבוס בטיל ליה מתורת דם.
אנא כר״ע ס״ל – דאמר לקמן (דף צג.) היתה לה שעת הכושר לזריקה ונפסלה דמה טעון כיבוס והאי הרי מתחילתו בכלי נתקבל והיתה לו שעת הכושר ואח״כ נפסל בנפילתו על בגד ראשון.
אמר ליה [לו] רבי: זו שאלה יפה, והתשובה: טעון כיבוס, ממה נפשך [מאיזה צד שרצונך לבחון זאת], אי [אם] תאמר כי דם שניתז על הבגד אוספו וכשר להזאה, הא [זה] שניתז על בגד אחר — כשר גם הוא, וטעון כיבוס. וגם אי [אם] תאמר שכשניתז על הבגד הראשון אוספו ופסול — מכל מקום אנא [אני] כר׳ עקיבא סבירא לי [סבורני], שאמר: כל דם שהיתה לו שעת הכושר ונפסלה — דמה טעון כיבוס, והרי דם זה היה בכלי שרת תחילה קודם שניתז על הבגד, והיתה לו שעת הכושר.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: This is an excellent question; and the answer is: The garment requires laundering whichever way you look at it. If the halakha is that with regard to blood that sprayed onto a garment the priest may collect it and it is still fit for presentation on the altar, then this blood is also fit. Consequently, even the second garment must be laundered. And if you say that with regard to blood that sprayed onto a garment if he collects it, it is unfit for presentation, I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says: If the offering had a period of fitness and then was disqualified, its blood requires laundering. Accordingly, since the blood upon the second garment was initially collected in a service vessel, it too had a period of fitness.
הכל
© כל הזכויות שמורות. העתקת קטעים מן הטקסטים מותרת לשימוש אישי בלבד, ובתנאי שסך ההעתקות אינו עולה על 5% של החיבור השלם.List of Editions
© All rights reserved. Copying of paragraphs is permitted for personal use only, and on condition that total copying does not exceed 5% of the full work.
זבחים צב: – מהדורת על־התורה (כל הזכויות שמורות)
כולל ניקוד ופיסוק בפרקים מובחרים באדיבות הרב דן בארי, וניקוד בשאר מסכתות באדיבות דיקטה - המרכז הישראלי לניתוח טקסטים (CC BY-NC), עין משפט נר מצוה זבחים צב: – מהדורת על־התורה בסיועו של הרב דב גולדשטיין ות"ת כנגד כולם (tora.co.il, נייד: +972-52-2424305) (כל הזכויות שמורות, ואין להעתיק מן הטקסט לצרכים מסחריים), הערוך על סדר הש"ס זבחים צב:, רש"י זבחים צב:, תוספות זבחים צב:, גליון הש"ס לרע"א זבחים צב:, פירוש הרב שטיינזלץ זבחים צב:, אסופת מאמרים זבחים צב:
Zevachim 92b – William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Even-Israel (CC-BY-NC 4.0), Ein Mishpat Ner Mitzvah Zevachim 92b, Collected from HeArukh Zevachim 92b, Rashi Zevachim 92b, Tosafot Zevachim 92b, Gilyon HaShas Zevachim 92b, Steinsaltz Commentary Zevachim 92b, Collected Articles Zevachim 92b