Zevachim 78: Mixtures; The Status of Rice

In keeping with their discussions about mixtures of items that are consecrated, today the rabbis consider combining types of foods.

• Masechet Pesachim 35 teaches that although rice can 'rise', or become chametz, leavened, it cannot be baked into matza
• Masechet Challa (3:7) rules that dough made from a mixture of wheat and rice  can be made into kosher (for the mitzvot of Pesach) matza as long as it tastes like wheat
• Rabbeinu Tam states that this reminds us about foods forbidden because we can taste something forbidden
• The Ra'avad notes that a person would have to eat a kazayit, an olive bulk - of wheat to fulfil the mitzvah of eating matza on Pesach
• Masechet Challa (1:1) of the Yerushalmi Talmud teaches that wheat flour causes rice flour to ferment thus become chametz
• Steinsaltz teaches us in notes that rice was brought to Israel from the Far East by the Mishnaic period
• Rice was traditionally used in combination with other grains and as cereals rather than bread on its own (because it is missing the bonding agents that bind bread together)
• Sages held differing opinions on the status of rice and thus which blessing was proper, whether it could become chametz, whether it could become matza, etc.

Zevachim 76: The Proof is in the Spicing

Some brief thoughts about today's daf:

• Is Rabbi Shimon saying that we can create mixtures of guilt and peace offerings by keeping the stringecies that apply to the guilt offering?  
• a Mishna (Zeachim 90b) teaches which sacrifices were eaten in the Temple by the priests, prepared in any way they like
• Rabbi Yishmael says they can use any spices for flavour
• Rabbi Meir says that tithe spices cannot used because they would be liable to be destroyed
• As a proof, this quotes Rabbi Shimon and thus is rejected because tithes on spices are rabbinic 
• most rabbis agree that the only biblical sources for tithes on produce are grain, grape juice and olive oil - no other fruits
• Some even suggest that other grape and olive products are not obligated in tithes on a biblical level
• The Rambam disagrees with this ruling and instead rules that all produce stored and used as human food is obligated orayta, from Biblical text

Zevachim 75: Bringing Guilt and Peace Offerings Together

Today's daf discusses guilt offerings and peace offerings that are brought together  for sacrifice.  

Asham, Guilt Offering	Shelamim, Peace Offering
Blood is sprinkled on two corners of two sides of the altar	Blood is sprinkled on two corners of two sides of the altar
Sacrificed in the northern part of the Temple courtyard	Sacrificed anywhere in the courtyard
Eaten anywhere in the Temple courtyard	Eaten anywhere in Jerusalem
Only eaten by male kohanim	Eaten by anyone
The sacrifice is eaten on the day it was brought up until the following evening	The sacrifice is eaten on the day it was brought until the following two evenings

Rabbi Shimon ruled that when these different sacrifices are consecrated together, both are treated more stringently like the asham, the guilt offering.  Other rabbis disagreed.  They stated that consecrated animals should not be brought into a circumstance where they will become nullified when they are meant to be eaten.  However, in a case where the animals had already been slaughtered with no opportunity to redeem and exchange them, the sacrifices should be brought as guilt offerings.

Zevachim 74: Rings and Barrels

The rabbis continue to describe mixtures of different substances where one is a forbidden item.  Rav Nachman quoted Rava bar Avuh in the name of Rav teaching about a signet ring of avoda zara, idol worship, that was mixed with other rings so that all were forbidden.  If one ring were to fall into the Great Sea, we would assume that the forbidden ring fell and now the others were permitted.

Reish Lakish teaches that a barrel of teruma, tithed food only allowed to kohanim, was mixed with other barrels so that none could be eaten other than a kohen, if one falls into the sea we should assume it was the barrel of teruma so that the others are allowed.

Rashi teaches that the ring was decorated with an actual idol and the mixture must be forbidden because avoid zara cannot become nullified - it is one of our most serious transgressions.  Tosafot teach that the importance of that particular ring creates the situation that keeps it from being nullified.   The Gemara teaches us that both cases were required because one situation does not predict the answer of the other.

The rabbis discuss the Mediterranean Sea versus the Dead Sea used as examples.  We learn that the Gemara often suggests that an object should be thrown into the Dead Sea because there are no fisherman who might find and use the object.  Also the rabbis may have seen the Dead Sea as something that would destroy anything that fell into it.

Zevachim 73: To Nullify or Not; Tithed Figs in Loaves

Today's daf further examines exceptions to the halacha that teaches that when we mix permitted and forbidden items, the forbidden items can become batel, nullified.  The rabbis speak about the concept of individual versus group; majority versus minority.

We learn about items sold by the number of items counted rather than items sold by weight.  Dried figs are used as an example.  Dried figs that were teruma, tithed, were sometimes pressed together in a circular told with other figs.  We might not know which are which.  Rabbi Yehuda interprets Rabbi Yehoshua's ruling: these figs will not be nullified because they are sold  as individual loaves.  On the other hand, if tithed figs were included in a mold together with other figs, they will become nullified because they are part of the mixture.

The Gemara teaches us about how figs were dried and stored.  We learn that the largest, round loaves of dried dates pressed together required two people to lift it.  The rabbis suggest that this case describes a single round loaf of teruma figs that was placed in the top of a container where it was not mixed with other figs.  Since those loaves were sold by number, Rabbi Yehoshua ruled that they cannot become nullified; we should treat all of the large, round loaves of pressed figs as if they were possibly made of tithes.

Zevachim 72: Seven Items So Important That Their Presence Will Not Nullify

Brief notes from today's daf:

• forbidden items can be batel, nullified, 
• b'rov, when the majority of the items are permitted 
• b'shishim, when the amount of permitted items allows a mixture where the forbidden items cannot be tasted
• Sages determined that this is when there are 60 times the permitted material then forbidden material
• the Gemara discusses an exception: when objects are considered to have such importance that they cannot be nullified
• Rabbi Akiva names seven objects:
• Nuts from Perech
• Pomegranates from Badan
• Sealed barrels
• Beet greens
• Cabbage stalks
• Grecian gourds
• Loaves of a homeowner
• The Gemara discusses the egoz, walnut tree, is commonly planted under the shade of palm trees
• The three types of walnuts are categorized based on the thickness of their shells where the thinnest is the most valued
• Sealed barrels imply stored wine in earthenware containers with stoppers to close the cask
• When moved into storage or elsewhere, the stopper was sealed with clay temporarily
• Once the cask was opened, the air would age (damage) the wine
• Rambam rules Rabbi Akiva's seven things as examples
• examples stand on their own as important enough for this special status in any place/time

Zevachim 71: Intermingled Offerings

We learn a new Mishna:

• all of the offerings intermingled with animals from whom we cannot derive benefit is forbidden
• this includes sin offerings left to die, an ox sentenced to be stoned, even if the ratio is one in 10,000, deriving benefit is prohibited and they all must die
• all offerings intermingling with animals whose sacrifice is forbidden but deriving benefit is not, these are not forbidden
• these include an ox who has been part of a transgression, an ox known to have killed someone based on the testimony of one witness or the admission of the owner, animals involved in sexual acts or idol worship, animals used as payment to a prostitute or the price of a dog
• offerings intermingled with an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds
• this includes the offspring of a ram and a goal, or an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months, or an animal born by cesarean section
• all of those animals are left to graze until they become unfit for sacrifice at which point they are sold
• The money from that sale is used to buy another similar but kosher offering
• If sacrificial animals were intermingled with other sacrificial animals of the same type of offering, each owner fulfils his obligation by sacrificing his animal for its own sake
• if sacrificial animals were intermingled with other sacrificial animals of different types of offings (two rams, one as a burnt offering and one as a peace offering), they graze until they become unfit, they are sold, and then that money is used to pay for another offering of the same type
• When sacrificial animals are intermingled with a firstborn offering or an animal tithe offering, they shall graze until they become unfit and then they are both eaten as a firstborn offering or as an animal tithe offering
• all offerings can become indistinguishably intermingled with each other except for a sin offering and a guilt offering

The Gemara wonders why this Mishna is necessary.  We have already learned this halacha regarding sacrificial animals, regardless to the ratio.  The rabbis consider a number of explanations for the seemingly repetitive Mishna.

Zevachim 69: Slaughter vs. Pinching

A brief note about today's daf:

• the rabbis continue to discuss the sacrifice of birds
• they consider the consequences when a bird is slaughtered in different places, in different ways
• sometimes the rabbis consider birds to be carcasses, which are forbidden to eat
• A new Mishna is introduced:
• the rabbis disagree about a bird pinched properly but found to be a treifa (forbidden for another reason, for example, it is injured and will die within a year)
• Rabbi Meir says an olive bulk of the meat does not create ritual impurity
• Rabbi Yehuda says its status is like any other carcass of an unslaughtered kosher bird, and it imparts ritual impurity when eaten
• Rabbi Meir says that his own opinion is inferred a fortiori - the slaughter of an animal purifies it from its impurity/ its status as a carcass
• If we agree that slaughter renders a treifa bird pure, we can also assume that pinching also renders a bird offering fit regarding consumption - and thus it should be purified as well
• Rabbi Yosei says that we cannot extend this derivation to pinching
• This is because of a principle: a halacha derived by an a fortiori inference is no more stringent than the source from which it is derived

Zevachim 68: Disqualified Before or After Being in the Temple Courtyard: Ritual Purity in the Throat

Some very brief notes about today's daf:

• birds are brought as offerings by women who have given birth and in some other cases
• after telling us a number of examples, we learn a principle from our new Mishna:
• anything that would render the offering disqualified before it even came to the Temple (an unkosher bird, for example) renders the offering ritually impure when it is in the throat
• anything that disqualifies the offering while it is in the Temple courtyard does not become ritually impure when it is eaten and it touches the throat
• Many of these actions are named, like pinching with the wrong hand, or using a knife instead of a thumbnail, etc.
• Our daf also discusses the special nature of the red heifer

Zevachim 67: Eliezer and Yehoshua; Oaths and Birds After Giving Birth

Some brief notes on today's daf:
We begin today's daf with the end of the Mishna which began in daf 66(b)

• Rabbi Eliezer argued that one is only liable for misuse if one slaughtered for the sake  of an offering of lesser value
• Rabbi Yehoshua countered that one changed the designation to an offering of lesser sanctity with no intention of misuse

The Gemara describes the argument between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua in greater detail.  One of the points regards the offering brought by a woman after giving birth.  We learn that if a woman swears an oath that she will have a boy and she does give birth to a boy, she brings two bird offerings. The Gemara explains how the priest takes and sacrifices her birds without asking questions about ther intentions.  

Zevachim 66: Sin/Burnt Offerings: Proper, Improper Procedures and Changing Status

Today's daf offers one and a half new Mishnayot.  It also introduces Perek VII.   The first Mishna teaches us:

• if a priest sacrificed a bird sin offering in the right place below the red line, according to procedure regarding pinching and sprinkling, with the proper intent, it is fit
• if a priest sacrificed a bird sin offering in the right place below the red line, but according to the procedures for a burnt offering in any way, then the sacrifice is disqualified.
• a bird burnt offering that one sacrificed in its designated place above the red line according to the procedure of a burnt offering and for its sake is fit
• if a priest sacrificed a bird burnt offering above the red line according to the procedure of the burnt offering but for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is fit but did not satisfy the owner's obligation
• the offering is disqualified if there is a mismatch in procedure or place 

The second Mishna shares new teachings that move us in a new direction.  We have been learning about the basic rules of sacrifice.  This Mishna moves us into a discussion about how one might derive benefit from these procedures:

• all of the offerings in the previous Mishna differ from the carcasses of unslaughtered kosher birds because they do not render one who eats their meat ritually impure when the meat is in the throat
• this is because when the nape of the birds' necks are pinched, like in the slaughter of animals they cannot assume the status of a carcass
• they are all forbidden to priests who cannot misuse consecrated property
• the one exception is the bird sin offering that one sacrificed in the proper place and with the proper intent 
• this is because it was sacrificed properly and thus permitted to partake of - there is no misuse of consecrated property
• When a bird burnt offering improperly sacrificed below the red line but according to the procedure of the sin offering for the sake of a sin offering, "One who derives benefit from it is liable for misusing consecrated property, as it remains a burnt offering whose meat is never permitted to the priests" (Rabbi Eliezer)
• Rabbi Yehoshua says that one who derives benefit from is is not liable because the entire sacrificial prices was conduced properly for a sin offering and thus the offering assumes the status of a sin offering
• Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua continue to explain their positions
• Rabbi Yehoshua says sarcastically, "Would you say in the case of a burnt offering changed to and sacrificed as a sin offering should have liability for its misuse?"
• He argues that a person might change the designation of an offering simply to avoid the consequences that would accompany that offering's original state

Zevachim 65: How Does the Priest Avoid Karet?

The remainder of yesterday's last Mishna teaches us more about the gruesome task of sacrificing the bird for the sin or the burnt offering:

• the offering is valid even if one did not remove the crop, feathers, innards; absorb the blood with salt; anything after squeezing out the blood
• if the head was separated in sacrificing the sin offering or if it was not separated in sacrificing the burnt offering, the offer is disqualified
• if blood was only squeezed from the head but not the body, it is disqualified
• if the blood was squeezed from the body but not the head, it is valid
• all actions must be done for their own sake in a sin offering for the offering to be valid
• a bird burnt offering need not be sacrificed for its own sake
• both a bird sin or burnt offering must be intentionally typical in manner and place sacrificed or they are disqualified but not punishable by karet 
• both a bird sin or burnt offerings are liable to the halachot of piggul - intending to eat or burn the offering beyond its designated time
• sacrifices must be performed in order with their mitzvot:
• one pinches the nape in silence, without disqualifying intent, squeezes the blood intending to eat what should be eaten and to burn what should be burned, at the right time, etc.
• similarly there is another much longer list of erroneous actions (for example, eating an olive bulk of one's offering in the right place and another olive's bulk in the wrong place) that would not be in accordance with their mitzvot
• Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and shares this principle: 
• if the improper intent regarding the time of the action precedes the intent regarding the area, the offering is piggul and one is liable to karet for eating it
• if the intent regarding the area precedes the intent regarding the time, the offering is disqualified and there is no liability to receive karet
• The rabbis disagree:
• in both of those cases the offering is disqualified and does not include liability to receive karet
• if the intent was to eat half an olive-bulk and to burn half an olive-bulk at an inappropriate time or place, the offering is valid because eating/burning do not join together

In their discussion of this Mishna, the rabbis speak of examples of incorrect actions in the process of sacrificing.  Interestingly, one of those problems is someone other than a priest sacrificing a bird.  This is a helpful commentary; I had wondered why, earlier, the rabbis were referring to the "male priest" who would sacrifice an offering.  Why the "male" priest?  Would someone misunderstand and think that the rabbis were referring to a female priest?  As far as I know, wives and daughters of priests were not priests themselves.  Women who were kohenot were subject to guidelines regarding marriage and tithes, etc., but they were not permitted to perform the rites of the priests.  Perhaps this was unclear at some point.  What might this have looked like?

Another conversation is concerned with whether a priest must use his body for all of these tasks or whether a knife might be permitted just to cut the crop.  Further, the Gemara considers how much of the structures within the neck of the bird must be severed by the thumbnail of the priest. 

Zevachim 64: The Slaughter of Birds as Sin and Burnt Offerings

We move into conversations about birds as offering.  Steinsaltz teaches that fowl do not fall into the same category as formal zevachim, which are slaughtered in an ordinary way.  Today we learn about how birds are slaughtered... in gory detail.  This began in yesterday's daf, where we began to learn a new Mishna.  It taught us that:

• birds as sin offerings are sacrificed at the southwest corner of the altar
• in practice, the sacrifice might happen any place on the altar
• there was a red line painted horizontally around the altar
• the point where that red line met the southwest corner of the altar was the proper location
• a number of rites were performed below the red line:
• sacrificing a bird sin offering
• bringing meal offering near the altar before removing the handful
• pouring out the remaining blood
• a number of rites were performed above the red line:
• the wine libations brought together with animal offerings or on their own
• the water libation on the festival on the festival of Sukkot
• sacrificing a bird burnt offering when there were so many that is was impossible to sacrifice all of them in the southeastern corner where the bird burnt offering was sacrificed
• To ascend to the alter via the ram, one walks along the right side of the ramp toward the southeast corner and circle the altar until they reach the southwest corner
• one should descend by turning on their heels and retracing the path taken when ascending but without retracing the circling

In amud (b) of today's daf, we learn a new Mishna which is much shorter than the other Mishnayot regarding offerings on the altar.  It teaches:

• For the bird sin-offering, the priest pinches off the bird's head by cutting opposite the nape of its neck with his thumbnail 
• the priest keeps the bird's head attached to its body
• The priest sprinkles the bird's blood on the wall of the altar below the red line
• Remaining blood is squeezed from the bird's body over the basin on the altar
• The priests may eat the rest of the bird

A final Mishna is taught at the end of today's daf.  It tells us that:

• For the bird burnt-offering, the priest walked up the ramp, turned to the surrounding ledge to get to the southeast corner of the altar
• The priest pinches off the bird's head by cutting at the nape of its neck with his thumbnail
• the bird's head is separated from its body
• the blood is squeezed out onto the wall of the altar
• the remaining blood is absorbed with salt
• the salt, blood and bird's remains are thrown onto the fire on the altar
• the crop, the feathers, the innards are thrown onto the pile of ashes
• the bird is ripped lengthwise but not separated into two parts
• if the bird is accidentally ripped in half, the offering is valid
• the remaining blood is absorbed with salt and thrown with the body of the bird onto the altar's fire

Zevachim 62: Placement of the Altar, The Gap Between the Altar and the Ramp

Today's daf begins with the rabbis attempting to understand how the builders of the Second Temple were able to locate the exact placement of the altar.  The foundation served as a clear and simple map of the Temple to be rebuilt.  They tell the story of three prophets who returned with the Jews to the site of the Temple.  One showed the size and shape of the altar, one showed where the altar should stand, and one reminded everyone that even without the Temple, sacrifices were made on the altar.  

The rabbis go on to debate and describe where the altar should be placed according to known measurements.  As part of this argument, some of the younger rabbis are compared with "the children of Keturah".  Keturah was Abraham's lesser known wife.  Her children with Abraham's children were seemingly of less stature or intelligence than Isaac, the child of Sarah and Abraham.

The remainder of today's daf discusses building the ramp that leads to the altar.  The rabbis discuss the logs used for building - their size and shape and how the ramp is built.  There is a gap between the ramp and the altar itself, and the rabbis wonder how big that gap might be.  They discuss the flesh and blood that might be tossed from the altar.  Might they have been tossed over the gap?  Or onto the wood arranged for burning nearby?

Zevachim 61: Imperfect Altars

As I write a blog about today's daf, the power is out in Toronto.  Candles are lit.  It makes me think about generations and generations of others studying by candlelight.  

Amud (a) is unusually short.  It teaches us that Rabbi Yishmael believed that the meat of a firstborn offering - an offering of less sanctity - could not be eaten if the altar was damaged or missing.  This opinion was based on the halacha regarding the blood of the firstborn.  The Sages disagree.  They say that the first and second baraitot being discussed both referred to offerings of the most sacred order.  When the second baraita stated that the food could be consumed in two locations, it was referring to the times when the Israelites arrived at new camps, before the Levites had erected the Tabernacle.  

Rashi explained that either we are taught that offerings could be made before the altar was erected, which is incorrect, or that the rabbis made a mistake in their ordering of this action.

In amud (b) the Gemara goes on to describe different altars and how they came to be.  The altar in Shiloh was said to be made from stones, not copper.  We learn that the altar in the second Temple was extended from 28 cubits to 32 cubits on the south and west sides.  This made it look like a Greek 'gamma'.  How could they justify changing something as important as the size of the altar as instructed in the Torah?  Perhaps, we learn, the extension was built to ensure that the earth beneath the altar was covered.  The rabbis might have wished to ensure that all offerings and libations would be placed as intended.

Zevachim 60: The Origin and Nature of Holiness

Some brief points from today's daf:

• we set aside our first fruits, the ma'aser sheni, the second tithe, after first tithes have been held for the priests and the leviim
• the second tithe is taken to Jerusalem by the owner
• if there is too much to carry, the fruit can be traded or redeemed for food that will be eaten in Jerusalem
• Steinsaltz sees the conversation among rabbis as based on a fundamental question: how do we perform these mitzvot when the Temple is no longer standing?
• The Gemara looks to the laws regarding redemption of a first born animal that is brought to the Temple as an offering, the bechor
• Can there be holiness if the holiness of the Temple no longer exists?
• Perhaps the holiness of Eretz Yisrael and the holiness of Jerusalem are the same
• Tosafot: if the Temple takes the holiness away from HaAretz, then it would take the holiness away from Jerusalem
• The Rambam: even if the holiness of HaAretz is taken away, the holiness of Jerusalem cannot be removed because it comes from the presence of G-d
• When the second Temple was rebuilt with the return of the Jews, holiness was centred in that Temple
• Similarly, HaAretz derives its holiness from Jerusalem
• Thus the rabbis teach us that holiness can last forever
• This helps us to understand the rabbis apologetic stance regarding blood being poured in the wrong way; the altar being imperfect, etc.

Zevachim 59: Consecrating the Temple Courtyard; Too Many Offerings?

After considering the different offerings and how they should be sacrificed, today's daf considers the physical items required for this service.  Steinsaltz teaches us that the navi in  Sefer Melachim describes the day that the Temple was consecrated by King Solomon.  The king was made to consecrate the floor of the Temple courtyard so that it would be prepared for sacrifices.  The original altar that was carried from the Tabernacle along with other sacrificial utensils was too small to accommodate the animals brought as sacrifices that day.

Rabbi Yosei suggests that the notion that the altar was too small was just a metaphor.  The altar had become disqualified for use.  One suggestion was that the old copper altar filled with earth was not too small; instead it was not a permanent altar made of wood and copper as required in the Temple courtyard.  

Rabbi Yosei argues that when King Solomon began his rule, he went to Giv'on to sacrifice on the original altar.  He brought 1000 burnt offerings.  Rashi taught that a heavenly fire played a role in burning the sacrifices.  This increased the number of sacrifices that could be burned.  When the Temple was consecrated, King Solomon was said to bring 22000 oxen as burnt offerings as well as 20000 sheep.

Again I am reminded about the power of blood; the notion that this 'life force' can expiate sins or transform states or status.  

Zevachim 58: North and South as Metaphor for Status; Different Strokes

Some very brief thoughts about today's daf:

• we are introduced to Perek VI beginning with a new Mishna:
• Rabbi Yosei says that sacrifices of the most sacred over that were slaughtered on top of the alter have a status as if they were slaughtered in the north
• thus those offerings are valid
• the status of the area from the halfway point of the altar and to the south is as if it is the south
• offerings of the most sacred order slaughtered there are thus disqualified
• the status of the area from the halfway point of the altar and to the north is like that of the north
• of course, the Gemara examines different offerings, their status, and where they were slaughtered
• great attention is paid to the measurements, the type of item being measured, and outliers as examples

I remember learning about the laws of Yom Kippur and the laws of Sukkot.  They were very different; their practice would appeal to different types of people, even though all of us are asked to fulfill those mitzvot.  Today I am reminded again about the different types of scholars who would learn these dapim and who would practice what they learned.  Today's daf likely would appeal to the builder, the engineer, the mathematician, the woodcarver, the artisan.

Zevachim 57: Offerings of Lesser Sanctity; the Vineyard

At the end of yesterday’s daf, we learned a new Mishna:  The firstborn offering, the animal tithe offering and the Paschal offering are all considered to be offerings of lesser sanctity. This indicates that:

·     They can be slaughtered anywhere in the Temple courtyard

·     The blood requires one placement

·     The priest must place the blood so that it goes on the base of the altar

The halacha is different for each of these offerings:

·     The firstborn offering is eaten by the priests

·     The animal tithe offering is eaten by any ritually pure Jewish person

·     The animal tithe offering can be eaten anywhere in Jerusalem, prepared in   any way, until the end of two days and one night

·     The Pascal offering is eaten only at night, only until midnight of the day it was slaughtered, and only by those who registered in advance to partake of that offering

·     The Pascal offering must be roasted; it cannot be prepared in any other manner

Of course, the Gemara looks for prooftexts to explain why we know that these halachot apply.   Comparisons between one thing that is known and another that is not known are repeatedly used as prooftext.  Sometimes the arguments are convincing; at other times it is difficult to see a connection between the two elements at all.  

Today's daf reminds us that the yeshiva in Yavne established after the destruction of the second Temple was known as the Kerem b'Yavne, the grapevine of Yavne. This was because of the seating of its students and not because of an actual vineyard growing there.