Zevachim 97bזבחים צ״ז ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
97bצ״ז ב

עד שיבלע בבשרה

This teaches that this halakha does not apply unless the other food absorbs something of the sin offering into its meat.

יכול נגע במקצת חתיכה יהא כולו פסול ת"ל יגע הנוגע פסול הא כיצד חותך את מקום שבלע בבשרה ולא בגידין ולא בעצמות ולא בקרנים ולא בטלפים

One might have thought that if the sin offering touched part of a piece of something that absorbed flavor from the sin offering, the entire piece should become disqualified. To counter this, the verse states: “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred” (Leviticus 6:20), to teach that only the section that touches the sin offering is disqualified. How so? What can be done with an item when a section of it is disqualified? One slices off the section of the piece that absorbed the disqualified matter. Additionally, the verse states: “Whatever shall touch its flesh,” but an item is not disqualified if it touches the sin offering’s sinews, nor its bones, nor its horns, nor its hooves.

יקדש להיות כמוה הא כיצד אם פסולה היא תפסל [ואם] כשרה היא תאכל כחמור שבה

§ The baraita continues to interpret the same verse. “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred,” teaches: Whatever touches it becomes like it, with regard to its status. How so? If the sin offering is disqualified, due to any disqualification, whatever touches it becomes disqualified. And if it is fit, whatever touches it must be eaten in accordance with the stringent regulations that apply to the sin offering. Therefore, a piece of meat that touches the meat of a sin offering may be eaten only in accordance with the terms of the consumption of a sin offering, e.g., it may be eaten only by male priests, and only for one day and one night.

אמאי וניתי עשה ולידחי את לא תעשה אמר רבא אין עושה דוחה את לא תעשה שבמקדש

The Gemara asks: If sacrificial meat touched the meat of a disqualified sin offering, why should the sacrificial meat become forbidden? Should not the positive mitzva of eating the sacrificial meat come and override the prohibition against eating the disqualified substance that was absorbed in it? Rava said: A positive mitzva does not override a prohibition that relates to the Temple.

שנאמר (שמות יב, מו) ועצם לא תשברו בו ר"ש בן מנסיא אומר אחד עצם שיש בו מוח ואחד עצם שאין בו מוח אמאי ניתי עשה ולידחי את לא תעשה אלא אין עשה דוחה לא תעשה שבמקדש

Rav’s opinion relates to that which is taught in a baraita: As it is stated in a verse concerning the Paschal offering: “Nor shall you break a bone of it” (Exodus 12:46). Rabbi Shimon ben Menasya says: Both a bone that contains marrow and a bone that does not contain marrow are included in the prohibition. This statement is analyzed: If one means to break a bone in order to eat its marrow, why would that be prohibited? Should not the positive mitzva of eating the edible parts of the offering, including the marrow, come and override the prohibition of not breaking a bone of the Paschal offering? Rather, it must be that a positive mitzva does not override a prohibition that relates to the Temple.

רב אשי אמר יקדש עשה הוא ואין עשה דוחה את לא תעשה ועשה

Rav Ashi said: If sacrificial meat touches a disqualified sin offering, this is not simply a case of a positive mitzva in conflict with a prohibition. Because the verse states: “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred” (Leviticus 6:20), treating the item as consecrated is itself a positive mitzva. Consequently, both a positive mitzva and a prohibition stand in opposition to eating that sacrificial meat, and a positive mitzva does not override both a prohibition and a positive mitzva.

אשכחן חטאת דמתקדש בבלוע שאר קדשים מנלן אמר שמואל משום ר"א (ויקרא ז, לז) זאת התורה לעולה ולמנחה ולחטאת ולאשם ולמילואים ולזבח השלמים

§ With regard to a sin offering, the verse states: “Whatever shall touch its flesh shall be sacred.” The Gemara asks: We found a source teaching that with regard to a sin offering, whatever it touches becomes sanctified through that which is absorbed from the sin offering. From where do we derive that this is also the halakha concerning the rest of the sacred offerings? Shmuel says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: It is stated: “This is the law of the burnt offering, of the meal offering, and of the sin offering, and of the guilt offering, and of the inauguration offering, and of the sacrifice of peace offerings” (Leviticus 7:37). This verse connects all of the specified offerings, such that individual aspects of each offering are applicable to all of the offerings.

[לעולה] כי עולה מה עולה טעונה כלי אף כל טעונה כלי מאי כלי אילימא מזרק בשלמי ציבור נמי כתיב בהו (שמות כד, ו) ויקח משה חצי הדם וישם באגנות

The Gemara details these aspects. The verse states “of the burnt offering” to teach that all of the offerings are like a burnt offering in that just as a burnt offering requires a utensil in its preparation, so too do all animal offerings require a utensil. What is the utensil? If we say it is a bowl, a utensil used for collecting the blood, as were used in the burnt offerings that were sacrificed at Mount Sinai, that cannot be correct, since the source for a vessel for collecting blood does not need to be derived from the use of one in a burnt offering. With regard to communal peace offerings it is also written of them: “And they offered burnt offerings, and they sacrificed peace offerings…And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins” (Exodus 24:5–6).

אלא דסכין ועולה גופה מנלן דכתיב (בראשית כב, י) וישלח אברהם את ידו ויקח את המאכלת והתם עולה הוא דכתיב (בראשית כב, יג) ויעלהו לעולה תחת בנו

Rather, the term: Utensil, must be stated of a knife, as the slaughtering may be performed only with a knife and not with a sharp stone or reed. The Gemara asks: And with regard to a burnt offering itself, from where do we derive that it must be slaughtered with a knife? This is learned from that which is written: “And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slaughter his son” (Genesis 22:10); and there, Abraham was offering a burnt offering, as it is written: “And offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son” (Genesis 22:13).

מנחה מה מנחה אינה נאכלת אלא לזכרי כהונה אף כל אינם נאכלין אלא לזכרי כהונה מאי היא אי חטאת ואשם בהדיא כתיב בהו (ויקרא ז, ו) כל זכר בכהנים יאכלנו

The Gemara continues to expound the aforementioned verse (Leviticus 7:37). When the verse mentions a meal offering, it teaches that just as a meal offering is eaten only by males of the priesthood (see Leviticus 6:9–11), so too are all of the offerings mentioned in this verse eaten only by males of the priesthood. The Gemara asks: With regard to what offering is it that this halakha must be derived? If one suggests it is with regard to the sin offering and the guilt offering, this halakha is explicitly written of them. With regard to the sin offering, it is stated: “Every male among the priests may eat it” (Leviticus 6:22); and with regard to the guilt offering, it is stated: “Every male among the priests may eat of it” (Leviticus 7:6).

ואי שלמי ציבור מריבוייא דקרא אתי (במדבר יח, י) בקדש הקדשים תאכלנו כל זכר יאכל אותו לימד על שלמי ציבור שאינן נאכלין אלא לזכרי כהונה

And if one suggests that the halakha must be derived with regard to communal peace offerings, i.e., the two lambs that were sacrificed as communal offerings on Shavuot together with the offering of the two loaves (see Leviticus 23:19), this halakha is derived from the amplification of the verse that is stated with regard to meal offerings, sin offerings, and guilt offerings. The verse states: “In a most sacred place shall you eat of it; every male may eat it” (Numbers 18:10), and it is taught in a baraita: The verse teaches with regard to communal peace offerings that they are eaten only by males of priestly families.

תנאי היא

The Gemara explains: It is a dispute between tanna’im.