Zevachim 69 - Shabbat November 22, 2 Kislev
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
The Gemara continues its discussion on whether melika performed by a non-kohen renders the bird a neveila, thereby imparting ritual impurity. Chizkiyah presents a ruling: if a non-kohen performs melika and the bird is subsequently placed on the altar, it is not removed. However, in a parallel case involving kmitza performed by a non-kohen, the offering would be removed. This raises the question - why is there a distinction between the two cases? A braita is cited to provide the Torah source for the Mishna’s rulings regarding melika performed with the left hand, at night, and in other...
info_outline
Zevachim 68 - Rosh Chodesh Kislev - November 21, 1 Kislev
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
info_outline
Zevachim 67 - November 20, 29 Cheshvan
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
info_outline
Zevachim 66 - November 19 - 28 Cheshvan
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
info_outline
Zevachim 66 - November 19 - 28 Cheshvan
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
info_outline
Zevachim 65 - November 18, 27 Cheshvan
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
The Mishna, as in Chapter 2 (Zevachim 29b), outlines various scenarios in which a thought can, or cannot, render a sacrifice pigul, thereby making consumption of the meat punishable/not punishable by karet. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with one of the rulings and maintains that if melika (the ritual slaughter of a bird) was performed with the intent to offer the blood beyond its designated time, and the blood was then squeezed with the intent to burn the flesh outside the Azara (Temple courtyard), the offering would be considered pigul. This is because, although the sacrifice was already...
info_outline
Zevachim 64 - November 17, 26 Cheshvan
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Three actions were performed at the bottom of the altar on the southwest side, as derived from verses in the Torah. The bird burnt offering was usually brought on the southeast side so that the kohen could be close to the beit hadeshen, where parts of the bird were discarded. Three actions were performed at the top of the altar on the southwest side, and the kohen performing the action would go directly there instead of walking around the altar entirely. The reason was to avoid damaging the items from the smoke rising at the top of the altar. The Mishna describes in detail how the bird sin...
info_outline
Zevachim 63 - November 16, 25 Cheshvan
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
All ramps in the Temple had a slope of three cubits in length for every one cubit of height, except for the ramp of the altar, which had a gentler incline of three and five-ninths cubits. This was to accommodate the kohanim, who had to carry the animal body parts up to the top of the altar. The kmitza—a handful taken from the meal offering—could be performed anywhere within the Azara (Temple courtyard). The remainder of the offering was eaten by male kohanim, could be prepared in any manner, and was permitted to be eaten only on that day and the following night until midnight. Rabbi Elazar...
info_outline
Zevachim 62 - Shabbat November 15, 24 Cheshvan
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Rav Yosef offers two additional explanations for why the altar in the Second Temple was constructed larger than the altar in the First Temple. When the Second Temple was built, how did they determine the correct location for the altar? Three explanations are brought. Which components of the altar are essential for carrying out sacrificial rites? The ramp of the altar was positioned on its southern side, measuring sixteen cubits in width and thirty-two cubits in length. Rav Huna cites a source to confirm that the ramp was indeed located in the south. A braita presents an alternative source from...
info_outline
Zevachim 61 - November 14, 23 Cheshvan
Daf Yomi for Women - Hadran
Can kodshim kalim be eaten when there is no altar? Abaye proved from a braita of Rabbi Yishmael that they cannot be eaten. Rabbi Yirmia raised a difficulty against Abaye from a contradiction between braitot, resolving it in a way that one would conclude that kodshim kalim could be eaten even without an altar. However, Ravina provides an alternative resolution to the contradiction, and the Gemara brings another. Rav Huna says in the name of Rav that the altar in the Tabernacle of Shilo was made of stone. However, a difficulty is raised against this from a braita that explains that the...
info_outlineRav Huna holds that the one who claims the item was lost or stolen, must swear that the item is no longer in their possession. The Gemara raises a contradiction from a braita and suggests four, one of which is rejected. A case is brought where one claimed jewels were lost and Rav Nachman's court seized his palace to replace the lost jewel. When he then produced the "lost" item which had gone up in value, Rav Nachman said to give him his palace back and return the jewels to the owner. Rava tried to argue with this ruling based on our Mishna saying that he should have acquired rights to the appreciation by having paid for the jewels. But then he realizes the difference between the cases and explains that. In connection with this, the Gemara raises the issue regarding a loan - if it gets repaid by foreclosing on land, if and when the borrower has the money to pay, can the borrower get his/her land back? In Nehardea they ruled that one can get back the land and there is a debate about whether or not there is a time limit. The ruling is that there is no time limit because of l'fnim meshurat ha'din, it is the right thing to do, even if not required by the letter of the law. However, there are different permutations of the case in which the law would not apply. At what point of foreclosure does the creditor get rights to the proceeds of the land? If one rents an animal and then lends it to someone else and it dies in a typical manner (for which a borrower is responsible and a renter is not), there is a debate about to whom the borrower pays - to the renter (after the renter swears that it died in a typical manner) or to the original owner. The Gemara questions exactly by what mechanism the renter acquires rights to the animal. A creative, extreme case is discussed in which an owner can borrow from a renter their item and incur payment for four animals. Some disagree and hold it would only be two animals. What is the case?