The southeast corner of the altar didn't have a base - but what does that mean? Was there no physical base or does it mean that the base there couldn't be used for the blood? Perhaps it's because of the divide in the property in the portions of Yehudah and Binyamin - where the sacrifice had to be done in Yehudah's portion. Also, the selection of David and Samuel of the place on the hill upon which the Temple would be built - as among the highest places around, "between the shoulders."
--------
14:30
--------
14:30
Zevahim 53: The Temple's Tribal Lands
2 mishnayot! On sin-offerings - the procedure of how the slaughter, blood, altar, and eating the portions of the offering were all handled. This itemization includes the route the kohen would take on ascending the altar and walking around it (on the top) for the sake of putting the blood on the corners of the altar, with two views on how precisely those placements that needed to happen. Plus, a discussion of the red line that separates between the upper blood and the lower blood on the altar, and the source for it. Also - delineating kodshei kodshim and kodshei kalim, the gradations of holiness of the different sacrifices. Plus, how the division of the land according to tribes is manifest in the Temple - with part of it in Yehudah's portion and part of it in Binyamin's portion.
--------
18:47
--------
18:47
Zevahim 52: Blood on the Base of the Altar
More on the pouring the remaining blood after sprinkling on the base of the altar.... And the way to conclude the requirements regarding this blood - via logical inference instead of biblical text making the point. The concern being whether this pouring would disqualify the offering, though it seems that everyone agrees that it will not. Which raises the question as to the blood of a bird offering, which might be disqualifying (it's a machloket), moving a step or two away from the original premise of a question. Also, there is, of course, a view that the pouring of the blood is essential (meaning, if it were not done, it would disqualify the offering after all) - as found in a long baraita. But all that material really comes to teach the point of the essential nature of the pouring. Which, of course, is then refuted - or the attempt is made. Plus, a slew of practical questions for which we don't have immediate answers.
--------
25:19
--------
25:19
Zevahim 51: Binyan Av
Exegetical prowess: "binyan av" - learning the narrow case from a more general case. This category is added to the others: gezerah shavah, kal va-chomer, and hekesh. And the Gemara uses a baraita about disqualified blood as learned from a "binyan av" to probe whether it could then be applied to another binyan av. But that would mean deriving a law regarding that which was improperly done to that which was properly done, and that is difficult. And binyan av is determined to be a less used approach. Also, back to the halakhot about pouring the remaining blood - after the sprinkling - on the western side of the base of the external altar. And what might have been thought to do otherwise. But does the blood really need to be poured out there, when it doesn't bring about atonement or prevent it if it weren't done?
--------
17:13
--------
17:13
Zevahim 50: Analogies, Comparisons, and Inferences
More on rabbinic interpretation of the biblical text and the rules about how that works - by means of gezarah shavah, kal va-chomer, hekesh. What happens when the sages themselves aren't sure that they're inferences and analogies work in the derivation of halakhot? When can logic triumph over textual inference?
Learning the daf? We have something for you to think about. Not learning the daf? We have something for you to think about! (Along with a taste of the daf...)
Join the conversation with us!
Italia