Zevachim 108a

זבחים ק״ח ע״א

Learn Zevachim 108a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Zevachim 108a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Liability for offering outside the עזרה, a טמא who eats impure קודש, and the stringencies of slaughtering versus offering up outside

Overview

The amud opens with a question: if a pigeon's head has less than a כזית of meat, does the salt stuck to it count toward the כזית? Salt differs from a bone in ways that could matter to both רבי יוחנן and ריש לקיש, and the question ends in תיקו. Next the גמרא brings two defenses of רבי יוסי הגלילי, who exempts one who slaughters outside and then offers up outside. רבי says the animal was never fit, and רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון says the מזבח would not accept it. זעירי and רבה each name a case where these two reasons give different rulings. Then the גמרא explains the dispute about a טמא who eats impure קודש. רבא says they argue only when the meat became impure first, and the question is whether we say מיגו. רב אשי adds that the body's impurity is not clearly more severe than the meat's. A new משנה then compares slaughtering and offering up outside, and the גמרא begins working out which words in the פסוקים teach each of its rules, a discussion that continues on the next amud.

Opening lines

The steps (32)

1. QuestionDoes salt help a pigeon head reach a כזית?
2. ChallengeIsn't this the same as the known מחלוקת?
3. ResolutionThe question works for both sides
4. ResolutionWhy רבי יוחנן might not count salt
5. ResolutionWhy ריש לקיש might count salt
6. ConclusionThe question stays unresolved
7. StatementQuoting the opinion of רבי יוסי הגלילי in the משנה
8. Resolutionרבי's defense: the animal once had a moment of being fit
9. Resolutionרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון's defense: the מזבח would accept it
10. QuestionWhat is the difference between the two defenses?
11. Responseזעירי: the difference is an animal slaughtered at night
12. Responseרבה: The difference is blood collected in a כלי חול
13. StatementQuoting the משנה about an impure person who ate sacrificial meat
14. ChallengeThe רבנן's argument looks too strong to answer
15. Resolutionרבא: When the person became impure first, everyone agrees he is liable
16. ResolutionThe real dispute: the meat became impure first
17. ChallengeEven without מיגו, the more severe prohibition should take effect
18. ResolutionMaybe the meat's impurity is the more severe one
19. StatementEach act has its own stringency
20. StatementSlaughtering for an ordinary purpose
21. StatementTwo people doing the act together
22. StatementOffering up several times
23. StatementMust it be on an altar?
24. QuestionWhy is offering up for an ordinary purpose exempt?
25. ResponseThe word 'to ה׳' exempts offering up for an ordinary purpose
26. ChallengeBut the slaughtering verse also says 'to ה׳'
27. ResolutionSlaughtering is different because of 'any man'
28. ChallengeBut offering up also says 'any man'
29. ResolutionBy offering up, 'any man' teaches that two people are liable
30. ChallengeThen by slaughtering, two people should also be liable
31. ResolutionSlaughtering says 'that man', meaning one and not two
32. ChallengeBut offering up also says 'that man'