Why carry around heavy emotional baggage? #Vayishlakh#parashathashavua#devartorah

In college, my roommate studied William Shakespeare’s writing for a semester. The class required a giant textbook containing everything Shakespeare had ever written. The book weighed several pounds, and he had to carry it for hours at a time. Lugging that weight around caused his back to hurt, and it eventually broke a metal fastener on his bookbag.

Some things are just too heavy for us to carry. Emotional baggage from past hurt, for example, can weigh us down with bitterness and hatred. But God wants us to have freedom through forgiving people and, when possible, reconciling with them. The deeper the pain, the longer this may take. That’s okay. It took many years for Esau to forgive Jacob for stealing his birthright and blessing (Genesis 27:36).

When the two finally reunited, Esau graciously forgave his brother and even “embraced him” (33:4). Not a word was exchanged before they both burst into tears. Over time, Esau had let go of the anger that made him consider murder (27:41). And all those years gave Jacob the chance to see the magnitude of how he’d harmed his brother. He was humble and respectful throughout the reunion (33:8-11).

In the end, both brothers came to the place where neither required anything from the other (vv. 9, 15). It was enough to forgive and be forgiven and walk away free from the heavy baggage of the past. Wayne Chirisa wrote, “Reconciliation is not about forgetting, it’s about remembering without fear or vengeance.”

Why lug around heavy baggage?

 

 

 

 

Rava summarizes the rules of nullification Zevakhim 79

 

On today’s daf TB Zevakhim 79 Rava summarizes the rules of nullification in different kinds of mixtures. These rules will become more and more relevant when we study the laws of kashrut. “Rava says, in summary of these halakhot: The Sages said that the status of an item in a mixture is determined by the taste, i.e., if the taste of one substance is noticeable in a mixture with another substance it is not nullified, and the Sages said that a prohibited item is nullified by the majority, and the Sages also said that the status of an item in a mixture is determined by the appearance, i.e., if the appearance of a substance is recognizable in a mixture it is not nullified. Rava elaborates: With regard to a type of food mixed with food not of its own type, the nullification is determined by the taste (מִין בְשֶאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ בְטַעְמָא). In the case of a type of food mixed with food of its own type, the nullification is determined by the majority (מִין בְמִינוֹ  בְרוּבָא). In a case where there is a possibility to determine the status of an item based on appearance, the nullification is by appearance. (חֲזוּתָא  בְמַרְאֶה)” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rambam elaborates in his Mishneh Torah.

1.    מִין בְשֶאֵינוֹ מִינוֹ בְטַעְמָא “When a forbidden substance becomes mixed with a permitted substance of another type, [it causes it to become forbidden] if its flavor can be detected. When [a forbidden substance becomes mixed with a permitted substance of] the same type and it is impossible to detect [the forbidden substance] by its flavor, its presence becomes nullified if there is a majority [of the permitted substance].

“What is implied? When the fat of the kidneys falls into beans and becomes dissolved, the beans should be tasted. If the taste of fat cannot be detected, they are permitted. If [not only] the taste, [but also] the substance of the fat is present, they are forbidden according to Scriptural Law. If the flavor could be detected, but there is no substance, they are forbidden by Rabbinic Law…

(Obviously a Jew cannot taste mixture lest he actually taste the forbidden food and transgress the law of the Torah. One summons a Gentile to sample the mixture to see if he can taste the forbidden food. But generally we use the following rules of thumb-gg) Into what quantity [of a permitted substance] must a forbidden substance be mixed for it to be considered nullified because of its tiny proportion? [Each forbidden substance according to] the measure the Sages specified for it. There are substances that are nullified in a mixture 60 times its size (non sanctified food like a stew for tonight’s dinner-gg), others in a mixture 100 times its size (terumah-gg), and still others in a mixture 200 times its size. (kelayim and orlah-gg)” (Forbidden foods 15:1-2, 5) (Sefaria.org translation)

 

The Shulkhan Arukh poskins in Yoreh De’ah

 

2.    מִין בְמִינוֹ  בְרוּבָא “If the mixture is composed of two foods of the same nature  (like 2 types of meat, for example a kosher cut of meat and a nonkosher cut of meat -gg) and the pot is overturned in such a way that it is impossible to determine if the quantity of the permitted food was indeed sixty times greater than that of the forbidden food, if it was recognized before the accident that the permitted food made up the majority of the mixture, it is permitted; otherwise, it is forbidden.
GLOSS: Foods with the same name, although of different forms, are of the same nature; in this case, it is the similarity of name, not taste.” (88:1) (Sefaria.org translation)

Rambam gives the example from our daf

3.    חֲזוּתָא  בְמַרְאֶה “A mikveh is not disqualified, neither because of a change of its water's taste, nor a change of its smell, only because its color changes. Any substance that may not be used to constitute a mikveh initially disqualifies one, if it causes its color to change.
What is implied? Wine, milk, blood, or other liquids that are classified as fruit juices do not disqualify a mikveh if three lugim of them fall into it, because it was only said that three lugim of drawn water disqualify a mikveh. They do, however, disqualify it if they change the color of its water.” Mishneh Torah, Sefer Toharah, Mikvaot 7:1) (Sefaria.org translation)

Zevakhim 73 Two more kashrut principles

Today’s daf TB Zevakhim 73 discusses the application of two more kashrut principles. This is the scenario. There are nine animals waiting to be sacrificed. And ineligible animal gets mixed in with the other nine animals and we don’t know which one is the ineligible one. The Mishnah teaches us that all 10 become ineligible to be offered up on the altar. But what is the halakha if a kohen separates one out anyway and sacrifices it. Is this sacrifice acceptable or not?

The first principle is “Any item that separates from a group is assumed to have separated from the majority (כֹל דְפָרֵישׁ  מֵרוּבָא פָרֵישׁ). Accordingly, the animal that was sacrificed is presumed to be fit. One can continue in this manner until only two animals from the mixture remain.” (Sefaria.org translation) For this principle to be operative whatever separated from the majority must be in motion.

The second principle is “anything stationary is considered as though it was half and half (כׇל קָבוּעַ כְמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה דָמֵי), i.e., equally balanced, and it remains a case of uncertainty.”(Sefaria.org translation) thee classic example of this principle is the case where there are 10 butchers on the same street. Nine out of the ten are kosher butchers. If you find a piece of meat on the street and you don’t know which butcher shop it came from, because the butcher shops are stationary halakha considers that the meat has a 50% probability of coming from the nonkosher butcher. Consequently, one may not take this lost piece of meat, prepare it, and eat it.

The Gemara reaches the conclusion that the above kohen’s sacrifice is unacceptable even if you spook the animals to get them moving in order to apply the first principle. Rava explains the reasoning behind this decision. “Rava says that one may not allow the animals to be sacrificed by moving them due to a decree that if this is allowed, one may, in another circumstance, allow them to be sacrificed even when they are taken from a fixed location.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

#Thanksgiving#devartorah

From our nation’s earliest days, Thanksgiving has been more than a holiday—it has been a holy invitation. A call for each of us to pause, reflect, and acknowledge that every blessing we enjoy—our freedom, our families, our daily bread—flows from the gracious hand of our Almighty God.

Gratitude has always been woven into the fabric of America’s story.

When George Washington took office as our first president, he issued the nation’s very first presidential proclamation—not for war, not for commerce, but for thanksgiving and prayer. In that 1789 declaration, Washington urged the people to unite in giving thanks:

“… that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country …”

In those simple yet powerful words, President Washington recognized that the birth of a nation—and the preservation of its liberty—was possible thanks to God’s providence.

Decades later, when America was torn apart by civil war, President Abraham Lincoln also turned the nation’s eyes heavenward. His 1863 proclamation—issued in the midst of unimaginable suffering—called the American people to give thanks and to seek the healing hand of God:

“I do therefore invite my fellow citizens … to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens … to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and Union.”

Separated by nearly a century, Washington and Lincoln shared a common revelation: true thanksgiving is not dependent on peace or prosperity—it is born in the recognition that God sustains us. Whether in abundance or adversity, gratitude turns our hearts toward the One who holds our future.

 

Thanksgiving is not merely a once-a-year observance—it’s a posture of the heart. It’s how we approach God in prayer and how we remain anchored in faith. Every weekday morning we recite Psalm 100. “A psalm of Thanksgiving. Raise a shout for the Lord, all the earth; worship the Lord in gladness; come into His presence with shouts of joy. Acknowledge that the Lord is God. He made us and we are His, His people, the flock He tends.” (vs. 1-3)

When gratitude fills our prayers, peace fills our hearts. Thanksgiving reminds us that every answered prayer, every breath of hope, every act of mercy is a testimony of God’s unfailing goodness.

I pray that this Thanksgiving you are surrounded by loved ones and laughter. May this Thanksgiving be more than a meal or a moment—may it be a renewal of our relationship with the Lord who has guided us, protected us, and blessed us from generation to generation.

From my family to yours, may your heart be full, your home be peaceful, and your spirit overflow with gratitude.  

Happy Thanksgiving!

 

Rabbi Greene

Zevakhim 72 Annulment of forbidden items in a mixture

Yesterday we began the eighth chapter of our massekhet. It introduces the concept of annulment of mixtures when it comes to sacrificial animals. The Mishnah on TB Zevakhim 70b begins “All the offerings that were intermingled with animals from which deriving benefit is forbidden, e.g., sin offerings left to die, or with an ox that was sentenced to be stoned, even if the ratio is one in ten thousand, deriving benefit from them all is prohibited and they all must die.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Even though these principles of annulment here in our Gemara deal with sacrifices, they have real life application today in the realm of kashrut. I thought I would give you a crash course of the different ratios of annulment  (בִּיטוּל)

When taste is involved, the ratio of annulment is 60:1. For example: if you’re cooking a large part of meat chollent and some milk accidentally spilled into the pot, if there is 60 times more chollent in the pot than milk, then you can consider the milk annulled and you can serve the chollent without violating the law of mixing milk and meat together. (Nevertheless, you still have to kasher the pot afterwards.)

When the mixture is terumah (the tithe given to the kohanim) ratio is 100:1.

When the mixture is kelayim (prohibition against eating the fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting) or orlah (prohibition of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard) the ratio is 200:1.

In a case of a mixture where involved taste, terumah, kelayim or orlah is not involved, all you need is a simple majority for annulment.

There are some cases where the sages completely block the concept of annulment. One such opportunity a blockage is found on our daf TB Zevakhim 72. When the items are considered extremely important (חָשׁוּב), the items are never annulled in a mixture. There are two subcategories of this type of blockage.

1.    חֲתִיכָה הָרְאוּיָה לְהִתְכַּבֵּד-something that is suitable to give honor with it by placing it before guests. For example, an expensive cut of a steak.

2.    דָּבָר שֶׁבְּמִנְיָן-Something that is sold by count. For example, eggs. In a supermarket you can only by a dozen eggs, 18 eggs, or 24 eggs. You can never ever just by one egg.

The sages limit importance to these items. “And they are: Nuts with brittle shells, and pomegranates from Badan, and sealed barrels of wine, and beet greens, and cabbage stalks, and Greek gourd. Rabbi Akiva adds: Loaves of a homeowner are also in this category.” (Sefaria.org translation)   

The Gemara quotes Rabbi Meir saying, “Rabbi Meir would say: Any item whose manner is to be counted renders its mixture prohibited, as it is considered significant and cannot be nullified.” (Sefaria.org translation)   According to Rabbi Yokhanan, only those things that are exclusively counted renders the mixture prohibited. Reish Lakish holds that Rabbi Meir definition is more expensive. According to him, only those things that are generally sold by count can render the mixture prohibited.

The last time one may pray the afternoon service, minkha, according to Rebbeinu Tam TB Zevakhim 56

 The Torah sets different time limitations for different sacrifices. A shelamim, a well-being sacrifice, may be eaten for the time period over two days and one night. The time allotted for a Kohen to eat a khatat, a sin offering, is over one day and one night. The Paschal lamb is only eaten at night until midnight. There’s also a time limitation for the sprinkling of the blood on the altar. A person has all day until sunset to sprinkle the blood on the altar. If he doesn’t, the blood is considered notar (נותר), past its expiration date, and must be disposed of properly. Daf TB Zevakhim 56 wants to know how we know this halakha.

“Rav Yitzḥak bar Avudimi says: From where is it derived that the blood of offerings becomes disqualified at sunset and can no longer be presented on the altar? This is as it is stated in the verse: “But if the sacrifice of his offering be a vow, or a gift offering, it shall be eaten on the day that he sacrifices his offering [zivḥo], and on the morrow” (Leviticus 7:16). This means that on the day that you slaughter [zove’aḥ] the offering you sacrifice it on the altar and present its blood. But on the day that you do not slaughter the offering you may not sacrifice it and present its blood.” (Sefaria org translation)

This discussion actually has practical application today. According to one rabbinic source, the morning prayers, shakharit, and the afternoon prayers, minkha, are all replacements for the morning and afternoon daily sacrifices temidim. Obviously, there are time limitations for the services like they were time limitations for the daily temidim. It is too late to pray minkha after the sun sets and night begins.

Tosefot ד"ה מִנַיִן לְדָם cites Rebbeinu Tam’s approach in determining when night begins. He understands the setting of the sun as a process. Sheki’at hakhama

(הַחַמָּה שְׁקִיעַת) is when the sun sets below the horizon. Maysheki’at hakhama (מֵשְקִיעַת הַחַמָה) describes a much longer period of time. Twilight (bein hashamasot-בּין השמשות) begins 58 ½ minutes after the sun just begins to set. Twilight only last 13 ½ minutes. According to Rebbeinu Tam night (tzait hakokhavim-צאת הכוכבים) occurs 72 minutes after the initial sunset. This means that one who holds by Rebbeinu Tam’s opinion has a longer time to squeeze in minkha and has to wait a longer time before Shabbat ends.

Four reasons why Benjamin merited the Temple in his territory Zevakhim 53b-54

When the land of Israel was divided amongst the tribes, Benjamin received the territory in which the Temple, or at least the altar and the holy of holies was going to be built. Nevertheless, the tribe of Judah encroached upon Benjamin’s territory. Yesterday’s daf TB Zevakhim 53b and today’s daf TB Zevakhim 54 describes this situation and partially explains why the Benjamin was awarded with the building of the Temple in his territory.

“The Gemara asks: What is the reason that there was no base on the southeast corner of the altar? Rabbi Elazar says: Because it was not in the portion of land of the one who tears, i.e., the tribe of Benjamin, as he is described in the following manner: “Benjamin is a wolf that tears apart; in the morning he devours the prey, and in the evening he divides the spoil” (Genesis 49:27). As Rav Shmuel, son of Rav Yitzḥak, says: The altar would consume, i.e., occupy, one cubit of the portion of Judah. The part of the altar in Judah’s portion was the southeast corner of the base, and therefore there was no base on that corner.

“Rabbi Levi bar Ḥama says that Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: A strip of land emerged from the portion of Judah and entered into the portion of Benjamin, and the southeast corner of the base was on that strip. And the tribe of Benjamin the righteous would agonize over it every day, desiring to take it into its portion, due to its unique sanctity. As it is stated in Moses’ blessing to the tribe of Benjamin:

 

“‘He covers it throughout the day, and He dwells between his shoulders” (Deuteronomy 33:12). The term “covers it” is understood to mean that Benjamin is continually focused upon that site. Therefore, Benjamin the righteous was privileged and became the host of the Holy One, Blessed be He, as the Holy of Holies was built in his portion. As it is stated: “And He dwells between his shoulders.’” (Sefaria.org translation)

 

Midrash Yalkut Shimoni simon 957 provides four reasons why Benjamin merited the Temple was going to be built in his territory.

 

1)    Benjamin was the youngest and smallest of the tribes. A midrash uses a parable of a king visiting his sons; the youngest (Benjamin) felt unworthy to host the king entirely, which showed humility and triggered God's compassion, leading to the Temple being placed in his portion.

 

2)    Benjamin was the only brother who was born in the land of Israel.

 

3)     Benjamin had no portion in the selling of Joseph.

 

4)    Benjamin was the son who took care of his father in his father’s old age.

 

 

In these times thank God for laughter #Vayera#devartorah#parashathashavua

Comedian John Branyan said, “We didn’t think up laughter; that wasn’t our idea. That was given to us by God who knew we were going to need it to get through life. Because He knew we were going to have hardship. He knew we were going to have struggles. He knew…stuff was going to happen…. Laughter is a gift.

A quick look at the creatures God made can bring laughter, whether because of their oddities (such as duck-billed platypuses) or antics (such as playful otters). He made mammals that live in the ocean and long-legged birds that can’t fly. I’ve always like to say that God clearly has a sense of humor. Because were created in His image, we too have the joy of laughter.

We first see the word laughter in the Bible concerning Abraham and Sarah. In last week’s Torah portion God promised this Abraham a child: “The word of YHVH came to him in reply, ‘That one shall not be your heir (i.e. Eliezer-gg) ; none but your very own issue shall be your heir. [Then in the vision, God] took him outside and said, ‘Look toward heaven and count the stars, if you are able to count them”—continuing, ‘So shall your offspring be.’” (Genesis 15:4-5) In this week’s parasha, Vayera, when Sarah finally gave birth at 90 years old, Abraham named their son Yitzkhak-Isaac, which means “laughter.” As Sarah exclaimed, “God has brought me laughter; everyone who hears will laugh with me.” (21:6) It amazed her that she could nurse a child at her age! God transformed her skeptical laughter when she heard she’d give birth saying “Now that I’ve lost the ability, am I to have enjoyment—with my husband so old?” (18:12) into sheer joy.

Laughter doubles our joy in good times and laughter helps us get through the hard times.

In these times thank God for the gift of laughter.

 

 

 

 

 

Double jumping is good in checkers, but doesn’t always work for kodashim TB Zevakhim 50-51

 The rabbis used different hermeneutical methods to expound the Torah in order to derive halakhot. One can find a list of 13 different methods expounding the Torah compiled by Rabbi Yishmael in a traditional prayer book before Pesukai deZimrah. (https://www.sefaria.org/Siddur_Ashkenaz%2C_Weekday%2C_Shacharit%2C_Preparatory_Prayers%2C_Korbanot%2C_Baraita_of_Rabbi_Yishmael?lang=bi)

Dappim TB Zevakhim 50-51 will analyze the interplay between four different methods, hekash-הֶיקֵשׁ, gezarah shavah-גְזֵירָה שָוָה, kal vekhomer-קַל וָחוֹמֶר, binyan av-בִּנְיַן אָב.

 A hekash-הֶיקֵשׁ is when two subjects are in one verse and one has more details than the other, then the details apply to both subjects. 

A gezarah shavah- גְזֵירָה שָוָה is a hyperlink. Two different verses use the same word. One word leads to the other in order to learn a common halakha.

A kal vekhomer- וָחוֹמֶר קַלis a conclusion drawn from a minor or lenient law, to a major or more strict one.

A binyan av-אָב בִּנְיַן is when the Torah sets the precedent. Anything that matches the precedent shares the same halakhot. The second case has to be exactly like the precedent. If there is even one difference, then the second case doesn’t fall under the precedent.

Dappim TB Zevakhim 50-51 analyzes the interplay between the above four methodologies. Can you double jump from one methodology to the next methodology. One can go from A to B, but then can one go from B to C? The answer is sometimes yes and sometimes no. Below is a summary whether one can double jump or not.

Starting with a hekash one cannot apply a second hekash to learn a halakha.

Starting with a hekash one cannot apply a gezarah shavah to learn a halakha.

Starting with a hekash one can apply a kal vekhomer to learn a halakha.

Starting with a hekash and then applying a binyan av to learn a halakha is undecided.

Starting with a gezarah shavah may one apply a hekash to learn a halakha? Rav Pappa says yes and Mar Zutra says no.

Starting with a gezarah shavah one can apply a second gezarah shavah to learn a halakha.

Starting with a gezarah shavah one can apply a kal vekhomer to learn a halakha.

Starting with a gezarah shavah and then applying a binyan av to learn a halakha is undecided.

 

Starting with a kal vekhomer one can apply a hekash to learn a halakha.

Starting with a kal vekhimer one can apply a gezarah shavah to learn a halakha.

Starting with a kal vekhomer one can apply a kal vekhomer to learn a halakha.

Starting with a kal vekhomer and then applying a binyan av to learn a halakha is undecided.

 

No matter what methodology one uses after a banyan av to learn a halakha is always undecided.

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

                                                  

The blessings to see and to be seen #Lekh Lekha#parashathashavua#devartorah

I remember my first pair glasses. They opened my eyes to a bold new world. Before my cataract operations which corrected my vision, I was very nearsighted, meaning only objects close up were sharp and defined. Without my glasses however, I joked that was I legally blind in five states. I don’t remember exactly how old I was when I got my first pair glasses, but I remember how happy I was to see clearer words on blackboards, tiny leaves on trees, and people’s smiles in the distance.

As friends smiled back when I greeted them, I learned that to be seen was as great a gift as the blessing of seeing.

In this week’s Torah portion Hagar she fled from Sarai’s mistreatment. “Then Sarai treated her harshly, and she ran away from her.” (Genesis 16:6) Radak (David Kimhi,1160–1235, grammarian, lexicographer, and biblical commentator; France) explains what this mistreatment entailed. “Sarai overburdened her with work, and made her perform the work in an intolerably harsh manner. It is even possible that the word ותענה includes physical as well as verbal abuse of Hagar by Sarai.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Hagar was a lowly concubine, pregnant, and alone, fleeing to the wilderness without help or hope. Seen by God, however, she was empowered in return to see Him. God’s presence was so real she was the first person in the Torah to ever give God a name. “And she called YHVH who spoke to her, “You Are El-roi,” by which she meant, “Have I not gone on seeing after my being seen!” (16:13)

Our seeing God sees us too. Feeling unseen, alone, or like a nobody? Remember we’re really never alone for God is by our side and sees us. In return, we may see Him who is our ever present hope, encouragement, redemption, and joy.

Appreciate and thank God for this gift of amazing sight, to see God’s presence in our lives

 

Why chapter 5 of our massekhet is in the prayer book Zevakhim 47

Today we begin the fifth chapter of our massekhet. Even though this chapter contains basic information about the sacrifices, it is found here near halfway through the massekhet. This chapter opens up discussing where the actual sacrifices need to take place.

“MISHNA: What is the location of the slaughtering and consumption of offerings? The principle is that with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard.

“Specifically, with regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, their slaughter is in the north and the collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north, and their blood requires sprinkling between the staves of the Ark in the Holy of Holies, and upon the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, and on the golden altar. Concerning all those sprinklings, failure to perform even one placement of their blood disqualifies the offering. As to the remainder of the blood, which is left after those sprinklings, a priest would pour it onto the western base of the external altar. But if he did not place the remainder of the blood on the western base, it does not disqualify the offering.

“With regard to bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard, and the collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north, and their blood requires sprinkling upon the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, and upon the golden altar, and failure to perform even one placement of their blood disqualifies the offering. As for the remainder of the blood that is left after those sprinklings, a priest would pour it onto the western base of the external altar, but if he did not pour the remainder it does not disqualify the offering. These, the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, and those, the bulls and the goats that are burned, are then burned in the place of the ashes, a place outside of Jerusalem where the priests would bring the ashes from the altar.” (Sefaria.org translation) Future mishnayot will discuss in detail other categories of sacrifices.

In an Orthodox prayer book there are two rounds of study. The Conservative prayer book contains only the first round of study. The first found begins even before the morning’s blessings. The first round is familiar to every regular davener. It includes the blessings for studying Torah, Torah verses (usually the priestly benediction), a Mishna from massekhet Peah, and a selection from the Gemara in massekhet Shabbat. The second round after the morning placings and is all about sacrifices. It follows the same format of round one, verses from the Torah, Mishna, and Gemara. The Goanim instituted this tradition and selected our chapter to be the one studied. One of the distinguishing aspects of these mishnayot of our chapter is that they do not contain any disagreement between the sages! Entering into prayer without disagreement and argument is essential for the proper kavanah, intention.

When the Temple stood, the main mode of worship was animal sacrifice. When the Temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE, sacrifices were no longer able to be offered up. Instead the rabbis ordained that prayer is a suitable substitute to animal sacrifice. The midrash has Abraham asking God how Israel would achieve forgiveness when the Temple will lie in ruins and they could no longer offer sacrifices. God replied, “Wen Israel recites the scriptural order of the offerings, I will consider it as if they had brought the sacrifices and I will forgive their sins” (Megillah 31a, Ta’anit 27b) Rav Yitzhak said: “The Torah writes ‘this is the Torah (i.e. the teaching),  Of the sin offering’ (Leviticus 6:18) to imply that whoever involves himself in the study of the sin offering is regarded as if he had actually offered a sin offering (Menakhot 110a).

“The section dealing with the sacrifices logically follows the previous prayer, atah hu, which longs for Israel’s redemption. Given the fact that the offerings require the existence of the Holy Temple as the spiritual center of the nation, we pray that God gather us in from our dispersion. Then, her message will become a truly universal one, for God will have set us up  ‘for renown and praise among all the peoples of the earth.’

“The offerings whose laws are about to be recited are all communal ones; the sages chose them because they illustrate our wish that Israel become united as a single nation in God’s service.” (The Complete Artscroll Siddur, Page 30)  

The reward for studying a not very relevant massekhet TB Zevakhim 45

The laws of pigul take up a lot of real estate so far in massekhet Zevakhim. If the priest during one of the four modes of sacrifices thinks to accomplish one of them outside the time limit or outside the Temple precincts, the priest has committed the transgression of pigul. The sacrifice becomes invalid and if one should eat the meat, the punishment is kareit, death by the hands of Heaven. I remember that there is at least one opinion that a priest who invalidates a sacrifice via pigul receives lashes. I believe later on we shall learn that the priest has to cover the cost of the sacrifice so that the person bringing it would not have bear the loss due to the priests misconduct.

Pigul is so egregious I have a hard time wrapping my head around why a priest would even have these errant thoughts. On top of that, all these discussions are theoretical. By the time of the Mishnah and Gemara, the Temple has been destroyed and sacrifices have been annulled. Consequently, I find these discussions irrelevant. Today’s daf TB Zevakhim 45 shows that I’m not the only one who feels this way.

The sugiya begins on the preceding daf 44b. “According to the first tanna of the mishna, the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned, the blood of which is presented on the inner altar, are subject to piggul, whereas Rabbi Shimon rules that they are not subject to piggul. It is taught in a baraita that there is a third opinion concerning the matter: Rabbi Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: If in his service of the bulls that are burned or the goats that are burned the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul with regard to a matter that is performed outside the Sanctuary, i.e., in the Temple courtyard, he has rendered the offering piggul. If his intention was with regard to a matter that is performed inside the Sanctuary or the Holy of Holies, he has not rendered the offering piggul.” (Sefaria.org translation)

After much discussion it concludes: “Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says that Rav says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says his ruling in the name of Rabbi Yosei.

“Does one issue a halakha for the messianic period, when the Temple will be rebuilt? Abaye said to him: If that is so, that such halakhot are not taught, let the tanna not teach all the halakhot of the slaughter of sacrificial animals, i.e., tractate Zevaḥim, as it is entirely a halakha for the messianic period. Rather, one studies these halakhot due to the principle of: Study Torah and receive reward, i.e., one is rewarded for the study of Torah regardless of its practical applicability. Here too, study Torah and receive reward. Rava said to him: This is what I am saying to you: Why do I need a practical ruling of halakha? According to another version, which presents the same answer in different terms, Rava said to him: I spoke in reference to the ruling of halakha, as it is puzzling that a halakhic ruling is given in this case.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Although there’s nothing practical in this tractate when comes to sacrifices, I gained a measure of consolation knowing that I receive a reward for studying this esoteric material and Rava also wonders about issuing a pesak halakha for something so theoretical.