## Zevachim Daf 76a

###### Zevachim 76a:1
[Zevachim 76a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/76a:1)

וְכוּלָּן רַשָּׁאִין כֹּהֲנִים לְשַׁנּוֹת בַּאֲכִילָתָן – לְאָכְלָן צְלוּיִין שְׁלוּקִין וּמְבוּשָּׁלִין, וְלָתֵת לְתוֹכָן תַּבְלֵי חוּלִּין וְתַבְלֵי תְרוּמָה. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַנַּח לִתְרוּמַת תַּבְלִין – דְּרַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** with regard to **all of** the offerings that are eaten, the **priests are permitted to alter** the manner **of their consumption** and eat them as they choose. Therefore, the priests are permitted **to eat them roasted, boiled, or cooked, and** they are likewise permitted **to place non-sacred spices or *teruma* spices in** the cooking pot. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.** This indicates that it is permitted to spice offerings with *teruma* spices *ab initio*, despite the fact that this reduces the time available to eat the *teruma*. Rabba **said to** Abaye: **Set aside** the *halakha* of ***teruma* of spices,** as this *teruma* applies **by rabbinic law,** not by Torah law.


###### Zevachim 76a:2
[Zevachim 76a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/76a:2)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: אֵין לוֹקְחִין תְּרוּמָה בְּכֶסֶף מַעֲשֵׂר, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּמַעֵט בַּאֲכִילָתָהּ; וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר! אִישְׁתִּיק לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye **raised an objection to** Rabba from a mishna (*Ma’aser Sheni* 3:2): **One may not purchase *teruma* with** second **tithe money, because** he thereby **limits** the circumstances **for the eating of** the *teruma*. *Teruma* may be eaten in any place and even by an acute mourner, i.e., one whose relative died that same day and has not yet been buried, whereas second tithe and food purchased with second tithe money must be eaten in Jerusalem and is prohibited to an acute mourner. **And Rabbi Shimon permits** one to purchase *teruma* with second tithe money. This indicates that Rabbi Shimon allows one to bring *teruma* to the status of unfitness. Rabba **was silent** in response **to his** statement, and did not answer Abaye.


###### Zevachim 76a:3
[Zevachim 76a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/76a:3)

כִּי אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אַמַּאי לָא תּוֹתְבֵיהּ מֵהָא – אֵין מְבַשְּׁלִין יָרָק שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, שֶׁלֹּא יָבִיאוּ קָדָשִׁים לְבֵית הַפְּסוּל; וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When** Abaye **came before Rav Yosef** and told him of his discussion with Rabba, Rav Yosef **said to him: Why didn’t you raise an objection to** Rabba **from this** mishna (*Shevi’it* 8:7): **One may not cook vegetables of** the **Sabbatical** Year **in *teruma* oil, so that one does not bring consecrated** food, *teruma*, **to the status of unfitness,** as the *teruma* oil would have to be eaten before the time of the removal of the Sabbatical Year produce; **and Rabbi Shimon permits** one to cook in this manner. Evidently, Rabbi Shimon allows one to bring *teruma* to the status of unfitness *ab initio*.


###### Zevachim 76a:4
[Zevachim 76a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/76a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְלָאו מִי אוֹתְבִיתֵיהּ מֵהָא דְּתַבְלִין, וְאָמַר לִי: הַנַּח לִתְרוּמַת תַּבְלִין דְּרַבָּנַן? הָכָא נָמֵי (תְּרוּמָה) תְּרוּמַת יָרָק דְּרַבָּנַן. אִי הָכִי, אִיפְּכָא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְמִיתְנֵי: יָרָק שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה בְּשֶׁמֶן שֶׁל שְׁבִיעִית!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rav Yosef: **And didn’t I raise an objection to** Rabba **from that** mishna discussing the *halakha* **of** *teruma* **spices, and he said to me: Disregard** the *halakha* of ***teruma* of spices,** as this *teruma* applies **by rabbinic law. Here too,** with regard to vegetables of the Sabbatical Year, he could likewise say that this ***teruma*** oil is not olive oil, but oil that is ***teruma* of vegetables,** which applies **by rabbinic law.** Rav Yosef replied: **If so,** that this mishna is referring to vegetable oil of *teruma*, **it should teach the opposite** case, that one may not cook **vegetables of *teruma* in oil of** the **Sabbatical** Year. Since the *tanna* specifies *teruma* oil, he must certainly be speaking of *teruma* by Torah law, i.e., olive oil.


###### Zevachim 76a:5
[Zevachim 76a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/76a:5)

וְלָאו מִי אוֹתְבִיתֵיהּ מִמַּתְנִיתִין דְּמַתִּיר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, וְאָמַר לִי דְּאִיעָרַב? הָכָא נָמֵי דְּאִיעָרַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye then said to Rav Yosef: **And didn’t I raise an objection to** Rabba **from the mishna,** in **which Rabbi Shimon permits** one to bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness, **and** Rabba **said to me that** Rabbi Shimon’s ruling applies only after the fact, when the guilt offering and peace offering **have become intermingled? Here too,** he would say **that** this ruling is after the fact, that when the *teruma* oil and the vegetables of the Sabbatical Year **have become intermingled** one may then cook them together, but he does not permit one to cook them together *ab initio*.


###### Zevachim 76a:6
[Zevachim 76a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/76a:6)

אִי דְּאִיעָרַב, מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן? מִידֵי דְּהָוֵה אַאָשָׁם וּשְׁלָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **If** this *halakha* is referring to a case **where** the foods **have** already **become intermingled, what is the reason of the Rabbis** for prohibiting one to cook them together? The Gemara answers: This is **just as it is** in the case of the mishna **with regard to a guilt offering and a peace offering** that became intermingled, that even after the offerings are intermingled, one may not bring the flesh of the peace offering to the status of unfitness.


###### Zevachim 76a:7
[Zevachim 76a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/76a:7)

מִי דָּמֵי?! הָתָם אָשָׁם – אִית לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא בִּרְעִיָּיה; הָא – לֵית לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא בִּרְעִיָּיה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **Are** these two cases **comparable? There,** with regard to the offerings, the situation **has a remedy by** having the offerings **graze** until they develop a blemish, at which point the owner brings each offering of each type with the monetary value of the higher-quality animal. By contrast, in **this** case of *teruma* oil mixed with vegetables of the Sabbatical Year, the situation **has no remedy** similar to that **of** having the offerings **graze,** and therefore if the Rabbis prohibited the mixture the *teruma* would go to waste.


###### Zevachim 76a:8
[Zevachim 76a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/76a:8)

הָא לָא דָּמֵי אֶלָּא לַחֲתִיכָה שֶׁבַּחֲתִיכוֹת – כֵּיוָן דְּלֵית תַּקַּנְתָּא, דְּאוֹכֵל כְּחָמוּר שֶׁבָּהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
If one wishes to compare this case of oil and vegetables to an intermingling of sacrificial animals, **this is comparable only to** the other *halakha* of the mishna, which addresses **a piece** of the flesh of an offering of the most sacred order **that** was intermingled **with pieces** of the flesh of offerings of lesser sanctity. Here the Rabbis concede that **since there is no remedy** for the intermingled pieces, the *halakha* is **that** they both **must be eaten in accordance with** the *halakha* of **the** more **stringent among them,** but they are not prohibited.


###### Zevachim 76a:9
[Zevachim 76a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/76a:9)

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: מִי דָּמֵי?! חֲתִיכָה שֶׁבַּחֲתִיכוֹת – לֵית לַהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא כְּלָל; הַאי – אִית לֵיהּ תַּקַּנְתָּא בִּסְחִיטָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina objects to this** comparison: **Are** these cases **comparable?** In the case of the **piece** of sacrificial flesh **that** is intermingled **with the** other **pieces, it has no remedy at all,** whereas **this** case of *teruma* oil **has a remedy through squeezing** the oil from the vegetables. If so, this case of vegetables is in fact comparable to that of an intermingling of a guilt offering and peace offering, which also have a means of remedy, and for this reason the Rabbis prohibited the mixture.


###### Zevachim 76a:10
[Zevachim 76a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/76a:10)

וְרַב יוֹסֵף – הֵיכִי נִסְחוֹט? נִסְחוֹט טוּבָא – קָא מַפְסֵיד בִּשְׁבִיעִית; נִסְחוֹט פּוּרְתָּא – סוֹף סוֹף אִיעָרוֹבֵי מִיעָרַב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how would **Rav Yosef** respond to the claim that the Rabbis prohibit this mixture after the fact because there is a remedy available through squeezing it? The Gemara explains that Rav Yosef would respond that squeezing is not in fact a remedy, as **how can one squeeze** it? If **one squeezes** the vegetables **a lot,** he thereby **causes a loss of Sabbatical** Year produce; if **one squeezes** the vegetables **a little, ultimately** the *teruma* oil and vegetables of the Sabbatical Year **will** still **be intermingled,** as this squeezing will be ineffective. If so, Rav Yosef’s contention that in this case the Rabbis would not have prohibited cooking vegetables of the Sabbatical Year in *teruma* oil remains valid. Consequently, this must be referring to a case where the vegetables and oil have not yet become mixed, which means that this case does prove that Rabbi Shimon permits one to bring sacrificial animals to the status of unfitness *ab initio*, not only after the fact, as claimed by Rabba.


###### Zevachim 76a:11
[Zevachim 76a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/76a:11)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: לַמׇּחֳרָת מֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ וְלוּגּוֹ עִמּוֹ, וְאוֹמֵר: אִם שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע – הֲרֵי זֶה אֲשָׁמוֹ וְזֶה לוּגּוֹ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Yosef **raised an objection to** the opinion of Rabba from a *baraita* (*Tosefta*, *Nazir* 6:1): How should one whose status as a confirmed leper has not been determined bring his guilt offering and *log* of oil on the eighth day of his purification? **Rabbi Shimon says: On the following day,** after his seven days of purification, **he brings his guilt offering and his *log*** of oil **with it, and says** the following stipulation: **If this** offering is one **of a leper,** i.e., if I am a confirmed leper, **this is his,** i.e., my, **guilt offering and that is his *log*** of oil.