Study Guide Zevachim 104. Are there cases where the meat is disqualified but the hide will still be given to the priests? There were 3 locations where items were burned (not on the altar) – beit hadeshen. Where were they located and what items were burned there? Does the meat of the sin offerings whose blood was presented inside get disqualified by being left overnight or not?
Zevachim 104
07.26.2018 | י״ד באב תשע״ח
Share this shiur:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
0:00
0:00
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Joseph Cohen, Yosef ben Moshe HaCohen, z”l. “He was hard working, loved to sing, esp. as a chazan, and was very dedicated to his family and community.”
Zevachim 104
וּמַאי אַחֵר הֶפְשֵׁט – קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּרְאוּ לְהֶפְשֵׁט, אַחַר שֶׁנִּרְאוּ לְהֶפְשֵׁט.
and what does it mean by the phrase: After flaying? It means before the moment the offerings became fit for flaying, and after the moment they became fit for flaying, i.e., before and after the sprinkling of the blood.
מַאי רַבִּי וּמַאי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: הַדָּם מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וּכְשֶׁהוּא עִם הַבָּשָׂר, נוֹלַד בּוֹ פְּסוּל בֵּין קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה בֵּין לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיוֹצֵא בּוֹ.
The Gemara clarifies: What is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and what is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? Their opinions are as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The blood effects acceptance of the hide by itself, after it has been flayed, even if the flesh is disqualified. And if, when the hide is still with the flesh, a disqualification appears on the flesh, whether before the sprinkling of the blood or after the sprinkling of the blood, then the halakha with regard to the hide is parallel to the halakha with regard to the flesh: Both are burned.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין הַדָּם מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וּכְשֶׁהוּא עִם הַבָּשָׂר – נוֹלַד בּוֹ פְּסוּל קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה, הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיוֹצֵא בּוֹ. אַחַר זְרִיקָה, הוּרְצָה בָּשָׂר שָׁעָה אַחַת; יַפְשִׁיטֶנּוּ, וְעוֹרוֹ לַכֹּהֲנִים.
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The blood does not effect acceptance of the hide by itself. And if, when the hide is still with the flesh, a disqualification appears on the flesh before the sprinkling of the blood, then the halakha with regard to the hide is parallel to the halakha with regard to the flesh: Both are burned. If a disqualification develops on the flesh after the sprinkling of the blood, the flesh was already accepted for a time. Therefore, even though the flesh is disqualified, the priest may flay the animal before it is burned, and its hide goes to the priests.
לֵימָא בִּדְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ קָמִיפַּלְגִי? ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״ – רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אִם אֵין דָּם אֵין בָּשָׂר, אִם אֵין בָּשָׂר אֵין דָּם.
The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar disagree about the same principle as do Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27). Rabbi Yehoshua says: The verse teaches that if there is no blood sprinkled on the altar, no flesh may be burned on the altar, and if there is no flesh to be burned on the altar, no blood may be sprinkled on the altar.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: דָּם – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּשָׂר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״? לוֹמַר לְךָ: מָה דָּם בִּזְרִיקָה, אַף בָּשָׂר בִּזְרִיקָה. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁרֶיוַח יֵשׁ בֵּין כֶּבֶשׁ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
Rabbi Eliezer says: The blood must be sprinkled even if there is no flesh, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh.” If so, what is taught when the verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood”? It is stated to tell you: Just as blood is placed on the altar by sprinkling, so too, the flesh is placed on the altar by tossing. Consequently, you learn that there is a space between the ramp and the altar, such that the priest must toss the flesh from the edge of the ramp.
לֵימָא מַאן דְּאָמַר הוּרְצָה – כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא הוּרְצָה – כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ?
The Gemara explains: Shall we say that the one who says that the hide is accepted independent of the flesh holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, that the blood is sprinkled independent of the flesh, and the one who says that the hide is not accepted independent of the flesh holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that if there is no flesh then the blood is not sprinkled?
אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי; כִּי פְּלִיגִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
The Gemara rejects this: According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the blood may be sprinkled even if the flesh is disqualified, everyone agrees that this sprinkling effects acceptance of the hide. When they disagree, it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.
מַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא הוּרְצָה – כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. מַאן דְּאָמַר הוּרְצָה אָמַר לָךְ: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הָתָם – אֶלָּא בְּבָשָׂר, דְּלֵיכָּא פְּסֵידָא לַכֹּהֲנִים; אֲבָל עוֹר, דְּאִיכָּא פְּסֵידָא לַכֹּהֲנִים – אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מוֹדֶה.
The one who says that the hide is not accepted independently, i.e., Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the straightforward meaning of the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua; once the flesh is disqualified, the blood cannot be sprinkled and does not effect acceptance of the hide. The one who says that the hide is accepted, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, could say to you: Rabbi Yehoshua says only there that the blood may not be sprinkled in a case where nothing but the flesh was at stake, where there is no loss for the priests, who never receive meat from burnt offerings. But in cases where the hide would go to waste, where there is a loss for the priests, perhaps even Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that the blood effects acceptance.
מִידֵי דְּהָוֵה אַדִּיעֲבַד; דִּתְנַן: נִטְמָא בָּשָׂר אוֹ נִפְסַל, אוֹ שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר יִזְרוֹק, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר לֹא יִזְרוֹק. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁאִם זָרַק – הוּרְצָה.
This latter interpretation of Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion with regard to the hides is just as it is with regard to disqualified flesh after the fact. As we learned in a baraita: If the flesh contracted ritual impurity or was disqualified, or if it emerged beyond the curtains delineating its designated area, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest must nevertheless sprinkle the blood on the altar. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The priest may not sprinkle the blood on the altar. And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if the priest nevertheless sprinkled the blood, the offering is accepted after the fact. Apparently, the sprinkling is sufficiently valid to effect acceptance of the hide.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים כּוּ׳. וְלֹא?! הֲרֵי פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים!
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, said: In all my days, I never saw a hide going out to the place of burning. The Gemara challenges: And is it so that he did not see? Aren’t there bulls that are burned and goats that are burned together with their hides as a matter of course?
לְמִצְוָתָן לָא קָאָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara answers: We are not saying that Rabbi Ḥanina never saw hides go out to be burned in accordance with their mitzva; he certainly did. Rather, he never saw hides being burned because the offering was disqualified.
הֲרֵי קוֹדֶם הֶפְשֵׁט וְקוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה! חָלוּץ קָאָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara challenges: But isn’t there a case where an offering is disqualified before flaying and before the sprinkling of the blood, in which case all agree that the animal is burned with its hide? The Gemara answers: We are saying that Rabbi Ḥanina never saw a hide go out stripped from its flesh.
וְהָאִיכָּא אַחַר הֶפְשֵׁט וְקוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: אֵין הַדָּם מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ!
The Gemara challenges: But isn’t there a case where an offering is disqualified after the flaying of the hide and before the sprinkling of the blood, in which case the hide is burned according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says: The blood does not effect acceptance of the hide by itself?
רַבִּי חֲנִינָא כְּרַבִּי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אֲפִילּוּ תּוֹקְמַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שֶׁאֵין הֶפְשֵׁט קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that the blood does effect acceptance of the hide in such a case, and so it would not be burned. And if you wish, say instead that you can even interpret the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that the flaying is not done before the sprinkling, and so in practice Rabbi Ḥanina never saw a hide that was flayed before the offering was disqualified.
וְהָאִיכָּא נִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִים!
The Gemara challenges: But isn’t there the case of an animal that, after the hide was flayed and the blood was sprinkled, was found to have a wound in its intestines rendering it a tereifa, in which case the offering was already disqualified when the blood was sprinkled?
קָסָבַר: נִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִים – מְרַצֶּה. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי – דְּקָתָנֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מִדְּבָרָיו לָמַדְנוּ, שֶׁהַמַּפְשִׁיט אֶת הַבְּכוֹר וְנִמְצָא טְרֵיפָה – שֶׁיֵּאוֹתוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּעוֹרוֹ! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina holds that in the case of an animal that was found to be a tereifa due to a wound in its intestines, the sprinkling of the blood nevertheless effects acceptance, because the wound was unknown at the time of the sprinkling. The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Rabbi Akiva said: From the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, we learned that in a case where one flays the firstborn offering, and the animal is later discovered to be a tereifa, the halakha is that the priests may derive benefit from its hide. This indicates that the sprinkling of the blood effects acceptance if the wound was unknown. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn from the mishna that this is so.
וְאֶלָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אֲפִילּוּ בִּגְבוּלִין.
The Gemara challenges: But if this is what Rabbi Ḥanina meant, then what is Rabbi Akiva teaching us? His statement seems unnecessary. The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi Akiva is teaching us: This halakha applies not just in the Temple but even in the outlying areas, e.g., with regard to a blemished firstborn animal, which is slaughtered outside the Temple. If it is discovered to be a tereifa before its slaughter, it must be buried with its hide, but if it is slaughtered and later discovered to be a tereifa, then its slaughter renders the hide permitted to the priests, just as the sprinkling of the blood renders the hide permitted in the Temple.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וְאַף רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהִתִּירוֹ מוּמְחֶה, אֲבָל לֹא הִתִּירוֹ מוּמְחֶה – לֹא.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara adds: And even Rabbi Akiva said this halakha only in a case where an expert verified the firstborn animal’s blemish and permitted it to be slaughtered. But if an expert did not permit it, then its slaughter does not render the hide permitted to the priest.
וְהִלְכְתָא כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים; בָּשָׂר בִּקְבוּרָה, וְהָעוֹר בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.
The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, not Rabbi Akiva. Therefore, the flesh is discarded by burial and the hide by burning.
מַתְנִי׳ פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן נִשְׂרָפִין כְּמִצְוָתָן – נִשְׂרָפִים בְּבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן וּמְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים, וְאִם אֵינָן נִשְׂרָפִין כְּמִצְוָתָן – נִשְׂרָפִין בְּבֵית הַבִּירָה וְאֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים.
MISHNA: With regard to bulls that are burned, i.e., the bull of Yom Kippur, the bull of the anointed priest, and the bull brought for an unwitting communal sin, which are burned after their blood is sprinkled and their sacrificial portions burned on the altar, and goats that are burned, i.e., the goat of Yom Kippur and the goat brought for the unwitting communal transgression of the prohibition against idol worship, when they are burned in accordance with their mitzva, they are burned in the place of the ashes (see Leviticus 4:12) outside of Jerusalem, and they render the garments of the priests who tend to their burning impure (see Leviticus 4:25). And if these offerings are not burned in accordance with their mitzva because they were disqualified, and offerings that are disqualified are also burned, they are burned in the place of burning in the bira, and they do not render the garments of the priests who tend to their burning impure.
הָיוּ סוֹבְלִין אוֹתוֹ בְּמוֹטוֹת. יָצְאוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנִים חוּץ לְחוֹמַת הָעֲזָרָה וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים לֹא יָצְאוּ – הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים, וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים עַד שֶׁיָּצְאוּ. יָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ – מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין עַד שֶׁיּוּצַּת הָאוּר בְּרוּבָּן. נִיתַּךְ הַבָּשָׂר – אֵין הַשּׂוֹרֵף מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים.
The priests would carry the bulls and the goats that are burned suspended on poles. When the first priests, carrying the front of the pole, emerged outside the wall of the Temple courtyard and the latter priests did not yet emerge, the first priests render their garments impure, and the latter priests do not render their garments impure until they emerge. When both these and those priests emerged, they render their garments impure. Rabbi Shimon says: They do not render their garments impure, as this halakha applies only to those who burn the offerings. And even then their garments do not become ritually impure until the fire is ignited in the majority of the offerings. Once the flesh is completely scorched, with no moisture remaining, one who then burns the remains does not render his garments impure.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי בִּירָה? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָקוֹם יֵשׁ בְּהַר הַבַּיִת, וּ״בִירָה״ שְׁמוֹ. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כׇּל הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ קָרוּי ״בִּירָה״, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״(וְאֶל) הַבִּירָה אֲשֶׁר הֲכִינוֹתִי״.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if offerings of a type that are burned were disqualified, they are burned in a place of burning called the bira. The Gemara asks: What is the bira? Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is a place on the Temple Mount, and its name is bira, and this is where they would burn these offerings. And Reish Lakish says: The entire Temple is called the bira, as it is stated in the prayer of David: “And give unto Solomon my son a whole heart, to keep Your commandments, Your testimonies, and Your statutes, and to do all this, and to build the Temple [bira] for which I have made provision” (I Chronicles 29:19).
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, שְׁלֹשָׁה בֵּית הַדְּשָׁנִין הֵן: בֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן גָּדוֹל הָיָה בַּעֲזָרָה – שֶׁשָּׁם שׂוֹרְפִין פְּסוּלֵי קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וְאֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין, וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה.
§ Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: There are three places of the ashes. First was the great place of the ashes that was in the Temple courtyard, where the priests would burn the disqualified offerings of the most sacred order, and the disqualified sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity, and bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified prior to the sprinkling of the blood.
וּבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן אַחֵר הָיָה בְּהַר הַבַּיִת – שֶׁשָּׁם שׂוֹרְפִין פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל אַחַר זְרִיקָה. וּכְמִצְוָתָן, חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת.
And there was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified after the sprinkling of the blood. And the third place of the ashes was for the bulls and goats that were burned in accordance with their mitzva, outside the three camps, i.e., outside the walls of Jerusalem.
תָּנֵי לֵוִי: שְׁלֹשָׁה בֵּית הַדְּשָׁנִין הֵן: בֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן גָּדוֹל הָיָה בָּעֲזָרָה – שֶׁשָּׁם שׂוֹרְפִין פְּסוּלֵי קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וְאֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל, בֵּין קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה בֵּין לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה. וּבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן אַחֵר הָיָה בְּהַר הַבַּיִת, שֶׁשָּׁם שׂוֹרְפִין פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל בִּיצִיאָתָן. וּכְמִצְוָתָן, חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת.
Levi teaches a different version of this baraita: There are three places of the ashes. First was the great place of the ashes that was in the Temple courtyard, where the priests would burn the disqualified offerings of the most sacred order, and the disqualified sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity, and bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified, whether prior to the sprinkling of the blood or after the sprinkling of the blood. And there was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified upon emerging from the Temple courtyard. And the third was for bulls and goats burned in accordance with their mitzva, outside the three camps.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לִינָה מַהוּ שֶׁתּוֹעִיל בְּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּבִשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כִּי מַהְנְיָא לִינָה – בְּבָשָׂר דְּבַר אֲכִילָה, אֲבָל הָנֵי דְּלָאו בְּנֵי אֲכִילָה נִינְהוּ – לָא; אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?
§ Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: The flesh of most offerings is disqualified by being left overnight. What is the halakha as to whether being left overnight is effective to disqualify bulls that are burned and goats that are burned? Given that their flesh is neither eaten nor burned on the altar, do we say: When being left overnight is effective to disqualify flesh, this is only in a case of flesh that is fit for consumption, either by the altar or by human beings; but in the case of these bulls and goats that are burned, which are not fit for consumption, being left overnight does not disqualify the flesh? Or perhaps this case is no different, and being left overnight disqualifies the flesh.
אָמַר רָבָא: הָא מִילְּתָא אִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְאַבָּיֵי, וּפְשַׁטְנָא לֵיהּ מֵהָא: וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאִם חִישֵּׁב בַּאֲכִילַת פָּרִים וּבִשְׂרֵיפָתָן – שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. מַאי, לָאו מִדְּמַחְשָׁבָה לָא פָּסְלָה – לִינָה נָמֵי לָא פָּסְלָה?
Rava said: This matter, Rabbi Yirmeya’s dilemma, was raised by Abaye, and I resolved it from this baraita: The mishna (43a) records a dispute as to whether the sacrificial portions of bulls that are burned are subject to disqualification by intent to burn them beyond their designated time [piggul]. But the disputants agree that if the priest intended for the consumption of the bulls’ meat and their burning to be beyond their designated time, he did nothing, as piggul applies only to flesh consumed by human beings or the altar. What, is it not the case that since the intention of burning after the designated time does not disqualify bulls that are burned, one can infer that being left overnight also does not disqualify bulls that are burned?
וְדִלְמָא מַחְשָׁבָה הוּא דְּלָא פָּסְלָה, אֲבָל לִינָה פָּסְלָה!
The Gemara responds: But perhaps it is only improper intention that does not disqualify such offerings, but being left overnight does disqualify them.
תָּא שְׁמַע: פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשׁוּ. נִשְׁחֲטוּ – הוּכְשְׁרוּ לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּיפּוּרִים וּבְלִינָה. מַאי, לָאו לִינַת בָּשָׂר?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a mishna (Me’ila 9a): With regard to bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property from the time that they were consecrated. Once they have been slaughtered, they are susceptible to be rendered disqualified for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through being left overnight without the requirements of the offering having been fulfilled. What, is it not referring to the flesh of bulls, indicating that the flesh is disqualified if left overnight?
לָא, לִינַת אֵימוּרִין.
The Gemara responds: No, the mishna indicates only that the offerings’ sacrificial portions are disqualified if left overnight, since they must be burned on the altar.
וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כּוּלָּן מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן בְּבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן עַד שֶׁיּוּתַּךְ הַבָּשָׂר – מִדְּסֵיפָא בָּשָׂר, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי בָּשָׂר! מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! סֵיפָא בָּשָׂר, רֵישָׁא אֵימוּרִין!
The Gemara responds: But evidence to the contrary can be ad-duced from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches: In all of those cases, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property if he derives benefit while they are burned in the place of the ashes, until the flesh is completely incinerated. The Gemara explains: From the fact that the latter clause is discussing flesh, infer that the first clause also discusses flesh, and not the sacrificial portions. The Gemara rejects this: Are the cases comparable? The latter clause discusses flesh, and the first clause discusses sacrificial portions.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל בִּיצִיאָתָן. מַאי, לָאו לִינָה? לָא, פְּסוּל טוּמְאָה וּפְסוּל יְצִיאָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which Levi teaches in the baraita: There was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified upon emerging from the Temple courtyard. What, is it not referring to offerings disqualified by being left overnight? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to disqualification by contracting ritual impurity or disqualification by leaving the courtyard before the blood was sprinkled on the altar. The dilemma of Rabbi Yirmeya stands unresolved.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: יְצִיאָה, מַהוּ שֶׁתּוֹעִיל בְּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים?
§ Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: In general, the flesh of offer-ings is disqualified by leaving the Temple courtyard. What is the halakha as to whether leaving is effective to disqualify bulls that are burned and goats that are burned?
מַאי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר עֲדַיִין לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לָצֵאת.
The Gemara asks: What is the dilemma he is raising? Here it is a mitzva to burn the flesh of these offerings outside the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: Rabbi Elazar raises his dilemma in accordance with the opinion of the one who says: With regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, even though the flesh may be consumed anywhere in Jerusalem, nevertheless, if it emerges from the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, it is disqualified, because its time to leave from the Temple courtyard has not yet arrived. Perhaps the same halakha applies to bulls and goats that are burned: Even though the flesh must eventually leave the Temple, if it leaves before its designated time, it is disqualified.
מִי אָמְרִינַן: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בָּשָׂר – דְּאֵין סוֹפוֹ לָצֵאת חוֹבָה, אֲבָל הָנֵי דְּסוֹפָן לָצֵאת חוֹבָה – לָא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, הָכָא נָמֵי לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לָצֵאת?
The dilemma is: Do we say that this matter, disqualification by leaving the Temple courtyard prematurely, applies only to flesh that need not eventually leave due to an obligation? One may consume the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity in the Temple courtyard if he wishes. But perhaps these bulls and goats that are burned, which must eventually leave due to an obligation, are not disqualified by emerging prematurely. Or perhaps here too the flesh is disqualified if its time to leave has not yet arrived.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: שֶׁאֵירַע בּוֹ פְּסוּל בִּיצִיאָתוֹ. מַאי, לָאו פָּסוּל יְצִיאָה? לָא; פְּסוּל טוּמְאָה וּפְסוּל לִינָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which Levi teaches in the baraita: There was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified upon emerging from the Temple courtyard. What, is it not referring to disqualification by leaving the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood? The Gemara responds: No, it is referring to disqualification by contracting ritual impurity or disqualification by being left overnight. The dilemma of Rabbi Elazar stands unresolved.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים, שֶׁיָּצָא (רוּבּוֹ) [רוּבָּן] בְּמִיעוּט אֵבֶר – מַהוּ? הָךְ מִיעוּטָא דְּאֵבֶר בָּתַר רוּבָּא שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ – וְהָא לָא נָפְקָא לֵיהּ; אוֹ דִלְמָא, בָּתַר רוּבָּא דִּבְהֵמָה שָׁדֵינַן?
§ Rabbi Elazar raises another dilemma: With regard to bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, if the majority of the animal’s body emerged from the Temple courtyard, but it consists of a majority only by inclusion of the minority of a limb, the majority of which remains inside the courtyard, what is the halakha? Do we determine the status of this minority of a limb by casting it after the majority of that limb, and the majority of that limb did not leave? Or perhaps we determine its status by casting it after the majority of the animal, and therefore a majority of the animal has left?
פְּשִׁיטָא דְּלָא שָׁבְקִינַן רוּבָּא דִּבְהֵמָה וְאָזְלִינַן בָּתַר רוּבָּא דְּאֵבָרִים! אֶלָּא שֶׁיָּצָא חֶצְיוֹ בְּרוֹב אֵבֶר – הַאי מִיעוּטָא דְּאֵבֶר
The Gemara clarifies: Isn’t it obvious that we do not disregard the majority of the animal and instead follow the majority of the limbs? Rather, Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma must be as follows: In a case where half of the animal emerged from the courtyard such that the majority of a certain limb emerged, but a minority of the limb remained inside, what is the halakha? Do we determine the status of this minority of a limb
Follow 
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Zevahim 81: Like the Sin-Offering, So Too the Guilt-Offering
12.04.2025 | י״ד בכסלו תשפ״ו
Zevahim 74: Mediterranean and Dead Seas: How to Lose a Minority Item
11.28.2025 | ח׳ בכסלו תשפ״ו
Zevahim 70: Geese, Chickens, and the Broken Neck of a Goat
11.23.2025 | ג׳ בכסלו תשפ״ו
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Emma Rinberg
Raanana, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
Dena Heller
New Jersey, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
Meira Shapiro
NJ, United States
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Caroline Graham-Ofstein
Bet Shemesh, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Far Rockaway, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
Leeza Hirt Wilner
New York, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Rookie Billet
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
Medinah Korn
בית שמש, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Debbie Engelen-Eigles
Minnesota, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
Dena Lehrman
אפרת, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
I started learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Rochel Cheifetz
Riverdale, NY, United States
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Joséphine Altzman
Teaneck, United States
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Sheila Hauser
Jerusalem, Israel
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Marsha Wasserman
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Jenifer Nech
Houston, United States
Zevachim 104
ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ β Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ Φ΄ΦΌΧ¨Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ.
and what does it mean by the phrase: After flaying? It means before the moment the offerings became fit for flaying, and after the moment they became fit for flaying, i.e., before and after the sprinkling of the blood.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ? ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ¦ΦΆΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉ. ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧΧΦΌΧ Χ’Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨, Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ.
The Gemara clarifies: What is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and what is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? Their opinions are as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The blood effects acceptance of the hide by itself, after it has been flayed, even if the flesh is disqualified. And if, when the hide is still with the flesh, a disqualification appears on the flesh, whether before the sprinkling of the blood or after the sprinkling of the blood, then the halakha with regard to the hide is parallel to the halakha with regard to the flesh: Both are burned.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ¦ΦΆΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉ. ΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©ΦΆΧΧΧΦΌΧ Χ’Φ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ β Χ ΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¦Φ΅Χ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ. ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ Χ©ΦΈΧΧ’ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χͺ; ΧΦ·Χ€Φ°Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΆΧ ΦΌΧΦΌ, ΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ.
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The blood does not effect acceptance of the hide by itself. And if, when the hide is still with the flesh, a disqualification appears on the flesh before the sprinkling of the blood, then the halakha with regard to the hide is parallel to the halakha with regard to the flesh: Both are burned. If a disqualification develops on the flesh after the sprinkling of the blood, the flesh was already accepted for a time. Therefore, even though the flesh is disqualified, the priest may flay the animal before it is burned, and its hide goes to the priests.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ€Φ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ? Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧͺΦΈ Χ’ΦΉΧΦΉΧͺΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄ β Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨, ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ.
The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar disagree about the same principle as do Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: βAnd you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your Godβ (Deuteronomy 12:27). Rabbi Yehoshua says: The verse teaches that if there is no blood sprinkled on the altar, no flesh may be burned on the altar, and if there is no flesh to be burned on the altar, no blood may be sprinkled on the altar.
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦΈΦΌΧ β ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ€Φ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨, Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ€Φ΅ΧΦ°Χ΄. ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ, ΧΦΈΧ ΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄ΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧͺΦΈ Χ’ΦΉΧΦΉΧͺΦΆΧΧΦΈ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ΄? ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·Χ£ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ. ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ΦΆΧΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΆΦΌΧΦΆΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΦ·.
Rabbi Eliezer says: The blood must be sprinkled even if there is no flesh, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: βAnd the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh.β If so, what is taught when the verse states: βAnd you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the bloodβ? It is stated to tell you: Just as blood is placed on the altar by sprinkling, so too, the flesh is placed on the altar by tossing. Consequently, you learn that there is a space between the ramp and the altar, such that the priest must toss the flesh from the edge of the ramp.
ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨, ΧΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ·?
The Gemara explains: Shall we say that the one who says that the hide is accepted independent of the flesh holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, that the blood is sprinkled independent of the flesh, and the one who says that the hide is not accepted independent of the flesh holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that if there is no flesh then the blood is not sprinkled?
ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ β ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ Χ’ΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ; ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ·.
The Gemara rejects this: According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the blood may be sprinkled even if the flesh is disqualified, everyone agrees that this sprinkling effects acceptance of the hide. When they disagree, it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.
ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ·. ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦ°: Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ β ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ; ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ Χ’ΧΦΉΧ¨, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΌΦΉΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ.
The one who says that the hide is not accepted independently, i.e., Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the straightforward meaning of the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua; once the flesh is disqualified, the blood cannot be sprinkled and does not effect acceptance of the hide. The one who says that the hide is accepted, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, could say to you: Rabbi Yehoshua says only there that the blood may not be sprinkled in a case where nothing but the flesh was at stake, where there is no loss for the priests, who never receive meat from burnt offerings. But in cases where the hide would go to waste, where there is a loss for the priests, perhaps even Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that the blood effects acceptance.
ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ²ΧΦ·Χ; ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧͺΦ°Χ Φ·Χ: Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉ Χ Φ΄Χ€Φ°Χ‘Φ·Χ, ΧΧΦΉ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ·Χ§Φ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ β Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ±ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΦΆΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ§, Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ§. ΧΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©Φ»ΧΧ’Φ· Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ·Χ§ β ΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ.
This latter interpretation of Rabbi Yehoshuaβs opinion with regard to the hides is just as it is with regard to disqualified flesh after the fact. As we learned in a baraita: If the flesh contracted ritual impurity or was disqualified, or if it emerged beyond the curtains delineating its designated area, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest must nevertheless sprinkle the blood on the altar. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The priest may not sprinkle the blood on the altar. And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if the priest nevertheless sprinkled the blood, the offering is accepted after the fact. Apparently, the sprinkling is sufficiently valid to effect acceptance of the hide.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ·Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ³. ΧΦ°ΧΦΉΧ?! ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ!
Β§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi αΈ€anina, the deputy High Priest, said: In all my days, I never saw a hide going out to the place of burning. The Gemara challenges: And is it so that he did not see? Arenβt there bulls that are burned and goats that are burned together with their hides as a matter of course?
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ.
The Gemara answers: We are not saying that Rabbi αΈ€anina never saw hides go out to be burned in accordance with their mitzva; he certainly did. Rather, he never saw hides being burned because the offering was disqualified.
ΧΦ²Χ¨Φ΅Χ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ! ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ₯ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ.
The Gemara challenges: But isnβt there a case where an offering is disqualified before flaying and before the sprinkling of the blood, in which case all agree that the animal is burned with its hide? The Gemara answers: We are saying that Rabbi αΈ€anina never saw a hide go out stripped from its flesh.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ°Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ¦ΦΆΦΌΧ Χ’Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ Φ΅Χ Χ’Φ·Χ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉ!
The Gemara challenges: But isnβt there a case where an offering is disqualified after the flaying of the hide and before the sprinkling of the blood, in which case the hide is burned according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says: The blood does not effect acceptance of the hide by itself?
Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ‘Φ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ§Φ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ β ΧΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦΆΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi αΈ€anina holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that the blood does effect acceptance of the hide in such a case, and so it would not be burned. And if you wish, say instead that you can even interpret the opinion of Rabbi αΈ€anina in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that the flaying is not done before the sprinkling, and so in practice Rabbi αΈ€anina never saw a hide that was flayed before the offering was disqualified.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ¦Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ!
The Gemara challenges: But isnβt there the case of an animal that, after the hide was flayed and the blood was sprinkled, was found to have a wound in its intestines rendering it a tereifa, in which case the offering was already disqualified when the blood was sprinkled?
Χ§ΦΈΧ‘ΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ¦Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°Χ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅Χ’Φ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ β ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ·Χ¦ΦΆΦΌΧ. ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ°Χ§ΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ, ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ ΧΦΌ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ ΧΦΆΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΦ°Χ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧͺΧΦΌ ΧΦ·ΧΦΉΦΌΧΦ²Χ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ΧΦΉ! Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·ΦΌΧΦΌ.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi αΈ€anina holds that in the case of an animal that was found to be a tereifa due to a wound in its intestines, the sprinkling of the blood nevertheless effects acceptance, because the wound was unknown at the time of the sprinkling. The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Rabbi Akiva said: From the statement of Rabbi αΈ€anina, the deputy High Priest, we learned that in a case where one flays the firstborn offering, and the animal is later discovered to be a tereifa, the halakha is that the priests may derive benefit from its hide. This indicates that the sprinkling of the blood effects acceptance if the wound was unknown. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn from the mishna that this is so.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧ Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’ ΧΦ·Χ: ΧΦ²Χ€Φ΄ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
The Gemara challenges: But if this is what Rabbi αΈ€anina meant, then what is Rabbi Akiva teaching us? His statement seems unnecessary. The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi Akiva is teaching us: This halakha applies not just in the Temple but even in the outlying areas, e.g., with regard to a blemished firstborn animal, which is slaughtered outside the Temple. If it is discovered to be a tereifa before its slaughter, it must be buried with its hide, but if it is slaughtered and later discovered to be a tereifa, then its slaughter renders the hide permitted to the priests, just as the sprinkling of the blood renders the hide permitted in the Temple.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ. ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ£ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ’Φ²Χ§Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧͺΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ΧΦΉ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ β ΧΦΉΧ.
Rabbi αΈ€iyya bar Abba says that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara adds: And even Rabbi Akiva said this halakha only in a case where an expert verified the firstborn animalβs blemish and permitted it to be slaughtered. But if an expert did not permit it, then its slaughter does not render the hide permitted to the priest.
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦ°ΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ; ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΧΦΌΧ¨ΦΈΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ’ΧΦΉΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ.
The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, not Rabbi Akiva. Therefore, the flesh is discarded by burial and the hide by burning.
ΧΦ·ΧͺΦ°Χ Φ΄ΧΧ³ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅Χ Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ β Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ β Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
MISHNA: With regard to bulls that are burned, i.e., the bull of Yom Kippur, the bull of the anointed priest, and the bull brought for an unwitting communal sin, which are burned after their blood is sprinkled and their sacrificial portions burned on the altar, and goats that are burned, i.e., the goat of Yom Kippur and the goat brought for the unwitting communal transgression of the prohibition against idol worship, when they are burned in accordance with their mitzva, they are burned in the place of the ashes (see Leviticus 4:12) outside of Jerusalem, and they render the garments of the priests who tend to their burning impure (see Leviticus 4:25). And if these offerings are not burned in accordance with their mitzva because they were disqualified, and offerings that are disqualified are also burned, they are burned in the place of burning in the bira, and they do not render the garments of the priests who tend to their burning impure.
ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌ Χ‘ΧΦΉΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΉΧͺΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧΧΦΉΧͺ. ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΉΧΦ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΧ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ©ΧΧΦΉΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ¨ΧΦΉΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΌ. ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΌΧΦΌ ΧΦΈΧΦ΅ΧΦΌΧΦΌ β ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ. Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ Χ©Φ΄ΧΧΦ°Χ’ΧΦΉΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦ΅Χ¨: ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧ¦Φ·ΦΌΧͺ ΧΦΈΧΧΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ. Χ Φ΄ΧΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ β ΧΦ΅ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ©ΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ΅Χ£ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧ.
The priests would carry the bulls and the goats that are burned suspended on poles. When the first priests, carrying the front of the pole, emerged outside the wall of the Temple courtyard and the latter priests did not yet emerge, the first priests render their garments impure, and the latter priests do not render their garments impure until they emerge. When both these and those priests emerged, they render their garments impure. Rabbi Shimon says: They do not render their garments impure, as this halakha applies only to those who burn the offerings. And even then their garments do not become ritually impure until the fire is ignited in the majority of the offerings. Once the flesh is completely scorched, with no moisture remaining, one who then burns the remains does not render his garments impure.
ΧΦΌΦ°ΧΦΈΧ³ ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ§ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅Χ©Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χͺ, ΧΦΌΧ΄ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΧ΄ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΧΦΉ. ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧ§Φ΄ΧΧ©Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨: ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χͺ ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ§ΦΈΧ¨ΧΦΌΧ Χ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ΦΈΧΧ΄, Χ©ΦΆΧΧ ΦΆΦΌΧΦ±ΧΦ·Χ¨: Χ΄(ΧΦ°ΧΦΆΧ) ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ ΧΦ²Χ©ΦΆΧΧ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉΧͺΦ΄ΧΧ΄.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if offerings of a type that are burned were disqualified, they are burned in a place of burning called the bira. The Gemara asks: What is the bira? Rabba bar bar αΈ€ana says that Rabbi YoαΈ₯anan says: There is a place on the Temple Mount, and its name is bira, and this is where they would burn these offerings. And Reish Lakish says: The entire Temple is called the bira, as it is stated in the prayer of David: βAnd give unto Solomon my son a whole heart, to keep Your commandments, Your testimonies, and Your statutes, and to do all this, and to build the Temple [bira] for which I have made provisionβ (IΒ Chronicles 29:19).
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·Χ Χ Φ·ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌΧΦΌ, Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨Φ·Χ’ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ.
Β§ Rav NaαΈ₯man says that Rabba bar Avuh says: There are three places of the ashes. First was the great place of the ashes that was in the Temple courtyard, where the priests would burn the disqualified offerings of the most sacred order, and the disqualified sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity, and bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified prior to the sprinkling of the blood.
ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χͺ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨Φ·Χ’ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ ΧΦΉΧͺ.
And there was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified after the sprinkling of the blood. And the third place of the ashes was for the bulls and goats that were burned in accordance with their mitzva, outside the three camps, i.e., outside the walls of Jerusalem.
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄Χ: Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦΉΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ΅Χ: ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ²ΧΦΈΧ¨ΦΈΧ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧΦ΅Χ Χ§ΧΧΦ°Χ©Φ΅ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ, ΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΅Χ Χ§ΦΈΧΦΈΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧ Χ§Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ, ΧΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨Φ·Χ’ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ, ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ Χ§ΧΦΉΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ§ΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧ©ΦΆΧΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ΅Χ¨ ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ΄Χͺ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧ©ΦΈΦΌΧΧ Χ©ΧΧΦΉΧ¨Φ°Χ€Φ΄ΧΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨Φ·Χ’ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ. ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄Χ¦Φ°ΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ, ΧΧΦΌΧ₯ ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΉΧ©Χ ΧΦ·ΧΦ²Χ ΧΦΉΧͺ.
Levi teaches a different version of this baraita: There are three places of the ashes. First was the great place of the ashes that was in the Temple courtyard, where the priests would burn the disqualified offerings of the most sacred order, and the disqualified sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity, and bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified, whether prior to the sprinkling of the blood or after the sprinkling of the blood. And there was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified upon emerging from the Temple courtyard. And the third was for bulls and goats burned in accordance with their mitzva, outside the three camps.
ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ? ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·Χ¨ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ Χ Φ΄ΧΧ Φ°ΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦΈΧ; ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧ ΦΈΧ?
Β§ Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: The flesh of most offerings is disqualified by being left overnight. What is the halakha as to whether being left overnight is effective to disqualify bulls that are burned and goats that are burned? Given that their flesh is neither eaten nor burned on the altar, do we say: When being left overnight is effective to disqualify flesh, this is only in a case of flesh that is fit for consumption, either by the altar or by human beings; but in the case of these bulls and goats that are burned, which are not fit for consumption, being left overnight does not disqualify the flesh? Or perhaps this case is no different, and being left overnight disqualifies the flesh.
ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΦΈΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ°ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦ΅Χ, ΧΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ©Φ·ΧΧΦ°Χ ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ: ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ΄ΧΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ©Φ΅ΦΌΧΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧΦ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·Χͺ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ β Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΉΦΌΧ Χ’ΦΈΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΧΦΌΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ, ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ?
Rava said: This matter, Rabbi Yirmeyaβs dilemma, was raised by Abaye, and I resolved it from this baraita: The mishna (43a) records a dispute as to whether the sacrificial portions of bulls that are burned are subject to disqualification by intent to burn them beyond their designated time [piggul]. But the disputants agree that if the priest intended for the consumption of the bullsβ meat and their burning to be beyond their designated time, he did nothing, as piggul applies only to flesh consumed by human beings or the altar. What, is it not the case that since the intention of burning after the designated time does not disqualify bulls that are burned, one can infer that being left overnight also does not disqualify bulls that are burned?
ΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΧΦ°Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘Φ°ΧΦΈΧ!
The Gemara responds: But perhaps it is only improper intention that does not disqualify such offerings, but being left overnight does disqualify them.
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’: Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ β ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ΄Χ©ΦΆΦΌΧΧΧΦΌΧ§Φ°ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ©ΧΧΦΌ. Χ Φ΄Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ²ΧΧΦΌ β ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°Χ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΧΦΌ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΧΦΌΧ‘Φ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ€ΦΌΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ, ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χͺ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a mishna (Meβila 9a): With regard to bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property from the time that they were consecrated. Once they have been slaughtered, they are susceptible to be rendered disqualified for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through being left overnight without the requirements of the offering having been fulfilled. What, is it not referring to the flesh of bulls, indicating that the flesh is disqualified if left overnight?
ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χͺ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ.
The Gemara responds: No, the mishna indicates only that the offeringsβ sacrificial portions are disqualified if left overnight, since they must be burned on the altar.
ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ§ΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ: ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΉΧ’Φ²ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΦ·ΧΦΆΦΌΧ©ΦΆΧΧ Χ’Φ·Χ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΌΧΦΌΧͺΦ·ΦΌΧΦ° ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ β ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨, Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨! ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ¨Φ°ΧΦΈΧ?! Χ‘Φ΅ΧΧ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨, Χ¨Φ΅ΧΧ©ΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΧΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ!
The Gemara responds: But evidence to the contrary can be ad-duced from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches: In all of those cases, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property if he derives benefit while they are burned in the place of the ashes, until the flesh is completely incinerated. The Gemara explains: From the fact that the latter clause is discussing flesh, infer that the first clause also discusses flesh, and not the sacrificial portions. The Gemara rejects this: Are the cases comparable? The latter clause discusses flesh, and the first clause discusses sacrificial portions.
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄Χ: Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨Φ·Χ’ ΧΦΈΦΌΧΦΆΧ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧͺΦΈΧ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ, ΧΦΈΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧ, Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which Levi teaches in the baraita: There was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified upon emerging from the Temple courtyard. What, is it not referring to offerings disqualified by being left overnight? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to disqualification by contracting ritual impurity or disqualification by leaving the courtyard before the blood was sprinkled on the altar. The dilemma of Rabbi Yirmeya stands unresolved.
ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨: ΧΦ°Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ Χ©ΦΆΧΧͺΦΌΧΦΉΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ€ΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ?
Β§ Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: In general, the flesh of offer-ings is disqualified by leaving the Temple courtyard. What is the halakha as to whether leaving is effective to disqualify bulls that are burned and goats that are burned?
ΧΦ·ΧΧ Χ§ΦΈΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ·ΦΌΧ’Φ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄Χ¨Φ°ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ·ΦΌΧ¨ ΧΦ·ΧΦΈΦΌΧ: ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧΦ·Χ¨ Χ’Φ²ΧΦ·ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΅ΧΧͺ.
The Gemara asks: What is the dilemma he is raising? Here it is a mitzva to burn the flesh of these offerings outside the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: Rabbi Elazar raises his dilemma in accordance with the opinion of the one who says: With regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, even though the flesh may be consumed anywhere in Jerusalem, nevertheless, if it emerges from the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, it is disqualified, because its time to leave from the Temple courtyard has not yet arrived. Perhaps the same halakha applies to bulls and goats that are burned: Even though the flesh must eventually leave the Temple, if it leaves before its designated time, it is disqualified.
ΧΦ΄Χ ΧΦΈΧΦ°Χ¨Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ: ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΄ΧΧΦ΅ΦΌΧ ΧΦΈΦΌΧ©ΦΈΧΧ¨ β ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΧ Χ‘ΧΦΉΧ€ΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦ²ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΉΧ€ΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΅ΧΧͺ ΧΧΦΉΧΦΈΧ β ΧΦΈΧ; ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧΦ΅Χ ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ’Φ· ΧΦ°ΧΦ·Χ ΦΌΧΦΉ ΧΦΈΧ¦Φ΅ΧΧͺ?
The dilemma is: Do we say that this matter, disqualification by leaving the Temple courtyard prematurely, applies only to flesh that need not eventually leave due to an obligation? One may consume the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity in the Temple courtyard if he wishes. But perhaps these bulls and goats that are burned, which must eventually leave due to an obligation, are not disqualified by emerging prematurely. Or perhaps here too the flesh is disqualified if its time to leave has not yet arrived.
ΧͺΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©Φ°ΧΧΦ·Χ’, ΧΦ°ΦΌΧͺΦΈΧ Φ΅Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΦ΄Χ: Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ¨Φ·Χ’ ΧΦΌΧΦΉ Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΧ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧͺΧΦΉ. ΧΦ·ΧΧ, ΧΦΈΧΧ Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ°Χ¦Φ΄ΧΧΦΈΧ? ΧΦΈΧ; Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΧΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΌΧ€Φ°Χ‘ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ ΦΈΧ.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which Levi teaches in the baraita: There was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified upon emerging from the Temple courtyard. What, is it not referring to disqualification by leaving the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood? The Gemara responds: No, it is referring to disqualification by contracting ritual impurity or disqualification by being left overnight. The dilemma of Rabbi Elazar stands unresolved.
ΧΦΈΦΌΧ’Φ΅Χ Χ¨Φ·ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧ ΧΦΆΧΦ°Χ’ΦΈΧΦΈΧ¨: Χ€ΦΈΦΌΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ’Φ΄ΧΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ ΧΦ·Χ Φ΄ΦΌΧ©Φ°ΧΧ¨ΦΈΧ€Φ΄ΧΧ, Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ¦ΦΈΧ (Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΌΧΦΉ) [Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ] ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧ¨ β ΧΦ·ΧΧΦΌ? ΧΦΈΧΦ° ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧ¨ ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ β ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦΈΧ Χ ΦΈΧ€Φ°Χ§ΦΈΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΧΦΌ; ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ΄ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧ, ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ΅ΧΧ Φ·Χ?
Β§ Rabbi Elazar raises another dilemma: With regard to bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, if the majority of the animalβs body emerged from the Temple courtyard, but it consists of a majority only by inclusion of the minority of a limb, the majority of which remains inside the courtyard, what is the halakha? Do we determine the status of this minority of a limb by casting it after the majority of that limb, and the majority of that limb did not leave? Or perhaps we determine its status by casting it after the majority of the animal, and therefore a majority of the animal has left?
Χ€Φ°ΦΌΧ©Φ΄ΧΧΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦΈΧ Χ©ΦΈΧΧΦ°Χ§Φ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ΄ΦΌΧΦ°ΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΧΦΈΧΦ°ΧΦ΄ΧΧ Φ·Χ ΧΦΈΦΌΧͺΦ·Χ¨ Χ¨ΧΦΌΧΦΈΦΌΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦΈΧ¨Φ΄ΧΧ! ΧΦΆΧΦΈΦΌΧ Χ©ΦΆΧΧΦΈΦΌΧ¦ΦΈΧ ΧΦΆΧ¦Φ°ΧΧΦΉ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧ¨ΧΦΉΧ ΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧ¨ β ΧΦ·ΧΧ ΧΦ΄ΧΧ’ΧΦΌΧΦΈΧ ΧΦ°ΦΌΧΦ΅ΧΦΆΧ¨
The Gemara clarifies: Isnβt it obvious that we do not disregard the majority of the animal and instead follow the majority of the limbs? Rather, Rabbi Elazarβs dilemma must be as follows: In a case where half of the animal emerged from the courtyard such that the majority of a certain limb emerged, but a minority of the limb remained inside, what is the halakha? Do we determine the status of this minority of a limb
Follow
