Zevachim 104

ומאי אחר הפשט קודם שנראו להפשט אחר שנראו להפשט

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.

מאי רבי ומאי רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון דתניא רבי אומר הדם מרצה על העור בפני עצמו וכשהוא עם הבשר נולד בו פסול בין קודם זריקה בין לאחר זריקה הרי הוא כיוצא בו

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.

רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר אין הדם מרצה על העור בפני עצמו וכשהוא עם הבשר נולד בו פסול קודם זריקה הרי הוא כיוצא בו אחר זריקה הורצה בשר שעה אחת יפשיטנו ועורו לכהנים

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.

לימא בדרבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע קמיפלגי ועשית עלתיך הבשר והדם רבי יהושע אומר אם אין דם אין בשר אם אין בשר אין דם

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.

רבי אליעזר אומר דם אף על פי שאין בשר שנאמר ודם זבחיך ישפך אם כן מה תלמוד לומר ועשית עלתיך הבשר והדם לומר לך מה דם בזריקה אף בשר בזריקה הא למדת שריוח יש בין כבש למזבח

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.

לימא מאן דאמר הורצה כרבי אליעזר ומאן דאמר לא הורצה כרבי יהושע

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?

אליבא דרבי אליעזר כולי עלמא לא פליגי כי פליגי אליבא דרבי יהושע

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.

מאן דאמר לא הורצה כרבי יהושע מאן דאמר הורצה אמר לך עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יהושע התם אלא בבשר דליכא פסידא לכהנים אבל עור דאיכא פסידא לכהנים אפילו רבי יהושע מודה

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.

מידי דהוה אדיעבד דתנן נטמא בשר או נפסל או שיצא חוץ לקלעים רבי אליעזר אומר יזרוק רבי יהושע אומר לא יזרוק ומודה רבי יהושע שאם זרק הורצה

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.

אמר רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים כו׳ ולא הרי פרים הנשרפים ושעירים הנשרפים

§ 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?

למצותן לא קאמרינן

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.

הרי קודם הפשט וקודם זריקה חלוץ קאמרינן

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.

והאיכא אחר הפשט וקודם זריקה לרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון דאמר אין הדם מרצה על העור בפני עצמו

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?

רבי חנינא כרבי סבירא ליה ואיבעית אימא אפילו תוקמה כרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון מודה רבי שאין הפשט קודם זריקה

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.

והאיכא נמצאת טריפה בבני מעיים

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?

קסבר נמצאת טריפה בבני מעיים מרצה דיקא נמי דקתני אמר רבי עקיבא מדבריו למדנו שהמפשיט את הבכור ונמצא טריפה שיאותו הכהנים בעורו שמע מינה

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.

ואלא מאי קא משמע לן רבי עקיבא הא קא משמע לן אפילו בגבולין

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.

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן הלכה כרבי עקיבא ואף רבי עקיבא לא אמר אלא כשהתירו מומחה אבל לא התירו מומחה לא

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.

והלכתא כדברי חכמים בשר בקבורה והעור בשריפה

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.

מתני׳ פרים הנשרפים ושעירים הנשרפים בזמן שהן נשרפין כמצותן נשרפים בבית הדשן ומטמאין בגדים ואם אינן נשרפין כמצותן נשרפין בבית הבירה ואינן מטמאין בגדים

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.

היו סובלין אותו במוטות יצאו הראשונים חוץ לחומת העזרה והאחרונים לא יצאו הראשונים מטמאין בגדים והאחרונים אינן מטמאין בגדים עד שיצאו יצאו אלו ואלו מטמאין בגדים רבי שמעון אומר אינן מטמאין עד שיוצת האור ברובן ניתך הבשר אין השורף מטמא בגדים

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.

גמ׳ מאי בירה אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מקום יש בהר הבית ובירה שמו וריש לקיש אמר כל הבית כולו קרוי בירה שנאמר (ואל) הבירה אשר הכינותי

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).

אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה שלשה בית הדשנין הן בית הדשן גדול היה בעזרה ששם שורפין פסולי קדשי קדשים ואימורי קדשים קלים ופרים הנשרפין ושעירים הנשרפין שאירע בהן פסול קודם זריקה

§ 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.

ובית הדשן אחר היה בהר הבית ששם שורפין פרים הנשרפים ושעירים הנשרפים שאירע בהן פסול אחר זריקה וכמצותן חוץ לשלש מחנות

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.

תני לוי שלשה בית הדשנין הן בית הדשן גדול היה בעזרה ששם שורפין פסולי קדשי קדשים ואימורי קדשים קלים ופרים הנשרפים ושעירים הנשרפים שאירע בהן פסול בין קודם זריקה בין לאחר זריקה ובית הדשן אחר היה בהר הבית ששם שורפין פרים הנשרפין ושעירים הנשרפין שאירע בהן פסול ביציאתן וכמצותן חוץ לשלש מחנות

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.

בעי רבי ירמיה לינה מהו שתועיל בפרים הנשרפים ובשעירים הנשרפים מי אמרינן כי מהניא לינה בבשר דבר אכילה אבל הני דלאו בני אכילה נינהו לא או דלמא לא שנא

§ 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.

אמר רבא הא מילתא איבעיא ליה לאביי ופשטנא ליה מהא ושוין שאם חישב באכילת פרים ובשריפתן שלא עשה כלום מאי לאו מדמחשבה לא פסלה לינה נמי לא פסלה

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?

ודלמא מחשבה הוא דלא פסלה אבל לינה פסלה

The Gemara responds: But perhaps it is only improper intention that does not disqualify such offerings, but being left overnight does disqualify them.

תא שמע פרים הנשרפים ושעירים הנשרפין מועלין בהן משהוקדשו נשחטו הוכשרו ליפסל בטבול יום ובמחוסר כיפורים ובלינה מאי לאו לינת בשר

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?

לא לינת אימורין

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.

והא מדקתני סיפא כולן מועלין בהן בבית הדשן עד שיותך הבשר מדסיפא בשר רישא נמי בשר מידי איריא סיפא בשר רישא אימורין

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.

תא שמע דתני לוי שאירע בהן פסול ביציאתן מאי לאו לינה לא פסול טומאה ופסול יציאה

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.

בעי רבי אלעזר יציאה מהו שתועיל בפרים הנשרפים ושעירים הנשרפים

§ 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?

מאי קמיבעיא ליה אמר רבי ירמיה בר אבא אליבא דמאן דאמר עדיין לא הגיע זמנו לצאת

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.

מי אמרינן הני מילי בשר דאין סופו לצאת חובה אבל הני דסופן לצאת חובה לא או דלמא הכא נמי לא הגיע זמנו לצאת

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.

תא שמע דתני לוי שאירע בו פסול ביציאתו מאי לאו פסול יציאה לא פסול טומאה ופסול לינה

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.

בעי רבי אלעזר פרים הנשרפים ושעירים הנשרפים שיצא רובו במיעוט אבר מהו הך מיעוטא דאבר בתר רובא שדינן ליה והא לא נפקא ליה או דלמא בתר רובא דבהמה שדינן

§ 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?

פשיטא דלא שבקינן רובא דבהמה ואזלינן בתר רובא דאברים אלא שיצא חציו ברוב אבר האי מיעוטא דאבר

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