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.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
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.”
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 adduced 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 offerings 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
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.
Din & Daf: Aninut – Halakhah’s Immediate Response to Losing a Family Member
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.
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
When I began learning Daf Yomi at the beginning of the current cycle, I was preparing for an upcoming surgery and thought that learning the Daf would be something positive I could do each day during my recovery, even if I accomplished nothing else. I had no idea what a lifeline learning the Daf would turn out to be in so many ways.
Lexington, MA, 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.
Jerusalem, Israel
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.
Raanana, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
I started learning when my brother sent me the news clip of the celebration of the last Daf Yomi cycle. I was so floored to see so many women celebrating that I wanted to be a part of it. It has been an enriching experience studying a text in a language I don’t speak, using background knowledge that I don’t have. It is stretching my learning in unexpected ways, bringing me joy and satisfaction.
Warwick, Rhode Island, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, 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.
Jerusalem, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
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 adduced 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 offerings 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
