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 month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
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.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
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.
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 never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
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.
Houston, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, 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!
Minnesota, United States
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
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
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
Philadelphia, United States
Phoenix, AZ, United States
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.
Mitspe, Israel
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, 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
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
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
