Study Guide Zevachim 104. Are there cases where the meat is disqualified but the hide will still be given to the priests? There were 3 locations where items were burned (not on the altar) – beit hadeshen. Where were they located and what items were burned there? Does the meat of the sin offerings whose blood was presented inside get disqualified by being left overnight or not?
Zevachim 104
07.26.2018 | י״ד באב תשע״ח
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Zevachim 104
וּמַאי אַחֵר הֶפְשֵׁט – קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּרְאוּ לְהֶפְשֵׁט, אַחַר שֶׁנִּרְאוּ לְהֶפְשֵׁט.
and what does it mean by the phrase: After flaying? It means before the moment the offerings became fit for flaying, and after the moment they became fit for flaying, i.e., before and after the sprinkling of the blood.
מַאי רַבִּי וּמַאי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: הַדָּם מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וּכְשֶׁהוּא עִם הַבָּשָׂר, נוֹלַד בּוֹ פְּסוּל בֵּין קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה בֵּין לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיוֹצֵא בּוֹ.
The Gemara clarifies: What is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and what is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? Their opinions are as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The blood effects acceptance of the hide by itself, after it has been flayed, even if the flesh is disqualified. And if, when the hide is still with the flesh, a disqualification appears on the flesh, whether before the sprinkling of the blood or after the sprinkling of the blood, then the halakha with regard to the hide is parallel to the halakha with regard to the flesh: Both are burned.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין הַדָּם מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וּכְשֶׁהוּא עִם הַבָּשָׂר – נוֹלַד בּוֹ פְּסוּל קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה, הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיוֹצֵא בּוֹ. אַחַר זְרִיקָה, הוּרְצָה בָּשָׂר שָׁעָה אַחַת; יַפְשִׁיטֶנּוּ, וְעוֹרוֹ לַכֹּהֲנִים.
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The blood does not effect acceptance of the hide by itself. And if, when the hide is still with the flesh, a disqualification appears on the flesh before the sprinkling of the blood, then the halakha with regard to the hide is parallel to the halakha with regard to the flesh: Both are burned. If a disqualification develops on the flesh after the sprinkling of the blood, the flesh was already accepted for a time. Therefore, even though the flesh is disqualified, the priest may flay the animal before it is burned, and its hide goes to the priests.
לֵימָא בִּדְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ קָמִיפַּלְגִי? ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״ – רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אִם אֵין דָּם אֵין בָּשָׂר, אִם אֵין בָּשָׂר אֵין דָּם.
The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar disagree about the same principle as do Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27). Rabbi Yehoshua says: The verse teaches that if there is no blood sprinkled on the altar, no flesh may be burned on the altar, and if there is no flesh to be burned on the altar, no blood may be sprinkled on the altar.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: דָּם – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּשָׂר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״? לוֹמַר לְךָ: מָה דָּם בִּזְרִיקָה, אַף בָּשָׂר בִּזְרִיקָה. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁרֶיוַח יֵשׁ בֵּין כֶּבֶשׁ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
Rabbi Eliezer says: The blood must be sprinkled even if there is no flesh, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh.” If so, what is taught when the verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood”? It is stated to tell you: Just as blood is placed on the altar by sprinkling, so too, the flesh is placed on the altar by tossing. Consequently, you learn that there is a space between the ramp and the altar, such that the priest must toss the flesh from the edge of the ramp.
לֵימָא מַאן דְּאָמַר הוּרְצָה – כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא הוּרְצָה – כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ?
The Gemara explains: Shall we say that the one who says that the hide is accepted independent of the flesh holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, that the blood is sprinkled independent of the flesh, and the one who says that the hide is not accepted independent of the flesh holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that if there is no flesh then the blood is not sprinkled?
אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי; כִּי פְּלִיגִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
The Gemara rejects this: According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the blood may be sprinkled even if the flesh is disqualified, everyone agrees that this sprinkling effects acceptance of the hide. When they disagree, it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.
מַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא הוּרְצָה – כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. מַאן דְּאָמַר הוּרְצָה אָמַר לָךְ: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הָתָם – אֶלָּא בְּבָשָׂר, דְּלֵיכָּא פְּסֵידָא לַכֹּהֲנִים; אֲבָל עוֹר, דְּאִיכָּא פְּסֵידָא לַכֹּהֲנִים – אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מוֹדֶה.
The one who says that the hide is not accepted independently, i.e., Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the straightforward meaning of the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua; once the flesh is disqualified, the blood cannot be sprinkled and does not effect acceptance of the hide. The one who says that the hide is accepted, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, could say to you: Rabbi Yehoshua says only there that the blood may not be sprinkled in a case where nothing but the flesh was at stake, where there is no loss for the priests, who never receive meat from burnt offerings. But in cases where the hide would go to waste, where there is a loss for the priests, perhaps even Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that the blood effects acceptance.
מִידֵי דְּהָוֵה אַדִּיעֲבַד; דִּתְנַן: נִטְמָא בָּשָׂר אוֹ נִפְסַל, אוֹ שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר יִזְרוֹק, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר לֹא יִזְרוֹק. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁאִם זָרַק – הוּרְצָה.
This latter interpretation of Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion with regard to the hides is just as it is with regard to disqualified flesh after the fact. As we learned in a baraita: If the flesh contracted ritual impurity or was disqualified, or if it emerged beyond the curtains delineating its designated area, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest must nevertheless sprinkle the blood on the altar. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The priest may not sprinkle the blood on the altar. And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if the priest nevertheless sprinkled the blood, the offering is accepted after the fact. Apparently, the sprinkling is sufficiently valid to effect acceptance of the hide.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים כּוּ׳. וְלֹא?! הֲרֵי פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים!
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, said: In all my days, I never saw a hide going out to the place of burning. The Gemara challenges: And is it so that he did not see? Aren’t there bulls that are burned and goats that are burned together with their hides as a matter of course?
לְמִצְוָתָן לָא קָאָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara answers: We are not saying that Rabbi Ḥanina never saw hides go out to be burned in accordance with their mitzva; he certainly did. Rather, he never saw hides being burned because the offering was disqualified.
הֲרֵי קוֹדֶם הֶפְשֵׁט וְקוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה! חָלוּץ קָאָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara challenges: But isn’t there a case where an offering is disqualified before flaying and before the sprinkling of the blood, in which case all agree that the animal is burned with its hide? The Gemara answers: We are saying that Rabbi Ḥanina never saw a hide go out stripped from its flesh.
וְהָאִיכָּא אַחַר הֶפְשֵׁט וְקוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: אֵין הַדָּם מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ!
The Gemara challenges: But isn’t there a case where an offering is disqualified after the flaying of the hide and before the sprinkling of the blood, in which case the hide is burned according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says: The blood does not effect acceptance of the hide by itself?
רַבִּי חֲנִינָא כְּרַבִּי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אֲפִילּוּ תּוֹקְמַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שֶׁאֵין הֶפְשֵׁט קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that the blood does effect acceptance of the hide in such a case, and so it would not be burned. And if you wish, say instead that you can even interpret the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that the flaying is not done before the sprinkling, and so in practice Rabbi Ḥanina never saw a hide that was flayed before the offering was disqualified.
וְהָאִיכָּא נִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִים!
The Gemara challenges: But isn’t there the case of an animal that, after the hide was flayed and the blood was sprinkled, was found to have a wound in its intestines rendering it a tereifa, in which case the offering was already disqualified when the blood was sprinkled?
קָסָבַר: נִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִים – מְרַצֶּה. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי – דְּקָתָנֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מִדְּבָרָיו לָמַדְנוּ, שֶׁהַמַּפְשִׁיט אֶת הַבְּכוֹר וְנִמְצָא טְרֵיפָה – שֶׁיֵּאוֹתוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּעוֹרוֹ! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina holds that in the case of an animal that was found to be a tereifa due to a wound in its intestines, the sprinkling of the blood nevertheless effects acceptance, because the wound was unknown at the time of the sprinkling. The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Rabbi Akiva said: From the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, we learned that in a case where one flays the firstborn offering, and the animal is later discovered to be a tereifa, the halakha is that the priests may derive benefit from its hide. This indicates that the sprinkling of the blood effects acceptance if the wound was unknown. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn from the mishna that this is so.
וְאֶלָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אֲפִילּוּ בִּגְבוּלִין.
The Gemara challenges: But if this is what Rabbi Ḥanina meant, then what is Rabbi Akiva teaching us? His statement seems unnecessary. The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi Akiva is teaching us: This halakha applies not just in the Temple but even in the outlying areas, e.g., with regard to a blemished firstborn animal, which is slaughtered outside the Temple. If it is discovered to be a tereifa before its slaughter, it must be buried with its hide, but if it is slaughtered and later discovered to be a tereifa, then its slaughter renders the hide permitted to the priests, just as the sprinkling of the blood renders the hide permitted in the Temple.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וְאַף רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהִתִּירוֹ מוּמְחֶה, אֲבָל לֹא הִתִּירוֹ מוּמְחֶה – לֹא.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara adds: And even Rabbi Akiva said this halakha only in a case where an expert verified the firstborn animal’s blemish and permitted it to be slaughtered. But if an expert did not permit it, then its slaughter does not render the hide permitted to the priest.
וְהִלְכְתָא כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים; בָּשָׂר בִּקְבוּרָה, וְהָעוֹר בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.
The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, not Rabbi Akiva. Therefore, the flesh is discarded by burial and the hide by burning.
מַתְנִי׳ פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן נִשְׂרָפִין כְּמִצְוָתָן – נִשְׂרָפִים בְּבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן וּמְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים, וְאִם אֵינָן נִשְׂרָפִין כְּמִצְוָתָן – נִשְׂרָפִין בְּבֵית הַבִּירָה וְאֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים.
MISHNA: With regard to bulls that are burned, i.e., the bull of Yom Kippur, the bull of the anointed priest, and the bull brought for an unwitting communal sin, which are burned after their blood is sprinkled and their sacrificial portions burned on the altar, and goats that are burned, i.e., the goat of Yom Kippur and the goat brought for the unwitting communal transgression of the prohibition against idol worship, when they are burned in accordance with their mitzva, they are burned in the place of the ashes (see Leviticus 4:12) outside of Jerusalem, and they render the garments of the priests who tend to their burning impure (see Leviticus 4:25). And if these offerings are not burned in accordance with their mitzva because they were disqualified, and offerings that are disqualified are also burned, they are burned in the place of burning in the bira, and they do not render the garments of the priests who tend to their burning impure.
הָיוּ סוֹבְלִין אוֹתוֹ בְּמוֹטוֹת. יָצְאוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנִים חוּץ לְחוֹמַת הָעֲזָרָה וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים לֹא יָצְאוּ – הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים, וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים עַד שֶׁיָּצְאוּ. יָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ – מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין עַד שֶׁיּוּצַּת הָאוּר בְּרוּבָּן. נִיתַּךְ הַבָּשָׂר – אֵין הַשּׂוֹרֵף מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים.
The priests would carry the bulls and the goats that are burned suspended on poles. When the first priests, carrying the front of the pole, emerged outside the wall of the Temple courtyard and the latter priests did not yet emerge, the first priests render their garments impure, and the latter priests do not render their garments impure until they emerge. When both these and those priests emerged, they render their garments impure. Rabbi Shimon says: They do not render their garments impure, as this halakha applies only to those who burn the offerings. And even then their garments do not become ritually impure until the fire is ignited in the majority of the offerings. Once the flesh is completely scorched, with no moisture remaining, one who then burns the remains does not render his garments impure.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי בִּירָה? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָקוֹם יֵשׁ בְּהַר הַבַּיִת, וּ״בִירָה״ שְׁמוֹ. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כׇּל הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ קָרוּי ״בִּירָה״, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״(וְאֶל) הַבִּירָה אֲשֶׁר הֲכִינוֹתִי״.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if offerings of a type that are burned were disqualified, they are burned in a place of burning called the bira. The Gemara asks: What is the bira? Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is a place on the Temple Mount, and its name is bira, and this is where they would burn these offerings. And Reish Lakish says: The entire Temple is called the bira, as it is stated in the prayer of David: “And give unto Solomon my son a whole heart, to keep Your commandments, Your testimonies, and Your statutes, and to do all this, and to build the Temple [bira] for which I have made provision” (I Chronicles 29:19).
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, שְׁלֹשָׁה בֵּית הַדְּשָׁנִין הֵן: בֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן גָּדוֹל הָיָה בַּעֲזָרָה – שֶׁשָּׁם שׂוֹרְפִין פְּסוּלֵי קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וְאֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין, וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה.
§ Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: There are three places of the ashes. First was the great place of the ashes that was in the Temple courtyard, where the priests would burn the disqualified offerings of the most sacred order, and the disqualified sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity, and bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified prior to the sprinkling of the blood.
וּבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן אַחֵר הָיָה בְּהַר הַבַּיִת – שֶׁשָּׁם שׂוֹרְפִין פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל אַחַר זְרִיקָה. וּכְמִצְוָתָן, חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת.
And there was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified after the sprinkling of the blood. And the third place of the ashes was for the bulls and goats that were burned in accordance with their mitzva, outside the three camps, i.e., outside the walls of Jerusalem.
תָּנֵי לֵוִי: שְׁלֹשָׁה בֵּית הַדְּשָׁנִין הֵן: בֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן גָּדוֹל הָיָה בָּעֲזָרָה – שֶׁשָּׁם שׂוֹרְפִין פְּסוּלֵי קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וְאֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל, בֵּין קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה בֵּין לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה. וּבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן אַחֵר הָיָה בְּהַר הַבַּיִת, שֶׁשָּׁם שׂוֹרְפִין פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל בִּיצִיאָתָן. וּכְמִצְוָתָן, חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת.
Levi teaches a different version of this baraita: There are three places of the ashes. First was the great place of the ashes that was in the Temple courtyard, where the priests would burn the disqualified offerings of the most sacred order, and the disqualified sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity, and bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified, whether prior to the sprinkling of the blood or after the sprinkling of the blood. And there was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified upon emerging from the Temple courtyard. And the third was for bulls and goats burned in accordance with their mitzva, outside the three camps.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לִינָה מַהוּ שֶׁתּוֹעִיל בְּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּבִשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כִּי מַהְנְיָא לִינָה – בְּבָשָׂר דְּבַר אֲכִילָה, אֲבָל הָנֵי דְּלָאו בְּנֵי אֲכִילָה נִינְהוּ – לָא; אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?
§ Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: The flesh of most offerings is disqualified by being left overnight. What is the halakha as to whether being left overnight is effective to disqualify bulls that are burned and goats that are burned? Given that their flesh is neither eaten nor burned on the altar, do we say: When being left overnight is effective to disqualify flesh, this is only in a case of flesh that is fit for consumption, either by the altar or by human beings; but in the case of these bulls and goats that are burned, which are not fit for consumption, being left overnight does not disqualify the flesh? Or perhaps this case is no different, and being left overnight disqualifies the flesh.
אָמַר רָבָא: הָא מִילְּתָא אִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְאַבָּיֵי, וּפְשַׁטְנָא לֵיהּ מֵהָא: וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאִם חִישֵּׁב בַּאֲכִילַת פָּרִים וּבִשְׂרֵיפָתָן – שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. מַאי, לָאו מִדְּמַחְשָׁבָה לָא פָּסְלָה – לִינָה נָמֵי לָא פָּסְלָה?
Rava said: This matter, Rabbi Yirmeya’s dilemma, was raised by Abaye, and I resolved it from this baraita: The mishna (43a) records a dispute as to whether the sacrificial portions of bulls that are burned are subject to disqualification by intent to burn them beyond their designated time [piggul]. But the disputants agree that if the priest intended for the consumption of the bulls’ meat and their burning to be beyond their designated time, he did nothing, as piggul applies only to flesh consumed by human beings or the altar. What, is it not the case that since the intention of burning after the designated time does not disqualify bulls that are burned, one can infer that being left overnight also does not disqualify bulls that are burned?
וְדִלְמָא מַחְשָׁבָה הוּא דְּלָא פָּסְלָה, אֲבָל לִינָה פָּסְלָה!
The Gemara responds: But perhaps it is only improper intention that does not disqualify such offerings, but being left overnight does disqualify them.
תָּא שְׁמַע: פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשׁוּ. נִשְׁחֲטוּ – הוּכְשְׁרוּ לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּיפּוּרִים וּבְלִינָה. מַאי, לָאו לִינַת בָּשָׂר?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a mishna (Me’ila 9a): With regard to bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property from the time that they were consecrated. Once they have been slaughtered, they are susceptible to be rendered disqualified for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through being left overnight without the requirements of the offering having been fulfilled. What, is it not referring to the flesh of bulls, indicating that the flesh is disqualified if left overnight?
לָא, לִינַת אֵימוּרִין.
The Gemara responds: No, the mishna indicates only that the offerings’ sacrificial portions are disqualified if left overnight, since they must be burned on the altar.
וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כּוּלָּן מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן בְּבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן עַד שֶׁיּוּתַּךְ הַבָּשָׂר – מִדְּסֵיפָא בָּשָׂר, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי בָּשָׂר! מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! סֵיפָא בָּשָׂר, רֵישָׁא אֵימוּרִין!
The Gemara responds: But evidence to the contrary can be ad-duced from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches: In all of those cases, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property if he derives benefit while they are burned in the place of the ashes, until the flesh is completely incinerated. The Gemara explains: From the fact that the latter clause is discussing flesh, infer that the first clause also discusses flesh, and not the sacrificial portions. The Gemara rejects this: Are the cases comparable? The latter clause discusses flesh, and the first clause discusses sacrificial portions.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל בִּיצִיאָתָן. מַאי, לָאו לִינָה? לָא, פְּסוּל טוּמְאָה וּפְסוּל יְצִיאָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which Levi teaches in the baraita: There was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified upon emerging from the Temple courtyard. What, is it not referring to offerings disqualified by being left overnight? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to disqualification by contracting ritual impurity or disqualification by leaving the courtyard before the blood was sprinkled on the altar. The dilemma of Rabbi Yirmeya stands unresolved.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: יְצִיאָה, מַהוּ שֶׁתּוֹעִיל בְּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים?
§ Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: In general, the flesh of offer-ings is disqualified by leaving the Temple courtyard. What is the halakha as to whether leaving is effective to disqualify bulls that are burned and goats that are burned?
מַאי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר עֲדַיִין לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לָצֵאת.
The Gemara asks: What is the dilemma he is raising? Here it is a mitzva to burn the flesh of these offerings outside the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: Rabbi Elazar raises his dilemma in accordance with the opinion of the one who says: With regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, even though the flesh may be consumed anywhere in Jerusalem, nevertheless, if it emerges from the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, it is disqualified, because its time to leave from the Temple courtyard has not yet arrived. Perhaps the same halakha applies to bulls and goats that are burned: Even though the flesh must eventually leave the Temple, if it leaves before its designated time, it is disqualified.
מִי אָמְרִינַן: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בָּשָׂר – דְּאֵין סוֹפוֹ לָצֵאת חוֹבָה, אֲבָל הָנֵי דְּסוֹפָן לָצֵאת חוֹבָה – לָא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, הָכָא נָמֵי לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לָצֵאת?
The dilemma is: Do we say that this matter, disqualification by leaving the Temple courtyard prematurely, applies only to flesh that need not eventually leave due to an obligation? One may consume the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity in the Temple courtyard if he wishes. But perhaps these bulls and goats that are burned, which must eventually leave due to an obligation, are not disqualified by emerging prematurely. Or perhaps here too the flesh is disqualified if its time to leave has not yet arrived.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: שֶׁאֵירַע בּוֹ פְּסוּל בִּיצִיאָתוֹ. מַאי, לָאו פָּסוּל יְצִיאָה? לָא; פְּסוּל טוּמְאָה וּפְסוּל לִינָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which Levi teaches in the baraita: There was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified upon emerging from the Temple courtyard. What, is it not referring to disqualification by leaving the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood? The Gemara responds: No, it is referring to disqualification by contracting ritual impurity or disqualification by being left overnight. The dilemma of Rabbi Elazar stands unresolved.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים, שֶׁיָּצָא (רוּבּוֹ) [רוּבָּן] בְּמִיעוּט אֵבֶר – מַהוּ? הָךְ מִיעוּטָא דְּאֵבֶר בָּתַר רוּבָּא שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ – וְהָא לָא נָפְקָא לֵיהּ; אוֹ דִלְמָא, בָּתַר רוּבָּא דִּבְהֵמָה שָׁדֵינַן?
§ Rabbi Elazar raises another dilemma: With regard to bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, if the majority of the animal’s body emerged from the Temple courtyard, but it consists of a majority only by inclusion of the minority of a limb, the majority of which remains inside the courtyard, what is the halakha? Do we determine the status of this minority of a limb by casting it after the majority of that limb, and the majority of that limb did not leave? Or perhaps we determine its status by casting it after the majority of the animal, and therefore a majority of the animal has left?
פְּשִׁיטָא דְּלָא שָׁבְקִינַן רוּבָּא דִּבְהֵמָה וְאָזְלִינַן בָּתַר רוּבָּא דְּאֵבָרִים! אֶלָּא שֶׁיָּצָא חֶצְיוֹ בְּרוֹב אֵבֶר – הַאי מִיעוּטָא דְּאֵבֶר
The Gemara clarifies: Isn’t it obvious that we do not disregard the majority of the animal and instead follow the majority of the limbs? Rather, Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma must be as follows: In a case where half of the animal emerged from the courtyard such that the majority of a certain limb emerged, but a minority of the limb remained inside, what is the halakha? Do we determine the status of this minority of a limb
Follow
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 began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
I started learning Daf Yomi to fill what I saw as a large gap in my Jewish education. I also hope to inspire my three daughters to ensure that they do not allow the same Talmud-sized gap to form in their own educations. I am so proud to be a part of the Hadran community, and I have loved learning so many of the stories and halachot that we have seen so far. I look forward to continuing!
Dora Chana Haar
Oceanside NY, United States
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Rina Goldberg
Englewood NJ, United States
I start learning Daf Yomi in January 2020. The daily learning with Rabbanit Michelle has kept me grounded in this very uncertain time. Despite everything going on – the Pandemic, my personal life, climate change, war, etc… I know I can count on Hadran’s podcast to bring a smile to my face.
Deb Engel
Los Angeles, United States
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.
Janice Block
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Deborah Dickson
Ra’anana, 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!
Cindy Dolgin
HUNTINGTON, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Julie Mendelsohn
Zichron Yakov, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
At almost 70 I am just beginning my journey with Talmud and Hadran. I began not late, but right when I was called to learn. It is never too late to begin! The understanding patience of staff and participants with more experience and knowledge has been fabulous. The joy of learning never stops and for me. It is a new life, a new light, a new depth of love of The Holy One, Blessed be He.
Deborah Hoffman-Wade
Richmond, CA, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Barbara Goldschlag
Silver Spring, MD, United States
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Rhondda May
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
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.
Joanna Rom
Northwest Washington, United States
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Goldie Gilad
Kfar Saba, Israel
My first Talmud class experience was a weekly group in 1971 studying Taanit. In 2007 I resumed Talmud study with a weekly group I continue learning with. January 2020, I was inspired to try learning Daf Yomi. A friend introduced me to Daf Yomi for Women and Rabbanit Michelle Farber, I have kept with this program and look forward, G- willing, to complete the entire Shas with Hadran.
Lorri Lewis
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Sharon Mink
Haifa, Israel
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Susan Handelman
Jerusalem, Israel
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.
Nancy Kolodny
Newton, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Shoshana Shinnar
Jerusalem, Israel
Zevachim 104
וּמַאי אַחֵר הֶפְשֵׁט – קוֹדֶם שֶׁנִּרְאוּ לְהֶפְשֵׁט, אַחַר שֶׁנִּרְאוּ לְהֶפְשֵׁט.
and what does it mean by the phrase: After flaying? It means before the moment the offerings became fit for flaying, and after the moment they became fit for flaying, i.e., before and after the sprinkling of the blood.
מַאי רַבִּי וּמַאי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: הַדָּם מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וּכְשֶׁהוּא עִם הַבָּשָׂר, נוֹלַד בּוֹ פְּסוּל בֵּין קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה בֵּין לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה – הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיוֹצֵא בּוֹ.
The Gemara clarifies: What is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and what is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon? Their opinions are as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The blood effects acceptance of the hide by itself, after it has been flayed, even if the flesh is disqualified. And if, when the hide is still with the flesh, a disqualification appears on the flesh, whether before the sprinkling of the blood or after the sprinkling of the blood, then the halakha with regard to the hide is parallel to the halakha with regard to the flesh: Both are burned.
רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵין הַדָּם מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ. וּכְשֶׁהוּא עִם הַבָּשָׂר – נוֹלַד בּוֹ פְּסוּל קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה, הֲרֵי הוּא כְּיוֹצֵא בּוֹ. אַחַר זְרִיקָה, הוּרְצָה בָּשָׂר שָׁעָה אַחַת; יַפְשִׁיטֶנּוּ, וְעוֹרוֹ לַכֹּהֲנִים.
Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The blood does not effect acceptance of the hide by itself. And if, when the hide is still with the flesh, a disqualification appears on the flesh before the sprinkling of the blood, then the halakha with regard to the hide is parallel to the halakha with regard to the flesh: Both are burned. If a disqualification develops on the flesh after the sprinkling of the blood, the flesh was already accepted for a time. Therefore, even though the flesh is disqualified, the priest may flay the animal before it is burned, and its hide goes to the priests.
לֵימָא בִּדְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ קָמִיפַּלְגִי? ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״ – רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אִם אֵין דָּם אֵין בָּשָׂר, אִם אֵין בָּשָׂר אֵין דָּם.
The Gemara suggests: Shall we say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and Rabbi Elazar disagree about the same principle as do Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua? As it is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood, upon the altar of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:27). Rabbi Yehoshua says: The verse teaches that if there is no blood sprinkled on the altar, no flesh may be burned on the altar, and if there is no flesh to be burned on the altar, no blood may be sprinkled on the altar.
רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: דָּם – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בָּשָׂר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְדַם זְבָחֶיךָ יִשָּׁפֵךְ״. אִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״? לוֹמַר לְךָ: מָה דָּם בִּזְרִיקָה, אַף בָּשָׂר בִּזְרִיקָה. הָא לָמַדְתָּ שֶׁרֶיוַח יֵשׁ בֵּין כֶּבֶשׁ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
Rabbi Eliezer says: The blood must be sprinkled even if there is no flesh, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: “And the blood of your sacrifices shall be poured out against the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh.” If so, what is taught when the verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood”? It is stated to tell you: Just as blood is placed on the altar by sprinkling, so too, the flesh is placed on the altar by tossing. Consequently, you learn that there is a space between the ramp and the altar, such that the priest must toss the flesh from the edge of the ramp.
לֵימָא מַאן דְּאָמַר הוּרְצָה – כְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא הוּרְצָה – כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ?
The Gemara explains: Shall we say that the one who says that the hide is accepted independent of the flesh holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, that the blood is sprinkled independent of the flesh, and the one who says that the hide is not accepted independent of the flesh holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that if there is no flesh then the blood is not sprinkled?
אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי; כִּי פְּלִיגִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ.
The Gemara rejects this: According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that the blood may be sprinkled even if the flesh is disqualified, everyone agrees that this sprinkling effects acceptance of the hide. When they disagree, it is according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.
מַאן דְּאָמַר לֹא הוּרְצָה – כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. מַאן דְּאָמַר הוּרְצָה אָמַר לָךְ: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הָתָם – אֶלָּא בְּבָשָׂר, דְּלֵיכָּא פְּסֵידָא לַכֹּהֲנִים; אֲבָל עוֹר, דְּאִיכָּא פְּסֵידָא לַכֹּהֲנִים – אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ מוֹדֶה.
The one who says that the hide is not accepted independently, i.e., Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the straightforward meaning of the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua; once the flesh is disqualified, the blood cannot be sprinkled and does not effect acceptance of the hide. The one who says that the hide is accepted, i.e., Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, could say to you: Rabbi Yehoshua says only there that the blood may not be sprinkled in a case where nothing but the flesh was at stake, where there is no loss for the priests, who never receive meat from burnt offerings. But in cases where the hide would go to waste, where there is a loss for the priests, perhaps even Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that the blood effects acceptance.
מִידֵי דְּהָוֵה אַדִּיעֲבַד; דִּתְנַן: נִטְמָא בָּשָׂר אוֹ נִפְסַל, אוֹ שֶׁיָּצָא חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר יִזְרוֹק, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר לֹא יִזְרוֹק. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שֶׁאִם זָרַק – הוּרְצָה.
This latter interpretation of Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion with regard to the hides is just as it is with regard to disqualified flesh after the fact. As we learned in a baraita: If the flesh contracted ritual impurity or was disqualified, or if it emerged beyond the curtains delineating its designated area, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest must nevertheless sprinkle the blood on the altar. Rabbi Yehoshua says: The priest may not sprinkle the blood on the altar. And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if the priest nevertheless sprinkled the blood, the offering is accepted after the fact. Apparently, the sprinkling is sufficiently valid to effect acceptance of the hide.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים כּוּ׳. וְלֹא?! הֲרֵי פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים!
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, said: In all my days, I never saw a hide going out to the place of burning. The Gemara challenges: And is it so that he did not see? Aren’t there bulls that are burned and goats that are burned together with their hides as a matter of course?
לְמִצְוָתָן לָא קָאָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara answers: We are not saying that Rabbi Ḥanina never saw hides go out to be burned in accordance with their mitzva; he certainly did. Rather, he never saw hides being burned because the offering was disqualified.
הֲרֵי קוֹדֶם הֶפְשֵׁט וְקוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה! חָלוּץ קָאָמְרִינַן.
The Gemara challenges: But isn’t there a case where an offering is disqualified before flaying and before the sprinkling of the blood, in which case all agree that the animal is burned with its hide? The Gemara answers: We are saying that Rabbi Ḥanina never saw a hide go out stripped from its flesh.
וְהָאִיכָּא אַחַר הֶפְשֵׁט וְקוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: אֵין הַדָּם מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ!
The Gemara challenges: But isn’t there a case where an offering is disqualified after the flaying of the hide and before the sprinkling of the blood, in which case the hide is burned according to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says: The blood does not effect acceptance of the hide by itself?
רַבִּי חֲנִינָא כְּרַבִּי סְבִירָא לֵיהּ. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: אֲפִילּוּ תּוֹקְמַהּ כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן – מוֹדֶה רַבִּי שֶׁאֵין הֶפְשֵׁט קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that the blood does effect acceptance of the hide in such a case, and so it would not be burned. And if you wish, say instead that you can even interpret the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that the flaying is not done before the sprinkling, and so in practice Rabbi Ḥanina never saw a hide that was flayed before the offering was disqualified.
וְהָאִיכָּא נִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִים!
The Gemara challenges: But isn’t there the case of an animal that, after the hide was flayed and the blood was sprinkled, was found to have a wound in its intestines rendering it a tereifa, in which case the offering was already disqualified when the blood was sprinkled?
קָסָבַר: נִמְצֵאת טְרֵיפָה בִּבְנֵי מֵעַיִים – מְרַצֶּה. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי – דְּקָתָנֵי, אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מִדְּבָרָיו לָמַדְנוּ, שֶׁהַמַּפְשִׁיט אֶת הַבְּכוֹר וְנִמְצָא טְרֵיפָה – שֶׁיֵּאוֹתוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּעוֹרוֹ! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina holds that in the case of an animal that was found to be a tereifa due to a wound in its intestines, the sprinkling of the blood nevertheless effects acceptance, because the wound was unknown at the time of the sprinkling. The language of the mishna is also precise, as it teaches: Rabbi Akiva said: From the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, we learned that in a case where one flays the firstborn offering, and the animal is later discovered to be a tereifa, the halakha is that the priests may derive benefit from its hide. This indicates that the sprinkling of the blood effects acceptance if the wound was unknown. The Gemara affirms: Indeed, learn from the mishna that this is so.
וְאֶלָּא מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא? הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: אֲפִילּוּ בִּגְבוּלִין.
The Gemara challenges: But if this is what Rabbi Ḥanina meant, then what is Rabbi Akiva teaching us? His statement seems unnecessary. The Gemara answers: This is what Rabbi Akiva is teaching us: This halakha applies not just in the Temple but even in the outlying areas, e.g., with regard to a blemished firstborn animal, which is slaughtered outside the Temple. If it is discovered to be a tereifa before its slaughter, it must be buried with its hide, but if it is slaughtered and later discovered to be a tereifa, then its slaughter renders the hide permitted to the priests, just as the sprinkling of the blood renders the hide permitted in the Temple.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא. וְאַף רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לֹא אָמַר אֶלָּא כְּשֶׁהִתִּירוֹ מוּמְחֶה, אֲבָל לֹא הִתִּירוֹ מוּמְחֶה – לֹא.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. The Gemara adds: And even Rabbi Akiva said this halakha only in a case where an expert verified the firstborn animal’s blemish and permitted it to be slaughtered. But if an expert did not permit it, then its slaughter does not render the hide permitted to the priest.
וְהִלְכְתָא כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים; בָּשָׂר בִּקְבוּרָה, וְהָעוֹר בִּשְׂרֵיפָה.
The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, not Rabbi Akiva. Therefore, the flesh is discarded by burial and the hide by burning.
מַתְנִי׳ פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן נִשְׂרָפִין כְּמִצְוָתָן – נִשְׂרָפִים בְּבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן וּמְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים, וְאִם אֵינָן נִשְׂרָפִין כְּמִצְוָתָן – נִשְׂרָפִין בְּבֵית הַבִּירָה וְאֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים.
MISHNA: With regard to bulls that are burned, i.e., the bull of Yom Kippur, the bull of the anointed priest, and the bull brought for an unwitting communal sin, which are burned after their blood is sprinkled and their sacrificial portions burned on the altar, and goats that are burned, i.e., the goat of Yom Kippur and the goat brought for the unwitting communal transgression of the prohibition against idol worship, when they are burned in accordance with their mitzva, they are burned in the place of the ashes (see Leviticus 4:12) outside of Jerusalem, and they render the garments of the priests who tend to their burning impure (see Leviticus 4:25). And if these offerings are not burned in accordance with their mitzva because they were disqualified, and offerings that are disqualified are also burned, they are burned in the place of burning in the bira, and they do not render the garments of the priests who tend to their burning impure.
הָיוּ סוֹבְלִין אוֹתוֹ בְּמוֹטוֹת. יָצְאוּ הָרִאשׁוֹנִים חוּץ לְחוֹמַת הָעֲזָרָה וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים לֹא יָצְאוּ – הָרִאשׁוֹנִים מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים, וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים עַד שֶׁיָּצְאוּ. יָצְאוּ אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ – מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין עַד שֶׁיּוּצַּת הָאוּר בְּרוּבָּן. נִיתַּךְ הַבָּשָׂר – אֵין הַשּׂוֹרֵף מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים.
The priests would carry the bulls and the goats that are burned suspended on poles. When the first priests, carrying the front of the pole, emerged outside the wall of the Temple courtyard and the latter priests did not yet emerge, the first priests render their garments impure, and the latter priests do not render their garments impure until they emerge. When both these and those priests emerged, they render their garments impure. Rabbi Shimon says: They do not render their garments impure, as this halakha applies only to those who burn the offerings. And even then their garments do not become ritually impure until the fire is ignited in the majority of the offerings. Once the flesh is completely scorched, with no moisture remaining, one who then burns the remains does not render his garments impure.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי בִּירָה? אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מָקוֹם יֵשׁ בְּהַר הַבַּיִת, וּ״בִירָה״ שְׁמוֹ. וְרֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: כׇּל הַבַּיִת כּוּלּוֹ קָרוּי ״בִּירָה״, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״(וְאֶל) הַבִּירָה אֲשֶׁר הֲכִינוֹתִי״.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if offerings of a type that are burned were disqualified, they are burned in a place of burning called the bira. The Gemara asks: What is the bira? Rabba bar bar Ḥana says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: There is a place on the Temple Mount, and its name is bira, and this is where they would burn these offerings. And Reish Lakish says: The entire Temple is called the bira, as it is stated in the prayer of David: “And give unto Solomon my son a whole heart, to keep Your commandments, Your testimonies, and Your statutes, and to do all this, and to build the Temple [bira] for which I have made provision” (I Chronicles 29:19).
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ, שְׁלֹשָׁה בֵּית הַדְּשָׁנִין הֵן: בֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן גָּדוֹל הָיָה בַּעֲזָרָה – שֶׁשָּׁם שׂוֹרְפִין פְּסוּלֵי קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וְאֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין, וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה.
§ Rav Naḥman says that Rabba bar Avuh says: There are three places of the ashes. First was the great place of the ashes that was in the Temple courtyard, where the priests would burn the disqualified offerings of the most sacred order, and the disqualified sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity, and bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified prior to the sprinkling of the blood.
וּבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן אַחֵר הָיָה בְּהַר הַבַּיִת – שֶׁשָּׁם שׂוֹרְפִין פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל אַחַר זְרִיקָה. וּכְמִצְוָתָן, חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת.
And there was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified after the sprinkling of the blood. And the third place of the ashes was for the bulls and goats that were burned in accordance with their mitzva, outside the three camps, i.e., outside the walls of Jerusalem.
תָּנֵי לֵוִי: שְׁלֹשָׁה בֵּית הַדְּשָׁנִין הֵן: בֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן גָּדוֹל הָיָה בָּעֲזָרָה – שֶׁשָּׁם שׂוֹרְפִין פְּסוּלֵי קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וְאֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל, בֵּין קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה בֵּין לְאַחַר זְרִיקָה. וּבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן אַחֵר הָיָה בְּהַר הַבַּיִת, שֶׁשָּׁם שׂוֹרְפִין פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל בִּיצִיאָתָן. וּכְמִצְוָתָן, חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת.
Levi teaches a different version of this baraita: There are three places of the ashes. First was the great place of the ashes that was in the Temple courtyard, where the priests would burn the disqualified offerings of the most sacred order, and the disqualified sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity, and bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified, whether prior to the sprinkling of the blood or after the sprinkling of the blood. And there was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified upon emerging from the Temple courtyard. And the third was for bulls and goats burned in accordance with their mitzva, outside the three camps.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: לִינָה מַהוּ שֶׁתּוֹעִיל בְּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּבִשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כִּי מַהְנְיָא לִינָה – בְּבָשָׂר דְּבַר אֲכִילָה, אֲבָל הָנֵי דְּלָאו בְּנֵי אֲכִילָה נִינְהוּ – לָא; אוֹ דִלְמָא לָא שְׁנָא?
§ Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: The flesh of most offerings is disqualified by being left overnight. What is the halakha as to whether being left overnight is effective to disqualify bulls that are burned and goats that are burned? Given that their flesh is neither eaten nor burned on the altar, do we say: When being left overnight is effective to disqualify flesh, this is only in a case of flesh that is fit for consumption, either by the altar or by human beings; but in the case of these bulls and goats that are burned, which are not fit for consumption, being left overnight does not disqualify the flesh? Or perhaps this case is no different, and being left overnight disqualifies the flesh.
אָמַר רָבָא: הָא מִילְּתָא אִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לְאַבָּיֵי, וּפְשַׁטְנָא לֵיהּ מֵהָא: וְשָׁוִין שֶׁאִם חִישֵּׁב בַּאֲכִילַת פָּרִים וּבִשְׂרֵיפָתָן – שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה כְּלוּם. מַאי, לָאו מִדְּמַחְשָׁבָה לָא פָּסְלָה – לִינָה נָמֵי לָא פָּסְלָה?
Rava said: This matter, Rabbi Yirmeya’s dilemma, was raised by Abaye, and I resolved it from this baraita: The mishna (43a) records a dispute as to whether the sacrificial portions of bulls that are burned are subject to disqualification by intent to burn them beyond their designated time [piggul]. But the disputants agree that if the priest intended for the consumption of the bulls’ meat and their burning to be beyond their designated time, he did nothing, as piggul applies only to flesh consumed by human beings or the altar. What, is it not the case that since the intention of burning after the designated time does not disqualify bulls that are burned, one can infer that being left overnight also does not disqualify bulls that are burned?
וְדִלְמָא מַחְשָׁבָה הוּא דְּלָא פָּסְלָה, אֲבָל לִינָה פָּסְלָה!
The Gemara responds: But perhaps it is only improper intention that does not disqualify such offerings, but being left overnight does disqualify them.
תָּא שְׁמַע: פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין – מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן מִשֶּׁהוּקְדְּשׁוּ. נִשְׁחֲטוּ – הוּכְשְׁרוּ לִיפָּסֵל בִּטְבוּל יוֹם וּבִמְחוּסַּר כִּיפּוּרִים וּבְלִינָה. מַאי, לָאו לִינַת בָּשָׂר?
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a mishna (Me’ila 9a): With regard to bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property from the time that they were consecrated. Once they have been slaughtered, they are susceptible to be rendered disqualified for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through being left overnight without the requirements of the offering having been fulfilled. What, is it not referring to the flesh of bulls, indicating that the flesh is disqualified if left overnight?
לָא, לִינַת אֵימוּרִין.
The Gemara responds: No, the mishna indicates only that the offerings’ sacrificial portions are disqualified if left overnight, since they must be burned on the altar.
וְהָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כּוּלָּן מוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן בְּבֵית הַדֶּשֶׁן עַד שֶׁיּוּתַּךְ הַבָּשָׂר – מִדְּסֵיפָא בָּשָׂר, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי בָּשָׂר! מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! סֵיפָא בָּשָׂר, רֵישָׁא אֵימוּרִין!
The Gemara responds: But evidence to the contrary can be ad-duced from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna teaches: In all of those cases, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property if he derives benefit while they are burned in the place of the ashes, until the flesh is completely incinerated. The Gemara explains: From the fact that the latter clause is discussing flesh, infer that the first clause also discusses flesh, and not the sacrificial portions. The Gemara rejects this: Are the cases comparable? The latter clause discusses flesh, and the first clause discusses sacrificial portions.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל בִּיצִיאָתָן. מַאי, לָאו לִינָה? לָא, פְּסוּל טוּמְאָה וּפְסוּל יְצִיאָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which Levi teaches in the baraita: There was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified upon emerging from the Temple courtyard. What, is it not referring to offerings disqualified by being left overnight? The Gemara rejects this: No, it is referring to disqualification by contracting ritual impurity or disqualification by leaving the courtyard before the blood was sprinkled on the altar. The dilemma of Rabbi Yirmeya stands unresolved.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: יְצִיאָה, מַהוּ שֶׁתּוֹעִיל בְּפָרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים?
§ Rabbi Elazar raises a dilemma: In general, the flesh of offer-ings is disqualified by leaving the Temple courtyard. What is the halakha as to whether leaving is effective to disqualify bulls that are burned and goats that are burned?
מַאי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ? אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא: אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר עֲדַיִין לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לָצֵאת.
The Gemara asks: What is the dilemma he is raising? Here it is a mitzva to burn the flesh of these offerings outside the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: Rabbi Elazar raises his dilemma in accordance with the opinion of the one who says: With regard to offerings of lesser sanctity, even though the flesh may be consumed anywhere in Jerusalem, nevertheless, if it emerges from the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, it is disqualified, because its time to leave from the Temple courtyard has not yet arrived. Perhaps the same halakha applies to bulls and goats that are burned: Even though the flesh must eventually leave the Temple, if it leaves before its designated time, it is disqualified.
מִי אָמְרִינַן: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בָּשָׂר – דְּאֵין סוֹפוֹ לָצֵאת חוֹבָה, אֲבָל הָנֵי דְּסוֹפָן לָצֵאת חוֹבָה – לָא; אוֹ דִלְמָא, הָכָא נָמֵי לֹא הִגִּיעַ זְמַנּוֹ לָצֵאת?
The dilemma is: Do we say that this matter, disqualification by leaving the Temple courtyard prematurely, applies only to flesh that need not eventually leave due to an obligation? One may consume the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity in the Temple courtyard if he wishes. But perhaps these bulls and goats that are burned, which must eventually leave due to an obligation, are not disqualified by emerging prematurely. Or perhaps here too the flesh is disqualified if its time to leave has not yet arrived.
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי לֵוִי: שֶׁאֵירַע בּוֹ פְּסוּל בִּיצִיאָתוֹ. מַאי, לָאו פָּסוּל יְצִיאָה? לָא; פְּסוּל טוּמְאָה וּפְסוּל לִינָה.
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear that which Levi teaches in the baraita: There was another place of the ashes on the Temple Mount, where the priests would burn bulls that are burned and goats that are burned if they were disqualified upon emerging from the Temple courtyard. What, is it not referring to disqualification by leaving the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood? The Gemara responds: No, it is referring to disqualification by contracting ritual impurity or disqualification by being left overnight. The dilemma of Rabbi Elazar stands unresolved.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִים, שֶׁיָּצָא (רוּבּוֹ) [רוּבָּן] בְּמִיעוּט אֵבֶר – מַהוּ? הָךְ מִיעוּטָא דְּאֵבֶר בָּתַר רוּבָּא שָׁדֵינַן לֵיהּ – וְהָא לָא נָפְקָא לֵיהּ; אוֹ דִלְמָא, בָּתַר רוּבָּא דִּבְהֵמָה שָׁדֵינַן?
§ Rabbi Elazar raises another dilemma: With regard to bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, if the majority of the animal’s body emerged from the Temple courtyard, but it consists of a majority only by inclusion of the minority of a limb, the majority of which remains inside the courtyard, what is the halakha? Do we determine the status of this minority of a limb by casting it after the majority of that limb, and the majority of that limb did not leave? Or perhaps we determine its status by casting it after the majority of the animal, and therefore a majority of the animal has left?
פְּשִׁיטָא דְּלָא שָׁבְקִינַן רוּבָּא דִּבְהֵמָה וְאָזְלִינַן בָּתַר רוּבָּא דְּאֵבָרִים! אֶלָּא שֶׁיָּצָא חֶצְיוֹ בְּרוֹב אֵבֶר – הַאי מִיעוּטָא דְּאֵבֶר
The Gemara clarifies: Isn’t it obvious that we do not disregard the majority of the animal and instead follow the majority of the limbs? Rather, Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma must be as follows: In a case where half of the animal emerged from the courtyard such that the majority of a certain limb emerged, but a minority of the limb remained inside, what is the halakha? Do we determine the status of this minority of a limb
Follow
