Zevachim 104a — the Talmud in English

And

what

is the meaning of what the Mishna teaches: if the disqualification occurred

“before flaying,”

the hide is not given to the priests, and

what

is the meaning of what it teaches: if the disqualification occurred “

after flaying,”

which implies that even if the disqualification occurred before the sprinkling, nevertheless the hide is given to the priests, and this is in accordance with Rabbi’s method? It does not mean actual flaying.

Rather, the distinction is between a disqualification that occurred

before “they appeared ready for flaying,”

that is, before the sprinkling, and a case in which the disqualification occurred

after “they appeared ready for flaying,”

that is, after the sprinkling.

And this is the explanation of the Mishna: If the disqualification occurred in the flesh before it appeared ready for flaying, that is, before the sprinkling of the blood [since before the sprinkling it is not customary to flay the hide, so as not to delay the blood], their hides are not for the priests. And even if the hide was subsequently flayed, the sprinkling does not render the hide permitted to the priests, since the blood does not effect atonement for the hide by itself, without effecting atonement for the flesh, and this is the view of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

But if the disqualification occurred after the hides appeared ready for flaying, that is, after the sprinkling, then their hides are given to the priests. Since the blood was sprinkled validly, and the flesh was accepted for one moment, even if the flesh was subsequently disqualified, this did not disqualify the hide; rather, he flays the hide and gives it to the priests.

And now the Gemara explains:

What is [the opinion of] Rabbi, and what is [the opinion of] Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

where were their statements mentioned?

As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi says: The blood effects atonement for the hide by itself.

If the hide was flayed and the flesh was disqualified before the sprinkling, and afterward he sprinkled the blood, the hide becomes permitted, since the sprinkling of the blood can be effective for the hide even without the sprinkling rendering the flesh permitted.

And all the more so if the disqualification occurred in the flesh after flaying and after sprinkling, the hide is given to the priests, since the disqualification of the flesh applies to the hide only when the hide is attached to the flesh.

And

however,

when it,

the hide,

is with the flesh,

that is, when the hide was not flayed, then if

a disqualification arose in it,

in the flesh,

whether before the sprinkling or after the sprinkling, then

the law of the hide

is like that of it,

like the law of the flesh. And even if the flesh was disqualified only after the sprinkling, the law of the hide is like the law of the flesh, and it is not given to the priests.

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The blood does not effect atonement for the hide by itself.

For the hide is not permitted, even if the hide was flayed before the offering was disqualified, until it has a “valid sprinkling,” and there is no valid sprinkling unless it is a sprinkling that renders the flesh permitted. Therefore, a sprinkling that does not render the flesh permitted does not render the hide permitted, even if the hide was by itself.

And when it is with the meat,

And when it is with the flesh,

that is, when the hide was not flayed from the flesh, then if

a disqualification arose in it

in the offering

before the sprinkling

of the blood,

then

the law of the hide

is like that of it,

like the law of the flesh, and it is not rendered permitted to the priests.

But if the disqualification arose in the flesh only

after the sprinkling

of the blood, then, since

the flesh had been accepted for one moment

before it was disqualified,

he shall flay it, and its hide

is given

to the priests,

since the hide had the permission of the sprinkling when it was together with the flesh.

And the Gemara discusses:

Shall we say,

should we say that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi, in their dispute,

dispute in accordance with the views of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua?

As it was taught in a baraita:

It is stated [Deuteronomy 12]: “

And you shall perform your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,

on the altar of the Lord your God. And the blood of your offerings shall be poured upon the altar of the Lord.”

Rabbi Yehoshua says:

If

there is no blood

sprinkled,

there is no flesh

rendered permitted.

And if there is no flesh

fit, such as when the flesh became impure or was lost,

there is no blood

sprinkled.

Rabbi Eliezer says: Blood

is sprinkled upon the altar

even though there is no flesh

fit, because

it is stated: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out,”

and it implies that the blood is sprinkled upon the altar even if there is only blood by itself, even though there is no flesh.

Lest you say:

If so,

that the blood is sprinkled even if there is no flesh,

what does

the Torah teach

at the beginning of the verse: “And you shall perform your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood”?

After all, it is not necessary that flesh remain.

The answer is:

To tell you: Just as the blood

is placed upon the altar

by sprinkling,

so too

the flesh

is burned upon the altar

by sprinkling.

You have thereby learned

from the fact that the Torah required “sprinkling” with regard to the flesh,

that there is a distance between the ramp

of the altar

and the altar

itself. And the priest who burned the limbs stood on the ramp, which was separate from the altar, and threw them from there upon the arrangement, in order to fulfill the mitzva of sprinkling with regard to the flesh.

Shall we say

that we should say that

the one who says,

Rabbi, who said that

it was accepted

that the hide is rendered permitted through the sprinkling of the blood even after the flesh was disqualified, holds

in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer,

who said that there is blood even though there is no flesh. Therefore, the blood can be sprinkled and effect atonement for the hide even though there is no flesh.

And the one who says,

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who said that

it was not accepted,

that the sprinkling does not effect atonement for the hide alone, holds

in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua,

who said: If there is no flesh, there is no blood. Therefore, for the hide to become permitted, it is necessary that there be a valid sprinkling that also renders the flesh permitted.

And we reject this:

With regard to the view of Rabbi Eliezer, everyone does not dispute.

That is, it is certainly the case that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who said that when the flesh was disqualified the hide is not rendered permitted through sprinkling, since we require a valid sprinkling to render the hide permitted, does not hold in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer. For according to Rabbi Eliezer, even though there is no flesh, he may initially sprinkle the blood. It is proven that this sprinkling is considered a valid sprinkling, and it renders the hide permitted.

When they dispute

Rabbi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

it is in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua

that they disagree.

The one who says,

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that

it was not accepted

that the hide is rendered permitted through the sprinkling of the blood when there is no flesh, holds

in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua,

who says: If there is no flesh, there is no blood. Therefore, the sprinkling is not effective to render the hide permitted.

And the one who says,

Rabbi, who holds that

it was accepted

that the hide is rendered permitted through the sprinkling of the blood even when there is no flesh,

can say to you:

I do not necessarily hold only in accordance with Rabbi Eliezer, who says that there is blood even though there is no flesh. Rather, I can hold even in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua. For

Rabbi Yehoshua said

only

there:

If there is no flesh, there is no blood,

but with regard to the flesh,

concerning the offering’s counting for its owners as fulfillment of their obligation, in which case

there is no loss to the priests.

In this regard the Torah said that for sprinkling there must be flesh, and without flesh the offering does not count for the owners.

But

with regard to rendering the

hide permitted, where

there is loss to the priests, even Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that they are not caused a loss; rather, the sprinkling renders the hide permitted.

And indeed, if the flesh was burned or lost before the sprinkling, one does not initially sprinkle the blood, and in this we are not considered to be causing a loss to the priests, since once the offering was not offered, the hide does not belong to them in any event. But if, after the fact, they sprinkled the blood, the sprinkling of the blood is considered a sprinkling that renders the hide permitted, even though the offering was not accepted, and the hide is given to the priests, for we read with regard to it: “The hide of the burnt offering that he offered.”

As is the case

with a similar matter that we find

with

the disqualification of

“leaving,”

where as well they distinguish between initially and after the fact.

As it was taught in a baraita:

An offering whose

flesh became impure, or was disqualified, or left

the flesh of offerings of the highest sanctity

outside the curtains—

Rabbi Eliezer says: He shall sprinkle

the blood, because he follows his own view, that there is blood even though there is no flesh.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: He shall not sprinkle,

and he too follows his own view, that if there is no flesh, there is no blood.

And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if he sprinkled, it was accepted.

Granted, with regard to the flesh becoming impure, one can say that he holds that the frontplate effects atonement for it, and therefore, after the fact, it was accepted. But with regard to the disqualification of leaving, we hold that the frontplate does not effect atonement for the disqualification of leaving, and nevertheless Rabbi Yehoshua said that after the fact it was accepted. It is proven that Rabbi Yehoshua was lenient in this exposition, that if there is no flesh there is no blood, for nevertheless, after the fact, if he sprinkled the blood when there was flesh disqualified through leaving, it was accepted. Therefore, similarly, with regard to flesh that was lost or burned, even though the offering is disqualified even after the fact, nevertheless with regard to the hide Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that after the fact it was accepted, and it is given to the priests.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Hanina, the deputy high priest, said:

In all my days I have never seen a hide that went out to the place of burning.

And we are astonished:

And

is it

not

the case that we find a hide that goes out to the place of burning?!

After all, the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned

are burned together with their hides?!

And we answer: When Rabbi Hanina, the deputy high priest, said that he had not seen a hide that went out to the place of burning, this applies only to the hides of those burned because of their disqualification. But with regard to the bulls and goats burned

as their mitzva,

according to their law,

we are not saying

that the Mishna said in the name of Rabbi Hanina that he had not seen a hide go out to the place of burning, for certainly this is their mitzva-law: their hide is to be burned together with their flesh.

But the Gemara is still astonished:

But there is

a hide that was burned when the offering was disqualified

before flaying and before sprinkling.

For according to Rabbi, the hide is burned because the offering was disqualified before flaying; and according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, the hide is burned because the offering was disqualified before sprinkling.

And we answer: When Rabbi Hanina said that we do not find a burned hide,

we are speaking

of a flayed hide, which was flayed and is by itself. That is, we do not find a hide that is burned by itself. But if the offering was disqualified before flaying or before sprinkling, the hide is burned together with the flesh, and Rabbi Hanina did not speak about this.

And the Gemara is again astonished:

But there is

a flayed hide that is burned when the flesh was disqualified

after flaying and before sprinkling, in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says: The blood does not effect atonement for the hide by itself.

According to him, the law of the hide is that it be burned now, when it is flayed and by itself, since there was no acceptance for the flesh.

And we answer:

Rabbi Hanina holds in accordance with Rabbi, who says: The blood effects atonement for the hide by itself.

According to him, when the flesh was disqualified after flaying and before sprinkling, the blood effects atonement for the hide, and it is given to the priests.

And if you wish, say:

Even if you say that Rabbi Hanina holds

in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

you still should not find this difficult, that we find the burning of a hide when the disqualification occurred after flaying and before sprinkling. For such a case did not occur in his days, since even Rabbi, who holds that the blood effects atonement for the hide by itself,

concedes that Rabbi does not permit flaying before sprinkling.

For it is not customary to flay the hide before the sprinkling, so as not to delay the blood.

And all the more so, according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, they were not accustomed to do so. Therefore Rabbi Hanina said that in all his days he had never seen a hide that went out to the place of burning.

But the Gemara is still astonished:

But there is

another case in which the hide is burned, when

a tereifa was found in the intestines,

in the internal organs, and the disqualification was not found until after they had flayed the hide and discovered that the animal had been a tereifa. The Gemara assumes that since the disqualification of tereifa had already existed before flaying and before sprinkling, according to both Rabbi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, the hide is burned: according to Rabbi, because the disqualification preceded flaying; and according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, because the disqualification preceded sprinkling.

And we answer:

He holds

that Rabbi Hanina holds that if

a tereifa is found in the intestines, the sprinkling effects acceptance

for the hide. Since the disqualification was not recognized before flaying according to Rabbi, nor before sprinkling according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, according to both of them the sprinkling effects acceptance for the hide, and it is given to the priests.

This is also precise

that this is Rabbi Hanina’s view,

for he teaches

in the Mishna there:

“Rabbi Akiva said: From the words

of Rabbi Hanina

we have learned that one who flays the

hide of

a firstborn, and a tereifa is found, they shall benefit,

that is, enjoy

the priests shall benefit from its hide.”

And the reason is that since its disqualification was not known until after the sprinkling and the flaying, the sprinkling effects acceptance for the hide, and it is given to the priests.

And we conclude:

Conclude from it.

But the Gemara is astonished: Since we have heard that Rabbi Hanina holds that with regard to other sacred offerings the sprinkling effects acceptance in such a case, where a tereifa was found in the intestines,

but rather, what

does

Rabbi Akiva teach us

with regard to a firstborn? Since with regard to other sacred offerings Rabbi Hanina holds that the sprinkling effects acceptance, certainly the same law applies to a firstborn.

And what did Rabbi Akiva inform us?

The Gemara answers:

This he informs us,

Rabbi

Akiva, that even

a blemished firstborn that is slaughtered

outside the Land,

which Scripture permitted only for eating, and if it died before slaughter its hide is prohibited for benefit and requires burial, nevertheless, if its tereifa was not recognizable until after the flaying, the slaughter permitted its hide for benefit. It is like the law of an unblemished offering that was slaughtered in the Temple: if the blood of the offering was sprinkled upon the altar and afterward it was found to be a tereifa after the flaying, its hide is permitted.

Rav Hiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yohanan said: The halakha is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva,

that its hide is permitted.

And the Gemara continues and says:

And even Rabbi Akiva did not say

that the hide of a blemished firstborn is permitted

except when it was permitted,

when he saw it

an expert,

and ruled that it was permitted to slaughter the firstborn under the status of a blemished animal.

But if an expert did not permit it, no!

But the Gemara concludes:

And the halakha is in accordance with the statement of the Sages,

who said in the Mishna that the hide goes out to the place of burning, since the tereifa had already existed before the flaying and the sprinkling. Consequently, in the case of a blemished firstborn slaughtered outside the Land and found to be a tereifa after it was flayed, its hide and flesh are buried, not in accordance with Rabbi Akiva.

Mishna:

This Mishna deals with the burning of the flesh of the inner bulls and goats: where they are burned and what is the law of impurity concerning those occupied with them.

According to the Sages, not only those occupied with burning them become impure, but also those carrying them to the place of burning become impure when they leave with them beyond the Temple courtyard. Whereas Rabbi Shimon holds that only those occupied with the burning become impure.

There is a novelty in this impurity: the bulls and goats themselves are not impure at all, and therefore they do not render impure at all a person who merely touches them. In contrast, they render those occupied with them impure with “severe impurity,” an impurity that renders even the garments of those occupied with them impure!

The bulls that are burned,

the sin-offering bull on the Day of Atonement, whose blood is brought inside and within, the bull of an anointed priest, and the bull for an unintentional matter of the community, whose flesh is not burned upon the altar but is burned.

And the goats that are burned,

the goat of the Day of Atonement and the goat for idolatry, for an unintentional matter of the community concerning idolatry.

While they are burned according to their mitzva,

according to their law, since they were not disqualified, and there is a mitzva in burning them by virtue of the law of bulls and goats that are burned, they are:

a.

Burned in the “House of Ashes,”

whose location is outside the three camps, that is, outside the camp of Israel.

b.

And they render garments impure,

the garments of those engaged with them [the garments that are upon them], as it is said: “And the one who burns them shall wash his garments.”

And if they are not burned according to their mitzva,

when a disqualification occurred in them, in which case they require burning both as other disqualified consecrated things, and not because they are bulls and goats that are burned, they are

burned in the “House of the Birah.”

That is, sometimes they were burned in the courtyard, and sometimes they were burned on the Temple Mount, as will be explained in the Gemara.

And they do not render garments impure,

the garments of those dealing with them, since they were disqualified, and they are not burned according to their mitzva.