Zevachim 104a (קד.) — the Talmud in English

And

what is the meaning of what the Mishna teaches: If a 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 opinion? The reference is not actually to flaying.

Rather, the distinction is between a disqualification occurring

before the hide was deemed ready for flaying.

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

after the hide was deemed ready for flaying,

that is, after the sprinkling.

meaning after the sprinkling.

And this is the explanation of the Mishna: If a disqualification occurred in the flesh before it was deemed ready for flaying, meaning before the sprinkling of the blood [because before the sprinkling it is not customary to flay the hide, so as not to delay the blood], their hides do not belong to the priests. And even if the hide was subsequently flayed, the sprinkling does not render the hide permitted to the priests, because the blood does not effect acceptance for the hide independently, without effecting acceptance for the flesh, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

However, if the disqualification occurred after the hides were deemed ready for flaying, meaning 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 does not disqualify the hide. Rather, he flays the hide and gives it to the priests.

The Gemara now explains:

What are the opinions of Rabbi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

and where were their statements mentioned?

As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi says: The blood effects acceptance for the hide independently.

If the hide was flayed and the flesh was disqualified before the sprinkling, and afterward he sprinkled the blood, the hide becomes permitted, because 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 has not been flayed, if

a disqualification arose in it

in the flesh,

whether before the sprinkling or after the sprinkling, then

the status of the hide

is like its status,

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

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: The blood does not effect acceptance for the hide independently.

The hide is not permitted, even if it was flayed before the offering was disqualified, until there is a “valid sprinkling” for it; and a sprinkling is valid only if 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 when the hide is separate and standing on its own.

And when it is with the flesh,

that is, when the hide has not been flayed from the flesh, if

a disqualification arose in it

in the offering

before the sprinkling

of the blood,

then

the status of the hide

is like its status,

like the status 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 benefit of the sprinkling’s permissive effect when it was together with the flesh.

The Gemara discusses this:

Let us say:

Do Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi disagree in the dispute between

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua?

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 for the altar, for example, if the flesh became impure or was lost,

there is no blood

sprinkled.

Rabbi Eliezer says: The 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,”

which implies that the blood is sprinkled upon the altar even if there is only blood alone, although there is no flesh.

Lest you say:

If so,

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

what does

the beginning of the verse

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

teach? Surely it is not necessary for the flesh to remain present.

The answer is:

It teaches you that just as the blood

is placed upon the altar

by sprinkling,

so too

the flesh

is burned upon the altar

by sprinkling.

You learn from this

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

there is a ramp between

the

altar

and the altar itself. The priest who burned the limbs stood on the ramp, which was separate from the altar, and from there he cast them onto the pyre, in order to fulfill the mitzva of sprinkling with regard to the flesh.

Let us say:

May we conclude that

the one who says,

Rabbi, who said that

the hide is accepted

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 acceptance for the hide even though there is no flesh.

And the one who says,

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who said that

it is not accepted,

that sprinkling does not effect acceptance 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 be permitted, there must be a valid sprinkling that also renders the flesh permitted.

And we reject this:

According to Rabbi Eliezer, everyone agrees.

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

They disagree

with regard to Rabbi and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

according to Rabbi Yehoshua.

They disagree as follows:

The one who says,

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who holds that

the hide is not accepted

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 in rendering the hide permitted.

And the one who says,

Rabbi, who holds that

the hide is accepted

through the sprinkling of the blood even when there is no flesh,

will 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 even hold in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua. For

Rabbi Yehoshua stated

there

only

that if there is no flesh, there is no blood

with regard to the flesh,

concerning whether the offering fulfills the owners’ obligation, in which case

there is no loss to the priests,

and regarding this the Torah stated that flesh is required for the sprinkling; without flesh, the offering does not fulfill the owners’ obligation.

But

with regard to permitting the

hide, where there is a loss to the priests, even Rabbi Yehoshua agrees

that they are not deprived of it; rather, the sprinkling renders the hide permitted.

Indeed, if the flesh was burned or lost before the sprinkling, one may not initially sprinkle the blood, and in this case we are not considered to be depriving the priests, since once the offering has not been sacrificed, they are in any event not entitled to its hide. But if, after the fact, the blood was sprinkled, the sprinkling of the blood is considered a sprinkling that renders the hide permitted, although the offering did not attain acceptance, and the hide is given to the priests, as we apply to it the verse: “The hide of the burnt offering that he offered.”

It is analogous

to a similar matter that we find

with

the disqualification of

“that which left,”

where too a distinction is made between the outset and after the fact.

As it was taught in a baraita:

If, in an offering,

the flesh became impure, or was disqualified, or left

the flesh of offerings of the highest degree of sanctity

outside the curtains—

Rabbi Eliezer says: He shall sprinkle

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

Rabbi Yehoshua says: He shall not sprinkle,

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

And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes that if he sprinkled, it attained acceptance.

Granted, with regard to flesh that became impure, one can say that he holds that the tzitz effects acceptance for it, and therefore, after the fact, the offering attained acceptance. But with regard to the disqualification of that which left, we maintain that the tzitz does not effect acceptance for the disqualification of that which left, and nevertheless Rabbi Yehoshua says that after the fact it attained acceptance. This proves that Rabbi Yehoshua was lenient in his exposition “If there is no flesh, there is no blood”: nevertheless, after the fact, if he sprinkled the blood when there was flesh that had been disqualified by leaving, the offering attained acceptance. Accordingly, by analogy, with regard to flesh that was lost or burned, although the offering is disqualified even after the fact, with regard to the hide Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that after the fact it attained acceptance, and it is given to the priests.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Hanina, the deputy High Priest, said:

In all my days I never saw a hide taken out to the place of burning.

And we wonder:

And

is it the case that

we did not

find a hide taken out to the place of burning?!

But there are bulls that are burned and goats that are burned,

which are burned together with their hides?!

And we answer: When Rabbi Hanina, the deputy High Priest, said that he had never seen a hide taken out to the place of burning, he meant only the hides of offerings burned because of their disqualification. But with regard to the bulls and goats that are burned

as a mitzva,

in accordance with their halakha,

we do not say

that the Mishna stated in the name of Rabbi Hanina that he had never seen a hide taken out to the place of burning, because their law certainly is that their hides are burned together with their flesh.

The Gemara still wonders:

But there is

a hide that is burned when the offering was disqualified

before flaying and before sprinkling.

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 did not find a hide burned,

we meant a separated hide,

one that had been flayed and was standing on its own. That is, we did not find a hide burned independently. But if the offering was disqualified before flaying or before sprinkling, the hide is burned together with the flesh, and Rabbi Hanina was not speaking of that.

The Gemara raises another question:

But there is

a separated 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 acceptance for the hide independently.

According to him, the law of the hide is that it must now be burned while separated and standing on its own, since there was no acceptance for the flesh.

And we answer:

Rabbi Hanina holds in accordance with Rabbi, who says: The blood effects acceptance for the hide independently.

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

And if you wish, say instead: Even if you say

that Rabbi Hanina holds

in accordance with Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

you still will not find this difficult on account of the fact that we find a hide burned when the disqualification occurred after flaying and before sprinkling. No such case occurred in his days, because even Rabbi, who holds that the blood effects acceptance for the hide independently,

concedes that Rabbi does not permit flaying before sprinkling.

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 taken out to the place of burning.

The Gemara still wonders:

But there is

another circumstance in which the hide is burned, when

a tereifa was found among the innards,

among the internal organs, and the disqualification was not discovered until after they had flayed the hide and found 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 existed before flaying; and according to Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, because it existed before sprinkling.

And we answer:

He holds

that Rabbi Hanina holds that if

a tereifa is found among the innards, 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 opinions the sprinkling effects acceptance for the hide, and it is given to the priests.

This is also precise

that this is Rabbi Hanina’s position,

as he teaches

in the Mishna there:

Rabbi Akiva said: From his words

of Rabbi Hanina

we have learned that one who flays the

hide of

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

that is, enjoy the benefit,

from its hide.

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 this.

But the Gemara wonders: Since we have heard that Rabbi Hanina holds that with regard to other consecrated offerings, the sprinkling effects acceptance in such a case, where a tereifa was found among the innards,

then what

does

Rabbi Akiva teach us

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

And what did Rabbi Akiva teach us?

The Gemara answers:

This he teaches us:

Rabbi

Akiva, that even

a blemished firstborn that is slaughtered

outside the Land,

where the Torah permitted it only for consumption, and if it died before slaughter its hide is forbidden for benefit and requires burial, nevertheless, if its tereifa status was not discerned until after flaying, the slaughter rendered its hide permitted for benefit. This is like the law of an unblemished offering slaughtered in the Temple: if its blood was sprinkled on the altar and afterward it was found to be a tereifa after 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.

The Gemara continues and says:

And even Rabbi Akiva did not say

that the hide of a blemished firstborn is permitted

unless it was permitted

by

an expert,

who examined it and ruled that it was permitted to slaughter the firstborn as 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 is taken out to the place of burning, since the tereifa condition had already existed before flaying and 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’s opinion.

Mishna:

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

According to the Sages, not only those occupied with burning them become impure; those who carry them to the place of burning also become impure when they leave the Temple courtyard with them. Rabbi Shimon, however, holds that only those occupied with burning them become impure.

There is a special feature to this impurity: the bulls and goats themselves are not impure at all, and therefore they do not render a person impure merely through contact with them. Nevertheless, they render those occupied with them impure with a “severe impurity,” an impurity that also renders the clothing of those occupied with them impure!

The bulls that are burned,

the sin-offering bull of Yom Kippur, whose blood is brought within, the bull of the anointed priest, and the bull for an unintentional communal transgression, whose flesh is not burned on the altar but is burned.

And the goats that are burned,

the Yom Kippur goat and the goat for idolatry, for an unintentional communal transgression involving idolatry.

When they are burned in accordance with their mitzva,

as required by their law, having not been disqualified, and there is a mitzva to burn them by virtue of the law of the bulls and goats that are burned, they are:

a.

burned in the “House of the Ashes,”

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

b.

And they render garments impure,

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

But if they are not burned in accordance with their mitzva,

because a disqualification occurred in them, in which case they require burning like other disqualified consecrated offerings, and not because they are bulls and goats that are burned, they are

burned in the “House of the Fortress.”

That is, at times they were burned in the Temple courtyard, and at times 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 occupied with them, since they were disqualified and are not burned in accordance with their mitzva.