Zevachim 104b — the Talmud in English

Bulls and goats that are burned as prescribed,

were carried,

they carried them

on poles

to the ash heap.

If

the

first pole-bearers had already gone out,

the first ones,

who carried the pole from one side of it, and went out with it

outside the wall of the Temple Courtyard, and

the

last

ones, who carried the poles from its other side, were still

not yet outside

with it from the wall of the Temple Courtyard, behold,

the first ones

who had already gone out with the pole from one side of it

render garments impure. And the last ones

who are with the pole on its other side inside

do not render garments impure

until they go out from it with the other side of the pole that they carry. For as long as they are in the Temple Courtyard, they do not render [garments] impure.

And if

these go out,

the last ones, then from this point

these and those,

all of them, the first ones and the last ones,

render garments impure.

Rabbi Shimon says: These and those,

the first ones and the last ones who carry the bulls and the goats that are burned on poles,

do not render garments impure,

but only those engaged in the burning render [garments] impure, and they do not render them impure

until it is kindled,

when

the fire

the flame

takes hold of most of them

of those that are burned. And before this, even those engaged in the burning do not render [garments] impure.

And if already

the flesh has melted,

the flesh has been dissolved by the fire and charred,

the

one assisting in the burning

does not render garments impure.

For since the flesh has melted, the matter is considered as though its burning has been completed, and the one occupied with completing its burning no longer renders [garments] impure. But before the flesh has melted, all those assisting during the burning render garments impure, even one who turns over the flesh and one who throws wood, and the like, as will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

And the Gemara discusses:

What

what is the place of the

“Bira,”

that was mentioned in our Mishna?

Rabba bar bar Hanna said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: There is a place on the Temple Mount, and “Bira” is its name.

And Reish Lakish said: The entire House,

the Temple,

is called “Bira.”

As it is stated in Chronicles [I 29], that King David prayed to the Lord and said: “And to Solomon my son grant a whole heart, to do everything, and to build

the Bira which I have prepared.”

Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabba bar Avuha in the name of Rav: There were three ash houses

that served for burning sacred offerings, and these are they:

a.

There was a large ash house in the Temple Courtyard, where they burned:

invalid offerings of the most holy offerings.

Since the place for eating the most holy offerings is in the Temple Courtyard, therefore their place of burning is also in the Temple Courtyard.

And the sacrificial portions of lesser holy offerings.

Since the burning of the sacrificial portions of lesser holy offerings on the altar is in the Temple Courtyard, the burning of invalid sacrificial portions is likewise in the Temple Courtyard. And we derive this from that which is written: “In the holy place—you shall burn it with fire.”

And the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned, when an invalidation occurred in them before the sprinkling.

Since the time had not yet come for them to leave outside the Temple Courtyard before the sprinkling, therefore they are burned in the Temple Courtyard.

b.

And there was another ash house on the Temple Mount, where they burned the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned, when an invalidation occurred in them after the sprinkling.

Since the time had come for them to leave the Temple Courtyard after the blood had been sprinkled, therefore, if an invalidation occurred in them, they are burned outside the Temple Courtyard.

c.

And as prescribed,

but if no invalidation occurred in them, the mitzva of burning the bulls and goats that are burned is

outside the three camps.

Levi taught: There are three ash houses.

a.

There was a large ash house in the Temple Courtyard, where they burned invalid

flesh of

the most holy offerings, and the sacrificial portions of lesser holy offerings,

for the place of their fitness is in the Temple Courtyard.

And the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned, when an invalidation occurred in them either before the sprinkling or after the sprinkling,

because since they had not yet gone out, they are burned in the Temple Courtyard [and in this he disagrees with what Rav said, that if they became invalid inside after the sprinkling, they are burned on the Temple Mount and not in the Temple Courtyard].

b.

And there was one ash house on the Temple Mount, where they burned the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned, when an invalidation occurred in them upon their going out.

Since they went out from the Temple Courtyard and became invalid, they are burned on the Temple Mount.

c.

And as prescribed,

if no invalidation occurred in them, the mitzva of burning them is

outside the three

camps.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a question: The overnight stay,

the night that invalidates the flesh of the offering from eating and its sacrificial portions from burning on the altar,

what is it that it should be effective

to invalidate also

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

so that the law of invalidation should apply to them, and the place of their burning should not be as prescribed, outside the three camps, but only on the Temple Mount, as is the law concerning invalid sacred offerings?

Do we say: Since it is effective,

this that it is effective

the overnight stay

to invalidate, this is only

with flesh, for it is “fit for eating”

?

That is, the flesh of a burnt offering and the sacrificial portions of the other offerings that are burned on the altar, in which there is eating by the altar. And concerning them it is stated: “You shall not leave the fat of My festival offering until morning”; or the flesh of the most holy offerings, in which there is human eating. And concerning human eating it is stated: “You shall not leave any of it until morning.”

But these,

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

which are not fit for eating,

for in their flesh there is neither human eating nor eating by the altar,

does not

the overnight stay invalidate them.

Or perhaps, it is no different.

The overnight stay also invalidates the bulls and goats that are burned.

Rava said: This matter,

this question,

had already been asked

before

Abaye, and I resolved it for him

and I resolved the uncertainty for him

from this,

from what we learned above [35a], that Rabbi Shimon and the Sages, who disagreed [41a] whether a thought of piggul renders the internal sin offerings piggul, even though their blood is not given on the outer altar, nevertheless

agree

in their view

that if one thought

in one of the blood-services of the internal sin offerings a thought of piggul to eat from

the bulls

tomorrow, or

to burn them

in the ash house tomorrow,

he has done nothing,

and the bulls have not become piggul. For a thought of piggul concerning eating does not apply to something whose manner is not to be eaten. And the flesh of the bulls is not designated for eating. Likewise, a thought of piggul concerning burning also does not render [the offering] piggul, because a thought of piggul renders [an offering] piggul only through a thought of eating by the altar or human eating beyond its appointed time. And Rava infers:

Is it not that, since a thought

of piggul

does not invalidate

them,

the overnight stay likewise does not invalidate

the flesh of the bulls that are burned? For if the overnight stay invalidated, then also a thought of “overnight,” that the flesh should remain overnight until tomorrow, would invalidate.

And the Gemara rejects: This is not a proof. For

perhaps only

the

thought

of overnight

does not invalidate,

since this is not a thought of piggul,

but the overnight stay invalidates

the bulls that are burned.

Come and hear

a proof from what we learned in the Mishna in tractate Me'ila [9a]:

The bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned are subject to misuse

of them

from

the time

that they were consecrated.

And if

they were slaughtered, they became fit,

from now they were prepared to become invalid

by

the touch of

one who immersed that day, and one lacking atonement,

and likewise to become invalid

through the overnight stay.

And we infer:

Is it not

that which the Mishna said, that the overnight stay invalidates, namely

the overnight stay of flesh.

And it follows that the flesh of the bulls that are burned becomes invalid through the overnight stay.

And we reject:

No,

the Mishna does not refer to the overnight stay of flesh, but rather to

the overnight stay of sacrificial portions.

For something that is fit to be burned on the altar, such as sacrificial portions, is certainly invalidated by the overnight stay.

But the Gemara is astonished at the rejection: How can it be said that the matter refers to sacrificial portions and not to flesh?

But since it teaches in the latter clause

of the Mishna:

All of them are subject to misuse

even while they are

in the ash house, until it melts,

the flesh is dissolved,

the flesh,

it is evident that the latter clause of the Mishna speaks of flesh and not of sacrificial portions.

And since the latter clause

of the Mishna speaks of

flesh,

then

the first clause

of the Mishna, which deals with the matter of the overnight stay,

also

speaks of

flesh.

And it follows that the overnight stay invalidates the flesh of the bulls that are burned.

And the Gemara answers:

Is it necessarily so!?

Is there a necessity to establish the first clause and the latter clause as referring to the same matter!? Rather, we can distinguish and say that

the latter clause,

which deals with the matter of misuse, speaks concerning

flesh,

which is subject to misuse until it is burned completely. Whereas

the first clause,

which deals with the matter of invalidation by the overnight stay, speaks concerning

sacrificial portions,

for it is only in them that the invalidation of the overnight stay is stated, and not in flesh.

Come and hear

another proof from that

which Levi taught

above, concerning those that are burned in the ash house that was on the Temple Mount: the bulls that are burned

when an invalidation occurred in them upon their going out.

And we infer:

Is it not

that which it teaches, “when an invalidation occurred in them upon their going out,” namely

invalidation through the overnight stay,

for what other invalidation is possible after going out? And it is proven that there is invalidation through the overnight stay in flesh.

And we reject:

No.

It does not refer to invalidation through the overnight stay, but rather to

invalidation

through impurity, that the flesh became impure,

and

also

invalidation through going out,

such as when the flesh went out before the sprinkling of the blood, when the time for the flesh to go out had not yet arrived.

And that which it teaches, that if it became invalid before the sprinkling it is burned in the Temple Courtyard, does not deal with invalidation through going out.

Rabbi Elazar raised a question: The going out

of flesh outside the Temple Courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood,

what is it that it should be effective

to invalidate

the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned?

And we are astonished:

What is he asking

Rabbi Elazar? Their end is to go out, and if so, why should going out invalidate them?

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: When the question arose

for Rabbi Elazar, it was

according to the one who says

above, in the chapter “All That Is More Frequent,” that the flesh of lesser holy offerings that goes out before the sprinkling of the blood becomes invalid, because

the time for it to go out has not yet arrived

until after the sprinkling.

And this is what he asked:

Do we say: This applies to flesh

of lesser holy offerings, in which going out invalidates, since

its end is not to go out.

For there is no obligation to take it outside the Temple Courtyard, even after the sprinkling, but it is possible to eat it inside the Temple Courtyard. Therefore, if it went out before the sprinkling, it became invalid.

But these,

the flesh of the bulls that are burned,

whose end is to go out

to the ash house to be burned, there is room to say that

going out did not

invalidate them.

Or perhaps, here too,

the flesh of the bulls that are burned,

the time for it to go out has likewise not arrived

before the sprinkling. Therefore, the flesh becomes invalid through going out.

Come and hear: For Levi taught

above, concerning those that are burned in the ash house on the Temple Mount: the bulls that are burned

when an invalidation occurred in them upon their going out.

And we infer:

Is it not

that which it teaches, that an invalidation occurred in them upon their going out, namely

invalidation through going out.

And we learn that even in flesh whose end is necessarily to go out, going out before the sprinkling invalidates it.

And we reject:

No.

There was no invalidation through going out here, but rather

invalidation through impurity,

that the flesh became impure,

and invalidation through the overnight stay,

that the flesh remained overnight.

Therefore, no proof can be brought from Levi’s words, neither for invalidation through going out nor for invalidation through the overnight stay in the flesh of the bulls that are burned. For if we wish to bring proof for one of the invalidations, we can reject and say that Levi is speaking of the other invalidation, or of invalidation through impurity.

Rabbi Elazar raised a question: The bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned, whose majority went out

of the animals outside the Temple Courtyard, and the majority was formed

through

the going out of

a minority

of

one limb

of the animal, a minority of that limb went out, while the majority of the limb remained inside.

That is, the minority of the limb that went out completes the state in which the majority of the animal went out. [And had that minority of the limb not gone outside, the majority of the animal would still have been inside. It follows that the minority of the limb that went out, together with the other limbs that went out, is what completes the majority.]

What is

the law concerning the animal? Is the matter considered as though its majority went out, or perhaps the minority of the limb that went out is drawn after the majority of the limb that remains inside, and there is no majority of the animal that went out?

Does

this minority of the limb,

that went out,

follow the majority,

after the majority of the limb that did not go out,

do we assign it,

do we draw it after the majority,

and behold,

the majority of the limb

did not go out,

it did not go out, and therefore the minority of the limb that did go out is also considered as though it were still inside. It follows that there is no majority of the animal that went outside.

Or perhaps, we assign it after the majority of the animal,

we draw the minority of the limb that went out after the majority of the animal that went out. And since the majority of the animal went out, the minority of the limb is also considered to have gone out. And we have here a majority of the animal that went outside.

The practical difference concerns those occupied with taking it out, whether they have already become impure. That is, if we consider the animal as one whose majority went out, those occupied with it become impure. But if it is not considered as one whose majority went out, they do not become impure.

And the Gemara says: This

is obvious, we do not abandon

the

majority of the animal,

we certainly do not abandon the majority of the animal

and follow the majority of the limb,

rather, the animal is certainly considered as one whose majority went out.

Rather,

the uncertainty is in this situation:

half of it went out

of a bull

through the majority of a limb.

That is, only half of the bull went out, and not its majority, but the half that went out includes the majority of one of the limbs, while the minority of that limb is together with the half of the bull that is inside.