Zevachim 104b (קד:) — the Talmud in English

Bulls and goats that are burned in accordance with their mitzva,

were carried,

they were borne

on poles

to the place of the ash.

If

the first

bearers of the poles had already gone out—

the first

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

beyond the wall of the Temple courtyard, and

the

last

bearers, who carried the poles from the other side, had still

not gone out

with it from the wall of the Temple courtyard, then

the first

who had already gone out with the pole from their side

impart ritual impurity to garments. But the last

who are with the pole on its other side, inside,

do not impart ritual impurity to garments

until they go out from it with the other side of the pole that they are carrying. For as long as they are in the Temple courtyard, they do not impart impurity.

And if

these,

the last ones, go out, then from that point

both these and those,

all of them, the first and the last,

impart ritual impurity to garments.

Rabbi Shimon says: Both these and those,

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

do not impart ritual impurity to garments;

rather, only those involved in the burning impart impurity, and they do not impart impurity

until it is kindled,

when

the fire

the flame

takes hold of most

of those that are burned. Before this, even those involved in the burning do not impart impurity.

And if already

the flesh has melted,

the flesh has been dissolved by the fire and charred,

the

one assisting with the burning

does not impart ritual impurity to garments.

Since the flesh has melted, the burning is considered complete, and one who is involved in completing its burning no longer imparts impurity. But before the flesh has melted, all those assisting in the burning impart ritual impurity to garments, even one who turns over the flesh, one who throws wood onto the fire, and the like, as will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

The Gemara discusses this:

What is

the place of the

“birah,”

which was mentioned in our Mishna?

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: There is a place on the Temple Mount, and “birah” is its name.

And Reish Lakish said: The entire Temple,

the Temple,

is called “birah.”

As it is stated in Chronicles I (29), that King David prayed to God and said: “And to Solomon my son grant a wholehearted heart, to perform everything, and to build

the birah that I have prepared.”

Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuha said that Rav said: There were three places of ash

used for burning consecrated items, and they are:

1.

There was a large place of ash in the Temple courtyard, where they burned:

disqualified offerings of the most sacred order.

Since the place where offerings of the most sacred order are eaten is in the Temple courtyard, their place of burning is likewise in the Temple courtyard.

And the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity.

Since the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity are burned on the altar in the Temple courtyard, the burning of disqualified sacrificial portions is also in the Temple courtyard. And this is derived from that which is written: “In the sacred place—in fire it shall be burned.”

And bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, when a disqualification occurred in them before the sprinkling

of the blood. Since the time had not yet come for them to leave the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling, they are burned in the Temple courtyard.

2.

And there was another place of ash on the Temple Mount, where they burned bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, when a disqualification occurred in them after the sprinkling.

Since the time had come for them to leave the Temple courtyard after the blood had been sprinkled, if a disqualification occurred in them, they were burned outside the Temple courtyard.

3.

And in accordance with their mitzva,

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

outside the three camps.

Levi taught: There are three places of ash.

1.

There was a large place of ash in the Temple courtyard, where they burned disqualified

flesh of

offerings of the most sacred order, and the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity,

as their place of fitness is in the Temple courtyard.

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

because since they had not yet gone out, they were burned in the Temple courtyard. [This disagrees with what Rav said: that if they became disqualified inside after the sprinkling, they were burned on the Temple Mount and not in the Temple courtyard.]

2.

And there was one place of ash on the Temple Mount, where they burned bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, when a disqualification occurred in them upon their departure.

Since they had left the Temple courtyard and became disqualified, they were burned on the Temple Mount.

3.

And in accordance with their mitzva,

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

outside the three

camps.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: Does the overnight stay,

which disqualifies the flesh of the offering from being eaten and its sacrificial portions from being burned on the altar,

serve to disqualify

also

bulls that are burned and goats that are burned,

so that the law of disqualified offerings applies to them, and their place of burning is not, in accordance with their mitzva, outside the three camps, but only on the Temple Mount, as is the law with disqualified offerings?

Do we say: When it is effective,

that it is effective,

the overnight stay

to disqualify, this is only

with regard to flesh, as it is “fit for eating”?

That is,

the flesh of a burnt offering and the sacrificial portions of other offerings that are burned on the altar, which involve eating by the altar. With regard to them it is stated: “You shall not leave the fat of My festival offering until morning”; or the flesh of offerings of the most sacred order, which involve eating by a person. With regard to human eating it is stated: “You shall not leave any of it until morning.”

But these,

bulls that are burned and goats that are burned,

which are not fit for eating,

as their flesh is fit neither for human consumption nor for consumption by the altar,

the

overnight stay did not disqualify them.

Or perhaps, it is no different.

The overnight stay also disqualifies bulls and goats that are burned.

Rava said: This matter,

this question,

had already been raised

previously

to Abaye, and I resolved it for him

and I answered his uncertainty

from this:

from what we learned above (35a), that Rabbi Shimon and the Sages, who disagree (37a) whether a thought of piggul renders the inner sin offerings piggul even though their blood is not sprinkled on the external altar, nevertheless

agree

in their opinion

that if one thought

during one of the blood rites of the inner sin offerings, with a thought of piggul, to eat from

the bulls

tomorrow, or

to burn them

at the place of ash tomorrow,

he has accomplished nothing,

and the bulls did not become piggul. For a thought of piggul concerning eating does not apply to something whose usual manner is not to be eaten. The flesh of the bulls is not designated for eating. Likewise, a thought of piggul concerning burning does not render an offering piggul, since a thought of piggul renders an offering piggul only through a thought involving consumption by the altar or human consumption beyond its appointed time. Rava infers:

Is it not because a

thought

did not disqualify

them,

the overnight stay likewise did not disqualify

the flesh of bulls that are burned? For if an overnight stay disqualified it, then the thought of “overnight”—that the flesh would remain until tomorrow—would also disqualify it.

The Gemara rejects this: This is not a proof. For

perhaps only the

the

thought

of remaining overnight

did not disqualify,

since this is not a thought of piggul,

but the overnight stay did disqualify

bulls that are burned.

Ta shma,

come and hear a proof from what we learned in the Mishna in tractate Me’ila (9a):

Bulls that are burned and goats that are burned are subject to misuse

of consecrated property

from

the time

that they were consecrated.

And if

they were slaughtered, they became fit,

they were now rendered fit to become disqualified

by

contact with

one who immersed that day and one lacking atonement,

and likewise to become disqualified

by remaining overnight.

And we infer:

Is it not

that which the Mishna says—that remaining overnight disqualifies—is referring to

the overnight stay of the flesh?

This indicates that the flesh of bulls that are burned is disqualified by remaining overnight.

And we reject this:

No,

the Mishna is not referring to the overnight stay of the flesh, but rather to

the overnight stay of the sacrificial portions.

For something fit to be burned on the altar, such as sacrificial portions, is certainly disqualified by remaining overnight.

But the Gemara questions this rejection: How can it be said that the matter concerns the sacrificial portions and not the flesh?

But from the fact that it teaches in the latter clause

of the Mishna:

All of them are subject to misuse

even when they are

at the place of ash, until it melts,

that it 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 discusses remaining overnight,

likewise

speaks of

flesh.

This indicates that remaining overnight disqualifies the flesh of bulls that are burned.

And the Gemara answers:

Is that necessarily so!?

Is there any requirement to interpret the first and latter clauses as referring to the same matter!? Rather, we can distinguish and say that

the latter clause,

which discusses misuse of consecrated property, speaks with regard to

flesh,

for it remains subject to misuse until it is completely burned. Whereas

the first clause,

which discusses disqualification by remaining overnight, speaks with regard to

sacrificial portions,

for only they are subject to disqualification by remaining overnight, and not the flesh.

Ta shma,

come and hear another proof from that

which Levi taught

above, concerning those that are burned at the place of ash on the Temple Mount: Bulls that are burned

when a disqualification occurred in them upon their departure.

And we infer:

Is it not that which it teaches, “when a disqualification occurred in them upon their departure,” refers to

that the phrase “when they became unfit as they were leaving” means

disqualification by remaining overnight,

for what other disqualification could occur after departure? Thus it is proven that there is disqualification by remaining overnight with regard to the flesh.

And we reject this:

No.

It does not refer to disqualification by remaining overnight, but rather to

disqualification

of impurity, when the flesh became impure,

and

also to

disqualification by departure,

for example, when the flesh left before the sprinkling of the blood, when the time for the flesh to leave had not yet arrived.

And that which it teaches—that if they became disqualified before the sprinkling they are burned in the Temple courtyard—does not refer to disqualification by departure.

[This source segment contains the preceding attribution and note.] Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma: Does the departure

of flesh beyond the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood

serve to disqualify

to disqualify

bulls that are burned and goats that are burned?

And we question this:

What is Rabbi Elazar asking?

Their ultimate destination is to leave, so why should departure disqualify them?

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba said: Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma

was raised

according to the one who says

above, in the chapter Kol HaTadir, that flesh of offerings of lesser sanctity that leaves before the sprinkling of the blood becomes disqualified, because

the time for it to leave had not yet arrived

until after the sprinkling.

And this is his dilemma:

Do we say: This matter applies to flesh

of offerings of lesser sanctity, with regard to which departure disqualifies, since

its ultimate destination is not to leave.

There is no obligation to take it outside the Temple courtyard, even after the sprinkling; rather, it may be eaten inside the courtyard. Therefore, if it left before the sprinkling, it became disqualified.

But these,

the flesh of bulls that are burned,

whose ultimate destination is to leave

to the place of ash to be burned, it is possible to say that

departure did not

disqualify them.

Or perhaps, here too,

the flesh of bulls that are burned,

the time for it to leave had not yet arrived

before the sprinkling. Therefore, the flesh becomes disqualified through departure.

Ta shma: For Levi taught

above, concerning those that are burned at the place of ash on the Temple Mount: Bulls that are burned

when a disqualification occurred in them upon their departure.

And we infer:

Is it not that which it teaches, that a disqualification occurred in them upon their departure, refers to

that the phrase “they became unfit as they were leaving” means

disqualification by departure.

And we learn that even with regard to flesh whose ultimate destination is to leave, departure before the sprinkling disqualifies it.

And we reject this:

No,

there was no disqualification by departure here, but rather

disqualification through impurity,

when the flesh became impure,

and disqualification by remaining overnight,

when the flesh remained overnight.

Therefore, no proof can be brought from Levi’s statement, either that departure or that remaining overnight disqualifies the flesh of bulls that are burned. For if one wishes to bring proof for one of these disqualifications, it can be rejected by saying that Levi is referring to the other disqualification, or to disqualification through impurity.

Rabbi Elazar raised a dilemma: In the case of bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, whose majority has gone out

of the animals beyond the Temple courtyard, and the majority was created

by

the departure of a

minority

of one

limb

of the animal—that is, 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 situation in which the majority of the animal has gone out. [Had that minority of the limb not gone outside, the majority of the animal would still have been inside. Thus the minority of the limb that went out, together with the other limbs that went out, causes the majority to be complete.]

What

is the status of the animal? Is it considered to have had its majority go out, or does the minority of the limb that went out follow the majority of the limb that remains inside, so that the majority of the animal has not gone 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,

so that it follows it,

and this,

the majority of the limb,

did not go out,

and therefore the minority of the limb that did go out is also considered as though it were still inside? Consequently, the majority of the animal has not gone outside.

Or perhaps, we assign it according to the majority of the animal,

so that we draw the minority of the limb that went out after the majority of the animal that went out. Since the majority of the animal went out, the minority of the limb is also considered to have gone out. In this case, the majority of the animal has gone outside.

The practical difference concerns those involved in taking it out: have they already become impure? If we consider the animal to have had its majority go out, those involved with it become impure. But if it is not considered to have had its majority go out, they do not become impure.

And the Gemara says: This

is obvious: We do not abandon

the

majority of the animal

and certainly do not abandon the majority of the animal,

and follow the majority of the limb;

rather, the animal is certainly considered to have had its majority go out.

Rather,

the uncertainty is as follows: in a case

where half

of a bull

went out through the majority of a limb.

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