Zevachim 103
Summary
- The sugya sets out when kohanim receive the hides of offerings and when they do not, grounding the rule in the verse והכהן המקריב את עולת איש עור העולה אשר הקריב לכהן לו יהיה and deriving exclusions from the phrase “olat ish.” The Mishnah rules that whenever the mizbeach is not zocheh in the meat due to a pre-zerikah disqualification, the kohanim do not receive the hide, but an olah she-nishchatah she-lo li-shemah still grants its hide to the kohanim, and both a man’s and a woman’s olah grant hides to the kohanim; hides of kodashim kalim belong to the owners and hides of kodshei kodashim belong to the kohanim. The Gemara identifies what “olat ha-kodesh” excludes with three approaches, addresses a view that “olat gerim” is excluded by limiting it to a ger who died without heirs, and establishes that hides of all kodshei kodashim go to the kohanim either by derashah, by kal vachomer (per Rabbi Yishmael), or by Rebbi’s principle that hides follow meat, together with limits excluding a tevul yom, mechusar kapparim, and an onen. The closing Mishnah on 103b distinguishes pesul before versus after hafshatah and notes an apparent stirah between Mishnayot, offering two paths to resolve authorship and alignment.
- The Mishnah states that hides are not burned on the mizbeach; the animal is skinned, the meat of an olah is offered, and by other kodshei kodashim the meat is eaten, except for the chataot ha-nisrafot, whose remains with their hides are burned outside after zerikat ha-dam and haktarat emurim. It rules: kol she-lo zachah mizbeach bi-besara, lo zachu kohanim be’orah, derived from “olat ish” in והכהן המקריב את עולת איש עור העולה אשר הקריב לכהן לו יהיה, limiting the kohanim’s right to a case where the mizbeach is zocheh in the meat. An olah she-nishchatah she-lo li-shemah, although not oleh la-ba’alim, still grants its hide to the kohanim, supported by the verse. The Mishnah adds: echad olat ish ve-echad olat isha, oroteihen la-kohanim; orot kodashim kalim la-ba’alim; and orot kodshei kodashim la-kohanim by a kal vachomer from olah, and it rejects “mizbeach yochiach” since the mizbeach never receives hides.
- A Baraita derives from “olat ish” a mi’ut: prat le-olat ha-kodesh, according to Rabbi Yehuda, while Rabbi Yosei be-Rabbi Yehuda reads it as prat le-olat gerim. The sugya proceeds to define what “olat ha-kodesh” means and to clarify the scope of “olat gerim.”
- Rabbi Chiya bar Yosef explains “olat ha-kodesh” as prat le-olah ha-ba’ah min ha-motarot, e.g., funds from an asham she-metu be’alav used for an olah of the tzibbur, excluded from “olat ish” unless one holds motarot li-nedavat yachid. Rava’s reading of “ha-olah” as olah rishonah limits the verse to offerings originally designated as an olah, excluding redirected motarot. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yannai explains “olat ha-kodesh” as one who is matpis his olah to bedek ha-bayit: even if kedushat bedek ha-bayit does not chal on the basar that already bears kedushat mizbeach, the or is tefis for bedek ha-bayit and is thus not “olat ish.”
- Rav Nachman amar Rabba bar Avuha supports the motarot reading, but Rav Hamnuna objects that Rabbi Yehuda retracted due to Yehoyada ha-kohen’s midrash: אשם הוא אשם אשם להשם alongside כחטאת כאשם תורה אחת להם הכהן אשר יכפר בו לו יהיה yields kol she-ba mishum chatat u-mishum asham yillake’ach bo olot, ha-basar laHashem ve-ha-or la-kohanim. In light of this, Rav Hamnuna positions “olat ha-kodesh” as makdish nechasav ke-Rabbi Yehoshua: zecharim themselves are offered as olot and nekevot are sold for tzorkei shelamim with proceeds to olot, yet even where the basar is for the mizbeach, the or assumes kedushat bedek ha-bayit and is not “olat ish.”
- Rav Simai bar Chelkiya challenges “prat le-olat gerim” since a ger is an ish, and Ravina answers that it excludes a ger who died without heirs, where his property is hefker and the offering lacks a current ba’al; such a case does not qualify as “olat ish.”
- A Baraita states: “olat ish”—ein li ela olat ish; olat gerim, nashim, va-avadim minayin? It derives inclusion from עור העולה, a ribbuy for those categories, while reserving “olat ish” to exclude an offering she-nishchatah chutz li-zmano or chutz li-mekomo, which disqualifies and yields no hide to kohanim. It then includes an offering she-nishchatah she-lo li-shemah in the kohanim’s right to the hide from עור העולה מכל מקום. Tosafot asks why one verse can include nashim and avadim together when by edut two verses are needed, and answers that by mitzvot we learn via gezerah shavah de-la la, whereas edut is not dependent on ne’emanut and thus requires explicit exclusions.
- The Tanna Kamma includes orot of kodshei kodashim for kohanim from אשר הקריב as a ribbuy and excludes kodashim kalim by linking to “olah,” so only kodshei kodashim align. Rabbi Yishmael learns by kal vachomer: if an olah, where kohanim do not receive basar, grants them or, then kodshei kodashim, where they do receive basar, all the more so grant or; “mizbeach yochiach” fails because the mizbeach never receives hides, whereas kohanim already do in part. Rebbi asserts that only olah needed a verse, since bechol makom ha-or holech achar ha-basar: perim ha-nisrafim ve-se’irim ha-nisrafim—hen ve-oroteihen nisrafim, chatat, asham, and zivchei shelmei tzibbur—matana la-kohen, retzu mefshitim otan, retzu okhlin otan al gabe oram, and kodashim kalim—la-ba’alim, retzu mefshitim, retzu okhlin al gabe oram; olah is singled out with והפשיט את העולה ונתח אותה לנתחיה.
- Rebbi derives from “lo yihyeh” that only a kohen ra’uy la-hakriv receives or, excluding a tevul yom, mechusar kapparim, and an onen, lest one think they are excluded only from basar and not from or. Rabbi Yishmael employs “asher hikriv” to exclude those unfit kohanim and reserves “lo yihyeh” for a gezerah shavah with asham: ne’emar ba-olah “lo yihyeh” ve-ne’emar ba-asham “lo yihyeh,” ma le-halan atzamotav mutarin af kan atzamotav mutarin, relying on he’efnayah to block pircha that asham’s mutar basar is unique.
- The Mishnah at the bottom of 103b distinguishes whether the pesul occurred before *hafshatah* or afterward for determining the destination of the hides. The Gemara notes an apparent stirah between the Mishnah on 103a and the Mishnah on 103b regarding authorship and underlying view and offers two resolutions: either align 103a with one opinion and reinterpret 103b accordingly, or align 103b with the other opinion and adjust the reading of 103a.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions