Zevachim 104
Summary
- The shiur establishes that the Kohanim’s right to the hide hinges on the timing of a defect relative to skinning and explores whether the hide can ever be consigned to burning after skinning, with Rabbi Chanina Segan HaKohanim asserting he never saw that occur. The Mishnah presents the rule that אם אירע פסול קודם להפשט אין עורותיהן לכהנים, but לאחר הפשט עורותיהן לכהנים, and Rabbi Akiva infers that even a בכור later found a terefah yields its hide to the Kohanim, while the Chachamim reject “לא ראינו ראיה.” The Gemara reconciles this with the earlier Mishnah “כל זמן שלא זכה מזבח בבשרה לא זכו כהנים בעורה” through the machloket between Rabbi, who holds הדם מרצה על העור בפני עצמו, and Rabbi Elazar b. Rabbi Shimon, who conditions the hide on a valid zerika, and situates both views within Rabbi Yehoshua’s framework in cases of loss to the Kohanim. The sugya then turns to פרים הנשרפים ושעירים הנשרפים, defining where they are burned and when those handling them contract tumat begadim, clarifying Beit HaBirah, mapping three Beit HaDeshen, and leaving unresolved whether linah creates a pesul for these offerings.
- The earlier Mishnah states: כל זמן שלא זכה מזבח בבשרה לא זכו כהנים בעורה, implying the Kohanim’s hide depends on the mizbeach’s acquisition of the basar. The new Mishnah states: כל הקדשים שאירע בהן פסול קודם להפשט אין עורותיהן לכהנים, and לאחר הפשט עורותיהן לכהנים, assigning the hide to the Kohanim when the pesul occurs after hafshat, and denying it when the pesul precedes hafshat.
- Rabbi Chanina Segan HaKohanim says: מימי לא ראיתי עור שיוצא לבית השרפה, which Rashi explains as referring to after hafshat. His testimony highlights that once hafshat occurs, the or does not go to Beit HaSereifah, strengthening the rule that לאחר הפשט עורותיהן לכהנים.
- Sefer Dam Zevachim presents ספקות about staged hafshat, asking whether רובו ככולו renders the or as if fully detached for assigning it to the Kohanim when the pesul occurs mid-process. It questions whether the or can be split, granting the already detached majority to the Kohanim while disqualifying the minority still attached, or whether residual connection causes all to be disqualified, and mirrors the inquiry when only a mi’ut has been removed.
- Rav Dovid Soloveitchik notes that the mitzvah of burning applies to basar, observing from Pesachim that atzamot are burned only when they contain mo’ach, and questions why or should differ from atzamot to have a mitzvah of serefah. He challenges identifying a case where a disqualified or, even when it does not go to the Kohanim, is nevertheless “יוצא לבית השרפה.”
- Rabbi Akiva says: מדבריו למדנו שהמפשיט את הבכור ונמצא טריפה שיאותו הכהנים בעורו, and Rashi explains that even though the terefah preexisted hafshat, its non-recognition until after hafshat keeps the or with the Kohanim. The Chachamim say: אין לו ראינו ראיה אלא יצא לבית השריפה, rejecting proof from non-observation and asserting that a pre-hafshat pesul consigns the or to burning even if discovered post-hafshat.
- The Brisker Rav asks from this Mishnah on Rav Chaim Soloveitchik’s יסוד that shechitah of a terefah removes tum’at nevelah but does not effect a heter akhilah, suggesting a חסרון in the very matir of shechitah for akhilah. He argues that if the shechitah fails as a matir for akhilah, it should fail for being matir the or as well, yet Rabbi Akiva implies that the shechitah nonetheless effectuates a matir for the or.
- Abaye asserts both Mishnayot follow Rabbi, who holds הדם מרצה על העור בפני עצמו, and explains the earlier Mishnah by noting שאין הפשט קודם זריקה, so any pre-zerika pesul necessarily precedes hafshat and withholds the or. Rava asserts both follow Rabbi Elazar b. Rabbi Shimon by interpreting “קודם הפשט” and “לאחר הפשט” as קודם שנראו להפשט and אחר שנראו להפשט, thus making zerika the determinant for the or’s status.
- The baraita records: רבי אומר הדם מרצה על העור בפני עצמו; when the or remains with the basar and a pesul occurs, it follows the basar regardless of zerika, but detached or can be permitted independently through zerikat ha-dam. Rabbi Elazar b. Rabbi Shimon says אין הדם מרצה על העור בפני עצמו, and makes zerika decisive: a pre-zerika pesul disqualifies the or, but a post-zerika pesul leaves “הורצה בשר שעה אחת” enabling hafshat and giving the or to the Kohanim.
- The Gemara aligns the conceptual axes with ועשית עולותיך הבשר והדם: Rabbi Yehoshua says אם אין דם אין בשר אם אין בשר אין דם, while Rabbi Eliezer says דם אף על פי שאין בשר. It concludes that all agree to Rabbi Eliezer’s latitude, and the dispute is within Rabbi Yehoshua: Rabbi Elazar b. Rabbi Shimon follows Rabbi Yehoshua directly, and Rabbi argues that even Rabbi Yehoshua concedes הורצה for the or in cases of הפסד לכהנים, akin to the di’avad concession where אם זרק הורצה.
- Hemedat Daniel explains that they argue in two sequences. When hafshat precedes pesul and zerika has not yet occurred, Rabbi permits the or via zerika being a matir for or בפני עצמו, while Rabbi Elazar b. Rabbi Shimon invalidates all since the pesul was before zerika. When zerika precedes pesul and hafshat has not yet occurred, Rabbi treats the or as following the pre-hafshat pesul, while Rabbi Elazar b. Rabbi Shimon permits the or based on the momentary validity at zerika that permanently matirs the or.
- The Gemara tests “מימי לא ראיתי עור שיוצא לבית השרפה” against פרים הנשרפים ושעירים הנשרפים and against cases of pesul before hafshat and zerika, and restricts his statement to post-hafshat scenarios or to his following Rabbi that ties the or to hafshat. It answers further that he accepts that נמצא טריפה בבני מעיים is מרצה for the or post-hafshat, which matches Rabbi Akiva’s “מדבריו למדנו.”
- The Gemara identifies Rabbi Akiva’s novelty as “אפילו בגבולין,” applying the rule to a bechor ba’al mum slaughtered outside the Mikdash so that a terefah discovered post-hafshat leaves the or permitted. Rabbi Chiyya bar Abba says in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: הלכה כרבי עקיבא, and adds that אף רבי עקיבא לא אמר אלא כשמתירה מומחה, conditioning it on expert validation of the mum.
- The Mishnah states that when כמצותן, פרים הנשרפים ושעירים הנשרפים are נשרפין בית הדשן and are מטמאין בגדים for those engaged in the burning, but when not כמצותן they are נשרפין בית הבירה and are not מטמאין בגדים. The Ayelet HaShachar notes they are borne on motot to avoid tum’at yadayim imparting tumah to basar prepared to receive tumah through chibat ha-kodesh.
- The Mishnah states that once the ראשונים exit the azarah they are already מטמא בגדים, while the אחרונים are not until they too exit; when all exit, all are מטמא בגדים. Rabbi Shimon says אין מטמאין עד שיוצת האור ברובה, delaying tumat begadim until most of the animal ignites, and if the basar has already liquefied (nitaich ha-basar), a late-arriving stoker is not מטמא בגדים.
- The Gemara asks מאי בירה, and offers that it is either a specific מקום on Har HaBayit or that the whole house is called Birah. Rav Nachman in the name of Rabba bar Avuha enumerates three Beit HaDeshen, assigning פסולי kodshei kodashim and emurin of kodashim kalim and pre-zerika pesulim of these parim/se’irim to the large Beit HaDeshen in the azarah, post-zerika pesulim to a Beit HaDeshen on Har HaBayit, and כמצותן to a site חוץ לשלוש מחנות. Levi also lists three Beit HaDeshen with variant allocations, including cases of פסול ביציאתן.
- The Sfat Emet notes that the Torah specifies tevillah for those engaged in parim/se’irim ha-nisrafim, and asks why the Mishnah emphasizes only tumat begadim rather than tumat ha-guf. The Sfat Emet also questions the source for נשרפין בית הבירה when not כמצותן and the inversion whereby an otherwise “outside” burning shifts inward upon pesul.
- Rav Yirmiyah asks whether linah creates a pesul for these offerings, querying whether linah is limited to basar destined for akhilah or applies equally here. The Gemara attempts proofs from the rule that machshavah does not invalidate them, from me’ilah and exposure to tevul yom/mechusar kapparah/linah after shechitah, and from Levi’s “שיהא בהן פסול ביציאתן,” and rejects each proof by reinterpreting the cases. The sugya leaves the question as an איבעיא דלא איפשטא.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions