Zevachim 106
Summary
- This segment completes the twelfth perek on the tumah generated by handlers of פרים הנשרפים ושעירים הנשרפים and begins the thirteenth perek on *shechitat chutz* and *ha’ala’at chutz*. It establishes that the burning is outside all three camps while *tumat begadim* begins upon exiting one camp according to the Tanna Kamma, whereas Rabbi Shimon delays *tumat begadim* until the fire takes most of the carcass and repurposes the term *michutz lamachaneh* for a *gezeirah shavah* linking *par Yom HaKippurim* and *parah adumah* to the east of Yerushalayim. It analyzes the site of burning (Beit Hadeshen vs. a sloped place) and who becomes *metamei begadim* during burning. It then presents the Mishnah that one who both slaughters and offers outside is liable for two distinct prohibitions, records Rabbi Yosi HaGelili’s exemption when both acts occur outside and the Chachamim’s rebuttal, and explores whether *ha’ala’ah* requires actual burning, with Rashi and Rambam indicating that placement alone suffices and the Sefer haChinuch understanding it as burning. It parallels that dispute with a case of a טמא eating קדשים, considers the shiur for קבלת טומאה (Rashi vs. Rabbeinu Tam), and invokes חיבת הקודש. Finally, it seeks the אזהרה for *shechitat chutz*, rejects “ולא יזבחו עוד” due to other derashot, attempts a *kal vachomer*, proves the limits of deriving warnings by logic through multiple counterexamples, and concludes אין מזהירין מן הדין.
- The Mishnah states that according to the Tanna Kamma, handlers become *metamei begadim* once they exit the *azara*, while Rabbi Shimon says אינן מטמאין עד שתוצת האור ברובן. The Gemara derives from ברייתות that *srefat hapar* is done *chutz l’gimmel machanot* and that *tumat begadim* begins upon leaving one camp, learned from the contrast of להלן חוץ לג' מחנות and כאן למחנה אחת. The Tanna Kamma uses extra mentions of מחוץ למחנה in פר העדה and בדשן to assign the second and third camps for burning, while reserving the onset of *tumat begadim* to the first exit.
- Rabbi Shimon uses מחוץ למחנה for a ברייתא in which Rabbi Eliezer states a *gezeirah shavah*: נאמר כאן מחוץ למחנה by *par Yom HaKippurim* and נאמר להלן מחוץ למחנה by *parah adumah*; מה להלן *chutz l’gimmel machanot* אף כאן *chutz l’gimmel machanot*, and מה להלן למזרחה של ירושלים אף כאן למזרחה של ירושלים. Sfat Emet notes that this linkage appears to be available to Rabbi Shimon because מחוץ למחנה is *mufneh* for him, whereas the Rabbanan expend it on *tumat begadim*; he infers (and cites Rambam Hilchot Parah 3:1) that according to the Rabbanan the מקום שריפת הפרה may be merely outside Har HaBayit and not necessarily *chutz l’gimmel machanot*, against Kesef Mishneh who reads Rambam non-literally. Chak Natan and Olat Shlomo assert that even the Rabbanan can employ a non-*mufneh* *gezeirah shavah* absent a valid refutation, preserving *chutz l’gimmel machanot* for *parah adumah*.
- A ברייתא states that the burning is to the north of Yerushalayim, outside three camps, and Rabbi Yosi HaGelili says that it is at Beit Hadeshen which must already contain ashes. Rava identifies the disputant against Rabbi Yosi HaGelili as Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov, who expounds על שפך הדשן to require that the location be a slope, שמקומו משופך, not necessarily pre-ashed. Abaye suggests that Rabbi Elazar ben Yaakov may agree to the need for preexisting ash and argue only about the added requirement of a sloped site.
- A ברייתא states that the *shoref* and those who assist at the time of burning are *metamei begadim*, but the one who kindles the fire and the one who arranges the wood are not. The term אותם limits liability to assistance during combustion: אותם מטמא בגדים, משנעשו אפר אין מטמא בגדים, according to the Tanna Kamma. Rabbi Shimon interprets אותם to exclude once ניתך הבשר, so that when the flesh has become fully charred from the outset of one’s assistance, there is no *tumat begadim*; Rava identifies the practical difference as the stage where it is charred but not yet ash.
- The Mishnah rules that one who performs both *shechitat chutz* and *ha’ala’at chutz* is liable for two distinct prohibitions, אשר ישחט and אשר יעלה. Rabbi Yosi HaGelili rules חייב when שחט בפנים והעלה בחוץ but פטור when שחט בחוץ והעלה בחוץ, שלא העלה אלא דבר פסול; the Chachamim counter that אף השוחט בפנים ומעלה בחוץ כיון שהוציאו פסלו, and yet liability for *ha’ala’ah* remains, so פסול due to being outside does not exempt. Sfat Emet suggests that the double liability may require the same person to have slaughtered and offered, whereas Rashi on Vayikra 17:8 (and later in the tractate) holds that even if Reuven slaughtered and Shimon offered, Shimon is liable for *ha’ala’ah*. Sefer haChinuch (mitzvah 186) defines *ha’ala’ah* as burning in fire, while Aruch LaNer queries liability where one person places the parts on a private altar and another lights the fire; Rashi (Yevamot) and Rambam (Yesodei HaTorah 9:3) indicate that mere placement constitutes *ha’ala’ah*, as evidenced by Eliyahu at Har HaCarmel where the fire descended from heaven. Brisker Rav distinguishes the cores of the prohibitions: *shechitat chutz* proscribes the act of slaughter per se, while *ha’ala’at chutz* proscribes performing an avodah outside.
- The Mishnah rules that a טמא who eats קודש, whether the meat is טמא or טהור, is liable; Rabbi Yosi HaGelili limits liability to טמא שאכל טהור and exempts טמא שאכל טמא שלא אכל אלא דבר טמא. The Chachamim respond that אף טמא שאכל את הטהור כיון שנגע בו טמאו, showing that prior “ruin” by touch does not negate liability, and they add that a טהור who eats טמא is פטור שאינו חייב אלא על טומאת הגוף. Rashi holds that any amount of food can be מקבל טומאה, while Rabbeinu Tam requires a כביצה even for קבלת טומאה; Acharonim (Rashash, Sha’ar HaMelech) answer for Rabbeinu Tam by invoking חיבת הקודש, which can create קבלת טומאה and obviate הכשר, thereby lowering the effective threshold in קדשים.
- The Gemara notes that for *ha’ala’ah* both עונש and אזהרה are explicit (אל פתח אהל מועד לא הביאו; השמר לך פן תעלה עולותיך), and asks for the אזהרה of *shechitah*, since its עונש is explicit but its warning is not. The verse ולא יזבחו עוד cannot serve, as it is used for Rabbi Elazar’s liability of one who sacrifices to Markulis שלא כדרכה and for prohibitions regarding offerings sanctified and brought at differing eras of במות. Abaye proposes a *kal vachomer* from cases without כרת that have an אזהרה to cases with כרת, but challenges show that if one could warn by logic, one would derive the אזהרה of *chelev* from *neveilah* or from *sheratzim teme’im*, *sheratzim tehorim*, *orlah* and *kil’ei hakerem*, *shevi’it*, or *terumah*, and each is refuted by its unique chumrah or by being לא הותרו מכללן while *chelev* is הותר מכללו. Rava then notes that one would likewise create an אזהרה for Pesach and Milah from *notar*, and Rav Ashi reports Rav Kahana’s refutation that *notar* אין לו תקנה whereas Pesach יש לו תקנה; the sugya concludes אין מזהירין מן הדין, so an אזהרה for *shechitat chutz* cannot be established by *kal vachomer*.
Previous Page
Next Page
Daf Images are property of Vagshal and may not be reproduced.
Suggestions