Zevachim 207

ומאי אחר הפשט קודם שנראו להפשט אחר שנראו להפשט

and 'after flaying'? - Before it is eligible for flaying and after it is eligible for flaying [respectively].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before and after sprinkling. If it is disqualified before sprinkling, even after flaying, the skin does not belong to the priests. If it is disqualified after sprinkling, even though it was not yet flayed, the skin belongs to the priests.');">¹</span> What is this allusion to Rabbi and R'Eleazar B'R'Simeon? - It was taught: Rabbi said: The blood propitiates on behalf of the skin by itself.

מאי רבי ומאי רבי אלעזר בר' שמעון דתניא רבי אומר הדם מרצה על העור בפני עצמו וכשהוא עם הבשר נולד בו פסול בין קודם זריקה בין לאחר זריקה הרי הוא כיוצא בו

But when it is together with the flesh and a disqualification arise in it, whether before or after the sprinkling, it is the same as itself.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the flesh.');">²</span> R'Eleazar B'R'Simeon maintained: The blood does not propitiate on behalf of the skin by itself.

רבי אלעזר בר"ש אומר אין הדם מרצה על העור בפני עצמו וכשהוא עם הבשר נולד בו פסול קודם זריקה הרי הוא כיוצא בו אחר זריקה הורצה בשר שעה אחת יפשיטנו ועורו לכהנים

And when it is together with the flesh and a disqualification arises in it before sprinkling, it is the same as itself; [if it arises] after the sprinkling, has been permitted for a short space of time, [and so] it is flayed, and the skin belongs to the priests.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. supra 85a.');">³</span> Shall we say that they differ on the same lines as R'Eliezer and R'Joshua?

לימא בדרבי אליעזר ורבי יהושע קמיפלגי (דברים יב, כז) ועשית עולותיך הבשר והדם רבי יהושע אומר אם אין דם אין בשר אם אין בשר אין דם

For it was taught: And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 27.');">⁴</span> R'Joshua said: If there is no blood there is no flesh and if there is no flesh there is no blood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If either is defiled, the other is unfit for its purpose.');">⁵</span>

רבי אליעזר אומר דם אע"פ שאין בשר שנאמר (דברים יב, כז) ודם זבחיך ישפך א"כ מה ת"ל ועשית עולותיך הבשר והדם לומר לך מה דם בזריקה אף בשר בזריקה הא למדת שריוח יש בין כבש למזבח

R'Eliezer said: The blood is [fit] even if there is no flesh, becaus is said, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out [against the altar of the Lord thy God].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid.');">⁶</span> If so, why is it stated, And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood?

לימא מ"ד הורצה כר"א ומ"ד לא הורצה כר' יהושע

To teach you: just as the blood requires throwing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., dashing against the altar.');">⁷</span> so does the flesh require throwing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the altar.');">⁸</span>

אליבא דר"א כ"ע לא פליגי כי פליגי אליבא דרבי יהושע

Thus you learn that there was a space between the ascent and the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 62b.');">⁹</span> Shall we say that he who maintains that it propitiates<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The blood propitiates on behalf of the skin after the flesh is disqualified. - Lit., 'it (the skin) is propitiated'.');">¹⁰</span>

מ"ד לא הורצה כרבי יהושע מ"ד הורצה אמר לך עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יהושע התם אלא בבשר דליכא פסידא לכהנים אבל עור דאיכא פסידא לכהנים אפילו רבי יהושע מודה

agrees with R'Eliezer,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the blood is fit (and efficacious) even when there is no flesh.');">¹¹</span> while he who maintains that it does not propitiate agrees with R'Joshua? - About the view of R'Eliezer there is no controversy at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He certainly disagrees with R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon, since he holds that the blood can be sprinkled even if there is no flesh, and therefore it must be efficacious in permitting the skin.');">¹²</span>

מידי דהוה אדיעבד דתנן נטמא בשר או נפסל או שיצא חוץ לקלעים ר"א אומר יזרוק רבי יהושע אומר לא יזרוק ומודה רבי יהושע שאם זרק הורצה:

They disagree in reference to R'Joshua. He who maintains that it does not propitiate holds as R'Joshua.

א"ר חנינא סגן הכהנים כו': ולא הרי פרים הנשרפים ושעירים הנשרפים

While he who maintains that it does propitiate can tell you: R'Joshua rules thus only there, where there is no loss to the priests.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joshua rules that if there is no flesh there is no blood only in the sense that the owner is not yet freed from his obligation and must bring another sacrifice. Thus this does not involve the priests in loss.');">¹³</span> But as for the skin, which would entail a loss to the priests, eve R'Joshua admits,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the sprinkling of the blood makes it available for the priests. since Scripture ordains that the skin belongs to the priest who offers it, and here the priests have offered it.');">¹⁴</span>

למצותן לא קאמרינן

by analogy with a fait accompli.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the text proceeds to explain. Sh.M. emends: with (flesh) that went out.');">¹⁵</span> For it was taught: If the flesh was defiled or disqualified,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By the touch of a tebul yom.');">¹⁶</span>

הרי קודם הפשט וקודם זריקה חלוץ קאמרינן

or it passed without the curtains, - R'Eliezer said: He must sprinkle [the blood]; R'Joshua maintained: He must not sprinkle [the blood]. Yet R'Joshua admits that if he does sprinkle [it], it is accepted.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence here in the same way the sprinkling permits the skin to the priests.');">¹⁷</span>

והאיכא אחר הפשט וקודם זריקה לרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון דאמר אין הדם מרצה על העור בפני עצמו

SAID R'HANINA THE SEGAN OF THE PRIESTS etc. Did he not? Surely there are the bullocks which are burnt and the goats which are burnt?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Their skin was burnt too.');">¹⁸</span>

רבי חנינא כרבי סבירא ליה ואיבעית אימא אפילו תוקמא כרבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון מודה רבי שאין הפשט קודם זריקה

- We do not speak of [what is burnt] in pursuance of their prescribed rites.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There the burning of the skin (as of the whole animal) is part of the prescribed rites of that particular sacrifice. R. Hanina, however, spoke of sacrifices which were burnt through being disqualified.');">¹⁹</span> But what when [the sacrifice is disqualified] before it is flayed and before sprinkling?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There all agree that the skin is burnt.');">²⁰</span>

והאיכא נמצאת טריפה בבני מעיים

- We refer to a stripped [skin].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas in the case just quoted the animal was burnt without being flayed.');">²¹</span> But there is [a disqualification] after flaying and before sprinkling, accordin to R'Eleazar B'R'Simeon who maintained [that] the blood does not propitiate on behalf of the skin by itself?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that it must be burnt.');">²²</span>

קסבר נמצאת טריפה בבני מעיים מרצה דיקא נמי דקתני א"ר עקיבא מדבריו למדנו שהמפשיט את הבכור ונמצא טריפה שיאותו הכהנים בעורו ש"מ

- R'Hanina agrees with Rabbi.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the blood does propitiate in that case.');">²³</span> Alternatively, you may even say that he holds as R'Eliezer B'R'Simeon: Rabbi admits that there was no flaying before sprinkling.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 103b, p. 503, n. 3. R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon would certainly hold the same. Thus though theoretically the skin might be burnt by itself, in practice this never happened.');">²⁴</span>

ואלא מאי קמ"ל ר"ע הא קמ"ל אפילו בגבולין

But there is [the case] where it is discovered terefah in its inwards?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This was disqualified before sprinkling and flaying, and it is now assumed that both Rabbi and R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon agree that the skin is burnt. (As this terefah would not be discovered until the skin was stripped, the skin would be burnt by itself.)');">²⁵</span> - He holds that where it is found terefah in its inwards, it [the blood] propitiates.

א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן הלכה כר"ע ואף ר"ע לא אמר אלא כשהתירו מומחה אבל לא התירו מומחה לא

This may be proved too, for it teaches, R'AKIBA OBSERVED: WE LEARN FROM HIS WORDS THAT IF ONE FLAYS A FIRSTLING AND IT IS FOUND TO BE TEREFAH, THE PRIESTS HAVE A RIGHT TO ITS SKIN. This proves it.

והלכתא כדברי חכמים (בשר בקבורה והעור בשריפה):

What then does R'Akiba inform us?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since R. Hanina rules thus of all sacrifices, why does R. Akiba tell us this particularly about a firstling?');">²⁶</span> - He informs us this, [viz. ,] that it is s even in the country.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'borders' - a technical term for all places outside Jerusalem. When a firstling becomes blemished, it is slaughtered and eaten outside Jerusalem just like hullin. But Scripture permits nothing else but eating, so that if it dies, the carcass must not be put to any use, but must be buried. If, however, it was found to be terefah (and so cannot be eaten) , R. Akiba informs us that since this was discovered after it was flayed, the skin is permitted, just as the skin is permitted in similar circumstances in the Temple.');">²⁷</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> פרים הנשרפים ושעירים הנשרפים בזמן שהן נשרפין כמצותן נשרפים בבית הדשן ומטמאין בגדים ואם אינן נשרפין כמצותן נשרפין בבית הבירה ואינן מטמאין בגדים

R'Hiyya B'Abba said in R'Johanan's name: The halachah is as R'Akiba. But even R'Akiba ruled thus only where an expert had permitted it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before a blemished firstling might be slaughtered for food it had to be examined by an expert, to make sure that the blemish was a permanent one and had not been deliberately inflicted.');">²⁸</span> but not if an expert had not permitted it. [The Talmud however states:] The law agrees with the view of the Sages: [the flesh is buried and the skin is burnt].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Presumably this means that the Talmud rejects the ruling of R. Hiyya b. Abba and rules in accordance with the Sages. Consequently, R. Akiba's inference, being based on R. Hanina's ruling, is likewise rejected. Hence if a firstling is found terefah after it is stripped, the whole of it is forbidden. The flesh is buried, not burnt, for only the flesh of sacrifices which had been brought to the Temple court and there disqualified is burnt. Rashi knows no reason why the skin is burnt, and suggests that 'the flesh . . burnt' should altogether be deleted, and that we simply read: The law agrees with the Sages.');">²⁹</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>BULLOCKS WHICH ARE BURNT AND GOATS WHICH ARE BURNT: WHEN THEY ARE BURNT IN PURSUANCE OF THEIR PRESCRIBED RITES, THEY ARE BURNT IN THE ASH DEPOSITORY, AND DEFlle GARMENTS;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The garments of those who burn it, v. Lev. XVI, 28.');">³⁰</span> BUT WHEN THEY ARE NOT BURNT IN PURSUANCE OF THEIR PRESCRIBED RITES,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But because they had been disqualified.');">³¹</span> THEY ARE BURNT IN THE PLACE OF THE BIRAH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'the Edifice.' V. GEMARA:');">³²</span> AND DO NOT DEFILE GARMENTS.