Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Zevachim, 86

1) BONES AND OTHER PARTS OF THE ANIMAL THAT BECAME SEPARATED FROM THE ANIMAL

OPINIONS: The Mishnah (85b) says that there are some parts of a Korban (such as the bones and horns) that are not offered upon the Mizbe'ach unless they are still attached to the parts of the animal that are supposed to be offered on the Mizbe'ach. This is derived from the verse, "v'Hiktir ha'Kohen Es ha'Kol" -- "and the Kohen shall burn all of it" (Vayikra 1:9). We learn that these parts are not to be burned on the Mizbe'ach once they have come detached from the rest of the animal from the verse, "v'Asisa Olosecha ha'Basar veha'Dam" -- "and you shall make as your Olos the flesh and the blood" (Devarim 12:27), which excludes the other parts of the animal.

The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which also derives these two Halachos from these two verses. However, the Beraisa uses a different wording when teaching that bones that are separated are not offered on the Mizbe'ach. The Beraisa says, "If they were brought up [onto the Mizbe'ach,] then they shall be taken down." The Mishnah, though, says, "They shall not be brought up [onto the Mizbe'ach]." Is there any practical difference between the Mishnah and the Beraisa, or are they in agreement?

(a) RASHI (DH Man) explains that the Mishnah means the same thing as the Beraisa. The Mishnah means that these parts of the animal not only should not be brought up onto the Mizbe'ach, but that they should be removed from the Mizbe'ach. When the Gemara asks "who is the Tana," Rashi explains that it is asking who is the Tana of the Mishnah. The Gemara answers that it is Rebbi, who explicitly states that these parts of the animal should be removed from the Mizbe'ach if they were placed there.

(b) TOSFOS (DH Man) says in the name of the RI that the Mishnah and Beraisa are arguing. When the Mishnah says that these parts that became separated from the animal should not be brought up onto the Mizbe'ach, it means that if they *were* brought onto the Mizbe'ach, then they may remain there. This is in disagreement with the Beraisa, which says that even if these parts have already been brought up onto the Mizbe'ach, they should be removed.

Similarly, the SHITAH MEKUBETZES questions Rashi's explanation. If the Mishnah means the same thing as the Beraisa, then it should have stated explicitly that these parts of the animal must be removed from the Mizbe'ach if they are placed there.

The ZEVACH TODAH answers the question of the Shitah Mekubetzes on the explanation of Rashi. The reason the Mishnah says that these parts should not be brought up onto the Mizbe'ach, instead of saying that they should be brought down, is because the Mishnah wants to maintain consistency with the first case it mentioned. In the Mishnah's first case, it says that when these parts are attached to the animal, they should be brought onto the Mizbe'ach. The Mishnah phrases the second case in a similar way, saying that if the parts are detached from the animal, then they should not be brought on the Mizbe'ach. Nevertheless, it is true that they should be removed from there as well.

The SEFAS EMES defends Rashi's explanation and questions that of Tosfos. In explaining Rashi's explanation, he says that Rashi found it difficult to explain that there is an argument between three Tana'im -- the Rabanan in our Mishnah, Rebbi, and the Rabanan in the Beraisa who say that even when these parts are separated, they should be brought onto the Mizbe'ach. If we are unsure whether or not Rebbi is indeed expressing a third opinion, then why should we assume that there is a three-way argument?

Upon further analysis of the words of Tosfos, this statement of the Sefas Emes seems puzzling. As the Zevach Todah states, Tosfos does not learn that the Beraisa differs from our Mishnah. Tosfos understands that when the Rabanan in the Mishnah say that even when these parts are separated they should be brought onto the Mizbe'ach, they are referring to a case when the parts separate from the animal when they are already on the top of the Mizbe'ach. Since they were brought up onto the Mizbe'ach while attached to the animal, they may still be placed on the fire atop the Mizbe'ach. It is possible that the intention of the Sefas Emes is to say that Rashi does not explain the opinion of the Rabanan in this manner because if this is what the Rabanan mean to say, then it should be specifically expressed as such in the Beraisa. Moreover, Rashi does not want to make a three-way argument, based on the simple explanation of the Beraisa.

Both the Sefas Emes and the Zevach Todah point out that the RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 3:16) rules that these parts should be brought down from the Mizbe'ach. He apparently learns the Mishnah like Rashi. If the Rambam agrees with Tosfos, then he should rule like the Rabanan in the Mishnah, who say that these parts need not be removed once they have been placed on the Mizbe'ach. (Y. Montrose)

86b

OPINIONS: The Gemara cites a Mishnah in Yoma (20a) which lists three different times at which the Terumas ha'Deshen is performed. The first time is the time for performing the Terumas ha'Deshen on an ordinary day, which was either right before or right after the "Keri'as ha'Gever" (approximately the time of Amud ha'Shachar; see Yoma 20b, and RAMBAM, Hilchos Temidin u'Musafin 2:11). The second time is the time for the Terumas ha'Deshen on Yom Kipur night, when it should be done starting from Chatzos (midnight). The third time is the time at which to perform the Terumas ha'Deshen during the festivals. During the festivals, it should be done from the time that one quarter of the night has passed.

The Gemara later explains the two changes from the regular schedule. The reason the Terumas ha'Deshen is done from Chatzos on Yom Kipur night is because of the weakness of the Kohen Gadol on Yom Kipur. The reason it is done after the first quarter of the night has passed during the festival is because the large number of Korbanos brought during the festival increased the amount of work necessary to clear the top of the Mizbe'ach from all of the ashes, and thus the work had to begin much earlier in order to clear off the Mizbe'ach in time for the next day's Korbanos.

The Gemara says that the reason the Terumas ha'Deshen is performed earlier on Yom Kipur is to help the Kohen Gadol preserve his strength during the Avodos of the day. This implies that it is the Kohen Gadol who must perform the Terumas ha'Deshen, just as he must perform all of the other Avodos on Yom Kipur. Is it true that the Kohen Gadol must perform the Terumas ha'Deshen on Yom Kipur?

(a) TOSFOS (DH mi'Shum) says that this is indeed the case. Since all of the Avodos of Yom Kipur must be performed by the Kohen Gadol, he may perform the Terumas ha'Deshen much earlier than usual so that he may rest after the Terumas ha'Deshen, before beginning the Avodos of the day. If the Terumas ha'Deshen on Yom Kipur does not need to be performed by the Kohen Gadol, then what does the Gemara mean when it says that we are concerned for the weakness of the Kohen Gadol?

This also seems to be the approach of RASHI (DH b'Yom) and the BA'AL HA'ME'OR in Yoma (20b).

(b) Tosfos quotes the RIVA who argues that the Terumas ha'Deshen is not one of the Avodos that the Kohen Gadol must perform on Yom Kippur. We find that the Mishnah in Yoma (3:3) lists all of the acts of Tevilah and Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim that the Kohen Gadol must do before each set of Avodos. It does not list a separate act of Tevilah and Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim for before the Terumas ha'Deshen. This implies that the Kohen Gadol does not have to perform the Terumas ha'Deshen. In addition, one of the Piyutim recited on Yom Kipur mentions that a lottery would be performed in order to determine which Kohen would get to perform the Terumas ha'Deshen on Yom Kipur. Obviously, if the Kohen Gadol must perform the Terumas ha'Deshen, there is no need for a lottery. Therefore, the Riva concludes that the text of our Gemara is in error and it should read, "... because of the weakness of the Kohen," instead of "... because of the weakness of the Kohen Gadol." Tosfos in Yoma (20b, DH mi'Shum) explains that the Riva understands that it is preferable to perform the Avodos earlier on Yom Kipur whenever possible, because of the difficulty of the fast.

The TOSFOS YESHANIM in Yoma holds like the first opinion. He answers the first question of the Riva by explaining that the Mishnah which lists the acts of Tevilah and Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim of the Kohen Gadol is only listing those which were done during the day, and not those which were done at night. However, the RAMBAN in MILCHAMOS HASHEM in Yoma rejects this, saying that everything the Kohen Gadol does on Yom Kipur is done either only during the day (in which case he does *not* have to do the Terumas ha'Deshen), or he must also do the things that are done during the night (including the Terumas ha'Deshen), in which case the Mishnah in Yoma indeed should list an additional act of Tevilah and Kidush Yadayim v'Raglayim.

(c) A third opinion is mentioned by Tosfos here in the name of his teacher (Tosfos in Yoma (21a) quotes the same explanation in the name of the RI). He explains that the text of our Gemara is correct, and so is the opinion of the Riva, who says that the ordinary Kohanim perform the Terumas ha'Deshen. How is this possible? He explains that the work involved in doing the Terumas ha'Deshen by the regular Kohanim was done earlier in order to ensure that the *Kohen Gadol* could start his Avodah early in the morning and not have to delay starting his Avodah, so that he would begin the Avodah of Yom Kipur before becoming weak. This is also the opinion of the aforementioned Ramban, who also quotes this opinion in the name of the Rambam. (Y. Montrose)