Previous daf

1)

(a) We just discussed Rebbi Elazar bi'Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi. According to Rebbi in a Beraisa, Zerikas ha'Dam permits the skin when it has been detached, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, it does not. In a case where it is still attached, Rebbi rules - that it is forbidden like the Basar.

(b) Even then, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon forbids the skin - unless the P'sul occurred after the Zerikas ha'Dam, in which case it becomes permitted, even if the skin is still attached.

(c) We try to connect this Machlokes with an earlier Machlokes Tana'im, where Rebbi ...

1. ... Yehoshua, in a Beraisa, extrapolates from the Pasuk "Ve'asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam" - that 'Im Ein Basar, Ein Dam' (once the Basar becomes Pasul, the blood cannot be sprinkled).
2. ... Eliezer extrapolate from the Pasuk "ve'Dam Zevachecha Yishafech" - 'Dam, Af-al-Pi she'Ein Basar' (that it can).

(d) Rebbi Eliezer learns from "Ve'asisa Olosecha ha'Basar ve'ha'Dam" - that just as the blood is sprinkled, so too, is the Basar thrown (which entails leaving a small space between the ramp and the Mizbe'ach, as we already learned in Perek Kodshei Kodshim).

(a) Initially we attempt to link the Machlokes between Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon and Rebbi with that of Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua - by equating Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon with Rebbi Yehoshua (since both hold that Dam alone is not Meratzeh.

(b) We conclude that they do not argue according to Rebbi Eliezer - by which we mean that everyone agrees that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, Dam alone is Meratzeh, and that consequently, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon cannot concur with his opinion.

(c) They do however, argue according to Rebbi Yehoshua - which means that on the one hand, Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon obviously holds him like him, but on the other, Rebbi claims Rebbi Yehoshua agrees with him - because even if there is no Dam without Basar, there is Dam, if it is to permit the skin to the Kohanim (to spare them from a loss).

(a) And we compare it to the Mishnah in Pesachim, where he also concedes to Rebbi Eliezer in a case of Bedi'eved. Where the Basar became Tamei, Pasul, or left the Azarah, Rebbi Eliezer says 'Yizrok'. Rebbi Yehoshua says - 'Lo Yizrok'.

(b) The Tana concludes 'u'Modeh Rebbi Yehoshua, she'Im Zarak, Hurtzah'. However, if the Basar became Tamei, it does not require the Zerikas ha'Dam to render the owner Yotze - since the Tzitz already atones for Tum'ah.

(c) Even though Rebbi Yehoshua holds that Bedieved, the Zerikah is Meratzeh (Basar that became Pasul or that was Yotze), we still need the reason of 'P'seida le'Kohanim' to permit the skin - in a case where the Basar was lost or burned.

(a) When Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim attested that he never saw the skin of Kodshei Kodshim having to be burned, he was not referring to ...

1. ... Parim ha'Nisrafin u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin - which are meant to be burned.
2. ... Kodshei Kodshim before both Hefshet (according to Rebbi) and Zerikah (according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon) - because he was referring specifically to detached skins.
3. ... after Hefshet but before Zerikah, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon (which is speaking about a skin that is detached), apart from establishing Rebbi S'gan ha'Kohanim like Rebbi - because if, as Abaye said earlier, according to Rebbi (who holds that the blood permits the skin) it never happened that the skin was flayed before the Zerikas ha'Dam, how much more so, according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon.

(b) And finally, we ask what Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim will do with 'Nimtzeis T'reifah bi'Venei Me'ayim' - which we assume is burned, because the P'sul preceded both the Hefshet and the Zerikah.

(c) We answer that the Zerikah is indeed Meratzeh in such a case - because they only discovered the P'sul after the Zerikas ha'Dam, like Rebbi Akiva in our Mishnah (who extrapolates it from Rebbi Chanina S'gan ha'Kohanim) ...

(d) ... Rebbi Akiva's Chidush is that we apply the same S'vara to a Bechor (which was Shechted outside the Beis-Hamikdash with a blemish and) which turned out to be a T'reifah - in that we consider the fact that the T'reifus was only discovered after the Hefshet (even though there was no Zerikas Dam), like we do with regard to Kodshei Kodshim in the Beis-Hamikdash where the Hefshet took place after the Zerikah.

(a) Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan rules like Rebbi Akiva, whom he also qualifies - by confining his ruling to a Bechor whose blemish was examined and subsequently permitted by an expert.

(b) We conclude however, 've'Hilch'sa ke'Divrei Chachamim'. According to the text 'Basar bi'Kevurah', it is ...

1. ... forbidden to feed to one's dogs - like all Kodshim are (even if they become Pasul).
2. ... not burned - because it is only Kodshei Mikdash (Kodshim that became Pasul after entering the Azarah), that require Sereifah, and not Kodshei ha'Gevul).

(c) The problem we have with the final words of this version 've'ha'Or bi'Sereifah' is - why the skin needs to be burned any more than the Basar does.

(d) It seems however, that this version was introduced by Talmidim who misunderstood 'Yeitzei le'Beis ha'Sereifah' (in the words of the Chachamim) in our Mishnah. In fact, they were referring (not to Rebbi Akiva) but to the Tana Kama, who was talking about Kodshei Mikdash.

(a) Our Mishnah draws a distinction between Parim ha'Nisrafin u'Se'irim ha'Nisrafin that are burned 'ke'Mitzvasan' and those that burned 'she'Lo ke'Mitzvasan - meaning which did not become Pasul and which did, respectively.

(b) The double distinction the Tana is referring to is - that a. the former are burned outside Yerushalayim in the Beis ha'Deshen, whereas the latter are burned somewhere in the Beis Hamikdash, in a place called 'Birah' (which will be explained in the Sugya); and b. the former render both those dealing with it and the clothes they are wearing, Tamei, whereas the latter do not.

(c) Assuming they are carrying Parim ha'Nisrafin ... ke'Mitzvasan, on poles, it is possible for some of the carriers together with their clothes to become Tamei, whilst the others do not - when those in front have already left the walls of the Azarah, whilst those at the back have not.

(d) The moment those at the back leave the walls of the Azarah, they become Tamei, too. Rebbi Shimon disagrees with this entire Halachah. According to him - it is only from the moment that the majority of the Parim ha'Nisrafin ... are burning that whoever deals with them becomes Tamei together with his clothes, and not before.

(e) Whoever helps to burn them and his clothes no longer become Tamei - once the Basar is completely burned.

7)

(a) According to Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan, 'Birah' refers to the Har ha'Bayis. Based on the Pasuk "ha'Birah Asher Hachinosi" - Resh Lakish defines 'Birah' as the entire area of the Beis Hamikdash.

(b) According to Rav Nachman Amar Rabah bar Avuhah - there were three Beis ha'Deshanim.

(c) Besides burning Pesulei B'sar Kodshei Kodshim in the Beis ha'Deshen in the Azarah, they also burned there ...

1. ... Pasul Eimurin of Kodshim Kalim - because that is where they would have been burned had they been Kasher.
2. ... Parim ha'Nisrafin ... which became Pasul before the Zerikas ha'Dam - because they were not due to be taken out of the Azarah until after the Zerikas ha'Dam.

(d) We have already learned that Kasher Parim ha'Nisrafin ... were burned in the Beis ha'Deshen outside Yerushalayim. The third Beis Hadeshen was situated - on the Har ha'Bayis, to burn Parim ha'Nisrafin which became Pasul after the Zerikas ha'Dam (when they became due to be taken out of the Azarah).

9)

(a) Rebbi Yirmiyah asked whether Parim ha'Nisrafin ... are subject to Linah - to become Pasul if they were left in the Azarah overnight.

(b) They might not be - because they are only fit to be burned on the ground, and are not eaten (either by Adam or by the Mizbe'ach), like the Basar of a Chatas or of an Olah.

(c) Abaye posed the same She'eilah, which Rava tried to resolve from a Beraisa, where the Tana says that a Machshavah to eat the Basar of Parim ha'Nisrafin ... or to burn it on the following day - is ineffective. Rava thought that by the same token, they are not subject to Linah either.

(d) We refute Rava's proof from there however, on the grounds - that perhaps Machsheves Achilah is not applicable to them, but Linah is.

(a) So we cite another Beraisa which declares Parim ha'Nisrafin ... subject to the Din of Me'ilah (once they have been declared Hekdesh) - and to the P'sul of T'vul Yom, Mechusar Kipurim and Linah, once they have been Shechted.

(b) We reject the proof from ...

1. ... there that Linah does apply to the Basar of Parim ha'Nisrafin ... - by establishing it with regard to Linah of the Eimurim (which are obviously subject to Linah, seeing as they are due to be burned).
2. ... the Seifa 'Kulan, Mo'alin Bahen ad she'Yutach ha'Basar', that just as the Seifa is speaking about the Basar, so too, is the Reisha - by countering 'Midi Ayri? Seifa Basar, Reisha Eimurin' (who says that they must be speaking in the same case ... ?).
3. ... the Beraisa cited by Levi (which we cited earlier) ' ... she'Ira Bahen P'sul bi'Yetzi'asan', by establishing the Tana (not with reference to the P'sul of Linah, but) to that of Tum'ah and Yotzei.

(a) Rebbi Elazar asked whether Parim ha'Nisrafin are subject to the P'sul of Yotzei or not. The She'eilah initially appears strange - since they are destined to go out anyway (so how can they possibly become Pasul by being taking out)?

(b) Rebbi Yirmiyah establishes it according to those who say 'Adayin Lo Higi'a Zemano Latzeis' which means that - they invalidate Kodshim Kalim that are taken out of the Azarah before the Zerikas ha'Dam, even though they would have been taken out anyway after the Zerikah.

(c) However, the Din here might be different than by Basar Kodshim Kalim - because Parim ha'Nisrafin *must* later be taken out of the Azarah, whereas taking the Basar of Kodshim Kalim is not an obligation.

(d) Once again, we try to resolve the She'eilah from Levi's Beraisa 'she'Ira Bo P'sul bi'Yetzi'aso', which we establish by P'sul Tum'ah and P'sul Linah. We initially thought that the Tana was talking about P'sul Yetzi'ah - since it specifically mentions 'bi'Yetzi'aso' (and doing that is a natural thought process).

(a) Rebbi Elazar asked a She'eilah 'Parim ha'Nisrafin be'Miy'ut Eiver'. The case is - where the majority of the animal was taken out of the Azarah, together with the minority of another limb most of which is still inside..

(b) The two sides of the She'eilah are - whether that minority combines with the majority of the limb that remains inside, or whether it combines with the majority of the Basar that was taken outside.

(c) We dismiss the She'eilah - on the grounds that it is obvious that the bulk of the animal is more prominent than the remainder of the limb.

(d) So we amend it - to where the minority of the limb was taken out, not (together with the majority of the Basar, but) together with half the Basar, to make up a majority between them. And the question now is whether we combine the minority of the limb still inside with the majority that is outside, or whether we consider it as part of half the body that is still inside.

(a) Rabah bar Rav Huna learned the She'eilah with regard to people. His version of the She'eilah is - if five people are transporting the Parim ha'Nisrafin, of whom three have already left the Azarah carrying the minority of the animal, whilst two ae still inside with the majority. And the question is whether we go after the majority of the carriers or of the animal.

(b) The outcome of both She'eilos is -'Teiku'.