Zevachim 108 - December 31, 11 Tevet

Study Guide

What is the source for the opinion of the rabbis in the Mishna that one who slaughters outside and then offers it outside is liable? Three possible derivations are presented, and the Gemara raises difficulties with the different possibilities. What is the source for the law in an upcoming Mishna that one who sprinkles the blood outside the Temple is liable? Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael each derive it from different verses. The Gemara then asks: what does each of them learn from the verse that the other used for this prohibition? What is the source for the law in an upcoming Mishna that one who takes a kometz (a handful of a meal offering) or one who accepts the blood outside is not liable? The Gemara demonstrates that there is no basis to assume liability and explicitly rejects a suggestion that there might be reason to think otherwise. The verse forbidding slaughter outside includes three distinct phrases that specify where the prohibition applies and where it does not. What is derived from the use of all three? Ulla and Rava disagree about whether one is liable if they slaughter on the roof of the Heichal, which is dependent on how these phrases are understood. Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish dispute whether one is liable nowadays if one slaughters outside the area where the Azara once stood. Their debate hinges on whether the sanctity of the First Temple remains in effect or whether it was nullified with the Temple's destruction.

Since Rabbi Shimon holds that one becomes impure only through direct involvement in the burning of the bulls and goats, the Gemara asks how he interprets the verse "outside the camp" in the context of the Yom Kippur offerings. He applies it to a gezeira shava linking these offerings to the para aduma, establishing that they must be burned outside all three camps and specifically east of Jerusalem. The rabbis, however, reject this comparison and distinguish between the two burning sites: the para aduma was burned to the east, whereas the sin offerings of Yom Kippur were burned to the north of Jerusalem. The Mishna then turns to the laws of slaughtering and offering sacrifices outside the Temple. The tanna kama rules that one who both slaughters and offers outside is liable for each act, while Rabbi Yosei HaGelili exempts a case in which both actions occur outside, since the offering was already invalidated by the improper slaughter and the subsequent offering does not constitute a transgression. The rabbis respond that even an offering slaughtered properly inside becomes invalid once taken outside, yet the prohibition of offering it outside still applies. The Mishna continues with the laws of eating sacrificial meat while impure: an impure person is liable whether he eats pure or impure sacrificial meat, though Rabbi Yosei HaGelili again exempts an impure person who eats impure meat, arguing that he consumed something already disqualified. The rabbis counter that even pure meat becomes impure upon contact with the impure person before it is eaten. The Gemara seeks the scriptural sources for both the punishment and the warning associated with slaughtering and offering outside. The punishment for both acts is explicit, and the warning for offering outsideis derived from Devarim 12:13, "Beware lest you offer your burnt offerings." The warning for slaughtering outside, however, is not clearly stated, and the Gemara explores four possible verses as its source, rejecting the first two and concluding with two possibilities.

Two additional questions are raised regarding the impurity status of those who handle the bull and goat offerings whose bodies are burned outside Jerusalem, but neither question receives a definitive answer. Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree about the impurity of the scapegoat (se'ir la'azazel) that is sent off a cliff on Yom Kippur. While both sides agree that the red heifer and the bulls and goats burned outside Jerusalem impart impurity to food and drink, they dispute whether the scapegoat does the same. According to the rabbis, since the scapegoat is a live animal - and live animals generally do not become impure or transmit impurity - it does not impart impurity in this case either, even though the person who sends it off does become impure. Rabbi Meir, however, maintains that the scapegoat does transmit impurity, because anything destined to eventually acquire a severe level of impurity (i.e., the ability to transmit impurity to humans) already imparts impurity to food and drink even before reaching that stage. The rabbis' position is challenged based on a braita from the school of Rabbi Yishmael, who discusses a concept similar to Rabbi Meir's in the context of the carcass of a kosher bird. Since the bird will eventually attain a severe level of impurity (when someone eats it), it already imparts impurity to food and drink beforehand. If the rabbis agree with Rabbi Yishmael, then this principle should apply to the scapegoat as well. But if they do not follow Rabbi Yishmael, then the red heifer and the bulls and goats burned outside the Temple should likewise not impart impurity to food and drink. Rav Dimi resolves this by explaining Rabbi Yishmael's view in a way that allows the rabbis to accept his principle while still excluding the scapegoat. Although items destined to eventually reach a severe level of impurity can already transmit impurity to food and drink, this applies only to items that are generally subject to impurity - namely, dead animals. It does not extend to live animals, such as the scapegoat. Two questions are raised regarding Rabbi Yishmael's principle that an item destined to eventually contract a severe level of impurity can already transmit impurity to food and drink. How do we define the phrase "they will ultimately contract severe impurity"? If an additional action is required before the item reaches that stage, this may prevent it from transmitting impurity, since it is still one step removed from becoming fully impure. The questions, therefore, focus on what qualifies as a "missing action." Would the need to remove the item from the Azara count as such an action? What about the case of a kosher bird's carcass held in one's hand, the size of an olive, that is on the verge of being eaten? Another issue discussed is whether this type of impurity renders food and drink a first-degree impurity or only a second-degree impurity.

The hide of burnt offerings is given to the kohanim, as stated in Vayikra 7:8. However, the Mishna explains that if the offering became disqualified before the blood was sprinkled, the kohanim do not receive the hide. If it was sacrificed for the sake of a different type of offering, since the sacrifice remains valid, the hide is given to the kohanim. In addition to burnt offerings, the kohanim also receive the hides of all kodshei kodashim, such as guilt and sin offerings. This is derived through a kal va'chomer argument in the Mishna, but later a braita brings different opinions of how to derive this. A braita records a debate between two tannaim regarding the phrase "the burnt offering of a man" in the verse that grants the kohen rights to the hide. One opinion says it excludes a burnt offering of hekdesh, property belonging to the Temple, while the other says it excludes the burnt offering of a convert. Three explanations are offered for what is meant by a burnt offering of hekdesh, and one explanation is given for the case of a convert, since a convert is certainly considered a "person." The three explanations of hekdesh are: a burnt offering brought from leftover funds of an offering; one who consecrates an offering for bedek habayit, the maintenance of the Temple; and one who consecrates all of their property, among which there were animals. The exemption regarding a convert refers to a case where the convert designated a burnt offering and then died without heirs. Since the sacrifice is ownerless, it does not qualify as a "burnt offering of a man." A braita is cited to explain the derivation of the laws in the Mishna. Although the verse says "man," the offerings of women and slaves are included as well, as is derived from a phrase in the verse. It also records a debate about how kodshei kodashim are included and kodashim kalim excluded from this law - whether it is learned from a kal va'chomer, from a verse, or whether no derivation is needed at all, since the hide always follows the meat, and the meat of other kodshei kodashim goes to the kohen. The Mishna concludes that the determining factor for whether the hide goes to the kohen in a case where the meat was disqualified is whether the hide was still attached at the moment of disqualification.

Rav held that Moshe served as a kohen gadol. Four tannaitic sources are brought to challenge this position, but each one is ultimately resolved. A braita is then cited to show that whether Moshe was a kohen gadol is itself a tannaitic dispute. One of the tannaitic views in that debate cites a statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha: whenever the Torah uses the expression charon af,  anger, it implies some concrete action or consequence. His statement is challenged by the verse in Shemot 11:8, where Moshe becomes angry at Pharaoh, yet no action seems to follow. Reish Lakish resolves this by saying that Moshe slapped Pharaoh in the face. This explanation is challenged by another statement of Reish Lakish, in which he says that Moshe showed respect toward Pharaoh. Two answers are offered to reconcile these conflicting statements. Two verses are then brought to support the principle that one must show respect to a king, even a wicked king, one verse concerning Pharaoh and another concerning Ahab. Earlier, a source had referred to Moshe as a king. However, Ulla stated that Moshe desired to be king but was not granted that status. Rava resolves this by qualifying Ulla's statement: Moshe wished for his sons to inherit kingship, and that request was denied, but Moshe himself was indeed considered a king. The Gemara then asks: from where do we derive that kohanim with any type of blemish are entitled to receive portions of the priestly gifts? Four braitot are cited, each offering a drasha that builds upon the previous one. The Mishna states that those who cannot serve in the Temple do not receive a portion, which seems to contradict the ruling regarding blemished kohanim. Furthermore, the implication that those who do serve may eat is difficult in the case of impure kohanim during communal offerings, where they may serve, yet do not receive a portion. The Gemara explains how this contradiction is resolved. Rav relates that Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon was once in the bathroom and devised various arguments that a tevul yom might use to claim a share of sacrificial portions. Yet for every argument he proposed, a pure kohen could cite a verse proving that a tevul yom is excluded, since he cannot perform the Temple service. The Gemara then asks: how was Rabbi Elazar able to think Torah thoughts in the bathroom, something that is normally forbidden?  

Study Guide There is a dispute between Rabbi Nechemia and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon regarding the reason Aaron burned the sin‑offering goat on the eighth day of the inauguration (miluim). Rabbi Nehemiah holds that the reason was aninut (the status of a mourner on the day of death), whereas Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda argue that the goat was burned because it had become impure. They raise three objections to Rabbi Nechemia's position - how can these objections be resolved, and how does each of them interpret the verses in the passage? When did Pinchas become a kohen? According to Rav, Moshe served as the kohen gadol. The Gemara raises objections to his statement.

Study Guide Three additional resolutions, bringing the total to five, are proposed to reconcile the contradiction between the two baraitot, each of which presents a different view of Rabbi Shimon on whether an onen may eat the Pesach offering at night. A challenge is raised against the third resolution, evidence is presented in support of the fourth, and a statement of Rava bar Rav Huna is cited to bolster the fifth.

After the Mishna discusses which kohanim are entitled to portions of sacrificial meat, Reish Lakish derives from the verse "the kohen who offers it shall eat it" that only those who perform the service may partake, excluding a tvul yom and mechusar kipurim. The Gemara challenges this, noting that priests on weekly rotation receive a share even if they did not offer that sacrifice, and that minors also eat despite being unfit for service. The verse is therefore reinterpreted to mean that those "fit for service" may receive a portion, though others, such as children, may still partake in eating. This raises a difficulty regarding blemished priests, who are unfit for offering yet still receive a share. To resolve this, the verse "all male kohanim" is understood to include them, and the Gemara analyzes why a tvul yom is excluded while a blemished priest is included. Reish Lakish further asks whether a blemished kohen who is also impure may receive a portion. Raba cites the case of the kohen gadol who, while an onen (mourner on the day of a relative's death), works in the Temple but cannot eat, and does not receive a share to eat later - showing that eligibility requires fitness for eating. Rav Oshaya raises a similar question about a kohen who is impure in a situation where impurity is permitted for communal offerings, and Ravina responds with the same proof from the kohen gadol, again affirming that fitness for eating is required. The Mishna states that an onen may touch sacred items, which contradicts a Mishna in Chagiga 21a requiring immersion for sacrificial items (kodashim). Three resolutions are offered: first, that our Mishna refers to before immersion, though this is rejected since immersion does not remove aninut; second, distinguishing between one who was careful to avoid impurity that conveys tumah but not impurity that disqualifies, versus one who was careful in all respects; and third, that our Mishna refers to touching, while Chagiga refers to eating. A source is brought to prove that there could be situations where one is careful about one type of impurity and not another, a distinction that carries halakhic consequences. Since the Mishna rules that an onen does not receive a share, it seems to imply that he may nevertheless eat sacrificial meat. Yet this conflicts with Pesachim 91b, which teaches that an onen may immerse and eat the Passover sacrifice at night but not other offerings. The resolution distinguishes between Passover, where eating is permitted due to its unique requirements, and other sacrifices throughout the year. This leads to mention of a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon over whether nighttime aninut is biblical or rabbinic, since the permission for the onen to eat the Passover sacrifice rests on Rabbi Shimon's view that it is rabbinic. However, a braita suggests that Rabbi Shimon holds aninut at night to be a Torah law. Two possible resolutions are offered to reconcile this apparent contradiction.