Komentarz do Zewachim 12:7

טבול יום – he (i.e., a Kohen) who has immersed [in a ritual bath] and came out but his sunset has yet occurred (i.e., see the rationale provided by the Bartenura commentary in Tractate Berakhot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1 for defining when the Shema is recited in the evening).

Introduction Our chapter discusses what parts of the sacrifices the priests receive. Our mishnah begins by pointing out which priests do not receive a share.

ומחוסר כפורים – such as person with a flux or a leper or a woman who gave birth who immersed [in a ritual bath] and their [respective] sunsets had arrived but they had not brought their atonement [sacrifices].

A tebul yom and one who lacks atonement do not share in sacrifices for consumption in the evening. A tebul yom is a priest who immersed in a mikveh in order to cleanse himself of his impurity but the sun has not yet set upon him. He cannot eat sacrifices, although he is clean once he has been in the mikveh. “One who lacks atonement” is an impure priest, for instance one who had been a zav, who had to bring a sacrifice the day after he immerses in a mikveh. He cannot eat sacrificial meat until after he brings the sacrifices, even though he is clean after having gone in the mikveh. Both of these types of priest do not receive their share of sacrificial meat today, in order to eat it tomorrow, or tonight. Since they cannot currently eat sacrifices, they lose out on their share.

אינן חולקין בקדשים – since it is not appropriate for them to be eating [until they bring their sacrifices on the morrow], they do not divide [the food] for the evening when they become pure, as it is written (Leviticus 6:19): “The priest who offers it as a sin offering shall eat of it,” the Kohen that is appropriate for purification shares it, he who is not appropriate for purification does not share it. But it is impossible to state that a Kohen who is not appropriate for purification at the time of the offering does not eat, for there is a minor that is not appropriate for purification who consumes it, but by force, he should eat it, as the Biblical verse states, he should divide it in order to be able to eat from it, it is stated, for the Biblical verse excludes it from division in the language of seating, we learn from it that a Kohen who is appropriate for eating can divide it, but one who is not qualified for eating does not divide it. Therefore, those with blemishes divide it, even though they are not appropriate for purification, they are appropriate for eating, as it is written (Leviticus 21:22): “He may eat of the food of his God, of the most holy as well as the holy” (though as we learn in the previous verse, if the Kohen has a defect, he shall not be qualified to offer up the food of his God).

An onen may handle [sacrifices], but he may not offer them, and he does not receive a share for consumption in the evening. An onen is a person (in this case a priest) whose close relative has died. The priest remains an onen on the day of the death according to Torah law, but the rabbis add that he remains an onen throughout the following night as well. An onen is not allowed to eat sacrifices, but he can touch them, for he is not impure. He does not receive a share in order to eat that night, since this is rabbinically forbidden.

אונן נוגע – and he who immersed [in a ritual bath] but he whose mind was not diverted from his immersion all the while that he is a mourning a kinsman prior to burial. For if he diverted his mind and then touched it, even after he immersed [in a ritual bath], he has invalidated it.

Priests with blemishes, whether permanent or passing, receive a share and may eat [of the sacrifices] but they may not offer them. A priest with a blemish cannot offer sacrifices, but he can eat them and therefore he receives his share with the other priests. See Leviticus 21:21-23.

וכל שאינו ראוי לעבודה אינו חולק בבשר – except for those who have blemishes for even though that they are not qualified for Temple service, they divide/share the meat, for we extend the scope of he Biblical verse explicitly, as it is written (Leviticus 21:22): “He may eat of the food of his God, of the most holy as well as of the holy,” and it is written (Leviticus 6:11): “Only the males among Aaron’s descendants may eat of it,” to include those with defects for the sharing of the food, if for eating, it is already stated, “he may eat….as well as of the holy.”

Whoever is not eligible for service does not share in the flesh. A priest who is not eligible to take part in the service, for instance a priest who is impure, does not receive part of the sacrificial flesh. The exception is those with blemishes, as stated in section three.

וטהור בשעת הקטר חלבים – which is all night long (see the end of Tractate Berakhot, Chapter 1, Mishnah 1). As for example, that he immersed and was purified with the setting of the sun.

And he who does not share in the flesh does not share in the hides. Someone who doesn’t get his part of the flesh, also loses out on his part of the hides of the sacrifices.

אינו חולק – for a Kohen does not share in the Holy Things until he is pure from the time of the sprinkling of the blood until the time of the burning of the fat, but if he became ritually impure between one and the other, he does not share in the Holy Things.

Even if one was unclean when the blood was sprinkled but clean when the fats were burned [on the altar], he does not share in the flesh, for it is said: “he among the sons of Aaron, that offers the blood of the shelamim, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). Even if the person was impure during the day when the blood was sprinkled on the altar, and then pure in the evening when the fats were burned, he still doesn’t get a share of the flesh or hides, until he is pure at the point when the blood is sprinkled. This is derived from the verse which says that one who offers both the blood and the fat gets a portion of the flesh – but if he can’t offer the blood, he loses his portion. In other words, no blood, no flesh!

כל של זכה המזבח בבשרה – such as that something making it (i.e., the meat) invalid occurred before sprinkling/tossing [of the blood], that there wasn’t a period of permissibility for the altar.

Introduction This mishnah teaches that the priests have the right to the hide of a sacrifice only if the flesh of the sacrifice was burned on the altar.

עורה לכהנים – for since the altar acquired its meat, for it was kosher/fit (see Chapter 1, Mishnah 1).

Whenever the altar does not acquire its flesh, the priests do not acquire the hide, for it is said, “[And the priest that offers] any man’s olah [the priest shall have … the hide]” (Leviticus 7:8), [this means,] an olah which went up on the altar on behalf a man. If for some reason the flesh of the sacrifice cannot be burned on the altar, for instance it was sacrificed with a disqualifying intention, then the priests also don’t acquire the hides. This is learned from a midrash on Leviticus 7:8 which implies that when the priest successfully sacrifices a person’s olah, then he gets to keep the hide. Only if the olah is actually put on the altar, does the priest receive the hide.

ואחד עולת אשה – as is it written (Leviticus 7:8): “So, too, the priest who offers a man’s burnt offering [shall keep the skin of the burnt offering that is offered],” I don’t have anything other than "עולת איש"/a man’s offering, from where do I learn about the burnt offering of a woman and/or that of slaves? The inference teaches us: "עולת עור"/the skin of the burnt offering: to use the additional word for the purpose of intimating something not otherwise included/widening the scope of a law. If so, why is it stated [in the Biblical verse]: "עולת איש"/a man’s offering? Excluding a person who decides by drawing lots to devote his burnt offering for the maintenance of the Temple that the hide is holy.

If an olah was slaughtered under a different designation, although it does not count for its owner, its hide belongs to the priests. If the olah was slaughtered with the intent of it being a different sacrifice, it can be put on the altar, even though it does not discharge the owner of his obligation (see 1:1). Since it can be put on the altar, the priest does receive the hide.

Whether [it be] a man’s olah or a woman's olah, the hide belong to the priests. Even the Torah says, “man”, the priest receives the hide of the sacrifice whether it was brought by a man or a woman. The word “man” in this context was not meant to exclude a woman.

עורות קדשים קלים לבעלים – as it is written (Leviticus 7:8): “shall keep the skin/עור העולה of the burnt offering [that is offered],”just as the burnt offering of the Most Holy Things, so also all of the Most Holy Things.

Introduction This mishnah discusses who receives the hides of different types of sacrifices.

עורות קדשי קדשים – the sin-offerings and guilt-offerings go to the Kohanim as the reason is explained further on.

The hides of less holy sacrifices belong to their owners. The Torah states that the hide of an olah goes to the priests. Since the olah is a most holy sacrifice (as is the hatat and the asham), the rabbis extrapolate that the hides of all most holy sacrifices go to the priests, as we shall see below. But when it comes to the hides of less holy sacrifices, such as the shelamim, the todah, the tithe and the first-born, they go to those who bring these sacrifices.

אין המזבח יוכיח – that is to say, you don’t have to state that the Altar will prove that it acquired the meat of the burnt-offering but did not acquire the hide and even you should no be amazed regarding the Holiest of Holy Things for even though the Kohanim acquired their meat, that they would not acquire their hides. This is not a proof, for the altar does not have the hide in any case. But regarding the Kohanim, we have found that they did acquire the hide of the burnt-offering as an a fortiori derivation that they would acquire the hides of the Holiest of the Holy Things.

The hides of most holy sacrifices belong to the priest. This is a kal vehomer: if with an olah, even though they do not acquire its flesh they do acquire its hide, is it not logical that they acquire the hides of most holy sacrifices, when they do acquire their flesh? While the Torah states that the hides of the olah go to the priest, the rabbis expand this to include all most holy sacrifices. The argument is a kal vehomer argument, which roughly translates as an “all the more so” type of argument. If the priests receive the hide even when they don’t receive the flesh, as is the case with the olah, all the more so they receive the hide when they do receive the flesh, as is the case with the asham and hatat.

The altar does not refute [this argument], for it does not acquire the hide in any instance. In order to refute a kal vehomer argument, what one must do is show that the relationship between the two things being discussed is not stable. In our case, the mishnah tried to claim that the relationship between hide and flesh is stable whenever one receives the flesh, he receives the hide. However, the altar could seemingly prove the opposite the altar receives the flesh and doesn’t receive the hide. Therefore, we could say that the priests receive the flesh of most holy sacrifices but they don’t receive the hide. The mishnah rejects this argument because the altar never receives the hide, unlike the priests who do receive the hide of the olah. In other words, we reason the kal vehomer argument from the fact that the priests do receive the hide of the olah and therefore they also receive the hide of other most holy sacrifices, and not from some general argument that any time someone receives the flesh, he also receives the hide.

אין עורותיהן לכהנים – but rather they are burned with their hides.

All sacrifices which became disqualified, before they were flayed, their hides do not belong to the priests. After they were flayed, their hides belong to the priests. When sacrifices are disqualified, they cannot be eaten. The question in our mishnah is what to do with the hides when the priests do not get the flesh. If the sacrifice was disqualified before the animal was flayed, then the hide does not belong to the priest. In this case the disqualification renders the hide disqualified as well. If the disqualification takes place after the hide has already been removed, then it does not affect the status of the hide, which goes to the priest.

לא ראיתי עור יוצא לבית השריפה – after it was flayed, if it was found to be an animal with a condition that would cause it to die within twelve months (i.e., it was found to have been torn by another animal or with a congenital defect or afflicted with a severe organ disease, even though that this disqualification was in it prior to the flaying, but it was not recognized until after it was flayed.

Rabbi Hanina vice-chief of the priests said: Never in my life have I seen a hide go out to the place of burning. Rabbi Hanina was the vice-chief of the priests, and hence his testimony of what occurred in the Temple is first-hand. Rabbi Hanina claims that he never saw a hide go out to be burned in the place of burning, which is what would have to be done to a hide if it was disqualified from going to either the priest or the owner. Rather, the always went to the priests (or to the owners in the case of less holy sacrifices). This line is an interesting interpolation of actual Temple practice into abstract rabbinic law concerning what is supposed to happen in the Temple. As I have stated many times, the rabbis’ laws are not simply recordings of what actually happened in the Temple. Rather, they are based mostly on rabbinic interpretation of the Torah and rabbinic application of legal principles. These interpretations and principles are occasionally mixed in with traditions about what actually happened in the Temple. Very rarely do we have a priest actually tell us what he saw in the Temple. And here, when a priest of priestly and rabbinic authority does testify, it seems to contradict what was stated above, for according to the previous halakhah, if the disqualification occurred before the animal was flayed, the hide must be burned.

שהמפשיט את הבכור ונמצא טריפה – Rabbi Akiba comes to tell us that even if it was a firstling with a blemish/physical defect that was ritually slaughtered in the country on its blemish, and the Biblical verse did not permit it other than through eating, as it is written (Deuteronomy 15:21-22): [“But if it has a defect, lameness or blindness, any serious defect, you shall not sacrifice it to the LORD your God.] Eat it in your settlements, [the impure among you no less than the pure, just like the gazelle and the deer],” but if it died, its hide is forbidden and it requires burial, and it comes to teach us that where its being afflicted with a severe organ disease/congenital defect/torn by another animal was not recognized until after it was flayed, its ritual slaughter is permitted and its hide is flayed, as if its blood was sprinkled/tossed in the Temple.

Rabbi Akiva said: 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 hide. Rabbi Akiva attempts to derive a halakhah from Rabbi Hanina’s testimony. If a firstling was slaughtered, whether in the Temple as a sacrifice when it does not have a blemish, or outside the Temple when it is blemished, and it is found to be a terefah, an animal with an internal flaw such that it cannot be eaten, the priests receive the hide. Were it not for Rabbi Hanina’s testimony, we would have thought that the hide should have been burned.

יאותו הכהנים בעורו – [the priests may make use of its hide] and it is not burned.

But the sages say: “I have never seen” is not proof: rather, it [the hide] must go forth to the place of burning. The other rabbis discount Rabbi Hanina’s testimony as being valueless. The fact that he didn’t see something occur does not mean that it did not actually occur. Perhaps there was a hide burned at the burning place and not given to the priests but that this did not occur while Rabbi Hanina was serving in the Temple. Hence, the law cannot be based on his testimony, rather if the disqualification occurs before the animal is flayed, the priests do not receive the hide, as was stated in section one.

אין לא ראיתי ראיה – for perhaps it did not happen during his life that he would find [the animal’s] severe organ disease/congenital defect/torn by another animal until after it was flaying, and if it happened, and he burned it, he didn’t see it.

אלא יצא לבית השריפה – since but prior to the flaying he came. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiba regarding a firstling with a blemish/physical defect when a specialist permitted it. But not if a specialist did not permit it. But the Halakha is according to the Sages regarding a pure firstling, that the flesh [requires] burial and hide [requires] burning.

פרים הנשרפין – the bull of the anointed priest [brought as a sin-offering] and the bull for an unwitting communal sin [because of an active unwitting transgression committed by the Jewish people, as a result of an erroneous Halakhic decision handed down by the Great Sanhedrin], and the bullock of Yom Kippur [which is brought by the High Priest for himself, his family and all the members of the Priesthood].

Introduction In chapter five mishnayot 1-2 we learned that in certain cases, namely that of certain bullocks and goats, the sacrificial rites are performed on the inner altar. Their blood is spilled on the inner altar. Our mishnah deals with where these sacrifices are burned.

ושעירים הנשרפים – the goat of Yom Kippur and the goats as a sin-offering for idolatry.

Bullocks which are burned and goats which are burned: when they are burned in fulfillment of their prescribed commandment, they are burned in the ash depository (bet, and they defile garments. If the bullocks or goats had not been disqualified, then the flesh is burned in the “ash depository” or “bet hadeshen” which was outside of Jerusalem. In addition, one who burns these sacrifices must wash his clothes and any clothes that he touches, see Leviticus 16:28 and Yoma 6:7.

נשרפין בבית הדשן – outside of the three camps . But in the cemetery, outside of Jerusalem, as it is written regarding them (Leviticus 4:21): “[He shall carry the bull] outside the camp [and burn it as he burned the first bull,” that is to say, outside of three camps.

But when they are not burned in fulfillment of their commandment, they are burned in the bet habirah and they do not defile garments. However, if they were disqualified in some way, then they are burned in a place called “bet habirah.” According to some commentators there are two places that are called “bet habirah” one in the Temple courtyard, and one on the Temple Mount, outside the Temple. If they were disqualified before they left the courtyard, then they would be burned inside the Temple, and if they were disqualified after they left the courtyard, then they would be burned outside the Temple but on the Temple Mount. These bullocks and goats do not defile garments only valid ones are defiling.

מטמאין בגדים – to those engaged with them. As is it written (Leviticus 16:28): “He who burned them shall wash his clothes [and bathe his body in water].” And every place where it states, “shall wash his clothes/יכבס בגדיו,” not only the clothes that he was wearing require washing, but also every piece of clothing that he touches while he is attached to the impurity is ritually defiled and requires washing.

שלא כמצותן – such as that they became defiled and required burning like the rest of the consecrated animals that were disqualified.

בבית הבירה – sometimes in the Temple courtyard and sometimes on the Temple Mount. How so? If a disqualification occurred to them prior to their leaving from the Temple courtyard whether prior to the sprinkling/tossing [of the blood] or after, they are burned in the place of ashes that is in the Temple courtyard. If a disqualification occurred to them after their departure from the Temple courtyard, they are burned in the place of ashes that is on the Temple Mount, and that is the Temple.

היו סובלין אותן – those that were burned in accord with their requirements, they would carry them on poles to remove them to the place where they are burned.

Introduction This mishnah continues to deal with the bullocks and goats whose blood was offered inside the sanctuary, in the inner altar. Specifically, the question is when do these carcasses defile the clothes of those who deal with them and cause him to defile any clothes that he touches.

הראשונים – the people that carry the poles, those at one head go out first, and the latter ones at the head of the second group didn’t go out [from the Temple courtyard].

They would carry them on staves [out of the Temple courtyard]. After the rites were performed inside the Sanctuary, they would carry the carcasses outside using staves.

ניתך הבשר – when their burning came a conclusion, the one who assist/accompany them does not again return from defiling clothing, but before this, all those who assist/accompany at the time of the burning, defile their clothing, as it is written (Leviticus 16:28): “He who burned them shall wash his clothes, [and bathe his body in water; after that he may re-enter the camp],” at the time of the burning. The one who assists/accompanies after they became ashes defiles his clothing, the inference teaches us: "אותם"/them - those defile their clothing, when they became ashes, he does not defile his clothing. But the bulls that are burned and the goats that are burned themselves do not defile people or the clothing that touch them, but the person engaged with their burning is ritually impure from the decree of the Biblical verse. According to the Rabbis, once those who carry them on poles have gone out, and according to the words of Rabbi Shimon, when fire goes out on most of them (see Talmud Zevakhim 106a). But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Shimon.

If those in front had passed outside the wall of the Temple courtyard, but those in the back had not [yet] gone out, those in front defile their garments, while those in the back do not defile their garments, until they go out. When they both go out, both defile their garments. Rabbi Shimon says: neither defile [their garments] until the fire is burning in the greater part of them. The Torah (Leviticus 16:28) states that the one who burns these sacrifices shall wash his clothes. The debate in this section is when does someone become “one who burns.” According to the first opinion, the one who deals with these sacrifices defiles clothes once they have left the walls of the Temple courtyard. If some of those carrying the carcasses have left and some have not, then only those who have left the walls defile clothes. Once they have all left, they all defile. According to this interpretation “one who burns” is one who has left the Temple in order to burn one of these sacrifices. Rabbi Shimon holds that only once the fire has begun to consume a majority of the carcass of the bullock or goat does the one who burned it defile clothing. He interprets “one who burns” in a much more limiting fashion to defile one must actually begin the burning process.

When the flesh is dissolved, he who burns [it] does not defile his garments. Burning is over once the flesh has been dissolved. One who deals with the burning after this point does not defile clothes.