Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Zevachim, 82

1) A KORBAN WHOSE BLOOD WAS UNNECESSARILY TAKEN INTO THE "HEICHAL"

OPINIONS: The Mishnah discusses an argument between the Chachamim and Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili regarding the blood of a Korban that was brought into the Heichal before the Zerikah was performed on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon. The Chachamim maintain that such a Korban is Pasul, and even the blood that remains in the Azarah (that was not brought into the Heichal) may no longer be used for the Zerikah. Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili maintains that the remaining blood may be used. According to the Chachamim, what are we supposed to do with the Korban that is Pasul?

(a) RASHI in Pesachim (23b, DH Im Eino Inyan) learns from the context of Moshe Rabeinu's statement to the sons of Aharon that such a Korban is burned immediately. When Moshe Rabeinu saw that a Chatas had been burned, he said, "Hen Lo Huva Es Damah El ha'Kodesh" -- "behold, its blood was not brought into the sanctuary" (Vayikra 10:18). This implies that if some of its blood *had* been brought into the sanctuary (i.e. the Heichal), then he would have agreed with their action of burning the Chatas immediately.

(b) TOSFOS in Pesachim (DH d'Ha) quotes RABEINU SHLOMO of Troy who says that this is not true. Once we see that the sons of Aharon burned the Chatas without letting it first stay overnight (when it would become Pasul because of Linah as well), we already see that they did not do what would normally be done to a Chatas whose blood was sprinkled. The Mishnah in Pesachim (82b) states that if a Korban is Pasul because of a Pesul she'b'Gufo (an intrinsic invalidating factor), it must be burned immediately. If there is a Pesul b'Dam uv'Ba'alim (an external invalidating factor, involving the blood or the owner of the Korban), the Chatas should first be left overnight and then be burned. Since the case of our Mishnah is a case involving a Pesul due to the blood being brought into the Heichal, it follows that the Chatas should be left overnight and only afterwards be burned. Rabeinu Shmuel says that Moshe made his comment with regard to the *eating* of the Chatas. The inference from his words that the blood was not brought into the sanctuary is that if the blood would have been brought there, then he would have understood why they did not *eat* it.

How does Rashi reconcile his explanation that the Korban that is Pasul is immediately burned with the Mishnah in Pesachim (82b) cited by Tosfos?

The KEHILOS YAKOV (Pesachim #15) answers by first explaining the Mishnah's statement which differentiates between a Pesul she'b'Gufo and a Pesul b'Dam uv'Ba'alim. A Korban that has a Pesul she'b'Gufo, an intrinsic invalidating factor, can obviously be burned right away, since it will not become any more Pasul by being left overnight. Rashi explains later in Pesachim (73b, DH Te'ubar Tzuraso) that a Pesul b'Dam uv'Ba'alim requires Ibur Tzurah (being left overnight) because its present Pesul is not so stringent, and thus we may not deface Kodshim by burning them for having such a Pesul. Instead, we wait until the Korban becomes Pasul with a Pesul she'b'Gufo, whi ch the Torah tells us to burn.

The Kehilos Yakov analyzes this further. There is nothing wrong with the meat of a Korban when the Korban's blood (that was supposed to be used for Zerikah) was spilled or taken out of the Azarah. That is, the meat itself is not Pasul. The only problem is that there is no Zerikah to make the Korban a valid Korban and to permit its meat. The same is true with regard to a Pesul b'Ba'alim, such as when the owner of a Korban Pesach becomes Tamei before the Zerikah of the blood. The meat itself is fine, but the Korban is not valid because the Zerikah cannot be performed due to the fact that the owner has become Tamei.

However, Rashi infers from the Mishnah here in Zevachim that the Pesul of a Korban when its blood is brought unnecessarily into the Heichal is a Pesul *she'b'Gufo*, unlike other Pesulim involving blood. This is because the Chachamim maintain that even when there is a another pitcher of blood from the animal with which the Zerikah can be performed, the Korban is still Pasul. It must be that bringing the blood into the Heichal is unlike any other Pesul involving the blood, and the disqualified Korban, therefore, is burned immediately.

At first glance, this logic seems inconsistent with the words of the Gemara later in Pesachim (83a). The Gemara there says that Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili holds like the opinion (unlike the Mishnah quoted above) that says that even a Korban which is disqualified because of a Pesul b'Dam uv'Ba'alim is burned immediately. How does the Gemara prove this? Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili says, as Rashi here says, that Moshe's statement implies that a Chatas whose blood was taken into the Heichal would normally be burned. The Gemara is almost explicitly in saying that this is an example of a Pesul b'Dam uv'Ba'alim, and not a Pesul she'b'Gufo, as the Kehilos Yakov explains. However, upon closer examination, we find that there is no question at all. The Gemara is discussing the opinion of Rebbi Yosi ha'Glili, who obviously maintains that this case is a case of a Pesul b'Dam uv'Ba'alim, for he says in our Mishnah that a second cup of blood which remained in the Azarah *would* be valid for Zerikah! According to the Rabanan, however, this case remains a case of a Pesul she'b'Gufo. The Kehilos Yakov later notes that the OR SAME'ACH (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 2:16) derives this logic from the words of the Yerushalmi.

Tosfos, on the other hand, must hold that as long as no action was done directly to the meat to make it Pasul, than the meat will always be considered as having a Pesul b'Dam uv'Ba'alim. It is also possible that Tosfos understands the Gemara in Pesachim (83a) to be teaching that our case is definitely one of Pesul b'Dam uv'Ba'alim, even according to the Rabanan. (Y. Montrose)

82b

QUESTION: The Gemara discusses the possibility that if meat from a Korban was brought into the Heichal, it should become Pasul. If blood that is taken outside of the Beis ha'Mikdash does not cause the rest of the blood of that Korban to become disqualified with regard to Zerikah, and meat that goes out of the Beis ha'Mikdash becomes Pasul as well, then when blood goes into the Heichal and *does* cause the rest of the blood to become Pasul (showing that entering the Heichal is a more severe infraction than exiting the Beis ha'Mikdash), certainly the meat that goes into the Heichal should become Pasul as well! The Gemara answers that this is not true. The verse states, "mi'Damah" (Vayikra 6:23) and "Damah" (Vayikra 10:18). This teaches that only blood that is supposed to remain in the Azarah that enters the Heichal becomes Pasul and causes the Korban to become Pasul, unlike meat that enters the Heichal, which itself remains Kosher. RASHI (DH Damah) explains that one of the times where "Damah" is stated is extra, thus teaching that only blood becomes Pasul upon entering the Heichal, and not meat.

TOSFOS (DH Damah) has difficulty with this Gemara. The verse which tells us that blood that enters the Heichal disqualifies a Korban reads, "Asher Yuva mi'Damah El Ohel Mo'ed l'Chaper" -- "which is brought from its blood into the Ohel Mo'ed (Heichal) to atone" (Vayikra 6:23). This shows clearly that the problem exists only when the blood is brought *to atone* (i.e. to perform Zerikah), but not when it is brought into the Heichal for a purpose that has nothing to do with atonement. Since meat has nothing to do with the atonement provided by the Korban, why would we think that meat would be included in this Halachah?

ANSWERS:

(a) The TZON KODASHIM refutes the logic of the question. It is indeed possible that the Torah says "l'Chaper" with regard to blood in order to say that blood -- the importance of which is based on the fact that it is used to do Zerikah and cause the atonement of the Korban -- must be brought into the Heichal for that purpose in order to disqualify the Korban. A Pesul caused by bringing meat into the Heichal would be learned from the Gemara's Kal v'Chomer from blood. It would not be necessary to bring the meat into the Heichal with intention to attain atonement. This is why we need the extra verse of "Damah" in order to exclude meat from this Halachah.

(b) Alternatively, the Tzon Kodashim suggests that the answer lies in the words of the Gemara in Pesachim (59b). The Gemara there quotes the verse, "v'Achlu Osam Asher Kupar Bahem" -- "And they shall eat those things with which the atonement was made..." (Shemos 29:33). The Gemara quotes a Beraisa which derives from this verse that the Kohanim eat the meat of the Korban, and the owners of the Korbanos attain atonement. Although the Zerikah is the main Avodah that atones for the owners of Korbanos, this Gemara teaches us that the Kohen's eating is also called an atonement by the Torah. Based on this, the Tzon Kodashim writes, it is understandable that the Gemara would think that meat is also called "l'Chaper," such as when the Kohanim would bring it into the Heichal in order to eat it there, and thereby provide a degree of atonement for the owners (see 63a).

(c) The MITZPEH EISAN answers that when the Gemara suggests that meat should also become Pasul, it is not referring to meat alone. Rather, it is referring to a case in which the blood from the Shechitah is still clinging to the neck of the animal. The Gemara is telling us that blood that enters the Heichal when it is still part of the meat can still be used for Zerikah. Even though the blood should fall under the category of "l'Chaper" if it is brought there for the purpose of performing Zerikah, it is nevertheless not Pasul, because in its present form it is considered part of the meat and it is not yet considered a separate entity of blood. (See Mitzpeh Eisan for a second answer.)

This answer has strong support in the Gemara later (92b), which seems to state explicitly that if blood is on the neck of the animal and is brought into the Heichal, it is not considered Pasul.

The CHAZON YECHEZKEL says that this answer is alluded to by the RAMBAM (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 2:17) as well. The Rambam says that if a person brings *the Chatas itself* into the Heichal, it remains valid, as the verse says, "Asher Yuva *mi'Damah*" (Vayikra 6:23), implying that bringing the blood into the Heichal causes the Korban to become disqualified, but not bringing the meat into the Heichal. The Chazon Yechezkel explains that the Rambam's usage of the words "the Chatas itself" (and not "meat from the Korban") implies that this case is similar to the case mentioned in the Gemara later (92b), in which the entire Korban was brought into the Heichal in order to perform the Kabalas ha'Dam and the Zerikah there. The Gemara, therefore, must tell us that although the animal is brought "l'Chaper," because it is considered meat at this stage even the blood is not yet Pasul. (Y. Montrose)