Zevachim

and ‘after flaying’? — Before it is eligible for flaying and after it is eligible for flaying [respectively].1 What is this allusion to Rabbi and R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon? — It was taught: Rabbi said: The blood propitiates on behalf of the skin by itself. But when it is together with the flesh and a disqualification arises in it, whether before or after the sprinkling, it is the same as itself.2 R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon maintained: The blood does not propitiate on behalf of the skin by itself. And when it is together with the flesh and a disqualification arises in it before sprinkling, it is the same as itself; [if it arises] after the sprinkling, the flesh has been permitted for a short space of time, [and so] it is flayed, and the skin belongs to the priests.3 Shall we say that they differ on the same lines as R. Eliezer and R. Joshua? For it was taught: And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood:4 R. Joshua said: If there is no blood there is no flesh, and if there is no flesh there is no blood.5 R. Eliezer said: The blood is [fit] even if there is no flesh, because it is said, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out [against the altar of the Lord thy God].6 If so, why is it stated, And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood? To teach you: just as the blood requires throwing,7 so does the flesh require throwing.8 Thus you learn that there was a space between the ascent and the altar.9 Shall we say that he who maintains that it propitiates10 agrees with R. Eliezer,11 while he who maintains that it does not propitiate agrees with R. Joshua? — About the view of R. Eliezer there is no controversy at all.12 They disagree in reference to R. Joshua. He who maintains that it does not propitiate holds as R. Joshua. While he who maintains that it does propitiate can tell you: R. Joshua rules thus only there, where there is no loss to the priests.13 But as for the skin, which would entail a loss to the priests, even R. Joshua admits,14 by analogy with a fait accompli.15 For it was taught: If the flesh was defiled or disqualified,16 or it passed without the curtains, — R. Eliezer said: He must sprinkle [the blood]; R. Joshua maintained: He must not sprinkle [the blood]. Yet R. Joshua admits that if he does sprinkle [it], it is accepted.17 SAID R. HANINA THE SEGAN OF THE PRIESTS etc. Did he not? Surely there are the bullocks which are burnt and the goats which are burnt?18 — We do not speak of [what is burnt] in pursuance of their prescribed rites.19 But what when [the sacrifice is disqualified] before it is flayed and before sprinkling?20 — We refer to a stripped [skin].21 But there is [a disqualification] after flaying and before sprinkling, according to R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon who maintained [that] the blood does not propitiate on behalf of the skin by itself?22 — R. Hanina agrees with Rabbi.23 Alternatively, you may even say that he holds as R. Eliezer b. R. Simeon: Rabbi admits that there was no flaying before sprinkling.24 But there is [the case] where it is discovered terefah in its inwards?25 — He holds that where it is found terefah in its inwards, it [the blood] propitiates. This may be proved too, for it teaches, R. AKIBA OBSERVED: 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 SKIN. This proves it. What then does R. Akiba inform us?26 — He informs us this, [viz.,] that it is so even in the country.27 R. Hiyya b. Abba said in R. Johanan's name: The halachah is as R. Akiba. But even R. Akiba ruled thus only where an expert had permitted it,28 but not if an expert had not permitted it. [The Talmud however states:] The law agrees with the view of the Sages: [the flesh is buried and the skin is burnt].29 MISHNAH. BULLOCKS WHICH ARE BURNT AND GOATS WHICH ARE BURNT: WHEN THEY ARE BURNT IN PURSUANCE OF THEIR PRESCRIBED RITES, THEY ARE BURNT IN THE ASH DEPOSITORY, AND DEFlle GARMENTS;30 BUT WHEN THEY ARE NOT BURNT IN PURSUANCE OF THEIR PRESCRIBED RITES,31 THEY ARE BURNT IN THE PLACE OF THE BIRAH32 AND DO NOT DEFILE GARMENTS. the priests. If it is disqualified after sprinkling, even though it was not yet flayed, the skin belongs to the priests. no flesh, and therefore it must be efficacious in permitting the skin. obligation and must bring another sacrifice. Thus this does not involve the priests in loss. priest who offers it, and here the priests have offered it. Hanina, however, spoke of sacrifices which were burnt through being disqualified. skin might be burnt by itself, in practice this never happened. Simeon agree that the skin is burnt. (As this terefah would not be discovered until the skin was stripped, the skin would be burnt by itself.) slaughtered and eaten outside Jerusalem just like hullin. But Scripture permits nothing else but eating, so that if it dies, the carcass must not be put to any use, but must be buried. If, however, it was found to be terefah (and so cannot be eaten), R. Akiba informs us that since this was discovered after it was flayed, the skin is permitted, just as the skin is permitted in similar circumstances in the Temple. blemish was a permanent one and had not been deliberately inflicted. Sages. Consequently, R. Akiba's inference, being based on R. Hanina's ruling, is likewise rejected. Hence if a firstling is found terefah after it is stripped, the whole of it is forbidden. The flesh is buried, not burnt, for only the flesh of sacrifices which had been brought to the Temple court and there disqualified is burnt. Rashi knows no reason why the skin is burnt, and suggests that ‘the flesh . . . burnt’ should altogether be deleted, and that we simply read: The law agrees with the Sages.