Zevachim

IF THEY WERE CARRYING THEM1 ON STAVES,2 [AND] THOSE IN FRONT HAD PASSED WITHOUT THE WALL OF THE TEMPLE COURT WHILE THOSE IN THE REAR HAD NOT [YET] GONE OUT, THOSE IN FRONT DEFILE THEIR GARMENTS, WHILE THOSE IN THE REAR DO NOT DEFILE THEIR GARMENTS, UNTIL THEY GO OUT. WHEN BOTH GO OUT, BOTH DEFILE THEIR GARMENTS. R. SIMEON SAID: THEY DO NOT DEFILE [THEIR GARMENTS] UNTIL THE FIRE IS BURNING IN THE GREATER PART OF THEM.3 WHEN THE FLESH IS DISSOLVED, HE WHO BURNS [IT] DOES NOT DEFILE HIS GARMENTS.4 GEMARA. WHAT IS THE BIRAH? — Said Rabbah b. Bar Hanah in R. Johanan's name: There is a place on the Temple Mount called ‘Birah’. While Resh Lakish maintained: The whole Temple [House] is called Birah, for it is said, And to build the Birah [Temple], for which I have made provision.5 R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: There were three ash-pits. There was the large ash-pit in the Temple court: there they burnt most holy sacrifices and emurim of lesser sacrifices which had become disqualified. and the bullocks which were burnt and the goats which were burnt, which had become disqualified before sprinkling. There was a second ash-pit on the Temple Mount: there they burnt the bullocks which were burnt and the goats which were burnt, which had become disqualified after sprinkling. While [those which were burnt] in pursuance of their rites, [were burnt] without the three camps.6 Levi recited: There were three ash-pits. There was the large ash-pit in the Temple court: there they burnt most holy sacrifices and emurim of lesser sacrifices which had become disqualified, and the bullocks which were burnt and the goats which were burnt, which had become disqualified either before or after the sprinkling. There was a second ash-pit on the Temple Mount: there they burnt the bullocks which were burnt and the goats which were burnt, which had become disqualified after they had gone out.7 While [those burnt] in pursuance of their prescribed rites, [were burnt] without the three camps. R. Jeremiah8 asked: Is linah9 effective in the case of the bullocks which are burnt and the goats which are burnt?10 Do we say, linah is effective only in respect of flesh which can be eaten, but not in respect of these which cannot be eaten; or perhaps there is no difference? — Said Raba: This question was raised by Abaye, and I solved it for him from the following: And both agree that if he expressed an intention [of piggul] in connection with the eating of the bullocks and their burning, he has done nothing.11 Surely then, since intention does not disqualify it, linah too does not disqualify it. — [No]: perhaps only intention does not disqualify it, but linah does disqualify it. Come and hear: You trespass in respect of the bullocks which are burnt and the goats which are burnt from the time they are consecrated. Having been slaughtered, they are ready to become unfit through a tebul yom and one who lacks atonement, and through linah.12 Surely that means, linah of the flesh? No, it means linah of the emurim.13 But since the second clause teaches, You trespass in the case of all when they are in the ash-pit until the flesh is dissolved, it follows that the first clause treats of linah of the flesh? — What reason have you for supposing this? the second clause treats of the flesh, while the first clause treats of emurim. Come and hear, for Levi recited: . . . which had become disqualified after they had gone out.’ Does that not mean disqualification through linah? — No: it means disqualification through defilement or through going out.14 R. Eleazar asked: Is going out effective in respect of the bullocks that are burnt and the goats that are burnt?15 Why does he ask?16 — Said R. Jeremiah b. Abba: His question is asked on the view that ‘it is not time yet for them to be carried out’ [is a disqualification].17 Do we say, that applies only to flesh which one is not eventually bound to carry out; but not to these, which must eventually be carried out; or perhaps here too [we argue that] it was not yet time for them to go out? — Come and hear, for Levi recited: ‘which had become disqualified after they had gone out’. Does that not mean disqualification through going out? — No: it means disqualification through defilement or linah. 18 R. Eleazar asked: What of the bullocks which were burnt and the goats which were burnt, if the greater part of them went out through the inclusion of the smaller part of a limb?19 Do we cast this lesser part of the limb after its greater part, and that indeed has not gone out;20 or perhaps we cast it after the greater part of the animal? — It is obvious that we do not disregard the greater part of the animal and regard the greater part of the limb! Rather [the question arises] where half of it went out, through the inclusion of the greater part of the limb. Do we cast this lesser part of the limb 21 their garments. his garments. sprinkling of the blood? a limb, the greater part of which was still within. Rashi: the question is whether that counts as going out, so that the men in front, who had carried that portion out (for the purpose of burning) defile their garments. Tosaf.: the question is whether (assuming that going out disqualifies). this must now be burnt within (v. supra). out.