Zevachim 109: How Much of an Offering can be Offered Incorrectly?

Today's daf introduces two Mishnayot about offerings made inside or outside of the Temple courtyard.  the first teaches that if a ka'zayit, an olive-bulk of the sacrifice was bought outside of the Temple, it would be considered a sacrifice outside and one would face the consequences.    

The second Mishna discusses and then concludes that other types of Temple services cannot be performed outside of the Beit haMikdash.  If a ka-zayit from one of the meal-offerings was sacrificed outside of the Temple courtyard, those performing the service would be liable.  However, Rabbi Eliezer rules that a ka-zayit would not be enough to disqualify the entire meal offering.  It would take the entire meal offering to be offered outside for that service to be significant.

Rashi explains this by suggesting that Rabbi Eliezer believes that an olive-bulk would be enough to hold people liable in the case of an animal sacrifice done outside of the Temple courtyard.  This is because a typical animal sacrifice is valid even if some of the meat is missing - thus performing that service outside of the Temple is forbidden.  

Meal-offerings, however, must be brought as a whole to be valid.  Bringing  a partial meal-offering beyond the Temple courtyard is not meaningful.  On the other hand, a meal offering brought in the Temple with a ka-zayit left over and brought outside the Temple would be punishable.  In this case, the meal-offering was brought in a forbidden manner. 

It strikes me that we have been learning the different ways that one could invalidate an offering/be held liable in different  categories: time, place, person, order, and more.  And today we have learned about amounts of different offerings in different places.  There seem to be a huge number of ways that one could violate the rules of offerings.  Perhaps that is part of the reasoning behind our extremely ritualized prayer services.  Our prayer services stand in for our inability to offer sacrifices.

Zevachim 108: Slaughtering/Offering on an Altar or Not

We learn a new Mishna:

• slaughtering outside the Temple courtyard is worse than offering up outside
• this is because one who slaughters an offering outside of the Temple courtyard even for an ordinary purpose (not for G-d's sake) is liable but offering outside of the Temple courtyard is exempt
• offering outside is treated with stringency because two people who hold a knife and slaughter together outside are exempt, while those who grasp a limb from an offering and offer it together outside the courtyard, they are liable
• if one offers up part of an offering outside the courtyard in error and then offered other parts of the offering, s/he must bring a sin offering for each act of offering up 
• This is debated by Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yosei
• They also discuss the consequences when there may have been an altar - even a rock or a stone - built outside of the Temple courtyard

Rabbi Yosei adds: And one is liable  for offering up an offering outside  the courtyard only once he offers it up at the top of an altar that was erected there. Rabbi Shimon says: Even if he offered it up on a rock or on a stone,  not an altar, he is liable.  The notion of an altar; something 'higher', is significant as a marker of spiritual importance.

Zevachim 107: Holiness of the Land and Sanctifying Sacrifices

The basic themes of today's daf continue from yesterday's Mishna.  This represented a shift from Perek VI to Perek VII, now focusing on errors that might happen regarding the sacrifice regarding place. 

Through the rabbis' arguments, after being reminded about the importance of intent, we learn that sacrifices were meant to take place in the Temple.  If they did not happen there, some rabbis believed that the owner should be punishable by karet, either exile from the community and/or early death.  There is a debate as to whether the sacrifice could be valid at all if it was not sacrificed in the Temple.  

Sacrifices were made in 'high places' when the Israelites were wandering in the desert, the rabbis suggest.  Perhaps this was done after the destruction of the first Temple, as well.  Would these be considered valid offerings? 

The rabbis seem to agree that the sanctity of place would be required if a sacrifice were to be valid in the times since the second Temple was destroyed over 2000 years ago.  If Israel is still sanctified, might the offering be acceptable?  What if only Jerusalem is sanctified still?  Wouldn't the Temple Mount be the only place to bring offerings?  If we agree that this sanctity no longer exists, why wouldn't we be permitted to bring sacrifices in any place, as long as it is on 'high ground'?  And must we wait for Moshiach to truly thank G-d through sacrifices?

Zevachim 106: Consequences for Avoda Zara, Idol Worship

Many forms of idol worship are punishable:

• sacrificing
• burning incense
• offering a libation
• bowing down
• saying "you are my G-d"

Other behaviours are forbidden but are not considered truly idol worship:

• hugging or kissing the idol
• washing or cleaning the idol, etc.
• urinating in front of the the idol Peor
• throwing a stone to the idol Markulis

These last two actions are acts of avoda zara specific to those particular idols.  Of note is Steinsaltz's commentary about Markulis, the Hebrew name for Mercury

Zevachim 104: Burning, Disposing of Ashes

Very briefly:

• we learn about what to do with the ashes of sacrifices that are burned instead of sacrificed and eaten because they were unfit
• ashes were left in three places surrounding the Temple:
• a large beit deshen, a place for burning, in the Temple courtyard where the holiest sacrifices and the innards of lesser sacrifices which were unfit were burned
• a second beit deshen on the Temple Mount where animals were burned when they were supposed to be burned but became disqualified after the sprinkling of blood
• another beit deshen for sacrifices done properly that had to be burned properly - it was outside of the the inner camp of the Tabernacle, the middle camp of the tribe of Levi and the outer camp of the Israelites, in the desert - in the times of the Temple, this was outside of the walls of Jerusalem
• The entire Temple may have been known as "Bira", though beit ha-bira was a specific spot on the Temple Mount used for burning

Zevachim 103: What to do with the Hide?

We begin with a new Mishna:

Sacrifices where the meat was not put on the altar will not have their hides given to the Kohanim.  This is called olah ish, a sacrifice that is valid for a person.  The hides of sacrifices offered without proper intent were still given to the priests.  The hide is given to the kohanim whether it was brought by a man or a woman.  The owners keep the hides of the less holy sacrifices and the priest keep those of the most holy sacrifices.  In the case of a burnt offering, which is burned completely, the priests acquire its hide - the rabbis ask why they shouldn't receive the hides in all cases.  The altar does not change anything for only the meat is burned on the altar.  

It is notable that both women and men brought offerings.  We know that women brought offerings after giving birth, which is specific to women.  But other offerings brought by women were also valid.  Prayer is understood as the modern stand-in for sacrifice.  Bringing an offering in the proper manner with proper intent would be the same as actively leading prayer for oneself and/or a group of others.  Wouldn't that suggest that women should be permitted to lead prayer?  

Our daf ends with a second Mishna:

The hides of extremely sacred sacrifices are not given to priests if they were disqualified before they were flayed.  They are burned together with the flesh.  If they were disqualified after being flayed, their hides go to the priests.  Rabbi Chanina was the deputy High Priest; he actually witnessed the Temple sacrifices, and he claims that he never saw a hid going out to the place of burning.  Rabbi Akiva noted that Rabbi Chanina teaches that when one flays the firstborn offering and the animal later is found to be a treifa, the priests are permitted to sheye'otu, derive benefit, from its hide.  The rabbis say that this is not proof; if after flaying the animal is found to have previously been unfit, the hide is burned.

Zevachim 102: Moshe, Aaron and the Role of High Priest

Briefly on today's daf:

• The rabbis believe that Aaron spoke instead of Moshe because of Moshe's repeated refusals to return to Egypt as leader of the Jews
• Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai interprets this to mean that Moshe was intended to be the priest and Aaron would be a regular levi
• Did Moshe serve as a priest during the seven days when the Temple was consecrated
• a baraita teaches that Moshe remained a kohen all of his life, but his children did not
• Aaron's children were called kohanim forever
• the rabbis share proofs of Moshe's children as Levites and Moshe and Aaron as kohanim
• Rav teaches that Moshe served as the high priest because he received the portion of the High Priest during that week of consecration
• Rabbi Yitzchak of Karlin (Keren Orah) argues that Moshe would not give up his status, but he allowed Aaron to take over the role of High Priest once anointed
• Moshe was busy with other leadership tasks and communication with G-d

Zevachim 101: Pinchas's Priesthood

Briefly on today's daf:

• to explain the role of priests regarding ritual impurity and offerings, the rabbis tell stories about Moshe, Aaron and Miriam, particularly regarding their descendant  Pinchas
• priesthood was conferred upon Pinchas after he killed Zimri ben Salu (one head of Shimon's tribe) and the Midianite woman who sinned with him (both idolatry and licentiousness)
• Pinchas was Aaron's grandson, but Rav Ashi says that he did not become a priest unit much later because he was not at the initial ceremony conferring priesthood on Aaron and his sons
• Pinchas is said to have "brought peace to the warring Israel tribes when they first came to the land"
• the rabbis argue about whether Pinchas's calling to priesthood was in fact a blessing and what that blessing might have been
• Pinchas's role continues to be debated and interpreted by modern Jewish thinkers
• Pinches is used to defend violence in the name of adhering to Torah law
• Pinches can also be understood as one who ended the inter-tribal conflict in the name of keeping Torah law

Zevachim 100: Gathering Bones Marks a Day of Mourning

Some brief notes on today's daf:

• the laws of an onen, a priest who is in acute mourning
• a baraita teaches that the day one learns about the death of a close relative is treated as if it is the day of burial
• the week following burial is shiva, and the month following burial is shloshim
• regarding the laws of korban Pesach, the Paschal offering, it is considered to be like the day that one's ancestor's bones are collected, which allow him to consume terumah in the evening
• The Gemara discusses a melaket atzamot, one who collects his/her relatives' bones for final burial
• During and after the Second Temple period, people were burring in temporary plots and then their bones were moved to an ossuary, a stone box, which would be placed in the family's burial cave
• the day of gathering the bones was named as a day of mourning
• The Gemara notes that the case at hand would regard someone else doing the gathering of the bones, for anyone who touched bones would be tameh, ritually impure, and thus could not partake of the Pesach offering

Zevachim 99: Ritual Impurity in a Priest and His Access to Truman

In yesterday's daf, we were introduced to a new Mishna.  It explained that there is a principal based on a priest who was ritually impure but immersed and was waiting for night to complete the purification process, a priest who has not brought an atonement offering yet (ex. a zav and leper) and cannot access his food, a priest in acute mourning, blemished priests.  The principal is that any priest unit for service does not receive a share of the sacrificial meat that day.  Anyone who has no share of the meat has no share in its hide, either.  If the priest was ritually impure when the blood was sprinkled but ritually pure when the fat was burned, he still does not receive a share of the meat (Leviticus 7:33).  Sprinkling blood is required to have a share of the sacrifice.

Today's daf holds the Gemara about yesterday's Mishna.  The rabbis argue about each factor - ritual impurity or purity, timing, sprinkling, the food eaten or foregone, etc.  Then they present a number of cases to attempt to prove or disprove different arguments.  While the ritual status and diet of a Temple-era priest may not be significant today, it could be useful to learn the rabbis' understandings of ritual status and how/whether that might affect one's functioning.

Zevachim 97: Positive/Negative Mitzvot, Absorption of Taste and of Rules

Brief notes on today's daf:

• when one item absorbs the taste of another item, it then takes on the laws of that sacrifice (Vayikra 6:20)
• if a sanctified item comes into contact with a sacrifice, it becomes limited by the same things as the sacrificed
• thus if the sacrifice becomes disqualified, the item is also disqualified
• thus if the sacrifice is valid, the item can only be eaten when/where the sacrifice can be eaten
• the Gemara asks what to do if the prohibition to eat the item is a mitzvah lo ta'aseh, a negative commandment, but eating the item is a mitzvah aseh, a positive commandment
• should we apply the principal aseh docheh lo ta'aseh, performing a positive mitzvah pushes aside a negative mitzvah
• Rava says that this does not apply in the times of the Temple
• there are punishments for transgressions but no punishments for neglecting to perform a mitzvah
• Rabbi Nassim Ga'on says that this rule automatically applies in prohibitions but not when a positive mitzvah is blocking it
• Ramban says that performing positive mitzvot is based on the love of G-d while negative mitzvot are based on the fear of G-d, and love is greater than fear
• no one explained  why this rule would not apply in the Temple; it is assumed that the Temple service was restrictive and limits more lenient rules

Zevachim 96: Cleaning Blood From Vessels - an Example of Rav Sheshet and Rami bar Chama

Brief notes about today's daf:

• Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yehuda was a regular student of Rami bar Chama
• He then studied under Rav Sheshet
• Rami bar Chama asked Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yehuda if he assumed that the fragrance on the hand of the chief of taxes came to his hand
• This implied that Rav Sheshet's greatness might rub off on Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yehuda
• Rabbi Yitzchak bar Yehuda explained why he switched teachers: he was confused by logical explanations that were contradicted by Mishnaot; Rav Sheshet would quote another Mishnaic ruling and so the full disagreement was understood
• Rami bar Chama asks to be challenged with a question
• Rabbi Yitzchak asks about the halacha of the Mishna requiring cleaning the blood from the vessels in the Temple
• Rami bar Chama gave a logical explanation of the ruling which was contradicted by a baraita
• Rami bar Chama was a student of Rav Chisda known for his logic and his knowledge of the oral traditions of the baraitot; he was known as Sinai, the centre of Torah knowledge

Zevachim 95: From Laundering to Kashering, Placing Limits on Cleansing

The rabbis continue to discuss the laundering of consecrated items.

• Why must the earthenware vessel be punctured to render it ritually pure and then broken back at the Temple courtyard?
• Taken from Leviticus (6:21),  we learn that puncturing only creates ritual impurity but the vessel will still be permitted, for example, to hold fruit
• Why should the copper vessel be scoured and rinsed?It is not a vessel after the hold has been made, but it will be refashioned into a vessel and at that point it must be scoured and rinsed
• What about the robe of the High Priest?  And other particularly thick or soft garments?   They are subject to different standards regarding ritual impurity unless they are not ‘useful’, i.e., less than 3x3 finger widths
• Blood from a sin offering and/or leprous marks are laundered using seven abrasive substances: tasteless saliva (coming from one who has not eaten since waking); liquid from Cilician beans; urine; natron; lye; cimolian earth; potash.
•  Urine is not appropriate for the Temple courtyard, though it is used to prepare incense and to launder
• The urine is absorbed with the other laundering agents and they are applied all together – but wouldn’t this invalidate the laundering (Nidda 62)?
• The Gemara discusses the process o the vessels in greater detail
• In particular, Rami bar Chama asks if one suspended the meat of a sin offering in the airspace of an earthenware oven to roast it, must the vessel be broken?  Is cooking/absorption of flavor the issue, or is it required to break the vessel even for cooking within its airspace?
• This is argued back and forth
• The rabbis discuss the effects of absorption of cooking on ovens as well: an oven smeared with animal grease was once forbidden to bake bread, ever, in case that bread was eaten accidentally with kuta, a dairy-based item
• Dough may not be kneaded with milk to keep people from sinning accidentally by eating that bread with meat and to keep people from becoming used to something that could be a sin
• The rabbis eventually rule that the oven will never fully be cleansed of the meat fat
• Must pots used for leavened bread be broken or kindled before Pesach?
• The rabbis debate and then declare that an oven that kindles from the inside can be koshered to eliminate absorbed flavour
• Similarly, pots heated from the outside will never lose their absorbed flavours and cannot be kashered