Zevachim 106 - BURNING THE
1) BURNING THE "PARIM"
(a) (Continuation of Beraisa - R. Yosi ha'Galili): They are burned in Beis ha'Deshen ("Al Shefech ha'Deshen" teaches that there are already ashes there from before.)
(b) (Rava): R. Eliezer ben Yakov argues with R. Yosi ha'Galili:
1. (Beraisa): "Al Shefech ha'Deshen Yisaref" - there are already ashes there from before;
2. R. Eliezer ben Yakov says, the place must be sloped (so the ashes pour.)
(c) Objection (Abaye): Perhaps R. Eliezer ben Yakov agrees that there must be ashes there from before, and he *also* requires that it is sloped!
(d) (Beraisa): The one who burns is Metamei Begadim, not the one who lit the fire or arranged the Ma'arachah.
1. Question: What is considered one who burns?
2. Answer: This is anyone who helps while it is burning.
3. Suggestion: Perhaps even one who helps after it became ashes is Metamei Begadim!
4. Rejection: "Osam" - while they are Parim and Se'irim, one who burns is Metamei Begadim, not after they are ashes;
(e) R. Shimon says, one who burns "Osam" is Metamei Begadim, not after the meat melted.
(f) Question: What is the difference between these opinions?
(g) Answer: They argue about when the meat was charred (R. Shimon is Metaher, Chachamim are Metamei.)
***** PEREK HA"SHOCHET VEHA'MA'ALAH ****
2) "SHECHUTEI CHUTZ" AND "HA'ALAS CHUTZ"
(a) (Mishnah): If one slaughters (a Korban) and is Ma'aleh (offers on a Bamah) b'Chutz (outside the Mikdash), he is liable for both of these;
(b) R. Yosi ha'Galili says, if he slaughtered inside (the Mikdash) and Ha'alah b'Chutz, he is liable for both;
1. If he slaughtered and Ha'alah b'Chutz, he is exempt for Ha'alah, for the Korban was Nifsal (on account of Shechutei Chutz.)
(c) Chachamim: Even if he slaughtered inside and Ha'alah outside, it was Nifsal once it left the Azarah (yet you agree that he is liable for both in this case!)
(d) If a Tamei (person) ate Kodesh, whether the Kodesh was Tahor or Tamei, he is liable;
(e) R. Yosi ha'Galili says, if he ate Tahor Kodesh, he is liable;
1. If he ate Tamei Kodesh he is exempt, for he ate something Pasul.
(f) Chachamim: Even a Tamei who ate Tahor Kodesh (in a normal way) was Metamei it by touching it (yet you agree that he is liable in this case!)
(g) If a Tahor ate Tamei Kodesh he is exempt, Kares is only for a Tamei who ate.
3) THE "AZHARAH" FOR "SHECHUTEI CHUTZ"
(a) (Gemara) Question: We understand why one is liable (Rashi - a Korban; Tosfos - lashes, as another Mishnah teaches) for Ha'alas Chutz - the Torah wrote the Onesh (punishment, i.e. Kares, if Mezid) and an Azharah (Lav);
1. "V'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o (...v'Nichras)" teaches the Onesh, "Hishamer Lecha Pen Ta'aleh Olasecha (b'Chol Makom)" is the Azharah;
2. (R. Avin): Wherever it says 'Hishamer', 'Pen' or 'Al', this is a Lav.
3. The Onesh for Shechutei Chutz is explicit - "V'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o (...v'Nichras)";
4. What is the Azharah for Shechutei Chutz?
(b) Answer #1 "V'Lo Yizbechu Od" (other answers will be given later.)
(c) Question: This verse is needed for R. Elazar's law!
1. Question (R. Elazar): What is the source that one who slaughters an animal to Markulis is Chayav Misah?
2. Answer (R. Elazar): "V'Lo Yizbechu Od Es Zivcheihem (la'Se'irim...)";
i. Since we do not need it to teach about the normal Avodah of Markulis (throwing rocks at it), which we learn from "Eichah Ya'avdu...Es Eloheihem", we use it to teach about Avodas Panim that is not its normal Avodah.
(d) Answer (Rabah): We read the verse as if it said 'V'Lo Yizbechu *v'Lo* Od', to teach both of these.
(e) Question: But we use the verse for a third law!
1. (Beraisa): The Parshah of Shechutei Chutz first discusses Korbanos Hukdeshu *and* slaughtered (outside) when it is forbidden to offer on a Bamah (e.g. after the Mishkan was built);
i. The Onesh is "V'El Pesach Ohel Mo'ed Lo Hevi'o (...v'Nichras)", the Azharah is "Hishamer Lecha Pen Ta'aleh Olasecha."
2. "Lema'an Asher Yavi'u...Zivcheihem Asher Hem Zovchim" - now it discusses Korbanos that once were permitted (when they were Hukdeshu) to be offered on a Bamah, but now Bamos are forbidden (they must be brought to the Mishkan);
3. "Al Penei ha'Sadeh" - slaughtering on a Bamah (when this is forbidden) is like slaughtering Lo l'Shem Shamayim;
4. "Ve'Hevi'um la'Shem" - this is an Ase.
5. Question: What is the Lav?
6. Answer: "V'Lo Yizbechu Od".
i. Suggestion: Perhaps one is Chayav Kares!
ii. Rejection: "Chukas Olam Tihyeh *Zos* Lahem" - this (a Lav and Ase) is the Onesh, not Kares.
4) CAN A "KAL VA'CHOMER" TEACH THE "AZHARAH"?
(a) Answer #2 (to Question (2:a) - Abaye): We learn the Azharah from a Kal va'Chomer:
1. The Torah Hizhir (forbade with a Lav) even where there is no Kares (Korbanos Hukdeshu when Bamos were permitted) - all the more so it is Mazhir where there is Kares (Korbanos Hukdeshu when Bamos were forbidden)!
(b) Question (Ravina): According to this, the Torah did not need to write a Lav forbidding Chelev, we could have learned from a Kal va'Chomer from Neveilah:
1. A Lav forbids Neveilah, even though there is no Kares - all the more so a Lav forbids Chelev, which has (is punishable by) Kares!
(c) Answer #1 (Rava): No, that Kal va'Chomer can be refuted - Neveilah is Metamei, Chelev is not.
(d) Question: We could have learned (a Lav for Chelev from a Kal va'Chomer) from Tamei Sheratzim - a Lav forbids them, even though there is no Kares - all the more so a Lav forbids Chelev, which has Kares!
(e) Answer #1: We cannot learn from Tamei Sheratzim, they are Metamei, Chelev is not. (This is the text of Rashi (in Chulin), it does not say 'b'Mashehu'; the comment in the margin suggests that Rashi here which explains 'b'Mashehu' is an addition of errant scribes.)
(f) Question: We could have learned from Tahor Sheratzim, they are Chayavei Lavin without Kares - all the more so a Lav forbids Chelev, which has Kares!
(g) Answer #1: We cannot learn from Tahor Sheratzim, one is liable for any amount (Tosfos - a full creation of any size, such as an ant; Rashi - even for a small amount, i.e. a lentil's worth) (but one is not liable for less than a k'Zayis of Chelev.)
(h) Question: We could have learned (like above) from Orlah or Kilai ha'Kerem!
(i) Answer #1: We cannot learn from Orlah or Kilai ha'Kerem, it is forbidden to benefit from them (but one may benefit from Chelev.)
(j) Question: We could have learned from Shemitah produce!
(k) Answer #1: We cannot learn from Shemitah, for it forbids anything exchanged for it.
(l) Question: We could have learned from Terumah!
(m) Answer: We cannot learn from Terumah, for it is never wholly permitted (but Chelev of Chayos is totally permitted).
(n) Answer #2 (to Questions (b), (d), (f), (h) and (j)): We cannot learn from those sources, for they are never wholly permitted.
(o) Question (Rava - Mishnah): There is no Korban for (failure to fulfill) Pesach or circumcision, for they are Mitzvos Ase.
1. We should learn a Kal va'Chomer from Mosir (not eating Korbanos within the allotted time) - a Lav forbids Mosir, even though there is no Kares, all the more so a Lav forbids (neglect of) Pesach and Milah!
(p) Answer (Rav Kahana): We cannot learn from Mosir, for the transgression cannot be fixed, but one who did not fulfill Pesach can fix this by bringing Pesach Sheni! (Tzon Kodoshim - likewise, one who delayed Milah can circumcise himself later.)
(q) Objection (to answer (a)) Can we really derive an Azharah from a Kal va'Chomer?!
1. Even according to the opinion that we punish on account of a Kal va'Chomer, we cannot derive an Azharah from a Kal va'Chomer!