Daf 106 — Zevachim 106 Summary

Zevachim 106 – Good Morning Raboisai Where Are Parim and Se’irim HaNisrafim Burned? We open by completing the sugya of Parim and Se’irim that are burned . Earlier we learned: • According to Rabbi Shimon → they are burned east of Yerushalayim (via גזירה שוה ). • Question: According to the Rabbanan , who already used that גזירה שוה for another halacha — where are these korbanos burned? Answer: • North of Yerushalayim , outside the three camps . Rashi explains the logic: • Since most Kodshei Kodashim are slaughtered in the north , it is fitting that their burning takes place to the north as well. Must the Place Already Have Ashes ( דֶּשֶּן )? A key requirement emerges: The burning must take place in a location that already had ashes from the Mizbeach placed there beforehand . This is learned from the concept of Beis HaDeshen . Machlokes: • Rabbanan : o Requires prior ashes • Rabbi Elazar b’Rabbi Yaakov : o Also requires the place to be on a slope (incline) Conclusion: • Everyone agrees : prior ashes are required. • Dispute is only about the slope . Who Becomes Tamei During the Burning? A Beraisa teaches: • Those who carry the animal out → become tamei • Those who burn it → become tamei • Their clothing also becomes tamei However: • One who merely lights the fire • Or arranges the wood → does NOT become tamei. Tumah applies only to direct involvement with the animal itself . Until When Does the Animal Metamei? Important clarification: • While the animal still has the form of flesh → it is metamei • Once it is fully reduced to ashes → no longer metamei Machlokes nuance: • Decomposed flesh (but not ashes): o Still metamei • Ashes : o Never metamei The Torah says “ אֹותָם ” — They are metamei, not their ashes . Transition — Beginning of Perek 13: Shechutei Chutz We now begin a new perek dealing with one of the most severe prohibitions: Shechting a korban outside the Beis HaMikdash . Two separate issurim exist: 1. Shechitah outside ( שְׁחִיטָה בַּחּוץ ) 2. Offering it outside on a private Mizbeach ( הַּעֲלָאָה בַּחּוץ ) If done intentionally: • Two separate חיובי כרת If done b’shogeg: • Two Chata’os A Critical Limitation — When Is One Liable for Ha’alah? Key rule: One is liable for ha’alah outside only if the korban was fit to be brought on the Mizbeach . Therefore: • If the korban was already pasul , there is no liability for placing it on a private altar. The Challenge — Yotzei Makes It Pasul Immediately The Gemara challenges: If: • You shecht the korban inside the Mikdash, • Then take it outside to offer it, The moment it exits: • It becomes פסול (יֹוצֵא) . So how could there ever be liability for ha’alah? This undermines the original distinction. Parallel Case — Tamei Person Eating Kodshim The Mishnah brings a parallel structure: • A tamei person who eats kodshim → liable for כרת • Even if the kodshim themselves are already tamei Question: • Why is he liable if the food was already pasul? Answer: • Liability depends on the person , not the food. • The issur is: A tamei body eating kodshim This mirrors the logic of shechutei chutz. Two Conditions for Chiyuv Chatas The Gemara establishes a major principle: To be liable for a Korban Chatas , two conditions are required: 1. If done intentionally → כרת 2. The Torah states a לאו (explicit prohibition) This becomes central to the remainder of the daf. Can We Create a Lo Ta’aseh from Logic? Abaye suggests: • We can derive a לאו via קל וחומר . Rava rejects this forcefully: You cannot create a prohibition ( לאו ) through logic alone . A לאו must be explicitly written in the Torah. Testing This with Other Issurim The Gemara tests Abaye’s idea using: • Neveilah • Sheratzim • Chelev • Kilayim • Shemitah • Terumah Each time the same conclusion emerges: Every issur has a unique feature preventing it from serving as a universal source. Final principle: אין מזהירין מן הדין We do not derive prohibitions from logic. Pesach and Milah — A Powerful Contrast Rava raises a sharp question: • Korban Pesach and Milah : o Are positive commandments o Carry כרת if neglected • Yet: o They do not have an explicit לאו Why not derive one logically? Answer: • These mitzvos are fixable : o Missed Milah → do it later o Missed Pesach → Pesach Sheni In contrast: • Leaving over korban meat ( Nosar ) is irreversible • Therefore it has a לאו Takeaway – Zevachim 106 • Parim and Se’irim HaNisrafim are burned north of Yerushalayim (Rabbanan). • Burning requires a place with prior ashes . • Tumah applies only while the animal retains flesh form . • Shechutei Chutz includes two independent issurim . • Liability requires the korban to be fit . • אין מזהירין מן הדין — no prohibitions are derived from logic. • A לאו must be explicitly written in the Torah. • Fixable mitzvos differ fundamentally from irreversible issurim. לעילוי נשמת אמי מורתי רות בת הרב מנחם מנדל