Zevachim 90

This is a complex passage dealing with the order of sacrifices and the conditions under which they are rendered fit. We will focus on the first half of the page, specifically the debate concerning piggul, notar, and tumah in relation to sacrificial portions that have been removed from the courtyard.

Sugya Map

• Issue: The applicability of karet for consuming piggul, notar, or while tamei (ritually impure) for sacrificial portions (eimurim) that were removed from the courtyard and then returned before the sprinkling of the blood.
• Nafka Mina: Whether the sprinkling of blood is effective in rendering fit eimurim that were temporarily removed from the courtyard. This hinges on whether the removal itself disqualifies them, or if their status is determined by their presence at the time of blood sprinkling.
• Primary Sources:
  • Mishnah Zevachim 90a
  • Gemara Zevachim 90a-90b
  • Leviticus 7:18, 17:4, 17:11
  • Tanakh (implied for various sacrificial laws)

Text Snapshot

Mishnah Zevachim 90a: "And one is not liable to receive karet for them due to prohibitions against eating piggul or notar, or for partaking of the flesh while he is ritually impure. All these prohibitions apply only if the sacrificial portions are otherwise fit for sacrifice. Rabbi Akiva says that one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, and one is liable to receive karet for eating them due to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or partaking of the flesh while he is ritually impure."

Gemara Zevachim 90a: "What, is it not correct to say that they disagree with regard to a case where after taking the portions to be burned out of the Temple courtyard one then brought them back into the courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood? And, if so, it is with regard to this very point that they disagree: As one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that the portions are disqualified by leaving the courtyard, and one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that the portions are not disqualified by leaving the courtyard."

Gemara Zevachim 90a (Rav Pappa's clarification): "Rav Pappa said that with regard to a case where after taking these portions out of the Temple courtyard one then brought them back into the courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, everyone agrees they are fit. And here they disagree with regard to a case where these portions are outside the courtyard when the blood is sprinkled on the altar. And they disagree with regard to this following matter: As one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that the sprinkling of the blood is not effective with regard to those portions that were taken out of the courtyard, i.e., it does not render them fit, and one Sage, Rabbi Akiva, holds that the sprinkling of the blood is effective with regard to those portions that were taken out of the courtyard, i.e., it renders them fit."

• Dikduk/Leshon Nuance: The phrase "והני לא אהניא להו זריקה" (and these were not effective for them, the sprinkling) in Rashi's commentary on 90a:1:3 highlights the core of Rabbi Eliezer's position – the sprinkling didn't work for those eimurim that were outside. The core of the dispute is the efficacy of the zrikhah (sprinkling) on eimurim that were temporarily outside the azarah. Rabbi Akiva, conversely, believes the zrikhah is effective, implying that the eimurim's status is determined by their proximity to the altar at the time of sprinkling, not by their momentary absence.

Readings

The Mishnah and Gemara grapple with the conditions under which eimurim (sacrificial portions burned on the altar) incur the prohibitions of piggul (anticipatory consumption), notar (leftover), and tumah (ritual impurity), leading to karet (excision). The initial statement of the Mishnah asserts that karet is not incurred for these prohibitions if the eimurim are not fit for sacrifice. Rabbi Akiva then posits that one is liable, implying a difference in their assessment of the eimurim's fitness.

Rashi on Zevachim 90a:1:1-3 (Translation and Analysis)

Rashi elaborates on the conditions for liability:

1. "וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל" (and they are not liable for them due to piggul): Rashi explains this is "דְּהָוֵי לְהוּ כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא נִזְרַק עֲלֵיהֶן הַדָּם וְלֹא קָרְבוּ כָּל מַתִּירֵיהֶן" (because they are like those upon whom the blood has not been sprinkled and all their permitted [parts] have not been sacrificed). This indicates that the fundamental requirement for piggul liability, as for notar and tumah, is the eimurim being properly sacrificed. If the blood sprinkling wasn't effective, then the prohibitions associated with proper sacrifice don't apply.
2. "וּמִשּׁוּם נוֹתָר" (and due to notar): Rashi clarifies, "דְּאֵין נוֹתָר אֶלָּא בִּבְשָׂר בֶּאֱכִילָה בְּתוֹךְ זְמָנוֹ כְּדִכְתִיב (ויקרא יז) בְּיוֹם זִבְחֲכֶם יֵאָכֵל וּמִמָּחֳרָת וגו'" (for there is no notar except with flesh that is fit for eating within its time, as it is written, "On the day of your offering it shall be eaten, and on the next day..." (Leviticus 17:4)). This reinforces that notar applies to sacrifices that are meant to be eaten and are left beyond their allotted time. If the eimurim are fundamentally unfit due to improper zrikhah, the concept of notar doesn't attach.
3. "וּמִשּׁוּם טוּמְאַת הַגּוּף" (and due to bodily impurity): Rashi states, "כְּדַאֲמָרִי' בִּמְנָחוֹת (דַּף כה:) הַנִּתָּר לְטָהֳרִין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה שֶׁאֵין נִתָּר לְטָהֳרִין אֵין חַיָּבִין עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה וְאִימּוּרִין דְּאִיתַּרְבּוּ לְטומאה מֵאֲשֶׁר לַה' דּוּמְיָא דִּבְשָׂר אִיתַּרְבּוּ דְּלֹא אַחַר זְרִיקָה הוּא דְּמְחַיֵּב עָלַיְהוּ וְלֹא לִפְנֵי זְרִיקָה וְהָנֵי לֹא אַהֲנִיָא לְהוּ זְרִיקָה" (as we said in Menachos 25b: one who partakes of that which is permitted for the pure is liable for impurity; one who partakes of that which is not permitted for the pure is not liable for impurity. And eimurim which are permitted for impurity, from that which is for Hashem, are similar to flesh, they are permitted for consumption only after sprinkling; and not before sprinkling. And these [portions removed] were not made effective for them by the sprinkling). Rashi is essentially saying the prohibitions of piggul, notar, and tumah require the eimurim to be fit for consumption. If the eimurim were taken out of the courtyard, and the sprinkling of the blood did not effectively render them fit (as per Rabbi Eliezer's view), then these prohibitions do not apply.

Tosafot on Zevachim 90a:1:1 (Translation and Analysis)

Tosafot notes: "וְאֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא" (and they are not liable for them due to piggul, notar, and tamei) "הַאי דְּאֵין חַיָּבִין מִשּׁוּם טוּמְאָה נִרְאֶה דְּהַיְינוּ טַעֲמָא כְּדַאֲמַר לְעֵיל בְּסוֹף בֵּי שַׁמַּאי (זבחים דף מה:) בִּהְכָשֵׁר לִיקָרֵב וְזֶה אֵין רָאוּי לִיקָרֵב עַד אַחַר זְרִיקָה וּבְקוֹנְטְרוֹס פֵּ' טַעַם אַחֵר" (This reason why they are not liable for impurity, it appears, is the reason stated above at the end of Beis Shammai (Zevachim 45b) concerning that which is fit to be sacrificed, and this is not fit to be sacrificed until after sprinkling. And in the kontrus [Rashi's commentary] he explains another reason). Tosafot points to an earlier discussion in Zevachim (45b) concerning Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel regarding eimurim that were removed and not returned. The implication is that the fundamental requirement for these prohibitions to attach is that the eimurim must be in a state where they are "fit to be sacrificed" (hukshar le'karev). If they were removed, they might be considered unfit until the blood is sprinkled. Tosafot suggests Rashi's explanation for tumah is related to this concept of fitness.

Steinsaltz on Zevachim 90a:1 (Translation and Analysis)

Steinsaltz summarizes the initial position: "ו לכן גם אין חייבין עליהן כרת, לא משום אכילת פיגול (אם אחת מעבודות הקרבן נעשתה במחשבת חוץ לזמנו), ולא משום נותר (אם נאכלו לאחר הזמן המותר באכילה), ו אין חייב כרת אם אכלם כשהוא טמא, לפי שרק זריקה ראויה קובעת איסורים אלה על הקרבן." (And therefore, they are also not liable karet for them, neither for eating piggul (if one of the sacrificial services was performed with the thought of outside of its time), nor for notar (if they were eaten after the time permitted for eating), and one is not liable for karet if he eats them while he is impure, because only a proper sprinkling establishes these prohibitions on the sacrifice.) This clearly states that proper sprinkling is the prerequisite for the application of piggul, notar, and tumah liabilities. Steinsaltz then introduces Rabbi Akiva's position: "ר' עקיבא אומר: זריקה מועילה לאימורים שיצאו, ולפיכך מועלין בהן אם נהנה מהם, וחייבין עליהן על אכילתם משום פיגול נותר וטמא." (Rabbi Akiva says: The sprinkling is effective for the eimurim that went out, and therefore one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, and they are liable for eating them due to piggul, notar, and tamei.) This is the crucial divergence: Rabbi Akiva believes the sprinkling does have efficacy even if the eimurim were temporarily removed.

Friction

The most significant friction arises from the Gemara's attempt to reconcile Rav Pappa's statements regarding the Shavuot loaves and the eimurim.

The Kushya: Rav Pappa initially states that regarding the eimurim that were taken out and then brought back before sprinkling, there is a dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer holds they are disqualified by leaving the courtyard, while Rabbi Akiva holds they are not. The Gemara then refines this: Rav Pappa clarifies that if they were brought back before sprinkling, all agree they are fit. The disagreement is specifically when they are outside the courtyard at the time of sprinkling. Rabbi Eliezer says the sprinkling is ineffective for those outside, while Rabbi Akiva says it is effective.

This leads to a challenge: Rav Pappa previously said regarding the two loaves brought with the Shavuot sheep, where the sprinkling of the sheep renders the loaves fit for priests, that everyone agrees the sprinkling does not render the loaves fit if they are outside. Yet, the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva also applies there. The Gemara elaborates: Rav Pappa stated that for the Shavuot loaves, if they are outside during sprinkling, everyone agrees they are not rendered fit, and one is not liable for karet. The disagreement is only when they are returned inside before sprinkling.

The apparent contradiction: How can Rav Pappa say that for the Shavuot loaves, everyone agrees they are unfit if outside during sprinkling, while for eimurim, he attributes a dispute (Rabbi Eliezer vs. Rabbi Akiva) about the efficacy of sprinkling when they are outside?

The Terutz (as presented by the Gemara): The Gemara resolves this by differentiating between the eimurim and the Shavuot loaves. "This statement [of Rav Pappa regarding the loaves] applies only to the two loaves, as they are not part of the offering itself. But with regard to the sacrificial portions, which are part of the offering itself, everyone agrees that they are rendered fit if they are within the Temple courtyard at the time the blood is sprinkled on the altar. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva disagree only with regard to a case where they are outside the Temple courtyard when the blood is sprinkled on the altar."

Analysis of the Terutz: The distinction hinges on the fundamental status of the items. The eimurim are intrinsically part of the sacrificial act. Their fitness is directly tied to the proper execution of the zrikhah. The Shavuot loaves, while related to the sacrifice, are terumah for the priests, not part of the altar service in the same way. Their fitness is derived secondarily from the zrikhah of the sheep. Therefore, while the principle of zrikhah is central to both, the eimurim's direct connection to the altar service means the dispute about the efficacy of zrikhah on items momentarily outside is more fundamental for them. For the loaves, the consensus that they are unfit if outside stems from their less central role in the altar's immediate service, allowing for a broader agreement.

Intertext

Leviticus 17:4

"And unto him shall be brought the blood of the slaughtering, and he shall sprinkle it upon the altar of the LORD at the entrance of the tent of meeting." This verse establishes the necessity of blood sprinkling on the altar for the proper consecration and fitness of offerings. It is the bedrock upon which the discussion of piggul, notar, and tumah rests. The debate in Zevachim 90a directly engages with the implications of this verse: what happens when the eimurim are not present at the altar when the blood is sprinkled, as stipulated by this verse? Rabbi Eliezer argues that their absence renders them outside the scope of this verse's effect, while Rabbi Akiva argues that the act of sprinkling, even if the eimurim were temporarily removed, retroactively validates their status.

Mishnah Zevachim 89a

"All the sacrifices that have a frequent offering precede other sacrifices. The daily offerings precede the additional offerings of the day. The additional offerings of the day precede the additional offerings of the festival. The additional offerings of the festival precede the additional offerings of the new moon. The additional offerings of the new moon precede the additional offerings of the festivals of the year. The additional offerings of the festivals of the year precede the additional offerings of the year. The additional offerings of the year precede voluntary offerings. The sacrifices of the community precede the sacrifices of an individual. Sacrifices of greater sanctity precede sacrifices of lesser sanctity." The Gemara on 90a directly engages with the principles laid out in 89a regarding the order of sacrifices. The initial debate about eimurim removed from the courtyard is framed as a dispute concerning the conditions for proper sacrifice, which dictates their order. Later in 90a, the Gemara discusses the order of bird offerings and meal offerings, explicitly referencing the criteria of "blood is presented" and "communal vs. individual," directly drawing from the principles established in the previous mishnah. The very existence of a hierarchy of offerings, as detailed in 89a, necessitates precise definitions of when an offering is considered "fit" and therefore subject to specific laws and ordering principles.

Psak/Practice

The immediate psak derived from this passage concerns the fundamental understanding of sacrificial fitness. The dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva, as clarified by Rav Pappa, teaches us that the efficacy of the zrikhah is paramount.

• General Principle: For eimurim (sacrificial fat portions), their fitness is determined by their presence at the altar during the sprinkling of the blood. If they are removed and then returned before the blood is sprinkled, they are considered fit. If they are outside the courtyard at the time of sprinkling, Rabbi Eliezer holds they are disqualified, meaning the prohibitions of piggul, notar, and tumah do not apply. Rabbi Akiva holds they remain fit, and thus these prohibitions do apply. The Gemara accepts the view that generally, for eimurim, their status is determined by their presence at the time of sprinkling, and the dispute is precisely about the eimurim's status when outside at that moment.
• Heuristic for Sacrifice: This discussion underscores the principle that the integrity of the sacrificial act, particularly the timing and location of the blood sprinkling, is critical. Deviations, even temporary ones, can lead to the sacrifice being rendered unfit, thereby negating the associated prohibitions. This emphasizes the meticulous detail required in Temple service.

Takeaway

The fitness of sacrificial portions for attracting prohibitions like piggul and notar hinges on the efficacy of the blood sprinkling, a principle whose application is debated when the portions are temporarily removed from the courtyard. Ultimately, the precise moment of the zrikhah determines whether these prohibitions attach, distinguishing between those intrinsically part of the altar service and those that derive their status secondarily.