1) THE DISPURE BETWEEN REBBI ELIEZER AND REBBI YEHOSHUA

QUESTION: The Gemara quotes a dispute between Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua in the case of a person who consecrated all of his possessions to Hekdesh, and among them were animals that were fit to be Korbanos. Rebbi Eliezer says that the male animals should be sold to people who need to bring Olos, and the female animals should be sold to people who need to bring Shelamim. The money obtained through the sale of the animals should be given -- with the rest of his property -- to Bedek ha'Bayis (Hekdesh). Rebbi Yehoshua argues that the male animals themselves should be brought as Olos, the female animals should be sold to people who need to bring Shelamim, and the money from the sale of the female animals should be used to bring Olos as well. Rebbi Yehoshua admits that these Olos are different in that the hides of these Olos are given to Bedek ha'Bayis (Hekdesh), while the hides of other Olos are given to the Kohanim.

What is the Halachah? The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 5:21) rules like Rebbi Yehoshua. He writes that the animals should be brought as Olos and the hides do not go to the Kohanim. However, in a different place (Hilchos Erchin 5:7) the Rambam rules like Rebbi Eliezer and writes that all of the animals should be sold. The LECHEM MISHNEH points out that the Halachah indeed should follow Rebbi Eliezer, because Rebbi Akiva follows his view. How, though, is the Rambam's ruling in Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos to be reconciled with his ruling in Hilchos Erchin?

ANSWERS:

(a) The ZEVACH TODAH answers that the Rambam has a different way of learning the Gemara here. The conventional way to learn the Gemara here is that Rebbi Eliezer maintains that one must sell the male animals to people who will use them as Korbenos Olah, and the money from the sale takes the place of the animal as Hekdesh. Accordingly, the Olah is offered in the normal manner, and its hide is given to the Kohanim. This is not how the Rambam understands the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer. The Rambam understands that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, the animal is still called an Olas Hekdesh, even after it is sold. When the Gemara says that Rebbi Yehoshua agrees that the hide is not given to the Kohanim, it means that even Rebbi Yehoshua agrees that this is correct. The Zevach Todah explains that Rebbi Eliezer and Rebbi Yehoshua argue about whether "Adam Cholek Hekdesho." When a person consecrates his property, which includes animals fit to be Korbanos, does he "split" his intention and designate some as Bedek ha'Bayis and some as Kodshei Mizbe'ach? The Gemara assumes that Rebbi Eliezer maintains "Ein Adam Cholek Hekdesho." Since the animal, in its entirety, was designated originally for Bedek ha'Bayis, its redemption is effective only with regard to the part of the Korban that can be offered on the Mizbe'ach. The hide certainly stays dedicated to Bedek ha'Bayis, since it still is considered an Olas Hekdesh. In contrast, Rebbi Yehoshua maintains that "Adam Cholek Hekdesho," and he rules that the male animals themselves were intended for Kodshei Mizbe'ach, and therefore they are brought as Korbanos themselves. Nevertheless, Rebbi Yehoshua understands that this split intention applies only to the meat which is supposed to be offered on the Mizbe'ach. The person does not have in mind that the hide should go to the Kohanim, but rather that it should go to Bedek ha'Bayis.

The Zevach Todah explains that the ruling of the Rambam in Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos (5:21) is consistent with his ruling in Erchin (5:7). In both places, the Rambam rules like Rebbi Eliezer, even when he says that the hide does not go to the Kohanim. How does the Zevach Todah understand the Rambam's statement (in Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos) that the animals should be brought as Olos? He explains that the Rambam means merely that the animals themselves have the status of Olos Hekdesh, which is why their hides cannot be given to the Kohanim.

(b) The SEFAS EMES answers that the Rambam in Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos discusses only male animals for a reason. According to one version of the Gemara in Temurah (31b), Rebbi Eliezer agrees with Rebbi Yehoshua that in the case of a person who has only male animals, the animals themselves are brought as Olos, and the hides are not given to the Kohanim. The Sefas Emes suggests that the Rambam rules like this version of the Gemara, and therefore he consistently rules like Rebbi Eliezer. (Y. MONTROSE)

103b----------------------------------------103b

2) THE HIDES OF KORBANOS

OPINIONS: The Beraisa discusses the source for the law that the Kohanim receive the hides of Korbanos. The Torah explicitly states that the Kohanim receive the hide of a Korban Olah, but it does not mention this law with regard to other Korbanos. Although the Tana'im derive the law for other Korbanos in different ways, they agree that the hides of other Korbanos of Kodshei Kodashim go to the Kohanim. Does this mean that those hides have the same status as the hide of the Korban Olah, or does it mean that the hides of other Kodshei Kodashim are simply considered secondary to the meat of their Korbanos, which is also given to the Kohanim?

(a) The MIKDASH DAVID (17:9) maintains that the hide of the other Kodshei Kodashim simply has the same status as the meat of the Korban. For this reason, there is a special verse in the case of a Korban Olah. Since the meat of the Korban Olah is burned entirely and is not given to the Kohanim, a special verse is needed to teach that the hide is given to the Kohanim. Accordingly, the Kohanim do not have to skin the animal, as they must do for a Korban Olah. They may either skin it as they would an Olah, or eat their portion of meat with the skin. Only a Korban Olah must be skinned. The EIZEHU MEKOMAN cites supports for this view from the Mishnah in Perek Eizehu Mekoman which mention that the Olah must be skinned, and does not mention this requirement for any other Korban. If it is a requirement for all Korbanos, the Mishnah should have mentioned it. The Mishnah's omission of this requirement in the case of all other Korbanos implies that all other Korbanos do not have to be skinned.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'aseh ha'Korbanos 5:18) writes that all of the Korbanos are skinned. The MITZPEH EISAN and others question the Rambam's ruling from the Gemara here, which implies that the other Korbanos do not need to be skinned. The Mitzpeh Eisan answers that the Rambam does not rule like Rebbi, who maintains that the verse in the case of the Korban Olah is a novel Halachah. The Rambam rules like the other opinions in the Beraisa. He understands that they disagree with Rebbi and maintain that the hide of other Korbanos have the status of the hide of an Olah. (Y. MONTROSE)

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES ON THIS DAF