OPINIONS: Rebbi Eliezer discusses a case in which a Kohen performs Kabalas ha'Dam for an animal which is standing mostly inside the Azarah, with its hind legs standing outside of the Azarah. If the Kohen had cut off the circulation of the blood of the part of the animal that was outside of the Azarah before Kabalas ha'Dam, the Korban would be valid. If, on the other hand, the Kohen cut off the circulation after the Kabalah, the Korban is Pasul, because the blood in the legs that are outside of the Azarah is considered part of the blood that the Kohen receives during the Kabalah (since all of the blood is connected), and thus the Korban is Pasul. The Gemara learns from this ruling that blood absorbed in the limbs of an animal is considered blood according to Halachah. The Gemara responds that this is inconclusive, since it is possible that some fat of the animal which was outside the Azarah entered the bloodstream, and this is what invalidates the Kabalah. The fat is considered like meat of the Korban, which is definitely Pasul if it leaves the Azarah.

The Gemara seems to distinguish between blood and meat. If the blood absorbed in the animal's limbs outside the Azarah does not invalidate the Korban when it is received during the Kabalah since it is not considered blood, this implies that the absorbed blood is also not considered meat. Does this distinction apply in all cases?

(a) The Gemara's implication that blood is not considered meat is supported by the alternate text of RASHI (DH Shema Minah), according to which the Gemara explicitly says that the blood in this case "is not meat" that can be called Pasul if it leaves the Azarah.

This is also the opinion of TOSFOS in Pesachim (22a, DH v'Harei). Tosfos deduces from the Gemara there that blood is not considered part of the animal. Tosfos questions this from the Gemara in Shabbos (77a) which says that Beis Hillel maintains that a Revi'is of blood of a Neveilah is Tamei because it can harden and turn into a k'Zayis. This implies that it is Tamei because it is considered like a k'Zayis of meat, the minimum amount of Neveilah subject to Tum'ah. The RI answers that the Gemara does not mean that blood is Tamei because it is like the meat of a Neveilah which is Tamei. Rather, a specific verse teaches that the blood of a Neveilah is Tamei. Logic dictates that if the Torah does not specify the amount of blood which creates this Tum'ah, the amount should be inferred by comparing the blood to meat. Therefore, this is no proof that blood in general is considered meat.

(b) The RIVASH (#373) quotes RABEINU YITZCHAK HA'LEVI who points out that the Gemara in Kesuvos (60a) teaches that the Torah prohibits the consumption of human flesh, but permits the consumption of blood. He asks that if blood is considered meat, then how can the Gemara say that human blood is permitted? Even if the Torah does not intend to include human blood in the prohibition against drinking animal blood, it should at least fall into the category of human flesh! He answers that a verse teaches that blood is not included in the prohibition against eating human flesh. It is clear that he understands that blood is normally considered meat. How does this opinion understand the Gemara here in Zevachim? The Gemara says that blood which is absorbed in the limbs of the animal is considered blood. Even if it would not be considered blood, according to this opinion it would still invalidate the Korban because it is considered meat!

To understand this opinion, it is necessary to analyze the law of Yotzei. A Korban, or part thereof, that is taken out of its designated area becomes Pasul because of Yotzei. The Gemara later (82b) derives the Pesul of Yotzei from the verse, "u'Vasar ba'Sadeh Tereifah Lo Socheilu" -- "You shall not eat any meat that is torn by the beasts in the field" (Shemos 22:30), which refers to outside the area of the Azarah. The KEHILOS YAKOV (#20) explains that the Pesul of Yotzei applies to anything that must be eaten in a designated area or offered upon the Mizbe'ach in a designated area. If the item is not limited to being eaten or offered in a designated area, then there is no prohibition against taking it outside. The blood of a Korban is never supposed to be eaten; all of the blood is supposed to be received by the Kohen during Kabalas ha'Dam. Accordingly, even if blood normally is included in the category of meat, blood from the limbs cannot invalidate the Kabalah like meat (in the case of the Gemara here), because there is no Pesul when this type of meat -- inedible blood -- is taken out of the Azarah. The Gemara, therefore, discusses only the second possibility -- that perhaps the blood absorbed in the limbs is Halachically considered blood that is fit to be sprinkled on the Mizbe'ach. If blood absorbed in the limbs of the animal is not fit to be used for Zerikah, then there is no Pesul of Yotzei, since the blood is never brought to the Mizbe'ach. Even though it may be placed on the Mizbe'ach, there certainly is not obligation to place it there or to do Zerikah with it. Rebbi Eliezer's statement is understandable only if he maintains that this blood can be used for Zerikah. This is why the Gemara deduces that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, the blood in the animal's legs must be blood that is fit for Zerikah in order to invalidate the Korban if it was received during the Kabalah (because the blood was outside the Azarah). (Y. MONTROSE)



OPINIONS: The Mishnah (26a) discusses cases of a Kohen performing Zerikah in the wrong place. The Kohen sprinkles the blood on the ramp of the Mizbe'ach or on a place that is not opposite the Yesod (the foundation) of the Mizbe'ach (such as the south-east corner), or he sprinkles the blood above the Chut ha'Sikra when the Zerikah of this particular Korban must be done below the Chut ha'Sikra (or vice versa), or he sprinkles the blood in the inner area when it is supposed to be done in the Azarah (or vice versa). The Mishnah states that the Korban is Pasul, but those who eat it are not punished with Kares.

In the Gemara (26b), Shmuel explains that when the Mishnah says that these Korbanos are Pasul, it merely means that one cannot eat the meat. The owner, however, has achieved atonement through the Korban despite the misplaced Zerikah. Does Shmuel refer to all of the cases in the Mishnah, or to only some of them?

(a) TOSFOS (DH Amar Shmuel) says that Shmuel does not refer to the case of a Kohen who does Zerikah on the ramp of the Mizbe'ach. Although the Gemara later (87a) considers the ramp like the Mizbe'ach with regard to the consecration of parts of Korbanos brought there for burning, it is not considered like the Mizbe'ach with regard to Zerikah. This is apparent from the Gemara later (64b) which derives from the verse, "Kir ha'Mizbe'ach" -- "the wall of the Mizbe'ach" (Vayikra 5:9), that the Zerikah cannot be done on the wall of the ramp. Tosfos also says this with regard to a Kohen who does Zerikah in the inner area of the Mikdash for a Korban which is supposed to have Zerikah done in the Azarah, or the opposite case. This is apparent from the Gemara (36a) which implies that everyone agrees that such a place is not acceptable for Zerikah. However, Tosfos then doubts these exceptions, and he suggests that perhaps they should be considered like the Mizbe'ach.

The SEFAS EMES has difficulty with Tosfos' suggestion that the fact that the ramp is like the Mizbe'ach regarding the limbs of Korbanos makes it like the Mizbe'ach also with regard to Zerikah. The reason why the ramp is like the Mizbe'ach for limbs of Korbanos is that the limbs are brought to the Mizbe'ach via the ramp. Hence, it is understandable that the Mizbe'ach should already start at the ramp. In contrast, the Zerikah has absolutely nothing at all to do with the ramp!

The Sefas Emes answers that the Zerikah is, in some way, related to the ramp. The Mishnah (53a) says that the Kohen goes up the ramp when he offers a Korban Chatas. RASHI (DH Ula) explains that for a Chatas, the Kohen must go onto the ramp because he must do the Zerikah at the corners of the Mizbe'ach. This would be a reason for why the ramp would be included in Shmuel's list as a place which is related to Zerikah and therefore causes atonement when the Zerikah is performed there.

(b) The BIRKAS HA'ZEVACH points out that the RAMBAM does not make this distinction. The Rambam (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 2:10) seems to exclude none of the cases of the Mishnah from Shmuel's statement. He lists these cases together and then states that they are all Pasul but, nevertheless, the owners have achieved atonement.

There is an argument about what the Rambam considers to be included in "the inner area" of the Mikdash. The MIKDASH DAVID understands that according to the Rambam, any Zerikah which is supposed to be done in the inner areas of the Beis ha'Mikdash, even those supposed to be done on the Paroches and in the Kodesh ha'Kodashim, atone for the owner if done on the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon.

However, the ZEVACH TODAH, RABEINU CHAIM HA'LEVI (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mukdashin 2:16), and the CHAZON ISH (Kodshim 7:2) argue that the only mistake the Gemara is discussing is a mix-up between the Mizbe'ach ha'Chitzon and the Mizbe'ach ha'Penimi. This is apparent from the source of Shmuel's ruling, the verse of "va'Ani Nesativ Lachem Al ha'Mizbe'ach l'Chaper" -- "and I gave it to you to be [placed] on the Mizbe'ach to atone [for your lives]" (Vayikra 17:11). Shmuel learns from this verse that once the blood reaches the Mizbe'ach, it atones for the owner. This means that blood which is designated for a Mizbe'ach can serve its purpose of attaining atonement on any Mizbe'ach. Blood which was never designated for a Mizbe'ach is not included in this verse. (Y. MONTROSE)