Hide Issues

Eduyot (2:2) | Yisrael Bankier | 11 days ago

One of the testimonies of R' Channina segan ha'kohanim listed in Eduyot (2:2) relates to korbanot. It relates specifically to the Mishnah in Zevachim (12:4) that discusses the hides of a korban, where the koraban is found to have had an issue that invalidated. Normally the hides of korbanot are given to the kohanim. The Mishnah there teaches if the issue was found prior to flaying, then the hide is burnt along with the pasul korban. If however, the issue was internal (treifa), only discovered after flaying, then the hide is given over to the kohanim. R' Chanina testified that he never saw a separated hide burnt alongside invalid korbanot, supporting this law.

From R' Chanina's testimony, R' Akiva derived that the law would be the same for a bechor. Recall that a first-born kosher animal, is given over to a kohen and offered as a korban. R' Akiva understands that if the hide was subsequently removed prior to discovering that it was a treifa, the kohanim can keep the hide. This is even though it is discovered that the korban was invalid.

The Bartenura explains that R' Akiva is teaching us about a different case. Recall that if the bechor had a confirmed mum (blemish) that invalidated it to be used as a korban, then it is simply given to kohen. It is only really given to the kohen to slaughter and consume it outside the Beit HaMikdash. Nonetheless, the kohen may keep the hide. If however, the bechor simply died then the kohen may not derive any benefit. The novelty then is that if the bechor with this mum was slaughtered, flayed and then discovered to have an indication that it was a treifa, the kohen can still keep the hide.

The Chachamim however disagree. Furthermore, the fact that R' Chanina never saw hides being burnt in this manner is not a proof, since that case may have never happened on his watch. Consequently, even if the issue was found after flaying, the hide would be burnt along with the korban or bechor.

In our Mishnah, the Bartenura follows the Rambam and rules like the Chachamim in our Mishnah. In the case of the bechor with a mum, the Rambam rules like R' Akiva. How do we understand this seemingly contradictory ruling?

The Kesef Mishnah (Bechorot 3:10) explains that the Rambam understands that the Chachamim and R' Akiva are not arguing. In other words, R' Akiva agrees with the Chachamim that a bechor is like any other korban and the hide would be prohibited even if the issue was found after it was removed. The comment of R' Akiva is only regarding the case of a bechor that had a mum.¹ What then is the difference between the two cases?

The Chazon Ish (Bechorot 22:2) explains that the potential issue with the hide for korbanot is rabbinic -- a gezeira -- considering that in some cases it can be prohibited on a biblical level. That would be if there was something that invalidated the zrikat ha'dam.² In that case it is considered an invalid korban and not one that simply died. For a korban that died prior to offering, on a biblical level, the hide is permitted. Our case, where the korban was offered and discovered after that it was a treifa is equivalent to that case. In a case however, where there was something that invalidated its offering, it is considered an invalid korban, and the korban must be completely burnt with the hide secondary to the meat. For a bechor that had a mum, since there is no case where the hide would be biblically prohibited, there is more room to be lenient in our case.

¹ The Lechem Mishnah however finds this explanation difficult considering that the Gemara (Zevachim 104a) explains that R' Akiva permits the hide even in the case of a baal mum. This implies that it would be easier to permit the hide of a korban. See the Chazon Ish that addresses this question.

Download