The Gemara says: "Pircheso v'yotzso lachutz v'chozro pesulo shma mina bosor shyotzo lifney zrika posul".
This gemoro seems to me a midrash plia, because the gemoro could easily be doche the raaye by saying that we're talking right after the shchito and therefore the psul is because of the blood that is still in the beheyma. Not only that but rashi DH: Pircheso: "le'achar Shchita" seems to say that we ARE talking before Kabolo, why didn't this bother rashi?
Indeed I found the S'fas Emes asks this and leaves it in a Tzorich Iyun, but I'm still submitting this question because it really bothers me and I was wondering if you have an answer.
Thank you.
Shmuel Tannenbaum, Lakewood NJ
You are correct in assuming that the blood that is inside of the animal becomes disqualified for Zerikah if the animal leaves the Azarah at any point before Kabalah, as is clear from the previous Sugya. However, it seems that the Gemara did not accept your "Dechiyah" because according to your reading, the Beraisa should not have stated unequivocally that the Korban is Pasul if it was Mefarkes and left the Azarah. It should instead have spoken out that if the animal was Mefarkes before Kabalah, the Korban is Pasul; after Kabalah the Korban is Kosher. Since the Beraisa simply stated the Korban is Pasul, it implies that it is Pasul if it left the Azarah any time after Shechitah, because its meat becomes Pasul and not just its Dam. (Do not wonder why the Beraisa does not make it clear that the Pirkus was after Shechitah ; to the contrary, the literal meaning of the word "Pirkesah" indeed implies that this occurred after Shechitah.)
The reason Rashi says "l'Achar Shechitah" is not to imply that it happened immediately after the Shechitah, as you understood, but to exclude a case when the animal leaves the Azarah before Shechitah , in which case the Korban would be Kosher (since the Dam only becomes Kadosh to be Nifsal b'Yotzei after the Shechitah, see Menachos 16b "Sakin Mekadsha Lei"; this is the intention of the RITVA in Chulin 3a). As I mentioned, this is implied in the Beraisa itself, since the Beraisa uses the word "Pirkesah."
I hope you find this helpful,
Mordecai Kornfeld
A simple answer to your question is that this Gemara is a continuation of the previous Sugya. Previously, we tried to prove from the Halachah of a Korban that is slaughtered with a leg out of the Azarah that "Dam ha'Muvla b'Eivarim" is Dam (with regard to Yotzei, and perhaps other Halachos as well -- see Tosfos). The Gemara concludes that it is not the Dam outside of the Azarah that is Posel the Kabalah, but the fats.
The Gemara then tries to prove based on this new interpretation that fats of Kodshim Kalim are Pasul b'Yotzei if they leave the Azarah before Zerikah. The Gemara rejects the proof by saying that we were discussing Kodshei Kodshim.
The next Gemara is still trying to prove one of the two points. The Beraisa says that Pirkesa is Posel the Kodshim Kalim. If the Pesul is because of the Dam that left the Azarah, as you suggest, then we have proven that "Dam ha'Muvla b'Eivarim" is Dam -- which the Gemara is trying to avoid proving. But if the Pesul is because of the *fats* that left the Azarah, and not the Dam, says the Gemara, we cannot avoid proving from here that Kodshim Kalim do become Pasul b'Yotzei if they leave the Azarah before Zerikah! (And the Gemara is Docheh, b'Alya v'Yoseres ha'Kaved...)
Y. Landy