What Happens to the Bones of a Korban Olah?

Provided courtesy of Real Clear Daf

We discussed this question in the Daf this week on 85b-86a. The Mishnah on 85b rules that the bones of a Korban Olah may  be burned along with the rest of the animal--if they are still attached. If however they were removed from the animal then they cannot be put on the mizbeach. What if they were put on the mizbeach in violation of this halacha? On 86a, Rebbi rules that they would have to be taken down. Rabbah there notes that this implies that the bones still bear the unique prohibited status of things designated for the mizbeach called me’ila--in other words the bones remain as material with mizbeach sanctity that have become disqualified.

Rabbah goes on to assert that the bones are only imbued with mizbeach sanctity if they are attached at the time of the blood application, or zerika, to the mizbeach (it is a fundamental principle that regarding korbanos that eaten by their owners, no part of the korban becomes me’ila until the zerika is done). When the bones are attached at the time of the zerika, since attached bones are fit for the mizbeach, the zerika indeed designates them for that purpose and thus if they later become detached they will be deemed me’ila. If however the bones were not attached during the critical step of the zerika, they do not become me’ila by virtue of altar sanctity being that detached bones are unfit for the mizbeach.

Now we might suppose that even though these bones do not receive altar sanctity, they should still be me’ila like any other consecrated material that wasn’t rendered permissible for consumption. Not so, Rabbah asserts. Rather, the Cohanim may use the bones as they please--even to make knife handles from them should they so desire. But why? How did the consecrated bones shed their prohibited status? The Gemara explains that Rabbah accepts the drasha of R’ Yishmael which links Olah to Asham: just as the Torah permits even the bones of Asham for the Cohanim, so too by Olah. But, Rabbah understands, this concept only has practical application where somehow the bones avoided becoming designated for the mizbeach. This occurs only if the bones were not attached at the time of the zerika.

The Gemara then presents the approach of R’ Elazar which is the mirror opposite of Rabbah’s understanding. R’ Elazar asserts that the bones become me’ila specifically where they were not attached at the time of zerika; and if they were attached during zerika, then they lose their me’ila status (if they subsequently became detached; see further). R’ Elazar’s argument is as follows: Since the entire basis for saying that the zerika can permit an Olah’s bones for the Cohanim is the connection to Asham, we must limit this law to only a circumstance that is similar to that of Asham, i.e. where the bones become permitted along with the meat. So if the Olah bones were still attached during the zerika, the zerika designates the bones for the mizbeach and also creates a kind of contingency clause that says that in the event that the bones become detached from the korban (which thereby disqualifies them from the mizbeach), they shall become property of the Cohanim.

But if the bones were not attached at the time of the zerika, R’ Elazar holds that the zerika has no impact on the bones: it cannot designate them for the mizbeach (because they’re not attached), nor can it permit them for the Cohanim, because once the meat is off the bones we are no longer within the realm of the permit taught to us by Asham. So the end result is that the bones are left as consecrated material that never received a permit to be consumed and thus they will bear me’ila status in this case.