Zevachim 120a — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Zeira raised a question: an olah of a private altar ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

that he brought inside

after he slaughtered it outside, at a private altar, and then

brought it back outside,

what is the law?

Does the law of a public altar still apply to it, and is he required to bring it back inside?

Do we say: since it entered

inside,

the partition apprehended it

of the public altar forever, even after its exit,

or perhaps

the partitions apprehended it only as long as it was inside, and only then must the law of a public altar be applied to it, but after it went out, do we say,

since it returned, it returned?

And the Gemara attempts to resolve his uncertainty: Is this

not the dispute between Rabba and Rav Yosef?

For we learned: offerings of the most sacred order that one slaughtered in the south

of the Temple courtyard, although they are disqualified because he did not slaughter them in the north, nevertheless

one commits misuse with them,

and their status is not like that of offerings that died, which cease to be subject to the law of misuse.

And they raised a question before them:

If these

ascended

disqualified offerings onto the altar after the fact,

what is the law as to whether they should descend

from it?

Rabba said: They should descend. And Rav Yosef said: They should not descend.

From this law we may now derive the law concerning offerings of a minor altar that entered inside after slaughter: According to Rabba, who says “they should descend,” and the altar did not apprehend what was slaughtered in a place unfit for it, the same applies here: a public altar will not apprehend what was slaughtered at a minor altar. And according to Rav Yosef, who says that the altar apprehended it and it should not descend, the same applies to a public altar: it will apprehend the offerings of a minor altar, even though they have already been slaughtered.

And we reject this, saying that the question still remains:

It is a question according to Rabba, and it is a question according to Rav Yosef.

It is a question according to Rabba: Rabba said only this much

that disqualified offerings which were slaughtered not in their proper place are not apprehended inside,

but by the altar,

as we learned from the verse:

Whatever is fit for it, it sanctifies; whatever is not fit for it, it does not sanctify.

But a partition

of a public altar: It is possible that

although it is not fit for it

because they were slaughtered outside,

it apprehended it. Or perhaps, it makes no difference,

and even a partition of an altar did not apprehend it?

It is a question according to Rav Yosef: Rav Yosef said only there

with regard to the altar, that it apprehends even offerings slaughtered in the south,

but

because

it is one place,

the altar and the south, since both are within the Temple courtyard.

But here,

with regard to a public altar and a minor altar,

they are two places,

one place does not apprehend what was slaughtered improperly in the second.

Or perhaps it makes no difference,

and even in two places it apprehended it?

And we conclude:

Teyku!

A matter that was obvious to Rabba in one respect,

that they should descend,

and to Rav Yosef in one respect,

that they should not descend,

is a question

for

Rabbi Yannai.

For Rabbi Yannai raised a question: The limbs of an olah of a private altar

that was slaughtered and whose blood was cast at a private altar,

which ascended upon the altar

of a public altar,

what is the law as to whether they should descend

from it? And we explain the manner of the uncertainty:

Where the fire took hold of them

of the altar after they ascended upon it,

you need not ask

whether they should not descend from it, since they have become the bread of the altar.

For when you do ask, it is where the fire did not take hold of them.

Some say: Where the fire did not take hold of them, you need not ask

for they certainly should descend.

When you do ask is where the fire took hold of them: What is

the law as to whether they should descend?

And we conclude:

Teyku!

It was stated: Slaughter at night,

whether it is valid

at a private altar,

was disputed by

Rav and Shmuel.

Rav said: It is valid

; 243 and Shmuel said: It is disqualified.

And they disagree concerning Rabbi Elazar, for Rabbi Elazar juxtaposed verses against one another:

It is written

with regard to Saul in the war against the Philistines: “

And he said: You have acted treacherously; roll a great stone to me today”

to make it a minor altar and sacrifice upon it.

Since he said “today,” it implies specifically while it is day; but at night, sacrifice at an altar is disqualified.

And

on the other hand,

it is written: “And Saul said: Scatter among the people and say to them, Bring to me each man his ox and each man his sheep, and slaughter upon this and eat, and do not sin against the Lord by eating with the blood. And all the people brought each man his ox in his hand that night, and they slaughtered there.”

And from these words it implies that they slaughtered at night, and apparently the verses contradict one another?

One master,

Rav,

explains: Here,

the statement that it must be day specifically refers

to offerings of a public altar,

those offerings that were consecrated with the intention of being sacrificed at a public altar. Therefore, they have the law of a public altar and are disqualified at night, even if he sacrifices them at a minor altar ; whereas

here,

where they slaughtered at night, refers

to offerings of a minor altar,

which were initially consecrated with the intention of being sacrificed at a minor altar. Those offerings are valid at night, and from here Rav learned that slaughter at a private altar is valid at night.

And one master,

Shmuel,

explains: Here,

the statement that they should bring it specifically by day refers

to sacred offerings,

and even offerings of a minor altar are sacrificed only by day. Whereas

here,

where they slaughtered at night, refers

to unconsecrated animals ; 245

and therefore he said that slaughter at night is disqualified at a minor altar.

It was stated: With regard to an olah of a private altar, Rav said: It does not require flaying and dismemberment

but is sacrificed at the altar with its hide,

and Rabbi Yoḥanan said: It requires flaying and dismemberment.

And they disagree concerning Rabbi Yosei the Galilean, for it was taught: Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says: An olah that Israel sacrificed in the wilderness

at Mount Sinai before the giving of the Torah

does not require flaying and dismemberment, for flaying and dismemberment apply only from the Tent of Meeting onward,

where the details of the laws of offerings were stated to Moses, whereas at Mount Sinai the mitzvot were stated in general form.

One master,

Rabbi Yoḥanan,

held: From the Tent of Meeting onward

it requires flaying and dismemberment,

whether it is a public altar or whether it is a minor altar. And one master,

Rav,

held: At a public altar, yes; at a minor altar, no,

it does not require flaying and dismemberment [and specifically according to Rabbi Yosei the Galilean did Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagree, for according to the tanna who disagrees with him and holds that the olah of the wilderness did require flaying and dismemberment, certainly a private altar requires flaying and dismemberment, since in the wilderness it was a private altar] .

It was taught in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan

that an olah of a private altar requires flaying and dismemberment:

For it was taught: These are

the matters that distinguish a public altar from a minor altar:

Horn, ramp, base, and square

were present on the altar

of a public altar, but there are no horn, ramp, base, or square

on the altar

of a minor altar.

The basin and its stand

were present

at a public altar, but there are no basin and its stand at a minor altar

. 247 The breast and thigh

that are raised for the koen from a shelamim apply

at a public altar, but there are no breast and thigh at a minor altar.

These are

the matters in which

a public

altar is equal to a minor altar:

Slaughter

applies

at a public and minor altar . 248

Flaying and cutting into pieces

Flaying and dismemberment

applies

at a public and minor altar.

Blood

that must be cast upon the altar

renders permitted,

for the casting of the blood renders the flesh permitted for eating, and before that it is prohibited,

and causes pigul,

for through the casting of the blood a thought of pigul disqualifies. All these apply

at a public and minor altar. Blemishes

that disqualify the offering ,

and

likewise

the time

for eating the offering, are equal

at a public and minor altar.

It is thus explicitly found in the beraita that a minor altar requires flaying and dismemberment, in accordance with Rabbi Yoḥanan. [And Rav holds that this beraita follows the view of the tanna who disagreed with Rabbi Yosei the Galilean and said that the olah of the wilderness required flaying and dismemberment, and the same applies to an olah of a private altar].

We learned in the Mishna:

But the time, the leftover, and the impure are equal in this and in that.

The Sages taught: From where is it derived to make the time,

so that the offering becomes disqualified as leftover after its time,

at a minor altar as at a public altar?

Yet apparently it should follow logically that it would not become disqualified at a minor altar, for

the Torah said: What remained overnight shall be burned, and what went out shall be burned.

And we should learn

just as what went out is valid at an altar

at a minor altar, since there are no partitions there,

so too what remained overnight is valid at an altar

at a minor altar .

The beraita replies: There is a source for disqualifying leftover at an altar:

And is it

not an kal va-chomer from birds?