Zevachim 27b — the Talmud in English

And our Mishna

which teaches “invalid,” is

in accordance with the view of the one who says: He shall not collect it.

And Rav Hisda said in the name of Avimi: Everyone agrees,

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon,

with regard to those whose blood is to be given below, but he gave it above, that he shall not collect it,

since when they reached the altar appropriate for them, it is not considered as though it had been spilled onto the floor; rather, the altar caught it and removed it from the category of sprinkling.

And all the more so with regard to those whose blood is to be given above, but he gave it below,

for this sprinkling is close to a complete sprinkling,

since the upper blood comes below,

as it trickles and descends; it follows that the blood of the upper offerings will ultimately reach below, and the place is appropriate for them, and therefore it catches them.

They disagreed

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon

only with regard to those whose blood is to be given inside

on the inner altar in the Sanctuary,

but he gave it outside

on the outer altar; and likewise with regard to those whose blood is to be given

outside but he gave it inside, as Rabbi Yosei says: He shall collect it, since it is not appropriate for this altar, it does not catch it at all, and it is considered as though it had been spilled onto the floor.

because since this altar is not appropriate for that blood, it does not receive it at all, and it is considered as though it had been spilled onto the floor.

And Rabbi Shimon says: He shall not collect it,

because since the blood is fit to be given on something that bears the name “altar,” and it reached an altar, the altar caught it.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: We too have learned

in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan: that a sprinkling not in its place, although it is invalid and does not effect atonement, nevertheless the altar catches it, and he shall not collect it.

For it was taught:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

What is stated: “This is the law of the burnt offering; it is the burnt offering upon its flame on the altar all night,” whose meaning is to teach that all invalid offerings that ascended upon the altar do not descend, and that this verse is read as follows: Once it has ascended upon its flame, even if invalid, it shall remain there all night—the verse excluded three invalid offerings from this rule, because three exclusions were stated in the passage:

“This”—

and not another!

“It”—

comes to exclude!

“The burnt offering”,

with the definite article, implies the particular burnt offering, and not another.

These are

three

exclusions

that exclude the following three invalid offerings, which, even if they ascended upon the altar, descend from it:

a.

Except for one slaughtered at night,

which is not the time of slaughter.

b.

And one whose blood was spilled

before it was sprinkled upon the altar.

c.

And one whose blood went out

before the sprinkling

outside the curtains,

and became invalid through going out.

With regard to these three invalid offerings,

if

nevertheless

the burnt offering ascended

the invalid burnt offering upon the altar—

it shall descend!

Rabbi Shimon says:

What is stated: “It is the burnt offering upon its flame on the altar all night,” is expounded as follows:

“Burnt offering”—

I have only a fit burnt offering

that ascended upon the altar;

from where to include

a burnt offering invalid because

it was slaughtered at night, its blood was spilled, or its blood went out outside the curtains

before it was sprinkled, and the flesh of a burnt offering

that remained overnight

the entire night outside the altar and became invalid through remaining overnight,

and that which went out,

whose flesh went out outside the courtyard,

and the impure one,

whose flesh became impure,

and one that was slaughtered

with the thought to burn

outside its time or outside its place, and those who were invalid received

the blood in a vessel, or that the invalid persons

sprinkled its blood, and those whose blood is to be given above, but he gave it below, and those whose blood is to be given below, but he gave it above, and those whose blood is to be given inside, but he gave it outside, and those whose blood is to be given outside, but he gave it inside, and the Paschal offering and the sin offering that he slaughtered not for their sake,

which are invalid—

from where

is it derived concerning all these invalid offerings that if their flesh or their sacrificial portions ascended upon the altar, they do not descend?

The verse states:

“the law of the burnt offering”—

the verse increased

the scope of the verse,

a different law for all that ascend: if they ascended, they do not descend!

One might think that I include

that they do not descend

even the sodomized animal, the animal designated,

that he designated the animal as an offering to idolatry,

and the worshiped animal,

an animal to which one bowed as to an idolatry,

and the prostitute’s wage and the exchange

of a dog,

and the mixed-breed animal, the animal with a fatal defect, and the animal born by caesarean section?

The verse states:

“this,”

to exclude these invalid offerings, which, even if they ascended, descend.

And what did you see to include these and exclude those?

For the verse expanded and the verse excluded, but it did not explain what it expanded and what it excluded?

I include these

because

their invalidity was in the sacred domain,

for they became invalid after they came into the courtyard.

And I exclude these, whose invalidity was not in the sacred domain,

for they became invalid before they came into the courtyard.

And Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak concludes his proof for Rabbi Yohanan:

In any event, it teaches,

among those whose rule is that if they ascended, they do not descend,

those whose blood is to be given below, but he gave it above, and those whose blood is to be given above, but he gave it below.

And Rabbi Yehuda did not disagree,

to say that if they ascended, they descend, as in the case of blood spilled onto the floor, concerning which he said that their rule is that they descend.

What is the reason? Is it not because the altar caught it

and it was sanctified?

And infer from this

that blood sprinkled not in its place

shall not be collected. [

And one cannot say that Rabbi Yehuda holds, with regard to sprinkling not in its place, that it is considered as though it were in its place, and that their sprinkling effected atonement, and therefore they do not descend. If so, what proof is there for Rabbi Yohanan, who holds that it is considered as not in its place? For they were written here together with the other invalid sprinklings,

and that is because their rule is similar; just as the other sprinklings that he mentioned are entirely invalid, so too these are entirely invalid, and only because the altar caught them is their rule that they do not descend. And there is no proof from Rabbi Shimon, because it is possible that he holds that even in the case of blood that was spilled, it was included by “the law of the burnt offering,” so that if it ascended, it would not descend.]

Rabbi Eliezer said: The inner altar sanctifies invalid offerings,

for if the invalid offerings ascended upon it, they do not descend, even though the verse “This is the law of the burnt offering” cited above deals with the outer altar.

And we raise an objection:

What does Rabbi Eliezer teach us

? After all,

we learned: Those given inside, and so on;

and in the latter clause it is stated that when he gave inside those whose blood is to be given outside, the limbs of the offering do not descend. Although this blood, whose rule is that it is to be given outside, became invalid upon entering inside, Rabbi Yehuda did not disagree here and say that it should be considered like blood that was spilled; rather, he holds that the altar caught it. And it is clear that the inner altar sanctifies the invalid offerings that were given upon it!?

And we answer:

Had it been derived from there, I would have said that this applies

that the inner altar sanctifies invalid offerings only specifically to

blood

that is invalid,

which is fit for it,

since there are bloods that are given upon the inner altar, and it is fit for receiving blood.

But a handful,

an invalid one that ascended upon it,

which is not fit for it,

for no handful at all has the rule that it ascends upon the inner altar, as it is stated concerning the inner golden altar: “You shall not offer strange incense, or a burnt offering, or a meal offering upon it,”

I might say: No,

but if it ascended upon it, it descends.

It teaches us

that even the handful, which is entirely unfit, is sanctified by the inner altar, and if it ascended, it does not descend!

An objection was raised: Strange incense,

which an individual volunteered to bring,

if it ascended onto the altar, it shall descend!

Because the Torah permitted bringing up only the incense of the community, morning and evening, and an individual’s incense is invalid,

for you have no sanctification of invalid offerings except by the outer altar, with what is fit for it!

The reference is to exclude handfuls that were not sanctified in a vessel. The Gemara assumed that the reference was to strange incense that ascended upon the inner altar, and therefore it was invalid, because this altar does not sanctify invalid offerings.

And the Gemara infers:

The outer altar—yes,

it specifically sanctifies invalid offerings, so that if they ascended, they do not descend; but

the inner altar—not,

it does not sanctify them. Rather, if they ascended, they descend. And this is contrary to Rabbi Eliezer, who said, “The inner altar sanctifies invalid offerings”!? And we answer:

Explain it this way: Strange incense that ascended onto the outer altar shall descend,

because

the outer altar sanctifies invalid offerings only when they are fit for it.

And incense, which is not offered at all upon the outer altar, is not sanctified by it.

But the inner altar

sanctifies

both what is fit for it and what is not fit for it!

What is the reason? This one,

the outer altar, is

a floor,

a structure of stones that was not anointed with the anointing oil, and therefore its sanctity is not stringent enough to sanctify everything that ascends upon it.

But this one,

the inner altar, is

a sacred vessel,

and it was anointed together with the vessels of the Tabernacle, and therefore it sanctifies even invalid offerings by virtue of its being a sacred vessel.

Mishna: One who slaughters

the sacrifice whose law is that it is eaten, and thought at the time of slaughter

to sprinkle its blood outside, or part of its blood outside

, and likewise one who slaughters with the thought

of burning its emurim outside, or part of its emurim outside

, or who thought

to eat its flesh outside, or an olive-bulk of its flesh outside, or

thought

to eat an olive-bulk of the fat of the tail

which is considered like flesh]

outside—

the sacrifice is invalid

,

and there is no karet

for eating it, even if he ate it outside. And the reason is that the sacrifice becomes piggul only through the thought of eating or the thought of sprinkling the blood outside its time, whereas with the thought of outside its place, it is only invalid but is not piggul.

But if he thought at the time of slaughtering

to sprinkle its blood tomorrow

, or to sprinkle

part of its blood

tomorrow. And likewise, if he thought

of burning its emurim tomorrow, or part of its emurim tomorrow

. Or if he thought, concerning a sacrifice whose law is that it is eaten for one day [such as a thanksgiving-offering, a sin-offering, and a guilt-offering],

to eat its flesh tomorrow, or an olive-bulk

of its flesh tomorrow,

or to eat an olive-bulk of the fat of the tail tomorrow

, the sacrifice is

piggul, and one is liable for it for karet

through eating it, even if he ultimately ate it within its time.