Zevachim 77a — the Talmud in English

But

you may place

them

for the sake of wood.

But it is still difficult:

but there are remnants

of the oil that were not permitted for eating, namely that small amount of oil

that is needed to fill it

into the log of oil after he performed a handful-taking from it.

And

it turns out that

there is this small amount

of oil that has no permission for eating through the handful-taking,

for

this

no handful-taking was performed upon it [the reason being that this small amount of oil was brought after the handful-taking, in order to fill the deficiency caused by the handful-taking, and it was not permitted through the handful-taking from the log], and the subsequent seven sprinklings will also not permit it for eating, because the sprinkling permits only the log of oil of a person afflicted with tzaraat, whereas here we are in doubt: perhaps the oil is the oil of a voluntary offering?!

And we answer: there is a remedy for this small amount,

for he redeems it.

He brings money equal in value to that small amount of oil and redeems it conditionally: if this oil is the oil of a voluntary offering [and after the handful-taking was performed they did not need to complete it], then it is desacralized upon that money. And if it is not a voluntary offering, but rather the completion of the log of oil of a person afflicted with tzaraat, then it remains in its sanctity, and the seven sprinklings will permit it for eating.

And we inquire concerning it:

he redeems it

—this small amount of oil—

where is this?

If

he redeems it

inside,

within the Temple courtyard, this

does he not bring unconsecrated property into the Temple courtyard?!

For it might have entered our minds that it is forbidden to desacralize sacred property in the Temple courtyard and make it unconsecrated, because making it unconsecrated is like bringing unconsecrated property into the Temple courtyard.

And

if

he redeems it

outside,

after taking it out beyond the Temple courtyard, this

does it not become disqualified through “that which has gone out”?!

And we answer:

always

he redeems it

inside,

in the Temple courtyard. And he does not transgress because of bringing unconsecrated property into the Temple courtyard, because the redeemer performs only the act of redemption,

and unconsecrated property—

automatically comes to be

in the Temple courtyard; for the act of redemption is not considered an actual act of bringing unconsecrated property into the Temple courtyard.

And now the Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the fundamental ruling of Rabbi Shimon, who said that a person of uncertain status as one afflicted with tzaraat may bring his guilt-offering and his log of oil, and stipulate that the guilt-offering and the log will be the offering of a person afflicted with tzaraat or a voluntary offering.

How can you say that he brings a log of oil as a voluntary offering,

but Rabbi Shimon said: one does not volunteer oil?!

And we answer:

the rectification of the person is different.

In order to permit the person of uncertain status as one afflicted with tzaraat to eat sacred offerings, they allowed him to bring oil and stipulate concerning it that it be a voluntary offering.

Rav Reḥumi sat before Ravina, and he sat and said in the name of Rav Huna bar Taḥalifa:

There is another remedy for the person of uncertain status as one afflicted with tzaraat—

let him say

that person of uncertain status as one afflicted with tzaraat: if I am not afflicted with tzaraat, then

this guilt-offering shall be a conditional guilt-offering.

For Rabbi Eliezer said: a person may volunteer a conditional guilt-offering every day, for there is no person who does not stand in uncertainty concerning sin. If so, he can properly stipulate that if he is afflicted with tzaraat, this is the definite guilt-offering of a person afflicted with tzaraat, and if he is not afflicted with tzaraat, this is a conditional guilt-offering. And it is preferable to do this rather than stipulate that if he is not afflicted with tzaraat, this is a voluntary offering, for the law of a conditional guilt-offering is like that of a definite guilt-offering, which is eaten for one day and the following night, whereas a voluntary offering is eaten for two days and the intervening night, and he would thereby bring sacred offerings into a state of disqualification!? And from the fact that Rabbi Shimon did not establish the matter in this manner, stipulating concerning it that if he is not afflicted with tzaraat the offering will be a conditional guilt-offering,

infer from this: who

is he,

the tannay who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer

[in tractate Keritot 25a]

, and said

that one does not volunteer a conditional guilt-offering—

it is Rabbi Shimon!

For that is why Rabbi Shimon did not establish here the matter in a manner in which he stipulates concerning a conditional guilt-offering that it be a voluntary offering.

He said to him

Ravina to Rav Reḥumi:

Torah, Torah?!

[Where is the Torah of a great man such as you?] How could the following idea possibly enter one’s mind: that one can bring an offering and stipulate concerning it that it be either the definite guilt-offering of a person afflicted with tzaraat or a conditional guilt-offering that comes as a voluntary offering? For the guilt-offering of a person afflicted with tzaraat is a yearling lamb, whereas a conditional guilt-offering is a two-year-old ram; and how did it happen that

lambs

[small sheep]

are exchanged for rams

[large rams]

for you?!

Mishna:

The limbs of a sin-offering

that are eaten by the kohanim

that became mixed with the limbs of a burnt-offering

that are burned entirely upon the altar—

Rabbi Eliezer says: he shall place

upon the arrangement

above

all the limbs of the mixture, including the limbs of the sin-offering that are forbidden to be burned,

and I regard

the

flesh

of the limbs of the sin-offering that are found

above

upon the fire of the arrangement as though

they were wood,

because since he does not intend to burn them, but rather to use them as fuel like wood, it is properly permitted.

And the Sages say:

There is no permission to burn the limbs of the sin-offering that are eaten for the sake of “wood”; rather, there is no remedy for those limbs of the sin-offering that became mixed with the burnt-offering. Therefore

their form shall pass,

that he shall leave the limbs of the mixture for the duration of the night, and they will become disqualified as notar,

and they shall go to the place of burning

like other sacred offerings that became disqualified.

Gemara:

And we inquire concerning it:

What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer

who said that one regards the limbs of the sin-offering as though they were wood?

And we explain:

the verse says

concerning leaven and honey: “You shall not burn any of it as a fire-offering to the Lord. As an offering of first fruits [the first fruits] you shall bring them [before the altar],

but onto the altar

[itself]

they shall not ascend for a pleasing fragrance,”

and we expound this verse as follows:

For a pleasing fragrance you may not raise

leaven and honey. But

you may raise

leaven and honey, and the same applies to the limbs of a sin-offering that are not fit for burning,

for the sake of wood.

And the Sages, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, hold: this

who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, hold that

the Merciful One excluded

and said

“them,”

and therefore we expound this verse as follows:

“Them,”

the leaven and honey mentioned in the passage,

it is them that you may not raise

for a pleasing fragrance, but

you may raise

them

for the sake of wood. But something else

such as the limbs of a sin-offering [which are forbidden to be raised by virtue of the preceding verse, from which we derive that anything from which an offering is raised upon the fire is thereafter forbidden to be raised because of “you shall not burn”]

not.

It is impossible to raise them for the sake of wood.

And Rabbi Eliezer

expounds this exclusion of “them” as follows: the Torah expanded the prohibition against raising leaven and honey onto the ramp of the altar, just as onto the altar. For this law—that something forbidden to be raised onto the altar is also forbidden to be raised onto the ramp—was renewed only with regard to leaven and honey, and not with regard to things forbidden to be burned on account of “anything from which an offering is made upon the fire is subject to ‘you shall not burn it.’” And this is how we expound it:

“Them,”

the leaven and honey mentioned in the passage,

it is them that I have expanded for you,

the Torah expanded for you that the prohibition against raising them onto the

ramp

is

like

raising them onto the

altar

itself,

but something else, not

did the Torah prohibit raising it onto the ramp as raising it onto the altar itself.

And the Sages

hold:

we learn two things from it!

For “them” is an exclusion concerning everything stated in the passage. Therefore we learn from it both to exclude the prohibition against raising the limbs of a sin-offering onto the ramp—for only with leaven and honey did the Torah expand the prohibition against raising them onto the ramp—and to exclude raising them for the sake of wood upon the altar, for only with leaven and honey was the permission stated, and not with the limbs of a sin-offering.

And the Gemara adds and says:

the Mishna,

which teaches in it the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer as to whether the limbs of a sin-offering may be raised for the sake of wood, is

not in accordance with this tannay.

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages did not disagree concerning the limbs of a sin-offering that became mixed with the limbs of a burnt-offering, that they should be offered,

for everyone agrees that the limbs of the sin-offering are offered for the sake of wood.

And likewise Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages did not disagree

concerning

the limbs of

an animal that copulated with a human or an animal upon which bestiality was performed, that they should not be offered

even for the sake of wood, because they are repulsive to the Most High.

Concerning what did they disagree,

Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages?

Concerning the limbs of an unblemished burnt-offering that became mixed with the limbs of

a burnt-offering

with a blemish. For Rabbi Eliezer says: they should be offered

all of them,

and I regard

the

limbs of the one with a blemish

that ascend

above

upon the fire of the arrangement [together with the limbs of the unblemished burnt-offering],

as though they were wood. And the Sages say: they should not be offered,

as will be explained below, because blemished animals are repulsive to the altar.

And now we inquire concerning the words of the tannay of the beraita [who disagrees with the tannay of the Mishna]:

And Rabbi Eliezer, what is different about an animal that copulated with a human or an animal upon which bestiality was performed

that they may not be raised for the sake of wood, because

they are not fit

for offering, whereas

one with a blemish is also not fit

for offering, and nevertheless it is possible to raise its limbs for the sake of wood?