Zevachim 77a (עז.) — the Talmud in English

But

you may place

them

as wood.

But this still presents a difficulty:

but there are the remnants

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

that must be filled

into the log of oil after some of it was taken in the kemitza.

And

it follows that

there is this small amount

of oil that has not been rendered permitted for consumption by the kemitza,

for

this

was not taken in a kemitza over it [that small amount of oil was brought after the kemitza, in order to fill the deficiency caused by the kemitza, and it was not rendered permitted by the kemitza from the log], and the subsequent sprinkling of the seven [sprinklings] will likewise not render it permitted for consumption, because the sprinkling renders permitted only the log of oil of the leper, whereas here we are uncertain whether it is perhaps the oil of a voluntary offering]!?

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

by redeeming 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 kemitza was performed, there was no need to complete it], then it is desecrated onto that money. And if it is not a voluntary offering but rather the completion of the log of oil of the leper, then it remains in its state of sanctity, and the sprinkling of the seven will render it permitted for consumption.

We inquire concerning this:

“by redeeming it”

—this small amount of oil—

where?

If

he redeems it

inside,

within the Temple courtyard,

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

For we initially understand that it is prohibited to desecrate sacred property in the Temple courtyard and make it unconsecrated, since making it unconsecrated is equivalent to bringing unconsecrated property into the Temple courtyard.

And

if

he redeems it

outside,

after taking it outside the Temple courtyard,

does it not thereby become disqualified as “that which went out”?!

And we answer:

Actually,

he redeems it

inside,

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

and unconsecrated property

comes into being automatically

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

The Gemara now raises a difficulty concerning the fundamental ruling of Rabbi Shimon, who said that a person with the uncertain status of a confirmed leper may bring his guilt-offering and his log of oil and stipulate that the guilt-offering and the log will be either a leper’s offering or a voluntary offering.

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

but Rabbi Shimon said: One may not volunteer oil?!

And we answer:

Rectifying the person is different.

In order to permit the person of uncertain leper status to eat consecrated food, they allowed him to bring oil and stipulate that it would be a voluntary offering.

Rav Reḥumi was sitting before Ravina, and he was sitting and saying in the name of Rav Huna bar Taḥalifa:

There is another remedy for the person of uncertain leper status—

let us say

that same person of uncertain leper status: If I am not a leper, then

this guilt-offering shall be a guilt-offering of uncertain liability.

For Rabbi Eliezer said that a person may volunteer a guilt-offering of uncertain liability every day, since there is no person who is not subject to uncertainty concerning sin. Accordingly, he can stipulate that if he is a leper, this is a definite guilt-offering of a leper, and if he is not a leper, this is a guilt-offering of uncertain liability. It is preferable to do this rather than stipulate that if he is not a leper, it is a voluntary offering, since the law of a guilt-offering of uncertain liability 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; thus he would be bringing consecrated food into a situation in which it could become disqualified. And from the fact that Rabbi Shimon did not formulate the case in this manner, stipulating that if he is not a leper the offering will be a guilt-offering of uncertain liability,

infer from this: who

is the

tanna who disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer

[in tractate Keritot 25a]

, and said

that one may not volunteer a guilt-offering of uncertain liability?

It is Rabbi Shimon!

That is why Rabbi Shimon did not formulate the case here by stipulating that the guilt-offering would be a voluntary guilt-offering of uncertain liability.

He said to him

Ravina said to Rav Reḥumi:

“Torah, Torah?!”

[Where is the Torah of a great man such as you?] How could one entertain such an idea—that one could bring an offering and stipulate that it would be either a definite guilt-offering of a leper or a guilt-offering of uncertain liability brought voluntarily? A leper’s guilt-offering is a yearling lamb, whereas a guilt-offering of uncertain liability is a two-year-old ram. How did it happen that

lambs

[young sheep]

are being confused with rams

[mature sheep]

by 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 on the altar—

Rabbi Eliezer says: He shall place

on the arrangement

above

all the limbs of the mixture, including the limbs of the sin-offering that are prohibited to burn.

And I regard

the

flesh

of the limbs of the sin-offering that are

above

on the fire of the arrangement as though

they were wood,

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

And the Sages say:

It is not permitted to burn the edible limbs of a sin-offering as “wood.” Rather, there is no remedy for those limbs of the sin-offering that became mixed with the burnt-offering. Therefore,

their form shall be allowed to pass,

meaning that he leaves the limbs of the mixture overnight, and they become disqualified as notar,

and they shall be taken to the place of burning

like other consecrated offerings that have become disqualified.

Gemara:

We inquire concerning this:

What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer,

who said that we regard 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 [bikkurim] you may bring them [before the altar],”

but onto the altar

[itself]

“they shall not go up as a pleasing fragrance,”

and we interpret this verse as follows:

For a pleasing fragrance, you may not place

leaven and honey. But

you may place

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

as wood.

And the Rabbis,

who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, hold that

the Merciful One excluded

them by saying

“them,”

and therefore we interpret this verse as follows:

“Them,”

the leaven and honey mentioned in the passage,

you may not place

for a pleasing fragrance, but

you may place

them

as wood. But something else,

such as the limbs of a sin-offering [which are prohibited to place by virtue of the preceding verse, from which we derive that anything from which a portion was brought onto the altar is thereafter subject to “You shall not burn”],

no.

It may not be placed as wood.

And Rabbi Eliezer

interprets this exclusion of “them” as follows: The Torah expanded the prohibition against placing leaven and honey on the ramp of the altar, just as on the altar. This law—that something prohibited to place on the altar is also prohibited to place on the ramp—was introduced only with regard to leaven and honey, and not with regard to things prohibited to burn because of the principle, “anything from which a portion was brought onto the altar is subject to ‘You shall not burn.’” And this is how we interpret the verse:

“Them,”

the leaven and honey mentioned in the passage,

it is that I have expanded for you,

the Torah expanded for you that the prohibition against placing them on the

ramp

is

like

placing them on the

altar

itself;

but something else, no;

the Torah did not prohibit placing it on the ramp in the same manner as placing it on the altar itself.

And the Rabbis

hold:

We learn two things from it!

For “them” is an exclusion concerning everything mentioned in the passage. Therefore, we learn from it both to exclude the prohibition against placing the limbs of a sin-offering on the ramp—for it was only with regard to leaven and honey that the Torah expanded the prohibition against placing them on the ramp—and to exclude placing them as wood on the altar, for the permission was stated only with regard to leaven and honey and not with regard to the limbs of a sin-offering.

The Gemara adds and says:

The Mishna,

which presents the dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer as to whether the limbs of a sin-offering may be placed as wood, is

not in accordance with this tanna,

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

as everyone agrees that the limbs of the sin-offering are sacrificed as wood.

And likewise, Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages did not disagree

concerning

the limbs of

an animal that engaged in bestiality or was the object of bestiality, that they may not be sacrificed

even as wood, because they are repulsive to the Most High.

Concerning what did they disagree,

Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages?

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

a

blemished burnt-offering. Rabbi Eliezer says: They may all be sacrificed,

and

I regard

the

limbs of the blemished animal

that rise

above

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

as though they were wood. And the Sages say: They may not be sacrificed,

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

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

And Rabbi Eliezer, what is different about an animal that engaged in bestiality or was the object of bestiality

that its limbs may not be placed as wood, because

it is not fit

for sacrifice? But

a blemished animal is also not fit

for sacrifice, and nevertheless it is possible to place its limbs as wood?