Zevachim 83a — the Talmud in English

Rather,

he sprinkled this blood on the curtain

in the Sanctuary according to their halakha,

and brought them out to the altar

of gold according to their halakha [and the tanna uses the expression “bringing out” even though the golden altar is located inside the Sanctuary, because Scripture says, “And he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord and make atonement for it,” and the intention is “going out” to the golden altar; and we expound that Scripture used “and he shall go out” in order to say that the High Priest should not stand between the altar and the curtain, but should stand in its second section of the Sanctuary, between the altar and the entrance of the Sanctuary]. And now we raise a question: if, after he brought them out from the area between the altar and the curtain to the area between the altar and the entrance of the Sanctuary, he again

brought them in

to the area between the altar and the curtain,

what is the law?

Is it that here, the entire Sanctuary

is certainly one place,

and it is not considered bringing in not in its place?

Or perhaps

the two areas in the Sanctuary are considered two places, for

we call it “going out,”

and since the Merciful One considered it going out to another place, bringing it back from that place to the previous place is considered bringing in not in its place!?

And we conclude:

teyku.

We learned in the Mishna:

He entered to effect atonement. It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here

with regard to blood that entered the Sanctuary,

“to effect atonement in the sacred place.” And it is stated there,

with regard to the service of the High Priest on the Day of Atonement,

“And no person shall be in the Tent of Meeting when he enters to effect atonement in the sacred place.” Just as there

the fellow priests of the High Priest were warned to withdraw from the Sanctuary even before the beginning of the High Priest’s service, and even though it is stated, “when he enters to effect atonement,” we say that the meaning of Scripture is that there is an obligation to withdraw even before the atonement, for “to effect atonement” means

when he has not yet effected atonement

still.

So too here,

with regard to bringing the blood into the Sanctuary, even though it is stated “to effect atonement in the sacred place,” the intention of Scripture is not that the disqualification will be after he effects atonement inside, but already at the beginning of the entry,

when he has not yet effected atonement,

it is disqualified.

Rabbi Shimon says: It is stated here,

with regard to bringing it into the Sanctuary,

“to effect atonement.” And it is stated there,

with regard to the law of burning the bull and the goat of the Day of Atonement,

“And the bull of the sin-offering and the goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought to effect atonement.” Just as there

the meaning of Scripture’s “to effect atonement” is

when he has effected atonement

already, for Scripture is speaking about their burning,

so too here,

with regard to bringing the blood into the Sanctuary, the meaning of “to effect atonement” is that the blood is disqualified only

when he has effected atonement,

and not at the time of the bringing in.

And we explain:

In what do

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon disagree?

One master,

Rabbi Eliezer,

holds: one derives outside from outside,

the blood of an external sin-offering, concerning which Scripture warns that the blood must remain outside the Sanctuary and that it may not be brought inside, is learned

from

the law of the High Priest, whose fellow priests are warned to be outside the Sanctuary before the High Priest begins his service.

And one does not derive outside from inside;

one does not learn the law of bringing in the blood of the external sin-offering from the bull and the goat of the Day of Atonement, which it is a mitzva to bring inside.

And one master,

Rabbi Shimon,

holds: one derives

the blood of an animal

from

the bull and the goat of the Day of Atonement, which are also

animals. And one does not derive

the blood of an

animal from a person [and this is from what is stated, “And no person shall be in the Tent of Meeting when he enters to effect atonement in the sacred place”].

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Judah says:

If he brought it in unwittingly, it is fit.

And the Gemara infers:

This

means, if he brought it in

intentionally

—

it is disqualified.

And the Gemara discusses Rabbi Judah’s method: Is the disqualification in an intentional case, according to Rabbi Judah, only

when he has effected atonement,

and Rabbi Judah holds like Rabbi Shimon?

Or

even

when he has not effected atonement,

and Rabbi Judah holds like Rabbi Eliezer?

Rabbi Jeremiah said:

The uncertainty can be resolved from that which

was taught: Since it is stated

with regard to the bull and the goat of the Day of Atonement,

“And the bull of the sin-offering and the goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought to effect atonement in the sacred place,”

we know their law; and if so,

why does the verse say

again,

“And the one who burns

them shall wash his garments”?

Before the Gemara continues to bring the entire beraita, it explains the beginning of its words, which are apparently perplexing:

After all, the verse

“And the one who burns

them shall wash his garments”

is needed for itself,

to state this law, for Scripture had not stated this law previously; and if so, what does the tanna challenge, “Why does the verse say”?

Rather,

necessarily, this is what the tanna said in the beraita:

Why does the verse say

in this passage

“sin-offering” “sin-offering”

twice? For Scripture could have said: “And the bull and the goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought to effect atonement in the sacred place, shall be burned”?

Since we have not learned

that the one who burns inner offerings renders his garments impure

except to

the one who burns

the bull and the goat of the Day of Atonement, whose burner renders garments impure, and which are burned at the place of ashes.

As for other offerings that are burned, from where

do we know that the one who burns them renders his garments impure?

The verse says

twice

“sin-offering” “sin-offering,”

to teach you that all the sin-offerings whose blood was brought inside and which are burned render the garments of the one who burns them impure,

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Meir says: It is not necessary:

there is no need for a derivation from the repetition of the word “sin-offering” in order to teach that the one who burns other inner sin-offerings renders his garments impure. Rather, we learn this from the meaning of the verse itself. For

it says

with regard to the law of burning the bull and the goat of the Day of Atonement,

“And the bull of the sin-offering and the goat of the sin-offering

whose blood was brought to effect atonement in the sacred place, shall be burned in fire.”

There is no need for the verse to say

“whose blood was brought

to effect atonement”

with regard to the law of their burning; and if so,

why does the verse say

“to effect atonement”

with regard to burning? —

The verse taught

[by the fact that Scripture made the impurity of the garments dependent on atonement],

with regard to all those for whom atonement is effected

[inner sin-offerings that effect atonement]

that the one who burns them renders garments impure.

And we explain:

And Rabbi Judah,

who derives from the fact that “sin-offering” is written twice, why did he not learn from the meaning of the verse, which makes the impurity of the garments of the one who burns them dependent on atonement?

Rather, necessarily, this derivation

from “to effect atonement” is not evident to him.

What is the reason

that he does not have this derivation?

Is it not because he needs

this “to effect atonement”

for a gzera shava

like Rabbi Shimon, who derives that blood that entered the Sanctuary is not disqualified except when he has effected atonement, by a gzera shava of “to effect atonement” that is written with regard to bringing in the blood and “to effect atonement” that is written with regard to the bull and the goat of the Day of Atonement. Therefore, he does not derive from this “to effect atonement” that the reason the burner becomes impure is because of atonement, and it is not possible to learn from it with regard to the other offerings that are burned. Therefore, he needs to learn it for them from the fact that “sin-offering” “sin-offering” is written twice.

We have completed for you the chapter “All the Offerings That Became Mixed Together”

In this chapter the law of offerings that became disqualified for sacrifice, but nevertheless were placed upon the altar, is explained: their law is that once they have gone up, they shall not go down, because the Torah said that the altar sanctifies them [and they become “the bread of the altar”], and despite their disqualification their offering is to be continued.

This law is learned from the verse, “It is the burnt offering upon its fire,” for the verse is expounded as follows: from the time of its ascent to the fire, which is the altar, “it” is said of it; behold, it remains as it is, for it is to be maintained in its present state, namely, that it is upon the altar!

In the first Mishna, it is explained with regard to which things this law was stated: whether only with regard to the sacrificial portions burned upon the altar, or also with regard to blood and libations, which, if they went up upon the altar while disqualified, the altar sanctified them, and the service of sprinkling or pouring is to be continued despite their disqualification.

The beginning of the Mishna is the statement of Rabbi, that the altar sanctifies and renders fit for sacrifice a disqualified thing that was fit for it [had it not become disqualified]; and subsequently Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel dispute what is “fit for it,” and what is excluded from it.

Mishna:

The altar

sanctifies

to become the bread of the altar, even a disqualified thing that went up upon it, and it is not brought down.

However, not every disqualified thing is sanctified by the altar, but

what is fit for it

once it has been established to be the portion of the altar [and in the Gemara it is explained that this comes to exclude a handful that was not sanctified in a vessel of service after the taking of the handful, for although the entire meal offering had already been sanctified in a vessel, nevertheless, since this portion had not been established to be for the Most High—for the entire meal offering is not sacrificed—it is not included among what is “fit for the altar”].

And what is the thing that is “fit for it”?

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Every

thing

fit for the fires

that is, for burning upon the fire of the altar alone, such as sacrificial portions, is included in this law, that

if it went up

it shall not go down,

but a thing placed upon the altar that is not intended for the fires is not included in this law. And Rabbi Yehoshua’s reason is that the source of this law, that the altar sanctifies disqualified things, is from what

is stated

in the section of the burnt offering [Leviticus 6]:

“It is the burnt offering upon its fire,”

in its state it shall be from the time it goes up upon its fire. Therefore we learn from here:

just as a burnt offering is fit for the fires,

for it is burned entirely upon the fire of the altar, its law is that

if it went up

upon the altar, it shall again

not go down,

even if it is disqualified,

so too every

thing

that is fit for the fires, if it went up

upon the altar, it shall again

not go down.

And disqualified blood and disqualified libations, which are not fit for the fires, are excluded by this.

Rabban Gamliel says: not only a thing fit for the fires is included in this law, but

every thing fit

to be placed and to be

upon the altar

even blood and libations, its law is that if it went up it shall not go down. And you have nothing to exclude by what Rabbi said, “The altar sanctifies what is fit for it,” except a thing that was never established to be the portion of the altar, namely, a handful that was not sanctified in a vessel.

And Rabban Gamliel’s reason is from what

is stated

in this verse,

“It is the burnt offering upon its fire upon the altar,”

and this is how it is to be expounded:

just as a burnt offering is fit for the altar,

both for the sprinkling of the blood and for its burning, its law is that

if it went up—

it shall not go down; so too every thing that is fit for the altar, if it went up it shall not go down.

it may not be removed; so too, every item that is fit for the altar, if it ascended, may not be removed.

And the Mishna explains:

There is no

distinction

between the words of Rabban Gamliel and the words of Rabbi Yehoshua except

with regard to the law of

the blood and the libations alone: Rabban Gamliel says, they shall not go down, and Rabbi Yehoshua says, they shall go down,

as was explained.

With regard to disqualified libations that went up upon the altar, Rabbi Shimon’s view is that a distinction must be made between libations that come because of the offering [that is, the offering requires libations to be brought with it], in which case the law follows Rabbi Yehoshua, that the altar sanctifies the libations only together with the offering, and libations that come on their own, such as when one vowed only libations, in which case the law follows Rabban Gamliel, that if the libations went up upon the altar they were sanctified and shall not go down:

Rabbi Shimon says:

Libations that come on their own, if they became disqualified and went up upon the altar, these shall not go down. But libations that come with the offering, whether

the offering was fit and

the

libations

were

disqualified

on account of themselves, such as that they went outside the Temple courtyard or became impure, or whether

the libations were fit and the offering was disqualified

and disqualified the libations that came because of it, for when the offering became disqualified the status of offering was annulled from them, and

even

if

both this and that

the offering and the libations

were disqualified—the offering

itself, which went up upon the altar,

shall not go down, and the libations

that went up

shall go down,

for the altar sanctifies disqualified things only those that come because of themselves, and not those that come because of others; and Rabbi Shimon’s reason is explained in the Gemara.

We learned in the Mishna: The altar sanctifies what is fit for it.