Zevachim 83a (פג.) — the Talmud in English

Rather,

he sprinkled their blood on the curtain

in the Sanctuary, in accordance with their halakha,

and took them out to the

gold altar, in accordance with their halakha [and the tanna uses the expression “taking out,” even though the gold altar is inside the Sanctuary, because the verse states: “And he shall go out to the altar that is before the Lord, and make atonement upon it.” The reference is to “going out” to the gold altar, and we derive that the verse uses the expression “and he shall go out” in order to say that the High Priest should not stand between the altar and the curtain; rather, he should stand in the other part of the Sanctuary, between the altar and the entrance to the Sanctuary]. And now we raise a dilemma: If, after he took them out from the area between the altar and the curtain to the area between the altar and the entrance to the Sanctuary, he

brought them back

to the area between the altar and the curtain,

what is the ruling?

Is the entire Sanctuary here

certainly one place,

so that this is not considered bringing it into a place where it does not belong?

Or perhaps

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

it is called “going out,”

and since the Torah considered it going out to another place, bringing it back from that place to the previous place is considered bringing it into a place where it does not belong!?

And we conclude:

The question remains unresolved.

We learned in the Mishna:

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

concerning blood that entered the Sanctuary,

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

concerning the service of the High Priest on Yom Kippur,

“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 High Priest began his service—and although it is stated, “when he enters to effect atonement,” we say that the meaning of the verse is that there is an obligation to withdraw even before the atonement, because “to effect atonement” means

when he has not yet effected atonement

yet,

so too here,

with regard to bringing the blood into the Sanctuary, although it is stated “to effect atonement in the sacred place,” the verse does not mean that the blood becomes disqualified only after he effects atonement inside; rather, already at the beginning of the entry,

when he has not yet effected atonement,

it becomes 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 goat of Yom Kippur,

“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 “to effect atonement” is

when he has already effected atonement,

since the verse is speaking about their burning,

so too here,

with regard to bringing the blood into the Sanctuary, “to effect atonement” means that the blood becomes disqualified only

when he has effected atonement,

and not at the time of its entry.

And we explain:

With regard to what do

Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon

differ?

One Master, Rabbi Eliezer,

holds that one derives a matter concerning the outside from a matter concerning the outside:

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

from

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

And one does not derive a matter concerning the outside from a matter concerning the inside:

the law of bringing the blood of an external sin-offering inside is not derived from the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, which are commanded to be brought inside.

And the other Master,

Rabbi Shimon,

holds that one derives

the blood of a sin-offering

of an animal

from the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, which are also

animals. And one does not derive

the blood

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

[as it is stated: “And no person shall be in the Tent of Meeting when he enters to make atonement in the sacred place.”]

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

If he brought it in inadvertently, it is valid.

The Gemara infers:

This implies that

if he brought it in

intentionally—

it is disqualified.

The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion: Is the disqualification in a case where he brought it in intentionally, according to Rabbi Yehuda, only

when he has effected atonement,

with Rabbi Yehuda holding like Rabbi Shimon?

Or

even

when he has not effected atonement,

with Rabbi Yehuda holding like Rabbi Eliezer?

Rabbi Yirmeya said:

The dilemma can be resolved from that which

was taught in a beraita: From the fact that it is stated

with regard to the bull and goat of Yom Kippur,

“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 state

again

“and the one who burns

them shall launder his garments”?

Before the Gemara continues by citing the entire beraita, it explains its seemingly puzzling opening:

After all, the verse

“and the one who burns

them shall launder his garments”

is needed for its own purpose,

to state this law, which the verse had not stated previously. If so, what is the tanna asking by saying, “Why does the verse state”

? Rather,

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

Why does the verse state

in this passage

“sin-offering” twice?

Why twice? The verse could have said: “And the bull and goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought to effect atonement in the sacred place, he shall burn”

. Because we have not learned

that one who burns internal offerings renders his garments impure

except for

one who burns the

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

With regard to the other offerings that are burned, from where

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

The verse states

twice

“sin-offering,” “sin-offering,”

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

this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Meir says: It is not necessary,

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

it says

with regard to the burning of the bull and goat of Yom Kippur,

“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, they shall be burned in fire.”

The phrase

“whose blood was brought”

“to effect atonement”

is not needed with regard to the law of their burning. And if so,

why does the verse state

“to effect atonement”

with regard to the law of burning? —

The verse teaches

[by linking the impurity of the garments to the atonement],

with regard to all those for whom atonement is effected

[internal sin-offerings, which effect atonement],

that the one who burns them renders garments impure.

And we explain:

And as for Rabbi Yehuda,

who derives the law from the fact that “sin-offering” is written twice, why did he not derive it from the meaning of the verse, which links the impurity of the burner’s garments to atonement?

Rather, necessarily, this derivation

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

What is the reason

that he does not accept this derivation?

Is it not because he requires

this expression “to effect atonement”

for a gzera shava

as Rabbi Shimon does, deriving that blood that entered the Sanctuary becomes disqualified only when he has effected atonement, through a gzera shava based on “to effect atonement,” which is written with regard to bringing in the blood, and “to effect atonement,” which is written with regard to the bull and goat of Yom Kippur. Therefore, he does not derive from this expression “to effect atonement” that the reason the burner becomes impure is atonement, and consequently there is no basis for extending the law to the other offerings that are burned. Therefore, he must derive it from the fact that “sin-offering” is written twice.

We shall return to you, chapter “All the Offerings That Became Mixed Together.”

This chapter explains the laws of offerings that became disqualified for sacrifice but were nevertheless placed upon the altar. Their law is that once they have ascended, they may not be taken down, because the Torah states that the altar sanctifies them [and they become “the altar’s bread”]; and despite their disqualification, their sacrificial procedure must be continued.

This law is derived from the verse, “It is the burnt offering upon its fire,” which is expounded as follows: From the moment it ascends to the fire, which is the altar, the verse says of it, “it is”; it remains as it is, and must be maintained in its present state, namely, upon the altar!

The first Mishna explains with regard to which things this law was stated: Is it only with regard to the portions burned upon the altar, or does it also apply to blood and libations, so that if they ascended the altar while disqualified, the altar sanctified them and the sacrificial service of sprinkling or pouring the libation must be continued despite their disqualification?

The beginning of the Mishna presents Rabbi’s statement that the altar sanctifies and renders fit for sacrifice a disqualified item that was fit for it [had it not become disqualified]. Subsequently, Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel disagree as to what is “fit for it” and what is excluded from this category.

Mishna:

The altar

sanctifies

to become the altar’s bread, even a disqualified item that ascended upon it, and it may not be taken down.

However, the altar does not sanctify every disqualified item, but

what is fit for it

once it has been established as the portion belonging to the altar. [The Gemara explains that this excludes a handful that was not sanctified in a sacred vessel after the kemitza, for although the entire meal-offering had already been sanctified in a vessel, nevertheless, since this portion had not been established as belonging to 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 “fit for it”?

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Everything

that is

fit for the fire

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

if it ascended

it may not be taken down,

but an item placed upon the altar that is not intended for the fire is not included in this law. Rabbi Yehoshua’s reasoning is that the source of the law that the altar sanctifies disqualified items is the verse

that says

in the passage concerning the burnt offering [Leviticus 6],

“It is the burnt offering upon its fire,”

as it is, it shall remain from the moment it ascends to its fire. Therefore, we learn from this:

Just as a burnt offering is fit for the fire,

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

if it ascended

the altar, then

it may not be taken down,

even if it is disqualified,

so too every

item

that is fit for the fire, if it ascended

the altar, then

it may not be taken down.

This excludes disqualified blood and disqualified libations, which are not fit for the fire.

Rabban Gamliel says:

The law does not include only an item fit for the fire; rather,

every item that is fit

to be placed and to be

for the altar

even blood and libations has the law that if it ascended, it may not be taken down. The only thing excluded by Rabbi’s statement, “The altar sanctifies what is fit for it,” is something that was never established as belonging to the altar at all—namely, a handful that was not sanctified in a vessel.

Rabban Gamliel’s reasoning is based on what

is stated

in this verse,

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

and this is how it is expounded:

Just as a burnt offering is fit for the altar,

whether through the sprinkling of its blood or through its burning, its law is that

if it ascended—

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

The Mishna explains:

There is no

difference

between the statements of Rabban Gamliel and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua except

with regard to the law of

blood and libations alone: Rabban Gamliel says they may not be taken down, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua says they may be taken down,

as explained.

With regard to disqualified libations that ascended the altar, Rabbi Shimon holds that a distinction must be made between libations that accompany an offering [because the offering requires libations to be brought with it], in which case the law follows Rabbi Yehoshua, that the altar sanctifies only the offering and not the libations, and libations brought independently, such as when one vows to bring libations alone, in which case the law follows Rabban Gamliel: if the libations ascended the altar, they became sanctified and may not be taken down:

Rabbi Shimon says:

Libations brought independently, if they became disqualified and ascended the altar, may not be taken down. But libations brought with an offering—whether

the offering was fit and

the

libations

were

disqualified

on their own, such as because 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, since when the offering becomes disqualified the status of sacrificial offering is removed from them,

even

if

both this and that

the offering and the libations were

disqualified—the offering

itself, if it ascended the altar,

may not be taken down, whereas the libations

that ascended

may be taken down,

for the altar sanctifies disqualified items only when they come on account of themselves, not when they come on account of other items. Rabbi Shimon’s reasoning is explained in the Gemara.

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