Zevachim 83b (פג:) — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

The Gemara infers: Specifically,

what is fit for it, it does not

sanctify; but

what is not fit for it, it does not

sanctify!

And we raise an objection:

To exclude what?

What is the item unfit for the altar that the tanna comes to exclude, even according to Rabban Gamliel, who holds that the altar also sanctifies blood and libations!?

And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: To exclude handfuls that were not sanctified in a sacred vessel

after their kemitza, for they are not fit for the altar, since they were not established through the sanctification of a vessel as belonging to the Most High.

Ravina challenged this: What is different

a handful that was not sanctified in a sacred vessel after it was taken

from the case of Ulla, for Ulla said: The sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity

whose law is that there is no misuse of consecrated property in them until the blood is sprinkled, because they have not yet been established as belonging to the altar and are not called the sacred offerings of the Lord, and the sprinkling of their blood establishes them as belonging to the Most High—nevertheless, in a situation where

he placed them

upon the altar

before their blood was sprinkled, they may not be taken down

from the altar, because

they became the altar’s bread?

If so, in what way is a handful that was not sanctified in a vessel different, such that its law is that it must be taken down!?

And we answer:

Those

sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity

do not lack an act within their own bodies

to render them fit to ascend the altar. Rather, their disqualification results from another matter, namely, the absence of the sprinkling of the blood. Therefore, if they ascended, they may not be taken down. In contrast,

these

handfuls that were not sanctified in a vessel

lack an act within their own bodies

to render them fit for the altar, since they themselves have not yet been sanctified in a vessel. Therefore, even if one ascended, he must take it down.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehoshua says: Everything fit for the fire,

if it ascended, may not be taken down; and Rabban Gamliel says: Everything fit for the altar, if it ascended, may not be taken down.

And we raise an objection to Rabban Gamliel’s opinion:

And Rabban Gamliel too,

how does he include blood and libations?

Is it not written “

It is the

burnt offering upon its fire,”

which indicates an item fit only for the fire!? And we answer: Rabban Gamliel holds that

that

which is stated, “upon its fire,” teaches that one must

return

fit sacrificial portions that

fall away

and leave the fire before they have been consumed and burned to the required extent;

that is what it comes to teach,

and this is the meaning of the verse: “upon its fire”—he shall return it to the fire that it had previously occupied.

And we raise an objection:

And the other one,

Rabbi Yehoshua, who derives from “upon its fire” that the altar sanctifies what is fit for the fire—from where does he derive

that portions that fall away must be returned?

And we answer: Rabbi Yehoshua

derives

this law

from

what is stated later in the passage: “And he shall remove the ashes

that the fire consumes

from the burnt offering.” These are superfluous words, and they are expounded as follows: “That the fire consumes”—if they fall away from the altar, return them and place them again upon the altar.

And we raise an objection:

And the other one,

Rabban Gamliel, who derives the law of returning portions that fall away from “upon its fire,” what does he derive from the superfluous phrase “that the fire consumes”?

And we answer:

That phrase is needed for him

to teach us an additional detail in the law of returning portions that fall away, namely:

Only the remnants of a burnt offering

you return,

but you do not return the remnants of incense,

even if it fell away before being completely consumed. This is like

Rabbi Hanina bar Minyomi taught in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:

It is stated in the verse,

“That the fire consumes the burnt offering upon the altar.”

This comes to teach us:

You return the remnants of a burnt offering, but you do not return the remnants of incense.

And we raise an objection:

But the other one,

Rabbi Yehoshua, who expounds this verse as the source of the fundamental law of “returning that which has fallen off,” from where does he derive this specific law that the partially burned remains of incense are not returned?

And we answer: Rabbi Yehoshua holds that this law

is understood automatically,

since the verse states only:

“the partially burned remains of an elevation-offering are returned,”

and we therefore know automatically that this applies only to an elevation-offering and not to incense.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabban Gamliel says: Anything fit

for the altar, if it ascended, does not descend, as it is stated: “It is the elevation-offering upon its fire on the altar.” Just as an elevation-offering that is fit for the altar, if it ascended, does not descend, so too, anything that is fit for the altar, if it ascended, does not descend.

And we raise an objection:

And Rabbi Yehoshua as well,

why does he hold that only something fit for the fires does not descend?

Is it not written “altar,”

which implies anything fit for the altar!?

And we answer: Rabbi Yehoshua holds that

that

which is stated, “altar,”

is needed by him

to explain

for what reason did the Merciful One say

that this law of “upon its fire,” namely, that if it ascended it does not descend, applies? It is because

anything fit for its fire is sanctified

by the

altar

when it ascends upon it.

And we raise an objection:

But the other one,

Rabban Gamliel, who derives from the word “altar” the law concerning anything fit for the altar, from where does he derive this reason—that the law applies because the altar sanctified it?

And we answer:

Another “altar” is written:

“Everything that touches the altar shall become sanctified” [Exodus 29]. From there Rabban Gamliel learned that the reason for the law is that the altar sanctifies disqualified offerings that have ascended upon it.

And we raise an objection:

But the other one,

Rabbi Yehoshua, who derives the reason for the law from “altar,” which is stated in the passage concerning the elevation-offering, why was it necessary for the Torah to write additionally, “Everything that touches the altar shall become sanctified”?

And we answer: We need both verses:

One

teaches us this law, that disqualified offerings that ascended do not descend,

in a case where it had

for the offering that became disqualified

a time of fitness

for burning before it became disqualified—that is, it was initially fit for burning and afterward became disqualified, as in the case of disqualification due to remaining overnight, going outside the Temple courtyard, or impurity.

And one

verse is needed to teach us this law

in a case where it never had a time of fitness

at all, as in the case where it was slaughtered with an invalid intention, intending to eat it beyond its appointed time or outside its designated place. It was never fit for burning, and nevertheless, if it ascended, it does not descend.

And we raise an objection:

But the other one,

Rabban Gamliel, who requires the verse “Everything that touches the altar shall become sanctified” in order to derive from it this reason—that the altar sanctifies what ascends upon it—from where does he learn the law that if it ascended it does not descend in every case, whether it had a time of fitness or whether it did not have a time of fitness?

And we answer: Rabban Gamliel holds that the two cases are one matter and do not require two verses, because

since they are disqualified offerings and the Merciful One included them

in the law that if they ascended they do not descend, because the altar sanctified them,

it makes no difference whether it had a time of fitness or whether it did not have a time of fitness,

and the law in both cases is that if they ascended, they do not descend.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon says: The offering is valid

and the libations are disqualified; the libations are valid and the offering is disqualified; even if both this and that are disqualified, the offering does not descend and the libations descend.

It was taught

in a beraita to explain the reason for Rabbi Shimon’s opinion:

Rabbi Shimon says:

From the word

“elevation-offering”

stated in this verse, which indicates the law that if they ascended they do not descend, we learn:

Just as an elevation-offering comes on account of itself,

meaning that it is offered because of itself and its offering is not dependent upon another offering, and the law stated with regard to it is that if it ascended it does not descend,

so too, everything that comes on account of itself

is included in this law;

the libations that come on account of an offering

and not on account of themselves are excluded from this law. Therefore, if they ascended upon the altar in a disqualified state, they descend.

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: Since it is stated, “Everything that touches the altar shall become sanctified,” [Exodus 29]

[Exodus 29],

I might understand, both

something that is

fit

for the altar

and

something

unfit

for it to be included in this law, that the altar sanctifies it. Therefore,

the verse states

there, immediately afterward: “And this is what you shall offer upon the altar:

lambs

in their first year, two each day, continually,” teaching you:

Just as lambs are fit, so too, anything

that is

fit

is included in this law, that the altar sanctifies it, excluding something unfit, which the altar does not sanctify.

Rabbi Akiva says:

This matter is learned from the word

“elevation-offering”

stated there, teaching you:

Just as an elevation-offering is fit, so too, anything

that is

fit.

And we raise an objection:

What is the difference between them?

What is the difference between Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who derives this from the word “lambs,” and Rabbi Akiva, who derives it from the word “elevation-offering”?

And we answer:

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: A disqualified bird elevation-offering

that ascended upon the altar

is the difference between them. One master,

Rabbi Akiva,

derives it

for the law that the altar sanctifies disqualified offerings

from “elevation-offering,”

and therefore the same law applies to a bird elevation-offering;

and one master,

Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

derives it

for this law

from “lambs,”

which are a species of animal, but a bird is not included in this category. And we raise an objection:

And according to the one who derives it

for this law

from “lambs,”

namely, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili,

isn’t “elevation-offering” written,

and why should he not include a bird as well?

And we answer: The writing of “elevation-offering” does not come to include something fit as an elevation-offering. Rather, its meaning is as follows:

If

there

had been written “lambs”

alone,

and

there

had not been written “elevation-offering,” we would have said that even

if the offering became disqualified

while alive,

its law would likewise be that if it ascended after its slaughter it would not descend. Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote “elevation-offering”

to teach you that this law applies specifically when it became disqualified from the time it was fit to ascend upon the altar, namely, after slaughter.

And we raise an objection:

And according to the one who derives it

for the law that the altar sanctifies disqualified offerings

from “elevation-offering,”

namely, Rabbi Akiva,

isn’t “lambs” written,

and why should he not exclude a bird through this word?

And we answer: The word “lambs” does not come to exclude a bird. Rather, it was necessary to write it, because

if

there

had been written “elevation-offering”

alone,

and

there

had not been written “lambs,” we would have said that even a disqualified meal-offering

is included in this law [because “elevation-offering” implies anything that ascends]. Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote “lambs,”

specifically, and not meal-offerings.

And we raise an objection:

What difference is there between these tanna’im,

namely, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva, who learned the law that the altar sanctifies disqualified offerings from the verse “Everything that touches the altar shall become sanctified,”

and

between

these tanna’im of the Mishna,

namely, Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel, who learned it from the verse “It is the elevation-offering upon its fire on the altar”? And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: Handfuls that were sanctified in a vessel

after their removal and then became disqualified

are the difference between them. According to the tanna’im of our Mishna,

the law regarding these handfuls is that if they ascended they

do not descend,

since they learned this law from the verse “upon its fire on the altar,” and these handfuls are fit for the altar and fit for the fire.

According to the tanna’im of the beraita,

who learned it from “Everything that touches the altar shall become sanctified,” the law regarding these handfuls is that if they ascended they

descend.

For this law, specifically an “elevation-offering” is required, whereas a meal-offering descends.

Reish Lakish said:

A meal-offering that comes on its own

and not as an addition to another offering, such as when one vows to bring a libation meal-offering without an accompanying offering,

according to all of them,

namely, all the tanna’im of our Mishna, its law is that it

does not descend,

since they included in this law everything fit for the fires; and Rabbi Shimon likewise includes everything that comes on account of itself, saying that if it ascended it does not descend, and he excluded only those that come on account of the offering. Whereas

according to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva—