Zevachim 83b — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

And the Gemara infers: specifically

what is fit for it, not

but

what is not fit for it, not

does it sanctify!

And we object:

To exclude what?

What is the thing that is not fit for the altar that the tan­nay came 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 vessel

of service after their taking of the handful, for they are not fit for the altar, since they were not established through the sanctification of a vessel to be the portion of the Most High.

Ravina challenged it: What is different

a handful that was not sanctified in a vessel of service after its taking of the handful

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

whose law is that there is no misuse of them until the blood is sprinkled, because they have not yet been established for the altar and are not called holy things of the Lord, and the sprinkling of their blood establishes them as the portion of the Most High, nevertheless, in the situation that

he placed them

upon the altar

before the sprinkling of their blood, they shall not go down

from the altar, because they

became the bread of the altar;

if so, how is the handful that was not sanctified in a vessel different, whose law is that it must go down?

And we answer:

Those

sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity do not

lack an act in their bodies

to render them fit to go up upon the altar; rather, their disqualification comes because of another matter, namely, the absence of the sprinkling of the blood. Therefore, if they went up, they do not go down. But unlike them,

these

handfuls that were not sanctified in a vessel

lack an act in their bodies

to render them fit for the altar, for they themselves have not yet been sanctified in a vessel. Therefore, even if one went up, it goes down.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yehoshua says, everything fit for the fires

if it went up, it does not go down; and Rabban Gamliel says, everything fit for the altar, if it went up, it does not go down.

And we object to Rabban Gamliel’s view:

And Rabban Gamliel too,

how does he include the blood and the libations?

Is it not written “

It is the

burnt offering upon its fire,”

which implies a thing fit for the fires alone!? And we answer: Rabban Gamliel holds that

that

which is stated, “upon its fire,” teaches that it is necessary

to return

fit sacrificial portions that

fall off

and leave the fire before they have been eaten and burned to their measure,

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 already had.

And we object:

And the other one,

Rabbi Yehoshua, who expounds from “upon its fire” that the altar sanctifies what is fit for the fires—this law that it is necessary

to return those that fell off, from where does he derive it?

And we answer: Rabbi Yehoshua

derives it

for this law

from

what is stated there later in the section, “And he shall remove the ashes [from] the burnt offering”

“which the fire shall consume,”

which are superfluous words and are expounded as follows: “which the fire shall consume”—if they fall off the altar, return them and place them again upon the altar.

And we object:

And the other one,

Rabban Gamliel, who learns the law of “returning those that fell off” from “upon its fire,” what does he expound from the extra words “which the fire shall consume”?

And we answer:

That is needed for him

to teach us an additional detail in the law of “returning those that fell off,” namely,

for the consumed portions of a burnt offering

alone

you return, but you do not return the consumed portions of incense,

even if it fell off before it was completely consumed. And as

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

It is stated in the verse

“which the fire shall consume—the burnt offering upon the altar.”

This comes to teach us:

the consumed portions of a burnt offering you return, but you do not return the consumed portions of incense.

And we challenge:

And the other one,

Rabbi Yehoshua, who expounds this verse for the principal law of returning the scattered pieces, from where does he learn this detail that the consumed portions of incense are not returned?

And we answer: Rabbi Yehoshua holds that this law

is not learned automatically,

for it was stated in the verse only that

the consumed portions of an olah are returned,

and automatically we know that this applies only to an olah and not to incense.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabban Gamaliel says: Whatever is fit

for the altar, if it went up, it does not come down, as it is stated: “It is the olah upon its fire, upon the altar.” Just as an olah that is fit for the altar, if it went up, does not come down, so too, anything that is fit for the altar, if it went up, does not come down.

And we challenge:

And Rabbi Yehoshua too,

why does he hold that only something fit for the fire does not come down?

Is it not written, “altar,”

the meaning of which is everything fit for the altar?!

And we answer: Rabbi Yehoshua holds that

that

which is stated, “altar,”

is needed for him

to explain

for what reason did the Merciful One say

this law of “upon its fire,” that if it went up, it does not come down: because

everything fit for its fire, the altar sanctifies

it when it goes up upon it.

Altar

when it goes up upon it.

And we challenge:

And the other one,

Rabban Gamaliel, who learns from the word “altar” the law of everything fit for the altar—from where does he expound this reason, that it is because the altar sanctified it?

And we answer:

Another “altar” is written:

“Whatever touches the altar shall become sanctified” [Exodus 29]. And from there Rabban Gamaliel learned that the reason for the law is that the altar sanctifies disqualified offerings that went up upon it.

And we challenge:

And the other one,

for Rabbi Yehoshua, who expounds the reason for the law from “altar” stated in the passage of the olah, why did the Torah need to write a second time, “Whatever touches the altar shall become sanctified”?

And we answer: We need both verses:

one

to teach us this law, that disqualified offerings that went up do not come down,

where it had

for the offering that became disqualified

a time of fitness

for burning before it became disqualified: at first it was fit for burning and afterward became disqualified, such as one disqualified because of overnight, or because it went outside the Temple courtyard, or because it became impure.

And one

verse is needed to teach us this law

where it had not had a time of fitness

at any time, such as when it was slaughtered with an intention of disqualification, in order to eat it beyond its time or beyond its place, so that it was never fit for burning; nevertheless, if it went up, it does not come down.

And we challenge:

And the other one,

Rabban Gamaliel, who needed the verse “Whatever touches the altar shall become sanctified” to learn from it this reason, that the altar sanctifies what went up upon it—from where does he learn the law that if it went up, it does not come down in every case, whether it had a time of fitness or whether it did not have a time of fitness?

And we answer: Rabban Gamaliel holds that the two are one matter, and two verses are not needed for this, because

since they are disqualified and the Merciful One included them

so that if they went up they do not come down, because the altar sanctified them, then

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

and the law of both is that if they went up, they do not come down.

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 come down and the libations come down.

It was taught

in a beraita to explain the reason of Rabbi Shimon:

Rabbi Shimon says:

From the word

“olah”

stated in this verse, which indicates the law that if they went up they do not come down, we learned:

Just as an olah comes because of itself,

for it is brought because of itself and its bringing is not dependent upon another offering, the law was stated with regard to it that if it went up, it does not come down,

so too, everything that comes because of itself

was included in this law;

the libations that come because of an offering

and not because of themselves are excluded and were excluded from this law. Therefore, if they went up upon the altar while disqualified, they come down.

Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: Since it is stated, “Whatever touches the altar shall become sanctified,”

[Exodus 29]

I might understand, both

a thing that is

fit

for the altar

and both

a thing

that is not fit

for it are included in this law, that the altar sanctifies it; therefore,

the verse states

there nearby: “And this is what you shall make upon the altar:

lambs

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

Just as lambs are fit, so too, every

thing

fit

is included in this law, that the altar sanctifies it, to exclude a thing that is not fit, which the altar does not sanctify.

Rabbi Akiva says:

This matter is learned from the word

“olah”

stated there, to teach you:

Just as an olah is fit, so too, every

thing

fit.

And we challenge:

What is the difference between them?

What is the difference between Rabbi Yose the Galilean, who expounded this from the word “lambs,” and Rabbi Akiva, who expounded this from the word “olah”?!

And we answer:

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: A disqualified bird olah

that went up upon the altar

is the difference between them; one master,

Rabbi Akiva,

brings it

under the law that the altar sanctifies disqualified offerings

from “olah,”

and if so, the same law applies to a bird olah;

and one master,

Rabbi Yose the Galilean,

brings it

under this law

from “lambs,”

which are a species of animal, but a bird is not included in this. And we challenge:

And according to the one who brings it

under this law

from “lambs,”

namely, Rabbi Yose the Galilean,

is it not written, “olah,”

and why does he not include a bird in this as well?

And we answer: What was written, “olah,” did not come to include a thing fit like an olah. Rather, its meaning is that

if

there

had been written “lambs”

alone

and

there

had not been written “olah,” we would have said even

if the offering became disqualified

while alive,

its law would also be that if it went up after its slaughter, it would not come down. Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote “olah”

to teach you that this law is stated specifically when it became disqualified from the time when it was fit to go up upon the altar, that is, after slaughter.

And we challenge:

And according to the one who brings it

under the law that the altar sanctifies disqualified offerings

from “olah,”

namely, Rabbi Akiva,

is it not written, “lambs,”

and why does he not exclude a bird through this?

And we answer: The word “lambs” did not come to exclude a bird; rather, it was necessary to be written, because

if

there

had been written “olah”

alone

and

there

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

is included in this law [because “olah” implies everything that goes up]. Therefore,

the Merciful One wrote “lambs”

specifically, and not meal-offerings.

And we challenge:

What difference is there between these Tannaitic authorities,

namely, Rabbi Yose the Galilean and Rabbi Akiva, who learned the law that the altar sanctifies disqualified offerings from the verse “Whatever touches the altar shall become sanctified,”

and

between

these Tannaitic authorities of the Mishna,

namely, Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamaliel, who learned this from the verse “It is the olah upon its fire, upon the altar”?! And we answer:

Rav Pappa said: Fistfuls that were sanctified in a vessel

after their removal by the fistful and became disqualified

are the difference between them; according to the authorities of our Mishna,

the law of these fistfuls is that if they went up, they

do not come down,

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

According to the authorities of the beraita,

who learned this from “Whatever touches the altar shall become sanctified,” the law of these fistfuls is that if they went up, they

come down.

For this law requires specifically “olah,” but a meal-offering comes down.

Reish Lakish said:

A meal-offering that comes by itself,

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

according to all of them,

namely, all the authorities of our Mishna, its law is that it

does not come down,

for they included in this law everything fit for the fire, and even Rabbi Shimon includes everything that comes because of itself, that if it went up, it does not come down, and he excluded only those that come because of the offering. But

according to Rabbi Yose the Galilean and Rabbi Akiva—