Zevachim 84a — the Talmud in English

Let it descend:

for they included only the olah and its equivalent, namely, a species of animal or bird, but not a meal-offering.

A meal-offering that comes with

and because of

the sacrifice, according to the words of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua, does not descend.

As was explained, it is included in “its fire” and “the altar.” But

according to the words of all

the tannaim of the beraita, namely, Rabbi Yose the Galilean, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Shimon—

it descends.

Libations that come independently

such as one who undertakes to bring wine without a sacrifice,

according to the words of all

namely, Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yehoshua,

they descend.

According to Rabbi Yehoshua, because they are not fit for the altar fires, and according to Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Akiva, because they are not of the species of bird or animal. But

according to Rabban Gamliel,

who includes every thing fit for the altar,

and Rabbi Shimon,

who excluded only that which comes because of the sacrifice, these

do not descend.

Libations that come with the sacrifice, according to the words of all,

namely, Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Akiva, who included only a species of bird or animal; Rabbi Yehoshua, who excludes something unfit for the altar fires; and Rabbi Shimon, who excludes everything that comes with the sacrifice—these

descend.

But

according to Rabban Gamliel alone, they do not descend

because they are something fit for the altar.

And we object: What did Resh Lakish innovate with this? It is

obvious

that according to Rabbi Yehoshua only something fit for the altar fires is included in this law; according to Rabban Gamliel, every thing fit for the altar; according to Rabbi Shimon, every thing that comes because of itself; and according to Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Akiva, a meal-offering was not included in this law at all!?

And we answer: This very law, that there is

a meal-offering that comes independently, was necessary for him

for Resh Lakish to teach us,

and it is like Rava, for Rava said: A person may undertake a meal-offering of libations

without a sacrifice

every day,

and although the Torah mentioned a meal-offering of libations only with a sacrifice—and a freewill meal-offering was specified only as one of the five meal-offerings mentioned in the Torah, that is, when one undertakes an unspecified meal-offering—nevertheless, he may explicitly undertake a meal-offering of libations by itself.

And we object:

Let him teach us

Resh Lakish this law explicitly

like Rava;

why did he have to lengthen the matter with all these laws for this purpose?

And we answer: The law of

libations that come with the sacrifice was necessary for him

for Resh Lakish to teach us that even in a case

where he brings them

the libations

on the next day and on another day,

and he did not offer them on the day on which he brought his sacrifice, according to Rabbi Shimon they descend. And Resh Lakish needed to innovate this, because

it might enter your mind to say:

since

the Master said, “Their meal-offering and their libations,”

which are stated concerning the festival sacrifices [Numbers 29], teaches us that he may bring them also

at night,

which is not the time for offering the sacrifice; and likewise

“their meal-offering and their libations,”

the additional expression stated there teaches us that he may bring them also

on the next day,

and for this reason it might be said that

they are equivalent to libations that come independently,

and are not dependent on the sacrifice;

and

if so,

Rabbi Shimon concedes

in this

that they do not descend; it teaches us

that they are considered libations that come with the sacrifice, and if they ascended while invalid, they descend.

Mishna:

These

are the types of invalid offerings concerning which this law was stated:

if they ascended, they do not descend:

That which remained overnight,

the sacrificial portions that became invalid for burning because they remained overnight outside the altar, and nevertheless he brought them up, or blood that remained overnight and became invalid for sprinkling, and he sprinkled it on the altar. And that which went out,

where the sacrificial portions, or the flesh, or the blood went outside the Temple courtyard and became invalid because of this.

And the impure,

where the sacrificial portions became impure.

And

a sacrifice

that was slaughtered

with an invalid thought, where he thought to eat it or burn it

beyond its time

or

beyond its place.

And

a sacrifice

whose blood was received by invalid persons

for the service, or

and they sprinkled

the invalid persons

its blood

on the altar, and because of this the burning of the sacrificial portions is prevented.

In all these cases, the law is that once they have ascended, they do not descend.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

A sacrifice

that was slaughtered at night,

which is invalid,

and

a sacrifice whose

all

of the animal’s

blood was spilled

and no blood remained for sprinkling,

and

likewise a sacrifice whose

blood went outside the curtains

and thereby became invalid for sprinkling,

and consequently the burning of the sacrificial portions is prevented—in any one of these three invalidations, even if it ascended, it shall descend!

But concerning the other invalidations listed above, Rabbi Yehuda concedes that if they ascended, they do not descend.

Rabbi Shimon disagrees and says:

Even in these three cases

it shall not descend, and his reason is that

Rabbi Shimon says: Anything whose invalidation occurred within the sacred domain

whose invalidation occurred after it entered the courtyard,

the sacred domain accepts it

and renders it fit concerning the law that if it ascended, it does not descend; and anything whose

invalidation did not occur within the sacred domain

but became invalid before it entered the courtyard,

the sacred domain does not accept it,

and even if it ascended, it descends. These three invalidations occurred only after they entered the courtyard, and their invalidation is within the sacred domain; therefore, if they ascended, they do not descend.

And these, whose invalidation did not occur within the sacred domain,

but became invalid before they entered the courtyard:

the animal that had intercourse with a person, and the animal used for intercourse, and the animal designated

that was designated and set apart for idolatry,

and the animal worshipped

that they worshipped as idolatry,

and the prostitute’s payment

that was given to a prostitute,

and the exchange

for which this animal was purchased in exchange for his dog,

and the mixed-breed animal

that was born from a he-goat and a ewe,

and the animal with a fatal wound

that was struck by a blow from which it could no longer live,

and the animal born by caesarean section

whose birth occurred by tearing open its mother’s side and taking it out through there,

and animals with blemishes.

Rabbi Akiva declares animals with blemishes fit,

that if they ascended, they do not descend.

Rabbi Hanina, deputy of the priests, says: My father would push away animals with blemishes

and bring them down

from upon the altar [and it is explained in the Gemara that he pushed them with the back of his hand and did not bring them down in a degrading manner publicly].

And concerning all those that we stated, if they ascended, they do not descend,

just as if they ascended they do not descend, so

if they descend

from the altar after having ascended again

they shall not ascend!

And all of them, that is, animals with blemishes, concerning which according to Rabbi Akiva, if they ascended they do not descend, nevertheless, in a case where they ascended alive to the top of the altar, they descend for the altar does not consecrate living animals. A fit olah

just as if they ascended they are not taken down, so

if they went down

from the altar after having ascended,

they may not ascend again!

shall descend if it ascended alive to the top of the altar,

and he shall slaughter it below. However,

if he slaughtered it on top of the altar,

he shall not

bring it down, but

he shall flay

its hide

and dismember it in its place

upon the top of the altar, and burn it there.

he may not take it down; rather,

he flays

its hide

and dismembers it where it is,

Gemara:

It was taught in a beraita to explain the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon in our Mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: It is stated in the verse from which we learned the law that the altar consecrates invalid offerings, “This is the law of the olah,

it is the olah”

[Leviticus 6].

These are three exclusions:

“this,” “it,” and “the olah,” whose meaning is the particular olah, and not every olah. Through this we learned to exclude that although the altar consecrates invalid offerings,

except

for these three invalid offerings:

the one slaughtered at night, the one whose blood was spilled, and the one whose blood went outside the curtains,

[Leviticus 6].

that if it ascended, it shall descend,

so that you should not say: Since it is stated, “Whatever touches the altar shall become consecrated,” all the invalid offerings are included in this. Therefore, the verse excluded them. And the reason Rabbi Yehuda excluded specifically these three is that their invalidation occurred before the sprinkling of the blood.

except

for these three forms of disqualification:

one that was slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled, and one whose blood went outside the curtains,

Rabbi Shimon says:

Since it is stated in this verse

“olah,”

and we learned from it that if it ascended, it shall not descend, I have only knowledge of this concerning a fit olah. From where do we include

for this law even one invalid because

it was slaughtered at night, its blood was spilled, its blood went outside the curtains, that which remained overnight, that which went out, the impure one, one slaughtered beyond its time and beyond its place, and one whose blood was received and sprinkled by invalid persons,

and the invalid offering resulting from the fact that the blood-gifts,

which

were designated to be

given below

the red line,

he gave above,

or

and

the gifts that are given

above, he gave below,

or

and the gifts

that are given on the outer altar

outside

the Sanctuary,

he gave inside

the Sanctuary, or those given

inside, he gave outside, and

likewise

a Passover-offering and a sin-offering that he slaughtered not for their sake

and thereby became invalid—

from where

do we know that in all these invalid offerings as well, the law is that if they ascended, they do not descend?

The Torah teaches, “The law of the olah,”

which is to remain upon its fire all night until morning and not descend;

the verse included

in this

one law for all that ascend

with regard to the altar, whether fit or invalid,

that if they ascended, they do not descend.

which is to remain upon its fire all night until morning and not be taken down;

the verse included

in this

one law for everything that ascends

with regard to the altar, whether valid or disqualified,

that if they ascended, they are not taken down.

And since I included all these disqualified ones,

might I include

also

the animal that copulated, the animal that was copulated with, the set-apart animal, the worshipped animal, the harlot’s payment, the exchange, the animal of mixed species, the torn animal, and the animal born by caesarean section,

so that also with these, if they ascended, they do not descend?

Scripture says, “this”!

And it comes to exclude specifically this and not others!

And what have you seen to include these

that were mentioned at the beginning, and to say regarding them that although they were disqualified, if they ascended, they do not descend,

and to exclude

from the scope of this law

these

that are taught in the conclusion?