Zevachim 84a (פד.) — the Talmud in English

Let it be taken down:

for they included only the olah and those analogous to it, namely, an animal or bird, but not a meal-offering.

A meal-offering that comes with

and on account of

the offering, according to Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua, it is not taken down.

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

according to all

the tanna’im of the beraita, namely, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Shimon—

it is taken down.

Libations that come independently,

such as when one vows to bring wine without an offering,

according to all

namely, Rabbi Yosei, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yehoshua,

they are taken down.

According to Rabbi Yehoshua, because they are not fit for the fires; and according to Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Akiva, because they are not of the type of bird or animal. But

according to Rabban Gamliel,

who includes everything fit for the altar,

and Rabbi Shimon,

who excluded only that which comes on account of the offering, these

are not taken down.

Libations that come with the offering, according to all,

namely, Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Akiva, who included only the type of bird or animal; Rabbi Yehoshua, who excludes something unfit for the fires; and Rabbi Shimon, who excludes everything that comes with the offering—these

are taken down. But

according to

Rabban Gamliel alone, they are not taken down,

because they are something fit for the altar.

And we raise an objection: What did Resh Lakish innovate by this? It is

obvious

that according to Rabbi Yehoshua only something fit for the fires is included in this law; according to Rabban Gamliel, everything fit for the altar; according to Rabbi Shimon, everything that comes on its own account; while according to Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Akiva, a meal-offering was not included in this law at all!

And we answer: Resh Lakish needed to teach us this very law, that

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

to teach us,

in accordance with Rava, for Rava said: A person may vow to bring a meal-offering of libations

without an offering

every day,

even though the Torah mentions a meal-offering of libations only together with an offering, and a voluntary meal-offering is specified only as one of the five meal-offerings mentioned in the Torah—this refers to one who vows to bring an unspecified meal-offering—but nevertheless, one may explicitly vow to bring a meal-offering of libations by itself.

And we raise an objection:

Let him teach us

Resh Lakish this law explicitly,

in accordance with Rava;

why did he need to elaborate with all these laws for the sake of this point?

And we answer: The law of

libations that come with the offering was necessary for him,

to teach Resh Lakish that even in a case

where he brings them

the libations

on the following day or on another day,

and did not bring them on the day that he brought his offering, according to Rabbi Shimon they are taken down. 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 is stated concerning the offerings of the festival [Numbers 29], teaches us that one may bring them also

at night,

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

“their meal-offering and their libations”,

which is stated additionally there, teaches us that one may bring them also

on the following day,

and for this reason it might be said that

they are comparable to libations that come independently,

and are not dependent on the offering;

and

if so,

Rabbi Shimon concedes

in this matter

that they are not taken down. This teaches us that they are considered like libations that come with the offering, and if they ascended in a state of disqualification, they are taken down.

Mishna:

These

are the types of disqualified offerings concerning which it was stated that

if they ascended, they are not taken down:

One that remained overnight,

namely, sacrificial portions that became disqualified for burning because they remained overnight outside the altar, and nevertheless he brought them up; or blood that remained overnight and became disqualified for sprinkling, and he sprinkled it on the altar.

And one that went out,

namely, sacrificial portions, flesh, or blood that went outside the Temple courtyard and thereby became disqualified.

And one that became impure,

namely, sacrificial portions that became impure.

And

an offering

that was slaughtered

with an invalid intention, namely, that he intended to eat it or burn it

beyond its designated time

or

beyond its designated place.

And

an offering

whose blood was received by disqualified persons

for the Temple service, or

and sprinkled

the disqualified persons

its blood

on the altar, thereby preventing the burning of the sacrificial portions.

In all these cases, the law is that once they ascended, they are not taken down.

Rabbi Yehuda says:

An offering

that was slaughtered at night,

which is disqualified,

and an offering whose

blood

was spilled,

all

its blood

from the animal, and no blood remained for sprinkling,

and an offering whose

blood

went outside the curtains

and thereby became disqualified for sprinkling, with the result that the sacrificial portions cannot be burned—in any one of these three forms of disqualification, even

if it ascended, it must be taken down!

With regard to the other disqualifications listed above, Rabbi Yehuda concedes that if they ascended, they are not taken down.

Rabbi Shimon

disagrees and

says:

Even in these three cases

it is not taken down,

and his reason is that

Rabbi Shimon says: Any disqualification that occurred in the Sanctuary

whose disqualification occurred after it had entered the Temple courtyard,

the sacred status receives it

and renders it fit in the sense that if it ascended it is not taken down; but anything whose

disqualification did not occur in the Sanctuary,

rather, it became disqualified before entering the Temple courtyard,

the sacred status does not receive it,

and even if it ascended, it must be taken down. These three disqualifications occurred only after the offerings had entered the Temple courtyard, and their disqualification occurred in the Sanctuary; therefore, if they ascended, they are not taken down.

And these whose disqualification did not occur in the Sanctuary,

but rather, they became disqualified before entering the Temple courtyard:

an animal that had engaged in intercourse with a person, an animal that had been the object of such intercourse, an animal designated

that was designated and set aside for idolatry,

an animal worshipped

that was worshipped as idolatry,

a harlot’s fee

that was given to a prostitute,

an exchange

that was used to purchase this animal in exchange for a dog,

a mixed-breed animal

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

a tereifa

that was injured by a wound from which it could no longer live,

an animal delivered by caesarean section

whose birth took place by tearing open its mother’s side and removing it through there,

and animals with a blemish.

Rabbi Akiva deems animals with a blemish fit,

so that if they ascended, they are not taken down.

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

and take them down

from atop the altar

[and it is explained in the Gemara that he would push them with the back of his hand, rather than take them down in a disgraceful manner publicly].

With regard to all those we have mentioned, if they ascended they are not taken down,

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!

And all of them,

namely, animals with a blemish, which according to Rabbi Akiva, if they ascended they are not taken down, nevertheless, in a case

where they ascended alive to the top of the altar, they are taken down,

since the altar does not sanctify living animals.

A valid

olah

that ascended alive to the top of the altar must be taken down,

and he slaughters it below. However,

if he slaughtered it at the top of the altar,

he may not take it down; rather,

he flays

its hide

and dismembers it where it is,

atop the altar, and burns it there.

Gemara:

It was taught

in a beraita to explain the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon in our Mishna:

Rabbi Yehuda says:

It is stated in the verse from which we learned that the altar sanctifies disqualified offerings,

“This

is the law of the olah,

it is the olah”

[Leviticus 6].

These are three exclusions:

“This,” “it,” and “the olah,” which means the distinctive olah and not every olah. Through this we learned to exclude, although the altar does sanctify disqualified offerings,

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,

for in all these cases the law is

that if it ascended, it must be taken down. One should not say that, since it is stated, “Whatever touches the altar shall become sacred,” all disqualified offerings are included in this; therefore, the verse excluded these. Rabbi Yehuda excluded precisely these three because their disqualification occurred before the sprinkling of the blood.

Rabbi Shimon says:

Since this verse says

“olah”,

and we learned from it that if it ascended it is not taken down,

I know

from this

only a valid olah. From where do I include

in this law even an offering disqualified because

it was slaughtered at night, its blood was spilled, its blood went outside the curtains, it remained overnight, it went out, it became impure, it was slaughtered beyond its designated time or beyond its designated place, or its blood was received and sprinkled by disqualified persons,

and an offering disqualified because its blood-presentations that

were

intended to be

given below

the red line

were given above,

or

and the blood-presentations

that are given

above were given below,

or

the blood-presentations

that are given on the outer altar

outside

the Sanctuary

were given inside

the Sanctuary; or those given

inside were given outside, and

likewise,

a Paschal offering or a sin-offering that was slaughtered not for its sake

and became disqualified on account of this—

from where

do I know that in all these cases of disqualification as well, the law is that if they ascended they are not taken down?

The verse states: “The law of the olah”,

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 with regard to the one by which I included all these disqualified offerings,

might I include

also

the animal that engaged in intercourse with a person, the animal with which intercourse was engaged, the animal designated for idolatry, the animal worshipped as an idol, the payment to a prostitute, the exchange for a dog, an animal of mixed species, a torn animal, and one born by caesarean section,

so that with regard to these as well, if they went up, they would not come down?

The verse states: “This”!

This comes to exclude specifically this category, but not others!

And what did you see that led you to include these

mentioned initially, and to say with regard to them that even though they became disqualified, if they went up, they would not come down,

and to exclude

from the scope of this law

these

listed in the latter clause?