Zevachim 84b (פד:) — the Talmud in English

Since

after the verse included

the verse

that there are disqualified offerings which, if they ascended, shall not descend, and

excluded

the verse that there are some which, even if they ascended, shall descend, logic dictates that

I include those whose disqualification occurred in the Sanctuary

and they were not disqualified before they entered the Temple courtyard; therefore, if they ascended, they shall not descend.

And I exclude

from this law

those whose disqualification did not occur in the Sanctuary

but who were disqualified even before they entered the Temple courtyard, as these, even if they ascended, shall descend.

And Rabbi Yehuda,

who does not expound the verse like Rabbi Shimon, since he does not include all offerings whose disqualification occurred in the Sanctuary,

derives it

the law concerning the other disqualified offerings that, if they ascended, shall not descend

from here: For what reason did they say that “one that remained overnight” is fit with regard to blood

so that if it ascended, it shall not descend? Because

one that remained overnight is fit with regard to the sacrificial portions,

so that if they ascended, they shall not descend. And just as the law of an offering that remained overnight applies in this manner with regard to the sacrificial portions, so too is the law with regard to blood.

And for what reason is

one that remained overnight with regard to the sacrificial portions fit

and, if it ascended, shall not descend? Because

one that remained overnight is fit with regard to the meat!

This refers to the meat of a shelamim offering, which is not disqualified by remaining overnight, as shelamim offerings are eaten for two days and the intervening night. And from this we also learn with regard to the disqualified sacrificial portions that, if they ascended, they shall not descend.

And similarly, with regard to the disqualification of

“that left”,

Rabbi Yehuda derives that, if it ascended, it shall not descend, because

that which left is fit on a private altar,

as its sacrificial service is always performed outside, and it is fit there. Therefore, even meat disqualified because it left, if it ascended, shall not descend. However, blood that left is entirely disqualified according to Rabbi Yehuda.

And similarly, the disqualification of

“impure”,

if it ascended, it shall not descend,

since it was permitted to

ascend to the Altar in

public sacrificial service

when the majority of the public became impure.

And similarly, an offering disqualified because it was slaughtered with the invalid intention of

outside its appointed time,

if it ascended, shall not descend,

since

the sprinkling of its blood is significant in that it can

effect atonement for its piggul status,

establishing the law of piggul for the offering; the law of piggul takes effect only after the blood has been sprinkled [with regard to liability for karet for eating it].

And even an offering disqualified because of an intention

outside its designated place

has the law that, if it ascended, it shall not descend,

since it was juxtaposed with outside its appointed time,

and we can derive this law from that one.

And similarly, an offering disqualified because

disqualified persons received

the sacrificial service or

sprinkled its blood,

has the law that, if it ascended, it shall not descend, only

in the case of those disqualified persons who are fit for public sacrificial service,

as those disqualified persons who received or sprinkled the blood are fit for the service of a communal offering brought in this state of disqualification, such as an offering brought in a state of communal impurity. The reason is as stated above with regard to the disqualification of “impure.”

And we raise an objection:

Can one derive the law of a matter

that is

not in its state of fitness,

such as sacrificial portions disqualified because they remained overnight or left, and derive for them this law that, if they ascended, they shall not descend,

from a matter that is in its state of fitness

and was not disqualified at all because it remained overnight or left? After all, sacrificial portions that left and are on a private altar, or sacrificial portions of shelamim that remained overnight, were not disqualified at all, whereas sacrificial portions that left the Temple or sacrificial portions of an olah and other offerings that remained overnight are disqualified!?

And we answer:

The tanna

who taught

“This is the law of the olah”, through which he

through which he

included

the law of all offerings that ascend, that if they ascended, they shall not descend,

relied upon it

to derive this law. And all the derivations stated here are merely rational bases for distinguishing between those disqualified offerings whose law is that they shall not descend and those disqualified offerings that were excluded from this law [by the words “this,” “it,” and “the olah”], whose law is that if they ascended, they shall descend. That is, since we find a certain advantage in these disqualified offerings, in that they are fit in another place, it is therefore reasonable to include them with regard to this law, that if they ascended, they shall not descend.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who slaughters an animal at night inside

the Temple courtyard

and raises

it

outside is liable

for raising an offering outside, even according to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that an animal slaughtered at night, if it ascended, shall descend. Rabbi Yoḥanan teaches here that although one is liable for raising an offering outside only when he raises something fit to be accepted inside, or at least something subject to the law that, if it ascended, it shall not descend, whereas according to Rabbi Yehuda an animal slaughtered at night, if it ascended, shall descend, nevertheless one is liable for it on account of raising an offering outside.