Zevachim 85a — the Talmud in English

And the reason is that it stands to reason that

this should not be

less

than one who slaughters outside and offers outside

for which he is liable for its slaughter and for its offering, even though it is not fit to be offered inside, since it was slaughtered outside [that is, one must distinguish between a case in which it was fit for offering inside and was disqualified, in which case there is no liability for offering it outside, and a case in which it was never fit for offering inside, in which case there is liability; and the same applies to one slaughtered at night, since it was never fit for offering inside, there is liability for offering it outside].

Rav Hiyya bar Avin raised an objection

to Rabbi Yohanan’s words: We learned in the Mishna,

one who slaughters a bird

of consecrated animals

inside and offers

it afterward

outside is exempt

for offering it, because he offered something that is not accepted inside, since a slaughtered bird is not offered, but only one whose neck was pinched. But if he

slaughtered

the bird

outside and offers

it

outside, he is liable

both for its slaughter, because the Torah extended the liability to everything slaughtered outside, and for its offering, because the Torah extended the liability to offering everything slaughtered, just as he is liable for their slaughter.

And according to Rabbi Yohanan, why is one exempt for offering a bird that he slaughtered inside?

Let us say that this offering is not

less than

one who slaughters and offers outside!?

For even a bird slaughtered inside was never fit for offering inside, since its neck was not pinched!

The Gemara says: Indeed,

it is a teyuvta

against Rabbi Yohanan.

If you wish, say:

It is possible to reconcile Rabbi Yohanan’s words:

The slaughter of the bird inside

is inferior, for this is not considered “slaughter,” but rather

he killed it

since slaughtering a bird inside is not applicable at all, neither with unconsecrated animals nor with consecrated animals, whereas the slaughter of an animal at night is considered slaughter with unconsecrated animals, and therefore, with regard to consecrated animals, it is called “slaughter that is disqualified.”

Ulla said: The fats of lesser consecrated animals that he placed

on the altar

before the sprinkling of their blood

once they rose

do not descend,

and even though they may not be placed until after the sprinkling of the blood, nevertheless, once they rose,

they became the altar’s bread

and therefore they do not descend.

Rabbi Zeira said: We too have learned

this in our Mishna: And these are those that, if they rose, do not descend, etc., “those whose blood was spilled and whose blood went outside the curtains,”

and whose blood went outside the curtains,

and from now

and what is there

when the blood was spilled,

that if he comes to sprinkle

the blood after he placed the fats,

he has no

blood

to sprinkle,

nevertheless

you said

that

if they rose they do not descend; here,

when he placed the fats before the sprinkling,

that if he comes to sprinkle

the blood

he sprinkles,

for the blood exists,

all the more so

that they do not descend.

The Gemara rejects this:

Interpret it

and explain the Mishna as referring

to most sacred offerings

whose bodily sanctity [for offering them] exists upon them even before the sprinkling, and therefore, if they rose, they do not descend; but in fact, the fats of lesser consecrated animals, which are not sanctified with bodily sanctity [with regard to offering them] until after the sprinkling of the blood, if they rose, they descend. And we raise an objection:

But the Paschal offering is a lesser consecrated animal,

and it too is taught in the beraita among those that, if they rose, do not descend, for it is stated in the beraita: “The Paschal offering and the sin offering that he slaughtered not for their sake, if they rose, they do not descend” [and the Gemara understands that it is included even with regard to the other disqualifications listed by the beraita at the beginning]. If so, it is evident that even the fats of lesser consecrated animals that rose when the blood was spilled do not descend!?

And we answer:

Interpret it as referring to [offerings slaughtered] not for their sake,

not that the beraita taught the law of the Paschal offering that rose and does not descend, but rather a Paschal offering that was disqualified because he slaughtered it not for its sake, and not a case in which its blood was spilled; since it is a lesser consecrated animal, its law in this matter is that if it rose, it descends.

The Gemara brings another proof for Ulla’s law:

We learned

in our Mishna:

And all of them

that are valid

which rose

while they were

alive with regard to the altar, descend.

This implies that specifically if they rose alive,

but

if they rose

slaughtered, they do not descend.

Is it not so

that the Mishna deals with all consecrated offerings,

it being no different whether most sacred offerings or whether lesser consecrated offerings,

for “all of them” was stated? And one cannot explain that this means all the disqualified offerings mentioned above, since these disqualifications can apply only after slaughter and not while alive. Now, what novelty has the Mishna taught us by saying that if they are slaughtered they do not descend? It is obvious that a valid offering whose blood was sprinkled and which rose upon the altar does not descend. Rather, necessarily, the Mishna deals with a case in which these valid offerings rose before the sprinkling of their blood; and this is in accordance with Ulla’s words, that even though their blood was not sprinkled, if they rose they do not descend!

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

do not infer from here that in the case of slaughtered offerings they all do not descend, including lesser consecrated offerings; rather, infer as follows:

but slaughtered offerings

that rose—

some of them descend,

namely, lesser consecrated offerings;

some of them do not descend,

namely, most sacred offerings.

And we raise an objection:

But it teaches “all of them,”

in the Mishna; and was this not stated also with regard to the inference we made, “but slaughtered offerings do not descend,” to indicate that all of them are included in this law?

And we answer: What the Mishna stated,

“all of them,”

means

the living

alone, for all the living ones that rose descend; and it included all of them in the Mishna only with regard to this, but the law of the slaughtered offerings that you inferred does not apply to all of them, but only to most sacred offerings.

And we raise an objection: The law that living ones that rose descend is

obvious,

for since they return and rise after slaughter and are valid, they must descend, and the Mishna should not have taught us this law at all; necessarily, the essential novelty here concerns what we inferred regarding the law of slaughtered offerings, and if so, the emphasis “and all of them” should also apply to this matter!?

And we answer:

In fact,

what the Mishna stated, “and all of them,” means the living ones,

and

here it is speaking of consecrated animals that developed a blemish

in the membrane of the eye, and

the Mishna stated this law, that if they rose they descend,

in accordance with Rabbi Akiva, who said

that blemished animals,

if they rose they do not descend,

and this is with regard to this blemish, which is in the membrane of the eye, to teach that they are disqualified while alive and that if they rose they descend. And although the law with all disqualified offerings is that just as if they rise they do not descend, so too if they descend they do not rise, nevertheless, if they rose while alive they descend, because the altar does not sanctify disqualified offerings.

And we raise an objection:

By what did you establish

these words of the Mishna

as referring to disqualified offerings

that rose while alive?

Say the latter clause: And similarly, an olah that rose alive to the top of the altar shall descend;

but if he

slaughtered it

already

at the top of the altar, he shall flay and cut it up

there,

and if

it is an

invalid olah,

can it be that

it is subject to flaying and cutting up?

For

“you shall place it” [

Leviticus 1]

the Merciful One said,

and we learn from this:

it—

a valid one, and not an invalid one!

If it became disqualified before he flayed it, he burns it in the Temple courtyard; and if so, this one too, which already rose upon the altar, although the altar sanctified it and its law is that it does not descend, nevertheless, it does not require flaying and cutting up!? And we answer:

The latter clause

here

we have arrived at

an

valid

olah, and this is what the Mishna said: And similarly, a valid living olah that rose to the top of the altar shall descend, etc.

And what does it teach us

in this? Since it is valid, it is obvious that it shall descend, for it returns and rises after slaughter!? Rather, the novelty is

that there is flaying and cutting up at the top of the altar

even in the case of a valid olah; and when he slaughtered it there, he need not bring it down and flay it below [even though he brings it up again afterward], but he flays it at the top of the altar.

And we raise an objection:

But according to the one who says that there is no flaying and cutting up at the top of the altar [

in the case of a valid olah], who holds that since he can bring it back to the top of the altar after flaying it below, he should not flay it above, since this is not proper conduct,

what can be said?

And how shall we establish the words of the Mishna? For according to him, the Mishna can be established neither with a valid olah, whose flaying is to be done below, nor with an invalid one, which does not require flaying at all!?

And we answer:

Here, with what are we dealing? With a case in which it had

for this offering

a time of fitness

for flaying: it rose alive to the top of the altar while it was valid,

and became disqualified

after he slaughtered it there and sprinkled its blood,

and

even though an invalid olah is not subject to flaying and cutting up, nevertheless, in this case, in which it became disqualified after the sprinkling, he flays it, for our Mishna is in accordance with the words of

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon,

who holds that in this case an invalid olah is also subject to flaying and cutting up,

for he said: Since the blood was sprinkled and the flesh was accepted for one hour, he shall flay it, and its hide

is given

to the priests

and is not burned with it; and since, even if it were below, it would be subject to flaying and cutting up, the same law applies when he slaughtered it at the top of the altar, its blood was sprinkled, and it became disqualified: its hide is subject to flaying and is not burned with it [and in this all agree that the flaying of an invalid olah is performed at the top of the altar and not below].

And we object:

But if so,

what

does it teach

in the beraita concerning an olah that ascended alive to the altar and he slaughtered it: “he should flay and dismember it in its place,”

how does he act? He lowers the innards below and washes them

so that they will be burned when they are clean; and if the beraita is dealing with an invalid olah,

why do I need

all this] for once he lowers it, he no longer brings it up!?

And we answer:

What shall we do? Shall we offer them with their excrement

? For the verse has already said concerning a repulsive offering [Malachi 1]

“Offer it now to your governor”?!

to the official and ruler over you. That is, offer that repulsive offering to him.

“Will he accept you or show you favor”?!

by the giving of this offering. And if so, it is obvious that they may not be burned without washing, for they are repulsive.

And the objector explains his objection:

This is what we are saying:

since they are not brought back for burning, then

why do I need him to wash them?

And we answer: They must be washed, since

if another koen happens to come and does not know

that this olah had become invalid,

he will take them up,

and therefore they must be washed, so that that koen will burn them when they are clean.