Zevachim 85b — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

And shall we go and cause the priests something through which they will come to a mishap?

For through the fact that they are pushed away, we cause the priest to come to a mishap, to place upon the altar disqualified offerings that had descended!?

And we answer:

Even so, it is preferable

to do so, in order

that sacred offerings not lie like a carcass

in their refuse.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said: Rabbi Yohanan raised the question: The sacrificial portions of lesser sanctity that one brought up before the sprinkling of their blood—should they descend or should they not descend?

That is, he was uncertain concerning Ulla’s ruling above: whether, by bringing them up before the sprinkling, they became the bread of the altar or not.

Rabbi Ami said to him:

Why are you uncertain only concerning whether they should descend or not

and let it be a question for you

also concerning

sacrilege?

Since the sprinkling is what determines the law of sacrilege with regard to the sacrificial portions, so that from the time of the sprinkling of the blood one commits sacrilege with them, then in a case where they were brought up before the sprinkling of their blood, one should deliberate whether they became the bread of the altar and one commits sacrilege with them or not?

He said to him: Sacrilege is not a question for me,

and it is clear to me that before the sprinkling there is no sacrilege with them, because

it is the sprinkling that determines them for sacrilege; what is a question for me

is only concerning

descent,

after they have gone up: whether their law is to descend or not.

And he resolved

his uncertainty: The sacrificial portions that went up before the sprinkling of their blood

do not descend

because they became the bread of the altar,

and

nevertheless

there is no sacrilege with them,

for as long as their blood has not yet been sprinkled, they have not been designated for the portion of the Most High.

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak taught it this way: Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said, Rabbi Yohanan raised the question: The sacrificial portions of lesser sanctity that one brought up before the sprinkling of

their blood,

is there sacrilege with them or not?

And since through their going up to the altar they became the bread of the altar, for this reason sacrilege with them is possible.

Rabbi Ami said to him: And let it be a question for you

also concerning

descent,

whether, if they became the bread of the altar, they do not descend, or not?

He said to him: Descent is not a question for me,

and it is clear that they do not descend because

they became the bread of the altar; what is a question for me

is only concerning

sacrilege,

whether the status of the bread of the altar is effective for this matter, or whether there is no sacrilege with them until they are designated for the portion of the Most High through the sprinkling of the blood.

And he resolved

his uncertainty

thus:

The sacrificial portions of lesser sanctity that one brought up before the sprinkling of their blood

do not descend,

because they became the bread of the altar,

and

nevertheless

there is no sacrilege with them.

We learned in the Mishna:

And these whose disqualification was not in the sacred domain, etc.

And blemished animals—Rabbi Akiva declares blemished animals fit.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Akiva declared fit

blemished animals, with regard to the fact that if they went up, they do not descend,

only

in the case of a blemish found

in the membranes of the eye,

which is a blemish that is not so conspicuous,

and the reason

is since

these blemishes

are fit

in

birds: For it is stated, “a male without blemish among cattle, among sheep,” and we learned from this: completeness and maleness apply to an animal, but there is no law of completeness and maleness in birds. Indeed, a bird that is missing a limb is disqualified for offering, because it is stated, “Offer it, please, to your governor.”

And because these blemishes are permitted in birds, therefore, in an animal, if they went up, they do not descend. And Rabbi Yohanan further said:

And this

is what Rabbi Akiva said, that if they went up, they do not descend: It is in a situation

where their consecration preceded their blemish,

so that they became blemished only after they had already been consecrated. Since the sanctity of the altar had already taken effect upon it, therefore, if it went up, it does not descend. But if it became blemished before it was consecrated, it was never an offering consecrated to the altar, and therefore even if it went up, it descends.

And Rabbi Akiva concedes, with regard to a female burnt-offering,

that went up on the altar, that although a female is fit among birds, nevertheless its law is to descend; and the reason

is

that it resembles a case where its blemish preceded its consecration,

for you have no greater blemish in a burnt-offering than a female, and this blemish exists in it from the beginning of its creation.

And incidentally, the Gemara brings that from Rabbi Akiva’s words stated here, one can resolve what Rabbi Yirmeya was uncertain about concerning another matter.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised the question: Is there

a disqualification for offering on account of

an animal with which bestiality was performed among birds, or is there no

disqualification of

an animal with which bestiality was performed among birds?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Who said

that the verse

“from the animal”

[Leviticus 1], from which we expounded

to exclude an animal that performed bestiality and an animal with which bestiality was performed,

that they are disqualified for offering, and therefore one should make them dependent upon one another and say:

Wherever there is an animal that performed bestiality

so that the disqualification of an animal that performed bestiality applies to it,

there is an animal with which bestiality was performed; wherever there is no animal that performed bestiality

so that this disqualification does not apply to it,

there is no animal with which bestiality was performed,

and if so, in birds, where the disqualification of an animal that performed bestiality does not apply, since a bird does not perform bestiality with a woman, the disqualification of an animal with which bestiality was performed was likewise not stated with regard to them,

or perhaps, behold, a transgression was performed with it

in the case of an animal with which bestiality was performed, and for this reason it should be disqualified?

Rabba said: Come and hear:

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Akiva declares blemished animals fit,

so that if they went up, they do not descend.

And if it is so,

that a bird with which bestiality was performed is fit for offering,

let Rabbi Akiva declare fit

also

in

an animal disqualified on account of

an animal with which bestiality was performed,

so that if it went up, it does not descend, for

since an animal with which bestiality was performed is fit

in

birds

from the outset, also in an animal its law should be that it does not descend, just as Rabbi Akiva said with regard to blemished animals!?

Rather, necessarily,

infer from this

that there is a disqualification of an animal with which bestiality was performed among birds!

Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: We too have learned this

that a bird with which bestiality was performed is disqualified for offering, for we learned: A consecrated bird

with which bestiality was performed, designated, worshipped, given as the price of a dog, or exchanged, a tumtum, or an androgynos—all of them,

if one performed melika with them,

render

them

impure through clothing in the house of swallowing,

like the impurity of the carcass of a pure bird, which renders impure the garments of the one who eats it when it enters the house of swallowing. And the reason is that since they are disqualified for offering, melika does not render them fit, for melika permits only fit sacrifices.

And what we learned here, that a tumtum and an androgynos are disqualified even though there is no law of maleness in birds, is because this Tanna holds that this is a creature of its own kind and is not a case of uncertainty whether it is male or female. Indeed, Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion in Bekhorot is not so, for he holds that everywhere that male and female are stated, a tumtum and an androgynos are to be excluded from them, whereas this does not apply to a bird, in which the law of male and female was not stated.

And from the fact that the beraita included an animal with which bestiality was performed among these,

infer from this

that a bird with which bestiality was performed is disqualified for offering.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Hanina, the deputy of the priests, says:

My father would push the blemished animals away from upon the altar.

And we raise an objection:

What does he teach us

Rabbi Hanina by this? After all, even the first Tanna said that blemished animals that went up descend!?

And we answer:

If you wish, say: He teaches us a deed.

That is, they conducted themselves in this way in practice.

And if you wish, say: What is “pushes away”

from the altar? It means that he pushed them away

in an indirect manner

and did not bring them down publicly, for this is a manner of disgrace.

We learned in the Mishna:

Just as, if they went up,

they do not descend, so too, if they descended, they do not go up.

Ulla said: They taught

that if they descended, they do not go up

only

in a situation

where the fire had not yet gained power over them

still

the fire

that is upon the altar;

but

if already

the fire had gained power over them

the fire,

even by any amount,

they go up,

because they became the bread of the altar.

Rav Mari taught

these words of Ulla

on the first part

of the Mishna, that is, concerning the law of disqualified offerings that went up on the altar and descended, as was explained.

Rav Hanina of Sura taught

these words of Ulla

on the latter part

concerning the law stated in the following Mishna, as follows:

The bones, the sinews, the horns, and the hooves,

which are not fit for burning, nevertheless,

when they are attached

to the flesh of the sacrifice,

they go up

with it upon the altar.

If they separated

and were removed from the flesh before it was brought up,

they do not go up

upon the altar; and even if they went up, they descend, as is explained below [86a] according to Rabbi’s opinion, and the Gemara there established the Mishna according to his view. And concerning this Ulla said:

They taught

that if they separated, they descend

only when the fire had not gained power over them. But

if already

the fire had gained power over them, they go up.

And a dispute emerges between Rav Mari, who taught Ulla’s words concerning the first clause, and Rav Hanina, who taught them concerning the latter clause:

the one who teaches it concerning the latter clause,

that is, Rabbi Hanina,

all the more so

holds thus also

concerning the first clause,

for if something that is entirely unfit for burning is nevertheless, because the fire took hold of it, not to descend, then something that, were it not for its disqualification, would be fit for burning—how much more so is it sanctified through its disqualification as it is through the fire taking hold of it.

And the one who teaches

Ulla’s words

concerning the first clause,

that is, Rav Mari, holds that this law applies only to those that are fit for burning,

but concerning the latter clause,

those sinews and bones

are not fit for burning,

because it is stated, “And you shall perform your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood”; thus, even after the fire took hold of them, if they descended, they should not ascend, for they were not sanctified through it.

Mishna:

And these

consecrated offerings, even

if they ascended

upon the altar,

should descend,

even if they are fit; and since they are unfit for the altar because they are not destined for burning, the altar does not sanctify them. And these are they:

The flesh of most holy offerings, the flesh of lesser holiness offerings, the remainder of the omer, the two loaves, the showbread, and the remainder of meal-offerings,

for all of these are destined to be eaten and are not fit for burning.

And the incense,

whose law is that it is to be burned on the inner altar, but it ascended upon the outer altar, which is not the place of its burning.

However,

the wool on the heads of lambs

of a burnt offering, whose head is burned together with the hide without flaying,

and

likewise

the hair in the beard of he-goats,

of a burnt offering,

and the bones

and the sinews, and the horns, and the hooves,

for all of these are not considered flesh,

when they are attached

to the flesh,

shall ascend

with it, because

it is stated, “And the priest shall burn it all

on the altar” [Leviticus 1], and these were included in this general statement as long as they did not separate from the flesh. But if they

separated

from the flesh,

they shall not ascend

by themselves, because

it is stated, “And you shall perform your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” [Deuteronomy 12], and these are not included in flesh or blood, and the law of raising them upon the altar was not stated concerning them.

[Deuteronomy 12], and these are not included in flesh or blood, and no law requiring them to be brought up onto the altar was stated with regard to them.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the Torah:

“And the priest shall burn it all upon the altar”;

this comes

to include the bones and the sinews and the horns and the hooves,

for these too are burned.

One might

say that they were included for burning

even

if they

separated

from the flesh;

the verse states, “And you shall perform your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,”

only, to exclude those that are neither flesh nor blood.

Lest you say:

If only flesh and blood

were included in the law of raising upon the altar,