Zevachim 85b (פה:) — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

“And shall we go and cause the priests to encounter a matter that will lead them to stumble?”

For by causing them to remove these offerings, we cause the priest to stumble by bringing up onto the altar disqualified offerings that had been taken down

? And we answer:

Even so, it is preferable

to do this, in order

that sacred offerings not lie like carrion

in their refuse.

Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba said: Rabbi Yohanan raised a question: With regard to the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one brought up before sprinkling their blood, must they be taken down, or need they not be taken down?

That is, he was uncertain about the ruling of Ulla mentioned above: whether, by bringing them up before the sprinkling, they became the food of the altar or not.

Rabbi Ami said to him:

Why are you uncertain only regarding whether they must be taken down or not,

and let your question concern you

also with regard to

sacrilege

? Since the sprinkling determines the law of sacrilege with regard to the sacrificial portions, so that from the time the blood is sprinkled one commits sacrilege with them, when they were brought up before their blood was sprinkled, one should consider whether they became the food of the altar and one commits sacrilege with them or not.

He said to him: I have no question concerning sacrilege,

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

it is the sprinkling that determines their status with regard to sacrilege; my question concerns

only the matter of

taking them down

after they have been brought up: whether they must be taken down or not.

And he resolved

his uncertainty: With regard to sacrificial portions brought up before their blood was sprinkled,

they need not be taken down

because they became the food of the altar,

and

nevertheless

there is no sacrilege with them,

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

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak taught it in this manner: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: Rabbi Yoḥanan raised a question: With regard to the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one brought up before sprinkling

their blood,

is there sacrilege with them or not?

Since by being brought up onto the altar they became the food of the altar, sacrilege with them is possible.

Rabbi Ami said to him: And let your question concern you

also with regard to

taking them down

—whether, if they became the food of the altar, they need not be taken down, or not.

He said to him: I have no question concerning taking them down

and it is clear that they need not be taken down because

they became the food of the altar; my question concerns

only

sacrilege

—whether the status of food 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

as follows:

With regard to the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one brought up before sprinkling their blood,

they need not be taken down

because they became the food of the altar,

and

nevertheless

there is no sacrilege with them.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And these are those whose disqualification was not in the sacred sphere, etc.”

And, with regard to blemished animals, Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit.

Rabbi Yohanan said: Rabbi Akiva deemed blemished animals fit

with regard to the rule that if they were brought up, they need not be taken down,

only

in the case of a blemish found

in the membranes of the eye,

which is a blemish that is not so noticeable,

and the reason

is that

these blemishes

are fit

in birds,

as it is stated: “An unblemished male, among cattle, among sheep,” from which we learn that unblemished status and maleness are required in animals, but unblemished status and maleness are not required in birds. Nevertheless, a bird lacking a limb is disqualified for sacrifice, because it is stated: “Offer it now to your governor.” And because these blemishes are permitted in birds, in the case of an animal, if it was brought up, it need not be taken down.

And Rabbi Yohanan further said:

And

the statement of Rabbi Akiva that if they were brought up they need not be taken down applies specifically when

their consecration preceded their blemish

—that is, they became blemished only after they had already been consecrated. Since the sanctity of the altar had already taken effect upon them, if they were brought up they need not be taken down. But if they became blemished before they were consecrated, they had never been sacred offerings of the altar, and therefore even if they were brought up, they must be taken down.

And Rabbi Akiva concedes with regard to a female olah

that was brought up onto the altar that although a female is fit in birds, nevertheless it must be taken down. The reason is

that it resembles a case in which its blemish preceded its consecration,

for there is no greater blemish in a male olah than being female, and this characteristic existed from the beginning of its creation.

Incidentally, the Gemara cites that Rabbi Akiva’s statement made here can resolve another question raised by Rabbi Yirmeya.

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a question: Is there

a disqualification for sacrifice due to

an animal that engaged in bestiality in the case of birds, or is there no

disqualification of

an animal that engaged in bestiality in the case of birds?

The sides of the uncertainty are as follows:

Perhaps

the verse

“from the animal”

[Leviticus 1], which we expounded as

excluding an animal that engaged in bestiality and an animal with which bestiality was performed,

meaning that they are disqualified for sacrifice, requires us to link these two disqualifications and say:

Wherever the disqualification of an animal that engaged in bestiality applies,

where it is possible for this disqualification to apply,

the disqualification of an animal with which bestiality was performed applies; wherever the former does not apply,

where this disqualification is not relevant,

the latter does not apply either.

If so, in the case of birds, where the disqualification of an animal that engaged in bestiality is not relevant, since a bird does not engage in intercourse with a woman, the disqualification of an animal with which bestiality was performed likewise does not apply.

Or perhaps, since a transgression was committed with it

in the case of an animal with which bestiality was performed, it should be disqualified.

Rabba said: Come and hear:

We learned in our Mishna:

“Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit,”

meaning that if they were brought up, they need not be taken down.

And if it is so,

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

let Rabbi Akiva deem fit

also

in

an animal disqualified because it engaged in

bestiality,

so that if it was brought up, it need not be taken down,

since it is fit

when it has engaged in bestiality

in birds

as an initial matter. Thus, in the case of an animal, too, its law should be that it need not be taken down, just as Rabbi Akiva said with regard to blemished animals.

Rather, it necessarily follows that

learn from this

that there is a disqualification of an animal with which bestiality was performed in the case of birds.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We too have learned this:

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

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

if one performs melika with them,

render

them

impure through the garments upon entering the throat

like the impurity of the carcass of a kosher bird, which renders impure the garments of one who eats it when it enters the throat. The reason is that since they are disqualified for sacrifice, melika does not render them permitted, for melika permits only valid offerings.

And as for what we learned here, that a tumtum and an androgynos are disqualified even though the requirement of maleness does not apply to birds, this is because this tanna maintains that such a creature is a distinct species and is not a case of uncertainty whether it is male or female. Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion in Bekhorot, however, is not so; he maintains that wherever male and female are mentioned, a tumtum and an androgynos are excluded, whereas this does not apply to a bird, with regard to which male and female were not specified.

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

learn from this

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

We learned in the Mishna:

“Rabbi Hanina, deputy of the priests, says:”

My father would push blemished animals off the altar.

And we raise an objection:

What does this come to teach us

in Rabbi Hanina’s statement? The first tanna also said that blemished animals that were brought up must be taken down!

And we answer:

If you wish, say: It comes to teach us about an incident.

That is, this was the practice in actual cases.

And if you wish, say: What does “push” mean

from the altar? It means that he pushed them

with the back of his hand

rather than taking them down publicly, which would be degrading.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Just as if they were brought up”

they need not be taken down, so too, if they were taken down, they may not be brought up.

Ulla said: They taught

that if they were taken down they may not be brought up

only

in a case

where the

still

fire

on the altar had not yet

taken hold of them.

But

if the

fire

had already taken hold of them, even if only to any degree,

they may be brought up,

because they became the food of the altar.

Rav Mari taught

Ulla’s statement

with regard to the first clause

of the Mishna, namely, the law of disqualified offerings that were brought up onto the altar and then taken down, as explained.

Rav Hanina of Sura taught

Ulla’s statement

with regard to the last clause

concerning the law stated in the following Mishna, which reads:

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

which are not fit to be burned, nevertheless,

when they are attached

to the flesh of the sacrifice,

they may be brought up

with it onto the altar. If

they became detached

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

they may not be brought up

onto the altar, and even if they were brought up, they must be taken down, as 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 became detached they must be taken down

only when the fire had not taken hold of them. But

if the fire had already

taken hold of them, they may be brought up.

A dispute thus emerges between Rav Mari, who taught Ulla’s statement with regard to the first clause, and Rav Ḥanina, who taught it with regard to the latter clause:

The one who teaches it with regard to the latter clause

, namely, Rabbi Ḥanina,

all the more so

holds this also

with regard to the first clause

, for if an item that is not fit for burning at all nevertheless need not be taken down once the fire has taken hold of it, then an item that, were it not for its disqualification, would be fit for burning, all the more so becomes consecrated through its disqualification, as it is through the fire having taken hold of it.

And the one who teaches

Ulla’s statement

with regard to the first clause

, namely, Rav Mari, maintains that this law applies only to those items that are fit for burning,

but with regard to the latter clause

, concerning those sinews and bones,

they are not fit for burning

, as it is stated: “And you shall perform your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood.” Thus, even after the fire has taken hold of them, if they were taken down, they may not be brought up again, for they were not consecrated by it.

Mishna:

And these

sacred offerings, which,

even if they were brought up

onto the altar,

must be taken down

, even if they are fit offerings. Since they are not fit for the altar, as they are not destined to be burned, the altar does not consecrate them. And these are:

The flesh of offerings of the most sacred order, the flesh of offerings of lesser sanctity, the remainder of the omer offering, the two loaves, the shewbread, 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, if it was brought up onto the outer altar, which is not the place where it is burned.

However,

the wool on the heads of sheep

that are burnt offerings, whose heads are burned together with the hide without being flayed,

and

likewise

the hair in the beard of goats

that are burnt offerings,

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,

are brought up

with it, because

it is stated: “And the priest shall burn everything

on the altar” [Leviticus 1]. These were included in this statement as long as they had not separated from the flesh. But if they

separated

from the flesh,

they may not be brought up

on their own, 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 no law requiring them to be brought up onto the altar was stated with regard to them.

B. The Mikdash David [5:3] concluded that even bones fit for eating are not included in flesh with regard to burning, whose law applies only to actual flesh. Although it is explained in the Gemara above [28a], concerning the hide of the tail, that since it is fit for eating it should be burned [even if the hide of the tail is not considered the tail itself], a distinction must be made between that case and bones fit for eating. C. With regard to bones containing marrow, the Mikdash David [there] was inclined to say that the bone must be broken and the marrow brought up. However, one cannot say that since the marrow is inside the bone, the bone is considered not to have separated from the flesh, and therefore it may be brought up without being broken. This is not so, for the entire law that items attached to burnt offerings are like burnt offerings applies specifically when, by bringing them up as they are, the law of burning would apply to the flesh. Only then is the bone considered an item attached to a burnt offering. Since this is so, when a bone containing marrow is brought up, the bone forms a barrier between the flesh and the wood of the arrangement, and in this manner the marrow is not burned. Consequently, the bone too is not included in the law of items attached to a burnt offering. However, the Sefat Emet wrote below [86a] that from the plain meaning of the wording, “bones that separated are not brought up,” it appears that this applies even when they contain marrow. Gemara:

The Sages taught:

It is stated in the Torah:

“And the priest shall burn everything on the altar,”

this comes

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

—that these too are burned.

One might have thought

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,”

alone, excluding those that are neither flesh nor blood.

You might say:

If only flesh and blood

were included in the law requiring them to be brought up onto the altar,