Zevachim 86a (פו.) — the Talmud in English

One might have thought that he is subject to a mitzva to

remove the sinews and bones

from the flesh and

raise

the flesh

alone

onto the altar. The verse therefore states: “And the koen shall burn it all upon the altar.” How so?

How are these two verses, which seemingly contradict one another, to be reconciled? Rather, if

they are attached

to the flesh, they are raised with it, by virtue of the verse “And the koen shall burn it all”; but if they

became detached

from the flesh, their law is that

even

if they had already been raised and are lying

at the top of the altar, they must be taken down,

by virtue of the verse “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood.”

And we challenge this:

Who

is the

tanna from whose statement you hear that if they became detached

the bones from the flesh, they

must be taken down,

and our Mishna follows his view?

It is Rabbi!

And not the Rabbis,

as it was taught:

The verse states:

“And the koen shall burn it all upon the altar,” including the bones, sinews, horns, and hooves,

that he burns them together with the flesh

even

if they

became detached

from it.

And what do I establish

with regard to

“And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,”

which implies that nothing but flesh and blood may be raised upon the altar? Rather, this verse comes

to teach you

another law:

The partially burned remains

of the

burnt offering

that fell from the arrangement before being completely consumed:

you return

them to the arrangement, but

you do not return the partially burned remains of sinews and bones

that fell from the arrangement. That is to say: indeed, if they were initially raised, they are not taken down; but with regard to this newly derived law concerning the return of items that fell, the sinews and bones are not included, only flesh and blood.

Rabbi says: One verse states, “And the koen shall burn it all upon the altar,”

and this

includes

even the bones and sinews for burning;

and one verse states, “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood.”

And this

excludes

from the altar anything else that is neither flesh nor blood.

How so

are we to reconcile the contradiction between these two verses? Rather,

attached items shall be raised; if they became detached,

and

even

if they had already been raised and

are at the top of the altar, they must be taken down.

It follows that Rabbi is the tanna who holds that if they became detached, even if they were raised, they must be taken down.

We learned in Rabbi’s statement: If they

became detached,

even while they are at the top of the altar, they

must be taken down.

Rabbi Zeira said: They taught

that if they became detached they must be taken down

only

in a case

where they became detached

from the flesh

downward,

moving downward and away from the arrangement on the altar;

but

if they became detached and the bones turned

upward,

toward the arrangement, this is not considered detachment, but

they merely came closer to the process of burning,

meaning that they moved closer for the purpose of burning them, and therefore the law requiring their burning has not lapsed and they are not taken down.

The Gemara now returns to the statement of the first tanna, who said

even

if they

became detached

the bones from the flesh, they require offering:

Concerning this,

Rabba said:

This is what it says:

They taught only

in a case

where they became detached after the sprinkling

of the blood, since when the blood was sprinkled they were attached to the flesh; the sprinkling thereby designated them for the altar, and they must be offered.

But if they became detached before the sprinkling,

so that at the time of the sprinkling they were not at all fit for the altar,

the sprinkling came and permitted them

for ordinary use,

and

it is permitted

even to make a knife handle from them,

for just as the sprinkling of the blood permits for the altar that which is fit for it, so it permits the bones for the benefit of the priests, as that is what they are designated for.

Regarding this matter—that bones which became detached before the sprinkling are entirely permitted for the benefit of the priests—

Rabba held

that the matter was

in accordance with that which Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: It is stated: “The hide of the burnt offering that he offered to the koen

“The hide of the burnt offering that he offered to the priest

shall be his”

Leviticus 7],

with regard to a burnt offering,

meaning that the hide of the burnt offering is given to the koen;

and it is stated: “The koen who makes atonement with it

“The priest who makes atonement with it

shall have it”

there],

with regard to a guilt offering,

whose flesh belongs to the koen. And from this we learn a gzera shava:

Just as the bones of a guilt offering are permitted,

since its flesh too is permitted,

so too, the bones of a burnt offering are permitted.

Nor should the bones be prohibited as notar, since the prohibition of notar applies only to something fit for eating, as it is stated: “And whatever remains of the flesh of the offering.”

The Gemara establishes that the verse from which we learned this gzera shava

is mufneh,

that is, it is superfluous and can therefore be used to derive a gzera shava.

For if it were not mufneh, one could refute

this derivation and say:

What is distinctive about a guilt offering is that its flesh is permitted

to the priests, and for that reason its bones too are permitted; whereas a burnt offering is different, as its flesh is not permitted to the priests, and it is possible that its bones are likewise prohibited.

Rather, it is necessarily possible to derive this from the verse because

“shall be his” is written superfluously

in the verse concerning the burnt offering. It would have sufficed to write only, “The hide of the burnt offering that he offered to the koen”; the words “shall be his” are superfluous, and therefore this gzera shava may be derived from them.

Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection

to Rabba’s statement permitting benefit from the bones of a burnt offering:

The bones of sacred offerings

that are eaten, such as those of a sin offering and a guilt offering,

before the sprinkling, one commits misuse with them,

since they had not yet had an opportunity when benefit was permitted to the priests;

after the sprinkling, one does not commit misuse with them. And

if they were the bones

of a burnt offering, one commits misuse with them forever.

This demonstrates that the bones of a burnt offering are never permitted, even after the sprinkling!?

And we answer:

Say

that the beraita states:

And those of a burnt offering, if they

if they

became detached

from the flesh

before the sprinkling, one does not commit misuse with them,

because the sprinkling did not designate them for the altar; but if they became detached

after the sprinkling, one commits misuse with them forever,

because while they were attached to the flesh they were designated for the altar through the sprinkling.

And

Rabba’s view

disagrees with that of

Rabbi Elazar,

who said:

If the bones became detached

from the flesh before the sprinkling, one commits misuse with them forever, since once they became detached they were not fit for burning, and the sprinkling was ineffective for them; consequently, they remained prohibited. But if they became detached

after the sprinkling, one may not derive benefit

from them, by rabbinic decree.

And

if one transgressed and derived benefit from them,

one does not commit misuse.

This is because of Rabbi Yishmael’s derivation, through which he learned from a guilt offering that the bones of a burnt offering are permitted; in a guilt offering the bones are permitted only if they became detached after the sprinkling of the blood, which permitted the bones together with the flesh before they became detached, and the same law applies to a burnt offering.

Mishna

This Mishna details the law of valid sacrificial portions that were burned upon the altar, but before they were consumed by the fire of the arrangement, they flew or fell from the arrangement to the side of the altar or below it. Their law differs from that of disqualified offerings that were raised onto the altar, and therefore the Mishna says:

And all of them,

both those disqualified offerings that were raised onto the altar, concerning which we learned in the earlier mishnayot that they are not taken down, and the bones and sinews that were raised while attached to the flesh—for none of these is the law requiring their burning due to their being fit for burning—

if

after the fire of the arrangement had consumed them they

fell from upon the altar

and landed on the ground,

he does not return them

to the altar; that is, he need not return them to the altar, since the special law requiring the return of items that fell does not apply to them.

And likewise, a coal

that fell from upon the altar, he does not return

it to the arrangement.

However,

valid sacrificial portions

that

fell from upon the altar,

if they fell from it

before midnight

of the night,

he returns them, and

likewise

one commits misuse with them

if he derives benefit from them, since they are still fit for the altar. But if they fell

after midnight

of the night,

he does not return them, and

there is

no

misuse

with them from that time onward, since they are considered consumed, and are like an item whose mitzva has already been completed, with which there is no misuse.

from that point onward, because they are considered consumed, and are like something whose mitzva has already been completed, with which there is no misuse.

And now, the Mishna comes to add to the laws stated above concerning disqualified offerings that ascended upon the altar:

Just as the altar sanctifies that which is fit for it, and even

disqualified offerings that ascended upon it need not be taken down,

so too the ramp

also

sanctifies

that which is fit for it, and once disqualified offerings have ascended upon the ramp, they need not be taken down.

Just as the altar and the ramp sanctify that which is fit for them, so too the vessels sanctify

the disqualified meal-offerings that were placed inside them, causing the sanctity of an offering to take effect upon them, so that they can no longer be redeemed.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Fit limbs that fell from the altar before midnight must be returned; after midnight, they need not be returned. And we raise a difficulty:

What are the circumstances

of those limbs at the time they fell?

If they contain substance

—that they have not yet been completely burned—then

even

if they fell

after midnight as well

he should have to return them, since their burning has not yet been completed.

And if they contain no substance

because they have already been entirely burned, then

even

if they fell

before midnight as well, he need not

return them since the mitzva of burning them has already been completed!?