Zevachim 86a — the Talmud in English

One might have thought

that there is a mitzva incumbent upon him that he

remove the sinews and bones

from the flesh

and bring up the flesh

alone

to the altar; the verse therefore says: “And the priest shall burn all of it.” How is this

the apparent contradiction between these two verses to be resolved? Rather, if they are

attached

to the flesh, they go up with it, by virtue of the verse “And the priest shall burn all of it”; but if they

separated

from the flesh, their law is that

even

if they have already gone up and are lying

at the top of the altar, they shall go down,

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

And we raise an objection:

Who

is the

tanna from whose statement you hear that, if they separated,

the bones from the flesh, they

shall go down,

and our Mishna is in accordance with his view?

It is Rabbi!

And not the Rabbis,

as it was taught:

It is stated in the verse

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

that he burns them with the flesh

even

if they

separated

from it.

But what do I establish

with regard to what is stated

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

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

to tell you

another law:

the consumed portions

of the

burnt offering’s

flesh that fell from the arrangement before it was completely consumed,

you return

to the arrangement,

but you do not return the consumed portions of the sinews and bones

that fell from the arrangement. That is to say, indeed, if they initially went up, they do not go down; but in this newly established law of returning what falls, the sinews and bones were not included, but only flesh and blood.

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

this

includes

for burning even the bones and the sinews,

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

This

excludes

from the law of the altar everything else that is neither flesh nor blood.

How is this

contradiction between these two verses to be resolved? Rather,

the attached go up; if they separated

and

even

if they have already gone up and

are at the top of the altar, they go down.

It follows that Rabbi is the tanna who maintains that if they separated, even if they went up, they go down.

We learned in Rabbi’s statement:

If they separated,

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

go down.

Rabbi Zeira said: They taught

that if they separated they go down

only

in a case

where they separated

the bones from the flesh

downward,

by way of descent, moving away from the arrangement on the altar,

but

if they separated and the bones inclined

upward

toward the arrangement, this is not considered separation; rather,

they have merely drawn closer, for consumption,

that is, they have come closer for the sake of their burning, and therefore the law of burning has not been removed from them and they do not go down.

And now the Gemara returns to the words of the first tanna, who said

even

if

they separated

the bones from the flesh, they require bringing:

And concerning this

Rabbah said

this is what he says]:

They taught only

in a case

where they separated after the throwing

of the blood, since at the time of the throwing of the blood they were attached to the flesh, and the throwing of the blood fixed them for the altar, so they must be burned.

But if they separated before the throwing,

when at the time of the throwing they were not at all subject to the altar,

the throwing came and permitted them

for a non-sacred person,

and it is

permitted

even to make from them a handle for knives,

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

And concerning this matter—that bones that separated before the throwing are entirely permitted for the benefit of the priests—

Rabbah held

that it is

like that which Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: It is stated “

the hide of the burnt offering that he offered

shall be his”

Leviticus 7]

with regard to a burnt offering,

meaning that the hide of the burnt offering is given to the priest,

and it is stated “

the priest who makes expiation with it,

it shall be his”

there]

with regard to a guilt offering,

whose flesh is to belong to the priest; 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.

And the bones are not to be prohibited because of notar, for the prohibition of notar applies only to something that is fit for eating, as it is stated: “And what remains of the flesh of the offering.”

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

is free,

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

For if it were not free, there would be room to 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, whose flesh was not permitted to the priests, might likewise have bones that are prohibited.

Rather, it necessarily follows that this verse may be used for the derivation because

“it shall be his” is written superfluously

in the verse concerning a burnt offering, for it should have written only “the hide of the burnt offering that he offered to the priest,” and the words “it shall be his” are superfluous; therefore this gzera shava may be derived from them.

Rav Adda bar Ahava raised an objection

to Rabbah’s statement, in which he permitted deriving benefit from the bones of a burnt offering: We learned:

The bones of sacred offerings

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

before the throwing, one commits sacrilege with them,

because they have not yet had a time of permission for the priests;

after the throwing, one does not commit sacrilege with them. And

if they are the bones

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

It follows that the bones of a burnt offering were not permitted at all, even after the throwing!?

And we answer:

Say

in this beraita:

And those of a burnt offering,

if they

separated

from the flesh

before the throwing, one does not commit sacrilege with them,

because the throwing did not fix them for the altar; but if they separated from it

after the throwing, one commits sacrilege with them forever,

because while they were attached to the flesh they were fixed for the altar through the throwing.

And it disagrees

with Rabbah, with the view

of Rabbi Elazar.

For Rabbi Elazar said: If they separated

the bones from the flesh

before the throwing, one commits sacrilege with them

forever, because once they separated they are not subject to burning, for the throwing did not benefit them, and therefore they remained in their prohibition. But if they separated

after the throwing, one may not derive benefit

from them, by rabbinic law.

And

if one transgressed and derived benefit,

one does not commit sacrilege.

That is because of Rabbi Yishmael’s exposition, through which he learned from a guilt offering to permit the bones of a burnt offering; and in the case of a guilt offering, the bones are permitted only when they separated after the throwing of the blood, which permitted the bones together with the flesh before they separated, and the same law applies to a burnt offering. Mishna: This Mishna comes to detail the law of fit sacrificial portions that were burned upon the altar, and before they were consumed by the fire of the arrangement, flew or fell from the arrangement to the side of the altar or below it. Their laws differ from those of disqualified [portions] that went up upon the altar, and concerning this the Mishna says:

And all of them,

both those disqualified [portions]

that went up upon the altar, concerning which we learned in the Mishnayot above that they do not go down, and the bones and sinews that went up while attached

to the flesh, all of these not having the law of burning because they are fit for burning, then if

after the fire of the arrangement consumed them, they

fell away from upon the altar

and fell to the ground,

he shall not return them

—that is, he need not return them to the altar, since the special law of returning what falls was not established for them.

And likewise a coal

that fell away from upon the altar, he shall not return it

to the arrangement.

However, fit limbs

that

fell away from upon the altar,

if they fell away from it

before midnight

of the night,

he shall return them, and

he also

commits sacrilege with them

if he derived benefit from them, since they are still subject to the altar. But if they fell away

after midnight

of the night,

he shall not return them, and

there is

no

sacrilege with

them

from this time, since they are considered consumed, and they are like something whose mitzva has already been performed, with which there is no sacrilege.

with them

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.

Now the Mishna comes to add to the laws stated above concerning disqualified offerings that ascended the altar:

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

disqualified offerings that ascended it do not descend,

so the ramp

also

sanctifies

what is fit for it, and from the time that disqualified offerings ascended the ramp, they do not descend.

Just as the altar and the ramp sanctify what is fit for them, so the vessels sanctify

the disqualified meal-offerings that were placed inside them, and the sanctity of a sacrifice takes effect upon them, and they can no longer be redeemed.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: Valid limbs that fell off the altar before midnight—he returns them; after midnight—he does not return them. And we ask:

What are the circumstances

of those limbs at the time they fell off?

If there is substance in them,

meaning that they have not yet been completely burned, then

even

if they fell off

after midnight as well,

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

if there is no substance in them,

because they have already been entirely burned, then

even

if they fell off

before midnight as well, he should not

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