Zevachim 87a (פז.) — the Talmud in English

Rabba said:

midnight

of the night

following

of the next day

digests them

and establishes them as ash to be removed, and until that time, if they fall off, he must return them; but thereafter he need not return them.

Rav Ḥisda said: Daybreak

of this morning

digests them,

and from that time onward, if they fall off, he need not return them.

The scholars of the house of Rav said

to explain:

What is Rav Ḥisda’s reason

for saying that even daybreak establishes digestion, as the verse has taught us this only with regard to midnight?

And if midnight, which does not cause

the

disqualification of remaining overnight

for limbs that remained outside the altar and had not yet been placed upon it—for with regard to the disqualification of remaining overnight it is stated: “You shall not leave the fat of My Festival-offering until morning,” indicating that it may remain overnight—and nevertheless

causes digestion

of the sinews located on the pyre,

then daybreak, which causes

the

disqualification of remaining overnight, should certainly cause digestion.

And likewise, they disagreed in a case where they

fell off before midnight,

when he was required to return them,

and

he

returned them

only

after daybreak:

Rabba said: The second midnight digests them.

And in Mikdash David he found this difficult from the words of the Gemara in Keritot [14a], where it is explained that a limb of pigul which ascended upon the altar, and the fire took hold of it, so that its pigul was removed from it and it became notar, is disqualified. Thus, even after the fire has taken hold, there is the disqualification of remaining overnight! He wrote in explanation: The reason of Keren Ora is that the meaning of “notar” is what remains of the offering which they did not offer at its proper time and which became disqualified. Therefore, since the fire took hold in such a manner that it ignited most of it, this is considered a complete burning, and for this reason the offering is not called “notar,” since they offered it. However, in a disqualified offering which was initially unfit to be offered, and only through the fire taking hold was its pigul removed and it now became fit to be offered, in the valid offering which became valid after the fire took hold, the burning was not fulfilled [the words of the Gemara there must be established as referring to a case where they removed it immediately after the fire took hold], and therefore it subsequently became notar. As for the principal difficulty, Mikdash David explained that the law of returning items that fall off depends primarily upon the burning. That is, if the principal burning was performed with valid limbs, there is a law requiring the fallen items to be returned, since this obligation follows from the burning, which obligates one to return the fallen items so that they will be completely consumed. Therefore, those which fell off before midnight and he returned after dawn: since the principal burning was with valid limbs, there is a law requiring fallen items to be returned. Although they had already become disqualified at dawn because of remaining overnight, nevertheless, since he had already returned them to the altar and their disqualification was removed from them, if they fell off again he is obligated to return them.

Rav Ḥisda said: They never undergo digestion,

and whenever they fall off, he must return them; and if he derives benefit from them, he has committed misuse until they become ash.

Rav Yosef raised an objection

against the statements of Rabba and Rav Ḥisda, both of whom hold that midnight does not digest the limbs if they were not on the altar at that time:

And who tells us that midnight

only when they are

at the top of the altar makes them

digestible,

perhaps wherever it finds them, it makes them digestible,

even if they are not on the altar!? Therefore, the law would be that even if they fell off before midnight, digestion would take effect upon them at midnight, and they would cease to be subject to the law of offering. From that point onward, one does not commit misuse with them, and he need not return them to the altar; and even if he nevertheless returned them and they fell off, he need not return them.

They sent word from there

from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia:

The halakha is in accordance with Rav Yosef,

that midnight establishes digestion even for those that are not on the altar.

It was also stated

in accordance with the words of Rav Yosef:

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: If they fell off before midnight and he returned them after midnight, one may not derive benefit

from them by rabbinic decree,

but

nevertheless, if one transgressed and derived benefit,

he has not committed misuse

with them, because midnight establishes digestion and removes them from the law of offering, and the sanctity of offering has departed from them.

And bar Kappara likewise taught

in accordance with Rav Yosef:

If they fell off before midnight and he returned them after midnight, they leave the category of misuse.

And from the statements of both of them it is evident that midnight removes them from the law of offering even when they are not on the altar.

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: But since they sent word from there

that

the halakha is in accordance with Rav Yosef, and Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba said, and bar Kappara likewise taught

in accordance with Rabbi Yosef, it follows that in every case digestion is established at midnight. If so,

with regard to what did Rabba and Rav Ḥisda disagree,

that is, what is the matter whose digestion is not governed by the law of midnight, concerning which they disagreed as to when its digestion is established?

We answer:

He said to him,

Abaye said to him: Rabba and Rav Ḥisda disagreed

with regard to fatty limbs.

That is, fatty meat which, despite having hardened in the fire, is still prevented by its fat from becoming ash. In the case of such meat, even if it was on the altar at midnight, its digestion is not established until it becomes fit for digestion. And when it was not on the altar at midnight, they disagreed whether the daybreak of the following morning or the second midnight digests it.

Rava asked Rabba: The remaining overnight

that disqualifies limbs that were not offered before daybreak—does it

apply

to disqualify even those already located

at the top of the altar

but not yet offered on the pyre,

or does it not apply

to disqualify what is located

at the top of the altar,

and only those that remained outside the altar were disqualified by remaining overnight!? And the Gemara clarifies:

What are the circumstances?

In what case was Rava uncertain?

If you say

that it was in a case

where they did not descend

—those limbs that were found at dawn on top of the altar, but not on the pyre— Rava was uncertain whether leaving them overnight on top of the altar prevents their disqualification and they must be offered, or perhaps they were disqualified and he must remove them and not offer them.

This cannot be so, for even if they were disqualified by remaining overnight, he may not remove them and must offer them, because

now the limbs that were disqualified because they

remained overnight in the Temple courtyard, you said

with regard to them

that

they did not descend

once they had already ascended, as we learned in the Mishna, which included an offering that remained overnight among the disqualified offerings that ascended and did not descend. The limbs that remained overnight

at the top of the altar—how much more so?

Is it not obvious that they do not descend? And since in any event they do not descend and must be offered, what was Rava uncertain about?

Rather,

Rava’s uncertainty concerns a case

where they descended

from the altar after daybreak. He was uncertain whether their status is like that of other disqualified offerings that remained overnight outside the altar, which, if they descended, may not be put back up, or whether they were not disqualified by remaining overnight at all and may be returned to the altar.

The sides of the uncertainty are as follows: Do we

compare the altar to

the

Table

of the leḥem ha-panim, and therefore what remains upon it is not disqualified by remaining overnight, just as the leḥem ha-panim is not disqualified by remaining overnight while it is on the Table, as

we learned: Even if they remain on the Table for many days, this presents no problem. Or perhaps we compare

the altar to the ground, since it is not a sacred vessel but is built of stone like the floor of the Temple courtyard; therefore, what remains upon it is like what remains on the floor of the courtyard, and becomes disqualified by remaining overnight.

He said to him,

Rabba said to Rava:

Remaining overnight does not

disqualify what is found

at its top

of the altar.

The Gemara asks:

Did he accept it from him,

did Rava accept Rabba’s statement and agree with him,

or not?

b. The opinion of the Keren Orah in Menahot [26b] is that although there is no disqualification of remaining overnight on top of the altar, nevertheless, items whose law is that they must be offered during the day and that become disqualified already at sunset—such as blood [according to the view that the top of the altar prevents disqualification even with regard to blood], the handful, frankincense, and meal-offering—the top of the altar does not prevent their disqualification, because the disqualification at sunset is unlike the disqualification of remaining overnight. This is likewise explained in the Mikdash David [16b, heading “And behold, I saw”], that sunset is a different disqualification, and the top of the altar does not prevent it. The words of Rashi [56a, cited above] do not prove otherwise, because he did not explain in what circumstance the blood was at sunset; it is possible that it was outside the altar and therefore became disqualified. In fact, the Shita Mekubetzet there established Rashi’s words as referring to a case where it was raised immediately after sunset, implying that had it been raised beforehand, it would not have become disqualified. The Ḥazon Ish likewise wrote that whenever an item was at the top of the altar at the time that would cause its disqualification, it did not become disqualified; the same applies to items that become disqualified at sunset. And we answer:

ta shma:

that Rava did not accept Rabbah’s statement,

as it was stated: Limbs that remained in the Temple courtyard

until before dawn are

burned

on the altar

throughout the entire night.

But if

they remained atop the altar, they are burned

on the altar

forever,

for although they became disqualified through remaining overnight, nevertheless, the halakha is that if they ascended, they do not descend.

And if they

descended

from the altar after dawn,

Rabbah says: They may ascend again,

because they were not disqualified through remaining overnight;

Rava says: They may not ascend,

because they became disqualified through remaining overnight, and disqualified offerings that descended may not ascend.

If so,

infer from this

that Rava

did not accept it from him

and did not agree with Rabbah’s view, for we find explicitly that they disagreed on this matter.

Infer from this!

We learned in the Mishna:

Just as the altar consecrates

what is fit for it, so too the ramp consecrates; just as the altar and the ramp consecrate what is fit for them, so too the vessels consecrate.

And from where do we know that these too consecrate?

The Sages taught:

It is stated: “Everything

that touches the altar

shall become consecrated” [Exodus 29].

I have only

that what ascends upon the

altar

shall become consecrated.

The ramp,

which consecrates disqualified offerings that ascend upon it—

from where

is this derived? The verse

states: “And you shall anoint the altar.”

This comes to include the ramp, so that it is drawn along with the altar and becomes consecrated like it; consequently, it too has the status of an altar to consecrate disqualified offerings.

From where

do we know that the vessels of service consecrate? They too consecrate disqualified offerings that enter them, so that they become consecrated with sanctity of the body and can no longer be redeemed and returned to non-sacred status.

The verse states

with regard to the consecration of the vessels of service:

“Everything that touches them shall become consecrated”

[there, 30].

Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yohanan: The vessels of service—do they consecrate disqualified offerings?

Rabbi Yohanan understood that Reish Lakish’s doubt concerned the sanctity of the body taking effect upon them on account of the vessel of service, and that consequently they would not be subject to redemption and removal to non-sacred status.

And therefore

he said to him:

Is it not the case that

you already learned it

in our Mishna:

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

meaning that they may not be returned to non-sacred status through redemption?

He said to him

Reish Lakish: I was not uncertain with regard to redemption; rather, my doubt concerns

whether they may initially be offered

perhaps, by entering the vessel of service, it will be possible to offer them!?

And he answered him:

This too we learned.

For vessels of service consecrate even with regard to being offered.