Zevachim 87a — the Talmud in English

Rabba said, ![](pamud.bmp "

Precise page location")

midnight

of the night

of the second day

of the following day

consumes them

and establishes them for removal, and until that hour, if they fell off, he must return them; but afterward he need not return them.

Rav Ḥisda said: dawn

of this morning

consumes them,

and from this time he need not return them if they fell off.

The scholars of the house of Rav

explained:

What is the reason of Rav Ḥisda

who says that even dawn establishes consumption, for in the verse we learned this only with regard to midnight:

And if midnight, which does not cause

disqualification of

remaining overnight

for limbs that remained outside the altar and had not yet ascended upon it [for with regard to the disqualification of remaining overnight it is stated, “He shall not leave the fat of My festival-offering until morning,” implying that it remains overnight], and nevertheless

causes consumption

for the sinews found on the pyre;

dawn, which causes

disqualification of

remaining overnight, is it not all the more so that it causes consumption?

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 dawn:

Rabba said: the second midnight consumes 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 consumption,

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

Rav Yosef challenged

Rabba and Rav Ḥisda’s words, for both of them held that midnight does not consume them if they were not on the altar at that time:

And who can tell us that midnight,

specifically when they are

at the top of the altar, makes them

undergo consumption,

perhaps wherever it finds them it makes them undergo consumption

even if they are not on the altar!? Therefore, the law would be that even if they fell off before midnight, the law of consumption takes effect upon them at midnight, and they are removed from the law of burning; from this point onward there is no sacrilege liability for them, and he need not return them to the altar, and if, nevertheless, he returned them and they fell off, he need not return them.

They sent from there

from the Land of Israel to say in Babylonia:

The halakha is in accordance with Rav Yosef,

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

It was also stated

in accordance with Rav Yosef’s words:

Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: If they fell off before midnight and he returned them after midnight, it is forbidden to derive benefit

from them by rabbinic law,

and

nevertheless, if they transgressed and derived benefit,

there is no sacrilege liability

for them, because midnight establishes consumption and removes them from the law of burning, and the sanctity of burning has been removed from them.

And likewise Tanna bar Kappara taught

in accordance with Rav Yosef:

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

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

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

that

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

in accordance with Rabbi Yosef’s words, it follows that in every case consumption is established at midnight; and if so,

with regard to what do Rabba and Rav Ḥisda disagree,

that is, what is the matter whose consumption is not governed by midnight, concerning which they disagreed when its consumption is established?

We answer:

He said to him,

Abaye said to him: Rabba and Rav Ḥisda disagreed

with regard to fatty items.

That is, fatty meat, for although it has hardened in the fire, its fat still prevents it from becoming ashes. With regard to this meat, even if it was on the altar at midnight, its consumption is not established until it becomes fit for consumption. And when it was not on the altar at midnight, they disagreed whether dawn consumes them or the second midnight.

Rava asked Rabba: Remaining overnight

which disqualifies limbs that had not previously been burned before dawn—does it

render liable

to disqualify even those already found

at its top

of the altar, but which had not yet been burned on the pyre,

or does it not render liable

to disqualify what is found

at its top of the altar,

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

What are the circumstances?

In what circumstance did Rava raise his uncertainty?

If you say

it is a case

where they did not descend

—those limbs found at dawn at the top of the altar, not on the pyre— Rava was uncertain whether their remaining overnight at the top of the altar prevents their disqualification, so that they must be burned, or perhaps they were disqualified and he should bring them down and not burn them.

This cannot be so, for even if they were disqualified through remaining overnight, he should not bring them down, but must burn them, because

now those disqualified because they

remained overnight in the courtyard—you said

with regard to those that remained overnight in the courtyard

that

they did not descend

after they had already ascended, as we learned in the Mishna, which included an item that remained overnight among the disqualified items that ascended and did not descend. With regard to those that remained overnight

at its top of the altar, is it necessary to ask?

Is it not obvious that they do not descend? And since in any event they do not descend and must be burned, what was Rava’s uncertainty?

Rather,

Rava’s uncertainty was in a case

where they descended

from the altar after dawn. In this regard he was uncertain whether their law is like that of other disqualified items that remained overnight outside the altar, which, if they descended, may not ascend, or whether they were not disqualified at all through remaining overnight and should return and ascend.

The sides of the uncertainty are: Do we

compare it to the table

of the showbread,

comparing it

to the altar, and for this reason what remains upon it is not disqualified through remaining overnight, just as the showbread is not disqualified through remaining overnight while it is on the table, as

we learned: Even if they are on the table for many days, there is nothing to it. Or perhaps we compare it to the ground

—the altar—since it is not a service vessel but is built of stone like the floor of the courtyard; therefore, those that remain upon it are like those that remain upon the floor of the courtyard, which become disqualified through 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 is uncertain:

Did he accept it from him

Rava and agree with Rabba’s words,

or not?

And we answer:

ta shma,

that Rava did not accept the words of Rabbah,

for it was stated: limbs that remained in the Temple courtyard

until before dawn, it is

burning

them

and continues throughout the entire night.

But if

it spent the night on top of the altar, he burns

them

and continues forever,

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

And if

they descended

from the altar after dawn,

Rabbah said: they should ascend

again, because they did not become disqualified through remaining overnight,

Rava said: they should not ascend

because they became disqualified through remaining overnight and disqualified items that descended should not ascend.

And if so,

shema minah,

that Rava

did not accept it from him

and did not agree with Rabbah's opinion, for we find explicitly that they disputed this matter.

Shema minah!

We learned in the Mishna:

Just as the altar sanctifies

that which is fit for it, so the ramp sanctifies; just as the altar and the ramp sanctify that which is fit for them, so the vessels sanctify.

And from where [do we know] that these too sanctify?

The Sages taught:

It is stated: “Everything

that touches the altar

shall become sanctified” [Exodus 29].

I have only

that what ascends upon

the altar

shall become sanctified;

the ramp

which sanctifies disqualified items that ascend upon it,

from where [do we know this]? The verse says:

“And you shall anoint

the altar.”

This comes to include the ramp, so that it is drawn along with it and becomes sanctified like it; and consequently, it too is like the altar, to sanctify disqualified items.

From where [do we know this concerning] service vessels?

For they too sanctify the disqualified items that entered them, so that they become sanctified with sanctity of the body and can no longer be redeemed and leave into non-sacred status.

The verse says

concerning the sanctification of service vessels:

“Everything that touches them shall become sanctified”

([ibid. 30]).

Resh Lakish asked Rabbi Yohanan: Service vessels—what is the law: do they sanctify disqualified items?

And Rabbi Yohanan thought that Resh Lakish's doubt concerned sanctity of the body taking effect upon them because of the service vessel, and that because of this they would have no redemption to leave into non-sacred status.

And because of this,

he said to him:

Is it not so that

you have learned it

in our Mishna:

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

and this is with regard to their not leaving into non-sacred status through redemption.

He said to him,

Resh Lakish: I was not doubtful with regard to redemption, but rather with regard to

being offered ab initio

perhaps, because they entered a service vessel, it will be possible to offer them!?

And he answered him:

This too we have learned.

For service vessels sanctify also with regard to being offered.