Zevachim 87b (פז:) — the Talmud in English

For we learned in the Mishna above concerning those disqualified offerings whose rule is that if they ascended, they do not descend, and it stated there that with regard to the flesh of an offering disqualified because

disqualified persons received its blood and sprinkled it,

if it ascended, it does not descend.

Is it not

referring to a case in which

disqualified persons received the blood and disqualified persons sprinkled it,

and only in such a case is the rule that the flesh may not initially be brought up? If so, why is receiving the blood by disqualified persons alone not sufficient to disqualify the flesh and prevent its being brought up, and why does the Mishna state that the sprinkling, too, was performed disqualifiably? Rather, it must necessarily be teaching us that specifically in such a case the flesh may not be brought up; but if fit persons sprinkled the blood, the limbs may initially be brought up, since the sprinkling was performed properly. And although the receiving of the blood was performed disqualifiably, nevertheless the disqualified blood was sanctified in a service vessel and may initially be offered, and consequently the flesh, too, may be offered. And from here there is proof that service vessels sanctify disqualified items.

The Gemara rejects this:

No,

it is not referring here to a case in which both the receiving and the sprinkling were performed disqualifiably. Rather, the Mishna is speaking of two possibilities: one,

disqualified persons received

the blood;

alternatively,

another possibility is

that disqualified persons sprinkled it,

and in each of these cases, the rule concerning the limbs is that they may not initially be brought up. The Mishna teaches that even though a disqualified sprinkling occurred here, nevertheless, if the limbs ascended, they do not descend.

The proof is therefore refuted, for according to this interpretation it follows that even if the disqualified blood was in a service vessel, it was not sanctified for purposes of being offered initially.

The Gemara now raises a doubt concerning this law: In the case of disqualified limbs that ascended to the top of the altar, they do not descend. Does

the airspace of the altar have the status of the altar

and, for that reason, even if one did not place them on the altar itself but suspended them in its airspace, their rule is that they do not descend,

or

does the airspace of the altar

not

have the status of the altar, and they descend!?

Come and hear:

We learned in our Mishna:

Just as the altar sanctifies, so

the

ramp sanctifies.

And if you say that the airspace of the altar does not have the status of the altar,

then the same should apply to

the airspace of the ramp, which likewise does not have the status of the ramp.

Now, when the priest comes to offer the disqualified items that ascended onto the ramp,

how can he bring it up from the ramp to the altar?

After all, as soon as he lifts them into the air,

it becomes an item that descended,

since the airspace of the ramp is not considered equivalent to the ramp. If so, he may no longer offer them, for we learned that disqualified items that descended may not be brought up again. How, then, can the law stated in the Mishna—that the ramp sanctifies disqualified items—be fulfilled!?

Rather, it must be that the airspace of the altar is considered equivalent to the altar. Therefore, even while the limbs are in the priest’s hands, they are considered as though they were resting on the ramp, and they have not descended from it.

The Gemara rejects this: When the Mishna says that the disqualified items that ascended onto the ramp are to be offered, it is referring to a case

where he drags it along,

in which the priest drags them along the ramp to the altar and does not lift them.

And we challenge this:

But there is airspace between the ramp and the altar,

and when he drags them from the ramp to the altar, he passes them through that airspace. If the airspace of the altar is not equivalent to the altar, it follows that as he transfers them from the ramp to the altar, they descend from the altar and may no longer be brought up. Since we find that nevertheless the disqualified items are brought from the ramp to the altar, it must necessarily be that the airspace of the altar is equivalent to the altar.

The Gemara rejects this:

When most of it is on the ramp, it is like the ramp.

When he drags it from the ramp to the altar, at first most of it still remains on the ramp. Therefore, it is considered as though the entire item were resting on the ramp, because even the part opposite the airspace follows the majority that is on the ramp. Similarly,

when most of it is on the altar, it is like the altar.

For after he has dragged it and transferred most of it to the altar, even the part that still lies opposite the airspace follows the majority that is already on the altar.

If so, it still remains possible to transfer the limbs from the ramp to the altar in a manner that would not cause them to be considered as having descended, even if the airspace of the altar is not considered equivalent to the altar.

And we challenge this: Since we have established that the reason the limbs are not considered to have descended is that they follow the majority of the limb,

resolve from this the matter about which Rami bar Hama raised a doubt:

he questioned whether

there is attachment among items that ascend

to the altar, so that the entire limb is considered a single unit, and even the part that has not yet reached the altar is considered as having ascended, because it follows the majority, and the majority has ascended;

or not,

because they are considered separate parts and cannot be joined so that the majority principle applies to them. Since we said that the disqualified items can be brought from the ramp to the altar, the doubt can be resolved from here in favor of the view that there is attachment. For if not, every small portion of the limb that he transfers opposite the airspace interrupting between the ramp and the altar would be considered to have descended and would be disqualified from being brought up again. Rather, evidently the entire piece is considered a single unit, and therefore the majority principle applies to it.

And we answer:

That is not difficult,

for in truth one can

resolve

this doubt from here.

Rava bar Rav Hanan raised an objection to this: And if you say that the airspace of the altar has the status of the altar,

then with regard to

the bird burnt-offering,

whose pinching is performed at the top of the altar,

which is disqualified by a thought

of piggul, intending to offer it outside its designated time,

how can you find such a case?

It should never be disqualified by a thought of piggul concerning its offering. Since its pinching is performed in the airspace of the altar,

the altar has already caught it,

and the rule that it does not descend takes effect. If so, the offering that he intends to perform is a valid offering, for even if in practice he left it overnight on top of the altar and it thereby became disqualified, nevertheless its law would be that it should initially be offered the next day, by virtue of the rule that disqualified items that ascended do not descend. It follows that he intended only to perform a valid offering, and such a thought does not render the offering piggul.

If it is established that a thought of piggul is possible with regard to a bird burnt-offering, it must necessarily be that the offering he intended to perform the next day is a disqualified offering. This is because at the time of its pinching it is not yet considered to be resting on the altar, since the airspace of the altar is not considered equivalent to the altar. When he intends to leave it as it is in his hand and delay its offering until the next day, his thought is therefore to perform a disqualified offering, and it consequently becomes piggul.

Rav Shimi bar Ashi raised an objection to this

and responded rhetorically:

Why not?

A thought of piggul can indeed occur with regard to a bird burnt-offering. Even if the airspace of the altar is considered equivalent to the altar, nevertheless

you can find

piggul in a case

such as when he said

the priest:

I am pinching it with the intention of lowering it

from the altar

tomorrow

before the offering,

and bringing it up

again

and offering it,

and this thought is a thought of a disqualified offering. For if he were in fact to lower it from the altar after it became disqualified through remaining overnight, its law would be that it could not ascend again, since disqualified items that descended may not be brought up again.

And we challenge this:

This works out well according to Rava, who says that remaining overnight takes effect on top of the altar

and disqualifies those that remain there, whose law is that if they descend they may not ascend. Therefore, the thought of offering it the next day after lowering it from the altar is a thought of piggul, and the case can be established in this manner.

But according to Rabba, who says that remaining overnight does not take effect on top of the altar,

and anything that remains overnight on top of the altar remains valid,

his thought is ineffectual,

for even if he were actually to carry out his thought, he would not thereby disqualify the offering, and certainly he did not do so merely by thinking it. The difficulty thus returns: If the airspace of the altar is equivalent to the altar, how can a thought of piggul occur with regard to a bird burnt-offering?

And we answer:

According to Rabba, too, you can find

a thought of piggul in a case

such as when he said

the priest:

I am pinching it with the intention of lowering it

from the altar

before dawn and bringing it up after dawn.

This offering is certainly disqualified, because at dawn it was not on the altar but on the floor, and the disqualification of remaining overnight takes effect upon it. It follows that he intended to perform a disqualified offering.

It is thus resolved that even if the airspace of the altar is equivalent to the altar, a thought of piggul is nevertheless possible with regard to a bird burnt-offering.