Zevachim 88a — the Talmud in English

And Rav Shimi continues his question against Rava bar Ḥanan: You came, through your words, to prove from the bird sin-offering that the airspace of the altar is not considered like the altar; on the contrary,

at least in this direction one may resolve

the other side,

that the airspace of the altar is considered like the altar. For if it enters your mind that the airspace of the altar is not considered like the altar,

then

the bird sin-offering is disqualified,

as, for example, when it was pinched not for its sake; so that if it had already ascended to the altar and he pinched it there —for although its pinching is performed below, we learned that if he pinched it anywhere on the altar, it is valid—it now has the status of all disqualified offerings that ascended and do not descend. If so,

how does he sprinkle its blood?

For at the time of its sprinkling, he detaches it from the altar into its airspace, and through this

it becomes

its blood

descended,

whose rule is that it may no longer ascend; and how is he permitted to sprinkle it?

And likewise

the other

bloods

that are disqualified

of an animal which ascended onto the altar, for according to Rabban Gamliel they do not descend, but he continues throwing them,

how does he throw them from its blood?

The throwing is performed from a distance, and when he throws from the air, the blood is detached from the altar and is considered “descended.” Rather, necessarily, the airspace of the altar is considered like the altar, and therefore even at the time of throwing from the air, the blood is considered placed upon the altar.

And the Gemara rejects: It is possible to perform the throwing not from the air, in a manner

that he brings them into contact

and brings the blood close to the wall and places it there, rather than throwing it from a distance. If so, even if the airspace of the altar is not like the altar, it is still possible to place the blood without detaching it from the altar.

And we ask: Is

this

form of placing it, in which he brings the sin-offering close to the wall,

sprinkling? It is extraction!?

For he does not sprinkle the blood from a distance; rather, he brings the bird to the wall and extracts its blood, whereas the bird sin-offering requires sprinkling! And likewise, as for the disqualified bloods of an animal, which he brings close to the wall and places there,

is this throwing

? Is it not

pouring!?

And the blood of an animal requires throwing, not pouring!

Furthermore,

is

this the manner of sprinkling

—to place the bird beside the wall? And likewise, is

this the manner of throwing

—to bring the vessel beside the wall?

Rather, necessarily, the airspace of the altar is like the altar, and therefore he is permitted to place it through sprinkling and throwing, because even when the blood is in the air, it is considered to be upon the altar, and it is not “descended”!

Rav Ashi said: If

it is in a manner

that he holds them

—the priest holds the disqualified offering in his hand and stands

at the top of the altar, so too

the offering is considered placed upon the altar, and concerning this we had no doubt at all. This has no bearing on the issue of whether the airspace of the altar is like the altar, because since the priest himself is standing on the altar and holding the offering in his hand, the offering is considered placed at the top of the altar. For the placing of the priest’s body at the top of the altar is like the placing of the offering. And the same applies concerning the sprinkling and throwing of disqualified blood: since it is in the hands of the priest who is standing at the top of the altar, it is considered placed upon the altar, and this has no bearing at all on the issue of the airspace of the altar.

When he said

above that there was a doubt concerning the airspace of the altar, this refers to a situation in which the priest is standing on the ground and

he hangs them

to the offering

with a reed

and extends it into the airspace of the altar: In this situation, is it considered placed upon the altar because it is found in its airspace, or not? And this is what we doubted:

what

is its status?

And the Gemara concludes:

teyku!

Mishna:

This Mishna comes to explain the law concerning sacred service vessels that sanctify those placed within them, making them sacred for offering, and which from that moment may no longer be redeemed and emerge into non-sacred status. For this is the law concerning all things that require vessels in order to prepare them or offer them through the vessel: only from the time that they enter the vessel does sanctity of the body for the altar take effect upon them. And our Mishna comes to explain that the vessels sanctify with this sanctity only things fit to be performed in those vessels, and each vessel sanctifies only that which is fit to be performed in that vessel itself.

And therefore,

wet vessels

—that is, bowls and basins designated for blood, wine, and oil—

sanctify

only

the wet substance

placed within them; but if he placed flour in them, the vessel does not sanctify it.

And dry measures

—that is, vessels designated for measuring dry flour—

sanctify the dry substance. [

And there were no vessels designated for dry substances besides these measuring vessels, because the meal-offering was placed in the wet vessels, which were also fit for this purpose. And there were two dry measures in the Temple: one for measuring the quantity of an issaron, since the quantity of all meal-offerings is according to an issaron, and the second for measuring half an issaron, with which they measured the meal-offering of the High Priest, who brought his offering and divided it, half in the morning and half in the evening].

A wet vessel does not sanctify the dry, and a dry vessel does not sanctify the wet.

Sacred vessels that became perforated, if

they still

perform in them something resembling the work they used to perform

in them

when they were

whole,

these

are

sanctifying;

but if not, they do not sanctify.

And all of them do not sanctify

that which is placed within them

unless

it was placed within them

in the sacred area

—that is, in the Temple courtyard; but if he placed it within them while they were outside the courtyard, they do not sanctify it.

Gemara:

Shmuel said:

The statement that we learned in the Mishna, that a wet vessel does not sanctify the dry,

was taught

only

with regard to

a vessel of

measures,

that is, vessels designated for measuring wet substances [and there were seven vessels of measures for wet substances in the Temple, in different capacities]. Since these vessels were not fit for measuring dry substances, and were anointed only for measuring, therefore they do not sanctify the dry.

But basins,

although they are wet vessels, nevertheless

sanctify

the dry, for just as they are fit for wet substances, so they are fit for fine flour, which is dry. Since

it is stated

concerning the offerings of the princes, who brought a bowl and a basin, that they were

“both full of fine flour” [Numbers 7],

it follows that the basin is a vessel made also for the purpose of a dry substance.

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina:

But

the meal-offering

of the princes

is wet,

for it is stated concerning it, “a meal-offering mixed with oil.” If so, how did Shmuel learn from the offerings of the princes that a wet vessel sanctifies the dry?

He said to him: It was necessary

for the verse to teach us

only concerning the

part of the

dry substance within it,

because it is impossible for all of it to be mixed in such a way that there would not be parts of the dry substance that the oil did not touch; nevertheless, we learn from the verse that even these were sanctified in the basins.

If you wish, say: A meal-offering, in relation to blood, is considered dry,

and since we find in the offerings of the princes that the basin designated for wet blood sanctified the dry meal-offering within it, it follows that wet vessels sanctify even the dry.

Shmuel said: Sacred service vessels sanctify only

when they are

whole, excluding vessels that became perforated. And likewise they

excluding perforated vessels. Likewise,

do not

sanctify

sanctify except

when they are

full, with the full measure required for this thing. That is, if it is dry, there must be a complete issaron there for a meal-offering, for that is its measure. And if it is a meal-offering accompanying libations that is placed in the vessel, there must be three issaron for a bull and two issaron for a ram. But if he diminished from the required measure, the vessel does not sanctify it, since the measure he placed is not fit for the vessel.

And likewise

the vessels do not

sanctify

except from within them—that is, only what is placed within their interior.

that is, only what is placed inside their cavity.

And some say,

there are those who read: Sacred service vessels

sanctify only when they are whole, full, and from within,

when he placed it within them while they were inside the courtyard and not outside.

And we ask:

What is the difference between them?

Between those who read, “they sanctify only from within them,” and those who read, “they sanctify only from the inside”?

And the Gemara explains:

The difference between them is the overflow of measures,

the measure heaped above the vessel, according to the version that holds, “they sanctify only from within them,” the heaped-up part that is not within the cavity of the vessel does not become sanctified; whereas according to the view that reads, “they sanctify only from the inside,” even the heaped-up measure becomes sanctified, although it is not within the cavity of the vessel.

In a baraita it was taught

the two versions:

They sanctify only when they are whole, full, from within them, and from the inside.

Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

The statement that we learned, that the vessels sanctify only if they are full according to the measure,

was taught

only

in a case

where

he does not intend

after he has placed part of the measure

to add

more and complete the measure.

But

if

he intends to add

and complete the measure, then

the first, the first, becomes sacred,

and each small amount that he put in becomes sanctified immediately.

It was also taught so

in accordance with Rav Asi’s words: What is

“full”

that the Torah said, “both full of fine flour”?

“Full” means only whole,

that the issaron measures and the log measures were whole, and nothing was lacking from their measure, for if something were lacking, it would not become sanctified.

Rabbi Yosei said: When

do they not become sanctified with less than the measure?

When he does not intend to add.

But if

he intends to add, then

then

the first, the first, becomes sacred.

We learned in the Mishna:

A wet vessel does not sanctify

the dry, and a dry vessel does not sanctify the wet.

Rav said, and some say Rav Asi said:

The statement that we learned, that the vessels do not sanctify something that is not fit for them, comes only to say that they

do not sanctify for offering,

that is, the sanctity of offering does not take effect upon what is placed in a vessel that is not fit for it;

but they do sanctify

these vessels

for disqualification,

for once they were placed in a sacred vessel, even though it is not fit for them, nevertheless they were rendered fit through it to become disqualified on account of “going out,” a disqualification that takes effect only in the sacred domain, or on account of contact with one who immersed that day, who disqualifies sacred things.

There are those who teach it

with regard to these words of Rav Asi

as referring

to what we learned in a beraita:

One does not bring meal-offerings, libations, an animal meal-offering

that is, a meal-offering of libations,

or first fruits from medumah

which is a mixture of non-sacred produce and terumah, and even though it is permitted as food to kohanim, and it is forbidden only to an Israelite on account of the terumah mixed within it, nevertheless, the law of the meal-offering is that it must come specifically from something permitted to an Israelite, as stated: “from the drink of Israel for a meal-offering,” that is, from what is permitted to an Israelite.

And there is no need to say

that one does not bring them

from orlah and the mixed seeds of the vineyard

which are forbidden even to kohanim.

And if he brought it, it was not sanctified.

And concerning this

Rav said, and some say Rav Asi:

what we learned, that one who brings from these

it was not sanctified

means with regard to

being offered, but it was sanctified to become disqualified,

and they do not become non-sacred; rather, their law is that they must be burned, because the vessel sanctified them. Indeed, Rav Asi’s words refer only to the meal-offerings and not to the first fruits, for there is no sanctity of a vessel in first fruits, and this matter of becoming disqualified is not applicable to them; nor is the matter of being offered applicable here, since first fruits are not offered.

The Sages taught: Sacred vessels that became perforated

in a manner that disqualifies them

one does not melt them

around the hole in order to seal it, as they would do with measuring vessels that became perforated,

and one does not melt lead into them

that is, lead, in order to seal the hole. And the reason is that the Temple is a place of wealth, and it is not proper conduct to do things in it that appear to indicate poverty.

And for this reason, even if they

became damaged

and broke

one does not repair them.

And likewise,

a knife that became damaged

by a large nick, in such a manner that the repair of sharpening it would be noticeable

one does not sharpen its nick. If it fell

from its handle

one does not replace it.

Abba Shaul says: A knife that rendered unfit

because it was soft and easily acquired slight nicks

was in the Temple

and rendered the sacred offerings unfit

and the kohanim gathered concerning it and concealed it.

The Sages taught: The garments of the priesthood, one does not make them by needlework

that is, separate pieces sewn to one another by means of a needle,

but by woven work

which is woven from the outset in the form of a garment, and it is all one piece.

As it is stated: “woven work” [

Exodus 28].

And if they

became soiled

that the garments became dirty,

one does not wash

them

neither with natron nor with soapwort

which are types of washing that clean the dirt, and this too is for the reason mentioned, that there is no poverty in a place of wealth.

And the Gemara was astonished: Is it only with natron and soapwort that one does not wash?

But with water one does wash?

Yet the reason for this is that it appears as poverty, and if so, what difference is there to me whether natron or water? On the contrary, if one does not wash with something that is effective for washing well, all the more so with water, which is an inferior washing? And we answer:

Abaye said: This is what it means:

They became slightly soiled, in such a manner that they

became soiled

and required washing

with water

alone;

one washes it

also

with natron and soapwort,