Zevachim 88a (פח.) — the Talmud in English

And Rav Shimi continues his objection to Rava bar Ḥanan: You came with 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 that direction, you can resolve

in favor of the opposite possibility,

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,

and, for example, it was pinched not for its sake—so that if it had already ascended onto 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], its status would now be like that of all disqualified offerings that ascended, which are not taken down. If so,

how can he sprinkle its blood?

For at the time of sprinkling, he detaches it from the altar into its airspace, and by doing so

it becomes

its blood

down below,

whose status is that it may no longer ascend—and how, then, is he permitted to sprinkle it?

And likewise,

the other

bloods

that are disqualified

of an animal that ascended onto the altar, which according to Rabban Gamliel are not taken down, but their sprinkling is continued:

how can he sprinkle them from its blood?

The sprinkling is performed from a distance, and when he throws it through the air, the blood becomes detached from the altar and is considered something that is down below. Rather, it must necessarily be that the airspace of the altar is considered like the altar, and therefore, even while the blood is being thrown through the air, it is considered to be resting on the altar.

The Gemara rejects this: It is possible to perform the sprinkling without throwing it through the air, in a manner

that he brings it into contact with them

by bringing the blood close to the wall and placing it there. He does not throw it from a distance. If so, even if the airspace of the altar is not considered like the altar, it is still possible to place the blood without detaching it from the altar.

The Gemara asks: Is

this

form of placement, in which he brings the sin-offering to the wall,

sprinkling? It is squeezing out the blood!?

He does not sprinkle the blood from a distance; rather, he brings the bird to the wall and squeezes out its blood, whereas a bird sin-offering requires sprinkling. And as for the disqualified bloods of an animal, which he brings to the wall and places there,

is this sprinkling

? Surely

it is pouring!?

The blood of an animal requires sprinkling, not pouring!

Furthermore,

is this

the manner of sprinkling

—to place the bird next to the wall? And likewise, is this

the manner of sprinkling

—to bring the vessel next to the wall?

Rather, it must necessarily be that the airspace of the altar is considered like the altar, and therefore he is permitted to place it through sprinkling or throwing, because even while the blood is in the air, it is considered as though it were on the altar, and is not considered something that is down below!

Rav Ashi said: If

the manner is

that he holds them

—the priest holds the disqualified offering in his hand while standing

atop the altar, so too

the offering is considered as though it were resting on the altar. In this case we had no doubt at all, and it has no bearing on the question of whether the airspace of the altar is considered like the altar. Since the priest himself is standing on the altar and holding the offering in his hand, the offering is considered to be resting at the top of the altar, because the placement of the priest’s body at the top of the altar is equivalent to the placement of the offering. The same applies to 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 to be resting on the altar, and has no connection whatsoever to the question concerning the airspace of the altar.

When he said

above that the question concerning the airspace of the altar was raised, that was in a case where the priest was standing on the ground and

suspended them

the offering

with a reed

and extended it into the airspace of the altar. The question was whether, in this case, it is considered as though it were resting on the altar because it is located in its airspace, or not. And this is what we asked:

what

is its status?

The Gemara concludes:

Teyku!

Mishna:

This Mishna comes to clarify the law concerning vessels of service, which sanctify whatever is placed inside them, making it sacred for sacrifice, and which, from that moment onward, may no longer be redeemed or removed to the non-sacred realm. The law is that with regard to all things requiring vessels in order to prepare them or to offer them through a vessel, it is only once they enter the vessel that sanctity of the body for the altar takes effect upon them. Our Mishna teaches that the vessels sanctify with this sanctity only things suitable to be performed in those vessels, and each vessel sanctifies only that which is suitable to be performed in that vessel itself.

Therefore,

vessels for liquids

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

sanctify

only

liquids

placed inside them; but if one 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.

There were no vessels designated for dry substances apart from these measuring vessels, because the meal-offering was placed in vessels for liquids, which were also suitable for that purpose. There were two dry measures in the Temple: one for measuring an issaron, the measure prescribed for all meal-offerings, and the other for measuring half an issaron, with which they measured the meal-offering of the High Priest, who brought his meal-offering and divided it, half in the morning and half in the evening.

A vessel for liquids does not sanctify a dry substance, and a dry measure does not sanctify a liquid.

Vessels of sacred service that developed holes, if

they still

perform in them something resembling the task they performed

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 inside them

unless

it was placed inside them

within the sacred area,

that is, in the courtyard. But if one placed it inside them while they were outside the courtyard, they do not sanctify it.

Gemara:

Shmuel said:

What we learned in the Mishna—that a vessel for liquids does not sanctify a dry substance—

was taught

only

with regard to a vessel of

a

measures,

that is, vessels designated for measuring liquids. Since these vessels are not suitable for measuring dry substances, and were anointed only for measuring, they therefore do not sanctify a dry substance.

But basins,

although they are vessels for liquids, nevertheless

sanctify

a dry substance, for just as they are suitable for liquids, they are also suitable for fine flour, which is dry. This is because

it is stated

with regard to the offerings of the tribal princes, who brought a bowl and a basin, that

“both of them were full of fine flour”

[Numbers 7]. Thus, the basin is a vessel made also for the purpose of holding a dry substance.

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina:

But the

meal-offering

of the tribal princes

is a liquid,

for it is stated with regard to it, “a meal-offering mixed with oil.” If so, how did Shmuel derive from the offerings of the tribal princes that a vessel for liquids sanctifies a dry substance?

He said to him: It was necessary

for the verse to teach us

only concerning the

portion of

the dry substance within it,

because it is impossible for all of it to be mixed in such a manner that there would not be portions of dry substance untouched by the oil. Nevertheless, the verse teaches us that even these portions were sanctified in the basins.

If you wish, say instead: A meal-offering is considered dry relative to blood,

and since we find in the offerings of the tribal princes that the basin designated for liquid blood sanctified the dry meal-offering placed in it, it follows that a vessel for liquids sanctifies even a dry substance.

Shmuel said: Vessels of service sanctify only

when they are

whole,

excluding vessels that developed holes. And likewise,

they do not

sanctify

unless

they are

full,

containing the full measure required for that substance. That is, if it is a dry substance, there must be a complete issaron, which is its prescribed measure for a meal-offering. And if it is a meal-offering accompanying libations placed in a vessel, there must be three issaron for a bull and two issaron for a ram. But if he lacks any of the required measure, the vessel does not sanctify it, since the amount he placed is not suitable for this vessel. And likewise,

the vessels do not

sanctify

except from within them,

that is, only what is placed inside their cavity.

And some say

that the reading is: Vessels of service

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

—when one placed the substance inside them while they were within the courtyard, and not outside.

The Gemara asks:

What is the difference between them?

What is the difference between those who have the reading that the vessels sanctify only from within them and those who have the reading that they sanctify only from the inside?

The Gemara explains:

The difference between them is the overflow of measures,

the substance heaping above the vessel, According to the version that they sanctify only from within them, the heaped-up portion, which is not in the cavity of the vessel, is not sanctified. According to the version that they sanctify only from the inside, even the heaped-up measure is sanctified, although it is not in the cavity of the vessel.

In a beraita it was taught

both versions:

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

Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

What we learned—that the vessels sanctify only when they are full according to the measure—

was taught

only

in a case

where

he does not intend

after placing part of the measure

to add

more and complete the measure.

But

if

he intends to add

and complete the measure, then

the first portion becomes sacred first,

and each small amount that he introduces becomes sanctified immediately.

It was taught likewise

in accordance with the words of Rav Asi: What is meant by

“full”

in the Torah’s statement, “both of them were full of fine flour”?

“Full” means only whole,

that the issaron measures and log measures were complete, with none of their measure lacking, for had anything been lacking, it would not have been sanctified.

Rabbi Yosei said: When

are they not sanctified when they contain less than the measure?

When he does not intend to add.

But if

he intends to add,

then

the first portion becomes sacred first.

We learned in the Mishna:

A vessel for liquids does not sanctify

a dry substance, and a dry measure does not sanctify a liquid.

Rav said, and some say Rav Asi said:

What we learned—that vessels do not sanctify a substance that is not suitable for them—comes to teach only that

they do not sanctify it for sacrifice,

that is, the sanctity of sacrifice does not take effect upon something placed in a vessel unsuitable for it.

But they do sanctify

these vessels

to become disqualified,

for once they have been placed inside a sacred vessel, even though it is not suitable for them, they have nevertheless been rendered susceptible through it to becoming disqualified because of yotzei, a disqualification that applies only to something within the sacred area, or because of contact with one who immersed that day, who disqualifies sacred substances.

Some teach this

in connection with these words of Rav Asi:

This

is what we learned in a beraita:

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

that is, a meal-offering accompanying libations,

or first fruits from produce mixed with teruma

which is a mixture of non-sacred produce and teruma, and although it may be eaten by koanim and is prohibited only to an Israelite because of the teruma mixed into it, nevertheless, the meal-offering must come specifically from something permitted to an Israelite, as stated: “From the drink of Israel for the meal-offering,” that is, from something permitted to an Israelite.

And it is unnecessary to say

that one may not bring them

from orla or the produce of a vineyard planted with diverse species

which are prohibited even to koanim.

And if he brought them, they are not sanctified.

And concerning this

Rav said, and some say Rav Asi said:

what we learned, that an offering that comes from these sources

is not sanctified

means with regard to

being fit to be offered, but it is sanctified so as to become disqualified

and they do not become non-sacred; rather, they must be burned because the vessel sanctified them. Indeed, Rav Asi’s statement applies only to meal-offerings and not to first fruits, since first fruits do not have the sanctity of a vessel, and this matter of becoming disqualified is therefore inapplicable to them. Nor is the matter of being fit to be offered applicable, since first fruits are not offered.

The Sages taught: Sacred vessels that became perforated

in a manner that renders them unfit

may not be melted

around the perforation in order to seal it, as was done with perforated measuring vessels,

and one may not melt lead into them

that is, lead, in order to seal the perforation. The reason is that the Temple is a place of abundance, and it is improper to perform there acts that appear impoverished.

For this reason, even if they

became damaged

and broke,

they may not be repaired.

Likewise,

a knife whose blade became nicked

with a large nick, such that repairing it by sharpening it would be noticeable,

its nick may not be sharpened away. If it came loose

from its handle,

it may not be reattached.

Abba Shaul says: A knife that renders offerings unfit

because it was soft and easily developed minor nicks

was in the Temple

and rendered the sacred offerings unfit,

and the priests convened concerning it and concealed it.

The Sages taught: Priestly garments may not be made by needlework

that is, as separate pieces sewn together with a needle,

but by woven work

woven from the outset in the form of a garment, with the entire garment constituting a single piece.

As it is stated: “Woven work” [Exodus 28].

And if they

became soiled

that is, if the garments became dirty,

they may not be laundered

them

either with natron or with soapwort

which are types of laundering that remove dirt; this too is for the previously mentioned reason, that there is no poverty in a place of abundance.

The Gemara raises an objection: Is it only with natron and soapwort that they may not be laundered—

but with water they may be laundered?

Yet the reason is that this appears impoverished; if so, what difference is there between natron and water? On the contrary, if they may not be washed with an agent that cleans effectively, all the more so may they not be washed with water, which is a less effective means of laundering. And we answer:

Abaye said: This is what it means:

If they became slightly soiled, in a manner that

made them require

laundering

with water

only,

they may be laundered

also

with natron and soapwort,