Zevachim 77

לשם עצים

for the sake of wood, not as an offering. Here as well, the priest stipulates that if the man is not a confirmed leper, the sprinkling of the oil should not be viewed as a rite.

והא איכא שיריים דבעי מילינהו ואיכא הך פורתא דלא קמיץ עילויה דפריק ליה

The Gemara questions further: But even if the priest removes a handful from the oil and burns it, and also sprinkles from the oil, there is the matter of the remainder of the oil, which must be filled after the removal of the handful so that the priest can perform the sprinkling with a full log, and there is therefore that bit of oil that was added from which the priest did not remove the handful initially. If the one bringing the offering is not a leper, and the log of oil is a gift, it will turn out that there is a small portion of the oil that was not permitted by the removal of the handful. The Gemara explains that the priest redeems it, i.e., after the sprinklings of the oil have been performed, he stipulates that if the person who brought the offering is not a leper then the oil should be desacralized by his giving its value to the Temple treasury.

דפריק ליה היכא אי גוואי קא מעייל חולין לעזרה אי אבראי איפסיל ליה ביוצא לעולם גוואי חולין ממילא הויין

The Gemara asks: If you say that he redeems it, where does he redeem it? If he redeems it when the oil is within the walls of the Temple, he would thereby be bringing non-sacred oil into the courtyard. If he redeems the oil outside the courtyard, before he can redeem the oil it would become disqualified due to the prohibition of a consecrated item leaving the courtyard. The Gemara answers: Actually, he redeems the oil when it is within the walls of the Temple. This is permitted because the non-sacred oil is then found in the Temple courtyard by itself, i.e., he did not bring a non-sacred item into the Temple courtyard.

והא אמר רבי שמעון אין מתנדבין שמן תקוני גברא שאני

The Gemara asks a question with regard to the suggested resolution, according to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, that one whose status as a leper is uncertain should bring a log of oil as a gift offering and state a stipulation. But doesn’t Rabbi Shimon say that one may not donate oil as a gift? The Gemara answers, as on 76b: The remedy of a person is different, i.e., Rabbi Shimon concedes that one may donate oil in this instance, as this is the only manner by which this person can undergo ritual purification.

יתיב רב רחומי קמיה רבינא ויתיב וקאמר משמיה דרב הונא בר תחליפא ונימא אשם זה יהא אשם תלוי

The Gemara continues to discuss the opinion of Rabbi Shimon. It was stated above that according to Rabbi Shimon, one whose status as a leper is uncertain may bring a lamb as a gift for a peace offering and state a stipulation with regard to it. The Gemara relates that Rav Reḥumi was sitting before Ravina, and he was sitting and saying the following in the name of Rav Huna bar Taḥlifa: But why can’t he bring a lamb for a guilt offering and say that if he is not a leper then this guilt offering shall be a provisional guilt offering, brought by one who is uncertain whether he committed a sin that requires a sin offering? This guilt offering is eaten for one day and night, like the guilt offering of a leper, and therefore he would not be reducing the time for its consumption, unlike when he stipulates that it should be a peace offering.

שמע מינה מאן תנא דפליג עליה דרבי אליעזר רבי שמעון הוא דאמר אין מתנדבין אשם תלוי אמר ליה תורה תורה אימרי בדיכרי מיחלפי לך

Rav Reḥumi continued: Since this option was not suggested, one can learn from here that who is the tanna who disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that one may donate a provisional guilt offering (Keritut 25a)? It is Rabbi Shimon, who says, by inference from his suggestion here, that one may not donate a provisional guilt offering. Ravina said to Rav Reḥumi: Torah, Torah! That is, where is the Torah of such a great man as yourself? You are confusing lambs with rams. The guilt offering of a leper is a lamb in its first year (see Leviticus 14:10), which cannot be brought as a provisional guilt offering because these must be rams (see Leviticus 5:15), i.e., they must be in their second year.

מתני׳ איברי חטאת שנתערבו באיברי עולה רבי אליעזר אומר יתן למעלה ורואה אני את בשר החטאת מלמעלה כאילו הן עצים וחכמים אומרים תעובר צורתן ויצאו לבית השריפה

MISHNA: In the case of the limbs of a sin offering, which are eaten by priests and may not be burned on the altar, that were intermingled with the limbs of a burnt offering, which are burned on the altar, Rabbi Eliezer says: The priest shall place all the limbs above, on the altar, and I view the flesh of the limbs of the sin offering above on the altar as though they are pieces of wood burned on the altar, and not as though they are an offering. And the Rabbis say: One should wait until the form of all the intermingled limbs decays and they will all go out to the place of burning in the Temple courtyard, where all disqualified offerings of the most sacred order are burned.

גמ׳ מאי טעמא דרבי אליעזר אמר קרא ואל המזבח לא יעלו לריח ניחח לריח ניחוח אי אתה מעלה אבל אתה מעלה לשם עצים

GEMARA: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer for deeming it permitted to burn the limbs of the sin offering on the altar as wood? The Gemara explains: The verse states: “No meal offering that you shall bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven; for you shall make no leaven, nor any honey, smoke as an offering made by fire to the Lord. As an offering of first fruits you may bring them to the Lord; but they shall not come up for a pleasing aroma on the altar” (Leviticus 2:11–12). This indicates that you may not offer up leaven and honey as a pleasing aroma, i.e., as an offering. But you may offer up leaven and honey and other substances that are prohibited to be sacrificed upon the altar, such as the limbs of a sin offering, for the sake of wood.

ורבנן מיעט רחמנא אתם אותם הוא דאי אתה מעלה אבל אתה מעלה לשם עצים אבל מידי אחרינא לא

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, how do they respond to this reasoning? They claim that the Merciful One excludes other cases at the beginning of the verse: “As an offering of first fruits you may bring them.” This indicates that it is with regard to them, i.e., leaven and honey alone, that it is stated: You may not offer up as an offering, but you may offer up leaven and honey for the sake of wood. But with regard to any other substances that are prohibited to be brought on the altar, one may not offer them up to the altar at all.

ורבי אליעזר אותם הוא דרבאי לך כבש כמזבח אבל מידי אחריני לא

The Gemara asks: And Rabbi Eliezer, what does he derive from this term of exclusion “them”? The Gemara explains: Rabbi Eliezer expounds this word as follows: It is only with regard to them, leaven and honey, that the verse includes a prohibition against bringing them up to the ramp of the altar like offering them up on the altar itself. But with regard to any other substances that are prohibited to be sacrificed upon the altar, bringing them up to the ramp is not considered like offering them up on the altar itself.

ורבנן תרתי שמע מינה

The Gemara further asks: And the Rabbis, from where do they derive this halakha? The Gemara answers that the Rabbis learn two halakhot from the word “them.” This term of emphasis teaches that all that is stated in this verse is referring only to leaven and honey, both the halakha that it is permitted to offer them up on the altar as wood, and the ruling that the ramp is considered like the altar with regard to this halakha.

מתניתין דלא כי האי תנא דתניא אמר רבי יהודה לא נחלקו רבי אליעזר וחכמים על איברי חטאת שנתערבו באיברי עולה שיקרבו ברובע ונרבע שלא יקרבו

§ The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this following tanna, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:15) that Rabbi Yehuda said: Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis did not disagree with regard to the limbs of a sin offering that were intermingled with the limbs of a burnt offering, as all agree that they shall be sacrificed. Likewise, they agree that if limbs that are fit to be burned on the altar became intermingled with the limbs of an animal that actively copulated with a person, or with the limbs of an animal that was the object of bestiality, which are prohibited to be sacrificed upon the altar, that they shall not be sacrificed, even according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer.

על מה נחלקו על איברי עולה תמימה שנתערבו באיברי בעלת מום שרבי אליעזר אומר יקרבו ורואה אני למעלה כאילו הן עצים וחכמים אומרים לא יקרבו

Rabbi Yehuda continues: With regard to which case did Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree? They disagreed with regard to the limbs of an unblemished burnt offering that were intermingled with the limbs of a blemished animal, which is disqualified from the altar. As in this case Rabbi Eliezer says: All the limbs shall be sacrificed, and I consider the flesh of the limbs of the sin offering above, on the altar, as though they are pieces of wood burned on the altar. And the Rabbis say: They shall not be sacrificed.

ורבי אליעזר מאי שנא רובע ונרבע דלא חזו בעלת מום נמי לא חזי

The Gemara asks: And concerning the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, what is different about the limbs of an animal that actively copulated with a person, or the limbs of an animal that was the object of bestiality, that they may not be sacrificed? If one says that the reason is that they are not fit for the altar, that cannot be the reason, as a blemished animal is not fit for the altar as well, and there he holds that the limbs are burned.

אמר רב הונא בדוקין שבעין ואליבא דרבי עקיבא דאמר אם עלו לא ירדו אימר דאמר רבי עקיבא דאי עבד לכתחלה מי אמר

Rav Huna says: When Rabbi Eliezer makes reference to a blemished animal, he is speaking of an unobtrusive blemish, e.g., one that is on the cornea of the eye. And his ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that in the case of an offering with such a blemish, if its sacrificial parts ascended the altar, they shall not descend from it, because it is not a disgrace to the altar for the sacrificial parts of such an offering to be burned on it. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Say that Rabbi Akiva says this is the halakha after the fact, meaning that if the priest already brought up the limbs of these blemished animals, they do not descend from the altar. Does Rabbi Akiva say that one may burn a mixture of these limbs ab initio?

אמר רב פפא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שעלו על גבי כבש אי הכי אפילו בעינייהו

Rav Pappa says: What are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where all the limbs in the mixture were brought up upon the ramp. Since they have been brought on the ramp and sanctified as offerings, it is considered after the fact. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, i.e., if we are dealing with a case in which the limbs were already carried to the ramp, then even if they were as is, and not intermingled, the limbs of the blemished animal should be burned, as claimed by Rabbi Akiva.

אלא טעמיה דרבי אליעזר מיעט רחמנא מום בם הוא דלא ירצו הא על ידי תערובת ירצו

Rather, the reason of Rabbi Eliezer is that with regard to the prohibition against sacrificing a blemished animal upon the altar, the Merciful One excludes certain cases. After listing the various disqualifying blemishes, the verse states: “Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these, because their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them; they shall not be accepted for you” (Leviticus 22:25). This teaches that it is only if there is a blemish clearly in them that they shall not be accepted; but if they were sacrificed by means of a mixture they shall be accepted. This exclusion is stated only with regard to blemished animals, not with regard to animals that copulated with people, and consequently the limbs of these animals are not brought up to the altar even if they became intermingled with the limbs of fit offerings.

ורבנן מום בם הוא דלא ירצו הא עבר מום ירצו ורבי אליעזר מבם בהם ורבנן בם בהם לא דרשי

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, how do they expound this verse? The Gemara explains that they expound it as follows: It is only if the blemish is still in them that they shall not be accepted; but if their blemish has passed, they shall be accepted. And Rabbi Eliezer derives this halakha from the previous clause in that same verse: “Because their corruption is in them [bahem].” Since the verse could have stated the shorter form of bam, and instead stated “bahem,” one derives from here that if the animal no longer is blemished it is accepted as an offering. And as for the Rabbis, they do not interpret anything from the variation between bam and “bahem”; they do not see this as a significant deviation from the standard language of the verse.

אי הכי רואה הא רחמנא אכשריה לדבריהם קאמר להו לדידי רחמנא אכשריה לדידכו אודו לי מיהא בשר בעלת מום כעצים דמי מידי דהוה אבשר חטאת

The Gemara asks: If that is so, and Rabbi Eliezer permits the limbs of blemished animals to be sacrificed if they are in a mixture, why is it necessary for him to say: I view the flesh of the limbs of the blemished animals as though they are pieces of wood? After all, the Merciful One permits them as an offering. The Gemara explains that Rabbi Eliezer is speaking to the Rabbis in accordance with their statement, as follows: According to my opinion, the Merciful One permits these limbs to be sacrificed upon the altar. But even according to your opinion, at least agree with me that the flesh of a blemished animal that was intermingled with the flesh of a qualified offering is considered like wood, just as is the halakha of the flesh of a sin offering that became intermingled with the flesh of a burnt offering, as according to this baraita the Rabbis concede that the flesh of these two offerings should be sacrificed together.

ורבנן הכא מאיסי התם לא מאיסי

The Gemara asks: And the Rabbis, how do they respond to this claim of Rabbi Eliezer? The Gemara explains: According to the Rabbis there is a difference between the cases: Here, with regard to a mixture that includes limbs of blemished animals, these limbs are repulsive, and therefore they may not be brought upon the altar, even as wood. Conversely, there, in the case of a mixture of limbs of a sin offering and limbs of a burnt offering, the limbs of the sin offering are not repulsive in and of themselves, and consequently they may be sacrificed upon the altar as wood.

מתני׳ אברין באברין בעלי מומין רבי אליעזר אומר אם קרב ראש אחד מהן יקרבו כל הראשין כרעים של אחד מהן יקרבו כל הכרעים וחכמים אומרים אפילו קרבו כלם חוץ מאחד מהן יצא לבית השריפה

MISHNA: In a case where limbs of burnt offerings fit for sacrifice were intermingled with limbs of blemished burnt offerings, Rabbi Eliezer says: Although all the limbs are unfit for sacrifice, if the head of one of them was sacrificed all the heads shall be sacrificed, as the head that was sacrificed is assumed to have been that of the unfit animal in the mixture. Likewise, if one sacrificed the legs of one of them all the legs shall be sacrificed. And the Rabbis say: Even if all the limbs were sacrificed except for one of them, there is a concern that the remaining limb is the unfit limb, which may not be sacrificed. Rather, all of the limbs must go out to the place of burning in the Temple courtyard.

גמ׳ אמר רבי אלעזר לא הכשיר רבי אליעזר אלא שנים שנים אבל אחד אחד לא מתיב רבי ירמיה וחכמים אומרים אפילו קרבו כולן חוץ מאחד מהן יצא לבית השריפה

GEMARA: Rabbi Elazar says: Rabbi Eliezer permitted the sacrificing of all the heads only if they were sacrificed two by two, as at least one of each pair is certainly permitted; but he did not permit them to be sacrificed one by one, in case the priest may be sacrificing the prohibited head by itself. Rabbi Yirmeya raises an objection from the mishna, which states: And the Rabbis say: Even if all the limbs were sacrificed except for one of them, all the limbs must go out to the place of burning in the Temple courtyard. This indicates that even in this situation, where only one of the limbs remains, the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis still applies, which means that Rabbi Eliezer permits it to be sacrificed despite the fact that it is only one limb.

אמר לו רבי ירמיה בר תחליפא אסברה לך מאי אחד זוג אחד

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Taḥlifa said to Rabbi Yirmeya in response: I will explain the meaning of this statement to you: What does the mishna mean when it states: Except for one of them? It means except for one pair, i.e., two limbs, as even Rabbi Eliezer did not permit one to sacrifice the limbs individually.

מתני׳ דם שנתערב במים אם יש בו מראית דם כשר נתערב ביין רואין אותו כאילו הוא מים נתערב בדם בהמה או בדם החיה רואין אותו כאילו הוא מים

MISHNA: In the case of blood of an offering fit for sacrifice that was mixed with water, if the mixture has the appearance of blood it is fit for sprinkling on the altar, even though the majority of the mixture is water. If the blood was mixed with red wine, one views the wine as though it is water. If that amount of water would leave the mixture with the appearance of blood it is fit for presentation. And likewise if the blood was mixed with the blood of a non-sacred domesticated animal or the blood of a non-sacred undomesticated animal, one considers the non-sacred blood as though it is water.