Zevachim 83
Share this shiur:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Blood from a sin offering is disqualified if it is brought into the Sanctuary. But what about sin offering blood that was designated to be presented in the Sanctuary and was instead brought into the Kodesh HaKodashim – is it similarly disqualified? And if it is, what about blood that was supposed to go into the Kodesh HaKodashim but was taken out and then brought back in? Or taken out and brought to the altar and then back to the parochet?
Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon disagree regarding sacrifices whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary. Is the offering disqualified merely by the act of bringing the blood inside, or only if the blood is actually presented on the altar? The Gemara cites sources for each opinion and explains the underlying basis of their debate.
Rabbi Yehuda rules that blood brought into the Sanctuary accidentally is exempt from disqualification. But what would he say if the blood was brought in intentionally, would it be disqualified only if it was presented? Rabbi Yirmia introduces a braita to address this question.
Items that are disqualified are not meant to be placed on the altar. Yet if they are placed there, the altar sanctifies them and they must remain. However, there is a tannaitic dispute regarding which types of items are not removed once placed on the altar. Five different opinions are presented, and the Gemara explores the reasoning behind each of these views and why they disagree.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Today’s daf is sponsored by Tevie & Betsy Mehlman in loving memory of Gitel Leah bat Moshe David on her yahrzeit. “She was a devoted mother to her family and dedicated her life to instilling her commitment to Judaism in her children & grandchildren.”
Zevachim 83
וְהוֹצִיאוֹ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהִכְנִיסָן, מַהוּ?
and then brought out the blood to the golden altar in the Sanctuary and sprinkled the blood there, as required (see Leviticus 16:18), but subsequently brought the remainder of the blood in toward the Curtain dividing the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies, what is the halakha?
הָכָא וַדַּאי חַד מָקוֹם הוּא, אוֹ [דִילְמָא] יְצִיאָה קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ? תֵּיקוּ.
Rava explains the sides of the dilemma: Do we say that here the area of the Curtain and the golden altar is certainly one place, as they are both in the Sanctuary, and therefore the blood should not be disqualified by being brought back toward the Curtain? Or perhaps, since we call the taking of the blood to the golden altar: Going out, in the verse: “And he shall go out unto the altar” (Leviticus 16:18), its return to the Curtain should be considered bringing in, and therefore the blood should be disqualified? No answers were found, and therefore the Gemara states that these dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
נִכְנַס לְכַפֵּר. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״וְכׇל אָדָם לֹא יִהְיֶה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד בְּבֹאוֹ לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ״;
§ The mishna teaches that the Sages disagree as to the halakha in a case where the priest carrying the blood of a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar entered the Sanctuary to atone through sprinkling, but in practice the priest did not actually sprinkle the blood. According to Rabbi Eliezer the blood is disqualified, whereas Rabbi Shimon maintains that the blood is disqualified only if the priest sprinkles it in the Sanctuary. Concerning this, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here: “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23), and it is stated there, with regard to the service of the High Priest on Yom Kippur: “And there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting when he goes in to atone in the Sanctuary, until he comes out” (Leviticus 16:17).
מָה לְהַלָּן בְּשֶׁלֹּא כִּיפֵּר, אַף כָּאן בְּשֶׁלֹּא כִּיפֵּר.
Rabbi Eliezer explains: Just as there, with regard to Yom Kippur, the phrase “when he goes in to atone” is referring to the stage when he has not yet atoned, so too here, with regard to the disqualification of blood brought inside the Sanctuary, the phrase “to atone in the Sanctuary” is referring to a situation where the blood enters the Sanctuary at a time when the priest has not yet atoned.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״לְכַפֵּר״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״וְאֵת פַּר הַחַטָּאת וְאֶת שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָם לְכַפֵּר״; מָה לְהַלָּן בְּשֶׁכִּיפֵּר, אַף כָּאן בְּשֶׁכִּיפֵּר.
Conversely, Rabbi Shimon says: It is stated here: “To atone” (Leviticus 6:23), and it is stated there, with regard to the conclusion of the service on Yom Kippur: “And the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to atone in the Sanctuary, shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn in the fire” (Leviticus 16:27). Just as there, the phrase “to atone” is referring to the stage when he has already atoned, as the bull and goat of Yom Kippur are burned after their blood has been sprinkled, so too here, the phrase “to atone” is referring to a situation where he has already atoned, whereas merely bringing the blood into the Sanctuary does not disqualify it.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: דָּנִין חוּץ מִחוּץ, וְאֵין דָּנִין חוּץ מִבִּפְנִים;
The Gemara inquires: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon disagree? The Gemara explains that one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that one derives a case of outside, i.e., the blood of a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar, which may not be brought inside the Sanctuary, from another prohibition of outside, the prohibition against entering the Sanctuary; but one does not derive a case of outside from the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, whose blood is brought inside the Sanctuary.
וּמָר סָבַר: דָּנִין בְּהֵמָה מִבְּהֵמָה, וְאֵין דָּנִין בְּהֵמָה מֵאָדָם.
And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that one derives a halakha involving an animal, i.e., a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar, from another halakha involving an animal, the bull and goat of Yom Kippur; but one does not derive a case of an animal from a prohibition involving a person.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳. הָא מֵזִיד – פָּסוּל; בְּשֶׁכִּיפֵּר אוֹ בְּשֶׁלֹּא כִּיפֵּר?
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: If the priest took the blood into the Sanctuary unwittingly, the blood remains fit for presentation. The Gemara infers: But if his taking of the blood into the Sanctuary was intentional, it is disqualified. The Gemara analyzes this halakha: Is the blood disqualified only in a case where he took the blood into the Sanctuary and atoned, by sprinkling it inside the Sanctuary, as claimed by Rabbi Shimon in the mishna; or even in a case where he took the blood in and did not yet atone, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer?
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִמַּשְׁמָע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְאֵת פַּר הַחַטָּאת וְאֶת שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָם (אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד) לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהַשֹּׂרֵף״?
Rabbi Yirmeya said that one can cite a proof from a baraita: From the fact that it is stated with regard to the Yom Kippur service: “And the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to atone in the Sanctuary, shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung; and he who burns them shall wash his clothes” (Leviticus 16:27–28), one can ask the following question: Why must the verse state: “And he who burns”?
מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהַשֹּׂרֵף״?! לְגוּפֵיהּ אִיצְטְרִיךְ! אֶלָּא מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״חַטָּאת״ ״חַטָּאת״?
The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita to question its line of inquiry. Why must the verse state: “And he who burns”? One can answer that this term was necessary for itself, to teach that the one who burns the bull and goat of Yom Kippur is thereby rendered ritually impure. Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: Why must the verse state twice: “Sin offering,” “sin offering,” with regard to the bull and the goat? It could have stated merely: And the bull and the goat of the sin offering.
לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא לָמַדְנוּ אֶלָּא לְפַר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁנִּשְׂרָפִין אַבֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן – מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים; שְׁאָר נִשְׂרָפִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״חַטָּאת״ ״חַטָּאת״. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The baraita answers that if the term “sin offering” had appeared only once, we would have learned only with regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur that are burned in the place of the ashes that they render ritually impure the garments of the one who carries them. From where is it derived that the same applies to other sin offerings that are burned? The verse states: “Sin offering,” “sin offering,” twice, to include all sin offerings that are burned. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ; הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְאֵת פַּר הַחַטָּאת וְאֵת שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת״ – שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְכַפֵּר״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְכַפֵּר״? לִימֵּד עַל כׇּל הַמִּתְכַּפְּרִים שֶׁהַשּׂוֹרְפָן מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים.
Rabbi Meir says: This derivation from the repeated mention of sin offering is not necessary. Now consider, the verse states: “And the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering…shall be taken outside the camp.” As there is no need for the verse to state with regard to these offerings: “Whose blood was brought in to atone in the Sanctuary,” why must the verse nevertheless state: “To atone”? This teaches with regard to all offerings that atone inside the Sanctuary that one who burns them renders his garments impure.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – ״לְכַפֵּר״ לָא מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ; מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה?
The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yehuda does not learn anything from the term “to atone.” What is the reason for this? Is it not because he requires this phrase for a verbal analogy, to derive that the blood of an external sin offering that was taken inside the Sanctuary is disqualified only if the priest sprinkled it, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? This answers the Gemara’s question, as Rabbi Yehuda evidently follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ
מַתְנִי׳ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְקַדֵּשׁ [אֶת] הָרָאוּי לוֹ.
MISHNA: Certain unfit items, once they have been placed on the altar, are nevertheless sacrificed. The mishna teaches: The altar sanctifies only items that are suited to it. The tanna’im disagree as to the definition of suited for the altar.
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לָאִישִּׁים – אִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִיא הָעֹלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה״; מָה עוֹלָה, שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לָאִישִּׁים – אִם עָלְתָה לֹא תֵּרֵד; אַף כֹּל שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לָאִישִּׁים – אִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד.
Rabbi Yehoshua says: Any item that is suited to be consumed by the fire on the altar, e.g., burnt offerings and the sacrificial portions of other offerings, which are burned on the altar, if it ascended upon the altar, even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed ab initio, it shall not descend. Since it was sanctified by its ascent upon the altar, it is sacrificed upon it, as it is stated: “It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived: Just as with regard to a burnt offering, which is suited to be consumed by the fire on the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend, so too, with regard to any item that is suited to be consumed by the fire on the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend.
רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – אִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִיא הָעֹלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״; מָה עוֹלָה, שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – אִם עָלְתָה לֹא תֵּרֵד; אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – אִם עָלְתָה לֹא תֵּרֵד.
Rabban Gamliel says: With regard to any item that is suited to ascend upon the altar, even if it is not typically consumed, if it ascended, it shall not descend, even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed ab initio, as it is stated: “It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar,” from which it is derived: Just as with regard to a burnt offering, which is fit for the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend, so too, any item that is fit for the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend.
אֵין בֵּין דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶלָּא הַדָּם וְהַנְּסָכִים – שֶׁרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר לֹא יֵרְדוּ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר יֵרְדוּ.
The mishna comments: The difference between the statement of Rabban Gamliel and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is only with regard to disqualified blood and disqualified libations, which are not consumed by the fire but do ascend upon the altar, as Rabban Gamliel says: They shall not descend, as they are fit to ascend upon the altar, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: They shall descend, as they are not burned on the altar.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר וּנְסָכִים פְּסוּלִין, הַנְּסָכִים כְּשֵׁירִים וְהַזֶּבַח פָּסוּל, אֲפִילּוּ זֶה וָזֶה פְּסוּלִין – הַזֶּבַח לֹא יֵרֵד וְהַנְּסָכִים יֵרְדוּ.
Rabbi Shimon says: Whether the offering was fit and the accompanying libations were unfit, e.g., if they became ritually impure or they were brought outside their designated area, or whether the libations were fit and the offering was unfit, rendering the accompanying libations unfit as well, and even if both this and that were unfit, the offering shall not descend, as it was sanctified by the altar, but the libations shall descend.
גְּמָ׳ רָאוּי לוֹ אִין, שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לוֹ לָא; לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְמַעוֹטֵי קְמָצִין שֶׁלֹּא קִידְּשׁוּ בִּכְלִי.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the altar sanctifies items that are suited to it, from which the Gemara infers: Items suited to the altar, yes, they are sanctified by it, but items that are not suited to the altar, no, they are not sanctified by it and descend from it even after ascending. The Gemara asks: This inference serves to exclude what? Rav Pappa said: It serves to exclude handfuls of flour that were removed from meal offerings by a priest in order to be burned on the altar, and that were not sanctified by being placed in a service vessel before they ascended upon the altar. Those handfuls did not yet become suited for the altar and therefore shall descend.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: מַאי שְׁנָא מִדְּעוּלָּא? דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא: אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּין שֶׁהֶעֱלָן לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמָן – לֹא יֵרְדוּ, נַעֲשׂוּ לַחְמוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ.
Ravina objects to Rav Pappa’s assertion: In what way is this case different from that of Ulla? As Ulla says: Sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up on the altar before the sprinkling of the offering’s blood, and are therefore not yet suited for the altar, shall not descend, as they have become the bread of the altar, i.e., they have been sanctified such that they must be burned.
הָנָךְ לָא מִיחַסְּרוּ מַעֲשֶׂה בְּגוּפַיְיהוּ, הָנֵי מִיחַסְּרוּ מַעֲשֶׂה בְּגוּפַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara responds that there is a difference between the cases: These sacrificial portions described by Ulla do not lack the performance of an action with regard to themselves that will render them fit for the altar; they lack only the sprinkling of the blood, an independent action. By contrast, these handfuls mentioned by Rav Pappa lack the performance of an action with regard to themselves, as they have yet to be sanctified through placement in a service vessel and never became fit for the altar.
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לָאִישִּׁים כּוּ׳. וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל נָמֵי – הָכְתִיב: ״עֹלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה״! הָהוּא לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי פּוֹקְעִין הוּא דַּאֲתָא.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua says: Any item that is suited to be consumed by the fire on the altar, if it ascended upon the altar it shall not descend, as it is stated: “It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived that any item suited for burning on the altar shall not descend. The Gemara asks: And as for Rabban Gamliel also, who holds that any item suited for the altar, whether it is to be burned or not, shall not descend, isn’t it written in the verse: “Burnt offering on the pyre”? The Gemara responds: That verse comes to teach the mitzva to restore to the pyre any parts of the offering that were dislodged from the pyre, and is not discussing unfit items at all.
וְאִידַּךְ – לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי פּוֹקְעִין מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל הָאֵשׁ״.
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua, from where does he derive the requirement to restore to the fire sacrificial portions that were dislodged from it? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the verse: “That the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar” (Leviticus 6:3), indicating that items already partially consumed by the fire are restored to it even if they were dislodged from the pyre.
וְאִידַּךְ – הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: לְעִכּוּלֵי עוֹלָה אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר, וְאִי אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר עִכּוּלֵי קְטוֹרֶת. דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי בְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: ״אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל הָאֵשׁ אֶת הָעֹלָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – עִכּוּלֵי עוֹלָה אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר, וְאִי אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר עִכּוּלֵי קְטוֹרֶת.
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabban Gamliel, what does he derive from that verse? The Gemara responds: Rabban Gamliel requires that verse to derive that you return partially consumed parts of a burnt offering to the altar, but you do not return partially consumed parts of an incense offering that fell from the golden altar. As Rabbi Ḥanina bar Minyumi, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, teaches that the verse “that the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar” teaches that you return partially consumed parts of a burnt offering that fell from the pyre, but you do not return partially consumed parts of an incense offering that fell from the pyre.
וְאִידָּךְ – לָאו מִמֵּילָא שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ דְּעִכּוּלֵי עוֹלָה מְהַדְּרִינַן?
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua, from where does he derive this distinction? The Gemara responds: Can it not be learned by itself from the straightforward meaning of the verse that we restore partially consumed parts of a burnt offering to the altar? Therefore, there is no need for an additional verse, as both halakhot can be derived from the same verse.
רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָרָאוּי כּוּ׳. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״מִזְבֵּחַ״! הָהוּא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: מַאי (טַעְמָא) קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְמוֹקְדָה? מְקַדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabban Gamliel says: With regard to any item that is suited to ascend upon the altar, even if it is not typically consumed, if it ascended, it shall not descend, even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed ab initio, as it is stated: “It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2). The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehoshua as well, isn’t it written: “Upon the altar,” and not merely: “On the pyre”? The Gemara responds: That term is required by Rabbi Yehoshua to teach: What is the reason the Merciful One states that any item that is suited for the pyre does not descend from the altar? It is because the altar sanctifies it.
וְאִידַּךְ – מִזְבֵּחַ אַחֲרִינָא כְּתִיב. וְאִידַּךְ – חַד לְהֵיכָא דְּהָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר, וְחַד לְהֵיכָא דְּלֹא הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר.
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabban Gamliel, from where does he derive that the altar sanctifies the items that ascend upon it? The Gemara responds: It is from the fact that the term “altar” is written another time, in the verse: “Whatever touches the altar shall be sacred” (Exodus 29:37). The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua, why does he require two verses to teach the same halakha, i.e., that the altar sanctifies items that ascend upon it? The Gemara answers: One verse is necessary for a case where an item had a time of fitness for consumption by the fire and was then disqualified, e.g., it became ritually impure; and one verse is necessary for a case where an item did not have a time of fitness, e.g., an offering that became disqualified at the moment of its slaughter.
וְאִידַּךְ – כֵּיוָן דִּפְסוּלִין נִינְהוּ וְרַבִּינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא, לָא שְׁנָא הָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר לָא שְׁנָא לֹא הָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר.
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabban Gamliel, why does he not require another verse to teach that even items that had no time of fitness shall not descend from the altar? The Gemara responds: Once there are disqualified items that the Merciful One included in the halakha that they shall not descend from the altar, it is no different if the item had a time of fitness and it is no different if the item did not have a time of fitness.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר כּוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״עֹלָה״ – מָה עוֹלָה הַבָּאָה בִּגְלַל עַצְמָהּ, אַף כֹּל הַבָּאִין בִּגְלַל עַצְמָן; יָצְאוּ נְסָכִים הַבָּאִין בִּגְלַל זֶבַח.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: Whether the offering was fit and the accompanying libations were unfit, or whether the libations were fit and the offering was unfit, and even if both this and that were unfit, the offering shall not descend, but the libations shall descend. The Gemara elaborates: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: The verse that teaches that fit items shall not descend from the altar states: “This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2). From there it is derived: Just as a burnt offering, which is an item that comes upon the altar for its own sake, shall not descend, so too, all items that come upon the altar for their own sake shall not descend. Excluded are libations, which come upon the altar for the sake of the offering, not for their own sake; these shall descend.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כׇּל הַנֹּגֵעַ בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ יִקְדָּשׁ״ – שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי בֵּין רָאוּי וּבֵין שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי; תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כְּבָשִׂים״ – מָה כְּבָשִׂים רְאוּיִין, אַף כֹּל רָאוּי. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״עֹלָה״ – מָה עוֹלָה רְאוּיָה, אַף כֹּל רְאוּיָה.
§ The Gemara cites another baraita relating to the mishna. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: From that which is stated: “Whatever touches the altar shall be sacred” (Exodus 29:37), I would derive that the altar sanctifies any item that ascends upon it, whether it is fit for the altar or whether it is unfit. Therefore, the verse states: “Now this is that which you shall offer upon the altar: Two lambs” (Exodus 29:38), to teach: Just as lambs are fit for the altar and are sanctified by it, so too, all items fit for the altar are sanctified by it. Rabbi Akiva says that the verse states: “Burnt offering,” to teach: Just as a burnt offering is fit for the altar and is sanctified by it, so too, all items fit for the altar are sanctified by it.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: עוֹלַת הָעוֹף פְּסוּלָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ; מָר מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵ״עֹלָה״, וּמָר מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מִ״כְּבָשִׂים״.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these opinions? Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The case of a disqualified bird burnt offering is the practical difference between them. One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, who cites the halakha from the term “burnt offering,” includes a disqualified bird burnt offering in the halakha that the offering shall not descend, as it is a burnt offering. And the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who cites the halakha from the term “lambs,” does not include a disqualified bird burnt offering in the halakha, as it is not similar to a lamb.
וּלְמַאן דְּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ מִ״כְּבָשִׂים״ – הָכְתִיב ״עֹלָה״! אִי כְּתִיב ״כְּבָשִׂים״ וְלָא כְּתִיב ״עֹלָה״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ מֵחַיִּים; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עֹלָה״.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who cites the halakha from the term “lambs,” isn’t it written: “Burnt offering”? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, if “lambs” had been written and “burnt offering” had not been written, I would say that even an animal that became disqualified and ascended upon the altar while alive shall not descend. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “Burnt offering,” indicating that this halakha applies only to animals once they are fit to ascend the altar. Live animals are not fit to ascend the altar.
וּלְמַאן דְּמַיְיתֵי לֵיהּ מֵ״עֹלָה״, הָא כְּתִיב ״כְּבָשִׂים״! אִי כְּתִיב ״עֹלָה״ וְלָא כְּתִיב ״כְּבָשִׂים״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כְּבָשִׂים״.
The Gemara continues: And according to the one who derives the halakha from “burnt offering,” isn’t it written: “Lambs”? The Gemara explains: According to Rabbi Akiva, if “burnt offering” had been written and “lambs” had not been written, I would say that any item fit to ascend the altar is included in the halakha, even a meal offering. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “Lambs,” indicating that this halakha applies only to animal offerings and bird offerings, not to meal offerings.
מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי לְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי דְּמַתְנִיתִין? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: קְמָצִים שֶׁקָּדְשׁוּ בִּכְלִי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ – לְתַנָּאֵי דִּידַן לֹא יֵרְדוּ, לְתַנָּאֵי דְּמַתְנִיתָא יֵרְדוּ.
The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the opinions of these tanna’im, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva, and the opinions of these tanna’im of the mishna? Rav Pappa said: The difference between them is with regard to handfuls of flour, removed from meal offerings, that were sanctified in a service vessel and were then disqualified. According to our tanna’im, i.e., those in the mishna here, those handfuls shall not descend, as they are fit for the altar and for consumption by the fire as well. According to the tanna’im of the baraita, those handfuls shall descend, as those tanna’im hold that the halakha applies only to animal offerings and bird offerings.
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ – לְדִבְרֵי כּוּלָּן לֹא תֵּרֵד, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא
Reish Lakish says in summary: With regard to a meal offering that comes by itself and does not accompany another offering, according to the statements of all of the tanna’im in the mishna, it shall not descend once it ascended, either because it is fit to be consumed by the fire, or because it comes by itself. According to the statements of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I had never heard of Daf Yomi and after reading the book, The Weight of Ink, I explored more about it. I discovered that it was only 6 months before a whole new cycle started and I was determined to give it a try. I tried to get a friend to join me on the journey but after the first few weeks they all dropped it. I haven’t missed a day of reading and of listening to the podcast.
Elkins Park, United States
Palo Alto, CA, United States
Minnesota, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
Minneapolis, MN, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
Zevachim 83
וְהוֹצִיאוֹ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהִכְנִיסָן, מַהוּ?
and then brought out the blood to the golden altar in the Sanctuary and sprinkled the blood there, as required (see Leviticus 16:18), but subsequently brought the remainder of the blood in toward the Curtain dividing the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies, what is the halakha?
הָכָא וַדַּאי חַד מָקוֹם הוּא, אוֹ [דִילְמָא] יְצִיאָה קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ? תֵּיקוּ.
Rava explains the sides of the dilemma: Do we say that here the area of the Curtain and the golden altar is certainly one place, as they are both in the Sanctuary, and therefore the blood should not be disqualified by being brought back toward the Curtain? Or perhaps, since we call the taking of the blood to the golden altar: Going out, in the verse: “And he shall go out unto the altar” (Leviticus 16:18), its return to the Curtain should be considered bringing in, and therefore the blood should be disqualified? No answers were found, and therefore the Gemara states that these dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
נִכְנַס לְכַפֵּר. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״וְכׇל אָדָם לֹא יִהְיֶה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד בְּבֹאוֹ לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ״;
§ The mishna teaches that the Sages disagree as to the halakha in a case where the priest carrying the blood of a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar entered the Sanctuary to atone through sprinkling, but in practice the priest did not actually sprinkle the blood. According to Rabbi Eliezer the blood is disqualified, whereas Rabbi Shimon maintains that the blood is disqualified only if the priest sprinkles it in the Sanctuary. Concerning this, it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here: “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting to atone in the Sanctuary, shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23), and it is stated there, with regard to the service of the High Priest on Yom Kippur: “And there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting when he goes in to atone in the Sanctuary, until he comes out” (Leviticus 16:17).
מָה לְהַלָּן בְּשֶׁלֹּא כִּיפֵּר, אַף כָּאן בְּשֶׁלֹּא כִּיפֵּר.
Rabbi Eliezer explains: Just as there, with regard to Yom Kippur, the phrase “when he goes in to atone” is referring to the stage when he has not yet atoned, so too here, with regard to the disqualification of blood brought inside the Sanctuary, the phrase “to atone in the Sanctuary” is referring to a situation where the blood enters the Sanctuary at a time when the priest has not yet atoned.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״לְכַפֵּר״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״וְאֵת פַּר הַחַטָּאת וְאֶת שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָם לְכַפֵּר״; מָה לְהַלָּן בְּשֶׁכִּיפֵּר, אַף כָּאן בְּשֶׁכִּיפֵּר.
Conversely, Rabbi Shimon says: It is stated here: “To atone” (Leviticus 6:23), and it is stated there, with regard to the conclusion of the service on Yom Kippur: “And the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to atone in the Sanctuary, shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn in the fire” (Leviticus 16:27). Just as there, the phrase “to atone” is referring to the stage when he has already atoned, as the bull and goat of Yom Kippur are burned after their blood has been sprinkled, so too here, the phrase “to atone” is referring to a situation where he has already atoned, whereas merely bringing the blood into the Sanctuary does not disqualify it.
בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: דָּנִין חוּץ מִחוּץ, וְאֵין דָּנִין חוּץ מִבִּפְנִים;
The Gemara inquires: With regard to what principle do Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon disagree? The Gemara explains that one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that one derives a case of outside, i.e., the blood of a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar, which may not be brought inside the Sanctuary, from another prohibition of outside, the prohibition against entering the Sanctuary; but one does not derive a case of outside from the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, whose blood is brought inside the Sanctuary.
וּמָר סָבַר: דָּנִין בְּהֵמָה מִבְּהֵמָה, וְאֵין דָּנִין בְּהֵמָה מֵאָדָם.
And one Sage, Rabbi Shimon, holds that one derives a halakha involving an animal, i.e., a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar, from another halakha involving an animal, the bull and goat of Yom Kippur; but one does not derive a case of an animal from a prohibition involving a person.
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳. הָא מֵזִיד – פָּסוּל; בְּשֶׁכִּיפֵּר אוֹ בְּשֶׁלֹּא כִּיפֵּר?
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: If the priest took the blood into the Sanctuary unwittingly, the blood remains fit for presentation. The Gemara infers: But if his taking of the blood into the Sanctuary was intentional, it is disqualified. The Gemara analyzes this halakha: Is the blood disqualified only in a case where he took the blood into the Sanctuary and atoned, by sprinkling it inside the Sanctuary, as claimed by Rabbi Shimon in the mishna; or even in a case where he took the blood in and did not yet atone, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer?
אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִמַּשְׁמָע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְאֵת פַּר הַחַטָּאת וְאֶת שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָם (אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד) לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהַשֹּׂרֵף״?
Rabbi Yirmeya said that one can cite a proof from a baraita: From the fact that it is stated with regard to the Yom Kippur service: “And the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to atone in the Sanctuary, shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung; and he who burns them shall wash his clothes” (Leviticus 16:27–28), one can ask the following question: Why must the verse state: “And he who burns”?
מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהַשֹּׂרֵף״?! לְגוּפֵיהּ אִיצְטְרִיךְ! אֶלָּא מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״חַטָּאת״ ״חַטָּאת״?
The Gemara interrupts its citation of the baraita to question its line of inquiry. Why must the verse state: “And he who burns”? One can answer that this term was necessary for itself, to teach that the one who burns the bull and goat of Yom Kippur is thereby rendered ritually impure. Rather, this is what the baraita is saying: Why must the verse state twice: “Sin offering,” “sin offering,” with regard to the bull and the goat? It could have stated merely: And the bull and the goat of the sin offering.
לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא לָמַדְנוּ אֶלָּא לְפַר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁנִּשְׂרָפִין אַבֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן – מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים; שְׁאָר נִשְׂרָפִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״חַטָּאת״ ״חַטָּאת״. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.
The baraita answers that if the term “sin offering” had appeared only once, we would have learned only with regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur that are burned in the place of the ashes that they render ritually impure the garments of the one who carries them. From where is it derived that the same applies to other sin offerings that are burned? The verse states: “Sin offering,” “sin offering,” twice, to include all sin offerings that are burned. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.
רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ; הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְאֵת פַּר הַחַטָּאת וְאֵת שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת״ – שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְכַפֵּר״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְכַפֵּר״? לִימֵּד עַל כׇּל הַמִּתְכַּפְּרִים שֶׁהַשּׂוֹרְפָן מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים.
Rabbi Meir says: This derivation from the repeated mention of sin offering is not necessary. Now consider, the verse states: “And the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering…shall be taken outside the camp.” As there is no need for the verse to state with regard to these offerings: “Whose blood was brought in to atone in the Sanctuary,” why must the verse nevertheless state: “To atone”? This teaches with regard to all offerings that atone inside the Sanctuary that one who burns them renders his garments impure.
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – ״לְכַפֵּר״ לָא מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ; מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה?
The Gemara notes: And Rabbi Yehuda does not learn anything from the term “to atone.” What is the reason for this? Is it not because he requires this phrase for a verbal analogy, to derive that the blood of an external sin offering that was taken inside the Sanctuary is disqualified only if the priest sprinkled it, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? This answers the Gemara’s question, as Rabbi Yehuda evidently follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ
מַתְנִי׳ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְקַדֵּשׁ [אֶת] הָרָאוּי לוֹ.
MISHNA: Certain unfit items, once they have been placed on the altar, are nevertheless sacrificed. The mishna teaches: The altar sanctifies only items that are suited to it. The tanna’im disagree as to the definition of suited for the altar.
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לָאִישִּׁים – אִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִיא הָעֹלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה״; מָה עוֹלָה, שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לָאִישִּׁים – אִם עָלְתָה לֹא תֵּרֵד; אַף כֹּל שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לָאִישִּׁים – אִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד.
Rabbi Yehoshua says: Any item that is suited to be consumed by the fire on the altar, e.g., burnt offerings and the sacrificial portions of other offerings, which are burned on the altar, if it ascended upon the altar, even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed ab initio, it shall not descend. Since it was sanctified by its ascent upon the altar, it is sacrificed upon it, as it is stated: “It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived: Just as with regard to a burnt offering, which is suited to be consumed by the fire on the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend, so too, with regard to any item that is suited to be consumed by the fire on the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend.
רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – אִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִיא הָעֹלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״; מָה עוֹלָה, שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – אִם עָלְתָה לֹא תֵּרֵד; אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – אִם עָלְתָה לֹא תֵּרֵד.
Rabban Gamliel says: With regard to any item that is suited to ascend upon the altar, even if it is not typically consumed, if it ascended, it shall not descend, even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed ab initio, as it is stated: “It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar,” from which it is derived: Just as with regard to a burnt offering, which is fit for the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend, so too, any item that is fit for the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend.
אֵין בֵּין דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶלָּא הַדָּם וְהַנְּסָכִים – שֶׁרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר לֹא יֵרְדוּ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר יֵרְדוּ.
The mishna comments: The difference between the statement of Rabban Gamliel and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is only with regard to disqualified blood and disqualified libations, which are not consumed by the fire but do ascend upon the altar, as Rabban Gamliel says: They shall not descend, as they are fit to ascend upon the altar, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: They shall descend, as they are not burned on the altar.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר וּנְסָכִים פְּסוּלִין, הַנְּסָכִים כְּשֵׁירִים וְהַזֶּבַח פָּסוּל, אֲפִילּוּ זֶה וָזֶה פְּסוּלִין – הַזֶּבַח לֹא יֵרֵד וְהַנְּסָכִים יֵרְדוּ.
Rabbi Shimon says: Whether the offering was fit and the accompanying libations were unfit, e.g., if they became ritually impure or they were brought outside their designated area, or whether the libations were fit and the offering was unfit, rendering the accompanying libations unfit as well, and even if both this and that were unfit, the offering shall not descend, as it was sanctified by the altar, but the libations shall descend.
גְּמָ׳ רָאוּי לוֹ אִין, שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לוֹ לָא; לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְמַעוֹטֵי קְמָצִין שֶׁלֹּא קִידְּשׁוּ בִּכְלִי.
GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the altar sanctifies items that are suited to it, from which the Gemara infers: Items suited to the altar, yes, they are sanctified by it, but items that are not suited to the altar, no, they are not sanctified by it and descend from it even after ascending. The Gemara asks: This inference serves to exclude what? Rav Pappa said: It serves to exclude handfuls of flour that were removed from meal offerings by a priest in order to be burned on the altar, and that were not sanctified by being placed in a service vessel before they ascended upon the altar. Those handfuls did not yet become suited for the altar and therefore shall descend.
מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: מַאי שְׁנָא מִדְּעוּלָּא? דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא: אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּין שֶׁהֶעֱלָן לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמָן – לֹא יֵרְדוּ, נַעֲשׂוּ לַחְמוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ.
Ravina objects to Rav Pappa’s assertion: In what way is this case different from that of Ulla? As Ulla says: Sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up on the altar before the sprinkling of the offering’s blood, and are therefore not yet suited for the altar, shall not descend, as they have become the bread of the altar, i.e., they have been sanctified such that they must be burned.
הָנָךְ לָא מִיחַסְּרוּ מַעֲשֶׂה בְּגוּפַיְיהוּ, הָנֵי מִיחַסְּרוּ מַעֲשֶׂה בְּגוּפַיְיהוּ.
The Gemara responds that there is a difference between the cases: These sacrificial portions described by Ulla do not lack the performance of an action with regard to themselves that will render them fit for the altar; they lack only the sprinkling of the blood, an independent action. By contrast, these handfuls mentioned by Rav Pappa lack the performance of an action with regard to themselves, as they have yet to be sanctified through placement in a service vessel and never became fit for the altar.
רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לָאִישִּׁים כּוּ׳. וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל נָמֵי – הָכְתִיב: ״עֹלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה״! הָהוּא לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי פּוֹקְעִין הוּא דַּאֲתָא.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua says: Any item that is suited to be consumed by the fire on the altar, if it ascended upon the altar it shall not descend, as it is stated: “It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived that any item suited for burning on the altar shall not descend. The Gemara asks: And as for Rabban Gamliel also, who holds that any item suited for the altar, whether it is to be burned or not, shall not descend, isn’t it written in the verse: “Burnt offering on the pyre”? The Gemara responds: That verse comes to teach the mitzva to restore to the pyre any parts of the offering that were dislodged from the pyre, and is not discussing unfit items at all.
וְאִידַּךְ – לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי פּוֹקְעִין מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל הָאֵשׁ״.
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua, from where does he derive the requirement to restore to the fire sacrificial portions that were dislodged from it? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the verse: “That the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar” (Leviticus 6:3), indicating that items already partially consumed by the fire are restored to it even if they were dislodged from the pyre.
וְאִידַּךְ – הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: לְעִכּוּלֵי עוֹלָה אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר, וְאִי אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר עִכּוּלֵי קְטוֹרֶת. דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי בְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: ״אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל הָאֵשׁ אֶת הָעֹלָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – עִכּוּלֵי עוֹלָה אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר, וְאִי אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר עִכּוּלֵי קְטוֹרֶת.
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabban Gamliel, what does he derive from that verse? The Gemara responds: Rabban Gamliel requires that verse to derive that you return partially consumed parts of a burnt offering to the altar, but you do not return partially consumed parts of an incense offering that fell from the golden altar. As Rabbi Ḥanina bar Minyumi, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, teaches that the verse “that the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar” teaches that you return partially consumed parts of a burnt offering that fell from the pyre, but you do not return partially consumed parts of an incense offering that fell from the pyre.
וְאִידָּךְ – לָאו מִמֵּילָא שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ דְּעִכּוּלֵי עוֹלָה מְהַדְּרִינַן?
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua, from where does he derive this distinction? The Gemara responds: Can it not be learned by itself from the straightforward meaning of the verse that we restore partially consumed parts of a burnt offering to the altar? Therefore, there is no need for an additional verse, as both halakhot can be derived from the same verse.
רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָרָאוּי כּוּ׳. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״מִזְבֵּחַ״! הָהוּא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: מַאי (טַעְמָא) קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְמוֹקְדָה? מְקַדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabban Gamliel says: With regard to any item that is suited to ascend upon the altar, even if it is not typically consumed, if it ascended, it shall not descend, even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed ab initio, as it is stated: “It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2). The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehoshua as well, isn’t it written: “Upon the altar,” and not merely: “On the pyre”? The Gemara responds: That term is required by Rabbi Yehoshua to teach: What is the reason the Merciful One states that any item that is suited for the pyre does not descend from the altar? It is because the altar sanctifies it.
וְאִידַּךְ – מִזְבֵּחַ אַחֲרִינָא כְּתִיב. וְאִידַּךְ – חַד לְהֵיכָא דְּהָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר, וְחַד לְהֵיכָא דְּלֹא הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר.
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabban Gamliel, from where does he derive that the altar sanctifies the items that ascend upon it? The Gemara responds: It is from the fact that the term “altar” is written another time, in the verse: “Whatever touches the altar shall be sacred” (Exodus 29:37). The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua, why does he require two verses to teach the same halakha, i.e., that the altar sanctifies items that ascend upon it? The Gemara answers: One verse is necessary for a case where an item had a time of fitness for consumption by the fire and was then disqualified, e.g., it became ritually impure; and one verse is necessary for a case where an item did not have a time of fitness, e.g., an offering that became disqualified at the moment of its slaughter.
וְאִידַּךְ – כֵּיוָן דִּפְסוּלִין נִינְהוּ וְרַבִּינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא, לָא שְׁנָא הָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר לָא שְׁנָא לֹא הָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר.
The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabban Gamliel, why does he not require another verse to teach that even items that had no time of fitness shall not descend from the altar? The Gemara responds: Once there are disqualified items that the Merciful One included in the halakha that they shall not descend from the altar, it is no different if the item had a time of fitness and it is no different if the item did not have a time of fitness.
רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר כּוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״עֹלָה״ – מָה עוֹלָה הַבָּאָה בִּגְלַל עַצְמָהּ, אַף כֹּל הַבָּאִין בִּגְלַל עַצְמָן; יָצְאוּ נְסָכִים הַבָּאִין בִּגְלַל זֶבַח.
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: Whether the offering was fit and the accompanying libations were unfit, or whether the libations were fit and the offering was unfit, and even if both this and that were unfit, the offering shall not descend, but the libations shall descend. The Gemara elaborates: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: The verse that teaches that fit items shall not descend from the altar states: “This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2). From there it is derived: Just as a burnt offering, which is an item that comes upon the altar for its own sake, shall not descend, so too, all items that come upon the altar for their own sake shall not descend. Excluded are libations, which come upon the altar for the sake of the offering, not for their own sake; these shall descend.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כׇּל הַנֹּגֵעַ בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ יִקְדָּשׁ״ – שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי בֵּין רָאוּי וּבֵין שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי; תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כְּבָשִׂים״ – מָה כְּבָשִׂים רְאוּיִין, אַף כֹּל רָאוּי. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״עֹלָה״ – מָה עוֹלָה רְאוּיָה, אַף כֹּל רְאוּיָה.
§ The Gemara cites another baraita relating to the mishna. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: From that which is stated: “Whatever touches the altar shall be sacred” (Exodus 29:37), I would derive that the altar sanctifies any item that ascends upon it, whether it is fit for the altar or whether it is unfit. Therefore, the verse states: “Now this is that which you shall offer upon the altar: Two lambs” (Exodus 29:38), to teach: Just as lambs are fit for the altar and are sanctified by it, so too, all items fit for the altar are sanctified by it. Rabbi Akiva says that the verse states: “Burnt offering,” to teach: Just as a burnt offering is fit for the altar and is sanctified by it, so too, all items fit for the altar are sanctified by it.
מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: עוֹלַת הָעוֹף פְּסוּלָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ; מָר מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵ״עֹלָה״, וּמָר מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מִ״כְּבָשִׂים״.
The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these opinions? Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The case of a disqualified bird burnt offering is the practical difference between them. One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, who cites the halakha from the term “burnt offering,” includes a disqualified bird burnt offering in the halakha that the offering shall not descend, as it is a burnt offering. And the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who cites the halakha from the term “lambs,” does not include a disqualified bird burnt offering in the halakha, as it is not similar to a lamb.
וּלְמַאן דְּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ מִ״כְּבָשִׂים״ – הָכְתִיב ״עֹלָה״! אִי כְּתִיב ״כְּבָשִׂים״ וְלָא כְּתִיב ״עֹלָה״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ מֵחַיִּים; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עֹלָה״.
The Gemara asks: And according to the one who cites the halakha from the term “lambs,” isn’t it written: “Burnt offering”? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, if “lambs” had been written and “burnt offering” had not been written, I would say that even an animal that became disqualified and ascended upon the altar while alive shall not descend. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “Burnt offering,” indicating that this halakha applies only to animals once they are fit to ascend the altar. Live animals are not fit to ascend the altar.
וּלְמַאן דְּמַיְיתֵי לֵיהּ מֵ״עֹלָה״, הָא כְּתִיב ״כְּבָשִׂים״! אִי כְּתִיב ״עֹלָה״ וְלָא כְּתִיב ״כְּבָשִׂים״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כְּבָשִׂים״.
The Gemara continues: And according to the one who derives the halakha from “burnt offering,” isn’t it written: “Lambs”? The Gemara explains: According to Rabbi Akiva, if “burnt offering” had been written and “lambs” had not been written, I would say that any item fit to ascend the altar is included in the halakha, even a meal offering. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “Lambs,” indicating that this halakha applies only to animal offerings and bird offerings, not to meal offerings.
מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי לְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי דְּמַתְנִיתִין? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: קְמָצִים שֶׁקָּדְשׁוּ בִּכְלִי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ – לְתַנָּאֵי דִּידַן לֹא יֵרְדוּ, לְתַנָּאֵי דְּמַתְנִיתָא יֵרְדוּ.
The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the opinions of these tanna’im, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva, and the opinions of these tanna’im of the mishna? Rav Pappa said: The difference between them is with regard to handfuls of flour, removed from meal offerings, that were sanctified in a service vessel and were then disqualified. According to our tanna’im, i.e., those in the mishna here, those handfuls shall not descend, as they are fit for the altar and for consumption by the fire as well. According to the tanna’im of the baraita, those handfuls shall descend, as those tanna’im hold that the halakha applies only to animal offerings and bird offerings.
רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ – לְדִבְרֵי כּוּלָּן לֹא תֵּרֵד, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא
Reish Lakish says in summary: With regard to a meal offering that comes by itself and does not accompany another offering, according to the statements of all of the tanna’im in the mishna, it shall not descend once it ascended, either because it is fit to be consumed by the fire, or because it comes by itself. According to the statements of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva,
