Zevachim 83

והוציאו למזבח והכניסן מהו

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?

הכא ודאי חד מקום הוא או [דילמא] יציאה קרינא ביה תיקו

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.

נכנס לכפר תניא רבי אליעזר אומר נאמר כאן לכפר בקדש ונאמר להלן וכל אדם לא יהיה באהל מועד בבאו לכפר בקדש

§ 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).

מה להלן בשלא כיפר אף כאן בשלא כיפר

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.

רבי שמעון אומר נאמר כאן לכפר ונאמר להלן ואת פר החטאת ואת שעיר החטאת אשר הובא את דמם לכפר מה להלן בשכיפר אף כאן בשכיפר

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.

במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר דנין חוץ מחוץ ואין דנין חוץ מבפנים

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.

ומר סבר דנין בהמה מבהמה ואין דנין בהמה מאדם

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.

רבי יהודה אומר כו׳ הא מזיד פסול בשכיפר או בשלא כיפר

§ 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 Eliezer 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 Shimon?

אמר רבי ירמיה ממשמע שנאמר ואת פר החטאת ואת שעיר החטאת אשר הובא את דמם (אל אהל מועד) לכפר בקקדש מה תלמוד לומר והשרף

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”?

מה תלמוד לומר והשרף לגופיה איצטריך אלא מה תלמוד לומר חטאת חטאת

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.

לפי שלא למדנו אלא לפר ושעיר של יום הכפורים שנשרפין אבית הדשן מטמאין בגדים שאר נשרפין מנין תלמוד לומר חטאת חטאת דברי רבי יהודה

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 the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

רבי מאיר אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר ואת פר החטאת ואת שעיר החטאת שאין תלמוד לומר לכפר מה תלמוד לומר לכפר לימד על כל המתכפרים שהשורפן מטמא בגדים

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.

ורבי יהודה לכפר לא משמע ליה מאי טעמא לאו משום דמיבעיא ליה לגזירה שוה

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.

הדרן עלך כל הזבחים שנתערבו

מתני׳ המזבח מקדש [את] הראוי לו

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.

רבי יהושע אומר כל הראוי לאישים אם עלה לא ירד שנאמר היא העלה על מוקדה מה עולה שהיא ראויה לאישים אם עלתה לא תרד אף כל שהוא ראוי לאישים אם עלה לא ירד

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.

רבן גמליאל אומר כל הראוי למזבח אם עלה לא ירד שנאמר היא העלה על מוקדה על המזבח מה עולה שהיא ראויה למזבח אם עלתה לא תרד אף כל דבר שהוא ראוי למזבח אם עלתה לא תרד

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.

אין בין דברי רבן גמליאל לדברי רבי יהושע אלא הדם והנסכים שרבן גמליאל אומר לא ירדו ורבי יהושע אומר ירדו

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.

רבי שמעון אומר הזבח כשר ונסכים פסולין הנסכים כשירים והזבח פסול אפילו זה וזה פסולין הזבח לא ירד והנסכים ירדו

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.

גמ׳ ראוי לו אין שאין ראוי לו לא למעוטי מאי אמר רב פפא למעוטי קמצין שלא קידשו בכלי

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.

מתקיף לה רבינא מאי שנא מדעולא דאמר עולא אימורי קדשים קלין שהעלן לפני זריקת דמן לא ירדו נעשו לחמו של מזבח

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.

הנך לא מיחסרו מעשה בגופייהו הני מיחסרו מעשה בגופייהו

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.

רבי יהושע אומר כל הראוי לאישים כו׳ ורבן גמליאל נמי הכתיב עלה על מוקדה ההוא לאהדורי פוקעין הוא דאתא

§ 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.

ואידך לאהדורי פוקעין מנא ליה נפקא ליה מאשר תאכל האש

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.

ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה לעכולי עולה אתה מחזיר ואי אתה מחזיר עכולי קטורת דתני רבי חנינא בר מניומי ברבי אליעזר בן יעקב אשר תאכל האש את העלה על המזבח עכולי עולה אתה מחזיר ואי אתה מחזיר עכולי קטורת

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.

ואידך לאו ממילא שמעת מינה דעכולי עולה מהדרינן

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.

רבן גמליאל אומר כל הראוי כו׳ ורבי יהושע נמי הכתיב מזבח ההוא מיבעיא ליה מאי (טעמא) קאמר רחמנא כל הראוי למוקדה מקדש מזבח

§ 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.

ואידך מזבח אחרינא כתיב ואידך חד להיכא דהיתה לה שעת הכושר וחד להיכא דלא היתה לה שעת הכושר

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.

ואידך כיון דפסולין נינהו ורבינהו רחמנא לא שנא היתה לו שעת הכושר לא שנא לא היתה לו שעת הכושר

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.

רבי שמעון אומר הזבח כשר כו׳ תניא רבי שמעון אומר עלה מה עולה הבאה בגלל עצמה אף כל הבאין בגלל עצמן יצאו נסכים הבאין בגלל זבח

§ 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.

רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר מתוך שנאמר כל הנגע במזבח יקדש שומע אני בין ראוי ובין שאינו ראוי תלמוד לומר כבשים מה כבשים ראויין אף כל ראוי רבי עקיבא אומר עלה מה עולה ראויה אף כל ראויה

§ 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.

מאי בינייהו אמר רב אדא בר אהבה עולת העוף פסולה איכא בינייהו מר מייתי לה מעלה ומר מייתי לה מכבשים

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.

ולמאן דמייתי לה מכבשים הכתיב עלה אי כתיב כבשים ולא כתיב עלה הוה אמינא אפילו מחיים כתב רחמנא עלה

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.

ולמאן דמייתי ליה מעלה הא כתיב כבשים אי כתיב עלה ולא כתיב כבשים הוה אמינא אפילו מנחה כתב רחמנא כבשים

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.

מאי איכא בין הני תנאי להני תנאי דמתניתין אמר רב פפא קמצים שקדשו בכלי איכא בינייהו לתנאי דידן לא ירדו לתנאי דמתניתא ירדו

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.

ריש לקיש אמר מנחה הבאה בפני עצמה לדברי כולן לא תרד לדברי רבי יוסי הגלילי ורבי עקיבא

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,