Zevachim 84

תרד מנחה הבאה עם הזבח לדברי רבן גמליאל ורבי יהושע לא תרד לדברי כולן תרד

even that meal offering shall descend, as it is not similar to lambs. With regard to a meal offering that comes with an animal offering, either a burnt offering or peace offering, according to the statements of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua, it shall not descend, as it is meant for consumpion by the fire. According to the statements of everyone else, i.e., Rabbi Shimon and the tannai’im of the baraita, it shall descend, as it is neither offered by itself nor is it an animal.

נסכים הבאין בפני עצמן לדברי כולן ירדו לדברי רבן גמליאל ורבי שמעון לא ירדו נסכין הבאין עם הזבח לדברי כולן ירדו לדברי רבן גמליאל לחודיה לא ירדו

Reish Lakish continues: With regard to libations that come by themselves, according to the statements of everyone, i.e., Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yehoshua, they shall descend, but according to the statements of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Shimon, they shall not descend. With regard to libations that come with an animal offering, according to the statements of everyone, they shall descend, while according to the statement of Rabban Gamliel alone, they shall not descend.

פשיטא מנחה הבאה בפני עצמה איצטריכא ליה וכדרבא דאמר רבא מתנדב אדם מנחת נסכים בכל יום

The Gemara questions the need for such a summary: Isn’t it obvious? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for him to state the halakha in the case of a meal offering that comes by itself, and this is in accordance with the statement of Rava. As Rava says: A person can volunteer to bring a meal offering that normally accompanies libations, on any day, even without offering the libations and animal offering that it normally accompanies. Although the summary is itself obvious, it is nevertheless stated to indicate that it is possible to offer such a meal offering.

ונשמעינן כדרבא נסכים הבאים עם הזבח איצטריכא ליה דקא מקרב להו למחר וליומא חרא

The Gemara asks: If the intent of his summary is to express his agreement with the statement of Rava, then let Reish Lakish teach us explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rava. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the case of libations that come with an animal offering, as the halakha in such a case is that he may sacrifice the libations the next day and on a later [ḥara] day sometime after sacrificing the animal offering that they accompany.

סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ואמר מר מנחתם ונסכיהם בלילה מנחתם ונסכיהם למחר כנסכים הבאין בפני עצמן דמו ומודי רבי שמעון דלא ירדו קא משמע לן

Accordingly, it may enter your mind to say that since the Master says that the verse: “And their meal offering and their liba-tions” (Numbers 29:18), indicates that libations may be offered at night, and the phrase “and their meal offering and their libations” indicates that libations may be offered the next day and on a later day, perhaps libations offered on a later date than the animal itself are to be considered as libations which come by themselves, and Rabbi Shimon would concede that they shall not descend. Reish Lakish therefore teaches us the case of libations that accompany an animal offering, to indicate that such libations are still considered as those that accompany an animal offering and that they shall descend from the altar.

מתני׳ אלו אם עלו לא ירדו הלן והיוצא והטמא ושנשחט חוץ לזמנו וחוץ למקומו ושקבלו פסולין וזרקו את דמו

MISHNA: These are the items that even if they were disqualified, if they ascended the altar they shall not descend: Blood, sacrificial portions, or limbs of a burnt offering, any of which were left overnight off the altar, or that emerge from the Temple courtyard, or that become ritually impure, or that came from an animal that was slaughtered with the intent to sacrifice it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, or an offering that people unfit to perform the Temple service collected and then sprinkled its blood.

רבי יהודה אומר שנשחט בלילה ונשפך דמה ויצא דמה חוץ לקלעים אם עלתה תרד רבי שמעון אומר לא תרד שהיה פסולו בקדש שרבי שמעון אומר כל שפסולו בקדש הקדש מקבלו לא היה פסולו בקדש אין הקדש מקבלו

Rabbi Yehuda says: In the case of a sacrificial animal that was slaughtered at night, or one whose blood was spilled on the floor of the Temple without its being collected in a vessel, or one whose blood emerged outside the curtains, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard: Even if it ascended upon the altar it shall descend. Rabbi Shimon says: In all these cases, if it ascended it shall not descend, because its disqualification occurred in sanctity. As Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to any unfit offering whose disqualification occurred in sanctity, i.e., in the course of the Temple service, the sacred area renders the offering acceptable, and if it ascended onto the altar it shall not descend. But with regard to any offering whose disqualification did not occur in sanctity but rather was unfit initially, the sacred area does not render the offering acceptable.

ואלו שלא היו פסולן בקדש הרובע והנרבע והמוקצה והנעבד והאתנן והמחיר והכלאים והטרפה והיוצא דופן ובעלי מומין רבי עקיבא מכשיר בבעלי מומין רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים אומר דוחה היה אבא את בעלי מומין מעל גבי המזבח

And these are the offerings whose disqualification did not occur in sanctity: An animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality, and an animal that was set aside for idol worship, and an animal that was worshipped as a deity, and an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, and an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds, and an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], and an animal born by caesarean section, and blemished animals. Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit in the sense that if they ascended they shall not descend. Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: My father would reject blemished animals from upon the altar.

כשם שאם עלו לא ירדו כך אם ירדו לא יעלו וכולן שעלו חיים לראש המזבח ירדו עולה שעלתה חיה לראש המזבח תרד שחטה בראש המזבח יפשיט וינתחה במקומה

Concerning those animals that, if they ascended, do not descend, just as if they ascended the altar they shall not descend, so too, if they descended they shall not then ascend. And all of them that if they ascend they do not descend, if they ascended to the top of the altar alive they descend, as an animal is fit for the altar only after it is slaughtered. A burnt offering that ascended to the top of the altar alive shall descend, as one does not slaughter an animal atop the altar ab initio. But if one slaughtered the animal at the top of the altar, he should flay it and cut it into pieces in its place, and it is not removed from the altar.

גמ׳ תניא רבי יהודה אומר זאת היא העלה הרי אלו שלשה מיעוטין פרט לשנשחטה בלילה ושנשפך דמה ושיצא דמה חוץ לקלעים שאם עלתה תרד

GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The verse from which is derived the halakha that items that ascended upon the altar shall not descend, states: “This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2). These are three terms of exclusion used in the verse: “This,” “it,” and “the,” from which it is derived that three instances are excluded from this halakha: A sacrificial animal that was slaughtered at night, and one whose blood was spilled, and one whose blood emerged outside the curtains, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard. With regard to these cases, the halakha is that if one of them ascended upon the altar it shall descend.

רבי שמעון אומר עלה אין לי אלא עולה כשרה מנין לרבות שנשחטה בלילה ושנשפך דמה ושיצא דמה חוץ לקלעים והלן והיוצא והטמא ושנשחט חוץ לזמנו וחוץ למקומו ושקבלו פסולין וזרקו את דמו

Rabbi Shimon says: From the usage of the term “burnt offering” I have derived only with regard to a fit burnt offering that it shall not descend. From where is it derived that the verse also includes a sacrificial animal that was disqualified, such as one that was slaughtered at night; or whose blood was spilled; or whose blood emerged outside the curtains, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard; or that was left overnight; or that emerged from the Temple courtyard, or that became ritually impure; or that came from an animal that was slaughtered with the intent to sacrifice it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area; or an offering that people unfit to perform the Temple service collected and then sprinkled its blood?

הניתנין למטה שנתנן למעלה ולמעלה שנתנן למטה והניתנין בחוץ שנתנן בפנים בפנים שנתנן בחוץ

In addition, from where is it derived that the following are also included in this halakha: Those offerings whose blood is to be placed below the red line that divided between the upper and lower halves of the external altar, i.e., a burnt offering, a guilt offering, or a peace offering, but it was placed above the red line; and a sin offering, whose blood is to be placed above the red line, that had its blood placed below the red line; and those offerings whose blood is to be placed outside, on the external altar, that had their blood placed inside, in the Sanctuary; and those offerings whose blood is to be placed inside that had their blood placed outside?

ופסח וחטאת ששחטן שלא לשמן מנין תלמוד לומר תורת העלה ריבה תורה אחת לכל העולין שאם עלו לא ירדו

And in addition, with regard to a Paschal offering or sin offering that were slaughtered not for their sake, from where is it derived that if they ascended upon the altar they shall not descend? The verse states: “The law of the burnt offering,” which included in one law all items that ascend upon the altar, establishing the principle that if they ascended the altar they shall not descend.

יכול שאני מרבה הרובע והנרבע והמוקצה והנעבד ואתנן ומחיר וכלאים וטרפה ויוצא דופן תלמוד לומר זאת

One might have thought that I should also include an animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality, and an animal that was set aside for idol worship, and an animal that was worshipped as a deity, and an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, and an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds, and an animal that is a tereifa, and an animal born by caesarean section. Therefore, the verse states: “This,” to exclude these types of disqualifications, which descend even after they have ascended the altar.

ומה ראית לרבות את אלו ולהוציא את אלו אחר שריבה

The Gemara asks: And what did you see as reason to include those and exclude these? The Gemara answers: After noting that the verse included

הכתוב ומיעט מרבה אני את אלו שהיה פסולן בקדש ומוציא אני את אלו שלא היה פסולן בקודש

and subsequently the verse excluded, I say the following claim with regard to what to include and what to exclude: I will include those whose disqualification was in sanctity, i.e., in the course of Temple service, and rule that if they ascended they shall not descend, and I will exclude these whose disqualification was not in sanctity, and rule that if they ascended they shall descend.

ורבי יהודה מייתי לה מהכא מפני מה אמרו לן בדם כשר

And as for Rabbi Yehuda, who disagrees with Rabbi Shimon and does not deem it permitted for items whose disqualification occurred in sanctity to remain on the altar, yet agrees that those items listed in the beginning of the mishna, such as sacrificial portions left overnight, shall not descend, he derives it from here, as it is taught in a baraita: For what reason did the Sages say to us that in the case of blood left overnight it is fit, i.e., if blood of an offering had been left overnight and was then placed on the altar it is not removed?

שהרי לן כשר באימורין לן באימורין כשר שהרי לן כשר בבשר

This is as the halakha is in the case of sacrificial portions, which if they are left overnight are fit. From where is it derived that in the case of sacrificial portions that are left overnight, they are fit? This is as the halakha is in the case of meat, which if it is left overnight is fit, because the meat of a peace offering may be eaten for two days and one night.

יוצא שהיוצא כשר בבמה

From where is it derived that if an offering that emerges from the Temple courtyard is then placed on the altar it is not removed? This is derived by comparison, since an offering that leaves its area is fit in the case of an offering brought on a private altar, as the entire notion of sacrifice on such an altar is that it may be performed anywhere.

טמא הואיל והותר לעבודת ציבור

From where is it derived that if an offering that has become ritually impure is placed on the altar it is not removed? This is derived by comparison, since it is permitted to offer an impure offering in the case of communal rites, i.e., communal offerings. In cases of necessity, the communal offerings may be sacrificed even if they are ritually impure.

חוץ לזמנו הואיל ומרצה לפיגולו

From where is it derived that if an offering that was disqualified due to the intention of the priest who slaughtered it to consume it beyond its designated time [piggul] was placed on the altar, it is not removed? This is derived by comparison, since the sprinkling of its blood effects acceptance with regard to its status as piggul. The status of piggul takes effect only if the sacrificial rites involving that offering were otherwise performed properly. This indicates that it still has the status of an offering, so it is not removed from the altar.

חוץ למקומו הואיל ואיתקש לחוץ לזמנו

From where is it derived that if an offering that was disqualified due to the intention of the priest who slaughtered it to consume it outside its designated area was placed on the altar, it is not removed? This is derived by comparison, since it is juxtaposed to an offering that was slaughtered with intent to consume it beyond its designated time.

שקבלו פסולין וזרקו את דמו בהנך פסולי דחזו לעבודת ציבור

From where is it derived that if an offering that people unfit for performing the Temple service collected and then sprinkled its blood was placed on the altar, it is not removed? This is derived from the halakha of these priests who are generally disqualified because they are impure, yet who are fit to perform the communal rites, i.e., to sacrifice communal offerings, in a case when all the priests or the majority of the Jewish people are impure.

וכי דנין דבר שלא בהכשרו מדבר שבהכשרו

The Gemara questions the derivations of the baraita: But can one deduce the halakha of a matter that is not fit, i.e., sacrificial portions that are disqualified due to having been left overnight, from the halakha of a matter that is fit, i.e., the peace offering, which is permitted for eating for two days and one night? Similarly, how can the baraita derive the halakha of flesh that was removed from the Temple courtyard from the halakha of a private altar, which has no halakhic area surrounding it?

תנא אזאת תורת העלה ריבה סמיך ליה

The Gemara answers: The tanna relied on the verse: “Command Aaron and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar all night until the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning there” (Leviticus 6:2), which amplified the application of the halakha stated in the verse, teaching that many types of disqualified offerings may be left upon the altar. The derivations written in the baraita are mere supports for those two halakhot. The explanations cited in the baraita for including these disqualifications are mentioned only to clarify why Rabbi Yehuda does not exclude them based on the terms “this,” “it,” and “that.”

אמר רבי יוחנן השוחט בהמה בלילה בפנים (המעלה בחוץ פטור בחוץ) והעלה בחוץ חייב

§ With regard to an offering that was slaughtered at night, which Rabbi Yehuda holds shall descend from the altar even if it ascended, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One who slaughters a sacrificial animal at night inside the Temple courtyard, and then offers it up on an altar outside the Temple courtyard, is liable to receive karet, which is the punishment for one who sacrifices an offering outside the Temple courtyard. Although one is normally liable for sacrificing an offering outside the Temple courtyard only if it was fit to be offered on the altar within the Temple, and an animal slaughtered at night is disqualified and shall descend from the altar according to Rabbi Yehuda,