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
Rabbi Yochanan rules that one who slaughters an animal at night and offers it outside the Azara is liable for bringing an offering outside the Temple. This is despite the general principle that one is only liable for offering outside if the slaughtering was performed in a mostly valid manner. Rabbi Yochanan reasons that this case is no worse than one who slaughters outside and offers outside, even according to Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that if one slaughters at night and places the offering on the altar, it must be removed.
Rav Chiya bar Avin raises a difficulty with Rabbi Yochanan’s comparison, citing the case of slaughtering a bird inside the Azara. Some understand this as an unresolved challenge to Rabbi Yochanan, while others distinguish between slaughtering a bird inside and slaughtering an animal outside: the act of slaughtering a bird in the Temple is completely invalid, since melika rather than slaughter is required.
Ulla rules that the imurim (the fatty parts burned on the altar) of kodashim kalim that were placed on the altar before the blood was sprinkled remain there, even though they are only sanctified after the blood is applied. Rabbi Zeira attempts to prove Ulla’s ruling from a braita in Zevachim 84a, where the blood spilled and could no longer be placed on the altar. If in that case the imurim remain on the altar, all the more so in Ulla’s case, when the blood could still be applied. His proof, however, is rejected: perhaps the braita there refers only to kodashei kodashim, which are sanctified before the blood is applied. A difficulty is raised against this rejection, but it is resolved.
A further attempt to support Ulla comes from an inference in the Mishna from the sentence that live animals are taken down from the altar. One might infer that if they were slaughtered, the imurim would remain – even for kodashim kalim. This inference is rejected, and the Gemara explains that the case teaches about a blemished animal with an eye defect. Even according to Rabbi Akiva, who permits such a blemish if the animal has already been brought on the altar, here, since the animal is still alive, it must be removed. Two difficulties are raised against the assumption that the Mishna refers to disqualified animals, but both are resolved.
There are two versions of a question posed by Rabbi Yochanan, related to Ulla’s case of imurim placed on the altar before the blood was sprinkled.
Rabbi Yochanan further limits Rabbi Akiva’s leniency regarding blemished animals already on the altar to minor blemishes – those that do not constitute disqualifications in birds.
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.”
Zevachim 85
לֹא תְּהֵא פְּחוּתָה מִשּׁוֹחֵט בַּחוּץ וּמַעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ.
nevertheless, the halakha with regard to one who slaughters an animal at night should not be less stringent than that of one who slaughters an animal outside the Temple and offers it up outside. With regard to that case, the mishna (106a) states that such a person is liable, even though an animal slaughtered outside the Temple is not fit to be offered on the altar inside the Temple and shall descend from the altar even if it has ascended.
מֵתִיב רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין: הַשּׁוֹחֵט עוֹף בִּפְנִים וּמַעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. שֹׁחֵט בַּחוּץ וּמַעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב. נֵימָא: לֹא תְּהֵא פְּחוּתָה מִשּׁוֹחֵט וּמַעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ!
Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin raises an objection to the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan from a mishna (111a): One who slaughters a bird inside the Temple courtyard and then offers it up on an altar outside the Temple is exempt, as a bird offering is supposed to be pinched at the nape of the neck and not slaughtered with a knife. But if he slaughtered the bird outside the Temple courtyard and offered it up outside the Temple courtyard, he is liable to receive karet. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, let us say that the halakha with regard to one who slaughters an animal inside the Temple should not be less stringent than that of one who slaughters an animal and offers it up outside the Temple. Why, then, is such a person exempt?
תְּיוּבְתָּא. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: שְׁחִיטַת הָעוֹף בִּפְנִים – מִיקְטָל קַטְלֵיהּ.
The Gemara responds: This is indeed a conclusive refutation, and the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan is rejected. The Gemara adds a possible explanation: If you wish, say that one cannot derive the halakha of a bird slaughtered inside the Temple from that of a bird slaughtered outside of it, because in the case of the slaughter of a bird inside the Temple, it is considered as if he killed it. By contrast, in the case of an animal slaughtered at night within the Temple, although it is disqualified, it is still considered a slaughtered animal, and its status may therefore be derived from that of an animal that is slaughtered outside the Temple.
אָמַר עוּלָּא: אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁהֶעֱלָן לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמָן – לֹא יֵרְדוּ, נַעֲשׂוּ לַחְמוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ.
§ Concerning items that were inappropriately placed on the altar, Ulla says: Sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up upon the altar before the sprinkling of their blood, which is the act that sanctifies such portions for the altar, shall not descend, as they have become the bread of the altar.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: שֶׁנִּשְׁפַּךְ דָּמָהּ, וְשֶׁיָּצָא דָּמָהּ חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים. וּמָה הָתָם – דְּאִם בָּא לִזְרוֹק אֵין לוֹ לִזְרוֹק, אָמַרְתָּ: אִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ; הָכָא דְּאִם בָּא לִזְרוֹק זוֹרֵק – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
Rabbi Zeira said in support of Ulla: We learn in the mishna as well: The sacrificial portions of an offering whose blood was spilled, or whose blood emerged outside the curtains, shall not descend if they ascended. From this one can infer: And if there, where the blood was spilled, if he comes to sprinkle it he cannot sprinkle it, as there is no blood with which to do so, and you said that if they ascended the altar they shall not descend, then here, where the blood is intact such that if he comes to sprinkle it he sprinkles it, which renders the sacrificial portions permitted for sacrifice upon the altar, is it not all the more so that if they ascended they shall not descend?
תַּרְגְּמַהּ אַקׇּדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים.
The Gemara rejects the inference of Rabbi Zeira: Interpret the mishna as referring specifically to offerings of the most sacred order, whose sacrificial portions are sanctified for the sake of the altar before their blood is presented. Therefore, such sacrificial portions are considered fit for the altar and shall not descend if they ascended. It may be that the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity are entirely unfit for the altar before the presentation of their blood.
הֲרֵי פֶּסַח – דְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים הוּא! תַּרְגְּמַהּ בְּשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן.
The Gemara challenges: But there is a Paschal offering, which is an offering of lesser sanctity, and it is mentioned in the same list of items that shall not descend if they ascended. The Gemara explains: Interpret the case of a Paschal offering as referring to where it was slaughtered not for its sake, but not to where its blood was spilled or emerged outside the curtains.
תְּנַן: וְכוּלָּן שֶׁעָלוּ חַיִּין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – יֵרְדוּ. הָא שְׁחוּטִין – לֹא יֵרְדוּ; מַאי, לָאו לָא שְׁנָא קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לָא שְׁנָא קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים?
We learned in the mishna: And all of them that if they ascend they do not descend, if they ascended to the top of the altar alive, they descend. But it may be inferred from here that slaughtered animals shall not descend, even if their blood was not presented. What, is it not that this inference applies to all offerings, and the halakha is not different with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, and it is not different with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity?
לָא; הָא שְׁחוּטִין – מֵהֶן יֵרְדוּ מֵהֶן לֹא יֵרְדוּ. וְהָא ״כּוּלָּן״ קָתָנֵי! ״כּוּלָּם״ אַחַיִּין.
The Gemara responds: No, it is possible to infer as follows: But with regard to slaughtered animals, some of them shall descend and some of them shall not descend. The Gemara challenges: But the mishna teaches that all of them shall descend if they ascended alive, in which case it must be inferred with regard to all of them that if they were slaughtered they shall not descend. The Gemara explains: When the mishna states: All of them shall descend, it is referring only to animals that ascended upon the altar while still alive, in order to emphasize that all fit animals that ascended while still alive shall descend and are not slaughtered atop the altar. The mishna did not intend to teach the halakha with regard to all slaughtered animals.
פְּשִׁיטָא! לְעוֹלָם אַחַיִּין – וּבְדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן; וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: אִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that live animals that ascended upon the altar shall descend? The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna intends to teach the halakha with regard to living animals but is referring specifically to animals blemished on the cornea of the eye, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that in the case of such a small blemish, if they ascended the altar they shall not descend. The phrase: All of them shall descend, teaches that even Rabbi Akiva agrees that such animals that ascended while still alive shall descend.
בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתַּהּ – בִּפְסוּלִין? אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וְכֵן עוֹלָה שֶׁעָלְתָה חַיָּה לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – תֵּרֵד, שְׁחָטָהּ בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – יַפְשִׁיט וִינַתֵּחַ בִּמְקוֹמָהּ. וְאִי פְּסוּלָה – בַּת הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִתּוּחַ הִיא?! ״וְנִתַּח אוֹתָהּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, ״אוֹתָהּ״ – כְּשֵׁרָה וְלָא פְּסוּלָה!
The Gemara asks: To what case did you interpret this halakha in the mishna to be referring? You interpreted it as referring to disqualified offerings. Say the latter clause: And likewise, a burnt offering that ascended to the top of the altar alive shall descend. 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. And if the mishna is referring to a disqualified offering one must ask: Is a disqualified offering fit for flaying and cutting? The Merciful One states: “And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into its pieces” (Leviticus 1:6), and the word “it” indicates an exclusion: Only fit offerings are flayed and cut, and not those that are disqualified.
סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לִכְשֵׁרָה. וּמַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן? דְּיֵשׁ הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִתּוּחַ בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
The Gemara answers: In the latter clause we come to refer to a fit offering. The Gemara asks: And what does this teach us? The Gemara answers: It teaches that there is flaying and cutting at the top of the altar, and it is not considered degrading to the altar.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִתּוּחַ בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר וְנִפְסְלָה; וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּזְרַק הַדָּם וְהוּרְצָה בָּשָׂר שָׁעָה אַחַת – יַפְשִׁיטֶנָּה, וְעוֹרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים.
The Gemara asks: But according to the one who says that there is no flaying and cutting at the top of the altar, what can be said? The Gemara answers: According to that opinion, what are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where the animal that ascended while still alive had a time of fitness, during which it was slaughtered atop the altar and its blood was presented, and thereafter it became disqualified. And the last clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Since the blood was sprinkled, thereby effecting acceptance of the flesh of the offering for a moment, even if the offering then became disqualified, he shall flay it and its hide is given to the priests, and its flesh is burned.
וְאֶלָּא דְּקָתָנֵי: כֵּיצַד עוֹשֶׂה – מוֹרִיד אֶת הַקְּרָבַיִם לְמַטָּה וּמַדִּיחָן; לְמָה לִי?
The Gemara asks: But if the mishna is referring to an offering that became disqualified, then with regard to that which is taught in a baraita concerning the mishna: What shall he do with such an offering? He takes the innards down from the altar, placing them below it, and thereafter rinses them, why do I need to do so? Since the innards of a disqualified offering may not be returned to the altar once they have been removed from it, why should they be removed from the altar?
הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד? נַקְרְבִינְהוּ בְּפִרְתַּיְיהוּ?! ״הַקְרִיבֵהוּ נָא לְפֶחָתֶךָ הֲיִרְצְךָ אוֹ הֲיִשָּׂא פָנֶיךָ״!
The Gemara responds: Rather, what should we do? Should we offer them with their dung? Doesn’t the verse state: “Present it now to your governor; will he be pleased with you? Or will he accept your person?” (Malachi 1:8), and isn’t it derived from this verse that items considered repulsive to people are not fit for use as an offering for the Most High?
אֲנַן הָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן: מַדִּיחָן לְמָה לִי? דְּאִי מִיתְרְמֵי כֹּהֵן אַחֲרִינָא וְלָא יָדַע – נַסְּקִינְהוּ.
The Gemara clarifies: This is what we are saying: Since one removes the innards of a disqualified offering from atop the altar and they may not be returned, why do I need to rinse them? The Gemara answers: The concern is that if another priest chances upon these innards and does not know that they are disqualified for the altar, he will sacrifice them upon the altar with their dung.
וַאֲנַן נֵיקוּ נֶעְבֵּיד לְהוּ לְכֹהֲנִים מִילְּתָא דְּאָתוּ בַּהּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה?! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי עֲדִיפָא, שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ קׇדְשֵׁי שָׁמַיִם מוּטָלִים כִּנְבֵילָה.
The Gemara asks: And shall we stand and do something for the priests through which they shall come to encounter a stumbling block? Were these innards to remain unwashed, no priest would mistakenly sacrifice them upon the altar. The Gemara answers: Even so, rinsing disqualified innards is preferable, so that the sanctified offerings of Heaven shall not be lying as a carcass.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁהֶעֱלָן לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמָן, יֵרְדוּ אוֹ לֹא יֵרְדוּ?
With regard to the matter discussed by Ulla (85a), Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: In the case of sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up before the sprinkling of their blood, which is the act which sanctifies such portions for the altar, shall they descend or shall they not descend?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי: וְתִיבְּעֵי לָךְ מְעִילָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְעִילָה לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לִי – דִּזְרִיקָה הוּא דְּקָבְעָה לְהוּ בִּמְעִילָה; כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ – יְרִידָה. וּפָשֵׁיט: לֹא יֵרְדוּ, וְאֵין בָּהֶן מְעִילָה.
Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Instead of raising the dilemma of whether or not such portions shall descend, you should raise the dilemma of whether their ascension upon the altar sanctifies them with regard to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: With regard to the misuse of consecrated property I do not raise the dilemma, as certainly the rite of sprinkling and not their ascension to the altar determines their status with regard to the misuse of consecrated property. When Rabbi Yoḥanan raised the dilemma it was with regard to their descent from the altar. And Rabbi Yoḥanan resolved his dilemma and ruled: If they ascended they shall not descend, and they are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק מַתְנֵי הָכִי: אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁהֶעֱלָן לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמָן, יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מְעִילָה אוֹ לָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי: וְתִיבְּעֵי לָךְ יְרִידָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יְרִידָה לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי – דְּנַעֲשׂוּ לַחְמוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ; כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לִי – מְעִילָה. וּפָשֵׁיט הָכִי: לֹא יֵרְדוּ, וְאֵין בָּהֶן מְעִילָה.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak teaches the discussion in this manner: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: In the case of sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up on the altar before the sprinkling of their blood, are they subject to the halakhot of misuse or not? Rabbi Ami said to him: And you should raise the dilemma with regard to their descent from upon the altar. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: With regard to their descent I do not raise the dilemma, because after these sacrificial portions ascend the altar they become the bread of the altar and shall not descend. When I raise the dilemma it is with regard to the misuse of consecrated property. And Rabbi Yoḥanan resolved his dilemma in this manner: They shall not descend, and they are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.
וְאֵלּוּ לֹא הָיָה פְּסוּלָן [וְכוּ׳].
§ The mishna teaches: And these are the offerings whose disqualification did not occur in sanctity: An animal that copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality…or blemished animals. Such offerings shall descend from the altar if they ascended. Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit in the sense that if they ascended upon the altar they shall not descend.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא הִכְשִׁיר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֶלָּא בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן, הוֹאִיל וּכְשֵׁרִים בָּעוֹפוֹת. וְהוּא שֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּשָׁן אֶת מוּמָן. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּעוֹלַת נְקֵבָה, דִּכְשֶׁקָּדַם מוּמָהּ לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁהּ דָּמְיָא.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Akiva deemed fit only those animals with small blemishes, such as on the cornea of the eye, as such blemishes are fit with regard to bird offerings ab initio. And this is the halakha only when their consecration preceded their blemish, since such an animal was fit for the altar at the time of its consecration. But if their blemish preceded their consecration, they shall descend, as they were never fit for the altar. And Rabbi Akiva concedes with regard to a female burnt offering that it shall descend from the altar. Since only a male animal may be used for a burnt offering, it is like a case where the animal’s blemish preceded its consecration.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: יֵשׁ נִרְבָּע בָּעוֹפוֹת, אוֹ אֵין נִרְבָּע בָּעוֹפוֹת? מִי אָמַר: ״מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״ – לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע;
The Gemara presents a discussion in which the opinion of Rabbi Akiva is cited: Rabbi Yirmeya raises the dilemma: Is the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality applicable with regard to birds, or is there no disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality with regard to birds? Did the verse say: “When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of the animals” (Leviticus 1:2), where the term “of” serves to exclude from being brought as offerings both an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, in order to equate the two?
כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּרוֹבֵעַ אִיתֵיהּ בְּנִרְבָּע, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיתֵיהּ בְּרוֹבֵעַ לֵיתֵיהּ בְּנִרְבָּע; אוֹ דִלְמָא, הֲרֵי נֶעֶבְדָה בּוֹ עֲבֵירָה?
If so, then derive from it that anywhere that there is a disqualification of an animal that copulated with a person there is a disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality, and anywhere that there is no disqualification of an animal that copulated with a person there is no disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality. Consequently, since birds cannot be the active party in an act of bestiality, the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality is also inapplicable to birds. Or perhaps the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality does apply with regard to birds, as nevertheless a sin was committed with it?
אָמַר רַבָּה, תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַכְשִׁיר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין. וְאִם אִיתָא, נַכְשֵׁיר נָמֵי בְּנִרְבָּע – הוֹאִיל וְכָשֵׁר בָּעוֹפוֹת! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rabba said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit when the blemish is on the cornea, since such blemishes are fit with regard to bird offerings ab initio. And if it is so that a bird that was the object of bestiality is fit as an offering, then let us also deem fit an animal that was the object of bestiality, since such an offering is fit with regard to birds. From the fact that such animals are not deemed fit, conclude from the mishna that the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality applies to birds as well.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: הַנִּרְבָּע, וְהַמּוּקְצֶה, וְהַנֶּעֱבָד, וְאֶתְנַן, וּמְחִיר, וְטוּמְטוּם, וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס – כּוּלָּן מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We learn in the baraita as well: A bird that was the object of bestiality, or that was set aside for idol worship, or that was worshipped as a deity, or that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, or that was a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, in all of those cases, if its nape was pinched, it renders the garments of one who swallows an olive-bulk from the carcass ritually impure when it is in the throat, as is the halakha with regard to all unslaughtered carcasses of birds. Since the baraita lists a bird that was the object of bestiality among those disqualified offerings, conclude from the baraita that such a bird is in fact disqualified.
רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים כּוּ׳. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מַעֲשֶׂה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מַאי דּוֹחֶה – כִּלְאַחַר יָד.
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: My father would reject blemished animals from upon the altar. The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Ḥanina teaching us? The first tanna already stated that blemished animals shall descend. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rabbi Ḥanina teaches us an incident, to express that this halakha was not only stated theoretically but applied practically as well. And if you wish, say instead: What is the meaning of the term: Would reject? It means that he would remove blemished animals from the altar in a backhanded manner, i.e., privately rather than publicly, so as not to disgrace the honor of the altar.
כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאִם עָלָה כּוּ׳. אָמַר עוּלָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא מָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר, אֲבָל מָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר – יַעֲלוּ.
§ The mishna teaches with regard to those disqualified offerings that shall not descend from the altar if they ascended it: Just as if it ascended it does not descend, so too, if it descended it does not then ascend. Ulla says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where the fire has not yet taken hold of these offerings. But if the fire has taken hold of these offerings, then even if they descended from the altar they shall ascend.
רַב מָרִי מַתְנֵי אַרֵישָׁא; רַב חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא מַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא: הַעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִין וְהַקְּרָנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמְּחוּבָּרִין – יַעֲלוּ, פֵּרְשׁוּ – לֹא יַעֲלוּ. אָמַר עוּלָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא מָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר, אֲבָל מָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר – יַעֲלוּ.
Rav Mari teaches that the statement of Ulla is referring to the first clause, i.e., to this mishna. Rav Ḥanina of Sura teaches that Ulla is referring to the latter clause, i.e., to the next mishna, which states: The bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves of a burnt offering; when they are attached to the flesh of the offering they shall ascend upon the altar and be sacrificed with the offering. If they separated from the flesh of the offering they shall not ascend. With regard to this Ulla says: The Sages taught that if they separated from the flesh they shall not ascend only in a case where the fire has not yet taken hold of them. But if the fire has taken hold of them, then even if they separated from the flesh of the offering they shall ascend.
מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַרֵישָׁא; וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַרֵישָׁא – אֲבָל אַסֵּיפָא, לָאו בְּנֵי הַקְטָרָה נִינְהוּ.
The Gemara elaborates: According to the one who teaches Ulla’s statement, i.e., if the fire has taken hold of them they still ascend the altar, as referring to the latter clause, which discusses items that are not burned on the altar, all the more so will Ulla’s statement apply to the first clause, which discusses items that are burned on the altar but were disqualified. And according to the one who teaches Ulla’s statement as referring to the first clause, it applies only to those items that were to be burned on the altar but were disqualified. But with regard to the latter clause it does not apply, since the bones, tendons, and other items mentioned there are not subject to burning at all.
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ אִם עָלוּ יֵרְדוּ: בְּשַׂר קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וּבְשַׂר קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וּמוֹתַר הָעוֹמֶר, וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וּשְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת, וְהַקְּטוֹרֶת.
MISHNA: And these are the items that if they ascended upon the altar they descend, because they are completely unfit for the altar: The meat of offerings of the most sacred order, i.e., a guilt offering and a sin offering, the meat of which is eaten by priests; and the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity, which is eaten by the owners; and the surplus of the omer meal offering brought on the second day of Passover after the handful was removed and burned on the altar; and the two loaves meal offering brought on the festival of Shavuot; and the shewbread; and the remainder of the meal offerings after the handful was removed, which are all eaten by the priests; and the incense that ascended upon the external altar and not the golden altar where it should be burned.
הַצֶּמֶר שֶׁבְּרָאשֵׁי כְבָשִׂים, וְשֵׂעָר שֶׁבִּזְקַן תְּיָשִׁים, וְהָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים וְהַקַּרְנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם; בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵם מְחוּבָּרִים – יַעֲלוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל״. פֵּירְשׁוּ – לֹא יַעֲלוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״.
With regard to the wool that is on the heads of the sheep brought as burnt offerings, and the hair that is in the beard of goats that were sacrificed, and the bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves: When they are attached to the flesh of the offering they shall ascend upon the altar and be sacrificed with the offering, as it is stated: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9). If they separated from the flesh of the offering they shall not ascend, as it is stated: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27), and nothing else.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת הַעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים וְהַקְּרָנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ פֵּרְשׁוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9). The term “the whole” serves to include the bones and the tendons and the horns and the hooves among those items that are sacrificed on the altar. One might have thought that even if they separated from the flesh of the burnt offering they are sacrificed upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27), indicating that only those items and anything attached to them are sacrificed upon the altar.
אִי בָּשָׂר וָדָם,
If one derives the halakha with regard to bones and tendons from the phrase “the flesh and the blood,”
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.
Zevahim 85: Yes, the Gemara Considers Any and Every Case
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.
Raanana, Israel
See video
Raanana, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
I am grateful for the structure of the Daf Yomi. When I am freer to learn to my heart’s content, I learn other passages in addition. But even in times of difficulty, I always know that I can rely on the structure and social support of Daf Yomi learners all over the world.
I am also grateful for this forum. It is very helpful to learn with a group of enthusiastic and committed women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
Bronx, United States
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
Ontario, Canada
Richmond, CA, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
After all the hype on the 2020 siyum I became inspired by a friend to begin learning as the new cycle began.with no background in studying Talmud it was a bit daunting in the beginning. my husband began at the same time so we decided to study on shabbat together. The reaction from my 3 daughters has been fantastic. They are very proud. It’s been a great challenge for my brain which is so healthy!
Modi’in, Israel
Zevachim 85
לֹא תְּהֵא פְּחוּתָה מִשּׁוֹחֵט בַּחוּץ וּמַעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ.
nevertheless, the halakha with regard to one who slaughters an animal at night should not be less stringent than that of one who slaughters an animal outside the Temple and offers it up outside. With regard to that case, the mishna (106a) states that such a person is liable, even though an animal slaughtered outside the Temple is not fit to be offered on the altar inside the Temple and shall descend from the altar even if it has ascended.
מֵתִיב רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין: הַשּׁוֹחֵט עוֹף בִּפְנִים וּמַעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. שֹׁחֵט בַּחוּץ וּמַעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב. נֵימָא: לֹא תְּהֵא פְּחוּתָה מִשּׁוֹחֵט וּמַעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ!
Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin raises an objection to the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan from a mishna (111a): One who slaughters a bird inside the Temple courtyard and then offers it up on an altar outside the Temple is exempt, as a bird offering is supposed to be pinched at the nape of the neck and not slaughtered with a knife. But if he slaughtered the bird outside the Temple courtyard and offered it up outside the Temple courtyard, he is liable to receive karet. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, let us say that the halakha with regard to one who slaughters an animal inside the Temple should not be less stringent than that of one who slaughters an animal and offers it up outside the Temple. Why, then, is such a person exempt?
תְּיוּבְתָּא. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: שְׁחִיטַת הָעוֹף בִּפְנִים – מִיקְטָל קַטְלֵיהּ.
The Gemara responds: This is indeed a conclusive refutation, and the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan is rejected. The Gemara adds a possible explanation: If you wish, say that one cannot derive the halakha of a bird slaughtered inside the Temple from that of a bird slaughtered outside of it, because in the case of the slaughter of a bird inside the Temple, it is considered as if he killed it. By contrast, in the case of an animal slaughtered at night within the Temple, although it is disqualified, it is still considered a slaughtered animal, and its status may therefore be derived from that of an animal that is slaughtered outside the Temple.
אָמַר עוּלָּא: אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁהֶעֱלָן לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמָן – לֹא יֵרְדוּ, נַעֲשׂוּ לַחְמוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ.
§ Concerning items that were inappropriately placed on the altar, Ulla says: Sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up upon the altar before the sprinkling of their blood, which is the act that sanctifies such portions for the altar, shall not descend, as they have become the bread of the altar.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: שֶׁנִּשְׁפַּךְ דָּמָהּ, וְשֶׁיָּצָא דָּמָהּ חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים. וּמָה הָתָם – דְּאִם בָּא לִזְרוֹק אֵין לוֹ לִזְרוֹק, אָמַרְתָּ: אִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ; הָכָא דְּאִם בָּא לִזְרוֹק זוֹרֵק – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!
Rabbi Zeira said in support of Ulla: We learn in the mishna as well: The sacrificial portions of an offering whose blood was spilled, or whose blood emerged outside the curtains, shall not descend if they ascended. From this one can infer: And if there, where the blood was spilled, if he comes to sprinkle it he cannot sprinkle it, as there is no blood with which to do so, and you said that if they ascended the altar they shall not descend, then here, where the blood is intact such that if he comes to sprinkle it he sprinkles it, which renders the sacrificial portions permitted for sacrifice upon the altar, is it not all the more so that if they ascended they shall not descend?
תַּרְגְּמַהּ אַקׇּדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים.
The Gemara rejects the inference of Rabbi Zeira: Interpret the mishna as referring specifically to offerings of the most sacred order, whose sacrificial portions are sanctified for the sake of the altar before their blood is presented. Therefore, such sacrificial portions are considered fit for the altar and shall not descend if they ascended. It may be that the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity are entirely unfit for the altar before the presentation of their blood.
הֲרֵי פֶּסַח – דְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים הוּא! תַּרְגְּמַהּ בְּשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן.
The Gemara challenges: But there is a Paschal offering, which is an offering of lesser sanctity, and it is mentioned in the same list of items that shall not descend if they ascended. The Gemara explains: Interpret the case of a Paschal offering as referring to where it was slaughtered not for its sake, but not to where its blood was spilled or emerged outside the curtains.
תְּנַן: וְכוּלָּן שֶׁעָלוּ חַיִּין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – יֵרְדוּ. הָא שְׁחוּטִין – לֹא יֵרְדוּ; מַאי, לָאו לָא שְׁנָא קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לָא שְׁנָא קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים?
We learned in the mishna: And all of them that if they ascend they do not descend, if they ascended to the top of the altar alive, they descend. But it may be inferred from here that slaughtered animals shall not descend, even if their blood was not presented. What, is it not that this inference applies to all offerings, and the halakha is not different with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, and it is not different with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity?
לָא; הָא שְׁחוּטִין – מֵהֶן יֵרְדוּ מֵהֶן לֹא יֵרְדוּ. וְהָא ״כּוּלָּן״ קָתָנֵי! ״כּוּלָּם״ אַחַיִּין.
The Gemara responds: No, it is possible to infer as follows: But with regard to slaughtered animals, some of them shall descend and some of them shall not descend. The Gemara challenges: But the mishna teaches that all of them shall descend if they ascended alive, in which case it must be inferred with regard to all of them that if they were slaughtered they shall not descend. The Gemara explains: When the mishna states: All of them shall descend, it is referring only to animals that ascended upon the altar while still alive, in order to emphasize that all fit animals that ascended while still alive shall descend and are not slaughtered atop the altar. The mishna did not intend to teach the halakha with regard to all slaughtered animals.
פְּשִׁיטָא! לְעוֹלָם אַחַיִּין – וּבְדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן; וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: אִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ.
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that live animals that ascended upon the altar shall descend? The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna intends to teach the halakha with regard to living animals but is referring specifically to animals blemished on the cornea of the eye, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that in the case of such a small blemish, if they ascended the altar they shall not descend. The phrase: All of them shall descend, teaches that even Rabbi Akiva agrees that such animals that ascended while still alive shall descend.
בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתַּהּ – בִּפְסוּלִין? אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וְכֵן עוֹלָה שֶׁעָלְתָה חַיָּה לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – תֵּרֵד, שְׁחָטָהּ בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – יַפְשִׁיט וִינַתֵּחַ בִּמְקוֹמָהּ. וְאִי פְּסוּלָה – בַּת הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִתּוּחַ הִיא?! ״וְנִתַּח אוֹתָהּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, ״אוֹתָהּ״ – כְּשֵׁרָה וְלָא פְּסוּלָה!
The Gemara asks: To what case did you interpret this halakha in the mishna to be referring? You interpreted it as referring to disqualified offerings. Say the latter clause: And likewise, a burnt offering that ascended to the top of the altar alive shall descend. 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. And if the mishna is referring to a disqualified offering one must ask: Is a disqualified offering fit for flaying and cutting? The Merciful One states: “And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into its pieces” (Leviticus 1:6), and the word “it” indicates an exclusion: Only fit offerings are flayed and cut, and not those that are disqualified.
סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לִכְשֵׁרָה. וּמַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן? דְּיֵשׁ הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִתּוּחַ בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.
The Gemara answers: In the latter clause we come to refer to a fit offering. The Gemara asks: And what does this teach us? The Gemara answers: It teaches that there is flaying and cutting at the top of the altar, and it is not considered degrading to the altar.
וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִתּוּחַ בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר וְנִפְסְלָה; וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּזְרַק הַדָּם וְהוּרְצָה בָּשָׂר שָׁעָה אַחַת – יַפְשִׁיטֶנָּה, וְעוֹרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים.
The Gemara asks: But according to the one who says that there is no flaying and cutting at the top of the altar, what can be said? The Gemara answers: According to that opinion, what are we dealing with here? We are dealing with a case where the animal that ascended while still alive had a time of fitness, during which it was slaughtered atop the altar and its blood was presented, and thereafter it became disqualified. And the last clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Since the blood was sprinkled, thereby effecting acceptance of the flesh of the offering for a moment, even if the offering then became disqualified, he shall flay it and its hide is given to the priests, and its flesh is burned.
וְאֶלָּא דְּקָתָנֵי: כֵּיצַד עוֹשֶׂה – מוֹרִיד אֶת הַקְּרָבַיִם לְמַטָּה וּמַדִּיחָן; לְמָה לִי?
The Gemara asks: But if the mishna is referring to an offering that became disqualified, then with regard to that which is taught in a baraita concerning the mishna: What shall he do with such an offering? He takes the innards down from the altar, placing them below it, and thereafter rinses them, why do I need to do so? Since the innards of a disqualified offering may not be returned to the altar once they have been removed from it, why should they be removed from the altar?
הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד? נַקְרְבִינְהוּ בְּפִרְתַּיְיהוּ?! ״הַקְרִיבֵהוּ נָא לְפֶחָתֶךָ הֲיִרְצְךָ אוֹ הֲיִשָּׂא פָנֶיךָ״!
The Gemara responds: Rather, what should we do? Should we offer them with their dung? Doesn’t the verse state: “Present it now to your governor; will he be pleased with you? Or will he accept your person?” (Malachi 1:8), and isn’t it derived from this verse that items considered repulsive to people are not fit for use as an offering for the Most High?
אֲנַן הָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן: מַדִּיחָן לְמָה לִי? דְּאִי מִיתְרְמֵי כֹּהֵן אַחֲרִינָא וְלָא יָדַע – נַסְּקִינְהוּ.
The Gemara clarifies: This is what we are saying: Since one removes the innards of a disqualified offering from atop the altar and they may not be returned, why do I need to rinse them? The Gemara answers: The concern is that if another priest chances upon these innards and does not know that they are disqualified for the altar, he will sacrifice them upon the altar with their dung.
וַאֲנַן נֵיקוּ נֶעְבֵּיד לְהוּ לְכֹהֲנִים מִילְּתָא דְּאָתוּ בַּהּ לִידֵי תַקָּלָה?! אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי עֲדִיפָא, שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ קׇדְשֵׁי שָׁמַיִם מוּטָלִים כִּנְבֵילָה.
The Gemara asks: And shall we stand and do something for the priests through which they shall come to encounter a stumbling block? Were these innards to remain unwashed, no priest would mistakenly sacrifice them upon the altar. The Gemara answers: Even so, rinsing disqualified innards is preferable, so that the sanctified offerings of Heaven shall not be lying as a carcass.
אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁהֶעֱלָן לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמָן, יֵרְדוּ אוֹ לֹא יֵרְדוּ?
With regard to the matter discussed by Ulla (85a), Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: In the case of sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up before the sprinkling of their blood, which is the act which sanctifies such portions for the altar, shall they descend or shall they not descend?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי: וְתִיבְּעֵי לָךְ מְעִילָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מְעִילָה לָא קָמִיבַּעְיָא לִי – דִּזְרִיקָה הוּא דְּקָבְעָה לְהוּ בִּמְעִילָה; כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ – יְרִידָה. וּפָשֵׁיט: לֹא יֵרְדוּ, וְאֵין בָּהֶן מְעִילָה.
Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Instead of raising the dilemma of whether or not such portions shall descend, you should raise the dilemma of whether their ascension upon the altar sanctifies them with regard to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: With regard to the misuse of consecrated property I do not raise the dilemma, as certainly the rite of sprinkling and not their ascension to the altar determines their status with regard to the misuse of consecrated property. When Rabbi Yoḥanan raised the dilemma it was with regard to their descent from the altar. And Rabbi Yoḥanan resolved his dilemma and ruled: If they ascended they shall not descend, and they are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.
רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק מַתְנֵי הָכִי: אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא, בָּעֵי רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁהֶעֱלָן לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמָן, יֵשׁ בָּהֶן מְעִילָה אוֹ לָא? אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַמֵּי: וְתִיבְּעֵי לָךְ יְרִידָה! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יְרִידָה לָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לִי – דְּנַעֲשׂוּ לַחְמוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ; כִּי קָמִיבַּעְיָא לִי – מְעִילָה. וּפָשֵׁיט הָכִי: לֹא יֵרְדוּ, וְאֵין בָּהֶן מְעִילָה.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak teaches the discussion in this manner: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: In the case of sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up on the altar before the sprinkling of their blood, are they subject to the halakhot of misuse or not? Rabbi Ami said to him: And you should raise the dilemma with regard to their descent from upon the altar. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: With regard to their descent I do not raise the dilemma, because after these sacrificial portions ascend the altar they become the bread of the altar and shall not descend. When I raise the dilemma it is with regard to the misuse of consecrated property. And Rabbi Yoḥanan resolved his dilemma in this manner: They shall not descend, and they are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.
וְאֵלּוּ לֹא הָיָה פְּסוּלָן [וְכוּ׳].
§ The mishna teaches: And these are the offerings whose disqualification did not occur in sanctity: An animal that copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality…or blemished animals. Such offerings shall descend from the altar if they ascended. Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit in the sense that if they ascended upon the altar they shall not descend.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: לֹא הִכְשִׁיר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֶלָּא בְּדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן, הוֹאִיל וּכְשֵׁרִים בָּעוֹפוֹת. וְהוּא שֶׁקָּדַם הֶקְדֵּשָׁן אֶת מוּמָן. וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּעוֹלַת נְקֵבָה, דִּכְשֶׁקָּדַם מוּמָהּ לְהֶקְדֵּשָׁהּ דָּמְיָא.
Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Akiva deemed fit only those animals with small blemishes, such as on the cornea of the eye, as such blemishes are fit with regard to bird offerings ab initio. And this is the halakha only when their consecration preceded their blemish, since such an animal was fit for the altar at the time of its consecration. But if their blemish preceded their consecration, they shall descend, as they were never fit for the altar. And Rabbi Akiva concedes with regard to a female burnt offering that it shall descend from the altar. Since only a male animal may be used for a burnt offering, it is like a case where the animal’s blemish preceded its consecration.
בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: יֵשׁ נִרְבָּע בָּעוֹפוֹת, אוֹ אֵין נִרְבָּע בָּעוֹפוֹת? מִי אָמַר: ״מִן הַבְּהֵמָה״ – לְהוֹצִיא אֶת הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע;
The Gemara presents a discussion in which the opinion of Rabbi Akiva is cited: Rabbi Yirmeya raises the dilemma: Is the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality applicable with regard to birds, or is there no disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality with regard to birds? Did the verse say: “When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of the animals” (Leviticus 1:2), where the term “of” serves to exclude from being brought as offerings both an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, in order to equate the two?
כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּרוֹבֵעַ אִיתֵיהּ בְּנִרְבָּע, כֹּל הֵיכָא דְּלֵיתֵיהּ בְּרוֹבֵעַ לֵיתֵיהּ בְּנִרְבָּע; אוֹ דִלְמָא, הֲרֵי נֶעֶבְדָה בּוֹ עֲבֵירָה?
If so, then derive from it that anywhere that there is a disqualification of an animal that copulated with a person there is a disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality, and anywhere that there is no disqualification of an animal that copulated with a person there is no disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality. Consequently, since birds cannot be the active party in an act of bestiality, the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality is also inapplicable to birds. Or perhaps the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality does apply with regard to birds, as nevertheless a sin was committed with it?
אָמַר רַבָּה, תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מַכְשִׁיר בְּבַעֲלֵי מוּמִין. וְאִם אִיתָא, נַכְשֵׁיר נָמֵי בְּנִרְבָּע – הוֹאִיל וְכָשֵׁר בָּעוֹפוֹת! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rabba said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit when the blemish is on the cornea, since such blemishes are fit with regard to bird offerings ab initio. And if it is so that a bird that was the object of bestiality is fit as an offering, then let us also deem fit an animal that was the object of bestiality, since such an offering is fit with regard to birds. From the fact that such animals are not deemed fit, conclude from the mishna that the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality applies to birds as well.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: הַנִּרְבָּע, וְהַמּוּקְצֶה, וְהַנֶּעֱבָד, וְאֶתְנַן, וּמְחִיר, וְטוּמְטוּם, וְאַנְדְּרוֹגִינוֹס – כּוּלָּן מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים אַבֵּית הַבְּלִיעָה! שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We learn in the baraita as well: A bird that was the object of bestiality, or that was set aside for idol worship, or that was worshipped as a deity, or that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, or that was a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, in all of those cases, if its nape was pinched, it renders the garments of one who swallows an olive-bulk from the carcass ritually impure when it is in the throat, as is the halakha with regard to all unslaughtered carcasses of birds. Since the baraita lists a bird that was the object of bestiality among those disqualified offerings, conclude from the baraita that such a bird is in fact disqualified.
רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים כּוּ׳. מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מַעֲשֶׂה קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מַאי דּוֹחֶה – כִּלְאַחַר יָד.
§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: My father would reject blemished animals from upon the altar. The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Ḥanina teaching us? The first tanna already stated that blemished animals shall descend. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rabbi Ḥanina teaches us an incident, to express that this halakha was not only stated theoretically but applied practically as well. And if you wish, say instead: What is the meaning of the term: Would reject? It means that he would remove blemished animals from the altar in a backhanded manner, i.e., privately rather than publicly, so as not to disgrace the honor of the altar.
כְּשֵׁם שֶׁאִם עָלָה כּוּ׳. אָמַר עוּלָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא מָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר, אֲבָל מָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר – יַעֲלוּ.
§ The mishna teaches with regard to those disqualified offerings that shall not descend from the altar if they ascended it: Just as if it ascended it does not descend, so too, if it descended it does not then ascend. Ulla says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where the fire has not yet taken hold of these offerings. But if the fire has taken hold of these offerings, then even if they descended from the altar they shall ascend.
רַב מָרִי מַתְנֵי אַרֵישָׁא; רַב חֲנִינָא מִסּוּרָא מַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא: הַעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִין וְהַקְּרָנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמְּחוּבָּרִין – יַעֲלוּ, פֵּרְשׁוּ – לֹא יַעֲלוּ. אָמַר עוּלָּא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹּא מָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר, אֲבָל מָשְׁלָה בָּהֶן הָאוּר – יַעֲלוּ.
Rav Mari teaches that the statement of Ulla is referring to the first clause, i.e., to this mishna. Rav Ḥanina of Sura teaches that Ulla is referring to the latter clause, i.e., to the next mishna, which states: The bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves of a burnt offering; when they are attached to the flesh of the offering they shall ascend upon the altar and be sacrificed with the offering. If they separated from the flesh of the offering they shall not ascend. With regard to this Ulla says: The Sages taught that if they separated from the flesh they shall not ascend only in a case where the fire has not yet taken hold of them. But if the fire has taken hold of them, then even if they separated from the flesh of the offering they shall ascend.
מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַסֵּיפָא – כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַרֵישָׁא; וּמַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַרֵישָׁא – אֲבָל אַסֵּיפָא, לָאו בְּנֵי הַקְטָרָה נִינְהוּ.
The Gemara elaborates: According to the one who teaches Ulla’s statement, i.e., if the fire has taken hold of them they still ascend the altar, as referring to the latter clause, which discusses items that are not burned on the altar, all the more so will Ulla’s statement apply to the first clause, which discusses items that are burned on the altar but were disqualified. And according to the one who teaches Ulla’s statement as referring to the first clause, it applies only to those items that were to be burned on the altar but were disqualified. But with regard to the latter clause it does not apply, since the bones, tendons, and other items mentioned there are not subject to burning at all.
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ אִם עָלוּ יֵרְדוּ: בְּשַׂר קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וּבְשַׂר קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים, וּמוֹתַר הָעוֹמֶר, וּשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם, וְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, וּשְׁיָרֵי מְנָחוֹת, וְהַקְּטוֹרֶת.
MISHNA: And these are the items that if they ascended upon the altar they descend, because they are completely unfit for the altar: The meat of offerings of the most sacred order, i.e., a guilt offering and a sin offering, the meat of which is eaten by priests; and the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity, which is eaten by the owners; and the surplus of the omer meal offering brought on the second day of Passover after the handful was removed and burned on the altar; and the two loaves meal offering brought on the festival of Shavuot; and the shewbread; and the remainder of the meal offerings after the handful was removed, which are all eaten by the priests; and the incense that ascended upon the external altar and not the golden altar where it should be burned.
הַצֶּמֶר שֶׁבְּרָאשֵׁי כְבָשִׂים, וְשֵׂעָר שֶׁבִּזְקַן תְּיָשִׁים, וְהָעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים וְהַקַּרְנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם; בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵם מְחוּבָּרִים – יַעֲלוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל״. פֵּירְשׁוּ – לֹא יַעֲלוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״.
With regard to the wool that is on the heads of the sheep brought as burnt offerings, and the hair that is in the beard of goats that were sacrificed, and the bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves: When they are attached to the flesh of the offering they shall ascend upon the altar and be sacrificed with the offering, as it is stated: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9). If they separated from the flesh of the offering they shall not ascend, as it is stated: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27), and nothing else.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״וְהִקְטִיר הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַכֹּל הַמִּזְבֵּחָה״ – לְרַבּוֹת הַעֲצָמוֹת וְהַגִּידִים וְהַקְּרָנַיִם וְהַטְּלָפַיִם. יָכוֹל אֲפִילּוּ פֵּרְשׁוּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְעָשִׂיתָ עֹלֹתֶיךָ הַבָּשָׂר וְהַדָּם״.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9). The term “the whole” serves to include the bones and the tendons and the horns and the hooves among those items that are sacrificed on the altar. One might have thought that even if they separated from the flesh of the burnt offering they are sacrificed upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27), indicating that only those items and anything attached to them are sacrificed upon the altar.
אִי בָּשָׂר וָדָם,
If one derives the halakha with regard to bones and tendons from the phrase “the flesh and the blood,”
