Zevachim 87

חצות שני עוכלתן רב חסדא אמר עמוד השחר עוכלתן

The second midnight, i.e., midnight of the following night, renders them consumed, and if they were dislodged from the altar thereafter they are not returned. Rav Ḥisda says: Dawn following the first evening renders them consumed, and if they were dislodged from the altar thereafter they are not returned.

אמרי בי רב מאי טעמא דרב חסדא ומה חצות שאין עושה לינה עושה עיכול עמוד השחר שעושה לינה אינו דין שעושה עיכול

They say in the school of Rav: What is the reasoning of Rav Ḥisda, who says that dawn renders these limbs consumed? It is the following a fortiori inference: And if midnight, which does not cause the disqualification of being left overnight with regard to limbs that were left off the altar until that time, still causes consumption, i.e., limbs burned on the altar until midnight are considered entirely consumed, then certainly with regard to dawn, which causes the disqualification of being left overnight with regard to limbs that were not left off the altar until that time, isn’t it logical that it causes consumption?

פירשו קודם חצות והחזירן לאחר עמוד השחר רבה אמר חצות שני עוכלתן רב חסדא אמר אין בהן עיכול לעולם

These amora’im also dispute the halakha in a case where the limbs separated from the altar before midnight and were returned to the altar after dawn: Rabba says that the second midnight renders them consumed, and if they separated after this time they are not returned. Rav Ḥisda says: Since these limbs were not returned to the altar by dawn, they are never subject to consumption through the passage of time. Rather, they are returned to the altar and allowed to burn until they are reduced to ash. These two disputes between Rabba and Rav Ḥisda indicate that both agree that limbs not on the altar by midnight are not considered consumed.

מתקיף לה רב יוסף ומאן לימא לן דחצות בראש המזבח משויא להו עיכול דילמא כל היכא דמשכחא להו משויא להו עיכול שלחו מתם הלכתא כרב יוסף

Rav Yosef objects to this: And who shall say to us that midnight, specifically when the limbs are at the top of the altar, effects for them consumption? Perhaps anywhere that the limbs are found, midnight effects for them consumption. The Gemara notes: They sent from there, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef, i.e., the passing of midnight renders all limbs consumed, regardless of their location at that time.

איתמר נמי אמר רבי חייא בר אבא פירשו קודם חצות והחזירן אחר חצות לא נהנין ולא מועלין וכן תנא בר קפרא פירשו קודם חצות והחזירן לאחר חצות יוצאין מידי מעילה

It was also stated that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: In the case of limbs that separated from upon the altar before midnight and were returned to the altar after midnight, one may not benefit from them ab initio, but if one benefited from them after the fact he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, since the mitzva of burning is considered fulfilled after midnight has passed. And bar Kappara also taught: If they separated from upon the altar before midnight and were returned to the altar after midnight, the limbs are removed from being subject to liability for misuse of consecrated property.

אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי וכי מאחר דשלחו מתם הילכתא כרב יוסף ואמר רבי חייא בר אבא וכן תני בר קפרא רבה ורב חסדא במאי פליגי אמר ליה בשמנים

Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And since they sent from there that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef that midnight effects consumption even for those items left off the altar, and Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba says this as well, and bar Kappara also teaches that this is the halakha, then with regard to what do Rabba and Rav Ḥisda disagree? Abaye said to him: They disagree with regard to fatty limbs, whose consumption is delayed due to their surrounding fat, and consequently midnight may not effect consumption for these limbs.

בעא מיניה רבא מרבה לינה מועלת בראשו של מזבח או אינה מועלת בראשו של מזבח היכי דמי אילימא דלא ירדו השתא לנו בעזרה אמרת דלא ירדו בראשו של מזבח מיבעיא

§ Rava raises a dilemma before Rabba: Is the disqualification of being left overnight effective in disqualifying limbs that are situated at the top of the altar at dawn but were not placed on the pyre, or is it not effective in disqualifying limbs that are at the top of the altar but were not placed on the pyre? The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If we say that the limbs have not descended from the altar, then the halakha should be obvious: Now that with regard to limbs that were left overnight in the Temple courtyard, you said in the mishna (84a) that if they ascended upon the altar they shall not descend, then with regard to limbs left on top of the altar, is it necessary to teach that they shall not descend?

ואלא דירדו לשלחן מדמינן לה דתנן אפילו הן על השלחן ימים רבים אין בכך כלום או דילמא לקרקע מדמינן

But rather, the dilemma is in a case where they were left overnight on top of the altar and descended from it after dawn. Do we compare limbs left overnight on top of the altar to the Table of the shewbread, and they are therefore returned, as we learned in a mishna (Menaḥot 100a): Even if loaves of shewbread, which are supposed to be replaced every Shabbat, remained on the Table many days beyond Shabbat, there is nothing wrong with that, and the loaves are not disqualified by being left overnight. Or perhaps we compare the limbs to flesh left on the ground of the Temple courtyard, which is disqualified when left there until dawn, and they are not returned.

אמר ליה אין לינה בראשו של מזבח קיבלה מיניה או לא תא שמע דאיתמר איברים שלנו בעזרה מקטר והולך כל הלילה לן בראשו של מזבח מקטר והולך לעולם

Rabba said to him: There is no disqualification of limbs that are left overnight at the top of the altar. The Gemara asks: Did Rava accept this response from Rabba or not? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which was stated: With regard to limbs that were left overnight in the Temple courtyard, the priest may place them upon the altar to burn them all night long provided that they are placed there before dawn. With regard to a limb that was left overnight at the top of the altar, the priest may burn it forever, i.e., no matter how much time has passed.

ירדו רבה אמר יעלו רבא אמר לא יעלו שמע מינה לא קיבלה מיניה שמע מינה

With regard to limbs that were left overnight on top of the altar and then descended from it, Rabba says that they shall ascend, while Rava says that they shall not ascend. Conclude from it that Rava did not accept the response from Rabba, as he holds here that limbs are disqualified when left overnight on top of the altar. The Gemara confirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.

כשם שהמזבח מקדש כו׳ תנו רבנן הנגע במזבח אין לי אלא מזבח כבש מנין תלמוד לומר את המזבח כלי שרת מניין תלמוד לומר כל הנגע בהם יקדש

§ The mishna teaches: Just as the altar sanctifies items, so too, the ramp and the service vessels sanctify items. With regard to this halakha, the Sages taught: The verse states: “Whatever touches the altar shall be sacred” (Exodus 29:37). From here I have derived only that the altar sanctifies items. From where is it derived that the ramp sanctifies items as well? The verse states: “And you shall anoint…the altar [et hamizbe’aḥ]” (Exodus 40:10), and the addition of the word et serves to include the ramp. With regard to service vessels, from where is it derived that they sanctify items? The verse states with regard to them: “Whatever touches them shall be sacred” (Exodus 30:29).

בעא מיניה ריש לקיש מרבי יוחנן כלי שרת מהו שיקדשו את הפסולין אמר ליה תניתוה כשם שהמזבח והכבש מקדשין את הראוי להן כך כלים מקדשין

Reish Lakish raises a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan: What is the halakha with regard to whether service vessels sanctify disqualified items? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: You learned in the mishna that just as the altar and the ramp sanctify items that are suited to them even if those items are disqualified, so too, the service vessels sanctify items placed in them.

אמר ליה לכתחילה ליקרב קמיבעי לי הא נמי תנינא

Reish Lakish said to him: The mishna indicates that service vessels sanctify that which is placed in them in the sense that they may no longer be redeemed even if they become disqualified. I raise the dilemma with regard to whether service vessels sanctify disqualified items such that they may be sacrificed ab initio. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: This also we learn in a mishna (84a):

שקיבלו פסולין וזרקו את דמו מאי לאו שקיבלו פסולין וזרקו פסולין

An offering that people unfit for performing the Temple service collected and then sprinkled its blood shall not descend from the altar if it ascended. What, is it not that the mishna means that people unfit for performing the Temple service collected the blood and people unfit for performing the Temple service sprinkled it as well, which disqualifies it from ascending the altar? But if the collection alone was performed by people unfit for performing the Temple service, although the offering becomes disqualified, those fit to perform the Temple service may sprinkle the blood and sacrifice the offering ab initio. The reason, apparently, is that service vessels sanctify disqualified blood such that it may be sprinkled ab initio.

לא שקיבלו פסולין אי נמי שזרקו פסולין

Reish Lakish rejects this proof: No, the mishna may be referring to two independent cases, i.e., that people unfit for performing the Temple service collected the blood, or that people unfit for performing the Temple service sprinkled the blood after it was collected by people who were fit for performing the Temple service. Accordingly, the mishna teaches only that if such offerings ascended the altar they shall not descend after the fact, but service vessels do not sanctify disqualified items such that they are offered ab initio.

אויר מזבח כמזבח דמי או לא תא שמע כשם שהמזבח מקדש כך כבש מקדש

§ The Gemara raises a dilemma: Is the airspace above the altar considered as the altar itself, whereby items that enter this airspace shall not descend from the altar, or is it not considered like the altar? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the mishna, which states: Just as the altar sanctifies items, so too, the ramp sanctifies items, and if they ascended upon it they shall be sacrificed upon the altar and shall not descend.

ואי אמרת אויר מזבח לאו כמזבח דמי אויר כבש נמי לאו ככבש דמי היכי מסיק ליה מכבש למזבח הוה ליה ירוד

And if you say that the airspace above the altar is not considered as the altar itself, then the airspace above the ramp as well should not be considered as the ramp. If so, how can one elevate the disqualified limbs of an offering from the ramp to the altar? The moment one elevates a limb from upon the ramp, it is considered to have descended from the ramp, and all disqualified items that descended shall not be returned.

דנגד ליה והא אויר יש בין כבש למזבח רובו לכבש ככבש רובו למזבח כמזבח

The Gemara responds: The mishna is referring to a case where the priest drags the offering up the ramp, but it never enters its airspace. The Gemara challenges: But even if he drags it up the ramp, he must still lift it, as there is a space between the ramp and the altar. The Gemara responds: Since this gap is small, only a minority of the limb of an offering will be located over the gap as it passes from the ramp to the altar. Therefore, when a majority of the limb is on the ramp, the minority situated above the gap is considered as if it is on the ramp. Once a majority of the limb is on the altar, the minority situated above the gap is considered as if it is on the altar.

תפשוט מהא הא דבעי רמי בר חמא יש חיבור לעולין או לא תיפשוט דיש חיבור הא לא קשיא תיפשוט

The Gemara asks: If so, resolve from this mishna the dilemma that was raised by Rami bar Ḥama: Is there a connection of limbs that ascend upon the altar, i.e., is an offering considered a unit such that even those parts that do not ascend the altar shall be considered as if they are upon it, or is there not, and each part is considered independent? Based on the previous answer, resolve the dilemma by saying that there is a connection of limbs. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as one may indeed resolve Rami bar Ḥama’s dilemma from here.

מתקיף לה רבא בר רב חנן ואי אמרת אויר מזבח כמזבח דמי עולת העוף דפסלה במחשבה היכי משכחת לה

Rava bar Rav Ḥanan objects to the assumption that the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar itself: But if you say that the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar itself, then with regard to a bird burnt offering that one disqualified by having the intention to burn it beyond its designated time, i.e., the day after it was pinched, how can you find the circumstances for such a disqualification to take effect?

הא קלטה מזבח

One’s intent to burn an offering beyond its designated time disqualifies it only when he intended to burn it during a time that he may not do so. Since a bird burnt offering is pinched in the airspace above the altar, the altar has already accepted it. Therefore, even if one delayed burning it until the next day, it does not descend from the altar, like all other offerings that are disqualified by being left overnight.

מתקיף לה רב שימי בר אשי אלמה לא משכחת לה כגון דאמר הריני מולקה על מנת להורידה למחר ולהעלותה ולהקטירה

Rav Shimi bar Ashi objects to the objection raised by Rava bar Rav Ḥanan: Why is it not possible for a bird burnt offering to be disqualified through the intention to burn it beyond its designated time? You find it in a case where he says: I am hereby pinching it in order to take it down from the altar tomorrow and thereafter sacrifice it and burn it. If he takes it down from the altar the next day, he may not subsequently return it there for burning, as all disqualified items that have descended from the altar shall not be returned to it. Accordingly, even if the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar itself, a bird burnt offering can still be disqualified with such intention.

הניחא לרבא דאמר לינה מועלת בראש המזבח אלא לרבה דאמר אין לינה מועלת בראש המזבח ליתא למחשבתו

The Gemara questions the objection of Rav Shimi bar Ashi: This works out well according to the opinion of Rava, who says that the disqualification of being left overnight is effective even when the offering is at the top of the altar. Accordingly, if he were to take the bird burnt offering down from the altar the next day, he may not restore it to the altar for burning. But this is difficult according to the opinion of Rabba, who says: The disqualification of being left overnight is not effective when the offering is at the top of the altar, and therefore even if the next day he removed the bird burnt offering from the altar, he must return it there to burn it, as it has not been disqualified. If so, his intention is not significant, i.e., he does not disqualify a bird burnt offering with such intention.

לרבה נמי משכחת לה כגון דאמר הריני מולקה על מנת להורידה קודם עמוד השחר ולהעלותה לאחר עמוד השחר

Rav Shimi bar Ashi responds: According to the opinion of Rabba as well, you find a case of a bird burnt offering that is disqualified due to one’s intention, such as where he says: I am hereby pinch-ing it in order to take it down from the altar before dawn and to then sacrifice it after dawn. In such a case, where the offering is removed from the altar before dawn, even Rabba would agree that one’s intention renders a bird burnt offering disqualified by being left overnight.

להך גיסא מיהא תיפשוט דאויר מזבח כמזבח דמי דאי סלקא דעתך אויר מזבח לאו כמזבח דמי

Rav Shimi bar Ashi adds: Irrespective of the validity of the proof of Rava bar Rav Ḥanan, in any event, resolve the issue to this side, i.e., in favor of the claim that the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar itself. As if it enters your mind that the airspace above the altar is not considered as the altar,