Parallel
זבחים 77:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
for fuel. But there is the residue which is to be eaten, whereas we have this little more on whose account no fistful was taken? — He redeems it. Where does he redeem it? If within [the Temple court], then he brings hullin into the Temple court? If without, it becomes unfit through having gone out? — In truth, [he redeems it] within, but it is hullin automatically. Yet surely R. Simeon said: You cannot bring oil as a votive offering? — The repair of a man is different . R. Rehumi sat before Rabina, and stated in the name of R. Huna b. Tahlifa: Yet let him declare: Let this guilt-offering be a suspensive guilt-offering? You may infer from this that the Tanna who disagrees with R. Eliezer and maintains that you cannot bring a suspensive guilt-offering votively is R. Simeon. Said he [Rabina] to him [R. Rehumi] Torah! Torah! You have confused lambs with rams! MISHNAH. IF THE LIMBS OF A SIN-OFFERING WERE MIXED UP WITH THOSE OF A BURNT-OFFERING, R. ELIEZER SAID: HE MUST PLACE [THEM ALL] ON THE TOP [OF THE ALTAR], AND REGARD THE FLESH OF THE SIN-OFFERING ON TOP AS THOUGH IT WERE WOOD. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: THEY MUST BECOME DISFIGURED, AND THEN GO OUT TO THE PLACE OF BURNING. GEMARA. What is R. Eliezer's reason? — Scripture saith, But they shall not come up for a sweet sovour on the altar: ‘for a sweet savour’ you may not take it up [on the altar], but you may take it up as wood. And the Rabbis? — The Divine Law expressed a limitation [in the word] ‘them’: ‘them’ you may not bring up [for a sweet savour] but only as wood; but not anything else. And R. Eliezer? — Only [in respect of] ‘them’ have I included the ascent, making it like the altar, but not [in respect of] anything else. And the Rabbis? — You may infer both things from it. Our Mishnah does not agree with the following Tanna. For it was taught: R. Judah said: R. Eliezer and the Sages had no controversy about the limbs of a sin-offering which were mixed up with the limbs of a burnt-offering, [both agreeing] that they must be offered up; [if mixed up] with the limbs of a roba’ or a nirba’, [both agree] that they must not be offered. Wherein do they differ? About the limbs of an unblemished burnt-offering which were mixed up with the limbs of a blemished [one]: there R. Eliezer maintains [that] they must be offered up [on the altar], and I regard the flesh of the blemished animal on top as mere wood; while the Sages say: They must not be offered up. Now [according to] R. Eliezer, why are roba’ and nirba’ different: [presumably] because they are not eligible? A blemished animal too is not eligible?
—