זבחים 77 — parallel

77:1

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?

—

77:2

— Said R. Huna: It refers to cataracts in the eye, and is in accordance with R. Akiba who maintained that if they ascended [the altar], they do not descend. Granted that R. Akiba ruled thus if it was done; did he rule thus at the very outset? — Said R. Papa: The circumstances here are, e.g., that they went up the ascent. If so, even when they are by themselves [they must be offered]? — Rather, [this is] R. Eliezer's reason: The Divine Law expressed a limitation in, ‘There is a blemish in them; [they shall not be accepted:]’ only when there is a blemish in them shall they not be accepted, but when they are mixed up they are accepted. And the Rabbis? — Only when the blemish is in them shall they not be accepted, but if their blemish has gone they are accepted. And R. Eliezer? — [He derives it] from bam, bahem. And the Rabbis? — They attribute no significance to bam, bahem. If so, [how can R. Eliezer say,] ‘I regard’. Surely the Divine Law declared it fit? — He says this to them on their ruling: In my opinion, the Divine Law declared it fit; but [even] on your view, you should at least admit that the flesh of a blemished animal is like wood, by analogy with the flesh of a sin-offering. And the Rabbis? — Here it is repulsive; there it is not repulsive. MISHNAH. [IF THE] LIMBS OF BURNT-OFFERINGS [WERE MIXED UP] WITH THE LIMBS OF A BLEMISHED [BURNT-OFFERING], R. ELIEZER SAID: IF [THE PRIEST] OFFERED THE HEAD OF ONE OF THEM, ALL THE HEADS ARE TO BE OFFERED; THE LEGS OF ONE OF THEM, ALL THE LEGS ARE TO BE OFFERED. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: EVEN IF THEY HAD OFFERED ALL EXCEPT ONE OF THEM, IT GOES FORTH TO THE PLACE OF BURNING. GEMARA. R. Eleazar said: R. Eliezer declared them fit only in twos, but not singly. R. Jacob raised an objection to R. Jeremiah: BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: EVEN IF THEY HAD OFFERED ALL EXCEPT ONE OF THEM, IT GOES FORTH TO THE PLACE OF BURNING? — Said R. Jeremia b. Tahlifa, I will explain it for you: What does ONE mean? One pair. MISHNAH. IF THE BLOOD WAS MIXED WITH WATER, IF IT RETAINS THE APPEARANCE OF BLOOD, IT IS FIT, IF IT WAS MIXED WITH WINE, WE REGARD IT AS THOUGH IT WERE WATER. IF IT WAS MIXED WITH THE BLOOD OF A DOMESTIC ANIMAL OR BEAST OF CHASE, WE REGARD IT AS THOUGH IT WERE WATER;

—