Parallel
זבחים 83:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
GEMARA. Only what is ELIGIBLE FOR IT, but not what is not eligible for it; what does this exclude? — Said R. Papa: It excludes ‘fistfuls’ which were not sanctified in a [service] vessel. To this Rabina demurred: How does this differ from ‘Ulla's [ruling]? For ‘Ulla said: If the emurim of lesser sacrifices were laid [on the altar] before the sprinkling of their blood, they are not removed, [because] they have become the food of the altar! — The latter do not themselves lack a rite, while the former themselves lack a rite. R. JOSHUA SAID: WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE ALTAR FIRE etc. And R. Gamaliel too? Surely it is written, the burnt-offering upon its firewood? — That comes to teach that [limbs] which spring off [from the altar] must be replaced. And the other; how does he know that the [limbs] which spring off must be replaced? — He deduces it from whereto the fire hath consumed. And the other? — That is required [for teaching]: What was consumed as a burnt-offering you must replace, but you do not replace what was consumed as incense [ketoreth]. For R. Hanina b. Minyomi the son of R. Eliezer b. Jacob recited: [And he shall take up the ashes] whereto the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering on the altar: what was consumed as a burnt-offering you replace, but you do not replace what was consumed as incense. And the other? — Do you then not learn automatically that we replace what was consumed as a burnt-offering? R. GAMALIEL SAID: WHAT IS ELIGIBLE etc. And R. Joshua too: surely upon the altar is written? — He requires that [as follows]: What does the Divine Law say? Whatever is eligible for its firewood, the altar sanctifies. And the other? — Another ‘altar’ is written. And the other? — One [is required] where it had a period of fitness, while the other [text] is required where it had no period of fitness. And the other? — Since they are [now] unfit and the Divine Law included them, there is no difference whether they had a period of fitness or did not have a period of fitness. R. SIMEON SAID: IF THE SACRIFICE IS FIT etc. It was taught, R. Simeon said: [Scripture speaks of] a burnt-offering: as a burnt-offering comes on its own account, so all which come on their own account [are included]: [hence] libations which come on account of a sacrifice are excluded. R. Jose the Galilean said: From the text, ‘Whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy’, I understand whether it is eligible [for the altar] or not eligible. Therefore Scripture states: [Now this is what thou shalt offer upon the altar: two] lambs: as lambs are eligible [for the altar], so whatever is eligible [is included]. R. Akiba said: [Scripture states,] burnt-offering: as a burnt-offering is eligible [for the altar], so whatever is eligible [is included]. Wherein do they differ? — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: They differ about a disqualified burnt-offering of a bird: one master deduces [the law] from ‘burnt-offering’, while the other master deduces it from ‘lambs’. Now, as to the one who deduces it from ‘lambs’, surely ‘burnt-offering’ [too] is written? — If ‘lambs’ were written while ‘burnt-offering’ were not written, I would think [that the law applies] even [if they became disqualified] while yet alive: therefore the Divine Law wrote ‘burnt-offering’. And as to the one who deduces it from ‘burnt-offering’, surely ‘lambs’ is written? — If ‘burnt-offering’ were written while ‘lambs’ were not written, I would think [that the law applies] even [to] a meal-offering. Therefore the Divine Law wrote ‘lambs’. Wherein do these Tannaim and the Tannaim of our Mishnah differ? — Said R. Papa: They differ in respect of fistfuls which were sanctified in a [service] vessel. According to our Tannaim, they do not descend; while according to the other Tannaim they descend. Resh Lakish said: With regard to a meal-offering which comes by itself, all of them hold that it does not descend; but according to R. Jose the Galilean and R. Akiba
—