Parallel
זבחים 85
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
let this not be less than slaughtering without and offering up [the limbs without ]. R. Hiyya b. Abin raised an objection: One who slaughters a bird within and offers it up without is not culpable; if he slaughtered [it] without and offered it up without, he is culpable. Yet let us say: Let it not be less than slaughtering and offering up without? — That is a refutation. Alternatively, The slaughtering of a bird within is mere killing. ‘Ulla said: If the emurim of lesser sacrifices are laid [on the altar] before their blood is sprinkled, they do not descend, [because] they have become the food of the altar. R. Zera observed, We too learnt [likewise]: THAT . . . WHOSE BLOOD WAS SPILT OR WHOSE BLOOD PASSED WITHOUT THE HANGINGS: If you say there that if [the limbs or emurim] ascended they do not descend, though if he [the priest] should come to sprinkle, he has nothing to sprinkle; how much more so here, seeing that if he comes to sprinkle, he has what to sprinkle! — [No:] relate this to a most sacred sacrifice. But there is the Passover-offering, which is a lesser sacrifice? — Relate this to [where it is slaughtered] under a different designation. We learnt: AND ALL OF THESE, IF THEY ASCENDED THE ALTAR WHILST ALIVE, MUST DESCEND. Hence [if they ascended] when slaughtered, they do not descend: surely that is so whether they are most sacred sacrifices or lesser sacrifices? — No: [deduce thus:] but if they are slaughtered, some of these must descend, and some do not descend. But he teaches, AND ALL OF THESE. — That refers to whilst alive. That is obvious? — In truth it refers to living animals which have a cataract in the eye, this being in accordance with R. Akiba who maintained that if these ascend they do not descend. How have you explained it? As referring to unfit [animals]! Then consider the final clause: IF A BURNT-OFFERING WENT UP ALIVE TO THE TOP OF THE ALTAR, IT MUST DESCEND. IF ONE SLAUGHTERED IT ON THE TOP OF THE ALTAR, HE MUST FLAY IT AND DISMEMBER IT WHERE IT LIES. But if it is unfit, can it be flayed and dismembered? Surely the Divine Law said: And he shall cut it into pieces, ‘it’ [implies] a fit; but not an unfit [animal]? — The final clause refers to a fit [sacrifice]; and what does he [the Tanna] inform us? that flaying and dismembering can be done on top of the altar. Then on the view that flaying and dismembering cannot be done on top of the altar, what can be said? — The case we discuss here is, e.g., where it had a period of fitness and then became disqualified, this agreeing with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon who maintained: Since the blood was sprinkled and the flesh had become acceptable even for a single hour, he must flay it, and its skin belongs to the priests. If so, when it was taught: ‘What does he do? He takes down the inwards and washes them’, why should he do so? — What then should we do? Offer [i.e. burn] them with their dung? ‘Present it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee? or will he accept thy person?’ This is our difficulty: why must he wash them? — So that if another priest chances upon them and does not know, he will take them up.
—
And shall we arise and do a thing to priests whereby they may come to a stumbling block? — Even so it is better, that Divine sacrifices should not lie like carrion. R. Hiyya b. Abba said: R. Johanan asked: If the emurim of lesser sacrifices were taken up before their blood was sprinkled, must they go down or not? Said R. Ammi to him: Then inquire about a trespass-offering? — I do not ask about a trespass-offering, he replied, because sprinkling alone makes it subject to a trespass-offering; I only ask about [their] going down. And he [eventually] ruled that they do not go down and do not involve trespass. R. Nahman b. Isaac recited it thus. R. Hiyya b. Abba said, R. Johanan asked: If the emurim of lesser sacrifices were taken up before their blood was sprinkled, do they involve a trespass-offering or not? Said R. Ammi to him: Then ask about [their] going down? I do not ask about going down, he replied, because they have become the food of the altar; I ask only about a trespass-offering. And [eventually] he ruled: They do not go down and do not involve trespass. THE DISQUALIFICATION OF THE FOLLOWING DID NOT ARISE IN THE SANCTUARY etc. R. Johanan said: Only in the case of cataracts in the eye did R. Akiba declare them fit, since such are fit in the case of birds, and provided that their consecration [for a sacrifice] preceded their blemish. And R. Akiba admits in the case of a female burnt-offering [that it must be taken down], because that is tantamount to the blemish preceding its consecration. R. Jeremiah asked: Is nirba’ [a disqualification] in birds or is nirba’ no [disqualification] in birds? Do we say: [Ye shall bring your offering] of the cattle excludes roba’ and nirba’: [hence] whatever is subject to [the disqualification of] roba’ is subject to [the disqualification of] nirba’; and whatever is not subject to roba’ is not subject to nirba’. Or perhaps, sin has been committed with it? — Said Raba, Come and hear: R. AKIBA DECLARED BLEMISHED ANIMALS FIT. Now, if this is correct, let him also declare a nirba’ fit, since it is fit in the case of birds. Hence infer from this [that it is not fit]. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We too have learnt thus: With regard to a nirba’, a bird set apart [for an idolatrous sacrifice], a bird worshipped, a [harlot's] hire, the price [of a dog], a tumtum and a hermaphrodite, all of these defile garments when they are in the gullet. This proves it. R. HANINA THE SEGAN OF THE PRIESTS. What does he inform us? — I can say that he informs us of the actual fact. Alternatively, what does HE REPULSED mean? Indirectly. JUST AS THEY DO NOT DESCEND IF THEY ONCE ASCENDED etc. ‘Ulla said: They learnt this only where the fire had not taken hold of it; but if the fire had taken hold of it, it must re-ascend. R. Mari recited this in connection with the first clause. R. Hanina of Sura recited it in connection with the final clause: With regard to the bones, tendons, horns and hoofs, if they are attached [to the animal], they ascend [the altar]; if they are severed [from the animal] they do not ascend. Said ‘Ulla: They learnt this only where the fire had not taken hold of them; but if the fire had taken hold of them, they ascend. He who recites it in connection with the final clause [holds that it applies] all the more to the first clause. He however who recites it in connection with the first clause [maintains]: but as for the final clause, those things are not normally burnt [on the altar]. MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING IF THEY ASCENDED GO DOWN: THE FLESH OF MOST SACRED SACRIFICES AND THE FLESH OF LESSER SACRIFICES; THE RESIDUE OF THE ‘OMER; THE TWO LOAVES; THE SHEWBREAD; THE RESIDUE OF MEAL-OFFERINGS; AND INCENSE. THE WOOL ON THE HEADS OF LAMBS, THE HAIR OF HE-GOATS BEARDS; THE BONES, TENDONS, HORNS AND HOOFS, IF THEY ARE ATTACHED, GO UP, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, AND THE PRIEST SHALL MAKE THE WHOLE SMOKE ON THE ALTAR; IF THEY ARE SEVERED [FROM THE ANIMAL], THEY DO NOT GO UP, FOR IT IS SAID, AND THOU SHALT OFFER THY BURNT-OFFERINGS, THE FLESH AND THE BLOOD, [UPON THE ALTAR OF THE LORD THY GOD]]. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught : And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar: this includes the bones, tendons, horns and hoofs. You might think, even if they were severed; therefore it states, ‘And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood’. If [we had only the text] flesh and blood [to go by],
—