Zevachim — Daf 85a

לא תהא פחותה משוחט בחוץ ומעלה בחוץ

מתיב רב חייא בר אבין השוחט עוף בפנים ומעלה בחוץ פטור שחט בחוץ ומעלה בחוץ חייב נימא לא תהא פחותה משוחט ומעלה בחוץ

תיובתא איבעית אימא שחיטת העוף בפנים מיקטל קטליה

אמר עולא אימורי קדשים קלים שהעלן לפני זריקת דמן לא ירדו נעשו לחמו של מזבח

א"ר זירא אף אנן נמי תנינא שנשפך דמה ושיצא דמה חוץ לקלעים ומה התם דאם בא לזרוק אין לו לזרוק אמרת אם עלו לא ירדו הכא דאם בא לזרוק זורק לא כל שכן

תרגמא אקדשי קדשים

הרי פסח דקדשים קלים הוא תרגמא בשלא לשמן

תנן וכולן שעלו חיין לגבי מזבח ירדו הא שחוטין לא ירדו מאי לאו ל"ש קדשי קדשים לא שנא קדשים קלים

לא הא שחוטין מהן ירדו מהן לא ירדו והא כולן קתני כולם אחיין

פשיטא לעולם אחיין ובדוקין שבעין ואליבא דר"ע דאמר אם עלו לא ירדו

במאי אוקימתא בפסולין אימא סיפא וכן עולה שעלתה חיה לראש המזבח תרד שחטה בראש המזבח יפשיט וינתח במקומה ואי פסולה בת הפשט ונתוח היא (ויקרא א, ו) ונתח אותה אמר רחמנא אותה כשרה ולא פסולה

סיפא אתאן לכשרה ומאי קמשמע לן דיש הפשט ונתוח בראש המזבח

ולמאן דאמר אין הפשט ונתוח בראש המזבח מאי איכא למימר הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהיתה לו שעת הכושר ונפסלה ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון היא דאמר כיון שנזרק הדם והורצה בשר שעה אחת יפשיטנה ועורה לכהנים

ואלא דקתני כיצד עושה מוריד את הקרבים למטה ומדיחן למה לי

היכי נעביד נקרבינהו בפרתייהו (מלאכי א, ח) הקריבהו נא לפחתך הירצך או הישא פניך

אנן הכי קאמרינן מדיחן למה לי דאי מיתרמי כהן אחרינא ולא ידע נסקינהו

let this not be less than slaughtering without and offering up [the limbs without1 ]. 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.2 ‘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;3 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.4 But there is the Passover-offering, which is a lesser sacrifice?5 — Relate this to [where it is slaughtered] under a different designation.6 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,7 and some do not descend. But he teaches, AND ALL OF THESE. — That refers to whilst alive. That is obvious?8 — 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.9 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,10 ‘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?11 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,12 this agreeing with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon who maintained: Since the blood was sprinkled and the flesh had become acceptable13 even for a single hour, he must flay it, and its skin belongs to the priests.14 If so, when it was taught: ‘What does he do?15 He takes down the inwards and washes them’, why should he do so?16 — 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?’17 This is our difficulty: why must he wash them?18 — So that if another priest chances upon them and does not know,19 he will take them up. he slaughters an animal sacrifice at night, it does count as shechitah (since hullin may be slaughtered at night). sprinkled. Possibly, however, the same does not apply to lesser sacrifices, whose emurim are sacred only in virtue of the sprinkling of the blood. If then this is not taught for the sake of the inference (viz., that all of these, if slaughtered, do not descend), it is altogether superfluous. not re-ascend. sprinkled, it became disqualified; therefore it must be flayed and dismembered on top of the altar, for if it is taken down it may not be taken up again, since it was disqualified. And as to the objection that an unfit animal cannot be flayed, the answer is that it had a period when it was fit for flaying before it became disqualified. place of burning unfit sacrifices, the skin is not burnt with it but belongs to the priests. So here too, when it is on top of the altar it must likewise be flayed and dismembered. taken up again. uncleaned.