Zevachim

and our Mishnah agrees with the view that he must not re-gather it: But R. Hisda said in Abimi's name: All agree, if he sprinkled below what should be sprinkled above, that he does not re-gather it, and all the more if he sprinkled above what should be sprinkled below, since the blood above runs down below.1 They disagree only where he sprinkled without what should be sprinkled within, or within what should be sprinkled without.2 R. Jose holds, He must not re-gather it, and R. Simeon rules: He must re-gather it. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We have also learnt to the same effect. R. Judah said: [This is the law of the burnt-offering:] it is that which goeth up [on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning]:3 here you have three limitations: It excludes [an animal] slaughtered at night; it excludes [an animal] whose blood was spilt; and it excludes [an animal] whose blood was carried out beyond the hangings: if any one [of these] ascended [the altar], it descends.4 R. Simeon said: ‘Burnt-offering’: I only know [this] of a fit burnt-offering;5 whence do I know to include one which was slaughtered at night, or whose blood was spilt, or whose blood passed without the hangings, or who[se flesh] spent the night [away from the altar], or who[se flesh] went out, or the unclean, or which was slaughtered [with the intention of burning its flesh] after time or without bounds, or whose blood was received and sprinkled by unfit [priests]; or whose blood was applied below [the scarlet line] when it should have been applied above, or above when it should have been applied below, or without when it should have been applied within, or within when it should have been applied without; or a Passover-offering or a sin-offering which one slaughtered for a different purpose,6 — whence do we know [to include all these]? From the phrase, ‘the law of the burnt-offering,’ which intimates one law for all burnt-offerings, [viz.,:] that if they ascended, they do not descend. You might think that I include also a roba’ and a nirba’, ‘7 one set aside [for an idolatrous sacrifice] or worshipped; a [harlot's] hire or the price [of a dog].8 or a hybrid, or a trefah, or an animal calved through the cesarean section? The text however states ‘it is that’.9 And why do you include the former and exclude the latter? I include the former, because their disqualification arose in the sanctuary, while I exclude the latter whose disqualification did not arise In the sanctuary. At all events, he teaches [the cases where] one sprinkled below what should be sprinkled above, or above what should be sprinkled below, and R. Judah does not disagree. What is the reason? Is it not because the altar has received it? 10 which proves that one cannot re-gather it. R. Eleazar said: The inner altar sanctifies the unfit.11 What does he inform us: We have learnt it: ‘that which should be applied within’ etc.? — If [I drew my information] from there [only], I would say that it applies only to blood, which is eligible for it;12 but [if one threw] the fistful [of flour on the inner altar], which is not eligible for it at all,13 I would say that it is not so. Hence he informs us [otherwise].14 An objection is raised: If strange incense15 ascended the altar, it must descend, because only the outer altar sanctifies the unfit, in the case of such as are [otherwise] eligible for it.16 Thus, only the outer one, but not the inner one? — Answer it thus: If strange incense ascended the altar, it must descend, for the outer altar does not sanctify the unfit save in the case of what is [otherwise] eligible for it; but the inner [altar sanctifies] both what is eligible and what is not eligible for it. What is the reason? One [the outer altar] is [but as the] pavement,17 while the other [the inner altar] is a service vessel.18 MISHNAH. IF ONE SLAUGHTERS THE SACRIFICE [INTENDING] TO SPRINKLE ITS BLOOD WITHOUT. OR PART OF ITS BLOOD WITHOUT; TO BURN ITS EMURIM19 OR PART OF ITS EMURIM WITHOUT; TO EAT ITS FLESH OR AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF ITS FLESH WITHOUT, OR TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF THE SKIN OF THE FAT-TAIL20 WITHOUT. IT IS UNFIT, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.21 [IF HE SLAUGHTERS IT, INTENDING] TO SPRINKLE ITS BLOOD OR PART OF ITS BLOOD ON THE MORROW, TO BURN ITS EMURIM OR PART OF ITS EMURIM ON THE MORROW, TO EAT ITS FLESH OR AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF ITS FLESH ON THE MORROW, OR TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF THE SKIN OF ITS FAT-TAIL ON THE MORROW, IT IS PIGGUL, AND INVOLVES KARETH.22 GEMARA. Now it was thought that the skin of the fat-tail altar it must not be taken down all night. But the three words in Hebrew which are rendered ‘it is that which goeth up’ are really superfluous, and therefore are interpreted as excluding three cases, as enumerated in the text, from the operation of this law. Lord thy God for any vow. powers are greater.