Zevachim

for fuel.1 But there is the residue which is to be eaten, whereas we have this little more on whose account no fistful was taken?2 — He redeems it.3 Where does he redeem it? If within [the Temple court], then he brings hullin into the Temple court?4 If without, it becomes unfit through having gone out?5 — In truth, [he redeems it] within, but it is hullin automatically.6 Yet surely R. Simeon said: You cannot bring oil as a votive offering? — The repair of a man is different .7 R. Rehumi sat before Rabina, and stated in the name of R. Huna b. Tahlifa: Yet let him declare:8 Let this guilt-offering be a suspensive guilt-offering?9 You may infer from this10 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!11 You have confused lambs with rams!12 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], AND11 REGARD THE FLESH OF THE SIN-OFFERING ON TOP AS THOUGH IT WERE WOOD.13 BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: THEY MUST BECOME DISFIGURED, AND THEN GO OUT TO THE PLACE OF BURNING.14 GEMARA. What is R. Eliezer's reason? — Scripture saith, But they shall not come up for a sweet sovour on the altar:15 ‘for a sweet savour’ you may not take it up [on the altar], but you may take it up as wood. And the Rabbis?16 — 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.17 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.18 And the Rabbis?19 — You may infer both things from it.20 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’,21 [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? permitted. Here he added a little after the fistful was taken, and so it was not permitted thereby. As it is mixed up with the rest, all is forbidden. for a votive offering) ‘be redeemed by this money.’ court. stands in doubt whether he has sinned or not. This is preferable to declaring it a peace-offering, as the former too may only be eaten one day, and so we would not reduce the time permitted for consumption, But they cannot be regarded and treated simply as fuel. portion thereof has already been so burnt. for all leaven and all honey, ye shall not make smoke of it as an offering made by fire unto the Lord (lit. translation). As an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them unto the Lord; but they shall not come up for a sweet savour on the altar. Now, as stated supra 76b, the first verse is interpreted to mean that the ritual burning on the altar of anything whose haktarah was already done is forbidden, This is learnt from the apparently superfluous ‘of it’, and is made to include sacrifices in general, and not particularly honey or leavened bread. The second verse nevertheless teaches that they can be burnt simply as fuel. The Rabbis hold that ‘them’ in the second verse is a limitation: only those things enumerated in the preceding verse, viz., honey and leavened bread may not come up ‘for a sweet savour’ yet may come up as fuel; other things, however, which may not come up (as deduced from ‘of it’), may not come up at all. may not even be placed on the ascent. R. Eliezer holds that ‘them’ teaches that only leavened bread and honey are so forbidden, but nothing else. honey or leavened bread may not be brought up even as fuel, so it also teaches that they are not included in the interdict of the ascent.