זבחים 83 — Soncino English Talmud

¹carried it out to the altar, and then carried it within? Here it is certainly the same place; or perhaps, we designate this carrying [going] out? The questions stand over. IF IT ENTERED WITHIN TO MAKE ATONEMENT. It was taught, R. Eliezer said: It is stated here, to make atonement in the holy place; and it is stated elsewhere, And there shall be no man in the tent of appointment when he goeth in to make atonement in the holy place: as there it means when he has not yet made atonement, so here too it means when he has not yet made atonement. R. Simeon said: It is stated here, ‘to make atonement’; and it is stated elsewhere, ‘And the bullock of the sin-offering, and the goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement’: as there it means when he had [already] made atonement, so here it means where he made atonement. Wherein do they differ? — One master holds, You learn without from without, but you do not learn without from within; while the other master holds: You learn an animal from an animal, but you do not learn an animal from man. R. JUDAH SAID etc. But if [the priest took it in] deliberately, it is disqualified; [when?] if he made atonement, or [even] if he did not make atonement? — Said R. Jeremiah, It was taught: Since it is said, ‘And the bullock of the sin-offering, and the goat of the sin-offering, whose blood was brought in to make atonement in the holy place’; why is it [further] said, And he that burneth them [shall wash his clothes]? (You ask, why is it further said, ‘And he that burneth them’? that is required for itself!) — Rather [the question is] why is ‘sin-offering, repeated? Because we have only learnt that when the bullock and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement are burnt they defile garments; how do we know [the same of] other [sacrifices] which are burnt? — Because ‘sin-offering’ is repeated: these are the words of R. Judah. R. Meir said: That [exegesis] is unnecessary. Lo, it says, ‘And the bullock of the sin-offering and the he-goat of the sin-offering’: now, ‘to make atonement’ need not be stated; why then is ‘to make atonement stated? It teaches that with all atoning sacrifices, he that burns them [the sacrifices] defiles his garments. Whereas R. Judah does not understand ‘to make atonement’ in that way. What is the reason? Surely because he utilises it for a gezerah shawah. C H A P T E R I X MISHNAH. THE ALTAR SANCTIFIES WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR IT. R. JOSHUA SAID: WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE ALTAR FIRE DOES NOT DESCEND [THENCE] ONCE IT ASCENDED, BECAUSE IT IS SAID, THAT IS THE BURNT-OFFERING UPON ITS FIREWOOD: AS THE BURNT-OFFERING, WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE ALTAR FIRE, DOES NOT DESCEND ONCE IT ASCENDED, SO WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE ALTAR FIRE DOES NOT DESCEND ONCE IT ASCENDED. R. GAMALIEL SAID: WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE ALTAR DOES NOT DESCEND ONCE IT ASCENDED, BECAUSE IT IS SAID: THAT IS THE BURNT-OFFERING UPON ITS FIREWOOD UPON THE ALTAR: AS THE BURNT-OFFERING, WHICH IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE ALTAR, DOES NOT DESCEND ONCE IT ASCENDED, SO WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE ALTAR DOES NOT DESCEND ONCE IT ASCENDED. R. GAMALIEL AND R. JOSHUA DIFFER ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE BLOOD AND LIBATIONS, R. GAMALIEL MAINTAINING THAT THEY MUST NOT DESCEND, WHILE R. JOSHUA MAINTAINS THAT THEY MUST DESCEND. R. SIMEON SAID: IF THE SACRIFICE IS FIT WHILE THE LIBATIONS [WHICH ACCOMPANIED IT] ARE UNFIT; OR IF THE LIBATIONS ARE FIT WHILE THE SACRIFICE IS UNFIT; OR EVEN IF BOTH ARE UNFIT, — THE SACRIFICE MUST NOT DESCEND, WHILE THE LIBATIONS DO DESCEND. [^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ

^ᵃnote:V. Lev. XVI, 18 f: And he shall go out unto the altar that is before the Lord, and make atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it with his finger seven times. According to the Talmud this refers to the golden altar which was in the same portion as the veil. Hence ‘and he shall go out’ can only mean that he passes beyond the whole altar, i.e., he must not stand on the inner side of the altar, between it and the veil, but on the outer side, between it and the door. In the present instance he carried the blood back on the inner side of the altar; and the question is: as it is in the same portion as the veil, perhaps it does not disqualify it; or do we say that since Scripture designates going to the outer side of the altar ‘going out’ the inner side is ipso facto a separate place and disqualifies it?
^ᵇnote:Lev. VI, 23.
^ᶜnote:Ibid. XVI, 17.
^ᵈnote:No man must be there when he is about to make atonement.
^ᵉnote:The flesh is disqualified if the blood is taken into the hekal to make atonement, even if atonement was not made, i.e., the blood was not sprinkled there.
^ᶠnote:Lev. XVI, 27.
^ᵍnote:That is evident from the whole passage.
^ʰnote:Only then is the sacrifice disqualified.
^ⁱnote:Viz., the law about the bullock whose blood must be sprinkled without from the man who is bidden to stay without.
^ʲnote:From the Day of Atonement sacrifice whose blood is rightly brought within.
^ᵏnote:Emended text (Sh. M.).
^ˡnote:Ibid. 28.
^ᵐnote:To teach that his garments are defiled.
^ⁿnote:The second one being superfluous, it extends the law to all sin-offerings which are burnt.
^ᵒnote:It is implied in the Biblical text itself.
^ᵖnote:We already know from the context that that was its purpose.
^ᵠnote:I.e., all those for whom atonement is made.
^ʳnote:Sc. as R. Simeon supra. Accordingly, the sacrifice is disqualified only if he did make atonement.
^ˢnote:I.e., anything which was appointed for the altar, even if it subsequently became unfit, is nevertheless sanctified by the altar in the sense that if laid upon it, it must not be removed.
^ᵗnote:Lev. VI, 2.
^ᵘnote:R. Joshua and R. Gamaliel disagree as to the meaning of ‘WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR IT’. R. Joshua holds that it means whatever is eligible for the altar fire, i.e., to be burnt on the altar, such as the limbs of a burnt-offering. Blood and libations, however, which are not meant for burning on the altar at all, must be taken down even laid on it. R. Gamaliel maintains that ELIGIBLE means in any capacity, and so if these ascended, they do not descend.
^ᵛnote:R. Simeon agrees with R. Joshua where the libations accompany a sacrifice, and with R. Gamaliel where they come by themselves. His view is discussed below.

²GEMARA. 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^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ^ᵇᵃ^ᵇᵇ

^ʷnote:On which both R. Joshua and R. Gamaliel will agree.
^ˣnote:Taken from meal-offerings; v. Lev. II, 2.
^ʸnote:These are not considered eligible at all, and even if laid on the altar they must be removed.
^ᶻnote:Now, the fistfuls of a meal-offering correspond to the emurim of animal sacrifices; and the former are sanctified for the altar by being placed in a service vessel, while the latter are likewise sanctified by the sprinkling of the blood. Hence the same law should apply to both.
^ᵃᵃnote:Nothing more was to be done to the emurim themselves, and only the blood still required sprinkling. Whereas the fistfuls themselves should first have been placed in a service vessel.
^ᵃᵇnote:Because ‘upon its firewood’ implies that whatever has already become as firewood and is feeding the flames of the altar must remain as a burnt-offering; so that if anything springs off it must be put back.
^ᵃᶜnote:R. Joshua.
^ᵃᵈnote:Lev. VI, 3. That is superfluous, as it is obvious that the ashes are the result of the fire. Hence it is interpreted as intimating that whatever once fed the fire belongs to the altar, even if it jumped off.
^ᵃᵉnote:R. Gamaliel; how does he utilise that text?
^ᵃᶠnote:R. Joshua; how does he know this?
^ᵃᵍnote:If the text teaches that you must replace whatever sprang off, that obviously includes what was consumed as a burnt-offering. And at the same time, since the whole passage treats of the burnt-offering only, you cannot make it refer to incense.
^ᵃʰnote:I.e., ‘upon the altar’ does not extend the law, as R. Gamaliel maintains, but intimates why whatever is eligible for the altar-fire must be replaced, viz., because the altar sanctified it.
^ᵃⁱnote:Where does he find the reason?
^ᵃʲnote:Ex. XXIX, 37: Whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy.
^ᵃᵏnote:R. Joshua: what need is there of two texts?
^ᵃˡnote:Before it became unfit, e.g., if it was kept overnight, taken out of bounds, or defiled.
^ᵃᵐnote:E.g., if it was slaughtered with an illegitimate intention.
^ᵃⁿnote:R. Gamaliel: whence does he know this?
^ᵃᵒnote:In the law that they must remain on the altar if laid thereon.
^ᵃᵖnote:In the law that if laid on the altar they must remain there.
^ᵃᵠnote:Ex. XXIX, 38. This immediately follows the text quoted.
^ᵃʳnote:Ibid. 42. Rashi says that it is written in the present verse (38). In fact, it is absent in the M.T. in this verse, but found in the Samaritan Text; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 34a
^ᵃˢnote:Hence it includes a burnt-offering of a bird too.
^ᵃᵗnote:Hence only animal sacrifices are included, but not a burnt-offering of a bird.
^ᵃᵘnote:E.g., if it had a cataract on the eye.
^ᵃᵛnote:Intimating that this law applies only from the time that it was fit to ascend as a burnt-offering (in Heb. ‘ascend’ — the altar — and ‘burnt-offering’ are the same word viz., ‘olah). Yet the law still applies to animal sacrifices only.
^ᵃʷnote:By interpreting ‘olah that which ascends (v. preceding note), and so including everything that ascends the altar.
^ᵃˣnote:But were subsequently disqualified.
^ᵃʸnote:For they infer the law from ‘its firewood’ and ‘on the altar’ and these fulfil the conditions implied in these words, as they feed the fire and are brought on the altar.
^ᵃᶻnote:As they cannot be included in ‘lambs’ or ‘burnt-offering’.
^ᵇᵃnote:It does not accompany an animal sacrifice.
^ᵇᵇnote:I.e., all except those whom he specifies. Similarly the other cases.