Zevachim

carried 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?1 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;2 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:3 as there it means when he has not yet made atonement,4 so here too it means when he has not yet made atonement.5 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’:6 as there it means when he had [already] made atonement,7 so here it means where he made atonement.8 Wherein do they differ? — One master holds, You learn without from without,9 but you do not learn without from within;10 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:11 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]?12 (You ask, why is it further said, ‘And he that burneth them’? that is required for itself!)13 — 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:14 these are the words of R. Judah. R. Meir said: That [exegesis] is unnecessary.15 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;16 why then is ‘to make atonement stated? It teaches that with all atoning sacrifices,17 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.18 C H A P T E R I X MISHNAH. THE ALTAR SANCTIFIES WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR IT.19 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:20 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.21 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.22 [ 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? the blood was not sprinkled there. the altar in the sense that if laid upon it, it must not be removed. 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. by themselves. His view is discussed below.