Zevachim

GEMARA. Only what is ELIGIBLE FOR IT, but not what is not eligible for it; what does this exclude?1 — Said R. Papa: It excludes ‘fistfuls’2 which were not sanctified in a [service] vessel.3 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!4 — The latter do not themselves lack a rite, while the former themselves lack a rite.5 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.6 And the other;7 how does he know that the [limbs] which spring off must be replaced? — He deduces it from whereto the fire hath consumed.8 And the other?9 — 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?10 — Do you then not learn automatically that we replace what was consumed as a burnt-offering?11 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.12 And the other?13 — Another ‘altar’ is written.14 And the other?15 — One [is required] where it had a period of fitness,16 while the other [text] is required where it had no period of fitness.17 And the other?18 — Since they are [now] unfit and the Divine Law included them,19 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]:20 [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:21 as lambs are eligible [for the altar], so whatever is eligible [is included]. R. Akiba said: [Scripture states,] burnt-offering:22 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’,23 while the other master deduces it from ‘lambs’.24 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:25 therefore the Divine Law wrote ‘burnt-offering’.26 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.27 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.28 According to our Tannaim, they do not descend;29 while according to the other Tannaim they descend.30 Resh Lakish said: With regard to a meal-offering which comes by itself,31 all32 of them hold that it does not descend; but according to R. Jose the Galilean and R. Akiba 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. fistfuls themselves should first have been placed in a service vessel. altar must remain as a burnt-offering; so that if anything springs off it must be put back. intimating that whatever once fed the fire belongs to the altar, even if it jumped off. burnt-offering. And at the same time, since the whole passage treats of the burnt-offering only, you cannot make it refer to incense. the altar-fire must be replaced, viz., because the altar sanctified it. in the Samaritan Text; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 34a the altar — and ‘burnt-offering’ are the same word viz., ‘olah). Yet the law still applies to animal sacrifices only. they feed the fire and are brought on the altar.