זבחים 87 — Soncino English Talmud

¹The second midnight consumes them. R. Hisda said: The dawn consumes them. The scholars of the Academy said: What is R. Hisda's reason? If midnight, which does not establish linah, establishes ‘ikul; then dawn, which establishes linah, surely establishes ‘ikul. If they sprang off before midnight and he replaced them after dawn, — Rabbah said: The second midnight consumes them; R. Hisda said: They never reach ‘ikul. To this R. Joseph demurred: And who is to tell us that midnight establishes ‘ikul [only when they are] on the top of the altar; perhaps it establishes ‘ikul wherever they are? They sent from thence: The law agrees with R. Joseph. It was stated likewise: R. Hiyya b. Abba said: If they sprang off before midnight and were replaced after midnight, you may not use them, nor do you commit trespass on their account. Bar Kappara taught likewise: If they sprang off before midnight and were replaced after midnight, they are not subject to trespass. R. Papa asked Abaye: Now, since they sent from there [that] the law agrees with R. Joseph, and R. Hiyya b. Abba said [the same], and Bar Kappara taught likewise, wherein do Rabbah and R. Hisda disagree? — In the case of fat [limbs], he answered him. Raba asked Rabbah: Is linah effective [when the limbs are] on the top of the altar, or is it not effective on top of the altar? — What are the circumstances: if we say that they [the limbs] did not descend, surely since you say that even if they were kept overnight in the Temple court they do not descend, can there be a question [when they are kept on] the top of the altar? Rather [the question is] where they descended. Do we liken it to the Table, for we learnt: Even if they are on the Table many days, it does not matter? Or perhaps we liken it to the pavement of the Temple court? — Said he to him: Linah is not [effective when the flesh is] on the top of the altar. Did he accept [this ruling] from him or did he not accept it from him? — Come and hear. For it was stated: Limbs which spent the night in the Temple court, [the priest] can go on burning them all night; if they were kept overnight on the top of the altar, he can always go on burning them. If they descended: Rabbah said: They re-ascend; Raba said: They do not re-ascend. This proves that he did not accept [the ruling] from him. This proves it. JUST AS THE ALTAR SANCTIFIES etc. Our Rabbis taught: Whatsoever touches the altar [shall be holy]: I know it only of the altar; how do I know [it of] the ascent? Because it says, the [eth] altar. How do we know [it of] service vessels? Because it says: Whatsoever toucheth them shall be holy. Resh Lakish asked R. Johanan: Do the service vessels sanctify the disqualified? — We have learnt it, he replied: JUST AS THE ALTAR AND THE ASCENT SANCTIFY WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR THEM, SO DO VESSELS SANCTIFY! Said he, My question is whether they can be offered in the first place. But that too we have learnt:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ

^ᵃnote:They will not be assumed to reach the stage of hardness (v. supra 86b) until the following midnight; unless, of course, they are reduced to ashes before then.
^ᵇnote:The status of flesh that is kept overnight. Midnight does not confer that status, and flesh that falls off after midnight is replaced on the altar.
^ᶜnote:Lit. ‘burning,’ ‘consumption’. If the flesh is hard by midnight (v. supra 86b top) it is regarded as consumed, and if it springs off after that it is not replaced.
^ᵈnote:Whenever they spring off, until they are actually ashes, they must be replaced, and involve trespass.
^ᵉnote:Sc. from Palestine — The reference is to R. Eleazar (v. Sanh. 17b).
^ᶠnote:His argument is correct. — Actually they did not give a ruling (Tosaf).
^ᵍnote:They need not have been replaced, as they no longer belong to the altar. Hence they do not involve trespass; nevertheless, benefit from them is interdicted by Rabbinical law.
^ʰnote:Even when they harden they are not regarded as consumed (‘ikul), because their fat keeps them from becoming ashes. Only then do Rabbah and R. Hisda disagree as to their status. But in the case of ordinary flesh they agree that midnight establishes ‘ikul.
^ⁱnote:But remained on the altar, away from the fresh wood pile for the new sacrifices.
^ʲnote:If placed on the altar after the night passed.
^ᵏnote:Surely they do not descend.
^ˡnote:The loaves of the Shewbread.
^ᵐnote:Hence it becomes unfit.
^ⁿnote:But not after, for linah disqualifies them.
^ᵒnote:They are never disqualified as long as they are there.
^ᵖnote:Because linah disqualifies them, and so like all disqualified limbs they do not re-ascend once they descended.
^ᵠnote:Ex. XXIX, 37.
^ʳnote:The reference is probably either to XXIX, 44: And I will sanctify the tent of meeting, and the altar; or to XXX, 26-28: And thou shalt anoint therewith . . . the altar of burnt-offering. In either case the preceding eth (which denotes the acc.) is regarded as an extension, thus including the ascent.
^ˢnote:Ibid. XXX, 29. ‘Them’ refers (among other things) to service vessels, which are spoken of in the preceding verses.
^ᵗnote:The reference being to disqualified sacrificial parts. V. Mishnah notes.

²[Or] where unfit [persons] received and sprinkled the blood. Surely that means, where unfit [persons] received and sprinkled the blood. — No: [it may mean] that unfit [persons] received it or unfit persons sprinkled the blood. The scholars asked: Is the air-space above the altar as the altar, or not? — Come and hear: JUST AS THE ALTAR SANCTIFIES SO DOES THE ASCENT SANCTIFY. Now, if you say that the airspace above the altar is not as the altar, then the air-space above the ascent too is not as the ascent; how then can one carry it up from the ascent to the altar, seeing that it is as having descended? — He drags it. But there was a gap between the ascent and the altar? — When the greater part of it [the limb] is nearer the ascent, it is as though it were [on] the ascent, and when the greater part of it is nearer the altar,it is as though it were on the altar. Then from this you can solve Rami b. Hama's question, [viz.]: Is there a connective in [limbs which] ascend the altar or not? Solve that there is a connective? — That is no difficulty: Then solve it! Raba son of R. Hanan demurred: If you say that the air-space above the altar is as the altar, how is it possible for a burnt-offering of a bird to be disqualified through an [illegitimate] intention; surely the altar has received it? R. Shimi b. Ashi demurred: Why not? It is possible e.g., where he declared: Behold, I pinch it intending to take it off to-morrow [from the altar], then carry it up again and burn it. (That is well according to Raba who maintained [that] linah is effective [when the sacrifice is] on top of the altar; but according to Rabbah who held that linah is not effective on top of the altar, his intention [certainly] does not count! — According to Rabbah too it is possible e.g. if he declared: Behold, I pinch it with the intention of taking it down before dawn and taking it up again after dawn.) At all events, you can solve [the question] in the other direction, viz., that the air-space of the altar is as the altar, for should you think that the air-space of an altar is not as the altar,^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ

^ᵘnote:V. supra 84a.
^ᵛnote:The ‘and’ (Heb. 7) being conjunctive. This implies that only then do they not descend once they ascended, which further implies that they may not ascend in the first place. Hence, if unfit persons received the blood (naturally, in a service vessel) whilst fit persons sprinkled it, they may ascend (be offered) in the first place, and that must be because the vessels sanctified the blood to permit its sprinkling at the outset.
^ʷnote:And we are informed that even then the limbs do not descend once they ascended, notwithstanding that they were disqualified by the sprinkling.
^ˣnote:Emended text (Sh.M.).
^ʸnote:If one suspends disqualified limbs above the altar, is it as though they are on the altar itself and must not be removed, or not?
^ᶻnote:For if it is not as the ascent, when he lifts it up to carry to the altar it is as though he had taken it down, and we learnt that if it descended it must not re-ascend.
^ᵃᵃnote:Up to the altar without lifting it up from the ascent.
^ᵃᵇnote:V. supra 62b. And when the limbs reach the gap, they are as though taken down.
^ᵃᶜnote:If the smaller part of a limb springs off, is it considered as still attached to the whole, and so must be replaced, or not?
^ᵃᵈnote:For otherwise each portion of the limb becomes disqualified as it enters the gap between the altar and the ascent.
^ᵃᵉnote:The neck of a burnt-offering of a bird was pinched (v. Lev. I, 15) on top of the altar, i.e., in the air-space above the altar. Now if the priest actually kept it suspended in the air-space above the altar until the next day it would be fit then for ritual burning, for disqualified sacrifices do not descend once they ascended (i.e., even if linah does disqualify when the sacrifice is on the altar). Since then it is fit for burning on the morrow, why should the intention to burn it on the morrow disqualify it, seeing that at the very moment that it is killed it is as though laid on the altar?
^ᵃᶠnote:This would be forbidden, as if it descended it does not re-ascend. Hence the intention too can disqualify it.
^ᵃᵍnote:For even if he kept it until the morrow on the top of the altar it would not be disqualified, so that if he took it down then he would still have to replace it. The intention to do this would certainly not disqualify it.
^ᵃʰnote:If the sacrifice were actually on the ground at dawn it would be disqualified, and so the intention too disqualifies it.
^ᵃⁱnote:This is the conclusion of R. Shimi b. Ashi's argument: though R. Hanan's reasoning is faulty, yet one can argue in the reverse direction.