Zevachim 83bזבחים פ״ג ב
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
83bפ״ג ב

גמ׳ ראוי לו אין שאין ראוי לו לא למעוטי מאי אמר רב פפא למעוטי קמצין שלא קידשו בכלי

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that the altar sanctifies items that are suited to it, from which the Gemara infers: Items suited to the altar, yes, they are sanctified by it, but items that are not suited to the altar, no, they are not sanctified by it and descend from it even after ascending. The Gemara asks: This inference serves to exclude what? Rav Pappa said: It serves to exclude handfuls of flour that were removed from meal offerings by a priest in order to be burned on the altar, and that were not sanctified by being placed in a service vessel before they ascended upon the altar. Those handfuls did not yet become suited for the altar and therefore shall descend.

מתקיף לה רבינא מאי שנא מדעולא דאמר עולא אימורי קדשים קלין שהעלן לפני זריקת דמן לא ירדו נעשו לחמו של מזבח

Ravina objects to Rav Pappa’s assertion: In what way is this case different from that of Ulla? As Ulla says: Sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up on the altar before the sprinkling of the offering’s blood, and are therefore not yet suited for the altar, shall not descend, as they have become the bread of the altar, i.e., they have been sanctified such that they must be burned.

הנך לא מיחסרו מעשה בגופייהו הני מיחסרו מעשה בגופייהו:

The Gemara responds that there is a difference between the cases: These sacrificial portions described by Ulla do not lack the performance of an action with regard to themselves that will render them fit for the altar; they lack only the sprinkling of the blood, an independent action. By contrast, these handfuls mentioned by Rav Pappa lack the performance of an action with regard to themselves, as they have yet to be sanctified through placement in a service vessel and never became fit for the altar.

ר' יהושע אומר כל הראוי לאישים כו': ורבן גמליאל נמי הכתיב עולה על מוקדה ההוא לאהדורי פוקעין הוא דאתא

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehoshua says: Any item that is suited to be consumed by the fire on the altar, if it ascended upon the altar it shall not descend, as it is stated: “It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived that any item suited for burning on the altar shall not descend. The Gemara asks: And as for Rabban Gamliel also, who holds that any item suited for the altar, whether it is to be burned or not, shall not descend, isn’t it written in the verse: “Burnt offering on the pyre”? The Gemara responds: That verse comes to teach the mitzva to restore to the pyre any parts of the offering that were dislodged from the pyre, and is not discussing unfit items at all.

ואידך לאהדורי פוקעין מנא ליה נפקא ליה מאשר תאכל האש

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua, from where does he derive the requirement to restore to the fire sacrificial portions that were dislodged from it? The Gemara responds: He derives it from the verse: “That the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar” (Leviticus 6:3), indicating that items already partially consumed by the fire are restored to it even if they were dislodged from the pyre.

ואידך ההוא מיבעי ליה לעכולי עולה אתה מחזיר ואי אתה מחזיר עכולי קטורת דתני רבי חנינא בר מניומי בר' אליעזר בן יעקב (ויקרא ו, ג) אשר תאכל האש את העולה על המזבח עכולי עולה אתה מחזיר ואי אתה מחזיר עכולי קטורת

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabban Gamliel, what does he derive from that verse? The Gemara responds: Rabban Gamliel requires that verse to derive that you return partially consumed parts of a burnt offering to the altar, but you do not return partially consumed parts of an incense offering that fell from the golden altar. As Rabbi Ḥanina bar Minyumi, son of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, teaches that the verse “that the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar” teaches that you return partially consumed parts of a burnt offering that fell from the pyre, but you do not return partially consumed parts of an incense offering that fell from the pyre.

ואידך לאו ממילא ש"מ דעכולי עולה מהדרינן:

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua, from where does he derive this distinction? The Gemara responds: Can it not be learned by itself from the straightforward meaning of the verse that we restore partially consumed parts of a burnt offering to the altar? Therefore, there is no need for an additional verse, as both halakhot can be derived from the same verse.

רבן גמליאל אומר כל הראוי כו': ורבי יהושע נמי הכתיב מזבח ההוא מיבעיא ליה מאי (טעמא) קאמר רחמנא כל הראוי למוקדה מקדש מזבח

§ The mishna teaches that Rabban Gamliel says: With regard to any item that is suited to ascend upon the altar, even if it is not typically consumed, if it ascended, it shall not descend, even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed ab initio, as it is stated: “It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2). The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yehoshua as well, isn’t it written: “Upon the altar,” and not merely: “On the pyre”? The Gemara responds: That term is required by Rabbi Yehoshua to teach: What is the reason the Merciful One states that any item that is suited for the pyre does not descend from the altar? It is because the altar sanctifies it.

ואידך מזבח אחרינא כתיב ואידך חד להיכא דהיתה לה שעת הכושר וחד להיכא דלא היתה לה שעת הכושר

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabban Gamliel, from where does he derive that the altar sanctifies the items that ascend upon it? The Gemara responds: It is from the fact that the term “altar” is written another time, in the verse: “Whatever touches the altar shall be sacred” (Exodus 29:37). The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabbi Yehoshua, why does he require two verses to teach the same halakha, i.e., that the altar sanctifies items that ascend upon it? The Gemara answers: One verse is necessary for a case where an item had a time of fitness for consumption by the fire and was then disqualified, e.g., it became ritually impure; and one verse is necessary for a case where an item did not have a time of fitness, e.g., an offering that became disqualified at the moment of its slaughter.

ואידך כיון דפסולין נינהו ורבינהו רחמנא לא שנא היתה לו שעת הכושר לא שנא לא היתה לו שעת הכושר:

The Gemara asks: And the other tanna, Rabban Gamliel, why does he not require another verse to teach that even items that had no time of fitness shall not descend from the altar? The Gemara responds: Once there are disqualified items that the Merciful One included in the halakha that they shall not descend from the altar, it is no different if the item had a time of fitness and it is no different if the item did not have a time of fitness.

רבי שמעון אומר הזבח כשר כו': תניא רבי שמעון אומר עולה מה עולה הבאה בגלל עצמה אף כל הבאין בגלל עצמן יצאו נסכים הבאין בגלל זבח

§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Shimon says: Whether the offering was fit and the accompanying libations were unfit, or whether the libations were fit and the offering was unfit, and even if both this and that were unfit, the offering shall not descend, but the libations shall descend. The Gemara elaborates: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon says: The verse that teaches that fit items shall not descend from the altar states: “This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2). From there it is derived: Just as a burnt offering, which is an item that comes upon the altar for its own sake, shall not descend, so too, all items that come upon the altar for their own sake shall not descend. Excluded are libations, which come upon the altar for the sake of the offering, not for their own sake; these shall descend.

רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר מתוך שנאמר (שמות כט, לז) כל הנוגע במזבח יקדש שומע אני בין ראוי ובין שאינו ראוי ת"ל (שמות כט, לח) כבשים מה כבשים ראויין אף כל ראוי ר"ע אומר (שמות כט, יח) עולה מה עולה ראויה אף כל ראויה

§ The Gemara cites another baraita relating to the mishna. Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: From that which is stated: “Whatever touches the altar shall be sacred” (Exodus 29:37), I would derive that the altar sanctifies any item that ascends upon it, whether it is fit for the altar or whether it is unfit. Therefore, the verse states: “Now this is that which you shall offer upon the altar: Two lambs” (Exodus 29:38), to teach: Just as lambs are fit for the altar and are sanctified by it, so too, all items fit for the altar are sanctified by it. Rabbi Akiva says that the verse states: “Burnt offering,” to teach: Just as a burnt offering is fit for the altar and is sanctified by it, so too, all items fit for the altar are sanctified by it.

מאי בינייהו אמר רב אדא בר אהבה עולת העוף פסולה איכא בינייהו מר מייתי לה מעולה ומר מייתי לה מכבשים

The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between these opinions? Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The case of a disqualified bird burnt offering is the practical difference between them. One Sage, Rabbi Akiva, who cites the halakha from the term “burnt offering,” includes a disqualified bird burnt offering in the halakha that the offering shall not descend, as it is a burnt offering. And the other Sage, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who cites the halakha from the term “lambs,” does not include a disqualified bird burnt offering in the halakha, as it is not similar to a lamb.

ולמאן דמייתי לה מכבשים הכתיב עולה אי כתיב כבשים ולא כתיב עולה ה"א אפילו מחיים כתב רחמנא עולה

The Gemara asks: And according to the one who cites the halakha from the term “lambs,” isn’t it written: “Burnt offering”? The Gemara answers: According to Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, if “lambs” had been written and “burnt offering” had not been written, I would say that even an animal that became disqualified and ascended upon the altar while alive shall not descend. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “Burnt offering,” indicating that this halakha applies only to animals once they are fit to ascend the altar. Live animals are not fit to ascend the altar.

ולמאן דמייתי ליה מעולה הא כתיב כבשים אי כתיב עולה ולא כתיב כבשים הוה אמינא אפילו מנחה כתב רחמנא כבשים

The Gemara continues: And according to the one who derives the halakha from “burnt offering,” isn’t it written: “Lambs”? The Gemara explains: According to Rabbi Akiva, if “burnt offering” had been written and “lambs” had not been written, I would say that any item fit to ascend the altar is included in the halakha, even a meal offering. Therefore, the Merciful One writes: “Lambs,” indicating that this halakha applies only to animal offerings and bird offerings, not to meal offerings.

מאי איכא בין הני תנאי להני תנאי דמתניתין אמר רב פפא קמצים שקדשו בכלי איכא בינייהו לתנאי דידן לא ירדו לתנאי דמתניתא ירדו

The Gemara asks: What difference is there between the opinions of these tanna’im, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva, and the opinions of these tanna’im of the mishna? Rav Pappa said: The difference between them is with regard to handfuls of flour, removed from meal offerings, that were sanctified in a service vessel and were then disqualified. According to our tanna’im, i.e., those in the mishna here, those handfuls shall not descend, as they are fit for the altar and for consumption by the fire as well. According to the tanna’im of the baraita, those handfuls shall descend, as those tanna’im hold that the halakha applies only to animal offerings and bird offerings.

(ר"ל אמר) מנחה הבאה בפני עצמה לדברי כולן לא תרד לדברי רבי יוסי הגלילי ור"ע

Reish Lakish says in summary: With regard to a meal offering that comes by itself and does not accompany another offering, according to the statements of all of the tanna’im in the mishna, it shall not descend once it ascended, either because it is fit to be consumed by the fire, or because it comes by itself. According to the statements of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili and Rabbi Akiva,