Zevachim 166

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ראוי לו אין שאין ראוי לו לא למעוטי מאי אמר רב פפא למעוטי קמצין שלא קידשו בכלי

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Only what is ELIGIBLE FOR IT, but not what is not eligible for it; what does this exclude?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On which both R. Joshua and R. Gamaliel will agree.');">¹</span> - Said R'Papa: It excludes 'fistfuls'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Taken from meal-offerings; v. Lev. II, 2.');">²</span>

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

which were not sanctified in a [service] vessel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' These are not considered eligible at all, and even if laid on the altar they must be removed.');">³</span> To this Rabina demurred: How does this differ from 'Ulla's [ruling]?

הנך לא מיחסרו מעשה בגופייהו הני מיחסרו מעשה בגופייהו:

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!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁴</span> - The latter do not themselves lack a rite, while the former themselves lack a rite.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁵</span>

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

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁶</span>

ואידך לאהדורי פוקעין מנא ליה נפקא ליה מאשר תאכל האש

And the other;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joshua.');">⁷</span> how does he know that the [limbs] which spring off must be replaced? - He deduces it from whereto the fire hath consumed.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁸</span>

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

And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Gamaliel; how does he utilise that text?');">⁹</span> - 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].

ואידך לאו ממילא ש"מ דעכולי עולה מהדרינן:

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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joshua; how does he know this?');">¹⁰</span>

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

- Do you then not learn automatically that we replace what was consumed as a burnt-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹¹</span> 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?

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

Whatever is eligible for its firewood, the altar sanctifies.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹²</span> And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where does he find the reason?');">¹³</span>

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

- Another 'altar' is written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIX, 37: Whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy.');">¹⁴</span> And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Joshua: what need is there of two texts?');">¹⁵</span>

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

- One [is required] where it had a period of fitness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Before it became unfit, e.g., if it was kept overnight, taken out of bounds, or defiled.');">¹⁶</span> while the other [text] is required where it had no period of fitness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if it was slaughtered with an illegitimate intention.');">¹⁷</span>

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

And the other?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Gamaliel: whence does he know this?');">¹⁸</span> - Since they are [now] unfit and the Divine Law included them,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the law that they must remain on the altar if laid thereon.');">¹⁹</span>

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

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]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the law that if laid on the altar they must remain there.');">²⁰</span>

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

[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.

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

Therefore Scripture states: [Now this is what thou shalt offer upon the altar: two] lambs:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XXIX, 38. This immediately follows the text quoted.');">²¹</span> as lambs are eligible [for the altar], so whatever is eligible [is included].

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

R'Akiba said: [Scripture states,] burnt-offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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');">²²</span> as a burnt-offering is eligible [for the altar], so whatever is eligible [is included].

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

Wherei 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',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it includes a burnt-offering of a bird too.');">²³</span> while the other master deduces it from 'lambs'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence only animal sacrifices are included, but not a burnt-offering of a bird.');">²⁴</span> 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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if it had a cataract on the eye.');">²⁵</span> therefore the Divine Law wrote 'burnt-offering'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁶</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By interpreting 'olah that which ascends (v. preceding note) , and so including everything that ascends the altar.');">²⁷</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But were subsequently disqualified.');">²⁸</span> According to our Tannaim, they do not descend;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁹</span> while according to the other Tannaim they descend.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As they cannot be included in 'lambs' or 'burnt-offering'.');">³⁰</span> Resh Lakish said: With regard to a meal-offering which comes by itself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It does not accompany an animal sacrifice.');">³¹</span> all<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., all except those whom he specifies. Similarly the other cases.');">³²</span> of them hold that it does not descend; but according to R'Jose the Galilean and R'Akiba