Zevachim 169

לא תהא פחותה משוחט בחוץ ומעלה בחוץ

let this not be less than slaughtering without and offering up [the limbs without<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where one is culpable for each act separately.');">¹</span> ].

מתיב רב חייא בר אבין השוחט עוף בפנים ומעלה בחוץ פטור שחט בחוץ ומעלה בחוץ חייב נימא לא תהא פחותה משוחט ומעלה בחוץ

R'Hiyya B'Abin raised an objection: One who slaughters a bird within and offers it up without is not culpable; if he slaughtered [it] without and offered it up without, he is culpable. Yet let us say: Let it not be less than slaughtering and offering up without? - That is a refutation.

תיובתא איבעית אימא שחיטת העוף בפנים מיקטל קטליה

Alternatively, The slaughtering of a bird within is mere killing.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not ritual slaughtering (shechitah) , since it requires melikah (v. Glos.) . For that reason he is not culpable. But when he slaughters an animal sacrifice at night, it does count as shechitah (since hullin may be slaughtered at night) .');">²</span> 'Ulla said: If the emurim of lesser sacrifices are laid [on the altar] before their blood is sprinkled, they not descend, [because] they have become the food of the altar.

אמר עולא אימורי קדשים קלים שהעלן לפני זריקת דמן לא ירדו נעשו לחמו של מזבח

R'Zera observed, We too learnt [likewise]: THAT. WHOSE BLOOD WAS SPILT OR WHOSE BLOOD PASSED WITHOUT THE HANGINGS: If you say there that if [the limbs or emurim] ascended they do not descend, though if he [the priest] should come to sprinkle, he has nothing to sprinkle;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the blood is spilt.');">³</span>

א"ר זירא אף אנן נמי תנינא שנשפך דמה ושיצא דמה חוץ לקלעים ומה התם דאם בא לזרוק אין לו לזרוק אמרת אם עלו לא ירדו הכא דאם בא לזרוק זורק לא כל שכן

how much more so here, seeing that if he comes to sprinkle, he has what to sprinkle! - [No:] relate this to a most sacred sacrifice.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah may refer to most sacred sacrifices only, whose emurim are intrinsically holy even before the blood is sprinkled. Possibly, however, the same does not apply to lesser sacrifices, whose emurim are sacred only in virtue of the sprinkling of the blood.');">⁴</span> But there is the Passover-offering, which is a lesser sacrifice?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Mishnah enumerates this too, and it is now assumed that this law applies even where its blood is spilt.');">⁵</span>

תרגמא אקדשי קדשים

- Relate this to [where it is slaughtered] under a different designation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the Mishnah actually states. It does not apply, however, to the present instance.');">⁶</span> We learnt: AND ALL OF THESE, IF THEY ASCENDED THE ALTAR WHILST ALIVE, MUST DESCEND.

הרי פסח דקדשים קלים הוא תרגמא בשלא לשמן

Hence [if they ascended] when slaughtered, they do not descend: surely that is so whether they are most sacred sacrifices or lesser sacrifices? - No: [deduce thus:] but if they are slaughtered, some of these must descend,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. lesser sacrifices.');">⁷</span> and some do not descend.

תנן וכולן שעלו חיין לגבי מזבח ירדו הא שחוטין לא ירדו מאי לאו ל"ש קדשי קדשים לא שנא קדשים קלים

But he teaches, AND ALL OF THESE. - That refers to whilst alive.

לא הא שחוטין מהן ירדו מהן לא ירדו והא כולן קתני כולם אחיין

That is obvious?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obviously they cannot remain there but must be brought down and slaughtered, and then they will be taken up again. If then this is not taught for the sake of the inference (viz., that all of these, if slaughtered, do not descend) , it is altogether superfluous.');">⁸</span> - In truth it refers to living animals which have a cataract in the eye, this being in accordance with R'Akiba who maintained that if these ascend they do not descend.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 77b. The Mishnah thus informs us that they must descend, and even if subsequently slaughtered they may not re-ascend.');">⁹</span>

פשיטא לעולם אחיין ובדוקין שבעין ואליבא דר"ע דאמר אם עלו לא ירדו

How have you explained it? As referring to unfit [animals]! Then consider the final clause: IF A BURNT-OFFERING WENT UP ALIVE TO THE TOP OF THE ALTAR, IT MUST DESCEND.

במאי אוקימתא בפסולין אימא סיפא וכן עולה שעלתה חיה לראש המזבח תרד שחטה בראש המזבח יפשיט וינתח במקומה ואי פסולה בת הפשט ונתוח היא (ויקרא א, ו) ונתח אותה אמר רחמנא אותה כשרה ולא פסולה

IF ONE SLAUGHTERED IT ON THE TOP OF THE ALTAR, HE MUST FLAY IT AND DISMEMBER IT WHERE IT LIES. But if it is unfit, can it be flayed and dismembered?

סיפא אתאן לכשרה ומאי קמשמע לן דיש הפשט ונתוח בראש המזבח

Surely the Divine Law said: And he shall cut it into pieces,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 6.');">¹⁰</span> 'it' [implies] a fit; but not an unfit [animal]? - The final clause refers to a fit [sacrifice]; and w does he [the Tanna] inform us?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If it is fit, it obviously descends, since it will be taken up again.');">¹¹</span>

ולמאן דאמר אין הפשט ונתוח בראש המזבח מאי איכא למימר הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהיתה לו שעת הכושר ונפסלה ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון היא דאמר כיון שנזרק הדם והורצה בשר שעה אחת יפשיטנה ועורה לכהנים

that flaying and dismembering can be done on top of the altar. Then on the view that flaying and dismembering cannot be done on top of the altar, what can be said? - The case we discuss here is, e.g. , where it had a period of fitness and then became disqualified,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It refers indeed to a fit animal which ascended alive, but after it was slaughtered on top of the altar and its blood was sprinkled, it became disqualified; therefore it must be flayed and dismembered on top of the altar, for if it is taken down it may not be taken up again, since it was disqualified. And as to the objection that an unfit animal cannot be flayed, the answer is that it had a period when it was fit for flaying before it became disqualified.');">¹²</span>

ואלא דקתני כיצד עושה מוריד את הקרבים למטה ומדיחן למה לי

this agreeing with R'Eleazar son of R'Simeon who maintained: Since the blood was sprinkled and the flesh had become acceptable<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a technical term denoting that the flesh was now fit for its purpose.');">¹³</span> even for a single hour, he must flay it, and its skin belongs to the priests.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if it became unfit after the sprinkling of the blood. Though the flesh cannot be burnt on the altar but in the place of burning unfit sacrifices, the skin is not burnt with it but belongs to the priests. So here too, when it is on top of the altar it must likewise be flayed and dismembered.');">¹⁴</span>

היכי נעביד נקרבינהו בפרתייהו (מלאכי א, ח) הקריבהו נא לפחתך הירצך או הישא פניך

If so, when it was taught: 'What does he do?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this case where an animal ascended the altar whilst alive and it was slaughtered there.');">¹⁵</span> He takes down the inwards and washes them', why should he do so?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Seeing that they are unfit. For though these unfit animals must not be taken down, yet if they are, they may not be taken up again.');">¹⁶</span>

אנן הכי קאמרינן מדיחן למה לי דאי מיתרמי כהן אחרינא ולא ידע נסקינהו

- What then should we do? Offer [i.e.burn] them with their dung? 'Present it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee? or will he accept thy person? '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mal. I, 8. This is a protest against offering anything unseemly, and it is most unseemly to offer the inwards uncleaned.');">¹⁷</span> This is our difficulty: why must he wash them?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they must be taken down, after which they cannot go up again, let them be left as they are.');">¹⁸</span> - So that if another priest chances upon them and does not know,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they are unfit.');">¹⁹</span> he will take them up.