Zevachim 54

ומשנתינו כדברי האומר לא יאספנו

and our Mishnah agrees with the view that he must not re-gather it: But R'Hisda said in Abimi's name: All agree, if he sprinkled below what should be sprinkled above, that he does not re-gather it, and all the more if he sprinkled above what should be sprinkled below, since the blood above runs down below.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In any case; hence it is almost as though he sprinkled it below.');">¹</span> They disagree only where he sprinkled without what should be sprinkled within, or within what should be sprinkled without.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Within' and 'without' means on the inner and the outer altars respectively.');">²</span>

ורב חסדא אמר אבימי הכל מודין בניתנין למטה שנתנן למעלה שלא יאספנו וכל שכן בניתנין למעלה שנתנן למטה הואיל ודמים העליונים למטה הן באין לא נחלקו אלא בניתנין לפנים שנתנן בחוץ בחוץ שנתנן לפנים שר' יוסי אומר יאספנו ור"ש אומר לא יאספנו

R'Jose holds, He must not re-gather it, and R'Simeon rules: He must re-gather it. R'Nahman B'Isaac said: We have also learnt to the same effect.

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אף אנן נמי תנינא רבי יהודה אומר (ויקרא ו, ב) זאת היא העולה הרי אלו מיעוטין פרט לנשחטה בלילה ושנשפך דמה ושיצא דמה חוץ לקלעים אם עלתה תרד

R'Judah said: [This is the law of the burnt-offering:] it is that which goeth up [on its firewood upon the altar all night unto the morning]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VI, 2.');">³</span> here you have three limitations: It excludes [an animal] slaughtered at night; it excludes [an animal] whose blood was spilt; and it excludes [an animal] whose blood was carried out beyond the hangings: if any one [of these] ascended [the altar], it descends.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From the passage, 'which goeth up on its firewood upon the altar all night' the Rabbis deduce that once it ascends the altar it must not be taken down all night. But the three words in Hebrew which are rendered 'it is that which goeth up' are really superfluous, and therefore are interpreted as excluding three cases, as enumerated in the text, from the operation of this law.');">⁴</span>

ר"ש אומר עולה אין לי אלא עולה כשרה מנין לרבות שנשחטה בלילה ושנשפך דמה ושיצא דמה חוץ לקלעים והלן והיוצא והטמא ושנשחט חוץ לזמנו וחוץ למקומו ושקיבלו פסולין וזרקו את דמה והניתנין למעלה שנתנן למטה והניתנין למטה שנתנן למעלה והניתנין בפנים שנתנן בחוץ והניתנין בחוץ שנתנן בפנים והפסח והחטאת ששחטן שלא לשמן מנין

R'Simeon said: 'Burnt-offering': I only know [this] of a fit burnt-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if it goes up, it does not descend.');">⁵</span> whence do I know to include one which was slaughtered at night, or whose blood was spilt, or whose blood passed without the hangings, or who[se flesh] spent the night [away from the altar], or who[se flesh] went out, or the unclean, or which was slaughtered [with the intention of burning its flesh] after time or without bounds, or whose blood was received and sprinkled by unfit [priests]; or whose blood was applied below [the scarlet line] when it should have been applied above, or above when it should have been applied below, or without when it should have been applied within, or within when it should have been applied without; or a Passover-offering or a sin-offering which one slaughtered for a different purpose,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. as burnt-offerings.');">⁶</span>

ת"ל תורת העולה ריבה תורה אחת לכל העולין שאם עלו לא ירדו

- whence do we know [to include all these]? From the phrase, 'the law of the burnt-offering,' which intimates one law for all burnt-offerings, [viz. ,:] that if they ascended, they do not descend.

יכול שאני מרבה אף הרובע והנרבע והמוקצה והנעבד והאתנן והמחיר והכלאים והטריפה ויוצא דופן ת"ל זאת

You might think that I include also a roba' and a nirba', '<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A male animal and a female animal respectively used for bestiality.');">⁷</span> one set aside [for an idolatrous sacrifice] or worshipped; a [harlot's] hire or the price [of a dog].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Referring to Deut. XXIII, 19: Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow.');">⁸</span>

ומה ראית לרבות את אלו ולהוציא את אלו מרבה אני את אלו שהיה פסולן בקודש ומוציא אני את אלו שלא היה פסולן בקודש

or a hybrid, or a trefah, or an animal calved through the cesarean section? The text however states 'it is that'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Heb. zoth, a limitation excluding these.');">⁹</span>

קתני מיהא הניתנין למטה שנתנן למעלה ולמעלה שנתנן למטה ולא פליג רבי יהודה מ"ט לאו משום דקלטיה מזבח ושמע מינה לא יאספנו

And why do you include the former and exclude the latter? I include the former, because their disqualification arose in the sanctuary, while I exclude the latter whose disqualification did not arise In the sanctuary.

א"ר אליעזר מזבח הפנימי מקדש פסולין

At all events, he teaches [the cases where] one sprinkled below what should be sprinkled above, or above what should be sprinkled below, and R'Judah does not disagree. What is the reason?

מאי קמ"ל תנינא הניתנין בפנים כו'

Is it not because the altar has received it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And thus sanctified it, in the sense that it cannot be collected for re-sprinkling.');">¹⁰</span> which proves that one cannot re-gather it.

אי מהתם הוה אמינא ה"מ דם דחזי ליה אבל קומץ דלא חזי ליה אימא לא קמ"ל

R'Eleazar said: The inner altar sanctifies the unfit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if they ascend, they do not descend, though the Scriptural text refers only to the outer altar.');">¹¹</span> What does he inform us: We have learnt it: 'that which should be applied within' etc. ? - If [I drew my information] from there [only], I would say that it applies only to blood, which is eligible for it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For some blood, though that particular blood should not have been applied there.');">¹²</span>

מיתיבי קטרת זרה שעלה לגבי מזבח תרד שאין לך מקדש פסולין אלא מזבח החיצון בראוי לו חיצון אין פנימי לא

but [if one threw] the fistful [of flour on the inner altar] which is not eligible for it at all,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Flour is never burnt on the inner altar.');">¹³</span> I would say that it is not so.

תריץ הכי קטרת זרה שעלתה למזבח החיצון תרד שאין מזבח החיצון מקדש פסולין אלא הראוי לו והפנימי בין ראוי לו בין שאין ראוי לו מאי טעמא האי רצפה והאי כלי שרת:

Hence he informs us [otherwise].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That flour is not removed.');">¹⁴</span> An objection is raised: If strange incense<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The incense of a private and votive meal-offering. Scripture permits incense only at public sacrifices.');">¹⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השוחט את הזבח לזרוק דמו בחוץ או מקצת דמו בחוץ להקטיר אימוריו בחוץ או מקצת אימוריו בחוץ לאכול בשרו בחוץ או כזית מבשרו בחוץ או לאכול כזית מעור האליה בחוץ פסול ואין בו כרת

ascended the altar, it must descend, because only the outer altar sanctifies the unfit, in the case of such as are [otherwise] eligible for it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 83b.');">¹⁶</span> Thus, only the outer one, but not the inner one? - Answer it thus: If strange incense ascended the altar, it must descend, for the outer altar does not sanctify the unfit save in the case of what is [otherwise] eligible for it; but the inner [altar sancti both what is eligible and what is not eligible for it.

לזרוק דמו למחר מקצת דמו למחר להקטיר אימוריו למחר או מקצת אימוריו למחר לאכול בשרו למחר או כזית מבשרו למחר או לאכול כזית מעור האליה למחר פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת:

What is the reason? One [the outer altar] is [but as the] pavement,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is an immovable unanointed erection of stone.');">¹⁷</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> סברוה עור אליה

while the other [the inner altar] is a service vessel.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It was moveable, and consecrated by anointing, like all other service vessels. Therefore its sanctity and sanctifying powers are greater.');">¹⁸</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE SLAUGHTERS THE SACRIFICE [INTENDING] TO SPRINKLE ITS BLOOD WITHOUT. OR PART OF ITS BLOOD WITHOUT; TO BURN ITS EMURIM<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');">¹⁹</span> OR PART OF ITS EMURIM WITHOUT; TO EAT ITS FLESH OR AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF ITS FLESH WITHOUT, OR TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF THE SKIN OF THE FAT-TAIL<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. GEMARA:');">²⁰</span> WITHOUT. IT IS UNFIT, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if one actually eats it without.');">²¹</span> [IF HE SLAUGHTERS IT, INTENDING] TO SPRINKLE ITS BLOOD OR PART OF ITS BLOOD ON THE MORROW, TO BURN ITS EMURIM OR PART OF ITS EMURIM ON THE MORROW, TO EAT ITS FLESH OR AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF ITS FLESH ON THE MORROW, OR TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF THE SKIN OF ITS FAT-TAIL ON THE MORROW, IT IS PIGGUL, AND INVOLVES KARETH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if one eats it in the proper time.');">²²</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Now it was thought that the skin of the fat-tail