## Zevachim Daf 83a

###### Zevachim 83a:1
[Zevachim 83a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/83a:1)

וְהוֹצִיאוֹ לַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהִכְנִיסָן, מַהוּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** then **brought out** the blood **to the** golden **altar** in the Sanctuary and sprinkled the blood there, as required (see Leviticus 16:18), **but** subsequently **brought** the remainder of the blood **in** toward the Curtain dividing the Sanctuary from the Holy of Holies, **what is** the *halakha*?


###### Zevachim 83a:2
[Zevachim 83a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/83a:2)

הָכָא וַדַּאי חַד מָקוֹם הוּא, אוֹ [דִילְמָא] יְצִיאָה קָרֵינָא בֵּיהּ? תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava explains the sides of the dilemma: Do we say that **here** the area of the Curtain and the golden altar **is certainly one place,** as they are both in the Sanctuary, and therefore the blood should not be disqualified by being brought back toward the Curtain? **Or perhaps,** since **we call** the taking of the blood to the golden altar: **Going out,** in the verse: “And he shall go out unto the altar” (Leviticus 16:18), its return to the Curtain should be considered bringing in, and therefore the blood should be disqualified? No answers were found, and therefore the Gemara states that these dilemmas **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Zevachim 83a:3
[Zevachim 83a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/83a:3)

נִכְנַס לְכַפֵּר. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״וְכׇל אָדָם לֹא יִהְיֶה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד בְּבֹאוֹ לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ״;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that the Sages disagree as to the *halakha* in a case where the priest carrying the blood of a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar **entered** the Sanctuary **to atone** through sprinkling, but in practice the priest did not actually sprinkle the blood. According to Rabbi Eliezer the blood is disqualified, whereas Rabbi Shimon maintains that the blood is disqualified only if the priest sprinkles it in the Sanctuary. Concerning this, it **is taught** in a *baraita* that **Rabbi Eliezer says: It is stated here:** “And any sin offering, whereof any of the blood is brought into the Tent of Meeting **to atone in the Sanctuary,** shall not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:23), **and it is stated there,** with regard to the service of the High Priest on Yom Kippur: **“And there shall be no man in the Tent of Meeting when he goes in to atone in the Sanctuary,** until he comes out” (Leviticus 16:17).


###### Zevachim 83a:4
[Zevachim 83a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/83a:4)

מָה לְהַלָּן בְּשֶׁלֹּא כִּיפֵּר, אַף כָּאן בְּשֶׁלֹּא כִּיפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Eliezer explains: **Just as there,** with regard to Yom Kippur, the phrase “when he goes in to atone” is referring **to** the stage **when** he **has not** yet **atoned, so too here,** with regard to the disqualification of blood brought inside the Sanctuary, the phrase “to atone in the Sanctuary” is referring **to** a situation where the blood enters the Sanctuary at a time **when** the priest **has not** yet **atoned.**


###### Zevachim 83a:5
[Zevachim 83a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/83a:5)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״לְכַפֵּר״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״וְאֵת פַּר הַחַטָּאת וְאֶת שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָם לְכַפֵּר״; מָה לְהַלָּן בְּשֶׁכִּיפֵּר, אַף כָּאן בְּשֶׁכִּיפֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Conversely, **Rabbi Shimon says: It is stated here: “To atone”** (Leviticus 6:23), **and it is stated there,** with regard to the conclusion of the service on Yom Kippur: **“And the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to atone** in the Sanctuary, shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn in the fire” (Leviticus 16:27). **Just as there,** the phrase “to atone” is referring **to** the stage **when** he has already **atoned,** as the bull and goat of Yom Kippur are burned after their blood has been sprinkled, **so too here,** the phrase “to atone” is referring **to** a situation **where** he has already **atoned,** whereas merely bringing the blood into the Sanctuary does not disqualify it.


###### Zevachim 83a:6
[Zevachim 83a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/83a:6)

בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: דָּנִין חוּץ מִחוּץ, וְאֵין דָּנִין חוּץ מִבִּפְנִים;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara inquires: **With regard to what** principle **do** Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon **disagree?** The Gemara explains that one **Sage,** Rabbi Eliezer, **holds** that **one derives** a case of **outside,** i.e., the blood of a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar, which may not be brought inside the Sanctuary, **from** another prohibition of **outside,** the prohibition against entering the Sanctuary; **but one does not derive** a case of **outside from** the bull and goat of Yom Kippur, whose blood is brought **inside** the Sanctuary.


###### Zevachim 83a:7
[Zevachim 83a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/83a:7)

וּמָר סָבַר: דָּנִין בְּהֵמָה מִבְּהֵמָה, וְאֵין דָּנִין בְּהֵמָה מֵאָדָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon, **holds** that **one derives** a *halakha* involving **an animal,** i.e., a sin offering whose blood placement is on the external altar, **from** another *halakha* involving **an animal,** the bull and goat of Yom Kippur; **but one does not derive** a case of **an animal from** a prohibition involving **a person.**


###### Zevachim 83a:8
[Zevachim 83a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/83a:8)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר כּוּ׳. הָא מֵזִיד – פָּסוּל; בְּשֶׁכִּיפֵּר אוֹ בְּשֶׁלֹּא כִּיפֵּר?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches that **Rabbi Yehuda says:** If the priest took the blood into the Sanctuary unwittingly, the blood remains fit for presentation. The Gemara infers: **But** if his taking of the blood into the Sanctuary was **intentional,** it is **disqualified.** The Gemara analyzes this *halakha*: Is the blood disqualified only **in** a case **where** he took the blood into the Sanctuary and **atoned,** by sprinkling it inside the Sanctuary, as claimed by Rabbi Shimon in the mishna; **or** even **in** a case **where** he took the blood in and **did not** yet **atone,** in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer?


###### Zevachim 83a:9
[Zevachim 83a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/83a:9)

אָמַר רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: מִמַּשְׁמָע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְאֵת פַּר הַחַטָּאת וְאֶת שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר הוּבָא אֶת דָּמָם (אֶל אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד) לְכַפֵּר בַּקֹּדֶשׁ״ – מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהַשֹּׂרֵף״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yirmeya said** that one can cite a proof from a *baraita*: **From** the fact **that it is stated** with regard to the Yom Kippur service: **“And the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering, whose blood was brought in to atone in the Sanctuary,** shall be taken outside the camp, and they shall burn in the fire their skins, and their flesh, and their dung; and he who burns them shall wash his clothes” (Leviticus 16:27–28), one can ask the following question: **Why** must **the verse state: “And he who burns”?**


###### Zevachim 83a:10
[Zevachim 83a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/83a:10)

מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״וְהַשֹּׂרֵף״?! לְגוּפֵיהּ אִיצְטְרִיךְ! אֶלָּא מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״חַטָּאת״ ״חַטָּאת״?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara interrupts its citation of the *baraita* to question its line of inquiry. **Why** must **the verse state: “And he who burns”?** One can answer that this term **was necessary for itself,** to teach that the one who burns the bull and goat of Yom Kippur is thereby rendered ritually impure. **Rather,** this is what the *baraita* is saying: **Why** must **the verse state** twice: **“Sin offering,” “sin offering,”** with regard to the bull and the goat? It could have stated merely: And the bull and the goat of the sin offering.


###### Zevachim 83a:11
[Zevachim 83a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/83a:11)

לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא לָמַדְנוּ אֶלָּא לְפַר וְשָׂעִיר שֶׁל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁנִּשְׂרָפִין אַבֵּית הַדֶּשֶׁן – מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים; שְׁאָר נִשְׂרָפִין מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״חַטָּאת״ ״חַטָּאת״. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* answers **that** if the term “sin offering” had appeared only once, **we** would **have learned only with regard to** the **bull and** the **goat of Yom Kippur that are burned in the place of the ashes** that **they render ritually impure** the **garments** of the one who carries them. **From where** is it derived that the same applies to **other** sin offerings that are **burned? The verse states: “Sin offering,” “sin offering,”** twice, to include all sin offerings that are burned. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.**


###### Zevachim 83a:12
[Zevachim 83a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/83a:12)

רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ; הֲרֵי הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְאֵת פַּר הַחַטָּאת וְאֵת שְׂעִיר הַחַטָּאת״ – שֶׁאֵין תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְכַפֵּר״, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״לְכַפֵּר״? לִימֵּד עַל כׇּל הַמִּתְכַּפְּרִים שֶׁהַשּׂוֹרְפָן מְטַמֵּא בְּגָדִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Meir says: This** derivation from the repeated mention of sin offering **is not necessary. Now** consider, the verse **states: “And the bull of the sin offering and the goat of the sin offering**…shall be taken outside the camp.” **As** there is **no** need for **the verse to state** with regard to these offerings: “Whose blood was brought in **to atone** in the Sanctuary,” **why** must **the verse** nevertheless **state: “To atone”?** This **teaches with regard to all** offerings **that atone** inside the Sanctuary **that one who burns them renders** his **garments impure.**


###### Zevachim 83a:13
[Zevachim 83a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/83a:13)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה – ״לְכַפֵּר״ לָא מַשְׁמַע לֵיהּ; מַאי טַעְמָא? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּמִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ לִגְזֵירָה שָׁוָה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **And Rabbi Yehuda does not learn** anything from the term **“to atone.” What is the reason** for this? Is it **not because he requires** this phrase **for a verbal analogy,** to derive that the blood of an external sin offering that was taken inside the Sanctuary is disqualified only if the priest sprinkled it, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? This answers the Gemara’s question, as Rabbi Yehuda evidently follows the opinion of Rabbi Shimon.


###### Zevachim 83a:14
[Zevachim 83a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/83a:14)

**הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁנִּתְעָרְבוּ**


###### Zevachim 83a:15
[Zevachim 83a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/83a:15)

מַתְנִי׳ **הַמִּזְבֵּחַ מְקַדֵּשׁ** [אֶת] הָרָאוּי לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** Certain unfit items, once they have been placed on the altar, are nevertheless sacrificed. The mishna teaches: **The altar sanctifies** only items **that are suited to it.** The *tanna’im* disagree as to the definition of suited for the altar.


###### Zevachim 83a:16
[Zevachim 83a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/83a:16)

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לָאִישִּׁים – אִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִיא הָעֹלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה״; מָה עוֹלָה, שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לָאִישִּׁים – אִם עָלְתָה לֹא תֵּרֵד; אַף כֹּל שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לָאִישִּׁים – אִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehoshua says: Any** item **that is suited to** be consumed by **the fire** on the altar, e.g., burnt offerings and the sacrificial portions of other offerings, which are burned on the altar, **if it ascended** upon the altar, even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed *ab initio*, **it shall not descend.** Since it was sanctified by its ascent upon the altar, it is sacrificed upon it, **as it is stated: “It is the burnt offering on the pyre** upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived: **Just as** with regard to **a burnt offering, which is suited to** be consumed by **the fire** on the altar, **if it ascended it shall not descend, so too,** with regard to **any** item **that is suited to** be consumed by **the fire** on the altar, **if it ascended it shall not descend.**


###### Zevachim 83a:17
[Zevachim 83a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/83a:17)

רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – אִם עָלָה לֹא יֵרֵד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הִיא הָעֹלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״; מָה עוֹלָה, שֶׁהִיא רְאוּיָה לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – אִם עָלְתָה לֹא תֵּרֵד; אַף כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא רָאוּי לַמִּזְבֵּחַ – אִם עָלְתָה לֹא תֵּרֵד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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,”** from which it is derived: **Just as** with regard to **a burnt offering, which is fit for the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend, so too, any** item **that is fit for the altar, if it ascended it shall not descend.**


###### Zevachim 83a:18
[Zevachim 83a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/83a:18)

אֵין בֵּין דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶלָּא הַדָּם וְהַנְּסָכִים – שֶׁרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר לֹא יֵרְדוּ, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר יֵרְדוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna comments: **The difference between the statement of Rabban Gamliel and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is only** with regard to disqualified **blood and** disqualified **libations,** which are not consumed by the fire but do ascend upon the altar, **as Rabban Gamliel says: They shall not descend,** as they are fit to ascend upon the altar, **and Rabbi Yehoshua says: They shall descend,** as they are not burned on the altar.


###### Zevachim 83a:19
[Zevachim 83a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/83a:19)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר וּנְסָכִים פְּסוּלִין, הַנְּסָכִים כְּשֵׁירִים וְהַזֶּבַח פָּסוּל, אֲפִילּוּ זֶה וָזֶה פְּסוּלִין – הַזֶּבַח לֹא יֵרֵד וְהַנְּסָכִים יֵרְדוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Shimon says:** Whether **the offering was fit and** the accompanying **libations** were **unfit,** e.g., if they became ritually impure or they were brought outside their designated area, or whether **the libations** were **fit and the offering** was **unfit,** rendering the accompanying libations unfit as well, and **even** if both **this and that were unfit, the offering shall not descend,** as it was sanctified by the altar, **but the libations shall descend.**