## Zevachim Daf 83b

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

**גְּמָ׳** רָאוּי לוֹ אִין, שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לוֹ לָא; לְמַעוֹטֵי מַאי? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: לְמַעוֹטֵי קְמָצִין שֶׁלֹּא קִידְּשׁוּ בִּכְלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבִינָא: מַאי שְׁנָא מִדְּעוּלָּא? דְּאָמַר עוּלָּא: אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּין שֶׁהֶעֱלָן לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמָן – לֹא יֵרְדוּ, נַעֲשׂוּ לַחְמוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


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

הָנָךְ לָא מִיחַסְּרוּ מַעֲשֶׂה בְּגוּפַיְיהוּ, הָנֵי מִיחַסְּרוּ מַעֲשֶׂה בְּגוּפַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לָאִישִּׁים כּוּ׳. וְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל נָמֵי – הָכְתִיב: ״עֹלָה עַל מוֹקְדָה״! הָהוּא לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי פּוֹקְעִין הוּא דַּאֲתָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


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

וְאִידַּךְ – לְאַהְדּוֹרֵי פּוֹקְעִין מְנָא לֵיהּ? נָפְקָא לֵיהּ מֵ״אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל הָאֵשׁ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וְאִידַּךְ – הַהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ: לְעִכּוּלֵי עוֹלָה אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר, וְאִי אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר עִכּוּלֵי קְטוֹרֶת. דְּתָנֵי רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בַּר מִנְיוֹמֵי בְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: ״אֲשֶׁר תֹּאכַל הָאֵשׁ אֶת הָעֹלָה עַל הַמִּזְבֵּחַ״ – עִכּוּלֵי עוֹלָה אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר, וְאִי אַתָּה מַחֲזִיר עִכּוּלֵי קְטוֹרֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וְאִידָּךְ – לָאו מִמֵּילָא שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ דְּעִכּוּלֵי עוֹלָה מְהַדְּרִינַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הָרָאוּי כּוּ׳. וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ נָמֵי, הָכְתִיב ״מִזְבֵּחַ״! הָהוּא מִיבַּעְיָא לֵיהּ: מַאי (טַעְמָא) קָאָמַר רַחֲמָנָא כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְמוֹקְדָה? מְקַדֵּשׁ מִזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


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

וְאִידַּךְ – מִזְבֵּחַ אַחֲרִינָא כְּתִיב. וְאִידַּךְ – חַד לְהֵיכָא דְּהָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר, וְחַד לְהֵיכָא דְּלֹא הָיְתָה לָהּ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וְאִידַּךְ – כֵּיוָן דִּפְסוּלִין נִינְהוּ וְרַבִּינְהוּ רַחֲמָנָא, לָא שְׁנָא הָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר לָא שְׁנָא לֹא הָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


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

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: הַזֶּבַח כָּשֵׁר כּוּ׳. תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״עֹלָה״ – מָה עוֹלָה הַבָּאָה בִּגְלַל עַצְמָהּ, אַף כֹּל הַבָּאִין בִּגְלַל עַצְמָן; יָצְאוּ נְסָכִים הַבָּאִין בִּגְלַל זֶבַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


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

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״כׇּל הַנֹּגֵעַ בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ יִקְדָּשׁ״ – שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי בֵּין רָאוּי וּבֵין שֶׁאֵינוֹ רָאוּי; תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״כְּבָשִׂים״ – מָה כְּבָשִׂים רְאוּיִין, אַף כֹּל רָאוּי. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״עֹלָה״ – מָה עוֹלָה רְאוּיָה, אַף כֹּל רְאוּיָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


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

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: עוֹלַת הָעוֹף פְּסוּלָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ; מָר מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵ״עֹלָה״, וּמָר מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מִ״כְּבָשִׂים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וּלְמַאן דְּמַיְיתֵי לַהּ מִ״כְּבָשִׂים״ – הָכְתִיב ״עֹלָה״! אִי כְּתִיב ״כְּבָשִׂים״ וְלָא כְּתִיב ״עֹלָה״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ מֵחַיִּים; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״עֹלָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

וּלְמַאן דְּמַיְיתֵי לֵיהּ מֵ״עֹלָה״, הָא כְּתִיב ״כְּבָשִׂים״! אִי כְּתִיב ״עֹלָה״ וְלָא כְּתִיב ״כְּבָשִׂים״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא אֲפִילּוּ מִנְחָה; כְּתַב רַחֲמָנָא ״כְּבָשִׂים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

מַאי אִיכָּא בֵּין הָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי לְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי דְּמַתְנִיתִין? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: קְמָצִים שֶׁקָּדְשׁוּ בִּכְלִי אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ – לְתַנָּאֵי דִּידַן לֹא יֵרְדוּ, לְתַנָּאֵי דְּמַתְנִיתָא יֵרְדוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: מִנְחָה הַבָּאָה בִּפְנֵי עַצְמָהּ – לְדִבְרֵי כּוּלָּן לֹא תֵּרֵד, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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,**