## Zevachim Daf 84b

###### Zevachim 84b:1
[Zevachim 84b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/84b:1)

הַכָּתוּב וּמִיעֵט, מְרַבֶּה אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ שֶׁהָיָה פְּסוּלָן בַּקֹּדֶשׁ, וּמוֹצִיא אֲנִי אֶת אֵלּוּ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה פְּסוּלָן בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and** subsequently **the verse excluded,** I say the following claim with regard to what to include and what to exclude: **I will include those whose disqualification was in sanctity,** i.e., in the course of Temple service, and rule that if they ascended they shall not descend, **and I will exclude these whose disqualification was not in sanctity,** and rule that if they ascended they shall descend.


###### Zevachim 84b:2
[Zevachim 84b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/84b:2)

וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מֵהָכָא: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ לָן בַּדָּם כָּשֵׁר –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** as for **Rabbi Yehuda,** who disagrees with Rabbi Shimon and does not deem it permitted for items whose disqualification occurred in sanctity to remain on the altar, yet agrees that those items listed in the beginning of the mishna, such as sacrificial portions left overnight, shall not descend, **he derives it from here,** as it is taught in a *baraita*: **For what** reason **did** the Sages **say to us** that **in** the case of **blood** left overnight it is **fit,** i.e., if blood of an offering had been left overnight and was then placed on the altar it is not removed?


###### Zevachim 84b:3
[Zevachim 84b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/84b:3)

שֶׁהֲרֵי לָן כָּשֵׁר בָּאֵימוּרִין. לָן בָּאֵימוּרִין כָּשֵׁר – שֶׁהֲרֵי לָן כָּשֵׁר בַּבָּשָׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is **as** the *halakha* is **in** the case of **sacrificial portions,** which if they are **left overnight** are **fit.** From where is it derived that **in** the case of **sacrificial portions** that are **left overnight,** they are **fit?** This is **as** the *halakha* is **in** the case of **meat,** which if it is **left overnight** is **fit,** because the meat of a peace offering may be eaten for two days and one night.


###### Zevachim 84b:4
[Zevachim 84b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/84b:4)

יוֹצֵא – שֶׁהַיּוֹצֵא כָּשֵׁר בְּבָמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
From where is it derived that if an offering that **emerges** from the Temple courtyard is then placed on the altar it is not removed? This is derived by comparison, **since** an offering that **leaves** its area is **fit in** the case of an offering brought on a private **altar,** as the entire notion of sacrifice on such an altar is that it may be performed anywhere.


###### Zevachim 84b:5
[Zevachim 84b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/84b:5)

טָמֵא – הוֹאִיל וְהוּתַּר לַעֲבוֹדַת צִיבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
From where is it derived that if an offering that has become **ritually impure** is placed on the altar it is not removed? This is derived by comparison, **since** it is **permitted to** offer an impure offering in **the** case of **communal rites,** i.e., communal offerings. In cases of necessity, the communal offerings may be sacrificed even if they are ritually impure.


###### Zevachim 84b:6
[Zevachim 84b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/84b:6)

חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ – הוֹאִיל וּמְרַצֶּה לְפִיגּוּלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
From where is it derived that if an offering that was disqualified due to the intention of the priest who slaughtered it to consume it **beyond its** designated **time** [*piggul*] was placed on the altar, it is not removed? This is derived by comparison, **since** the sprinkling of its blood **effects acceptance** with regard to **its** status as ***piggul*.** The status of *piggul* takes effect only if the sacrificial rites involving that offering were otherwise performed properly. This indicates that it still has the status of an offering, so it is not removed from the altar.


###### Zevachim 84b:7
[Zevachim 84b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/84b:7)

חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ – הוֹאִיל וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ לְחוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
From where is it derived that if an offering that was disqualified due to the intention of the priest who slaughtered it to consume it **outside its** designated **area** was placed on the altar, it is not removed? This is derived by comparison, **since** it is **juxtaposed to** an offering that was slaughtered with intent to consume it **beyond its** designated **time.**


###### Zevachim 84b:8
[Zevachim 84b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/84b:8)

שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ אֶת דָּמוֹ – בְּהָנָךְ פְּסוּלֵי דַּחֲזוֹ לַעֲבוֹדַת צִיבּוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
From where is it derived that if an offering **that** people **unfit** for performing the Temple service **collected and** then **sprinkled its blood** was placed on the altar, it is not removed? This is derived **from** the *halakha* of **these** priests who are generally **disqualified** because they are impure, yet **who are fit to** perform **the communal rites,** i.e., to sacrifice communal offerings, in a case when all the priests or the majority of the Jewish people are impure.


###### Zevachim 84b:9
[Zevachim 84b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/84b:9)

וְכִי דָּנִין דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בְּהֶכְשֵׁרוֹ, מִדָּבָר שֶׁבְּהֶכְשֵׁרוֹ?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the derivations of the *baraita*: **But can one deduce** the *halakha* of **a matter that is not fit,** i.e., sacrificial portions that are disqualified due to having been left overnight, **from** the *halakha* of **a matter that is fit,** i.e., the peace offering, which is permitted for eating for two days and one night? Similarly, how can the *baraita* derive the *halakha* of flesh that was removed from the Temple courtyard from the *halakha* of a private altar, which has no halakhic area surrounding it?


###### Zevachim 84b:10
[Zevachim 84b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/84b:10)

תָּנָּא אַ״זֹּאת תּוֹרַת הָעֹלָה״ רִיבָּה סְמִיךְ לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The ***tanna* relied on** the verse: “Command Aaron and his sons, saying: **This is the law of the burnt offering:** It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar all night until the morning; and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning there” (Leviticus 6:2), which **amplified** the application of the *halakha* stated in the verse, teaching that many types of disqualified offerings may be left upon the altar. The derivations written in the *baraita* are mere supports for those two *halakhot*. The explanations cited in the *baraita* for including these disqualifications are mentioned only to clarify why Rabbi Yehuda does not exclude them based on the terms “this,” “it,” and “that.”


###### Zevachim 84b:11
[Zevachim 84b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/84b:11)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַשּׁוֹחֵט בְּהֵמָה בַּלַּיְלָה בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ With regard to an offering that was slaughtered at night, which Rabbi Yehuda holds shall descend from the altar even if it ascended, **Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One who slaughters** a sacrificial **animal at night inside** the Temple courtyard, **and** then **offers** it **up** on an altar **outside** the Temple courtyard, is **liable** to receive *karet*, which is the punishment for one who sacrifices an offering outside the Temple courtyard. Although one is normally liable for sacrificing an offering outside the Temple courtyard only if it was fit to be offered on the altar within the Temple, and an animal slaughtered at night is disqualified and shall descend from the altar according to Rabbi Yehuda,