## Zevachim Daf 85a

###### Zevachim 85a:1
[Zevachim 85a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/85a:1)

לֹא תְּהֵא פְּחוּתָה מִשּׁוֹחֵט בַּחוּץ וּמַעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
nevertheless, the *halakha* with regard to one who slaughters an animal at night **should not be less** stringent **than** that of one who **slaughters** an animal **outside** the Temple **and offers** it **up outside.** With regard to that case, the mishna (106a) states that such a person is liable, even though an animal slaughtered outside the Temple is not fit to be offered on the altar inside the Temple and shall descend from the altar even if it has ascended.


###### Zevachim 85a:2
[Zevachim 85a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/85a:2)

מֵתִיב רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין: הַשּׁוֹחֵט עוֹף בִּפְנִים וּמַעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. שֹׁחֵט בַּחוּץ וּמַעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב. נֵימָא: לֹא תְּהֵא פְּחוּתָה מִשּׁוֹחֵט וּמַעֲלֶה בַּחוּץ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin raises an objection** to the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan from a mishna (111a): **One who slaughters a bird inside** the Temple courtyard **and** then **offers** it **up** on an altar **outside** the Temple is **exempt,** as a bird offering is supposed to be pinched at the nape of the neck and not slaughtered with a knife. But if he **slaughtered** the bird **outside** the Temple courtyard **and offered** it **up outside** the Temple courtyard, he is **liable** to receive *karet*. According to Rabbi Yoḥanan, **let us say** that the *halakha* with regard to one who slaughters an animal inside the Temple **should not be less** stringent **than** that of one who **slaughters** an animal **and offers** it **up outside** the Temple. Why, then, is such a person exempt?


###### Zevachim 85a:3
[Zevachim 85a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/85a:3)

תְּיוּבְתָּא. אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: שְׁחִיטַת הָעוֹף בִּפְנִים – מִיקְטָל קַטְלֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: This is indeed **a conclusive refutation,** and the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan is rejected. The Gemara adds a possible explanation: **If you wish, say** that one cannot derive the *halakha* of a bird slaughtered inside the Temple from that of a bird slaughtered outside of it, because in the case of **the slaughter of a bird inside** the Temple, it is considered as if **he killed it.** By contrast, in the case of an animal slaughtered at night within the Temple, although it is disqualified, it is still considered a slaughtered animal, and its status may therefore be derived from that of an animal that is slaughtered outside the Temple.


###### Zevachim 85a:4
[Zevachim 85a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/85a:4)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: אֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים שֶׁהֶעֱלָן לִפְנֵי זְרִיקַת דָּמָן – לֹא יֵרְדוּ, נַעֲשׂוּ לַחְמוֹ שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Concerning items that were inappropriately placed on the altar, **Ulla says: Sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that** one **offered up** upon the altar **before the sprinkling of their blood,** which is the act that sanctifies such portions for the altar, **shall not descend,** as **they have become the bread of** the **altar.**


###### Zevachim 85a:5
[Zevachim 85a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/85a:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: שֶׁנִּשְׁפַּךְ דָּמָהּ, וְשֶׁיָּצָא דָּמָהּ חוּץ לַקְּלָעִים. וּמָה הָתָם – דְּאִם בָּא לִזְרוֹק אֵין לוֹ לִזְרוֹק, אָמַרְתָּ: אִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ; הָכָא דְּאִם בָּא לִזְרוֹק זוֹרֵק – לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said** in support of Ulla: **We learn** in the mishna **as well:** The sacrificial portions of an offering **whose blood was spilled, or whose blood emerged outside the curtains,** shall not descend if they ascended. From this one can infer: **And if there, where** the blood was spilled, **if he comes to sprinkle** it **he cannot sprinkle** it, as there is no blood with which to do so, and **you said** that **if they ascended** the altar **they shall not descend,** then **here,** where the blood is intact such **that if he comes to sprinkle** it **he sprinkles** it, which renders the sacrificial portions permitted for sacrifice upon the altar, is it **not all the more so** that if they ascended they shall not descend?


###### Zevachim 85a:6
[Zevachim 85a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/85a:6)

תַּרְגְּמַהּ אַקׇּדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the inference of Rabbi Zeira: **Interpret** the mishna as referring specifically **to offerings of the most sacred order,** whose sacrificial portions are sanctified for the sake of the altar before their blood is presented. Therefore, such sacrificial portions are considered fit for the altar and shall not descend if they ascended. It may be that the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity are entirely unfit for the altar before the presentation of their blood.


###### Zevachim 85a:7
[Zevachim 85a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/85a:7)

הֲרֵי פֶּסַח – דְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים הוּא! תַּרְגְּמַהּ בְּשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: But there is **a Paschal offering, which is an offering of lesser sanctity,** and it is mentioned in the same list of items that shall not descend if they ascended. The Gemara explains: **Interpret** the case of a Paschal offering as referring **to** where it was slaughtered **not for its sake,** but not to where its blood was spilled or emerged outside the curtains.


###### Zevachim 85a:8
[Zevachim 85a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/85a:8)

תְּנַן: וְכוּלָּן שֶׁעָלוּ חַיִּין לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ – יֵרְדוּ. הָא שְׁחוּטִין – לֹא יֵרְדוּ; מַאי, לָאו לָא שְׁנָא קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לָא שְׁנָא קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna: **And all of them that** if they ascend they do not descend, if **they ascended to** the top of **the altar alive, they descend. But** it may be inferred from here that **slaughtered** animals **shall not descend,** even if their blood was not presented. **What, is it not** that this inference applies to all offerings, and the *halakha* **is not different** with regard to **offerings of the most sacred order, and it is not different** with regard to **offerings of lesser sanctity?**


###### Zevachim 85a:9
[Zevachim 85a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/85a:9)

לָא; הָא שְׁחוּטִין – מֵהֶן יֵרְדוּ מֵהֶן לֹא יֵרְדוּ. וְהָא ״כּוּלָּן״ קָתָנֵי! ״כּוּלָּם״ אַחַיִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** it is possible to infer as follows: **But** with regard to **slaughtered** animals, some **of them shall descend** and some **of them shall not descend.** The Gemara challenges: **But** the mishna **teaches** that **all of them** shall descend if they ascended alive, in which case it must be inferred with regard to all of them that if they were slaughtered they shall not descend. The Gemara explains: When the mishna states: **All of them** shall descend, it is referring only **to** animals that ascended upon the altar while still **alive,** in order to emphasize that all fit animals that ascended while still alive shall descend and are not slaughtered atop the altar. The mishna did not intend to teach the *halakha* with regard to all slaughtered animals.


###### Zevachim 85a:10
[Zevachim 85a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/85a:10)

פְּשִׁיטָא! לְעוֹלָם אַחַיִּין – וּבְדוּקִּין שֶׁבָּעַיִן; וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, דְּאָמַר: אִם עָלוּ לֹא יֵרְדוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it **obvious** that live animals that ascended upon the altar shall descend? The Gemara answers: **Actually,** the mishna intends to teach the *halakha* **with regard to living** animals **but** is referring specifically **to** animals blemished on **the cornea of the eye, and** it is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Akiva, who says** that in the case of such a small blemish, **if they ascended** the altar **they shall not descend.** The phrase: All of them shall descend, teaches that even Rabbi Akiva agrees that such animals that ascended while still alive shall descend.


###### Zevachim 85a:11
[Zevachim 85a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/85a:11)

בְּמַאי אוֹקֵימְתַּהּ – בִּפְסוּלִין? אֵימָא סֵיפָא: וְכֵן עוֹלָה שֶׁעָלְתָה חַיָּה לְרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – תֵּרֵד, שְׁחָטָהּ בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ – יַפְשִׁיט וִינַתֵּחַ בִּמְקוֹמָהּ. וְאִי פְּסוּלָה – בַּת הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִתּוּחַ הִיא?! ״וְנִתַּח אוֹתָהּ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, ״אוֹתָהּ״ – כְּשֵׁרָה וְלָא פְּסוּלָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **To what** case **did you interpret** this *halakha* in the mishna to be referring? You interpreted it as referring **to disqualified** offerings. **Say the latter clause: And likewise, a burnt offering that ascended to the top of the altar alive shall descend.** But if **one slaughtered** the animal **at the top of the altar, he should flay** it **and cut** it **into pieces in its place,** and it is not removed from the altar. **And if** the mishna is referring to **a disqualified** offering one must ask: Is a disqualified offering **fit for flaying and cutting? The Merciful One states:** “And he shall flay the burnt offering, **and cut it** into its pieces” (Leviticus 1:6), and the word **“it”** indicates an exclusion: Only **fit** offerings are flayed and cut, **and not** those that are **disqualified.**


###### Zevachim 85a:12
[Zevachim 85a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/85a:12)

סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לִכְשֵׁרָה. וּמַאי קָמַשְׁמַע לַן? דְּיֵשׁ הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִתּוּחַ בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In **the latter clause we come to** refer to **a fit** offering. The Gemara asks: **And what does** this **teach us?** The Gemara answers: It teaches **that there is flaying and cutting at the top of the altar,** and it is not considered degrading to the altar.


###### Zevachim 85a:13
[Zevachim 85a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/85a:13)

וּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר אֵין הֶפְשֵׁט וְנִתּוּחַ בְּרֹאשׁ הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן – כְּגוֹן שֶׁהָיְתָה לוֹ שְׁעַת הַכּוֹשֶׁר וְנִפְסְלָה; וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּזְרַק הַדָּם וְהוּרְצָה בָּשָׂר שָׁעָה אַחַת – יַפְשִׁיטֶנָּה, וְעוֹרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But according to the one who says** that **there is no flaying and cutting at the top of the altar, what can be said?** The Gemara answers: According to that opinion, **what are we dealing with here?** We are dealing with a case **where** the animal that ascended while still alive **had a time of fitness,** during which it was slaughtered atop the altar and its blood was presented, **and** thereafter it **became disqualified. And** the last clause of the mishna **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Since the blood was sprinkled,** thereby **effecting acceptance of the flesh** of the offering for **a moment,** even if the offering then became disqualified, **he shall flay it and its hide** is given **to the priests,** and its flesh is burned.


###### Zevachim 85a:14
[Zevachim 85a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/85a:14)

וְאֶלָּא דְּקָתָנֵי: כֵּיצַד עוֹשֶׂה – מוֹרִיד אֶת הַקְּרָבַיִם לְמַטָּה וּמַדִּיחָן; לְמָה לִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** if the mishna is referring to an offering that became disqualified, then with regard to **that which is taught** in a *baraita* concerning the mishna: **What shall** he **do** with such an offering? He **takes the innards down** from the altar, placing them **below** it, **and** thereafter **rinses them, why do I** need to do so? Since the innards of a disqualified offering may not be returned to the altar once they have been removed from it, why should they be removed from the altar?


###### Zevachim 85a:15
[Zevachim 85a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/85a:15)

הֵיכִי נַעֲבֵיד? נַקְרְבִינְהוּ בְּפִרְתַּיְיהוּ?! ״הַקְרִיבֵהוּ נָא לְפֶחָתֶךָ הֲיִרְצְךָ אוֹ הֲיִשָּׂא פָנֶיךָ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: Rather, **what should we do? Should we offer them with their dung?** Doesn’t the verse state: **“Present it now to your governor; will he be pleased with you? Or will he accept your person?”** (Malachi 1:8), and isn’t it derived from this verse that items considered repulsive to people are not fit for use as an offering for the Most High?


###### Zevachim 85a:16
[Zevachim 85a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/85a:16)

אֲנַן הָכִי קָאָמְרִינַן: מַדִּיחָן לְמָה לִי? דְּאִי מִיתְרְמֵי כֹּהֵן אַחֲרִינָא וְלָא יָדַע – נַסְּקִינְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara clarifies: **This is what we are saying:** Since one removes the innards of a disqualified offering from atop the altar and they may not be returned, **why do I** need to **rinse them?** The Gemara answers: The concern is **that if another priest chances** upon these innards **and does not know** that they are disqualified for the altar, **he will sacrifice them** upon the altar with their dung.