זבחים פ״ג א:ט״ו-פ״ח ב:ט״ו

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?,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.,§ 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).,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.,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.,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.,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.,§ 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?,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”?,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.,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.,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.,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.,,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.,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.,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.,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.,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. 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.,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.,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.,§ 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.,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.,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.,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.,§ 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.,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.,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.,§ 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.,§ 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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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, even that meal offering shall descend, as it is not similar to lambs. With regard to a meal offering that comes with an animal offering, either a burnt offering or peace offering, according to the statements of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua, it shall not descend, as it is meant for consumpion by the fire. According to the statements of everyone else, i.e., Rabbi Shimon and the tannai’im of the baraita, it shall descend, as it is neither offered by itself nor is it an animal.,Reish Lakish continues: With regard to libations that come by themselves, according to the statements of everyone, i.e., Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Yehoshua, they shall descend, but according to the statements of Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Shimon, they shall not descend. With regard to libations that come with an animal offering, according to the statements of everyone, they shall descend, while according to the statement of Rabban Gamliel alone, they shall not descend.,The Gemara questions the need for such a summary: Isn’t it obvious? The Gemara answers: It was necessary for him to state the halakha in the case of a meal offering that comes by itself, and this is in accordance with the statement of Rava. As Rava says: A person can volunteer to bring a meal offering that normally accompanies libations, on any day, even without offering the libations and animal offering that it normally accompanies. Although the summary is itself obvious, it is nevertheless stated to indicate that it is possible to offer such a meal offering.,The Gemara asks: If the intent of his summary is to express his agreement with the statement of Rava, then let Reish Lakish teach us explicitly that the halakha is in accordance with the statement of Rava. The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the case of libations that come with an animal offering, as the halakha in such a case is that he may sacrifice the libations the next day and on a later [ḥara] day sometime after sacrificing the animal offering that they accompany.,Accordingly, it may enter your mind to say that since the Master says that the verse: “And their meal offering and their libations” (Numbers 29:18), indicates that libations may be offered at night, and the phrase “and their meal offering and their libations” indicates that libations may be offered the next day and on a later day, perhaps libations offered on a later date than the animal itself are to be considered as libations which come by themselves, and Rabbi Shimon would concede that they shall not descend. Reish Lakish therefore teaches us the case of libations that accompany an animal offering, to indicate that such libations are still considered as those that accompany an animal offering and that they shall descend from the altar.,MISHNA: These are the items that even if they were disqualified, if they ascended the altar they shall not descend: Blood, sacrificial portions, or limbs of a burnt offering, any of which were left overnight off the altar, or that emerge from the Temple courtyard, or that become ritually impure, or that came from an animal that was slaughtered with the intent to sacrifice it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, or an offering that people unfit to perform the Temple service collected and then sprinkled its blood.,Rabbi Yehuda says: In the case of a sacrificial animal that was slaughtered at night, or one whose blood was spilled on the floor of the Temple without its being collected in a vessel, or one whose blood emerged outside the curtains, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard: Even if it ascended upon the altar it shall descend. Rabbi Shimon says: In all these cases, if it ascended it shall not descend, because its disqualification occurred in sanctity. As Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to any unfit offering whose disqualification occurred in sanctity, i.e., in the course of the Temple service, the sacred area renders the offering acceptable, and if it ascended onto the altar it shall not descend. But with regard to any offering whose disqualification did not occur in sanctity but rather was unfit initially, the sacred area does not render the offering acceptable.,And these are the offerings whose disqualification did not occur in sanctity: An animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality, and an animal that was set aside for idol worship, and an animal that was worshipped as a deity, and an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, and an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds, and an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], and an animal born by caesarean section, and blemished animals. Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit in the sense that if they ascended they shall not descend. Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: My father would reject blemished animals from upon the altar.,Concerning those animals that, if they ascended, do not descend, just as if they ascended the altar they shall not descend, so too, if they descended they shall not then ascend. And all of them that if they ascend they do not descend, if they ascended to the top of the altar alive they descend, as an animal is fit for the altar only after it is slaughtered. A burnt offering that ascended to the top of the altar alive shall descend, as one does not slaughter an animal atop the altar ab initio. 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.,GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The verse from which is derived the halakha that items that ascended upon the altar shall not descend, states: “This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2). These are three terms of exclusion used in the verse: “This,” “it,” and “the,” from which it is derived that three instances are excluded from this halakha: A sacrificial animal that was slaughtered at night, and one whose blood was spilled, and one whose blood emerged outside the curtains, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard. With regard to these cases, the halakha is that if one of them ascended upon the altar it shall descend.,Rabbi Shimon says: From the usage of the term “burnt offering” I have derived only with regard to a fit burnt offering that it shall not descend. From where is it derived that the verse also includes a sacrificial animal that was disqualified, such as one that was slaughtered at night; or whose blood was spilled; or whose blood emerged outside the curtains, i.e., outside the Temple courtyard; or that was left overnight; or that emerged from the Temple courtyard, or that became ritually impure; or that came from an animal that was slaughtered with the intent to sacrifice it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area; or an offering that people unfit to perform the Temple service collected and then sprinkled its blood?,In addition, from where is it derived that the following are also included in this halakha: Those offerings whose blood is to be placed below the red line that divided between the upper and lower halves of the external altar, i.e., a burnt offering, a guilt offering, or a peace offering, but it was placed above the red line; and a sin offering, whose blood is to be placed above the red line, that had its blood placed below the red line; and those offerings whose blood is to be placed outside, on the external altar, that had their blood placed inside, in the Sanctuary; and those offerings whose blood is to be placed inside that had their blood placed outside?,And in addition, with regard to a Paschal offering or sin offering that were slaughtered not for their sake, from where is it derived that if they ascended upon the altar they shall not descend? The verse states: “The law of the burnt offering,” which included in one law all items that ascend upon the altar, establishing the principle that if they ascended the altar they shall not descend.,One might have thought that I should also include an animal that copulated with a person, and an animal that was the object of bestiality, and an animal that was set aside for idol worship, and an animal that was worshipped as a deity, and an animal that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, and an animal born of a mixture of diverse kinds, and an animal that is a tereifa, and an animal born by caesarean section. Therefore, the verse states: “This,” to exclude these types of disqualifications, which descend even after they have ascended the altar.,The Gemara asks: And what did you see as reason to include those and exclude these? The Gemara answers: After noting that the verse included 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.,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?,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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?,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.”,§ 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, 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.,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?,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.,§ 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.,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?,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.,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.,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?,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.,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.,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.,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.,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.,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?,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?,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. The Gemara asks: And shall we stand and do something for the priests through which they shall come to encounter a stumbling block? Were these innards to remain unwashed, no priest would mistakenly sacrifice them upon the altar. The Gemara answers: Even so, rinsing disqualified innards is preferable, so that the sanctified offerings of Heaven shall not be lying as a carcass.,With regard to the matter discussed by Ulla (85a), Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: In the case of sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up before the sprinkling of their blood, which is the act which sanctifies such portions for the altar, shall they descend or shall they not descend?,Rabbi Ami said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Instead of raising the dilemma of whether or not such portions shall descend, you should raise the dilemma of whether their ascension upon the altar sanctifies them with regard to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: With regard to the misuse of consecrated property I do not raise the dilemma, as certainly the rite of sprinkling and not their ascension to the altar determines their status with regard to the misuse of consecrated property. When Rabbi Yoḥanan raised the dilemma it was with regard to their descent from the altar. And Rabbi Yoḥanan resolved his dilemma and ruled: If they ascended they shall not descend, and they are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak teaches the discussion in this manner: Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: In the case of sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up on the altar before the sprinkling of their blood, are they subject to the halakhot of misuse or not? Rabbi Ami said to him: And you should raise the dilemma with regard to their descent from upon the altar. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: With regard to their descent I do not raise the dilemma, because after these sacrificial portions ascend the altar they become the bread of the altar and shall not descend. When I raise the dilemma it is with regard to the misuse of consecrated property. And Rabbi Yoḥanan resolved his dilemma in this manner: They shall not descend, and they are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.,§ The mishna teaches: And these are the offerings whose disqualification did not occur in sanctity: An animal that copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality…or blemished animals. Such offerings shall descend from the altar if they ascended. Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit in the sense that if they ascended upon the altar they shall not descend.,Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Rabbi Akiva deemed fit only those animals with small blemishes, such as on the cornea of the eye, as such blemishes are fit with regard to bird offerings ab initio. And this is the halakha only when their consecration preceded their blemish, since such an animal was fit for the altar at the time of its consecration. But if their blemish preceded their consecration, they shall descend, as they were never fit for the altar. And Rabbi Akiva concedes with regard to a female burnt offering that it shall descend from the altar. Since only a male animal may be used for a burnt offering, it is like a case where the animal’s blemish preceded its consecration.,The Gemara presents a discussion in which the opinion of Rabbi Akiva is cited: Rabbi Yirmeya raises the dilemma: Is the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality applicable with regard to birds, or is there no disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality with regard to birds? Did the verse say: “When any man of you brings an offering to the Lord, you shall bring your offering of the animals” (Leviticus 1:2), where the term “of” serves to exclude from being brought as offerings both an animal that copulated with a person and an animal that was the object of bestiality, in order to equate the two?,If so, then derive from it that anywhere that there is a disqualification of an animal that copulated with a person there is a disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality, and anywhere that there is no disqualification of an animal that copulated with a person there is no disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality. Consequently, since birds cannot be the active party in an act of bestiality, the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality is also inapplicable to birds. Or perhaps the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality does apply with regard to birds, as nevertheless a sin was committed with it?,Rabba said: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: Rabbi Akiva deems blemished animals fit when the blemish is on the cornea, since such blemishes are fit with regard to bird offerings ab initio. And if it is so that a bird that was the object of bestiality is fit as an offering, then let us also deem fit an animal that was the object of bestiality, since such an offering is fit with regard to birds. From the fact that such animals are not deemed fit, conclude from the mishna that the disqualification of an animal that was the object of bestiality applies to birds as well.,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: We learn in the baraita as well: A bird that was the object of bestiality, or that was set aside for idol worship, or that was worshipped as a deity, or that was given as payment to a prostitute or as the price of a dog, or that was a tumtum or a hermaphrodite, in all of those cases, if its nape was pinched, it renders the garments of one who swallows an olive-bulk from the carcass ritually impure when it is in the throat, as is the halakha with regard to all unslaughtered carcasses of birds. Since the baraita lists a bird that was the object of bestiality among those disqualified offerings, conclude from the baraita that such a bird is in fact disqualified.,§ The mishna teaches: Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, says: My father would reject blemished animals from upon the altar. The Gemara asks: What is Rabbi Ḥanina teaching us? The first tanna already stated that blemished animals shall descend. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that Rabbi Ḥanina teaches us an incident, to express that this halakha was not only stated theoretically but applied practically as well. And if you wish, say instead: What is the meaning of the term: Would reject? It means that he would remove blemished animals from the altar in a backhanded manner, i.e., privately rather than publicly, so as not to disgrace the honor of the altar.,§ The mishna teaches with regard to those disqualified offerings that shall not descend from the altar if they ascended it: Just as if it ascended it does not descend, so too, if it descended it does not then ascend. Ulla says: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where the fire has not yet taken hold of these offerings. But if the fire has taken hold of these offerings, then even if they descended from the altar they shall ascend.,Rav Mari teaches that the statement of Ulla is referring to the first clause, i.e., to this mishna. Rav Ḥanina of Sura teaches that Ulla is referring to the latter clause, i.e., to the next mishna, which states: The bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves of a burnt offering; when they are attached to the flesh of the offering they shall ascend upon the altar and be sacrificed with the offering. If they separated from the flesh of the offering they shall not ascend. With regard to this Ulla says: The Sages taught that if they separated from the flesh they shall not ascend only in a case where the fire has not yet taken hold of them. But if the fire has taken hold of them, then even if they separated from the flesh of the offering they shall ascend.,The Gemara elaborates: According to the one who teaches Ulla’s statement, i.e., if the fire has taken hold of them they still ascend the altar, as referring to the latter clause, which discusses items that are not burned on the altar, all the more so will Ulla’s statement apply to the first clause, which discusses items that are burned on the altar but were disqualified. And according to the one who teaches Ulla’s statement as referring to the first clause, it applies only to those items that were to be burned on the altar but were disqualified. But with regard to the latter clause it does not apply, since the bones, tendons, and other items mentioned there are not subject to burning at all.,MISHNA: And these are the items that if they ascended upon the altar they descend, because they are completely unfit for the altar: The meat of offerings of the most sacred order, i.e., a guilt offering and a sin offering, the meat of which is eaten by priests; and the meat of offerings of lesser sanctity, which is eaten by the owners; and the surplus of the omer meal offering brought on the second day of Passover after the handful was removed and burned on the altar; and the two loaves meal offering brought on the festival of Shavuot; and the shewbread; and the remainder of the meal offerings after the handful was removed, which are all eaten by the priests; and the incense that ascended upon the external altar and not the golden altar where it should be burned.,With regard to the wool that is on the heads of the sheep brought as burnt offerings, and the hair that is in the beard of goats that were sacrificed, and the bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves: When they are attached to the flesh of the offering they shall ascend upon the altar and be sacrificed with the offering, as it is stated: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9). If they separated from the flesh of the offering they shall not ascend, as it is stated: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27), and nothing else.,GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9). The term “the whole” serves to include the bones and the tendons and the horns and the hooves among those items that are sacrificed on the altar. One might have thought that even if they separated from the flesh of the burnt offering they are sacrificed upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27), indicating that only those items and anything attached to them are sacrificed upon the altar.,If one derives the halakha with regard to bones and tendons from the phrase “the flesh and the blood,” then one might have thought that a priest must first remove the tendons and bones from an offering and then sacrifice the flesh upon the altar. Therefore, the verse states: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar,” including the tendons and bones. How can these texts be reconciled? If they were attached to the flesh, they shall ascend. If they separated from the flesh, then even if they are already at the top of the altar, they shall descend.,The Gemara notes: Who is the tanna that you heard that says if they separated they shall descend? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, as it is taught in a baraita: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar” (Leviticus 1:9); the term “the whole” serves to include the bones, and the tendons, and the horns, and the hooves, among those items that are offered on the altar, even if they separated from the flesh of the offering.,But if so, how do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood” (Deuteronomy 12:27), which indicates that only the flesh and blood of an offering ascend upon the altar? This verse is necessary to tell you an additional halakha, that you return the consumed flesh of a burnt offering to the fire if it is dislodged from it, but you do not return the consumed tendons and bones if they are dislodged from the fire.,The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that one verse states: “And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar,” which included tendons and bones, and one verse states: “And you shall offer your burnt offerings, the flesh and the blood,” which excluded any part other than the flesh and the blood. How can these texts be reconciled? If they were attached to the flesh, they shall ascend. If they separated from the flesh, then even if they are already on top of the altar, they shall descend.,§ The mishna teaches that items that are not meant for consumption on the altar, such as the bones and tendons, are sacrificed along with the flesh if they are attached to it. But if they separated they shall not ascend. Rabbi Zeira said: The Sages taught that if they separated from the flesh they shall not ascend only when they separated from the offering downward, i.e., away from the altar, whereby they became distanced from the pyre when they were separated. But if they separated from the offering upward, i.e., they became closer to the pyre when they were separated from the offering, they have become closer to consumption and shall ascend. The Gemara asks: And even if they separated, shall they be offered? Doesn’t the mishna state that they shall ascend only if they are still attached to the flesh?,Rabba said: This is what Rabbi Zeira is saying: It was necessary for the Sages to teach the halakha, that bones or tendons that separated from the flesh of an offering shall not ascend the altar, only where they separated after the sprinkling of its blood, since at the time that the flesh itself became permitted for the altar through the sprinkling, the bones and tendons were still attached to the flesh and therefore fit to be offered with it. But if they separated from an offering before the sprinkling of its blood they shall certainly not ascend, as they were already separated from the flesh when it became permitted for the altar. Instead, the sprinkling comes and permits them for any use, just as the hide of a burnt offering is permitted to the priests upon the sprinkling of its blood. In fact, one may even use such tendons or bones to fashion the handles of knives from them.,The Gemara elaborates: Rabba holds in accordance with that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: It is stated: “He shall have the hide of the burnt offering that he has offered” (Leviticus 7:8), with regard to a burnt offering, and it is stated: “The priest that makes atonement, he shall have it” (Leviticus 7:7), with regard to a guilt offering. The following verbal analogy is derived from here: Just as after the blood of a guilt offering is presented its bones become permitted to the priest for any use, since only the portions intended for consumption on the altar are sacrificed whereas the rest of the animal is given to the priests, so too, with regard to a burnt offering, bones that are not attached to the flesh and therefore are not intended for the altar are permitted.,The Gemara notes: The phrase “He shall have” is free, i.e., superfluous in its context and therefore available for the purpose of establishing a verbal analogy, and there is a principle that such verbal analogies are not refuted. As, if these words were not considered free, the verbal analogy can be refuted by saying: What is notable about a guilt offering? It is notable in that its meat is permitted and its bones are therefore permitted as well, while the flesh of a burnt offering ascends upon the altar in its entirety. If so, halakhot may not be applied to one based on the other. Consequently, the phrase “He shall have” with regard to a burnt offering is considered as having been written superfluously, as it would have sufficed to state: The hide of the burnt offering that he has offered, to the priest.,Rav Adda bar Ahava raises an objection to the explanation of Rabba from a baraita: With regard to the bones of sacrificial animals, specifically sin offerings or guilt offerings, which are offerings of the most sacred order that are intended for consumption, before the sprinkling of their blood, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, similar to the halakha with regard to the flesh of offerings of the most sacred order before their blood is sprinkled.,After the sprinkling of their blood, one who benefits from them is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, as they are not intended for sacrificing upon the altar. But concerning the bones of a burnt offering, one who benefits from them is always liable for misuse of consecrated property. This baraita contradicts the opinion of Rabba, who said that if the bones separated from a burnt offering before the sprinkling of its blood, it is permitted to derive benefit from them.,The Gemara answers: Say that the baraita meant the following: But concerning the bones of a burnt offering, if they separated before the sprinkling of its blood and its blood was then sprinkled, then one who benefits from them is not liable for misuse of consecrated property. If they separated after the sprinkling of its blood, one who benefits from them is always liable for misuse of consecrated property.,And Rabba disagrees with Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: If the bones of a burnt offering separated from its flesh before sprinkling, one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property. If they separated after sprinkling, the Sages decreed that one may not benefit from them ab initio, but if one benefitted from them after the fact, he is not liable for misuse, since by Torah law they were permitted through the sprinkling of the offering’s blood.,MISHNA: And all of those disqualified offerings with regard to which it was taught (84a) that if they ascended they do not descend, in a case where they were dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore them to the altar. And likewise, with regard to an ember that was dislodged from upon the altar, the priest does not restore it to the altar. As for limbs of a fit burnt offering that were dislodged from upon the altar, if they were dislodged before midnight, the priest should restore them to the altar and one is liable for misusing them. But if they were dislodged after midnight, the priest does not restore them and one is not liable for misusing them, as one is not liable for misuse of consecrated property after it has fulfilled the purpose for which it was designated.,With regard to unfit items that if they ascended do not descend, just as the altar sanctifies items that are suited to it, so too, the ramp sanctifies items that are suited to it. Just as the altar and the ramp sanctify items that are suited to them, so too, the service vessels sanctify items that are placed in them.,GEMARA: The mishna teaches that limbs of a fit burnt offering that were dislodged from upon the altar before midnight are returned to the altar, but that if they were dislodged after midnight they are not returned. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If the limbs have substance, i.e., they were not yet consumed in their entirety by the fire, then even if they were dislodged after midnight the priest must return them to the fire. If they do not have substance and have been reduced to ash, then even if they were dislodged before midnight the priest does not return them to the altar. The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary with regard to hardened limbs that were dried by the fire but have not yet been reduced to ash. The mishna teaches that before midnight, such limbs should be returned to the altar. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived that midnight determines whether or not they shall be returned?,Rav says: One verse states: All night and he shall burn the burnt offering, which indicates that there is a mitzva to burn the limbs of a burnt offering all night, as the verse states: “It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar all night until the morning” (Leviticus 6:2). And one verse states: “All night until the morning…and he shall remove the ashes that the fire has consumed of the burnt offering on the altar, and he shall put them beside the altar” (Leviticus 6:2–3), which indicates that one may remove the ashes at any time during the night, including the limbs of a burnt offering that were already hardened by the fire. How can these texts be reconciled?,Rav explains: Divide the night into two parts: Half of the night, i.e., until midnight, is designated for the mitzva of burning, and during this time, that which is dislodged from the altar shall be returned; and half of the night, i.e., after midnight, is designated for removing.,With regard to Rav’s assertion that one may begin to remove the ashes only after midnight, Rav Kahana raises an objection from a mishna (Yoma 20a): Every day the priests would remove the ashes from the altar and place them on the east side of the ramp at the rooster’s crow or close to the time of its crowing, whether before it or after it, as there was no insistence on a precise time. On Yom Kippur they would remove the ashes at midnight. On the Festivals the ashes were removed even earlier, at the end of the first watch. Rav Kahana concludes his objection: And if it enters your mind that the proper time for removing the ashes by Torah law is from midnight, how do we advance the removal of the ashes on the Festivals, and how do we delay their removal the rest of the year?,Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan says: The proper time of the removal of the ashes is based on the following: From the fact that it is stated with regard to the burning of the limbs: “All night” (Leviticus 6:2), don’t I know that he may burn a burnt offering until the morning? If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “Until the morning”? It means: Add another morning to the morning of the night. Arise before dawn, as that is the time for the removal of the ashes. Nevertheless, there is no specific hour fixed for performing this removal, and one may remove the ashes from the beginning of the night.,Therefore, every day, performing the removal at the rooster’s crow is sufficient. On Yom Kippur, due to the weakness of the High Priest, who must perform the entire Temple service on that day, they would hasten to remove the ashes from midnight. On the Festivals, during which there are many offerings on account of the masses of Jewish people in Jerusalem on those days, who, in order to offer their sacrifices, would arrive early at the Temple, they would remove the ashes beginning from the end of the first watch, as the mishna teaches in the latter clause (Yoma 20a): The call of the rooster would not arrive on Festivals until the Temple courtyard was filled with Jews.,§ The Gemara previously explained the mishna as saying that limbs that were hardened by the fire but not entirely consumed are not returned to the altar if they were dislodged from it after midnight, since the mitzva of burning has been performed and the limbs are considered to have been entirely consumed. It was stated that amora’im engage in a dispute concerning the following matter: In the case of limbs that separated from upon the altar before midnight and were returned after midnight, whereby the mitzva of burning was not completed by midnight, Rabba says: The second midnight, i.e., midnight of the following night, renders them consumed, and if they were dislodged from the altar thereafter they are not returned. Rav Ḥisda says: Dawn following the first evening renders them consumed, and if they were dislodged from the altar thereafter they are not returned.,They say in the school of Rav: What is the reasoning of Rav Ḥisda, who says that dawn renders these limbs consumed? It is the following a fortiori inference: And if midnight, which does not cause the disqualification of being left overnight with regard to limbs that were left off the altar until that time, still causes consumption, i.e., limbs burned on the altar until midnight are considered entirely consumed, then certainly with regard to dawn, which causes the disqualification of being left overnight with regard to limbs that were not left off the altar until that time, isn’t it logical that it causes consumption?,These amora’im also dispute the halakha in a case where the limbs separated from the altar before midnight and were returned to the altar after dawn: Rabba says that the second midnight renders them consumed, and if they separated after this time they are not returned. Rav Ḥisda says: Since these limbs were not returned to the altar by dawn, they are never subject to consumption through the passage of time. Rather, they are returned to the altar and allowed to burn until they are reduced to ash. These two disputes between Rabba and Rav Ḥisda indicate that both agree that limbs not on the altar by midnight are not considered consumed.,Rav Yosef objects to this: And who shall say to us that midnight, specifically when the limbs are at the top of the altar, effects for them consumption? Perhaps anywhere that the limbs are found, midnight effects for them consumption. The Gemara notes: They sent from there, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef, i.e., the passing of midnight renders all limbs consumed, regardless of their location at that time.,It was also stated that Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says: In the case of limbs that separated from upon the altar before midnight and were returned to the altar after midnight, one may not benefit from them ab initio, but if one benefited from them after the fact he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, since the mitzva of burning is considered fulfilled after midnight has passed. And bar Kappara also taught: If they separated from upon the altar before midnight and were returned to the altar after midnight, the limbs are removed from being subject to liability for misuse of consecrated property.,Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And since they sent from there that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Yosef that midnight effects consumption even for those items left off the altar, and Rav Ḥiyya bar Abba says this as well, and bar Kappara also teaches that this is the halakha, then with regard to what do Rabba and Rav Ḥisda disagree? Abaye said to him: They disagree with regard to fatty limbs, whose consumption is delayed due to their surrounding fat, and consequently midnight may not effect consumption for these limbs.,§ Rava raises a dilemma before Rabba: Is the disqualification of being left overnight effective in disqualifying limbs that are situated at the top of the altar at dawn but were not placed on the pyre, or is it not effective in disqualifying limbs that are at the top of the altar but were not placed on the pyre? The Gemara clarifies: What are the circumstances? If we say that the limbs have not descended from the altar, then the halakha should be obvious: Now that with regard to limbs that were left overnight in the Temple courtyard, you said in the mishna (84a) that if they ascended upon the altar they shall not descend, then with regard to limbs left on top of the altar, is it necessary to teach that they shall not descend?,But rather, the dilemma is in a case where they were left overnight on top of the altar and descended from it after dawn. Do we compare limbs left overnight on top of the altar to the Table of the shewbread, and they are therefore returned, as we learned in a mishna (Menaḥot 100a): Even if loaves of shewbread, which are supposed to be replaced every Shabbat, remained on the Table many days beyond Shabbat, there is nothing wrong with that, and the loaves are not disqualified by being left overnight. Or perhaps we compare the limbs to flesh left on the ground of the Temple courtyard, which is disqualified when left there until dawn, and they are not returned.,Rabba said to him: There is no disqualification of limbs that are left overnight at the top of the altar. The Gemara asks: Did Rava accept this response from Rabba or not? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from that which was stated: With regard to limbs that were left overnight in the Temple courtyard, the priest may place them upon the altar to burn them all night long provided that they are placed there before dawn. With regard to a limb that was left overnight at the top of the altar, the priest may burn it forever, i.e., no matter how much time has passed.,With regard to limbs that were left overnight on top of the altar and then descended from it, Rabba says that they shall ascend, while Rava says that they shall not ascend. Conclude from it that Rava did not accept the response from Rabba, as he holds here that limbs are disqualified when left overnight on top of the altar. The Gemara confirms: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.,§ The mishna teaches: Just as the altar sanctifies items, so too, the ramp and the service vessels sanctify items. With regard to this halakha, the Sages taught: The verse states: “Whatever touches the altar shall be sacred” (Exodus 29:37). From here I have derived only that the altar sanctifies items. From where is it derived that the ramp sanctifies items as well? The verse states: “And you shall anoint…the altar [et hamizbe’aḥ]” (Exodus 40:10), and the addition of the word et serves to include the ramp. With regard to service vessels, from where is it derived that they sanctify items? The verse states with regard to them: “Whatever touches them shall be sacred” (Exodus 30:29).,Reish Lakish raises a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan: What is the halakha with regard to whether service vessels sanctify disqualified items? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: You learned in the mishna that just as the altar and the ramp sanctify items that are suited to them even if those items are disqualified, so too, the service vessels sanctify items placed in them.,Reish Lakish said to him: The mishna indicates that service vessels sanctify that which is placed in them in the sense that they may no longer be redeemed even if they become disqualified. I raise the dilemma with regard to whether service vessels sanctify disqualified items such that they may be sacrificed ab initio. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: This also we learn in a mishna (84a): An offering that people unfit for performing the Temple service collected and then sprinkled its blood shall not descend from the altar if it ascended. What, is it not that the mishna means that people unfit for performing the Temple service collected the blood and people unfit for performing the Temple service sprinkled it as well, which disqualifies it from ascending the altar? But if the collection alone was performed by people unfit for performing the Temple service, although the offering becomes disqualified, those fit to perform the Temple service may sprinkle the blood and sacrifice the offering ab initio. The reason, apparently, is that service vessels sanctify disqualified blood such that it may be sprinkled ab initio.,Reish Lakish rejects this proof: No, the mishna may be referring to two independent cases, i.e., that people unfit for performing the Temple service collected the blood, or that people unfit for performing the Temple service sprinkled the blood after it was collected by people who were fit for performing the Temple service. Accordingly, the mishna teaches only that if such offerings ascended the altar they shall not descend after the fact, but service vessels do not sanctify disqualified items such that they are offered ab initio.,§ The Gemara raises a dilemma: Is the airspace above the altar considered as the altar itself, whereby items that enter this airspace shall not descend from the altar, or is it not considered like the altar? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear the mishna, which states: Just as the altar sanctifies items, so too, the ramp sanctifies items, and if they ascended upon it they shall be sacrificed upon the altar and shall not descend.,And if you say that the airspace above the altar is not considered as the altar itself, then the airspace above the ramp as well should not be considered as the ramp. If so, how can one elevate the disqualified limbs of an offering from the ramp to the altar? The moment one elevates a limb from upon the ramp, it is considered to have descended from the ramp, and all disqualified items that descended shall not be returned.,The Gemara responds: The mishna is referring to a case where the priest drags the offering up the ramp, but it never enters its airspace. The Gemara challenges: But even if he drags it up the ramp, he must still lift it, as there is a space between the ramp and the altar. The Gemara responds: Since this gap is small, only a minority of the limb of an offering will be located over the gap as it passes from the ramp to the altar. Therefore, when a majority of the limb is on the ramp, the minority situated above the gap is considered as if it is on the ramp. Once a majority of the limb is on the altar, the minority situated above the gap is considered as if it is on the altar.,The Gemara asks: If so, resolve from this mishna the dilemma that was raised by Rami bar Ḥama: Is there a connection of limbs that ascend upon the altar, i.e., is an offering considered a unit such that even those parts that do not ascend the altar shall be considered as if they are upon it, or is there not, and each part is considered independent? Based on the previous answer, resolve the dilemma by saying that there is a connection of limbs. The Gemara responds: This is not difficult, as one may indeed resolve Rami bar Ḥama’s dilemma from here.,Rava bar Rav Ḥanan objects to the assumption that the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar itself: But if you say that the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar itself, then with regard to a bird burnt offering that one disqualified by having the intention to burn it beyond its designated time, i.e., the day after it was pinched, how can you find the circumstances for such a disqualification to take effect?,One’s intent to burn an offering beyond its designated time disqualifies it only when he intended to burn it during a time that he may not do so. Since a bird burnt offering is pinched in the airspace above the altar, the altar has already accepted it. Therefore, even if one delayed burning it until the next day, it does not descend from the altar, like all other offerings that are disqualified by being left overnight.,Rav Shimi bar Ashi objects to the objection raised by Rava bar Rav Ḥanan: Why is it not possible for a bird burnt offering to be disqualified through the intention to burn it beyond its designated time? You find it in a case where he says: I am hereby pinching it in order to take it down from the altar tomorrow and thereafter sacrifice it and burn it. If he takes it down from the altar the next day, he may not subsequently return it there for burning, as all disqualified items that have descended from the altar shall not be returned to it. Accordingly, even if the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar itself, a bird burnt offering can still be disqualified with such intention.,The Gemara questions the objection of Rav Shimi bar Ashi: This works out well according to the opinion of Rava, who says that the disqualification of being left overnight is effective even when the offering is at the top of the altar. Accordingly, if he were to take the bird burnt offering down from the altar the next day, he may not restore it to the altar for burning. But this is difficult according to the opinion of Rabba, who says: The disqualification of being left overnight is not effective when the offering is at the top of the altar, and therefore even if the next day he removed the bird burnt offering from the altar, he must return it there to burn it, as it has not been disqualified. If so, his intention is not significant, i.e., he does not disqualify a bird burnt offering with such intention.,Rav Shimi bar Ashi responds: According to the opinion of Rabba as well, you find a case of a bird burnt offering that is disqualified due to one’s intention, such as where he says: I am hereby pinching it in order to take it down from the altar before dawn and to then sacrifice it after dawn. In such a case, where the offering is removed from the altar before dawn, even Rabba would agree that one’s intention renders a bird burnt offering disqualified by being left overnight.,Rav Shimi bar Ashi adds: Irrespective of the validity of the proof of Rava bar Rav Ḥanan, in any event, resolve the issue to this side, i.e., in favor of the claim that the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar itself. As if it enters your mind that the airspace above the altar is not considered as the altar, then with regard to the case of a disqualified bird sin offering that was pinched at the top of the altar, how does one sprinkle from its blood on the wall of the altar? When the priest raises the bird in his hand in order to sprinkle its blood, the bird is considered to have descended from upon the altar and he cannot sprinkle its blood, as the halakha with regard to all disqualified items is that once they have descended from upon the altar they shall not ascend. Likewise, concerning the blood of other offerings that were disqualified that ascended upon the altar, how does he sprinkle from their blood, since it is sprinkled from the airspace above the altar? Rather, it must be that the airspace above the altar is considered as the altar.,The Gemara rejects this proof: It is possible that in such cases one does not sprinkle the blood in its normal fashion, but in such a manner that he presses it against the wall of the altar immediately without the blood passing through the air. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Is this considered sprinkling? It is squeezing, an act that is performed for a bird burnt offering, not for a bird sin offering. Likewise, if one sprinkles the blood of other disqualified offerings in this manner, is this sprinkling? It is pouring.,And furthermore, with regard to a disqualified bird burnt offering, is the manner of sprinkling in such a fashion? And in the case of other disqualified offerings, is the manner of sprinkling in such a fashion? It is not. Rather, the airspace above the altar must be considered as the altar.,Rav Ashi said: If the question concerns a case where the priest held the blood or limbs while standing at the top of the altar, they would indeed be considered as having ascended the altar, and shall not descend from it. But when the dilemma was stated with regard to the airspace above the altar, it was with regard to an instance where he suspended them with a pole above the altar, while he himself stood on the floor of the Temple courtyard. What is the halakha in such a case? The Gemara responds that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.,MISHNA: The mishna elaborates on the halakha taught in the previous mishna (86a) that service vessels sanctify items placed in them. The service vessels used for liquids sanctify only liquids used in the service, and the service vessels that serve as dry measures sanctify only dry items used in the service. The service vessels used for liquids do not sanctify dry items, and the service vessels used for dry items do not sanctify liquids. With regard to sacred vessels that were perforated, if one continues to utilize them for a use similar to the use for which they would utilize them previously when they were whole, they continue to sanctify their contents. And if not, they do not sanctify their contents. And all of these vessels sanctify items only when they are in the sacred area, i.e., the Temple courtyard.,GEMARA: With regard to the statement of the mishna that the vessels used for liquids do not sanctify dry items, Shmuel says: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to measures used for liquids, i.e., wine or oil. But cups, which are used for collecting the blood of offerings, sanctify dry items as well, as it is stated in the verse: “One silver cup of seventy shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary; both of them full of fine flour mingled with oil for a meal offering” (Numbers 7:13), indicating that the cups were also fashioned for use with flour, a dry item.,Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: The meal offering of the verse is also considered a liquid, as it is mixed with oil, and one cannot derive from it the halakha with regard to items that are entirely dry. Ravina said to him: The verse cited by Shmuel was only necessary to derive the halakha of the dry portions of a meal offering, teaching that even flour that remained dry because it did not get thoroughly mixed with the oil is sanctified by the cups as well. If you wish, say instead: A meal offering, even though it is mixed with oil, is, in comparison to blood, considered as a dry item. Accordingly, one can derive from the verse that the cups sanctify all dry items.,Additionally, Shmuel says: Service vessels sanctify items only when the vessels are whole, i.e., they do not have a hole; they sanctify only full measures, i.e., when they contain a measurement fit for offering; and they sanctify items only from within them and not items that merely touched their exterior. And some say there is another version of the statement of Shmuel: Service vessels sanctify items only when the vessels are whole, and when they contain full measures, and from inside.,The Gemara asks: What is the difference between these two versions? The Gemara responds: The difference between them is with regard to heaping measures. According to the first version, that service vessels sanctify only items that are within them, nothing that overflows is included. The Gemara notes that it was taught in a baraita in accordance with both versions: Service vessels sanctify items only when they are whole, and only full measurements, and from within them, and inside.,With regard to the halakha that service vessels sanctify only full measurements, Rabbi Asi says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: They taught this halakha only when the priest’s initial intention was not to add to that which was already placed inside the vessel. But if his initial intention was to add, then each initial amount placed in the vessel becomes sacred, no matter how small.,This distinction is also taught in a baraita: With regard to the halakha that service vessels sanctify full measurements, full measurements are nothing other than whole measurements. Rabbi Yosei said: When are full measurements whole ones? It is at a time that the priest’s intention was not to add. But if his intention was to add, each initial amount is sacred.,§ The mishna teaches that the service vessels used for liquids do not sanctify dry items. With regard to this halakha, Rav says, and some say that Rav Asi says: The service vessels used for liquids do not sanctify dry items to permit them for sacrifice upon the altar, but they sanctify dry items in order for the items to be disqualified by them, i.e., dry items placed in such vessels may be disqualified by that which disqualifies only sanctified items, e.g., if they are touched by one who immersed that day, or if they emerged from the Temple courtyard.,There are those who teach this statement with regard to this halakha: One may not bring meal offerings, or libations, or meal offerings accompanying an animal, or first fruits, from a mixture containing teruma, since that which may not be consumed by all Jews may not be used for an offering. And needless to say, one may not bring these items from the fruit of a tree that is orla, i.e., a tree during the first three years after its planting, from which it is prohibited to eat, or from diverse kinds sown in a vineyard, both of which are prohibited for consumption to priests as well. And if he brought an offering from them, it is not sanctified. With regard to this issue, Rav says, and some say that Rav Asi says: It is not sanctified for sacrifice upon the altar, but it is sanctified in order to be disqualified.,§ With regard to perforated vessels, the Sages taught: In the case of sacred vessels that were perforated, one may not melt them in order to seal the perforation, and one may not melt lead into them for such a purpose. If the vessels were damaged, one may not repair them. Concerning a knife that was damaged, one may not sharpen the spot of its damage. If the blade separated from the handle, one may not restore it. Abba Shaul says: There was a certain knife in the Temple whose metal was soft and easily damaged, such that when used it would often render animals prohibited, thereby disqualifying them. Accordingly, the priests voted concerning it, and elected to hide it.,The Sages taught: Priestly vestments are not fashioned by needlework, i.e., by stitching various parts together, but rather through woven work, whereby the entire garment is initially woven into one entity, as it is stated: “Woven work” (Exodus 28:32). If the garments were soiled one may not launder them, neither with natron nor with soap, two common detergents.,The Gemara asks: But may it be inferred from this that with water one may launder the priestly vestments? Abaye said: This is what the baraita is saying: If the dirtied garments have only reached the point where laundering them with water alone would suffice, one may launder them with natron and soap, as they are not considered soiled. But if the garments became so dirty that they reached a point that laundering them would require the use of natron or soap, then one may not launder them, even with water. And some say: One may not launder the priestly vestments at all, even if laundering them with water would suffice, because there is no poverty in a place of wealth, i.e., only priestly vestments that were clean as new should be worn, as is befitting the Temple service, and those that were laundered should not be worn.,§ With regard to the priestly vestments, the Sages taught in a baraita: The robe of the High Priest was sewn entirely of sky-blue wool, as it is stated: “And he made the robe of the ephod of woven work, all of sky-blue wool” (Exodus 39:22). With regard to its skirts, concerning which it states: “And they made upon the skirts of the robe pomegranates of sky blue, and purple, and scarlet, twined” (Exodus 39:24), how were they fashioned? The tailor brings sky-blue wool, and purple wool, and scarlet wool, which are twined together, and fashions them to appear as pomegranates that have not opened their mouths, i.e., they are sewn in the appearance of pomegranates that are not yet ripe enough for the crown on top to open, and as the cones [konaot] of the helmets [kenasot] that are found on the heads of children.,And in order to fulfill that which is stated: “And they made bells of pure gold, and put the bells between the pomegranates” (Exodus 39:25), he brings seventy-two bells, i.e., the outer part of bells, made from gold, that contain inside them seventy-two bell clappers, and he suspends them on the skirts: Thirty-six of each, i.e., pomegranates and bells, on this side of the robe, and thirty-six of each on that side, as the verse states: “A bell and a pomegranate, a bell and a pomegranate, upon the skirts of the robe around it” (Exodus 39:26). Rabbi Dosa says in the name of Rabbi Yehuda: There were thirty-six bells suspended around the skirt, eighteen from this side and eighteen from that side.,Rabbi Inini bar Sason says: Just as there is a disagreement here between tanna’im with regard to the total number of bells suspended around the skirt of the robe of the High Priest, so is there a disagreement between tanna’im with regard to the total number of shades of leprous marks. As we learned in a mishna (Nega’im 1:4): With regard to the total number of shades of leprous marks, Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas says: There are thirty-six, while Akavya ben Mahalalel says: There are seventy-two.,§ The Gemara cites another statement of this sage: And Rabbi Inini bar Sason says: Why was the passage in the Torah that discusses offerings (Leviticus, chapters 1–7) juxtaposed to the passage that discusses the priestly vestments (Leviticus, chapter 8)? It was juxtaposed to tell you that just as offerings effect atonement, so too, priestly vestments effect atonement.,The tunic atones for bloodshed, as it is stated with regard to the brothers of Joseph after they plotted to kill him: “And they killed a goat, and dipped the tunic in the blood” (Genesis 37:31). The trousers atone for forbidden sexual relations, as it is stated with regard to fashioning the priestly vestments: “And you shall make them linen trousers to cover the flesh of their nakedness” (Exodus 28:42). The mitre atones for the arrogant. From where is this derived? Rabbi Ḥanina says: It is logical that an item that is placed at an elevation, i.e., on the head of a priest, shall come and atone for the sin of an elevated heart.,Rabbi Inini bar Sason continues: The belt atones for thought of the heart. The Gemara elaborates: The belt atones for the sins occurring where it is situated, i.e., over the heart. The breastplate of the High Priest atones for improper judgments, as it is stated: “And you shall make a breastplate of judgment” (Exodus 28:15). The ephod of the High Priest atones for idol worship, as it is stated: “And without ephod or teraphim” (Hosea 3:4), meaning that when there is no ephod, the sin of teraphim, i.e., idol worship, is found. Therefore, it may be inferred that if there is an ephod, there is no sin of idol worship.,The robe of the High Priest atones for malicious speech. From where is this known? Rabbi Ḥanina says: It is logical that an item that produces sound, i.e., the robe, which has bells, shall come and atone for an evil sound. And the frontplate of the High Priest atones for brazenness. This is derived from the fact that with regard to the frontplate it is written: “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead” (Exodus 28:38), and with regard to brazenness it is written: “And you had a harlot’s forehead” (Jeremiah 3:3).,The Gemara asks: Is that so, that the priestly vestments atone for these sins? But doesn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: There are two matters that we do not find for them an atonement with offerings, but we find for them an atonement from another place, and they are: Bloodshed and malicious speech.,With regard to bloodshed, its atonement comes from the heifer whose neck is broken. This is referring to a case where a murdered body is found but the identity of the murderer is not known. In such an instance, the Torah mandates that the neck of a heifer must be broken as an atonement for the murder. And with regard to malicious speech, its atonement comes from incense, as Rav Ḥananya teaches in a baraita: From where is it derived that the incense effects atonement? As it is stated after the Israelites spoke slanderously against Moses and Aaron and a plague was sent against them: “And he put on the incense, and made atonement for the people” (Numbers 17:12).,The Gemara continues: And similarly, the school of Rabbi Yishmael teaches: For what does incense effect atonement? It effects atonement for malicious speech, in order that an item that is offered in private, i.e., the incense, which is offered by a priest acting alone, shall come and atone for an action generally occurring in private, i.e., malicious speech.,Accordingly, there is a difficulty between that which is stated with regard to malicious speech and that which is stated with regard to malicious speech, as according to Rabbi Inini bar Sason the robe atones for malicious speech, whereas according to the baraita it is only the incense that effects atonement for that transgression. Likewise, there is a difficulty between that which is stated with regard to bloodshed and that which is stated with regard to bloodshed, as according to Rabbi Inini bar Sason the tunic effects atonement for bloodshed, whereas according to the baraita only the heifer whose neck is broken effects atonement for it.,The Gemara answers: With regard to bloodshed, it is not difficult, as this, the tunic, effects atonement for bloodshed in an instance where it is known who killed the victim, and this, the heifer, effects atonement in an instance where it is not known who killed the victim. The Gemara challenges: If it is known who killed the victim, that man is deserving of death, and there is no atonement for the community otherwise, as it is stated: “And no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed within it, but by the blood of him that shed it” (Numbers 35:33). The Gemara responds: It is referring to a case where he murdered intentionally but witnesses did not forewarn him of the consequences of committing murder. Therefore, the court may not execute him, as no earthly punishment may be administered without forewarning.,And with regard to the contradiction between that which is stated with regard to malicious speech and that which is stated with regard to malicious speech, it is also not difficult. This, the incense, effects atonement for malicious speech spoken in private, whereas this, the robe, on which the bells that produce noise are placed, effects atonement for malicious speech spoken in public.