זבחים פד ע"ב

הכתוב ומיעט, וצריך אני להכריע, מה לרבות ומה למעט, מרבה אני את כל אלו שהיה פסולן בקדש במקדש, תוך כדי עבודה, שאם עלו לא ירדו, ומוציא (ממעט) אני את אלו שלא היה פסולן בקודש, שאם עלו ירדו.

ור' יהודה, שאינו דורש כר' שמעון להכשיר כל שפסולו בקודש, ומכל מקום מסכים לדברי המשנה בענין הלן והטמא וכו', מייתי [מביא] לה הסבר לשיטתו מהכא [מכאן], כפי ששנינו בברייתא, מפני מה אמרו: לן בדם (דם שנפסל בלינה) שהוא כשר כלומר, שאם עלה למזבח לא ירד —

שהרי לן כשר באימורין, ומפני מה אמרו שלן באימורין כשר — שהרי לן כשר בבשר, שבשר שלמים מותר באכילה לכתחילה ליום ולילה ויום, ואין לינת הלילה פוסלתו.

מפני מה אמרו שיוצא חוץ לעזרה כשר, שאם עלה לא ירד — לפי שהיוצא כשר בבמה (בזמן שהיא מותרת) שהרי כל עיקרה של העבודה בבמה הוא בחוץ.

ומפני מה אמרו שטמא אם עלה לא ירד — הואיל והותר הטמא לעבודת ציבור, שאם הציבור או הכהנים טמאים, הותרה עבודת הציבור בטומאה.

הנשחט במחשבת חוץ לזמנו אם עלה לא ירד — הואיל והוא מרצה על כל פנים לענין פיגולו, שהרי רק אם נעשית עבודת הקרבן כראוי, חל עליו דין פיגול.

הנשחט במחשבת חוץ למקומו אם עלה לא ירד — הואיל ואיתקש [והוקש] בכתוב לנשחט במחשבת חוץ לזמנו.

ומה שאמרו על קרבן שקבלו פסולין וזרקו את דמו שאם עלה לא ירד — מדובר בהנך פסולי דחזו [באותם פסולים שראויים] לעבודת ציבור, כגון כהן טמא.

ושואלים על הסברים אלו: וכי דנין דבר שלא בהכשרו כלומר, להכשיר דבר שעושה שלא כראוי מדבר שבהכשרו שכשר כך לכתחילה?

ומשיבים: התנא על מה שהכתוב "זאת תורת העלה" (ויקרא ו, ב) שריבה בה הכתוב את כל הפסולים שלא ירדו סמיך ליה [סומך עליה], ולא הובאו נימוקים אלה אלא כדי להסביר מדוע לדעת ר' יהודה, אין ממעטים גם אותם "מזאת" "היא" ו"העולה".

א ובענין בהמה שנשחטה בלילה, שלדעת ר' יהודה, גם אם עלתה — תרד, אמר ר' יוחנן: השוחט בהמה בלילה בפנים במקדש, וחזר והעלה אותה להקריבה בחוץ לעזרה — חייב על העלאה זו, ככל המקריב בחוץ.

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,