GEMARA. Only what is ELIGIBLE FOR IT, but not what is not eligible for it; what does this exclude? (1) — Said R. Papa: It excludes ‘fistfuls’ (2) which were not sanctified in a [service] vessel. (3) To this Rabina demurred: How does this differ from ‘Ulla's [ruling]? For ‘Ulla said: If the emurim of lesser sacrifices were laid [on the altar] before the sprinkling of their blood, they are not removed, [because] they have become the food of the altar! (4) — The latter do not themselves lack a rite, while the former themselves lack a rite. (5) R. JOSHUA SAID: WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE ALTAR FIRE, etc. And R. Gamaliel too? Surely it is written, the burnt-offering upon its firewood? — That comes to teach that [limbs] which spring off [from the altar] must be replaced. (6) And the other; (7) how does he know that the [limbs] which spring off must be replaced? — He deduces it from whereto the fire hath consumed. (8) And the other? (9) — That is required [for teaching]: What was consumed as a burnt-offering you must replace, but you do not replace what was consumed as incense [ketoreth]. For R. Hanina b. Minyomi the son of R. Eliezer b. Jacob recited: [And he shall take up the ashes] whereto the fire hath consumed the burnt-offering on the altar: what was consumed as a burnt-offering you replace, but you do not replace what was consumed as incense. And the other? (10) — Do you then not learn automatically that we replace what was consumed as a burntoffering? (11) R. GAMALIEL SAID: WHAT IS ELIGIBLE, etc. And R. Joshua too: surely upon the altar is written? — He requires that [as follows]: What does the Divine Law say? Whatever is eligible for its firewood, the altar sanctifies. (12) And the other? (13) — Another ‘altar’ is written. (14) And the other? (15) — One [is required] where it had a period of fitness, (16) while the other [text] is required where it had no period of fitness. (17) And the other? (18) — Since they are [now] unfit and the Divine Law included them, (19) there is no difference whether they had a period of fitness or did not have a period of fitness. R. SIMEON SAID: IF THE SACRIFICE IS FIT, etc. It was taught, R. Simeon said: [Scripture speaks of] a burnt-offering: as a burnt-offering comes on its own account, so all which come on their own account [are included]: (20) [hence] libations which come on account of a sacrifice are excluded. R. Jose the Galilean said: From the text, ‘Whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy’, I understand whether it is eligible [for the altar] or not eligible. Therefore Scripture states: [Now this is what thou shalt offer upon the altar: two] lambs: (21) as lambs are eligible [for the altar], so whatever is eligible [is included]. R. Akiba said: [Scripture states,] burnt-offering: (22) as a burnt-offering is eligible [for the altar], so whatever is eligible [is included]. Wherein do they differ? — Said R. Adda b. Ahabah: They differ about a disqualified burnt-offering of a bird: one master deduces [the law] from ‘burntoffering’, (23) while the other master deduces it from ‘lambs’. (24) Now, as to the one who deduces it from ‘lambs’, surely ‘burntoffering’ [too] is written? — If ‘lambs’ were written while ‘burnt-offering’ were not written, I would think [that the law applies] even [if they became disqualified] while yet alive: (25) therefore the Divine Law wrote ‘burnt-offering’. (26) And as to the one who deduces it from ‘burnt-offering’, surely ‘lambs’ is written? — If ‘burnt-offering’ were written while ‘lambs’ were not written, I would think [that the law applies] even [to] a meal-offering. (27) Therefore the Divine Law wrote ‘lambs’. Wherein do these Tannaim and the Tannaim of our Mishnah differ? — Said R. Papa: They differ in respect of fistfuls which were sanctified in a [service] vessel. (28) According to our Tannaim, they do not descend; (29) while according to the other Tannaim they descend. (30) Resh Lakish said: With regard to a meal-offering which comes by itself, (31) all (32) of them hold that it does not descend; but according to R. Jose the Galilean and R. Akiba

---

(1). ↑ On which both R. Joshua and R. Gamaliel will agree.
(2). ↑ Taken from meal-offerings; v. Lev. II, 2.
(3). ↑ These are not considered eligible at all, and even if laid on the altar they must be removed.
(4). ↑ Now, the fistfuls of a meal-offering correspond to the emurim of animal sacrifices; and the former are sanctified for the altar by being placed in a service vessel, while the latter are likewise sanctified by the sprinkling of the blood. Hence the same law should apply to both.
(5). ↑ Nothing more was to be done to the emurim themselves, and only the blood still required sprinkling. Whereas the fistfuls themselves should first have been placed in a service vessel.
(6). ↑ Because ‘upon its firewood’ implies that whatever has already become as firewood and is feeding the flames of the altar must remain as a burnt-offering; so that if anything springs off it must be put back.
(7). ↑ R. Joshua.
(8). ↑ Lev. VI, 3. That is superfluous, as it is obvious that the ashes are the result of the fire. Hence it is interpreted as intimating that whatever once fed the fire belongs to the altar, even if it jumped off.
(9). ↑ R. Gamaliel; how does he utilize that text?
(10). ↑ R. Joshua; how does he know this?
(11). ↑ If the text teaches that you must replace whatever sprang off, that obviously includes what was consumed as a burnt-offering. And at the same time, since the whole passage treats of the burnt-offering only, you cannot make it refer to incense.
(12). ↑ I.e., ‘upon the altar’ does not extend the law, as R. Gamaliel maintains, but intimates why whatever is eligible for the altar-fire must be replaced, viz., because the altar sanctified it.
(13). ↑ Where does he find the reason?
(14). ↑ Ex. XXIX, 37: Whatsoever toucheth the altar shall be holy.
(15). ↑ R. Joshua: what need is there of two texts?
(16). ↑ Before it became unfit, e.g., if it was kept overnight, taken out of bounds, or defiled.
(17). ↑ E.g., if it was slaughtered with an illegitimate intention.
(18). ↑ R. Gamaliel: whence does he know this?
(19). ↑ In the law that they must remain on the altar if laid thereon.
(20). ↑ In the law that if laid on the altar they must remain there.
(21). ↑ Ex. XXIX, 38. This immediately follows the text quoted.
(22). ↑ Ibid. 42. Rashi says that it is written in the present verse (38). In fact, it is absent in the M.T. in this verse, but found in the Samaritan Text; v. Sanh. (Sonc. ed.) p. 34a
(23). ↑ Hence it includes a burnt-offering of a bird too.
(24). ↑ Hence only animal sacrifices are included, but not a burnt-offering of a bird.
(25). ↑ E.g., if it had a cataract on the eye.
(26). ↑ Intimating that this law applies only from the time that it was fit to ascend as a burnt-offering (in Heb. ‘ascend’ — the altar — and ‘burnt-offering’ are the same word viz., ‘olah). Yet the law still applies to animal sacrifices only.
(27). ↑ By interpreting ‘olah that which ascends (v. preceding note), and so including everything that ascends the altar.
(28). ↑ But were subsequently disqualified.
(29). ↑ For they infer the law from ‘its firewood’ and ‘on the altar’ and these fulfill the conditions implied in these words, as they feed the fire and are brought on the altar.
(30). ↑ As they cannot be included in ‘lambs’ or ‘burnt-offering’.
(31). ↑ It does not accompany an animal sacrifice.
(32). ↑ I.e., all except those whom he specifies. Similarly the other cases.