let this not be less than slaughtering without and offering up [the limbs without (1) ]. R. Hiyya b. Abin raised an objection: One who slaughters a bird within and offers it up without is not culpable; if he slaughtered [it] without and offered it up without, he is culpable. Yet let us say: Let it not be less than slaughtering and offering up without? — That is a refutation. Alternatively, The slaughtering of a bird within is mere killing. (2) ‘Ulla said: If the emurim of lesser sacrifices are laid [on the altar] before their blood is sprinkled, they do not descend, [because] they have become the food of the altar. R. Zera observed, We too learnt [likewise]: THAT... WHOSE BLOOD WAS SPILT OR WHOSE BLOOD PASSED WITHOUT THE HANGINGS: If you say there that if [the limbs or emurim] ascended they do not descend, though if he [the priest] should come to sprinkle, he has nothing to sprinkle; (3) how much more so here, seeing that if he comes to sprinkle, he has what to sprinkle! — [No:] relate this to a most sacred sacrifice. (4) But there is the Passover-offering, which is a lesser sacrifice? (5) — Relate this to [where it is slaughtered] under a different designation. (6) We learnt: AND ALL OF THESE, IF THEY ASCENDED THE ALTAR WHILST ALIVE, MUST DESCEND. Hence [if they ascended] when slaughtered, they do not descend: surely that is so whether they are most sacred sacrifices or lesser sacrifices? — No: [deduce thus:] but if they are slaughtered, some of these must descend, (7) and some do not descend. But he teaches, AND ALL OF THESE. — That refers to whilst alive. That is obvious? (8) — In truth it refers to living animals which have a cataract in the eye, this being in accordance with R. Akiba who maintained that if these ascend they do not descend. (9) How have you explained it? As referring to unfit [animals]! Then consider the final clause: IF A BURNT-OFFERING WENT UP ALIVE TO THE TOP OF THE ALTAR, IT MUST DESCEND. IF ONE SLAUGHTERED IT ON THE TOP OF THE ALTAR, HE MUST FLAY IT AND DISMEMBER IT WHERE IT LIES. But if it is unfit, can it be flayed and dismembered? Surely the Divine Law said: And he shall cut it into pieces, (10) ‘it’ [implies] a fit; but not an unfit [animal]? — The final clause refers to a fit [sacrifice]; and what does he [the Tanna] inform us? (11) that flaying and dismembering can be done on top of the altar. Then on the view that flaying and dismembering cannot be done on top of the altar, what can be said?— The case we discuss here is, e.g., where it had a period of fitness and then became disqualified, (12) this agreeing with R. Eleazar son of R. Simeon who maintained: Since the blood was sprinkled and the flesh had become acceptable (13) even for a single hour, he must flay it, and its skin belongs to the priests. (14) If so, when it was taught: ‘What does he do? (15) He takes down the inwards and washes them’, why should he do so? (16) — What then should we do? Offer [i.e. burn] them with their dung? ‘Present it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee? or will he accept thy person?’ (17) This is our difficulty: why must he wash them? (18) — So that if another priest chances upon them and does not know, (19) he will take them up.

---

(1). ↑ Where one is culpable for each act separately.
(2). ↑ Not ritual slaughtering (shechitah), since it requires melikah (v. Glos.). For that reason he is not culpable. But when he slaughters an animal sacrifice at night, it does count as shechitah (since hullin may be slaughtered at night).
(3). ↑ Since the blood is spilt.
(4). ↑ The Mishnah may refer to most sacred sacrifices only, whose emurim are intrinsically holy even before the blood is sprinkled. Possibly, however, the same does not apply to lesser sacrifices, whose emurim are sacred only in virtue of the sprinkling of the blood.
(5). ↑ The Mishnah enumerates this too, and it is now assumed that this law applies even where its blood is spilt.
(6). ↑ As the Mishnah actually states. It does not apply, however, to the present instance.
(7). ↑ Sc. lesser sacrifices.
(8). ↑ Obviously they cannot remain there but must be brought down and slaughtered, and then they will be taken up again. If then this is not taught for the sake of the inference (viz., that all of these, if slaughtered, do not descend), it is altogether superfluous.
(9). ↑ V. supra 77b. The Mishnah thus informs us that they must descend, and even if subsequently slaughtered they may not re-ascend.
(10). ↑ Lev. I, 6.
(11). ↑ If it is fit, it obviously descends, since it will be taken up again.
(12). ↑ It refers indeed to a fit animal which ascended alive, but after it was slaughtered on top of the altar and its blood was sprinkled, it became disqualified; therefore it must be flayed and dismembered on top of the altar, for if it is taken down it may not be taken up again, since it was disqualified. And as to the objection that an unfit animal cannot be flayed, the answer is that it had a period when it was fit for flaying before it became disqualified.
(13). ↑ This is a technical term denoting that the flesh was now fit for its purpose.
(14). ↑ Even if it became unfit after the sprinkling of the blood. Though the flesh cannot be burnt on the altar but in the place of burning unfit sacrifices, the skin is not burnt with it but belongs to the priests. So here too, when it is on top of the altar it must likewise be flayed and dismembered.
(15). ↑ In this case where an animal ascended the altar whilst alive and it was slaughtered there.
(16). ↑ Seeing that they are unfit. For though these unfit animals must not be taken down, yet if they are, they may not be taken up again.
(17). ↑ Mal. I, 8. This is a protest against offering anything unseemly, and it is most unseemly to offer the inwards uncleaned.
(18). ↑ Since they must be taken down, after which they cannot go up again, let them be left as they are.
(19). ↑ That they are unfit.