you might have thought that one must remove the tendons and bones and lay [only] flesh on the altar; therefore it says, ‘And the priest shall make the whole smoke’. How are these text reconciled? If they are attached, they ascend; if they are severed, even if they are on the top of the altar, they must go down. Which Tanna do you know to maintain that if they were severed, they must go down? It is Rabbi. For it was taught: ‘And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar’: this includes the bones, tendons, horns and hoofs, even if they were severed. How do then I interpret, ‘And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood’? It is to teach you: Burnt pieces [flesh] of the burnt-offering you must replace [on the altar], (1) but you do not replace burnt tendons and bones. Rabbi said: One text states, ‘And the priest shall make the whole smoke on the altar’, thus extending [the law], while another text states, ‘And thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood’, thus limiting [it]. How do you reconcile them? If they are attached, they ascend; if they are severed, even if they are on the top of the altar, they descend. IF THEY ARE SEVERED [FROM THE ANIMAL], THEY DO NOT GO UP, etc. R. Zera said: They learnt this only if they were severed downwards; (2) but [if they were severed] upwards, (3) they come nearer to being burnt. (4) Even if they were severed? (5) — Said Rabbah: This is what he means: They learnt this only if they were severed after sprinkling; (6) but if they were severed before sprinkling, the sprinkling comes and makes them permitted [for general use], even to make from them a knife handle. (7) He holds as R. Johanan said on R. Ishmael's authority: ‘It shall be his’ [the priest's] is said of the burntoffering, and ‘it shall be his’ is said of the guilt-offering: (8) as the bones of a guilt-offering are permitted, for even its flesh is permitted to the priests, so are the bones of a burntoffering permitted. This must be redundant, (9) for if it is not redundant, you can refute [the deduction]: as for a guilt-offering, the reason is because its flesh is permitted. (10) [It is redundant, for] a superfluous ‘it shall be his’ is written. (11) R. Adda b. Ahaba raised an objection: The bones of sacrifices involve trespass (12) before sprinkling, but do not involve trespass after sprinkling; whereas the bones of a burntoffering always involve trespass? (13) — Say: Whereas those of a burnt-offering, if they were severed before sprinkling, involve trespass until the sprinkling; [if they were severed] after sprinkling, they always involve trespass. (14) Now he [Rabbah] disagrees with R. Eleazar. For R. Eleazar said: If they were severed before sprinkling, they involve trespass; after sprinkling, one must not use them, (15) but they do not involve trespass. (16) MISHNAH. AND IF ANY OF THESE (17) SPRANG OFF FROM THE ALTAR (18) THEY ARE NOT REPLACED. SIMILARLY, IF A COAL SPRANG OFF FROM THE ALTAR, IT IS NOT REPLACED. LIMBS THAT SPRANG OFF FROM THE ALTAR: IF BEFORE MIDNIGHT, MUST BE REPLACED, AND INVOLVE TRESPASS; AFTER MIDNIGHT, THEY ARE NOT REPLACED AND DO NOT INVOLVE TRESPASS. JUST AS THE ALTAR SANCTIFIES WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR IT, SO DOES THE ASCENT SANCTIFY WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR IT; (19) AND JUST AS THE ALTAR AND THE ASCENT SANCTIFY WHATEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR THEM, SO DO VESSELS SANCTIFY. (20) GEMARA. How is it meant? If they have substance, (21) then even after midnight too [let them be returned]; while if they have no substance, even before midnight too [they need] not [be returned]? — This holds good only

---

(1). ↑ If they sprang off.
(2). ↑ Away from the burning pile. Then they do not go up, and if they did, they are removed. — They were placed on the altar, of course, whilst attached to the flesh.
(3). ↑ Springing nearer to the centre of the pile.
(4). ↑ They are not removed. — This passage is thus apparently based on the Mishnah . Tosaf. however points out that the Mishnah discusses whether they are to be placed on the altar at all, whereas this assumes that it was already there. Accordingly Tosaf. explains that it refers to the Baraitha just quoted, where the first Tanna maintains that the bones, etc. are included even if they are severed.
(5). ↑ The meaning of this is doubtful, and Rashi assumes that there is a lacuna in the text. If the text is correct, the meaning would be: do you say that even if they were severed (upwards) they remain on the altar; surely the Mishnah teaches that only when attached do they ascend? Sh. M. quotes a variant reading: It was stated above: this includes the bones, etc. even if they were severed. Said Rabbah: They learnt this only, etc.
(6). ↑ Then they must descend, nevertheless they are still regarded as sacred, and must be so treated.
(7). ↑ I.e., they have no sanctity at all.
(8). ↑ Lev. VII, 7f.
(9). ↑ Lit., ‘free’, ‘disengaged.’ The form of exegesis just used, based on the fact that the same words are used of both, is called a gezerah shawah, and in such the word used as a basis of deduction must be entirely free for that purpose, being otherwise redundant.
(10). ↑ Hence its bones are too. Whereas the flesh of a burnt-offering must be burnt on the altar, and so its bones too may be forbidden.
(11). ↑ Scripture could write, the skin of the burntoffering... shall be the priest's.
(12). ↑ V. p. 405, n. 8.
(13). ↑ This proves that they are always forbidden.
(14). ↑ Emended text (Sh.M.).
(15). ↑ By Rabbinical law.
(16). ↑ This agrees with R. Ishmael supra. When he quotes ‘it shall be his’ it must mean after sprinkling, for it is the sprinkling that permits the flesh (and so the bones too, on his view) to the priests.
(17). ↑ The unfit and bones, etc. which if laid on the altar must not be removed.
(18). ↑ Through the heat.
(19). ↑ If laid on the ascent, it must not be removed.
(20). ↑ Sc. service-vessels — they sanctify what is placed in them.
(21). ↑ If these limbs are not burnt right through and the flesh is recognizable.