The mishnah on yesterday’s daf declared that anything which is “fitting for the altar,” even if it’s been disqualified for sacrifice, is not removed from the altar once placed upon it. On today’s daf, another mishnah provides several examples of these disqualified sacrifices that are not removed once placed on the altar: sacrifices slaughtered with improper intent (piggul), or that are rendered impure, or whose blood was collected by an unfit priest, and more. Then it presents a few cases which are a point of contention:
Rabbi Yehuda says: One that was slaughtered at night, or one whose blood was spilled, or one whose blood emerged outside the curtains: Even if it ascended (upon the altar) it shall descend.
Rabbi Shimon says: It shall not descend, because its disqualification occurred in sanctity. As Rabbi Shimon says: Any (unfit offering) whose disqualification occurred in sanctity, the sacred area renders it acceptable. Those whose disqualification did not occur in sanctity, the sacred area does not render them acceptable.
Rabbi Yehuda believes that in three cases — an animal slaughtered at night instead of during the day; one whose blood was spilled rather than collected in a vessel; and one whose blood was taken outside the Temple courtyard — even if they were subsequently mistakenly placed upon the altar, they should be removed. Rabbi Shimon counters that any sacrifice whose disqualification occurred in sanctity — that is, in the Temple environs — is not removed from the altar. Only offerings disqualified prior to entering the Temple are removed.
The Gemara then brings a beraita presenting the derivation of these rulings:
Rabbi Yehuda says: “This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering on the pyre upon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2). These three terms of exclusion used in the verse: “This,” “it,” and “the,” indicate three exclusions: (A sacrificial animal) slaughtered at night, and one whose blood was spilled, and one whose blood emerged outside the curtains. If one of them ascended (upon the altar) it shall descend.
One classic technique of talmudic exegesis is miut (exclusion) and ribui (expansion), in which certain terms are viewed as either limiting or expanding the application of the law in a given verse. Rabbi Yehuda notes that there are three narrowing terms in the verse: this, it, and the. These must correspond to three exceptions to the law that burnt offerings are left upon the altar. This is the basis for the ruling he gave in the mishnah, that in the three listed cases of disqualified sacrifices, even if they’re put upon the altar they should be removed.
Rabbi Shimon has his own derivation:
Rabbi Shimon says: From the term “burnt offering” I have derived only a fit burnt offering shall not descend. From where does it include one that was slaughtered at night, or whose blood was spilled, or whose blood emerged outside the curtains, 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?… 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 they shall not descend.
While Rabbi Yehuda believes Leviticus 6:2 implies several exclusions, Rabbi Shimon believes it should be read inclusively. In Hebrew, the burnt offering is haolah, which literally translates as “that which ascends.” Rabbi Shimon thus reads this verse to include all other offerings that ascend upon the altar. In none of those cases should the offering be removed.
However, even Rabbi Shimon has limitations:
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.”
Rabbi Shimon agrees that the verse has one term limiting its application. While the verse’s reference to a burnt (ascended) offering includes all things offered on the altar, the term “this” preceding it excludes the cases above, where the animal was disqualified not in the course of service but prior to even entering the Temple courtyard. In such cases, since such an animal wasn’t suited for sacrifice even before the sacrificial process began, it doesn’t qualify as something “fitting for the altar,” and therefore, even if such an animal were placed on the altar, everyone agrees it would be removed.
Read all of Zevachim 84 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on December 7, 2025. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
