for fuel. (1) But there is the residue which is to be eaten, whereas we have this little more on whose account no fistful was taken? (2) — He redeems it. (3) Where does he redeem it? If within [the Temple court], then he brings hullin into the Temple court? (4) If without, it becomes unfit through having gone out? (5) — In truth, [he redeems it] within, but it is hullin automatically. (6) Yet surely R. Simeon said: You cannot bring oil as a votive offering? — The repair of a man is different. (7) R. Rehumi sat before Rabina, and stated in the name of R. Huna b. Tahlifa: Yet let him declare: (8) Let this guilt-offering be a suspensive guilt-offering? (9) You may infer from this (10) that the Tanna who disagrees with R. Eliezer and maintains that you cannot bring a suspensive guilt-offering votively is R. Simeon. Said he [Rabina] to him [R. Rehumi] Torah! Torah! (11) You have confused lambs with rams! (12) MISHNAH. IF THE LIMBS OF A SINOFFERING WERE MIXED UP WITH THOSE OF A BURNT-OFFERING, R. ELIEZER SAID: HE MUST PLACE [THEM ALL] ON THE TOP [OF THE ALTAR], AND (11) REGARD THE FLESH OF THE SIN-OFFERING ON TOP AS THOUGH IT WERE WOOD. (13) BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: THEY MUST BECOME DISFIGURED, AND THEN GO OUT TO THE PLACE OF BURNING. (14) GEMARA. What is R. Eliezer's reason? — Scripture saith, But they shall not come up for a sweet savor on the altar: (15) ‘for a sweet savor’ you may not take it up [on the altar], but you may take it up as wood. And the Rabbis? (16) — The Divine Law expressed a limitation [in the word] ‘them’: ‘them’ you may not bring up [for a sweet savor] but only as wood; but not anything else. (17) And R. Eliezer? — Only [in respect of] ‘them’ have I included the ascent, making it like the altar, but not [in respect of] anything else. (18) And the Rabbis? (19) — You may infer both things from it. (20) Our Mishnah does not agree with the following Tanna. For it was taught: R. Judah said: R. Eliezer and the Sages had no controversy about the limbs of a sin-offering which were mixed up with the limbs of a burnt-offering, [both agreeing] that they must be offered up; [if mixed up] with the limbs of a roba’ or a nirba’, (21) [both agree] that they must not be offered. Wherein do they differ? About the limbs of an unblemished burntoffering which were mixed up with the limbs of a blemished [one]: there R. Eliezer maintains [that] they must be offered up [on the altar], and I regard the flesh of the blemished animal on top as mere wood; while the Sages say: They must not be offered up. Now [according to] R. Eliezer, why are roba’ and nirba’ different: [presumably] because they are not eligible? A blemished animal too is not eligible?

---

(1). ↑ These things which may not be taken up on the altar for ritual burning may be taken up as fuel.
(2). ↑ It may be a votive offering, of which a fistful must be taken for the altar, and only in virtue thereof is the rest permitted. Here he added a little after the fistful was taken, and so it was not permitted thereby. As it is mixed up with the rest, all is forbidden.
(3). ↑ He declares: ‘If he was not a leper, and this log is a votive offering, let the additional oil’ (which was not necessary for a votive offering) ‘be redeemed by this money.’
(4). ↑ As soon as he redeems it, it is hullin, and in the Temple court, whereas hullin may not be brought into the Temple court.
(5). ↑ The whole log, for it ranks as most holy, which becomes unfit when taken without.
(6). ↑ He does not actually bring hullin into the Temple court.
(7). ↑ It is permitted here, as there is no other way out.
(8). ↑ If he was not a leper.
(9). ↑ To atone for a sin doubtfully committed. For R. Eliezer holds that such can be offered voluntarily, since every man stands in doubt whether he has sinned or not. This is preferable to declaring it a peace-offering, as the former too may only be eaten one day, and so we would not reduce the time permitted for consumption, (10) Since R. Simeon does not adopt this expedient.
(11). ↑ Where is your learning?
(12). ↑ A leper's guilt-offering must be a year old lamb, whereas a suspensive guilt-offering must be a two year old ram.
(13). ↑ It cannot be ritually burnt, but it can be regarded merely as fuel.
(14). ↑ They must be kept until they no longer look like flesh and then be taken out and burnt where all unfit flesh is burnt. But they cannot be regarded and treated simply as fuel.
(15). ↑ Lev. II, 22. As stated supra 76b, this means that no sacrifice may be ritually burnt (haktarah) on the altar after a portion thereof has already been so burnt.
(16). ↑ How do they rebut this?
(17). ↑ The two verses (ibid. 11, 12) read: No mealoffering, which ye shall bring unto the Lord, shall be made with leaven; for all leaven and all honey, ye shall not make smoke of it as an offering made by fire unto the Lord (lit. translation). As an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them unto the Lord; but they shall not come up for a sweet savor on the altar. Now, as stated supra 76b, the first verse is interpreted to mean that the ritual burning on the altar of anything whose haktarah was already done is forbidden, This is learnt from the apparently superfluous ‘of it’, and is made to include sacrifices in general, and not particularly honey or leavened bread. The second verse nevertheless teaches that they can be burnt simply as fuel. The Rabbis hold that ‘them’ in the second verse is a limitation: only those things enumerated in the preceding verse, viz., honey and leavened bread may not come up ‘for a sweet savor’ yet may come up as fuel; other things, however, which may not come up (as deduced from ‘of it’), may not come up at all.
(18). ↑ From the words, but they may not come up... to (lit. translation, not on as E.V.) the altar it is inferred that they may not even be placed on the ascent. R. Eliezer holds that ‘them’ teaches that only leavened bread and honey are so forbidden, but nothing else.
(19). ↑ Whence do they know this?
(20). ↑ The limitation of ‘them’ applies to everything that is implied in that verse; hence, as it teaches that things other than honey or leavened bread may not be brought up even as fuel, so it also teaches that they are not included in the interdict of the ascent.
(21). ↑ V. supra 71a.