Chapter Nine of Tractate Zevachim opens a new topic, which continues to some extent the end of the previous chapter: what is the law regarding something that is not supposed to go up on the altar, but actually did go up - do we take it down? At the end of Chapter Eight, we learned that the Tzitz effects acceptance and validates the offerings when dealing with blood that was offered in a state of tumah or by an offerer who was tamei; here we will deal with other invalidations, aside from that.
The verse from which the rule is derived:
The Torah states in the book of Shemos: "Vehayah hamizbeiach kodesh kodashim, kol hanogea bamizbeiach yikdash" - The altar itself is holy with supreme holiness, and whatever touches it also becomes holy. From here comes the foundational principle that things which went up on the altar, even if they should not have gone up, become sanctified with the holiness of the altar and become the 'bread of the altar', meaning fitting for the altar, and therefore once they have gone up - they are not taken down.
"Hamizbeiach mekadesh es hara'ui lo":
The Mishnah continues the verse in the Oral Torah, and opens with a sentence that frames the entire chapter: "Hamizbeiach mekadesh es hara'ui lo" - The altar sanctifies what is fitting for it. Two words in this sentence are not self-evident, and both are the subjects of the entire chapter:
"Hara'ui" - What is the meaning of being fitting for the altar? About what thing is it said that it is fitting? This is the main focus of the following Mishnayos.
"Lo" - For it in its entirety or for a part of it? That is, does it mean the entire altar, or specifically a certain part of it? The Mishnah before us focuses on this question.
We have two possibilities before us:
It refers specifically to things that belong to the altar fires, meaning the fire on top of the altar.
It refers to anything that went up on the altar, anywhere on it. For example: the libations, the wine libations, do not go up on the fire but are poured into the bowls on the altar; and similarly the blood, which does not go up on the fire but is placed on the walls of the altar or on its corners.
The derivation from the verse in Vayikra:
The verse is the starting point for all directions. It says in Vayikra (Chapter 6, Verse 2): "Tzav es Aharon ve'es banav leimor, zos toras ha'olah, hi ha'olah al mokdah al hamizbeiach kol halaylah ad haboker, ve'eish hamizbeiach tukad bo" - Command Aharon and his sons, saying: This is the law of the burnt offering: It is the burnt offering that stays on the flame on the altar all night until the morning, and the fire of the altar shall be kept burning on it. "Mokdah" means the fire and the flame, and "hamizbeiach" is the stone altar itself. The simple meaning of the verse is that the olah, which was offered during the day - the limbs, the fats, and the sacrificial parts - can burn on the altar all night until the morning.
However, the two words "hi ha'olah" are seemingly superfluous, since it already said "zos toras ha'olah", and these words are available for derivation. "Ha'olah" also means something that went up, similar to the expression "oleh laTorah" (going up to the Torah), and the word "hi" means as it is. From here comes the rule: once the thing has gone up on the altar - "ha'olah" - then "hi", it shall remain as it is, "al mokdah al hamizbeiach".
But what is the parameter of this law? Does it refer specifically to things that go up on the fire of the altar, like the olah offering itself, or to anything that went up on the altar in any way - such as the libations and the blood - that once it went up it is not taken down? This is a dispute among the Tannaim.
The Dispute Between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel:
Rabbi Yehoshua: "Kol hara'ui la'ishim, im alah lo yeired" - Anything fit for the fires, if it ascended, it shall not descend. This refers to things fit to go up on the fire, similar to the word "flame" in the verse. His proof is: "shene'emar: hi ha'olah al mokdah al hamizbe'ach" - As it is stated: "It is the elevation-offering on the flame on the Altar". Just as an elevation-offering, which is fit for the fires, does not descend once it has ascended, even if it became disqualified through a technicality (for example, it contracted tumah), so too anything fit for the fires, such as sacrificial portions that were disqualified by a technicality, if it ascended, it does not descend.
Rabban Gamliel: "Kol hara'ui lamizbe'ach, im alah lo yeired" - Anything fit for the Altar, if it ascended, it shall not descend. This refers to anything fit to go up on the Altar in any form, not necessarily on the fire. He derives this from the exact same words, but focuses on the words "on the Altar" rather than "on the flame": Just as an elevation-offering, which is fit for the Altar, does not descend once it has ascended, even if a technical disqualification occurred, so too anything fit for the Altar, if it ascended, it does not descend.
What is "Fit"?
The rule is as follows: Things that were initially fit to be sanctified are considered "fit," and if they ascended, they remain above, even if they were subsequently disqualified by a technicality. In contrast, things that were never fit to be sanctified to begin with are not considered "fit," and even if they ascended, they must be taken down. Both Tanna'im agree on this principle, and their dispute is only regarding the scope of the law.
An animal that was fit but incurred a technical disqualification - for example, a sin-offering whose service was performed not for its own sake, or whose blood was taken out of the Courtyard: The offering is disqualified, but it was fit to ascend, and therefore, if it ascended, it remains in its place.
An animal that never had the potential to be sanctified - for example, an animal that was separated and designated for idolatry, or that was worshipped as an idol: It is not fit, and even if it ascended, it must descend.
The Practical Difference Between the Opinions:
The Mishnah explains: "Ein bein divrei Rabban Gamliel ledivrei Rabbi Yehoshua ela hadam vehanesachim" - There is no difference between the words of Rabban Gamliel and the words of Rabbi Yehoshua except regarding the blood and the libations. This refers to the blood and the wine libations that ascended the Altar. Rabban Gamliel says they do not descend, while Rabbi Yehoshua says they do descend. (The Gemara adds a third difference regarding a fistful of a meal-offering that was not subsequently sanctified in a service vessel, but we will not get into that here.)
We must picture the scenario precisely: We are talking about wine sitting in a vessel waiting to be poured as a libation, and someone placed the vessel on top of the Altar. Now we are told that the wine is disqualified, as it contracted tumah or something similar - do we take it down? Rabban Gamliel says no, because once it has ascended it does not descend, since it is fit for the Altar. Rabbi Yehoshua says yes, because it is not fit for the fires, and therefore it must be taken down.
No one would suggest that if the blood was already sprinkled on the Altar, or the wine was already poured into the basins on the Altar, and it later became known that it was tamei, one should bring a towel and wipe the liquid off the surface of the Altar. That is not the question at all. The question is regarding a vessel resting on top of the Altar: Do we remove it before its contents are poured or placed upon the Altar?
The Opinion of Rabbi Shimon - A Middle Ground:
Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai takes a third position, which stands in the middle. To understand his words, we must first preface that there are two categories of libations:
Obligatory libations: The standard path - libations that are attached to a specific sacrifice, since every elevation-offering and peace-offering must be accompanied by a wine libation.
Voluntary libations: A person can volunteer to bring an independent wine libation, without any connection to an elevation-offering or peace-offering. Just as a person can say: This year my goats are excellent, I am giving one of them to God as an elevation-offering - so too he can say: This year's wine harvest is excellent, I am giving some of it to the Altar as an independent libation.
Based on a derivation from another verse, Rabbi Shimon holds as follows: regarding libations that accompany a sacrifice, which are the standard type, he agrees with Rabbi Yehoshua that even if they were brought up onto the altar, they must be taken down; however, regarding an independent freewill libation, he agrees with Rabban Gamliel that once it has been brought up, it is not taken down.
In the words of the Mishnah: "Hazevach kasher vehanesachim pesulin, hanesachim kesherin vehazevach pasul, va'afilu zeh vazeh pesulin - hazevach lo yered vehanesachim yeredu" - if the sacrifice is valid and the libations are invalid, or the libations are valid and the sacrifice is invalid, or even if both are invalid, the sacrifice does not go down but the libations go down. This means: Whether the sacrifice is valid and the wine libation became invalid (because it left the Courtyard or became impure), whether the libations are valid and the sacrifice they accompany became invalid, or whether both are invalid - the sacrifice that was placed on the altar is never taken down from the fire, in accordance with the opinion of all, and the libations are taken down in any case, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua.
Rabbi Shimon does not state the law of the freewill libation explicitly here, but this is his approach: For a freewill libation that is not connected to a specific sacrifice, even if it became impure and should not have been brought up, once the vessel has been brought up, its contents are poured onto the altar and it is not taken down. The basis for this view is a derivation from an additional verse, which will not be explained here.
In summary: The halachah follows Rabbi Yehoshua. The libations and the blood are always taken down, since they are not fit for the altar fires. In contrast, animal sacrifices that were invalidated by a technical disqualification, but came from something that was fit to be sanctified originally and only had an improper act performed upon them - once they are placed on the altar they become the "bread of the altar," the altar sanctifies them, and they remain in their place. However, things that had nothing fit to be sanctified originally, such as an animal that was set aside for idolatry or an animal that mated with a human and the like, even if they were placed on the fire - they are taken down and removed.
The following Mishnayos will discuss the definition of "fit": which things were fit to be sanctified originally and therefore are not taken down, and which things were not fit for this at all.