Why the Burnt Offering Is Called Olah, the Highest of All Sacrifices

Another interpretation: Why is its name called "olah" (burnt offering)? Because it is the highest (elyonah) of all the offerings. "It is the olah" (Leviticus 6:2). Know this: when a person brings a sin offering, the priest takes it for himself; and likewise the meal offering; and likewise the guilt offering; and the peace offering goes to its owners. But of the burnt offering no creature tastes anything at all; rather, the whole of it goes up to the Holy One, blessed be He. Therefore it is called "olah," for it rises up (olah) to the Holy One, blessed be He, who is most high (elyon). [It is written in section 36:] The altar sanctifies whatever is fit for it. Rabbi Yehoshua says: Whatever is fit for the fires, if it has gone up, it does not come down, as it is said, "It is the burnt offering on its firewood" (Leviticus 6:2) - what is fit for it, yes; what is not fit for it, no. To exclude what? Rav Pappa said: To exclude the handfuls of meal offering that were not sanctified in a vessel. Ravina objected: How does this differ from the teaching of Ulla, who said that the sacrificial portions of lesser holy offerings that were brought up before the sprinkling of the blood, if they have gone up, do not come down, for they have become the bread of the altar? [The answer:] Those lack no further act in themselves, but these lack something in themselves. [Rabban Gamliel says: Whatever is fit for the altar, if it has gone up, it does not come down.] According to Rabban Gamliel too, is it not written "firewood"? That verse comes to teach about returning the portions that have sprung off the altar. And the other authority derives this from "which the fire consumes upon the altar." And the other replies: You return the consumed remains of a burnt offering, but you do not return the consumed remains of the incense. And the other says: Do we not learn from this very point that we return the consumed remains of a burnt offering? According to Rabbi Yehoshua too, is it not written "altar"? He could tell you: Whatever is fit for the place of burning, the altar sanctifies it. And the other says: A different "altar" is written. And the other says: One refers to a case where it had a moment of fitness, and one to a case where it had no moment of fitness. And the other says: Since they are disqualified and the Merciful One nonetheless included them, there is no difference whether it had a moment of fitness or not. It was taught: Rabbi Shimon says: "Olah" - just as the burnt offering comes on its own account, so all that come on their own account are included; this excludes the libations that come on account of a sacrifice. It was taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: "This is the burnt offering" - these are limiting expressions, and so forth (as written in section 436). And Rabbi Yehuda brings it from here, as it was taught: For what reason did they say that blood left overnight is fit? Because that which was left overnight is fit regarding the sacrificial portions. That which was left overnight regarding the sacrificial portions is fit, because that which was left overnight is fit regarding the flesh. What goes outside is fit, since it would be fit on a private altar. What is impure is fit, since it was permitted in communal service. And that which was slaughtered with intent beyond its proper time and beyond its proper place: beyond its time, since it effects acceptance despite being piggul; beyond its place, since it is linked to beyond-its-time. And that which disqualified persons received and whose blood they sprinkled - this refers to those disqualified persons who are fit for communal service. But do we derive a thing not in its fit state from a thing in its fit state? It was taught: "This is the instruction of the burnt offering" - it included [more] near it.