Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
It is forbidden to offer any sacrificial item outside the Azara. This prohibition applies both to valid offerings and to offerings that became invalid in the kodesh—meaning either after they were brought into the Azara or after they were slaughtered. A braita derives the various valid and invalid items for which one is liable if offered outside the Azara from derashot on the verses in Vayikra 19:8–9.
The Mishna rules that if one offers outside the Temple an olive‑bulk composed of a combination of meat and imurim (the fatty portions burned on the altar) of a burnt offering, one is liable. This implies that in the case of a peace offering, the two would not combine, since the meat is designated for consumption while the imurim are designated for burning. Although this inference is supported by Tosefta Meila 1:15, the Tosefta appears to contradict a Mishna in Meila 15b. The Tosefta states that in a burnt offering, the meat and imurim combine for pigul, notar, and impurity, whereas the Mishna states that they combine for pigul and notar in all types of offerings, not only burnt offerings.
The Gemara resolves these contradictions by explaining that the terms pigul and notar refer to different cases in each source. The distinction regarding pigul is between (1) eating pigul and (2) having a pigul thought concerning eating or burning the combined olive‑bulk. The distinction regarding notar is between (1) eating leftover meat and imurim after their designated time and (2) a case where parts of an animal (a combined olive‑bulk of meat and imurim) remained from an animal that had been lost before the blood was sprinkled. Since in a peace offering the meat and imurim are destined for different places – human consumption and the altar – they cannot combine in situations where the law depends on their being in the same place (such as pigul thought or leftover parts from before the sprinkling of the blood). However, they can combine in a case involving the eating of disqualified parts. This interpretation of the Tosefta aligns with the view of Rabbi Yehoshua, who discusses a case in which only an olive‑bulk of the animal remains before the sprinkling of the blood.
Items that are entirely burned on the altar – such as the kometz, frankincense, the mincha of the priests, and similar offerings – also incur liability if offered outside. However, there is a dispute between the rabbis and Rabbi Elazar regarding whether liability applies for offering merely an olive‑bulk or only when the entire item is burned outside.
A braita is then cited concerning the requisite amounts for liability when offering a incense outside and for burning incense inside. Initially, a question is raised about the incense and the meaning of the braita. After Rabbi Zeira resolves the question, he raises a further difficulty based on a statement of Rav regarding Rabbi Elazar’s opinion about the required amount for liability when offering incense outside the Temple. Rava and Abaye each propose solutions, but both are ultimately rejected.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Zevachim 109
מַתְנִי׳ אֶחָד קֳדָשִׁים כְּשֵׁרִין וְאֶחָד קָדָשִׁים פְּסוּלִין, שֶׁהָיָה פְּסוּלָן בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ וְהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.
MISHNA: With regard to both fit sacrificial animals, and unfit sacrificial animals whose disqualification occurred in sanctity, i.e., in the course of the Temple service, and one sacrificed them outside the Temple courtyard, he is liable.
הַמַּעֲלֶה כְּזַיִת מִן הָעוֹלָה וּמִן הָאֵימוּרִין בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.
One who offers up outside the courtyard an olive-bulk made up of the flesh of a burnt offering and of its sacrificial portions is liable.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲשֶׁר יַעֲלֶה עֹלָה אוֹ זָבַח״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹלָה; מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת אֵימוּרֵי אָשָׁם, וְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת, וְאֵימוּרֵי קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וְאֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֶבַח״.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to offering up outside the courtyard: “That offers up a burnt offering or sacrifice, and he will not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to sacrifice it to the Lord” (Leviticus 17:8–9). From the term “burnt offering” I have derived only that one is liable for offering up a burnt offering, which is burned entirely on the altar. From where do I derive to include that one is liable for offering up outside the courtyard the sacrificial portions of a guilt offering, the sacrificial portions of a sin offering, the sacrificial portions of offerings of the most sacred order, or the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity? The verse states: “Sacrifice,” which includes the sacrificial portions of all other offerings that are to be burned on the altar.
מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת הַקּוֹמֶץ, וְהַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהַקְּטוֹרֶת, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין יַיִן, וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין מַיִם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא יְבִיאֶנּוּ״ – כׇּל הַבָּא לְפֶתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו בַּחוּץ.
From where is it derived to include that one is liable for offering up outside the courtyard the handful taken from a meal offering; the frankincense that was to be offered with it; the incense, which was offered each day in the Sanctuary; the meal offering of priests; the meal offering of the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, which he offered daily; and to include as liable one who pours as a libation three log of wine, which is the volume of the smallest wine libation used in the Temple; or one who pours as a libation three log of water that was consecrated to be used as a libation during the festival of Sukkot? The verse states: “And he will not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:9), which indicates that with regard to any offering that is fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to be offered there upon the altar, one is liable for offering it up outside the courtyard.
וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא קֳדָשִׁים כְּשֵׁרִים; מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת פְּסוּלִין?
I have derived only that one is liable for offering up fit offerings; from where do I derive to also include liability for unfit offerings whose disqualification occurred in sanctity?
כְּגוֹן הַלָּן, וְהַיּוֹצֵא, וְהַטָּמֵא, וְשֶׁנִּשְׁחַט חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, וְשֶׁקִּבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ אֶת דָּמוֹ, וְהַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַטָּה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַעְלָה, וְהַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַטָּה, וְהַנִּיתָּנִין בַּחוּץ שֶׁנְּתָנָן בִּפְנִים, וְהַנִּיתָּנִין בִּפְנִים שֶׁנְּתָנָן בַּחוּץ, וּפֶסַח וְחַטָּאת שֶׁנְּתָנָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן –
For example: Sacrificial meat that was left overnight, or an offering that went outside the courtyard, or an offering that is impure, or an offering that was slaughtered with intent to consume it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, or an offering that an unfit person collected and sprinkled its blood, or if one placed the blood that is to be placed above the red line encircling the altar below it, or if one placed the blood that is to be placed below the red line above it, or if one placed the blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary outside on the external altar, or if one placed the blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary inside it, or a Paschal offering or sin offering whose blood was placed not for their sake?
מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא יְבִיאֶנּוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת״ – כׇּל הַמִּתְקַבֵּל בְּפֶתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו בַּחוּץ.
Since the disqualification of these offerings occurred in sanctity, if they were to be, albeit unlawfully, placed upon the altar, the altar would render them acceptable such that they should not be removed from upon it. From where is it derived to also include liability for these unfit offerings? The verse states: “And he will not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to sacrifice it to the Lord,” which indicates that with regard to any item that is rendered acceptable upon the altar at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, even if it should not have been brought there ab initio, one is liable for offering it up outside the courtyard.
הַמַּעֲלֶה כְּזַיִת מִן הָעוֹלָה כּוּ׳. עוֹלָה וְאֵימוּרֶיהָ – אִין, שְׁלָמִים וְאֵימוּרֵיהֶן – לָא;
§ The mishna teaches: One who offers up outside the courtyard an olive-bulk made up of the flesh of a burnt offering and of its sacrificial portions is liable. The Gemara infers: The mishna states that for an olive-bulk combined of the flesh of a burnt offering and of its sacrificial portions, yes, one is liable. By inference, for an olive-bulk combined of the meat of a peace offering and of its sacrificial portions, one is not liable, because its meat is eaten, not burned on the altar.
תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: עוֹלָה וְאֵימוּרֶיהָ מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת – לְהַעֲלוֹתָן בַּחוּץ, וּלְחַיֵּיב עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא.
We learn in the mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita (Tosefta, Me’ila 1:28): The flesh of a burnt offering and its sacrificial portions combine to form the minimum measure of an olive-bulk to render one liable for offering them up outside the courtyard, and to render one liable for eating them due to piggul, i.e., if the sacrificial rites were performed with the intent of sacrificing the offering after its designated time; notar, i.e., if its flesh remained after the period in which it was permitted to sacrifice it; or for eating them while he was ritually impure. This baraita, too, states that only the flesh and sacrificial portions of a burnt offering combine. This indicates that the meat and sacrificial portions of a peace offering do not combine.
בִּשְׁלָמָא הַעֲלָאַת עוֹלָה – דְּכָלִיל אִין, שְׁלָמִים לָא; אֶלָּא פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא – מַאי טַעְמָא?
The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to offering up outside the courtyard, it is logical that for a burnt offering, which is entirely consumed upon the altar, that yes, everything will combine, and that for peace offerings, whose meat is not burned on the altar, the meat and sacrificial portions will not combine. But with regard to liability for piggul, notar, and eating while ritually impure, what is the reason that the baraita differentiates between a burnt offering and a peace offering?
וְהָא תְּנַן: כׇּל הַפִּגּוּלִין מִצְטָרְפִין, וְכׇל הַנּוֹתָרִין מִצְטָרְפִין; קַשְׁיָא פִּיגּוּל אַפִּיגּוּל, קַשְׁיָא נוֹתָר אַנּוֹתָר!
The Gemara compounds its questions: And didn’t we learn in a mishna (Me’ila 15a): Anything that is piggul combines together, and anything that is notar combines together, to form the measure of an olive-bulk to render one liable? The mishna indicates that this halakha applies to all types of offerings. Accordingly, the Gemara notes: The ruling about piggul in the baraita is difficult, as it is contradicted by the ruling about piggul in the mishna, and the ruling about notar in the baraita is difficult, as it is contradicted by the ruling about notar in the mishna.
פִּיגּוּל אַפִּיגּוּל לָא קַשְׁיָא – כָּאן בְּפִיגּוּל, כָּאן בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת פִּיגּוּל.
The Gemara resolves the difficulties: That the ruling about piggul in the baraita is contradicted by the ruling about piggul in the mishna is not difficult. Here, in the mishna, the ruling that they combine concerns liability for eating piggul, whereas there, in the baraita, the ruling that only the parts of a burnt offering combine concerns piggul intention. An offering is rendered piggul only if one intends to eat an olive-bulk of it after the designated time for eating it or to sacrifice an olive-bulk of it after the designated time for sacrificing it. The baraita rules that for a burnt offering, if one has such intention for both half an olive-bulk of its meat and half an olive-bulk of its sacrificial portions, that is sufficient for the entire offering to be rendered piggul. For a peace offering, the offering is rendered piggul only if one has such intention about an olive-bulk comprised only of meat or only of sacrificial portions.
נוֹתָר אַנּוֹתָר לָא קַשְׁיָא – כָּאן בְּנוֹתָר, כָּאן בְּשֶׁנִּיתּוֹתְרוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְרַק הַדָּם.
The Gemara resolves the second difficulty: That the ruling about notar in the baraita is contradicted by the ruling about notar in the mishna is not difficult. Here, in the mishna, the ruling that they combine concerns liability for eating notar, whereas there, in the baraita, the ruling that only the parts of a burnt offering combine concerns a case in which only an olive-bulk combined of both the flesh and the sacrificial portions remained from the offering, the rest having been destroyed, before its blood was sprinkled. Blood may not be sprinkled unless an olive-bulk of the offering remains. And if the blood is not sprinkled, the offering will never be rendered notar. The baraita rules that in the case of a burnt offering, the different parts of it combine to form an olive-bulk to permit the sprinkling of the blood. This does not apply to a peace offering, for which an olive-bulk of only meat or of only sacrificial portions must remain in order to permit the sprinkling of the blood.
וּמַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא; דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּיֵּיר בָּהֶן כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר
The Gemara asks: And whose opinion is expressed by the baraita? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the offerings that are mentioned in the Torah from which there remains only an olive-bulk of meat, the rest having been destroyed or rendered impure,
וּכְזַיִת חֵלֶב – זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם.
or from which there remains only an olive-bulk of sacrificial portions, e.g., fat to be burned on the altar, one still sprinkles the blood of the offering on the altar and one thereby fulfills his obligation.
חֲצִי זַיִת בָּשָׂר וַחֲצִי זַיִת חֵלֶב – אֵינוֹ זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם. וּבְעוֹלָה, חֲצִי זַיִת בָּשָׂר וַחֲצִי זַיִת חֵלֶב – זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ כָּלִיל. וּמִנְחָה, אֲפִילּוּ כּוּלָּהּ קַיֶּימֶת – לֹא יִזְרוֹק.
But if all that remains is half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, one may not sprinkle the blood, as since the meat and the sacrificial portions are used differently, the former being eaten and the latter being burned on the altar, they cannot combine to form the minimum requirement of an olive-bulk. This applies only to offerings whose meat is eaten. But for a burnt offering, even if all that remains is half an olive-bulk of flesh and half an olive-bulk of fat, one sprinkles the blood, because since the offering is consumed upon the altar in its entirety, all of its parts combine together. And with regard to a meal offering, even if all of it still exists, one does not sprinkle the blood. It is apparent that Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion in this baraita is the one expressed in the baraita.
מִנְחָה מַאי עֲבִידְתַּהּ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מִנְחַת נְסָכִים הַבָּאָה עִם הַזֶּבַח.
The Gemara clarifies the final clause of the baraita: What is the relevance of a meal offering to the sprinkling of blood? In a meal offering there is no blood at all. Rav Pappa said: The baraita is referring to a meal offering brought with the libations that accompany an animal offering. If the entire body of the offering was destroyed but the meal offering that accompanied it remains, one might have thought that it would be sufficient to allow for the sprinkling of the blood. The baraita teaches that this is incorrect.
מַתְנִי׳ הַקּוֹמֶץ, וְהַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהַקְּטֹרֶת, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים, שֶׁהִקְרִיב מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹטֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אֶת כּוּלָּן. וְכוּלָּן שֶׁהִקְרִיב בִּפְנִים וְשִׁיֵּיר מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת, וְהִקְרִיבוֹ בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.
MISHNA: With regard to the handful of a meal offering, the frankincense, the incense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of the anointed priest, and the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings, in a case where one sacrificed even an olive-bulk from any one of these, which should be sacrificed on the altar, outside the Temple, he is liable, as the burning of an olive-bulk is considered a proper burning. Rabbi Eliezer deems him exempt unless he sacrifices the whole of any one of these items outside the Temple. But Rabbi Eliezer concedes that with regard to any of them that one sacrificed inside the courtyard but left over an olive-bulk from them and then sacrificed that olive-bulk outside the courtyard, he is liable.
וְכוּלָּן שֶׁחָסְרוּ כׇּל שֶׁהוּ, וְהִקְרִיבוֹ בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר.
And with regard to any of these offerings that were lacking any amount, if one sacrifices it outside the courtyard, he is exempt.
הַמַּקְרִיב קָדָשִׁים וְאֵימוּרִים בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.
One who sacrifices sacrificial meat, which is eaten, and sacrificial portions, i.e., those that are to be burned on the altar, outside the courtyard, is liable for the sacrifice of the sacrificial portions. But he is not liable for sacrificing the meat.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּקְטִיר כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב. חֲצִי פְרָס בִּפְנִים – פָּטוּר.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: Each morning and afternoon, a peras, i.e., half a maneh, of incense must be burned in the Sanctuary. Nevertheless, one who burns only an olive-bulk of incense outside the courtyard is liable. If one burns half a peras inside the Temple, he is exempt.
קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין: מַאי פָּטוּר – פָּטוּר זָר; אַמַּאי? הַקְטָרָה הִיא!
The Gemara addresses the latter clause of the baraita: It enters our mind to explain: What is meant by: He is exempt? It means that a non-priest, for whom it is prohibited to perform the sacrificial rites in the Temple, is exempt if he burns incense inside the Temple. The Gemara rejects this: Why should he be exempt; this is an act of sacrificial burning? Even though he burned less than a peras, it is apparent from the first clause of the baraita that burning even an olive-bulk is considered an act of sacrificial burning.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: מַאי פָּטוּר – פָּטוּר צִיבּוּר.
Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Ḥisda said that Rav Yirmeya, son of Abba, said that Rav said: What is meant by: He is exempt? It means that if a priest burns half a peras inside the Temple, the community is thereby exempt from its obligation to burn incense despite the fact that less than the required amount was burned.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, אִי קַשְׁיָא לִי – הָא קַשְׁיָא לִי: הָא דְּאָמַר רַב עֲלַהּ, בְּהָא – אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מוֹדֶה; דְּהָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לָאו הַקְטָרָה הִיא קָאָמַר!
Rabbi Zeira said: If there is something difficult for me with regard to this baraita, this is difficult for me: That which Rav said concerning this baraita: With regard to this halakha, that if a priest burns less than a peras of incense the community fulfills its obligation, even Rabbi Eliezer concedes. Rabbi Zeira explains: This is difficult for me as Rabbi Eliezer rules in the mishna that one who burns an olive-bulk of incense outside is exempt. Effectively, he is saying that burning less than the required amount is not an act of sacrificial burning. How then can he hold that the community fulfills its obligation by the burning of less than a peras?
אָמַר רַבָּה: בְּהַקְטָרָה דְּהֵיכָל – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי.
Rabba said: With regard to the burning of incense designated to be burned in the Sanctuary upon the golden altar, everyone, i.e., the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer, agrees that the Torah does not specify the amount to be burned; the requirement to burn a peras is rabbinic. Accordingly, the obligation is fulfilled even if only an olive-bulk of incense is burned there, as the baraita states, and one who burns an olive-bulk of that incense outside the Temple is liable.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּהַקְטָרָה דִּפְנִים; דְּמָר סָבַר: ״מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו״ דַּוְקָא, וּמָר סָבַר: ״מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו״ לָאו דַּוְקָא.
When they disagree in the mishna, it is with regard to the burning of incense in the inner sanctum, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, on Yom Kippur. Concerning that obligation, the verse states: “And he shall take…his handful of sweet incense, beaten small, and bring it within the Curtain” (Leviticus 16:12). As one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that “his handful” indicates that specifically that measure must be burned in order to fulfill the obligation. Accordingly, he also holds that one who burns only an olive-bulk of that incense outside the courtyard is exempt. And the other Sage, the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, holds that “his handful” does not indicate that specifically that measure must be burned, and the obligation can be fulfilled even with a lesser amount. Accordingly, they also hold that one who burns even an olive-bulk of that incense outside the courtyard is liable.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא כִּי קָא כְתִיבָא ״חֻקָּה״ – בְּהַקְטָרָה דִּפְנִים הוּא דִּכְתִיב!
Abaye said to Rabba: But when the term “statute” is written with regard to the Yom Kippur Temple service (see Leviticus 16:29), it is also written with regard to the burning of incense in the inner sanctum. The term “statute” stated with regard to a rite indicates that it is valid only if performed precisely in accordance with all the details mentioned in the Torah concerning it. Accordingly, the term “his handful” must be specific.
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּהַקְטָרָה בִּפְנִים – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי.
Rather, Abaye said: With regard to the burning of incense in the inner sanctum, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, on Yom Kippur, everyone agrees that the obligation is only fulfilled if a handful of incense is burned. Also, everyone agrees with regard to burning incense in the Sanctuary that the obligation is fulfilled even with an olive-bulk, as the baraita states, and one who burns an olive-bulk of incense outside the Temple is liable.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּהַקְטָרָה דְּחוּץ; מָר סָבַר: יָלְפִינַן פְּנִים מִחוּץ, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא יָלְפִינַן.
When they disagree in the mishna, it is with regard to the burning of incense of the Holy of Holies outside the Temple courtyard. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that we derive the measure for liability for incense of the inner sanctum from incense of the outer sanctum, i.e., the Sanctuary. Just as for the latter one is liable for an olive-bulk, so too, for the former one is liable for an olive-bulk. And the other Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that we do not derive one from the other. Rather, since the obligation inside the Holy of Holies is fulfilled only with a handful of incense, one is liable for burning that incense outside the Temple only if he burns that amount.
אָמַר רָבָא: הַשְׁתָּא חוּץ מֵחוּץ לָא יָלְפִי רַבָּנַן, פְּנִים מֵחוּץ מִיבְּעֵי?!
Rava said in rejection of Abaye’s understanding: Now, if the Rabbis do not derive the measure for liability for offering up outside the Temple courtyard, with regard to other rites performed in the outer sanctum, from incense of the outer sanctum, is it necessary to question whether they would derive the measure for liability for incense of the inner sanctum from incense of the outer sanctum? Certainly, they would not.
מָה הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל הַמַּעֲלֶה פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת קוֹמֶץ וּפָחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת אֵימוּרִין, וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין יַיִן [פָּחוֹת] מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין מַיִם – יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לַעֲשׂוֹת״ – עַל הַשָּׁלֵם חַיָּיב, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַל הֶחָסֵר.
The Gemara asks: What is the rite that Rava is referring to in his response to Abaye? It is as it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that one who offers up outside the courtyard less than an olive-bulk of the handful taken from a meal offering or less than an olive-bulk of the sacrificial portions, or who pours as a libation outside the courtyard less than three log of wine or who pours as a libation on Sukkot less than three log of water, that he would be liable. To counter this, the verse states: “And he will not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to sacrifice it” (Leviticus 17:9). The term “to sacrifice it” indicates that one is liable for the sacrifice of a complete offering outside the courtyard but one is not liable for the sacrifice of an incomplete offering outside.
וְהָא פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין, דְּאִית בְּהוּ כַּמָּה זֵיתִים – וְלָא יָלְפִי רַבָּנַן חוּץ מִחוּץ!
The Gemara explains Rava’s inference: But the baraita states that for a libation of less than three log outside the courtyard one is exempt despite the fact that the libation still contains a few olive-bulks. And it is apparent then, that the Rabbis do not derive the measure for liability for the rite of libation that should be performed in the outer sanctum from incense that should be burned in the outer sanctum. Certainly then, they would not derive the measure for liability for incense of the inner sanctum from incense of the outer sanctum.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כְּגוֹן דְּקַבְעִינְהוּ שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי פְּרָס
Rather, Rava said to resolve Rabbi Zeira’s difficulty: Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis agree with regard to the incense of the Sanctuary, that the Torah does not specify an amount to be burned, and the community fulfills its obligation even if only an olive-bulk is burned, as is taught in the baraita. When they disagree in the mishna, it is in a case where, for example, one designated two half-peras portions of incense, in accordance with the rabbinic requirement to burn one peras,
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
Zevachim 109
מַתְנִי׳ אֶחָד קֳדָשִׁים כְּשֵׁרִין וְאֶחָד קָדָשִׁים פְּסוּלִין, שֶׁהָיָה פְּסוּלָן בַּקּוֹדֶשׁ וְהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.
MISHNA: With regard to both fit sacrificial animals, and unfit sacrificial animals whose disqualification occurred in sanctity, i.e., in the course of the Temple service, and one sacrificed them outside the Temple courtyard, he is liable.
הַמַּעֲלֶה כְּזַיִת מִן הָעוֹלָה וּמִן הָאֵימוּרִין בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.
One who offers up outside the courtyard an olive-bulk made up of the flesh of a burnt offering and of its sacrificial portions is liable.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״אֲשֶׁר יַעֲלֶה עֹלָה אוֹ זָבַח״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹלָה; מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת אֵימוּרֵי אָשָׁם, וְאֵימוּרֵי חַטָּאת, וְאֵימוּרֵי קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, וְאֵימוּרֵי קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֶבַח״.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states with regard to offering up outside the courtyard: “That offers up a burnt offering or sacrifice, and he will not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to sacrifice it to the Lord” (Leviticus 17:8–9). From the term “burnt offering” I have derived only that one is liable for offering up a burnt offering, which is burned entirely on the altar. From where do I derive to include that one is liable for offering up outside the courtyard the sacrificial portions of a guilt offering, the sacrificial portions of a sin offering, the sacrificial portions of offerings of the most sacred order, or the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity? The verse states: “Sacrifice,” which includes the sacrificial portions of all other offerings that are to be burned on the altar.
מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת הַקּוֹמֶץ, וְהַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהַקְּטוֹרֶת, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין יַיִן, וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין מַיִם? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא יְבִיאֶנּוּ״ – כׇּל הַבָּא לְפֶתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו בַּחוּץ.
From where is it derived to include that one is liable for offering up outside the courtyard the handful taken from a meal offering; the frankincense that was to be offered with it; the incense, which was offered each day in the Sanctuary; the meal offering of priests; the meal offering of the anointed priest, i.e., the High Priest, which he offered daily; and to include as liable one who pours as a libation three log of wine, which is the volume of the smallest wine libation used in the Temple; or one who pours as a libation three log of water that was consecrated to be used as a libation during the festival of Sukkot? The verse states: “And he will not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:9), which indicates that with regard to any offering that is fit to be brought to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting to be offered there upon the altar, one is liable for offering it up outside the courtyard.
וְאֵין לִי אֶלָּא קֳדָשִׁים כְּשֵׁרִים; מִנַּיִן לְרַבּוֹת פְּסוּלִין?
I have derived only that one is liable for offering up fit offerings; from where do I derive to also include liability for unfit offerings whose disqualification occurred in sanctity?
כְּגוֹן הַלָּן, וְהַיּוֹצֵא, וְהַטָּמֵא, וְשֶׁנִּשְׁחַט חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, וְשֶׁקִּבְּלוּ פְּסוּלִין וְזָרְקוּ אֶת דָּמוֹ, וְהַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַטָּה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַעְלָה, וְהַנִּיתָּנִין לְמַעְלָה שֶׁנְּתָנָן לְמַטָּה, וְהַנִּיתָּנִין בַּחוּץ שֶׁנְּתָנָן בִּפְנִים, וְהַנִּיתָּנִין בִּפְנִים שֶׁנְּתָנָן בַּחוּץ, וּפֶסַח וְחַטָּאת שֶׁנְּתָנָן שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָן –
For example: Sacrificial meat that was left overnight, or an offering that went outside the courtyard, or an offering that is impure, or an offering that was slaughtered with intent to consume it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area, or an offering that an unfit person collected and sprinkled its blood, or if one placed the blood that is to be placed above the red line encircling the altar below it, or if one placed the blood that is to be placed below the red line above it, or if one placed the blood that is to be placed inside the Sanctuary outside on the external altar, or if one placed the blood that is to be placed outside the Sanctuary inside it, or a Paschal offering or sin offering whose blood was placed not for their sake?
מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לֹא יְבִיאֶנּוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת״ – כׇּל הַמִּתְקַבֵּל בְּפֶתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו בַּחוּץ.
Since the disqualification of these offerings occurred in sanctity, if they were to be, albeit unlawfully, placed upon the altar, the altar would render them acceptable such that they should not be removed from upon it. From where is it derived to also include liability for these unfit offerings? The verse states: “And he will not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to sacrifice it to the Lord,” which indicates that with regard to any item that is rendered acceptable upon the altar at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, even if it should not have been brought there ab initio, one is liable for offering it up outside the courtyard.
הַמַּעֲלֶה כְּזַיִת מִן הָעוֹלָה כּוּ׳. עוֹלָה וְאֵימוּרֶיהָ – אִין, שְׁלָמִים וְאֵימוּרֵיהֶן – לָא;
§ The mishna teaches: One who offers up outside the courtyard an olive-bulk made up of the flesh of a burnt offering and of its sacrificial portions is liable. The Gemara infers: The mishna states that for an olive-bulk combined of the flesh of a burnt offering and of its sacrificial portions, yes, one is liable. By inference, for an olive-bulk combined of the meat of a peace offering and of its sacrificial portions, one is not liable, because its meat is eaten, not burned on the altar.
תְּנֵינָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: עוֹלָה וְאֵימוּרֶיהָ מִצְטָרְפִין לִכְזַיִת – לְהַעֲלוֹתָן בַּחוּץ, וּלְחַיֵּיב עֲלֵיהֶן מִשּׁוּם פִּיגּוּל נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא.
We learn in the mishna that which the Sages taught explicitly in a baraita (Tosefta, Me’ila 1:28): The flesh of a burnt offering and its sacrificial portions combine to form the minimum measure of an olive-bulk to render one liable for offering them up outside the courtyard, and to render one liable for eating them due to piggul, i.e., if the sacrificial rites were performed with the intent of sacrificing the offering after its designated time; notar, i.e., if its flesh remained after the period in which it was permitted to sacrifice it; or for eating them while he was ritually impure. This baraita, too, states that only the flesh and sacrificial portions of a burnt offering combine. This indicates that the meat and sacrificial portions of a peace offering do not combine.
בִּשְׁלָמָא הַעֲלָאַת עוֹלָה – דְּכָלִיל אִין, שְׁלָמִים לָא; אֶלָּא פִּיגּוּל וְנוֹתָר וְטָמֵא – מַאי טַעְמָא?
The Gemara asks: Granted, with regard to offering up outside the courtyard, it is logical that for a burnt offering, which is entirely consumed upon the altar, that yes, everything will combine, and that for peace offerings, whose meat is not burned on the altar, the meat and sacrificial portions will not combine. But with regard to liability for piggul, notar, and eating while ritually impure, what is the reason that the baraita differentiates between a burnt offering and a peace offering?
וְהָא תְּנַן: כׇּל הַפִּגּוּלִין מִצְטָרְפִין, וְכׇל הַנּוֹתָרִין מִצְטָרְפִין; קַשְׁיָא פִּיגּוּל אַפִּיגּוּל, קַשְׁיָא נוֹתָר אַנּוֹתָר!
The Gemara compounds its questions: And didn’t we learn in a mishna (Me’ila 15a): Anything that is piggul combines together, and anything that is notar combines together, to form the measure of an olive-bulk to render one liable? The mishna indicates that this halakha applies to all types of offerings. Accordingly, the Gemara notes: The ruling about piggul in the baraita is difficult, as it is contradicted by the ruling about piggul in the mishna, and the ruling about notar in the baraita is difficult, as it is contradicted by the ruling about notar in the mishna.
פִּיגּוּל אַפִּיגּוּל לָא קַשְׁיָא – כָּאן בְּפִיגּוּל, כָּאן בְּמַחְשֶׁבֶת פִּיגּוּל.
The Gemara resolves the difficulties: That the ruling about piggul in the baraita is contradicted by the ruling about piggul in the mishna is not difficult. Here, in the mishna, the ruling that they combine concerns liability for eating piggul, whereas there, in the baraita, the ruling that only the parts of a burnt offering combine concerns piggul intention. An offering is rendered piggul only if one intends to eat an olive-bulk of it after the designated time for eating it or to sacrifice an olive-bulk of it after the designated time for sacrificing it. The baraita rules that for a burnt offering, if one has such intention for both half an olive-bulk of its meat and half an olive-bulk of its sacrificial portions, that is sufficient for the entire offering to be rendered piggul. For a peace offering, the offering is rendered piggul only if one has such intention about an olive-bulk comprised only of meat or only of sacrificial portions.
נוֹתָר אַנּוֹתָר לָא קַשְׁיָא – כָּאן בְּנוֹתָר, כָּאן בְּשֶׁנִּיתּוֹתְרוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִזְרַק הַדָּם.
The Gemara resolves the second difficulty: That the ruling about notar in the baraita is contradicted by the ruling about notar in the mishna is not difficult. Here, in the mishna, the ruling that they combine concerns liability for eating notar, whereas there, in the baraita, the ruling that only the parts of a burnt offering combine concerns a case in which only an olive-bulk combined of both the flesh and the sacrificial portions remained from the offering, the rest having been destroyed, before its blood was sprinkled. Blood may not be sprinkled unless an olive-bulk of the offering remains. And if the blood is not sprinkled, the offering will never be rendered notar. The baraita rules that in the case of a burnt offering, the different parts of it combine to form an olive-bulk to permit the sprinkling of the blood. This does not apply to a peace offering, for which an olive-bulk of only meat or of only sacrificial portions must remain in order to permit the sprinkling of the blood.
וּמַנִּי? רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ הִיא; דְּתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַזְּבָחִים שֶׁבַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּשְׁתַּיֵּיר בָּהֶן כְּזַיִת בָּשָׂר
The Gemara asks: And whose opinion is expressed by the baraita? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the offerings that are mentioned in the Torah from which there remains only an olive-bulk of meat, the rest having been destroyed or rendered impure,
וּכְזַיִת חֵלֶב – זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם.
or from which there remains only an olive-bulk of sacrificial portions, e.g., fat to be burned on the altar, one still sprinkles the blood of the offering on the altar and one thereby fulfills his obligation.
חֲצִי זַיִת בָּשָׂר וַחֲצִי זַיִת חֵלֶב – אֵינוֹ זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם. וּבְעוֹלָה, חֲצִי זַיִת בָּשָׂר וַחֲצִי זַיִת חֵלֶב – זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ כָּלִיל. וּמִנְחָה, אֲפִילּוּ כּוּלָּהּ קַיֶּימֶת – לֹא יִזְרוֹק.
But if all that remains is half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, one may not sprinkle the blood, as since the meat and the sacrificial portions are used differently, the former being eaten and the latter being burned on the altar, they cannot combine to form the minimum requirement of an olive-bulk. This applies only to offerings whose meat is eaten. But for a burnt offering, even if all that remains is half an olive-bulk of flesh and half an olive-bulk of fat, one sprinkles the blood, because since the offering is consumed upon the altar in its entirety, all of its parts combine together. And with regard to a meal offering, even if all of it still exists, one does not sprinkle the blood. It is apparent that Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion in this baraita is the one expressed in the baraita.
מִנְחָה מַאי עֲבִידְתַּהּ? אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: מִנְחַת נְסָכִים הַבָּאָה עִם הַזֶּבַח.
The Gemara clarifies the final clause of the baraita: What is the relevance of a meal offering to the sprinkling of blood? In a meal offering there is no blood at all. Rav Pappa said: The baraita is referring to a meal offering brought with the libations that accompany an animal offering. If the entire body of the offering was destroyed but the meal offering that accompanied it remains, one might have thought that it would be sufficient to allow for the sprinkling of the blood. The baraita teaches that this is incorrect.
מַתְנִי׳ הַקּוֹמֶץ, וְהַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהַקְּטֹרֶת, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים, שֶׁהִקְרִיב מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹטֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אֶת כּוּלָּן. וְכוּלָּן שֶׁהִקְרִיב בִּפְנִים וְשִׁיֵּיר מֵהֶן כְּזַיִת, וְהִקְרִיבוֹ בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.
MISHNA: With regard to the handful of a meal offering, the frankincense, the incense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of the anointed priest, and the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings, in a case where one sacrificed even an olive-bulk from any one of these, which should be sacrificed on the altar, outside the Temple, he is liable, as the burning of an olive-bulk is considered a proper burning. Rabbi Eliezer deems him exempt unless he sacrifices the whole of any one of these items outside the Temple. But Rabbi Eliezer concedes that with regard to any of them that one sacrificed inside the courtyard but left over an olive-bulk from them and then sacrificed that olive-bulk outside the courtyard, he is liable.
וְכוּלָּן שֶׁחָסְרוּ כׇּל שֶׁהוּ, וְהִקְרִיבוֹ בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר.
And with regard to any of these offerings that were lacking any amount, if one sacrifices it outside the courtyard, he is exempt.
הַמַּקְרִיב קָדָשִׁים וְאֵימוּרִים בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.
One who sacrifices sacrificial meat, which is eaten, and sacrificial portions, i.e., those that are to be burned on the altar, outside the courtyard, is liable for the sacrifice of the sacrificial portions. But he is not liable for sacrificing the meat.
גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּקְטִיר כְּזַיִת בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב. חֲצִי פְרָס בִּפְנִים – פָּטוּר.
GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: Each morning and afternoon, a peras, i.e., half a maneh, of incense must be burned in the Sanctuary. Nevertheless, one who burns only an olive-bulk of incense outside the courtyard is liable. If one burns half a peras inside the Temple, he is exempt.
קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין: מַאי פָּטוּר – פָּטוּר זָר; אַמַּאי? הַקְטָרָה הִיא!
The Gemara addresses the latter clause of the baraita: It enters our mind to explain: What is meant by: He is exempt? It means that a non-priest, for whom it is prohibited to perform the sacrificial rites in the Temple, is exempt if he burns incense inside the Temple. The Gemara rejects this: Why should he be exempt; this is an act of sacrificial burning? Even though he burned less than a peras, it is apparent from the first clause of the baraita that burning even an olive-bulk is considered an act of sacrificial burning.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַב: מַאי פָּטוּר – פָּטוּר צִיבּוּר.
Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Ḥisda said that Rav Yirmeya, son of Abba, said that Rav said: What is meant by: He is exempt? It means that if a priest burns half a peras inside the Temple, the community is thereby exempt from its obligation to burn incense despite the fact that less than the required amount was burned.
אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא, אִי קַשְׁיָא לִי – הָא קַשְׁיָא לִי: הָא דְּאָמַר רַב עֲלַהּ, בְּהָא – אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מוֹדֶה; דְּהָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לָאו הַקְטָרָה הִיא קָאָמַר!
Rabbi Zeira said: If there is something difficult for me with regard to this baraita, this is difficult for me: That which Rav said concerning this baraita: With regard to this halakha, that if a priest burns less than a peras of incense the community fulfills its obligation, even Rabbi Eliezer concedes. Rabbi Zeira explains: This is difficult for me as Rabbi Eliezer rules in the mishna that one who burns an olive-bulk of incense outside is exempt. Effectively, he is saying that burning less than the required amount is not an act of sacrificial burning. How then can he hold that the community fulfills its obligation by the burning of less than a peras?
אָמַר רַבָּה: בְּהַקְטָרָה דְּהֵיכָל – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי.
Rabba said: With regard to the burning of incense designated to be burned in the Sanctuary upon the golden altar, everyone, i.e., the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer, agrees that the Torah does not specify the amount to be burned; the requirement to burn a peras is rabbinic. Accordingly, the obligation is fulfilled even if only an olive-bulk of incense is burned there, as the baraita states, and one who burns an olive-bulk of that incense outside the Temple is liable.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּהַקְטָרָה דִּפְנִים; דְּמָר סָבַר: ״מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו״ דַּוְקָא, וּמָר סָבַר: ״מְלֹא חׇפְנָיו״ לָאו דַּוְקָא.
When they disagree in the mishna, it is with regard to the burning of incense in the inner sanctum, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, on Yom Kippur. Concerning that obligation, the verse states: “And he shall take…his handful of sweet incense, beaten small, and bring it within the Curtain” (Leviticus 16:12). As one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that “his handful” indicates that specifically that measure must be burned in order to fulfill the obligation. Accordingly, he also holds that one who burns only an olive-bulk of that incense outside the courtyard is exempt. And the other Sage, the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, holds that “his handful” does not indicate that specifically that measure must be burned, and the obligation can be fulfilled even with a lesser amount. Accordingly, they also hold that one who burns even an olive-bulk of that incense outside the courtyard is liable.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא כִּי קָא כְתִיבָא ״חֻקָּה״ – בְּהַקְטָרָה דִּפְנִים הוּא דִּכְתִיב!
Abaye said to Rabba: But when the term “statute” is written with regard to the Yom Kippur Temple service (see Leviticus 16:29), it is also written with regard to the burning of incense in the inner sanctum. The term “statute” stated with regard to a rite indicates that it is valid only if performed precisely in accordance with all the details mentioned in the Torah concerning it. Accordingly, the term “his handful” must be specific.
אֶלָּא אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: בְּהַקְטָרָה בִּפְנִים – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי.
Rather, Abaye said: With regard to the burning of incense in the inner sanctum, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, on Yom Kippur, everyone agrees that the obligation is only fulfilled if a handful of incense is burned. Also, everyone agrees with regard to burning incense in the Sanctuary that the obligation is fulfilled even with an olive-bulk, as the baraita states, and one who burns an olive-bulk of incense outside the Temple is liable.
כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּהַקְטָרָה דְּחוּץ; מָר סָבַר: יָלְפִינַן פְּנִים מִחוּץ, וּמָר סָבַר: לָא יָלְפִינַן.
When they disagree in the mishna, it is with regard to the burning of incense of the Holy of Holies outside the Temple courtyard. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that we derive the measure for liability for incense of the inner sanctum from incense of the outer sanctum, i.e., the Sanctuary. Just as for the latter one is liable for an olive-bulk, so too, for the former one is liable for an olive-bulk. And the other Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that we do not derive one from the other. Rather, since the obligation inside the Holy of Holies is fulfilled only with a handful of incense, one is liable for burning that incense outside the Temple only if he burns that amount.
אָמַר רָבָא: הַשְׁתָּא חוּץ מֵחוּץ לָא יָלְפִי רַבָּנַן, פְּנִים מֵחוּץ מִיבְּעֵי?!
Rava said in rejection of Abaye’s understanding: Now, if the Rabbis do not derive the measure for liability for offering up outside the Temple courtyard, with regard to other rites performed in the outer sanctum, from incense of the outer sanctum, is it necessary to question whether they would derive the measure for liability for incense of the inner sanctum from incense of the outer sanctum? Certainly, they would not.
מָה הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל הַמַּעֲלֶה פָּחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת קוֹמֶץ וּפָחוֹת מִכְּזַיִת אֵימוּרִין, וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין יַיִן [פָּחוֹת] מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין מַיִם – יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לַעֲשׂוֹת״ – עַל הַשָּׁלֵם חַיָּיב, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַל הֶחָסֵר.
The Gemara asks: What is the rite that Rava is referring to in his response to Abaye? It is as it is taught in a baraita: One might have thought that one who offers up outside the courtyard less than an olive-bulk of the handful taken from a meal offering or less than an olive-bulk of the sacrificial portions, or who pours as a libation outside the courtyard less than three log of wine or who pours as a libation on Sukkot less than three log of water, that he would be liable. To counter this, the verse states: “And he will not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to sacrifice it” (Leviticus 17:9). The term “to sacrifice it” indicates that one is liable for the sacrifice of a complete offering outside the courtyard but one is not liable for the sacrifice of an incomplete offering outside.
וְהָא פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין, דְּאִית בְּהוּ כַּמָּה זֵיתִים – וְלָא יָלְפִי רַבָּנַן חוּץ מִחוּץ!
The Gemara explains Rava’s inference: But the baraita states that for a libation of less than three log outside the courtyard one is exempt despite the fact that the libation still contains a few olive-bulks. And it is apparent then, that the Rabbis do not derive the measure for liability for the rite of libation that should be performed in the outer sanctum from incense that should be burned in the outer sanctum. Certainly then, they would not derive the measure for liability for incense of the inner sanctum from incense of the outer sanctum.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: כְּגוֹן דְּקַבְעִינְהוּ שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי פְּרָס
Rather, Rava said to resolve Rabbi Zeira’s difficulty: Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis agree with regard to the incense of the Sanctuary, that the Torah does not specify an amount to be burned, and the community fulfills its obligation even if only an olive-bulk is burned, as is taught in the baraita. When they disagree in the mishna, it is in a case where, for example, one designated two half-peras portions of incense, in accordance with the rabbinic requirement to burn one peras,
