Zevachim 109

מתני׳ אחד קדשים כשרין ואחד קדשים פסולין שהיה פסולן בקודש והקריבן בחוץ חייב

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.

המעלה כזית מן העולה ומן האימורין בחוץ חייב

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.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן אשר יעלה עלה או זבח אין לי אלא עולה מנין לרבות אימורי אשם ואימורי חטאת ואימורי קדשי קדשים ואימורי קדשים קלים תלמוד לומר זבח

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.

מנין לרבות הקומץ והלבונה והקטורת ומנחת כהנים ומנחת כהן משיח והמנסך שלשת לוגין יין ושלשת לוגין מים תלמוד לומר ואל פתח אהל מועד לא יביאנו כל הבא לפתח אהל מועד חייבין עליו בחוץ

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.

ואין לי אלא קדשים כשרים מנין לרבות פסולין

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?

כגון הלן והיוצא והטמא ושנשחט חוץ לזמנו וחוץ למקומו ושקבלו פסולין וזרקו את דמו והניתנין למטה שנתנן למעלה והניתנין למעלה שנתנן למטה והניתנין בחוץ שנתנן בפנים והניתנין בפנים שנתנן בחוץ ופסח וחטאת שנתנן שלא לשמן

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?

מנין תלמוד לומר לא יביאנו לעשות כל המתקבל בפתח אהל מועד חייבין עליו בחוץ

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.

המעלה כזית מן העולה כו׳ עולה ואימוריה אין שלמים ואימוריהן לא

§ 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.

תנינא להא דתנו רבנן עולה ואימוריה מצטרפין לכזית להעלותן בחוץ ולחייב עליהן משום פיגול נותר וטמא

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.

בשלמא העלאת עולה דכליל אין שלמים לא אלא פיגול ונותר וטמא מאי טעמא

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?

והא תנן כל הפגולין מצטרפין וכל הנותרין מצטרפין קשיא פיגול אפיגול קשיא נותר אנותר

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.

פיגול אפיגול לא קשיא כאן בפיגול כאן במחשבת פיגול

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.

נותר אנותר לא קשיא כאן בנותר כאן בשניתותרו עד שלא נזרק הדם

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.

ומני רבי יהושע היא דתניא רבי יהושע אומר כל הזבחים שבתורה שנשתייר בהן כזית בשר

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,

וכזית חלב זורק את הדם

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.

חצי זית בשר וחצי זית חלב אינו זורק את הדם ובעולה חצי זית בשר וחצי זית חלב זורק את הדם מפני שכולה כליל ומנחה אפילו כולה קיימת לא יזרוק

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.

מנחה מאי עבידתה אמר רב פפא מנחת נסכים הבאה עם הזבח

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.

מתני׳ הקומץ והלבונה והקטרת ומנחת כהנים ומנחת כהן משיח ומנחת נסכים שהקריב מאחת מהן כזית בחוץ חייב רבי אליעזר פוטר עד שיקריב את כולן וכולן שהקריב בפנים ושייר מהן כזית והקריבו בחוץ חייב

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.

וכולן שחסרו כל שהו והקריבו בחוץ פטור

And with regard to any of these offerings that were lacking any amount, if one sacrifices it outside the courtyard, he is exempt.

המקריב קדשים ואימורים בחוץ חייב

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.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן המקטיר כזית בחוץ חייב חצי פרס בפנים פטור

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.

קא סלקא דעתין מאי פטור פטור זר אמאי הקטרה היא

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.

אמר רבי זירא אמר רב חסדא אמר רב ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב מאי פטור פטור ציבור

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.

אמר רבי זירא אי קשיא לי הא קשיא לי הא דאמר רב עלה בהא אפילו רבי אליעזר מודה דהא רבי אליעזר לאו הקטרה היא קאמר

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?

אמר רבה בהקטרה דהיכל דכולי עלמא לא פליגי

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.

כי פליגי בהקטרה דפנים דמר סבר מלא חפניו דוקא ומר סבר מלא חפניו לאו דוקא

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.

אמר ליה אביי והא כי קא כתיבא חקה בהקטרה דפנים הוא דכתיב

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.

אלא אמר אביי בהקטרה בפנים כולי עלמא לא פליגי

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.

כי פליגי בהקטרה דחוץ מר סבר ילפינן פנים מחוץ ומר סבר לא ילפינן

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.

אמר רבא השתא חוץ מחוץ לא ילפי רבנן פנים מחוץ מיבעי

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.

מה היא דתניא יכול המעלה פחות מכזית קומץ ופחות מכזית אימורין והמנסך פחות משלשת לוגין יין [פחות] משלשה לוגין מים יהא חייב תלמוד לומר לעשות על השלם חייב ואינו חייב על החסר

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.

והא פחות משלשת לוגין דאית בהו כמה זיתים ולא ילפי רבנן חוץ מחוץ

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.

אלא אמר רבא כגון דקבעינהו שני חצאי פרס

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,