Zevachim 109a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Whether valid sacrificial animals or whether invalid sacrificial animals whose disqualification was in the sacred domain,

which became disqualified within the Temple courtyard—for example, the meat of a sacrifice that remained overnight, or that went outside its designated partition, or that was slaughtered with the intention of [eating or sacrificing it] outside its time or outside its place—

and he sacrificed them outside, he is liable.

Since, had they ascended within [the Temple], the law is that they would not be taken down, therefore they are considered a sacrifice “accepted within,” and one is liable for sacrificing them outside. As it is stated: “to perform it for the Lord,” and we expound: everything that is performed for the Lord, one is liable for it outside; but for everything that is not performed for the Lord, one is not liable for it outside.

One who sacrifices an olive-sized portion of the burnt-offering and of the sacrificial fats,

half an olive-sized portion of this and half an olive-sized portion of that,

outside, is liable.

Because the burnt-offering is entirely burned for the Lord, these combine with one another.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

with regard to sacrificing outside [Leviticus 17:8], it is stated: “Any man

who sacrifices a burnt-offering.”

I have only

that he is liable outside

but

when he sacrifices

a burnt-offering; from where [do we derive] to include the sacrificial fats of a guilt-offering, the sacrificial fats of a sin-offering, and the sacrificial fats of

other

most holy offerings—

namely, the lambs of Shavuot—

and the sacrificial fats of lesser holiness? The verse states “sacrifice,”

to include these.

From where [do we derive] to include the blood? The verse states “or a sacrifice”.

From where [do we derive] to include

and to make one liable for sacrificing

the handful and the frankincense

of a voluntary meal-offering,

the incense and the meal-offering of priests,

which is entirely burned and is fit to be sacrificed like the handful of an Israelite’s meal-offering [but the remainder of an Israelite’s meal-offering is eaten and is not fit to be sacrificed within, and therefore one is not liable for sacrificing it]],

and the meal-offering of the anointed priest,

namely, a tenth of an ephah that the High Priest brings every day,

and one who pours three log of wine,

which is the smallest of the libations,

and three log of water,

which is consecrated for the water libation during the festival?

The verse states: “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he shall not bring it,”

and we expound:

for everything that comes to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, one is liable for it outside.

And I have only valid offerings. From where [do we derive] to include

and to make one liable also for sacrificing outside

invalid offerings,

which became disqualified within [the Temple] and whose law is that if they ascended, they would not be taken down [but they cannot be derived from “he shall not bring it,” since they are not initially fit to come]],

such as one that remained overnight,

a sacrifice that was left overnight and for which the night passed.

And one that went out

outside the wall .

And the impure one

that became impure,

and

a sacrifice

that was slaughtered

with the intention of

outside its time

or

outside its place. And

a sacrifice

that invalid persons received and cast its blood. And those whose blood is given

below, [one] gave it

above. And those whose [blood] is given above, [one] gave it below

92 . And those given outside

on the outer altar,

[one] gave them within

on the inner [altar].

And those given within, [one] gave them outside. And

a sacrifice

of Passover and

a sacrifice

of sin-offering that he slaughtered without the proper intention

within [the Temple] and became disqualified—all these,

from where

[do we derive] that one who sacrifices any of them outside after they became disqualified is liable?

The verse states: “He shall not bring it to perform

it,” and we expound:

for everything accepted at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, one is liable for it outside.

For “to perform it” means “fit to be performed,” even though it is not fit to come from outside to within. And since these invalid offerings, if they ascended, would not be taken down, and the priest is required to deal with them, either to turn them over with the fork or to raise them from the top of the altar to the pyre, they are therefore considered fit to be performed .

We learned in the Mishna:

one who sacrifices an olive-sized portion of the burnt-offering

and of its sacrificial fats outside is liable.

And we infer:

a burnt-offering and its sacrificial fats, yes,

they combine, and it follows that

peace-offerings and their sacrificial fats, no;

their flesh does not combine with their sacrificial fats to constitute an olive-sized portion for liability for sacrificing outside , and the reason is that the flesh of a peace-offering is not fit to be burned, and is not included in the prohibition of “to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he shall not bring it” .

We learned it

also with regard to this,

that we learned the words of our Mishna also in a beraita.

For we learned in a beraita: a burnt-offering and its sacrificial portions combine to the measure of an olive in order to offer them outside, and

they combine

to make one liable for them on account of pigul, notar, and impurity.

And it might have entered your mind that this is speaking of one who ate an olive-measure of flesh and sacrificial portions of a burnt-offering that was pigul or notar, or who ate it in a state of bodily impurity. And specifically with regard to a burnt-offering do they combine.

And we raise an objection:

Granted, with regard to offering them

outside,

a burnt-offering, which is entirely burned, does combine,

it combines with its sacrificial portions, but

a peace-offering

which is not entirely burned,

does not!

But

with regard to

pigul, notar, and impurity, for what reason does it not

combine the flesh with the sacrificial portions? For the law of pigul, notar, and impurity applies both to the flesh and to the sacrificial portions, since with regard to everything that has items that permit it, whether for a person or for the altar, one is liable on its account for pigul. And since the blood permits the flesh for a person and the sacrificial portions for the altar, why should they not combine together for the olive-measure of pigul and notar?

And we learned [Meila 15a]:

all items of pigul combine, and all items of notar combine.

And if so, why does the flesh of a peace-offering not combine with its sacrificial portions?

The difficulty is pigul over against pigul! The difficulty is notar over against notar!

And we answer:

Pigul over against pigul is not difficult. Here

the Mishna in Meila is dealing

with

a

person eating

pigul,

where the flesh and the sacrificial portions combine to make him liable for a sin-offering for eating an olive-measure of them, and this is even with peace-offerings.

But here,

when they said, “a burnt-offering,” yes; a peace-offering, no,

it is with a thought of pigul.

It is speaking of a case where he slaughtered or sprinkled with the intention of burning half an olive-measure of the flesh of a burnt-offering and half an olive-measure of sacrificial portions with a thought outside its time, for only with a burnt-offering did he render it pigul. But with peace-offerings, if he intended to eat or burn half an olive-measure of flesh and half an olive-measure of sacrificial portions, he did not render it pigul, for a thought of eating does not render items burned pigul, and a thought of burning does not render items eaten pigul.

Notar over against notar

also

is not difficult.

Here

is the Mishna in Meila, where we learned that they combine,

in

an ordinary

notar

and that is even with peace-offerings.

But here,

when they said, “a burnt-offering,” yes; a peace-offering, no, it is speaking

[unclear: of the case in which they became notar],

where the flesh and the sacrificial portions were lost or burned

before the blood was sprinkled,

and half an olive-measure of this and half an olive-measure of that remained. Therefore, only with a burnt-offering is one liable on account of notar, since it is entirely burned, and one can sprinkle the blood over them, because they combine for the eating of the altar.

But with peace-offerings, half an olive-measure of their flesh and half an olive-measure of their sacrificial portions do not combine to make one liable on their account for notar, because it is impossible to sprinkle the blood over them. For there is neither an olive-measure of flesh for the eating of a person, nor an olive-measure of sacrificial portions for the eating of the altar; therefore, even if he sprinkled, one is not liable on their account for notar and impurity. For they said above [45b]

that only flesh permitted to pure persons entails liability on account of impurity, and by a gzera shava they learned that the same is so with notar.

And who is

the author of the beraita?

It is Rabbi Joshua!