Zevachim 109a (קט.) — the Talmud in English

MISHNA:

Whether they are valid sacrificial animals or invalid sacrificial animals whose disqualification occurred within the sacred precincts,

i.e., they became disqualified inside the Temple courtyard—for example, the meat of a sacrifice that remained overnight, or that left its designated boundary, or that was slaughtered with the intention of offering it outside its time or outside its place—

and one offers them outside, he is liable.

Since, had they been placed on the altar inside, the halakha is that they would not be removed, they are therefore considered sacrifices that are “accepted within,” and one is liable for offering them outside. As it is stated: “To offer it to the Lord” (Leviticus 17:9), and we derive: Any item that is offered to the Lord entails liability for offering it outside; but for anything that is not offered to the Lord, there is no liability for offering it outside. One who offers an olive-bulk of the burnt-offering or of the sacrificial fats, half an olive-bulk of this and half an olive-bulk of that,

outside is liable.

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

GEMARA:

The Sages taught:

With regard to offering outside, it is stated: “Any man…who offers a burnt-offering” (Leviticus 17:8).

I have derived

only that one who offers a

burnt-offering

outside is liable.

Rather,

when he offers

a burnt-offering, from where do I derive that the sacrificial fats of a guilt-offering, the sacrificial fats of a sin-offering, and the sacrificial fats of

other

most sacred sacrifices,

i.e., the lambs of Shavuot,

and the sacrificial fats of lesser sanctity sacrifices,

are included? The verse states: “A sacrifice,”

to include these.

From where do I derive that the blood is included? The verse states: “Or a sacrifice,”

From where do I derive the inclusion

and liability for offering

the handful and the frankincense

of a voluntary meal-offering,

the incense and the meal-offering of priests,

which is burned in its entirety and is fit to be offered 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 offered inside, and therefore one is not liable for offering it],

and the meal-offering of the anointed priest,

i.e., the tenth of an ephah that the High Priest brings every day,

and one who pours three log of wine,

which is the smallest quantity of libations,

and three log of water,

which is sanctified for the water libation during the Festival?

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

and we derive:

Anything that comes to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting entails liability for offering it outside.

I have derived only valid sacrificial animals. From where do I derive the inclusion

and liability also for offering outside

invalid items,

which became disqualified inside and whose halakha is that if they were placed on the altar they would not be removed [but they cannot be derived from “he shall not bring it,” since they are not fit to be brought initially],

such as one that remained overnight,

a sacrifice that was left overnight and on which a night passed;

and one that went out,

beyond the wall;

and one that became impure,

which became impure;

and

a sacrifice

that was slaughtered

with the intention of offering it

outside its time

or

outside its place; and

a sacrifice

that invalid persons received and whose blood they sprinkled. And those whose blood is to be given

below the midpoint of the altar, but one gave it

above; and those whose blood is to be given above, but one gave it below

. And those whose blood is to be given outside,

on the outer altar,

but one gave it inside,

on the inner altar;

and those whose blood is to be given inside, but one gave it outside. And

a

Paschal offering and

a

sin-offering that one slaughtered not for their sake

inside and thereby disqualified them—all these,

from where

do we derive that one who offers them outside after they became disqualified is liable?

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

it,” and we derive:

Everything accepted at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting entails liability for offering it outside.

For “to offer it” means “that which is fit to be offered,” even if it is not fit to be brought from outside to inside. Since these invalid items, if placed on the altar, would not be removed, and the priest must attend to them—either by turning them over with the fork or by moving them from the top of the altar to the pyre—they are consequently considered fit to be offered.

We learned in the Mishna:

One who offers an olive-bulk of the burnt-offering

and of its sacrificial fats outside is liable.

And we infer:

The burnt-offering and its sacrificial fats—yes;

they combine, implying that

a peace-offering and its sacrificial fats—no;

its flesh does not combine with its sacrificial fats to form an olive-bulk for liability for offering outside, because the flesh of a peace-offering is not subject to burning and is not included in the prohibition “he shall not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.”

We also taught

this

that we learned the statement of our Mishna in a beraita as well.

As the Sages taught:

they join

to make one liable for them for offering them outside, and for pigul, notar, and tamei.

And it might have been assumed that this is referring to one who eats an olive-bulk of meat and sacrificial portions of a burnt offering that are pigul or notar, or who ate them while in a state of bodily impurity. And it is specifically with regard to a burnt offering that they join together.

And we raise an objection:

As for offering them

outside,

a burnt offering, which is entirely burned, indeed

joins with its sacrificial portions, but

a peace offering

which is not entirely burned,

does not!

Rather,

with regard

to pigul, notar, and tamei, for what reason do they not

join the meat with the sacrificial portions? After all, the laws of pigul, notar, and tamei apply both to the meat and to the sacrificial portions, because with regard to every item that has elements that permit it, whether for a person or for the altar, one is liable for it on account of pigul. And since the blood permits the meat for a person and the sacrificial portions for the altar, why should they not join together to constitute an olive-bulk of pigul or notar?

But we learned

]:

All items that are pigul join together, and all items that are notar join together.

If so, why does the meat of a peace offering not join with its sacrificial portions?

The difficulty concerning pigul remains a difficulty on account of pigul; the difficulty concerning notar remains a difficulty on account of notar!

And we resolve it:

The difficulty concerning pigul on account of pigul is not difficult. Here

the Mishna in tractate Meila is dealing

with

a person who eats

pigul,

so that the meat and the sacrificial portions join together to make him liable for a sin-offering for eating an olive-bulk of them; and this applies even to a peace offering.

But here,

when they said that “a burnt offering” joins, yes, but a peace offering does not, it is

with regard to a thought of pigul.

The case is one in which he slaughtered or sprinkled the blood with the intention of burning half an olive-bulk of the meat of a burnt offering and half an olive-bulk of the sacrificial portions with a thought of performing the rite beyond its designated time, in which case only with regard to a burnt offering did he render the offering pigul. But with regard to a peace offering, if he intended to eat or burn half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of sacrificial portions, he did not render it pigul, because a thought of eating does not render items designated for burning pigul, and a thought of burning does not render items designated for eating pigul.

The difficulty concerning notar on account of notar

also

is not difficult.

Here

in the Mishna in tractate Meila, where we learned that they join together, it is

with regard to

an item

that is notar

in general, and this applies even to a peace offering.

But here,

when they said that “a burnt offering” joins, yes, but a peace offering does not, it is referring

to [unclear: the wording appears corrupt; the context indicates “when the two portions remained”]

when the meat and the sacrificial portions were lost or burned

before the blood was sprinkled,

and half an olive-bulk of this and half an olive-bulk of that remained. Therefore, only in the case of a burnt offering is one liable on account of notar, since it is entirely burned and the blood can be sprinkled over them, because they join together for the altar’s consumption.

But in the case of a peace offering, half an olive-bulk of its meat and half an olive-bulk of its sacrificial portions do not join together to make one liable for them on account of notar, because it is impossible to sprinkle the blood over them. For there is neither an olive-bulk of meat for human consumption nor an olive-bulk of sacrificial portions for the altar’s consumption. Therefore, even if he sprinkled the blood, one is not liable for them on account of notar or tamei. For they said above

: only meat that is permitted to those who are pure makes one liable for impurity, and through a gzera shava they derived that the same applies to notar.

And whose opinion is this,

the author of the baraita?

It is Rabbi Yehoshua’s!