Zevachim 109b (קט:) — the Talmud in English

As it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the offerings in the Torah except for a burnt-offering,

if

an olive-bulk of meat remains from them,

or an olive-bulk of suet, one sprinkles the blood.

As it is written: “And the koen shall sprinkle the blood, and he shall burn the suet.” And we derive [in Menahot 26a] that if some of the suet remains, even though no meat remains, he sprinkles the blood on its account. But if

half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of suet remain, he does not sprinkle the blood 99.

Because according to Rabbi Yehoshua, “If there is no meat, there is no blood.” And he derived this law [above, 104a] from what is stated concerning a burnt-offering: “And you shall perform your burnt-offerings, the meat and the blood.” And concerning the other offerings it is stated: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out, and you shall eat the meat”; the verse made them dependent upon one another .

The permission effected by the sprinkling of the blood concerns the prohibition against eating or burning sacred offerings before the sprinkling of the blood, and not the establishment of the mitzva of eating sacred offerings [as stated above, for which reason an olive-bulk is not required]. In Mishmar HaLevi [section 155], the question was raised: Even for less than the minimum measure, permission through the sprinkling of the blood is required; why, then, should he not sprinkle over less than an olive-bulk? However, my teacher, Rabbi Aharon Leib Shteinman, said that it is self-evident that there is no status of an offering for less than an olive-bulk. His intent was that even if the sprinkling of the blood depends, in terms of its function, upon rendering the meat permissible, this applies only when it renders permissible an olive-bulk, which is considered an offering. But for less than that, although there is some meat and some prohibition, the law of sprinkling does not take effect with regard to the meat [and even if the prohibition is rendered permissible, it is not considered sprinkling with regard to an offering]. It is also possible to say, as explained above, that this is not a law concerning sprinkling that it renders a prohibition permissible; rather, it is a law concerning the offering, that it must contain meat and blood, and the only condition concerning sprinkling is that it be performed for the sake of meat. [See Rashi in Menahot 9a, s.v. “like half a sprinkling of blood,” who writes that it serves only to render permissible; and once the items were lost, what purpose would the sprinkling serve?] But it cannot be resolved by saying that the prohibition of less than the minimum measure does not apply to the burning of an offering because a negative prohibition applies only when the item has the status of an offering in the measure of an olive-bulk, and therefore this is not a prohibition to which the permission of sprinkling applies. For if so, it would be difficult according to the one who says that sprinkling takes effect for less than an olive-bulk, as will be explained below. And with regard to a burnt-offering, if

half an olive-bulk of meat and

half an olive-bulk of suet remain from it, he sprinkles the blood, because it is entirely burned.

And with regard to a meal-offering, even

if

it is entirely intact, he may not sprinkle!

And we raised a difficulty concerning this:

A meal-offering—what is its relevance here!?

How could they say concerning it, “He may not sprinkle,” when it does not involve sprinkling blood at all?

Rav Pappa said:

Rabbi Yehoshua is discussing a

meal-offering accompanying libations that comes with an offering.

The meat of the offering was lost, while the meal-offering remained. He teaches us that it is not considered equivalent to the meat, as though meat had remained. Therefore, he may not sprinkle the blood on its account .

Mishna:

a.

The handful and the frankincense

of meal-offerings,

and the incense

that is burned every day in the Temple,

and the meal-offering of a koen

which is entirely burned and fit to be burned like the handful of an Israelite’s meal-offering [but one is not liable for bringing the remainder of an Israelite’s meal-offering outside, since it is not burned],

and the meal-offering of the anointed koen,

the tenth of an ephah that he brings every day,

and meal-offerings accompanying libations,

every meal-offering brought with the libations together with an offering, into which no frankincense is placed and which is entirely burned—

if one burned an olive-bulk of any one of them outside, he is liable.

For according to the first tanna, the measure for burning is a complete olive-bulk [unlike Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yosei above, who hold that the measure is an entire animal or an entire limb].

Rabbi Elazar exempts him until he offers all of it. For according to him, all items that render an offering permissible are invalidated by a deficiency, and as long as they have not been offered in their entirety, the act is not considered burning through which the owners can fulfill their obligation . Rabbi Elazar disputes the Rabbis only with regard to the items burned in our Mishna that are not “renderers of permissibility.” But he too agrees that concerning a burnt-offering one is liable for an olive-bulk of its meat after it has been rendered permissible through the sprinkling of the blood. Conversely, the Rabbis agree that one is not liable for burning an olive-bulk of a “renderer of permissibility” unless the entire renderer is present and not deficient. In that case, he may burn each olive-bulk of it separately, and he is liable for it outside. b.

And both according to Rabbi Elazar and according to the Rabbis,

all of them that he offered inside, leaving an olive-bulk of them, and offered it outside—he is liable. For through this their burning was completed. He is liable for the measure of burning, an olive-bulk, since inside he completed a fully valid act of burning.

c.

And both according to Rabbi Elazar and according to the Rabbis,

all of them that became deficient by any amount

before burning, having been lost or burned,

and he offered them outside—he is exempt,

because they are not acceptable inside.

And we derive in Menahot [9b] from the verse, “And the koen shall remove from the meal-offering,” that if the entire meal-offering is not before him, he may not burn it; this excludes a case in which it became deficient, and a case in which its handful became deficient .

d. One who offers the meat of sacred offerings and sacrificial parts outside, while they are still attached, is liable for the sacrificial parts. Although sacred-offering meat is not burned, and the meat therefore comes between the fire and the sacrificial parts, nevertheless, one substance does not interpose before another substance of the same kind. Gemara: The Sages taught: One who burns an olive-bulk of incense outside is liable, although its measure inside is half a pras. But if he burned half a pras inside, he is exempt. This does not mean specifically half a pras; rather, he is exempt for anything less than the measure required for the mitzva of burning the incense to be valid, even an olive-bulk. It might enter your mind to say: What does “exempt” mean? Exempt is a non-koen if he burned it. And if so, this is difficult:

with regard to all of them, if they became deficient by any amount

before burning—because some was lost or burned—

and he offered them outside, he is exempt

since they would not be accepted inside. And we derive in Menachot (9b) from the verse, “And the koen shall take from the meal offering,” that if the entire meal offering is not before him, he may not burn it. This excludes a case in which the meal offering itself became deficient, as well as a case in which its handful became deficient.

Why

is he

exempt?

It is an act of burning,

as he is liable for burning it outside.

And we answer:

Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Hisda said that Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: What does “exempt” mean? Exempt is the community.

The community fulfills its obligation through this burning, since an olive-bulk is the measure of burning.

Rabbi Zeira said: If I have a difficulty,

it is concerning this law:

I have a difficulty with what Rav said concerning it: In this matter, even Rabbi Elazar

—who said in our Mishna that one is not liable for offering outside until he offers the entire item intact—

agrees

that the community fulfills its obligation through burning incense even though it did not offer the full measure of the incense [which is a pras], but burned only half a pras. And concerning this I have a difficulty: Why does he agree?

For Rabbi Elazar says, “It is not an act of burning,”

as the Mishna states that one is exempt for offering it outside.

And we answer:

Rabba said:

There is a distinction between the two acts of burning. The beraita is speaking

of the burning in the Sanctuary,

that is, the incense burned every day,

as everyone agrees

that no measure is stated for it by Torah law. The measure of a pras is required only by rabbinic law .

Therefore, Rabbi Elazar agrees that burning an olive-bulk of it is considered burning, making one liable for offering it outside and enabling the community to fulfill its obligation inside. It follows that the entire beraita, both its first clause and its latter clause, reflects the view of everyone.

this is my difficulty: concerning what Rav said about it, “Here, even Rabbi Elazar

—who said in our Mishna that one is not liable for offering outside until he offers the entire item completely—

agrees”

that the community fulfills its obligation through burning the incense even though it did not offer the full measure of the incense, which is a pras, but burned only half a pras. This is difficult: Why does he agree

when Rabbi Elazar said, “It is not a burning”?

For the Mishna says that one is exempt for offering it outside.

And we answer:

Rabba said:

There is a distinction between the two burnings. The beraita is discussing

They disagree

in the Mishna

concerning the burning inside,

on Yom Kippur, when the High Koen enters for its sake into the innermost place. The Torah states that its measure is the fullness of his handfuls [in Leviticus 16]. For one Master, Rabbi Elazar, holds that the measure “the fullness of his handfuls” is precise. He must burn the entire measure at once , and therefore one is liable outside only for a complete burning. And the other Master holds —the Rabbis—“The fullness of his handfuls” is not precise. One is liable even for an olive-bulk.

They disagree

in the Mishna

about the burning inside,

on Yom Kippur, when the High Priest enters the innermost chamber for this purpose. The Torah states that its measure is the amount that fills his cupped hands [in Leviticus 16].

One master,

Rabbi Elazar,

holds

that the measure of

“the fullness of his cupped hands” is exact

— he must burn the entire measure at one time— and therefore one is liable outside only for a complete burning.

The other master (the Sages)

—the Rabbis—“

holds that “the fullness of his cupped hands” is not exact.

He is liable even for an olive-bulk.

Abaye said to him: But when the term “statute,”

meaning that it is indispensable,

is written with regard to the burning of the incense inside. It is stated: “And it shall be for you an eternal statute”; how, then, can you say that according to the Rabbis, “the full handful” is not meant literally?

is written with regard to the burning of the incense inside. It is stated: “And it shall be for you an eternal statute”; how, then, can you say that according to the Rabbis, “the full handful” is not meant literally?

Rather, Abaye said:

The distinction between the Mishna and the beraita is as Rabba distinguished it; however,

with regard to the burning of the incense inside, everyone agrees

that a complete burning is required, because even according to the Rabbis, “the full handful” is meant literally, and they did not disagree at all with regard to the incense burned inside.

When do they disagree? With regard to burning outside.

For example, one burned outside an olive-bulk of the incense taken by the handful for burning inside [a full handful designated for burning inside].

One Master [

the Rabbis]

holds that we derive inside from outside,

that is, the incense burned inside is derived from the incense of the Heikhal: Just as for burning the incense of the Heikhal outside one is liable for an olive-bulk, so too, for burning the incense designated for inside outside one is liable for an olive-bulk. And although inside it is not considered a valid burning unless it is a full handful, nevertheless, we derive it from the Heikhal.

And the other Master [

Rabbi Elazar]

holds that we do not derive

inside from outside. And since in its proper place, inside, it is not considered a valid burning, one is not liable for it outside either.

And we raise an objection:

Rava said: Now, if the Rabbis do not derive one case of outside from another case of outside,

as the Gemara will demonstrate shortly, then

inside from outside

to make one liable for burning the incense of the innermost chamber outside according to the measure of the incense of the Heikhal, which is burned outside,

should certainly be required!?

Surely this cannot be derived from that.

And we ask:

What is it?

Where do we find that they did not derive one case of outside from another case of outside?

As it was taught: One might have thought that one who raises

outside

less than an olive-bulk of a kometz, less than an olive-bulk of the sacrificial portions, or one who pours less than three log of wine, or less than three log of water, should be liable?

The Torah states: “To perform it”—

for a complete measure

it is

that he is liable, but he is not liable for an incomplete measure!

And regarding less than three log, which contains several olive-bulk measures, and

even so

the Rabbis do not derive one case of outside

to make one liable for an olive-bulk of a libation performed on the outer altar

from outside,

from the burning of the fats, whose measure is an olive-bulk and which are also placed on the outer altar.

Rather, Rava said:

In truth, there is no distinction between the Mishna and the beraita, and both are referring to the burning of the incense of the Heikhal. Since the measure of this incense is an olive-bulk, one is liable for it outside for an olive-bulk as well, and Rabbi Elazar agrees with this. Their dispute in the Mishna is only

in a case where he set them !(pamud.bmp "

precise position of the column") two half-olive-bulk measures, which together constitute the measure of the incense,

in a vessel, in a service vessel.