Zevachim 109b — the Talmud in English

For it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehoshua says: With regard to all the sacrifices in the Torah—

except for an ola—

from which an olive-bulk of meat remained ![](pamud.bmp "

Exact page location")

or an olive-bulk of fat, he sprinkles the blood.

For it is written: “And the priest shall sprinkle the blood, and he shall burn the fat.” And we derive [in Menahot 26a] that if fat remained, even though no meat remains, he sprinkles the blood on its account. But if there remained

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

For according to Rabbi Yehoshua, “If there is no meat, there is no blood.” And he derived this law [above, 104a] from what is stated with regard to an ola: “And you shall perform your olot, the meat and the blood.” And with regard to the other sacrifices it is stated: “And you shall pour out the blood of your sacrifices, and you shall eat the meat”; Scripture made them dependent upon one another.

And with regard to an ola,

if half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat remained from it,

he sprinkles the blood, because it is entirely burned.

And a meal-offering, even

if

it is entirely present, he should not sprinkle!

And we raised a question about this:

A meal-offering—what is its relevance!?

How could they say concerning it, “He should not sprinkle,” when there is no sprinkling of blood at all in its case?

Rav Pappa said:

Rabbi Yehoshua is dealing with

a meal-offering accompanying the libations that comes with the sacrifice.

The meat of the sacrifice was lost, while the meal-offering remained. And he informs us that it is not considered in place of meat, as though meat remained. Therefore, he should not sprinkle the blood on its account.

Mishna:

A.

The handful and the frankincense

of meal-offerings,

and the incense

that they burn every day in

the Temple, and the meal-offering of priests

which is entirely burned and is fit to be burned like the handful of the meal-offering of an Israelite [but the remainder of the meal-offering of an Israelite, which they do not burn, does not incur liability for raising it outside],

and the meal-offering of the anointed priest,

the tenth of an eipha that he brings every day.

And the meal-offering of libations,

every meal-offering that they bring for libations with the sacrifice, and in which they do not place frankincense, and which is entirely burned—

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

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

Rabbi Elazar exempts until he offers all of it.

For according to him, all the permitting elements become invalid through being incomplete, and as long as they have not been offered in their entirety, this is not considered burning through which the owners can fulfill their obligation.

Rabbi Elazar disputes only in the case of the objects burned in our Mishna, which have no “permitting elements”; but he too agrees that in the case of an ola one is liable for an olive-bulk of its meat after it has been permitted through the sprinkling of the blood. Conversely, the Rabbis agree that one is not liable for burning an olive-bulk of a “permitting element” unless specifically the entire permitting element is present and not incomplete; then he can 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, and an olive-bulk remained from them and he offered it outside, he is liable.

For in this manner their burning is completed. And he is liable for the measure of burning, an olive-bulk, since inside he completes a full 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,

since they are not acceptable inside. And we derive in Menahot [9b], from what is stated, “And the priest 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 it became deficient after it was [already prepared], and a case in which its handful became deficient.

D.

One who offers

meat

of sacred offerings and sacrificial fats outside,

while they are still attached,

is liable

for the sacrificial fats. Although sacred meat is not burned, and it follows that the meat separates the fire from the sacrificial fats, nevertheless, one species does not separate another of the same species.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: One who burns an olive-bulk of incense outside is liable,

although its measure inside is half a maneh. But if he burned

half a pras inside, he is exempt.

And it is not specifically half a pras; rather, whenever he burned less than the measure required for the validity of the mitzva of the incense, even an olive-bulk.

It might enter your mind: What does “exempt” mean? Exempt is a non-priest

if he burned it.

And if so, this is difficult:

Why

is he

exempt, when it is burning,

for he is liable for burning it outside?

And we answer:

Rabbi Zeira said in the name of Rav Hisda, who said in the name of Rav Yirmeya bar Abba, who said in the name of Rav: What does “exempt” mean? Exempt is the community.

For through this burning the community has discharged its obligation and fulfilled its duty, since an olive-bulk is the measure of burning.

Rabbi Zeira said: If this law is difficult to me,

concerning this law,

this is difficult to me: that which Rav said concerning it: In this matter, even Rabbi Elazar

who said in our Mishna that one is not liable for raising outside until he offers everything in its entirety

admits

that the community is discharged through the burning of incense even though he did not offer the full measure of the incense [which is a pras], but burned only half a pras. And concerning this it is difficult: why does he admit?

For Rabbi Elazar said, “It is not burning,”

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

And we answer:

Rabba said:

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

of the burning of the Sanctuary,

that is, the incense of every day;

everyone agrees

that no measure was stated concerning it by Torah law. The measure of a pras is only rabbinic. Therefore Rabbi Elazar agrees that burning an olive-bulk of it is considered burning, making one liable for it outside and discharging the community of its obligation inside. It follows that the entire beraita, its beginning and its end, is the view of everyone.

They dispute

in the Mishna

concerning the burning inside,

on the Day of Atonement, when the High Priest enters for it into the innermost place. And it is stated in the Torah that its measure is the fullness of his handfuls [in Leviticus 16].

One master—

Rabbi Elazar—

holds

that the measure

“the fullness of his handfuls” is specifically required

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

And the other master holds

—the Rabbis—“

the fullness of his handfuls is not specifically required.”

And one 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?

Как сказано: «И будет это для вас вечным законом»; и как ты сказал, что, по мнению Раббанан, «полная пригоршня» не является обязательной именно в таком количестве?

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 [

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.