זבחים 109 — parallel

109:1

. IF EITHER VALID SACRIFICES OR INVALID SACRIFICES HAD BECOME UNFIT WITHIN, AND ONE OFFERS THEM WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE. IF ONE OFFERS UP WITHOUT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF A BURNT-OFFERING AND ITS EMURIM [COMBINED]. HE IS LIABLE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [Whatsoever man . . .] that offereth up a burnt-offering: I know it only of a burnt-offering; whence do I know to include the emurim of a guilt-offering, the emurim of a sin-offering, the emurim of most sacred sacrifices and the emurim of lesser sacrifices? Because it says, ‘[or] sacrifice’. Whence do we know to include the fistful, frankincense, incense, the meal-offering of priests, the meal-offering of the anointed priest, and one who makes a libation of three logs of wine or of water? Because it says, ‘And bringeth it not unto the door of the tent of meeting’: whatever comes to the door of the tent of meeting, you are liable on its account [if it is done] without. Again, I know it only of valid sacrifices; whence do I know to include invalid [ones], e.g., [a sacrifice] that is kept overnight, or that goes out, or is unclean, or which was slaughtered [with the intention of being eaten] after time or without bounds, or whose blood was received and sprinkled by unfit persons; or [whose blood] was sprinkled above when it should have been sprinkled below, or below when it should have been sprinkled above, or within instead of without, or without instead of within; or a Passover-offering or a sin-offering which one slaughtered under a different designation? Because it says, ‘And bringeth it not to sacrifice’, [this teaches,] whatever is received at the door of the tent of meeting, you are liable on its account without. IF ONE OFFERS UP WITHOUT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF A BURNT-OFFERING [AND ITS EMURIM] etc. Only [of] a burnt-offering and its emurim, but not [of] a peace-offering and its emurim. We have thus learnt here what our Rabbis taught: A burnt-offering and its emurim combine to [make up the standard of] an olive, in respect of offering them up without, and in respect of being liable through them on account of piggul, nothar, and defilement. As for offering-up. it is well: only a burnt-offering, because it is altogether burnt [kalil], but not a peace-offering. What however is the reason for piggul, nothar, and uncleanness? Surely we learnt: All instances of piggul combine, and all instances of nothar combine: thus the rulings on piggul are contradictory, and those on nothar are contradictory? — The rulings on piggul are not contradictory: one refers to piggul, the other refers to the intention of piggul. Nor are the rulings on nothar contradictory: one refers to [actual] nothar, the other refers to such which were left over before the blood was sprinkled. And who is the author of this? — R. Joshua. For it was taught: R. Joshua said: [In the case of] all the sacrifices of the Torah of which as much as an olive of flesh or an olive of heleb remains,

—

109:2

he sprinkles the blood. [If there remains] half as much as an olive of flesh and half an olive of heleb, he must not sprinkle the blood. But in the case of a burnt-offering, even [if there remains] half as much as an olive of flesh and half an olive of heleb, he sprinkles the blood, because the whole of it is entirely burnt. While as for a meal-offering, even if the whole of it is in existence, he must not sprinkle [the blood]. What business has a meal-offering [here]? — Said R. Papa: [This refers to] the meal-offering of libations which accompanies the [animal] sacrifice. MISHNAH. AS FOR THE FISTFUL [OF FLOUR]. THE FRANKINCENSE, THE INCENSE, THE PRIESTS’ MEAL-OFFERING, THE ANOINTED PRIEST'S MEAL-OFFERING, AND THE MEALOFFERING OF LIBATIONS, IF [ONE] PRESENTED AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF ONE OF THESE WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE. BUT R. ELEAZAR RULES THAT ONE IS NOT LIABLE UNLESS HE PRESENTS THE WHOLE OF THEM [WITHOUT]. IN THE CASE OF ALL OF THESE, IF THEY WERE OFFERED WITHIN, BUT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE WAS LEFT OVER AND ONE OFFERED IT WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE. IN THE CASE OF ALL OF THESE, IF THEY BECAME SLIGHTLY INCOMPLETE. AND ONE OFFERED THEM WITHOUT, HE IS NOT LIABLE. ONE WHO OFFERS SACRIFICES TOGETHER WITH THE EMURIM WITHOUT, IS LIABLE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If one burns as much as an olive of incense without, he is liable; [if one burns] half a peras within he is not liable. Now it was assumed that what does ‘not liable’ mean? A zar is not liable; [then the difficulty arises] why so? Surely it is haktarah? — Said R. Zera in R. Hisda's name in R. Jeremiah b. Abba's name in Rab's name: What does ‘not liable’ mean? The community is not liable. R. Zera said: If I have a difficulty, it is this, viz., Rab's statement thereon [that] here even R. Eleazar agrees; but surely R. Eleazar maintains that this does not constitute haktarah? — Said Rabbah: In respect of haktarah in the Hekal none disagree. They disagree only in respect of the haktarah within: one master holds, ‘his hands full’ is particularly meant; while the other master holds [that] ‘his hands full’ is not meant particularly. But surely, said Abaye to him, ‘statute’ is written in reference to haktarah within? — Rather said Abaye: In respect of haktarah within, none disagree. They disagree only in respect of haktarah without: one master holds [that] we learn within from without; while the other master holds that we do not learn [within from without]. Raba observed: Seeing that the Rabbis do not learn without from without, can there be a question of [learning] within from without? To what is this allusion? — To what was taught: You might think that if one offers up [without] less than an olive of the fistful [of flour] or less than an olive of emurim, or if one makes libations of less than three logs of wine or less than three logs of water, he is liable: therefore it states, ‘to sacrifice [do]’: one is liable for a complete [standard], but one is not liable for an incomplete one. Now, less than three logs nevertheless contains many olives, and yet the Rabbis do not learn without from without! — Rather said Raba: [The Mishnah applies to] where e.g., one appointed it

—