Zevachim — Daf 109a

מתני׳ אחד קדשים כשרין ואחד קדשים פסולין שהיה פסולן בקודש והקריבן בחוץ חייב

המעלה כזית מן העולה ומן האימורין בחוץ חייב:

גמ׳ ת"ר (ויקרא יז, ח) אשר יעלה עולה או זבח אין לי אלא עולה מנין לרבות אימורי אשם ואימורי חטאת ואימורי קדשי קדשים ואימורי קדשים קלים ת"ל זבח

מנין לרבות הקומץ והלבונה והקטורת ומנחת כהנים ומנחת כהן משיח והמנסך שלשת לוגין יין ושלשת לוגין מים ת"ל (ויקרא יז, ט) ואל פתח אהל מועד לא יביאנו כל הבא לפתח אהל מועד חייבין עליו בחוץ

ואין לי אלא קדשים כשרים מנין לרבות פסולין

כגון הלן והיוצא והטמא ושנשחט חוץ לזמנו וחוץ למקומו ושקבלו פסולין וזרקו את דמו והניתנין למטה שנתנן למעלה והניתנין למעלה שנתנן למטה והניתנין בחוץ שנתנן בפנים והניתנין בפנים שנתנן בחוץ ופסח וחטאת שנתנן שלא לשמן

מנין ת"ל לא יביאנו לעשות כל המתקבל בפתח אהל מועד חייבין עליו בחוץ:

המעלה כזית מן העולה כו': עולה ואימוריה אין שלמים ואימוריהן לא

תנינא להא דת"ר עולה ואימוריה מצטרפין לכזית להעלותן בחוץ ולחייב עליהן משום פיגול נותר וטמא

בשלמא העלאת עולה דכליל אין שלמים לא אלא פיגול ונותר וטמא מ"ט

והא תנן כל הפגולין מצטרפין וכל הנותרין מצטרפין קשיא פיגול אפיגול קשיא נותר אנותר

פיגול אפיגול לא קשיא כאן בפיגול כאן במחשבת פיגול

נותר אנותר לא קשיא כאן בנותר כאן בשניתותרו עד שלא נזרק הדם

ומני רבי יהושע היא דתניא ר' יהושע אומר כל הזבחים שבתורה שנשתייר בהן כזית בשר

. IF EITHER VALID SACRIFICES OR INVALID SACRIFICES HAD BECOME UNFIT WITHIN, AND ONE OFFERS THEM WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE.1 IF ONE OFFERS UP WITHOUT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF A BURNT-OFFERING AND ITS EMURIM [COMBINED].2 HE IS LIABLE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: [Whatsoever man . . .] that offereth up a burnt-offering:3 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?4 Because it says, ‘[or] sacrifice’.5 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?6 Because it says, ‘And bringeth it not unto the door of the tent of meeting’:7 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;8 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,9 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.10 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.11 As for offering-up. it is well: only a burnt-offering, because it is altogether burnt [kalil],12 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:13 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.14 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.15 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, when it is piggul or nothar, or if he is unclean. should combine. its emurim, he is liable to a sin-offering. If, however, one slaughters a peace-offering with the intention of eating or burning half as much as an olive of the flesh and half as much as an olive of the emurim after time, it does not become piggul, because the flesh should be eaten and the emurim should be burnt, whereas an illegitimate intention of eating or burning renders a sacrifice piggul only when it is made in respect of what is eaten or burnt respectively. Such intentions do combine, however, in the case of a burnt-offering, since the whole of it is burnt. in the following instance: The whole of the animal, except half as much as an olive of the flesh and the same of the emurim, was lost or destroyed before the sprinkling of the blood. Now, if this happened with a burnt-offering, we would have as much as an olive for the altar's consumption, and therefore the sprinkling is valid to render it nothar, in the sense that if it is left until after time and then eaten, it entails liability. In the case of a peace-offering, however, there is only half as much as an olive for the altar's consumption and the same for man's consumption: these do not combine to permit the sprinkling. If one did sprinkle, therefore, the sprinkling is not valid to render it nothar in the above sense. The same applies to defilement.