Zevachim

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]?1 — Said R. Papa: [This refers to] the meal-offering of libations which accompanies the [animal] sacrifice.2 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. ELEAZAR3 RULES THAT ONE IS NOT LIABLE UNLESS HE PRESENTS THE WHOLE OF THEM [WITHOUT].4 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.5 IN THE CASE OF ALL OF THESE, IF THEY BECAME SLIGHTLY INCOMPLETE. AND ONE OFFERED THEM WITHOUT, HE IS NOT LIABLE.6 ONE WHO OFFERS SACRIFICES TOGETHER WITH THE EMURIM WITHOUT,7 IS LIABLE.8 GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: If one burns as much as an olive of incense9 without, he is liable; [if one burns] half a peras10 within he is not liable. Now it was assumed that what does ‘not liable’ mean? A zar is not liable;11 [then the difficulty arises] why so? Surely it is haktarah?12 — 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.13 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?14 — Said Rabbah: In respect of haktarah in the Hekal none disagree.15 They disagree only in respect of the haktarah within:16 one master holds, ‘his hands full’ is particularly meant;17 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?18 — 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].19 Raba observed: Seeing that the Rabbis do not learn without from without, can there be a question of [learning] within from without?20 To what is this allusion?21 — 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!22 — Rather said Raba: [The Mishnah applies to] where e.g., one appointed it olive is offered within it is valid, provided that the whole of it was available for offering. less than a peras. prescribe a quantity for this, the standard of a peras being Rabbinical only. Consequently R. Eleazar admits that if one burns as much as an olive of this without, he is liable; and for the same reason the community is quit of its obligation when as much as an olive is burnt within. Hence the Baraitha, which refers to the daily haktarah, agrees with all. ‘his hands full’ (Lev. XVI, 12). if one burns this without, he is not liable. intimates that everything which is so designated must be carried out exactly as prescribed; further, it applies to all the rites enumerated in the chapter which are performed only ‘once in the year’, and hence includes haktarah within. How then can anyone maintain that ‘his hands full’ is not meant particularly? But his premises and reasoning are different. Thus: all agree that a complete haktarah, viz., ‘his hands full’ is indispensable within. They disagree where one burnt without the Temple as much as an olive of this incense that should have been burnt within, in the innermost sanctuary. One master holds that we learn within from without, i.e. the incense of the innermost sanctuary from the incense of the Hekal: just as one is liable for burning as much as an olive of the latter without, so is one liable for burning as much as an olive of the former without, although that same quantity burnt in its rightful place, sc. the innermost sanctuary, does not constitute haktarah. R. Eleazar, however, holds that we cannot make this inference, precisely because of the difference just noted, Hence when he burns it without he is not liable. or water offered as a libation without entails liability, though both of these are ‘without’, i.e., they are rightly offered on the outer altar. The author of this must be the Rabbis, since R. Eleazar holds that one is not liable even when he burns as much as an olive without. (It should be noted that ‘without’ in the present passage is used with two different meanings: (i) outside the Temple court altogether. where all offering is forbidden; and (ii) the outer altar in the Temple court, where the daily incense is burnt and the drink-offerings are made.)