Zevachim

GEMARA. Samuel said: According to R. Tarfon, when a man donates oil [by itself], he removes a fistful, burns it [on the altar], and its residue is eaten. What is the reason? — Scripture saith, [And when any one bringeth] a meal-offering:1 this teaches that one can donate oil [by itself],2 and that it [an offering of oil] is like a meal-offering: as a fistful is taken of a meal-offering and the rest is eaten,3 so the oil: one takes a fistful off and the rest of it is eaten. R. Zera observed, We too have learnt thus: R. SIMEON SAID: IF YOU SEE OIL BEING SHARED OUT IN THE TEMPLE COURT, YOU NEED NOT ASK WHAT IT IS, FOR IT IS THE RESIDUE OF THE WAFERS [REKIKIM] OF THE ISRAELITES’ MEAL-OFFERINGS OR OF THE LEPER'S LOG OF OIL . . . FOR MEN CANNOT OFFER OIL [ALONE]: hence it follows that on the view that it can be offered, it can be shared out!4 — Said Abaye to him: Then consider the next clause: IF YOU SEE OIL POURED ON THE FIRES, YOU NEED NOT ASK WHAT IT IS, FOR IT IS THE RESIDUE OF THE WAFERS OF PRIESTS’ MEAL-OFFERINGS OR OF THE ANOINTED PRIEST'S MEAL-OFFERING, FOR MEN CANNOT OFFER OIL [ALONE]: hence it follows that on the view that it can be offered, the whole of it is a fire offering. Thus the first clause presents a difficulty on Abaye's view, while the last clause presents a difficulty on R. Zera's view. As for R. Zera, it is well: the first clause5 refers to the residue, while the last clause refers to the fistful. But on Abaye's view there is a difficulty? — The first clause is taught on account of the last clause.6 As for saying that a second clause it taught on account of a first clause, that is well; but does one teach a first clause on account of a second clause?7 — Yes: they said in the West [Palestine]: The first clause is taught on account of the second clause. Come and hear: Wine, in R. Akiba's view, is for the basins; oil, in R. Tarfon's view, is for the fires.8 Now surely, since the whole of the wine is for basins, the whole of the oil is for burning?9 — Why choose to say thus: each is conditioned by its own law.10 R. Papa said:11 This is dependent on Tannaim: [When one donates] oil, he must bring not less than a log; Rabbi said: Three logs. Wherein do they differ? — The scholars stated before R. Papa: They differ as to whether [we say]: Judge from it and [all] from it; or, judge from it and place the deduction on its own basis.12 The Rabbis hold: ‘Judge from it and [all] from it’: as a meal-offering can be donated, so can oil be donated; ‘and [all] from it’: as a meal-offering [requires] a log of oil,13 so here too14 a log of oil [is required]; and as a meal-offering, a fistful thereof is removed, and the rest is eaten, so the oil [alone], a fistful thereof is removed and the rest is eaten. And the other [learns] from a meal-offering: as a meal-offering is donated, so is oil donated; ‘but place it on its own basis’, viz., it is like a drink-offering [of wine]:15 as a drink-offering consists of three logs,16 so oil consists of three logs; and as the whole of a drink-offering is for basins, so the oil is altogether for the fires. R. Papa observed to Abaye: If Rabbi inferred it from a meal-offering, then all would agree that you judge from it and [all] from it. Rabbi, however, deduces it from ‘home-born’.17 Said R. Huna the son of R. Nathan to R. Papa: Can you say thus? Surely it was taught: ‘A meal-offering’: this teaches that oil [alone] can be donated? And how much? Three logs. Now, whom do you know to maintain [that it must be] three logs? Rabbi; yet he deduces it from a meal-offering! — If it was taught, it was taught, he replied.18 Samuel said: When one donates wine, he brings it and sprinkles it on the fires. What is the reason? Scripture saith, And thou shalt present for the drink-offering half a hin of wine, for an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.19 But he extinguishes [the fires]?20 — Partial extinguishing21 is not called extinguishing. But that is not so, for surely R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name: If one removes a coal from the altar and extinguishes it, he is culpable? — That is when there is none but that [coal]. Alternatively, extinguishing as [part of] a religious rite is different.22 Come and hear, for R. Eliezer b. Jacob taught: Since Scripture authorized the taking up [of the ashes], you might think that one can extinguish [the embers] and take [them] up; but you must say that one may not extinguish!23 — There it is different, for one can sit and wait.24 Come and hear: Wine, in R. Akiba's view, is for the bowls; oil, in R. Tarfon's view, is for the fires.25 Moreover, it was taught: The wine of a drink-offering is for the bowls. Yet perhaps it is not so, but rather for the fires? Say, he must not extinguish!26 — There is no difficulty: One agrees with R. Judah; the other with R. Simeon.27 Are we to say that Samuel agrees with R. Simeon? Surely Samuel said: One may extinguish a lump of fiery metal in the street, that it should not harm the public,28 and moreover chre,, bringeth, is of the same root as icre and implies it. Hence it is understood to include even an offering of oil alone, without flour. (vjbn, generally rendered meal-offering, simply means a gift, of anything, although it is usually applied to offerings of flour.) be donated. Hence he who holds that it can be donated maintains that it might happen that such itself is shared out; whence it follows that it is not altogether burnt on the altar. TEMPLE COURT, is irrelevant to the controversy as to whether oil can be donated or not, for even if it could be donated, it would still not be shared out to the priests and so this oil, which was being shared out to the priests could only be the residue, as the Mishnah explains, on all views. But it is taught merely as a parallel to the second clause referring to a fire-offering, where it is only on the view that oil cannot be donated that one need not doubt, for on the view that oil can be donated, one might doubt what this oil is, since a votive offering of oil too is burnt on the altar. logical that an earlier clause should be added, before there is anything which it can parallel? in basins or beakers, as a drink-offering, but it is not sprinkled on the fires. R. Tarfon agrees in this; R. Akiba's name, however, is mentioned in contrast to the next clause, which is only according to R. Tarfon, since R. Akiba holds that oil alone cannot be donated. case from which the deduction has started; or whether the deduction won by analogy be regulated by the rules of the original case (Jast.). which oil is only a part. even in the performance of a religious rite. permits it. Here too, the extinguishing is unintentional: the Baraithas which rule that the wine may not be sprinkled on the fires agree with R. Judah; whereas Samuel agrees with R. Simeon. to which this refers) does not apply in this case by Biblical law at all, save by Rabbinical law; hence where general damage may ensue the Rabbis waived their prohibition.