## Zevachim Daf 107b

###### Zevachim 107b:1
[Zevachim 107b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:1)

תֵּיתֵי מִבֵּינַיָּיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Given that each suggestion has a different refutation, the Gemara suggests: **Derive** it **through** a comparison to **the common element** shared by these two cases. Slaughtering and sprinkling are each just one of the sacrificial rites that are performed with an offering, and yet one is liable for performing them outside the Temple. Since the derivation is based on a comparison to both cases, the refutations offered for each individual case are no longer relevant.


###### Zevachim 107b:2
[Zevachim 107b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:2)

אִם כֵּן, לֹא יֵאָמֵר בִּזְרִיקָה, וְתֵיתֵי מִבֵּינַיָּיא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this: **If** that were **so,** and one can derive liability for one rite through a comparison to the common element shared by two other rites, then **let** the Torah **not state** that one is liable **for sprinkling** blood outside the Temple, **and** instead **derive** it **from the common element** shared by slaughtering and offering up outside the Temple.


###### Zevachim 107b:3
[Zevachim 107b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:3)

וְתֵיתֵי מִשְּׁחִיטָה – מָה לִשְׁחִיטָה, שֶׁכֵּן נִפְסֶלֶת שֶׁלֹּא לְשֵׁם אוֹכְלִין בַּפֶּסַח; תֵּיתֵי מֵהַעֲלָאָה – מָה לְהַעֲלָאָה, שֶׁכֵּן יֶשְׁנָהּ בַּמִּנְחָה; וְתֵיתֵי מִבֵּינַיָּיא;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The derivation would be as follows: **And** if you suggest **deriving** liability for sprinkling **from** the liability for **slaughtering,** that could be refuted. **What** is notable **about slaughtering?** It is notable **in that, with regard to a Paschal offering,** if one slaughters it with the intent that it be **for the sake of those who cannot eat,** it is thereby **disqualified.** Sprinkling does not share this stringency. And if you suggest **deriving** liability for sprinkling **from** the liability for **offering up,** that could also be refuted. **What** is notable **about offering up?** It is notable **in that** liability for offering up also **exists with regard to a meal offering.** Sprinkling does not share this stringency. **But** it should still be possible to **derive** liability for sprinkling **from the common element** shared by the two cases. Since the derivation is based on a comparison to both cases, the refutations offered above for each individual case are no longer relevant.


###### Zevachim 107b:4
[Zevachim 107b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:4)

לְהָכִי כְּתִיב קְרָא, לְמֵימַר דְּלָא אֲתָא מִבֵּינַיָּיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: It is **for this** very reason that **a verse is written** to teach the liability for sprinkling outside the Temple, **to say** to you **that** liability for performing sacrificial rites outside the Temple **cannot be derived from the common element** shared by two other cases; rather, it must be directly derived from a verse. Accordingly, the Gemara has demonstrated that there is no basis to have assumed that one who takes a handful from a meal offering, or collects blood, outside the Temple is liable.


###### Zevachim 107b:5
[Zevachim 107b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:5)

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: שָׁחַט וְזָרַק – לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל חַיָּיב אַחַת, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara cited a dispute concerning the source for the liability for sprinkling part of the blood of an offering outside the Temple courtyard. According to Rabbi Yishmael, it is derived from the verse in the passage about slaughtering outside the Temple: “Blood shall be imputed to that man” (Leviticus 17:4). According to Rabbi Akiva, it is derived from the verse in the passage about offering up outside the Temple: “Any man…that offers up a burnt offering or sacrifice” (Leviticus 17:8). **Rabbi Abbahu says:** One who **slaughtered** an offering **and sprinkled** its blood outside the Temple in a single lapse of awareness, **according to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael,** is **liable** to bring **one** sin offering, as liability for each transgression is derived from the same passage and they are subcategories of the same prohibition. **According to the statement of Rabbi Akiva,** one is **liable** to bring **two** sin offerings, as the liability for each transgression is derived from a different passage and they are considered independent prohibitions.


###### Zevachim 107b:6
[Zevachim 107b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:6)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ [לְדִבְרֵי] רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״שָׁם תַּעֲשֶׂה״ – הַכָּתוּב עֲשָׂאָן לְכוּלָּן עֲבוֹדָה אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Even according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva,** he is **liable** to bring **only one** sin offering, **as the verse states** with regard to performing sacrificial rites outside the Temple courtyard: “But in the place that the Lord will choose in one of your tribes, there you shall offer up your burnt offerings, and **there you shall do** all that I command you” (Deuteronomy 12:14). Since the first part of the verse makes reference to offering up, by inference, the term “you shall do” in the second part must be referring to all the other sacrificial rites. Therefore, **the verse has regarded all of** the sacrificial rites apart from offering up as **one rite** with regard to the prohibition against performing them outside the Temple courtyard.


###### Zevachim 107b:7
[Zevachim 107b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:7)

זָרַק וְהֶעֱלָה – לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם, לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אֵינוֹ חַיָּיב אֶלָּא אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabbi Abbahu also said: One who **sprinkled** the blood of an offering **and offered** it **up** outside, in a single lapse of awareness, **according to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael** is **liable** to bring **two** sin offerings. **According to the statement of Rabbi Akiva,** he is **liable** to bring **only one** sin offering.


###### Zevachim 107b:8
[Zevachim 107b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:8)

אַבָּיֵי אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ [לְדִבְרֵי] רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם; לְהָכִי פַּלְגִינְהוּ קְרָא: ״שָׁם תַּעֲלֶה״ וְ״שָׁם תַּעֲשֶׂה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Even according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva** he is **liable** to bring **two** sin offerings, as it is **for this** reason that **the verse differentiated** between the offering up and the slaughtering, as it states: **“There you shall offer up** your burnt offerings, **and there you shall do,”** in order to teach that one who performs both is liable for each one.


###### Zevachim 107b:9
[Zevachim 107b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:9)

שָׁחַט וְזָרַק וְהֶעֱלָה – לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל חַיָּיב שְׁתַּיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Finally, Rabbi Abbahu adds the logical conclusion that with regard to one who **slaughtered** an offering **and sprinkled** its blood **and offered** it **up** outside, in a single lapse of awareness, **all agree** that he is **liable** to bring **two** sin offerings.


###### Zevachim 107b:10
[Zevachim 107b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:10)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״בַּמַּחֲנֶה״ – יָכוֹל הַשּׁוֹחֵט עוֹלָה בַּדָּרוֹם יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “Any man of the house of Israel that slaughters an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that slaughters it outside the camp” (Leviticus 17:3). Based on the first part of the verse: “That slaughters…**in the camp,”** one **might** have thought that **one who slaughters a burnt offering in the south** of the courtyard, instead of in the north, where it should be slaughtered, **will be liable,** as he has slaughtered it outside the area in which it should be slaughtered. To counter this, **the** next part of the **verse states:** “That slaughters it **outside the camp,”** indicating that liability is incurred only for slaughtering an offering outside the Temple courtyard.


###### Zevachim 107b:11
[Zevachim 107b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:11)

יָכוֹל חוּץ לְשָׁלֹשׁ מַחֲנוֹת? (תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אוֹ עֵז בַּמַּחֲנֶה״.) מִנַּיִן אַף בְּמַחֲנֵה לְוִיָּיה? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״בַּמַּחֲנֶה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: Three concentric areas, so-called camps, arranged according to decreasing level of sanctity, encompassed the Tabernacle and Temple: The camp of the Divine Presence comprised the courtyard of the Tabernacle, and later on, of the Temple. Surrounding that was the Levite camp and then the Israelite camp. If the verse had stated only: “That slaughters it outside the camp,” one **might** have thought that a person would be liable only for slaughtering an offering **outside** all **three** of the **camps.** To dispel this notion, the first part of **the verse states:** “That slaughters an ox, or lamb, **or goat, in the camp,”** which indicates that liability is incurred even for slaughtering inside these camps. **From where** is it derived that one is liable **even** if he slaughters **inside the Levite camp? The verse states:** “That slaughters…**in the camp,”** which indicates that liability is incurred even for slaughtering inside the three camps.


###### Zevachim 107b:12
[Zevachim 107b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:12)

אִי בַּמַּחֲנֶה, יָכוֹל הַשּׁוֹחֵט עוֹלָה בַּדָּרוֹם יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״אוֹ אֶל מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** the verse stated only the term **“in the camp,”** which indicates that one is liable even for slaughtering inside the three camps, one **might** have thought that **one who slaughters a burnt offering in the south** of the courtyard, which is regarded as being outside of the holier northern section of the courtyard, where such an offering should be slaughtered, **will** also **be liable.** To counter this, **the verse states: “Or** that slaughters it **outside the camp.”**


###### Zevachim 107b:13
[Zevachim 107b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:13)

מָה חוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה מְיוּחָד – שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטַת קָדָשִׁים וְלִשְׁחִיטַת כׇּל זֶבַח; יָצָא דָּרוֹם – שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטַת קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, רָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטַת קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This indicates that **just as** the phrase **“outside the camp”** is **distinctive** in that it is referring to an area **that is not fit for slaughtering offerings** of the most sacred order **or for slaughtering any** other type of **offering,** so too, the term “in the camp” is referring to an area unfit for the slaughter of any offering. This **excludes** the **south** of the courtyard, **as even though** it is an area that is **not fit for slaughtering offerings of the most sacred order,** it is **fit for slaughtering offerings of lesser sanctity.** Therefore, no liability is incurred for slaughtering an offering in the south of the courtyard, even if it should have been slaughtered in the north.


###### Zevachim 107b:14
[Zevachim 107b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:14)

אָמַר עוּלָּא: הַשּׁוֹחֵט עַל גַּגּוֹ שֶׁל הֵיכָל – חַיָּיב, הוֹאִיל וְאֵין רָאוּי לִשְׁחִיטַת כׇּל זֶבַח. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רָבָא: אִם כֵּן, נִיכְתּוֹב קְרָא ״(אֶל) מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״, וְלָא בָּעֵי ״אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״; ״אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״ לְמָה לִי? לָאו לְמַעוֹטֵי גַּגּוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Based on this *baraita*, **Ulla says: One who slaughters** an offering **on the roof of** the **Sanctuary** is **liable** for slaughtering outside the Temple courtyard, **since** the roof is an area that is **not fit for the slaughter of any offering. Rava objects to this: If so, let the verse write** only: “Or that slaughters it **outside the camp,” and** it would **not** be **necessary** to write: “And he did not bring it **to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”** (Leviticus 17:4). **Why do I** need the verse to also write: “And he did not bring it **to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting”?** Is it **not to exclude the roof of** the Sanctuary, as in the Temple the Sanctuary corresponded to the Tent of Meeting? Although the roof is an area that is not fit for slaughtering any offering, one should not be liable for slaughtering there since the offering was nevertheless brought to the Tent of Meeting.


###### Zevachim 107b:15
[Zevachim 107b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:15)

וּלְרָבָא – אִם כֵּן נִכְתּוֹב: ״אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד״; ״בַּמַּחֲנֶה״ ״(וְאֶל) מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה״ לְמָה לִי? לָאו לְאֵתוֹיֵי גַּגּוֹ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions Rava’s claim: **But according to Rava, if** that is **so** and one is exempt if he slaughtered on the roof of the Sanctuary as ultimately the offering was brought to the Tent of Meeting, then **let** the verse **write** only: **“And** he did not bring it **to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting.” Why do I** need the verse to also write **“in the camp”** and **“outside the camp”?** Is it **not** that the term “in the camp” indicates that there is a case where one is liable even when slaughtering inside the courtyard, which serves **to include** liability for slaughtering on **the roof of** the Sanctuary? According to this, the term “outside the camp” would then be necessary to exclude liability for slaughtering a burnt offering in the south of the courtyard.


###### Zevachim 107b:16
[Zevachim 107b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:16)

אָמַר רַב מָרִי: לְאֵיתוֹיֵי כּוּלָּהּ בִּפְנִים וְצַוָּארָהּ בַּחוּץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Mari said** in defense of Rava: No, the term “in the camp” is written **to include** liability for slaughtering an offering in a case where **its** body is **entirely inside** the courtyard **but its neck** is **outside** the courtyard.


###### Zevachim 107b:17
[Zevachim 107b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:17)

[צַוָּארָהּ] בַּחוּץ – פְּשִׁיטָא! אַמַּאי קָפֵיד רַחֲמָנָא – אַשְּׁחִיטָה; וּשְׁחִיטָה בַּחוּץ הִיא! אֶלָּא לְאֵיתוֹיֵי כּוּלָּהּ בַּחוּץ וְצַוָּארָהּ בִּפְנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara modifies Rav Mari’s statement: If **its neck** is **outside** the courtyard, it is **obvious** that one is liable, as **about what** is **the Merciful One particular?** The Merciful One is particular **about** the **slaughter. And** in this case, the **slaughter is** done **outside** the courtyard. **Rather,** say instead that the term “in the camp” is written **to include** liability for slaughtering an offering where **its** body is **entirely outside** the courtyard **but its neck** is **inside** the courtyard.


###### Zevachim 107b:18
[Zevachim 107b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:18)

אִיתְּמַר: הַמַּעֲלֶה בִּזְמַן הַזֶּה – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חַיָּיב, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ An amoraic dispute **was stated** with regard to **one who offers up** an offering outside the courtyard **today,** when there is no Temple: **Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** He is **liable. Reish Lakish says:** He is **exempt.**


###### Zevachim 107b:19
[Zevachim 107b:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:19)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר חַיָּיב – קְדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְקִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר פָּטוּר – קְדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְלֹא קִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that he is **liable,** as he holds that the **initial consecration** of the Temple **sanctified** it **for its time and sanctified** it **forever,** and the location of the Temple remains sacred even after the Temple was destroyed. Accordingly, it is still possible now to build an altar there and bring offerings upon it; therefore, one is liable if he instead offers up an offering outside the Temple courtyard area. **Reish Lakish says** that he is **exempt,** as he holds that the **initial consecration** of the Temple **sanctified** it **for its time but did not sanctify** it **forever.** Accordingly, one can no longer bring offerings there; therefore, one is not liable for offering up outside that area.


###### Zevachim 107b:20
[Zevachim 107b:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:20)

נֵימָא דְּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ קָמִיפַּלְגִי? דִּתְנַן, אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: כְּשֶׁהָיוּ בּוֹנִין בַּהֵיכָל – הָיוּ עוֹשִׂים קְלָעִים בַּהֵיכָל, קְלָעִים בָּעֲזָרוֹת; אֶלָּא שֶׁבַּהֵיכָל בּוֹנִין מִבַּחוּץ, וּבָעֲזָרָה בּוֹנִין מִבִּפְנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish **disagree with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, as we learned** in a mishna (*Eduyyot* 8:6): **Rabbi Eliezer said:** I heard that **when they were building the Sanctuary** in the Second Temple, **they would fashion** temporary **curtains for the Sanctuary** and temporary **curtains for the courtyards** to serve as partitions until the construction of the stone walls was completed. The difference was **only that in the Sanctuary,** the workers **built** the walls **outside** the curtains, without entering, **and in the courtyards,** the workers **built** the walls **within** the curtains.


###### Zevachim 107b:21
[Zevachim 107b:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:21)

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁהָיוּ מַקְרִיבִין אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בַּיִת, וְאוֹכְלִים קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין קְלָעִים, קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין חוֹמָה; מִפְּנֵי שֶׁקְּדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְקִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: **Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard that one sacrifices** offerings on the altar **even if there is no Temple, and one partakes of offerings of the most sacred order** in the Temple courtyard **even if there are no curtains, and** one partakes of **offerings of lesser sanctity and second-tithe** produce in Jerusalem **even if there is no wall** surrounding the city. This is **due to** the fact **that** the **initial consecration sanctified** the Temple and Jerusalem **for their time and** also **sanctified** them **forever.**


###### Zevachim 107b:22
[Zevachim 107b:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:22)

לָאו מִכְּלָל דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר לֹא קִידְּשָׁה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua based his opinion on the principle that the initial consecration sanctified the Temple and Jerusalem forever, can one **not** learn **by inference** that **Rabbi Eliezer maintains** that **it did not sanctify** them forever? The dispute between Rabbi Yoḥanan and Reish Lakish would then directly parallel the dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer.


###### Zevachim 107b:23
[Zevachim 107b:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:23)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: מִמַּאי? דִּלְמָא דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – קְדוּשָּׁה רִאשׁוֹנָה קִידְּשָׁה לִשְׁעָתָהּ וְקִידְּשָׁה לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא; וּמָר מַאי דִּשְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ קָאָמַר, וּמָר מַאי דִּשְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ קָאָמַר! וְכִי תֵּימָא: קְלָעִים לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לְמָה לִי? לִצְנִיעוּתָא בְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi: From where** do you draw this inference? **Perhaps everyone** maintains that the **initial consecration sanctified** the Temple and Jerusalem **for their time and** also **sanctified** them **forever. And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Eliezer, **stated that** tradition, **which he heard** from his teachers, **and** one **Sage,** Rabbi Yehoshua, **stated that** tradition, **which he heard** from his teachers, and there is no dispute between them. **And if you would say: Why do I** need **curtains** at all **according to Rabbi Eliezer?** The original sanctity remained when Jerusalem was not surrounded by walls, and similarly, the presence or absence of curtains is irrelevant to the sanctity of the Temple area as well. The Gemara answers: The curtains were established **merely for seclusion,** as it would have been unbecoming for the activity in this most sacred venue to have been visible to all.


###### Zevachim 107b:24
[Zevachim 107b:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:24)

אִיתְּמַר: הַמַּעֲלֶה וְאֵין בּוֹ כְּזַיִת, וְעֶצֶם מַשְׁלִימוֹ לִכְזַיִת – רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: חַיָּיב, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר: פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ An amoraic dispute **was stated** with regard to **one who offers up** outside the Temple a limb of an offering **and** it **does not have** on it **an olive-bulk** of flesh, **but** the **bone completes** the measure **to** make **an olive-bulk. Rabbi Yoḥanan says:** He is **liable. Reish Lakish says:** He is **exempt.**


###### Zevachim 107b:25
[Zevachim 107b:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:25)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר חַיָּיב – חִיבּוּרֵי עוֹלִין כְּעוֹלִין דָּמֵי. רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר פָּטוּר – חִיבּוּרֵי עוֹלִין לָאו כְּעוֹלִין דָּמוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** that he is **liable,** as he holds that an item **attached to** flesh that must be **offered up** on the altar, e.g., a bone attached to sacrificial flesh, is also regarded **as** an item that must be **offered up** on the altar. Even though if it were to become detached, there would be no requirement to offer it up, nevertheless, as long as it is attached it is considered part of the flesh and it contributes to the required measure of an olive-bulk. **Reish Lakish says** that he is **exempt,** as he holds that an item **attached to** flesh that must be **offered up** on the altar is **not** regarded **as** an item that must be **offered up** on the altar.


###### Zevachim 107b:26
[Zevachim 107b:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/107b:26)

בָּעֵי רָבָא: הַמַּעֲלֶה

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava raises a dilemma:** With regard to **one who offers up** outside the Temple courtyard