## Zevachim Daf 110a

###### Zevachim 110a:1
[Zevachim 110a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:1)

בְּמָנָא. מָר סָבַר: קְבִיעוּת מָנָא מִילְּתָא הִיא, וּמָר סָבַר: לָאו מִילְּתָא הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
by placing them **in a vessel.** One **Sage,** Rabbi Eliezer, **holds** that the **designation of** a measure of incense larger than an olive-bulk by placing it in **a vessel is** a significant **matter** that renders one obligated to burn all the incense that was placed there. Therefore, one who then burned only an olive-bulk of that incense outside the courtyard is exempt. **And** one **Sage,** the Rabbis, **holds** that it **is nothing** and does not render one obligated to burn all the incense that was placed in the vessel. Therefore, one who then burned an olive-bulk of that incense outside the courtyard is liable.


###### Zevachim 110a:2
[Zevachim 110a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:2)

אָמַר רָבָא: הַשְׁתָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר קְבִיעוּתָא דְּמָנָא וְלָא כְּלוּם הוּא – קָבַע שִׁשָּׁה לְפַר, וּמָשַׁךְ מֵהֶן אַרְבָּעָה וְהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב; שֶׁרְאוּיִין לְאַיִל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: Now, according to the one who says** that **designation** by placing in a **vessel is nothing,** if **one designated** in a vessel **six** *log* of wine **as** a libation to accompany the sacrificing of **a bull,** which is the required amount, **and** then **removed four** *log* **from** it **and brought those** four *log* as a libation **outside** the courtyard, he would be **liable, as** a libation of four *log* of wine is **fit for** the sacrificing of **a ram** (see Numbers 28:14).


###### Zevachim 110a:3
[Zevachim 110a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:3)

קָבַע אַרְבָּעָה לְאַיִל, וּמָשַׁךְ מֵהֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה וְהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב, שֶׁרְאוּיִין לְכֶבֶשׂ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Similarly, if one **designated** by placing in a vessel **four** *log* of wine **for** a libation to accompany the sacrificing of **a ram and** then **removed three** *log* **of** wine from it **and brought those** three *log* as a libation **outside** the courtyard, he would be **liable, as** three *log* of wine is a **fit** libation **for** the sacrificing of **a lamb** (see Numbers 28:14).


###### Zevachim 110a:4
[Zevachim 110a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:4)

חָסְרוּ כׇּל שֶׁהוּא, וְהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
But if those three *log* **were lacking any amount, and one brought them** as a libation **outside** the courtyard, he would be **exempt** because less than three *log* of wine is never a fit libation.


###### Zevachim 110a:5
[Zevachim 110a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:5)

רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: נִיסּוּךְ מֵהַקְטָרָה לָא יָלְפִי רַבָּנַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rava inferred from the *baraita* that the Rabbis do not derive the measure for liability for a rite performed in the outer sanctum, i.e., the pouring of a libation, from one performed in the outer sanctum, i.e., the burning of incense. From that he concluded that the Rabbis would certainly not derive the measure for liability for a rite performed in the inner sanctum from a rite performed in the outer sanctum. This refuted Abaye’s claim that the Rabbis derive the measure for liability for burning outside the incense of the inner sanctum from the measure for liability for burning outside the incense of the outer sanctum. **Rav Ashi said** in defense of Abaye’s opinion: Indeed, as is indicated by the *baraita*, **the Rabbis do not derive** the measure for liability for **pouring a libation** outside the courtyard **from** the measure for liability for **burning** incense, which are two different rites performed in the outer sanctum.


###### Zevachim 110a:6
[Zevachim 110a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:6)

אַף עַל גַּב דְּחוּץ מֵחוּץ, לָא יָלְפִי. הַקְטָרָה מֵהַקְטָרָה יָלְפִי, אַף עַל גַּב דְּחוּץ מִפְּנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rav Ashi continues: **Even though** the Rabbis **do not derive** the *halakhot* of a rite performed in the **outer** sanctum **from** a different rite performed in the **outer** sanctum, **they do derive** the measure for liability for **burning** the incense of the outer sanctum **from** the identical rite of **burning** of the incense of the inner sanctum, **even though** it involves deriving the *halakhot* of a rite performed in the **outer** sanctum **from** one performed in the **inner** sanctum.


###### Zevachim 110a:7
[Zevachim 110a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:7)

וְכוּלָּן שֶׁחָסְרוּ. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: חֶסְרוֹן דְּחוּץ, שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן אוֹ לָא שְׁמֵיהּ חֶסְרוֹן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ After enumerating various items that are burned entirely on the altar, the mishna states: **And** with regard to **any of these** offerings **that were lacking** any amount, if one sacrifices it outside the courtyard, he is exempt. Concerning this ruling, **a dilemma was raised before** the Sages: Is **a lack that** occurs to an offering **outside** the courtyard **considered a lack** in order to exempt one who sacrifices the remainder outside the courtyard? **Or** is it **not considered a lack?**


###### Zevachim 110a:8
[Zevachim 110a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:8)

מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דִּנְפַק – אִיפַּסְלוּ לְהוּ, מָה לִי חָסֵר מָה לִי יָתֵר; אוֹ דִילְמָא, יוֹצֵא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּעֵינֵיהּ – אִין, דְּלֵיתֵיהּ בְּעֵינֵיהּ – לָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Do we say** that **once** an offering **emerges** from the courtyard **it is** in any event **disqualified,** and yet the Torah deems one liable for offering it there, so **what** difference is there **to me** if there is an additional disqualification of being **lacking** and **what** difference is there **to me** if it is still **complete? Or perhaps** it is only with regard to **emerging** from the courtyard, **where it is** still **in its original state,** that **yes,** one is liable despite the fact that it was disqualified by emerging from the courtyard, but where it is **not in its original state,** one would **not** be liable.


###### Zevachim 110a:9
[Zevachim 110a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:9)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תָּא שְׁמַע: רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹטֵר עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אֶת כּוּלָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Come** and **hear** a resolution from the mishna: **Rabbi Eliezer deems** him **exempt unless he sacrifices the whole of** any one of these items outside the Temple. It is apparent then that the offering must remain complete.


###### Zevachim 110a:10
[Zevachim 110a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה בַּר רַב חָנָן לְאַבָּיֵי: מִדְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פָּשֵׁיט מָר?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba bar Rav Ḥanan said to Abaye:** Can the **Master resolve** the dilemma **from** the opinion **of Rabbi Eliezer?** The Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, and hold that one is liable for sacrificing even an olive-bulk, and the dilemma was raised according to their opinion.


###### Zevachim 110a:11
[Zevachim 110a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ, בְּפֵירוּשׁ שְׁמִיעַ לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַב: עַד כָּאן לָא פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר– אֶלָּא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּעֵינֵיהּ; אֲבָל בְּחֶסְרוֹן – מוֹדוּ לֵיהּ. לָאו דַּחֲסַר בַּחוּץ? לָא, דַּחֲסַר בִּפְנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye **said to him: I heard explicitly from Rav** that **the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only where** the offering **is** still **in its original form,** i.e., complete. **But where** it is **lacking, they concede to him** that one is not liable. The Gemara attempts to bring a proof from here: Was Rav **not** referring to a case **where it became lacking outside** the courtyard? If so, it is evident that even according to the Rabbis a lack that occurs outside is considered a lack. The Gemara rejects this: **No,** he was referring to a case **where it became lacking inside** the courtyard. Accordingly, this mishna cannot serve as a proof.


###### Zevachim 110a:12
[Zevachim 110a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:12)

תָּא שְׁמַע: וְכוּלָּן שֶׁחָסְרוּ וְהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. לָאו דַּחֲסַר בַּחוּץ? לָא, דַּחֲסַר בִּפְנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Come** and **hear** a resolution from the continuation of the mishna: **And** with regard to **any of these** offerings **that were lacking** any amount, if **one sacrifices them outside** the courtyard, he is **exempt.** The Gemara attempts to bring a proof from here: Is the mishna **not** referring to a case **where it became lacking outside** the courtyard? If so, it is evident that even a lack that occurs outside is considered a lack. The Gemara rejects this: **No,** it is referring to a case **where it became lacking inside** the courtyard. Accordingly, this cannot serve as a proof.


###### Zevachim 110a:13
[Zevachim 110a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:13)

הַמַּקְרִיב קָדָשִׁים. אַמַּאי? וְהָאִיכָּא חֲצִיצָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **One who sacrifices sacrificial** meat, which is eaten, and sacrificial portions, i.e., those that are to be burned on the altar, outside the courtyard, is liable for the sacrifice of the sacrificial portions, but not for the meat. The Gemara asks: **Why** is he liable? If the meat is placed directly on the altar’s fire and then the sacrificial portions are placed upon the meat, **isn’t there an interposition** between the altar and the sacrificial portions? Since if they were offered in the Temple in that manner, one would not have fulfilled the obligation, one should not be liable if he offers them up in this manner outside the Temple.


###### Zevachim 110a:14
[Zevachim 110a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:14)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: כְּשֶׁהֲפָכָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Shmuel said:** The mishna is referring to a case **where he turned them over** and the sacrificial portions lay directly on the altar’s fire.


###### Zevachim 110a:15
[Zevachim 110a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:15)

וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא שֶׁלֹּא הֲפָכָן; וְהָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ הֶעֱלָה עַל הַסֶּלַע – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said** there is another explanation: **You** may **even say** that the mishna is referring to a case **where they did not turn them over. And** in accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? It **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon, who says** (108a) that **even if one offered it up on a rock** he is **liable.** According to him, it is clear that in order for one to be liable, the mode of offering up performed outside the Temple does not need to entirely parallel the mode of offering up in the Temple.


###### Zevachim 110a:16
[Zevachim 110a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:16)

רַב אָמַר: מִין בְּמִינוֹ אֵינוֹ חוֹצֵץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav said** there is another explanation: Even in the Temple, burning the sacrificial meat and sacrificial portions in this manner would be valid as both items are from the same animal, and **a substance** in contact **with** the **same** type of **substance does not interpose.**


###### Zevachim 110a:17
[Zevachim 110a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:17)

**מַתְנִי׳** מִנְחָה שֶׁלֹּא נִקְמְצָה, וְהִקְרִיבָהּ בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. קְמָצָהּ, וְחָזַר קוּמְצָהּ לְתוֹכָהּ, וְהִקְרִיבוֹ בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If there is **a meal offering** from **which a handful was not removed, and one sacrificed it outside** the Temple courtyard, he is **exempt** from liability, because until the handful is actually removed it is not fit to be burned on the altar inside the Temple. But if a priest **took a handful from it and** then **returned its handful into** the remainder of the meal offering, **and one sacrificed** the entire mixture **outside** the courtyard, he is **liable,** as once the handful has been removed it is fit to be burned on the altar inside the Temple, and one is liable for offering it up outside even though it is mixed into the remainder.


###### Zevachim 110a:18
[Zevachim 110a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:18)

**גְּמָ׳** וְאַמַּאי? (לִיבַטְּלִי) [לִיבַטְּלוּ] שִׁירַיִם לְקוֹמֶץ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara asks about the final clause: **But why** is he liable? **Let** the **remainder** of the meal offering, which is certainly the majority of the mixture, **nullify the handful.**


###### Zevachim 110a:19
[Zevachim 110a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:19)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: נֶאֶמְרָה הַקְטָרָה בַּקּוֹמֶץ, וְנֶאֶמְרָה הַקְטָרָה בַּשִּׁירַיִם; מָה הַקְטָרַת קוֹמֶץ – אֵין קוֹמֶץ מְבַטֵּל חֲבֵירוֹ, אַף הַקְטָרַת שִׁירַיִם – אֵין שִׁירַיִם מְבַטְּלִין קוֹמֶץ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said:** A term of **burning is stated with regard to the handful** removed from the meal offering, **and** a term of **burning is stated with regard to the remainder** of the meal offering. With regard to the handful, referred to by the Torah as “the memorial part,” it is written: “And the priest shall burn the memorial part upon the altar” (Leviticus 2:2), and with regard to the remainder of the meal offering it is written: “Do not burn it as a fire to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:11). This provides a verbal analogy that teaches that **just as** with regard to the **burning of** the **handful,** if two handfuls are mixed together one **handful does not nullify another, so too,** with regard to the **burning of** the **remainder,** if the remainder and the handful are mixed together, the **remainder does not nullify** the **handful.**


###### Zevachim 110a:20
[Zevachim 110a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:20)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַקּוֹמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה, שֶׁהִקְרִיב אֶת אֶחָד מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹטֵר עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי. אֶחָד בִּפְנִים וְאֶחָד בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** The burning of both the handful and the frankincense permits the consumption of the remainder of the meal offering by the priests. With regard to **the handful and the frankincense,** in a case **where one sacrificed** only **one of them outside** the Temple courtyard, he is **liable. Rabbi Eliezer exempts** from liability one who burns only one of them **until he** also **sacrifices the second.** Since the remainder of the meal offering becomes permitted only once both have been burned, he considers each one alone to be an incomplete offering, and he holds one is not liable for sacrificing only one of them. Rabbi Eliezer concedes that if one sacrificed **one inside** the courtyard **and one outside** the courtyard, he is **liable.**


###### Zevachim 110a:21
[Zevachim 110a:21](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:21)

שְׁנֵי בְּזִיכֵי לְבוֹנָה, שֶׁהִקְרִיב אֶת אֶחָד מֵהֶם בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹטֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי. אֶחָד בִּפְנִים וְאֶחָד בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The burning of two bowls of frankincense permits the consumption of the shewbread. With regard to the **two bowls of frankincense,** in a case **where one sacrificed** only **one of them outside** the courtyard, he is **liable. Rabbi Eliezer exempts** from liability one who burns only one of them **until he** also **sacrifices the second,** since the shewbread becomes permitted only once both bowls of frankincense are burned. Rabbi Eliezer concedes that if one sacrificed **one inside** the courtyard **and one outside** the courtyard, he is **liable.**


###### Zevachim 110a:22
[Zevachim 110a:22](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:22)

**גְּמָ׳** בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפָּחָא: קוֹמֶץ, מַהוּ שֶׁיַּתִּיר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ בַּשִּׁירַיִם? מִישְׁרָא שָׁרֵי, אוֹ (קלושי) [אִקְּלוֹשֵׁי] מִיקְּלֵשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The mishna is based on the fact that it is permitted for the priests to consume the remainder of the meal offering only once both the handful and the frankincense have been burned. With regard to this, **Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa raises a dilemma:** If one burned the **handful** but not the frankincense, **what is** the *halakha* with regard to **whether** this **will permit** the consumption of **the corresponding** half **of the remainder?** Since the burning of both the handful and the frankincense permits the entire remainder, it seems that each one of them affects half of the remainder. Accordingly, it is unclear whether burning one of them will entirely **permit** half of the remainder, **or** whether it will merely **weaken** the prohibition concerning the remainder, and it will still be prohibited to eat any of it.


###### Zevachim 110a:23
[Zevachim 110a:23](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:23)

אַלִּיבָּא דְּמַאן? אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר, דְּאָמַר: מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר – מִישְׁרֵא שָׁרֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **In accordance with whose** opinion did Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa raise this dilemma? **If** it is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Meir, who says: One can render** an offering ***piggul*** by having *piggul* intention **during half** of two acts that together **permit** the offering for consumption, i.e., during either one of them, then it should be obvious that the offering of the handful alone should entirely **permit** half of the remainder. The fact that Rabbi Meir holds that intention during just one of the acts can render the offering *piggul* demonstrates that he holds that each act alone has the power to permit part of the offering. It is apparent, then, the dilemma was not raised according to Rabbi Meir’s opinion.


###### Zevachim 110a:24
[Zevachim 110a:24](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:24)

אִי אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: אֵין מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר – לָא מִישְׁרָא שָׁרֵי, וְלָא [אִקְּלוֹשֵׁי] מִקְּלֵשׁ (קָלֵישׁ)!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If** it is **in accordance with** the opinion **of the Rabbis, who say: One cannot render** an offering ***piggul*** by having *piggul* intention **during half** of two acts that together **permit** the offering for consumption; rather, one must have *piggul* intention during both acts, then it is evident that neither act alone has the power to affect the offering, and so the burning of the handful alone should **neither permit** any of the remainder **nor weaken** the prohibition that applies to it. It is apparent, then, the dilemma was not raised according to the Rabbis’ opinion.


###### Zevachim 110a:25
[Zevachim 110a:25](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:25)

אֶלָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר כְּרַבָּנַן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר: אֵין מְפַגְּלִין בַּחֲצִי מַתִּיר!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the dilemma was raised **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Eliezer** as taught in the mishna. Rabbi Eliezer rules that one who sacrifices outside only the handful or the frankincense is not liable. Evidently, he holds that neither of these alone can permit the consumption of the meal offering. The Gemara rejects this suggestion as well: **Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with** the opinion of **the Rabbis, who say: One cannot render** an offering ***piggul*** by having *piggul* intention **during half** of two acts that together **permit** the offering for consumption. Accordingly, he would hold that the offering of only the handful neither permits any of the remainder, nor weakens the prohibition concerning it, and it would not make sense to raise the dilemma according to him.


###### Zevachim 110a:26
[Zevachim 110a:26](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:26)

אֶלָּא אַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבָּנַן דְּהָכָא. מַאי? מִישְׁרָא שָׁרֵי, אוֹ (קָלֵישׁ) [אִקְּלוֹשֵׁי] מִקְּלֵשׁ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it must be that the dilemma was raised **in accordance with** the opinion **of the Rabbis that** is taught **here** in the mishna. They hold that one is liable even for sacrificing outside only the handful or only the frankincense. Evidently, they hold that each one alone has the power to affect the status of the remainder. Accordingly, Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa asked concerning a case where one of them is burned on the altar in the Temple, **what** is the *halakha*? Does it entirely **permit** half of the remainder, **or** does it **weaken** the prohibition concerning the entire remainder?


###### Zevachim 110a:27
[Zevachim 110a:27](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:27)

תֵּיקוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara concludes: The dilemma **shall stand** unresolved.


###### Zevachim 110a:28
[Zevachim 110a:28](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/110a:28)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַזּוֹרֵק מִקְצָת דָּם בַּחוּץ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One who sprinkles part of** the **blood** of an offering, e.g., one sprinkling instead of four, **outside** the Temple courtyard