## Zevachim Daf 111a

###### Zevachim 111a:1
[Zevachim 111a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111a:1)

בְּקָרְבוּ נְסָכִים בַּמִּדְבָּר פְּלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**They disagree** with regard to whether one is liable for pouring a libation outside the courtyard that was not first consecrated in a service vessel. This dispute is based on a disagreement **with regard to** whether wine **libations were offered** in the Tabernacle **in the wilderness** before the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara will soon explain the logical connection between the two issues.


###### Zevachim 111a:2
[Zevachim 111a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111a:2)

רָבִינָא אָמַר: בִּלְמֵדִין נִיסּוּךְ הַמַּיִם מִנִּיסּוּךְ הַיַּיִן פְּלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said:** Everyone agrees that wine libations are valid even if they are not first consecrated in a sacred service vessel. Therefore, one who pours a wine libation outside the courtyard is liable even if it was not first consecrated in a service vessel. **They disagree with regard to** whether the liability for pouring **a water libation can be derived from** that of **a wine libation.** The first *tanna* holds that it can; Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that it cannot.


###### Zevachim 111a:3
[Zevachim 111a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111a:3)

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמְנַסֵּךְ שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין יַיִן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: וְהוּא שֶׁקִּדְּשָׁן בִּכְלִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: **One who pours as a libation three *log* of wine outside** the courtyard is **liable. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: And that is** in a case **where he** first **consecrated** the wine **in** a sacred service **vessel.**


###### Zevachim 111a:4
[Zevachim 111a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111a:4)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר רַב יִצְחָק: בֵּירוּצֵי מִידּוֹת אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What** is the difference **between them? Rav Adda bar Rav Yitzḥak said:** The difference **between them is** with regard to whether the **overfill of measuring vessels** is also consecrated. Both agree that one is liable for pouring a libation outside the courtyard only if it was first consecrated in a service vessel. The first *tanna* holds that the liquid that rises above the rim of a vessel is also consecrated, and if one collects three *log* of that liquid and pours it as a libation outside the courtyard he is liable. Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds that only the wine within the walls of the vessel itself is consecrated.


###### Zevachim 111a:5
[Zevachim 111a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111a:5)

רָבָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה אָמַר: קָרְבוּ נְסָכִים בְּבָמָה אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava, son of Rabba, said:** The difference **between them is** with regard to whether one is liable for pouring a libation outside the courtyard that was not first consecrated in a service vessel. This dispute is based on a disagreement as to whether wine **libations were offered on** private **altars.**


###### Zevachim 111a:6
[Zevachim 111a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111a:6)

וּבִפְלוּגְתָּא דְּהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי – דְּתַנְיָא: בָּמַת יָחִיד אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה נְסָכִים. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: טְעוּנָה נְסָכִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
He explains: **And** they disagree **with regard to** the issue that is the subject of **the dispute between these *tanna’im*, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: An offering sacrificed on **a private altar does not need** to be accompanied by wine **libations;** this is **the statement of Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **And the Rabbis say:** It does **require** wine **libations.** Service vessels are not used in the context of private altars. Therefore, if libations are brought on private altars then it is apparent that libations can be valid even if they were not first consecrated in a service vessel. Accordingly, one would be liable for pouring a libation outside the Temple even if it had not first been consecrated in a service vessel. If libations are not brought on private altars, then there is no precedent of a libation that was not first consecrated in a service vessel, and one would not be liable for pouring a non-consecrated libation outside the Temple.


###### Zevachim 111a:7
[Zevachim 111a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111a:7)

וְהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי כְּהָנֵי תַּנָּאֵי – דְּתַנְיָא: ״כִּי תָבֹאוּ״ – לְהַטְעִינָהּ נְסָכִים לְבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** the opinion of **these *tanna’im* is like** the opinion of **those *tanna’im*, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: In introducing the mitzva to bring wine libations together with animal offerings, the verse states: **“When you come** into the land of your dwellings, which I give to you” (Numbers 15:2), which indicates that the mitzva to bring libations began only once the Jewish people entered Eretz Yisrael. **The verse speaks** in order **to require** that **libations** be brought with animal offerings that are brought **upon a great** public **altar.** This assumes libations were not brought on a public altar in the wilderness. Therefore, it is necessary to teach that upon entering Eretz Yisrael they are required.


###### Zevachim 111a:8
[Zevachim 111a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111a:8)

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לְבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה; אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֲפִילּוּ בָּמָה קְטַנָּה? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אֶל אֶרֶץ מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי נֹתֵן לָכֶם״ – הֲרֵי בְּבָמָה הַנּוֹהֶגֶת לְכוּלְּכֶם הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Do you say** that the verse is referring **to** offerings brought on **a great** public **altar, or is it even** referring **to** offerings brought on **a small** private **altar?** Perhaps libations were brought on the public altar in the wilderness, and it is therefore unnecessary to state that after entering Eretz Yisrael libations should continue to be brought on a public altar. Accordingly, the verse must be teaching that after the Jewish people have entered Eretz Yisrael, libations are required even on private altars. This suggestion is rejected: **When** the verse **states: “Into the land of your dwellings, which I give to you [*lakhem*],”** using the plural form of the word “you,” it is apparent that **the verse is speaking of** a public **altar that is used by everyone;** this is **the statement of Rabbi Yishmael.**


###### Zevachim 111a:9
[Zevachim 111a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111a:9)

רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: ״כִּי תָבֹאוּ״ – לְהַטְעִינָהּ נְסָכִים (בְּבָמָה) [לְבָמָה] קְטַנָּה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva says:** Through its introductory clause: **“When you come,” the verse speaks** in order **to require** that **libations** be brought with animal offerings that are brought **upon a small** private **altar.** This assumes libations were already brought in the wilderness, and the verse must be teaching that libations are required even on private altars.


###### Zevachim 111a:10
[Zevachim 111a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111a:10)

אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לְבָמָה קְטַנָּה; אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לְבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה? כְּשֶׁהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״אֶל אֶרֶץ מוֹשְׁבֹתֵיכֶם״ – הֲרֵי בְּבָמָה הַנּוֹהֶגֶת בְּכׇל מוֹשָׁבוֹת הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Do you say** that the verse is speaking of **a small** private **altar** outside the Temple? **Or is it only** referring **to a great** public **altar?** Perhaps libations were not brought on the public altar in the wilderness and the verse is necessary in order to teach that upon entering Eretz Yisrael they are required. **When** the verse **states: “Into the land of your dwellings,”** it is apparent that **the verse is speaking of an altar that is used in all your dwellings,** which certainly must be referring to private altars, as there was only one central public altar.


###### Zevachim 111a:11
[Zevachim 111a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111a:11)

כְּשֶׁתִּמְצָא לוֹמַר; לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל – לֹא קָרְבוּ נְסָכִים בַּמִּדְבָּר, וּלְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – קָרְבוּ נְסָכִים בַּמִּדְבָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **When** you analyze the matter **you will find** that you can **say** that **according to the statement of Rabbi Yishmael, libations were not offered in the wilderness.** Therefore, it is necessary to teach that upon entering Eretz Yisrael they are required. **And according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva libations were offered in the wilderness.** Therefore, the verse must be teaching that libations are required even on private altars.


###### Zevachim 111a:12
[Zevachim 111a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111a:12)

רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם שֶׁהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna teaches: **Rabbi Neḥemya says:** For the **remainder of the blood** of an offering that was supposed to be poured at the base of the altar and **that** instead **one sacrificed outside** the courtyard, one is **liable.**


###### Zevachim 111a:13
[Zevachim 111a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111a:13)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: [תַּנָּא] רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה כְּדִבְרֵי הָאוֹמֵר שִׁירַיִים מְעַכְּבִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Rabbi Neḥemya taught** this *halakha* **in accordance with the statement of the one who says** that failure to pour the **remainder** of the blood at the base of the altar **disqualifies** the offering.


###### Zevachim 111a:14
[Zevachim 111a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111a:14)

מֵיתִיבִי: רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר: שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם שֶׁהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: וַהֲלֹא שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה הֵם! אָמַר לוֹ: אֵיבָרִין וּפְדָרִין יוֹכִיחוּ – שֶׁהֵן שְׁיָרֵי מִצְוָה, וְהַמַּקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ חַיָּיב! אָמַר לוֹ: לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּאֵיבָרִים וּפְדָרִים – שֶׁהֵן תְּחִלַּת עֲבוֹדָה, תֹּאמַר בִּשְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם שֶׁאֵינָן תְּחִלַּת עֲבוֹדָה?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: **Rabbi Neḥemya says** that for the **remainder of the blood** of an offering **that one sacrificed outside** the courtyard, one is **liable. Rabbi Akiva said to him: Isn’t** pouring **the remainder of the blood** considered **a non-essential mitzva,** which is not indispensable to the validity of the offering? Accordingly, one should not be liable for sacrificing the blood outside the Temple courtyard. Rabbi Neḥemya **said to him:** Sacrificial **limbs and fats** of a burnt offering **will prove** the matter, **as they are** considered **a non-essential mitzva, and** yet **one who sacrifices them outside** the courtyard is **liable.** Rabbi Akiva **said to him: No, if you said** that one is liable **with regard to** the burning of the **limbs and fats, which is the start of** a sacrificial **rite,** i.e., burning them is a sacrificial rite in and of itself, **shall you** also **say** that this is the *halakha* **with regard to** the pouring of the **remainder of the blood, which is not the start of** a sacrificial **rite,** but is just the conclusion of the sprinkling of the blood?


###### Zevachim 111a:15
[Zevachim 111a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111a:15)

וְאִם אִיתָא, לֵימָא לֵיהּ: הָנֵי נָמֵי מְעַכְּבִי! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains the challenge from the *baraita*: **And if it is so** that Rabbi Neḥemya holds that that failure to pour the remainder of the blood at the base of the altar disqualifies the offering, **let** Rabbi Neḥemya **say** in response **to** Rabbi Akiva: **These too,** i.e., the pouring of the remainder of the blood, are considered to be a sacrificial rite in and of themselves because failure to pour out the remainder **disqualifies** the offering. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is **a conclusive refutation.**


###### Zevachim 111a:16
[Zevachim 111a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111a:16)

וְהַשְׁתָּא דְּאָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּשִׁירַיִים הַפְּנִימִיִּים, אֲבָל בְּשִׁירַיִים הַחִיצוֹנִים – דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל לָא מְעַכְּבִי; כִּי קָאָמַר רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה – בְּשִׁירַיִים הַפְּנִימִים, כִּי תַּנְיָא הָהִיא – בְּשִׁירַיִים הַחִיצוֹנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara qualifies its rejection: **And now that Rav Adda bar Ahava says:** The **dispute** between the *tanna’im* with regard to whether failure to pour the remainder of the blood disqualifies the offering is only **with regard to** the **remainder of** blood that was presented on **the inner** altar, **but with regard to** the **remainder of** blood that was presented on **the external** altar **everyone agrees** that failure to pour it **does not disqualify** the offering; the apparent contradiction between Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement and the *baraita* can therefore be resolved. **When Rabbi Neḥemya says** in the mishna that one is liable for sacrificing the remainder of the blood outside the courtyard, he is referring **to** the **remainder of** blood that was presented on **the inner** altar. The pouring of that blood is considered a rite in and of itself, and one is liable for sacrificing it outside the Temple. **When that** statement of Rabbi Neḥemya **is taught** in the *baraita*, it is referring **to** the **remainder of** blood that was presented on **the external** altar. Concerning such blood, Rabbi Neḥemya concedes that the pouring is not considered a rite in and of itself.


###### Zevachim 111a:17
[Zevachim 111a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111a:17)

וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא לָא יָדַע מַאי קָאָמַר רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה; הוּא סָבַר: רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה שִׁירַיִים חִיצוֹנִים אָמַר, וְקָא מַהְדַּר לֵיהּ שִׁירַיִים הַחִיצוֹנִים. וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה – לִדְבָרָיו דְּרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
In light of this, the Gemara explains the discussion between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Neḥemya: **And Rabbi Akiva did not know what Rabbi Neḥemya was saying.** Rabbi Akiva **thought** that **Rabbi Neḥemya was stating** a ruling about the pouring of the **remainder of** blood that was presented on the **external** altar. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva **responded to him** with a claim relating to the **remainder of** blood that was presented on **the external** altar and said that it is a non-essential mitzva. **And** then **Rabbi Neḥemya** answered him by **saying** a defense of his opinion **in accordance with** the misconception underlying **the statement of Rabbi Akiva.**


###### Zevachim 111a:18
[Zevachim 111a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/111a:18)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַמּוֹלֵק אֶת הָעוֹף בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב. מָלַק בַּחוּץ וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הָעוֹף בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָה בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **One who pinches** the nape of **a bird** offering **inside** the Temple courtyard **and** then **offers** it **up outside** the courtyard is **liable.** But if **one pinched** its nape **outside** the courtyard **and** then **offered** it **up outside** the courtyard he is **exempt,** as pinching the nape of a bird outside the courtyard is not considered valid pinching. **One who slaughters,** with a knife, **a bird** offering **inside** the courtyard **and offers** it **up outside** the courtyard is **exempt,** as slaughtering a bird offering in the Temple courtyard disqualifies it as an offering.