## Zevachim Daf 112a ###### Zevachim 112a:1 [Zevachim 112a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/112a:1) **גְּמָ׳** בִּשְׁלָמָא בַּחוּץ וְחָזַר וְנָתַן בִּפְנִים – שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת בִּפְנִים; אֲבָל בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָן בַּחוּץ – שִׁירַיִים נִינְהוּ! **William Davidson Edition - English:** **GEMARA:** The Gemara discusses the first clause of the mishna: **Granted** that one is liable in a case where he first placed the blood on an altar **outside** the courtyard **and then placed** the remaining blood on the altar **inside** the courtyard; that is because, as the mishna explains: **As** the blood in **its entirety is fit to be** placed **inside** the courtyard. **But** in a case where he first placed its blood on the altar **inside** the courtyard **and then offered up** the remaining blood on an altar **outside** the courtyard, why he is liable? That blood **is** merely **a remainder,** and one should not be liable for offering it up outside. ###### Zevachim 112a:2 [Zevachim 112a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/112a:2) הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר: שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם שֶׁהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara explains: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? It **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Neḥemya, who 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 112a:3 [Zevachim 112a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/112a:3) אִי רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: קִבֵּל דָּמָהּ בִּשְׁנֵי כּוֹסוֹת; נָתַן שְׁנֵיהֶם בִּפְנִים – פָּטוּר. שְׁנֵיהֶם בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב. אֶחָד בִּפְנִים וְאֶחָד בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה: שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם שֶׁהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב! **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara asks: **If** the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Neḥemya,** then **say the latter clause:** If **one collected its blood in two cups** and **placed** the blood from **both of them** on the altar **inside** the courtyard, he is **exempt.** If he placed the blood from **both of them** on an altar **outside** the courtyard, he is **liable.** If he first placed the blood from **one** cup **inside and** then placed the blood from the other **one outside,** he is **exempt.** By using the blood of the first cup to perform the mitzva of placing the blood on the altar, he thereby rendered the blood in the second cup a mere remainder. The Gemara asks: How can this clause be attributed to Rabbi Neḥemya? **But doesn’t Rabbi Neḥemya say:** For **the remainder of the blood** of an offering **that one offered outside** the courtyard, he is **liable?** ###### Zevachim 112a:4 [Zevachim 112a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/112a:4) סֵיפָא אֲתָאן לְתַנָּא קַמָּא דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: כּוֹס עוֹשֶׂה דָּחוּי לַחֲבֵירוֹ. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara answers: In **the latter clause we arrive at** the opinion of **the first *tanna*,** who disagrees with **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. As** that *tanna* **says:** The placement of the blood from one **cup renders** the blood of **the other** cup as **disqualified.** Since it is actually disqualified and not merely a remainder, one is not liable for offering it up outside. ###### Zevachim 112a:5 [Zevachim 112a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/112a:5) לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה? לְמַפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה, וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** § The mishna presents an analogy for its ruling: **To what is this matter comparable?** It is comparable **to** a case where one **separated** an animal for **his sin offering and it was lost, and he separated another** animal **in its place, and thereafter, the first** animal **was found.** ###### Zevachim 112a:6 [Zevachim 112a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/112a:6) ״לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה״ לְמָה לִי? הָא מַנִּי – רַבִּי הִיא; דְּאָמַר: אֲבוּדָה בִּשְׁעַת הַפְרָשָׁה – מֵתָה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara asks: **Why do I** need to ask: **To what is this matter comparable,** and provide an analogy to the mishna’s rulings? What does the analogy add? The Gemara explains: In accordance with **whose** opinion **is this** mishna? It **is** in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **who says** (see *Temura* 22b): A sin offering that was **lost during the time of** the **separation** of a substitute, if it is later found and one of them is slaughtered as the person’s sin offering, the other one is **put to death.** Accordingly, it is actually disqualified from being used as an offering, and one is therefore not liable for offering it up outside. ###### Zevachim 112a:7 [Zevachim 112a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/112a:7) וְהָכִי קָאָמַר: טַעְמָא דְּאָבְדָה; הָא הִפְרִישׁ שְׁתֵּי חַטָּאוֹת לְאַחְרָיוּת – חֲדָא מִינַּיְיהוּ מֵעִיקָּרָא עוֹלָה הִיא. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **And this** is what the mishna **is saying** by presenting its analogy: **The reason** that one is exempt from liability for offering up the unused sin offering outside is **that** it **was lost** at the time its substitute was separated and therefore it is considered disqualified. **But** if **one separated two sin offerings** from the outset **as a guarantee,** so that even if one is lost he can use the other, then if neither is lost and he sacrifices one of them, the other one is not put to death. Rather, it is left to graze until it becomes blemished, at which point it is sold and the proceeds used to purchase a voluntary burnt offering. It emerges that **from the outset, one of these** two animals, i.e., the one that was not ultimately sacrificed as his sin offering, **is a burnt offering,** and therefore if one offers it up outside the courtyard he is liable. The analogy teaches that with regard to blood collected in two cups, if one offers up blood from the unused cup outside, he is exempt only because the blood in that cup is considered disqualified, but he would not be exempt if it was considered a remainder. ###### Zevachim 112a:8 [Zevachim 112a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/112a:8) וְכִדְרַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: אָשָׁם שֶׁנִּיתַּק לִרְעִיָּיה, וּשְׁחָטוֹ סְתָם – כָּשֵׁר לְעוֹלָה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **And** this is **in accordance with** the statement that **Rav Huna** says that **Rav says, as Rav Huna says** that **Rav says: A guilt offering that was consigned to grazing** per the *halakha* to leave it to graze if its owner dies or achieves atonement through another guilt offering, **and** then instead of being left to develop a blemish, at which point it could be sold and the proceeds used to purchase a voluntary burnt offering, one **slaughtered it,** even with **unspecified** intent, the animal itself is **fit** to be sacrificed **as a burnt offering.** Similarly, the mishna assumes that in any case where an animal is consigned to grazing it is considered fit, and one would be liable for slaughtering it outside the courtyard. ###### Zevachim 112a:9 [Zevachim 112a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/112a:9) מִי דָּמֵי?! הָתָם אָשָׁם זָכָר, וְעוֹלָה זָכָר; אֲבָל חַטָּאת – נְקֵבָה הִיא! אָמַר רַב חִיָּיא מִיּוֹסְתִּינְיָא: בִּשְׂעִיר נָשִׂיא. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara asks: **Are** these cases **comparable? There,** in Rav’s ruling, it is logical that the animal is considered fit, as **a guilt offering** is **a male** animal **and a burnt offering** is **a male** animal, so it is possible to bring an animal as the latter even if it had been designated as the former. Therefore, a guilt offering left to graze is still considered fit. **But** in the mishna’s case, just because the animal is left to graze does not necessarily indicate that it itself is fit to be brought, as **a sin offering is a female** animal, which can never be brought as a burnt offering. Therefore, it should be considered unfit. **Rav Ḥiyya from Yostiniyya said:** The ruling of the mishna is **with regard to the goat of** the ***Nasi*,** which is a male sin offering. Therefore, in a case where it is left to graze it is still considered fit, as it can be brought as a burnt offering. This chapter discussed two distinct prohibitions: That of slaughtering an offering outside the Temple courtyard and that of offering up an offering by placing it upon an altar outside the Temple courtyard. Since they are considered two distinct prohibitions, one is liable even if he performs only one of them, and he is liable twice if he performs both. ###### Zevachim 112a:10 [Zevachim 112a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/112a:10) **הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהַמַּעֲלֶה** ###### Zevachim 112a:11 [Zevachim 112a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/112a:11) מַתְנִי׳ **פָּרַת חַטָּאת** שֶׁשְּׂרָפָהּ חוּץ מִגִּתָּהּ, וְכֵן שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ שֶׁהִקְרִיב בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **MISHNA:** With regard to **the** red **heifer of purification that one burned outside its pit,** the pit being an excavation on the Mount of Olives opposite the entrance to the Sanctuary designated for its slaughter and its burning, **and likewise the scapegoat that one sacrificed outside** the Temple courtyard rather than casting it off a cliff as prescribed, he is **exempt** from punishment for violating the transgression of slaughtering and sacrificing outside the Temple courtyard. ###### Zevachim 112a:12 [Zevachim 112a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/112a:12) שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לֹא הֱבִיאוֹ״ – כֹּל שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לָבֹא אֶל פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד, אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The source for this is **as it is stated** with regard to slaughter of sacrificial animals outside the courtyard: “Whatever man…that slaughters outside the camp, **and to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it,** to present it as an offering to the Lord before the Tabernacle of the Lord” (Leviticus 17:3–4). From that verse it is derived: For **any** offering **that is not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting** for sacrifice on the altar, e.g., the red heifer and the scapegoat, **one is not liable for its** slaughter and sacrifice outside its place. ###### Zevachim 112a:13 [Zevachim 112a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/112a:13) הָרוֹבֵעַ, וְהַנִּרְבָּע, וְהַמּוּקְצֶה, וְהַנֶּעֱבָד, וְהַמְּחִיר, [וְהָאֶתְנַן], וְהַכִּלְאַיִם, וְהַטְּרֵיפָה, וְיוֹצֵא דּוֹפֶן; שֶׁהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר. **William Davidson Edition - English:** With regard to **an animal that** actively **copulated with a person, or an animal that was the object of bestiality, or** an animal **that** was **set aside** for idol worship, **or** an animal **that was worshipped** as a deity, **or** an animal given as **the price** of a dog that was purchased, **or** an animal that was given as **payment** to a prostitute, **or** an animal born of a mixture of **diverse kinds, or an animal with a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months [*tereifa*], or** an animal **born by caesarean section,** any of **which one sacrificed outside** the Temple courtyard, he is **exempt.** ###### Zevachim 112a:14 [Zevachim 112a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/112a:14) שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לִפְנֵי מִשְׁכַּן ה׳״ – כֹּל שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לָבֹא לִפְנֵי מִשְׁכַּן ה׳, אֵין חַיָּיבִין עָלָיו. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The source for this is **as it is stated:** “And to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting he did not bring it to present it as an offering to the Lord **before the Tabernacle of the Lord.”** From this verse, it is derived: For **any** animal **that is not fit to come to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting** for sacrifice on the altar, **one is not liable for its** slaughter and sacrifice outside the courtyard. ###### Zevachim 112a:15 [Zevachim 112a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/112a:15) בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין – בֵּין בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין קְבוּעִין, בֵּין **William Davidson Edition - English:** For **blemished** animals, **whether** they are **permanently blemished** or **whether** they are