## Zevachim Daf 91b

###### Zevachim 91b:1
[Zevachim 91b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91b:1)

**גְּמָ׳** אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן, הַמִּתְנַדֵּב שֶׁמֶן – קוֹמְצוֹ וּשְׁיָרָיו נֶאֱכָלִין. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״קׇרְבַּן מִנְחָה״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן; וְכִי מִנְחָה – מָה מִנְחָה קוֹמְצָהּ וּשְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין, אַף שֶׁמֶן קוֹמְצוֹ וּשְׁיָרָיו נֶאֱכָלִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Shmuel says: According to the statement of Rabbi Tarfon** that oil may be sacrificed as a gift offering, in the case of **one who contributes oil,** a priest **removes a handful of** the oil and sacrifices it on the altar, **and its remainder is eaten** by the priests. **What is the reason** for the ruling of Shmuel? The **verse states:** “And when one brings **a meal offering [*korban minḥa*]”** (Leviticus 2:1). The superfluous word *korban* **teaches that one may contribute oil, and** its status is **like** that of **a meal offering: Just as** with regard to **a meal offering** the priest **removes a handful and its remainder is eaten, so too** with regard to **oil,** the priest **removes a handful and its remainder is eaten.**


###### Zevachim 91b:2
[Zevachim 91b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91b:2)

אָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם רָאִיתָ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁמִּתְחַלֵּק בַּעֲזָרָה – אִי אַתָּה צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאוֹל מַהוּ; אֶלָּא מוֹתַר רְקִיקֵי מִנְחוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלוֹג שֶׁמֶן שֶׁל מְצוֹרָע, שֶׁאֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין. מִכְּלָל דְּמַאן דְּאָמַר מִתְנַדְּבִין – מִתְחַלֵּק.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Zeira said** that **we learn** this *halakha* in the mishna **as well: Rabbi Shimon said: If you saw oil that is being distributed in the Temple courtyard, you do not need to ask what it is; rather,** it is **left over** from the oil **of the wafers of the meal offerings of Israelites, or** it is left over from the ***log* of oil of a leper, as one does not contribute** oil as a gift offering. Rabbi Zeira learns **by inference** from the mishna **that** according to **the one who says** that **one may contribute** oil, it is **distributed** to the priests for consumption and it is not sacrificed entirely.


###### Zevachim 91b:3
[Zevachim 91b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91b:3)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי, אֵימָא סֵיפָא: אִם רָאִיתָ שֶׁמֶן שֶׁנִּיתָּן עַל גַּבֵּי אִישִּׁים – אִי אַתָּה צָרִיךְ לִשְׁאוֹל מַהוּ; אֶלָּא מוֹתַר רְקִיקֵי מִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, שֶׁאֵין מִתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן. מִכְּלָל דִּלְמַאן דְּאָמַר מִתְנַדֵּב – כּוּלָּן לָאִישִּׁים. לְאַבָּיֵי קַשְׁיָא רֵישָׁא, לְרַבִּי זֵירָא קַשְׁיָא סֵיפָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to** Rabbi Zeira: **Say the last clause** of the mishna: **If you saw oil that is placed on the flames** of the altar, **you do not need to ask what it is; rather,** it is **left over** from the oil **of the wafers of the meal offering of priests or** it is left over from **the meal offering of the anointed priest, as one does not contribute oil** as a gift offering. Abaye learns **by inference** from the mishna **that according to the one who says** that **one may contribute** oil, it is burned in its **entirety in the flames** on the altar. This contradicts Shmuel’s statement that according to Rabbi Tarfon only a handful of the oil is burned on the altar. The Gemara comments: **For Abaye** the inference from **the first clause** of the mishna is **difficult,** while **for Rabbi Zeira** the inference from **the last clause** is **difficult.**


###### Zevachim 91b:4
[Zevachim 91b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91b:4)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי זֵירָא – רֵישָׁא בְּשִׁירַיִם, סֵיפָא בְּקוֹמֶץ. אֶלָּא לְאַבָּיֵי – קַשְׁיָא! תְּנָא רֵישָׁא אַטּוּ סֵיפָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara continues: **Granted,** according **to Rabbi Zeira,** the inference from **the first clause** that the oil is distributed for consumption by the priests can be explained as referring **to** the **remainder** of the oil, whereas the inference from **the last clause** that the oil is burned on the altar is referring **to** the **handful** removed from the oil. **But** according **to Abaye,** the contradictory inferences pose **a difficulty.** The Gemara answers: One cannot infer anything from the first clause, as the mishna **taught the first clause due to the last clause.** That is, as the *tanna* of the mishna wishes to teach the last clause in a certain manner, he teaches the first clause in a similar style, despite the fact that one might come to an erroneous conclusion from the wording of the first clause.


###### Zevachim 91b:5
[Zevachim 91b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91b:5)

בִּשְׁלָמָא סֵיפָא – תָּנֵי מִשּׁוּם רֵישָׁא; אֶלָּא רֵישָׁא מִשּׁוּם סֵיפָא מִי תָּנֵי?! אִין; אָמְרִי בְּמַעְרְבָא: תְּנָא רֵישָׁא מִשּׁוּם סֵיפָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Granted,** a *tanna* may **teach the last clause** of a mishna **due to the first clause,** i.e., a *tanna* might teach in a similar formulation to one he had already used. **But would** a *tanna* **teach the first clause** of a mishna **due to the last clause?** The Gemara answers: **Yes; they say in the West,** Eretz Yisrael, that a *tanna* **taught the first clause due to the last clause.**


###### Zevachim 91b:6
[Zevachim 91b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91b:6)

תָּא שְׁמַע: יַיִן כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – לַסְּפָלִים, שֶׁמֶן כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן – לָאִישִּׁים. מַאי, לָאו מִדְּיַיִן כּוּלּוֹ לַסְּפָלִים, שֶׁמֶן כּוּלּוֹ לָאִישִּׁים? מִידֵּי אִירְיָא? הָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ וְהָא כִּדְאִיתַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites a proof: **Come** and **hear** a *baraita*: If one contributes **wine, according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva** that one may contribute wine, it is poured **into the basins** adjacent to the corner of the altar. If one contributes **oil, according to the statement of Rabbi Tarfon** that one may contribute oil, it is burned **in the flames** of the altar. **What, is it not** possible to infer **from** the fact **that** the **wine** is poured in **its entirety into the basins** that the **oil** is likewise burned in **its entirety in the flames** of the altar, contrary to Shmuel’s statement? The Gemara rejects this proof: **Are the cases comparable? This** case is **as it is and that** case is **as it is,** i.e., the donations of wine and the oil are separate cases, and the two statements of the *baraita* need not accord with each other.


###### Zevachim 91b:7
[Zevachim 91b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91b:7)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, כְּתַנָּאֵי: שֶׁמֶן לֹא יִפְחוֹת מִלּוֹג. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין. בְּמַאי קָמִיפַּלְגִי? אַמְרוּהָ רַבָּנַן קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב פָּפָּא: דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ דּוּן מִינַּהּ וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said:** Shmuel’s statement is **like** one side of a dispute between ***tanna’im*,** as it is taught in a *baraita*: One who contributes **oil** should **not** bring **less than a *log*. Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says: Three *log*.** The Gemara asks: **With regard to what** principle **do** the first *tanna* and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi **disagree? The Sages said this before Rav Pappa:** They disagree with regard to the nature of an inference by means of verbal analogy or juxtaposition: Is the secondary case equated to the primary case in all aspects, in accordance with the exegetical principle: **Infer from it and** again **from it;** or does the comparison extend only to one specific issue derived from the primary case, in accordance with the principle: **Infer from it but interpret** the *halakha* according **to its** own **place,** i.e., in all other aspects the cases are not equated?


###### Zevachim 91b:8
[Zevachim 91b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91b:8)

דְּרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: מָה מִנְחָה מִתְנַדְּבִין, אַף שֶׁמֶן מִתְנַדְּבִין [וּמִינַּהּ – מָה מִנְחָה לוֹג שֶׁמֶן, אַף כָּאן לוֹג שֶׁמֶן. וּמָה מִנְחָה קוֹמְצָהּ וּשְׁיָרֶיהָ נֶאֱכָלִין, אַף שֶׁמֶן קוֹמְצוֹ וּשְׁיָרָיו נֶאֱכָלִין].

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains that this **is** the difference **between them, as the Rabbis hold** by the principle: Infer from it and again from it. The Gemara explains the application of this principle: **Just as a meal offering is contributed, so too, oil is contributed,** as inferred from the verse addressing the meal offering. **And** again one infers **from** this source: **Just as a meal offering** requires **a *log* of oil, so too here,** an offering of oil alone must be **a *log* of oil. And just as** with regard to **a meal offering** the priest **removes a handful and its remainder is eaten, so too** with regard to **oil,** the priest **removes a handful and its remainder is eaten.**


###### Zevachim 91b:9
[Zevachim 91b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91b:9)

וְאִידַּךְ – מִמִּנְחָה: מָה מִנְחָה מִתְנַדְּבִין, אַף שֶׁמֶן מִתְנַדְּבִין; וְאוֹקֵי בְּאַתְרַהּ – כִּנְסָכִים: מָה נְסָכִים שְׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין [אַף שֶׁמֶן (שלש) [שְׁלֹשָׁה] לוּגִּין, וּמָה נְסָכִים כּוּלָּן לַסְּפָלִין] – אַף שֶׁמֶן (כּוּלָּן) [כּוּלּוֹ] לָאִישִּׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the other,** Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, holds by the principle: Infer from it but interpret the *halakha* according to its own place. The Gemara explains that here too, one infers **from** the case of **a meal offering: Just as a meal offering is contributed, so too, oil is contributed. But** with regard to all other aspects of this *halakha*, **interpret** the *halakha* according **to its** own **place,** and its status is **like** that of wine **libations,** which are similar to oil in that they are also poured onto the altar: **Just as** one contributes **libations** of **three *log*, so too,** when one contributes **oil** one contributes **three *log*; and just as libations** are poured in **their entirety into the basins, so too,** the **oil** is burned in **its entirety in the flames** of the altar.


###### Zevachim 91b:10
[Zevachim 91b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91b:10)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב פָּפָּא לְאַבָּיֵי: אִי מִמִּנְחָה מַיְיתֵי לַהּ [רַבִּי], דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא דּוּן מִינַּהּ וּמִינַּהּ! אֶלָּא רַבִּי מֵ״אֶזְרָח״ גָּמַר לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **cited** the source of the gift offering of oil **from** the verse addressing the **meal offering** he would not disagree with the Rabbis, **as everyone** employs the principle of: **Infer from it and** again **from it. Rather, Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **derives** the gift offering of oil **from** a verse that deals with libations: “All that are **homeborn** shall do these things after this manner, in presenting an offering made by fire” (Numbers 15:13). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives from here that just as one may contribute wine libations, so too, one may contribute oil. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi compares oil to wine libations: Just as one contributes libations of three *log*, so too, one contributes three *log* of oil.


###### Zevachim 91b:11
[Zevachim 91b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91b:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב נָתָן לְרַב פָּפָּא: מִי מָצֵית אָמְרַתְּ הָכִי?! וְהָתַנְיָא: ״קׇרְבַּן מִנְחָה״ – מְלַמֵּד שֶׁמִּתְנַדְּבִין שֶׁמֶן. וְכַמָּה? שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין. וּמַאן שָׁמְעַתְּ לֵיהּ דְּאָמַר שְׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין – רַבִּי הִיא; וְקָא מַיְיתֵי לַהּ מִ״קׇּרְבָּן״! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִי תַּנְיָא תַּנְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: How can you say that,** i.e., that according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi the source of the gift offering of oil is not from the meal offering? **But isn’t it taught** in a *baraita* with regard to the verse: “And when one brings **a meal offering [*korban minḥa*]”** (Leviticus 2:1), that the superfluous word *korban* **teaches that one may contribute oil?** The *baraita* continues: **And how much** must one contribute? **Three *log*.** The Gemara explains the question: **And whom did you hear who says** the gift offering of oil is **three *log*? This is** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **and** yet he **cites** the source of the gift offering of oil **from** the word ***korban*,** which is referring to a meal offering. Rav Pappa **said to him: If** this *baraita* **is taught, it is taught;** and I cannot take issue with it.


###### Zevachim 91b:12
[Zevachim 91b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91b:12)

אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הַמִּתְנַדֵּב יַיִן, מֵבִיא וּמְזַלְּפוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי הָאִישִּׁים. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְיַיִן תַּקְרִיב לַנֶּסֶךְ חֲצִי הַהִין אִשֵּׁה רֵיחַ נִיחֹחַ לַה׳״. וְהָא קָא מְכַבֵּי! כִּיבּוּי בְּמִקְצָת לָא שְׁמֵיהּ כִּיבּוּי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Shmuel says: One who contributes wine brings** it **and sprinkles it on the flames** of the altar. **What is the reason** for this? **The verse states: “And you shall present for the libation half a *hin* of wine, for an offering made by fire, of a pleasing aroma to the Lord”** (Numbers 15:10). The verse indicates that there is a type of wine libation which is an offering made by fire. The Gemara challenges: **But he** thereby **extinguishes** the fire on the altar, and the Torah states: “A perpetual fire shall be kept burning on the altar, it shall not go out” (Leviticus 6:6). The Gemara explains: **Extinguishing in a partial** manner **is not called extinguishing;** in other words, this act is not included in the prohibition.


###### Zevachim 91b:13
[Zevachim 91b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91b:13)

אִינִי?! וְהָאָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: הַמּוֹרִיד גַּחֶלֶת מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְכִיבָּהּ – חַיָּיב, דְּלֵיכָּא אֶלָּא הַאי! אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּיבּוּי דְּמִצְוָה שָׁאנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Is that so? But doesn’t Rav Naḥman say** that **Rabba bar Avuh says: One who takes down a coal from upon the altar and extinguishes it is liable** for violating the prohibition: “It shall not go out”? The Gemara answers: This statement is referring to a situation **where there is only this** coal on the altar, and therefore the fire is entirely extinguished. **If you wish, say** instead that even if partial extinguishing is prohibited, **extinguishing** for the sake **of a mitzva,** as in the case of sprinkling wine on the altar, **is different,** and is permitted.


###### Zevachim 91b:14
[Zevachim 91b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91b:14)

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב: כְּלַפֵּי שֶׁנִּתְּנָה תּוֹרָה לִתְרוֹם, יָכוֹל יְכַבֶּה וְיִתְרוֹם? אָמְרַתְּ: לֹא יְכַבֶּה! שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, אֶפְשָׁר דְּיָתֵיב וְנָטַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **Come** and **hear** a *baraita* **that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov teaches: Since the Torah gave** a mitzva **to remove** the ashes of the offerings from the altar, one **might** have thought that it is permitted to **extinguish** the coals so that they become ashes **and** then to **remove** them. Therefore, **you say: He shall not extinguish,** in accordance with the verse: “It shall not go out.” Although this is a case of extinguishing for the sake of a mitzva, the *baraita* deems it prohibited. The Gemara explains: It **is different there,** as it is **possible** for the priest **to sit and wait** until some of the coals become ashes, and then remove them. By contrast, with regard to wine, there is no alternative to sprinkling the wine on the fire, and therefore it is permitted.


###### Zevachim 91b:15
[Zevachim 91b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91b:15)

תָּא שְׁמַע: יַיִן כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא – לַסְּפָלִים, שֶׁמֶן כְּדִבְרֵי רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן – לָאִישִּׁים! וְעוֹד תַּנְיָא: יַיִן (נסך) – [לְנַסֵּךְ] לַסְּפָלִים. אוֹ אֵינוֹ אֶלָּא לָאִישִּׁים? אָמַרְתָּ: לֹא יְכַבֶּה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **Come** and **hear** a *baraita* that prohibits sprinkling wine on the fire of the altar: If one contributes **wine, according to the statement of Rabbi Akiva** that one may contribute wine, it is poured **into the basins** on the altar. If one contributes **oil, according to the statement of Rabbi Tarfon** that one may contribute oil, it is poured **onto the flames** of the altar. **And** it **is furthermore taught** in a *baraita*: The **wine libation** is poured **into the basins.** The *baraita* suggests: **Or** perhaps it is **not** so; **rather,** it is poured **onto the flames.** Therefore, **you say: He shall not extinguish.**


###### Zevachim 91b:16
[Zevachim 91b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/91b:16)

לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, הָא רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. לְמֵימְרָא דִּשְׁמוּאֵל כְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן סְבִירָא לֵיהּ?! וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מְכַבִּין גַּחֶלֶת שֶׁל מַתֶּכֶת בִּרְשׁוּת הָרַבִּים, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא יִזּוֹקוּ בָּהּ רַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: This is **not difficult,** as **that** *baraita* is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda,** who holds that even an unintentional action, i.e., a permitted action from which a prohibited action inadvertently ensues, is prohibited; and **this** statement of Shmuel is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon,** who maintains that a permitted action from which a prohibited action inadvertently ensues is permitted. The Gemara asks: **Is this to say that Shmuel holds in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Shimon? But doesn’t Shmuel say: One may extinguish a piece of white-hot metal in a public thoroughfare** on Shabbat **so that the masses will not be injured by it;**