Mishnayos Zevachim Perek 13 Mishnah 6
Change text layout:
זבחים פרק י"ג משנה ו׳
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. 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. One who sprinkles part of the blood of an offering, e.g., one sprinkling instead of four, outside the Temple courtyard is liable. Rabbi Elazar says: So too, one who pours as a libation water consecrated for the libation of the festival of Sukkot, during the Festival, outside the courtyard, is liable. 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.
הַקֹּמֶץ וְהַלְּבוֹנָה, שֶׁהִקְרִיב אֶת אַחַד מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר פּוֹטֵר עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי. אֶחָד בִּפְנִים וְאֶחָד בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב. שְׁנֵי בְזִיכֵי לְבוֹנָה, שֶׁהִקְרִיב אֶת אַחַד מֵהֶן בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר פּוֹטֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי. אֶחָד בִּפְנִים וְאֶחָד בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב. הַזּוֹרֵק מִקְצָת דָּמִים בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר, אַף הַמְנַסֵּךְ מֵי חָג בֶּחָג בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר, שְׁיָרֵי הַדָּם שֶׁהִקְרִיבָן בַּחוּץ, חַיָּב:
Bartenura
הקומץ והלבונה. של מנחת נדבה. שניהם מתירים את שיריה לאכילה הלכך רבי אלעזר פוטר דבעי הקטרת כל המתיר:
אחד בפנים. תחלה ואחר כך השני בחוץ חייב. שזה גמר ובו הכל תלוי:
שני בזיכי לבונה. מתירים לחם הפנים:
מי החג. שנתמלאו לשם ניסוך המים בחג הסכות, אם ניסך אותן בחוץ חייב דסבר ניסוך המים בחג דאורייתא היא הלכך מחייב עלה בחוץ ואין הלכה כר״א בכולה מתניתין ונסוך המים בחג לאו דאורייתא היא אלא הלכה למשה מסיני:
שירי הדם שהקריבן בחוץ חייב. בשירי דמים הפנימים מיירי וסבר דשירי הדם מעכבים בהם הילכך עבודה היא להתחייב עליה בחוץ אבל בשירי הדם של מזבח החיצון מודה ר׳ נחמיה שאינם אלא למצוה ולא לעכב, הילכך הזורקן בחוץ ודאי פטור. ואין הלכה כרבי נחמיה:
הקומץ והלבונה – of the free-will meal offering. Both of them (i.e., the fistful of the meal offering and the frankincense) permit the residue for consumption, therefore Rabbi Eleazar exempts for he requires the burning on the altar everything that is permitted.
אחד בפנים – first and afterwards the second outside, he is liable, for this completed it, and through it everything was dependent.
שני בזיכי לבונה – permits the [twelve] shewbread [loaves].
מי החג – that were filled for the sake of the water libations on the holiday of Sukkot, if he offered up the libation outside, he is liable for he (i.e., Rabbi Eleazar) holds that the water libations on the Festival [of Sukkot] is according to the Torah, therefore, he is liable by making the offering outside, but the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Eleazar in this entire Mishnah and the water libation on the Festival [of Sukkot] is not from the Torah, but rather it is a usage dating from Moses as delivered from Sinai (i.e., a traditional interpretation of a written law).
שירי הדם שהקריבן בחוץ חייב (of sin-offerings of the inner altar) – we are speaking of the residue of the blood of the inside, and he (i.e., Rabbi Nehemiah) holds that the residue of the blood prevent them, therefore, it is an act of Divine service that one is liable for outside [the Temple courtyard], but with the residue of the blood of the outer altar, Rabbi Nehemiah agrees that there are no other than for the Mitzvah, but not to be indispensable, therefore, he who sprinkles them outside is certainly exempt. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Nehemiah.