Commentary for Zevachim 217:14

ומני רבי יהושע היא דתניא ר' יהושע אומר כל הזבחים שבתורה שנשתייר בהן כזית בשר

IF ONE OFFERS UP WITHOUT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF A BURNT-OFFERING [AND ITS EMURIM] etc. Only [of] a burnt-offering and its emurim, but not [of] a peace-offering and its emurim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The flesh and the emurim of a peace-offering do not combine to make up the standard of an olive.');">¹⁰</span> We have thus learnt here what our Rabbis taught: A burnt-offering and its emurim combine to [make up the standard of] an olive, in respect of offering them up without, and in respect of being liable through them on account of piggul, nothar, and defilement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is now assumed to mean that one is liable for eating as much as an olive of the flesh and the emurim combined when it is piggul or nothar, or if he is unclean.');">¹¹</span> As for offering-up. it is well: only a burnt-offering, because it is altogeth burnt [kalil],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence no distinction is drawn between the flesh and the emurim, and they combine.');">¹²</span> but not a peace-offering. What however is the reason for piggul, nothar, and uncleanness? Surely we learnt: All instances of piggul combine, and all instances of nothar combine:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, piggul and nothar apply both to the flesh and to the emurim of a peace-offering (v. supra 43a) : hence the two should combine.');">¹³</span> thus the rulings on piggul are contradictory, and those on nothar are contradictory? - The rulings on piggul are not contradictory: one refers to piggul, the other refers to the intention of piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one eats half as much as an olive of the flesh of a peace-offering which is already piggul and the same quantity of its emurim, he is liable to a sin-offering. If, however, one slaughters a peace-offering with the intention of eating or burning half as much as an olive of the flesh and half as much as an olive of the emurim after time, it does not become piggul, because the flesh should be eaten and the emurim should be burnt, whereas an illegitimate intention of eating or burning renders a sacrifice piggul only when it is made in respect of what is eaten or burnt respectively. Such intentions do combine, however, in the case of a burnt-offering, since the whole of it is burnt.');">¹⁴</span> Nor are the rulings on nothar contradictory: one refers to [actual] nothar, the other refers to such which were left over before the blood was sprinkled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of ordinary nothar the flesh and the emurim, even of a peace-offering, combine. It is different, however, in the following instance: The whole of the animal, except half as much as an olive of the flesh and the same of the emurim, was lost or destroyed before the sprinkling of the blood. Now, if this happened with a burnt-offering, we would have as much as an olive for the altar's consumption, and therefore the sprinkling is valid to render it nothar, in the sense that if it is left until after time and then eaten, it entails liability. In the case of a peace-offer however, there is only half as much as an olive for the altar's consumption and the same for man's consumption: these do not combine to permit the sprinkling. If one did sprinkle, therefore, the sprinkling is not valid to render it nothar in the above sense. The same applies to defilement.');">¹⁵</span> And who is the author of this? - R'Joshua. For it was taught: R'Joshua said: [In the case of] al the sacrifices of the Torah of which as much as an olive of flesh or an olive of heleb remains,

Explore commentary for Zevachim 217:14. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.