Commentary for Zevachim 219:1

במנא מר סבר קביעות מנא מילתא היא ומר סבר לאו מילתא היא

in a vessel: one master holds that appointing in a vessel is an act that counts, while the other master holds that it is not an act that counts.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both the Mishnah and the Baraitha treat of haktarah of the Hekal, where Scripture does not prescribe a fixed quantity. Therefore the Baraitha teaches that he is liable, and R. Eleazar agrees, as Rab stated. The controversy in the Mishnah arises where one appointed the whole peras that was to be burnt (by Rabbinical law) for its purpose by placing it in a vessel. R. Eleazar holds that this appointment is a substantial act, in the sense that if the priest does not burn it all in the Hekal it is not haktarah and the community is not quit of its obligation. Therefore one is not liable for burning it without unless he burns the whole of it. The Rabbis, however, hold that this appointing does not count at all, and so it is the same as any other incense.');">¹</span>

Explore commentary for Zevachim 219:1. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.