Commentary for Zevachim 219:28

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> הזורק מקצת דם בחוץ

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>AS FOR THE FISTFUL AND THE FRANKINCENSE, IF ONE OFFERED ONE OF THEM WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE; R'ELIEZER RULES THAT HE IS NOT LIABLE UNLESS HE OFFERS THE SECOND [TOO].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both must normally be offered before the remainder may be eaten (in the case of a votive meal-offering, to which this refers) . Hence the two together are the mattir (v. Glos.) , and R. Eliezer holds that one is liable only when he offers without the whole mattir.');">²⁰</span> [IF ONE OFFERED] ONE WITHIN AND THE OTHER WITHOUT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In this order.');">²¹</span> HE IS LIABLE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because the second completes it, and had it been offered within, it would have permitted the consumption of the remainder.');">²²</span> AS FOR THE TWO DISHES OF FRANKINCENSE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The burning of which permitted the eating of the Shewbread.');">²³</span> IF ONE OFFERED ONE OF THEM WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE; R'ELIEZER RULES THAT HE IS NOT LIABLE UNLESS HE OFFERS THE SECOND [TOO]. [IF ONE OFFERED] ONE WITHIN AND THE OTHER WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Isaac Nappaha<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Or, the smith.');">²⁴</span> asked: Can the fistful permit a proportionate quantity of the remainder?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 6, p. 540. If one burned the fistful alone, stating that this was to permit part of the remainder (which he determined beforehand) , while the other part was to be permitted by the frankincense, is the first part thus permitted?');">²⁵</span> does it [the fistful] indeed permit, or does it merely weaken [the prohibition]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does the fistful completely permit part, in which case this part is now permitted; or does it merely weaken the prohibition of the whole, while the frankincense finally removes it? in that case it will still be forbidden.');">²⁶</span> - On whose view [is this question asked]? If on the view of R'Meir, who maintained, You can render a sacrifice piggul through half of the mattir,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the priest declares a piggul intention at the burning of either the fistful or the frankincense, the offering is piggul.');">²⁷</span> it indeed permits it;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For a sacrifice can be rendered piggul only through a rite which completely permits it (or at least, a portion thereof) , just as sprinkling completely permits an animal sacrifice. R. Meir then must certainly hold that the burning of the fistful permits part of the remainder,');">²⁸</span> and if on the view of the Rabbis who maintained that you cannot render a sacrifice piggul through half of the mattir, it may neither permit nor weaken it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There is no proof that on their view the burning of the fistful either permits part or even weakens the prohibition of the whole.');">²⁹</span> - Rather, [the question is asked] on the view of R'Eliezer.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our Mishnah: since he rules that one is not liable for burning that alone without, it may be that he holds that it permits part only.');">³⁰</span> But R'Eliezer agrees with the Rabbis?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. those who disagree with R. Meir, - I.e., the same difficulty that arises on the view of the Rabbis, sc. that they may hold that it neither permits nor weakens, arises on the view of R. Eliezer.');">³¹</span> - Rather, [the question is asked] on the view of the Rabbis here:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In our MISHNAH:');">³²</span> does it permit, or does it weaken?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they maintain that one is liable for burning the fistful alone without, they must regard the same within as a proper haktarah, even without the frankincense. Hence the question, in respect of what is it haktarah: is it in respect of permitting part, or in respect of weakening the whole?');">³³</span> The question stands over. <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE SPRINKLES PART OF THE BLOOD WITHOUT,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., he made one application only; this holds good even in the case of the inner sin-offerings, where all the four applications are indispensable.');">³⁴</span>

Explore commentary for Zevachim 219:28. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.