Commentary for Zevachim 221:18

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> המולק את העוף בפנים והעלה בחוץ חייב מלק בחוץ והעלה בחוץ פטור השוחט את העוף בפנים והעלה בחוץ פטור

When it says, 'into the land of your habitations,' Scripture speaks of a bamah in use in all your habitations.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, a private bamah.');">⁸</span> Now when you analyse the matter, [you find that] on R'Ishmael's view they did not offer libations in the wilderness, while on R'Akiba's they did offer libations in the wilderness. R'NEHEMIAH SAID: IF ONE PRESENTED THE RESIDUE OF THE BLOOD WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE. R'Johanan said: R'Nehemiah taught in agreement with the view that [the pouring out of] the residue is indispensable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 42b. Therefore it is a service and entails liability if done without.');">⁹</span> An objection is raised: R'Nehemiah said: If one offered the residue of the blood without, he is liable. Said R'Akiba to him: Surely [the pouring out of] the residue of the blood is [but] the remainder of rite?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And is not indispensable (v. supra 52a) ; hence it does not entail liability when done without.');">¹⁰</span> Let [the burning of] the limbs and the fat-pieces prove it, he replied, which is the remainder of a rite,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is not indispensable, for the sprinkling of the blood alone is indispensable.');">¹¹</span> yet if one offers them up without, he is liable. Not so, said he, If you speak of [the burning of] the limbs and the fat-pieces, that is because it is the beginning of the service; will you say the same of the residue of the blood, which is the end of the service?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not.');">¹²</span> Now if this is correct,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That R. Nehemiah holds that the pouring out of the residue of the blood is indispensable.');">¹³</span> let him answer him: This too is indispensable? That is indeed a refutation! But now that R'Adda B'Ahabah said: The controversy<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether the pouring out of the residue is indispensable or not.');">¹⁴</span> is about the residue of the inner [sin-offering];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The residue of the blood of sin-offerings which is sprinkled within, in the Hekal.');">¹⁵</span> but all agree that [the pouring out of] the residue of the outer [sin-offering] is not indispensable, [you can answer thus]: R'Nehemiah spoke [in the Mishnah] of the residue of the inner [sin-offering]; whereas that [Baraitha] was taught in connection with the residue of the outer [sin-offerings].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' R. Nehemiah admits that that is not indispensable; hence one who offers it without is not liable.');">¹⁶</span> If so, let him [R'Nehemiah] answer him: I spoke [only] of the residue of the inner [sin-offerings]? - Rather, he argued on R'Akiba's hypothesis.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I maintain that the pouring out of the residue is indispensable. But even if, as you say, it is not, let the burning of the limbs prove that one who offers it without is liable.');">¹⁷</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE NIPS A BIRD[-OFFERING] WITHIN AND OFFERS IT UP WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE; IF ONE NIPS IT WITHOUT AND OFFERS IT UP WITHOUT, HE IS NOT LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Once he nips it without it is nebelah and not fit for offering up within. He is not liable for nipping it without, as stated supra 107a.');">¹⁸</span> IF ONE SLAUGHTERS A BIRD WITHIN AND OFFERS IT UP WITHOUT, HE IS NOT LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because by slaughtering it within, instead of nipping it, he disqualified it, and therefore it could not be offered up within.');">¹⁹</span>

Explore commentary for Zevachim 221:18. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.