Mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 216:12

ופליגא דעולא דאמר עולא הכל מודים במוקטרי פנים שחסרו והעלו בחוץ שחייב לא נחלקו אלא במוקטרי בחוץ שחסרו והעלו בחוץ דמר סבר פטור ומ"ס חייב

But R'Johanan maintained: The controversy is about one limb; one master holds that if one offers up without [limbs] which were [first] burnt within and [thus] became incomplete, he is liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because if such a limb springs off the altar, it must be replaced. This shews that it still requires haktarah after it has become incomplete, therefore when one offers it up without, performing haktarah there, he is liable. Consequently, each successive offering up of a portion of the same limb entails a separate sacrifice.');">¹⁶</span> while the other master holds that he is not liable,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Save for a whole limb. Therefore when he offers up the limb in several parts, he incurs one offering only.');">¹⁷</span>

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 216:12. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.