Mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 218:19

אלא אמר רבא כגון דקבעינהו שני חצאי פרס

Now it was assumed that what does 'not liable' mean? A zar is not liable;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If a zar burns less than a peras within he is not liable, though only a priest is permitted to burn it.');">¹¹</span> [then the difficulty arises] why so? Surely it is haktarah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Even with that quantity; and, a zar who performs haktarah is liable.');">¹²</span> - Said R'Zera in R'Hisda's name in R'Jeremiah B'Abba's name in Rab's name: What does 'not liable' mean? The community is not liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They have fulfilled their obligation, though it was less than the standard quantity prescribed.');">¹³</span> R'Zera said: If I have a difficulty, it is this, viz. , Rab's statement thereon [that] here even R'Eleazar but surely R'Eleazar maintains that this does not constitute haktarah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Why then is the community quit of its obligation?');">¹⁴</span> - Said Rabbah: In respect of haktarah in the Hekal none disagree.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All agree that the daily haktarah in the Hekal is fulfilled with as much as an olive, because Scripture does not prescribe a quantity for this, the standard of a peras being Rabbinical only. Consequently R. Eleazar admits that if one burns as much as an olive of this without, he is liable; and for the same reason the community is quit of its obligation when as much as an olive is burnt within. Hence the Baraitha, which refers to the daily haktarah, agrees with all.');">¹⁵</span> They disagree only in respect of the haktarah within:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the Day of Atonement, which was done in the innermost sanctuary. There a definite quantity is prescribed, viz., 'his hands full' (Lev. XVI, 12) .');">¹⁶</span> one master holds, 'his hands full' is particularly meant;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not less, and the whole must be taken simultaneously. Hence less does not constitute haktarah on that occasion, and if one burns this without, he is not liable.');">¹⁷</span> while the other master holds [that] 'his hands full' is not mean particularly. But surely, said Abaye to him, 'statute' is written in reference to haktarah within?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 34: And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make atonement . . once in the year. 'Statute' intimates that everything which is so designated must be carried out exactly as prescribed; further, it applies to all the rites enumerated in the chapter which are performed only 'once in the year', and hence includes haktarah within. How then can anyone maintain that 'his hands full' is not meant particularly?');">¹⁸</span> - Rather said Abaye: In respect of haktarah within, none disagree. They disagree only in respect of haktarah without: one master holds [that] we learn within from without; while the other master holds that we do not learn [within from without].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Abaye too explains that the Baraitha treats of haktarah of the Hekal, while the Mishnah treats of haktarah within. But his premises and reasoning are different. Thus: all agree that a complete haktarah, viz., 'his hands full' is indispensable within. They disagree where one burnt without the Temple as much as an olive of this incense that should have been burnt within, in the innermost sanctuary. One master holds that we learn within from without, i.e. the incense of the innermost sanctuary from the incense of the Hekal: just as one is liable for burning as much as an olive of the latter without, so is one liable for burning as much as an olive of the former without, although that same quantity burnt in its rightful place, sc. the innermost sanctuary, does not constitute haktarah. R. Eleazar, however, holds that we cannot make this inference, precisely because of the difference just noted, Hence when he burns it without he is not liable.');">¹⁹</span> Raba observed: Seeing that the Rabbis do not learn without from without, can there be a question of [learning] within from without?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely they would not make such an inference.');">²⁰</span> To what is this allusion?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where do we find that they do not learn without from without?');">²¹</span> - To what was taught: You might think that if one offers up [without] less than an olive of the fistful [of flour] or less than an olive of emurim, or if one makes libations of less than three logs of wine or less than three logs of water, he is liable: therefore it sta 'to sacrifice [do]': one is liable for a complete [standard], but one is not liable for an incomplete one. Now, less than three logs nevertheless contains many olives, and yet the Rabbis do not learn without from without!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They do not say that since as much as an olive of incense burnt without entails liability. the same measure of wine or water offered as a libation without entails liability, though both of these are 'without', i.e., they are rightly offered on the outer altar. The author of this must be the Rabbis, since R. Eleazar holds that one is not liable even when he burns as much as an olive without. (It should be noted that 'without' in the present passage is used with two different meanings: (i) outside the Temple court altogether. where all offering is forbidden; and (ii) the outer altar in the Temple court, where the daily incense is burnt and the drink-offerings are made.)');">²²</span> - Rather said Raba: [The Mishnah applies to] where e.g. , one appointed it

Explore mesorat%20hashas for Zevachim 218:19. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.