Zevachim 217:1

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> אחד קדשים כשרין ואחד קדשים פסולין שהיה פסולן בקודש והקריבן בחוץ חייב

IF EITHER VALID SACRIFICES OR INVALID SACRIFICES HAD BECOME UNFIT WITHIN, AND ONE OFFERS THEM WITHOUT, HE IS LIABLE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because if such unfit sacrifices are placed on the altar within they are not removed.');">¹</span>

המעלה כזית מן העולה ומן האימורין בחוץ חייב:

IF ONE OFFERS UP WITHOUT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF A BURNT-OFFERING AND ITS EMURIM [COMBINED].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g. half as much as an olive of each.');">²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר (ויקרא יז, ח) אשר יעלה עולה או זבח אין לי אלא עולה מנין לרבות אימורי אשם ואימורי חטאת ואימורי קדשי קדשים ואימורי קדשים קלים ת"ל זבח

HE IS LIABLE.

מנין לרבות הקומץ והלבונה והקטורת ומנחת כהנים ומנחת כהן משיח והמנסך שלשת לוגין יין ושלשת לוגין מים ת"ל (ויקרא יז, ט) ואל פתח אהל מועד לא יביאנו כל הבא לפתח אהל מועד חייבין עליו בחוץ

<big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: [Whatsoever man.] that offereth up a burnt-offering:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 8.');">³</span>

ואין לי אלא קדשים כשרים מנין לרבות פסולין

I know it only of a burnt-offering; whence do I know to include the emurim of a guilt-offering, the emurim of a sin-offering, the emurim of most sacred sacrifices and the emurim of lesser sacrifices?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That if one offers up these without, he is liable.');">⁴</span>

כגון הלן והיוצא והטמא ושנשחט חוץ לזמנו וחוץ למקומו ושקבלו פסולין וזרקו את דמו והניתנין למטה שנתנן למעלה והניתנין למעלה שנתנן למטה והניתנין בחוץ שנתנן בפנים והניתנין בפנים שנתנן בחוץ ופסח וחטאת שנתנן שלא לשמן

Because it says, '[or] sacrifice'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. This is an extension.');">⁵</span>

מנין ת"ל לא יביאנו לעשות כל המתקבל בפתח אהל מועד חייבין עליו בחוץ:

Whence do we know to include the fistful, frankincense, incense, the meal-offering of priests, the meal-offering of the anointed priest, and one who makes a libation of three logs of wine or of water?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the smallest measure which constitutes a libation.');">⁶</span>

המעלה כזית מן העולה כו': עולה ואימוריה אין שלמים ואימוריהן לא

Because it says, 'And bringeth it not unto the door of the tent of meeting':<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 9.');">⁷</span>

תנינא להא דת"ר עולה ואימוריה מצטרפין לכזית להעלותן בחוץ ולחייב עליהן משום פיגול נותר וטמא

whatever comes to the door of the tent of meeting, you are liable on its account [if it is done] without.

בשלמא העלאת עולה דכליל אין שלמים לא אלא פיגול ונותר וטמא מ"ט

Again, I know it only of valid sacrifice whence do I know to include invalid [ones], e.g. , [a sacrifice] that is kept overnight, or that goes out, or is unclean, or which was slaughtered [with the intention of being eaten] after time or without bounds, or whose blood was received and sprinkled by unfit persons; or [whose blood] was sprinkled above when it should have been sprinkled below, or below when it should have been sprinkled above, or within instead of without, or without instead of within;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Within' and 'without' here mean on the inner altar and on the outer altar respectively.');">⁸</span>

והא תנן כל הפגולין מצטרפין וכל הנותרין מצטרפין קשיא פיגול אפיגול קשיא נותר אנותר

or a Passover-offering or a sin-offering which one slaughtered under a different designation?

פיגול אפיגול לא קשיא כאן בפיגול כאן במחשבת פיגול

Because it says, 'And bringeth it not to sacrifice', [this teaches,] whatever is receiv at the door of the tent of meeting,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., whatever is not removed from the altar if placed thereon.');">⁹</span>

נותר אנותר לא קשיא כאן בנותר כאן בשניתותרו עד שלא נזרק הדם

you are liable on its account without.

ומני רבי יהושע היא דתניא ר' יהושע אומר כל הזבחים שבתורה שנשתייר בהן כזית בשר

IF ONE OFFERS UP WITHOUT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF A BURNT-OFFERING [AND ITS EMURIM] etc. Only [of] a burnt-offering and its emurim, but not [of] a peace-offering and its emurim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The flesh and the emurim of a peace-offering do not combine to make up the standard of an olive.');">¹⁰</span> We have thus learnt here what our Rabbis taught: A burnt-offering and its emurim combine to [make up the standard of] an olive, in respect of offering them up without, and in respect of being liable through them on account of piggul, nothar, and defilement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is now assumed to mean that one is liable for eating as much as an olive of the flesh and the emurim combined when it is piggul or nothar, or if he is unclean.');">¹¹</span> As for offering-up. it is well: only a burnt-offering, because it is altogeth burnt [kalil],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence no distinction is drawn between the flesh and the emurim, and they combine.');">¹²</span> but not a peace-offering. What however is the reason for piggul, nothar, and uncleanness? Surely we learnt: All instances of piggul combine, and all instances of nothar combine:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now, piggul and nothar apply both to the flesh and to the emurim of a peace-offering (v. supra 43a) : hence the two should combine.');">¹³</span> thus the rulings on piggul are contradictory, and those on nothar are contradictory? - The rulings on piggul are not contradictory: one refers to piggul, the other refers to the intention of piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If one eats half as much as an olive of the flesh of a peace-offering which is already piggul and the same quantity of its emurim, he is liable to a sin-offering. If, however, one slaughters a peace-offering with the intention of eating or burning half as much as an olive of the flesh and half as much as an olive of the emurim after time, it does not become piggul, because the flesh should be eaten and the emurim should be burnt, whereas an illegitimate intention of eating or burning renders a sacrifice piggul only when it is made in respect of what is eaten or burnt respectively. Such intentions do combine, however, in the case of a burnt-offering, since the whole of it is burnt.');">¹⁴</span> Nor are the rulings on nothar contradictory: one refers to [actual] nothar, the other refers to such which were left over before the blood was sprinkled.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the case of ordinary nothar the flesh and the emurim, even of a peace-offering, combine. It is different, however, in the following instance: The whole of the animal, except half as much as an olive of the flesh and the same of the emurim, was lost or destroyed before the sprinkling of the blood. Now, if this happened with a burnt-offering, we would have as much as an olive for the altar's consumption, and therefore the sprinkling is valid to render it nothar, in the sense that if it is left until after time and then eaten, it entails liability. In the case of a peace-offer however, there is only half as much as an olive for the altar's consumption and the same for man's consumption: these do not combine to permit the sprinkling. If one did sprinkle, therefore, the sprinkling is not valid to render it nothar in the above sense. The same applies to defilement.');">¹⁵</span> And who is the author of this? - R'Joshua. For it was taught: R'Joshua said: [In the case of] al the sacrifices of the Torah of which as much as an olive of flesh or an olive of heleb remains,