וְכַזַּיִת חֵלֶב – זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם,

or from which there remains only an olive-bulk of sacrificial portions, e.g., fat to be burned on the altar, one still sprinkles the blood of the offering on the altar and one thereby fulfills his obligation.

חֲצִי זַיִת בָּשָׂר וַחֲצִי זַיִת חֵלֶב – אֵינוֹ זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם. וּבְעוֹלָה, חֲצִי זַיִת בָּשָׂר וַחֲצִי זַיִת חֵלֶב – זוֹרֵק אֶת הַדָּם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁכּוּלָּהּ כָּלִיל. וּמִנְחָה, אֲפִילּוּ כּוּלָּהּ קַיֶּימֶת – לֹא יִזְרוֹק.

But if all that remains is half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, one may not sprinkle the blood, as since the meat and the sacrificial portions are used differently, the former being eaten and the latter being burned on the altar, they cannot combine to form the minimum requirement of an olive-bulk. This applies only to offerings whose meat is eaten. But for a burnt offering, even if all that remains is half an olive-bulk of flesh and half an olive-bulk of fat, one sprinkles the blood, because since the offering is consumed upon the altar in its entirety, all of its parts combine together. And with regard to a meal offering, even if all of it still exists, one does not sprinkle the blood. It is apparent that Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion in this baraita is the one expressed in the baraita .

מִנְחָה מַאי עֲבִידְתָהּ? אֲמַר רַב פַּפָּא: מִנְחַת נְסָכִים הַבָּאָה עִם הַזֶּבַח.

The Gemara clarifies the final clause of the baraita : What is the relevance of a meal offering to the sprinkling of blood? In a meal offering there is no blood at all. Rav Pappa said: The baraita is referring to a meal offering brought with the libations that accompany an animal offering. If the entire body of the offering was destroyed but the meal offering that accompanied it remains, one might have thought that it would be sufficient to allow for the sprinkling of the blood. The baraita teaches that this is incorrect.

מתני׳ הַקּוֹמֶץ, וְהַלְּבוֹנָה, וְהַקְּטֹרֶת, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֲנִים, וּמִנְחַת כֹּהֵן מָשִׁיחַ, וּמִנְחַת נְסָכִים שֶׁהִקְרִיב מֵאַחַת מֵהֶן כַּזַּיִת בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹטֵר עַד שֶׁיַּקְרִיב אֶת כּוּלָּן. וְכוּלָּן שֶׁהִקְרִיב בִּפְנִים, וְשִׁיֵּיר מֵהֶן כַּזַּיִת וְהִקְרִיבוֹ בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.

With regard to the handful of a meal offering, the frankincense, the incense, the meal offering of priests, the meal offering of the anointed priest, and the meal offering brought with the libations that accompany animal offerings, in a case where one sacrificed even an olive-bulk from any one of these, which should be sacrificed on the altar, outside the Temple, he is liable, as the burning of an olive-bulk is considered a proper burning. Rabbi Eliezer deems him exempt unless he sacrifices the whole of any one of these But Rabbi Eliezer concedes that with regard to any of them that one sacrificed inside the courtyard but left over an olive-bulk from them and then sacrificed that olive-bulk outside the courtyard, he is liable.

וְכוּלָּן שֶׁחָסְרוּ כָּל שֶׁהוּ וְהִקְרִיבוֹ בַּחוּץ – פָּטוּר.

And with regard to any of these offerings that were lacking any amount, if one sacrifices it outside the courtyard, he is exempt.

הַמַּקְרִיב קֳדָשִׁים וְאֵימוּרִים בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב.

One who sacrifices sacrificial meat, which is eaten, and sacrificial portions, i.e., those that are to be burned on the altar, outside the courtyard, is liable for the sacrifice of the sacrificial portions. But he is not liable for sacrificing the meat.

גמ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמַּקְטִיר כַּזַּיִת בַּחוּץ – חַיָּיב, חֲצִי פְּרָס בִּפְנִים – פָּטוּר.

The Sages taught in a baraita : Each morning and afternoon, a peras , i.e., half a maneh , of incense must be burned in the Sanctuary. Nevertheless, one who burns only an olive-bulk of incense outside the courtyard is liable. If one burns half a peras inside the Temple, he is exempt.

קָא סָלְקָא דַּעְתִּין, מַאי ״פָּטוּר״ – פָּטוּר זָר. אַמַּאי? הַקְטָרָה הִיא!

The Gemara addresses the latter clause of the baraita : It enters our mind to explain: What is meant by: He is exempt? It means that a non-priest, for whom it is prohibited to perform the sacrificial rites in the Temple, is exempt if he burns incense inside the Temple. The Gemara rejects this: Why should he be exempt; this is an act of sacrificial burning? Even though he burned less than a peras , it is apparent from the first clause of the baraita that burning even an olive-bulk is considered an act of sacrificial burning.

אֲמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא אֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אֲמַר רַב יִרְמְיָה בַּר אַבָּא אֲמַר רַב: מַאי ״פָּטוּר״ – פָּטוּר צִיבּוּר.

Rabbi Zeira said that Rav Ḥisda said that Rav Yirmeya, son of Abba, said that Rav said: What is meant by: He is exempt? It means that if a priest burns half a peras inside the Temple, the community is thereby exempt from its obligation to burn incense despite the fact that less than the required amount was burned.

אֲמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: אִי קַשְׁיָא לִי – הָא קַשְׁיָא לִי, הָא דַּאֲמַר רַב עֲלָהּ: בְּהָא אֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר מוֹדֶה. דְּהָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר לָאו הַקְטָרָה הִיא קָאָמַר!

Rabbi Zeira said: If there is something difficult for me with regard to this baraita , this is difficult for me: That which Rav said concerning this baraita : With regard to this halakha , that if a priest burns less than a peras of incense the community fulfills its obligation, even Rabbi Eliezer concedes. Rabbi Zeira explains: This is difficult for me as Rabbi Eliezer rules in the mishna that one who burns an olive-bulk of incense outside is exempt. Effectively, he is saying that burning less than the required amount is not an act of sacrificial burning. How then can he hold that the community fulfills its obligation by the burning of less than a peras ?

אֲמַר רַבָּה: בְּהַקְטָרָה דְּהֵיכָל – דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי.

Rabba said: With regard to the burning of incense designated to be burned in the Sanctuary upon the golden altar, everyone, i.e., the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer, agrees that the Torah does not specify the amount to be burned; the requirement to burn a peras is rabbinic. Accordingly, the obligation is fulfilled even if only an olive-bulk of incense is burned there, as the baraita states, and one who burns an olive-bulk of that incense outside the Temple is liable.

כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּהַקְטָרָה דִּפְנִים, דְּמָר סָבַר: ״מְלֹא חָפְנָיו״ דַּוְקָא, וּמָר סָבַר: ״מְלֹא חָפְנָיו״ לָאו דַּוְקָא.

When they disagree in the mishna, it is with regard to the burning of incense in the inner sanctum, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, on Yom Kippur. As one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that “his handful” indicates that specifically that measure must be burned in order to fulfill the obligation. Accordingly, he also holds that one who burns only an olive-bulk of that incense outside the courtyard is exempt. And the other Sage, the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Eliezer, holds that “his handful” does not indicate that specifically that measure must be burned, and the obligation can be fulfilled even with a lesser amount. Accordingly, they also hold that one who burns even an olive-bulk of that incense outside the courtyard is liable.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבַּיֵי: וְהָא כִּי קָא כְּתִיבָא ״חֻקָּה״ – בְּהַקְטָרָה דִּפְנִים הוּא דִּכְתִיב!

Abaye said to Rabba: But when the term “statute” is written with regard to the Yom Kippur Temple service (see Leviticus 16:29), it is also written with regard to the burning of incense in the inner sanctum. The term “statute” stated with regard to a rite indicates that it is valid only if performed precisely in accordance with all the details mentioned in the Torah concerning it. Accordingly, the term “his handful” must be specific.

אֶלָּא אֲמַר אַבַּיֵי: בְּהַקְטָרָה בִּפְנִים – כּוּלֵּי עָלְמָא לָא פְּלִיגִי.

Rather, Abaye said: With regard to the burning of incense in the inner sanctum, i.e., in the Holy of Holies, on Yom Kippur, everyone agrees that the obligation is only fulfilled if a handful of incense is burned. Also, everyone agrees with regard to burning incense in the Sanctuary that the obligation is fulfilled even with an olive-bulk, as the baraita states, and one who burns an olive-bulk of incense outside the Temple is liable.

כִּי פְּלִיגִי – בְּהַקְטָרָה דְּחוּץ, מָר סָבַר: יָלְפִינַן פְּנִים מִחוּץ, וּמָר סָבַר לָא יָלְפִינַן.

When they disagree in the mishna, it is with regard to the burning of incense of the Holy of Holies outside the Temple courtyard. One Sage, the Rabbis, holds that we derive the measure for liability for incense of the inner sanctum from incense of the outer sanctum, i.e., the Sanctuary. Just as for the latter one is liable for an olive- bulk, so too, for the former one is liable for an olive-bulk. And the other Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, holds that we do not derive one from the other. Rather, since the obligation inside the Holy of Holies is fulfilled only with a handful of incense, one is liable for burning that incense outside the Temple only if he burns that amount.

אֲמַר רָבָא: הָשְׁתָּא חוּץ מִחוּץ לָא יָלְפִי רַבָּנַן, פְּנִים מִחוּץ מִיבָּעֵי?!

Rava said in rejection of Abaye’s understanding: Now, if the Rabbis do not derive the measure for liability for offering up outside the Temple courtyard, with regard to other rites performed in the outer sanctum, from incense of the outer sanctum, is it necessary to question whether they would derive the measure for liability for incense of the inner sanctum from incense of the outer sanctum? Certainly, they would not.

מַה הִיא? דְּתַנְיָא: יָכוֹל הַמַּעֲלֶה פָּחוֹת מִכַּזַּיִת קוֹמֶץ, וּפָחוֹת מִכַּזַּיִת אֵימוּרִין, וְהַמְנַסֵּךְ פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין יַיִן, [פָּחוֹת] מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה לוּגִּין מַיִם, יְהֵא חַיָּיב? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לַעֲשׂוֹת״ – עַל הַשָּׁלֵם חַיָּיב, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַל הֶחָסֵר.

The Gemara asks: What is the rite that Rava is referring to in his response to Abaye? It is as it is taught in a baraita : One might have thought that one who offers up outside the courtyard less than an olive-bulk of the handful taken from a meal offering or less than an olive-bulk of the sacrificial portions, or who pours as a libation outside the courtyard less than three log of wine or who pours as a libation on Sukkot less than three log of water, that he would be liable. To counter this, the verse states: “And he will not bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, to sacrifice it” (Leviticus 17:9). The term “to sacrifice it” indicates that one is liable for the sacrifice of a complete offering outside the courtyard but one is not liable for the sacrifice of an incomplete offering outside.

וְהָא פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁלֹשֶׁת לוּגִּין, דְּאִית בְּהוּ כַּמָּה זֵיתִים, וְלָא יָלְפִי רַבָּנַן חוּץ מִחוּץ!

The Gemara explains Rava’s inference: But the baraita states that for a libation of less than three log outside the courtyard one is exempt despite the fact that the libation still contains a few olive-bulks. And it is apparent then, that the Rabbis do not derive the measure for liability for the rite of libation that should be performed in the outer sanctum from incense that should be burned in the outer sanctum. Certainly then, they would not derive the measure for liability for incense of the inner sanctum from incense of the outer sanctum.

אֶלָּא אֲמַר רָבָא: כְּגוֹן דְּקַבְעִינְהוּ שְׁנֵי חֲצָאֵי פְרָס

Rather, Rava said to resolve Rabbi Zeira’s difficulty: Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis agree with regard to the incense of the Sanctuary, that the Torah does not specify an amount to be burned, and the community fulfills its obligation even if only an olive-bulk is burned, as is taught in the baraita . When they disagree in the mishna, it is in a case where, for example, one designated two half- peras portions peras ,