Gemara Clarity

Zevachim 112a

זבחים קי״ב ע״א

Learn Zevachim 112a step by step: Aramaic beside English, every question, answer and proof colour-coded.

Open Zevachim 112a in Gemara Clarity

Topic

Offering blood or animals outside the עזרה: liability for שיריים versus דחוי blood, and the new פרק's rule that only animals fit for the מזבח bring liability.

Overview

The גמרא asks why the משנה makes a person חייב for offering leftover blood (שיריים) outside the עזרה after the main placement was already done inside. It answers that the משנה follows רבי נחמיה, who holds there is liability for שיריים. A later case in the same משנה has two cups: one placed inside and one outside, and there the person is פטור. To explain this, the גמרא says that part follows the תנא קמא, who holds that one cup makes the other cup דחוי (rejected). The משנה compares this to a lost חטאת that turned up after a replacement was set aside. The גמרא explains that the comparison follows רבי, for whom such an animal is put to death. A backup animal set aside on purpose, by contrast, counts as an עולה. When the גמרא objects that a female חטאת can never be an עולה, רב חייא מיוסתיניא answers that the case is the male שעיר נשיא. The פרק then ends. A new פרק opens: there is no liability outside for the פרה אדומה, the שעיר המשתלח, or animals that are disqualified from the מזבח, because only an animal fit to be brought before the משכן counts. The amud ends as the משנה begins the case of blemished animals.

Opening lines

גְּמָ׳ בִּשְׁלָמָא בַּחוּץ

GEMARA: Granted, if he placed it outside

וְחָזַר וְנָתַן בִּפְנִים –

and then went back and placed it inside —

שֶׁכּוּלּוֹ רָאוּי לִהְיוֹת בִּפְנִים;

that is because all of it was fit to be placed inside;

אֲבָל בִּפְנִים וְהֶעֱלָן בַּחוּץ –

but if he placed it inside and then offered the rest outside —

The steps (17)

  1. ChallengeWhy is offering the leftover blood outside punishable?
  2. ResolutionThe משנה follows רבי נחמיה
  3. ChallengeThe סיפא with two cups does not fit רבי נחמיה
  4. ResolutionThe סיפא follows the תנא קמא: one cup makes the other rejected
  5. StatementThe משנה's comparison: a lost sin offering that was later found
  6. QuestionWhy does the משנה need this comparison?
  7. ResponseThe משנה follows רבי: a sin offering lost when its replacement was set aside is put to death
  8. ResponseWhat the comparison teaches: only a lost animal is rejected, not a backup
  9. ProofSupport from רב הונא: a guilt offering sent to graze is valid as a burnt offering
  10. ChallengeA female חטאת cannot become an עולה
  11. ResolutionThe case is the male goat of a נשיא
  12. ConclusionHadran — Closing הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהַמַּעֲלֶה
  13. StatementNo liability for the פרה אדומה or the שעיר המשתלח outside
  14. ProofThe פסוק: only what can come to the אהל מועד
  15. StatementA list of disqualified animals offered outside
  16. ProofThe פסוק: only what can come before the משכן
  17. StatementStarting the case of blemished animals