Study Zevachim folio 112A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
גמ׳ בשלמא בחוץ וחזר ונתן בפנים – שכולו ראוי להיות בפנים; אבל בפנים והעלן בחוץ – שיריים נינהו!
Talmud: The Talmud discusses the first clause of the Mishnah: Granted that one is liable in a case where he first placed the blood on an altar outside the courtyard and then placed the remaining blood on the altar inside the courtyard; that is because, as the Mishnah explains: As the blood in its entirety is fit to be placed inside the courtyard. But in a case where he first placed its blood on the altar inside the courtyard and then offered up the remaining blood on an altar outside the courtyard, why he is liable? That blood is merely a remainder, and one should not be liable for offering it up outside.
הא מני – רבי נחמיה היא, דאמר: שירי הדם שהקריבן בחוץ – חייב.
The Talmud explains: In accordance with whose opinion is this Mishnah? It is in accordance with the opinion of R' Neḥemya, who says: For the remainder of the blood of an offering that was supposed to be poured at the base of the altar and that instead one sacrificed outside the courtyard, one is liable.
אי רבי נחמיה, אימא סיפא: קבל דמה בשני כוסות; נתן שניהם בפנים – פטור. שניהם בחוץ – חייב. אחד בפנים ואחד בחוץ – פטור. והאמר רבי נחמיה: שירי הדם שהקריבן בחוץ – חייב!
The Talmud asks: If the Mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of R' Neḥemya, then say the latter clause: If one collected its blood in two cups and placed the blood from both of them on the altar inside the courtyard, he is exempt. If he placed the blood from both of them on an altar outside the courtyard, he is liable. If he first placed the blood from one cup inside and then placed the blood from the other one outside, he is exempt. By using the blood of the first cup to perform the mitzva of placing the blood on the altar, he thereby rendered the blood in the second cup a mere remainder. The Talmud asks: How can this clause be attributed to R' Neḥemya? But doesn’t R' Neḥemya say: For the remainder of the blood of an offering that one offered outside the courtyard, he is liable?