Zevachim Chapter 13, Mishnah 4. We continue to discuss the prohibitions of slaughtering and offering outside, and this Mishnah deals specifically with the laws of offering - offering the various sacrifices outside their designated place, which, for the last three thousand years, has been the Temple courtyard.
The first new point the Mishnah teaches is identifying the types of sacrifices for which offering them outside incurs karet, and if done unintentionally - a chatat: these are the sacrifices that were fit to go up on the Altar in their proper place in the courtyard.
Sacrifices whose invalidation occurred in a state of holiness:
As we learned in the ninth chapter, there are types of sacrifices that are not valid initially, and nevertheless after the fact, if they went up on the Altar - they are not taken down. The principle that determines which invalid offerings remain on the Altar is the time the invalidation occurred: an invalidation that happened only after the process began - once the animal was brought into the courtyard, or during the sacrificial service itself. Meaning, there is no inherent invalidation in the animal itself; rather, something went wrong along the way.
An invalidation that occurred in holiness: The slaughterer had an invalidating thought - outside its proper time or outside its proper place; or the eimurim remained all night until they became impure, and similar cases.
An inherent invalidation: An animal that is unfit for a sacrifice from the outset - a species not valid for a sacrifice, an animal missing a limb, or a blemished animal. The Mishnah does not deal with these.
And in the words of the Mishnah: "Echad kasher ve'echad pesulin shehayu pesulan bakodesh, vehikrivan bachutz - chayav" - whether the sacrifice is valid and fit to go up on the Altar initially, or whether in practice it should not have gone up due to its invalidation, but the invalidation occurred only after it entered the courtyard or during the sacrificial service, and because of this, if it went up - it does not come down. In both cases, one who offers it outside the courtyard is liable: karet if done intentionally, and a chatat if done unintentionally.
"He'elah kezayit min ha'olah umin ha'eimurim bachutz - chayav" - If one offered a kezayit from the olah offering and from the eimurim outside, he is liable:
One who offers a bit of meat from an olah offering and a bit from the eimurim - those parts that are burned on the Altar in all sacrifices - and the total amount he placed on the altar outside the designated place equals a kezayit, is liable. This shows that the two, the meat and the eimurim, combine with one another.
Seemingly, this is a simple law, but it raises a question: until now, nothing has been said about the measure of a kezayit. We might have expected the Mishnah to use explicit language - stating that its measure is a kezayit, and that the meat and the eimurim combine - yet it does not say so.
Furthermore, from the previous Mishnah, the exact opposite seems to emerge. In Mishnah 3, the Tannaim debate the case of someone who offered a limb, returned it, offered a second limb, and then a third, outside in a place not designated for it:
Rabbi Shimon: He is liable for every single act of offering - every limb on its own makes him liable, and therefore if there were three separate lapses of awareness (where they reminded him in the meantime that the matter is forbidden and he forgot again), he is liable for three chatat offerings.
Rabbi Yose: "Ein mechayev ela achat" - he is liable for only one sacrifice for everything, even though three limbs were offered, since the liability is stated regarding the entire animal, as the verse states, "La'asot oto laShem" - to offer it to God.
The dispute is rooted, therefore, in the understanding of the word "oto": does it refer to each and every limb, or to the entire animal.
However, according to both opinions, one who offers less than the measure of a limb is not liable, and a kezayis is less than a limb. It turns out that even though the halachah follows Rabbi Shimon, that one is liable for each and every limb, this is only for a whole limb and not a kezayis. Therefore, it appears that the opinion in our Mishnah is a third view: the matter does not depend on a limb, rather even a kezayis of meat, and even half a kezayis of meat combining with half a kezayis of emurim, makes one liable.
The Opinion of the Commentaries:
Many of the commentaries found this difficult. The Rambam ruled like Rabbi Shimon, that the liability is for a whole limb. The Kessef Mishneh, prominent among them, explains that it is possible that even this view requires a whole limb, but sometimes it involves a piece of meat from the animal's back, which is not part of a limb at all and there is no limb there to offer, and in such a case a kezayis is sufficient. Regardless, for the halachah, the Rambam adopted "each limb" and not a kezayis. But according to the view of our Mishnah at least, a kezayis combines - even a kezayis that is not a limb at all, half of it meat and half of it emurim, or a piece of a limb, or a very small limb.
Offering Menachos and Ketores Outside:
From here the Mishnah opens a new topic, and in the text of the Mishnah as printed in the Babylonian Talmud (page 109), this is a completely separate Mishnah. The fundamental principle is the same principle, but here the discussion is about what measure makes one who offers outside liable, when it does not involve an animal sacrifice but rather menachos and the like:
"Hakometz" - the handful that is burned from all menachos.
"Ve'halevonah" - the frankincense placed on most menachos.
"Ve'haketores" - the incense burned on the inner altar in the Sanctuary.
"Uminchas kohanim" - a minchah brought by a kohen, which is entirely burned.
"Uminchas kohen hamashiach" - the minchah of the kohen gadol, which he brings, or at least pays for, each and every day: half in the morning and half in the afternoon, twelve half-loaves in total.
"Uminchas nesachim" - the fine flour menachos that accompany the sacrifices, specifically every olah and every shelamim.
"Shehikriv me'echad mehen kezayis bachutz - chayav" - it is sufficient to offer a kezayis of them in a place not designated for it, and one is liable to kares for doing so intentionally and a chatas if unintentionally. "Rabbi Elazar poter ad sheyakriv es kulo" - according to Rabbi Elazar, there is no liability unless one offers the entire minchah, and not just a kezayis from it.
This dispute is different from the dispute in the previous Mishnah, which was stated regarding animal sacrifices. There, even Rabbi Elazar might agree that a kezayis is sufficient, whereas here he requires the entire sacrifice. The reason for the distinction is:
Regarding animal sacrifices: The main part of the sacrifice is not the meat but the blood sprinkled on the altar, and if the meat was not burned at all for one reason or another, the sacrifice is valid.
Regarding menachos and ketores: There is no preliminary stage here, rather this is the one and only stage. The kometz is what permits the rest of the minchah for eating, and there is nothing else that permits it; and if he did not burn the kometz, he has not fulfilled his obligation.
Therefore, Rabbi Elazar requires the burning of everything - all the kometz, all the frankincense, all the ketores, all the minchas kohanim, and so on.
"Hikrivan bifnim veshiyer bahen kezayis":
In this, everyone agrees. If he burned the majority of the sacrifice in its proper place inside, such as if he was about to burn a complete minchas kohanim and left a little of it over, and he took out that little bit and burned it outside - it turns out that the entire sacrifice was burned properly, and only a part of it was burned in a place not designated for it. If he left over a kezayis of them and offered it outside, he is liable for burning that kezayis. And even Rabbi Elazar agrees with this, since the entire sacrifice was burned to God, and a kezayis of it was not left behind but was burned specifically in the invalid place, and this carries liability to kares.
"Shechasru kol shehen":
And in this too, everyone agrees regarding all that has been discussed so far - both animal offerings and minchah offerings: if they are missing any amount and are no longer whole, such as a minchah offering that lost a piece or was burned, such that the entire offering becomes invalid and is completely unfit to be offered, and one offered them outside - meaning, he offered only the part that remained - he is exempt. Just as this offering would not be valid inside, offering it outside does not obligate him with the kares penalty of one who offers a complete offering outside.
In summary: In this Mishnah, we learned that the liability for offering outside applies to offerings that are fit to be brought up on the altar, including those whose invalidation occurred in the Temple courtyard, which if they were brought up, they are not taken down. We discussed the required measure of a kezayis, the combining of the meat and the eimurim, and how this approach aligns with the dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yosi in the previous Mishnah, as well as with the Rambam's ruling that requires a complete limb. We also learned the laws of the kometz, the levonah, the ketores, and the minchah offerings, along with the dispute between the Sages and Rabbi Elazar regarding their required measures; that if a kezayis remained and he offered it outside - he is liable according to all, and regarding an offering that is lacking any amount - he is exempt according to all.