skip to main |
skip to sidebar
If the handful of flour from one offering became mixed with the handful from another offering, or with the flour offering of a regular kohen, or with the daily offering of the High Priest, they are all still valid and can be burned on the Altar. Rabbi Yehudah disagrees with regard to the High Priest's offering, which contains three times as much oil. Since it is loose like batter, it will mix with our less oily handful and nullify it.
But Rabbi Yehudah's own opinion everywhere in the Talmud is that like substances never nullify each other, so how can he rule differently here? He will answer that our case is different: we view the oil in our handful as if not present, and then the oil in the High Priest's offering nullifies our flour.
Art: Alexis de Leeuw - Chopping Firewood
According to Rabbi Yehudah the Prince, one can bring wood blocks as a standalone sacrifice. The minimum in this case would be two blocks, and their dimensions are one by one cubit. Since it is a sacrifice, it requires two more blocks of wood to burn it, like any other sacrifice.
Rabbi Yehudah derives this opinion from the words “flour offering sacrifice.” Since flour offering is already a sacrifice, this means some other offering, namely wood. Moreover, just like flour, wood offering needs to be salted. And, just like flour, one needs to take off a handful. For this, one needs to chip away at it, until a handful is collected.
The salt was stored in the Temple in three places: in the chamber of salt – for the hides, on the ramp – for the limbs, and at the top of the Altar – because there they would salt the handful of flour, its frankincense, and the incense.
Art: William H. Snape - Chopping Firewood
Rav stated a rule that any law about flour offering that is repeated in the Torah is essential and cannot be omitted. But consider the salt: any flour offering must be salted before the handful is brought, and the salt requirement is not repeated in the Torah. In mathematical logic we could answer that repetition means that it is essential, but that it can be essential even without repetition. However, in teaching the Torah this answer does not work, because such teaching would be confusing to the students. Even though Rav stated only one side of the requirement, he really meant “if and only if.”
One answer is that according to Rav salting is indeed not essential and can be omitted. Or, if you wish, we can answer that since the word “covenant” is written with regard to salt, it is as if the requirement has in fact been repeated.
Art: Ferdinand Loyen Du Puigaudeau - Landscape with Mill near the Salt Ponds
In regard to flour offering, Rav gave an additional rule: any time that the Torah repeated a specific law about flour offerings, it did so to emphasize that it is required. For example, the Torah repeated the requirements of finely ground flour and oil to show that they cannot be omitted. Shmuel disagrees on that. But how could Shmuel disagree with the rule that repetition means a requirement? - Actually, they argue about one point only, the requirement to use one's hand for the handful. It is stated about Aharon and is repeated for the future. Rav says that this is valid repetition, but Shmuel states that we cannot learn new laws from the one-time happening with Aharon.
Art: Emmanuel de Witte - Interior of the Portuguese synagogue
The proper flour offering is prepared as follows: some oil is put in the vessel, then flour and more oil is added and everything is mixed, then more oil is poured on top, some types are baked into 10 breads and are broken into pieces by folding them over many times, some types are waved, and the handful is salted before burning it on the Altar. If he omitted any of these steps, the offering is still valid, provided that the right amounts were used. The last oil pouring is essential.
Art: Felice Giani - The Sacrifice Of David
What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? Burning on the Altar and eating is described by the same term “achilah,” or consumption, as in the phrase “if some of the meat of the peace-offering will be consumed at all,” literally, “consumed, will be consumed.” Thus we see that the two are equated, and if one intends to eat what should be burned on the Altar or to burn what should be eaten by men, and plans to do it at the wrong time, the offering becomes rejected.
What do the Sages say to this? They agree that consumption by the Altar is called eating, but only to make the thought of the kohen effective, whether he said “I will burn it on the Altar” or “I will make the Altar eat it” - but not to equate it with human consumption.
Art: Reynier Fransz Hals - Boy eating Porridge
The flour sacrifice has a two-part “permitter”: the handful taken from it, and the frankincense. Both need to be burned on the Altar. If one intended to consume the flour at the wrong time when he was burning one of the permitters - either the handful or the frankincense – the whole offering becomes rejected, and one who eats it deserves to be cut off from the people. This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, and it can be summarized as “there is rejection with half of the permitter.” But the Sages disagree and say that it is not rejected unless he had the wrong intent for both.
Unknown Painter - Man with a Glass of Wine, Portuguese 1450
What is the reason of Rabbi Yehudah? He has a tradition from his teachers that communal flour offerings, such as two loaves of Shavuot and the Bread of Vision, which is arranged in two piles, must be treated as a single unit. Thus, if part of it has been invalidated, none of it is valid.
A thanksgiving offering was accompanied by 40 loaves of bread. The celebrant would invite as many guest as he could, since the loaves had to be eaten that night. The wrong intent to eat the animal thanksgiving sacrifice beyond this time time makes the loaves rejected, but the wrong intent about the loaves does not make the sacrifice rejected.
Art: Albert Anker - Girl with Loaf of Bread
If one slaughtered the two lambs of Shavuot with the intention to eat one of the loaves the next day, or if he burned the two spoonfuls of frankincense with the intention to eat one of the Bread of Vision arrangements the next day – then Rabbi Yose says that only the loaves that he intended to eat at the wrong time become rejected and bring about being cutoff from the people, but the Sages says that the complete offerings become rejected.
If you wanted, Rabbi Yose offers logic as proof, and if you want – a verse. Logic: rejection is no better than contamination, and one limb of an offering can becomes contaminated without the second. Verse: “and the soul that eats of it bears his sin,” - of IT, but not of the second half.
Art: Albert Anker - Girl with a loaf of bread
However, if the priest intends to burn the frankincense the next day, then Rabbi Yose disagrees and say that the offering does not bear the penalty of being cut off. They asked Rabbi Yose, “What is the difference between that and an animal sacrifice?” He answered, “With an animal, its blood, meat, and sacrificial parts are one unit, but the frankincense is not a part of the flour offering itself.”
Resh Lakish explained that Rabbi Yose's reasoning is a bit more complex. The handful of flour permits the sacrifice, and the frankincense also permits the sacrifice, and one permitter cannot not ruin another permitter. And the Sages? They agree that one permitter does not ruin another permitter – but only if they are in separate places. In the case of the flour offering, however, the flour, oil, and frankincense are all in the same vessel and are considered as one.
Art: Rudolph Ernst - An Arab Sage
If a priest took off a handful of flour with the intention to eat its remnants outside, or even an olive's volume of its remnants outside, or he wanted to burn it or its frankincense outside the Courtyard, the offering becomes invalid. These were all intentions for a wrong place. However, if he wanted to eat the remnants the next day, or burn the handful the next day, or perform any other services at the wrong time, then not only the offering becomes invalid, but one who eats it qualifies for being cut off from the people – provided that the rest of the service is done right.
If one intended to eat half of an olive's volume of the remnants the next day and to burn half of the handful the next day – the offering remains valid, because the wrong intention to eat and the wrong intention to burn do not combine.
Art: Miguel Parra - Still Life With Walnuts, Olives In A Glass Jar, A Partly Peeled Lemon And A Glass Of Red Wine
If he increased its oil or diminished its oil, or if he diminished its frankincense, it was invalid.
What does it mean that “he increased its oil?” As Rabbi Elazar explained, that means that he designated two logs (log=.5 liter) instead of 1 log for the standard 5-pound amount. But why did not Rabbi Elazar explain it as adding unsanctified oil? Rabbi Elazar stated his ruling in the form of “I don't have to tell you,” namely, “I don't have to tell you that if he added unsactified oil that he made it invalid, since that oil is not fitting, but even if he added too much fitting oil, he still made it invalid.” What forced Rabbi Elazar to interpret it this way? - The wording itself, “its oil.”
Art: Eastman Johnson - Warming her Hands
How do we know that? Rabbi Zeira explained. The verse states, “He brought near the flour offering and filled his palm from it.” From here we do not yet know whether it is his right or his left palm. However, when it says regarding a metzorah (spiritual leper), “The Kohen will take from the oil and pour on the Kohen's left palm” - we understand that the Torah had to specify “left” in this case, but in all other cases, when not specified, “palm” means right palm. Therefore, Kemitzah, taking off a handful of flour, must be done with the right palm.
They asked Rabbi Zeira, “but the word 'left' is need to teach the law of metzorah itself!?” He answered that there is another time that “left” is mentioned. They asked again, “but learn from here that palm is always left!” He answered that there is a third “left” mentioned, teaching that only metzorah needs the left palm.
Art: Nicolas de Largilliere - Study Of Hands
If enemies have surrounded the Courtyard of the Temple and are shooting into it, so that the Kohanim cannot eat sacrifices in the Courtyard, they are allowed to enter the Temple Hall and to continue eating the meat of the most holy offerings, as well as cooked flour-offerings, inside. How do we know that? The Torah says “in the most holy you shall eat it” Most holy here means the Sanctuary, of the Temple Hall.
But why would we need a verse to prove it? If offerings do not get disqualified in the Courtyard, which is subsidiary to the Hall, then of course they do not get disqualified in the Hall itself!? - That is true, they do not get disqualified, but for eating them we need a special permission. This is similar to a servant doing his work before his master, but to eat in the presence of his master – for that the servant needs a special permission. Therefore the verse teaches us that it is allowed.
Art: Camille Pissarro - The Maidservant
Every day the High Priest had to bring an offering made from an issaron (about 5 pounds) of flour. The dough was made into twelve loaves baked on a shallow pan, and he brought six in the morning and six in the afternoon.
The Priest may want to place half of the flour in a vessel and sanctify it, then later do this for the other half. Regarding this, Rabbi Yochanan said that it cannot be sanctified in halves, but Rabbi Elazar allowed it.
What is the reason of Rabbi Yochanan? The verse “flour offering... half of it...” means, “bring the complete offering and then divide it in halves.” And what is the reason of Rabbi Elazar? - Since it is offered in halves, it can be sanctified in halves.
What can Rabbi Elazar answer to the verse used by Rabbi Yochanan? He agrees that it is better to do everything at once, but if the Priest did it in halves, this is also valid. But the Torah uses the word “statute,” which means to be observed precisely?! - The Priest brings the complete amount from his home, but then can divide it.
Art: George Smith of Chichester - Still Life With Bread and Cheese
But Avimi was the teacher, not the student of Rav Chisda! - Yes, he was the teacher, but he forgot the laws of flour offerings and had to go to the academy of his student to learn them again. - But he could have called Rav Chisda to himself?! - Avimi thought that by taking the trouble of going and by suffering the additional humiliation of learning from his student, he will remember it better.
Resuming the narrative, Rav Nachman met Avimi and asked him, “How does one do kemitzah, separation of a handful of flour?” Avimi answered, “Like from this vessel,” pointing to the vessel on the ground. “Even on the ground?” - asked Rav Nachman. Avimi said, “No, I meant that another Kohen holds the vessel up.” “Then you need three Kohanim, one to hold the vessel, one to separate the handful, and one more to receive the handful into another vessel,” - said Rav Nachman. “Yes, even thirteen, if need be,” - answered Avimi.
Art: Jean Baptiste Greuze - A Student 1757
If one did the service with his left hand, it is invalid, but Ben Beteira says that he can re-do it with his right hand.
If, while he was taking a handful, a pebble, a grain of salt, or a particle of frankincense came up in his hand, making the handful incomplete, the service is invalid. The rule is: if he took more than a handful or less than a handful, the offering is invalid. For example, if flour was showing between his fingers (too much) or if he took it with his forefingers (too little), the offering is invalid.
Art: Egon Schiele - Self Portrait with Spread Fingers 1909
What happens if a kohen takes off a handful of this barley sacrifice thinking that it is some other offering? Resh Lakish says that is valid, and the handful can be burned on the Altar, but he has to bring another barley offering. How could he say that? If a new offering is required, that means that the first one was invalid. How can one bring it on the Altar?
You may say that since this very day the new offering will be brought, the offering done with the wrong intent is “as if” valid. But if you say this, you will have to allow many other invalid actions “as if” valid. It turns out that Resh Lakish does not consider the barley offering a requirement, but only as a good advice.
Rava disagrees and says that the barley offering always remains valid. Being made of barley, it is not considered a regular offering, and thus the wrong intention does not hurt it.
Art: Thomas Hewes Hinckley - Rats Amongst The Barley Sheaves
The flour of a sin offering can be simply compared to the animal sin-offering. Just as the animal sin-offering becomes invalid with the wrong intent – and this was the first rule in the laws of animal sacrifices - so too the flour of the sin-offering. However, what can be said of the flour of jealousy? - Both are connected to “iniquity.” About the flour of jealousies it says, “reminder of iniquity,” and about the sin-offering it is written, “and it He gave to you to gain forgiveness for the iniquity.” Thus, by the method of “the same word,” or “gezeirah shavah” we can say that the flour of jealousies becomes completely invalid if the kohen takes a handful of it to be burned for the sake of another offering.
Art: Lorenzo Lotto - Husband And Wife 1523
Earlier we said that there are two cases of flour offering where the wrong intent ruins the sacrifice. This ruling, however, does not accord with Rabbi Shimon, who says that the action of one who brings the flour openly manifest its type, and the wrong intention does not matter at all. For example, if this offering was already baked on a griddle, this determines its type. In this the flour offering is different from an animal, where the slaughter is the same for all types of sacrifices.
Throughout the Talmud, Rabbi Shimon analyzes the reasons for the Torah commandments. Based on this analysis, he re-interprets the laws. For example, the law here is that the wrong intention should invalidate the flour offering. However, logic dictates that if from the offering itself it is clear what type it is, then the wrong intent should not matter – and that is how Rabbi Shimon rules.
Art: Pieter The Younger Brueghel - Proverb 'everything has a reason'
Flour offerings have four steps in their service, paralleling those of animal offerings. First a kohen takes off a handful of flour, parallel to cutting the animal's throat. Then he puts this handful in a service vessel – similar to receiving the blood. Then he carries the handful to the Altar – similar to carrying the animal's blood to the Altar. Then he burns the handful on the Altar, and the remaining flour is used for the consumption by the kohanim.
There are many different types of flour offerings. If a kohen took the handful not for the sake of the right offering, it is still valid and its service needs to be completed, but it does not count toward the owner's obligation, so the owner must bring another one. The exceptions are the offerings for a sin and that of a suspected wife, which become completely invalid because of a wrong intent.
Art: Luca Signorelli - St. Benedict finds flour and feeds the monks
One is liable for the following on a private altar: if he eats the sacrifice beyond the allowed time; if one had a wrong intent to eat the sacrifice beyond allowed time, the sacrifice becomes invalid and one is liable for eating it; one is liable for eating it while being ritually impure.
How do we know that? In fact, we might even think the opposite. The Torah stated that a sacrifice kept overnight is burned and one that goes out of the Temple is also burned. Therefore I might think that since the sacrifice on the private altar already exited the Temple and was not burned, so too one that was left overnight is not burned! - Bird sacrifices disprove this, since they are less strict than the animal sacrifices, and they do become invalid with time. - Birds are no proof, because they require a kohen. To dispel all these arguments, the Torah said, “This is the law of the peace offerings” - to be applied both inside and outside the Temple.
Art: Frans Snyders - Concert of Birds
At the end of book 3 of the Odyssey, Nestor brings sacrifices to Athena - or Minerva in Butler's translation. I chanced to be reading it when the Daf Yomi is finishing Zevachim - Sacrifices, and I found the parallels very exciting.
On seeing the goddess transform herself into a eagle and fly away, Nestor utters a vow: "Holy queen," he continued, 'vouchsafe to send down thy grace upon myself, my good wife, and my children. In return, I will offer you in sacrifice a broad-browed heifer of a year old, unbroken, and never yet brought by man under the yoke. I will gild her horns, and will offer her up to you in sacrifice."
Here he promises an animal, but not a specific one, so that if one is lost, he will be responsible to bring another. He also adorns the cow like they did in Israel for the first-fruit procession.
As he mixed the wine, he prayed much and made drink-offerings to Minerva, daughter of Aegis-bearing Jove.
As we have recently learned in Avodah Zarah, the usual intention of an idolater is to pour the first drop to his god, and the upright heroes of Homer do this without fail.
Then Nestor began with washing his hands and sprinkling the barley meal, and he offered many a prayer to Minerva as he threw a lock from the heifer's head upon the fire.
The kohanim washed their hands. The barley meal agrees with the opinion of the opponents of Rabbi Yehudah that flour offerings are brought on private altars. Prayer is required in the Temple before a thanksgiving offering - which Nestor's one is.
Thrasymedes dealt his blow, and brought the heifer down with a stroke... then they lifted the heifer's head from off the ground, and Pisistratus cut her throat.
The kohanim would stun the animal, and the slaughter was done at the neck.
They cut out the thigh bones all in due course, wrapped them round in two layers of fat, and set some pieces of raw meat on the top of them; then Nestor laid them upon the wood fire.
That is burning the limbs and fats on the Altar.
Meanwhile lovely Polycaste, Nestor's youngest daughter, washed Telemachus.
That's special - I do not think kohanim were getting such treatment at the Temple.
When the outer meats were done they drew them off the spits and sat down to dinner...
This goes according with the opinion in the Talmud that peace offering are allowed on private altars and that they can be eaten.
Why are there such strong parallels and connections? One explanation is exchange of experiences. The other - that the sacrifices were given to mankind, only people started using them in the service of the idols, and then later the Torah restored the correct laws (as in Bieberfeld, "The Universal History of the Jews.")
Art: Nestor and his sons sacrifice to Poseidon on the beach at Pylos
According to Rabbi Yishmael, both “resting place” and “inheritance” refer to Shiloh, and no verse is needed to teach that private altars were permitted in between, because we find many righteous individual using them. According to Rabbi Shimon, both refer to Jerusalem, and private altars were always permitted before then.
Private altar does not require leaning on the sacrifice, or the northern side of the altar, or application of blood all around the altar, or waving the offering, or bringing the flour offering to the southern corner of the altar. Rabbi Yehudah says that there are no flour offerings on a private altar.
Art: John William Waterhouse - A Roman Offering
The days of the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness were forty years minus one, that is, thirty-nine: in the first year following the Exodus from Egypt Moses built the Tabernacle, in the second year it was erected, and then Moses sent out the spies, which led to a 40-year stay in the desert.
The days of the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal numbered 14 years: 7 during the conquest of the Land of Israel, and 7 years while the land was divided. We know this from the life of Calev, who was 40 when the spies were sent out, 78 when they crossed the Jordan, and 85 when the land was conquered. Since the land was being conquered for 7 years, we can assume that it was also divided for 7 years.
The Tabernacle then stood in Shiloh for 369 years. In Nov and Giveon it stood for another 57 years, moving between these two places - and we know this from the lives of Eli the Priest and Samuel - until the Temple was built.
Art: Frederic Edwin Church - Twilight In The Wilderness
When the Jews lived in the desert, their encampment was divided into three areas: the Tabernacle, or the Camp of the Divine Presence, the Levite Camp, and the Israelite camp. Corresponding to these, in the times of the Temple there were the Temple, the Temple Mount, and Jerusalem.
Each area had its laws. A Metzora (spiritual leper) may not enter the Israelite camp, that is, Jerusalem at the time of the Temple, and the encampment at the time of the desert. An accidental murder was exiled to the Levite Camp, and in the time of the Temple, to one of the cities where the Levites lived. If a Levi murdered by accident, he had to be exiled to another Levite city, but if we moved from one neighborhood to another, this was sufficient. One who was ritually impure because of contact with a dead body could enter the Levite Camp (Temple Mount), but not the Temple proper.
Art: Eugène-Alexis Girardet - Bedouins In The Desert
Could the sacrifices brought on private altar be eaten as peace-offerings, or did they have to be burned, as burnt-offerings? Those who say that they could be eaten point out that “Abel brought from the firstlings of his flock and from their fats...” - that is, he brought the fats but ate the rest. And those who say that Abel brought only burnt-offerings explain that he brought the fattest of the lambs and burned them completely.
But didn't Jethro bring peace-offerings? – Jethro came after the giving of the Torah, when eating sacrifices became allowed.
What did Jethro hear that he came? He heard about the splitting of the Red Sea. But why did Rahav say about it “No spirit remained erect in any man” (hint)? – She knew, because there was no leader or ruler who did not come to her. She started at 10, was a prostitute for 40 years, and converted at 50.
Art: Lovis (Franz Heinrich Louis) Corinth - The Painter Charlotte Berend With A Bull 1902
In five days we will finish Zevachim, dealing with animal sacrifices and start Menachot, the flour offerings! Great time to join Daf Yomi!! Good luck!!!
Art: Job Adriaensz. Berckheyde - The Baker 1681
One is not liable for burning outside those parts of the sacrifices that are eaten and do not go on the Altar. One is also not liable for actions that are not the last step in the service, thus, for example, one is not liable for separating a handful from the flour-offering, but is liable for burning it. Likewise, one is not liable for receiving the blood, but is liable for throwing it on the altar.
Initially sacrificial service was done by the firstborn, and everybody was allowed to build his private altar. This is mentioned in the Torah when it says, “And Moses sent the youths of the Children of Israel, and they brought up burnt offerings.” The firstborn lost this privilege after they worshipped the Golden Calf, and the kohanim, the sons of Aaron, began to serve in their stead.
Once the Tabernacle was erected, private altars became forbidden. When the Jews came Israel, crossed the Jordan, and erected the Tabernacle at Gilgal, near Jericho, private altars again became permitted. Finally, they became completely prohibited after the building of the Temple in Jerusalem.
Art: Johann Wilhelm Schirmer - The Departure Of The Man To Jericho Morning C.1856
If a sacrifice has a permanent blemish, then it cannot be brought “before God,” and therefore everybody agrees that one who sacrifices it outside the Temple is not liable. However, if one sacrifices an animal with a temporarily blemish, then Rabbi Shimon says that he violates a negative commandment and is liable to lashes, but the Sages consider him completely exempt.
The reason of the Sages is clear – a temporarily blemished animal cannot be currently brought “before God,” but what is the reason of Rabbi Shimon? - He bases his opinion on the phrase, “You shall not do everything we do today, each man what is proper in his eyes.” The word “proper” means “proper in the eyes of the man who offers” now, and will become so in the eyes of God later - and it is this action that "you shall not do."
Art: Giovanni Segantini - Il reddito del pastore
The root of their argument is the question whether the Flood extended to the Land of Israel. According to Resh Lakish, it did, and therefore there were remains of people embedded in the earth. According to Rabbi Yochanan, the Flood did not visit Israel, and people's remains were not a concern.
But did not Nebuchadnezzar also kill Jews? - Their remains were cleared away, says Rabbi Yochanan. And Resh Lakish? He says that they were cleared away from Jerusalem, but not outside.
But if the Flood did cover Israel, how did the gigantic sheep called Re'em survive? According to Rabbi Yochanan, all is well, and the Re'em stood in Israel. Says Resh Lakish, Re'em was then a young cub! But Rabbah bar bar Chanah saw a cub of a Re'em, and it was like a mount Tabor! Says Resh Lakish – his nostril fit inside the Arc.
Art: Bonaventura, the Elder Peeters - The Great Flood
A Red Heifer is a cow that is slaughtered east of Jerusalem on the Mount of Olives and is burned in a special pit excavated for this purpose. Its ashes, mixed with spring water, are used to purify people from ritual contamination caused by a corpse. If one sacrifices this cow as an offering outside the Temple, he is not liable, because the phrase “and to the entrance of the Tent of the Meeting he did not bring it” does not apply to it. In the same way the scapegoat that is sent away on Yom Kippur does not entail liability if sacrificed outside.
Other animals do not entail liability for sacrificing outside because they are cannot be brought “as an offering before God.” This list includes an animal that has sodomized a person or was sodomized by a man, one designated as idolatrous sacrifice or one that was worshipped, one that was used as dog's exchange or a harlot's payment, torn by a wild beast, or born by Caesarean section.
Art: Van Gogh - Cows after Jordaens
If one performed proper killing (melikah, when its head is severed from the nape) of the bird, and he did it in the Temple, and then offered that bird outside, he is liable, because with melikah the bird becomes fit for the Altar. However, if he performed melikah outside, he is not liable either for that, or for bringing it up. Melikah way of killing outside the Temple is not proper, and it makes the bird unfit for consumption and invalid as a sacrifice.
If he performed regular kosher slaughter of the bird with a knife and offered it up – he is, contrary to the expectations, liable, because of an additional phrase “or who will slaughter.”
We thus find that what makes the bird a valid sacrifice (melikah) inside makes one not liable if done outside, and what makes one liable (shechitah, or kosher slaughter) outside makes one not liable if done inside.
Art: Perrault Leon Jean Basile - The Bird Charmer 1873
A flour offering includes flour, oil, and frankincense. A handful of flour is separated first and burned on the Altar, and then the remainder is eaten by the Kohanim. If one burned this remainder as an offering outside the Temple, he is not liable, because the remainder was not destined for the Altar. If, however, he mixed the handful back in and burned the mixture outside – he is liable, because after all the handful has been burned.
If one throws a part of the sacrificial blood upon an altar outside the Temple, he is liable. On Sukkot, they poured pure water on the Altar, in addition to wine, and Rabbi Elazar says that for puring this water outside one is also liable. Rabbi Nechemia makes one liable even for pouring the remnants of the blood of the offering, since the remnants are supposed to go to the base of the Altar.
Art: Gerrit Dou - Woman Pouring Water Into A Jar
