Commentaire sur Zevahim 13:5

המקריב קדשים ואימוריהן – that he sacrificed the meat and those [unsevered] portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar attached to it, he is liable because of the portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar. But we don’t say that the meat interposes between the portions of the sacrifice offered on the altar and the fire, and that what he intended to be inside is not offering on the altar, for he All-Merciful stated (Leviticus 1:8): “[And Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall lay out the sections, with the head and the suet,] on the wood that is on the fire,” and the person who offers it outside [the Temple courtyard] would not be liable. We did not say this because something that is one type mixed with something of the same type does not interpose.

One who offers sacrifices together with the innards outside the Temple, is liable. In this case one offers parts of sacrifices that are eaten, together with the innards that are burned on the altar. Had he offered up just the edible parts outside the Temple, he would not be liable, because these parts did not need to be put on the altar. He is liable for offering the innards, because one is liable for offering up outside the Temple anything that should have been burned on the altar. This is true even if the sacrifices that are to be eaten were directly on the fire and the innards were on top, and not directly upon the fire. The edible parts of the sacrifices don’t cause a separation between the fire and the innards because they are of the same type, and things that are of the same type don’t cause separation.

מנחה שלא נקמצה – is not appropriate inside. Therefore, the person who offers it up outside is exempt.

If a minhah had not had its fistful removed and one offered it outside, he is exempt. When a minhah, a meal-offering, is sacrificed, a fistful is removed and burned on the altar and then the remainder of the minhah can be eaten. Since part of the minhah is burned and part is eaten one is liable for offering up only the part that is supposed to be burned, as we saw in section one. If one offered up a minhah outside of the Temple before its fistful has been removed he is exempt because it has not yet been determined what part of the minhah was supposed to have been burned.

קמצה וחזר קומצה לתוכה. והקריבה בחוץ חייב – and in a similar manner to it inside, it is fit/appropriate, as it is taught in [the chapter] “He who takes a handful of meal-offering/הקומץ את המנחה” (i.e., Tractate Menahot, Chapter 3, Mishnah 3): “[If] the handful was mixed up with residue, or with the residue of his fellow, he should not offer it up/נתערב קומצה בשיריה לא יקטיר,” but if he did offer it up, it is acceptable.

If one took out the fistful, and then the fistful went back into the minhah, and he offered it outside, he is liable. However, if the fistful is removed and thereby determined, and then it falls back into the remainder of the minhah, and he offers up the whole minhah outside the Temple, in this case he is liable because the fistful was determined, even though we now cannot tell what part was the fistful and what part was the remainder.