Parallel
מעילה 4:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
But does it not say: since it [[the handful] renders others piggul, how much more so should it itself [become piggul]? — Here, too, [you must understand it as meaning] a prohibited act that leads to the offering becoming piggul. Said Rabina to R. Ashi: But did not Ilfa say: The dispute is only in regard to two acts of offering, namely when he [that officiated] said: I am cutting the first organ [while purposing an act] beyond the proper time, and the second [while purposing an act] outside the proper place; but in regard to one act, they all agree that there is here an admixture of unlawful intentions? — Here, too, [you must understand that] when the sprinkling takes place it will [retrospectively] prove whether [there was unlawful intention] in one act or in two acts of offering. If this be so, why not say with the thankoffering, too, [that its disqualification becomes effective] with the sprinkling? — ‘[The bread has become] sacred’ means indeed only in so far as it has to be burnt by reason of its disqualification. May not the following be cited in support [of R. Giddal]: ‘The Law of Sacrilege applies to piggul always’. [Does this not imply] even though the blood has been sprinkled. and will then offer a support [of R. Giddal]? — [No, [that is] where the blood has not been sprinkled. But if the blood has not been sprinkled need it be stated? — It deals, in fact, with a case where the blood has been sprinkled, but when this has been taught, it was in reference to a burnt-offering. If it refers to a burnt-offering, is it not obvious, since this offering is wholly dedicated to the Lord?
—