Parallel
זבחים 14:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
Whatever is not [offered] on the outer altar, like the peace-offering, is not subject to piggul? — Rather, both agree with the Rabbis, yet there is no difficulty: the one refers to outer sin-offerings, while the other refers to the inner sin-offerings. As for the outer sin-offerings, it is obvious, since ‘and he shall dip’ is not written in connection therewith? — It is necessary [to teach it]: One might argue, since ‘and he shall take’ is written, and if an ape came and placed [the blood] thereon [his finger], he [the priest] must take it again, it is as though ‘and he shall dip’ were written. Therefore he informs us that for that very reason ‘and he shall dip’ is not written, so that it may imply the one and imply the other. R. SIMEON DECLARES IT FIT IN THE CARRYING. R. Simeon b. Lakish said: R. Simeon agrees that an [illegitimate] intention disqualifies at the carrying [of the blood of] the inner sin-offerings, because it is a service which cannot be omitted, But R. Simeon said: Whatever is not [offered] on the outer altar, like the peace-offering, does not entail liability on account of piggul? — Said R. Joseph son of R. Hanina: He agrees that it disqualifies it, a minori: If [offering] for the sake of something else disqualifies a sin-offering, though it is valid in the case of a peace-offering; is it not logical that [the intention of consuming it] after time disqualifies a sin-offering, Seeing that it disqualifies in the case of a peace-offering? We have thus found [that the intention of consuming it] after time [disqualifies it]. How do we know that [the intention to eat it] without its precincts [disqualifies]? If [you would learn it] from after time [by analogy], [you may refute it:] as for after time, that is because [it involves] kareth. If from [sacrificing] for the sake of something else, that is because it operates at the bamah? — Where does [sacrificing] for the sake of something else operate [as a disqualification]? [You must say] in the case of the Passover-offering and the sin-offering; and the Passover-offering and the sin-offering were not sacrificed at the bamah! Alternatively, It is a Scriptural analogy, [for And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be at all eaten] on the third [day] refers to [the disqualification of] after time, while it shall be an abhorred thing [piggul] [refers to the intention of eating it] without its precincts. Raba said: If you will say that R. Simeon agrees with his son, who maintained, Between the ulam and the altar is north, [R. Simeon will then hold that] an [illegitimate] intention is effective in the case of the carrying [of the blood] of inner sin-offerings only from within the entrance of the ulam. And if you will say that [R. Simeon] agrees with R. Judah who maintained: The [whole of the] inner part of the Temple court is sanctified; [he will then hold that] an [illegitimate] intention is effective during the passage of the removal of the incense dishes only from the entrance of the hekal and without. Again, if you will say that he holds that the sanctity of the hekal and that of the ulam is one, [then] an [illegitimate] intention is effective only from the entrance of the ulam and without. And if you will say that within the entrance is as within [the hekal]; then an [illegitimate] intention is not effective even for one step save within the stretching out of his [one's] hand. But if you will say that he holds that carrying without [using] the foot is not called carrying, then an [illegitimate] intention is not effective at all. Abaye said to R. Hisda's amora: Ask R. Hisda, what of carrying by a lay-Israelite [zar]? — It is valid, he replied, and a Scriptural text supports me: And they killed the Passover lamb, and the priests dashed [the blood, which they received] of their hand, and the Levites flayed them. R. Shesheth objected: A zar, an onen,
—