Parallel
זבחים 14
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,
—
one who is intoxicated and one who is [physically] blemished are unfit to receive [the blood], carry [it] and sprinkle [it], and the same applies to one who is sitting and to [the performance of these by] ‘the left hand. This is indeed a refutation! But R. Hisda quotes a text? — It means that he [the zar] served as a [mere] post. Rabbah and R. Joseph both maintained: Carriage by a zar is a [subject of] controversy between R. Simeon and the Rabbis. [According to] R. Simeon who says that a [Temple] service which can be dispensed with is not a service, [carriage] by a zar is valid. But according to the Rabbis it is invalid. Said Abaye to them: But slaughtering is a service which cannot be dispensed with, and yet it is valid [when done] by a zar? — Slaughtering is not a service, he replied. Is it not? Surely R. Zera said in Rab's name: The slaughtering of the [red] heifer by a zar is invalid; and R. Papa observed thereon: [The reason is because] ‘Eleazar’ and ‘Statute’ are written in connection with it. — The [red] heifer is different, because it is of the holy things of the Temple repair. But does it not follow a fortiori: it is a service in the case of the holy objects of the Temple repair, yet it is not a service in the case of holy objects dedicated to the altar! — Said R. Shisha the son of R. Idi: Let it be analogous to the inspection of [leprous] plagues, which is not a service, and yet requires the priesthood. Yet the carrying of the limbs to the ascent is a service which can be dispensed with, and yet it is invalid [when done] by a zar, for it is written, And the priest shall offer [bring near] the whole, and make it smoke [burn it] upon the altar, and a Master said: This refers to the carrying of the limbs to the ascent? — Where [Scripture] has revealed [that a priest is required], it has revealed [it], but where [Scripture] has not revealed [it], it has not. But does not [the reverse] follow a fortiori: if the carrying of the limbs to the ascent requires the priesthood, though it is not indispensable to atonement, how much the more [does] the carrying of the blood [require a priest], seeing that it is indispensable to atonement! It was stated likewise: ‘Ulla said in R. Eleazar's name: Carriage by a zar is invalid even according to R. Simeon. It was asked: Is carriage without [moving] the foot called carriage or not? — Come and hear: And the same applies to one who is sitting and to [the performance of these by] the left hand, [which renders it] invalid. Hence standing similar to sitting is valid! — [No:] perhaps sitting means that he drags himself along, [and then] standing similar to sitting means that he moves slightly. Come and hear: A [lay-] Israelite slaughtered [the Passover-offering] and a priest received [the blood]; he handed it to his colleague, and his colleague to his colleague! — There too it means that they [the priests] moved slightly. Then what does he [the Tanna] inform us? — That in the multitude of people is the king's glory. Come and hear: If a fit person received [the blood] and handed it to an unfit one, the latter must return it to the fit one! — Say, the fit person must go round and take it. It was stated: ‘Ulla said in R. Johanan's name: Carriage without [moving] the foot is not called carriage.
—