Zevachim — Daf 27a

חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת חוץ לזמנו פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת

למחר פסול חזר וחישב בין חוץ לזמנו בין חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת

ואי שלא במקומו כמקומו דמי האי פסול פיגול הוא

אמר מר זוטרא זריקה דשריא בשר באכילה מייתא לידי פיגול זריקה דלא שריא בשר באכילה לא מייתא לידי פיגול

א"ל רב אשי למר זוטרא מנא לך הא דכתיב (ויקרא ז, יח) ואם האכל יאכל מבשר זבח שלמיו פיגול יהיה מי שפיגולו גרם לו יצא זה שאין פיגולו גרם לו אלא איסור דבר אחר גרם לו

אי הכי איפסולי נמי לא ליפסל

אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מידי דהוה אמחשבת הינוח ואליבא דרבי יהודה

ריש לקיש אמר לעולם פסול ממש ושלא במקומו כמקומו דמי ולא קשיא כאן שנתן בשתיקה כאן שנתן באמירה

תנן חישב ליתן את הניתנין למטה למעלה למעלה למטה עד מידי דהוה אמחשבת הינוח ואליבא דרבי יהודה כו'

רבי יוחנן אמר אידי ואידי שנתן בשתיקה ושלא במקומו לאו כמקומו דמי והא דאיכא דם הנפש הא דליכא דם הנפש

תנן פסול ואין בו כרת בשלמא לריש לקיש היינו דקתני פסול ואין בו כרת

אלא לרבי יוחנן מאי אין בו כרת קשיא

ולשמואל מאי אין בו כרת ה"ק אם נתן במחשבה פסול ואין בו כרת

ורבי יוחנן אי שלא במקומו לאו כמקומו דמי ליהוי כי נשפך מן הכלי על הרצפה ויאספנו

סבר לה כמ"ד לא יאספנו דאמר רב יצחק בר יוסף א"ר יוחנן הכל מודים בניתנין למעלה שנתנן למעלה למטה שנתנן למטה שלא כמצותן לא יאספנו לא נחלקו אלא בניתנין למעלה שנתנן למטה למטה שנתנן למעלה שרבי יוסי אומר לא יאספנו ורבי שמעון אומר יאספנו

[to consume it] without bounds, it is invalid, but does not involve kareth;1 [if he intended consuming it] after time, it is invalid, and entails kareth. [If he intended sprinkling the blood in the wrong place] on the morrow, it is invalid; if he subsequently intended [to consume it] without bounds or after time, it is invalid, and does not involve kareth.2 Now if you say that [blood] not [applied] in its [proper] place [on the altar] is as [though applied] in its [proper] place, is this [merely] invalid? Surely it is piggul!3 — Said Mar Zutra: Sprinkling which permits the consumption of the flesh can render [it] piggul; sprinkling which does not permit the consumption of the flesh4 does not render [it] piggul.5 R. Ashi said to Mar Zutra: Whence do you know this? [Assuredly] because it is written, And if any of the flesh of his peace-offerings be at all eaten on the third day . . . it shall be piggul [an abhorred thing, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity:]6 [thus kareth is incurred] only where piggul causes [the prohibition of the flesh], which excludes this case,7 where not piggul causes it but a different interdict is the cause. If so,8 it should not be disqualified either? — Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: It is analogous to the intention of leaving [the blood] until the morrow, this being in accordance with R. Judah.9 Resh Lakish said: In truth, [the Mishnah means] UNFIT literally.10 and [blood] not [applied] in its [proper] place is as [though applied in] its [proper] place,11 yet there is no difficulty:12 in one case he applied it in silence; in the other he applied it with an expressed intention.13 We learnt: If he intended applying above [the line] what should be applied below [it], or below what should be applied above [etc.] as far as ‘It is analogous to the intention of leaving [the blood] until the morrow, this being in accordance with R.Judah.’14 R. Johanan said: Both cases15 are where he sprinkles it in silence, and the wrong place is not as the right place; but the one is where life-blood is [still] available, while the other is where life-blood is not available. We learnt: IT IS UNFIT, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. As for Resh Lakish, it is well: he rightly teaches. IT IS UNFIT, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.16 But according to R. Johanan, why teach that it DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH?17 This is a difficulty. And according to Samuel, what is meant by IT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH?18 — This is what [the Tanna] means: If he sprinkled [it thus] with an [illegitimate] intention, IT IS UNFIT, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. Now as for R. Johanan, if the wrong place [on the altar] is not as the right place,19 let it be as though [the blood] had been spilt from the [service] vessel on to the pavement, and so let him collect it?20 — He agrees with the view that it must not be gathered. For R. Isaac b. Joseph said in R. Johanan's name: All agree, if [the priest] sprinkled the blood above which should be sprinkled above, or below which should be sprinkled below, but not in accordance with the regulations.21 that he must not re-gather it.22 They disagree only where he sprinkled below what should be sprinkled above, or above what should be sprinkled below: there R. Jose holds, He must not re-gather it; while R. Simeon maintains, He must re-gather it; hypothesis it is the same as though he had intended applying it in the right place on the morrow, and that should render it piggul. For the sprinkling of the blood on the altar constitutes, as it were, the altar's consumption, and just as an intention to consume the flesh after time makes it piggul, so should a similar intention to sprinkle the blood make it piggul! the sacrifice has made atonement. on the morrow, he has also tacitly expressed his intention of leaving the blood until the morrow. the blood in the wrong place, with no unlawful intention attending the sprinkling. While the Mishnah which states UNFIT, implying that the owners are not forgiven either, holds good where in addition to sprinkling it in the wrong place he intended consuming the flesh after time; and the Mishnah thus teaches that in such a case the sacrifice is unfit, but not piggul, since the sprinkling which was not in its proper place did not permit the consumption of the flesh. the right place. teaches that the blood must be re-sprinkled. teach that kareth is not incurred in spite of this illegitimate intention.