Parallel
זבחים 42:2
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
But he teaches, ‘whether . . . or’? That is indeed a difficulty. The Master said: ‘R. Meir said, It is piggul, and involves kareth’. But consider: one is not liable to kareth until all the mattirin are offered, for a master said: As the acceptance of the valid, so is the acceptance of the invalid. As the acceptance of the valid necessitates that all its mattirin be presented, so does the acceptance of the invalid necessitate that all its mattirin be presented. Now here he has [already] invalidated it [the sacrifice] by declaring an [illegitimate] intention within, so that it is as though he had not sprinkled [the blood] at all; when therefore he sprinkles again in the hekal, he is merely sprinkling water? — Said Rabbah: It is possible in the case of four bullocks and four he-goats. Raba said: You may even say [that R. Meir rules thus] in the case of one bullock and one he-goat: it [the sprinkling] is efficacious in respect of its piggul status. [Do you say that there are] forty-three [sprinklings]? Surely it was taught [that there are] forty-seven? The former agrees with the view that you mingle [the blood of the bullock and of the he-goat] for [sprinkling on] the horns; while the latter agrees with the view that you do not mingle [them] for [sprinkling on] the horns. But it was taught [that] forty-eight [are required]? — One agrees with the view that [the pouring out of] the residue [at the base of the altar] is indispensable; while the other agrees with the view that the residue is not indispensable. An objection is raised: When is this said? In [the case of] the taking of the fistful, the placing in the vessel, and the carriage. But when he comes to the burning [of the fistful and the frankincense], if he presents the fistful with a [piggul] intention and the frankincense in silence; or if he presents the fistful in silence and the frankincense with a [piggul] intention, — R. Meir declares it piggul, and it involves kareth; while the Sages rule: It does not involve kareth unless he declares a piggul intention in respect of the whole mattir. Now he teaches incidentally, [If he presents] ‘the fistful in silence and the frankincense with a [piggul] intention’, and yet they disagree! — Say ‘having already presented the frankincense with a [piggul] intention’. One [objection] is that that is the first clause. Moreover, it was indeed taught, ‘and after that.’ That is indeed a difficulty. MISHNAH. THESE ARE THE THINGS FOR WHICH ONE IS NOT LIABLE ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL: THE FISTFUL, THE INCENSE, THE FRANKINCENSE,
—