Parallel
זבחים 43:1
Soncino English Talmud · Berean Standard Bible
THE PRIESTS’ MEAL-OFFERING, THE ANOINTED PRIEST'S MEAL-OFFERING, THE BLOOD, AND THE DRINK-OFFERINGS THAT ARE BROUGHT SEPARATELY: THAT IS THE VIEW OF R. MEIR. THE SAGES MAINTAIN: ALSO THOSE THAT ARE BROUGHT WITH AN ANIMAL [SACRIFICE]. A LEPER'S LOG OF OIL, R. SIMEON MAINTAINED, DOES NOT INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL; WHILE R. MEIR RULES: IT INVOLVES LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL, BECAUSE THE BLOOD OF THE GUILT-OFFERING MAKES IT PERMITTED. AND WHATEVER HAS AUGHT THAT MAKES IT PERMITTED, WHETHER FOR MAN OR FOR THE ALTAR, INVOLVES LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL. [THE SPRINKLING OF] THE BLOOD OF THE BURNT-OFFERING PERMITS ITS FLESH FOR [BURNING ON] THE ALTAR, AND ITS SKIN TO THE PRIESTS. THE BLOOD OF THE BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD PERMITS ITS FLESH TO THE ALTAR. THE BLOOD OF THE SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD PERMITS ITS FLESH TO THE PRIESTS. THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCKS THAT ARE BURNT AND THE GOATS THAT ARE BURNT PERMITS THEIR EMURIM TO BE OFFERED [ON THE ALTAR]. R. SIMEON SAID: WHATEVER IS NOT [SPRINKLED] ON THE OUTER ALTAR, AS THE PEACE-OFFERING, DOES NOT INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL. GEMARA. ‘Ulla said: If the fistful [of the meal-offering], which is piggul, is presented on the altar, its piggul status leaves it: seeing that it reduces others to [the state of] piggul, how much the more so itself. What does he mean? — This is what he means: if it is unacceptable, how can it reduce others to [the state of] piggul? What does he inform us? If that it does not involve liability for piggul, Surely we have learnt it: THESE ARE THE THINGS FOR WHICH ONE IS NOT LIABLE ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL: THE FISTFUL, THE INCENSE, THE FRANKINCENSE, THE PRIESTS MEAL-OFFERING, THE ANOINTED PRIEST'S MEAL-OFFERING, AND THE BLOOD? — Rather, [he informs us] that if it ascended [the altar], it does not descend. But we have learnt it: [Flesh] that is kept overnight, or that goes out [of its permitted boundaries], or which is unclean, or which was slaughtered [with the intention of being consumed] after time or without bounds, if it ascended [the altar], does not descend? — Rather, [he informs us] that if it was taken down [from the altar], it must be taken up [again]. But surely we have learnt: Just as it does not descend once it had ascended, so it does not ascend after having descended! — That [Ulla's teaching] is only when the fire [of the altar] has taken hold of it. But this too ‘Ulla has already stated once? For ‘Ulla said: They learnt this only where the fire had not taken hold of it; but if the fire had taken hold of it, it must go up [again]! — You might think that this holds good only of
—