זבחים 13 — Soncino English Talmud

¹does not admit the refutation of kareth. Then let him adduce the guilt-offering too? — The feature common to both is that they apply to the whole community as to an individual, Alternatively he does admit the refutation of kareth, but Ben ‘Azzai had a tradition. And when R. Huna said [that he inferred it] afortiori, he said this only in order to sharpen his disciples. MISHNAH. IF ONE SLAUGHTERED THE PASSOVER-OFFERING OR THE SIN-OFFERING NOT IN THEIR OWN NAME, [AND] HE RECEIVED [THE BLOOD], WENT [WITH IT], AND SPRINKLED [IT] NOT IN THEIR OWN NAME, OR IN THEIR OWN NAME AND NOT IN THEIR OWN NAME, OR NOT IN THEIR OWN NAME AND IN THEIR OWN NAME, THEY ARE DISQUALIFIED. HOW IS ‘IN THEIR OWN NAME AND NOT IN THEIR OWN NAME’ MEANT? — IN THE NAME OF THE PASSOVER-SACRIFICE [FIRST] AND [THEN] IN THE NAME OF A PEACE-OFFERING. ‘NOT IN THEIR OWN NAME AND IN THEIR OWN NAME’ [MEANS] IN THE NAME OF A PEACE-OFFERING [FIRST] AND [THEN] IN THE NAME OF THE PASSOVER-OFFERING. FOR A SACRIFICE CAN BE DISQUALIFIED AT [ANY ONE OF] THE FOUR SERVICES: SLAUGHTERING, RECEIVING, CARRYING AND SPRINKLING. R. SIMEON DECLARES IT VALID IN THE CARRYING, BECAUSE HE ARGUED: [THE SACRIFICE] IS IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT SLAUGHTERING, WITHOUT RECEIVING AND WITHOUT SPRINKLING, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT CARRYING. [HOW SO]? ONE SLAUGHTERS IT AT THE SIDE OF THE ALTAR AND SPRINKLES [ FORTHWITH]. R. ELIEZER SAID: IF ONE GOES WHERE HE NEEDS TO GO, AN [ILLEGITIMATE] INTENTION DISQUALIFIES [IT]; WHERE HE NEED NOT GO, AN [ILLEGITIMATE] INTENTION DOES NOT DISQUALIFY [IT]. GEMARA. Does then receiving disqualify? Surely it was taught: And they shall present: this refers to the receiving of the blood. You say, This refers to the receiving of the blood: yet perhaps it is not so, but rather it means the sprinkling? When it says, And they shall dash [the blood], lo, sprinkling is stated, hence to what can I apply, ‘And they shall present’? It must refer to the receiving of the blood. Aaron's sons, the priests [teaches] that [these services] must be performed by a legitimate priest [robed] in priestly vestments. Said R. Akiba: How do we know that receiving must be performed by none but a legitimate priest [robed] in priestly vestments? ‘Aaron's sons’ is stated here, while elsewhere it says, These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the priests that were anointed: as there it refers to legitimate priest[s] [robed] in priestly vestments, so here too it means by a legitimate priest [robed] in priestly vestments. R. Tarfon observed: May I lose my sons if I have not heard a distinction made between receiving and sprinkling, yet I cannot explain [what it is]! Said R. Akiba: I will explain it. In the case of receiving intention was not made tantamount to action, whereas in the case of sprinkling intention was made tantamount to action. [Again] if one received [the blood] without [its proper precincts], he is not liable to kareth, whereas if one sprinkles [it] without, he is punished with kareth. If unfit men received it, they are not liable on its account, if unfit men sprinkled it, they are liable on its account. Said R. Tarfon to him, By the [Temple] service! You have[not] deviated to the right or the left! I heard [it] yet could not explain it, whereas you investigate it and agree with [my] tradition. In these words he addressed him: ‘Akiba! whoever departs from thee is as though he departed from life!’ — Said Raba: There is no difficulty: the one refers to an intention of piggul, while the other [our Mishnah] refers to an intention for the sake of something else. This too may be proved, because it teaches, FOR A SACRIFICE CAN BE DISQUALIFIED, but it does not teach, ‘For a sacrifice becomes piggul’. This proves it. Now, does not an intention of piggul disqualify it [the sacrifice] at the receiving? Surely it was taught: You might think that an intention [of piggul] is effective only at the sprinkling; whence do we know to include slaughtering and receiving? From the text, And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted. . . it shall be an abhorred thing [piggul]; Scripture treats of the services which lead to eating. You might think that I also include the pouring out of the residue [of the blood] and the burning of the emurim; therefore it states, . . . on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it. Now sprinkling was included in the general statement, and why was it singled out? That an analogy therewith might be drawn , intimating: as sprinkling is a service and is indispensable for atonement, so every [act which is a] service and is indispensable for atonement [is included]; thus the pouring out of the residue and the burning of the emurim are excluded, since these are not indispensable for atonement!23^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ

^ᵃnote:Because it does not feature in the same way in both of them. For the sin-offering is brought for a sin of commission which involves kareth, whereas it is the omission to bring the Passover-offering that entails kareth.
^ᵇnote:That it is invalid when slaughtered under a different designation, by the same analogy. V. supra 10b, where the analogy is proposed but rejected because kareth is not involved in the guilt-offering. Since, however, Ben Azzai does not admit that this is a refutation, the analogy stands.
^ᶜnote:A sin-offering may be incurred by the whole community, just as by an individual, v. Lev. IV. The Passover-offering too, though brought by individuals, is a communal (public) sacrifice, since the whole community must bring one (Yoma 51a). But a guilt-offering is never brought by the whole community.
^ᵈnote:In respect of the burnt-offering, as stated in the Mishnah. Hence he does not infer it a fortiori at all.
^ᵉnote:Challenging them, as it were, to find the fallacy in his statement.
^ᶠnote:I.e., one of the services was for its own sake and another was for a different purpose, in the order stated.
^ᵍnote:Where it is straightway sprinkled. Since then the blood may not be carried at all, the sacrifice cannot be disqualified if it is carried for a different purpose.
^ʰnote:The Gemara discusses this.
^ⁱnote:Lev. I, 5.
^ʲnote:Ibid.
^ᵏnote:Which excludes one of profaned birth, e.g., the issue of a divorced woman, and one suffering from a physical blemish or defect; v. Lev. XXI, 7, 17.
^ˡnote:Lit., ‘service vessels’ (here, robes). ‘The priests’ implies that they must be vested as priests.
^ᵐnote:Num. 111,3.
^ⁿnote:Legitimate, since Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, Aaron's sons, are enumerated (v. 2). ‘Robed in priestly vestments’ is deduced from the end of the verse: whom he consecrated to minister in the priest's office; cf. Lev. XXI, 10: and that is consecrated to put on the garments.
^ᵒnote:The reference is to illegitimate intention and action. An illegitimate intention is now assumed to mean an intention to receive the blood in the name of a different sacrifice or to eat of its flesh after the permitted time, which would render it piggul (q.v. Glos.). Thus an illegitimate intention at the receiving of the blood does not disqualify, which contradicts the view in the Mishnah. — The difficulty is answered at the end of the discussion.
^ᵖnote:E.g. , lay Israelites or intoxicated priests.
^ᵠnote:You have stated exactly what I heard, but had forgotten.
^ʳnote:Such an intention does not disqualify at the receiving.
^ˢnote:Lev. VII, 18.
^ᵗnote:I.e. which permit the consumption of the flesh; these include receiving.
^ᵘnote:‘Accepted’ is understood to refer to the sprinkling, which makes the sacrifice acceptable.
^ᵛnote:I.e., as one of the services which ‘lead to eating’.
^ʷnote:Hence the intention of piggul at the reception of the blood does disqualify it,

²— There is no difficulty: In the one case it means that he declared, ‘Lo, I slaughter [this sacrifice] with the intention of receiving its blood to-morrow while in the other case it means that he declared, ‘Lo,I receive the blood with the intention of pouring out its residue to-morrow’. One of the Rabbis said to Raba: Now does not intention disqualify at the pouring out of the residue and the burning of the emurim? Yet surely it was taught: You might think that intention is effective only in connection with the eating of the flesh. Whence do we know to include the pouring out of the residue and the burning of the emurim? From the text, And if [any of the flesh. . .] be at all eaten [on the third day . . . it shall be an abhorred thing]: Scripture refers to two eatings, viz., eating by man and eating by the altar. There is no difficulty:’ In the one case he declares, ‘Lo, I sprinkle [the blood] with the intention of pouring out the residue to-morrow’; in the other he declares, ‘Lo, I pour out the residue with the intention of burning the emurim to-morrow. R. Judah the son of R. Hiyya said: I have heard that the dipping of the finger [in the blood] renders [a sacrifice] piggul in the case of an inner sin-offering. Ilfa heard this and reported it before Bar Padda. Said he: Do we learn piggul from ought else but from a peace-offering? Then as the dipping of the finger does not render a peace-offering piggul, so in the case of a sin-offering too, the dipping of the finger does not render piggul. But do we really learn everything from a peace-offering? If so, [then reason thus:] as [a service] in the name of a different sacrifice does not free a peace-offering from piggul, so [a service] in the name of a different sacrifice does not free a sin-offering from piggul. What then can you say? That it is deduced from the extension implied in Scriptural texts; and so here too it is deduced from the extension implied in the Scriptural texts. R. Joshua b. Levi said: In this upper chamber I heard that the dipping of the finger renders piggul. Thereat R. Simeon b. Lakish wondered: Do we learn piggul from ought else but from the peace-offering? Then as the dipping of the finger does not render the peace-offering piggul, so in the case of the sin-offering too, the dipping of the finger does not render it piggul. But do we then really learn everything from the peace-offering? If so, [then reason thus: ] as [a service] in the name of a different sacrifice does not free a peace-offering from piggul, so [a service] in the name of a different sacrifice does not free a sin-offering from piggul? — Said R. Jose b. Hanina: Yes, indeed, we really learn everything from the peace-offering: since [the intention to consume it] without its precincts disqualifies a peace-offering, while [performing a service] for the sake of something else disqualifies a sin-offering, then as [the intention to consume it] without its precincts, which disqualifies the peace-offering, frees it from piggul, so [performing a service] for the sake of something else, which disqualifies the sin-offering, frees it from piggul. R. Jeremiah observed: The refutation [of this analogy] is at its side. As for [the intention of consuming it] without its precincts, which disqualifies a peace-offering, [it frees it from piggul] because it operates [as a disqualification] in all sacrifices; will you say [the same of performing a service] for the sake of something else, which operates in the case of the Passover-offering and the sin-offering only? Rather, what must you say? That that which disqualifies it [a peace-offering] frees it from piggul, while that which is indispensable for it renders it piggul; so here too that which disqualifies it [the sin-offering] frees it from piggul, while that which is indispensable to it renders it piggul. R. Mari said, We too have learned likewise: This is the general principle: Whoever takes the fistful [of the meal-offering], places it in the utensil, carries it [to the altar] or burns it [thereon] [renders it piggul]. Now as for taking the fistful, it is well [that this effects piggul, as] it corresponds to slaughtering; carrying [the fistful] corresponds to carrying [the blood]; burning [it] corresponds to sprinkling. But to what does putting [the fistful] into a utensil correspond? Shall we say that it is similar to receiving: is it then similar? There it is automatic, whereas here he takes it himself and places it [in the utensil]. But since you cannot dispense with placing it [in the utensil], you must say that it is an important service; so here too, since one cannot dispense with it you must say that it is [part of] carrying [the blood to the altar]! — No: in truth it is similar to receiving, and as to your objection: There it is automatic whereas here he takes it himself and places it [in the utensil, the answer is:] since both are [instances of] placing in a utensil, what does it matter whether it is automatic or whether he personally takes and places it [there]? Shall we say that it is a controversy of Tannaim? For one [Baraitha] taught: The dipping of the finger renders a sin-offering piggul; while another taught: It does not effect piggul, nor does it become piggul. Surely then it is a controversy of Tannaim! — No: one agrees with our Rabbis and the other agrees with R. Simeon. If R. Simeon, why particularly the dipping of the finger? Surely he said,^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ

^ˣnote:So Rashi. Cur. edd.: ‘Rather (answer thus)’.
^ʸnote:Both may be styled intentions of piggul at the receiving of the blood, yet they are obviously different intentions; the former does not disqualify the sacrifice, whereas the latter does,
^ᶻnote:The emphatic ‘be at all eaten’ is expressed in the original by doubling the verb, which in Talmudic exegesis denotes extension.
^ᵃᵃnote:Sprinkling the blood and pouring out its residue at the foot of the altar are regarded as the eating of the altar. Thus in connection with these too, an illegitimate intention renders the sacrifice piggul, which contradicts the previous statement.
^ᵃᵇnote:Then the sacrifice becomes piggul, since it was his intention to give the altar its food on the morrow, which is after its appointed time.
^ᵃᶜnote:This does not render it piggul, since the wrongful intention was not at one of the four services.
^ᵃᵈnote:V. Lev, IV, 6: And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood etc.
^ᵃᵉnote:One sacrificed at the inner altar. If he dipped his finger in the blood with the intention of burning the emurim the next day, the sacrifice becomes piggul.
^ᵃᶠnote:The law of piggul is expressly written only in connection with the peace-offering, whence we extend the law to other sacrifices.
^ᵃᵍnote:Since there is no dipping of the finger in the case of a peace-offering, the blood being dashed on the altar direct from the utensil. Since it is not a statutory service, it cannot render the sacrifice piggul even if it is done.
^ᵃʰnote:It is stated infra 28b that if a sacrifice is slaughtered with the intention of consuming it after its prescribed period, which renders it piggul, it remains piggul only if the subsequent services (receiving, carrying and sprinkling), which are technically designated the mattirin (q.v. Glos) are performed without any other intention which would disqualify it in any case. Now if one slaughtered a peace-offering with the intention of consuming it after its prescribed period, thus rendering it piggul, and then performed the subsequent services in the name of a different sacrifice, it remains piggul, since this change of name does not disqualify a peace-offering. A sin-offering in like circumstances ceases to be piggul, since change of name does disqualify it, (Though the flesh of course remains forbidden, it is not forbidden as piggul, so that eating it does not render one liable to kareth.) But if piggul of other sacrifices were completely analogous to piggul of a peaceoffering, as Bar Padda's objection implies, then the sin-offering too should not be free from piggul.
^ᵃⁱnote:The extension of piggul to other sacrifices is effected not by analogy with the peace-offering, but from extending particles in the text; hence the conditions of freeing it from piggul need not be the same. By the same reasoning the conditions for making it piggul need not be the same.
^ᵃʲnote:Hence though there is no piggul at the dipping of the finger in the case of the peace-offering, there is in the case of the sin-offering.
^ᵃᵏnote:Obvious and inherent.
^ᵃˡnote:If you insist on retaining a complete analogy with the sin-offering.
^ᵃᵐnote:If performed with a piggul intention.
^ᵃⁿnote:Which excludes the dipping of the finger.
^ᵃᵒnote:Thus the analogy is complete in its principles, though the detailed application of these principles varies according to the individual laws of the various sacrifices.
^ᵃᵖnote:If he performs one of these services with the intention of consuming the rest or burning the fistful on the morrow. — The burning of the fistful corresponds to the sprinkling of the blood of an animal sacrifice.
^ᵃᵠnote:It naturally drops into the basin.
^ᵃʳnote:I.e., it is a necessary part of the service.
^ᵃˢnote:It is a definite service in that an illegitimate intention thereat effects piggul.
^ᵃᵗnote:Sc. the dipping of the finger.
^ᵃᵘnote:Whether it is analogous to receiving the blood or to carrying the blood.
^ᵃᵛnote:It does not effect piggul, if the priest dipped his finger with the intention of burning the emurim the next day; and it does not become piggul, if he slaughtered or received the blood with the intention of dipping the finger on the morrow.
^ᵃʷnote:All agree that it is part of carrying, but the ruling that it does not render it piggul is in accordance with R. Simeon in our Mishnah that there can be no piggul at the carrying.