Zevachim

— There is no difficulty:1 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’. 2 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]:3 Scripture refers to two eatings, viz., eating by man and eating by the altar.4 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’;5 in the other he declares, ‘Lo, I pour out the residue with the intention of burning the emurim to-morrow.6 R. Judah the son of R. Hiyya said: I have heard that the dipping of the finger [in the blood]7 renders [a sacrifice] piggul in the case of an inner sin-offering.8 Ilfa heard this and reported it before Bar Padda. Said he: Do we learn piggul from ought else but from a peace-offering?9 Then as the dipping of the finger does not render a peace-offering piggul,10 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.11 What then can you say? That it is deduced from the extension implied in Scriptural texts;12 and so here too it is deduced from the extension implied in the Scriptural texts. 13 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.14 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?15 That that which disqualifies it [a peace-offering] frees it from piggul, while that which is indispensable for it renders it piggul;16 so here too that which disqualifies it [the sin-offering] frees it from piggul, while that which is indispensable to it17 renders it piggul.18 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].19 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,20 whereas here he takes it himself and places it [in the utensil]. But since you cannot dispense with placing it [in the utensil],21 you must say that it is an important service;22 so here too, since one cannot dispense with it23 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?24 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.25 Surely then it is a controversy of Tannaim! — No: one agrees with our Rabbis and the other agrees with R. Simeon.26 If R. Simeon, why particularly the dipping of the finger? Surely he said, former does not disqualify the sacrifice, whereas the latter does, extension. connection with these too, an illegitimate intention renders the sacrifice piggul, which contradicts the previous statement. its appointed time. day, the sacrifice becomes piggul. sacrifices. from the utensil. Since it is not a statutory service, it cannot render the sacrifice piggul even if it is done. 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. 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. the sin-offering. the individual laws of the various sacrifices. — The burning of the fistful corresponds to the sprinkling of the blood of an animal sacrifice. does not become piggul, if he slaughtered or received the blood with the intention of dipping the finger on the morrow. our Mishnah that there can be no piggul at the carrying.