זבחים 35:1 — Soncino English Talmud

spoke only of that which was received in a vessel. And how does he himself know that? — The priests are careful; but as they work quickly [the blood] may be spilt. But the draining-blood is mixed with it? — R. Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintained: The draining-blood is called blood. For it was taught: The draining-blood is subject to a ‘warning;’ R. Judah said: It is subject to kareth. But surely R. Eleazar said: R. Judah agrees in respect to atonement, that it does not make atonement, because it is said, For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life: blood wherewith life departs is called blood; blood wherewith life does not depart is not called blood? — Rather [reply]: R. Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintained: Blood cannot nullify [other] blood. R. Judah said to them [the Sages]: On your view, why did they stop up [the holes in] the Temple court? — Said they to him: It is praiseworthy for the sons of Aaron [the priests] to walk in blood up to their ankles. But blood constitutes an interposition? — It was moist, and did not constitute an interposition. For it was taught: Blood, ink, honey, and milk, if dry, interpose; if moist, they do not interpose. But their garments become [blood-] stained, whereas it was taught: If his garments were soiled and he performed the service, his service is unfit? And should you answer that they raised their garments, surely it was taught: [And the priest shall put on] his linen measure: [that means] that it must not be [too] short nor too long? — [They raised them] at the carrying of the limbs to the [altar] ascent, which was not a service. Was it not? Surely it was taught: And the priest shall offer the whole, and burn it on the altar: this refers to the carrying of the limbs to the ascent? — Rather, [they raised them] at the carrying of the wood to the [altar] pile, which was not a service. Nevertheless, how could they walk at the service? — They walked on balconies. MISHNAH. IF ONE SLAUGHTERS THE SACRIFICE [INTENDING] TO EAT WHAT IS NOT NORMALLY EATEN, OR TO BURN [ON THE ALTAR] WHAT IS NOT NORMALLY BURNT, IT IS VALID; BUT R. ELIEZER INVALIDATES [THE SACRIFICE]. [IF HE SLAUGHTERS IT INTENDING] TO EAT WHAT IS NORMALLY EATEN AND TO BURN WHAT IS NORMALLY BURNT, [BUT] LESS THAN THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE, IT IS VALID. TO EAT HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE AND TO BURN HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE, IT IS VALID, BECAUSE [INTENTIONS CONCERNING] EATING AND BURNING DO NOT COMBINE. IF ONE SLAUGHTERS THE SACRIFICE [INTENDING] TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF THE SKIN, OR OF THE JUICE, OR OF THE JELLY, OR OF THE OFFAL, OR OF THE BONES, OR OF THE TENDONS, OR OF THE HORNS, OR OF THE HOOFS, EITHER AFTER TIME OR OUT OF BOUNDS, IT IS VALID, AND ONE IS NOT CULPABLE ON THEIR ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF PIGGUL, NOTHAR, OR UNCLEANNESS. IF ONE SLAUGHTERS SACRED ANIMALS [INTENDING] TO EAT THE FETUS OR THE AFTERBIRTH WITHOUT, HE DOES NOT RENDER PIGGUL. IF ONE WRINGS [THE NECKS OF] DOVES, [INTENDING] TO EAT THEIR EGGS WITHOUT, HE DOES NOT RENDER [THEM] PIGGUL. ONE IS NOT CULPABLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE MILK OF SACRED ANIMALS OR THE EGGS OF DOVES IN RESPECT OF PIGGUL, NOTHAR, OR UNCLEANNESS. GEMARA. R. Eleazar said: If [the priest] expressed a piggul intention in respect of the sacrifice, the fetus [too] becomes piggul; [if he expresses a piggul intention] in connection with the fetus, the sacrifice does not become piggul. If he expresses a piggul intention in respect of the offal, the crop becomes piggul; in respect of the crop, the offal does not become piggul. If he expresses a piggul intention in respect of emurim, the bullocks become piggul; in respect of the bullocks, the emurim do not become piggul. Shall we say that the following supports him: And both agree that if he expressed an intention [of piggul] in connection with the eating of the bullocks and their burning, he has done nothing? Surely then, if however he expressed an intention concerning the emurim, the bullocks become piggul? — No:^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ^ᵃᵍ

^ᵃnote:Tamzith denotes the last blood which slowly drains off the animal, contrad. to the life-blood, which gushes forth in a stream.
^ᵇnote:Whereas ‘lifeblood’ is required for sprinkling.
^ᶜnote:For the purposes of sprinkling.
^ᵈnote:This is a technical designation for a negative injunction whose violation is punished by lashes. But it involves no kareth, as does the consuming of the life-blood (v. Lev. XVII, 10f).
^ᵉnote:Just like life-blood. Hence it is also the same in respect to sprinkling.
^ᶠnote:Lev. XVII, 11.
^ᵍnote:And makes atonement.
^ʰnote:To the objection, ‘But the draining-blood is mixed with it’.
^ⁱnote:And there is certainly at least a little of the life-blood in this goblet of mixed blood, and that is sufficient for atonement.
^ʲnote:That they did not fill a goblet of mixed blood.
^ᵏnote:On the eve of Passover they stopped up the holes through which the blood of the sacrifices passed out to the stream of Kidron.
^ˡnote:Between the pavement and their feet, whereas they had to stand actually on the pavement itself, supra 15b.
^ᵐnote:When a person takes a ritual bath (tebillah), nothing must interpose between the water and his skin; if something does interpose, it invalidates the bath.
^ⁿnote:I.e., they were short and did not reach down to the blood.
^ᵒnote:E.V. garment, Lev. VI, 3.
^ᵖnote:But reach exactly to the ground.
^ᵠnote:And only then was it praiseworthy for the priests to walk up to their ankles in blood.
^ʳnote:Lev. I, 13.
^ˢnote:Sc. of the sprinkling of the blood.
^ᵗnote:Projecting boards alongside the walls.
^ᵘnote:V. supra 28a.
^ᵛnote:The whole Mishnah refers to intentions of eating and/or burning after time or out of bounds.
^ʷnote:The sediments of boiled meat coagulated.
^ˣnote:If the sacrifice became piggul, nothar, or unclean, and a priest ate of the skin etc., he is not liable, since we do not designate his action eating, as these are not eaten.
^ʸnote:I.e., sacrifices. The Heb. (mukdashin) always refers to females.
^ᶻnote:And he who eats the fetus incurs kareth, as for eating piggul.
^ᵃᵃnote:He holds that the fetus is an integral part of the sacrifice, being regarded, as it were, as a limb of its mother. Nevertheless, this intention does not render the sacrifice piggul, because it is not usually eaten. The fetus itself too does not become piggul, in accordance with the Mishnah.
^ᵃᵇnote:The offal is edible, but not the crop. Therefore an intention in respect of the latter is not efficacious; but an intention in respect of the former makes the whole piggul, including the crop.
^ᵃᶜnote:If he slaughtered the bullocks which are burnt intending to burn the emurim on the altar after time.
^ᵃᵈnote:Intending to eat of their flesh after time.
^ᵃᵉnote:Because it is the intention to eat what is not usually eaten. The bullocks themselves do certainly not become piggul.
^ᵃᶠnote:In his view that a thing can become piggul through something else, e.g., the fetus, the crop, and the flesh of the bullocks, though it cannot be the vehicle of rendering the sacrifice piggul.
^ᵃᵍnote:‘Both’ refers to R. Simeon and the Rabbis, v. infra 43a. The present reference is to the bullocks which were to be burnt without, and they agree that if the priest expressed an intention during one of the blood services to eat of the bullocks on the morrow or to burn them as required in the ash-house on the morrow, his intention is of no effect, because his intention to eat does not count, since this is not normally eaten and his intention with regard to the burning does not count either, for only an intention that the altar should consume (expressing it so, but not ‘burn’) counts.