Zevachim

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-blood1 is mixed with it?2 — R. Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintained: The draining-blood is called blood.3 For it was taught: The draining-blood is subject to a ‘warning;’4 R. Judah said: It is subject to kareth.5 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:6 blood wherewith life departs is called blood;7 blood wherewith life does not depart is not called blood? — Rather [reply]:8 R. Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintained: Blood cannot nullify [other] blood.9 R. Judah said to them [the Sages]: On your view,10 why did they stop up [the holes in] the Temple court?11 — 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?12 — 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.13 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,14 surely it was taught: [And the priest shall put on] his linen measure:15 [that means] that it must not be [too] short nor too long?16 — [They raised them] at the carrying of the limbs to the [altar] ascent, which was not a service.17 Was it not? Surely it was taught: And the priest shall offer the whole, and burn it on the altar:18 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? 19 — They walked on balconies.20 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].21 [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.22 IF ONE SLAUGHTERS THE SACRIFICE [INTENDING] TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF THE SKIN, OR OF THE JUICE, OR OF THE JELLY,23 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.24 IF ONE SLAUGHTERS SACRED ANIMALS25 [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;26 [if he expresses a piggul intention] in connection with the fetus, the sacrifice does not become piggul.27 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.28 If he expresses a piggul intention in respect of emurim,29 the bullocks become piggul; in respect of the bullocks,30 the emurim do not become piggul.31 Shall we say that the following supports him:32 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?33 Surely then, if however he expressed an intention concerning the emurim, the bullocks become piggul? — No: stream. kareth, as does the consuming of the life-blood (v. Lev. XVII, 10f). atonement. of Kidron. does interpose, it invalidates the bath. designate his action eating, as these are not eaten. 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. in respect of the former makes the whole piggul, including the crop. bullocks, though it cannot be the vehicle of rendering the sacrifice piggul. 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.