Zevachim

[deduce thus:] but if he expressed an intention concerning the emurim, the emurim themselves become piggul.1 Come and hear: The bullocks which are to be burnt and the he-goats which are to be burnt are subject to [the law of] sacrilege from the time they are consecrated.2 Having been slaughtered, they are ready to become unfit through [the touch of] a tebul yom and one who lacks atonement,3 and through being kept overnight [linah]. Surely that means, through the flesh being kept overnight; and you may infer from this [that] since being kept overnight renders it unfit, an [illegitimate] intention renders it unfit!4 — No: it refers to keeping the emurim overnight.5 But since the second clause teaches: You trespass in the case of all when they are in the ash-house6 until the flesh is dissolved, it follows that the first clause treats of keeping the flesh overnight? — What reason have you for supposing this: each refers to its particular case; the first clause treats of emurim, and the second of the flesh. Rabbah objected: The following neither render nor are rendered piggul:7 the wool on the head of lambs, and the hair of he-goats’ beards, and the skin, the juice, the jelly, the offal, the crop, the bones, the tendons, the horns, the hoofs, the fetus, the after-birth, the milk of consecrated animals, and the eggs of doves; all of these neither render nor are rendered piggul, and one is not liable on their account in respect of piggul, nothar and uncleanness, and one who carries them up without is not liable. Does this not mean: They do not render the sacrifice piggul, and they are not rendered piggul through the sacrifice? — No: They do not render the sacrifice piggul, and they are not rendered piggul through themselves.8 If so, when the sequel teaches, They neither render nor are rendered piggul, why this repetition?9 — Yet [even] on your view, [when he teaches,] One is not liable on their account for piggul, why this repetition?10 But [you must answer that] because he wishes to teach [about] nothar and defilement, he also teaches about piggul. So now too11 [you can answer], Because he wishes to teach [about] one who carries them without, he also teaches: And all these neither render nor are rendered piggul. Raba said: We too learnt thus:12 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 PIGGUL. Yet then he learns: ONE IS NOT CULPABLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE MILK OF SACRED ANIMALS OR THE EGGS OF DOVES IN RESPECT OF PIGGUL, NOTHAR, OR UNCLEANNESS. Hence [it follows that] one is culpable on account of the fetus and the after-birth?13 Hence you must surely infer from this that in the one case it means through the sacrifice;14 in the other, through themselves. This proves it. We learnt elsewhere: And blemished animals;15 R. Akiba declares blemished animals fit.16 R. Hiyya b. Abba declared in R. Johanan's name: R. Akiba declares [them] fit only in the case of cataracts in the eye, since such are fit in the case of birds,17 and provided that their consecration [for a sacrifice] preceded their blemish; and R. Akiba admits that a female burnt-offering must be [taken down], because that is tantamount to the blemish preceding its consecration. 18 R. Zera objected: ‘One who offers them up without is not liable;’19 but [if one offers up the flesh] of the mother, one is liable; and how is that possible? In the case of a female burnt-offering.20 Now,it is well if you say that R. Akiba holds that if a female burnt-offering goes up, it does not come down: then this is in accordance with R. Akiba.21 But if you say that [even] if it went up, it goes down, in accordance with whom is this? — Say: He who offers up [the flesh] of them without is exempt, hence [he who offers up] of the emurim of the mother, is liable. But he teaches, ‘of them’, and the mother is analogous to them?22 — Rather say: He who offers up of their emurim without is exempt; hence [he who offers up] of their mother's emurim is liable. MISHNAH. IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT WITH THE INTENTION23 OF LEAVING ITS BLOOD OR ITS EMURIM FOR THE MORROW, OR OF CARRYING THEM WITHOUT, R. JUDAH DISQUALIFIES [IT], BUT THE SAGES DECLARE IT FIT. [IF HE SLAUGHTERED IT] WITH THE INTENTION OF SPRINKLING [THE BLOOD] ON THE ASCENT, [OR ON THE ALTAR] BUT NOT OVER AGAINST ITS BASE; OR OF APPLYING BELOW [THE LINE24 ] WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED ABOVE, OR ABOVE WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED BELOW, OR WITHOUT WHAT SHOULD BE APPLIED WITHIN, consecrated to Temple use) for secular use, and if one does, he becomes liable to a trespass-offering (me'ilah). On lacking atonement v. p. 80, n. 2; on unfitness and uncleanness v. p. 155, nn. 3 and 4. keep it overnight), for it has already been stated that this is of no account. Hence it must mean that an illegitimate intention to burn the emurim on the morrow renders the flesh piggul, which supports R. Eleazar. themselves, as the Talmud proceeds to explain. any interpretation. burnt-offering may be of any gender, because there can be no greater blemish than the forbidden sex. since the fetus is discussed. mother's flesh.