זבחים 42 — Soncino English Talmud

¹But in the case of blood presented on the inner altar, e.g., the forty three [applications] of the Day of Atonement, the eleven of the anointed priest's bullock, and the eleven of the community's bullock of unwitting transgression, if he [the priest] declared a piggul intention whether at the first, the second, or the third, R. Meir maintains [that] it is piggul and involves kareth; while the Sages say: It does not involve kareth unless [the priest] declares a piggul intention at the whole mattir. Incidentally he teaches, ‘if [the priest] declared a piggul intention whether at the first, at the second, or the third,’ and yet [R. Meir] disagrees? — Said R. Isaac b. Abin: The circumstances here are e.g. that he declared a piggul intention at the shechitah, this being one mattir. If so, what is the reason of the Rabbis? — Said Raba: Who are the Sages [in this passage]? R. Eleazar. For we learnt: [With regard to] the fistful [of flour], the frankincense, the incense, the priest's meal-offering, the anointed priest's meal-offering, and the meal-offering of the libations, if [the priest] presented as much as an olive of one of these without [the Temple court], he is liable. But R. Eleazar exempts [him] unless he offers the whole [without]. But surely Raba said: Yet R. Eleazar admits in the case of blood, for we learnt: R. Eleazar and R. Simeon maintain: From where he left off there he recommences! — Rather said Raba: It [the Baraitha] means e.g. where he declared a piggul intention at the first [applications], was silent at the second, and again declared a piggul intention at the third. Now we might argue, If you claim that he acts with his original intention, why should he repeat his piggul intention at the third [applications]? Therefore he informs us [that we do not argue so]. To this R. Ashi demurred: Does he then teach [that] he was silent? Rather said R. Ashi: The circumstances here are e.g., that he declared a piggul intention at the first, second, and third. You might argue, If you think that whatever one does, one does with the first intention, why must he repeat his piggul declaration at each one? Therefore he informs us [that we do not argue so].^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ

^ᵃnote:One application of the blood of the bullock above the red line and seven below (v. supra 38a bottom), and similarly with the blood of the he-goat, which gives sixteen. There were similar applications on the veil of the sanctuary, making thirty two. Further, four applications of the blood of both mixed together, on the four horns of the altar, and seven applications on the top of the altar, giving a total of forty-three.
^ᵇnote:Seven on the veil and four on the altar.
^ᶜnote:The first, second and third are the applications in the innermost sanctuary, on the veil, and on the golden altar respectively.
^ᵈnote:Thus, if he declared this intention at the second application only, though not at the first, it is still piggul, though here he was certainly not continuing his first intention. Hence he must hold that one can render a sacrifice piggul at a portion of the mattir, which contradicts R. Simeon b. Lakish.
^ᵉnote:Rashi: After the first blood applications the blood was accidentally spilt. A second animal is slaughtered, and the sprinkling is continued, starting with the second applications on the veil. Only here does R. Meir rule that it is piggul, since shechitah is a service complete in itself. Rashbam: At the shechitah the priest declared his intention to make the second blood applications after time. This explanation saves the introduction of a second animal.
^ᶠnote:Emended text (Sh. M.); cur. edd. R. Eliezer.
^ᵍnote:Thus even when he actually presents it without the Temple court, R. Eleazar holds that he is not liable, since it was done with a portion of the mattir only, which proves that it does not count as a service unless he completes the whole service. So here too, although shechitah is a service complete in itself, yet since this particular shechitah was merely to make up another shechitah (rendered necessary through the spilling of the blood), it is incomplete, and cannot render the sacrifice piggul.
^ʰnote:V. infra 110a and b. — Since he recommences from where he left off (where the blood was spilt; v. n. 2), this shews that what he did do is a complete service; hence it can become piggul thereby. This refutes Raba's explanation that the Sages in the Baraitha quoted supra are R. Eleazar.
^ⁱnote:Only then does R. Meir rule it to be piggul, as he holds that the second applications in silence were made with the same intention as the first. So that ‘whether at the . . . second or third’ means whether he was silent at the third and declared a piggul intention at the second, or vice versa. But in both cases he had declared a piggul intention at the first.

²But he teaches, ‘whether . . . or’? That is indeed a difficulty. The Master said: ‘R. Meir said, It is piggul, and involves kareth’. But consider: one is not liable to kareth until all the mattirin are offered, for a master said: As the acceptance of the valid, so is the acceptance of the invalid. As the acceptance of the valid necessitates that all its mattirin be presented, so does the acceptance of the invalid necessitate that all its mattirin be presented. Now here he has [already] invalidated it [the sacrifice] by declaring an [illegitimate] intention within, so that it is as though he had not sprinkled [the blood] at all; when therefore he sprinkles again in the hekal, he is merely sprinkling water? — Said Rabbah: It is possible in the case of four bullocks and four he-goats. Raba said: You may even say [that R. Meir rules thus] in the case of one bullock and one he-goat: it [the sprinkling] is efficacious in respect of its piggul status. [Do you say that there are] forty-three [sprinklings]? Surely it was taught [that there are] forty-seven? The former agrees with the view that you mingle [the blood of the bullock and of the he-goat] for [sprinkling on] the horns; while the latter agrees with the view that you do not mingle [them] for [sprinkling on] the horns. But it was taught [that] forty-eight [are required]? — One agrees with the view that [the pouring out of] the residue [at the base of the altar] is indispensable; while the other agrees with the view that the residue is not indispensable. An objection is raised: When is this said? In [the case of] the taking of the fistful, the placing in the vessel, and the carriage. But when he comes to the burning [of the fistful and the frankincense], if he presents the fistful with a [piggul] intention and the frankincense in silence; or if he presents the fistful in silence and the frankincense with a [piggul] intention, — R. Meir declares it piggul, and it involves kareth; while the Sages rule: It does not involve kareth unless he declares a piggul intention in respect of the whole mattir. Now he teaches incidentally, [If he presents] ‘the fistful in silence and the frankincense with a [piggul] intention’, and yet they disagree! — Say ‘having already presented the frankincense with a [piggul] intention’. One [objection] is that that is the first clause. Moreover, it was indeed taught, ‘and after that.’ That is indeed a difficulty. MISHNAH. THESE ARE THE THINGS FOR WHICH ONE IS NOT LIABLE ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL: THE FISTFUL, THE INCENSE, THE FRANKINCENSE,^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ

^ʲnote:Implying alternatives: either at one or at the other.
^ᵏnote:V. supra 42a.
^ˡnote:For eating thereof.
^ᵐnote:V. supra 28b.
^ⁿnote:Var. lec. omits ‘then . . . at all’.
^ᵒnote:This is a difficulty on the view that R. Meir's reason is that one can make a sacrifice piggul at half a mattir. Granted that this is possible in the case of the fistful and the frankincense of a meal-offering, it is surely impossible in the case of sprinkling, for the reason stated. — ‘He is merely sprinkling water’ means that his sprinkling of the blood is just as though he were sprinkling water, since the sacrifice is already invalid.
^ᵖnote:He declared a piggul intention during all the applications of the blood between the staves; then the blood was spilt, so that another animal was slaughtered. He sprinkled its blood on the veil (he would start there, and not repeat the first sprinklings between the staves; V. supra a) and the blood was again spilt. The same happened with the applications on the horns of the altar, and the same with the sprinklings on the top. Here then all the mattirin have been presented, and each counts as a real sprinkling because it is the blood of a different animal; consequently the first is piggul, while the same would hold good if he declared his piggul intention in connection with any of the other animals.
^ᵠnote:If the Priest declares a piggul intention at the slaughtering, though he thereby invalidates the sacrifice, yet the following sprinklings are counted as the presenting of its mattirin. Thus they are obviously efficacious to stamp the animal as piggul, for otherwise an animal could not become piggul at slaughtering, whereas it is deduced supra 13a that it does. In the same way then R. Meir holds that when some of the sprinklings are done with a piggul intention, the subsequent sprinklings count as the presenting of the mattirin, so as to make the sacrifice piggul.
^ʳnote:Supra a top.
^ˢnote:But each is sprinkled separately, which gives an additional four, bringing up the number to forty-seven.
^ᵗnote:Hence it is regarded as another sprinkling.
^ᵘnote:V. supra 40b.
^ᵛnote:That a meal-offering becomes piggul at one service.
^ʷnote:Where each service consists of a single act.
^ˣnote:R. Meir maintains that it is piggul. Here his second act was not done with the same intention as the first, since he was silent at the first. Hence R. Meir's reason must be because he holds that one can make the sacrifice piggul during half a mattir.
^ʸnote:In another Baraitha.
^ᶻnote:He presented the frankincense with a piggul intention.