Zevachim

THE PRIESTS’ MEAL-OFFERING, THE ANOINTED PRIEST'S MEAL-OFFERING, THE BLOOD, AND THE DRINK-OFFERINGS THAT ARE BROUGHT SEPARATELY: THAT IS THE VIEW OF R. MEIR. THE SAGES MAINTAIN: ALSO THOSE THAT ARE BROUGHT WITH AN ANIMAL [SACRIFICE].1 A LEPER'S LOG2 OF OIL,3 R. SIMEON MAINTAINED, DOES NOT INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL;4 WHILE R. MEIR RULES: IT INVOLVES LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL, BECAUSE THE BLOOD OF THE GUILT-OFFERING MAKES IT PERMITTED.5 AND WHATEVER HAS AUGHT THAT MAKES IT PERMITTED,6 WHETHER FOR MAN OR FOR THE ALTAR, INVOLVES LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL. [THE SPRINKLING OF] THE BLOOD OF THE BURNT-OFFERING PERMITS ITS FLESH FOR [BURNING ON] THE ALTAR, AND ITS SKIN TO THE PRIESTS. THE BLOOD OF THE BURNT-OFFERING OF A BIRD PERMITS ITS FLESH TO THE ALTAR. THE BLOOD OF THE SIN-OFFERING OF A BIRD PERMITS ITS FLESH TO THE PRIESTS. THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCKS THAT ARE BURNT AND THE GOATS THAT ARE BURNT PERMITS THEIR EMURIM TO BE OFFERED [ON THE ALTAR]. R. SIMEON SAID: WHATEVER IS NOT [SPRINKLED] ON THE OUTER ALTAR, AS THE PEACE-OFFERING,7 DOES NOT INVOLVE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL. GEMARA. ‘Ulla said: If the fistful [of the meal-offering], which is piggul, is presented on the altar, its piggul status leaves it:8 seeing that it reduces others to [the state of] piggul, how much the more so itself. What does he mean?9 — This is what he means: if it is unacceptable,10 how can it reduce others to [the state of] piggul?11 What does he inform us?12 If that it does not involve liability for piggul, Surely we have learnt it: THESE ARE THE THINGS FOR WHICH ONE IS NOT LIABLE ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL: THE FISTFUL, THE INCENSE, THE FRANKINCENSE, THE PRIESTS MEAL-OFFERING, THE ANOINTED PRIEST'S MEAL-OFFERING, AND THE BLOOD? — Rather, [he informs us] that if it ascended [the altar], it does not descend.13 But we have learnt it: [Flesh] that is kept overnight, or that goes out [of its permitted boundaries], or which is unclean, or which was slaughtered [with the intention of being consumed] after time or without bounds, if it ascended [the altar], does not descend?14 — Rather, [he informs us] that if it was taken down [from the altar],15 it must be taken up [again]. But surely we have learnt:16 Just as it does not descend once it had ascended, so it does not ascend after having descended!17 — That [Ulla's teaching] is only when the fire [of the altar] has taken hold of it.18 But this too ‘Ulla has already stated once? For ‘Ulla said: They learnt this only where the fire had not taken hold of it; but if the fire had taken hold of it, it must go up [again]! — You might think that this holds good only of took off the fistful with the intention of eating the remainder on the morrow, he thereby renders the whole sacrifice piggul; nevertheless he incurs no liability for eating the fistful itself. For piggul applies only to that which is permitted through something else (e.g., the rest of the meal-offering is ordinarily permitted for consumption through the taking of the fistful), whereas the fistful is not permitted through anything else. The same applies to the incense, the frankincense, and the others enumerated in the Mishnah. — Votive meal-offerings brought by ordinary priests and the statutory bi-daily offerings of the anointed priest (v. Lev. VI, 13 seq.) were wholly burnt on the altar without the rite of taking the fistful; thus they were not permitted by anything else. Drink-offerings could be brought separately or as an accompaniment to animal sacrifices. R. Meir rules that whether they are brought entirely by themselves, nothing else having been vowed, or they are brought actually as an addition to an animal sacrifice, but on the following day, they do not involve liability for piggul, because in that case they are not permitted through something else (the sacrificing of the animal), but through themselves. If however they are brought at the same time as the animal, they are permitted through the sacrificing of same, and therefore involve kareth. The Sages however maintain that even then we do not regard them as permitted through the animal sacrifice, since they could have been presented separately on the morrow. Though the efficacy of the oil rite is dependent on the prior application of the blood of the guilt-offering on the leper, nor may it be consumed unless the blood of the offering was duly sprinkled; nevertheless since the oil can be brought ten days after the offering, it is not regarded as permitted for consumption through it, and therefore does not involve kareth on account of piggul even when the oil is brought on the same day. meal-offering become piggul if we do not regard the burning of the fistful as a valid act, seeing that a sacrifice cannot become piggul unless its mattirin are offered (supra 42b)? Hence we must say that the fistful loses its piggul status, so that by its burning on the altar the mattirin are duly offered, and for that reason the remainder becomes piggul. This is then what he means: seeing that it is acceptable (a valid service) in point of making the rest fit to be piggul, it is surely acceptable in respect of itself! piggul. not yet taken hold of it.