Lo, all agree that when the log comes separately, its sprinklings permit it, and yet they do not render it piggul. For it was taught, A leper's log of oil involves liability on account of piggul, because the blood permits it for [sprinkling on] the thumbs: that is R. Meir's view. Said they to R. Meir: But a man can bring his guilt-offering now, and his log even ten days later! I too, he answered them, ruled [thus] only when it comes with the guilt-offering! — Rather said R. Jeremiah: In truth it agrees with R. Meir, but delete ‘drink-offerings’ from this passage. Abaye said: After all, you need not delete [it]. But he [first] teaches about the log which comes with the guilt-offering, and the same applies to the drink-offering which comes with the sacrifice. And then he teaches about the drink-offering which comes separately, and the same applies to the log which comes separately. THE BLOOD OF THE BIRD SIN-OFFERING PERMITS ITS FLESH TO THE PRIESTS. Whence do we know it? — For Levi taught: [This shall be thine — the priest's . . . ] every offering of theirs: that is to include a leper's log of oil. I might think that the Divine Law wrote, reserved from the fire, whereas this is not reserved from the fire; therefore it informs us [that it is not so]. Even every meal-offering of theirs includes the meal-offering of the ‘omer and the meal-offering of jealousy. I might think [that it is written,] And they shall eat these things wherewith atonement was made, [whereas] the meal-offering of the ‘omer comes to permit [the new corn], while the meal-offering of jealousy comes to establish guilt; therefore [the text] informs us [that it is not so]. And every sin-offering of theirs includes the sin-offering of a bird. I might think that it is nebelah; therefore [the text] informs us [that it is not so]. And every guilt-offering of theirs includes a nazirite's guilt-offering and a leper's guilt-offering. I might think that these come to qualify [them]; therefore [the text] informs us [that it is not so]. But it is explicitly written that a leper's guilt-offering [is eaten]? Rather it is to include a nazirite's guilt-offering [teaching that it is like] a leper's guilt-offering. Which they may render includes what is taken by robbery from a proselyte. Shall be for thee: it shall be thine even for betrothing a woman. It was taught, R. Eleazar said on the authority of R. Jose the Galilean: If [the priest] declared a piggul intention in respect of a rite which is performed without, he renders it piggul; in respect of a rite which is performed within, he does not render it piggul. How so? If he stood without and declared, ‘Lo, I slaughter [this sacrifice intending] to sprinkle its blood to-morrow,’ he does not render it piggul because it is an intention [expressed] without concerning a rite which is performed within. If he stood within and declared, ‘Lo, I sprinkle [the blood], intending to burn the emurim and pour out the residue to-morrow,’ he does not render it piggul, because it is an intention [expressed] within concerning a rite which is performed without. If he stood without and declared, ‘Lo, I slaughter [this sacrifice intending] to pour out the residue to-morrow , or ‘to burn the emurim to-morrow,’ he renders it piggul, because it is an intention [expressed] without concerning a rite which is performed without. R. Joshua b. Levi said: Which text [teaches this]? As is taken from the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings. What then do we learn from the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings? [Scripture] however likens the anointed priest's bullock to the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings: as the ox of the sacrifice of peace-offerings [does not become piggul] unless its rites and its intentions are [done] on the outer altar, so the anointed priest's bullock [does not become piggul] unless its intentions and its rites are [done] in connection with the outer altar. R. Nahman said in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name in Rab's name: The halachah is as R. Eleazar's ruling in the name of R. Jose. Said Raba:ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻ