Zevachim 26

- There is no difficulty:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So Rashi. Cur. edd.: 'Rather (answer thus) '.');">¹</span> In the one case it means that he declared, 'Lo, I slaughter [this sacrifice] with th intention of receiving its blood to-morrow while in the other case it means that he declared, 'Lo,I receive the blood with the intention of pouring out its residue to-morrow'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Both may be styled intentions of piggul at the receiving of the blood, yet they are obviously different intentions; the former does not disqualify the sacrifice, whereas the latter does,');">²</span>

One of the Rabbis said to Raba: Now does not intention disqualify at the pouring out of the residue and the burning of the emurim? Yet surely it was taught: You might think that intention is effective only in connection with the eating of the flesh.

Whence do we know to include the pouring out of the residue and the burning of the emurim? From the text, And if [any of the flesh.] be at all eaten [on the third day.

shall be an abhorred thing]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The emphatic 'be at all eaten' is expressed in the original by doubling the verb, which in Talmudic exegesis denotes extension.');">³</span> Scripture refers to two eatings, viz. , eating by man and eating by the altar.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sprinkling the blood and pouring out its residue at the foot of the altar are regarded as the eating of the altar. Thus in connection with these too, an illegitimate intention renders the sacrifice piggul, which contradicts the previous statement.');">⁴</span>

There is no difficulty:' In the one case he declares, 'Lo, I sprinkle [the blood] with the intention of pouring out the residue to-morrow';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then the sacrifice becomes piggul, since it was his intention to give the altar its food on the morrow, which is after its appointed time.');">⁵</span> in the other he declares, 'Lo, I pour out the residue with the intention of burning the emurim to-morrow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This does not render it piggul, since the wrongful intention was not at one of the four services.');">⁶</span>

R'Judah the son of R'Hiyya said: I have heard that the dipping of the finger [in the blood]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev, IV, 6: And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle of the blood etc.');">⁷</span> renders [a sacrifice] piggul in the case of an inner sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' One sacrificed at the inner altar. If he dipped his finger in the blood with the intention of burning the emurim the next day, the sacrifice becomes piggul.');">⁸</span>

Ilfa heard this and reported it before Bar Padda. Said he: Do we learn piggul from ought else but from a peace-offering?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The law of piggul is expressly written only in connection with the peace-offering, whence we extend the law to other sacrifices.');">⁹</span>

Then as the dipping of the finger does not render a peace-offering piggul,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since there is no dipping of the finger in the case of a peace-offering, the blood being dashed on the altar direct from the utensil. Since it is not a statutory service, it cannot render the sacrifice piggul even if it is done.');">¹⁰</span> so in the case of a sin-offering too, the dipping of the finger does not render piggul.

But do we really learn everything from a peace-offering? If so, [then reason thus:] as [a service] in the name of a different sacrifice does not free a peace-offering from piggul, so [a service] in the name of a different sacrifice does not free a sin-offering from piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is stated infra ');">¹¹</span>

What then can you say? That it is deduced from the extension implied in Scriptural texts;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The extension of piggul to other sacrifices is effected not by analogy with the peace-offering, but from extending particles in the text; hence the conditions of freeing it from piggul need not be the same. By the same reasoning the conditions for making it piggul need not be the same.');">¹²</span>

and so here too it is deduced from the extension implied in the Scriptural texts.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence though there is no piggul at the dipping of the finger in the case of the peace-offering, there is in the case of the sin-offering.');">¹³</span> R'Joshua B'Levi said: In this upper chamber I heard that the dipping of the finger renders piggul.

Thereat R'Simeon B'Lakish wondered: Do we learn piggul from ought else but from the peace-offering? Then as the dipping of the finger does not render the peace-offering piggul, so in the case of the sin-offering too, the dipping of the finger does not render it piggul.

But do we then really learn everything from the peace-offering? If so, [then reason thus: ] as [a service] in the name of a different sacrifice does not free a peace-offering from piggul, so [a service] in the name of a different sacrifice does not free a sin-offering fro piggul? - Said R'Jose B'Hanina: Yes, indeed, we really learn everything from the peace-offering: since [the intention to consume it] without its precincts disqualifies a peace-offering, while [performing a service] for the sake of something else disqualifies a sin-offering, then as [the intention to consume it] without its precincts, which disqualifies the peace-offering, frees it from piggul, so [performing a service] for the sake o something else, which disqualifies the sin-offering, frees it from piggul.

R'Jeremiah observed: The refutation [of this analogy] is at its side.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Obvious and inherent.');">¹⁴</span> As for [the intention of consuming it] without its precincts, which disqualifies a peace-offering, [it frees it from piggul] because it operates [as a disqualification] in all sacrifices; will you say [the same of performing a service] for the sake of something else, which operates in the case of the Passover-offering and the sin-offering only?

Rather, what must you say?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If you insist on retaining a complete analogy with the sin-offering.');">¹⁵</span> That that which disqualifies it [a peace-offering] frees it from piggul, while that which is indispensable for it renders it piggul;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If performed with a piggul intention.');">¹⁶</span>

so here too that which disqualifies it [the sin-offering] frees it from piggul, while that which is indispensable to it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which excludes the dipping of the finger.');">¹⁷</span> renders it piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the analogy is complete in its principles, though the detailed application of these principles varies according to the individual laws of the various sacrifices.');">¹⁸</span>

R'Mari said, We too have learned likewise: This is the general principle: Whoever takes the fistful [of the meal-offering], places it in the utensil, carries it [to the altar] or burns it [thereon] [renders it piggul].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he performs one of these services with the intention of consuming the rest or burning the fistful on the morrow. - The burning of the fistful corresponds to the sprinkling of the blood of an animal sacrifice.');">¹⁹</span> Now as for taking the fistful, it is well [that this effects piggul, as] it corresponds to slaughtering; carrying [t fistful] corresponds to carrying [the blood]; burning [it] corresponds to sprinkling.

But to what does putting [the fistful] into a utensil correspond? Shall we say that it is similar to receiving: is it then similar?

There automatic,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It naturally drops into the basin.');">²⁰</span> whereas here he takes it himself and places it [in the utensil].

But since you cannot dispense with placing it [in the utensil],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it is a necessary part of the service.');">²¹</span> you must say that it is an important service;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is a definite service in that an illegitimate intention thereat effects piggul.');">²²</span>

so here too, since one cannot dispense with it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the dipping of the finger.');">²³</span> you must say that it is [part of] carrying [the blood to the altar]! - No: in truth it is si to receiving, and as to your objection: There it is automatic whereas here he takes it himself and places it [in the utensil, the answer is:] since both are [instances of] placing in a utensil, what does it matter whether it automatic or whether he personally takes and places it [there]?

Shall we say that it is a controversy of Tannaim?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whether it is analogous to receiving the blood or to carrying the blood.');">²⁴</span> For one [Baraitha] taught: The dipping of the finger renders a sin-offering piggul; while another taught: It does not effect piggul, nor does it become piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It does not effect piggul, if the priest dipped his finger with the intention of burning the emurim the next day; and it does not become piggul, if he slaughtered or received the blood with the intention of dipping the finger on the morrow.');">²⁵</span> Surely then it is a controversy of Tannaim! - No: one agrees with our Rabbis and the other agrees with R'Simeon.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' All agree that it is part of carrying, but the ruling that it does not render it piggul is in accordance with R. Simeon in our Mishnah that there can be no piggul at the carrying.');">²⁶</span> If R'Simeon, why particularly the dipping of the finger? Surely he said,