Zevachim 69

אף אני לא אמרתי אלא כשנתקבל בכלי והוא גופיה מנא ידע כהנים זריזין ועבדין הייא ומשתפכין

spoke only of that which was received in a vessel. And how does he himself know that? - The priests are careful; but as they work quickly [the blood] may be spilt.

והלא דם התמצית מעורב בו רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר דם התמצית קרי דם

But the draining-blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Tamzith denotes the last blood which slowly drains off the animal, contrad. to the life-blood, which gushes forth in a stream.');">¹</span> is mixed with it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas 'lifeblood' is required for sprinkling.');">²</span>

דתניא דם התמצית באזהרה רבי יהודה אומר בכרת

- R'Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintained: The draining-blood is called blood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the purposes of sprinkling.');">³</span> For it was taught: The draining-blood is subject to a 'warning;'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is a technical designation for a negative injunction whose violation is punished by lashes. But it involves no kareth, as does the consuming of the life-blood (v. Lev. XVII, 10f) .');">⁴</span>

והאמר ר' אלעזר מודה רבי יהודה לענין כפרה שאינו מכפר שנאמר (דברים יב, כג) (כי הדם הוא הנפש)

R'Judah said: It is subject to kareth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just like life-blood. Hence it is also the same in respect to sprinkling.');">⁵</span> But surely R'Eleazar said: R'Judah agrees in respect to atonement, that it does not make atonement, because it is said, For it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XVII, 11.');">⁶</span>

דם שהנפש יוצאה בו קרוי דם שאין הנפש יוצאה בו אין קרוי דם

blood wherewith life departs is called blood;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And makes atonement.');">⁷</span> blood wherewith life does not depart is not called blood? - Rather [reply]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the objection, 'But the draining-blood is mixed with it'.');">⁸</span>

אלא רבי יהודה לטעמיה דאמר אין דם מבטל דם

R'Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintained: Blood cannot nullify [other] blood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And there is certainly at least a little of the life-blood in this goblet of mixed blood, and that is sufficient for atonement.');">⁹</span> R'Judah said to them [the Sages]: On your view,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That they did not fill a goblet of mixed blood.');">¹⁰</span>

אמר להם רבי יהודה לדבריכם למה פוקקין העזרה אמרו לו שבח הוא לבני אהרן שיהלכו עד ארכובותיהן בדם

why did they stop up [the holes in] the Temple court?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On the eve of Passover they stopped up the holes through which the blood of the sacrifices passed out to the stream of Kidron.');">¹¹</span> - Said they to him: It is praiseworthy for the sons of Aaron [the priests] to walk in blood up to thei ankles.

והא דם הוי חציצה לח הוא ולא הוי חציצה דתנן הדם והדיו והדבש והחלב יבישין חוצצין לחין אין חוצצין

But blood constitutes an interposition?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Between the pavement and their feet, whereas they had to stand actually on the pavement itself, supra 15b.');">¹²</span> - It was moist, and did not constitute an interposition.

והא קא מיתווסי מאנייהו ותנן היו בגדיו מטושטשין ועבד עבודתו פסולה וכי תימא דמדלו להו והתניא (ויקרא ו, ג) מדו כמדתו שלא יחסר ושלא יותיר בהולכת אברים לכבש דלאו עבודה היא

For it was taught: Blood, ink, honey, and milk, if dry, interpose; if moist, they do not interpose.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When a person takes a ritual bath (tebillah) , nothing must interpose between the water and his skin; if something does interpose, it invalidates the bath.');">¹³</span> But their garments become [blood-] stained, whereas it was taught: If his garments were soiled and he performed the service, his service is unfit?

ולא והתניא (ויקרא א, יג) והקריב הכהן את הכל זו הולכת אברים לכבש אלא בהולכת עצים למערכה דלאו עבודה היא ולעבודה היכי אזלי אזלי אאיצטבי:

And should you answer that they raised their garments,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they were short and did not reach down to the blood.');">¹⁴</span> surely it was taught: [And the priest shall put on] his linen measure:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.V. garment, Lev. VI, 3.');">¹⁵</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השוחט את הזבח לאכול דבר שאין דרכו לאכול ולהקטיר דבר שאין דרכו להקטיר כשר ורבי אליעזר פוסל

[that means] that it must not be [too] short nor too long?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But reach exactly to the ground.');">¹⁶</span> - [They raised them] at the carrying of the limbs to the [altar] ascent, which was not a service.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And only then was it praiseworthy for the priests to walk up to their ankles in blood.');">¹⁷</span>

לאכול דבר שדרכו לאכול ולהקטיר דבר שדרכו להקטיר פחות מכזית כשר לאכול כחצי זית ולהקטיר כחצי זית כשר שאין אכילה והקטרה מצטרפין

Was it not? Surely it was taught: And the priest shall offer the whole, and burn it on the altar:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 13.');">¹⁸</span>

השוחט את הזבח לאכול כזית מן העור ומן הרוטב ומן הקיפה ומן האלל ומן העצמות ומן הגידין ומן הקרנים ומן הטלפים חוץ לזמנו וחוץ למקומו כשר ואין חייבין עליהן משום פיגול ונותר וטמא

this refers to the carryin of the limbs to the ascent? - Rather, [they raised them] at the carrying of the wood to the [altar] pile, which was not a service. Nevertheless, how could they walk at the service?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. of the sprinkling of the blood.');">¹⁹</span>

השוחט את המוקדשין לאכול שליל או שיליא בחוץ לא פיגל המולק את התורין לאכול ביציהן בחוץ לא פיגל

- They walked on balconies.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Projecting boards alongside the walls.');">²⁰</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>IF ONE SLAUGHTERS THE SACRIFICE [INTENDING] TO EAT WHAT IS NOT NORMALLY EATEN, OR TO BURN [ON THE ALTAR] WHAT IS NOT NORMALLY BURNT, IT IS VALID; BUT R'ELIEZER INVALIDATES [THE SACRIFICE].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 28a.');">²¹</span>

חלב מוקדשין וביצי תורין אין חייבין עליהן משום פיגול ונותר וטמא:

[IF HE SLAUGHTERS IT INTENDING] TO EAT WHAT IS NORMALLY EATEN AND TO BURN WHAT IS NORMALLY BURNT, [BUT] LESS THAN THE SIZE OF AN OLIVE, IT IS VALID. TO EAT HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE AND TO BURN HALF AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE, IT IS VALID, BECAUSE [INTENTIONS CONCERNING] EATING AND BURNING DO NOT COMBINE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The whole Mishnah refers to intentions of eating and/or burning after time or out of bounds.');">²²</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> אמר רבי אלעזר פיגל בזבח נתפגל השליל בשליל לא נתפגל הזבח פיגל באלל נתפגלה מוראה במוראה לא נתפגל אלל

IF ONE SLAUGHTERS THE SACRIFICE [INTENDING] TO EAT AS MUCH AS AN OLIVE OF THE SKIN, OR OF THE JUICE, OR OF THE JELLY,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sediments of boiled meat coagulated.');">²³</span> OR OF THE OFFAL, OR OF THE BONES, OR OF THE TENDONS, OR OF THE HORNS, OR OF THE HOOFS, EITHER AFTER TIME OR OUT OF BOUNDS, IT IS VALID, AND ONE IS NOT CULPABLE ON THEIR ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF PIGGUL, NOTHAR, OR UNCLEANNESS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the sacrifice became piggul, nothar, or unclean, and a priest ate of the skin etc., he is not liable, since we do not designate his action eating, as these are not eaten.');">²⁴</span>

פיגל באימורין נתפגלו פרים בפרים לא נתפגלו אימורים

IF ONE SLAUGHTERS SACRED ANIMALS<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., sacrifices. The Heb. (mukdashin) always refers to females.');">²⁵</span> [INTENDING] TO EAT THE FETUS OR THE AFTERBIRTH WITHOUT, HE DOES NOT RENDER PIGGUL.

לימא מסייע ליה ושוים שאם חישב באכילת פרים ובשריפתן לא עשה ולא כלום מאי לאו הא חישב באימורים נתפגלו פרים לא

IF ONE WRINGS [THE NECKS OF] DOVES, [INTENDING] TO EAT THEIR EGGS WITHOUT, HE DOES NOT RENDER [THEM] PIGGUL. ONE IS NOT CULPABLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE MILK OF SACRED ANIMALS OR THE EGGS OF DOVES IN RESPECT OF PIGGUL, NOTHAR, OR UNCLEANNESS. <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>R'Eleazar said: If [the priest] expressed a piggul intention in respect of the sacrifice, the fetus [too] becomes piggul;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And he who eats the fetus incurs kareth, as for eating piggul.');">²⁶</span> [if he expresses a piggul intention] in connection with the fetus, the sacrifice does not become piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' He holds that the fetus is an integral part of the sacrifice, being regarded, as it were, as a limb of its mother. Nevertheless, this intention does not render the sacrifice piggul, because it is not usually eaten. The fetus itself too does not become piggul, in accordance with the MISHNAH:');">²⁷</span> If he expresses a piggul intention in respect of the offal, the crop becomes piggul; in respect of the crop, the offal does not become piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The offal is edible, but not the crop. Therefore an intention in respect of the latter is not efficacious; but an intention in respect of the former makes the whole piggul, including the crop.');">²⁸</span> If he expresses a piggul intention in respect of emurim,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he slaughtered the bullocks which are burnt intending to burn the emurim on the altar after time.');">²⁹</span> the bullocks become piggul; in respect of the bullocks,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Intending to eat of their flesh after time.');">³⁰</span> the emurim do not become piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is the intention to eat what is not usually eaten. The bullocks themselves do certainly not become piggul.');">³¹</span> Shall we say that the following supports him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In his view that a thing can become piggul through something else, e.g., the fetus, the crop, and the flesh of the bullocks, though it cannot be the vehicle of rendering the sacrifice piggul.');">³²</span> And both agree that if he expressed an intention [of piggul] in connection with the eating of the bullocks and their burning, he has done nothing?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Both' refers to R. Simeon and the Rabbis, v. infra 43a. The present reference is to the bullocks which were to be burnt without, and they agree that if the priest expressed an intention during one of the blood services to eat of the bullocks on the morrow or to burn them as required in the ash-house on the morrow, his intention is of no effect, because his intention to eat does not count, since this is not normally eaten and his intention with regard to the burning does not count either, for only an intention that the altar should consume (expressing it so, but not 'burn') counts.');">³³</span> Surely then, if however he expressed an intention concerning the emurim, the bullocks become piggul? - No: