Zevachim 72

יהא חייב

he is liable?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To flagellation, the usual punishment for violating a negative command. This follows since R. Judah includes slaughtering a sin-offering in the south in the Scriptural injunction quoted above.');">¹</span>

והתניא רבי יהודה אומר יכול חטאת ששחטה בדרום יהא חייב ת"ל (דברים יז א) "לא תזבח לה' אלהיך שור ושה וגו' כל דבר רע" על דבר רע אתה מחייבו ואי אתה מחייבו על חטאת ששחטה בדרום תרי תנאי אליבא דרבי יהודה

Surely it was taught, R'Judah said: You might think that if one slaughters a sin-offering in the south he is liable; therefore Scripture states, 'Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Lord thy God an ox, or a shee wherein is a blemish, even any evil thing': You can declare him liable for any evil thing,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In Bek. ');">²</span>

אמר רבי אבא ומודה רבי יהודה שחוזר וקובעו לפיגול

but you cannot make him liable for slaughtering a sin-offering in the south? - There is a controversy of two Tannaim as to R'Judah's view.

אמר רבא תדע דפיגול לפני זריקה לא כלום הוא ואתיא זריקה וקבעה לה בפיגול

R'Abba<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sh. M. emends: Raba.');">³</span>

ולא היא התם הוא חדא מחשבה היא הכא תרי מחשבות

said: Yet R'Judah admits that he [the priest] can subsequently render it piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where he intended leaving the blood for the morrow or carrying it without. Although R. Judah holds that he thereby disqualifies the sacrifice, yet if he intended at a subsequent service to eat the flesh after time, he renders it piggul. This is so in spite of the fact that generally speaking a piggul intention is operative only when there is no other disqualification, such as intending to eat it without bounds.');">⁴</span>

איתיביה רב הונא לרבי אבא ליתן את הניתנין למעלה למטה למטה למעלה לאלתר כשר חזר וחישב חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת חוץ לזמנו פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת

Said Raba: This is the proof, viz. : [a] piggul [intention made] before the sprinkling is nothing, yet the sprinkling comes and brands it as piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Raba proves that the intention to leave the blood until the morrow is not the same as the intention to eat the flesh without bounds, which makes piggul impossible. For if, before sprinkling, the priest declares his intention of sprinkling the blood on the morrow, it does not render the sacrifice piggul, it being axiomatic that a sacrifice is not rendered piggul unless the mattirin (q.v.Glos.) have been properly offered. Nevertheless, if he subsequently sprinkles the blood properly, his previously declared intention is retrospectively valid and renders the sacrifice valid. Now, this intention was in effect an intention to leave the blood until the morrow, which in R. Judah's view disqualifies the sacrifice (though not rendering it piggul) . This proves that we do not say, Since it did not become piggul at the outset it is disqualified through the intention of leaving the blood, and it cannot subsequently become piggul.');">⁵</span>

למחר פסול חזר וחישב בין חוץ לזמנו בין חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת תיובתא דרבי אבא תיובתא

Yet that is not so: there there was only one intention:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., to sprinkle the blood on the morrow, which is a piggul intention.');">⁶</span>

אמר רב חסדא אמר רבינא בר סילא חישב שיאכלוהו טמאים למחר חייב אמר רבא תדע דבשר לפני זריקה לא חזי וכי מחשב ביה מיפסיל

here there are two intentions.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., first to leave the blood until the morrow, which disqualifies but does not render piggul, and then to eat the flesh after time.');">⁷</span>

ולא היא התם זריק ומיחזי הכא לא מיחזי כלל

R'Huna raised an objection to R'Abba: [If the priest intended] applying [the blood] which should be applied above [the line] below [it], [or what should be applied] below, above, immediately, it is valid.

אמר רב חסדא מרגלא בפומיה דרב דימי בר חיננא בשר פסח שלא הוצלה ולחמי תודה שלא הורמו חייבין עליהן משום טומאה

If he subsequently intended [to consume it] without bounds, it is invalid, but does not involve kareth: [if he intended consuming it] after time, it is unfit, and one is liable to kareth on its account.

אמר רבא תדע דתניא (ויקרא ז כ) "אשר לה'" לרבות אימורי קדשים קלים לטומאה

[If he intended sprinkling the blood in the wrong place] on the morrow, it is unfit; if he subsequently intended [to consume it] without bounds or after time, it is unfit, and does not involve kareth.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra ');">⁸</span>

אלמא אע"ג דלאו בני אכילה נינהו חייבין עליהן משום טומאה הכא נמי אע"ג דלאו בני אכילה נינהו חייבין עליהן משום טומאה

This refutation of R'Abba is indeed a refutation.

ולא היא התם אימורי קדשים קלים חזו לגבוה לאפוקי בשר פסח שלא הוצלה ולחמי תודה שלא הורמו דלא חזו לא לגבוה ולא להדיוט

R'Hisda said in the name of Rabina B'Sila: If he intended that unclean [persons] should eat it on the morrow,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is after time.');">⁹</span>

(לישנא אחרינא הא אימורין לא חזו ולא היא הנך חזו למילתייהו והני לא חזו כלל):

he is liable.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of piggul. We do not say that this is not an efficacious intention in respect of piggul since the unclean may not eat of it at any time.');">¹⁰</span>

<br><br><big><strong>הדרן עלך כל הפסולין:</strong></big><br><br>

Said Raba: This is the proof, viz. , before sprinkling the flesh is not fit [for eating and yet when he declares a [piggul] intention it becomes unfit.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As piggul. This case is analogous.');">¹¹</span>

מתני׳ <big><strong>בית</strong></big> שמאי אומרים כל הניתנין על מזבח החיצון שנתן במתנה אחת כיפר ובחטאת שתי מתנות ובית הלל אומרים אף חטאת שנתנה מתנה אחת כיפר

Yet it is not so: there he will sprinkle [th blood] and [the flesh] will be fit; here [the unclean] are not fit at all.

לפיכך אם נתן את הראשונה כתיקנה ואת השניה חוץ לזמנה כיפר

R'Hisda said: R'Dimi B'Hinena was wont to say: One is liable for uncleanness in respect of unroast flesh of a Passover-offering and loaves of a thanks-offering of which no separation [for the priest] was made.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A thanks-offering was accompanied by forty loaves, four of which were taken off for the priest. Before that was done, the loaves might not be eaten; similarly, a Passover-offering might be eaten roast only. Nevertheless, an unclean person who partakes of them is liable on account of his defilement, though they could not be eaten even by a clean person.');">¹²</span>

ואם נתן את הראשונה חוץ לזמנה ואת השניה חוץ למקומה פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת

Raba said, This is the proof, viz. : It was taught, [But the soul that eateth of the flesh of the sacrifice of pe - offerings,] that pertain unto the Lord [having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from his people]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 20.');">¹³</span>

כל הניתנין על המזבח הפנימי שאם חיסר אחת מן המתנות כאילו לא כיפר לפיכך נתן כולן כתיקנן ואחת שלא כתיקנה פסולה ואין בו כרת:

this includes the emurim of lesser sacrifices in respect of uncleanness.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the lesser sacrifices were eaten by their owners, the emurim were burnt on the altar and thus 'pertained unto the Lord', and Scripture teaches that an unclean priest who eats these emurim incurs kareth.');">¹⁴</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> תנו רבנן מנין לניתנין על מזבח החיצון שנתנן במתנה אחת שכיפר תלמוד לומר (דברים יב כז) "ודם זבחיך ישפך" והאי להכי הוא דאתא האי מיבעי ליה לכדתניא

This proves that though they are not fit for eating at all, one is liable for uncleanness on their account. So here too, though they are not fit for eating, one is liable for uncleanness on their account. Yet it is not so: there the emurim of lesser sacrifices are fit for the Most-High;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., to be burnt on the altar.');">¹⁵</span> which excludes unroasted flesh of the Passover-offering and the loaves of the thanks-offering of which no separation was made, which are fit neither for the Most-High nor for man. .<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bracketed addition is omitted in some MSS.');">¹⁶</span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: WITH REGARD TO ANY [BLOOD] WHICH IS TO BE SPRINKLED ON THE OUTER ALTAR, IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED [IT] WITH ONE SPRINKLING, HE HAS MADE ATONEMENT.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The sacrifice is valid, though in the first place two applications are required.');">¹⁷</span> BUT IN THE CASE OF A SIN-OFFERING TWO APPLICATIONS [ARE INDISPENSABLE]; BUT BETH HILLEL RULE: IN THE CASE OF THE SIN-OFFERING TOO, IF [THE PRIEST] APPLIED IT WITH A SINGLE APPLICATION, HE HAS MADE ATONEMENT. THEREFORE IF HE MADE THE FIRST APPLICATION IN THE PROPER MANNER AND THE SECOND [WITH THE INTENTION TO EAT THE FLESH] AFTER TIME, HE HAS ATONED.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the first alone sufficed. - According to Beth Shammai this holds good of all sacrifices except a sin-offering, and according to Beth Hillel that too is not excepted.');">¹⁸</span> AND IF HE MADE THE FIRST APPLICATION [WITH THE INTENTION TO EAT THE FLESH] AFTER TIME AND THE SECOND WITHOUT BOUNDS, IT IS PIGGUL AND INVOLVES KARETH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The second intention does not neutralise the first.');">¹⁹</span> WITH REGARD TO ANY [BLOOD] WHICH IS SPRINKLED ON THE INNER ALTAR, IF [THE PRIEST] OMITTED ONE OF THE APPLICATIONS, HE HAS NOT ATONED; THEREFORE IF HE APPLIED ALL IN THE PROPER MANNER BUT ONE IN AN IMPROPER MANNER,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., with wrongful intention.');">²⁰</span> IT [THE SACRIFICE] IS INVALID, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since one application is insufficient to make the sacrifice fit; - he holds that a sacrifice cannot be made piggul through a service which is incomplete in itself to make the sacrifice fit.');">²¹</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: How do we know that if [the priest] made one application in the case of those [bloods] which are to be sprinkled on the outer altar, he has made atonement? From the text, And the blood of thy sacrifices shall be poured out.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XII, 27. - This implies a single pouring out.');">²²</span> Now, is this text required for that purpose? Surely it is needed for what was taught: