Zevachim 87
אם לא נאמרו חמורות הייתי אומר על החמורות במיתה הא מטומאת שרץ קאתיא ודיו לבא מן הדין להיות כנדון
<br> [can you say,] 'If the more stringent ones were not stated, I would say that the more stringent ones involve death'? but Surely it would be derived from the uncleanness of a reptile, and it is sufficient for the conclusion to be as the premise! - Said Ze'iri: The 'lighter ones are uncleanness of a reptile, while 'the more stringent ones are uncleanness through a corpse, and this is what [the Tanna] means: If uncleanness of a reptile were stated, and tithe and terumah were enumerated, but uncleanness of a corpse were not stated, I would say: The lighter [defilement] involves a negative injunction in respect of the lighter ['holy things'], and death in respect of the more stringent. And since the lighter [defilement] involves death in respect of the more stringent ['holy things'], the more stringent [defilement] too involves death in respect of the lighter ['holy things']. Therefore the more stringent [defilement] is stated.
אמר זעירי קלות טומאת שרץ חמורות טומאת מת והכי קאמר אילו נאמר טומאת שרץ ונאמר מעשר ותרומה ולא נאמרה טומאת מת הייתי אומר [קלות] על הקלות בלאו ועל החמורות במיתה
WHATEVER HAS AUGHT THAT MAKES IT PERMITTED, WHETHER FOR MAN OR FOR THE ALTAR, INVOLVES LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF PIGGUL. Our Rabbis taught: ... Or perhaps it includes only that which is similar to a peace-offering: as a peace-offering is distinguished in that it is eaten two days and one night, so all that may be eaten two days and one night [are included] . How do we know that that which is eaten a day and a night [only, is also included]? Because Scripture saith, [And if any] of the flesh [of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings etc.], [which includes] all whose remainder is eaten. How do we know [that] a burnt-offering, whose remainder is not eaten, [is included]? Because Scripture says 'the sacrifice'. Whence do we know to include the bird-offerings and meal-offerings, until can include a leper's log of oil? From the text, 'which they hallow unto Me': nothar is then learned from uncleanness, because 'profanation' is written in connection with both; and piggul is learned from nothar, because iniquity is written in connection with both. Now, since it [Scripture] ultimately includes all things, why then are peace-offerings specified? To teach you: as a peace-offering is distinguished in that it has something which permits it both for man and for the altar, so everything which has something which permits it both for man and for the altar involves liability on account of piggul. [The sprinkling of] the blood of a burnt-offering permits its flesh for [burning on] the altar, and its skin to the priests. The blood of a bird burnt-offering permits its flesh for the altar. The blood of a bird sin-offering 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]. And I exclude the fistful, the frankincense, the incense, the priests' meal-offering, the anointed priest's meal-offering, and the blood. R. Simeon said: As a peace-offering is distinguished in that it comes on the outer altar [for sprinkling], and it involves liability; so all that come on the outer altar involve liability on account of piggul; thus the bullocks which are burnt and the goats which are burnt are excluded; since they do not come on the outer altar, like the peace-offering, they do not involve liability.
ומדקלות על החמורות במיתה חמורות נמי על הקלות במיתה לכך נאמרו חמורות:
The Master said: 'That which is similar to a peace-offering'. What [sacrifice] is it? The firstling, which is eaten two days and one night! But how is this learnt? If by analogy? it can be refuted: as for a peace-offering, [it is subject to the law of piggul] because it requires laying [of hands], [the accompaniment of] drink-offerings [libations], and the waving of the breast and the shoulder? Again if [it is learnt] from [the text], And if there be at all eaten [any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings on the third day ... it shall be an abhorred thing] [piggul], these are two generalisations which immediately follow each other? - Said Raba: It is as they say in the West: Wherever you find two generalisations close to each other, insert the specific proposition between them, and interpret them as a case of a generalisation followed by a specific proposition [and followed again by a generalisation]. <br>
כל שיש לו מתירין בין לאדם בין למזבח חייבין עליו משום פיגול:
'Until I include a leper's log of oil'. With whom does that agree? With R. Meir. For it was taught: A leper's log of oil involves liability on account of piggul: that is the opinion of R. Meir. Then consider the next clause: And I exclude the meal-offering of libations and the blood. This agrees with the Rabbis. For it was taught: The drink-offering which accompanies an animal [sacrifice] involves liability on account of piggul, because the blood of the sacrifice permits it to be offered [on the altar]: that is R. Meir's view. Said they to him: But a man can bring his sacrifice to-day and the drink-offering even ten days later! I too, he answered them, ruled [thus] only when they come together with the sacrifice! - Said R. Joseph: The author of this is Rabbi, who maintained [that] the applications of the leper's log of oil permit it, and since its sprinklings permit it, its sprinklings render it piggul. For it was taught: You commit trespass in respect of a leper's log of oil until the blood is sprinkled; once the blood is sprinkled, you may not use it, and you do not commit trespass. Rabbi said: You commit trespass until its sprinklings are made. And both agree that it may not be eaten until its seven sprinklings and the applications on the thumbs are made. <br>