Pesachim 16b (טז:) — the Talmud in English

However,

the blood

of consecrated offerings,

which

is received in a vessel for the purpose of sprinkling it on the altar, and

is not poured out

to waste

like water,

was not juxtaposed to water. Therefore, it

does not render

food susceptible to contracting ritual impurity.

Rav Shmuel bar Ami raised an objection to him: Behold,

only the blood of the life-force is fit to be sprinkled on the altar—that is, blood with which the animal’s life departs, the blood that emerges at the time of slaughtering. As it is written: “For the blood is the life, and it effects atonement.” But

the residual blood,

which emerges from the animal after its death,

which

is not sprinkled on the altar, is

poured out like water.

And

this blood of consecrated offerings

does not render

food susceptible either.

And this is as Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: The liquids of the slaughterhouse do not render food susceptible, and this includes all blood of consecrated offerings, including residual blood. The difficulty is: Why does the residual blood of consecrated offerings not render food susceptible, when it is poured out like water?

He

said to him: Rabbi Zeira said: Leave the residual blood

and do not raise any difficulty from it.

Because

it

is not specifically with regard to consecrated offerings that it does not render food susceptible. Rather,

even with regard to non-sacred animals, it likewise does not render food susceptible.

And this is not because it is not poured out like water, but because it is not called blood.

Rav Shmuel bar Ami accepted this answer

from Rav Zeira. This is because

the Merciful One said

“Only be steadfast in not eating the blood, for the blood is the life.”

And we derive:

Blood with which the life departs is called

“blood.”

But

blood with which the life does not depart is not called blood.

Only that which is called “blood” has the status of a liquid. For the source for the principle that blood is called a liquid is the verse: “You shall drink the blood of the slain.”

Come and hear: If blood became impure and they sprinkled it

on the altar—if the koen did not know that it was impure and sprinkled it

unintentionally, the offering is accepted

for the owners, enabling them to achieve atonement through it. The meat is also permitted for the kohanim to eat, because the tzitz effects acceptance for blood that was sprinkled in a state of impurity.

But if he knew that it was impure and sprinkled it

intentionally, the offering is not accepted

and its meat is not permitted for consumption. This is a penalty imposed by the Sages, so that the tzitz does not effect acceptance for impure blood sprinkled intentionally.

It follows that, by rabbinic law, there is no sprinkling here, and without sprinkling the meat is not permitted for consumption. But with regard to the owners’ atonement, the sprinkling is effective even when performed intentionally. For by Torah law the tzitz effects acceptance for impurity whether the act was unintentional or intentional. The Sages could not decree that he bring another offering, since he has already been exempted by Torah law, and the second offering would be considered unconsecrated animals in the Temple courtyard.

In any event, it teaches that impurity applies to blood. Evidently, the blood of consecrated offerings has intrinsic ritual impurity. And this is unlike Rav, who said that liquids do not have intrinsic ritual impurity by Torah law.

And we answer: In reality, it does not have impurity by Torah law, but

by rabbinic decree.

The reason that the offering is not accepted when the blood was sprinkled intentionally is that, by rabbinic law, the blood is impure. The tzitz does not effect acceptance to validate intentional sprinkling because of the penalty imposed by the Sages.

Although Rabbi Yosei ben Yo’ezer said that they did not issue a decree concerning the liquids of the slaughterhouse, but left them according to their Torah status—that they do not have intrinsic ritual impurity—this tanna holds

not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Zeredah.

Rather, the Sages issued a decree concerning all liquids, including liquids of consecrated offerings.

Come and hear: For what does the tzitz effect acceptance?

For the blood

that became impure and they sprinkled it in its state of impurity.

And

so too

for the meat

that became impure, and is therefore forbidden to eat.

For we hold [according to Rabbi Yehoshua ] that if there is no meat, the blood is not sprinkled.

The Gemara says that this is only when the meat became invalid because it went outside its prescribed boundary, or when the meat was lost. But if the meat became impure, the tzitz effects acceptance for its impurity. Although it does not permit the meat to be eaten, the acceptance of the tzitz makes it possible to sprinkle the blood on its account.

And

so too the tzitz effects acceptance

for the fats

[of the sacrificial portions]

that became impure,

permitting them to be burned on the altar.

And the tzitz effects acceptance for them

whether

they became impure

unintentionally

[when the koen did not know that it was forbidden to render them impure] and

whether

they became impure

intentionally.

Whether

they became impure

under duress

and

whether

they became impure

willingly.

Whether in

an individual offering

or in

a

communal offering.

In any event, it teaches that impurity applies to blood. This is difficult for Rav, who said, “The liquids of the slaughterhouse are literally pure,” and do not even have intrinsic impurity.

And we answer: Its impurity is only

by rabbinic decree.

The Sages also decreed impurity concerning liquids in the Temple courtyard.

And this is not in accordance with Rabbi Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Zeredah,

who testified that they did not issue a decree concerning them.

Come and hear: It is written concerning the tzitz: “It shall be upon Aaron’s forehead

and Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the sacred things.”

“And Aaron shall bear the iniquity of the sacred things.”

And what iniquity does it bear

and effect atonement for, and what invalidity does it render valid?

If

it refers to an offering rendered invalid by

the iniquity of piggul,

through having intended at the time of slaughtering to eat it outside its designated place [Rashi],

it has already been stated

with regard to it

“It shall not be accepted”!

Evidently, there is no remedy for piggul.

And

if

it refers to an offering rendered invalid by

the iniquity

of the thought of

remaining,

[through having intended at the time of slaughtering to eat it outside its designated time] —

it has already been stated

with regard to it

“It shall not be reckoned”!

Evidently, there is no remedy for notar.

Rather

[it necessarily follows that the tzitz

bears only the iniquity of impurity,

since it is less severe than the other invalidations.

For we find

that

impurity

was permitted in a communal offering.

A communal offering is brought even in a state of impurity. And just as you treated impurity leniently in the case of a communal offering, so the tzitz renders impurity valid after the fact even in the case of an individual offering.

And we inquire:

What

is “the iniquity of impurity”?

What, is it not the impurity of blood?

This would be difficult for Rav, who said that liquids have no impurity whatsoever by Torah law.

Rav Pappa said: No,

it is not referring to the impurity of blood, but to the

impurity

of the

handfuls

of the meal-offerings. The handful permits the meal-offering, just as the blood permits the meat, and the principal element of atonement depends on it. If the handful became impure and they burned it on the altar, the tzitz effects acceptance for its impurity. And we raise a difficulty:

Come and hear:

In the second year of King Darius, at the time of the construction of the Second Temple, the prophet Haggai examined the kohanim to determine whether they were still expert in the laws of impurity. These laws had been forgotten by them while they were in exile, since they had not occupied themselves there with consecrated offerings. As it is written: “So said the Lord of Hosts: Please ask the kohanim about the Torah, saying”:

And he asked them:

“If a man carries sacred meat

[the meat of a creeping creature]

in the corner of his garment, and with his corner touches bread, stew, wine, oil, or any food

—

will it become sacred?!”

If a person touches sacred bread with a corner of a garment in which there is a creeping creature [which is a primary source of impurity], and the creeping creature makes the bread a first-degree carrier of impurity; then that bread touches sacred stew and makes it second-degree; that stew touches sacramental wine and makes it third-degree; and that wine touches sacramental oil or some other sacred food, the oil and the food are found to be fourth-degree with regard to consecrated property. He asked them: Will that fourth-degree consecrated food become impure?

And it is written afterward:

“The kohanim answered and said, ‘No’”

—the fourth-degree consecrated food does not become impure.