Pesachim 16b — the Talmud in English

But

the blood

of sacrificial 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 likened to water. Therefore,

it does not render

foodstuffs fit to receive impurity.

Rav Shmuel bar Ami challenged it: Behold,

only the blood of the life is fit for sprinkling on the altar—that is, blood with which the life departs. This is the blood that issues at the time of slaughtering. And as it is written, “For the blood—it is the life—that makes atonement.” But

the residual blood,

which issues from the animal after its death,

which

is not sprinkled on the altar, is

poured out like water.

And

this blood of sacrificial offerings

does not render

the foodstuffs fit.

As Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: the liquids of the slaughterhouse do not render [food] fit, and included in this is all blood of sacrificial offerings, including the residual blood. And it is difficult: why does the residual blood of sacrificial offerings not render [food] fit, when it is poured out like water?

He

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

and do not raise any difficulty from it.

Because

it

is not specifically with regard to sacrificial offerings that it does not render [food] fit. Rather,

even with regard to non-sacred [blood], it likewise does not render [food] fit. And not because it is not poured out like water, but because it is not called blood.

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. Because

the Merciful One said,

“Only be strong not to eat the blood, for the blood—it is the life.”

And we expound:

Blood with which the life departs is called

“blood.”

But

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

Specifically, that which is called “blood” has the status of a liquid. For the source that blood is called a liquid is from that which is written, “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 he sprinkled it

unintentionally, it is accepted

by the offering’s owners for atonement through it. And the flesh is also permitted for the koanim to eat. This is because the tzitz effects acceptance for blood that was sprinkled in impurity.

And if he knew that it was impure, and he sprinkled it

intentionally, it is not accepted

by the offering, and its flesh is not permitted for eating! For the Sages imposed a penalty, that the tzitz should not effect acceptance for impure blood sprinkled intentionally.

It follows that by rabbinic law there is no sprinkling here. And without sprinkling, the flesh is not permitted for eating. But with regard to the owners’ atonement, the sprinkling is effective even intentionally. For by Torah law the tzitz effects acceptance for impurity both in a case of unintentional action and in a case of intentional action. And the Sages could not decree upon him that he bring another offering. For he has already been exempted by Torah law, and the second offering would be considered non-sacred [animals] in the Temple courtyard.

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

And we answer: In truth, it has no impurity by Torah law, but

by rabbinic law

and it was not accepted intentionally, because by rabbinic law the blood is impure. And the tzitz does not effect acceptance so as to validate its sprinkling intentionally, because of the penalty imposed by the Sages.

And although Rabbi Yosei ben Yo’ezer said that they did not decree impurity with regard to the liquids of the slaughterhouse, and left them according to their Torah-law status, that they have no impurity of themselves—this tanna holds

not like Rabbi Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida.

Rather, the Sages decreed impurity upon all liquids, including liquids of sacrificial offerings.

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

For the blood

that became impure, and they sprinkled it in its impurity.

And

likewise

for the flesh

that became impure, and behold, it is forbidden to eat.

For we hold [according to Rabbi Yehoshua], if there is no flesh, the blood is not sprinkled!

And he says that this applies only when the flesh became invalid because it went outside its boundary, or when the flesh was lost. But if the flesh became impure, the tzitz effects acceptance for its impurity. And although it does not permit it for eating, the acceptance of the tzitz is effective to sprinkle the blood on its account.

And

likewise the tzitz effects acceptance

for the fat [

of the sacrificial portions]

that became impure,

and permits it through burning 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 make it impure] and

whether

they became impure

intentionally.

Whether

they became impure

under duress

and

whether

they became impure

willingly.

Whether in

an individual’s offering

and whether in

a communal offering

.

In any event, it teaches that impurity applies to blood. And this is difficult according to Rav, who said, “The liquids of the slaughterhouse are truly pure,” and they do not even have impurity of themselves.

And we answer: Its impurity is only

by rabbinic law.

And they also decreed impurity with regard to liquids in the Temple courtyard.

And not like Rabbi Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida,

who testified that they did not decree impurity upon them.

Come and hear:

It is written concerning the tzitz, “And it shall be upon Aaron’s forehead

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

And what iniquity does it bear

and effect atonement for, and which invalidity does it render fit?

If

it refers to an offering that became invalid through the

iniquity of piggul,

when he had the intention at the time of slaughtering it to eat it outside its place [Rashi],

behold, it has already been stated

concerning it

“It shall not be accepted”!

Evidently, piggul has no remedy.

And

if

it refers to an offering that became invalid through the

iniquity of the thought of

of the thought of

remaining [

when he had the intention at the time of slaughtering to eat it outside its time]—

behold, it has already been stated

concerning it

“It shall not be reckoned”!

Evidently, remaining has no remedy.

Rather [

behold, necessarily the tzitz

bears only the iniquity of impurity,

because it is less severe than the other invalidities.

For we find

that

impurity

was permitted in its exceptional case for the community.

For a communal offering is sacrificed even in impurity. And just as you were lenient with it in the community, so the tzitz renders the impurity fit after the fact even in the case of an individual.

And we inquire concerning it:

What

is “the iniquity of impurity”?

What, is it not the impurity of blood!

And this is difficult according to Rav, who said that liquids have no impurity by Torah law whatsoever.

Rav Pappa said: No,

it does not refer to the impurity of blood, but to the

impurity of

the

the handfuls

of the meal-offerings. For the handful permits the meal-offering, just as the blood permits the flesh. And the principal atonement depends upon it. And if the handful became impure and they burned it upon the altar, the tzitz effects acceptance for its impurity.

And we raise an objection:

Come and hear:

In the second year of King Darius, at the time of the building of the Second Temple, the prophet Haggai examined the koanim, to know whether they were still expert in the laws of impurity. For they had forgotten them when they were in exile, since they had not then occupied themselves with sacrificial offerings. As it is written, “So said the Lord of Hosts: Ask now the koanim about Torah, saying:”

And he asked them:

“If a man carries sacred flesh [

flesh of a creeping creature]

in the corner of his garment, and its corner touches bread and stew and wine and oil and every food—

will it become sacred?!”

If a person touches sacred bread with a corner in which there is a creeping creature [which is a primary source of impurity], and the creeping creature makes the bread a first degree of impurity, and that bread touches sacred stew and makes it second degree, and that stew touches the wine of libations and makes it third degree, and that wine touches libation oil or any other sacred food, it follows that the oil and the food are fourth degree with regard to sanctity. And he asked them: Will that fourth degree render the sacred food impure?

And it is written afterward:

“And the koanim answered and said, ‘No’”!

The fourth degree in sanctity does not become impure.