Zevachim 14a — the Talmud in English

Every

sacrifice

whose

application of its blood

is not on the outer altar, like a peace-offering [from which the law of pigul is learned],

[from which the law of pigul is derived],

has no pigul

at all!?

Rather,

necessarily, the beraitot did not disagree as to whether it is possible to render [a sacrifice] pigul through carrying, and in truth

both this and that,

the two beraitot, are according to the view of

the Rabbis,

who hold that one renders [a sacrifice] pigul through carrying.

And it is not difficult—

Here [it is speaking] of outer sin-offerings,

in which dipping the finger does not render [the offering] pigul, because there is no service of dipping the finger in the blood in their case, for it is said concerning them, “and he shall take,” and not as concerning the inner sin-offerings, concerning which it is said, “and he shall dip.” And since with outer sin-offerings there is no law of “dipping the finger” in the blood, but only “taking the blood” with the finger in order to place it on the altar, therefore a thought of pigul during the dipping of the finger does not render them pigul.

Here [it is speaking] of inner sin-offerings,

in which the dipping of the finger in the blood is part of the service stated concerning them, as it is said concerning them, “and he shall dip”; therefore dipping the finger with a thought of pigul renders them pigul, like a thought of pigul during carrying.

And we challenge this: How is it possible to say that the beraita which holds that dipping the finger does not render [the offering] pigul is dealing with outer sin-offerings? But with regard to outer sin-offerings,

it is obvious

that dipping the finger does not render [them] pigul,

for it is not written concerning them

“and he shall dip,”

and since dipping the finger is not included among the service stated concerning them, there is no need to teach us that it does not render [them] pigul?

And we answer: Although “and he shall dip” was not said concerning outer sin-offerings,

it was necessary

for the tannai to teach us that it does not render [them] pigul, because

it might enter your mind to say: Since it is written

in the outer [sin-offerings],

“and the priest shall take

of its blood with his finger,” this implies that the priest himself must take from the blood with his finger,

and if a monkey should come

and take from the blood

and place it on his hand [and place it on the priest’s finger],

the priest cannot place it on the altar; rather,

the priest needs

the priest

to take

from the blood himself

another time,

so that the taking will be performed with the priest’s finger. And since the priest’s taking with the finger cannot occur without his dipping his finger into the blood,

I might say that it is as though it is written

“and he shall dip,”

it is considered

for dipping is an inseparable part of the taking; therefore

it teaches us

the beraita that dipping is not considered part of the taking, and therefore there is no law of pigul in it, because

that is why it was not written

explicitly in connection with outer sin-offerings

“and he shall dip,”

as the verse said concerning inner sin-offerings; rather, “and he shall take” was said concerning them, in order to teach us

that it implies this and it implies that: there are two teachings here. One is that dipping in the blood in an outer sin-offering is not a service; and, on the other hand, that the priest must dip with his finger and not through a monkey. That is, from the fact that the Torah was particular, with regard to outer sin-offerings, to change the wording of “dipping,” stated concerning inner sin-offerings, to the wording of “taking,” it is understood that dipping is not considered an important service in an outer sin-offering,

but, on the other hand, it is also understood that the priest must take the blood himself, and not that a monkey should take it and place it on his hand.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Shimon validates

one who thinks [of offering it] not for its own sake

during carrying.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: Rabbi Shimon concedes with regard to carrying the blood of inner sin-offerings that a thought

of invalid intent

invalidates them, since

it is

a service that cannot be nullified.

For the entire reason of Rabbi Shimon, that an invalid thought does not invalidate during carrying in the case of outer sin-offerings, is that carrying is a service that can be nullified, when he slaughters close to the altar; and this is not possible with inner sin-offerings, since it is not customary to slaughter in the Sanctuary.

And we challenge this:

But Rabbi Shimon said: Every

application of blood

that is not

given

on the outer altar, like

the blood

of peace-offerings,

which is given on the outer altar,

one is not liable for it on account of pigul.

And the Gemara now assumed that the same applies to a thought [of offering it] not for its own sake: it invalidates only if he thought [this thought] when he applied the blood on the outer altar, but not if he thought it during the application of the blood inside the Sanctuary!

And we answer:

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina said:

What Rabbi Shimon said, that one is not liable for a thought of pigul during the application of the blood inside, means only with regard to eating the flesh of the offering [for one is not liable for eating it by karet, as in the case of pigul, unless he thought [the thought of pigul] in an offering whose blood is applied on the outer altar]; but

Rabbi Shimon did concede

Rabbi Shimon

to invalidate

the offering from being brought even if he thought [of offering it] outside its time in the case of inner sin-offerings

by a kal va-chomer

from a thought [of offering it] not for its own sake, which applies both outside and inside—

And

the thought [of offering it]

not for its own sake, through which they are rendered acceptable in the case of peace-offerings [for a thought [of offering it] not for its own sake does not invalidate peace-offerings],

[since a thought that it is not for its sake does not disqualify peace-offerings],

invalidates [the offering] in the case of a sin-offering,

even inside.

A thought [of offering it]

outside its time, which invalidates

even

in the case of peace-offerings, should it not certainly invalidate in the case of sin-offerings,

even inner [sin-offerings]?

We have found

a thought

outside its time

that invalidates inside. The thought

outside its place—from where do we derive

that it invalidates inside as well? For the thought outside its place was stated in the section of peace-offerings, and from where do we derive that it invalidates sin-offerings inside, when there is no inner service with peace-offerings?

And

if

you wish to derive the invalidation of the thought of outside its place by means of bama matzinu,

from

the thought of

outside its time,

there is to refute it:

What is there about outside its time

whose invalidation is more severe,

for

one is liable for eating the meat of the offering that became pigul

extirpation,

whereas what can you say concerning outside its place? The offering is merely invalidated, but one is not liable for eating it by extirpation.

And

if

you wish to derive the thought of outside its place by a kal va-chomer

from not for its sake

[just as we derived the thought of outside its time by a kal va-chomer from not for its sake], there is to refute it: What is there about not for its sake, which is more severe,

for

it

applies

even when offerings are sacrificed

on a bama

[in an offering sacrificed on a private bama during the time when the bamot were permitted], whereas what can you say concerning outside its place? It does not invalidate on a bama, for during the time when the bamot were permitted, its place was everywhere in the world.

And we answer: The source for invalidating the carrying of the blood of the inner sin-offerings through the thought of outside its place is learned by a kal va-chomer from the thought of not for its sake: If not for its sake, which is valid in a peace-offering, invalidates a sin-offering even inside, then outside its place, which invalidates a peace-offering, should it not be the law that it invalidates a sin-offering inside? And one cannot refute that the thought of not for its sake is more severe, because it

applies in what way?

Only in a Paschal offering and in a sin-offering

alone. But

a Paschal offering and a sin-offering

are not sacrificed on a bama,

and it follows that the invalidation of not for its sake does not invalidate on a bama at all!

And if you wish, say

indeed, the source for invalidating through the thought of outside its place is learned from the thought of outside its time, and do not refute it by saying, “What is there about outside its time, for whose eating one is liable by extirpation?” For this derivation is not learned by a derivation of “what we find,” but

it is an analogy

for the law of outside its place was juxtaposed to outside its time, and there is no refutation against an analogy.

And this is the analogy between outside its place and outside its time: It is written, “And if it is eaten at all on the third day, it shall not be accepted; it will be pigul.” And we expound:

“Third”

this is

one who thinks

outside its time,

who thought to eat it on the third day. Therefore, the offering shall not be accepted, but shall be invalidated; and the additional wording of Scripture,

“pigul

shall it be,” comes to teach us:

this is

one who thinks

outside its place,

who is also invalidated.

Rava said:

What they said—that Rabbi Shimon agrees that thought invalidates during carrying, which cannot be nullified—applies specifically in certain ways, dependent upon several details of the laws:

a.

If you should conclude that Rabbi Shimon holds like

Rabbi Elazar

his son, who said: What is the “north” of the Courtyard that is valid for slaughtering the offerings? The entire northern area of the Courtyard that

between the Hall and the Altar

is considered

“north,”

and is fit for slaughtering in it.

It follows that it is possible to slaughter the inner sin-offerings in the north of the Courtyard even near the Hall, because this place too is called north. Therefore,

no thought

of invalidity

is effective

[is effective] to invalidate

in carrying

blood

of the inner sin-offerings

while he carries the blood in the Courtyard, since it is possible to nullify this carrying by slaughtering the sin-offering near the Hall.

Therefore thought invalidates during carrying only if he thinks it while walking with the blood

from the entrance of the Hall inward,

where they do not slaughter inside, and this carrying is impossible to avoid.

where slaughtering is not performed, and this carrying is indispensable .

b.

And if you should conclude that he holds

Rabbi Shimon

like Rabbi Judah, who said:

“Inside the Courtyard sanctifies,”

meaning that the entire floor of the Courtyard between the Hall and the Altar is sanctified with the sanctity of the Altar and is fit for burning fats upon it as upon the outer Altar, it follows that if he comes to think an invalidating thought during the carrying of the bowls of incense [which were placed on the Table in the Sanctuary, and on Shabbat the priest would lower them and burn them on the outer Altar],

no thought

of invalidity

is effective during the carrying of the removal of the bowls,

not while he walks inside the Sanctuary, since it is possible to place the Table with the bowls near the entrance of the Sanctuary, and it follows that the carrying in the Sanctuary is not unavoidable; and likewise not while he carries in the Courtyard, because the carrying in the Courtyard too is not unavoidable, since it is possible to burn them on the floor of the Courtyard immediately upon exiting from the Hall between the Sanctuary and the Courtyard. Rather, when is an invalidating thought effective during the carrying of the bowls? Only if he thought it while walking in the Hall, which is between the Sanctuary and the Courtyard, where it is impossible to place the Table; and likewise its floor is not sanctified with the sanctity of the Altar. Therefore carrying the bowls through it is carrying that cannot be avoided. And this carrying is from the entrance of the Sanctuary that opens into the Hall

and outward,

that is, only while carrying through the area of the Hall itself, for the area of the Hall is not sanctified with the sanctity of the Altar and it is impossible to burn in it; while, on the other hand, it is impossible to arrange in it the showbread and the bowls.

c. And if you should conclude that he holds Rabbi Shimon

that opens into the Hall,

and outward,

that is, while carrying through the area of the Hall itself only. The Hall does not possess the sanctity of the altar, and it is impossible to burn offerings there; yet, conversely, it is impossible to arrange the showbread and bowls there.

that the sanctity of the Sanctuary and the

sanctity of the

Hall are one,

and it is possible to place the Table in the Hall as well, it follows that the carrying in the Hall itself is also not unavoidable, since the Table can be placed near the entrance of the Hall and outward. Therefore

no thought is effective

during the walking of the bowls, except

from the entrance of the Hall

[which is between the Hall and the Courtyard]

and outward.

That is, within the five cubits of the thickness of the wall in which the entrance between the Hall and the Courtyard is located. For the place of the thickness of the entrance does not have the sanctity of the Sanctuary, and it is not fit to place the Table there; nor is it like the Courtyard, since it is impossible to burn on its floor. Therefore it is impossible to nullify the carrying within the thickness of the wall, and hence an invalidating thought is effective in it.

d. And if you should conclude that even

and outward.

That is, within the five cubits of the thickness of the wall in which the entrance between the Hall and the courtyard is located. The area within the thickness of the entrance does not possess the sanctity of the Sanctuary and is not fit for placing the table there; nor is it like the courtyard, since it is impossible to burn upon its floor. Therefore, the carrying within the thickness of the wall cannot be nullified, and a disqualifying intention is effective during it.

the inside of the entrance

between the Hall and the Courtyard is

like the inside,

and it is possible to place the Table in it, it follows that it is possible to take the bowls directly from the Table and place them on the floor of the Courtyard:

no thought is effective even

if he takes

one step, but only for the distance of extending his hand

from the Table to the floor of the Courtyard, because only this extending is considered carrying that cannot be nullified; therefore only in it is an invalidating thought effective.

e.

And if you should conclude that Rabbi Shimon holds

that

carrying without walking

such as extending the bowls by his hand

is not called carrying,

it follows that

no thought

during the carrying of the bowls

is effective at all,

and the bowls will never be invalidated through an invalidating thought at the time of their carrying!

Abaye said to the interpreter of Rav Hisda:

Ask Rav Hisda for me: Carrying by a non-priest

what is its law? Is it valid or invalid?

Abaye said to the interpreter of Rav Hisda—

Ask Rav Hisda: What is the status of carrying by a non-priest

is it valid or disqualified?

He said to him: It is valid, and Scripture supports me,

as it is stated: "

And they slaughtered the Passover-offering.

And the priests sprinkled

the blood that they took

from their hands

of the slaughterers, who brought the blood to the priests],

and the Levites stripped [the animals]."

But the slaughterers were non-priests, since slaughtering is valid when performed by a non-priest; and it is proven from the conveyance by the slaughterers that conveyance is valid when performed by a non-priest.