Zevachim 36b — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection against the words of the beraita, which says that Rabbi Judah holds that a prohibition was stated regarding slaughtering a sin-offering in the south:

and

because

Rabbi Judah holds: a sin-offering that was slaughtered in the south

exact location of the folio

shall be liable

for its slaughter to lashes?

But it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Judah says: One might [think that] a sin-offering that was slaughtered in the south shall be liable

for its slaughter to lashes?

The verse states: “You shall not slaughter for the Lord your God an ox or a sheep

that has any blemish

any evil thing” [Deuteronomy 16]. And we learned from this that only

And we learn from this that only

for

the slaughter of

an evil thing,

that is, an animal with a visible blemish, which is disgraceful,

do you make him liable

for lashes.

But you do not make him liable for a sin-offering that was slaughtered in the south.

It is explicit that, according to Rabbi Judah, he is not liable for lashes for slaughtering a sin-offering in the south!?

And we answer:

two tannaim

taught this beraita and the above Mishna, and they disagreed about this

according to Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Abba said: And

although Rabbi Judah holds that the thought of leaving it invalidates, nevertheless

Rabbi Judah concedes that

if he conceived the thought of leaving it during one service, and during the service after it he conceived the thought of pigul, of eating the flesh beyond its time, we do not say that since it had already been invalidated by the thought of leaving it, pigul can no longer take effect in it, as is the law with all thoughts that remove [an offering] from pigul; rather, he

again establishes it

for the sacrifice

as pigul.

Rava said: Know

that the thought of leaving it is not like the thought of outside its place or the thought of not for its sake, which remove [an offering] from pigul:

for

behold,

[the thought of] pigul before the sprinkling

for example, when he conceived during the slaughter [the thought] to sprinkle its blood tomorrow,

is nothing,

because his thought is not effective to make [the offering] pigul until the blood is sprinkled on that day, for pigul takes effect only after all the permitting acts of the sacrifice have been performed, that is, the sprinkling of its blood. And although in the thought that he conceived during the slaughter, to sprinkle the blood tomorrow, there is included the thought of leaving it, for he thinks to leave it until tomorrow and sprinkle it, nevertheless, we do not say: Since the pigul did not take effect initially, it is invalidated on account of the thought of leaving it, and pigul will no longer take effect in it when he sprinkles its blood; rather,

the sprinkling comes and establishes it

as a sacrifice

as pigul.

It is thus evident that the thought of leaving it differs from the other invalidating thoughts, for it does not remove [the offering] from pigul. And if so, the same is true when he initially conceives only the thought of leaving it and afterward conceives the thought of pigul: the invalidation on account of the thought of leaving it does not prevent pigul from taking effect.

And the Gemara rejects Rava’s proof:

It is not so!

This is not comparable to that, for

there,

when he conceived during the slaughter [the thought] to sprinkle its blood tomorrow,

it

is what prevents the sacrifice from leaving pigul, because

it is one thought,

which he conceived for the sake of pigul, and he did not alter this thought of his through another invalidating thought that would remove his first thought from pigul. But

here,

when he initially conceived the thought of leaving it and afterward conceived the thought of pigul,

they are two thoughts

one of which has the designation of invalidation and not the designation of pigul, and it removes [the offering] from pigul.

Rav Huna raised an objection to Rava

from what

that

we learned in a beraita: If he conceived

to place the

bloods

that are placed above below,

or those placed

below above,

if he conceived to do this

immediately,

the sacrifice is

fit,

but if afterward he

again conceived

[the thought] to place the blood

outside its place,

the sacrifice is

invalid, and there is no karet

for eating it, as with a sacrifice invalidated by the thought of outside its place. But if he conceived the thought

of outside its time,

it is

pigul, and one is liable to karet

for eating it.

However, if he conceived concerning the upper bloods, to place them

tomorrow

below, or if he conceived to place tomorrow the bloods that are placed below above,

[the sacrifice is] invalid

by this, and not because this is considered sprinkling outside its time—for if so, it would become pigul—but because in his thought to sprinkle tomorrow not in its place, the thought of leaving it is included. And this beraita follows Rabbi Judah, who invalidates in this case. [And the reason that this does not become pigul is that he conceived the thought of sprinkling not in its place, which is a sprinkling that does not permit the flesh for eating, and therefore it does not bring about pigul.]

And if

he again

afterward

conceived, whether

the thought of

outside its time or

the thought of

outside its place,

it is

invalid, and there is no karet

for eating it. Since it had already been invalidated through the thought of sprinkling tomorrow, which is the thought of leaving it, pigul no longer takes effect in this sacrifice; therefore there is no liability for karet, even in a case where he conceived the thought of outside its time.

It is thus explicit that in a sacrifice invalidated through the thought of leaving it, pigul no longer takes effect in it.

A refutation of Rava,

who said that he again establishes it as pigul!

And the Gemara concludes: Indeed,

a refutation.

Rav Hisda said that Ravina bar Sila said: If he conceived

during the service of the offering

that impure persons would eat it

the flesh of the sacrifice

tomorrow,

that is, beyond its time, we do not say that since eating by impure persons is not proper eating, this is not a thought; rather, it is pigul and

he is liable

for it.

Rava said: Know

that a thought of eating in an invalid manner does not remove [an offering] from pigul:

for

behold,

flesh before the sprinkling

of the blood

is not fit

for eating, and eating it now is invalid eating,

and

nevertheless,

when he thinks of it

during the slaughter, [with] the thought of pigul, to eat it tomorrow, we do not say that this is like one who conceives a thought of eating in an invalid manner; rather,

it becomes invalid

the sacrifice. And the same applies to one who conceives [the thought] that impure persons will eat it.

And the Gemara rejects:

It is not so!

This comparison is not correct. For

there,

when he conceives a thought of eating at the time of slaughter,

the blood is sprinkled

for the blood

and the flesh is fit

for eating were it not that the invalidity of pigul took effect in it. But

here,

when he conceived that impure persons would eat it,

it is not fit

for eating

at all,

even if it were not invalidated on account of pigul.

Rav Hisda said: It was habitual in the mouth of Rav Dimi bar Hinnana: The flesh of the Passover-offering that has not been roasted

and is still not permitted for eating,

and the loaves of

the thanksgiving-offering

from which [the portions] have not been separated

—the four loaves donated to the koen from the four kinds that are in them have still not been separated, and they are still forbidden for eating—

one is liable for them

to karet

on account of impurity,

if he ate them while impure. And although the general rule is that as long as a thing has not been permitted for eating by pure persons, one is not liable for it on account of impurity, these were permitted for pure persons, since the blood of the sacrifice had already been sprinkled, even though they are still not permitted for eating.

Rava said: Know

that this is so,

for it was taught:

It is stated in the verse: “And the person who eats the flesh of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings that belongs to the Lord, and his impurity is upon him, that person shall be cut off from his people” [Leviticus 7]. And from the extra words

“that belongs to the Lord”

we expounded

to include

that which ascends to the Most High, namely

the sacrificial portions of lesser sanctity, for impurity.

For one who eats them in bodily impurity is liable to karet.

And Rava proves:

It follows that, even though

these sacrificial portions

are not fit for eating,

for their law is that they be offered upon the altar, nevertheless

one is liable for them on account of impurity.

If so,

here too,

the flesh of a Passover-offering that has not been roasted and the loaves of a thanksgiving-offering from which [the portions] have not been separated,

even though they are not fit for eating, one is liable for them on account of impurity!

And the Gemara rejects:

It is not so!

This comparison is not correct, for

there, the sacrificial portions of lesser sanctity

although they are not fit for human eating, nevertheless

are fit for the Most High

to be offered upon the altar. In contrast,

here, the flesh of a Passover-offering that has not been roasted and the loaves of a thanksgiving-offering from which [the portions] have not been separated are fit neither for the Most High nor for an ordinary person.

We shall return to you, chapter “All Who Are Disqualified.”

Mishna:

1.

Beit Shammai say: All

the bloods

that are given on the outer altar,

most of which require two presentations that are four; nevertheless, from the time

that he gave one presentation

alone,

he effected atonement!

But with a sin-offering

he did not effect atonement until he gives

two presentations

with a finger.

And Beit Hillel say: Even a sin-offering whose one presentation was given

alone,

he effected atonement!

Therefore, if he gave the

presentation

first [

of the other offerings according to Beit Shammai, and according to Beit Hillel also that of the sin-offering],

in accordance with its law,

silently, without an invalidating intention,

and the

presentation

second

he gave with the intention of eating the flesh

outside its time,

it is

atoned for

and the offering is valid. And it was not invalidated by the intention at the second presentation, because since the offering had already been permitted to be offered through the first presentation, and the second presentation does not permit the flesh for eating, therefore the intention in it does not render it piggul.

And if he gave the first

with the intention of eating

outside its time, and the second

he gave with the intention of eating

outside its place,

the intention of outside its place that he conceived at the second presentation does not remove it from piggul, as does an invalidating intention. Rather, it is

piggul, and one is liable for excision

for eating it, since it was established as piggul at the first presentation, because all its permitting rites had already been performed.

2.

All

the bloods

that are given on the inner altar,

if it happened

that he omitted one of all the presentations,

it is

as though he had not effected atonement,

for the atonement of these offerings depends on giving all the presentations.

Therefore, if he gave

the

entirety in accordance with their law, and one

of them

not in accordance with its law,

such as if he conceived in it an intention of outside its time, it is

invalid,

and the offering was not permitted through the earlier presentations that were performed silently,

and there is no liability for excision

for eating it, because since all the presentations are what permit the offering, and this one does not permit it without that one, each of them is half of the permitting rite, and piggul occurs only if he conceived an intention during the entire permitting rite.

Gemara:

The Sages taught: From where [do we know] that those [bloods] given on the outer altar, if he gave them in one presentation, that he effected atonement? The verse states: “And the blood of your offerings shall be poured out

on the altar of the Lord your God, and you shall eat the flesh.” Since it was not written, “It shall be poured around the altar,” it implies that one pouring alone effects atonement.

And we challenge this:

And

if

this

verse

came for this purpose,

to teach us that one presentation effects atonement? But

it is needed for that which was taught: