Zevachim 42b — the Talmud in English

And we raise an objection:

But it teaches “between and between”

in the beraita, implying that he had an invalid intention either in this or in that, whereas according to your words, it is speaking of one who had an invalid intention in all three!? And the Gemara concludes:

It is difficult!

And now the Gemara comes to challenge the approach that sought to establish the reason of Rabbi Meir as being that one can render an offering pigul with regard to half of that which permits it.

The Master said: Rabbi Meir says

with regard to one who thinks an invalid intention during some of the sprinklings, or with the handful alone,

it is pigul, and one is liable for it to karet.

And we raise an objection: Indeed, with regard to the handful and the frankincense, it is possible to say that one can render an offering pigul with regard to half of that which permits it; but with regard to half of the sprinkling, how can this be said?

Since the liability to karet

for eating the flesh of a pigul offering

does not apply until all that permits it has been brought near

so that all the sacrificial blood-services of the offering have been completed, and as

the Master said: Just as there is the acceptance

of the blood of a valid offering,

so is there the acceptance of an invalid offering; just as the acceptance of a valid offering

is not acceptance

until all that permits it has been brought near

after the completion of the four blood-services,

so too, the acceptance of an invalid offering

when he comes to render it pigul, the pigul does not take effect

until all that permits it has been brought near.

And from now,

but

with regard to the inner sin-offerings,

once he conceived an intention concerning it

an intention of pigul

inside

during the sprinklings between the staves,

he invalidated it

and

it is as though he did not bring

its blood

its blood?

And if so,

when he subsequently brings

its blood

in the Sanctuary,

it is merely water that he is bringing

and it turns out that he did not sprinkle its blood, yet one gift prevents atonement in the inner sin-offerings? Indeed, when he renders the offering pigul during slaughter, although the offering is thereby invalidated, and afterward he sprinkles its blood with an intention or in silence, and this sprinkling is performed with invalid blood, one may say that since the Torah extended the law of an intention of pigul during slaughter, making it render the offering pigul, the Torah necessarily spoke in this case of there being pigul, and this sprinkling, as it is, effects acceptance for its pigul; and the same applies to the Rabbis, who hold that one cannot render an offering pigul with regard to half of that which permits it, or to Rabbi Meir according to the approach that holds that his reason is that he performs the service on the basis of his initial intention: since he must think the intention concerning the entire sprinkling-service, and we do not find that pigul takes effect except in this manner, the Torah necessarily spoke of this when it stated the law of pigul in sprinkling—that sprinkling in which he rendered it pigul effects acceptance for its pigul. But according to the approach that holds, “one can render an offering pigul with regard to half of that which permits it,” there is no sprinkling here at all, because since he did not complete the sprinkling with an intention of pigul but with a valid intention, it turns out that there is here half a sprinkling of pigul and half a valid sprinkling, and there is no sprinkling that effects acceptance for its pigul.

And we answer:

Rabba said: what Rabbi Meir said, that there is pigul through sprinklings,

is found

with four bulls and four goats

when he rendered the sprinklings between the staves pigul with all the gifts of the first bull, and its blood was spilled, and he slaughtered another bull and sprinkled its blood on the curtain, and likewise one bull for the corners and one for the purification of the altar. And the reason that pigul takes effect here is that since each one is a separate atonement, and if he had performed them according to their law without an intention of pigul, his service would have been valid, the same applies with regard to pigul: all that permits each one has been brought near, and the service was completed through its fellow. And even according to the Rabbis, who hold that if the blood was spilled in the middle of the service, he must begin the second blood-giving from the beginning, this applies only if it was spilled in the middle of the gifts; but where he completed one gift, he need not return and sprinkle those whose sprinkling he had already completed. But with one bull, Rabbi Meir agrees that pigul does not take effect, since he never completed its sprinkling.

Rava said: Even if you say that Rabbi Meir spoke of one bull and one goat

and not of four, and as for what you asked, that half a service is nothing with regard to pigul, I say to you:

it effects acceptance for its pigul

this blood-sprinkling, because just as when he conceived an intention of pigul during slaughter, the sprinkling of its invalid blood is called “all that permits it has been brought near” with regard to its effecting acceptance for pigul, so too, when he conceives an intention during half a sprinkling and remains silent during its other half, his sprinkling is considered “what permits it has been brought near,” as long as he did not mix another intention into it.

And we raise an objection: why did the beraita state with regard to the gifts of Yom Kippur

“forty-three,” but it was taught

in another beraita

forty-seven?

And we answer:

This

beraita, which taught forty-three, is

according to the one who says that one mixes

the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat

to

give some of it on the

corners

of the inner altar, and it turns out that the giving on the corners of the altar consists of only four gifts. And in tractate Yoma, Rabbi Yoshiyya and Rabbi Natan disagreed concerning what is stated, “And he shall take from the blood of the bull and from the blood of the goat and place it on the corners of the altar”: one said that they must be mixed, and one said, this one separately and that one separately.

But

this beraita, which taught forty-seven, is

according to the one who says that one does not mix

their blood

for

the giving on the

corners

so he gives four gifts from each of them, and there are here four additional gifts beyond the forty-three.

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught

in another beraita,

forty-eight?

And we answer:

This

beraita, which taught forty-eight, is

according to the one who says that the remainder prevents atonement

and if he did not pour the remainder of the blood onto the base of the outer altar, he did not effect atonement, and therefore one additional gift is required. And

this

the baraitot that taught forty-seven and forty-three are

according to the one who says that the remainder does not prevent atonement

and even if he did not pour it, he effected atonement.

And now the Gemara challenges Reish Lakish, who holds that the reason of Rabbi Meir is not that one can render an offering pigul with regard to half of that which permits it:

It was objected:

it was stated in a beraita in Menachot:

When are these matters said

that the meal-offering becomes pigul even if he conceived the intention during one service? Only if he conceived the intention

at

the time of

taking the handful,

or

at the placement in a vessel

or

during the carrying,

since these are services performed with only one that permits it, for they are not performed with the frankincense but with the handful, there is a complete service that became pigul.

But

when

he comes

the priest

to the burning

which is a service performed with two that permit it—the burning of the handful and the burning of the frankincense—if he

placed the handful with an intention

of pigul

and the frankincense in silence, or he placed the handful in silence and the frankincense with an intention, Rabbi Meir says,

this is

pigul, and one is liable for it to karet

if he ate from it,

and the Sages say: there is no

liability of

karet until he renders it pigul through all that permits it.

In any event, it teaches:

he placed

the handful

first

in silence and

afterward

the frankincense with an intention

of invalidity,

and Rabbi Meir disagrees

in this case, and it is explained by this that he holds, “one can render an offering pigul with regard to half of that which permits it,” and not as Reish Lakish said!?

And we answer:

Say

that the beraita should read: “Or the handful in silence, and

he had already placed

first

the frankincense with an intention,”

and for this reason, the second placement, which was in silence, he performs on the basis of his initial intention.

And we raise two objections to this answer:

One: this is the first [case]

for we already taught this manner of a first placement with an intention when the beraita said, “He placed the handful with an intention and the frankincense in silence.” Why do I need it to teach again, “Or the handful in silence, and he had already placed the frankincense with an intention”? What difference is there whether he placed the handful first or whether he placed the frankincense first?

And furthermore, it was taught

in another beraita: “Or he placed the handful in silence

and afterward

he placed the frankincense with an intention,” and in this case it is impossible to interpret it as “he had already placed”!?

The Gemara concludes:

It is difficult!

In the section concerning the offering of peace-offerings, the law of pigul is explained: if one who thinks during the blood-services [slaughter, receiving, carrying, and sprinkling] that the eating by a person, or the eating on the altar [the sprinkling of the blood or the burning of the sacrificial portions], will be outside its prescribed time, he renders the offering pigul through his invalid intention, and one is liable to karet for eating its flesh.

This law of piggul is learned from a peace-offering for the other offerings, provided that they resemble the peace-offering: just as peace-offerings have a “permitter,” both for a person and for the altar—for the sprinkling of the blood permits the flesh of the peace-offerings for human consumption and permits the burning of their portions on the altar—so too, among the other offerings, only something that has a “permitter” becomes piggul. But something that is itself a permitter of others does not become piggul, nor does something that itself has no other permitter.

And on the basis of this the Mishna says:

Mishna:

a.

And these are the things for which one is not liable

excision for eating them

on account of piggul: the handful.

If he took the handful of the meal-offering with the intention of eating its remainder on the following day, the meal-offering thereby becomes piggul. But one who eats the handful is not liable to excision, because piggul takes effect only upon something that has other permitters, whereas the handful permits the remainder of the meal-offering, and it is not itself permitted by another thing.

And the incense

which is not permitted by another thing.

And the frankincense

which is burned together with the handful, which permits the remainder, like the handful, but it itself has no other permitter.